Sorting Out the Russian (Dis)Information: Parts I & II

Part I:
You think I know? I have some ideas, but it's a mystery to me. I'm just a citizen here. But let's try, shall we? We shall.

In continuation of my rambling exploration of the events surround President Obama's "secret letter" to the Kremlin about giving up the missile sites in Eastern Europe for Russia's assurance that Iran won't get long-range nuclear missiles...

Was Obama's letter leaked by U.S. officials in order to show off Obama's "smart diplomacy"? After all, this is the kind of thing liberal peacenik morons think is smart. Or was it leaked by Russian officials in order to show off what a dummy Obama is? By the way, from that Times article:

The officials who described the contents of the message requested anonymity because it has not been made public. While they said it did not offer a direct quid pro quo, the letter was intended to give Moscow an incentive to join the United States in a common front against Iran. Russia’s military, diplomatic and commercial ties to Tehran give it some influence there, but it has often resisted Washington’s hard line against Iran.

Shouldn't it be, "...give it some influence there, so it has often resisted..."?

And so the Russians both accepted and publicized the American weakness, and flatly rejected the offer. Now they announce (AP):

Russia is working to develop anti-satellite weapons to match efforts by other nations, a deputy defense minister was quoted as saying Thursday.

"Other nations," being, of course, the United States.

The Kremlin has criticized U.S. plans for space-based weapons, saying they could trigger a new arms race. Russia and China have pushed for an international agreement banning space weapons, but their proposals have been rejected by the United States.

You mean the Kremlin just wants peace? The Russians and Chinese just want peaceful co-existence, and it is only our belligerent American intransigence that causes them to build space weapons? Well, by all means, President Obama, de-weaponize! (Our liberals will actually say this. And they will say it like it's the most obvious thing in the world.)

Gen. Valentin Popovkin said Russia continues to oppose a space arms race but will respond to moves made by other countries, according to Russian news reports.

It's the Cold War all over again. We want peace, but the Americans... And our useful idiots, right on cue, will say... well, you know what they will say.

Part II:
Moving on to more complicated stuff. Mikhail Gorbachev (AP):

Mikhail Gorbachev says Vladimir Putin's United Russia party is similar to "the worst of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" and that Russia is today a country where the parliament and judiciary are not fully free.

Gorbachev also says the global economic crisis showed capitalism should be tempered with elements of the socialist system he played a critical role in sweeping away.

In an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday, some 20 years after Communism began unraveling on his watch, Gorbachev also said the moment was right for better relations between Russia and the U.S. And he called on the world community to head off an Iranian nuclear weapon not with confrontation but "a maximal dialogue."

If I were a Golitsyn conspiracy-theorist, and I'm trying not to be, this would really set me off.

First, you have a criticism of the current government. If I were looking at this through the eyes of someone who believes in the continuity of the regime from the USSR of 1991 to the Russian Federation of today, I might think that Gorbachev's criticism of Putin is calculated disinformation meant to reinforce the Western readers' notion that Gorbachev and Putin represent different periods in Russian history, wholly different regimes. Because what Gorbachev says here is a widely held belief anyway, having him say this does more good than harm. After all, how bad can it be if Gorbachev can tell an AP reporter in Moscow such a thing?

And doesn't Gorbachev represent a softening-- a moderate voice in Russia? One of the good guys? "Gorbachev also says the global economic crisis showed capitalism should be tempered with elements of the socialist system he played a critical role in sweeping away." Yea, moderate!

He played "a critical role" in "sweeping away" Soviet socialism! If I am a Golitsyn conspiracy theorist who believes that the "fall of the Soviet Union" was a carefully-orchestrated "perestroika deception" meant to deceive the West, Gorbachev's claim that "capitalism should be tempered" by socialism only reinforces my already rampant suspicion that the long-term strategic goal of the Soviet system is the "convergence" of all systems of the world into one system, of course controlled by the Russians and policed by the KGB.

And finally, we have an endorsement of the Obama plan for "the world community to head off an Iranian nuclear weapon not with confrontation but 'a maximal dialogue.'" You see? See? He's an enemy of Putin! A moderate! Oversaw the "downfall" of Communism. And even he's saying that "the moment [is] right for better relations between Russia and the U.S." So what's the problem?

I wonder if the average reader can detect my sarcasm. It's obvious to me, of course. I imagine my sarcastic voice being some agreeable British chap, smart but shallow, a sort of straight-man interlocutor parrying the wilder claims of his more unstable partner but unable to deviate from popular clichés. He's intrigued, but exasperated; intellectual, but chummy; and ambitious, but unimportant.

And his friend the Golitsyn conspiracy theorist tells him, "Listen here: what has Gorbachev been doing for the past 20 years? He stepped down, voluntarily, as head of the party. Set up something called 'the Gorbachev Insitute' where he promotes 'global solutions to global problems,' blah, blah, blah. Basically he uses his carefully crafted image as a 'reformer within the Soviet Union' as a platform to promote the UN-style agenda of weakening nationalist interests and strengths toward the goal of a universal governorship that would of course be controlled by Russia and China. And what issue does he use to promote that agenda? Why, global warming, of course! The favorite rallying cry of the internationalists and the trans-nationalists. The favorite weapon of the Communist East against the Capitalist West-- weaken your economy, agree to 'global emissions standards,'-- nothing less than the future of the planet is at stake!" Reuters:

"I'm sorry the United States has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol," Gorbachev said, referring to the international accord to reduce emissions of gases that contribute to global warming.

"I bet you are," says Golitsyn conspiracy theory guy. "I bet you are."

Review: The Deception Game

The Deception Game is the first book Ladislav Bittman wrote after his defection. He was the deputy chief of Czechoslovakia's Department D, or Disinformation department, but defected shortly after the Soviet invasion in 1968.

Before that time, the Czechoslovakian intelligence service was built largely on the same model as Soviet intelligence, as were the other Soviet-bloc intelligence services. The Soviet-bloc intelligence services were subordinated to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the KGB. The disinformation departments, too, were built on the Soviet model (becoming more and more important in the late 50s and getting stronger in the 60s). The Czech department’s objectives were subordinated to Moscow to such an extent that it often carried on operations in countries where Czechoslovakia had no strategic interest. They would do this either because the developing country that was the theater of disinformation operations was not friendly toward the Soviet Union (but naively friendly toward Soviet-bloc countries), or to keep the Soviet Union's hands off of particularly weighty efforts of disinformation, forgery, or black propaganda.

Thus Bittman's account of his country's disinformation operations applies to the Soviet Union and its satellites as well. However, Czechoslovakia did have a particularly large and effective department, if Bittman's estimates are to be taken seriously.

The book consists of a brief account of the author's origins, education, career and defection; the course of Czech politics and Soviet control over his career; the nature and extent of the objectives of Czechoslovakian disinformation; the relationship of the disinformation department to the rest of the Czech intelligence service and to the Soviet Union's intelligence agencies; and very many specific example of disinformation operations consisting of a wide range of methods and approaches.

Books like this one are a necessary complement to accounts such as The Mitrokhin Archive (The Sword and the Shield and The World Was Going Our Way) and general impressions of espionage: information-stealing and illegal agents of influence embedded in foreign circles. That's because much of what Soviet-bloc disinformation departments did (and probably still do to some extent) is mundane and simple, relying upon pre-existing sentiment in the target countries as well as a cumulative effect, while maintaining plausible deniability and effective distance. Scientists stealing nuclear secrets, Kim Philby passing on top secret documents, and James Bond-style operations get all the glory, but in the long run it's the weight of clever imitations and subtle manipulations that wins Communism and socialism its power and influence.

On the other hand, The Deception Game is even-handed. Unlike Yuri Bezmenov (aka Tomas Schuman), who was involved in very much the same type of work as this author, albeit at a lower level, Bittman does not overstate the influence of Soviet-bloc disinformation operations in the world and the United States. For instance, he demonstrates that there is considerable distance between the New Left in the U.S. and Soviet control and indoctrination. Often he speaks of the Soviet Union trying to harness and control movements in the U.S. but being unable to do so. And ultimately he concludes that there is nearly as much danger in blaming all of America's problems and unrest on the Soviet Union as there is in blaming all of the world's problems on the U.S. It is folly to counter the latter with the former.

As with all books on this subject, even though the Soviet Union as such has fallen, it is still relevant. First, more practically because the power structure of the KGB is still intact and in power in Russia and still exerts itself in this way. Second, because the disinformation and active measures described by Bittman are not particular to a time and place, but are rather phenomena essential to the manifestation of socialist and Communist ideology, which is far from dead.

Translation: Obama is a Pushover

November (DPA):

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned on November 5 [the day after Obama was elected President] that Russia would deploy semi-ballistic missiles to its Baltic Sea enclave of Kaliningrad, bordering NATO members Poland and Lithuania, if US plans [to build missile shields in the sovereign nations and NATO ally countries of Poland and the Czech Republic] went ahead.

OK, clear enough, right? We saw this all during the Cold War. This is simple. We make a move that threatens their hegemony and power, and they make a counter-move to threaten us. Your move, O.

Putin added [later in November] that Russia was hoping for "more constructive" negotiations on a key nuclear arms treaty set to expire next year.

The comments came as Medvedev eased his tone, saying at an Asia- Pacific forum in Peru that he was open to compromise with the new US administration.

Translation: we know that Obama is a pushover.

"Dialogue is possible, a change of position is possible," Medvedev was quoted by news agency Interfax as saying in Lima, where current US President George W Bush was also in attendance. Obama has shown signs he may even rescind the shield plans, Medvedev said.

Obama and his advisors have not staked out a position on the missile defence issue ever since a Polish statement was released stating that the matter had been decided.

Translation: The Russians know Obama is a pushover. So far, Obama has voted "present" on this, even while our NATO allies who are threatened by Russia's aggressive tendencies call out for our unwavering support.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in November (AFP):

"Our concerns can only be removed by one thing -- the renunciation of plans for unilateral establishment of a missile defense system and an agreement to work together from scratch," he said.

Translation: We will not back down. The Sovet Un... err, Russian Federation does not back down. We know that Obama is a pushover and will gladly back down.

From Interfax, "U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns visited Moscow...":

Q. U.S. President Barack Obama and later U.S. Vice-President Joseph Biden said that it was time to push a “reset button” in relations with Russia. Could you be more specific as to what the new U.S. administration might be actually implying by saying that relations with Russia should be “reset” and what do you think will change in Washington’s policy towards Russia?

A. First, I am very happy to be back in Moscow.

Translation: The Russians treat me very, very well.

But seriously, you should read that interview. Burns seems to be a pliant public servant, which isn't always a great thing, especially when he is controlled by an administration of useful idiots. But Bush 'looked into Putin's eyes and saw the face of an angel' or something, so it seems the Russians managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the previous administration too, despite all this talk of "new directions" and "working together to push the reset button" or whatever the current vapidity is.

Now we see the fruition of this talk: "Obama 'ready to drop shield plans for Russian help on Iran'" (Novosti):

Washington has told Moscow that Russian help in resolving Iran's nuclear program would make its missile shield plans for Europe unnecessary, a Russian daily said on Monday, citing White House sources.

Well that's weird. Sure we said before that the missile shields were about Iran and North Korea in addition to NATO defense against Russia, but everyone in the intelligence community knew what it really was: Hey, Russia, we're watching you. It turns out it had nothing to do with Russia after all! It was about Iran! In fact, if you can believe it, Russia and the United States are working together against Iran! For real! What did you think this was about?

Next day, March 3rd (AFP):

The US could rethink its plans to site a missile defense shield in eastern Europe, which have been strongly opposed by Russia, by contending such a defense system was no longer necessary in exchange for Moscow's help with Iran, the Times said.

At least that's what we were saying yesterday.

The overture was rebuffed Tuesday by Medvedev, who said it was "not productive" to link talks over the US missile defense system with Iran's suspected nuclear program.

Translation: Your missile shield has nothing to do with our Iranian nuclear program... I mean the Iranian nuclear program.

October 2007 (BBC):

Iran wants Russian help in its dispute with the West over its nuclear aims.

Up to now Moscow has blocked any new UN sanctions, saying it wants to enable the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, to work with Iran on clearing up outstanding issues.

But Moscow is seeking Iranian compromise over the issue, says the BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran.

Not good enough? What about this?

The Russian president said Moscow had an interest in a "strong Iran" and that he wanted deeper ties with the country, state television reported.

Now we're supposed to believe that for dumping some missile shields, which we will do eagerly under Obama, Russia is going to cut its "strong ties" with Iran?

More here and here. Russia and Iran are strategic allies. Hence Medvedev's response:

"If we are to speak about some sort of exchange, the question has not been presented in such a way, because it is not productive," Medvedev said during a trip to Spain Tuesday.

But he acknowledged: "Our American partners are ready to discuss this problem. This is already good."

Translation: Obama is a pushover. We have him making concessions, offering ridiculous trades giving up missile shields for "help" in maybe-sorta-putting pressure on the Iranians, etc. We can get him to give up the missile sites and maintain our strategic relationship with Iran. We can weaken the United States on both fronts. We can do it and we will. So why would we make concessions?

Asked about it in Jerusalem, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the missile defense system "has always been intended to deter any missile that might come from Iran."

Oh really? Here's an April 2008 article from the super liberal Der Spiegel:

Rice had traveled to Warsaw to sign a treaty for the stationing of interceptor missiles in Poland, a deal that had been in the works for years. In the future, they could be used to intercept warheads launched against the US by rogue states in the Middle East. Of course, Moscow has argued that the missile shield could also be used against Russia. "Poland is now a target of our missiles," one Russian general hissed not long ago after the Polish and Americans reached an agreement. But the country, a young member of the European Union, is determined to remain undeterred. "No one can dictate to Poland what it should do," Kaczynski told his people on Tuesday evening. "That's in the past."

For Poland, nestled as it is between the Oder and Bug rivers, the missile shield has far more than just military significance. Even 19 years after the disappearance of the Iron Curtain, 11 years after it became a member of NATO and four years after its EU accession, Warsaw still feels the need to demonstrate its independence against the old hegemony of Moscow. Russia's invasion of Georgia in recent days, following Georgia's strike on its breakaway province of South Ossetia, has only served to strengthen Polish fears. Prior to the war, a steady majority of up to 80 percent of Poles opposed the missile shield according to public opinion polls. In the past week, however, the polls have swung the other way, with 50 to 65 percent now expressing their support for the shield. Polls show that 65 percent of Poles are afraid of Russia, whereas barely 20 percent are worried about Iran and North Korea.

Or we could go back to May 2007 (Reuters):

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State John Rood came to Warsaw to discuss placing 10 interceptor rockets in Poland aimed at protecting against missile attacks from what Washington calls rogue states such as Iran or North Korea.

"There is still a lot to discuss but after today's talks I am very optimistic that we will come to a conclusion," Rood told a news conference.

The plan has drawn strong criticism from Russia, which sees it as a threat to its national security.

"Our opposition is known," President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday at a news conference in Luxembourg.

"We don't believe that it could be about missiles of North Korea or Iran -- they won't have them in any case for 10 to 15 years."

So the Russians see it as Russian vs. American hegemony, the Polish see it as being about the Russians, and only officially do we Americans talk about it being for Iran and North Korea. It was, is, and always will be about Russian aggression and ambition. Are those countries threats to us (and to Russia)? Yes. But the idea that Russia is our ally in building defenses against the aggression of rogue states is farcical. Russia is a rogue state.

So this new "dialogue," or whatever they are calling it, is not encouraging. Here's former and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in February:

NATO has agreed to a ballistic missile defense that would protect against a launch from Iran. The Czech Republic will host a radar for the system, with the missiles based in Poland.

Russia adamantly has opposed the system.

"I told the Russians a year ago that if there were no Iranian missile program, there would be no need for the missile sites," Gates said.

This is a new narrative. If Gates did say that, it was more about pointing to Russia's cooperation with Iran as another reason why the missile sites were needed. Obviously he didn't mean, Yea, we'll just get rid of the Iranian nuclear program and then we'll be set here. Such a scenario is ludicrous. But that's exactly what we're being sold now.

On April 2, Obama and Medvedev will meet in London, where in November 2006 an ex-Russian FSB officer and current British citizen who spoke out against Russian abuses, Alexander Litvinenko, was murdered by Russian agents using polonium-210. This assassination was carried out in full accord with Russian law. The Western world, afraid of offending an "ally," has done nothing to reproach Putin's criminal government.

[Some links from Jake Tapper's blog.]

Rubin on Cohen

Michael Rubin: Roger Cohen, Useful Idiot

I was traveling for lectures last week, and so am only catching up on my reading now. I came across this column by the New York Times's Roger Cohen entitled "What Iran's Jews Say" and his defense of it, here. What to say? I'm familiar with the synagogue and attended it when I lived in Isfahan. I chatted with some of the university-aged students who had taken shelter in an attached guesthouse because, as Jews, they were beat up in the university dormitories. Men and women both referred to the Jews' representative in the Parliament as a flunky for the regime, and would not discuss problems or issues when he was around. Several would say one thing in the synagogue, but when we went to parks on took walks through the city, they would bend over backwards to make clear that they cannot talk freely in the synagogue since the walls have ears. The same sentiment was expressed at synagogues in Tehran and Shiraz. Cohen, however, talks to him as the authority and takes his word that he is not a quisling. True, Jews are better of in Iran than in many neighboring countries, but there is a reason why their number has dropped by 80% over the last three decades. Cohen simply appears on a propaganda tour; parachuting in, an eager recepticle for his regime minders. It should not surprise that his column now graces the pages of the regime's mouth piece, The Tehran Times.

You'd think after the Grey Lady would have learned her lesson after, a few years ago, the New York Times correspondent visited Tehran and quoted a University of Tehran professor talking about domestic protests. The correspondent was simply unaware that the man he quoted was known to every academic who went into Iran as the person in charge of 'minding' foreign visitors to Iran.

They never learn.

I-Rainy Days

For all the talk of 'we're willing to negotiate, we aren't cowboy bullies like the ignorant hick Bush, an opened hand is better than a clenched fist,' etc. that took up the entirety of the very small amount of time that was spent discussing foreign policy during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, the lack of attention paid to this item is shameful:

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is "Doubtful" That Iran will respond to offers of engagement, a senior State Department official said on Monday.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Clinton had told her counterpart from the United Arab Emirates that the United States was under "No illusion" Over Iran. "She (Clinton) said she is doubtful that Iran will respond to any kind of engagement and opening the hand out and reaching out to them," Said the official, who was speaking on the sidelines of an international donors conference for Gaza where Clinton held a series of bilateral meetings. (Reuters)

Of course it was published by Israel News. Why is it that so many news stories concerning international events that affect the United States are covered not by U.S. papers and news outlets, but by the Times UK and other foreign English-language papers?

By the way, Bush officials met with their Iranian counterparts 28 times. But hey, why let facts spoil a convenient narrative?

Meanwhile, Iran likely has enough material to make a nuclear weapon, Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen told CNN's John King Sunday. There's nothing else of note in that blurb, though CNN mentioning it at all is noteworthy. The comments are interesting too:

These hawkish pigs should leave Iran alone, and get out of Iraq and Iran.

If any country should have to destroy its nuclear arsenal, it shourld be the Neo-Nazis in Israel.

They're the source of war crimes, bloodshed and the nurder of millions of women and children.

Yes, those Jewish neo-Nazis, aggressively withdrawing from Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza, leaving themselves with a massive plot of land about the size of your neighborhood Costco.

The same day Robert gates says iran DOE NOT have nuclear tech. CNN and the fascist douche bags say iran does. Who is trying to spin out a war cnn?

CNN trying to spin a war? Someone doesn't watch the same CNN I do.

More one sided stories from CNN, run by zionists.

Enough said.

I have "stuff" to make an apple pie, but it doesn't mean I'm going to do it. In fact, I probably don't even like apple pie.

Ha! Fun analogy. Let's continue it, shall we? All your life, you have screamed and shouted about how you want to have pie in your stomach! It is even written on your birth certificate. You tell all your kids about how some day, you will all have pie in your stomachs! Finally you assemble all the ingredients for pie-making. Will you not make a pie?

IDIOT! Iran's stated goal is the destruction of Israel. A nuclear weapon not only gives Iran massive leverage, it would allow them to destroy Israel if it chose to do so. So they're assembling the ingredients for nuke-making, and they're not going to make a nuke? Who are these people, and how can they possibly justify thinking this way?

Ok, here are the facts:

1. Iran will eventually, if not already, have nuclear capability.

2. There is nothing that the U.S. or the rest of the world can do about this.

3. There is no justifications for keeping Iran from accuriring nucldear technology and use of nuclear energy.

OK, here are the facts:

1. Iran has a shitload of oil.

2. Nevertheless, Iran imports a shitload of gasoline.

3. If Iran was worried about energy production, they could build some damn refineries.

4. Thus, their acquisition of nuclear material has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear energy and everything to do with their desire to control the Middle East and ultimately destroy Israel.