Who Threatens America Most? THE EDITORIAL BOARD | Enemies Within | Obama's Iran nuclear deal a tough sell to American public, polls show | White House Blocks Pentagon Report on Russian Treaty Breach | Schumer Explains Opposition to Iran Nuclear Deal: Inspections Regime Has ‘Lots of Holes in It’
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
- Obama's Iran nuclear deal a tough sell to American public, polls show
- White House Blocks Pentagon Report on Russian Treaty Breach
- Schumer Explains Opposition to Iran Nuclear Deal: Inspections Regime Has ‘Lots of Holes in It’
- Ukraine returns artillery to war zone
- Who Threatens America Most? THE EDITORIAL BOARD
- Enemies Within
President Obama has railed against congressional Republicans for opposing his administration's nuclear deal with Iran to score partisan points, but the president has a bigger problem: The American public generally opposes it, too.
Polling since the agreement was announced July 14 has consistently shown more people opposing the accord than ...
WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite a track record of misjudgments about weapons of mass destruction, U.S. intelligence officials say they are confident they can verify Iran's compliance with the recently completed nuclear deal.
The main reason, according to a classified joint intelligence assessment presented to Congress, is that the deal requires ...
BEIJING (AP) - British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said Wednesday that an international agreement to limit Iran's nuclear program could give impetus to efforts aimed at curbing North Korea's nuclear weapons program.
Hammond, who is in Beijing for talks on security cooperation and climate change, made the comments during a ...
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) further explained his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal that he announced last week, saying Monday that the inspections regime being trumpeted by the Obama administration had “lots of holes in it” and thus did not merit his support.
“This was one of the most difficult decisions that I had to make,” he said. “I studied it long and hard, read the agreement a whole bunch of times … I found the inspections regime not ‘anywhere, anytime’ but with lots of holes in it. Particularly troublesome, you have to wait 24 days before you inspect. That will allow some of the radioactivity to be seen but not nonradioactivity that goes into building a bomb, all of the kinds of other things that you need.”
Schumer is one of the Senate’s top Democrats and also one if its most prominent Jewish members. Schumer’s decision not to support Obama’s push for the nuclear deal was met with anger at the White House, with the suggestion that he may lose support to become the party’s Senate leader in 2016.
The White House is blocking the release of a Pentagon risk assessment of Russia’s violation of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, according to a senior House leader.
Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, disclosed the existence of the Pentagon assessment last month and said the report is needed for Congress’ efforts to address the problem in legislation.
“As we look to the near-term future, we need to consider how we’re going to respond to Russia’s INF violations,” Rogers said in an Air Force Association breakfast July 8. “Congress will not continue to tolerate the administration dithering on this issue.”
Rogers said the assessment was conducted by chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, and noted that it outlines potential responses to the treaty breach.
However, Rogers noted that the assessment “seems to stay tied up in the White House.”
At the Pentagon, spokesman Capt. Greg Hicks said: “The Chairman’s assessment of Russia’s Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty violation is classified and not releasable to the public.”
Hicks said, however, that steps are being taking “across the government to address Russia’s violation of the treaty, including preserving military response options—but no decision has been made with regard to the type of response, if any.”
At the White House, a senior administration official said: “The United States continues to consider diplomatic, economic, and military responses to Russia’s violation of the INF Treaty.”
Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, said in Omaha recently that a range of options is being studied.
“Clearly as a nation, we have options and we explore those options,” Haney told the Washington Free Beacon, declining to provide details.
The four-star admiral who is in charge of U.S. nuclear and other strategic forces said he hopes the INF breach can be solved diplomatically.
“But clearly there are other options involving economics and as well as militarily that are considered,” he said July 29.
Haney said Russia has “walked away” from international norms and treaties and “that is very problematic.”
“While at the same time I get to see and witness [Russia’s] very forthright execution that is occurring with the New START treaty that they are adhering to completely, this piece on the INF treaty is very problematic and we have to continue to encourage Russia to get back into compliance with the treaty,” Haney said.
The treaty violation was first disclosed by the State Department last year and details remain shrouded in secrecy.
The Pentagon assessment likely reflects the sentiments of NATO commander Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, who has stated that the INF violations “can’t go unanswered.”
“We need to first and foremost signal that we cannot accept this change and that, if this change is continued, that we will have to change the cost calculus for Russia in order to help them to find their way to a less bellicose position,” Breedlove said in April 2014.
Critics in Congress have charged that the administration covered up the violation for several years, including during debate on the 2010 New START arms treaty with Russia.
A department arms compliance report stated that the breach involved a new missile that violates the limits set by the treaty. The treaty bans holding, producing, or flight-testing ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles with ranges of between 310 miles and 3,418 miles.
Rogers was asked what steps Congress should take if the administration continues to ignore the treaty violation.
“Well, the fact is we haven’t been doing enough so far,” he said. “It was only about a year and a half ago that the administration finally acknowledged that Russia has been violating the INF Treaty. But we know they’ve been violating it for several years.”
Rogers said President Obama has stated “in his normal dilatory fashion,” that he has directed the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to consider options for U.S. response.
“Those were given to him last December,” Rogers said. “The president is still pondering what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs told him we should do.”
The current defense authorization bill for Fiscal Year 2016 contains a requirement for the Pentagon to include anti-cruise missile defenses at bases built for that purpose in Poland and Romania, in response to the Russian violation.
The current bill would authorize $220.2 million for the missile defense base in Poland.
“What we are trying to do this year is put money in the budget for DoD to come up with some consequences that the Congress can implement to force some pain as a result of those actions,” Rogers said of the INF violation.
A House Armed Services Committee spokesman said the counter-INF violation provisions, including a requirement to protect the Polish and Romanian bases from Russian cruise missile attacks, is currently being debated in the House-Senate conference on the final bill.
The House report on the bill states that the defenses are needed to “provide defense against Russian aircraft and cruise missile attacks.”
“Russia has repeatedly threatened to attack these sites and the U.S. personnel who man them, and the Committee believes we have a moral obligation to defend our personnel against any threat,” the report said.
Additionally, the bill would direct the Pentagon to undertake research and development for responses to the INF violation.
The current legislation calls on the president to begin developing military capabilities that include unspecified “counterforce” weapons that would “prevent intermediate-range ground-launched ballistic missile and cruise missile attacks.
Also, the bill calls for building “countervailing strike capabilities” that also were not specified.
The bill states that the secretary of defense may use funds for research, development, testing, and evaluating responses recommended by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs that could be deployed in two years.
The legislation also would require a report to Congress within six months on the Pentagon’s plans for deploying new forces to counter the Russian INF violation.
Michaela Dodge, a military analyst with the Heritage Foundation, stated in a recent research report that the violation appears to involve Moscow’s development and testing of the R-500 cruise missile.
Moscow’s refusal to return to compliance with the accord indicates it should be abandoned.
“Russia’s aggressive and illegal behavior and the inability of the United States to bring Russia back into compliance with the INF Treaty indicate that the treaty has outlived its utility and is no longer in the U.S. interest,” she said.
Dodge said the president, State Department, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have raised the INF violations with Russian counterparts “to no avail.”
“The administration did not properly communicate deadlines to Russia for coming back into compliance with the treaty, and has failed to hold Russia accountable. As a consequence, Russian violations have gone unreported and unpunished for years,” Dodge said.
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
Secretary of State John Kerry admitted Tuesday that Iran can purchase conventional weapons in violation of a current U.N. embargo without triggering snapback sanctions under the nuclear deal.
“If Iran violates the U.N. sanctions—the arms embargo, the restrictions on ballistic missile development—will there be a snapback of U.N. sanctions?” Reuters bureau chief Louis Charbonneau asked Kerry at an event hosted by the wire service.
“No,” Kerry said. “Specifically, the arms embargo is not tied to the snapback; it is tied to a separate set of obligations. So they are not in material breach of the nuclear agreement for violating the arms piece of it.”
The Iran deal—more accurately, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action(JCPOA) considered by Congress—does not specify that the arms embargo is to be kept in place for five years. That stipulation only appears in the Security Council Resolution that affirmed the deal at the United Nations on July 20.
The U.N. resolution affirming the nuclear deal does not have the same enforcement mechanisms as the JCPOA, which means that Iran can effectively flout the arms embargo on day one without triggering consequences under the deal.
Reports indicate that Iran is already taking advantage of the loophole by shopping around for weapons despite the embargo.
Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani visited Russia, the second-largest arms exporter in the world after the U.S., just days after the nuclear agreement was reached. It has been speculated that this trip was meant to facilitate further arms sales between the two countries.
Some of the weapons purchased by Iran in violation of the arms embargo will likely make their way to Iran’s proxies and allies, which include the Assad regime in Syria and the terrorist group Hezbollah.
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 2
Iranian and Russian naval forces on Tuesday staged a series of war drills in the waters near northern Iran, in another joint show of force meant to display the two nations’ control of nearby waterways.
An Iranian destroyer and team of Russian warships staged a series of war drills and engaged in joint training exercises, according to reports in Iran’s state-controlled press.
Two Russian warships docked over the weekend in Iran’s northern Anzali port in anticipation of the wargames.
The military exercises come just weeks after Iran and global powers signed a nuclear accord that will provide Iran with billions of dollars in sanctions relief and lift restrictions on the country’s ballistic missile program.
At least 200 Iranian naval forces also will participate in the war drills, according to Iran’s Fars News Agency.
Iranian Admiral Ahmad Reza Baqeri, the commander of Iran’s war fleet, disclosed that an Iranian destroyer and several “missile-launching warships” will participate in the drills with the Russian fleet.
The war games are a sign of the increased military ties between Russian and Iran, which have signed multiple arms agreements in recent months. Russia also has agreed to aid in the construction of new nuclear reactors in Iran.
The Russian fleet docked in Iran’s port “carrying a message of ‘peace and friendship,’” according to Iranian officials quoted by Fars. The fleet was “welcomed by Iranian naval commanders and staff.”
A ceremony was held in recent days to celebrate the arrival of the Russian warfleet, with Russian Captain Kirill Taranenko stating that military relations between the two countries are set to grow.
In addition to the war drills, Russian and Iranian military officials held a series of meetings.
“The maritime relations between Russia and Iran will be expanded and we will go ahead with our official and unofficial visits to Iran,” Taranenko was quoted as saying.
“Iranian forces will most likely pay a visit to Russia in mid-October,” the Russian military leader added.
Levan Jagarian, Russia’s ambassador to Tehran, reportedly attended the docking ceremony and called for “for boosting mutual ties between the two countries in various fields,” according to the report.
The two nations went on to say that “expanding bilateral economic, political, and military cooperation is among the priorities of the visit.”
Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser and expert on rogue regimes, told the Washington Free Beacon on Monday that the Obama administration is ignoring the Russian-Iranian military buildup.
“We’re witnessing a new great game, and Obama is so self-centered he keeps playing solitaire,” Rubin said at the time. “Obama simply doesn’t understand that the world is full of dictators who seek to checkmate America. What he sees as compromise; they see as weakness to exploit.”
Referring to a visit last week to Russia by IRGC leader Qassem Soleimani, who is responsible for the deaths of Americans, Rubin said it is clear that Moscow and Tehran aim to build a tight military alliance.
“Visiting Russia to talk arms purchases and now this naval visit, it’s clear that Putin and Khamenei will waste no time to really develop their military cooperation,” he said.
Read the whole story
· ·
Valerie Jarrett, a top adviser to President Obama, purportedly saved $200,000 on a Chicago real estate deal by taking advantage of a tax loophole she openly opposes and actively worked to eliminate, according to a watchdog investigation.
The investigation, conducted by the Chicago-based Better Government Association (BGA), focused on the 2013 sale of a $160 million luxury high-rise in which Jarrett pocketed more than $1 million in profits.
Jarrett served as an executive at a Chicago real estate development firm called the Habitat Company prior to joining the White House as a senior adviser to Obama in 2009. While there, Jarrett helped develop a 46-story apartment complex called Kingsbury Plaza that was owned under the name of Grand Kingsbury LLC.
Habitat Grand Kingsbury, LLC–a Habitat Company offshoot–was the managing partner of the high-rise’s development. Jarrett, along with other Habitat executives, co-owned the offshoot and had 20 percent vested interest in the complex — Jarrett herself owned 10.67 percent of the 20 percent. The remaining 80 percent was owned by the GE pension fund, TheBlaze reports.
In 2013, the luxury tower sold for $160 million, according to Illinois land records obtained by BGA. GE received $67.2 million of the sale with $17.4 million going to Habitat. Jerritt walked away from the deal with $1.85 million in profit.
Habitat president Matthew Fiascone told BGA that all executives involved in the deal received carried interest – including Jarrett.
The Blaze further reports:
Jarrett disclosed the earnings in her White House financial disclosure form, checking the $1 million to $5 million category on the form for earnings. Habitat President Matthew Fiascone told the BGA that the partners, including Jarrett, received a carried interest in the deal. Earnings of more than $1 million would be tax discount of $200,000, according to the BGA’s calculations based on land a mortgage records.
The “carried interest tax loophole” is one that she and President Obama have openly opposed for years. Obama says the loophole unfairly helps the “wealthy and well-connected.”
The Better Government Association further notes that other federal appointees have been made to divest themselves of any assets that could potentially lead to a conflict.
“Other federal appointees have been forced to divest themselves of assets that could cause a conflict. White House lawyers who reviewed Jarrett’s finances allowed her to keep her interest in the development project that brought her the tax perk, according to records and interviews. There is no record of a White House waiver allowing Jarrett to work on the issue,” BGA wrote.
“Jarrett is one of the president’s key point people on the yet-unsuccessful effort to eliminate the loophole enjoyed by executives of hedge funds, private equity businesses and real estate development firms.”
The White House responded to an inquiry by The Blaze by stating that Jarrett is against the tax loophole as a policy matter. However, they did not deny that Jarrett had used the loophole.
“Since the beginning of the administration, Valerie Jarrett has been crystal clear about her position when it comes to closing tax loopholes,” White House spokeswoman Jen Friedman told The Blaze.
“Like President Obama, she believes that we need to simplify our tax code and make it fairer by eliminating some of the biggest loopholes, and use the savings to responsibly pay for the investments we need to help middle class families get ahead and grow the economy.”
“This includes closing wasteful tax loopholes—including the carried interest loophole—which let hundreds of billions of dollars escape taxation each year, to ensure that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share.”
Read the whole story
· · ·
The Russian Defense Ministry and the United Aircraft Corporation will sign a contract at the end of August for the purchase of 48 Su-35 aircraft, to be supplied until the year 2020.
Vedomosti reported Tuesday that the $1.5 billion contract will be the largest signed by the Russian Air Force since 2012. Konstantin Makienko of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies said that it is unlikely that the Russian Defense Ministry will spend a similar sum on future contracts.
The Sukhoi Su-35 has been dubbed “the most potent fighter currently in operation with the Russian Air Force.”
Vedomosti reports:
The Su-35 (the third aircraft with this kind of name) is a radical modernization […] of the Su-27 fighter. The Su-27 fighter and its upgrades are the foundation of the Russian Air Force, and were the main products exported by the Russian military industry throughout the 1990s and 2000s. The Su-35 has a new high-powered radar control system, Irbis-E, a new 117C engine (created on the basis of the AL-31F engine), a redesigned airframe, and many other new systems. […] The Su-35 will be the most modern combat aircraft in the Air Force.The Su-35 has been actively exported since it first began production. Libya was to be one of its first buyers. Negotiations with Libya reached an advanced stage, but after the intervention of the Western coalition and the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, the transaction was dropped. According to a source close to the leadership of the system of Russian military-technical cooperation, the pre-contract negotiations for the delivery of 24 Su-35 aircraft to China are in their final stages.
Russia will sign the contract for the Su-35 fighters at the MAKS-2015 international aviation and space show, which runs from August 25 to August 30.
McClatchy White House reporter Anita Kumar engaged in a humorous bit of hairsplitting Wednesday on behalf of Hillary Clinton, telling MSNBC’s Morning Joe “there are several investigations into her conduct, not into her, but into her use of personal email and a personal server.”
It is unclear what the difference between Clinton’s conduct and Clinton herself being the target of a federal probe is.
Kumar was one of three bylines on a McClatchy report Tuesday showing two emails from Clinton’s private email at the State Department have now been classified “top-secret” as a federal investigation mounts into Clinton’s server.
“How serious could this be for Hillary Clinton based on what you found?” co-host Willie Geist asked.
“It could be serious,” Kumar said. “There are several investigations into her conduct, not into her, but into her use of personal email and a personal server. So she’s facing an FBI investigation, she’s got some investigations on Capitol Hill, and then yesterday, we heard from the Inspector General of the State Department saying that he is now looking into her aides’ use of personal email.”
This bit of unsolicited passive voice was reminiscent of last week, when several media outlets made very sure to say that Clinton’s server, and not Clinton herself, were the target of a federal investigation.
A former vendor for multiple PACs, campaigns, and nonprofit organizations has pleaded guilty to steering more than $1 million away from political entities and using the funds for purchasing the likes of fine jewelry, vacation homes, and luxury vehicles.
Samuel K. Pate, the former owner and operator of Virginia-based Stonewood Marketing, appeared before a U.S. District Court on Monday and pleaded guilty to three charges of mail fraud for stealing more than $1.1 million worth of donations and contributions intended for organizations and committees, the Justice Department announced.
Pate oversaw record keeping and deposits for Republican groups that included the PACs of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) and Sen. David Vitter (R., La.), Christians in Defense of Israel, and the Republican Majority Campaign.
“Samuel Pate, while working in a position of trust for political campaigns, political action committees and non-profit groups, stole more than a million dollars,” stated U.S. Attorney John Kuhn. “These organizations—as well as earnest citizens trying to participate in the political process through contributions—were unknowingly victimized by Pate’s selfishness and avarice.”
From February 2008 to November 2014, Pate was responsible for diverting client funds from their intended accounts and transferring money to bank accounts he personally operated.
According to the DOJ, Pate stole a total of $1,124,274.35 from various political PACs, campaigns, and non-profits that included: $118,294 from the McConnell Senate Committee; $319,691.09 from Christians in Defense of Israel; $30,614 from the House Conservative Fund; $480,821.26 from Vitter for Senate (La.); $153,445 from Catholic Advocates; $150 from Jewish Voice; $1,025 from Reagan Action; $2,098 from the Ten Commandments Commission; $11,300 from the Republican Majority Campaign; $2,280 from the Policy Issues Institute; $100 from Defund Obamacare; $100 from the National Republican Senatorial Committee; $6 from Randall Terry for Senate; $990 from Freedom Defense Advocates; $1,150 from Frontline Ministries; $2,020 from the Christian Anti-Defamation League; and $190 from Live Prayer.
After Pate transferred the contributions and donations into his accounts, he then used the money to purchase vacation condominiums in Myrtle Beach, S.C., pay off credit card bills, and buy vehicles and diamonds, among other purchases.
“Mr. Pate intentionally diverted campaign contributions and political action committee donations for his own personal financial gain. As such, Mr. Pate’s actions subverted the political process by denying individuals their right to participate in the political process,” stated Howard S. Marshall. “In a democracy, there is simply no greater right than to elect our political leaders. Anyone attempting to corrupt the political process, in this way or any other, will be investigated as a top priority for our office.”
The United States has collected more than $508,928.00 from Pate by seizing his bank accounts and selling forfeited property he purchased with the stolen funds. The money collected from Pate will be returned to the organizations and committees who fell victim to the fraud scheme. If the groups are currently defunct, the money will be returned to the contributor.
If Pate is convicted, he faces up to 60 years behind bars, a $750,000 fine, and nine years of supervised release.
Read the whole story
· ·
More than six decades after they were executed for spying on behalf of the Soviet Union, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg continue to inspire polemics. Their case had ample drama, embellished by the fact that the doomed couple were the only Americans executed for espionage by the United States during the Cold War. That they left behind two orphaned sons made the case poignant.
They were convicted during the Korean War, which took the lives of over 50,000 Americans who died to stem Soviet aggression, which provided an explanation why the government did not seek leniency, especially because the Rosenbergs had assisted the Soviet nuclear weapons program with their espionage. Moreover, it was obvious that Federal prosecutors wanted Ethel’s cooperation — Julius was the Soviets’ big fish and the government’s case against his wife was weaker than against him — but Ethel, a hardline Communist, rejected that, even when she could have saved her own life for her children’s sake.
Although the Rosenbergs had defenders who pleaded that they were innocent, or at least severely misunderstood, most of them fell silent when the National Security Agency twenty years ago declassified its VENONA project, a top secret code-breaking effort that revealed numerous 1940’s secrets of Soviet espionage against the United States. The unveiling of VENONA, one of the great triumphs of American intelligence, also revealed why Federal prosecutors were so confident in their prosecution of especially Julius Rosenberg. VENONA transcripts made clear that Julius, who appeared in the messages under the Soviet covernames LIBERAL and ANTENNA, wasn’t just a Stalinist true-believer but an important agent of the Soviet secret police who gave Moscow every American secret he could get his hands on.
For all but the most determined denialists, that Julius Rosenberg was a Soviet spy was proved conclusively by VENONA — the ace in the hole for the Feds that they possessed in 1953 but could not show to the jury at the Rosenbergs’ trial, because it was so highly classified. Julius was every bit the traitor that the government said he was, and he had betrayed nuclear secrets to Stalin.
Now the case is back in the news, with Michael and David Meeropol, the Rosenberg’s orphaned sons, appealing to President Obama in today’s New York Times to exonerate their mother who, they claim, was unfairly convicted of espionage. Specifically, they want the Obama administration to right what they see as the wrongs of so many decades ago.
“Our mother was not a spy,” the Meeropols flatly state, demanding that President Obama “acknowledge that Ethel Rosenberg was wrongly convicted and executed.” Their case for this is based on the recently released grand jury transcript of David Greenglass, who was the Meeropol’s uncle. Greenglass, Ethel’s brother, was himself a Soviet spy who served almost ten years in Federal prison for betraying atomic secrets to Moscow. One of the most sordid aspects of this sordid case is that Greenglass saved his own skin, and that of his wife, by fingering his own sister.
The newly released grand jury testimony leaves little doubt that Greenglass embellished matters over the decades and his story changed with time (he died last year); he was never an especially reliable witness. On the basis of this the Meeropols protest that their mother was innocent, and to “prove” that they highlight evidence from various sources in a slipshod manner. Although I understand that the Meeropols need to believe that their mother wasn’t a spy for Stalin, the facts to not bear that wish out.
VENONA made very clear what Ethel was up to. I’ve worked with VENONA materials for years, including intercepts never released to the public, and I thereby shut the door on denialism regarding Alger Hiss, another one of Stalin’s spies inside the U.S. government that many on the left simply refused to accept was a traitor, although his guilt was firmly established by VENONA.
Several VENONA messages reveal important facts about Ethel Rosenberg. Number 1657, sent from the KGB’s New York residency to the Center (i.e, HQ) in Moscow on 27 November 1944, is worth citing in detail (for the original see here):
To VIKTOR [i].
Your no. 5356 [a]. Information on LIBERAL’s [ii] wife [iii]. Surname that of her husband, first name ETHEL, 29 years old. Married five years. Finished secondary school. A FELLOWCOUNTRYMAN [ZEMLYaK] [iv] since 1938. Sufficiently well developed politically. Knows about her husband’s work and the role of METR [v] and NIL [vi]. In view of delicate health does not work. Is characterized positively and as a devoted person.
ANTON [xi]
Notes: [a] Not available
Comments:
[i] VIKTOR: Lt. Gen. P.M. Fitin [head of KGB foreign intelligence].
[ii] LIBERAL: Julius ROSENBERG.
[iii] Ethel ROSENBERG, nee GREENGLASS.
[iv] ZEMLYaK: Member of the Communist Party.
[v] METR: Probably Joel BARR or Alfred SARANT.
[vi] NIL: Unidentified.
. . .
[xi] ANTON: Leonid Romanovich KVASNIKOV [KGB’s New York rezident].
[i] VIKTOR: Lt. Gen. P.M. Fitin [head of KGB foreign intelligence].
[ii] LIBERAL: Julius ROSENBERG.
[iii] Ethel ROSENBERG, nee GREENGLASS.
[iv] ZEMLYaK: Member of the Communist Party.
[v] METR: Probably Joel BARR or Alfred SARANT.
[vi] NIL: Unidentified.
. . .
[xi] ANTON: Leonid Romanovich KVASNIKOV [KGB’s New York rezident].
This KGB report establishes that Ethel Rosenberg was a trusted person as far as the Kremlin was concerned, a Communist Party member who was witting of her husband’s secret work for Soviet intelligence, as well as the roles of other agents who were part of Julius’ spy network. Code-phrases such as being “devoted” and “well developed politically” reveal that Ethel was a committed Stalinist in whom the Soviet secret police placed trust.
That Ethel’s role in Soviet espionage went beyond sympathy was revealed in another KGB message from New York to Moscow, sent on 21 September 1944 (Number 1340, it can be seen in full here). This discusses the possible recruitment of a new American agent:
To VIKTOR [i]:
Lately the development of new people [D% has been in progress]. LIBERAL [ii] recommended the wife of his wife’s brother, Ruth GREENGLASS, with a safe flat in view. She is 21 years old, a TOWNSWOMAN [GOROZhANKA] [iii], a GYMNAST [FIZKUL’TORNITsA] (iv) since 1942. She lives on STANTON ISTANTAUN] Street. LIBERAL and his wife recommend her as an intelligent and clever girl.
Comments:
[i] VIKTOR: Lt. Gen. P. M. FITIN.
[ii] LIBERAL: Julius ROSENBERG.
[iii] GOROZhANKA: .American citizen.
[iv] FIZKULITURNITsA: Probably a Member of the Young Communist League.
In other words, Ethel was a such a willing and witting member of the Soviet espionage apparat in mid-1940s America that she was setting up her own sister-in-law as a candidate for recruitment by the KGB. The observation that Ruth Greenglass had a “safe” flat indicates they had clandestine work in mind for her.
Moreover, it’s impossible to believe that Ethel could not have been aware what Julius was up to. As the head of his own KGB agent network for years, Julius was recruiting and running spies for the Soviets, several of them relatives and friends whom Ethel knew well. Additionally, Julius had spy equipment such as cameras provided by the KGB to facilitate his espionage (see VENONA messageNumber 1600, 14 November 1944, which discusses some of the clandestine tradecraft that Julius used). Ethel was a clever woman and it’s simply impossible to believe that she didn’t notice her husband moving and photographing literally thousands of pages of classified U.S. materials in their not overly large apartment.
Neither is VENONA our only inside source on Ethel’s role in the case. Aleksandr Feklisov, a legendary KGB officer who ran their operations in the United States in the 1940’s, had details to add as well. In the aftermath of the VENONA release, Feklisov stated the Rosenbergs weren’t all that important to Soviet espionage, describing their execution as a “contract murder” by the American government.
That, however, was not how Feklisov described the Rosenbergs in his memoir, published in Englishin 2001. Although Feklisov makes no effort at being dispassionate — he considers the Rosenbergs to be heroes and the book includes a picture of Feklisov kissing their tombstone (!) — he adds considerably more detail about the matter. Feklisov, who served as the Rosenbergs’ case officer, admitted to more than fifty meetings with Julius, whose betrayal of his own country Feklisov describes in glowing terms. (Here Feklisov’s original Russian-language memoir, published in 1994, is helpful.)
As for Ethel, Feklisov says that he never met her. This does not surprise, as Julius was already such a trusted agent-handler for the KGB that there was no need for Feklisov, who lived in the United States in constant fear of being caught by the FBI, to expose himself to additional danger by meeting with Ethel. Who needed to when you had Julius to handle that? Besides, VENONA messages make clear that Moscow trusted Ethel as well.
Additionally, Feklisov at one point refers to Ethel as a “probationer” (cтажёр in Russian). This word appears regularly in VENONA messages and was 1940’s KGB-speak for agents, that is foreigners who worked wittingly for Soviet intelligence. That closes any debate about how Feklisov viewed Ethel Rosenberg.
I understand the human impulse behind the Meeropols’ desire to have their long-dead mother exonerated. In addition to the pain of losing both parents at a young age, there’s the added horror that Ethel could have saved herself by cooperating — after all, if she wasn’t doing anything wrong, why not talk to the FBI? Especially when your execution is pending. The awful truth is that Ethel Rosenberg, a committed Communist, loved Stalin more than her own children.
Nobody who understands Soviet intelligence and has read the relevant VENONA messages with open eyes has any doubt that Ethel Rosenberg was an agent of the KGB. She was witting regarding a large degree of her husband’s enormous treason, perhaps all of it. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were fanatical Communists in a manner we now associate with jihadists. The cause was their life; it mattered more than anything, even family.
David Greenglass was a traitor and a liar, but the truth is that the U.S. government when it convicted Julius and Ethel Rosenberg of espionage needed his testimony as cover. VENONA told the FBI all it needed to know about Julius and Ethel’s secret life of betrayal, but such top secret information could never be discussed in court. Hence the need for first-hand witnesses, sometimes of dubious credibility, wanting to save their own skin.
Greenglass was content to let his sister die to save himself. But that does not make Ethel Rosenberg innocent of espionage on behalf of one of history’s most murderous regimes. She was a spy for Stalin. We can debate whether the Rosenbergs ought to have been executed — I suspect that will be debated until the end of time — but there is no debating that they were guilty of espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union. Ethel was a witting and willing member of that criminal conspiracy.
Today’s Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, the SVR, successor to the KGB famed foreign intelligence arm, proudly proclaims both Julius and Ethel Rosenberg as “greats” who served Moscow. It would be best if the Meeropols accepted that fact and moved on with their lives. There’s no need to bother President Obama, a busy man, with this deception.
[N.B. Although the Soviet secret police was not named the KGB until 1954, having changed its name numerous times since its establishment in 1917, I’ve used the well-known abbreviation for simplicity. Purists can’t always win.]
Filed under: Counterintelligence, Espionage, USG
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 3
Shattered Genius: The Decline and Fall of the German General Staff in World War II, by David Stone
Philadelphia: Casemate, 2012. Pp. 424. Illus., maps, glossary, appends., notes, biblio., index. $34.95. ISBN: 1612000983.
The Curious Brilliance of the German General Staff.
British military historian Stone takes a fresh look at the German General Staff during the Second World War. He opens with an overview of the history of the general staff from its triumph over France in 1870 through the disaster of 1918, during which it demonstrated both its skill at planning and conducting war on a grand scale, but failed to deliver victory .
But Stone also documents the General Staff’s blind spots, notably its failure to grasp the diplomatic, political, and economic aspects of warfare between the end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 and the outbreak of the Great War in 1914, which ultimately led to defeat in 1918. This short-sightedness manifests itself through the balance of the book. Stone carries the story of the general staff through the post-World War I years of military reform under Seeckt and Hindenburg, seeking to revive German military might, to the rise of Hitler.
The bulk of the book, of course, deals with the general staff's relationship with Hitler and the Nazi regime. Some officers were unsure of the some of the actions of the regime, but on the whole the general staff served Hitler well , delivering the spectacular victories of 1939, 1940, and 1941 . Although in postwar writings senior German officers often blamed Hitler for errors and reverses, in fact despite its “perceived infallibi lity ,” as Stone puts it, Hitler often made better decisions than those urged by the general staff, a matter that did not figure in the memoirs. Nevertheless, it was the skill of the general staff that enabled Germany to hold out as long as it did . But it’s also worth keeping in mind that despite its enormous skill, the German General Staff never won a war after 1870, due to its inability to fully understand the nature of modern warfare .
Shattered Genius is an important read for anyone interested in World War II in Europe.
---///--- Reviewer: A.A. Nofi, Review Editor 
Read the whole story
· ·
August 11, 2015: Peru recently ordered 27 Chinese Type 90 MLRS vehicles for about $1.46 million each. This vehicle uses the 1960s era Russian 122mm BM-21 rocket. Introduced in 1992, the Type 90 is an improved (with a reload of 40 rockets onboard as well as the reload mechanism) Type 81, which entered service in the 1980s as a truck mounted launcher capable of firing 40 122mm rockets. Both vehicles use an improved version of the Russian 122mm (BM-21, also known as Grad or Katyusha) rocket. The original was introduced during World War II and has been a favorite eversince.
The Type 90 vehicle uses a Chinese 6x6 military truck similar to the one used in the Type 81 but with a longer truck bed to accommodate the reloads and reloading mechanism. This allows the launcher to be reloaded in less than three minutes. Additional reloads are provided by trucks that just carry rockets and a reload mechanism. The truck has a top speed of 85 kilometers an hour and a road range of 800 kilometers on internal fuel. Off road travel can use up to twice as much fuel. The Type 90 is actually a complete system, including a truck mounted launcher that holds a launcher box holding 40 rockets. The truck has an automated aiming and reloading system.
The new Chinese 122mm rocket weighs 74 kg (163 pounds), is 2.9 meters (9 feet) long and has a 21.5 kg (47.3 pound) warhead. Minimum range is 20 kilometers, although a max range of 40 kilometers is available in a version that uses a lighter warhead. The Chinese 122mm rocket is interchangeable with the older BM-21 type rockets.
The older BM-21s weigh 68.2 kg (150 pounds), are 2.9 meters (9 feet) long, and have a 20.5 kg (45 pound) warhead. The BM-21 rockets have a maximum range of 20 kilometers. Again, because they are unguided, they are only effective if fired in salvos or at large targets (like cities, large military bases, or large groups of troops or vehicles on the battlefield). There are Egyptian and Chinese variants that have smaller warheads and larger rocket motors, giving them a range of about 40 kilometers.
BM-21 was introduced in 1962 and replaced the World War II era BM-13 132mm rocket. That weapon entered service in 1939, weighed 23 kg (50 pounds), was 600mm (24 inches) long, had a 4.9 kg (15 pound) warhead, and a max range of 11.8 kilometers. The BM-21 was a big improvement. As can be seen with the Type 90, the original BM-21 design is hard to completely replace.
China is pushing weapons sales in South America, where there are few modern weapons and the older, and much cheaper, Chinese designs are adequate for dealing with the neighbors. The Chinese also have no problems paying bribes or selling to dictators with bad reputations.
Read the whole story
· ·
Maryland and Connecticut are part of a growing competition among states wanting to attract and keep military retirees, who are some of the best-educated, best-trained and youngest retirees around.
The chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee said Monday the troubled VA should fire problem employees faster and that Congress should make it easier for the entire government to dismiss bad workers.
The largest command in the U.S. military has a new leader.
Individual states, not the EU, police the common border and also process migrants who enter illegally or who seek asylum.
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 4
Ukraine returned heavy artillery to the front line of its more-than-yearlong conflict with pro-Russian rebels after reporting shelling at levels not seen in weeks.
The increase in the scale and number of military exercises being undertaken by NATO and Russia is making armed conflict in Europe more likely, a think tank warned Wednesday.
Officials and reports say police in Turkey have detained a would-be Kurdish rebel suicide bomber and rounded up 12 suspected Islamic State militants as it presses ahead with a crackdown on terror groups.
Who Threatens America Most? by By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Is it ISIS, Al Qaeda or Russia? Obama administration officials can’t seem to agree, which makes setting priorities hard.
Before the start of business, Just Security provides a curated summary of up-to-the-minute developments at home and abroad. Here’s today’s news.
IRAQ and SYRIA
ISIS has launched an offensive against Syrian opposition rebels close to the Turkish border, north of Aleppo. Dozens are reported to have been killed on both sides during fighting close to the proposed US-Turkey “safe zone.” [Reuters]
The Nusra Front has announced its withdrawal from its frontline positions against ISIS north of Aleppo, expressing its disagreement with US-Turkey plans to clear a “safe zone” along the Turkish border. A US defense official expressed doubt at the statement, suggesting that no movements on the ground back up the al-Qaeda affiliate’s claim. [New York Times’ Ben Hubbard; Foreign Policy’s Elias Groll]
Two bomb attacks in Iraq’s eastern Diyala province killed at least 58 people yesterday. The Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack; a similar attack by the group in the region left 115 people dead last month. [Reuters]
A cousin of Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad has been arrested by Syrian authorities accused of killing a military officer during an apparent road-rage incident last Thursday in the coastal province of Latakia. [AFP]
The Islamic State is pushing into southern Syria, an area where traditionally the group has had the least success due to “vigilant” anti-ISIS forces, report Hassan Hassan and Michael Weiss, writing that success in the south would mean “creeping right up to the doorsteps of conventional political and military powers.” [The Daily Beast]
Presidential candidate Jeb Bush will outline an aggressive strategy to combat the Islamic State today, in a speech during which he will blame some of the unrest in Iraq on Hillary Clinton, reports Steve Holland. [Reuters]
US-led airstrikes continue. The US and partner military forces carried out eight airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria on August 9. Separately, coalition forces conducted a further 21 strikes on targets in Iraq. [Central Command]
The Obama administration has a “new proxy force” to fight the Islamic State, suggests Nancy A. Youssef, reporting that despite the White House’s public reliance on a $500 million rebel army in Syria, the Pentagon is instead looking to the Syrian Kurdish militia group, the YPG. [The Daily Beast]
The prospects for the funding of food aid for Syrian refugees are “bleak,” according to the head of the World Food Program, Ertharin Cousin during an AP interview.
“Procrastination has been Obama’s worst characteristic in this crisis.” Natalie Nougayrède criticizes the administration’s approach to the Syrian conflict and the humanitarian crisis it has caused, opining that “[i]n the case of Syria, a whole body of international norms meant to counter state-sponsored massacres of civilians has been put aside,” at the Guardian.
IRAN
President Obama has stood by his comments comparing Republican naysayers to Iran’s hard-liners, saying that they’re “making common cause” rather than being “equivalent,” during an interview with Jake Horowitz, editor-in-chief of Mic.
The Obama administration ought to reengage Tehran in negotiations and get a “better” nuclear deal, according to Sen Chuck Schumer, who announced his opposition to the Iran deal last Thursday. White House advisor David Plouffe accused Schumer of being “naïve” following his comments. [The Hill’s Julian Hattem] The Wall Street Journal editorial board opines that Schumer’s defection “showcase(s) [the deal’s] flagging political support.”
“Iran’s reaction shows that it may be drawing a line at Parchin.” President of the Institute for Science and International Security, David Albright, addresses Tehran’s response to the publication of satellite imagery on the organization’s website which showed “renewed, concerning activity at the Parchin military site.” [Washington Post]
President Obama will host the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington next spring, a gathering of world leaders aimed at stemming nuclear proliferation, the White House said yesterday. It will be the first such meeting since the Iran and the P5+1 reached an accord on Iran’s nuclear program. [Wall Street Journal’s Carol E. Lee]
AFGHANISTAN
President Ashraf Ghani placed the blame on Pakistan for failing to crack down on the Taliban acting within its territory, after responsibility for a car bomb close to Kabul airport which killed at least five people yesterday was claimed by the group. Discussing recently improved relations, Ghani said: “We hoped for peace, but war is declared against us from Pakistani territory.” [Reuters; New York Times’ Mujib Mashal]
The US “must seize the moment” and do what it can to push the peace process forward in Afghanistan, argue James Dobbins and Carter Malkasian at Foreign Affairs.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
All work-related emails on the personal email account used by Hillary Clinton while in office as secretary of state were provided to the State Department, Clinton said in a statement filed under oath in federal court yesterday. [New York Times’ Michael S. Schmidt]
The CIA “maintain[s] cooperative liaison relationships” with global intelligence and security services “some of whose constituent entities have engaged in human rights abuses,” Director John Brennan wrote in a letter to three Democrats sent last week.
The Pentagon will present its plan on the closure of Guantánamo Bay detention facility “sometime” after the August recess from Congress. [The Hill’s Kristina Wong] White House plans to close the facility have been “bogged down” by internal disagreement over which prisoners should be brought to the US for trial or indefinite detention, US officials said. Adam Goldman and Missy Ryan provide more details. [Washington Post]
The Joint Chiefs of Staff’s unclassified email system has been restored, more than two weeks after it was targeted by suspected Russian hackers, defense officials said. [NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski]
Guidelines in the Defense Department’s law of war manual dealing with the treatment of journalists in armed conflicts should be “repealed immediately” as they would “make their work more dangerous, cumbersome and subject to censorship,” argues the New York Times editorial board.
Yemen is “crumbling” beneath a worsening humanitarian crisis after months of internal conflict, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said today. [Reuters]
Read on Just Security »
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
Before the start of business, Just Security provides a curated summary of up-to-the-minute developments at home and abroad. Here’s today’s news.
IRAQ and SYRIA
In a “burst of diplomatic activity,” diplomats from the US, Russia and several Middle Eastern powers are trying to avoid an even greater crisis in Syria that could benefit the Islamic State, as Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad faces military setbacks. [New York Times’ Anne Bernard] Moscow and Riyadh have agreed on steps to assist Syria’s government renew dialogue with all opposition groups, though Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister maintained the kingdom’s stance that Assad is not part of the conflict’s solution. [Al Jazeera; Wall Street Journal’s Thomas Grove]
A 48-hour ceasefire came into effect between pro-government forces and rebel groups in three Syrian towns, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Local ceasefires have on occasion been held to allow for food and medical aid to reach besieged areas. [BBC]
Dozens of rebel-fired rockets hit Damascus today, ahead of a planned visit by Iran’s foreign minister later on Wednesday. [Reuters]
ISIS released 22 Assyrian Christians, abducted by the group from villages in northeastern Syria this year, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said yesterday. [Reuters]
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has postponed a visit to Ankara, Turkey where talks were to be held on the Syrian conflict with his Turkish counterpart. Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agency said a scheduling conflict was behind the postponement. [Wall Street Journal’s Asa Fitch and Emre Peker]
US-led airstrikes continue. The US and coalition military forces carried out 10 airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria on August 10. Separately, forces conducted 20 strikes on targets in Iraq. [Central Command]
The Iraqi offensive against ISIS is slowing down, argues Michael Knights, noting that no one “even talks about liberating” Mosul anymore. [Foreign Policy] US military response against the Islamic State can “only go as fast as [the] partners on the ground;” Helene Cooper discusses the challenges posed by working with an inexperienced Iraqi security force. [New York Times]
The PKK claimed responsibility for an attack on a police station in Istanbul on Monday, saying the attack was to avenge the death of one of their fighters in a July 24 Turkish air raid. [Wall Street Journal’s Emre Peker]
Purported ISIS members on social media claim to have hacked US military computers, stealing information including photographs, addresses and credit card information of army, navy and state department figures. [Daily Express]
A Mississippi couple arrested on suspicion of traveling to Syria to join the Islamic State from a US airport were ordered held without bail yesterday, the Justice Department said. [New York Times’ Timothy Williams]
IRAN
Secretary of State John Kerry comments on Iran deal. Appearing at a Reuters Newsmaker event in New York, Kerry expressed confidence that “Plan A” on the Iran nuclear agreement would succeed, refusing to discuss what would happen if Congress managed to kill the deal. [The Hill’s Kristina Wong] Kerry also suggested that the dollar would suffer if the deal doesn’t pass, and rejected claims that the Obama administration was seeking to make out that critics of the deal are warmongers. [Reuters’ Warren Strobel; The Hill’s Kristina Wong]
Sen Chuck Schumer is reaching out to colleagues to explain his stance on the Iran deal and to assure them that he would not be whipping opposition to the deal, Democratic senators and aides have said. [Politico’s John Bresnahan] Despite his stance, Democratic senators will still support Schumer as their next leader, Alexander Bolton reports. [The Hill] And the Obama administration has countered Iran deal critics with “certitude and ad hominem attacks,” suggests the Washington Post editorial board, arguing the situation has become “all about winning.”
A group of retired generals and admirals expressed their support of the Iran nuclear accord in an open letter yesterday in which Congress is urged to do the same, reports Karen DeYoung. [Washington Post]
The head of the advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) has stepped down, citing the group’s decision to mobilize opposition against the accord. Gary Samore, a former nuclear adviser to President Obama, had himself concluded that the deal was in America’s best interests. [New York Times’ Michael R. Gordon] Former Sen Joe Lieberman is taking over as chairman of the UANI, astatement from the group announced.
Sen John McCain said he is “confident” the Senate will have the 60 votes needed to reject the Iran accord, in an interview Monday on “The Hugh Hewitt Show.” [The Hill’s Kristina Wong]
Sen Claire McCaskill is still undecided about her vote on the Iran nuclear accord, saying she is trying to establish what would happen were the US to pull out of the deal. [Politico’s Eliza Collins]
War, in reality, is an alternative to the deal, opines Philip Gordon, suggesting that critics’ calls for a “better deal” are “implausible to the point of fantasy.” [Politico Magazine]
CYBERSECURITY
It is “very likely” that China and Russia are reading Secretary of State John Kerry’s emails, and he writes them with that awareness, he said during an interview with “CBS Evening News.”
The White House has asked for a $242 million boost to cybersecurity funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), representing a 72% increase. [The Hill’s Katie Bo Williams]
LIBYA
The internationally recognized prime minister of Libya said he would resign during a television interview. Following the broadcast, Abdullah al-Thinni’s spokesperson denied his resignation. [Al Jazeera] Thinni has been based in the east of the country since Tripoli was seized by an armed group a year ago, forcing the government to flee. [Reuters’ Ahmed Elumami And Ayman Al-Warfalli]
The UN’s special envoy for Libya said parties could wrap up the “very difficult process” of peace talks on a comprehensive settlement and unity government by the end of August. [UN News Centre]
The US wants to position drones at bases in North African countries to be used to increase surveillance of the Islamic State in Libya, eliminating what officials describe as a “blind spot” facing US and Western spy agencies. [Wall Street Journal’s Adam Entous Gordon Lubold]
Supporters of the Qaddafi regime are “re-emerg[ing] in a disillusioned Libya.” Mohamed Eljarh provides further details. [Foreign Policy]
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton will provide the FBI with the private email server she used while in office; the FBI has been investigating the security of Clinton’s system. Clinton’s attorney will also hand over a thumb drive containing copies of emails. [Washington Post’s Carol D. Leonnig et al;BBC]
A bomb attack in Nigeria’s northeastern Borno state yesterday killed roughly 50 people when it targeted a busy market in the town of Sabon Gari. Boko Haram are suspected of responsibility for the attack. [Reuters]
A US military helicopter crashed into the sea off Okinawa, Japan today, local officials said. Three crew members have been rescued but two are missing. [AP]
UN peacekeepers killed a 16-year old boy and raped a 12-year old girl in Central African Republic,Amnesty International alleges, calling on those implicated to be immediately suspended and the claims urgently investigated. [The Guardian’s David Smith and Paul Lewis]
The US, China and Russia are engaged in a secret arms race aimed at designing hypersonic weapons intended to attack targets many times faster than the speed of sound, reports Philip Ewing. [Politico]
Israeli teens waging “Jewish jihad” pose a growing threat, with recent attacks “neither so new nor so isolated” as they may seem, writes Shira Rubin. [The Daily Beast]
As the first two women approach completion of the final phase of Ranger School, Dan Lamothe explores whether the Army will allow the women to try out for the elite 75th Ranger Regiment, currently completing closed to women. [Washington Post]
“Europe is again becoming a region of high military drama.” Both Russia and NATO are conducting an increasing number of military exercises, heightening the risk of accidental confrontation, experts have said. [Washington Post’s Michael Birnbaum]
Read on Just Security »
Read the whole story
· · · · · ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 5
Gulag Boss by fredslibrary
Title: Gulag Boss
Author: Fyodor Vasilevich Mochulsky
Mochulsky, Fyodor Vasilevich (2011). Gulag Boss: A Soviet Memoir. New York: Oxford University Press
LCCN: 2010007440
Subjects
- Mochulsky, Fyodor Vasilevich, 1919-1999.
- Soviet Union. Narodnyĭ komissariat vnutrennikh del–Officials and employees–Biography.
- Glavnoe upravlenie ispravitelʹno-trudovykh lagereĭ OGPU–History.
- Prisons–Soviet Union–Officials and employees–Biography.
- Concentration camps–Russia (Federation)–Pechora River Region–History–20th century.
- Political prisoners–Russia (Federation)–Pechora River Region–History–20th century.
- Political prisoners–Russia (Federation)–Pechora River Region–Social conditions–20th century.
- Forced labor–Russia (Federation)–Pechora River Region–History–20th century.
- Soviet Union–History–1925-1953–Biography.
- Pechora River Region (Russia)–History–20th century.
Date Posted: August 10, 2015
Reviewed by Hayden B. Peake[1]
In her prodigious history, GULAG,[2] Anne Applebaum wrote that “once sent to the outer reaches of the Gulag’s empire, officers were rarely allowed to return to any other branch of the NKVD, let alone Moscow.” (p. 259) Fyodor Mochulsky was a rare exception. When Princeton University historian Deborah Kaple advertised in the Moscow news-papers, requesting interviews with former “Soviet advisors”—a euphemism for KGB officers—who had served in China, Mochulsky responded. He not only met the requirement, but had also written a memoir. Impressed by his story, Kaple found an American publisher. Gulag Boss is the result.
Right after graduating from the Moscow Institute of Railroad Transport Engineering in 1940, Mochulsky received a “mandatory work assignment” to the first of the two NKVD-operated Gulag camps in which he supervised prisoners until 1946. Called Pechorlag, it was a railroad-building work camp above the Arctic Circle. The second, Camp 3, rebuilt a highway to Moscow. In 1947, the party sent him to the Higher Diplomatic School of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. After assignments at the UN, he spent 14 years at the Soviet embassy in Beijing and then 20 years in the foreign intelligence service of the KGB.
Gulag Boss says little about Mochulsky’s road-building, diplomatic, or intelligence service. His focus is on supervising railroad-building prisoner crews in the Arctic permafrost. He describes dealing with political and criminal prisoners and the hierarchy within which they existed. While he mentions the exploitation that occurred, he does not dwell on the details. He portrays his treatment of those he supervised as fair, if not benevolent, so long as they met their quotas. This is likely to leave readers familiar with Solzhenitsyn’s stories wondering whether Mochulsky, a lifelong communist, has a distorted memory of camp reality. Yet, his tale is negative enough that he could not get his book published in Russia, which Kaple notes, pointing out that Mochulsky does castigate the Soviet government “for the monstrous inventions of the Stalinist regime and the inhumanity and basic criminal character of the Soviet leadership’s policies.” (p. 178)
Gulag Boss is the only book that describes life in the camps from an NKVD supervisor’s point of view. As such, it fills a small niche in the literature covering the brutal history of the Gulag.
[1] Hayden Peake, in Intelligencer (19, 1, 2012, pp. 124-125). Hayden Peake is the curator of the CIA Historical Intelligence Collection. He is a frequent contributor to AFIO’s journal and other publications. Most of his reviews were previously released in the unclassified edition of CIA’s Studies in Intelligence.
[2] Applebaum, Anne (2003). Gulag: A History. New York : Doubleday. [LCCN: 2002041344]
2002041344]
Read the whole story
· · ·
Disinformation by fredslibrary
Title: Disinformation
Author: Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa
Pacepa, Ion Mihai (2013) and Prof. Ronald J. Rychlak. Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies For Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, And Promoting Terrorism. Washington, D.C. : WND Books
LCCN: 2013375219
JF1525.I6 P33 2013
Summary
- Readers will discover answers to many crucial questions of the modern era: Why, during the last two generations, has so much of the Western world turned against its founding faith, Christianity? Why have radical Islam, jihad and terrorism burst aflame after a long period of apparent quiescence? Why is naked Marxism increasingly manifesting in America and its NATO allies? What really happened to Russia after the Berlin Wall came down? Like the solution to a giant jigsaw puzzle lacking one crucial piece, Disinformation authoritatively provides the missing dimension that makes the chaos of the modern world finally understandable. By its very nature, a disinformation campaign can work only if the seemingly independent Western press accepts intentionally fabricated lies and presents them to the public as truth. Thus, Pacepa and Rychlak also document how the U.S. “mainstream media’s” enduring sympathy for all things liberal-left has made it vulnerable to–indeed, the prime carrier of–civilization-transforming campaigns of lying, defamation and historical revisionism that turn reality on its head.
Subjects
Date Posted: August 11, 2015
Compiled and reviewed by Hayden B. Peake.[1]
In his 1987 memoir Red Horizons[2] former Lt.Gen. Ion Pacepa described his rapid advance and high-level service in the Romanian secret police, the Securitate, until his defection in 1978. Pacepa’s second book, Programmed To Kill[3], applied his experience and analytic skills to arguing theproposition that the KGB had recruited and trained Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate President Kennedy. In Disinformation, he returns to both themes as he reviews the Soviet variant of political deception, which he suggests remains a constant in today’s Russian foreign policy. For much of the book he relies on his extensive and high-level contacts with the KGB and the Soviet government. But since Soviet disinformation practices included persistent attacks on religion, Pacepa enlisted the help of his coauthor, Ronald J, Rychlak, professor of law and history at the University of Mississippi and author of Hitler, the War, and the Pope[4] to add depth to that story.
Early on, Pacepa makes clear that one should not confuse disinformation with misinformation, “an official government tool.” Disinformation, on the other hand, “is a secret intelligence tool, intended to bestow a Western nongovernment cachet on government lies” contained in planted stories with no obvious links to the real source, in this case, Moscow. (p. 35) Examples he cites include Gorbachev’sglasnost, “one of the most secret secrets of the Kremlin,” (p. 13) the activities of the World Council of Churches, and “the creation of the image of a ‘new Ceauescu.’” (p. 15) While discussing Khrushchev’ s contribution to disinformation, Pacepa offers a new firsthand account of how Khrushchev’s secret speech was leaked to the Israelis-the KGB asked the Romanian service to do it. (p. 184) The conventional Polish link is not mentioned.
Pacepa suggests that the common thread in these and other examples is that such efforts create a popular conception that disguises real Russian objectives. But most of the book is devoted to three topics. The first deals with how disinformation was used—mainly through the media—in the creation of “Hitler’s Pope” (p. 59) after WWII to minimize church influence. The second concerns “framing the US government as a pack of assassins.” Here Pacepa revisits his undocumented speculations about Oswald’s recruitment by the KGB and role as a KGB assassin. (p. 207) Claims of “new hard proof of the KGB’s hand” are not convincing. (p. 241) The third topic is Russian disinformation in the age of terrorism.
The final chapters of Disinformation examine the legacy of Yuri Andropov, “the father of the new disinformation era.” (p. 259) Pacepa attributes to Andropov the view that “the Islamic world was a Petri dish in which the KGB could nurture a virulent strain of anti-American hatred” that could be inflamed by convincing the West “the Jews wanted to take over the world” and from which Muslim “terrorism would flow naturally.” (p. 261)
Looking to today’s Russia, Pacepa sees the current government in a “war against Zionist America,” and he provides a few examples of “European America-bashing” and the antiwar movement subtly provoked by Russian disinformation.(pp. 296-97) He even sees signs that current US political leaders are becoming “a kind of Ceauşescu-style nomenklatura … with unchecked powers” responsive to Russian disinformation operations. (p. 316)
Disinformation is a provocative book that presents the dangers of officially manipulated information and urges that measures be taken to prevent its use in America.
[1] Hayden B. Peake, “The Intelligence Officer’s Bookshelf”, Intelligencer: Journal of U. S. Intelligence Studies (20, 3 Spring/Summer 2014, pp. 124-125). Hayden Peake is the Curator of the CIA’s Historical Intelligence Collection. He has served in the Directorate of Science and Technology and the Directorate of Operations. Most of these reviews appeared in recent unclassified editions of CIA’sStudies in Intelligence. These and many other reviews and articles may be found online athttp://www.cia.gov.
[2] Pacepa, Ion (1987). Red Horizons: Chronicles of A Communist Spy Chief. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway
[3] Pacepa, Ion Mihai (2007). Programmed To Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, The Soviet KGB, And The Kennedy Assassination. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee [LCCN: 2007011654]
[4] Rychlak, Ronald J. (2010). Hitler, The War, And The Pope. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division [LCCN: 2010921978]
Read the whole story
· · · ·
Enemies Within by fredslibrary
Title: Enemies Within
Author: Matt Apuzzo
Apuzzo, Matt (2013) and Adam Goldman. Enemies Within: Inside The NYPD’s Secret Spying Unit And Bin Laden’s Final Plot Against America. New York: Simon & Schuster
LCCN: 2013015663
Subjects
- New York (N.Y.). Police Department.
- Terrorism–New York (State)–New York–Prevention.
- Terrorism–United States–Prevention.
- Intelligence service–New York (State)–New York.
Date Posted: August 12, 2015
Compiled and reviewed by Hayden B. Peake.[1]
Matt Apuzzo and Adam Gold man are investigative reporters for the Associated Press. The title of their book has a double meaning. The first refers to the central character of the story they tell, Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan immigrant who planned to blow up New York subways with the help of friends in the United States and Afghanistan. The second meaning concerns the internal bureaucratic battles that erupted between the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTFJ—run by the FBI and staffed by NYPD detectives and representatives from the CIA, NSA, and DHS—and the special counterterrorism intelligence unit of the NYPD. The unit was headed by David Cohen, a former top CIA officer. His unit was well funded and focused on spotting homegrown terrorists. Although the elements were supposed to cooperate, Cohen operated independently, and that caused friction, which the authors deal with at length.
Enemies Within begins with Zazi’s bomb-making attempts in Colorado. It then tells how his intercepted emails alerted the FBI to his plans, details the near constant surveillance of his activities, and describes his travel to New York and then to Pakistan for training with colleagues. He was arrested before he could carry out his act of jihad and finally confessed to the FBI. The details of how the JTTF ran its investigation are described with emphasis on the limitations imposed by the rules of evidence collection and privacy requirements.
The authors are critical of the parallel operations of Cohen’s unit. For example, they conclude his “mosque crawlers”—paid informants visiting mosques to pick up indications of terrorist plots (pp. 186-87)—were ineffective, and his demographics unit, which concentrated on men from Middle Eastern countries, practically illegal. (p. 79) Moreover, the key point of contention in the Zazi case occurred when he was tipped off that he was under suspicion by a source linked to Cohen’s people. Everyone admitted that it should not have happened.
Despite these difficulties, Zazi was eventually arrested and interrogated by the FBI with help from the JTTF. The contribution from the counterterrorism intelligence unit, the authors suggest, was minimal: “When it mattered most [its] programs failed.” (p. 278) But to their obvious irritation, they note that the unit claimed credit for the success and got away with it. (p. 280)
Enemies Within tells a fascinating story and illuminates the complicated operations that comprise post-9/11 counterterrorism in the United States.
[1] Hayden B. Peake, “The Intelligence Officer’s Bookshelf”, Intelligencer: Journal of U. S. Intelligence Studies (20, 3 Spring/Summer 2014, p. 125). Hayden Peake is the Curator of the CIA’s Historical Intelligence Collection. He has served in the Directorate of Science and Technology and the Directorate of Operations. Most of these reviews appeared in recent unclassified editions of CIA’sStudies in Intelligence. These and many other reviews and articles may be found online athttp://www.cia.gov.
Read the whole story
· · ·
Rogue drone operators are rapidly becoming a national nuisance, invading sensitive airspace and private property — with the regulators of the nation’s skies largely powerless to stop them.
In recent days, drones have smuggled drugs into an Ohio prison, smashed against a Cincinnati skyscraper, impeded efforts to fight wildfires in California and nearly collided with three airliners over New York City.
The post How rogue drones are rapidly becoming a national nuisance appeared first on In Homeland Security.
McClatchy Washington Bureau |
'Top Secret' emails found as Clinton probe expands to key aides
McClatchy Washington Bureau As pressure builds on Hillary Clinton to explain her official use of personal email while serving as secretary of state, she faced new complications Tuesday. It was disclosed her top aides are being drawn into a burgeoning federal inquiry and that two ... and more » |
One Ukrainian soldier was killed and nine injured in the latest clashes between Ukrainian armed forces and Russia-backed separatists in the Donetsk region.
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 6
At least six police and soldiers were killed in a series of attacks in Turkey, while another shooting struck the U.S. consulate in the country's largest city.
Christian and Turkmen minority lawmakers threw their voices behind a proposal that would set up political councils to enshrine the rights of ethnic and religious minorities.
Ukraine's military has threatened to use its "entire arsenal" against pro-Russia forces in the restive east.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has pledged to press on with a campaign against Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) militants.
The Defence Secretary has announced further enhancements of the UK training programme for Ukrainian armed forces while visiting the country.
A U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon assigned to the 480th Fighter Squadron from Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, crashed Aug. 11.
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 7
Should cell tracking device stay secret?
Sierra Vista Herald And that causes the phone to report back, allowing police to track its location, even if the phone is not in use. The device is ... Hodai, represented by ACLU attorney Dan Pochoda, then sued. After reviewing the ... "The release of the records will not ... and more » |
Business Insider |
Five arrested in insider trading hacking scheme - FBI
Business Insider (Reuters) - Five people were arrested and are in U.S. custody, charged in an insider trading scheme that generated more than $30 million in illegal profits, an FBI spokeswoman said on Tuesday. Prosecutors on Tuesday were announcing the indictment of ... |
CNBC |
Five arrested in insider trading hacking scheme: FBI
CNBC Five people were arrested and are in U.S. custody, charged in an insider trading scheme that generated more than $30 million in illegal profits, an FBI spokeswoman said on Tuesday. Prosecutors on Tuesday were announcing the indictment of nine ... FBI uncovers cyber insider trading gangComputerWeekly.com all 53 news articles » |
KPHO Phoenix |
FBI: Militia members moonlighted as drug, cash 'rip crew'
KPHO Phoenix Three members of a border militia group are behind bars, charged with conspiracy to sell cocaine. They were caught in an FBI sting operation, involving an undercover agent, a plot to steal drugs and money from cartel smugglers, an offer of murder for ... |
Federal Bureau of Investigation (press release) (blog) |
New FBI-DOD Biometric Center Will Help Combat Threat of Terrorism
Federal Bureau of Investigation (press release) (blog) This week, the FBI dedicated its new 360,000-square-foot Biometric Technology Center (BTC), located on the campus of our Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia. The BTC, an enhancement of the ongoing ... FBI Dediciates New Biometric Technology CenterWDTV Updated: New biometrics facility dedicated on FBI's Clarksburg campusThe Exponent Telegram (press release) (registration) all 6 news articles » |
Naples Daily News |
Feds: Man Retaliated Against FBI Agent Via Craigslist Sex Ad
ABC News A man has been charged with stalking and harassing an FBI agent who had investigated him by posting a fake Craigslist sex ad that included the agent's phone number and address. The interstate stalking charge against 47-year-old Frederick Banks, ... Repeat felon in trouble on charges of stalking FBI agentPittsburgh Post-Gazette Feds: Man retaliated against Tampa FBI agent via Craigslist sex adTBO.com all 38 news articles » |
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 8
The FBI is looking into a Colorado company that handled Hillary Clinton's email while she was the secretary of state, Denver's KCNC-TV reported. The FBI, which is investigating whether any of emails sent or received on ...
While breaking the norms of international behavior at its own discretion, Russia may fancy itself a champion of change in the world order; but in fact, it is increasingly seen as an arrogant maverick and a sore loser. Russian media reported, with little commentary, the findings of the recent Pew Research Center poll. According to this international survey, perceptions of Russia in the world have reached a new low, including in the United States, where only 22 percent of respondents expressed a positive attitude (against 37 percent in 2013), while 67 percent hold a negative view (Kommersant, August 6). This is hardly surprising given that Russians also express a strongly anti-American attitude. But what is rather unexpected is the decline of positive perceptions of Russia in China (down to 51 percent from 66 percent in 2014), while in Russia the warm feelings toward China reached a high of 79 percent (Rbc.ru, August 5).
This divergence in attitudes reflects deepening doubt in China regarding Russia’s stance in the Ukraine conflict and particularly regarding its quickly worsening economic performance. China has certainly encountered its own economic turbulence this summer, and that makes it extra careful about investing in Russia, which remains in denial as to the depth of the crisis, despite published data showing Russian import volumes have shrunk by 40 percent in the first half of 2015 (Newsru.com, August 7). This unfolding recession undermines the projected value of connecting the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union with China’s Silk Road Economic Belt project (Gazeta.ru, July 29). While Moscow entertains big ideas about gaining synergy from various Eurasian integrationist projects, Beijing channels investments into shaping them according to its strategic interests (Novaya Gazeta, August 7).
Meanwhile, the lack of substance in Russia’s “pivot” to Asia was highlighted last week at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) meeting in Kuala-Lumpur (August 6). There, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had to dodge sharp questions about the Russian veto to the United Nations Security Council’s draft resolution on establishing a tribunal for investigating the downing of Flight MH17 (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, August 6). At the same time, Russia had nothing to contribute to the deliberations regarding key issues in Southeast Asia, including the South China Sea disputes (Kommersant, August 7). The only trick that Lavrov could find for attracting attention was to accuse US President Barack Obama of breaking his promise to stop the deployment of the ballistic missile defense system in Europe when the Iranian nuclear problem is solved (Lenta.ru, August 7). The accusation was duly dismissed by the US State Department.
Despite declaring a shift of its political priorities to Asia, Russia remains preoccupied with its conflict with Europe. And it is in Europe that Russia is perceived most negatively (70 percent in France and Germany), and President Vladimir Putin scores even lower (a 92 percent negative rating in Spain). While in Russia, 60–70 percent of respondents also have a negative view of the European Union (Levada.ru, June 29). Energy exports, which used to constitute a solid foundation for Russian-European relations, are increasingly a source of tensions, and Gazprom has specifically been targeted by US and EU sanctions (Rbc.ru, August 7). Last week, France made the final step in canceling the contract on building for the Russian Navy two Mistral-class amphibious assault ships and returned Russia’s pre-payment. Moscow may be glad to have the money back, but it faces a $50 billion bill to former Yukos shareholders and has no legal loopholes at its disposal to challenge the verdict of the Hague arbitration tribunal (Novaya Gazeta, August 6).
Russia is by no means Europe’s only problem, but neither in the Greek financial calamity nor in the Mediterranean refugee crisis can Moscow position itself as part of the solution. In the Syrian civil war, it is rather a part of the problem, and Lavrov’s latest initiative on building an anti–Islamic State coalition that would include the Bashar al-Assad regime adds to this spoiler role (Moscow Echo, August 4). Russia knows perfectly well that the new coordination of combat efforts between the United States and Turkey is far from rock solid, and Moscow seeks to erode it by accentuating the disagreements (Slon.ru, August 7). Such maneuvering has severely compromised Russia’s reputation in the region: in Jordan, as many as 80 percent of respondents expressed a negative view of Russia, while in Israel, with its large Russian-speaking community, this disapproval has risen to 72 percent. Even in Turkey, which used to benefit from economic ties with Russia, only 15 percent hold a positive opinion of the Russian government (Rbc.ru, August 5).
Putin may dismiss these public opinion polls and presume that world leaders will continue to take him seriously as long as his domestic support is absolute. The Russian president has, however, inescapable problems with sustaining the “patriotic” mobilization amid a deepening recession (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, August 5). Seeking to make sure that his control is effectual, he ordered the physical destruction of food products that were smuggled from Europe despite the prohibition on imports (Carnegie.ru, August 7). Whatever propaganda spin is put on this shocking campaign, the majority of Russians will undoubtedly perceive the government’s act of destroying food at a time when hundreds of thousands of citizens are monthly falling below the poverty line as an outrageous malefaction (Forbes.ru, August 6).
Seven years ago, Russia launched its week-long war with Georgia. And what seemed then a victory can now be recognized as one of the worst August disasters in Russian history. On the one hand, it is true that the war generated a moment of national unity, which was deeply false but politically very useful. It also produced a conviction that the West was weak and divided, while the reproach in public opinion did not matter. Almost a year and a half ago, Putin sought to reproduce that moment of “patriotic” unity with the annexation of Crimea, but that spectacular triumph soon thereafter delivered him the Donbas quagmire. He also counted on the timidity of Western leaders, but the depth of public indignation in Europe and the US compelled them to take a firm stance and to insist on this firmness over 18 months, despite Moscow’s diplomatic machinations aimed at undermining the West’s unity. Every miscalculation has to be compensated with yet another show of external aggressiveness and domestic repression, but now the Russian elite increasingly worries that the Kremlin’s next supreme whim could prove a blunder too far.
Read the whole story
· · · ·
Diplomacy by the United States and Western Europe has recently intensified pressure on Ukraine to legitimize the Russian-controlled Donetsk and Luhansk “people’s republics” (see EDM, July 31). Meanwhile, Moscow has almost fallen silent on this issue at the official level. Until the end of June, President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Lavrov were relentlessly asking Ukraine to enshrine the status of Donetsk-Luhansk in Ukraine’s constitution and validate the upcoming elections in that Russian-controlled territory. At present, however, Moscow is allowing Western diplomacy to cajole Kyiv into compliance.
Russia recognizes that it could never, on its own, persuade Ukraine to legitimize and legalize the “DPR-LPR.” Only the main Western players, first and foremost Washington, might possibly move Kyiv to do so. The Kremlin openly recognized this reality when it activated the Grigory Karasin–Victoria Nuland diplomatic channel at the deputy ministerial level (see EDM, July 20, 24).
US Secretary of State John Kerry held talks with Lavrov in Qatar, on August 3, and in Kuala Lumpur (on the sidelines of the meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations—ASEAN), on August 5, regarding the Middle East and Ukraine. Such “package” discussions are inherently disadvantageous and potentially risky to Ukraine. Kerry told the press that he and Lavrov discussed the “differences in their views about the Minsk agreements as regards the conditions for holding local elections and constitutional reform in Ukraine.” He and Lavrov agreed to create Russian and US working groups for “in-depth discussions,” initially by Moscow-Washington video-conferences, about “advancing the negotiations to defuse the ‘crisis in Ukraine’ ” (Ukrinform, Ukraiynska Pravda, August 7).
According to Lavrov, there have been four meetings between Karasin and Nuland thus far, as well as a number of telephone conversations between them. Lavrov will continue discussions with Kerry and through their respective working groups about “the special status for the Donbas region and the local elections in the proclaimed republics” (Interfax, August 7).
Kerry has repeatedly sought a bilateral compromise with Moscow over “the Ukraine crisis.” He fell repeatedly into Lavrov’s traps (April 2014 in Geneva; May 2015 in Sochi). If the latest Kerry-Lavrov idea materializes, it would upgrade and institutionalize what is now the Karasin-Nuland channel. This evolving bilateral format would advance bilateral negotiations about Ukraine in Ukraine’s absence. Moreover, it would allow Russia’s autocracy to pass judgment on Ukraine’s constitutional reform and the local elections that might qualify Donetsk-Luhansk for legal status.
For the Barack Obama administration to promote democracy in Ukraine and, at the same time, to discuss Ukraine’s constitution and elections with Russia is a contradiction in terms.
In all existing formats (“Normandy” quartet, Minsk Contact Group, Karasin-Nuland channel or the proposed Kerry-Lavrov upgrade) the diplomatic process concentrates on enshrining the “DPR-LPR” in Ukraine’s constitution and providing a legal cover for local elections in that Russian-occupied territory (see EDM, August 3, 4, 6). Western diplomacy labors under self-generated pressures to implement those political clauses of the Minsk Two armistice by December 2015, the Kremlin’s arbitrary deadline.
Publicly at least, not one Western policymaker or diplomat has attempted to connect the “implementation of Minsk Two” with some basic Western strategy or policy framework regarding Ukraine (or Europe’s East writ large). Instead, implementing Minsk Two has seemingly become a Western diplomatic goal per se, irrespective of merits, subordinated to a calendar deadline, and tacitly linked to the West’s future relations with Russia.
Neither Washington nor Berlin or Brussels are clearly telling Kyiv how they expect the situation to develop if, or when, Kyiv legitimizes local elections in Donetsk-Luhansk and enshrines their status in Ukraine’s constitution (the political clauses of Minsk Two). Apparently the United States, Germany and the European Union have no clear idea themselves about “what next.”
Vaguely and non-committally, some Western officials sometimes suggest that Ukraine’s political compliance with Minsk Two could lead to Russia’s compliance with the military clauses of that armistice. The two-fold hope and wish is: a) evacuation of Russian military forces from what is legally Ukraine’s territory; and b) restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty over a 400-kilometer sector of Ukraine’s border with Russia.
Those goals, however, are illusory under the terms of Minsk Two. That armistice allows no scope for trading off Ukrainian compliance with the political clauses in return for Russian compliance with the military clauses. Moscow has incurred no such obligation in this document, which it wrote itself. All the “obligations” fall on Ukraine under the letter of this diktat.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin denies with utmost finality the fact of its military presence in Ukraine’s east. Russia is already re-flagging its military presence under “DPR-LPR” colors. And restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty on the border is explicitly conditional on an agreement between Kyiv and Donetsk-Luhansk under the terms of Minsk Two. This means no Ukrainian sovereign control, but some form of shared control, and only after a constitutional deal with Donetsk-Luhansk.
Western powers might hypothetically compel Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine through a more stringent application of economic sanctions. Such a process would have to take place outside the framework of the Minsk Two armistice—in effect, to override the Minsk terms. The mood in the West, however, does not indicate full resolve on economic sanctions.
According to some Western diplomats (most recently Nuland in Kyiv), if only Ukraine “fulfills its obligations” under Minsk Two, i.e., it compromises on the constitution and local elections, then the West (mainly, the US) could more effectively call on Russia to withdraw the troops and allow Ukraine to regain control of the border. These are talking points that guarantee nothing, since no such reciprocity exists under the Minsk terms. If anything, Donetsk-Luhansk would gain a stronger bargaining position, once endowed with a constitutional status. Even after a constitutional compromise, Ukraine would end up in a position similar to that of Georgia or Moldova, calling in vain for Russia to remove its military presence.
Western diplomats’ latest hope and wish is that “legitimate representatives” of Donetsk-Luhansk might be elected in October, with whom Ukraine would then negotiate that territory’s constitutional status. No one, however, is seriously suggesting that such representatives would replace the “DPR-LPR” leaders after the local elections there. The Ukrainian authorities are, instead, seriously concerned that pro-Russia candidates might be elected even in the liberated parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces, which are widely exposed to Russian propaganda and infiltration (Ukrinform, July 31, August 2, 8; UNIAN, August 7).
In the Russian-controlled territory, it is the “DPR-LPR” leaders who are organizing these elections. Those leaders are negotiating in the Minsk Contact Group about the modalities of elections, and are fully controlling the process locally. Those “presidents” and “parliaments” are not up for re-election. Only the district-, town- and village-level councils and mayors are to be elected. And not one Western official is in a position to tell Ukraine that the “DPR-LPR,” with their armies and security services, would be dismantled, if and when elections are staged in that territory and validated internationally. Quite the contrary, the “DPR-LPR” and Moscow would, in that case, wield a stronger hand in the negotiations with Kyiv.
In sum, Ukraine is being asked to sacrifice the integrity of its elections and its constitutional processes for no tangible gain in terms of sovereignty or security. No such deal is available. President Petro Poroshenko understood this conclusively when promulgating the law on elections. This precludes Ukraine’s consent to the staging of local elections in the “DPR-LPR” (see EDM, August 6).
Ukraine will have to, however, brace for more insistent demands to comply with Minsk Two unilaterally, while the diplomatic clock ticks toward December’s artificial deadline. Western diplomacy is itself captive to Minsk Two and seems unable to look beyond it.
Read the whole story
· · · · ·
The recent intensification of high-level exchanges between the governments of Azerbaijan and Russia—most recently exemplified by the visits of the Azerbaijani foreign and defense ministers to Moscow (TASS, July 17; APA, July 31)—poses a number of questions about the aim and scope of these bilateral talks. Evidence suggests that Russia is seeking to build up political support inside Azerbaijan for the Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). And an important part of this effort has been an attempt to intensify Russia’s notoriously powerful media presence in this South Caucasus country.
A key development helping to perpetuate Russia’s political and propaganda efforts in Azerbaijan was the creation, a year and a half ago, of the “Eurasian Movement” in Azerbaijan by Ilgar Gasimov and Nariman Imranov. Both men are directly connected to the Russian military and political establishments. Gasimov worked for many years at the Russian Ministry of Justice; in 1996, back in Azerbaijan, he established a small political movement called “The Azerbaijani Way.” The other initiator, Imranov, worked for the Soviet intelligence services in Moscow before becoming Azerbaijan’s minister of national security from 1993 to 1994. Imranov was later charged with treason, before being pardoned in the early 2000s. Since then, he had largely disappeared from public life (Haqqin.az, July 27).
Little information currently exists about the strategic goals of the “Eurasian Movement,” only a vague statement from this political project’s creators: “Modernity, with its complicated geopolitical challenges and socio-political processes in the world, naturally [results in] a high degree of mainstreaming of the Eurasian ideology; [and] it urgently requires organizational and practical design [of an] appropriate national movement” (Haqqin.az, July 27).
In fact, this movement was originally announced soon after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, first by Gasimov alone, before he was joined, a year later, by Imranov. Gasimov initially stated that the ultimate goal of the movement was to see Azerbaijan join the EEU, arguing that accession would open up more trade opportunities for ordinary citizens as well as accelerate the resolution of the Karabakh conflict, in accordance with the principle of territorial integrity (Echo.az, January 23).
A key point in this regard is that it is often mistakenly assumed such political movements are created or “sponsored” by the Kremlin itself. But as two leading political figures of the Azerbaijani diaspora in Russia have noted, while speaking on the condition of anonymity: More frequently, the Russian intelligence services independently have a hand in creating these foreign movements, thus laying the groundwork for these political projects to be used in the future by the Kremlin, should a relevant scenario arise (Author’s interview, July 20–21).
Another notable recent development has been Russia’s growing soft-power influence in Azerbaijan. In particular, in the past few months, Moscow has introduced several pro-Kremlin media outlets in Azerbaijan. The first was the May 2015 launch of the Russian “Sputnik News” Internet portal in Azerbaijan, available online in both Azerbaijani and Russian (Sputnik, May 25). The notorious Sputnik news outlet was established a year ago in Russia, in order to counter what Russian officials call “the aggressive propaganda of Western media” (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/10/us-russia-media-idUSKCN0IU1UO20141110see EDM, November 12, 2014). Sputnik is efficient in reproducing Vladimir Putin’s particular “world view” for an international audience.
Another Russian broadcast outlet, part of the Sputnik multimedia news agency, is the radio station Sputnik Azerbaijan, which recently started broadcasting on the airwaves of Araz FM (Contact.az, July 3). This marks a significant shift in Azerbaijan’s broadcasting landscape. Previously, the Russian-language radio station Europa Plus was banned from Azerbaijan’s national frequencies at the end of 2008, along with Western radio stations such as Voice of America (Wcd.coe.int, June 29, 2010). Baku tightened legal restrictions for foreign broadcasters in Azerbaijan, requiring that at least 75 percent of all private television and radio broadcast be in the Azerbaijani language. Additionally, any foreign radio station wanting to broadcast in Azerbaijan was required to sign a cooperation agreement with a local radio channel, for use of that channel’s national frequency. Sputnik Azerbaijan navigates these legal restrictions by broadcasting news in Azerbaijani—which will significantly extend this outlet’s public influence and outreach—and signing a cooperation agreement with Araz FM.
As it turns out, Sputnik Azerbaijan’s frequency partner in Baku, Araz FM, is owned by the family of one of President Ilham Aliyev’s top aides, Ali Hasanov (BBC–Azerbaijani service, June 24, 2014). This indicates that the operation of pro-Kremlin radio broadcasts in Azerbaijan must have received a “green light” from the top echelons of power in Baku.
In sum, the emergence of the pro-EEU Eurasian Movement in Azerbaijan alongside the growth of Russian propaganda directed at the country is no coincidence. The initiators of the Eurasian Movement see that Azerbaijani authorities are deeply unhappy with the country’s current relations with the West and that there is scope for manipulating these feeling with the help of a directed barrage of pro-Russian sentiment.
The Azerbaijani government is currently busy accusing Western supported/financed non-governmental organizations (NGO) in Azerbaijan of constituting a “fifth column,” which suits the interests of the Eurasian Movement in Baku quite well. It simultaneously plays to Moscow’s interests: the Kremlin evidently believes that this growing political vacuum left by the ejection of pro-Western influences can be filled by Russophile politicians and experts. Regarding Russian media propaganda, anti-Kremlin sentiment among the Azerbaijani public remains strong, but Baku’s deteriorating relations with the West and one-sided coverage in local media is damaging the West’s image as quickly as it is boosting Moscow’s profile (APA, June 16; Vestnik Kavkaza, June 22; Newsweek, August 2). So even though the Azerbaijani government and the public are reluctant to submit to Moscow’s political dominance, at the same time they are losing faith in the West’s willingness to counterbalance Russian power.
At present, the Azerbaijani authorities are using harsh rhetoric toward the West as a way to “pacify Russia,” while at the same time, Moscow deploys propaganda and supports pro-Russian political forces inside this South Caucasus republic. Such has been the case since the annexation of Crimea. But considering this arrangement’s inherent contradictions, it remains to be seen how long this kind of relationship can remain sustainable.
Read the whole story
· · · ·
Moscow has implemented another step toward improving and consolidating its conventional military force capabilities by creating an entirely new arm of service: the Aerospace Forces (Vozdushno Kosmicheskikh Sil—VKS). The Aerospace Forces became functional on August 1, concluding several years of planning by the top brass and senior Russian defense planners to merge the Aerospace Defense Forces with the Air Force. The roots of such reforms are not new; they are linked to military modernization and integrating existing commands while reflecting anxiety about possible surprise enemy air and space attacks against the state (TvZvezda, August 3).
On August 3, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu commented on the formation of the new arm of service. Shoigu justified this development by stating that it is “prompted by a shift in the center of gravity of the armed struggle toward the aerospace sphere.” The new structure was thus described as the “optimal option” for improving the country’s aerospace defense. Shoigu elaborated this, saying that the Aerospace Forces combines the Air Force (Voyenno-Vozdushnye Sily—VVS) with the (Vozdushno Kosmicheskaya Oborona—VKO). “Now the single command unites aviation, air defense and anti-missile defense troops, space forces and means of the armed forces,” Shoigu said, adding, “This makes it possible, in the first place, to concentrate in a single command the entire responsibility for formulating military and technical policy for the development of troops dealing with tasks in the aerospace sphere and, secondly, to raise the efficiency of their use through closer integration and, thirdly, to ensure the consistent development of the country’s aerospace defense” (TASS, August 3).
VVS commander, Colonel-General Viktor Bondarev, was appointed as the commander-in-chief of the VKS; Lieutenant-General Pavel Kurachenko as chief of the Main Staff and first deputy commander-in-chief of the VKS; and Lieutenant-General Alexander Golovko as its deputy commander-in-chief and commander of the Space Forces. “General command of aerospace defense will continue to be exercised by the General Staff and directly by the main command of the Aerospace Forces,” Shoigu said (TASS, August 3).
Moscow-based military analysts commented on the drivers behind creating the VKS and speculated on the overall merit of the move. Maxim Shepovalenko, an expert at the Center for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) said the VKS reflects lessons drawn following the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) intervention in Yugoslavia, in 1999. “Based on what we saw [then], air and space attacks are the first stage of any conflict, be they small, medium or large,” Shepovalenko said, adding that the “prime reason for the merger is to ensure a prompt response to any attack coming from the air or space with a streamlined and unified command.” Modern militaries, in his view, see air and space as seamless parts of the theater of warfare, and the United States, China and also Russia are working on systems capable of bringing war into space, which compels the development of new defensive strategies. On the other hand, Aleksandr Golts, in Yezhednevny Zhurnal, argued that the idea of such innovation had long been voiced, with Sergei Ivanov mooting the concept in 2006. Golts suggests the main “advance” would be the benefits for the generals receiving posts in the new structure (Yezhednevny Zhurnal, August 4; The Moscow Times, August 3).
The CAST analysis seems to be closer to the mark than the representation of the creation of the VKS as merely another example in a long line of Russian military musical chairs. The key to unpicking these elements lie in the reform in 2010–2011, which resulted in the formation of the VKO: establishing the context and parameters for the latest initiative, and revealing a critical conceptual difference alongside inter-service rivalries. Some of the features of the planning to form the VKO in this period bear similarity to recent statements by the defense ministry leadership. Indeed, in the spring of 2011, as VKO planning entered its final stages, the then–chief of the General Staff, Army-General Nikolai Makarov, said the new structure would serve as an umbrella covering Russia against attack by ballistic missiles, medium-range missiles and various cruise missile platforms; with this in mind, he promised the branch of service would receive S-400s and the S-500s, under development, to form the equipment basis for the VKO. In 2011, prior to formally creating the new VKO, speculation had mounted that the VVS could lose out in the reform. However, by December 1, 2011, with the new VKO up-and-running, it was clear that the VVS maintained its position as an arm (vid) of service, rather than as a branch (rod); but the relationship between the VVS and the VKO was left unclear. Moreover, sources close to the reform saw the VKO’s creation as a series of stages, with the first, in 2011–2016, unifying the Space Troops and Air Defense assets from various branches and arms of service (see EDM, November 1, 2011). This seems to have been completed ahead of schedule.
It is therefore, crucial to note that, unlike the earlier iteration of the move to unite air and space assets under a single command, President Vladimir Putin’s August 1 decree specifically establishes the Aerospace Forces (VKS) as a full-fledged arm (vid) of service, as opposed to a mere branch (rod) (such as the elite Airborne Forces). As such, this means the VKS will be afforded the same level of importance in its modernization and future procurement needs as the Army or Navy. However, since the VKS will be highly demanding in the area of high-technology assets, it is possible that the Army will emerge from its modernization as the “poor cousin” of the other service arms. Equally, the choice of Bondarev as its commander implies that the VVS has fought its service corner adequately and will retain influence in the decision-making and further refining of the VKS concept (TvZvezda, August 3).
Finally, the Russian military is no stranger to fearing a sudden surprise armed assault on the country led by an air campaign; the institutional and military cultural legacy of June 1941 is strong, and more recent Russian military analysis pays much attention to the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 as influencing defense planning. It appears, also, that the VKS is part of an effort to unite air and space into one concept, but this is far from new in Russian thinking. Nonetheless, the strategic message to other actors is abundantly clear: Moscow wants to send a signal that Russia is neither Serbia, nor Libya.
Read the whole story
· · · ·
Three major US defense firms were among the victims of an alleged hacking ring based in Ukraine that accessed and leaked press releases to co-conspirators who traded on the information before it became public.
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment