Skip to main content

Let's Play Spy Games


Let's Play Spy Games

     We've recently learned that a US asset inside the Kremlin had to leave Russia and come to live in the US.  This started me thinking in the most simplistic terms about international intelligence activities.  Of course, I have no credentials in this area, so this is just the speculation of a curious citizen.
     We know that Vladimir Putin was formerly head of the KGB, one of the main intelligence agencies of the former Soviet Union.  As such, I would be surprised if he did not surveil everyone in his administration.  I'm guessing that this would entail giving false information to select people, then seeing if any of that info later turned up in some other countries' news, thus pointing directly to a particular person in his confidence. 
     Of course, US intelligence agencies are aware of this type of play, and have ways of countering it, or using it to our advantage.  But . . .
     Imagine that Putin gives this type of info to one of his underlings, and that the information is extremely flattering or is of monetary interest, or both, to Donald Trump.  Then imagine that Trump meets secretly with Putin, with no advisors, no secretary, perhaps not even an American translator.  Then imagine that in that meeting Putin asks Trump a seemingly innocuous question which would reveal to Putin that Trump heard the false information.  Does any rational person think that Trump would be savvy enough to realize what was going on and keep his mouth shut?  Or do our intelligence agencies have to pull their informants out of danger, not knowing if they have been compromised?
     I'm sure that the intelligence games that are being played are much more complicated and sophisticated than this, so you can imagine my concern every time Trump opens his mouth in private or in public.  I have no confidence that Trump, who refuses briefings, who brags about doing things his way, who denigrates our intelligence organizations, and who has shown himself to be far, far less than a "stable genius" can be trusted to play this kind of game.
     Just one more argument that being a danger to US interests is impeachable, regardless of whether or not a crime has been committed.

PeteBarkett.blogspot.com
September 9, 2019

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

 Bannon Up! This analogy is far from perfect, but it represents to me a futile mindset.   A sacrifice bunt in baseball involves giving up an out to advance a runner into a better position to score a run.   Occasionally, a pitcher tries so hard to throw pitches that are difficult to bunt, that he ends up walking the batter, which moves the lead runner into scoring position, gets no out, and puts another runner on base.   I’ve heard former coaches and players announcing games cry, “He’s trying to make an out.   Let him!”   I believe Steve Bannon wants to go to prison, to make himself a martyr and hero to the right-wing nuts who support him.   I say, let him.   I’ve heard some pundits worry that convicting him would further infuriate the right-wing nuts.   I think it’s time to abandon that type of thinking.   We have seen time after time that making concessions to appease these people is completely unproductive.   They see conces...
Post a Comment
Read more

Musings

  Right-To-Lifers Don’t Go Far Enough       I was pro-choice, but I’ve changed my mind.   The problem is not that the State should govern what a woman does with her body, the problem is that the State has not gone far enough.   The argument is that to protect the life of a fetus, the State must overrule a woman’s privacy and bodily autonomy and regulate her body for her.   Fine.   If we want the State to be in the business of protecting life through bodily regulation, then go all in.   Stick to the prime directive.   Protect all life.   The State should govern both men and women to protect life.   The State should tell any healthy person what to do with their body in order to protect life.   So, if someone needs a kidney, liver, or any organ transplant to save their life, the State should find someone and take whatever parts are needed to save that life.   If not, then we are allowing organ-icide.   (...
Post a Comment
Read more
Inspired by "Is religion a force for good in the world?" - the debates with Christopher Hitchens Let's compare general religious tenets with general humanistic tenets: I assert that to be a good humanist you must follow the rules.   To be a good religious person you must break the rules. Religious:                                             Humanistic: love thy neighbor                                   love thy neighbor do good works                                       do good works live according to the scriptures              live according to what can be drawn from evidence (science) try to follow the dictates of god       ...
Post a Comment
Read more