5 ms·

The more I look at this, the more I am becoming convinced that Ukraine was a retaliation for Snowden getting a shelter in Russia. If you rewind back, the US re

The more I look at this, the more I am becoming convinced that Ukraine was a retaliation for Snowden getting a shelter in Russia. If you rewind back, the US reaction to Snowden staying in Russia was remarkably disproportionately mild. For an incident that made an unprecedented damage to the US image, it was very un-US like to just let it go. So tearing Ukraine away from Russia and pissing all over Russian political image fits right in. These two events just cannot not be connected.

viraptor 12y ago
> tearing Ukraine away from Russia and pissing all over Russian political image When did that happen? Did we watch completely opposite news for the last couple of months?
- SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
  huhtenberg means this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution Right before Russia started attempting to tear Ukraine back again. With mixed results.
  - viraptor 12y ago
    Ok, I wouldn't call that "tearing Ukraine away from Russia", since it was basically standard negotiations gone crazy - that's what confused me.
ZanyProgrammer 12y ago
So, I gather that "tearing Ukraine away from Russia" means that you don't believe Ukraine is (or should be) a completely sovereign country, separate from Russia?
- huhtenberg 12y ago
  No, I didn't mean that. More like trying to turn people who are life-long friends into blood enemies. It's an inherently same culture, similar language, mentality and drinking habits, same religion. If you look at the beginning of the rebel conflict, you'd see a great deal of resistance on both side to engage in active hostilities. On more than one occasion Ukrainian troops were talked into turning back. People don't want to fight, but they are being actively coalesced into it. There's no simmering feud, no age-long hatred, no real reasons for fighting except for high-level geopolitics, which is why I think that Ukraine's anti-president revolt didn't happen in isolation, but as a response to something that happened earlier, of which Snowden seems to be the simplest explanation.
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    I think it is pretty clear Ukraine was tired of being a puppet state of Russia. No conspiracy necessary. Actually it is kind of insulting to the Ukrainians who want EU style freedom.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
    So none of the former Eastern Bloc have ever wanted to, you know, have their sovereignty respected? Considering how Russia treats Ukraine (cutting off the country's gas supplies at a moment's notice), I'm hardly surprised a lot of the country is pro-EU. We didn't have to convince most of the Eastern Bloc, they came running to us with open arms. Why would Ukraine be any different? Sure, some of them speak Russian, but that doesn't mean they want to be Russian.
    - huhtenberg 12y ago
      I don't follow. You are assigning me some conclusions that I didn't make and then go on to disprove them.
      - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
        You're saying we're trying to turn these "life-long friends into blood enemies", no? The Ukrainians are doing it themselves. Also, to be fair, I'm not sure it's true Ukraine is "life-long friends". They've been dominated by Russia for centuries. Given the chance to be independent, I wonder if they'd take it.
antocv 12y ago
> The more I look at this, the more I am becoming convinced that Ukraine was a retaliation for Snowden getting a shelter in Russia. That, but mostly because Russia stopped USA from bombing Syria. Remember when USA really really wanted to, and then Russia just sent some of the best anti-air defense system, (S300?) to Syria, as well as pulled that "we will ask Assad and oversee that he removes the chemical weapons" - thus taking the main argument for punishment/bombing from under USAs feet. After that event, I remember Kerry or someone else said "Russia will pay for this".
myth_drannon 12y ago
No, it started with Syria. Most of what the US government is doing now to Russia is a retaliation to Russia blocking NATO's invasion to Syria
TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
Stop with the conspiracy talk. Euromaidan was not orchestrated by the US. Ukraine, ever since its independence, has been divided by pro-Western and pro-Russian fantions. It is hardly surprising that protests in the West sprung up when Yanukovych delayed signing the Association Agreement. Even if we forget about the US/Europe thing, remember that Yanukovych was previously ousted from power in another revolution 10 years before: the Orange Revolution.
- huhtenberg 12y ago
  Please, don't be so naive. Given the scale and duration of Euromaidan the chances of it being a spontaneous phenomenon are zero. It had to be centrally coordinated and directed to last this long. It could've been coordinated by activists, but then somehow all their organizational skills disappeared right after Yanukovich was gone. Just look at the mess that followed. Someone else was directing.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
    Really? The massive Orange Revolution (which ousted the same man, Yanukovych) ten years earlier was not a US plot, yet nobody questions that. And that one was properly organised.
    - Mikeb85 12y ago
      Ten years ago everyone thought the Orange and Rose revolutions were US plots, and Georgia even took US military aid to go to war with Russia. The US was unquestionably involved in both, not sure why you think otherwise...
    - cdi 12y ago
      >ten years earlier was not a US plot, yet nobody questions that. Are you joking? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    > It could've been coordinated by activists, but then somehow all their organizational skills disappeared right after Yanukovich was gone. Just look at the mess that followed. This is how virtually every revolution goes.
Amezarak 12y ago
Alternatively, the US government is simply not as evil and powerful as you think it is. While the US would like to capture Snowden and make him face a jury of his peers to enforce the law and (in their mind) deter future leakers, it's simply not that huge of a priority. The horses are already out of the barn. The US interest is limited. The US government is content to hassle Snowden in ways that don't involve any substantial investment of effort and power. Occam's razor, and all.
- lhl 12y ago
  Sure the US wants a trial, but it's important to note that in Espionage Act cases it'd basically be a show trial. Whistleblowing, intent, public interest, even constitutional defenses are inadmissible [1]. In fact the prosecution does not even need to show even that leaked information could have been potentially harmful. If Snowden did go to trial, his only hope would probably be either be a media circus (this did not seem to help any of his predecessors) or jury nullification. [2] [1] https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-trial-all-whistleblower-evidence-would-likely-be-inadmissible https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-r... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/would-an-american-jury-even-convict-edward-snowden/277830/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/would-an...
  - Amezarak 12y ago
    That neither surprises nor outrages me. The purpose of a trial is to determine whether or not you broke the law, not why you broke the law. That can be relevant in your sentencing, but why you broke the law is not relevant as to whether you broke the law. That does not in any way make it a "show trial." In an ideal world we might have stronger whistle-blower protections in the Espionage Act, but for the moment it works like most other laws: the reason you violated the law may mean the prosecutor decides not to pursue the case or mean you get a light sentence, but the trial is not about why you did it, but whether you did it.
    - lhl 12y ago
      I wouldn't have a problem either if all the far graver crimes/criminals that Snowden's leaks revealed would also be prosecuted with as rigorously but we know that's not going to happen. We're not talking about why or whether you broke the law, but about how much power you have within the system. If there's no surprise or outrage, that just means the nominal raison d'être of the founding fathers / US Constitution is so far dead that it doesn't matter anymore. Sadly, this is most likely the case.

viraptor 12y ago

> tearing Ukraine away from Russia and pissing all over Russian political image When did that happen? Did we watch completely opposite news for the last couple of months?

SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
huhtenberg means this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution Right before Russia started attempting to tear Ukraine back again. With mixed results.
- viraptor 12y ago
  Ok, I wouldn't call that "tearing Ukraine away from Russia", since it was basically standard negotiations gone crazy - that's what confused me.

ZanyProgrammer 12y ago

So, I gather that "tearing Ukraine away from Russia" means that you don't believe Ukraine is (or should be) a completely sovereign country, separate from Russia?

huhtenberg 12y ago
No, I didn't mean that. More like trying to turn people who are life-long friends into blood enemies. It's an inherently same culture, similar language, mentality and drinking habits, same religion. If you look at the beginning of the rebel conflict, you'd see a great deal of resistance on both side to engage in active hostilities. On more than one occasion Ukrainian troops were talked into turning back. People don't want to fight, but they are being actively coalesced into it. There's no simmering feud, no age-long hatred, no real reasons for fighting except for high-level geopolitics, which is why I think that Ukraine's anti-president revolt didn't happen in isolation, but as a response to something that happened earlier, of which Snowden seems to be the simplest explanation.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  I think it is pretty clear Ukraine was tired of being a puppet state of Russia. No conspiracy necessary. Actually it is kind of insulting to the Ukrainians who want EU style freedom.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  So none of the former Eastern Bloc have ever wanted to, you know, have their sovereignty respected? Considering how Russia treats Ukraine (cutting off the country's gas supplies at a moment's notice), I'm hardly surprised a lot of the country is pro-EU. We didn't have to convince most of the Eastern Bloc, they came running to us with open arms. Why would Ukraine be any different? Sure, some of them speak Russian, but that doesn't mean they want to be Russian.
  - huhtenberg 12y ago
    I don't follow. You are assigning me some conclusions that I didn't make and then go on to disprove them.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
      You're saying we're trying to turn these "life-long friends into blood enemies", no? The Ukrainians are doing it themselves. Also, to be fair, I'm not sure it's true Ukraine is "life-long friends". They've been dominated by Russia for centuries. Given the chance to be independent, I wonder if they'd take it.

antocv 12y ago

> The more I look at this, the more I am becoming convinced that Ukraine was a retaliation for Snowden getting a shelter in Russia. That, but mostly because Russia stopped USA from bombing Syria. Remember when USA really really wanted to, and then Russia just sent some of the best anti-air defense system, (S300?) to Syria, as well as pulled that "we will ask Assad and oversee that he removes the chemical weapons" - thus taking the main argument for punishment/bombing from under USAs feet. After that event, I remember Kerry or someone else said "Russia will pay for this".

myth_drannon 12y ago

No, it started with Syria. Most of what the US government is doing now to Russia is a retaliation to Russia blocking NATO's invasion to Syria

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago

Stop with the conspiracy talk. Euromaidan was not orchestrated by the US. Ukraine, ever since its independence, has been divided by pro-Western and pro-Russian fantions. It is hardly surprising that protests in the West sprung up when Yanukovych delayed signing the Association Agreement. Even if we forget about the US/Europe thing, remember that Yanukovych was previously ousted from power in another revolution 10 years before: the Orange Revolution.

huhtenberg 12y ago
Please, don't be so naive. Given the scale and duration of Euromaidan the chances of it being a spontaneous phenomenon are zero. It had to be centrally coordinated and directed to last this long. It could've been coordinated by activists, but then somehow all their organizational skills disappeared right after Yanukovich was gone. Just look at the mess that followed. Someone else was directing.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  Really? The massive Orange Revolution (which ousted the same man, Yanukovych) ten years earlier was not a US plot, yet nobody questions that. And that one was properly organised.
  - Mikeb85 12y ago
    Ten years ago everyone thought the Orange and Rose revolutions were US plots, and Georgia even took US military aid to go to war with Russia. The US was unquestionably involved in both, not sure why you think otherwise...
  - cdi 12y ago
    >ten years earlier was not a US plot, yet nobody questions that. Are you joking? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  > It could've been coordinated by activists, but then somehow all their organizational skills disappeared right after Yanukovich was gone. Just look at the mess that followed. This is how virtually every revolution goes.

Amezarak 12y ago

Alternatively, the US government is simply not as evil and powerful as you think it is. While the US would like to capture Snowden and make him face a jury of his peers to enforce the law and (in their mind) deter future leakers, it's simply not that huge of a priority. The horses are already out of the barn. The US interest is limited. The US government is content to hassle Snowden in ways that don't involve any substantial investment of effort and power. Occam's razor, and all.

lhl 12y ago
Sure the US wants a trial, but it's important to note that in Espionage Act cases it'd basically be a show trial. Whistleblowing, intent, public interest, even constitutional defenses are inadmissible [1]. In fact the prosecution does not even need to show even that leaked information could have been potentially harmful. If Snowden did go to trial, his only hope would probably be either be a media circus (this did not seem to help any of his predecessors) or jury nullification. [2] [1] https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-trial-all-whistleblower-evidence-would-likely-be-inadmissible https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-r... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/would-an-american-jury-even-convict-edward-snowden/277830/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/would-an...
- Amezarak 12y ago
  That neither surprises nor outrages me. The purpose of a trial is to determine whether or not you broke the law, not why you broke the law. That can be relevant in your sentencing, but why you broke the law is not relevant as to whether you broke the law. That does not in any way make it a "show trial." In an ideal world we might have stronger whistle-blower protections in the Espionage Act, but for the moment it works like most other laws: the reason you violated the law may mean the prosecutor decides not to pursue the case or mean you get a light sentence, but the trial is not about why you did it, but whether you did it.
  - lhl 12y ago
    I wouldn't have a problem either if all the far graver crimes/criminals that Snowden's leaks revealed would also be prosecuted with as rigorously but we know that's not going to happen. We're not talking about why or whether you broke the law, but about how much power you have within the system. If there's no surprise or outrage, that just means the nominal raison d'être of the founding fathers / US Constitution is so far dead that it doesn't matter anymore. Sadly, this is most likely the case.