> They are probably not gonna serve jail time. Their brains are too valuable. They will likely get a desk at the FSB headquarters.
A raid like this would be a really stupid way to "acqui-hire" some hackers. My understanding is a lot of these hackers already work with the FSB, etc. Using outside people helps the FSB by giving them a level of deniability.
lol. don't make them out to be geniuses. REvil was basically a successful startup. not even a unicorn AND it's going to land them in prison for some amount of time.
Putin showed Biden that's he's acting in good faith. No one at that level cares what happens to a bunch of hackers
> “As a result FSB and Min of Internal Affairs effotts, REvil ceased to exist, their infrastructure was neutralized,” per RIA
> An “informed source” told Interfax that Russia won’t extradite detained members of REvil with Russian passports to the US. Source didn’t specify whether all the detained hackers are Russians.
Mary Ilyushina · @maryilyushina · 6:57 AM · Jan 14, 2022
That would be like Islandia resurrecting British Empire. Literally, well maybe actually Islandia has more right to do so than Russia have anything to do with Rus'.
The US made an agreement under George HW Bush that they would not extend the boundaries of the NATO area beyond West(!) Germany. They now have troops in places bordering Russia, like Poland. It's not really surprising the Russians have tooled-up. And it's worth noting that the Russian troops are all still in Russia (apart from the troops in Crimea, and the surrogates in eastern Ukraine).
I'm not for a moment trying to defend Russian bellicosity in Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea. I'm just noting that it's understandable, given repeated Western violations of promises and treaties. Treaties signed by the USA, in particular, might as well be used toilet-paper (ask Iran).
> US made an agreement under George HW Bush that they would not extend the boundaries of the NATO area beyond West(!) Germany
This isn’t fully true. It’s been alleged. But Gorbachev has publicly admitted he has no memory of it. There were no agreements signed nor even public statements made backing it up. Which is strange since the U.S. and USSR did sign a memorandum on Germany’s reunification, in the context of which this supposed agreement was made.
All of which is irrelevant given Russia signed the Budapest memorandum in 1994, an actual treaty, not some secret handshake hocus pocus, which Putin is presently violating. So it’s weird for it to be waiving the flag of broken agreements.
> And the last point. NATO is the mechanism for securing the U.S. presence in Europe. If NATO is liquidated, there will be no such mechanism in Europe. We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.
> We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.
This was a discussion in prelude to the signing of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany [1]. Baker's is a statement of understanding the
"Soviet Union [and] other European countries'" position, not an agreement--not even the hint of one. None of it made it into the final Treaty. Lots of ideas were mooted and abandoned in that transcript; it's revisionist to fixate on that one. (As, again, Gorbachev himself publicly admitted.)
Also, immediately following that statement, Baker says that he does not "have the Germans’ agreement to this approach," and that what he has relayed is "an account of this approach," holding that "maybe something much better can be created." Two men discussing ideas in pursuit of an agreement, which was drafted days and signed months thereafter.
You have claimed that "Gorbachev has publicly admitted he has no memory of it". This record of preliminary talks with Baker published by Gorbachev Foundation proves the opposite. There's no question this document has no legal bearing, but it's definitely more than just an allegation to say the US have fooled poor Gorbi.
> This record of preliminary talks with Baker published by Gorbachev Foundation proves the opposite
The idea was discussed. Nobody disputes that. Gorbachev disputes there was agreement. A position the transcript supports.
It’s like if two people are negotiating a price; one says 5, the other acknowledges hearing five and proposes 3, and then they trade at 4. Twenty years later, one of their daughters calls foul because the buyer acknowledged hearing 5 but only paid 4. That is the imbecilic position this argument takes.
You're still missing my point: your claim about Gorbachov having no memories of NATO borders negotioations is false, the sole purpose of my comment was to debunk it. There's one thing I can agree with you though: this argument had really taken imbecilic position.
Is UN supposed to enforce treaties? I suppose treaties aren't really legal contracts but some type of metal legal contract where nations themselves are legal persons? Is there a list of treaty breach being enforced in some way? I suppose sanctions are how they generally do it, right?
International treaties generally set out on their face what remedies there are for violations. The WTO is often the forum for resolving problems with trade treaties. Multilateral treaties are often formed under UN auspices, so that (e.g.) the IMO regulates mulilateral maritime agreements.
But in general, I think the assumption is that parties enter into international treaties because both parties reckon the agreement to be a "win". I'm not aware of anyone ever trying to enforce a mutual-defence treaty - if you violate one of those, I think people just take it that the treaty is over.
There's no "international law", as such; there's just a web of agreements.
It should be made clear that the promise not to extend the boundaries of NATO was an informal understanding, it was not written into any treaty, and was made by someone without the authority to ensure that would actually happen. JCPOA aside, there's plenty of treaty-breaking that Russia has engaged in. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine wound up with a large supply of nuclear weapons on its soil, making it the country with the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile. Ukraine agreed to give up those nuclear weapons to Russia, on the condition that Russia not violate its territorial sovereignty, in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The annexation of Crimea is a clear violation of that agreement (maybe Ukraine will ask for its nukes back). There's also the INF treaty, which the Russians violated with variants of their Iskander missile system. Granted, the Trump administration decided to piss in the proverbial swimming pool rather than try to get Russia back into compliance, but Russia did genuinely start this.
> And it's worth noting that the Russian troops are all still in Russia (apart from the troops in Crimea, and the surrogates in eastern Ukraine).
To be clear, more than a few Russian soldiers have been captured in eastern Ukraine, it's not just surrogates fighting.
> I'm not for a moment trying to defend Russian bellicosity in Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea. I'm just noting that it's understandable, given repeated Western violations of promises and treaties.
I really don't see how military actions in those places is "understandable," in the context of "Western violations". Annexing Crimea did nothing to improve Russia's security against NATO. If anything it hurt Russia's place in the international community and hardened NATO against it. Keep in mind that they didn't annex Crimea because Ukraine was thinking of joining NATO, it's because they were thinking of joining the EU. This isn't about security concerns, this is about maintaining regional hegemony over Eastern Europe.
> Annexing Crimea did nothing to improve Russia's security against NATO.
Really? Russia's naval base at Sevastopol is in the Crimea. That's a very large naval base, and provides their only naval access to the Mediterranean. In order to station an old carrier off the shore of Syria, they had to sail it from the Baltic, through the English Channel, round through the Straits of Gibraltar. That must have been pretty humiliating.
It would have been smart for Ukraine to negotiate something with Russia giving them the right to continue using that naval base.
> Russia's naval base at Sevastopol is in the Crimea. That's a very large naval base, and provides their only naval access to the Mediterranean
This is incorrect on several levels. For starters there's the route you mentioned from the Atlantic through the Straits of Gibraltar. Maybe you discount that because it goes through NATO-controlled waters, but to get from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean you have to go through the Bosphorus, which is controlled by Turkey, also a NATO member. Second, Russia has several other naval bases on the Black Sea. The port of Novorossiysk, for example, is the largest port in the entire Black Sea, and one of the largest ports in all of Russia, and is not in Crimea.
> It would have been smart for Ukraine to negotiate something with Russia giving them the right to continue using that naval base.
They did in 2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv_Pact . Ukraine gave Russia a lease on the facility until 2047 in exchange for a discounted contract on natural gas. Russia unilaterally left the treaty after the annexation of Crimea 4 years later. As far as I can tell, the Russian Black Sea fleet has always had access to a naval base in Sevastopol, and at no point was this access threatened.
> In order to station an old carrier off the shore of Syria, they had to sail it from the Baltic, through the English Channel, round through the Straits of Gibraltar. That must have been pretty humiliating.
Their carrier is deployed with the northern fleet, and while it was built in Ukraine during the Soviet area it doesn't seem to have actually ever performed operations in the Black Sea, though it certainly could be moved there. I also don't see what about that is "humiliating".
> The port of Novorossiysk, for example, is the largest port in the entire Black Sea
Thanks - I am now better-informed.
> I also don't see what about that is "humiliating"
The ship's passage through the English Channel was constantly monitored by UK military jets, as well as by news reporters, who mocked the condition of that decrepit carrier. I don't know if Russian leadership actually felt humiliated, but I'd have been humiliated had it been me (I wouldn't have embarked on the voyage in the first place, unless I had a shiny new ship).
Crimea was a Russian-speaking region of Ukraine before the coup. It's still mainly ethnic-Russian. It was a favourite holiday destination for Russians. It adjoins Russia (well, almost). I'm not aware that Ukraine is fighting Russians in the Crimea; they seem to have surrendered it. I guess they decided that the Crimean population weren't in favour of Ukrainian control, and so it wasn't worth the candle.
What's Denmark got to do with anything? Denmark has zero interests in the Crimea.
So, is the 1994 security agreement about the withdraw of nuclear weapons from Ukraine and signed by Russia toilet-paper as well? They are the only signatary that actually violated Ukraine's territorial integrity.
As far as I am aware there is no signed international agreement that NATO would not extend into Eastern European countries like Ukraine. This is wishful thinking on behalf of Putin and an attempt to put themselves into a victim role.
If Russia wants less NATO troops close to their borders then they should consider not invading their neighbours.
NATO bases appeared at Russia's borders way before any invasion happened. In fact, all NATO furtherance's were done at the time when Russia was in its weakest state, democratic and still trying to play nice to the West.
> However, Gorbachev neither asked for nor was given any formal guarantees that there would be no further expansion of NATO beyond the territory of a united Germany.34 The issue was not even under discussion at NATO at the time, since the Warsaw Pact and the USSR were both still in existence. Even if the Warsaw Pact’s days were clearly numbered, there was no expectation in Western capitals in the autumn of 1990 that the USSR would collapse a year later.
> As early as December 1991, Russian President Boris Yeltsin wrote to NATO leaders saying that his country would join the Alliance some time in the future. Yeltsin’s successor Vladimir Putin, hinted during his first presidential term that Russia could become a full fledged member of the Atlantic Alliance.
You can put it that way, if you like ad-hominem attacks based on forged "quotes". I'm actually pretty angry with Russian military incursions into their neighbours, and I'm glad they withdrew quickly from Kazakhstan.
But I think NATO should have disbanded when the Warsaw Pact disbanded. It has no business operating in e.g. the Middle East. The West has acted provocatively, and it's no surprise if Russia is provoked.
Wow, first time I ever got a maximum -4 downvote (maybe many more). Maybe it was because of rude remarks about toilet-paper. Well, hands up - it was phrased provocatively. Sorry.
The US has not gun at the moment. They have their own share of problems with China and any conflict in Europe is not in their interest. Not saying that Russia has all the card or anything like that too.
> US has not gun at the moment. They have their own share of problems with China and any conflict in Europe is not in their interest
We don’t want conflict in Europe. But we’re capable of sustaining it.
We won’t go to war over Ukraine, but we’ll economically cripple Russia, at great pain to ourselves and our allies, and line its borders with strike weapons if that happens. Because if Russia can break the agreements it signed as recently as 1994 it’s not unfeasible that it goes for Finland or even the Baltics next.
Putin isn’t bluffing. But he’s more likely to die in power if Russia doesn’t attempt a war.
Yep, there's no shortage of European politicians to sabotage their countries' national interests to do the US/NATO bidding. After all that's how they're funded and annointed. If their local embassy doesn't give the get-go they don't have much of a chance...
And, apparently, there are fellow European citizens who still buy this charade. At least if they're from Poland or something similar easterny, it's their age old beefs with Russia/USSR that are a factor (though it's funny to see them believe Germany has their best interests at heart). But who can say why western european countries want to be the US lapdogs...
If you think the American people want another nation building exercise far away from us (while Germany busily buys Russia gas through Nord Stream 2 and dems block sanctions on it) think again.
A few quick points.
The US has a lot to lose here. This area is in russia's back yard, not ours. If we fight on the ground (without speaking the local language - Russian) we are back into our afghan / syria stuff.
Russia has nuclear weapons. If you say you can blow russia away think again. And again, the US has a LOT to loose, I suspect the russian populace would be able to deal with casualities etc better than the US.
When we say we are going to cut them off financially, realize that a huge amount of energy flows from Russia to Europe. And especially if they go after Ukraine then, they would have enormous control over EU energy markets. Again, not saying EU couldn't handle it, but do they have the stomach for this?
Germany BTW has shut DOWN a lot of their zero carbon nuclear power (to be "green") so they are now more dependent then ever on natural gas.
Does President Biden have the popularity and support of his caucus to start a war? Bernie Sanders is on board with this?
The US did this huffing already with Crimea.
They did this with Afghanistan where we were assured repeatedly that NO evacuation was underway while we literally watched an evacuation.
The confusing thing to me in all this is, where is Europe? France always want to be a bigger player internationally - this is a chance for the EU to demonstrate some soft or hard power if they wanted.
If there was something going on with mexico in our backyard, I can't even imagine us not getting involved (or cuba - we'd def push back on Russia putting stuff there).
The US and western Europe. While everyone blames the US, there are a lot of countries in Europe that prefer the US to Russia and are doing their own thing. They have a lot of lose if Russia takes over Ukraine.
Explain to me why this is not a European led effort? The US is thousands of miles away from this Russian border dispute.
France is always banging on about how Europe should be more respected / have a stronger defense story.
Russia has a much much BIGGER trade relationship with Europe. Where is the EU? They literally are not even in the meetings, it's kind of comical.
So the countries that are a) close, b) have economic relationships that matter etc are silent and the US administration is strutting around saying they are going to put a gun to Russia's head or whatever.
The parallel would be if Russia was going to put a missile system in Cuba, and the US just sat around, and Turkey or some country thousands of miles away started negotiating over it with Russia. Hell no - the US would be front and center in that negotiation
And BTW - this happened - the Cuban missile crisis. And the US WAS front and center there.
Russia seems to have gotten clean away with Crimea. Are there similar underlying divisions in Ukraine? Ie, a russian speaking portion and a more western half? That is exactly the type of thing they are good at exploiting, and the on the ground support for the US in part of the country may not be robust. That's a bad mix for foreign policy intervention.
I'm really hoping Biden has is head screwed on straight for this one.
I doubt Europe was out of the loop, but nothing more is clear.
They could be a bystander only informed of things (which brings up your questions).
They could be letting/making the US lead for their own reasons. The following come to mind: they don't want to be seen as in charge - the US is drawing any negative attention. They can't agree on leaders and the US is better than "the other country". They want to make the US look good for reasons.
Russia could be giving all credit to the US for various reasons.
I have no idea what the truth is. It might be one of the above, it might not (my guess).
Especially considering the support US is giving its domestic hackers. Russia knows this isn’t an arms race they want to be part of. Look at our recent spin-up for maritime privateering to counter China, you know we could ramp up attacks on Russian industry and commerce with cyber too.
I didn't downvote them, however I'm guessing the downvotes are because their statement is either false or close to it.
The US is the world's largest economy, loaded with ~$165 trillion in household assets, having persistent supply chain problems, running at 50 year highs on inflation, and it's still wildly exposed to cyber attacks despite decades of warning shots across its bow. It's exposed to almost a comically idiotic degree.
Russia can cause a lot of disruption and havoc with the US economy if it wants to. The US has three potent recourses at that point: try to unplug Russia as it pertains to the global Internet (not very effective other than to further isolation); drive chaos and civil war on its borders and attempt to flood terrorism into Russia (eg from Kazakhstan etc.), which is a dangerous proxy kinetic action toward Russia (they can swing back); pull Russia from SWIFT (they're slightly prepared for that, however it would still hurt a lot regardless) and try to more seriously isolate them globally economically (it'll drive Russia further into China's arms, which may be a mistake at this juncture; it might be better if Russia is able to independently fend off China's inevitable attempts to turn Russia into its subservient over time).
None of those are great options, although dramatically increasing global economic isolation is probably the best option.
Russia is a weak nation economically and structurally. As an entity, Russia shouldn't exist and can only be held together through a never-ending reign of authoritarian / totalitarian iron fist dictator types; it requires a constant application of severe force upon the population (eg stripping them of all media, protest and speech rights) to hold it all together, otherwise Russia would explode into numerous separate countries very rapidly. Why does that matter? It matters because we're going to keep getting an endless line of Putins, it's the only type that can operate Russia as it's presently constructed. Putin knows exactly what it takes to hold Russia together, it's the naive West that has been surprised by what he has done / what he became (golly gee, the people of Russia want freeeeedom too, they're just like us, dur dur dur - aka the early 1990s naive worldview; Russia can only be one of two things: some slight variation of what it is presently, which requires a Putin, or it has to explode into pieces).
When you're a weak nation with some potent systems you can attack a very rich superpower with, it's a huge problem for the rich superpower. It's the classic line about how if you owe someone ~$1,000, you have a problem; and if you owe someone $1 billion, they have a problem (ignoring for a moment whether it's very accurate, you get the point). If you're facing off with North Korea, trading cities in a nuclear exchange with them is a massive losing contest for the US, trading NYC for Pyongyang is not an even exchange; trading Los Angeles for Hamhung is not an even exchange; North Korea has an epic scale advantage in such a terrible exchange. Russia has a similar advantage in how it can persistently stab the US with economically damaging cyber attacks; the US will struggle greatly to find an even exchange in hitting back, because Russia is economically feeble and it's difficult to upset the Putin cart with targeted social chaos attacks (like trying to disrupt various infrastructure or supply chains for Russia to cause political problems for Putin; they'll just oppress or murder the domestic population as needed to maintain control).
Jep, i really had no interest to Answer that long text with thousands of errors, just to say that the NATO has no right to be aggressive towards Russia, NATO is/was meant to be a Defense force, and not an Aggressor (Nato rockets in Turkey but russian ones in Cuba)...that's a problem for Russia and Europe...meanwhile the US can lough about the stupid Union for playing so very well against his neighbor(Russia) and for the empire(US).
This needs to be understood through the Ukraine/NATO crisis lens.
Carrot and stick.
Show that you can act both in a "good" or "bad" way.