Wednesday, September 27, 2017

ZAPAD Scenario leaked

With much wild speculation about our Zapad 17 exercise, your Prez decided to ease tension and reveal the scenario in truth so you'd know, firstly that Kremlin isn't going to use it as a cover to invade you and, secondly (although in truth this probably shouldn't ease tension) the thinking that goes on in the Kremlin

Over arching scenario

Faced with rising social discontent caused by decades of economic misery in the country since the collapse of the USSR and fearing the prospect of a colorless revolution as citizens demand the prosperity enjoyed by Russian citizens and their mighty Rouble (by 2019 the reserve currency of the global economy), the leaders of a fictional country that just happens to exist where the Baltic countries currently do, form a Russophobic fascist junta.

This junta passes a series of laws which cause social panic.  Children under the age of 9 are forced to be gay, people are allowed to marry pets and, most controversially of all, minority Russian children are forcibly removed from their parents to be sold to gay couples in San Francisco who wish to adopt them into their sodomite lifestyle.  Reports of genocide soon follow and evidence of child crucifixion is reported by the ever-releable "news" outlet, RT.

despite these draconian measures, Baltic citizens of all types continue to protest to join Russia leading the government stage a series of armed false-flag provocations on the soil of their entirely peaceful, massively prosperous, heavily armed nuclear neighbour - Russia.  The intelligence services of Russia, despite being aware of this threat to both the state and our "compatriots abroad", are too incompetent to prevent these attacks and are unable to provide any proof, especially that which implicates the USA in its never-ending plot to break Russia and make our children gay.

Battle Commences

Russian "defence" forces, alongside their "willing Belarusian comrades", begin to engage in vicious fire fights on Russian territory with unmarked soldiers who speak with American accents whom the Pentagon insists are "volunteers" or who, in the case of death or capture, "resigned from the US Army yesterday".

Seeing an opportunity caused by the instability, a fictional country that just happens to exist where Poland currently is, sees a chance to re-create its medieval empire by conquering the rich economic gold mine that is 21st century Belarus.  The US sees a chance to profit from making Russian kids gay so covertly assist with provocations which our intelligence services are again too stupid to find any proof we could ask an anti-imperialist paper like the Guardian or Le Mond to publish.

The US enters

Staging a color revolution (ironically like the Red Revolution of 1917) in Minsk, these paid protesters of the CIA (again, proof not offered) cause the Polish military alongside their US colleagues, to invade Belarus to assist them.  This leads to heavy conventional fighting and the legitimate government of Belarus, confident that when the fighting is done Russian troops will peacefully withdraw back to Russia immediately, appeals to the Kremlin for help.

Heavy conventional fighting follows but is indecisive.  Seeking a quick way to end the conflict with minimal loss of life and confident the rest of the world will fully understand and support our reasons, the Kremlin de-escalates the situation with a nuclear strike on Warsaw (yes, we view a nuclear weapon exchange as potentially de-escalatory).

Russia calms things down

This leads to the fall of the fascist junta, transparent elections in Baltic region with pro-Kremlin parties victorious, the end of NATO as we supply undeniable proof of US complicity in trying to break Russia with staged revolutions, world approval at our actions and all the post Soviet states seeing the error of the ways and asking to re-join Russia.

The exercise concludes with vodka and medals.

See. We didn't use it as a cover to invade and there is no reason to stress that we've lost our fucking minds either.


Friday, September 22, 2017

Facebook - We fear it so we did it to the USA.

It will come as no surprise to learn, for those that somehow do not already know, that Kremlin controls Russian social media very tightly.  You can be sent to jail for liking a social media post.  If you have a blog that gets more then 3,000 readers per day, you need to register with Big Brother.  The government can shut down any website, for any reason, at any time.  We also run a large, complex and expensive troll operation designed to ensure conversation on the internet in Russia match's the Kremlin's views and those who we fear in the west are harassed.

It therefore stands to reason that we see social media as an important tool for influencing public opinion and for shaping the way people act.  Either that or we have nothing better to spend our money on when oil is $50 and our economy is a disaster.

Not one self-described Russia expert who claims that if the Kremlin did anything on Facebook it had no effect on the US elections (although sadly for this argument the Kremlin has now denied doing anything)  can explain why the Kremlin fears it so much being done to them.

If it would have no effect in the USA, why work so hard on preventing it from happening in Russia? Why have a huge troll farm shaping internet discussion if it's not important? Are Russian security services idiots who have given no thought to preventing regime change?  These questions answer themselves.

Taking our obsessive control of Russian social media another very small, yet logical step further, it stands to reason we view the US Government’s complete lack of control over what is posted on Facebook & Twitter with some surprise.  Given also our public statements that US wishes to overthrow the Russian government, it also presents us with an opportunity.  An opportunity, I have explained, we would never give to the USA because we understand and fear the consequences.

Now consider the expense from a historical perspective.  While it's not intended to be a direct comparison* to today's events, in the 80s we paid Aldrich Ames $4.6 million (in 1980s dollars) for what was then the most serious breach in US intelligence history.  A breach that allowed us to roll up and kill a large number of US spies operating in Russia.  At around the same time and into the 90s we paid Robert Hanssen $1.4 million and more in diamonds for information that cost the US billions to fix.  Both of these took years and the monies mentioned do not involve our own costs behind the scenes.  The idea of someone in the KGB saying to Andropov "for a fraction of this amount we will one day be able to potentially reach millions of US voters and cause them to act in ways against their interest".  He'd have told them not to turn up to work drunk again. 

Flash forward to today and picture us being told we could do precisely what was beyond our dreams back then. Being told we could influence 10s of millions of US voters for $100,000 over two years. That’s $4,166 a month.  It’s peanuts.

The decision, when compared to how much thought went into the above operations, was surely quick. Basically you can easily picture after at most a few moments thought the decision being, "do it. it's cheap, deniable, disproportionately effective and the sort of thing we fear being done to us"*.

Clearly, it is needed to be stated that this didn't give you Trump all by itself. (why oh why is that necessary?) but as wise Russia watchers have commented, we only need to shift opinion 1% to have a major effect. 

In short, we had:

Motive – Our clear and publicly stated hatred of Hillary
Means – It was, in geopolitical terms, incredibly cheap
Opportunity – We do our best to prevent it in Russia yet it’s easy to do in the USA.

It’s not complicated and, sadly for a few sensitive academic egos, you don’t need to be a Russia expert to understand it nor understand it.

*Presidential note. After some interesting feedback, these two points were clarified after the original post.

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Questions Reporters are afraid to ask me

Here is a set of question no reporter will ask me and expect to live.


1). On the 17th of October 2014 you said oil prices would not remain low for long. They have remained below those levels ever since then. Why was your prediction so wrong?

2).  You once publicly accused Hilary Clinton of orchestrating the Bolotnya protests to overthrow you. Do you have any proof (bank transfers to protesters, intercepted emails & phone calls and so forth) that support this contentious claim which could be given to the world’s journalists, or were you lying?

3) At the Valdai Forum in 2014 you said that the US electoral college system is not democratic.  As this system produced a man who has consistently praised you as the next US President, were you wrong about US democracy all along?

4) When Obama leaves and is replaced by the in-coming US President who wants to have better relations with Russia and has praised you, who will you blame for the next political murder in Russia?

5) On April 16th 2015 you said "I will say this clearly: There are no Russian troops in Ukraine'. On 17 December 2015 you said there were Russian troops in Ukraine. Why did you lie?

6) The "separatists" and "rebels",  accompanied by regular Russian troops you have admitted are there, occupy a part of eastern Ukraine that shares a border with Russia. If Russia is not supplying them with anything, how come after more than 2.5 years of fighting, they never run out of parts, fuel, weapons, ammunition or bodies?

7) When you admitted the presence of Russian troops in the Donbass (that you had originally denied), you said that the presence of Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine is not the same thing as the presence of Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine. What is the word used to describe the presence of an foreign army's troops carrying out hostile operations on a country's soil without permission of that country's legitimate government?

8) On the 4th of March 2014 you specifically denied the so-called little green men were Russian soldiers. On the 10th of March 2015 you admitted they were. Why did you lie?

9). If, in answering the above question, you claim the US also lied about WMD in Iraq, why is your only defense to say that the US lies so it's ok for Russia to lie?

10) On 2nd September 2015 your personal spokesman denied Russia was sending aircraft to Syria.  On the 30th of September your aircraft started bombing Syria. Did Peskov lie or was he just wrong?

11) On 18 February MSF stated they will no longer share the locations of their hospitals with the Russian military as they believe you deliberately attack them. Why have so many hospitals been placed underneath Russian bombs?

12) On March 21 2016 you said you had "achieved your objectives" and were withdrawing the main part of your forces from Syria. Your forces still there in the same, if not greater, numbers. Were you lying?

13)  In September, your forces (which had achieved their mission and been withdrawn in March) were accused of bombing a humanitarian aid convoy.  Russian forces claimed it may have spontaneously combusted or been bombed by the USA.  In an apparent coincidence, your forces were filming the event but suddenly stopped filming just after the bombing/spontaneous combustion.  Why?

14) You have often mentioned that Russia needs to improve it's corruption level & ease of doing business to reverse capital flight. Russia is currently the 119th most corrupt country in the world & capital flight since this article is hundreds of billions. Why have you failed?

15) Why is there such a strong correlation between journalists who annoy you and them ending up dead of unnatural causes?

16) On 22 April 2014 Prime Minister Medvedev said sanctions will make Russia stronger. On the 3rd of October 2016 Russia demanded compensation from the US for these sanctions that were supposed to make the country stronger. Why was the head of your government wrong about something so obvious?

17) You have said that Russia will never recognize Kosovo as an independent state but that Crimea was also like Kosovo. Why should the west recognize something you argue is just as illegal?

18) It is often said by Kremlin funded media that the US is encircling Russia. Why is having a US base so popular around the world?

19) Why are there not large, sustained protests aimed at preventing a US-inspired color revolution, outside US bases frequently, demanding their removal, especially in Europe?

20) You have accused NATO of breaking a promise not to expand east.  If Russia is so sure of this why are Gorbachev's notes from the time a state secret?

21) Such a promise would override a country's right conduct its foreign policy as it sees fit & join what international groups it wants to and would thus require a treaty. Why was no treaty signed?

22) Do you accept a country's right under treaties & agreements Russia has signed to join such institutions is lawful or will Russian withdraw from the Paris Charter (this is a yes or no question)?

23) Do you accept this right trumps any alleged promise you are unable to provide any evidence for (this is also a yes or no question)?

24) Why do the countries in question consistently state that NATO didn't ask them to join but instead the reverse?

25) Why should we not see demanding a veto over a country's right to act in accordance with international law as a form of imperialist colonialism?

26) You have accused the US of funding color revolutions with the aim of breaking Russia, with Euromaidan an especially obvious example. These are clearly, large, expensive and complex operations. Exposing these outrageous plans and having your accusations accepted by western governments would damage the US greatly & reduce US influence enormously.  Is it not in Russia's interests to have this become the accepted version events, especially in western capitals, or do you think Russia's interests are best served by this opinion only being shared by people with no credibility?

27) Without the proof of these massive CIA undertakings (bank transfers, chat records, weapon purchases, dozens of phone calls, hundreds of e-mails etc.), why should we believe you not are you just lying yet again?

28) If you are not lying, are Russian intelligence agencies too incompetent to find the find the proof of these massive US intelligence operations that your own security council believe to be threat to the existence of the Russian state?

29) Would releasing this proof of the US engineering revolutions cause populations who have had US bases on their territory for up to 60 years without any violent events (such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland) to rise up and demand their removal?

30) Given you demand the US proves that Russia hacked the DNC mails and had Wikileaks release the info, why do you not live up to your own standards and release the proof of US involvement in these revolutions? Do you have more proof tooffer than Nyland's hacked phone call you do not even admit to hacking?

31) Your government once denied any sports doping.  Kremlin owned news has since reported that criminal investigations have been opened into sports doping in Russia.  Who lied and why?

32) Will I shoot myself several times as a result of this interview?

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

The US Elections

Did we hack the US elections?

Don't ever believe anything until the Kremlin denies it.

As I have discussed here, it is a sincere belief of the Kremlin that grass roots revolutions against massive corruption and state brutality are not possible in the post soviet space - it always has to be the CIA.  We never provide any compelling evidence of this mortal threat to the Russian state cos if we did we'd eventually have to fix the roads but that's another issue.

We are also on the record as saying that the US conducts these as a form of warfare aimed at overthrowing us as they see the Kremlin as a challenge to their global hegemony.

So, given we were expecting a Clinton win and we wanted to undermine her, we certainly had no motive to discredit the US electoral process. None at all ;)

So now we are faced with the situation of 2 competing US cyber security companies saying we hacked Hillary's mails, the FBI saying we did, the eventual winner asking us to do it and, mostly damningly of all, us denying we did it.

And that's just the DNC.  We have US intelligence saying we stole electoral records, a group of lawyers and data analysts saying the results are odd and even Kremlin useful idiot Jill Stein thinks there should be a recount.  And you have us denying we did it.

In a tight election we only needed to swing it a few percent. Just enough to give RT and Sputnik an alternative point of view.

So, given we think the US does it to us, a whole load of folks say we did it to the US and us denying it, you can make up your own minds.

Wednesday, August 3, 2016


Whataboutsim is a favorite tactic of trolls and my ambassadors & politicians (sorry for repeating myself)

Allow me to begin with a joke from the good old days of the Soviet Union.

A Soviet car salesman and an American argue which country makes better cars. After some back and forth the American asks: "How many decades does it take an average Soviet man to earn enough money to buy a Soviet car?" After a thoughtful pause, the Soviet replies: "But you are lynching black people!"

You see, the original argument (that US cars are better) is left unaddressed. You cannot critisize us as you are not perfect yourself.

It also has a much more sinister aspect to it if you look carefully to the argument, as the BBC recently found out.  When a Russian general was asked about civilain casulaties resulting from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (of which there were around a million), he responded that the British could not critisize Russia as people (around 3000) had been killed in Ireland.  So it is the the position of a general in the Russian army that a million Afghan deaths is the same as the deaths of 3,000 white people.

And you'll note the BBC never challenged him on this. Russian atrocities in Afghanistan neatly deflected.

A proper definition of "Whataboutism" is therefore in order, so, lifted directly from Wikipedia, here it is.

It represents a case of tu quoque or the appeal to hypocrisy, a logical fallacy which attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position, without directly refuting or disproving the opponent's initial argument.

In more recent times your Prez sees arguments that go a lot like this.
Troll: "The USA cannot critisize Russia for invading Ukraine as it invaded Iraq"
Sane Person: "So you're saying Russia is at best only doing the same evil as the USA?"
Troll: "......fuck...." (they'll get mad and call you names at this point)
So, the troll's logic is as follows

If the US does something wrong it allows Russia to do the same thing while, strangely, not also being wrong. It should be noted that the start date for the USA's misdeeds is in the 1600s whereas Russia's is tomorrow.  For example, the US can't criticize Russia for Crimea cos it took land from native Americans. Our annexation of Crimea is not the same even though we've just implied it is.

By now you are used to it. There'll be more of it as we don't have much else. So, what do you do about it?

It really helps the troll if you try to engage with them on their terms. They would like you to forget the original point, for example that you (who might or not be an American) cannot criticise the fact that Russian troops are in Ukraine (hint: they often forget that there are not any there) because the US invaded Iraq.  They want to argue about Iraq and not about our invasion of Ukraine.

Have fun.

Sunday, July 31, 2016

The Euromaidan Plot

By now it ought to be clear the west is  attempting to encircle Russia by means of a series of color revolutions.

Let me explain. It is quite clear that the Orange Revolution, the Rose Revolution and Euromaidan were all CIA plots to bring NATO up to Russia's borders.  It is also well known the Kremlin believes that NATO, the CIA and the USA did all of these things in order to break Russia so it can steal our resources (as if ordinary Russians could tell the difference from now).

So, if we just stick to Ukraine and Euromaidan and explore this argument a little bit further we can see that the USA was engaged in a massive secret intelligence operation within Ukraine both before, during and after Euromaidan. This operation involved at least many, many millions of dollars and dozens, if not hundreds of people.

How would the CIA have made Euromaidan happen?

It required this money to be distributed. It required phone calls. It required people, lots and lots of people. People to tell the "nazis" when to turn up and protest against Yanukovych's "legitimate" government.  People to pay them to do that. People to provide them with weapons (dustbin lids and bike helmets).  People to control them during the protest and take orders from the State Department so the protests matched unpredictable political events.  The list goes on.

It also required money to buy sniper's rifles only Russia uses. It required money to pay men to willing to use them to shoot unarmed protesters to just make Russia look bad. It required phone calls, e-mails, bank accounts, internet chat records and so on to arrange all these devious events.  It required agents to find men willing to do that. It required command and control to tell them when to fire. From where to fire. To make them disappear from the scene of the murders without a trace since the crime.

Furthermore, like the Rose Revolution, the heartless bastards decided to do it in winter so the defenders of the legitimate government could soak them with water cannon.

In short, it required an operation that had a massive footprint. The probability of such an operation only being run by people disciplined and skilful enough to keep it entirely secret is miniscule. The probability it could also be run by a massive group of people so sociopathic as to not have a single member of the group with a conscious that would be guilted into leaking details of it is also miniscule. The probably of both events taking place together is ludicrous to even consider.

What would the effect of exposing the USA's creation of Euromaidan be?

Now, I would like you to imagine what the effect on the USA's standing in Europe (nevermind the rest of the world) would be if it were to become generally accepted by the democratically elected governments of Europe that all of the the CIA's actions above were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  Imagine if as much evidence existed for this as exists for direct Russian military involvement in the war in Eastern Ukraine.  Imagine how The Guardian would love to break that story.

This would, quite simply, be a devastating blow for the United States from which it would not recover in 100 years.  The country would have directly subverted a legitimate government and murdered dozens of innocent people doing it all in the furtherance of a longer term goal of doing the same to Russia on a larger scale in furtherance of the largest theft of another state's resources in history. More to the point, it would have done it in Europe, not some far off place no one cares about and it would have done it in the 21st Century.  You could imagine that the GOP would have the dirt to impeach and imprison Obama and Hillary and would gleefully do so.  It would end a presidency overnight, destroy a political party and the reputation of a super power. It would be one of the most significant geo-political events in the 21st century.

It would also likely cause the break up of NATO as electorates around Europe demanded the withdrawal of US troops from their soil lest the same be done to them in the future.  Finally, Russia's actions in Ukraine would be proven conclusively to have been defensive in nature.  The sanctions would collapse overnight and we would be seen as the sole guarantor of security in Europe all the way to Lisbon, immediately replacing the USA with all the influence, both political and economic, that would bring.
You could imagine Russia regards the above scenario as in our interest.

Are Russia's intelligence incompetent?

Now, in addition to believing the USA did everything I have described above, my trolls will also inform you that Russian intelligence services are the best in the world.  Given how many hostile intelligence plots we claim to thwart each year, this is a reasonable assumption.  So, clearly, we either have proof of this massive intelligence operation that's a mortal threat to Russia, or our spies are completely incompetent. An operation, let's not forget, which was done in breach of almost every international treaty ever signed and almost every aspect of international law imaginable and, let me repeat, a direct and mortal threat to the Russian State.

So why then, with our spies and signal intelligence guys having got the proof that would give us everything we dream of, do we not release that proof to unbiased scrutiny and destroy the USA? Why is the only proof of this massive operation a hacked phone call of Victoria Nyland saying "fuck the EU" that we won't even admit to recording?

Why do only the loonies believe it?

Why is it that the Kremlin seems to believe that it is in Russia's interests for the only people who believe the USA's direct involvement in the massive operation to make Euromaidan happen (with all of the above implications) to be a bunch of racists, holocaust deniers and other idiots who never met a mass murderer they didn't like?  Why do we only entrust this massive body of evidence gathered by Russian intelligence to those with no credibility outside their own circle of idiocy?

Or maybe, just maybe, the whole idea of it being a CIA plot is just a crock of shit that doesn't stand up to the slightest examination.

It's a tough choice.