A Russian flag flies atop the Consulate General of the Russian Federation in Seattle, Washington, U.S., March 26, 2018. REUTERS/Lindsey Wasson/File Photo
Reuters: Fewer Russian spies in U.S. but getting harder to track
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. decision to expel 60 alleged spies is unlikely to cripple Russian spying in the United States because others have wormed and hacked their way into American companies, schools, and even the government, current and former U.S. officials said.
Moscow’s spy services still use the cover of embassies and consulates, as Washington does. But they also recruit Russian emigres, establish front companies, dispatch short-term travelers to the United States, recruit Americans, and penetrate computer networks, the officials said.
“Russia used to have one way of doing things. Now, Putin is - let a thousand flowers bloom,” a former senior U.S. official said in a recent interview, describing Moscow’s move to a more multifaceted approach under President Vladimir Putin, a former Soviet spy himself.
The FBI follows the movements and monitors the communications of suspected foreign spies, but the increased Russian presence and the advent of commercially available encrypted communications are an added challenge to the FBI’s counter-espionage force, said the officials, some of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive topic.
Read more ....
WNU editor: According to the above report by Reuters .... a senior U.S. official said there were “well over” 100 Russian spies posing as diplomats in the United States before the expulsion order. Also .... The actual number varies over time, but “it averages more like 150 or so,” the official said.
17 comments:
But all nations do it. All nations collect intelligence on other nations and they sue spies to do it, along with other means. How many CIA agents do you think are in Russia? How about Ukraine? or all over Europe? A few of them are probably official, many are under diplomatic cover and many others are under non-official cover, and there are the contractors and paid agents. There are also CIA operatives running covert operations, which are almost always in violation of the sovereignty of the nations targeted by those operations. The British intelligence services have even a much longer history of doing such things than does the CIA. In fact, the CIA learned it from the British.
All of this hysteria against Russia has about as much truth to it as did Saddam Hussein's WMD in 2003.
Is this a true or false question?
Bush lied
Intel here did not and indictment
Show russkies messing with us
The FBI has bungled many domestic cases where a future criminal all but confessed to the FBI, yet the FBI couldn't be roused from its stupor. Omar Mateen is in the news today. Cruz was brought to the FBI's attention by name yet the FBI said they couldn't find him so case closed. The Las Vegas shooting has the look and feel of another FBI botched job or coverup.
What chance does the FBI have of finding trained spies?
Inspector Clueseau would be embarrassed to be in the FBI.
"Bush lied." The intelligence turned out to be wrong. As to whether or not someone deliberately mislead, perhaps. More likely intel turned out to be wrong. As I figured out long before the Iraq war these are a combination of incompetent boobs and political hacks. I've already explained how this could have been fixed.
Had someone lied, given the animosity towards GWB and the now toward the Iraq war in general, it'd be very easy to prosecute someone. This has not been done. To do so risks wrecking the careful Bush lied narrative.
Given the track record, it'd be prudent to be a bit more skeptical about what we are being told. This is especially so when the stakes are so high. As has been said, fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Given the extreme actions taken, not enough evidence has been presented to justify this.
22 nations agree on russian spying and meddlding...but you side with Russia....wow
And yes, the FBI 'is not aways right etc. That said, no govt agency here or elsewhere is...does that mean one does away with the nation's best investigative force? To dismiss the FBI seems the thing to do if it involves Russia or Trump but they are fine outfit when they catch would be terrorists.. in sum: I am now suspicious of those who so readily dismiss our FBI and shower Russia with love
ps: yes we spy too. Of course. But does that mean it is ok for Russia to involve itself in our elections and spy and we should ignore? THAT IS PLAIN STUPID ARGUEMENT
Donald Trump’s deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates was in direct communication with a person he knew was a Russian spy in the weeks ahead of the 2016 election, according to court documents filed by special counsel Robert Mueller Tuesday.
The documents reveal Gates was in contact with a former officer in Russian military intelligence in the months leading up to Trump’s win.
sure...and we have our spies in direct contact with Putin
"A former Russian spy and his daughter may have first come into contact with a military-grade nerve agent at the front door of their home, U.K. police said Wednesday."
ah,military grade. probably the former spy reneged on a poker loss and the killer wanted to get even, using stuff he bought at Walmart
Fred,
No one is showering Russia with love and no one is siding with Russia. Some are asking questions of entities that don't exactly have a stellar record.
The actions taken and proposed have the act of exacerbating Cold War 2 and stoking tensions further taking us down a path that would lead to hot war. This is a war that it is going to be problematic for us to win and even if we can win it will be extremely costly in terms of lives lost, monetary loss, and property damage. Before carrying us down that road more evidence needs to be provided. Furthermore given the numerous mistakes US Intelligence has made over the years and in some instances may not have even been truthful. There needs to be a good reason for this and saving HRC's or the political careers of others simply does not rise to this level.
Now after the proper investigation, if such actions as are currently being taken needed to be taken, we could have done so at this time. With the rush and as others have pointed out something isn't right. As to why, I think it is a case of ideological blindness where people draw the conclusions they want no matter what.
When we investigate a crime we look for motive and opportunity. Putin lacked motive, at this time, being in the midst of an election and the World Cup coming up. Did he have opportunity. Perhaps but with the intense scrutiny he and his inner circle are under it would have been difficult. Folks who would have motive would be Putin's enemies, stupid people in the Russian government acting outside of official orders, eastern bloc or other former Soviet Republic leaders seeking to manipulate us, or folks in the "west" looking to further inflame the new Cold War. As I have discussed elsewhere, the most likely culprits seem to be Putin's enemies or stupid people acting on their own within Russia and no they did not get this from Wal-Mart. To assume that Russia and only Russia can make this stuff would be rather naïve and dangerous.
As for 22 countries, at last check there are 195 in the world. What is there stance on this? The 22 aren't even the biggest. Furthermore, as others have pointed out here, the responses of some of these who have expelled diplomats seems to be token responses as though someone is trying to walk a tightrope between opposing sides. As such, it appears the support for these actions may not be what the supporters have led themselves into believing it is. This is a very dangerous situation as it may lead certain leaders into taking actions based upon support they think they have that they don't really have. To express skepticism does not mean one sides with Putin. These are the arguments one resorts to when they are losing an argument.
The Robert Gates issue is a separate case entirely. I find that when someone changes the subject on something it is because they are losing an argument and need to distract. What some may not understand or perhaps they do but are blinded by ideology is that there was a careful diplomatic effort that might have ended Cold War 2 or at least eased tensions that had taken many months if not years to put together. Unfortunately this diplomatic effort has essentially been destroyed essentially for partisan political reasons by petty losers.
Thanks for the response
I will stand by what I have said
Not a matter of how many nations in the world but rather which ones and where they are
Putin did what putin types do but now he has brought a major blowback for his fifedom
"Not a matter of how many nations but rather which ones and where they are." So you're proposing to focus on support from less significant nations in favor of lack of support from more important nations. That's not exactly a way to run a najor world power.
"...but now he has brought major blowback for his fiefdom." America and the UK have brought major blowback to themselves as well for these rash and impulsive actions. Furthermore outside of the UK and America the support of the other countries seems tepid st best and once the costs of this start to bear fruit America and the UK are likely to find they don't have the support they thought they did. Had they demonstrated sane and sober thought processes, devoted the proper resources, and taken the time to conduct a proper and thorough investigation such support could have possibly been obtained.
Key European democratic nations but you support Russia
Sorry but I figure you for a comrade
Fred,
Just because someone does not support a policy does not mean they support Russia. Just as opposition to the Iraq war which I supported (a mistake) does not mean one was pro-Saddam. It means they have a different opinion regarding the proper path forward.
Now having lost your argument based on its merits, you must now try and insult me by calling me "comrade." Russia has largely rejected Communism. Either your understanding of the workd has always been limited or your blindness to an ideolgy has limited your ability to properly examine the available evidence.
Besides you will find these "key European democratic nations" who really aren't likely "key" to anything don't support the positions of the US and the UK once risks and costs start to be felt. Those who make rash and impulsive decisions seldom think through the consequences of what they are doing or take the time to examine the world as it is rather than how they want it to be.
US and "western" policies are replete with these examples. Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, now this situation and I could go on. Those with poor track records should not be so blindly trusted. Thus far sufficient evidence to support the current actions given the huge risks involved for what seems like little gain potential simply has not bern presented.
Many are questioning this in the US and western Europe are questioning this. To resort to petty insults such as "comrade" appears indicative of a small mind at work.
If you want to fight Russia, GO STRAP IT ON!! Ukraine and Poland will gladly take some gullible American cannon fodder.
I'd suggest the Ronald Reagan approach. While the rhetoric was often heated, once it came time to negotiate, they were very respectful.
Something like expelling diplomats can likely be undone and both sides can still step down from this. On the other hand, a sleight like not congratulating the Russian president would likely have not been forgotten and diplomatic doors that may still be open or who have the potential to be opened would likely have been bolted shut forever.
what is not forgotten: Trump did not mention gas or spying to Putin and that was fully noted by tv pundits...no one will step down for a long long time and blowback now a tornado...but keep siding with Russia
Fred,
The reason Trump may not have mentioned gas or spying to Putin is because it is not certain how much he had to do with the gas or the alleged spying. Understanding that potential diplomatic channels need to be kept open to jump to rash conclusions or to speak rashly and impulsively would not be a good idea. HRC had the tendency to do this. For example, when she likened Putin to Hitler. This alone is enough to exclude her or the tv pundits from being qualified to be POTUS. To hold such a position as POTUS, one needs to also be able to practice statesmanship. Ronald Regean did this extremely well.
"... no one will step down for a long time and blowback now like a tornado..." The only ones I know of who should step down are the ones who leaked the phone call between Trump and Putin. Essentially these people undermined US national security entirely partisan political purposes.
"...'blowback now a tornado." I agree entirely, however, the blowback will be against us/America. Other than for the US and the UK there seems to be little enthusiasm for these actions. It is as though some are trying to walk a tightrope and split the middle. Once the costs start to be felt, they will not give you what you want. Additionally Western Europe is heavily dependent upon Russian oil and gas, to switch over to process American LNG would costs billions and take years, America is a declining power, the EU was founded to be and is a strategic competitor of America, Russia has been a major power in Europe and Asia for centuries, likely will be for centuries more, and when these factors are added together countries like Germany, France, and others who make up the EU simply aren't going to give you what you want. So the analysis is correct, "blowback now a tornado" against America and its interests.
Stupid is as stupid does. Some just never learn from their mistakes.
"...but keep siding with Russia." I disagree with certain policies of the US government. The goal is to enhance our national security and grow our economy. Myself and many Americans believe there is a better way forward. This does not mean we side with another country. By the context it appears you are questioning my patriotism or commitment to America. Having lost your argument you must now resort to tired old insults. To this I would say it is never advisable to put blind faith in people and institutions who have a track record of indicating that there is good reason to be skeptical of what they tell us.
"There is no serious person out there who would suggest that you could even rig America's elections, in part because they are so decentralized. There is no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that there are instances that that could happen this time,"
- President Barack Obumble ( Oktober 1916 )
Post a Comment