Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

He use the troops at Sevestapol to secure the airport there and another at a major highway junction about 50+ miles away Then he locked in the Ukrainian armor units that would pose a threat to his life line to his Sevestapol Naval Base

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
The west is definitely the aggressors here.

Citation needed.

Pages 1 - 59.

You mean the dozens of times people claimed something without proof actually constitutes ...proof?

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27162941

On phone, so can't copypaste. Pro-Russian militia have seized observers from the OSCE. Considering Russia was aboard with sending them, the militia in question now is in the position of having flipped the bird to pretty much everyone involved, including Russia.

So does that end the discussion of whether they're militia or Russian soldiers?

 -Shrike- wrote:
So does that end the discussion of whether they're militia or Russian soldiers?

There's just one coherent group?

As an ex soldier I'm going to say something that won't be very popular, sod Ukraine, tactically I can see why Russia would not want to be surrounded by a potential enemy (eu) that's creepin up closer and closer through assimilation of the previous eastern Block countries. The reason I say sod them, I'm selfish, I do not want to kill our Russian cousins and they don't want to kill us, sadly these useless dicks called politicians don't seem to care.

A question I keep asking and not seeing an answer to is this, what does Ukraine want? If its joining Russia, then do it, if only half the nation wants it, split the nation up, compromise to a point, if the e.u and the Russians keep pushing things towards aggression then all you nerds and geeks (Me too) will get drafted to fight, how many of you internet tough guys think you could handle real combat?

Well, that settles it. The only combat veteran on the board has spoken.

Ukraine wants to Westernize and Russianize all at the same time.

The compromise solution would be to align with your neighbors and let the process occur slowly over time.

 WarOne wrote:
Ukraine wants to Westernize and Russianize all at the same time.

The compromise solution would be to align with your neighbors and let the process occur slowly over time.

The problem being the East holds most of the country's ressources and thus the West does not want to lose it. Then again, there isn't even a majority for joining Stalin Putin in the east.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Stalin Putin

Doing that really makes you look like clown.
Except it is not funny.

 Kanluwen wrote:
He had the choice of not fleeing to Russia in the first place and facing prosecution/trial in the US.

Except the legal penalties the federal government were ridiculously over the top. There's nothing about revealing your government's wrong doing that requires you to be an idiot and hang around to suffer whatever heavy punishment your government is attempting.

All that his puppet show with Putin did was lend credence to some of the allegations that his "leaks" were not done solely on the idea of conscience but rather because of him being paid to serve as a spy.

Amongst the crazies, maybe.

 sebster wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
He had the choice of not fleeing to Russia in the first place and facing prosecution/trial in the US.

Except the legal penalties the federal government were ridiculously over the top.

There is a word missing somewhere in there that adds some more context to your statement.

There's nothing about revealing your government's wrong doing that requires you to be an idiot and hang around to suffer whatever heavy punishment your government is attempting.

Sure there's nothing about having to stick around and face punishment but given how Snowden has been portrayed as a martyr fleeing so "you know the truth"...it kind of ruins any credibility he had.

All we really have seen is that he fled to a country that was at best interested in humiliating the United States. It taints whatever he says when he does things like that puppet theater with Putin. It's totally believable that the Russians aren't spying on their own citizens /winkwink.

 sebster wrote:

Except the legal penalties the federal government were ridiculously over the top. There's nothing about revealing your government's wrong doing that requires you to be an idiot and hang around to suffer whatever heavy punishment your government is attempting.
.

I've run into this one a few times in discussion. Some people seem to think (quite bizarely, in my view), that you have to martyr yourself to be a true whistleblower. That if you don't hang around and take whatever discrimination/punishment is the penalty, you must somehow have some sort of ulterior motive, or be less brave than those who ARE dumb enough to hang around where they can get arrested/smeared/charged/sued for it.

 Ketara wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Except the legal penalties the federal government were ridiculously over the top. There's nothing about revealing your government's wrong doing that requires you to be an idiot and hang around to suffer whatever heavy punishment your government is attempting.
.

I've run into this one a few times in discussion. Some people seem to think (quite bizarely, in my view), that you have to martyr yourself to be a true whistleblower.

When you talk to a reporter before you speak to your supervisors, there's an issue.
When you are consistently portrayed by that reporter as a martyr, it's not unrealistic to believe that you should actually have sacked up and faced the music.

That if you don't hang around and take whatever discrimination/punishment is the penalty, you must somehow have some sort of ulterior motive, or be less brave than those who ARE dumb enough to hang around where they can get arrested/smeared/charged/sued for it.

It's amazing how whistleblowing is pretty much the only crime where one can get away with doing it as a way of carrying out a grudge and to be celebrated as a "hero" for it.

Edit note:
I should add that I do not conclusively believe that Snowden did this solely as a way of carrying out a grudge, nor do I conclusively believe that he was a spy.

However I think that just painting him as a hero fighting against big government and inappropriate violations of civil rights is just as crazy as the people who are convinced that he is a spy. I think that it is rather telling that he fled before the information about his identity went public and that he was originally doing so on the condition of anonymity. I also think it rather telling that purportedly he was being considered for termination before he "took his stance".

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27162941

On phone, so can't copypaste. Pro-Russian militia have seized observers from the OSCE. Considering Russia was aboard with sending them, the militia in question now is in the position of having flipped the bird to pretty much everyone involved, including Russia.

ok so the kiev regime is making stuff up again hey?

one, they are NOT osce observers
" A group of German negotiators have already arrived in eastern Ukraine for talks to set free the detained military observers, Itar-Tass quoted Germany’s Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA) news agency as saying.

The detained team is "not OSCE monitors" but was sent by OSCE member states in accordance with the 2011 Vienna Document on military transparency, the organization explained on Friday. The current Germany-led group arrived to Ukraine on April 21 by Kiev's request. "

yes some people were detained, but no they are not who you claim they are...



just like the russians flying into ukraine airspace that made front page news, whilst the retraction is buried, this is a load of BS.

same with the kiev boys claiming russian military was in active combat roles that was retracted.


you would think someone would actually FACT CHECK things instead of putting it on page 1, only to follow with a retraction on pg 99 later that no one sees....

oh wait, maybe thats the freaking point.

Its still 100% on the word of the kiev regime that this has happened in the way they are claiming.

And so far, the kiev regime has been caught lying through its teeth enough times that I dunno, maybe take it with a grain of salf and actually admit to yourself that you need to read BOTH SIDES with your propaganda goggles on.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
That is nonsense and you know it.

That a Spanish/Mexico alliance could happen? Of course it's silliness, the point wasn't to give you a plausible alliance, but to help you understand the economic clout of Russia and the handful of minor nations you mentioned.

Anyhow, as it seems you're a very literal person I will explain it very directly - Russia's economy is not that large, while the other nations you mentioned are frankly pitiful. The idea that they could rival the EU for economic strength is comical, the product of fantasy and ignorance.

That is nonsense as well, and the previous General-Secretary of NATO said so. His literal words were that Europe was a military dwarf compared to Russia.

Such comments were made throughout the Cold War as well. There are some pretty obvious political reasons to overstate the capabilities of your enemy, and it's also just plain good military practice (you never want to make the mistake of underestimating the enemy). Doesn't actually make it true.

The UK has 407 MBTs. Russia has 15,500
Germany has 710 military aircraft. Russia has 3,082
France has 228,656 active military personnel and 195,770 active reserves. Russia has 766,000 and 2,485,000

If we were fighting a quantity war then you'd have a point. But that age passed quite some decades ago.

Go ask Iraq how well their numerically superior tank force did for them in the first gulf war.

Individually, no European nation comes even close to Russia, and that is even without taking into consideration natural resources and landmass.

This isn't Risk, mate. You don't get an army for every three territories you control.

They do? Could you please show me those treaties?

There's an Investment and Reciprocal Trade Treaty between the US and Russia. Its opened up trade of about 35 billion between the two countries, and a massive flow of investment capital in to Russia.

Military excersises are a strong symbol of alliance.

I wonder if Stalin was sitting in his bunker in those early days of Barbarossa saying 'but German troops trained here, it was such a strong symbol of alliance. This invasion cannot be happening.'

If you don't get the point - symbols mean nothing when political interests diverge. This doesn't mean China and Russia are destined for yet another war, but it does mean that any insistance that it won't happen because there are strong symbols if laughable.

Comparing Russia to Africa is like comparing apples to oranges.

Comparing exporters of natural resources is valid given the context.

And hey, if you really want we can just compare to, say... Russia, who have always had strong resources, but spent much of their history in a weak geo-political position, because they were economically dependant on the continued sale of those resources.

The Crimeans tried thay way already. Twice. It didn't work before, it would not have worked this time. Doing it again would have been nothing but a useless waste of time.

Oh well, better just roll in the tanks. Hate to waste time dicking around with measured, non-provacative efforts.

That is the way it has always been and how it will always be. I'd say it is the actual acceptable state of affairs. Nations have no friends, only interests.

And the interest of all nations includes the preservation of international law. Even nations who don't like specific instances where they are restrained by that law... leading to them inventing justifications for their land grabs, and people like you believing those nonsense justifications.

But it is a moral justification.

Um, no, 'they did it too' isn't a moral judgement. I can't believe you actually claimed it was, That's incredible.

And that is so for a good reason. The security council is meant to be permanent.

Well, the permanent security council members are meant to be permanent, that's probably why they put 'permanent' in their title. The other countries that are given two year terms aren't permanent.

But yes, Russia has permanent status and so their status is permanent. Which would be relevant if anyone was talking about taking it off them. Instead, what we are talking about is your complaint that Russia isn't given the poltical voice it is due, and it's permament security council status makes that claim very stupid.

And Russia is still a major world power. If anything, France and the UK should give up their seats first.

Conventional warfare is a huge detterence

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Except the legal penalties the federal government were ridiculously over the top. There's nothing about revealing your government's wrong doing that requires you to be an idiot and hang around to suffer whatever heavy punishment your government is attempting.
.

I've run into this one a few times in discussion. Some people seem to think (quite bizarely, in my view), that you have to martyr yourself to be a true whistleblower.

When you talk to a reporter before you speak to your supervisors, there's an issue.

that is so stupid... you tell your supervisor you are going to whistle blow on something THAT BIG... that they are well aware of, and POOF... no whistle blower.

your advice is basically "If people in high power positions abusing their own powers? tell them what they are doing is wrong! they simply dont know it yet, and will immediately change they way they do things and totally leave you in piece Have absolute trust in the people who are doing things that make them untrustworthy."

 easysauce wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Except the legal penalties the federal government were ridiculously over the top. There's nothing about revealing your government's wrong doing that requires you to be an idiot and hang around to suffer whatever heavy punishment your government is attempting.
.

I've run into this one a few times in discussion. Some people seem to think (quite bizarely, in my view), that you have to martyr yourself to be a true whistleblower.

When you talk to a reporter before you speak to your supervisors, there's an issue.

that is so stupid... you tell your supervisor you are going to whistle blow on something THAT BIG... that they are well aware of, and POOF... no whistle blower.

And now you've gone into another one of the stupid things that was being claimed when Snowden went on the run, claiming that "he was in fear of his life".

What in the world would make you think that he would be dead? Was Bradley Manning "dead in mysterious circumstances" before he went to trial?

your advice is basically "If people in high power positions abusing their own powers? tell them what they are doing is wrong! they simply dont know it yet, and will immediately change they way they do things and totally leave you in piece Have absolute trust in the people who are doing things that make them untrustworthy."

My "advice" is that there are protections in place for whistleblowers. The problem is that sometimes people do not follow the proper procedures...which is what you see in a lot of these "whistleblower charged because they were a whistleblower" case.

 Ketara wrote:
Only 2.5 trillion. Wow. I spend that every time I do my weekly shop, right?

I'm guessing you buy organic

On a more serious note, sure, it doesn't quite draw up to the US. Or the EU. Or China or Japan. But it's still just a teensy bit above pocket change, no? Or indeed, the rest of the world past the ones I just specified.

Yeah, it puts Russia down underneath all those countries, and a very long way below some of them. Which is the point - at this point Russia is an also ran.

There's also the fact that I was looking a spot further down the line (fifty years was specified, for the third time).

One of the big lessons of economic history is that people have typically looked at natural resources to decide who will be the next big economy. As we moved in to the 20th century people were certain that Argentina and South Africa would be the next powers to come up and rival the US in that tier of nations behind the old powers of Europe. In the wake of WWII the world was destined to be dominated by Russia and the US, while Europe and Japan would just fade away. Instead by the mid-70s Europe was almost completely recovered from the devestation of the war, and Japan had become an economic powerhouse, and all with very poor natural resources.

Those analysis were completely wrong, because resource wealth is actually a really crappy predictor of future economic strength. What matters are strong institutions, an educated workforce and innovative business sector.

Not to mention the fact that looking purely at GDP isn't always the best way to gauge economics.

Sometimes other things matter more, but you need a really good reason, especially when the GDP difference is different by multiples of five or more.

That was a terrible analogy sebster, and not the sort of quality post I've come to expect from you. You and I can both point out eighty five highly self-evident reasons as to why that analogy is highly flawed and would not apply in the scenario under discussion. I rate both of our intelligence (and indeed, most of Dakka's) highly enough to not even bother listing them.

Meh. Africa was a loose example, but it wasn't intended as evidence, just as an example to illustrate the principal. And that principal, once again, is that if the seller's economic stability is dependent on on-going sales to roughly the same extent that the buyer needs the resource, then that resource isn't really a position of power. Ask yourself if the ban on Iranian oil is hurting the Europeans and US as much as its hurting Iran.

The General Secretary of NATO has an agenda, and that is to get as much money pumped into various defence budgets as possible. The best tried and tested way to do that is by overhyping potential threats. Pointing at troop numbers is a bad way of estimating capabilities, otherwise North Korea would rate as one of the most powerful nations on the planet. I would suggest taking a glance at defence expenditure and then overall GDP of each nation before making any generalised statements about their ability to take Russia on.

Absolutely.

I'm split on this one. On one fork, sebster is accurate in that in terms of global economy and comparative military strength, the Russians are not as relevant/powerful as they once were. On the flip side, they still have the ability to blow up the world twice over, which to me, makes them reasonably relevant.

Note I said that exact same thing myself - it makes Russia invasion proof and that gives them more freedom in their actions that would otherwise be the case. But at some point it just comes down to the capabilities of your armed forces.

Source? Because that sounds like one of the most ridiculous analysis I've ever heard of. The Russians would most likely be able to roll through most of Eastern Europe, but to make an educated guess, I would pin their offensive as halting somewhere in the middle of Germany at the absolute furthest.

It's the claim that they'd do it in 21 days that makes it comedy. Facing no opposition, with a civilian population trying to help you and it'd be an amazing achievement to move an army from Russia to London in 21 days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia has larger defense expenditure than any individual European nation,

Just looking at defence spending puts Saudi Arabia in fourth place, and any argument that they are the fourth most powerful army in the world is comical. It is important to recognise that militaries are built for political reasons beyond just effectiveness in war. And in Russia there are constant reports of conscript units being diverted from training to work as unpaid labour lining the pockets of generals... so a straight look at their total spending is almost as misleading as the Saudis.

What matters is a look at the quality and effectiveness of the military systems, and the quality of the weapons platforms available.

I highly doubt Russia would be able to knock on the door of Buckingham Palace in 21 days, but when they strike first and catch the EU before it can organise, mobilise its troops and set up a system of conscription, I have no doubt they can at least reach Berlin and maybe even the Channel.

Well, yeah, if we just assume that Russia can mobilise its vast army (and apparently conscript and train new soldiers...) before the west can mobilise it's much smaller forces, then Russia should do quite well. But similarly, if the superior European airforces can undertake multiple successful precision strikes on Russian key military assets before the Russians mobilise, then they'll do very well.

But just assuming that would happen is inane.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
There is a word missing somewhere in there that adds some more context to your statement.

'were chasing' The penalties the federal government were chasing were ridiculously excessive.

Sure there's nothing about having to stick around and face punishment but given how Snowden has been portrayed as a martyr fleeing so "you know the truth"...it kind of ruins any credibility he had.

That the stuff he put out is now accepted tells us everything we need to know about his credibility.

All we really have seen is that he fled to a country that was at best interested in humiliating the United States. It taints whatever he says when he does things like that puppet theater with Putin. It's totally believable that the Russians aren't spying on their own citizens /winkwink.

His flight to Russia is a red herring. He could have fled to North Korea and become the government's national executor by mortar fire for all it mattered, what he revealed about US operations was both true and in the national public interest to be revealed. Nothing changes that basic reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
I've run into this one a few times in discussion. Some people seem to think (quite bizarely, in my view), that you have to martyr yourself to be a true whistleblower. That if you don't hang around and take whatever discrimination/punishment is the penalty, you must somehow have some sort of ulterior motive, or be less brave than those who ARE dumb enough to hang around where they can get arrested/smeared/charged/sued for it.

Yes, exactly - well put. There is nothing that says you must 'nobly' stand there and suffer the full punishment of government. No-one would think anything of a person who revealed Russian spying operations then fleeing to the US to escape punishment, but swap that around and suddenly unwillingness to go to jail makes you a traitor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
When you talk to a reporter before you speak to your supervisors, there's an issue.

When a person comes across an illegal operation that's spread across an entire organisation, the idea that they should first hold some meetings to ask kindly if the whole organisation could please kindly stop committing mass illegal acts is farcical.

Wednesday 21st May - have requested meeting with Director General of NSA and all senior staff to ask them to stop illegal surveillance operation. They have not returned call. If they don't return the call then I ask no more than four more times before I undertake a sensible means of resolving this issue.

It's amazing how whistleblowing is pretty much the only crime where one can get away with doing it as a way of carrying out a grudge and to be celebrated as a "hero" for it.

Whistleblowing isn't a crime, by definition.

And when you do something out of personal conviction and with no personal gain, that's what heroism is.

[quote[I think that it is rather telling that he fled before the information about his identity went public and that he was originally doing so on the condition of anonymity.

 Bromsy wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
The west is definitely the aggressors here.

Citation needed.

Pages 1 - 59.

You mean the dozens of times people claimed something without proof actually constitutes ...proof?

Well we clearly disagree on that. You say they havn't provided "proof". I say they have. They've been providing "evidence" to support the argument. Whether or not that evidence amounts to proof is a matter of debate - not that you care as you're just rejecting out of hand everything that contradicts your opinion.

They've shown how Western groups, think tanks, lobbyists etc with close links to and funding from Western Governments (e.g. the USA) have provided support, funding and advice for the various groups involved in the Kiev uprising.

They've also shown how the USA and Russia were cooperating on things like disarmament and non-proliferation etc, until the USA unilaterally withdrew in favour of putting more missiles / anti-ballistic missile systems etc in eastern Europe (Bush?).

They've shown how in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union and the birth of the new Russian state, the West promised Russia that NATO "would not advance an inch eastwards)...a promise which was clearly broken.

They've shown how the new Kiev government with riddled with Neo Nazi figures in influential positions. They've shown how the Kiev aligned Nazi paramilitary groups broke the ceasefire by attacking checkpoints operated by pro-Russian militias. How the Kiev government tried to outlaw Russian as an official language.


When people here say that "The West is the aggressor, not Russia" they're not just talking about the Kiev crisis, they're talking also about the wider geo political context of the last 3 decades...unlike you who appears to think that everything in Ukraine is happening in a self contained vacuum, with Russia's behaviour and response being totally unconnected to the actions and policies of Western governments and institutions (USA, NATO, EU) over the last 3 decades.

 sebster wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
There is a word missing somewhere in there that adds some more context to your statement.

'were chasing' The penalties the federal government were chasing were ridiculously excessive.

I thought it was something to that effect, but didn't want to put words in your mouth.

You are absolutely correct that the penalties the federal government were chasing were ridiculously excessive. They were trying to be spiteful.

Sure there's nothing about having to stick around and face punishment but given how Snowden has been portrayed as a martyr fleeing so "you know the truth"...it kind of ruins any credibility he had.

That the stuff he put out is now accepted tells us everything we need to know about his credibility.

And yet there he was asking softball questions to Putin, president of a country that has civil rights violations that make the NSA look like Care Bears in comparison, in a video call.

All we really have seen is that he fled to a country that was at best interested in humiliating the United States. It taints whatever he says when he does things like that puppet theater with Putin. It's totally believable that the Russians aren't spying on their own citizens /winkwink.

His flight to Russia is a red herring. He could have fled to North Korea and become the government's national executor by mortar fire for all it mattered, what he revealed about US operations was both true and in the national public interest to be revealed. Nothing changes that basic reality.

It might be a red herring, but again it's one that plays against him and can very easily play against the cause that he supported. Out of any of the countries in the world that he could have potentially found shelter in--he went to Russia, a country with what is best described an "antagonistic relationship" with the United States.

 Ketara wrote:
I've run into this one a few times in discussion. Some people seem to think (quite bizarely, in my view), that you have to martyr yourself to be a true whistleblower. That if you don't hang around and take whatever discrimination/punishment is the penalty, you must somehow have some sort of ulterior motive, or be less brave than those who ARE dumb enough to hang around where they can get arrested/smeared/charged/sued for it.

Yes, exactly - well put. There is nothing that says you must 'nobly' stand there and suffer the full punishment of government. No-one would think anything of a person who revealed Russian spying operations then fleeing to the US to escape punishment, but swap that around and suddenly unwillingness to go to jail makes you a traitor.

Of course no one would think anything of that--the United States does not exactly have a notable history of doing things like murdering informants/whistleblowers.

I won't say that it has never, ever, ever happened nor that it won't happen but I cannot think of any immediately notable cases.

 Kanluwen wrote:
When you talk to a reporter before you speak to your supervisors, there's an issue.

When a person comes across an illegal operation that's spread across an entire organisation, the idea that they should first hold some meetings to ask kindly if the whole organisation could please kindly stop committing mass illegal acts is farcical.

Wednesday 21st May - have requested meeting with Director General of NSA and all senior staff to ask them to stop illegal surveillance operation. They have not returned call. If they don't return the call then I ask no more than four more times before I undertake a sensible means of resolving this issue.

Mock all you want, but that is the kind of thing which gives whistleblowers the edge when trials are undergoing.

It's amazing how whistleblowing is pretty much the only crime where one can get away with doing it as a way of carrying out a grudge and to be celebrated as a "hero" for it.

Whistleblowing isn't a crime, by definition.

I should have phrased it better, but whistleblowing while not a crime does sometimes include criminal activities. Whistleblower laws allow for a whistleblower to steal documentation and/or breach contracts, illegally record individuals without disclosing that you are recording them, etc if they feel that the activity they are lawfully employed in performing is illegal.

And when you do something out of personal conviction and with no personal gain, that's what heroism is.

The problem is that when you do that something "out of personal conviction" and then flee to a country with known violations of the exact same things that you just claimed to champion, it makes you look like a hypocritical idiot.

I think that it is rather telling that he fled before the information about his identity went public and that he was originally doing so on the condition of anonymity.

It is completely irrelevant. 'Noble' personal sacrifice that serves no purpose is the stuff of teenage fantasy and penny dreadfuls.

"Noble personal sacrifice" is also the kind of stuff which gets the ACLU defending you and wrapping you up as a champion of the Constitution rather than people being able to insinuate that you're a traitor.

 Kanluwen wrote:


And now you've gone into another one of the stupid things that was being claimed when Snowden went on the run, claiming that "he was in fear of his life".

What in the world would make you think that he would be dead? Was Bradley Manning "dead in mysterious circumstances" before he went to trial?

Well, American news networks and politicians were labeling him a "traitor to his country" (IMO, traitor to the government is more accurate) and were, with straight faces, openly discussing and calling for the death penalty.

When people are calling for your head, I'd say thats good cause to be fearful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:


That the stuff he put out is now accepted tells us everything we need to know about his credibility.

And yet there he was asking softball questions to Putin, president of a country that has civil rights violations that make the NSA look like Care Bears in comparison, in a video call.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


And now you've gone into another one of the stupid things that was being claimed when Snowden went on the run, claiming that "he was in fear of his life".

What in the world would make you think that he would be dead? Was Bradley Manning "dead in mysterious circumstances" before he went to trial?

Well, American news networks and politicians were labeling him a "traitor to his country" (IMO, traitor to the government is more accurate) and were, with straight faces, openly discussing and calling for the death penalty.

When people are calling for your head, I'd say thats good cause to be fearful.

Same was said about Manning--he isn't dead.

And Fox was really the only news network "calling for the death penalty".

 Kanluwen wrote:


That the stuff he put out is now accepted tells us everything we need to know about his credibility.

And yet there he was asking softball questions to Putin, president of a country that has civil rights violations that make the NSA look like Care Bears in comparison, in a video call.

What did you expect him to do? Piss off his host and risk provoking them into deporting him back to the USA? The guys treading on thin face.

If he's so noble and courageous, then why not?

 Kanluwen wrote:

It might be a red herring, but again it's one that plays against him and can very easily play against the cause that he supported. Out of any of the countries in the world that he could have potentially found shelter in--he went to Russia, a country with what is best described an "antagonistic relationship" with the United States.

Russia wasn't his first choice. IIRC, he actually did try to claim asylum etc in several other countries, but only Russia would take him in. So its a little disingenuous to criticise him for going to Russia "out of any of the countries in the world".

Right, because the situation was pretty fluid at the time. Whistleblowers have been protected by other nations before in situations like this--but given that it followed so closely on the heels of the Bradley Manning trial and given that he went to the media anonymously it was a problem.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Right, because the situation was pretty fluid at the time. Whistleblowers have been protected by other nations before in situations like this--but given that it followed so closely on the heels of the Bradley Manning trial and given that he went to the media anonymously it was a problem.

Without the full story, at that. Just an indiscreet data dump of everything he could grab when he conned coworkers into giving up their passwords.

sebster wrote:One of the big lessons of economic history is that people have typically looked at natural resources to decide who will be the next big economy. As we moved in to the 20th century people were certain that Argentina and South Africa would be the next powers to come up and rival the US in that tier of nations behind the old powers of Europe. In the wake of WWII the world was destined to be dominated by Russia and the US, while Europe and Japan would just fade away. Instead by the mid-70s Europe was almost completely recovered from the devestation of the war, and Japan had become an economic powerhouse, and all with very poor natural resources.

Those analysis were completely wrong, because resource wealth is actually a really crappy predictor of future economic strength. What matters are strong institutions, an educated workforce and innovative business sector..

...Meh. Africa was a loose example, but it wasn't intended as evidence, just as an example to illustrate the principal. And that principal, once again, is that if the seller's economic stability is dependent on on-going sales to roughly the same extent that the buyer needs the resource, then that resource isn't really a position of power. Ask yourself if the ban on Iranian oil is hurting the Europeans and US as much as its hurting Iran.

I believe that principle to be inaccurate in this particular scenario. Why? Because there are many factors which have led to Africa or Iran staying poor or having less than perfect capability to exploit their resources that simply do not apply to Russia. Let's break it down a little.

Africa does not have the technology necessary to industrially exploit their resources, and they do not have a sufficiently educated populace available to produce that technology. Russia does.
Iran is geographically minor, and does not have the influence or capability to circumvent American trade blocks with other nations. Russia does. (I mean, can you imagine America ordering China to cease trading with Russia? They'd be lucky just to get laughed out of the room politely).
Africa does not have the cultural social cohesion or state structures in place to have the will to develop it's resources for the good of the State. Russia does.
Iran cannot domestically consume the natural resources that they have (oil isn't drinkable, alas). Russia, conversely, is pretty damn big, and in union with the rest of the EEC, is more or less capable of consuming those resources domestically without needing to trade them abroad for cash quite so badly. Hence the qualification 'in a self-contained sort of way'.

I don't see Russia wielding the same economic brickbat as China or Japan, because their economy is not built in the same way, and their domestic needs are quite different. Russia doesn't quite need foreign trade or investment in the same way that Japan or the UK do. If the Soviet Union hadn't been trying to outspend the USA, their economy would never have crashed the way it did.

No, if the EEC turns into something, it won't be a economic world trade superpower in the same way as the USA, but more of an internally self-sufficient tradezone that is not dependent on foreign trade outside it for survival. Because that tradezone will already contain most of the natural resources it needs, along with sufficiently developed agricultural and industrial sectors to exploit them. And that in itself would be something fairly unique in today's globalised economic trade system.

Kanny wrote:It might be a red herring, but again it's one that plays against him and can very easily play against the cause that he supported. Out of any of the countries in the world that he could have potentially found shelter in--he went to Russia, a country with what is best described an "antagonistic relationship" with the United States.

In all fairness, the USA left him nowhere else to go. He tried to seek sanctuary in Hong Kong at first, but then it turned out that he wasn't safe from extradition. So then he wrote to just about every European country, and they all turned him down flat rather than hack off the Americans. It was only after he'd exhausted all the democratic nice countries as potential safe havens that he was realised he was basically stuck between letting the US government lock him up for the rest of his life, or spending the rest of the aforementioned life under the thumb of a dictatorship somewhere.

He just realised that he'd rather have the ability to go out shopping and chill online in Communist Russia, rather than be sat in solitary confinement in an American jailcell for fifty years, y'know? Probably an easy choice to make in terms of how you want your future to look.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And yet there he was asking softball questions to Putin, president of a country that has civil rights violations that make the NSA look like Care Bears in comparison, in a video call.

Personally that tells me he flipped a switch from wanting to fight the system, to wanting to save his own skin. Which makes him a lot like that guy who stands up and punches the bully, and then when he sees the bullies three friends turn around he runs like hell. Which is comical, but doesn't make that original action any less principled.

I mean, the question to be asked, I think, is whether this guys actions have personally benefitted him in any way. Is his life easier, full of more material rewards and less stress than it was if he hadn't exposed the government?

It might be a red herring, but again it's one that plays against him and can very easily play against the cause that he supported. Out of any of the countries in the world that he could have potentially found shelter in--he went to Russia, a country with what is best described an "antagonistic relationship" with the United States.

When you want to go to a country without an extradition agreement with the US, you're pretty much stuck with countries that have an antagonistic relationship with the US.

Of course no one would think anything of that--the United States does not exactly have a notable history of doing things like murdering informants/whistleblowers.

Sure, and I'm not looking to equate the US and Russia here (funnily enough I'm arguing against other people doing that very thing in the other 'still talking about the Ukraine' part of this thread).

But the point is that, whether it's a legal punishment or some guys dragging you in to a car and disappearing you, people look to avoid that punishment.

Mock all you want, but that is the kind of thing which gives whistleblowers the edge when trials are undergoing.

Sure, but the practicality of that really depends on the case in question. It's really wasn't a practical course of action in this case.

"Noble personal sacrifice" is also the kind of stuff which gets the ACLU defending you and wrapping you up as a champion of the Constitution rather than people being able to insinuate that you're a traitor.

The traitor stuff really is silly though. Is anyone honestly trying to claim that some nation or organisation paid him to do this? Or that he has some personal loyalty to the US or some other country?

 sebster wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And yet there he was asking softball questions to Putin, president of a country that has civil rights violations that make the NSA look like Care Bears in comparison, in a video call.

Personally that tells me he flipped a switch from wanting to fight the system, to wanting to save his own skin. Which makes him a lot like that guy who stands up and punches the bully, and then when he sees the bullies three friends turn around he runs like hell. Which is comical, but doesn't make that original action any less principled.

Well part of the reason I bring that bit up is the simple fact that Snowden alleged to Greenwald that he "feared for his life" and that was part of why he fled.

So he "feared for his life" when standing up to the US but did it anyways...but then he runs to Russia and starts being a show dog for a government that has a history of civil rights violations that make most of the stuff that has happened in the US look like pancakes.

I mean, the question to be asked, I think, is whether this guys actions have personally benefitted him in any way. Is his life easier, full of more material rewards and less stress than it was if he hadn't exposed the government?

Purportedly the Russian government is taking very good care of him, so I'd say yeah.

It might be a red herring, but again it's one that plays against him and can very easily play against the cause that he supported. Out of any of the countries in the world that he could have potentially found shelter in--he went to Russia, a country with what is best described an "antagonistic relationship" with the United States.

When you want to go to a country without an extradition agreement with the US, you're pretty much stuck with countries that have an antagonistic relationship with the US.

Fair enough point, but there are countries which even with extradition agreements do not necessarily just roll over and extradite because the US says to.

Of course no one would think anything of that--the United States does not exactly have a notable history of doing things like murdering informants/whistleblowers.

Sure, and I'm not looking to equate the US and Russia here (funnily enough I'm arguing against other people doing that very thing in the other 'still talking about the Ukraine' part of this thread).

But the point is that, whether it's a legal punishment or some guys dragging you in to a car and disappearing you, people look to avoid that punishment.

Sure they do, but the point is again that he has been wrapped up in this mantle of martyrdom by his supporters and equated to civil rights activists who took a moral stand or Daniel Ellsberg(who did face trial and had the charges dismissed...and that was at the height of the Cold War).

Mock all you want, but that is the kind of thing which gives whistleblowers the edge when trials are undergoing.

Sure, but the practicality of that really depends on the case in question. It's really wasn't a practical course of action in this case.

Maybe not but again, it is a case of "following the proper protocol". It might not be "practical" but given the amount of time he spent working for the government, it's ridiculous to think that he was under such a "moral outrage" that it necessitated his immediate action.

"Noble personal sacrifice" is also the kind of stuff which gets the ACLU defending you and wrapping you up as a champion of the Constitution rather than people being able to insinuate that you're a traitor.

The traitor stuff really is silly though. Is anyone honestly trying to claim that some nation or organisation paid him to do this? Or that he has some personal loyalty to the US or some other country?

Espionage does not necessarily require you to be paid at the time of your gathering classified information, etc.

 Ketara wrote:
I believe that principle to be inaccurate in this particular scenario. Why? Because there are many factors which have led to Africa or Iran staying poor or having less than perfect capability to exploit their resources that simply do not apply to Russia. Let's break it down a little.

Your list of factors simply aren't the factors that matter.

Technology is just a non-factor. Technology crosses borders at will. The inability of Africa and South America to turn their resources in to local wealth has nothing to do with being unable to access technology.

Size is similarly irrelevant when it comes to prosperity. It matters in political clout, but that's not what we're talking about here. When the US began its march to prosperity it had a very small population. Similarly my own country and much of Europe manages a very high standard of living despite having small populations. But if you look at the largest populations in the world, only the US has a first world standard of living. China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Brazil, Bangladesh... none of them have seen their size magically turn in to prosperity.

Cultural and social cohesion get debated by economists, but only as a marginal factor.

You are right that state structures and institutions are important, but miles off the mark in claiming Russia's will develop their natural assets for the good of the State. Russia systems and institutions are hopelessly corrupt and woefully ineffective and inefficient. They call it a kleptocracy for a very good reason.

If the Soviet Union hadn't been trying to outspend the USA, their economy would never have crashed the way it did.

A total myth, debunked for more than a decade now. Soviet military spending didn't increase to match Reagan's increases, and was actually pretty consistently around 4-5% of GDP throughout the 70s and 80s, which is a pretty standard level of spending. No, their economy collapsed because it was built around systems that placed a tremendous drag on the economy, and when the political will to maintain those systems no longer existed then they fell away incredibly quickly, leading to a crash.

The issue now, is that the systems Russia put in their place aren't that much better.

No, if the EEC turns into something, it won't be a economic world trade superpower in the same way as the USA, but more of an internally self-sufficient tradezone that is not dependent on foreign trade outside it for survival.

Because that tradezone will already contain most of the natural resources it needs, along with sufficiently developed agricultural and industrial sectors to exploit them. And that in itself would be something fairly unique in today's globalised economic trade system.

Trade isn't about not having everything you need. It's about who has the most optimal conditions in which to do it, and then doing more of that while other places make stuff they have the optimal conditions for, and then we trade. Seriously, just go off now and read about comparative advantage.

I mean, for your future prediction to make any damn sense, it would have happened to us here in Australia generations ago. We have all the resources we need to make what we want, and grow our own food. And yet we are one of the most aggressive free trade nations in the world... because what maximises our living conditions is to make more food than we need, and extract more resources than we need, and sell those to other countries, and then buy manufactured goods from those countries. The same will be true of Russia.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Espionage does not necessarily require you to be paid at the time of your gathering classified information, etc.

Spot on. Treason's got a pretty high threshold as an individual charge; a lot of traitors haven't been charged with it. Bradley Manning among them.