NSA Contractor charged for leaking secret report on Russian Hacking efforts!

[Caolela]

Oh dear Cthulhu. An American with functioning brain.

It never ceases to amaze me how much blind faith American people put in brands, and how they think that government is limited to Washington and acts separately from business. But then again, America hasn't had the shock therapy like Russia did.

What we need here are the jokes the Russian people had back in the Cold War days about Tass and Pravda. They apply perfectly to the Western mainstream media today. That MSM is now 95% owned by only 6 corporations. The U.S. gov't as well is a wholly-owned subsidiary of those same and other corporations.

That is, as I've often said on MMO-C, a form of fascism. FDR warned us, as did Ike later.

BTW, I have always had respect for the Russian people as a whole (not their gov't), even when they were our adversaries during the Soviet years when I was part of the U.S. military. Anyone with more than 4 brain cells knows that if not for the Red Army in WWII, Europe would probably be doing the Nazi goosestep today, (though one must say the Stalinists were no better.)

As you say, shock therapy: they didn't lose 27 million people in that war and countless millions under Stalin and not learn the lesson from it.

[Dug]

B-but Russia wouldn't do the hacking. F-fake news!

[Cthulhu 2020]

...and we can stop right there, because if you had been paying attention instead of speaking from years of indoctrination and divisive partisanship, you'd have seen that I posted up front in #61 that I am indeed no supporter of Trump, or of the Neo-cons, Neo-libs, or hard-right maniacs around him. Same for Clinton and either of the two establishment corporate oligarch parties.

Point still stands regardless of who you "claim" you support or not. It's always funny (especially when it's a military broseph) talks about how much of an indepdent thinker they are because they "reject the mainstream".

I guess you missed the part where Trump has on many occassions tried to pressure the end of investigation into Russia, or how Trump tried to secretly tell the state department to end Russian sanctions. People who believe that there ABSOLUTELY IS NO POSSIBILITY AT ALL of a collusion aren't thinkers. They think even less than those who do believe it. It's easy to just reject all information out of hand because you don't like it.

It's another thing entirely to see what information you do have, and sort through it. There's more lending credence to the theory that the Kremlin and Trump were colluding than not these days. If the investigation turns up nothing, oh well, never claimed that it was absolutely happening. You know, like Benghazi and EMAIIILS that all of the "independent thinkers" were so sure something was there even though the official investigation turned up nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

B-but Russia wouldn't do the hacking. F-fake news!

You only need to look at how the Russia narrative among the right and "independents" (LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL) has changed as more information has come to light. While some still ardently support the idea that nothing happened, it's because they've been plugging their ears this whole time... either that or they come up with stupid idiotic conspiracies like the ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY is making everything up and planting all the evidence. ROFL.

[downnola]

While this is partially true, the reality is that hacking is an ever evolving world. Tactics used last year are already outdated. Hell, last month's are.

I want to come back on your point about chaotic transparency: The reason why this leak, in particular, ended up being chaotic is related to how it has been publicized. Remove the whole hysteria around it and the document becomes a great piece of information rather than the disinformation that was born out of it.

Ultimately, transparency breed responsibility. When you cannot hide, you cannot fake and have to stop being complacent. A lot of our problems - Russia, but also our governments (First world countries) - is the lack of responsibilities the higher ups have toward us. This allows them to simply hide behind a wall of cowardice, lies, and deceit - so really, anything that challenges it and yes, even failed attempts, should be encouraged.

I don't think you can separate hysteria from leaks, assuming they shed light on something meaningful. Can you think of a leak that hasn't caused outrage? I can't think of any.

The entire reason one would choose to leak a classified document is so the public is aware of activity they wouldn't otherwise know. I've made this point before, but most people wouldn't know what they're looking at when it comes to infosec data and terminology. The layman is clueless, and will often misinterpret data in such a way that it leads to misinformation. As evidence from the Podesta email leaks, many people can't read plain English without forming wild conspiracies and spreading devious falsehoods.

Another thing to consider is how the leaked information looks to other world governments, especially Russia. They know when and how we were able to intercept this information and it also opens up new spin opportunities for them. There's very little for us to gain from leaks of this kind. In the long run a leak like this may be needed to keep the republic from spiraling out of control, but every leak sets us back in a variety of ways.

The solution is to utilize democracy to achieve a trustworthy government, and that starts with each individual doing their part; it's not going to occur on it's own. It's a slow process, but it's the only way forward that doesn't threaten democracy itself.

[Dug]

You only need to look at how the Russia narrative among the right and "independents" (LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL) has changed as more information has come to light. While some still ardently support the idea that nothing happened, it's because they've been plugging their ears this whole time... either that or they come up with stupid idiotic conspiracies like the ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY is making everything up and planting all the evidence. ROFL.

My favorite is "Well... they were just phishing attacks. How dumb do you have to be to fall for that? Putin is our friend!"

[Zandalarian Paladin]

I don't think you can separate hysteria from leaks, assuming they shed light on something meaningful. Can you think of a leak that hasn't caused outrage? I can't think of any.

The entire reason one would choose to leak a classified document is so the public is aware of activity they wouldn't otherwise know. I've made this point before, but most people wouldn't know what they're looking at when it comes to infosec data and terminology. The layman is clueless, and will often misinterpret data in such a way that it leads to misinformation. As evidence from the Podesta email leaks, many people can't read plain English without forming wild conspiracies and spreading devious falsehoods.

Another thing to consider is how the leaked information looks to other world governments, especially Russia. They know when and how we were able to intercept this information and it also opens up new spin opportunities for them. There's very little for us to gain from leaks of this kind. In the long run a leak like this may be needed to keep the republic from spiraling out of control, but every leak sets us back in a variety of ways.

The solution is to utilize democracy to achieve a trustworthy government, and that starts with each individual doing their part; it's not going to occur on it's own. It's a slow process, but it's the only way forward that doesn't threaten democracy itself.

In theory, it's a beautiful dream. I have yet to witness a group of people who can work privately and remain ethical without having the power messing their head. I believe transparency is the only solution to this. When you can't hide, you can't lie.

But yes, the problem here is that transparency is not consumed by the people who should. It's consumed by people who we put blind trust in, who in turn manipulate it to fit their agenda.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I've said this many times before, but it just doesn't seem to sink in with the people who deem themselves better thinkers.

Everyone "thinks" about all of the information they hear. Whether it's from the media or from alternate sources, everyone thinks about it. People who feel very insecure about their own certainty on an issue have this tendency to declare themselves the only ones capable of higher thought processes, while everyone else is just a blind sheeple, and that's not how it works at all. Typically these people claiming independent thought have reached a conclusion they WANT to reach, often in contrast to real hard evidence out there.

Rejecting a narrative you don't like (especially one with lots of credence to it) in favor of one that you find more comfortable is probably the opposite of independent thought. It's finding the sources and claims that YOU want to believe and claiming them to be true, rather than looking at the grander picture and all the credence.

[Shalcker]

Well, i actually believe the DNC hack probably really just was one of putins followers, and not his own secret service. But even if, it is his ideology that lead to the fact putin russia became an enemy of the western democracies, and even a enemy of democracy itself and human rights. Putin is a criminal, who wants everything for his own. He is a coward, as he cant stand criticism.

Why? If you would listen to him he says exactly same words about democracy as you do, and likes human rights quite a lot. If it's "actions" well, your actions aren't exactly spotless either.

You made enemy out of Russia when you supported violent overthrow of Ukrainian government, and then refused to stick to previous agreements.

That made you untrustworthy. Whatever you're offering cannot be trusted as you betray this trust the moment it becomes convenient, as Yanukovich learned firsthand.

I recently read all about Mr. Stones interview with Putin. It just shows what that guy really thinks matters. To be the alpha being of everything. For me, it sounds as if he suffers from a mental illness on that topic. Add to that a lot of paranoia, and we have the blueprint for the psychology of a warmongering tyrant.

Can you show what part of interview made you think this way?

...or did you just read about it?

[Deleted]

Why? If you would listen to him he says exactly same words about democracy as you do, and likes human rights quite a lot. If it's "actions" well, your actions aren't exactly spotless either.

My actions? What do you talk about?

You made enemy out of Russia when you supported violent overthrow of Ukrainian government, and then refused to stick to previous agreements.

I did nothing. You seem to mix me up with countries that sanction russia.

Can you show what part of interview made you think this way?

I read a part of it on german media. Well, every single answer putin gave shows either what he thinks about woman ("i have no bad days, i am no woman") or shows his wannabe-alpha status ("i am a judo-master, he should just try!"), just to forget about his homophobia when Stone asks him about gay people in russia.

At the end it shows Putin as what he is.

[Caolela]

Point still stands regardless of who you "claim" you support or not. It's always funny (especially when it's a military broseph) talks about how much of an indepdent thinker they are because they "reject the mainstream".

I guess you missed the part where Trump has on many occassions tried to pressure the end of investigation into Russia, or how Trump tried to secretly tell the state department to end Russian sanctions. People who believe that there ABSOLUTELY IS NO POSSIBILITY AT ALL of a collusion aren't thinkers. They think even less than those who do believe it. It's easy to just reject all information out of hand because you don't like it.

It's another thing entirely to see what information you do have, and sort through it. There's more lending credence to the theory that the Kremlin and Trump were colluding than not these days. If the investigation turns up nothing, oh well, never claimed that it was absolutely happening. You know, like Benghazi and EMAIIILS that all of the "independent thinkers" were so sure something was there even though the official investigation turned up nothing.

Your "point", whatever it was (oh that I support Orange Circus Act, perhaps clandestinely?) is absolute horseshit. Now if you're going to get on here and say that I'm pulling anyone's leg on that, my post history from well before the election proves you pathetically mistaken. Same as I said for Clinton or either of the establishment corporate oligarch parties.

A military "broseph"? Hardly, and I'm not from the idiot generation that would even use those kinds of terms. It only shows that you're another lemming of MSM & social media that has drunk the Kool-Aid - instead of having any actual insight or defensible argument, and cannot be taken seriously. Moreover, had I been active duty at any time since the invasion of A'stan in 2001, I'd have refused to comply with those orders or would have left the service because it was based on lies and a false flag, as has been proven the subsequent Iraq invasion was. Those however are off-topic here.

Nowhere did I say or infer that, "there ABSOLUTELY IS NO POSSIBILITY AT ALL of a collusion" with the Trump camp and certain actors in the gov't to thwart investigations into Russia, et al. Certainly anything is possible, but if there was collusion, it is unlikely to concern Russian so-called "hacking" and attempts to sway the U.S. election. It would be more likely to involve Trump camp's possible pre-election communications (over various oil and other business and profit issues) with various Russian officials that has been alleged. That would get into the whole Rex Tillerson/Exxon can of worms that I have discussed previously on MMO-C.

(Not many people know that Exxon owns some 63 million acres of land in Russia that is largely unexplored for fossil fuels. Rex and his pals can't wait to get their hands on whatever may lie under that land, and that's THE main reason he was made Sec'y of State for the Orange Scamster.)

But for the Dems/Clinton camp and their friends in NSA and CIA, the hacking canard is just that much more sensational and easier to peddle to a generation whose ears perk up at the mere mention of high-tech tomfoolery. It is also easier to create phony dox, a patsy, and dupe a media outlet to publish for than to show actual hard evidence of other types of collusion.

And those agencies also know that mere innuendo and finger-pointing sans evidence, at minimum, can create a narrative and plant seeds of doubt, easily spread and blown out of all proportion by their shills in the MSM. That's useful to generate favorable public opinion, even if that public doesn't realize they're being sold a bill of goods. As a side benefit it chills other potential genuine leakers or whistleblowers from outlets such as TI, as I've said.

There is no "there" here. As I said earlier, this is just a fight between two sides of the same rich fuck bastards to control Washington and where U.S. attempts at world hegemony go from here.

[Shalcker]

My actions? What do you talk about?

What Putin's actions made you think him as war criminal any more then US?

I did nothing. You seem to mix me up with countries that sanction russia.

That's the "West" you're claiming Putin is enemy of. Except he was friend of that very same West for how many years exactly? G7+1 and all? And he would stay friend if he would have a say.

But being "friend" is nothing to West. See how easily can West also stops "being friends" with Trump.

I read a part of it on german media. Well, every single answer putin gave shows either what he thinks about woman ("i have no bad days, i am no woman") or shows his wannabe-alpha status ("i am a judo-master, he should just try!"), just to forget about his homophobia when Stone asks him about gay people in russia.

At the end it shows Putin as what he is.

Can you put direct quote of question and answer, to give this proper context?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Your "point", whatever it was (oh that I support Orange Circus Act, perhaps clandestinely?) is absolute horseshit. Now if you're going to get on here and say that I'm pulling anyone's leg on that, my post history from well before the election proves you pathetically mistaken. Same as I said for Clinton or either of the establishment corporate oligarch parties.

A military "broseph"? Hardly, and I'm not from the idiot generation that would even use those kinds of terms. It only shows that you're another lemming of MSM & social media that has drunk the Kool-Aid - instead of having any actual insight or defensible argument, and cannot be taken seriously. Moreover, had I been active duty at any time since the invasion of A'stan in 2001, I'd have refused to comply with those orders or would have left the service because it was based on lies and a false flag, as has been proven the subsequent Iraq invasion was. Those however are off-topic here.

Nowhere did I say or infer that, "there ABSOLUTELY IS NO POSSIBILITY AT ALL of a collusion" with the Trump camp and certain actors in the gov't to thwart investigations into Russia, et al. Certainly anything is possible, but if there was collusion, it is unlikely to concern Russian so-called "hacking" and attempts to sway the U.S. election. It would be more likely to involve Trump camp's possible pre-election communications (over various oil and other business and profit issues) with various Russian officials that has been alleged. That would get into the whole Rex Tillerson/Exxon can of worms that I have discussed previously on MMO-C.

But for the Dems/Clinton camp and their friends in NSA and CIA, the hacking canard is just that much more sensational and easier to peddle to a generation whose ears perk up at the mere mention of high-tech tomfoolery. It is also easier to create phony dox, a patsy, and dupe a media outlet to publish for than to show actual hard evidence of other types of collusion.

And those agencies also know that mere innuendo and finger-pointing sans evidence, at minimum, can create a narrative and plant seeds of doubt, easily spread and blown out of all proportion by their shills in the MSM. That's useful to generate favorable public opinion, even if that public doesn't realize they're being sold a bill of goods. As a side benefit it chills other potential genuine leakers or whistleblowers from outlets such as TI, as I've said.

There is no "there" here. As I said earlier, this is just a fight between two sides of the same rich fuck bastards to control Washington and where U.S. attempts at world hegemony go from here.

Seems peculiar then that you're outright rejecting everything coming out of the intelligence community if you accept the possibility of a collusion, as well as the possibility of anything. Why reject something so outright, then declare yourself an independent thinker, if you actually believe there is a possibility?

We have no direct evidence of collusion - at least the public doesn't - but what we do have is evidence of basically everything else that has occurred. Everything that Trump has done, all of his blunders, and best of all, every single thing his advisers, appointees, and cabinet members have done. To think that the Russian story has no credence is directly ignoring everything we know has occurred, and unless you think Trump and his cabinet are in on this scandal and are throwing themselves under the bus as some sort of grand political theater, then denying the Russian ties we DO know about makes you look even more foolish.

[downnola]

In theory, it's a beautiful dream. I have yet to witness a group of people who can work privately and remain ethical without having the power messing their head. I believe transparency is the only solution to this. When you can't hide, you can't lie.

But yes, the problem here is that transparency is not consumed by the people who should. It's consumed by people who we put blind trust in, who in turn manipulate it to fit their agenda.

It's not about achieving a perfect ideal. It's about maintaining a government that functions well enough so that it doesn't collapse under mistrust and corruption. Transparency is a big part of that, but the fundamental difference you and I have always had about this stuff that I don't view leaks of this kind as transparency; it's ultimately malice that sows chaos no matter the intent.

[Haven]

though one must say the Stalinists were no better.

Say what you will, but at least Stalin's repressions targeted ideological enemies, not racial. You at least had a chance to be innocent.

As you say, shock therapy: they didn't lose 27 million people in that war and countless millions under Stalin and not learn the lesson from it.

By shock therapy I meant the collapse of Soviet Union - and its ideology, the national idea, I'd even say faith. The collapse of faith in communism created a disillusioned, skeptical generation. And what came after that was even worse. With freedom came poverty, lawlessness and kleptocracy. My parents, grandparents and seniors I work with, remember Soviet times as tightly regulated - but a very safe and stable time. 90s was a time of possibilities in an ironic way. Yes, formally you had all the choice you could imagine, but you couldn't afford anything. This is the root of Russian distrust towards democracy, as we know all too well the difference between declared and practical freedom.

[Caolela]

Seems peculiar then that you're outright rejecting everything coming out of the intelligence community if you accept the possibility of a collusion, as well as the possibility of anything. Why reject something so outright, then declare yourself an independent thinker, if you actually believe there is a possibility?

We have no direct evidence of collusion - at least the public doesn't - but what we do have is evidence of basically everything else that has occurred. Everything that Trump has done, all of his blunders, and best of all, every single thing his advisers, appointees, and cabinet members have done. To think that the Russian story has no credence is directly ignoring everything we know has occurred, and unless you think Trump and his cabinet are in on this scandal and are throwing themselves under the bus as some sort of grand political theater, then denying the Russian ties we DO know about makes you look even more foolish.

I did not "outright reject" other possibilities, but those possibilities are unlikely at this point, given the circumstances and prior history we know that have been discussed several times now, and the exigent need to create a public diversion re Comey at this particular time. It is not mere coincidence that this suddenly popped up from the manure pile like a mushroom this week.

Your repeating of inanities in the hopes that they might be true is an exercise in wishful thinking for kittens & unicorns, at best.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I did not "outright reject" other possibilities, but those possibilities are unlikely at this point, given the circumstances and prior history we know that have been discussed several times now, and the exigent need to create a public diversion re Comey at this particular time. It is not mere coincidence that this suddenly popped up from the manure pile like a mushroom this week.

Your repeating of inanities in the hopes that they might be true is an exercise in wishful thinking for kittens & unicorns, at best.

Here's a question for you: What is it YOU are being distracted from by claiming that the Russian collusion is highly unlikely?

People never formulate opinions completely on their own. They have their own past biases, their present biases, what you hear from news organizations, and if you don't listen to the news, you get it from tabloids like breitbart and infowars, and if not those, from facebook, twitter, mmo-champion, basically everywhere you're exposed to ideas.

Your claim that the Trump Russia thing is distracting us from reality is hardly some new thing you thought up yourself. It's something shared by many others, and something often parroted by crackpot conspiracy theorists who never turn out to be right.

Are you truly a thoughtful person, or have you been willfully led astray because a special interest is trying to distract you from the truth? And to do so, they tell you that THE OTHER SIDE is trying to distract you from the truth.

See here's the thing about so-called independent thinkers, those who call others sheep. Some crackpot will give them coincidental information, and not DIRECTLY tell them what to think, but just lay that information out there and let them come to their own conclusions. Of course the information is often cherry picked, and even more often false. Then they tell these said people that by coming to the conclusion that they wanted to lead these people to, that they're "independent thinkers". Sorry bud, everything you said has been said by many others on this forum - and that's just MMO-C. Out there in the world, the conclusion you have been led to believe is nothing but something you had your hand held to get to. And you think you walked all on your own.

Trump is one of those oligarchs you were talking about, the elite controlling washington. The only difference is he's a bumbling buffoon. He's left his fingerprints all over Russian ties.

Nearly his entire cabinet had meetings and ties to Russia, and were trying to set up back channels that could not be monitored by the NSA or CIA. They all lied about their meetings, they lied about their ties, they lied about their attempts at back channels. So why were they lying about their ties to Russia before the general public even got a whiff of Russia?

Trump has even gone so far as to say that he will be live tweeting during Comey's testimony. Why is he so worried that he feels the need to tweet? He's digging his own grave by doing so, but it just lends all that much more credence.

No, you have to have had your fingers in your ears screaming "CAN'T HEAR YOU" for the last year and a half to not know that this Russia thing has been building up bigger and bigger and bigger every week. To claim that this is just some distraction from "something" bigger only proves your own lack of willingness to think beyond your own biases, your lack of willingness to think period.

Big bombshells about the Russia ties have been dropping weekly, to claim that this sudden leak is in any way out of the ordinary of the events of the last year is HILARIOUSLY out of touch with reality.

[Deleted]

What Putin's actions made you think him as war criminal any more then US?

Did i anywhere relate Putins actions to someone else? It is him who is responsible for his actions. And i am responsible for my actions. I never killed anyone. I never stole anything from my people. I never supported concentration camps against gay people. I never bombed the houses of civilians with wall breaking bombs.

Putin did.

That's the "West" you're claiming Putin is enemy of. Except he was friend of that very same West for how many years exactly? G7+1 and all? And he would stay friend if he would have a say.

He has a say. And sorry, but doing a hybrid war against europe is no sign of friendship.

But being "friend" is nothing to West. See how easily can West also stops "being friends" with Trump.

America is still part of the west. Russia isnt anymore since Putin removed democracy.

Can you put direct quote of question and answer, to give this proper context?

I gave direct quotes. See the texts in the quotationmarks.

[Caolela]

Say what you will, but at least Stalin's repressions targeted ideological enemies, not racial. You at least had a chance to be innocent.

By shock therapy I meant the collapse of Soviet Union - and its ideology, the national idea, I'd even say faith. The collapse of faith in communism created a disillusioned, skeptical generation. And what came after that was even worse. With freedom came poverty, lawlessness and kleptocracy. My parents, grandparents and seniors I work with, remember Soviet times as tightly regulated - but a very safe and stable time. 90s was a time of possibilities in an ironic way. Yes, formally you had all the choice you could imagine, but you couldn't afford anything. This is the root of Russian distrust towards democracy, as we know all too well the difference between declared and practical freedom.

Good points, and some that I was not looking to address but glad that you did.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You're confusing "the world" with America and its vassals. Most of mankind (China, India, half of Latin America and a portion of Middle East that's not in ruins yet) is not against Russia. But it's against American influence.

Consolidation of power hss always been aimed towards exactly one thing throughout entire Russian history: the tsar subdued the boyars. One man dominates the elites, that's the point of authoritarism. Crack under samctions? Seriously? In three years? Adaptation took months, no one even remembers about sanctions anymore. What oligarch can dare do anything to Putin with the ratings, reputation and power he has? Oligarchs ruled when Yeltsin was in power, but now they either heel or follow Khodorkovsky.

The fact that meddling is uncovered so quickly and shouted about so loudly shows that it's a fake, is all. How many classified documents have "leaked" so far? It's practically raining secret files, I'm getting an impression FBI, CIA and NSA are media companies. But all of them are parts of American establishment. What you should really ask yourself, is what this circus is distracting you from.

The biggest question I'm asking myself, is why are all the Russians, Trumpkins, and "independents" (lololololol) trying so hard to distract everyone else from Trump's failings and the Russian connections? Why is Trump acting like the guiltiest person in the world? Why are all of his advisers being caught having very cozy ties with Russia, and lying about them?

Yes, us thinking people are asking ourselves, "Why are they so desperate to distract us from all of the bombshells dropping about Trump?"

If you want to find the people trying to create distractions, look no further than The_Donald and its loyalists who are always trying to push some conspiracy or another.

So yes, we'll continue to ask, "Why are you trying so hard to distract everyone from Trump's weekly bombshells?"

[Shalcker]

Did i anywhere relate Putins actions to someone else? It is him who is responsible for his actions. And i am responsible for my actions. I never killed anyone. I never stole anything from my people. I never supported concentration camps against gay people. I never bombed the houses of civilians with wall breaking bombs.

Putin did.

Surprise, Putin also didn't!
I mean, he was only seen in cabin of military jet ONCE, and that wasn't civilian bombing run.
And he definitely wasn't supporting any gay concentration camps.
"Stealing from your people" - well, can you prove that you didn't? Can you find proof Putin did?

The point is applying same principles to everyone. If you practice hypocrisy - this guys does this and we like him, so we ignore it; this guy does same thing but we don't like him, condemnation time! - then your preaching rings hollow.

He has a say. And sorry, but doing a hybrid war against europe is no sign of friendship.

You know, supporting violent overthrow of Yanukovich in Ukraine wasn't sign of friendship either! ...overthrow after Russia asking to set tripartite talks for Association Agreement for months, and after outbidding Europe in support and contracts for Ukrainian industry.

That was the point when it was decided "enough is enough", after all. Sweet western talks about democracy and rights are nice, but if they do not result in Western actions when they get beaten by their own rules and they just go on ignoring rules they themselves set... then you got to ignore them too.

America is still part of the west. Russia isnt anymore since Putin removed democracy.

Putin didn't change much. He just stopped listening to Western preaching and removed every NGO like ones that allowed Yanukovich to get overthrown in Ukraine.

Because Ukraine shown him quite well how West actually uses those "supporters of democracy" paid by Western government money.

Those were "hybrid warriors" West have been using for decades, and now when Russia does the same suddenly you're up in arms?

I gave direct quotes. See the texts in the quotationmarks.

That's contextless, i want to see context in which it was said.