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

John Henry and The Common Good

Well John Henry said to the captain "By   god I ain't no fool Before I die with a hammer in my hand I'm gonna get me a steam drill, too, lord, lord Get me a steam drill, too" - parody by the great Smothers Brothers They had the right idea.   Instead of millions of workers being put out of work by robots, workers should have ownership of the robots that replace them, which they then lease to the companies that they once worked for, giving them a wage, a stake in the success of the company, and the opportunity to do other work as well.   This would be not too dissimilar to the annual dividends that all Alaskans get from the energy companies, although there will need to be an alternative as we move away from fossil fuels.   This would all fall under the broad umbrella of taking care of the common good, a concept that we've too often replaced with individualism.   Entrepreneurial spirit is fine.   I had it when I ran a small business. ...
Post a Comment
Read more
The National Rifle Association-backed gun advocates claim that passing this law or that law wouldn't have prevented this mass shooting or that mass shooting.  It's a completely false argument.  It's like saying that passing this election reform law or that election reform law wouldn't have prevented Donald Trump or Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan from being elected.  It may be true, but it would be a good start. - Pete Barkett   02/22/18
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