When I click the News tab on Google's results for Paradise Papers I mainly get coverage from British and Australian sources. I have a hard time finding any in the US.
Is this a Google filter (I'm in Europe)? Or related to the affiliations of the investigators? Or a time zone thing?
It's still Sunday in Europe too. Compared to being the main (breaking) news on many (most?) major news sites in Europe, I'm genuinely curious why this difference?
The main focus seems to be on 'remarkable' (for lack of a better word) ties between prominent people. I can't imagine there's less interest about this in the US? Or is there some fatigue?
If I remember correctly, none of the icij releases have ever been made public. Their assumption is that countries should change their laws if they want to access such files. (Also it is probably better like this to protect the sources)
I came here looking for one too. All they offer is the CSV that powers a Neo4J graph, not a link to the 1.4TB of files (which is what I want to ingest)
>On November 5, 2017, ICIJ added data from some politicians featured in the Paradise Papers investigation. ICIJ will be releasing the full structured data connected to this investigation in the coming weeks.
As much as I want this to lead to public change, I don’t think it will. The economy seems to be strong enough for people to overlook the outsized shares of others.
I’m more shocked by the lack of outrage over the unfolding Trump-circle ties to Russia. People claim to be patriotic but welcoming to the Cold War’s nemesis.
"Leaked files show that a state-controlled bank in Moscow helped to fuel Yuri Milner’s ascent in Silicon Valley, where the Russia investigation has put tech companies under scrutiny"
could someone explain, is the reveal here only that a state bank chose to invest its capital in american companies? should a bank not do that? I mean, Putin can lick my tiny gonads but I also think Al Franken and much of the media are channelling the dead corpse of McCarthy when they assume everyone should be suspicious of anything russian, so I'm generally suspicious of much of russia-bate being thrown out there. To me, when I read this article, I see greedy capitalists finding a profitable place to invest there capital, not much more.
People are definitely overreacting, but other people are underreacting. The Russian state-run banks are effectively Putin’s tools. So the question really becomes why did the Russian government choose to secretly move hundreds of millions of dollars into American tech companies.
To my mind, there are two plausible answers. The first is that it was a way to offshore a bunch of wealth into what looked like a good investment. You can get into moral issues (e.g. is Russian oligarch money “dirty”), but I think it’s not very interesting or concerning from a national security perspective.
An alternative is that Putin perceives many of these technology companies as crucial pieces in the power game, and wanted some level of access to / influence over them. That would be a much more concerning situation, because it means that they may have leveraged their ownership stake against American national interests. We don’t yet have evidence of that, but we should investigate the possibility.
> The Russian state-run banks are effectively Putin’s tools.
Just like anything Russian is "Putin's tool"? Please, at this point it feels like Putin is not just another human but rather some TVtrope bad guy living in a secret bunker under a volcano, scheming how to single-handedly destroy the world because that's what bad guys do.
It's weird how this is labeled across different publications, the business insider article states "Commercial interests and state interest 'go hand in hand' for Russia" like that's a bad thing and Russia is the only country acting like that.
In the end, money got invested in a sector that was deemed very profitable at that time, I have no doubts US institutional investors, and private billionaires, have done the same. Yet nobody questions their influence on Twitter/Facebook, it's only an issue when Russians do it?
Because if "investing for influence" is really the new breaking point, then I think there'd be a ton of more interesting "investments", by US politicians, to "defense contractors" and similar questionable companies.
That’s just whataboutism. If Russia found that the CIA had invested hundreds of millions of dollars into one of their energy companies, I’d fully expect them to investigate the national security risks. I never argued that it was somehow a unique behavior to Russia, you incorrectly inferred that. The U.S. obviously tries to project influence through corporate “partnerships” as well, e.g. the NSA with AT&T.
And I stand by the Putin comment. He isn’t a supervillain, but the power of the Russian state is far more concentrated in his hands than the power of the US is with any individual.
It's not whataboutism to point out that simply investing in stocks is hardly a "smoking gun" in regards to the investor having had actual influence over the company he/she invested in.
I'm merely pointing out that if that's the new "breaking point" for collusion then there are literally tons of other cases with much worse implications that should be properly scrutinized.
Is there any actual evidence these investments have been used to influence Twitter/Facebook? Afaik no, there isn't, so all this actually amounts to is "Russians invested in social media stocks", which is hardly scandalous nor should it be breaking news.
Because that's what it actually comes down to: Twitter and Facebook couldn't care less how much Russian state power is concentrated, compared to the US, even if that's actually true, it has literally zero relevance in this case.
I didn’t say anything about “collusion.” I said that it’s a worthwhile avenue for a national security investigation, to figure out exactly what you just asked (is there any evidence these investments were misused) and why it was done secretly. You’re acting like I said this is a smoking gun, when all I said is that it’s worth looking into. And while your whole comment wasn’t whataboutism, the “other countries do this too” part definitely was. Your scenario is certainly a possibility—maybe it was just a straightforward investment—but you don’t know that and shouldn’t assume it’s true.
> You’re acting like I said this is a smoking gun, when all I said is that it’s worth looking into.
Sorry about that, you are right in that you didn't say this is a smoking gun.
But that's what this is framed as in many places and I took your framing of "Putin's tool" as going down that same venue.
> And while your whole comment wasn’t whataboutism, the “other countries do this too” part definitely was.
I see it as pointing out double-standards, which is an actual thing and sadly happens quite often without being called out as such. Especially in geopolitics, there's a very easy to spot bias in terms of what some countries are allowed to do while other countries are scrutinized for these very same actions.
Case in point: US modernizing/expanding their nuclear arsenal vs Russia doing the same and how both of those are framed across different media on the globe.
When the US modernized their nuclear arsenal station in Germany, the German government literally framed that as "Good US nukes vs evil Russian nukes", like there's any actual difference.
The same can be applied here where it's suddenly super dodgy that actors invested in social media. Why? Because these actors happened to be Russian. Now let's investigate those Russians, but only those Russians!
You can't deny that this evokes certain memories about the McCarthy era and the associated Red Scare.
Again: If investing in social media is a dodgy proposition then this should apply to everybody investing, not just Russians because last time I checked it wasn't just some Russian people who had beef with the US, that particular trait is not reserved to some Russian nationals, it's far more widespread than that.
I agree with all of what you said, but I’ll just point out that I opened by saying that many people are definitely overreacting. Those are all reasonable points in general, though, and I don’t think they’re incongruous with what I’m saying.
To me it also seems eminently reasonable that state governments invest in the world economy at large. Indeed, such arrangements give me hope that the world might not devolve into another devastating war.
I guess what I don't understand, and what hopefully someone could help unravel, is why the Russia state banks worked to conceal the investment. The article itself points out that "There is nothing illegal about foreign state-owned institutions investing in American companies." So what are Milner and the shell companies for? That I can tell, Milner holds no relevant board seats, so if it was a play for convert influence, it doesn't seem to have paid off yet. Was it tax scheme? Really perplexing to me what the Russian motives were here.
29 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 79.0 ms ] threadIs this a Google filter (I'm in Europe)? Or related to the affiliations of the investigators? Or a time zone thing?
Edit: There you go https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/world/paradise-papers.htm...
https://www.blog.google/products/search/making-search-result...
If you want results from US you can go to the google homepage > settings > search settings > region settings
As I'm writing this I've only found a mention on the nytimes homepage (rather small). In Europe it seems to be the main (breaking) news on most sites.
The main focus seems to be on 'remarkable' (for lack of a better word) ties between prominent people. I can't imagine there's less interest about this in the US? Or is there some fatigue?
They offer a torrent.
I’m more shocked by the lack of outrage over the unfolding Trump-circle ties to Russia. People claim to be patriotic but welcoming to the Cold War’s nemesis.
"Leaked files show that a state-controlled bank in Moscow helped to fuel Yuri Milner’s ascent in Silicon Valley, where the Russia investigation has put tech companies under scrutiny"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/world/yuri-milner-faceboo...
To my mind, there are two plausible answers. The first is that it was a way to offshore a bunch of wealth into what looked like a good investment. You can get into moral issues (e.g. is Russian oligarch money “dirty”), but I think it’s not very interesting or concerning from a national security perspective.
An alternative is that Putin perceives many of these technology companies as crucial pieces in the power game, and wanted some level of access to / influence over them. That would be a much more concerning situation, because it means that they may have leveraged their ownership stake against American national interests. We don’t yet have evidence of that, but we should investigate the possibility.
Just like anything Russian is "Putin's tool"? Please, at this point it feels like Putin is not just another human but rather some TVtrope bad guy living in a secret bunker under a volcano, scheming how to single-handedly destroy the world because that's what bad guys do.
It's weird how this is labeled across different publications, the business insider article states "Commercial interests and state interest 'go hand in hand' for Russia" like that's a bad thing and Russia is the only country acting like that.
In the end, money got invested in a sector that was deemed very profitable at that time, I have no doubts US institutional investors, and private billionaires, have done the same. Yet nobody questions their influence on Twitter/Facebook, it's only an issue when Russians do it?
Because if "investing for influence" is really the new breaking point, then I think there'd be a ton of more interesting "investments", by US politicians, to "defense contractors" and similar questionable companies.
And I stand by the Putin comment. He isn’t a supervillain, but the power of the Russian state is far more concentrated in his hands than the power of the US is with any individual.
I'm merely pointing out that if that's the new "breaking point" for collusion then there are literally tons of other cases with much worse implications that should be properly scrutinized.
Is there any actual evidence these investments have been used to influence Twitter/Facebook? Afaik no, there isn't, so all this actually amounts to is "Russians invested in social media stocks", which is hardly scandalous nor should it be breaking news.
Because that's what it actually comes down to: Twitter and Facebook couldn't care less how much Russian state power is concentrated, compared to the US, even if that's actually true, it has literally zero relevance in this case.
Sorry about that, you are right in that you didn't say this is a smoking gun. But that's what this is framed as in many places and I took your framing of "Putin's tool" as going down that same venue.
> And while your whole comment wasn’t whataboutism, the “other countries do this too” part definitely was.
I see it as pointing out double-standards, which is an actual thing and sadly happens quite often without being called out as such. Especially in geopolitics, there's a very easy to spot bias in terms of what some countries are allowed to do while other countries are scrutinized for these very same actions.
Case in point: US modernizing/expanding their nuclear arsenal vs Russia doing the same and how both of those are framed across different media on the globe. When the US modernized their nuclear arsenal station in Germany, the German government literally framed that as "Good US nukes vs evil Russian nukes", like there's any actual difference.
The same can be applied here where it's suddenly super dodgy that actors invested in social media. Why? Because these actors happened to be Russian. Now let's investigate those Russians, but only those Russians!
You can't deny that this evokes certain memories about the McCarthy era and the associated Red Scare. Again: If investing in social media is a dodgy proposition then this should apply to everybody investing, not just Russians because last time I checked it wasn't just some Russian people who had beef with the US, that particular trait is not reserved to some Russian nationals, it's far more widespread than that.
I guess what I don't understand, and what hopefully someone could help unravel, is why the Russia state banks worked to conceal the investment. The article itself points out that "There is nothing illegal about foreign state-owned institutions investing in American companies." So what are Milner and the shell companies for? That I can tell, Milner holds no relevant board seats, so if it was a play for convert influence, it doesn't seem to have paid off yet. Was it tax scheme? Really perplexing to me what the Russian motives were here.