People, even open minded, accepting and highly educated people will cheer you when you speak and say what captures their zeigeist, but speak a truth which crosses that zeitgeist and you will see yourself crucified and villified. He was a hero got the Snowden revelations (even the Russian Fed was hailed as an enabler of truth). Now? He’s a turncoat for not falling in line with Russophobia.
Is that the general consensus now? I've not really paid attention to the discussion around him as much as the discussion he generates which mostly seems to be incredibly independent (or indignant or simply contrarian). Are there some people who were proponents of his in particular who have abandoned him? The article seems to suggest his former colleagues still think he is a powerful intellect
Does it also bother you that the hysteria over Russia’s “guilt” is shamefully hypocritical and misleading? Are you aware, for example, of the role the Clinton administration played in 1996 to get their man Boris Yeltsin re-elected? One reason for Putin’s popularity is he put a stop to the Yeltsin facilitated post-communist era plundering of Russia’s wealth and resources by scruple less Russians and foreigners alike, and Americans were heavily involved in that avaricious free for all.
The United States not only interferes in other countries’ elections, it also regularly orchestrates coups, finances and arms violent insurgent groups and has a history of invading and destroying countries based on false pretexts.
The United States and its NATO vassals pushed their militaries right up to the Russian border, which is like Russia, China and Iran sending their armies to the border regions of Mexico and Canada while their navies patrol the Gulf (of Mexico).
Need I say more?
Even if Russia is guilty of everything the hysterical and disingenuous Russiagate crowd alleges, it is still a lightweight when it comes to messing around in other countries’ affairs. The mythology, and ideology, of American exceptionalism says the United States has a divine right to subject the entire planet to its will. World domination has been an explicit American political goal since the 1930s. It’s a matter of public record.
Russia with Putin as its leader stands in the way of American domination of Eurasia. Hence, the military encirclement of Russia and the belligerent anti-Russian rhetoric from American leaders.
If there is one thing American exceptionalists can’t abide, it is a country that wants to chart its own path free of American domination. The United States is threatening Russia, not the other way around, and the Russian state’s alleged actions are a response to that.
Really, Americans don’t have a leg to stand on here. The 24/7 nonstop anti-Russian hysteria whipped up by the media and Democrats who can’t accept they lost an election is overloading the emotional circuits of millions of Americans and shorting out their critical thinking abilities. It’s rather disconcerting.
We know that America has a very bad track record when it comes to intervention in the democratic processes of other states.
We also know that Russia is a cynical, kleptocratic regime that has its fair share of moral and tangible crimes.
Your response does not acknowledge the last (and most important, imo) point in Sideloader's reply.
That is: The Russophobia can plausibly be seen as a cynical ploy to divert attention from the lack of proposals to solve a whole slew of domestic issues.
> Russia with Putin as its leader stands in the way of American domination of Eurasia. Hence, the military encirclement of Russia and the belligerent anti-Russian rhetoric from American leaders.
Is the US really dominating Europe and if so, is that not better than being dominated by Russia? Why did the Ukrainian civil war break out, wasn't it the desire of ethnic Ukrainians to break away from Russia? "Greater Russia" is a thing that many ethnic Russians want and Putin would take it if he believed he could get away with it.
Historically, if your nation bets against the US, you end up on the losing side. We're not going to be ever living in a world without major superpowers and the US - imperfect as it may be - is by far the best such "regime" that has ever existed in history. I'm worried about a world where the US retreats from that position, leaving it up to autocrats to divide the spoils among them.
Of course, if you're an international leftist, you're knee-deep in denial and resentment about the abject failure of every regime that ever challenged US hegemony. You crave some sort of justice that history will never deliver to you, defending some of the most oppressive countries in the world while maximizing and exaggerating the oppression at home. Cognitive Dissonance at work!
Having said that, the Democrats really need to move on from whining about the Russians interfering in the elections, it's just not effective.
> One reason for Putin’s popularity is he put a stop to the Yeltsin facilitated post-communist era plundering of Russia’s wealth and resources by scruple less Russians and foreigners alike
What an absurd claim. That is exactly what Putin is doing. He's just better at messaging to hide his kleptocracy.
> Russia with Putin as its leader stands in the way of American domination of Eurasia.
Morality aside...
Russia's 2017 GDP is roughly equal to South Korea, or slightly less than Canada, or about one third of Japan. It wields a disproportional influence because of past history and having a larger military, but barring miraculous economic reform, it's not sustainable in the long term.
Russia isn't what stands before "American domination of Eurasia", whatever that means. If anything, that would be China.
Moreover, regarding "Russian hacking" and given things like the OPM hack and a loss (including executions) of intelligence assets in China, it is strange there is no equal or greater worry about China hacking.
There's plenty of worry over China's hacking, but it takes a back seat to the weight of the allegations against Russia and their influence in US politics.
> Even if Russia is guilty of everything the hysterical and disingenuous Russiagate crowd alleges, it is still a lightweight when it comes to messing around in other countries’ affairs.
Oh really? Let's see: The Warsaw Pact. Crushing the uprisings in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Even after the fall of Communism, there was Georgia and the Ukraine. That's just off the top of my head.
No, Russia is not a lightweight at foreign interference.
> Does it also bother you that the hysteria over Russia’s “guilt” is shamefully hypocritical and misleading?
No. I don't like US imperialism and am ashamed of much of its actions. I also don't like your condescending and leading manner.
> Even if Russia is guilty of everything the hysterical and disingenuous Russiagate crowd alleges
What is alleged is that the President of the United States and the GOP is effectively owned by Putin. We don't have all the evidence in front of us, but what has been laid out is compelling to those that are willing to consider the known facts.
> Need I say more?
No. There's plenty more there but you seem to be bent on distraction rather than dialogue.
> It’s rather disconcerting
Yes, it's very disconcerting to be dealing with the possible coup of the my country and be told "you lost, get over it". It's beyond insulting and I won't waste your time further in making you read something you have no intention of hearing.
Did Putin "post-communist era plundering of Russia’s wealth and resources" or simply rationalize it, in such a fashion that those doing the plundering were under his thumb, and could not challenge the state?
Though not sure that is his stance even. It seems it is more about it being a wasted opportunity cost. That is, it was a good PR campaign, but it ran out of steam and contuing to invest time and money into it does pay off anymore.
> seems disingenuous at best coming from such an "independent thinker"
But he wouldn't be an independent thinker if he just reiterated and nodded to everything every other media outlet prints or shows? I am not sure on the "disingenuous" part, do you think he is somehow has an ulterior motive to ignore it despite the evidence?
> It bothers me because, from my armchair view, Russia had the motives and means to do exactly what they are being accused of
They have a motive and means, I agree. But so does any advanced country. Anyone affected and influenced by the power structure in Washington would be interested in affecting that structure somehow. Why isn't anyone talking much about China hacking, or Iran or any other advanced enough country? Why focus on Russia so much. That's what bothering me. Compare how much coverage there was about Russian hacking vs the OPM hack. OPM is probably the most significant intelligence failure in history.
What Greenwald is saying, and I in large agree, is for the amount of time and money spent talking about it, there would have to be a lot more evidence that any of the stuff the Russians did made any difference.
> To dismiss that as "just the DNC looking for excuses"
I see them having a motive to look for excuses. Their excuse for losing is "Russians hacked us". I don't really believe that. I think there wasn't enough introspecting and self analysis on why they failed. And as such, I think they'll fail again, precisely because they put all their eggs into one, not very sturdy, basket.
Anyway, thanks for the reply and sorry for getting carried away with the prose a bit.
It's not necessarily independent thinking. He hates the DNC (as a progressive, I don't like them either).
The way Greenwald has framed it as "The DNC is corrupt and they're looking for scapegoats" -- it dismisses the possibility without showing any reason to do so.
edit: ignoring any malfeasance and chicanery, it's clear that that HRC was not a likable candidate (some natural, much of it manufactured), their messaging was poor, and they ignored the working people who they are supposed to represent.
Russia has it's issues, but the current craze is just that: crazy.
People are becoming more acutely aware of the tightening noose of big money spending in government/elections, and so big money media is moving attention away
The New Yorker is an establishment mouth piece. This article is such laughably obvious propaganda and that its embarrassing, considering how good the New Yorkers journalism is for non political issues.
I'm genuinely curious about that statement, since I've always regarded NY as well researched and written. Can you provide me with some details on why you say that?
He’s one of the very few journalists I still read and trust. Everybody else (including all other journos from The Intercept) has gone off the deep end after the election.
Lets assume Russia was responsible for serious election interference.
Now What ?
Is the US going to add MORE sanctions on Russia ? Russia is not North Korea.
The EU or US is going to go to war with a nuclear armed state, get real.
Sometimes I wonder, why it is always the fault of outsiders ? 9/11 (result of so much meddling in ME for 40 years ), 2016, mexican drugs, immigrants taking jerbs.
Unless society takes responsibility for its own problems things will not change.
