Entire article can be summarized in this paragraph: "“Russia never gives up anyone to anybody and is not planning to,” Mr. Putin said. He added, “If he wants to go somewhere and they accept him, please, be my guest. If he wants to say here, there is one condition: He must cease his work aimed at inflicting damage to our American partners, as strange as it may sound from my lips.”"
Basically, "Stay here as long as you need to figure out where to go next and how to get there. Just don't put us in a difficult position in the meantime."
Russia wants to use him as a possibility press the USA - for that he needs to stay in Russia and have still some more not yet leaked material. When he spends all the revelations he is of no use for Russia.
There are two basic scenarios here that I see, both of them extremely bad for US national security (something I care about, and everyone reading this should too because it is core to our safety). *
1. Obama made a huge back-channel concession to Russia to get them to deny Snowden asylum. He had to do something to get Putin to decide not to shelter Snowden, and it would likely be an extremely painful concession. Most likely something security related in eastern Europe, probably BMD.
2. Putin cannot keep Snowden from releasing information and has done what he can to bind Snowden to Moscow. By forcing Snowden to stop publishing, he can keep any revelations from being released and instead give him a thorough debriefing to gain sole access to a treasure trove of counter espionage intelligence.
This is bad. Very, very bad.
(*)Understand that every country spies on every other. Germany moaning about us spying is highly hypocritical because they do the same exact thing to every ally. So does France to Germany, the UK to France, so on and so forth. Hell, Israel spies on us and we spy on them. Spying is core to our safety in the modern age, and has been core to the safety of every country since the days of the roman empire.
There are plenty of other scenarios possible, including one dictated by Occam's razor:
3) No backchannel negotiation of any sort has taken place. Putin is just looking at the situation pragmatically and he understands that harboring Snowden would cause more harm than good to Russia.
This reminds me of a story that happened in 2012 where thieves managed to steal the secret recipe of Coca Cola and offered to sell it to Pepsi. Pepsi immediately called the FBI and had the thieves arrested ([1]).
Putin is exactly in Pepsi's situation: gaining knowledge of the confidential information that Snowden detains has very little benefit and very, very high cost. Simply not worth it.
Not really. Putin is former FSB and Russia's interests always are defined by having a security state. Today, during the Soviets and before with the Tsar, Russia has always used a heavily authoritarian regime to maintain security. They must in order to maintain sovereignty.
While there could be simple pragmatism here, Putin does not operate as a pragmatist and it is in his direct interest to keep the leaks to a minimum so that they can be the sole ones to know of how it operates.
After all, if they know how we're spying and their own adversaries don't, they're better off.
I'm having a very hard time parsing what you wrote and trying to understand how the tsar/soviet era (or anything you say in that comment) is relevant in any way to the current Snowden situation.
Russia has been playing the Great Game in its sleep since Peter The Great. This country is always changing and always staying the same.
So while the ideology of the high command may change you always have very strong central government which is chasing Russian interests with great zeal.
Understand that every country spies on every other. Germany moaning about us spying is highly hypocritical because they do the same exact thing to every ally. So does France to Germany, the UK to France, so on and so forth. Hell, Israel spies on us and we spy on them. Spying is core to our safety in the modern age, and has been core to the safety of every country since the days of the roman empire.
At the risk of being proven wrong in the (near) future I challenge your statement. I doubt the German government or an intelligence agency would dare to bug an US embassy, the headquarter of one of your parties or whatever comes closest to the EU buildings supposed to be bugged. Equally I doubt they are in the business of mass surveillance.
There is a huge difference between USA and Germany (and probably many other European countries) - we don't have this paranoia that everyone is against us (justified or not). People don't care about terrorism. Admittedly I have never been to the USA and can not judge how much a concern this really is in the general population but the impression that arrives on this side of the ocean is that there is a widespread fear. There are of course people dealing with terrorism - we don't simply ignore the problem - but the general population really does not care. I am also not old enough to judge if this was different when Germany experienced terror attacks, for example by the RAF from the 1970s to the 1990s.
I think the USA was a very different place before 9/11. I read the recently leaked NSA IG Report and what it says about the time before 9/11 is very different from what the current situation seems to be - they are talking about what they can not do and what court orders they need and so on. But then 9/11 happens and they go completely nuts.
>At the risk of being proven wrong in the (near) future I challenge your statement. I doubt the German government or an intelligence agency would dare to bug an US embassy, the headquarter of one of your parties or whatever comes closest to the EU buildings supposed to be bugged. Equally I doubt they are in the business of mass surveillance.
All intelligence services are in the business of mass surveillance, period. If they're not, they aren't a good intelligence service. The simple fact is that with the way the world is today, it's foolish to blindly assume that your allies are always acting in your best interest. They are, obviously, going to act in their own best interests, but it's important to know when your interests coincide, and when they don't. And it's more important to know that now than any other time.
The difference between today and 30 years ago is that there isn't a Warsaw Pact for NATO to oppose. Keep in mind, every major player in the Warsaw Pact is now either a member of NATO, or in a "partnership for peace" with NATO. The current major "adversary"(and I use that term very, very lightly) is China, who enjoys good trade relations with the entire world, to the point where open conflict with China would be so disastrous to everyone involved(including China), that it's completely off the table.
That's why this kind of spycraft is even more important now than ever. Large scale military movements are easy to see. But knowing things like what the EU as a whole is going to do with trade agreements, or if the Chinese are talking to the Russians about a new oil pipeline, is hugely important.
All intelligence services are in the business of mass surveillance, period. If they're not, they aren't a good intelligence service.
Isn't it the other way round? You fail at targeted surveillance and have to resort to mass surveillance?
The simple fact is that with the way the world is today, it's foolish to blindly assume that your allies are always acting in your best interest. They are, obviously, going to act in their own best interests, but it's important to know when your interests coincide, and when they don't. And it's more important to know that now than any other time.
I mostly agree - usually the best you can expect is that someone is acting in common best interest. But there are also some exception like help after a natural disaster where states might indeed act in your best interest.
The difference between today and 30 years ago is that there isn't a Warsaw Pact for NATO to oppose. Keep in mind, every major player in the Warsaw Pact is now either a member of NATO, or in a "partnership for peace" with NATO. The current major "adversary"(and I use that term very, very lightly) is China, who enjoys good trade relations with the entire world, to the point where open conflict with China would be so disastrous to everyone involved(including China), that it's completely off the table.
For Germany China is an important trade partner with between 5 % and 10 % of the total import and export volume. Stopping all trading relationships will without doubt have a noticeable effect but I don't know if it will be our if I would call it disastrous.
That's why this kind of spycraft is even more important now than ever. Large scale military movements are easy to see. But knowing things like what the EU as a whole is going to do with trade agreements, or if the Chinese are talking to the Russians about a new oil pipeline, is hugely important.
Yes, it might be interesting to know, but obtaining this information by spying at others is not legal. In this world it is also important to have some money at hand but that makes a really bad justification for robbing a bank. Just because you want something does not mean you can have it or are even entitled to have it. If law and justice means something to you, deal with it, otherwise you are just opportunistic.
> There is a huge difference between USA and Germany (and probably many other European countries) - we don't have this paranoia that everyone is against us (justified or not).
I don't think we in the USA do, either. Don't presume that the American people are "steering the ship" of the government. The government is completely out of control. We have let go of the steering wheel. Not all that surprising... the US is basically a 3rd world country, if you consider the whole population. (As a side note, that's also why something like universal health care cannot work as well here as it can in Germany.)
Yeah, I don't think it's as much a "widespread fear" as much as "widely accepted as a legitimate excuse for exceptional acts by government".
Most people aren't really that terrorized, but when the government (which is pretty distinct from median Americans) does stuff that's unprecedented or otherwise eyebrow-raising, it's generally accepted by most as an explanation.
I think it's more of a circumstance where it's made to seem that society cares a lot about preventing terrorism (via media channels), so individuals go along with stuff thinking that most OTHER people are afraid/terrorized/in crisis, even if the majority is not terrorized/apathetic/et c.
Interestingly, this state of affairs is also congruent with it then seeming to foreigners like the US population is actively afraid, because there's no good way to stop the media message at the borders.
>I doubt the German government or an intelligence agency would dare to bug an US embassy,
well, not at least with "Made in Germany" bugs and wires directly leading to the intelligence agency HQ :)
There is a gentlemen's agreement between such a great allies as UK, Germany, US, ... - they spy on each other embassies, parties, government offices, etc... because Germany spying on Germany is illegal in Germany, so to workaround the law UK or US would do the job and exchange the results.
>1. Obama made a huge* back-channel concession to Russia to get them to deny Snowden asylum. He had to do something to get Putin to decide not to shelter Snowden, and it would likely be an extremely painful concession. Most likely something security related in eastern Europe, probably BMD.
Realistically, that's not much of a concession, even though the Russians will play it up as such. It'll be a political hit for Obama from the 10 people who still care about it in the US, but in terms of international politics, it won't be all that much. Think about it this way: Russia is one of the largest oil producing nations in the world. They supply most of Europe. Why would they nuke their paying customers?
The BMD interceptors that are currently planned on getting put in eastern Europe have a very questionable test record, are stupidly expensive, and, in all honesty, were a needless provocation of the Russians when they were planned during the Bush administration. Removing them would save a lot of people a lot of money and de-escalate a silly situation.
I disagree. The BMD systems are an essential way for Poland and other eastern european countries to counter Russian influence by guaranteeing a US military presence and negating the effect of short-range missile deployments.
Bush started it for good reason - it is in the US' best interests to keep Russia from becoming dominant over eastern European countries. They already use natural gas as a major level over countries (remember when they switched off the gas due to a 'pricing dispute'?).
We want to mitigate Russian influence in their periphery as no one in Europe or the US wants another warsaw pact. Russia wants to dominate them because their security stems from having a large buffer between them and germany (or anyone else for that matter.
You sound like you're stuck in 1982. The biggest geo-political headache for Putin is not maintaining a useless "buffer" with Western Europe, but the growing Chinese influence in the East. Look at the map: the soon-to-be superpower shares a fairly huge border with Russia with precedents of isolated clashes in the 60s. And there are no buffers to "dominate".
No, look at Russia's geopolitical moves since the 1800's all the way until today. They have a buffer with China already called Siberia. And yes, they are concerned about China anyway (as well they should be).
That's where I grew up. I can assure you, nobody in Russia sees its own territory hosting multiple critical industries with half a dozen cities with >1M population as a "buffer" against China.
"Siberia" is not a well-defined region, BTW, kind of like "Wild Wild West" in the US - more like a general direction they used to send expeditions to, like 200 years ago. Just pointing out how weird your comment seems.
Either you're trolling, or your mental picture of that part of the world needs an overhaul.
The heartland of Russia is west of the Urals. While Siberia has a ton of value, it is also a buffer. The Ukraine & Belarus are the same.
Think about it this way - how is China going to go rolling into Moscow? By holding Siberia, they have an effective buffer against incursion into the most valuable parts of the country.
> That's where I grew up.
Whereabouts? I'm honestly curious as to your experience in Russia and what it was like.
> Either you're trolling, or your mental picture of that part of the world needs an overhaul.
No to both. Why would I be trolling? To me this is a discussion and I'd like to know more about your viewpoint.
Why would China want to go rolling into Moscow? It's full of people and has nothing to offer to a conquerer. A much more practical trophy would be something like Sakhalin island! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin#Economy
The point I am trying to make is that Russia is not an aggressor. They're facing the opposite challenge: too much land, too many resources and the shrinking population. They see the raise of China in the East and the threat of islamic fundamentalism in the South. Why on earth would they think of attacking Germany under these circumstances?
If anything, Russians have expected the West to become their partner dealing with those challenges, first after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and especially after the 9/11. But the continuing Cold War era rhetorics and missile deployment plans in those stupid "buffers" make it easy to understand why Putin is disillusioned and annoyed with the West.
I'm referring to the region east of the Urals, primarily along the southern frontier. Pretty much just west of Baikal to the Pacific. That is often considered Siberia as a whole, though more local definitions I'm not aware of may define it differently.
Bush didn't start anything in that part of the world for a good reason. Look what those trillions of dollars got us. For me it was friends with PTSD or other traumas or are still there waiting to come home to their families.
BMD was just Reagan's Star Wars 2.0. It wasn't clever or strategery, just more of the same nonsense to pay defense contractors.
Sorry but this college professor act just really falls short.
> Sorry but this college professor act just really falls short.
I'm not a college professor; nor am I acting like one.
I'm going off of 13 years of research into geopolitics. You're entitled to your own opinion and I don't begrudge you that - but don't begrudge me mine.
They are not essential for Poland or other EE country. They are a tool in the US game to weaken Russian influence in the region.
For Poland and the rest of EE, it does not matter. Either Russia, or US domination, both are bad for the local interests. They cannot gain much, but they can become victim in the process.
The thing is, they want a security guarantor that isn't Russia. Russia tends to dominate; the US tends to accelerate the economy. By having a US military presence, they are much more secure from domination by Russian interests (political, economic and security). This also means that western companies will feel more secure and invest further in their economies - something they all want because it brings rapid growth that tends to be better sustained.
> Realistically, that's not much of a concession, even though the Russians will play it up as such. It'll be a political hit for Obama from the 10 people who still care about it in the US, but in terms of international politics, it won't be all that much.
Are you joking? Do you not remember how Republicans attacked Obama during the election for being cozy with Russia? There is a big block of older voters who grew up in the cold war who will flip at something like that.
The problem with #2 is that Snowden isn't publishing this stuff, the journalists that he already gave thousands of documents to are. So I wonder if this statement from Putin is either ignorant of that, or intended to sound far more beneficial than it ever could be.
The short of the news coming out over the last few days is that things are starting to look grim for Mr. Snowden. Ecuador has bowed to U.S. pressure and no longer looks interested in hosting Snowden. Wikileaks admits he is "marooned" in Russia and they don't seem to have any more tricks up their sleeves to get him out. Now Putin seems to be threatening Snowden not to leak anything else or be unwelcome in Russia, while it seems like Snowden has already set the leaks in motion and may not be able to stop them. The Russian official who spoke to the New York Times about Snowden's asylum applications called them a "desperate measure."
I think it is quite probable that Mr. Snowden will be coming home soon.
It's not clear that Ecuador bowed to political/economic pressures as much as Mr Assange upset Ecuador by appearing to be the orchestrator (showboating)[1], [2].
If a country agrees to grant him asylum are they under any obligation to stick to that agreement?
i.e. Can he just apply to as many places as possible, and trust whichever of the offers he likes the most, or does he have to worry that maybe a country would offer the asylum while having a secret agreement already in place with the US to extradite him as soon as he is in their power?
That would be Non-refoulement, and a major violation of the UN agreement. I am not sure of any physical consequences to the country that does this, beyond a damaged reputation.
> But over the week that Mr. Snowden has spent at Sheremetyevo airport, top Russian officials have tried to remain neutral on whether Mr. Snowden should be granted asylum, perhaps because they are wary of the damage it would do to their relationship with the United States.
The same scenario is going to repeat with most countries on the planet. There are three kinds of countries: 1) those that have an extradition treaty with the US, 2) those that don't and are neutral to the US and 3) those that don't and that are enemies of the US.
Countries in situation 1) and 2) will never accept to offer political asylum to Snowden. At worst, countries of type 2) will have to be given incentives (trade, money, etc...) to extradite Snowden but they can certainly not afford angering the US.
Which leaves countries that are enemies of the US (e.g. Iran, Afghanistan, Cuba to some extent, etc...). Such countries couldn't care less to damage their relationships with the US and will gladly have Snowden over, but for Snowden to accept to move such countries would be openly admitting that he is an enemy of the US as well, which is what Putin is hinting.
Blowing the whistle is one thing, disclosing confidential matter that damages the US on the geopolitical scene is usually referred to as treason.
Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor.
^ that's a long queue, but Snowden isn't in it. But I think it could be argued that those who habitually hand over the democratic process to the highest bidders are.
There are three kinds of countries: 1) those that have an extradition treaty with the US, 2) those that don't and are neutral to the US and 3) those that don't and that are enemies of the US
I'd say Russia was type 2b: a country which is basically neutral towards the US but can afford to anger them whenever they want to (arguably angering them infrequently actually strengthens their foreign policy hand). See also Russia's outspoken support of Assad.
It's not Snowden that is inflicting damage to America, it is those who have corrupted the government with their prodigious wealth.
Congress is 51% lawyers despite the fact that less than 1% of Americans are. Congress is ~40% millionaires (or more) despite the fact that less than 4% of Americans.
Vote out the rich and their lawyers lapdogs and we will have our country back peacefully.
I think it's a good idea to have a larger portion of lawyers as legislators than the general population - these are the people that are writing laws.
Yes, money has too much influence in politics, but the way to fix that is with real campaign finance reform, getting rid of the corporate "free speech" unlimited campaign contributions, and adding more transparency to the process, not some vague notion of "voting out the rich".
Perhaps that is the game. It sounds like the U.S. is successfully pressuring Ecuador and Russia behind the scenes. If Russia wants to give Snowden over while saving face, this is the way to do it. Give him an ultimatum you already know he cannot possibly comply with. Then you make it look like his fault.
I see it as the opposite: Russia is completely in control here. They avoid complying with US wishes whilst portraying themselves as keen to avoid antagonism, get rhetorical ammunition to defend their own policies of censorship, and retain Snowden and any actually useful information he might actually be able to supply them with as a bargaining chip.
Maybe the USA is "successfully pressuring" Russia, but that thought inspires despair. Of all the things to pressure Russia about (e.g. their own civil liberties violations, the even-worse civil liberties violations in the former Soviet "republics", their support for Assad in Syria, nuclear proliferation, nuclear disarmament, organized crime, environmental degradation, their undermining of former Soviet-bloc nations, etc.), this is the choice of the Nobel Peace Prize Winner? Some fop who embarrassed General Surveillance and didn't actually threaten anyone's actual security?
Well, if he were a politician, he probably would make a statement regretting that he distributed the information and encouraging those with the information to not share it. (Of cause knowing that this is never going to happen.)
Yeah, it would be really silly of him to travel with the only unreleased copy of future disclosures considering the lengths to which the US military will go to stop this saga.
(A laptop was stolen from Greenwald's partner's residence in Brazil after discussing on Skype that encrypted copies of some documents were to be sent there.)
I wonder if Russia is setting up Snowden for eviction. If Russia knows that newspapers will soon publish more Snowden leaks, it can publically demand that Snowden stop leaking and then kick him out when the leaks inevitably appear--even though the leaks have, in fact, already occurred. In this way, Russia complies with U.S. demands without appearing to just hand him over.
Putin's direct quotes in the article are entirely unambiguous: he's not getting handed over/kicked out, just that he won't get asylum.
Also, he's not leaking anything anymore, as all the data's been handed off to journos already. Technically his role in all of this is done now—his is now but to do and die.
You haven't read about the outrage from countries, citizens, human rights activists, etc? Lawsuits from the ACLU? Ecuador dropping their favored trade status (trade favors go both ways). At the very least, this has harmed the public image of the US government just by the very nature of its public reveal.
There is something that angers me a bit about this sentiment, and I am speaking as a US citizen here. Snowden has harmed the US government by embarrassing it, causing civil rights groups to file lawsuits, and by causing a trade agreement to possibly fail over his request for asylum? It sounds like you are saying we should just keep quiet about government abuses, which is basically the opposite of what America is supposed to stand for.
I'm not arguing right or wrong. Just that yes, in fact, the US has been hurt by this. I want to know why you're jumping to the conclusion that I think this is okay. I never once implied anything of the sort.
If I tattle on the school bully and he gets detention, he has been hurt by me (even though once he catches me I'll be hurt worse).
A bully's actions are detrimental to his own self as well as others and to awaken a bully has no implicit cause to harm the bully. On the contrary, it is motivated by love.
Under the guidance of those who are in power currently, the US will be run into the ground. Do you know why that will be the result? It's because of falsehood that our society is being ruined. It will never happen that revealing the truth will ruin a society.
So our efforts to reveal the facts of what is happening in reality are not to the detriment of the country - it is to save it from destruction.
That's why I demand evidence of your words.
How has the US been hurt by this? You said it is fact, so please show us something we can confirm.
Seriously how does a simple comment like "yeah, getting called out hurts" lead to this much fucking witch-hunting? I feel like you guys are about to dox me and send SWAT to my house. Why aren't you ganging up on kalms, who responded in agreement?
I already answered your question that you're somehow still demanding an answer to. There's a TV channel devoted to people who want to ignore the fact that someone responded to their question and make conveniently and intentionally false accusations in an attempt to discredit them.
I broke my hand once, and before I could get to the hospital the bone started to heal. It needed to be rebroken in order to heal properly. Sure the doctor broke my hand out of love for his patient. IT STILL FUCKING HURT.
Snowden didn't begin the spying program, he is the one who informed people about the fact so that they can protect themselves from being cheated by a lie.
The thing which hurt the US is the activities that its present government has been taking - and those activities are what people overseas are upset about.
Indeed, you need to re-break a break sometimes, but it is not an action that harms the break or the person: it is the only action that enables them to heal. We judge if they are harmed or not by the result, and the result of this method of treatment if correctly followed is decidedly good. So it's not true that temporal pain is implicitly indicative of harm.
The people who are in power in the US right now do not represent the real will of the people and thus they do not have the people's mandate. As such, no matter whether the EU withdraws from a trade deal with the current US government, it is not withdrawing from a government which is of the real people. As such, it would in fact be right of the EU to withdraw its agreement with the current US government so that more truth about the degree of legitimacy of the current US government is revealed. It's only by admitting the truth that we can finally start to go on the right path. To continue the way things are going now, where these dire problems are hidden, is even more painful to truthful people than it is to have the truth come out. Because the truth always exists.
Again: not what I'm arguing. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it's not me, so I'm going to bow out of this conversation. All I mentioned was the negative reactions from this leak that were directed towards the US government as things that have hurt the US government.
As far as I remember this country was created for the living people, not for the wealth and power of the aristocracy that has assumed control of it.
No matter how much the media conflate the two, the USA is not equivalent to its government. Nor is it the same as its foreign policy or international political image. US society is made up of real people and there is no evidence that Snowden's information has harmed the society.
But let's take it further. If you suppose that the USA's image was harmed, you should realize the fact that Snowden did not harm its image. It was harmed by the activities which Snowden's leaks revealed.
It would seem like EU dropping their planned trade agreement would be a much bigger blow. Not to mention the animosity it has created towards the US in general. European leaders are demanding answers, and the US is staying silent. It's not good, that's for sure.
Most or all EU countries have programs that spy on their own citizens and on US traffic. And, they oft do so in cooperation with the US government.
Additionally, the politicians who are calling for trade agreement cancellation are doing so on the stage of the world – with specific political agenda. They do that because if they don't, they invite exploitation and will lose their own power.
The revelation of all the facts about the reality of the power structures in the world must occur, and it must occur so that the people can finally live without latent animosity towards each other. The fact that the surveillance was not leaked with documents via a publicly accepted media outlet before Snowden does not somehow mean that the problems did not exist before and have continuous affect on people, society, and further, the world. On the contrary, as long as people live in ignorance or denial of important problems, it means those problems are hidden by the society, and the society will become dark and the society in turn causes people to do wrong things.
In a dark society, justice becomes lost.
When justice is lost, the society will fall.
That's why this effort to reveal the reality has quite the opposite effect on our society of harming us.
It is absolutely necessary if we are to survive the next decade and if we are to truly live with worldwide cooperation.
I'm not oblivious to the intelligence services here in Europe, although their focus hasn't exactly been the US. I'm aware of the political shenanigans, and of course they're trying to exploit the situation to their own benefit. As a European I'm furious, but right now I don't care about internal politics. I care about external threats, since that's what the USG just demoted their own country to.
I love the States, but it's a tough love right now.
Champions of human rights don't go to russia for "asylum" - it's where defecting spies go.
So let's just call it like it is: he's defecting.
Less and less, at this point, are his actions about government accountability and civil rights, and more and more about damaging US national security for the benefit of its (completely NON-free) adversaries
I hope he relishes his unbounded freedoms in Russia, since it's a place of government/defense/intelligence-agency transparency, a bastion of free speech & democracy, and a place where journalists are not routinely murdered. At least he's out of the tyrannical USA.
You are setting up a false dilemma. The position that "if he is unwilling to stay in the US or go to the people who will just return him there, so he can face serious punishment", aka that if is unwilling to become a martyr, then he can not be a person who actually wants to point out something wrong. This is a silly scenario.
For example, I we need to fix the prison system in the US. I am not willing to martyr myself for it. Is it your position that it can't be too bad then? Or that I must not mean it because I don't want to be a martyr?
The premise from which you are arguing is just incorrect.
I cannot see the relevance of conditions in Russia to Snowden's decision that conditions in the United States need to be fixed.
Every country in the world could be far worse, without releasing the US from its principled goal of fostering a new birth of freedom through a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
This is what I wonder the most. Bradley Manning was/is basically tortured so US has made it clear that the punishment for leaking any information, especially embarrassing, will result in torture.
And now they are making comments that by leaving Snowden showed that he is a 'defector/spy'. If he stays he would be tortured, if he leaves his stories are discredited, though they would be discredited in any case.
Are those that claim he is defecting totally serious? That he should endure torture?
This isn't a chicken and egg scenario though. Snowden couldn't be hurting the US if they didn't take the actions in the first place. It's like blaming victims of police brutality that have come forward for the bad public image of police.
The US will quietly offer to release one or more Russian "spies" caught in the USA in exchange for them handing over Snowden. This type of thing happened all the time during the Cold War.
It sounds like Russian intelligence services have finished rifling Snowden for classified information. They don't want Snowden leaking to anyone else what they've rightfully pilfered.
