"Well, it's clear we will not give him up, he can feel safe here. But what's next?" Vladmir Putin said this week about Edward Snowden in an interview G20 summit. The seating order for the G20 summit, which begins tomorrow, has been changed to keep Obama and Putin from having to acknowledge one another.
Cognitive dissonance be damned, Putin can be a petty despot ushering in a new era of homophobia, militarization, and creepy cult of personality AND Snowden can be a hero. You know how that can be true?
A) Snowden didn't choose Russia (despite popular opinion), he was forced to stay there in transit to Venezuela via Hong Kong when America stripped him of his passport and blocked any planes they thought he was on.
B) Russian-American geo-politics is an old beef from back in the day and no one person can really influence it that much.
He's not a hero. A hero takes the consequences of his actions. He is, at best, chaotic good, and not even all that good at being chaotic.
This line of reasoning is as cheap as it is puritanical.
He left his 90K+ a year job and life chillin' in Hawaii and became the most wanted man in the free world who could have just as easily - and will probably ultimately - end up in prison for decades and people like you indulge in stupid platitudes about heroes "taking their consequences" (whatever the fuck that means). Nice tough guy stance, never mind the fact that America has leveled harsh punishment on whisteblowers and Snowden wanted to be part of the conversation.
And by the way, he could very well still turn himself in when all is said and done, so your entire premise is based on a strange urgency that only suits those trying to stifle conversation about state surveillance.
He had those things to, apparently, gather information, yes? Clearly, being a journalist wasn't working out for him. But making a lot of money gathering information was quite lucrative.
And, I might add, it isn't a platitude. It's a trope. Heroes take stands, in the end, and don't hole up until the credits roll (or the bibliography comes on the next page). Using 'hero' in this setting is the platitude, because he's doing something you believe in. What he did may be brave or dumb, but it isn't heroic.
Geez, it's like an awards show where they have to keep two celebrities apart because GOD FORBID their egos/swag* collide.
*am I using that word correctly?
I thought 'swag' was what celebs received in their free-with-attendance goody bags from the event organisers. Am I wrong?
You are not wrong. Swag bag. Celebrities could play a "who has the bigger swag bag" game.
The only reason why I would consider giving up my personal private life is for that celebrity swag. You are correct in the definition.
I think it depends on the rank of award [a la Oscars]. Those up for Best-Ofs [as opposed to third spear carrier in the make-up department] generally receive more sumptuous gifts.
Since no one else has said it, fuck Putin. I'm not for bombing anyone, much less Syria (though the chemical weapons thing is pretty universally accepted as one of the biggest no nos), but when did we start basing our decisions on what the fucking communists in Russia want? I voted for Obama twice and am a lifelong progressive and just about straight ticket voter, but we need someone like Reagan to stand up and shoot the finger to Putin and tell him we may or may not use force against Syria, but it's damn sure going to be a US decision about what's in our and our allies' best interests, not on what suits Putin any particular day.
Russia is a hodgepodge of communism and free enterprise. It's crony capitalism at its worst, where bribes and crime often win the day.
They're blocking the UN from holding any votes to condemn Syria, so they're cock blocking us from getting others to join the fight/ international disapproval.
Obama is a big old wuss. He should stand up to Russia and tell them off. Hell Putin has done that a few times to Obama's face. So much for Obama being a thug, a savage or whatever other racist thing people say.
Russia is a unique country. It's far from communism. I have many friends (and family!) in Russia who would kill to have the Soviets back. It's complicated. After the wall fell, which was a calculated move by the Soviet oligarchs, all of those oligarchs used their money that they had plundered from the State to invest; in properties, industry, etc. The "collapse of communism" was really more like an IPO of Russia. The old oligarchs got insanely rich from it, and the average Soviet citizen became even more poor and confused, having never dealt with the realities of capitalism before.
This is what fuels the intense Soviet nostalgia in the wider Eastern Bloc. And believe me, it's a widely felt force. Before, you knew you couldn't trust the government. But you could count on three squares a day and a job. People knew how to navigate that political climate. Now, you can't trust the government, and you're one check away from homelessness in a freezing Russian winter, living in a condemned 500 unit apartment block on the outskirts of Moscow, and Gazprom wants to buy the land to build a refinery. Things are even worse than they were under "communism". Just because there's a Gucci store downtown now doesn't mean shit.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Putin is a dick, but he's a dick that we created. He's a child of the Soviet oligarchy, but one that was exposed enough to know that he had a huge amount to gain by "selling out" and "cashing in" if you will. We gave Gorbachev a peace prize for plundering his own country. He's not trustworthy, but don't act like he's a Soviet hangover; he's a whole new breed of oligarch - 100% capitalist.
"We need someone like Reagan to stand up and shoot the finger to Putin and tell him we may or may not use force against Syria, but it's damn sure going to be a US decision about what's in our and our allies' best interests, not on what suits Putin any particular day."
My Dad said that exact thing over breakfast this morning. Including the phrase "damn sure."
So those who are more into geopolitics/international relations than me... what's Putin's end game here? Is he just being a dick for the sake of being a dick? Is it because Russia's waning power makes him feel less like the alpha of the world stage and so he just wants to poke us every now and then because... ? What's his end game here?
Reigniting the cold war and creating internal scape goats to hide the fact that he's consolidated power nearly back to communist days. I think with Syria, they use to trade arms, but I think Syria buys from both China and Russia now.
Also, I really think he's just a d*ck.
*i
Syria and Russia are very old allies. When someone declares war on your very old ally, you object. I mean, in a very tiny nutshell, that's your answer. Putin is sticking by his old friend who is about to get the shit beat out of him by the biggest bully in the wicked, wicked schoolyard.
Thank you!
