At no point have I ever seen any mention of Russia in general, or Putin in particular, in anything related to Assange. The closest would probably Assange's assistance to Snowden in Hong Kong, who eventually went on to seek asylum in Russia.
I felt the need to comment, since your "obvious" assertion took me so completely by surprise. I honestly have no idea how someone could come to such a conclusion.
I'm in the UK (same as Assange!); maybe where you are (the US?) the media is insert its own narrative?
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_as...
It has been reported in the UK too. I've certainly seen the allegations reported in the Guardian, for example.
I find it deeply troubling that Assange appears to conveniently misunderstand the implications made at him: that he is acting as a willing tool of the Putin administration - not an accusation of publishing falsified documents (although i'll be surprised if it doesn't come to that), but by becoming a mouthpiece for the Kremlin to publish stolen information to advance their anti-democratic interests. Leaks are important and valuable because they empower democratic voters to make informed choices.
Wikileaks repeated derision of leaks since the election of President Trump has been particularly jarring. Leaks -and by this I mean ethically motivated ones, such as Chelsea Mannings- are an important protection mechanism in a democracy; and having a place to publish these is important; which is why I donated to wikileaks several years ago, around the time credit card companies began refusing their donations.
Supporting ethically motivated leaks to uncover wrongdoing is not at all the same thing as supporting a mouthpiece for a foreign regime that steals information and regularly murders journalists. The values that motivate me to support journalism are the ones that have prevented me from supporting Assange over the last couple of years.
He had a TV show on Russia Today..
The Assange-Russia connection is a construct employed by the Democrats to counter the eventual fall-out when their Russian story deflates. (I.e. instead of standing there like complete morons, they can say "well, it has been Assange after all, but he has been controlled by Russia".)
This manifests in all sorts of odd ways, the most ridiculous of which was this:
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/31/russia-hysteria-infects-...
Keep in mind that there is a massive propaganda campaign being done by the US to make Americans think Putin is evil.
Chances are, Putin is no more evil than any US president. Keep in mind that even the most ostensibly intelligent, reasonable, and articulate president in memory, Barack Obama, happily accelerated the campaign to convict journalists under the espionage act and ramped up drone executions abroad.
My point is that the US may legitimately consider Russia an adversary based on geopolitical realities (scarce resources, etc.) but none of this means Putin is more evil than a US president.
In the US there is some degree of public consent required for military action and foreign policy, and the best way to make this happen is to create a moral argument. So of course the leaders of all nations the US considers adversaries are framed as evil. But this is just meant to help achieve democratic consent, no serious policy thinkers actually believe it.
Propaganda or not, anti-Putin Russians have a bit of a track record of untimely death.
Was the US bombing of Al Jazeera's office better because the journalists killed didn't have American passports?
Uh, what are terrorists if not political opponents?
Killing people who are deemed to hold certain beliefs without any judicial process linking them to specific criminal activity is simply killing political opponents.
This follows from the adage that war is politics with guns.
I also do not draw a major distinction between attempting to prosecute American journalists under the espionage act and simply having them killed. Arguably prosecuting them creates at least the same kind of chilling effect on journalism as a whole as murdering them does, and both leaders have the same goal of quelling dissent and intimidating reporters.
I'm no expert, but _attempting_ to prosecute and actually killing is probably a worthwhile distinction.
You're being too charitable. Both have the same intent. The more asymmetrically powerful the ruler is, the less lethal the threat needs to be to create a chilling effect.
For example, rival gang members (with power parity) must kill each-other because they lack other mechanisms of coercion and must play their only card in the moment.
Creating martyrs is always sub-optimal compared to catching and incarcerating "criminals" or forcing compliance by the threat of capture or alienation/ostracism.
As a thought experiment, which state has stronger control over its citizens, Russia or Singapore?
What don't you think is entirely unfounded? Russia/Assange connections, or anti-Russia stories in the media?
While I agree with your characterisation of Russia and Putin, it doesn't offer any support ("founding"?) for either of these, other than as an ad hominem which can be applied to lots of countries/heads-of-state.
Check out wikileaks twitter account some time.
How is it obvious? Where is the evidence? All I see is the axe he has to grind with the US, which is not entirely unreasonable.
would it be better if more light was shed on russia? absolutely.
is the problem assange? probably not; it's almost certainly the lack of leaking by the US or other governments about russia.
the biggest responsibility assange has is making sure the leaks are true. that's impossible to do 100%, but by all accounts the accuracy is incredibly high given the size of their operation.
I personally see Assange as the most important of these three. He started a revolution and enabled all the Snowdens and Mannings to reach the masses.
Also, you are just as equally pushing an agenda.
Regular journalists who had to flee the country and eventually start their own publication in order to continue to be able to publish the investigative stories spawned by the information.
Greenwald did not return to the US for quite some time out of legitimate fear that he'd be arrested and jailed immediately upon entry.
Think about the nature of Wikileaks. Assange is a "stooge" for the opponent of any government embarrassed by leaked information.
In the same way, you might argue that if the NYT publishes an article about corruption in the US military it too is a stooge for some US enemy?
It's so strange how partisan loyalty can make people believe some pretty farfetched and illogical things.