Hal_Porter, thanks for an inspiring article. Beyond its value as a history reminder, it's interesting as a lesson in psychology, because reading about other people's motivation is always fun.

That said, I take some issues with that article. First is the ease with which Schmemann connects the dots between the Soviet Union and Putin's Russia:

There is a lapse in that logic and it is failing to account for Russia's 1990s. If you wish to get a better insight into contemporary Russia (than Schemann and his likes might offer), I advise you to read Paul Klebnikov's "Godfather of the Kremlin". It's a mainstream book, perhaps somewhat out of fashion now, but still legit.

My second criticism, somewhat related to the first point, is conflating economy with human rights:

It's an understandable mistake for a Soviet dissident, but a Western journalist — or us today for that matter — shouldn't uncritically repeat it.

:-) Just kidding.

The first link in the summary.

Legally, sure. However I can access those pages from Russia, without using a VPN or a proxy. When I try any of those addresses, I get redirected to https protocol, and, as they say, ISPs technically cannot block a single page from a website if https is used.

You are welcome.

More precisely, Wikipedia was blocked for a brief period of time -- perhaps a day -- in 2015, over some article about a drug. However, very soon the officials backtracked, so not all ISPs have even implemented the ban by the time the block was lifted.

Using Google translate, you can read the Russian Wikipedia entry about that event. Or just can read about that story in some English media, such as Guardian.

Contrary to what's written in the article, Wikipedia is not blocked in Russia. I live there so I can attest that from personal experience. U.S. journalists typically do not burden themselves with verifying information regarding that country.

It suffices to say there were no mobile phones in Russia under Stalin — so brutal was his rule!

I'm from Russia. Wikipedia is not banned. The claim in the article is incorrect.

You are welcome. Meanwhile, have you noticed that it's just the latest article in a series of (currently) six? There are links to other articles at the bottom of the page, some of which are more in line with the series name ("Russia blog").

While it's an interesting piece about the FBI, the major strength of Mark Ames as a journalist comes from the fact that he ran a newspaper in Russia in 1990s. In 2000s they got some issue with the Russian Government and preferred to shut down (or as Mark Ames puts it, his newspaper was closed). Nevertheless, he knows a great deal about 1990s Russia, and that's a great context most U.S. journalists just don't get. That's why Ames is unique, more or less.

That being the sole consideration, his writing would be just another opinion. But since he knows a vast amount of facts about Russia's most recent history, he is able to make a damn good point.

Well, I'm actually a Russian. Which makes me wondering, if you are so hell-bent on committing a mass suicide, why won't you use American nukes for that purpose?

Now, the really scary part is that starting a war is traditionally the means to resolve a domestic crisis, and it totally looks like the U.S. is in the middle of one.

Haha!

Don't joke like that, dude. Not funny.

While we are at that, would suggest you having a look at commentaries on Russia affairs by Mark Ames, which are more on the information side I believe.

The irony of this story is that a decade ago some Americans argued Russia didn't have speech freedom because of Vladimir Rakhmankov story, a man fined for writing a newspaper article in which he called Putin a "Russia's phallic symbol".

Now I can respond to the allegations of the past. Where is your speech freedom, America?

Not in case Snowden is granted Russian citizenship. Once he's a citizen of Russia, he couldn't be forced to leave that country (unless he desires to). And owing to the lack of U.S.-Russia extradition treaty, it won't be possible to hand him over to the U.S., too.