[HN Gopher] Husband and wife outed as GRU spies aiding bombings ...
___________________________________________________________________
Husband and wife outed as GRU spies aiding bombings and poisonings
across Europe
Author : dralley
Score : 505 points
Date : 2024-04-29 15:00 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (theins.ru)
(TXT) w3m dump (theins.ru)
| gumby wrote:
| Amazing if true!
| asveikau wrote:
| Interesting seeing this website with a .ru domain. Haven't been
| following them, but seems like they're based in Latvia. I don't
| think they would live comfortably being physically in Russia, but
| also seems like the state could seize the domain.
| dralley wrote:
| They also have a mirrored .press domain
| Klaster_1 wrote:
| The Insider has been systematically repressed by the Putin's
| regime:
|
| * "Foreign agent" label in 2021. This means massive
| restrictions on income sources and a target of gradually
| increasing restrictions as years go by.
|
| * "Undesirable organization" in 2022. Donating to such
| organizations is a criminal offense.
|
| * Roman Dobrokhotov - the Insider founder - has been wanted in
| Russia since 2021.
| acdha wrote:
| How does that not translate into the .ru domain name being
| seized?
| Klaster_1 wrote:
| As far as I'm aware, no ".ru" domains have been seized yet
| from media independent from the Russian government.
| Instead, they prefer to block website access - by law,
| every ISP has to install DPI-enabled hardware, which is
| used to censor the net.
| kgeist wrote:
| I confirm that the the link doesn't open from Russia.
| geoka9 wrote:
| I'm aware of one - grani.ru had to become graniru.org a
| few years ago.
| Glacia wrote:
| Why seize a domain when you can just block it country wide?
| gotts wrote:
| seizing the domain would give them nothing. Insider has a well
| established brand, they can easily reopen it in any other
| domain. Also getting some private information during the
| registration process might be helpful for the state.
| fnord77 wrote:
| Can't wait for the HBO series
| dylan604 wrote:
| You hope it's an HBO series and not a Netflix one. I'd be very
| happy if the producers of Chernobyl worked on it
| elie_douna wrote:
| Craig Mazin who developed Chernobyl is also the showrunner
| for The Last of Us - season 2 is out next year. He'd be
| perfect for an East Germany based spy series with a tone
| similar to Chernobyl combined with The Lives of Others
| dylan604 wrote:
| That scene in Chernobyl breaking down the explosion is one
| of my favorite scenes of all time. It's a subject matter
| that is very specific, they covered in enough detail to be
| legit, but glossed over enough to not loose the audience.
| Something that a producer would want in a TV show and an
| attorney presenting a case. Of course all of the underlying
| "In Soviet Russia..." type references of the State does no
| wrong while having it shoved in their face were priceless
| to me as well.
| tootie wrote:
| This was a collaboration with Bellingcat. The same organization
| that was featured in the Navalny documentary as having found
| the assassination squad and eliciting a confession.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| TheInsider is a very anti-russian website.
| stoperaticless wrote:
| Anti russian or anti putin?
| BWStearns wrote:
| I didn't know the GRU had an illegals program. I thought it was
| all SVR. Anyone know if that's a recent development?
| surfingdino wrote:
| All major intelligence agencies have them. Why GRU would be any
| different?
| BWStearns wrote:
| GRU is nominally military intelligence and SVR inherited the
| KGB illegals program. These programs are really hard and have
| a ton of overhead supporting a relatively small number of
| actual officers. Having duplicate capabilities for it is a
| waste. Especially in this case where they're used for active
| crimes/violence. The GRU has never been shy about just going
| and murdering people on a tourist visa[0], why bother with
| all the extra overhead?
|
| Not all (or even most) intelligence agencies run illegals
| programs since they're crazy difficult, fragile, expensive,
| and arguably a waste of effort/resources.
|
| [0] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/05/planes-
| train...
| surfingdino wrote:
| Agencies need all types of spies, some laying low for years
| in case their networks get rolled up.
| mandevil wrote:
| While it is probably a waste of resources, dictatorships
| are famous for having wasteful duplicated efforts:
| dictators need their people to constantly be competing with
| each other, and to split favor so that no one ever becomes
| strong enough to pose a threat to the Big Man himself. That
| is the whole reason for the GRU-KGB split in the first
| place!
| surfingdino wrote:
| Suvorov wrote about the Soviet practice of making GRU and
| KGB compete for the same goals to ensure they get the
| best intelligence.
| ilya_m wrote:
| > having duplicate capabilities for it is a waste.
|
| This is a feature, not a bug. This is how a system of
| checks and balances works in authoritarian countries - the
| entire security apparatus is duplicated several times over
| lest one agency becomes too powerful or indispensable.
| KGB/Ministry of the Interior/Military kept each other in
| check for much of the later part of the Soviet Union's
| existence.
| H8crilA wrote:
| This. I would only add that even the FSB (which is
| theoretically the equivalent of the FBI, and should
| operate domestically) has extensive foreign operations.
| It was most likely the FSB that was primarily blamed for
| the major fuckup that was the raid on Kyiv in 2022.
| Sergey Beseda, the leader of the "foreign branch", was
| imprisoned for some time after that happened.
|
| Russia also has had at least three armed forces up until
| recently, the normal one, the Rosgvardia, and the PMC
| complex including Wagner. All of them have had rather
| serious equipment, for example Wagner had tanks,
| artillery, they even had their own air defence like
| Pantsir and their own aviation.
|
| Running an oppressive, murderous regime sometimes
| requires crazy solutions.
| Terr_ wrote:
| That reminds me of this exchange, where two men are
| bluffing their way through a (literal) circle of hell:
|
| > "They think--what do they think? That we're important
| officials?"
|
| > "No. Of course not. They know we are only pretending
| that."
|
| > "Then what--"
|
| > "But they cannot be _sure_. We _might_ be important
| officials. But most of them think we are secret police."
|
| > "But how do you know there are secret police?"
|
| > Benito looked very sad. "Allen, there _have_ to be. You
| cannot run a bureaucratic state without them. Come."
|
| -- _Inferno_ , by Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven
| epolanski wrote:
| Now that you make me think about it, that doesn't even
| seem a feature of authoritarian countries.
|
| I can easily think plenty of countries around the world
| where security and intelligence duties are often
| duplicated and overlap.
| mandevil wrote:
| Reuters, way back in 2018- reacting to the Skripal poisoning
| and Fancy Bear accusations, wrote a explainer piece about the
| GRU. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-russia-gru-
| factbo...) From that: `According to a Western assessment of GRU
| seen by Reuters, the GRU has a long-running programme to run
| 'illegal' spies - those who work without diplomatic cover and
| who live under an assumed identity for years until orders from
| Moscow. "It has a long-running programme of 'illegals' reserved
| for the most sensitive or deniable tasks across the spectrum of
| GRU operations," the assessment said.`
| topspin wrote:
| Victor Suvorov wrote about GRU illegals 40 years ago in
| Aquarium. For all the shade thrown at his writing since, it
| sure has aged well. Here we are with bombings, poisonings,
| corruption and GRU agents creeping around in Europe today.
|
| He wrote that the traditional method to deal with traitors in
| the GRU is the headquarters furnace: wire the "guilty" to a
| gurney and feed them in alive.
|
| His writing about Soviet military doctrine is visible today in
| Ukraine as well. A giant horde of "mechanized infantry," badly
| led. They're still using some of the same armor.
| ahazred8ta wrote:
| Suvorov joked that on a bad day the doctor would come and put
| iodine on your forehead, so you wouldn't get an infection
| from the bullet.
| rotis wrote:
| Oh yeah the reports about Russian army from beginning of war
| in Ukraine read like someone copying his book Inside the
| Soviet Army. Which in turn reads like stories you heard about
| the Soviets in WW2.
| topspin wrote:
| It did. Suvorov has said some cringy and contradictory
| things, but it seems to me that if you simply take what he
| has written at face value you'll be closer to right than
| wrong nearly every time.
| amarant wrote:
| Wow that story is like something straight out of spy-
| romanticising drama! Crazy that such undercover agents really
| exist!
|
| Also, I wonder what the pay is like? Or how it even works..
| probably best to not leave a obvious money trail between state
| and spy..
| tharmas wrote:
| I recommend "The Octopus Murders" on Netflix. The "spy world"
| is active in all kinds of activities. Many unsavory. All in the
| name of "the National Interest". Also the story of Gary Webb is
| quite interesting too.
| dboreham wrote:
| Agreed. See also Epstein. Very spook-connected dude.
| FabHK wrote:
| And Jan Marsalek, of fake German payment startup Wirecard.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Most nations have programs like that.
|
| Source: My father[0] was one, for the CIA. Don't think he ever
| directed "kinetic" stuff, but I guess I'll never know.
|
| [0] https://cmarshall.com/miscellaneous/MikeMarshall.htm
| dylan604 wrote:
| Your pay is whatever job you have as a cover pays you. If you
| were getting additional pay to that, then it would be a red
| flag when the various agencies investigate you.
| adolph wrote:
| If your pay is less than your cover, do you have to give it
| back?
|
| How does health insurance work for spy stuff? If the GRU
| agent gets exposed to novachuck, do they get to see a Russian
| specialist or do they just have access to the providers in
| their cover plan?
| dylan604 wrote:
| Nothing you wrote makes any sense to me.
|
| > If your pay is less than your cover, do you have to give
| it back?
|
| How can your pay be less than your cover? Your cover job is
| paying you. Your host agency is not.
|
| > How does health insurance work for spy stuff?
|
| At this point, I'm curious if this is an attempt at humor?
| epolanski wrote:
| > How does health insurance work for spy stuff?
|
| Russia, as most of Europe, has free public health care. You
| don't have to pay for it.
|
| Also, I think you have some confusion.
|
| 1) you are an officer in your army/services. You get your
| salary on your Russian bank account
|
| 2) you have a cover job that pays you. You use that money
| for your cover life.
| vl wrote:
| They are getting full officer salaries and rank promotions
| and so on even while they are on deployment. Obviously they
| can't access money/benefits while on deployment, but they get
| them when they get back, either by being recalled or traded
| in case of capture.
| yencabulator wrote:
| The article directly contradicts you:
|
| > Elena also provided a veneer of plausibility for the
| Saposnikovs' lavish lifestyle. Despite Saposnikov's modest
| income from Imex (around $650 per month), the family bought
| real estate in Czechia and Greece at a value far in excess of
| what their collective income could account for. As Czech
| investigators note, "in some cases their official income
| could not cover even their phone bill for the month."
| Furthermore, Elena owned a company registered in the Marshall
| Islands and controlled two bank accounts in Switzerland.
| Those offshore accounts, plus unexplained cash infusions to
| their Czech banks and a series of in-cash payments, appeared
| to have been the real source of income.
|
| ...
|
| > In 2009 the Saposnikovs purchased a sprawling villa on the
| picturesque Aegean peninsula of Halkidiki, Greece. The price,
| as recorded in the notarial deed of purchase obtained by The
| Insider, was 275,292 euros, or $300,000 at the time. Elena
| would later tell investigators that she had funded the
| investment "with money from my parents" - a tall order for
| the septuagenarian couple living in Kyiv on pensions of under
| $300 per month.
| nikcub wrote:
| They were just blending in with all the other regular
| corruption in East Europe
| dylan604 wrote:
| Sure, when you get caught and are being interrogated for
| crimes against the state, you go right ahead and provide
| your new friends access to those accounts. <facepalm>
|
| Edit: Nothing you wrote contradicts anything I said. Your
| quote proves my statement. They had other sources of income
| than their cover provided, and the investigators used that
| to zero in them. <anotherFacepalm>
| withinboredom wrote:
| Spies often work for free, based on their ideologies. Agents,
| on the other hand, usually get paid whatever their normal pay
| is (aka, rank), plus danger pay and per-diem, where applicable.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| Not these spies apparently. They had meager official income,
| yet managed to live quite luxuriously.
| alt219 wrote:
| According to the article, they were arms dealers.
| krunck wrote:
| EVERY powerful country has them. Some are just good enough to
| not get caught.
| pphysch wrote:
| The authors are serial fabulists / NATO intelligence
| launderers, so it's totally possible that pieces of this
| narrative are outright fiction, woven in with verifiable facts.
| rramadass wrote:
| Interesting story; but as with all matters of this kind it is
| hard to know what is fact, what is fiction, what is
| disinformation/misinformation and what is propaganda.
|
| Folks interested in spy-craft would love the classic _Deception :
| The Invisible War Between the KGB and the CIA by Edward Jay
| Epstein._ This book provides insight into how deception is at the
| root of all disinformation /misinformation/propaganda/etc. which
| can be extrapolated to what is happening today in the larger
| media industry - https://archive.org/details/Deception-
| TheInvisibleWarBetween...
| qaq wrote:
| well the warehouse being blown up is a fact in the interest of
| what country is not really a secret This has very little
| propaganda value for either side
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| This is my semi annual plug for all of you to watch the fantastic
| and somehow forgotten FX network TV show, The Americans, A spy
| drama set in Washington DC in the 1980s about KGB "illegals"
| posing as travel agents.
|
| It's way better than any basic cable TV show had any right to be.
| Plus, all seasons are streaming on Hulu, so you don't have to
| worry about whether the story will be completed.
|
| https://www.hulu.com/series/the-americans-6deba130-65fb-4816...
| euroderf wrote:
| Loosely based on an actual case.
| legitster wrote:
| > It's way better than any basic cable TV show had any right to
| be
|
| Don't do FX like that.
|
| They had a juggernaut lineup of great shows at the time (which
| is why The Americans kind of got pushed to a backburner).
| buzzy_hacker wrote:
| One of the best TV shows of all time, I second your
| recommendation. Rare show that gets better with each season.
| croisillon wrote:
| i don't know about that, the last 1 or to some extent the
| last 2 seasons were a bit lazy
| yeahwhatever10 wrote:
| The Americans is pretty banal and follows the basic script you
| would expect. It's good background noise if you want 80s
| nostalgia though.
| skipants wrote:
| I'm with you. I don't really agree with all the praise it
| gets. I liked it at first but it really seemed to run into
| the "manufactured drama" trap that a lot of TV shows run into
| when they try and keep it going. It really ruined my suspense
| of disbelief.
| carabiner wrote:
| It really doesn't though. For example, I didn't expect to see
| so many totally innocent people get killed. I've also never
| seen a marriage portrayed with so much tension so
| realistically. I grew up in an abusive household and
| Americans is the first show to to give me ptsd flashbacks.
| sib wrote:
| Agreed. As someone who's read and watched a lot of Soviet-era
| spy fiction, along with lots of actual history, I found it
| pretty underwhelming. I forced myself through 3 seasons and
| gave up.
| benterix wrote:
| I'd recommend Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy instead.
| garyrob wrote:
| I want to give some advice: Don't judge it by its first few
| episodes. When I first checked it out, the basic setup seemed
| rather inane and I stopped watching.
|
| Then, a couple years later, I needed something to watch during
| long exercise sessions and I checked it out again. It was
| getting much more interesting by the end of the first season.
|
| And every season got better and richer. By the very end, I
| experienced it as actually deep, especially in the way the Keri
| Russell character unexpectedly evolves. It was a real pleasure
| and I'm very glad I had the chance to enjoy it. Recommended!
| eej71 wrote:
| I had initially ignored the show because they had cast Keri
| Russell which I had assumed to be a total light weight. So I
| missed it the first few years and then I realized after its
| fourth renewal - gee maybe its good - and well - I was
| completely wrong. She was amazing. The show was terrific. But
| I'm a sucker for 80s cold war dramatics.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Keri Russell a lightweight? I'm curious what gave you that
| impression as I've always thought of her as an excellent
| actress. Probably missing out on The Diplomat too if you
| like political intrigue at all.
| foobarian wrote:
| Well on that topic, the French series "The Bureau" [1]
| was fantastic.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bureau_(TV_series)
| foobarqux wrote:
| I don't understand why people like these shows, there
| isn't a proper story just things that happen that are
| essentially discarded at the beginning of the next
| season. There is never any real 3rd-act/resolution.
| cess11 wrote:
| Are you sure you aren't confusing The Bureau with
| something else?
| indigodaddy wrote:
| Don't think he can be talking about The Bureau either.
| It's in my top ten all time TV shows.
| foobarqux wrote:
| No. Every season ends on a cliffhanger that seems
| critical to the story and then is quickly resolved as if
| it were some minor point in the first episode of the
| subsequent season. This is the nature of this type of
| episodic television that runs for an indeterminate time
| and therefore has no real overarching story (but pretends
| to) like soap operas do.
|
| I only know of a few examples where writers escape this.
| The first is to have the episodes be essentially
| disconnected from one another (e.g. Star Trek). The other
| is what "The Wire" did by having each season have its own
| plot that is properly resolved at the end of each season.
| squigz wrote:
| I think you're confused about what episodic TV is. Star
| Trek is (or was) (generally) episodic. The Wire is
| serialized, as is most TV these days.
|
| Some people like episodic TV, some people prefer
| serialized.
| vundercind wrote:
| _Riverdale_ is that thing you hate but made _the primary
| characteristic of the show_. Especially past season 1.
|
| They'll set up what feels like a season finale in _most_
| episodes, then instead of resolving it in the next,
| quickly toss it aside or even just ignore it. It's not
| good, and I would not recommend it at all, but it's maybe
| the _weirdest_ show I've seen.
|
| I remain unsure whether the writers were _aware_ they
| were writing one extremely-long joke about television
| writing, or if they thought it was actually good.
| brnt wrote:
| Apparently it's the actual spies favorite.
| simonbarker87 wrote:
| Th Diplomat is excellent and she plays the role
| perfectly.
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| you might also be thrilled by her performance in "The
| Diplomat". She is absolutely no light weight.
| Krasnol wrote:
| I've found the show because of a post on reddit listing TV
| critics ratings for TV shows, and this stood out as one of
| the few which were good from start to end.
|
| We're at season 5 atm and up until this point, I can confirm
| the ratings.
|
| ...I just wish I could find that reddit post again. Can't
| remember if there were others good shows on it.
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| > Don't judge it by its first few episodes
|
| Strong advice for any show.
| reactordev wrote:
| Agreed. I learned this with Black Sails (first few episodes
| were huh?) and it evolved into something awesome. The
| Americans as well. I think that's usually the case with
| shows that are trying something new and haven't quite got
| the formula down. First season of Star Trek was a freak
| show of theater that somehow, worked. Thrived. And
| blossomed. Let's just pray Bob Igor doesn't get his hands
| on the franchise.
|
| I now follow this advice with all shows. I'll give it a
| full season to see if they develop something I'm interested
| in following.
| UberFly wrote:
| Thanks for the Black Sails suggestion. I hadn't heard of
| it but will check it out. High praise on IMDB.
| toyg wrote:
| _> Bob Igor_
|
| Is he the hunchback brother of Bob Iger, Disney CEO?
| neocritter wrote:
| Black Sails in particular evolved with the writers'
| historical knowledge of real pirates as they moved from
| made up nonsense they read to actual research.
| lencastre wrote:
| Except Community, and BoJaxk
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| Community is easy - the ones with Dan Harmon involvement
| are the best. 100% causation.
| vundercind wrote:
| Bojack ep1 is _terrible_ but it immediately gets better,
| and it's gold by the end of s1.
| pc86 wrote:
| Exactly my experience. Many years ago I watched perhaps 3-4
| episodes and stopped. I recently finished the entire series
| and by the end I was binging it in the most traditional
| sense, watching multiple episodes a day, telling myself I'd
| watch the last 20 minutes of this episode in bed and end up
| watching 2 more after that, etc.
|
| It's a fantastic show and while there are certainly some
| smaller arcs that could have been written better as is the
| case with any long-running show, especially one made for
| cable, it doesn't spend the two seasons completely destroying
| its reputation like most do. It ended at just the right time.
| brnt wrote:
| Good advice: I also found the start not a good salesman but
| some peristence worth the wait.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Thanks. I have a 3 episode rule. If I'm not into it by the
| end of the 3rd episode, I don't continue. I'll give this one
| another shot.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| This doesn't filter out the series that start off strong
| with no contingency plan to get picked up, then they get
| signed to 2+ more seasons, go "ah shoot we blew all our
| story ideas in season 1" and slow play 3 episodes worth of
| content for an entire season. So. many. like. this.
| hughdbrown wrote:
| Try this: look up the most highly rated episodes on IMDB and
| watch only those. Missing the crummy episodes usually does
| not interfere with understanding the story arc. Often, I set
| a minimum IMDB score that I will watch, like 8.5 or 9.0 to
| capture only the best. This works well with series that:
|
| - take a year or two to find their footing or
|
| - have a large cast (some mediocre) that get their own story
| lines of no consequence occasionally or
|
| - introduce cast members that don't make it or
|
| - implode towards the final season.
|
| I have done this for many series that are somewhat uneven:
|
| - The Americans
|
| - How I Met Your Mother
|
| - Fringe
|
| - Orphan Black
|
| - Halt and Catch Fire
|
| - House of Cards (watching the ratings allows you to miss all
| of season 6)
|
| - Arrested Development
|
| - Bojack Horseman
|
| - Veep
|
| - 30 Rock
|
| - Jane the Virgin
|
| - Black Mirror
|
| - The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel
|
| - Suits
|
| - Six Feet Under
|
| - La Femme Nikita
|
| - The Blacklist
|
| - Peaky Blinders
|
| - The Romanoffs
|
| - Ozark
|
| - Westworld (sometimes dropping episodes does not matter)
|
| - Succession
|
| - Borgen
|
| And all of these series have lots of strong episodes.
|
| Series I would not do this with:
|
| - The Bear
|
| - Breaking Bad
|
| - Money Heist
|
| - The Serpent
|
| - Fleabag
|
| - Chernobyl
|
| - The White Lotus
| epolanski wrote:
| Thanks for the comment.
|
| I did watch half the first season years ago and wasn't too
| captured, will give it another go.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| The best thing about the show is how stories constantly take
| unexpected turns. It will sometimes seem like they're setting
| some big thing up and then suddenly the characters are caught
| completely off guard and the show makes a hard left. It might
| sound contrived the way I'm explaining it, but it all makes
| perfect sense in the way the show unfolds.
| jfengel wrote:
| Thanks for the advice. I shut it off after one episode. I'll
| give it another try at some point.
| temporarely wrote:
| The most realistic Russian sleeper scenario imo was in Slow
| Horses. Brits don't insult your intelligence too greatly in
| their spook shows; the American variety always involves some
| sort of super-human characters. It's good as entertainment, the
| Americans, but just over the top.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Yeah but "the dogs" in Slow Horses is laughably out of
| control ridiculous at points...reaches out of your immersion
| in the interesting story to grab you, shake you, and declare
| what you're watching is absurd hyperbole. Very disappointed
| by that aspect and I hope they're done with that excess.
| scrumper wrote:
| Eh, maybe? There's got to be _something_ for sociopathic
| ex-squaddies to do who don't want to go back to civvie
| street. I found their existence believable, if not the high
| speed Range Rover driving stuff. It's very clearly not
| going for full-on realism, obviously a fantasy spy show. So
| the dogs work in that context - at least for me.
|
| EDIT: someone else mentioned Tinker Tailor (either the '80s
| BBC miniseries or the Gary Oldman movie - once again he's
| killing it) which is far more grounded. That might be more
| up your street? I enjoyed both a lot. Bleak as hell though.
| temporarely wrote:
| > Bleak as hell though.
|
| It's called _Realism_.
| temporarely wrote:
| That's a fair statement. My standard for this type of show
| remains BBC's _Tinker Tailor Solider Spy_ (1979) and the
| follow up _Smiley 's People_ (1982).
|
| Alec Guinness _owns_ Smiley. Just perfect. Absolutely
| gripping yet low budget [+] it actually demands that you
| use your intellect to keep up. If you haven 't seen those I
| say whip up ye old torrent client and get some.
|
| Anyways, I did say "too greatly". Someone up there says "no
| spoilers" so ..
|
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080297/
|
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083480/
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| agreed: john le carre bbc is great. also loved Luther,
| slightly off topic.
| beezle wrote:
| Back in the late 80s they did a TV production of
| Deighton's Berlin Game, Mexico Set, London Match.
| Unfortunately, BBC/GranadaTV do not wish to release it on
| dvd or streaming even in original quality, assuming the
| tapes still exist. There is, however, a low quality
| youtube (probably a copy of home VHS):
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezekuICeYlg&list=PLSpG6jj
| 23V...
|
| Watched with my father growing up, may even have some
| home copies myself.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >is laughably out of control ridiculous at points
|
| I mean this is just American politics in general.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| It's a show specifically about MI5 in Britain.
| scrumper wrote:
| That was a brilliant show. Not just because of Gary Oldman.
| Well-drawn characters throughout.
|
| I've just started season 3 so no spoilers please :)
| JackFr wrote:
| Gary Oldman was a lot of it.
|
| I had read and enjoyed the first two books. After the first
| couple of episodes I had to admit I was watching it for
| Gary Oldman more than anything else. I'd watch just a
| supercut of him expressing disdain for and disappointment
| with his subordinates.
| 4rt wrote:
| Sandbaggers is still up there as one of the best, I rewatched
| it last week.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >Brits don't insult your intelligence too greatly in their
| spook shows; the American variety always involves some sort
| of super-human characters.
|
| This is why I could never get into House of Cards, it's just
| so over the top compared to something like Borgen which for
| me to this day is still one of the best political dramas ever
| made, also sadly went somewhat under the radar especially
| across the pond.
| Karellen wrote:
| Did you check out the original UK House of Cards? Worth
| catching if you can find it.
| DrFalkyn wrote:
| It wasn't any over the top than the original. It mostly
| just followed The BBC production almost to the letter,
| except with US spin.
|
| Until Season 4?. Whenever the re-election campaign started.
| Joel Kinnaman, while a great actor (loved him in Altered
| Carbon) was a massive miscast as a plausible candidate for
| the GOP. Mostly due to youth. And the last season was a
| Game of Thrones-level utter disaster.
| croisillon wrote:
| except it made more sense Francis Urquhart being
| Conservative than Frank Underwood being Democrat
| adhamsalama wrote:
| This is the first time I see a fellow Altered Carbon fan
| in the wild.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| I thought it was a great standalone show. What I found
| unforgivable were the underlying plot changes vs the
| books.
|
| The Last Envoy? What? That did not even become a plot
| point (at least in season 1, I bailed pretty early in
| S2). Also, Envoys are terrorists and not the ultimate-
| special ops forces?
| darksim905 wrote:
| In the wild? For people who read books, they probably
| weren't a fan. For people who don't care about source
| material, the show was amazing. I'm still pissed it was
| cancelled. It was apparently ridiculous expensive to
| produce and that's all the more reason they should have
| kept going with it: to show that we want _more_ of those
| types of things.
| gsich wrote:
| Recasting of the main character didn't help, even if it's
| explainable in-universe.
| brnt wrote:
| I thought the original was scoped and paced perfectly: no
| fluff, all action (of the suspensy kind), didn't wait for
| itself to peter out.
|
| The remake just drags on and on and on. Tons of
| irrelevant detail and uninteresting sidestories.
| epolanski wrote:
| > Tons of irrelevant detail and uninteresting
| sidestories.
|
| That's how I felt about Succession for 3 seasons.
|
| I felt it just dragged and dragged and I couldn't
| understand what was the fuss.
|
| Then I started watching some YouTube commentary and
| starting to understand that the irrelevant and
| uninteresting was actually relevant and interesting.
|
| ATN, the succession, that was all bogus for character
| development, a setup.
|
| I feel like House of Cards may fall in a similar category
| there. It's not much about the action but character
| evolution and dynamics.
| brnt wrote:
| Oh I have no doubt that was the aim in the HoC remake. It
| just wasn't any good, unlike Succession. Not all
| character development and dynamics are interesting.
|
| The scope and pacing in the original was just perfect.
| Just because you can layer on more, doesn't mean it's
| gonna make it better. Much was pure tedium and seemed to
| serve filling time first and foremost.
| nox101 wrote:
| I stopped in the episode where, for me at least, out of
| absolutely nowhere, Spacey's character seduces a body
| guard and him and his wife have a 3some with him. I'm
| sure many people loved that. For me, I was like WTF? what
| was completely out of left field, added to punch up
| ratings or just it insert shock value. I stopped
| watching. What that in the UK version?
| roywiggins wrote:
| The latest season got a bit silly at the end, but still
| entertaining.
| fransje26 wrote:
| > Brits don't insult your intelligence too greatly in their
| [..] shows
|
| That's a very way to express that idea. I'll be reusing that,
| if you don't mind.. :-) I've always expressed it more crudely
| as having the feeling of being forcefully lobotomized by the
| producers..
| darksim905 wrote:
| As in, British shows don't necessarily explain or show
| everything? I'm a bit lost here.
| jijijijij wrote:
| Well, looks like British television isn't for you.
| walthamstow wrote:
| I dunno. I watched the first few episodes over COVID and I
| thought it just the same as any US cable show: sex, crash-bangs
| and manufactured plot twists.
|
| Maybe I'm wrong but IIRC there's a sex scene in the first five
| minutes of the pilot. Like, don't insult my intelligence.
| miguelazo wrote:
| That was probably the only "cheap stunt" of the entire
| series. They still had to consider the average viewer, I
| suppose. But I know a few people I recommended it to were
| turned off by that exact early scene and never got past it.
| Really unfortunate.
| walthamstow wrote:
| Thanks for this. Maybe I'll give it another go.
| notnaut wrote:
| Smart people don't like sex scenes?
| The_Colonel wrote:
| I guess smart people visit porn sites when they want to
| watch some.
|
| For me it's just boring filler and I skip them.
| voltaireodactyl wrote:
| While we're expressing opinions: in a show about
| navigating a partnership that accepts seduction as a
| necessary part of intelligence work (not solely of a
| romantic nature, but often), where the main characters
| are also being seduced by the capitalist lifestyle -- I
| suspect some smart people might also view those less-
| clothed scenes as contributing (and even critical to) the
| underlying themes.
| brnt wrote:
| > I guess smart people visit porn sites
|
| I chuckled and thank you for the compliment!
|
| Also: I agree. It's pretty much always a tedium. Now,
| American series almost always suffer from that: not just
| the sex scenes are used as filler, and could be replaced
| with a line or two suggesting the events if relevant.
| House of Cards is my go to example: just take the British
| original for how you can condense the story by a factor
| of 10 without any loss. Putting it that way: it'd be
| hilarious if a compression format would work this way.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| > Like, don't insult my intelligence.
|
| The real Americans was you, all along
| etc-hosts wrote:
| I loved the show, but in retrospect, the premise of 2 Soviet
| spies being the most prolific serial killers in the history of
| the DC area without being caught is a bit weak.
|
| Masha Gessen did some work on making the spoken Russian be more
| authentic https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-
| columnists/translating-th... ( She must have given up on Keri
| Russell )
|
| Peter Jacobson (FBI Agent Wolf) appears in comedy Russian TV
| show inspired by the Americans "Adaptation"
| https://www.poconorecord.com/story/entertainment/2018/05/26/...
| . I've seen episode 1 available on the internet, full series is
| hard to find.
| jijijijij wrote:
| I mean there are several stories of these deeply implanted
| KGB sleeper-type agents in real life. Sure, not serial
| killers (who knows), but everything else is quite authentic.
|
| Here is a couple from Germany:
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/15/married-
| pair-r...
|
| They had an oblivious daughter and everything.
| matwood wrote:
| It's estimated there are 25-50 serial killers active in the
| US at any given time. There are also around 6k new unsolved
| murders each year. The point is that a murder done by someone
| with no connection to the victim is very hard to solve.
| taco_emoji wrote:
| How is this show "forgotten"? It's one of the most critically
| acclaimed shows of all time
| ipython wrote:
| and if you want to read about the real world Russian illegals
| that were caught in the US and traded in the 2010 spy swap,
| read the FBI pages on Operation Ghost Stories:
| https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/operation-ghost-stories-ins...
| eternal_braid wrote:
| Another recommendation is "Person of Interest". The series was
| ahead of its time with the implications of AI on society. It
| also has spies.
| silentsea90 wrote:
| HIGHLY highly recommend The Bureau, which is the most real spy
| show I have ever watched. The Americans is excellent (i've
| watched all of it) but has some unreal TV-like drama that The
| Bureau is able to avoid and is imo the pinnacle of spy genre.
| George Clooney is apparently making an American remake of The
| Bureau (which is in French).
| lazyeye wrote:
| Couldn't agree more, The Bureau had me hooked from start to
| finish. After the first episode, I basically binge-watched
| the entire 5 seasons non-stop. Subtitles are not an issue for
| me as I always have them on anyway. It takes a couple of
| episodes to get into it as they don't do out of their way to
| explain things. It's like you've been dropped into a job with
| an intelligence service with no training.
|
| "Tehran" (Israeli spy thriller) is another really good spy
| series. You really get a feel for the oppressive environment
| in Iran under the thumb of the IRGC.
|
| Also "The Spy" with Sascha Baron Cohen is excellent too.
| SoylentOrange wrote:
| The Americans is a highly sensationalized and fictionalized
| retelling of the life stories of Elena Vavilova and Andrey
| Bezrukov. From a historical/accuracy perspective, there's
| basically zero resemblance of the show and the source material
| beyond the premise.
|
| As drama, it excels in the drama around the marriage rather
| than the actual fact of them being spies, and has been praised
| as "fundamentally a show about a marriage". If you're looking
| for a spy thriller, you might look elsewhere. It's very
| "American TV" and doesn't really stray from the formula
| jackfoxy wrote:
| I watched the entire series, _The Americans_. It 's thrilling
| and well-crafted television, but totally bogus as a
| representation of how illegals worked in the USA.
|
| Illegals were/are special assets that would never be
| concurrently running so many different operations and
| engaging in risky _wet_ (i.e. assassination) operations right
| and left. More likely they would spend many boring years
| cultivating their positions in society and a select few
| important contacts. That doesn 't make for good television.
| Fnoord wrote:
| A good 101 on an illegal story is by Jack Barsky, on his
| own account. He wrote a book on it, there's various
| interviews with him, a podcast series (The Agent) and he
| got interviewed by Lex Fridman (#301). I recomment The
| Agent podcast series [1] on his (life) story. Also
| available on Apple Podcast.
|
| [1] https://open.spotify.com/show/5DToOunQsM18OmGD5eVRXR
| pixl97 wrote:
| Typically the best television stories are taking an entire
| organizations stories and distilling it down to just a few
| people. Easier to develop characters that way and keep the
| audience from being confused by actors that don't
| contribute much.
| darksim905 wrote:
| We clearly didn't watch the same show. The nature in which
| they use disguises alone was some of the best use in a show
| I've ever seen. There's also some very clever code words and
| traps that scary in their realism.
| mrbonner wrote:
| In a side note: how do you check for the level of nudity/sex in
| a show or movie? I use the rating but I don't find it provides
| enough finer grain: some R rated ones are OK to watch with my
| 13 year old but some have graphic sex scenes which I feel
| uncomfortable to watch together.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Common Sense Media reviews, like this one. [1]
|
| IIRC, there's a bit of sex in The Americans, and a fair bit
| of discussion of how the spies had to sleep with targets as
| part of their training, and in the field. The father
| character also has a pretty dicey relationship with a much
| younger woman/girl, in order to access her father's home
| office.
|
| 1: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/tv-reviews/the-americans
| axx8 wrote:
| I don't know how accurate it is, but IMDb [1] will usually
| tell you exact episodes of inappropriate content. Individual
| episodes also have a parental guide, but it looks less used.
|
| [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2149175/parentalguide
| sspiff wrote:
| I second this. Of all the TV shows I've watched over the years,
| this is one is easily the one I've spent the most time thinking
| about, even long after I finished watching it.
|
| While it has it's ebs and flows, it never got bad or dull for
| me.
|
| And it contains a ton of details you might think is for
| dramatic effect or cinematography, but often it turned out to
| be based on actual practices, historic fact or just have a
| practical purpose for the characters.
| carabiner wrote:
| The whole Est conference thing was real and pretty popular in
| the '80s:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erhard_Seminars_Training
| BorisMelnik wrote:
| love this show - big fan of Stan
| causality0 wrote:
| It spreads the interesting stuff out too much for me. Halfway
| through the third season I realized the episodes were starting
| to run together in my head and if I waited more than a day to
| start watching again I ended up rewatching half the episode
| before realizing I'd already seen it.
| tucnak wrote:
| > Elena was also deeply involved with her husband's enterprise
| and intimately aware of Imex's operations. In many ways, she
| seemed to be supervising and directing Nikolay's activities in
| direct coordination with Andrey Averyanov, the head of Unit
| 29155. She communicated with Gen. Andrey Averyanov via email; his
| Gmail address, registered from a Russian IP address, is
| vitazi31@gmail.com. ("Vitazi" in Russian means "knights.")
|
| So what's the working hypothesis these days, either American
| SIGINT works, or it doesn't? Update my priors in a moment... What
| is it, 50/50 either true or false? Well, you know what they say;
| the Americans truly are on the game!
| thriftwy wrote:
| Seems implause that a Russian speaker will drop a soft spot in
| the word vitiazi. I would definitely search for somebody who is
| named VITaly and whose last name starts with AZI.
| dilyevsky wrote:
| It's simpler - vitazi is "winners" in Slovakian where this
| guy was deployed.
| 0x457 wrote:
| Yeah, any russian would use 'ya' to spell 'ia'.
| thriftwy wrote:
| As a Russian observing all of these events (Skripal, Vrbetice) I
| would like to say that they don't look very convincing to a
| Russian. And this is because the motive just isn't there, the
| "cui prodest" check is failed.
|
| I imagine that they are sitting on a large pile of investigation
| material and share significant findings. Still it is hard to take
| at a face value as the amount of effort spent just does not seem
| to correlate even with best case outcome.
|
| That's not an attempt to dissuade or influence opinions.
| kvgr wrote:
| Do you mean blow up ammunition before invasion? Not enough?
| thriftwy wrote:
| It's one of a stockpiles in a small country (out of many)
| which doesn't even border Ukraine, and the one who had a lot
| of economic integration going on with Russia. That also
| predated the axtual war 10 years.
|
| A Russian would say to you that if it's indeed a GRU op, they
| should do an internal investigation and shoot behind the
| garden shed the ones who devised / permitted it, after making
| effort to find out whether they were working for the other
| side, or just dumb on their own.
|
| Or perhaps the whole GRU is defunct. Many Russians would not
| reject this idea outright.
| benterix wrote:
| > A Russian would say to you that if it's indeed a GRU op,
| they should do an internal investigation and shoot behind
| the garden shed the ones who devised / permitted it, after
| making effort to find out whether they were working for the
| other side, or just dumb on their own.
|
| A naive Russian, I would say. Let's take a simple example:
|
| > In 2009 the Saposnikovs purchased a sprawling villa on
| the picturesque Aegean peninsula of Halkidiki, Greece. The
| price, as recorded in the notarial deed of purchase
| obtained by The Insider, was 275,292 euros, or $300,000 at
| the time. Elena would later tell investigators that she had
| funded the investment "with money from my parents" - a tall
| order for the septuagenarian couple living in Kyiv on
| pensions of under $300 per month.
|
| I don't believe that the people who approved such money
| transfers were small fish in the GRU.
| SXX wrote:
| While I have no doubt about the story and these guys
| being GRU spies...
|
| These numbers are laughtably small. You can't imagine
| amount of corruption in Russia. Any high-ranking
| policeman in a mid-sized city will own few villas like
| that. GRU agent who can smuggle anything and everything
| might easily have millions of dollars under their pillow.
| kvgr wrote:
| Economic yes, used to be. But the hatred for russians in
| czech republic is real. Also we don't know what other
| conflict the ammo was supposed go to. And there is also a
| possibility of testing preparedness of EU and Nato.
| dralley wrote:
| There were not so many large stockpiles of Soviet-era
| munitions in Western-friendly countries. And despite 2014
| being smaller scale than the current conflict I wouldn't
| say that it's not "actual war". Active Russian soldiers
| have been confirmed involved, rocket artillery was fired at
| Ukraine from across the Russian border, territory was
| annexed.
| bewaretheirs wrote:
| The war between Russia and Ukraine started in February 2014
| when Russia began occupying Crimea.
|
| The ammunition warehouses in Vrbetice exploded in October
| 2014.
| Paradigma11 wrote:
| These are gifts brought to the Tzar to show that your
| Siloviki are more worthy of praise and resources than the
| other Siloviki.
| benterix wrote:
| I assume you are commenting in good faith. So, regarding "cui
| prodest", who would benefit from blowing up a munitions factory
| in the Czech republic where munitions were stored that were
| supposed to be transported to Ukraine later so that Ukrainians
| could protect themselves against the Russian invasion?
| The_Colonel wrote:
| They're not, their post history is full of Russian
| imperialist attitudes, e.g.:
|
| > Russian position is indeed that Ukrainian claims on the
| statehood in 1991 or even 2014 borders are absolutely bogus.
|
| > Personally, I also find it hard to respect the immutability
| of international borders that are younger than I am.
| thriftwy wrote:
| I'm Russian and I've started with that. But I did not come
| here to preach, merely to represent the attitudes. That has
| arguably failed.
|
| > Russian imperialist attitudes
|
| As we say in Russia, "and what are the downsides"?
| The_Colonel wrote:
| For the victims of Russia's imperialism, there have been
| many downsides, starting with deaths counting millions.
| older wrote:
| Over 51 thousands of "downsides" so far, and counting:
| https://t.me/s/pechalbeda200
| dvfjsdhgfv wrote:
| The downside is that Russia as a state has few friends.
| Had you decided not to go the imperial route, we could
| have normal, civilized relations like with the rest of
| the world. At some point we could even have something
| like EU-Russia union (why not?) with people traveling,
| living and working where they choose.
| whatshisface wrote:
| > _" and what are the downsides"_
|
| It works the same was in the US. Your taxes pay for the
| CIA, the CIA overthrows governments for United Fruit, and
| you buy products from United Fruit. You're paying for
| bananas twice and they are receiving "security" (wink,
| wink) for free[1]. Later, CIA high-ups get high-paid
| sinecures at the United Fruit company, making them the
| only ones getting compensated for the deployment of the
| government's resources. Russian citizens are not going to
| get parcels of land from occupied Ukraine. The soldiers
| who survive the war aren't going to get mineral rights.
| Instead of asking, "what are the downsides," a more
| pertinent question is, "who's getting the upsides?" (It
| is never you or me.) In practice, at least since the
| British Empire, wars of imperial expansion have served as
| another method of transferring resources from the public
| to a few influential business owners - corruption in so
| many words, not any different from stealing the funds for
| a highway.
|
| In the middle ages and earlier, soldiers would be
| rewarded in the form of titles of nobility, or in the
| Roman Empire, with land and prisoners of war to use as
| slaves. If that was a practice anywhere in the world
| today, perhaps I'd comprehend the argument for war from
| the pursuit of economic interests. Then, at least, it
| would be a moral issue - otherwise, as it is today, it's
| another pretext for the few to steal from the many. That
| means _you_.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%
| 27%C3%A...
| thriftwy wrote:
| I don't think that Russians are _obliged_ to act
| imperialistically, especially to their loss. It 's just I
| don't view _the creation of Russian Empire_ in a bad
| light - quite contrary, most other historical options
| would likely been worse, up and until 1917 at least. And
| as a Russian I believe that Russian Empire is a part of
| essential legacy of the humankind. Same with USSR despite
| its tragic and cruel history.
|
| So when I see "Russian imperialism" being thrown around
| as a casual insult I stop being constructive in response.
| This is not the right way to discuss histories, and
| especially you shouldn't try to frame any ethnic and
| religious group for their history in serious faith.
|
| I see a lot of political zealots doing that kind of
| slander, not really understanding what they are doing and
| why.
| whatshisface wrote:
| The British empire cira 1721 was, at least according to
| the venerable Adam Smith, operating on the modern
| principle of drafting non-owners into funding and
| fighting for the security of colonial enterprises they
| had no stake in. In all likelihood the Russian Empire was
| the same (it did have North American colonies after all),
| but I can agree that being the same means treating the
| adjective Russian as anything but the location is wrong -
| it's reasonable to speak about Imperialist practices
| carried out in Russia, not "Imperialism with uniquely
| Russian characteristics."
| mopsi wrote:
| > As we say in Russia, "and what are the downsides"?
|
| Tremendous wasted potential. You could be living the kind
| of life Norwegians are enjoying, but you are unable to
| climb out of the self-destructive pattern that leads to
| low development, lack of freedom, retarded economy and
| general despair that makes 1 in 4 men to drink themselves
| to death before the age of 55. As much as you like to
| shake fists at the "rotting West", in the end it's _you_
| who are living shorter, unhappier and less productive
| lives. It 's true now, it was true in Soviet days, and it
| was true during czars and empresses.
|
| The rest of us would happily leave you alone in that
| misery if only you stopped trying to drag us down to that
| level.
| dralley wrote:
| How is the motive "not there"?
|
| Skripal was seen as a traitor, having acted as a double-agent
| for British Intelligence. There's a clear pattern of Putin
| going after "traitors" - Alexander Litvinenko had publicly
| accused Putin of conducting assassinations and organizing false
| terrorist attacks before fleeing to the UK and famously being
| assassinated with Polonium there. Maksim Kuzminov was just
| assassinated in Spain a few months ago for having defected to
| Ukraine with a helicopter.
|
| As the article states the arms which were destroyed were likely
| to end up being received by the Free Syrian Army, in opposition
| to the Assad regime supported by Putin - or alternatively, to
| Ukraine, against which Russia had just started a conflict.
| thriftwy wrote:
| There is indeed a clear pattern of cases of pattern of cases
| but there isn't a clear pattern of motivation. Maksim
| Kuzminov is a GG WP good riddance F, but the rest...
|
| Anyways, the downvotes are coming so apparently there is no
| room for dialogue these days. I had no desire to waste the
| fruit of my spleen on persuading anyone.
| qup wrote:
| > fruit of my spleen
|
| Google returns zero results for this phrase (when quoted).
| Congratulations.
|
| I like it.
| xenophonf wrote:
| To vent one's spleen means to express angry feelings,
| from Hippocrates' theories about the "humors".
| thriftwy wrote:
| That's Strugatsky brothers:
|
| > kogda nosorog gliadit na Lunu, on naprasno tratit
| tsvety svoei selezenki
|
| When a Rhino looks up the moon, he just wastes the
| flowers of his spleen
| int_19h wrote:
| The widespread perception that there's no room for dialogue
| with Russia would be one of the downsides that you have
| asked about. If you decide to openly endorse its foreign
| policy, don't complain that you get treated accordingly, as
| well.
| timthelion wrote:
| What I don't understand is why the attack on the Czech Republic
| was not seen as an attack by Russia on NATO.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| NATO countries have been consistently looking the other way or
| downplaying Russian aggression because nobody actually wants to
| have to get into the sty and get dirty wrestling the pig to the
| ground.
|
| I don't even think it's based on any realistic concerns of
| nuclear or conventional escalation... incumbents just don't
| want to be the ones in power when war happens. I think many
| aggressors have learned to capitalize on this weakness.
| Georgelemental wrote:
| Because NATO is not raring for nuclear armadeggon?
| epistasis wrote:
| If responding to this would mean nuclear armageddon, then
| what is Russia doing by attacking NATO in this way?
|
| Rolling over beacuse somebody is a nuclear power only seems
| to come up when Russia is in the chat. If China or Israel
| attacks someone, nobody says "we can't respond to it because
| it would start a nuclear war."
|
| What is it about Russia that makes Russia so irresponsible?
| And if it is, isn't it time to completely eliminate all
| economic ties with Russia, and pressure every other country
| in the world to do the same, until Russia decides to be a
| responsible country with their nuclear weapons.
| vkou wrote:
| > If responding to this would mean nuclear armageddon, then
| what is Russia doing by attacking NATO in this way?
|
| Doing low-stakes trial runs of its capability for sabotage
| in a future conflict.
|
| The reason it can do this against NATO is because NATO has
| non-war means to tit-for-tat punish Russia for this sort of
| behaviour. Those means are called sanctions, _and there
| could always be more of them_.
|
| NATO does not do much of the converse, because Russia has
| very few non-war ways to punish NATO. NATO would _really_
| not like Russia 's tit-for-tat response, which is why it
| prefers to fight arms-length proxy wars, instead.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| >because NATO has non-war means to tit-for-tat punish
| Russia for this sort of behaviour. Those means are called
| sanctions, and there could always be more of them.
|
| Except that they don't really work well against Russia,
| if you ask anyone in those small and formerly depressive
| Russian cities where property prices are currently
| rising. Parallel imports and proxy exports do magic,
| bureaucrats in the financial block of the government
| handle monetary policy extremely well, China is helpful
| and half of the world simply does not care or directly
| benefits from this war.
| vkou wrote:
| So all it took to unfuck the Russian economy is for it to
| be subjected to sanctions and import/export restrictions?
| Weird, countries rarely tend to prosper under those
| circumstances.
|
| I thought that the crooks in charge were running it into
| the ground for the past ~33 years, I didn't realize that
| this was all it took to get them to start managing the
| country well.
|
| > if you ask anyone in those small and formerly
| depressive Russian cities where property prices are
| currently rising.
|
| Not sure which properties you're talking about, most of
| the Soviet construction in my home town is - quite
| literally - falling apart, with no motivation or economic
| capacity, or money to repair, rebuild, or replace any of
| it.
|
| Sure, you can inflate property values to whatever amount
| you want, if you start printing money to finance a war,
| but that doesn't on its own result in economic
| prosperity. You actually need to _make_ stuff, and
| Russian industry has lost the ability to do that decades
| ago.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| > I thought that the crooks in charge were running it
| into the ground for the past ~33 years, I didn't realize
| that this was all it took to get them to start managing
| the country well.
|
| You are completely misunderstanding modern Russian
| economy. The "Running into the ground" part ended 20
| years ago. Organized crime was contained, necessary
| reforms were mostly done, entrepreneurial culture
| emerged, they started developing industrial policy and
| digitalization. Old Soviet industry and monocities around
| it were dying, true, but whole new sectors emerged and
| they are damn good. Banking and telecoms, hospitality, IT
| and e-commerce to name a few. Even industry is not
| completely dead, on the contrary: whole new automotive
| clusters have grown with increasing localization of
| components etc. One very good indicator of the shape of
| industry is the current output of military industrial
| complex: they scaled it incredibly fast and currently
| outperform the entire EU on a number of positions. This
| means that not just some factories are working but their
| entire supply chain is ok. This is the part of Russia
| that actually prospers and has been growing for a while
| now.
|
| > Sure, you can inflate property values to whatever
| amount you want, if you start printing money to finance a
| war, but that doesn't on its own result in economic
| prosperity
|
| The thing is, they don't print money. Their head of
| central bank is one of the most competent professionals
| in Europe if not the entire world. What is happening now
| is redistribution: oil money going into the pockets of
| the poor people, a family member of which has signed the
| contract and went to war. No wonder the war feels
| "justified" for them: they have never seen this kind of
| money before and they spend it. Just for example take the
| small town Mtsensk. Since the start of the war property
| prices there increased by 50%. Old Soviet panel building
| is still a big upgrade for those who were used to go
| outside to the toilet. This is another part of Russia,
| forgotten and abandoned for a while, which won a lottery
| ticket while supplying the war with cannon fodder.
|
| Both parts exist and when counted on average, negate each
| other. Omitting one of them is oversimplifying.
| int_19h wrote:
| Bluntly put, what makes Russia so "irresponsible" is that
| they know they can get away with it from experience. This
| will continue for as long as the collective West keeps
| behaving in ways that make it clear that it would do
| anything possible to avoid a confrontation.
|
| Note that there's a difference between talk and action. The
| West likes to _talk_ about holding Russia accountable, and
| making a show of it with token sanctions. But when even
| those token sanctions are routinely skirted by Western
| companies operating through intermediaries in third
| countries while Western governments look the other way,
| Russia knows that all this talk doesn 't matter and can be
| ignored.
|
| It also doesn't help that talking about what needs to be
| done to be able to reliably push back - i.e. more defense
| spending, more investment into military infrastructure and
| manufacturing, helping your allies etc - gets politicians
| voted out of office in so many Western countries these
| days.
| mistermann wrote:
| > Rolling over beacuse somebody is a nuclear power only
| seems to come up when Russia is in the chat. If China or
| Israel attacks someone, nobody says "we can't respond to it
| because it would start a nuclear war."
|
| >What is it about Russia that makes Russia so
| irresponsible?
|
| Consider the contents of the training sets. China hasn't
| "been" our "enemy" until relatively recently, it takes a
| while for "reality" to propagate to all nodes.
| surfingdino wrote:
| Because it was seen as the cost of doing business with Russia,
| i.e. having access to their natural resources.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| And then Czechia in 2021 randomly decided it's not worth it?
| (Russia did not cut access to their resources as a result
| anyway). Does not make sense.
|
| The breakthrough in the investigation came only post 2018 as
| a result of Skripal poisonings where the same agents were
| involved. It took a while to connect the dots.
| surfingdino wrote:
| The EU, Germany in particular, was not interested in making
| a big deal out of it for fear of getting cut off from the
| Russian teat. German economy was set up to run on Russian
| gas and oil and Germany has a lot of influence over Czechia
| so there was likely some pressure to keep things quiet. But
| in 2021 there was enough evidence on who did it and what
| was being planned to take action.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| > But in 2021 there was enough evidence on who did it and
| what was being planned to take action.
|
| Seems like you agree the reason it was not published
| before 2021 was that there wasn't enough evidence
| collected yet.
|
| Isn't that the most parsimonious explanation? Why do you
| feel the need to add this superfluous German angle /
| Russian resources unfounded speculation?
| surfingdino wrote:
| Because Germany is the biggest ally of Russia in the EU
| and has investments in Eastern Europe that benefit from
| cheap labour available in the region and cheap oil and
| gas from Russia (well, no more), so it was not interested
| in upsetting the status quo.
| severino wrote:
| What for? To start a war between nuclear powers just because of
| sabotage? Furthermore, we the members of NATO sometimes
| sabotage other members, like when some pipes of the Nord Stream
| pipeline were destroyed two years ago. So...
| Aerroon wrote:
| > _we the members of NATO sometimes sabotage other members,
| like when some pipes of the Nord Stream pipeline were
| destroyed two years ago. So..._
|
| Or when NATO members wanted to build Nord Stream despite
| protests from other NATO members.
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| >we the members of NATO sometimes sabotage other members,
| like when some pipes of the Nord Stream pipeline were
| destroyed two years ago
|
| Damn! You have evidence of that? That must be worth a
| fortune.
| vkou wrote:
| It's worth a lot less in a hypothetical scenario where
| everyone's decided its in their best interests to forget
| all about it, which may be similar to the scenario we're
| currently in.
|
| In politics, the truth isn't usually worth very much, and
| is second fiddle to the ends.
| lupusreal wrote:
| Suppose ot were true, how would you turn the evidence into
| profit? Sell it to western media? Let the wrong person know
| and they'll tip off western intelligence and then your car
| will drive you into a tree. Sell it to Russia? Maybe they
| would pay, but would you like life in Russia? Once you're
| there, maybe they don't pay after all. Or maybe you sell it
| to Russia, stay in the west, and spend the rest of your
| life looking over your shoulder.
|
| The proof, if any exists, is worse than worthless.
| severino wrote:
| You mean we don't know who managed to blow up the pipeline
| that some NATO members threatened to blow up several times?
| Yes, we only have this official investigation from two
| ""independent"" countries that wouldn't hesitate to point
| their finger at Russia if they had any evidence, no matter
| how weak, yet they closed it "without identifying
| perpetrators". You're right, no clue!
| snowpid wrote:
| Sorry the last sentence is not proofed. You imagine
| something.
| mistermann wrote:
| The funny part is: regardless of which side one is on,
| imagination is necessary, and typically: unavoidable _and
| undetectable_.
| rdtsc wrote:
| That's a very good question. The problem is what's next if they
| acknowledge that.
|
| Say it is acknowledged as an attack on a NATO member, but
| nothing is done. That immediately turns NATO's worth from
| whatever its is worth now, to less than the paper it was
| printed on in 1999 when the Check Republic joined the
| organization.
|
| That's the achilles heel of NATO, and the Russian government
| knows it. Same goes for Baltic countries and possibly Poland.
| Currently what is Americans' and West Europeans' appetite for
| starting WWIII over an arms warehouse, or a small village in
| Baltics? I want to believe they would step up, but I am not
| convinced. Those kind of attacks becomes very attractive for
| Putin: blow something up here, hack something there,
| assassinate this or that person, and then watch NATO do
| anything.
|
| That's why the predictable response it so look away and pretend
| nobody saw anything.
| sofixa wrote:
| Since the invasion of Ukraine I think it's pretty clear to
| everyone involved (and many have been making it publicly and
| loudly clear) that appeasement doesn't work with Putin. So if
| any of the Baltics gets invaded for whatever reason, you can
| bet that a majority of NATO members will join to defend (even
| traitors in some countries like Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria
| will definitely will try their best to stop their country
| from joining).
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Sure, but as the commenter above you was saying, it
| wouldn't be an "invasion." It'll be a series of escalation
| provocations. Blow something up "by accident", poisonings
| of escaped dissidents, "little green men" stirring stuff up
| in the "persecuted" Russian-speaking minority, and then
| using that as a pretext for more and more strident
| interventions.
|
| And at each point NATO has to make a decision whether it's
| "worth it" to escalate into armed conflict over it, and
| Putin can just keep "bending the stick" until he finds
| where it's about to snap, and not push any further, while
| the stick gets a bit weaker and weaker...
|
| I do think the Russians are vulnerable _right now_ in the
| sense that if they provoked excessively in the fashion they
| were used to before the invasion of Ukraine, they could
| open the floodgates to more serious support for Ukraine.
| keybored wrote:
| > Since the invasion of Ukraine I think it's pretty clear
| to everyone involved (and many have been making it publicly
| and loudly clear) that appeasement doesn't work with Putin.
|
| When was Putin appeased?
| sofixa wrote:
| The world sat idly when he invaded Georgia, Crimea,
| Donbass. When Russian agents sabotaged facilities over
| Central and Eastern Europe, murdered dissidents and
| civilians.
| mistermann wrote:
| If Putin was smart he'd perform something like this:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing
| keybored wrote:
| I'm not sure what the opposite of appeasement is in this
| context. A great power state invading/annexing/assisting
| a "separatist group" (whatever you want to call it) does
| not lead any direct escalation with another great
| power/superpower in this day and age. In turn I don't
| understand how Putin has been getting appeased any more
| than other great powers.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Georgia, Crimea, Donbass, all the many assassinations on
| Western soil, etc.
| retrac wrote:
| The most egregious acts can be downplayed or politely ignored,
| if the aggrieved party really wishes to avoid war. On the other
| hand, the smallest provocation can serve as a justification for
| war, if the aggrieved party wants war.
|
| North Korea regularly shells South Korea, sometimes killing
| South Korean civilians. It's absolutely a cause for war, and
| they might indeed be justified, in a sense, with breaking the
| ceasefire and marching on Pyongyang the next time NK does so.
| But they will have to live with the war that would cause.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Add it to the long list of attacks. The real question is 'what
| sort of attack would generate a response from NATO?'
| anigbrowl wrote:
| One everyone knew about that could not be played off as an
| accident or one small unit that got carried away. Read war
| histories, large conflicts often start out with a succession
| of small scale feints, probes, and black operations.
| vkou wrote:
| For the same reason that shooting down an Iranian passenger
| airliner or blowing up its centrifuges isn't considered an
| attack on Iran.
|
| Also because most of us aren't interested in nuclear war over
| anything less than an existential threat. And the odds of
| conventional war between nuclear powers escalating into nuclear
| war is too fucking high. You'll need a better reason than
| 'someone blew up a weapons stockpile' to risk that.
|
| If you're not going to risk open war over a full invasion of
| Ukraine, we sure won't risk it over an arms depot.
|
| De-escalation-by-default is a feature, not a bug in a world
| where the push of a button can kill a billion people (much to
| the chagrin of people who have never had war waged against
| them).
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Wars are never waged as responses to attacks or insults, they
| are waged when the rulers have determined that they will be
| profitable. Until then, all attacks or atrocities will be
| ignored.
|
| When it's time for war, the rulers will make up any kind of
| excuse, order the media to whip up the population to a war
| frenzy and mothers will cry tears of joy when their sons get
| sent away to die in agony in some forest or desert with their
| guts spilled all over the ground.
|
| But if you think the honour of the Czech Republic or NATO needs
| to be restored, the question is what are you still doing in
| front of the computer?
| twixfel wrote:
| Haven't you inverted it rather flagrantly? In this scenario
| it is Russia that attached the Czech Republic.
|
| > Wars are never waged as responses to attacks or insults,
| they are waged when the rulers have determined that they will
| be profitable
|
| It is a meaningless truism that nations don't start wars they
| don't think they can or will win. No need to dress that up as
| any sort of profound insight.
| lupusreal wrote:
| Winning the war isn't enough if you suffer greatly to win
| it and get little if anything to actually show for your
| victory. "Profit" is necessary.
|
| In this case, the cost of ignoring Russia's attacks is far
| less than the cost of winning a war against Russia. If this
| relationship flips, then we might get war.
| jopsen wrote:
| Also, why would you risk a kinetic response, when it's so
| far proven perfectly safe to donate equipment to Ukraine?
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Nations don't start wars, rulers do. The rulers can still
| profit while the nation loses. That's the standard outcome
| of war, the nation will suffer greatly and lose immense
| amounts of human life and destruction, whether winning or
| losing the war. Even a nation who only wages war overseas
| looses much more than they gain, because of productivity
| that has to go to the war effort. It is only ever the
| rulers that have anything to gain from war. And of course
| those who enjoy war and battle for itself.
|
| > In this scenario it is Russia that attached the Czech
| Republic.
|
| It is the ruler(s) of Russia that has done that.
| avar wrote:
| Everyone responding to you here is wrong.
|
| It's not "seen as an attack by Russia on NATO" because per the
| NATO treaty Russia nuking Washington DC won't be "seen as an
| attack" either, that is, until the country being attacked
| officially declares it as such through the mechanisms the
| treaty outlines.
|
| The Czech republic hasn't invoked that mechanism, therefore
| it's a non-event as far as NATO's concerned. NATO doesn't have
| any mechanisms for pro-actively monitoring attacks on member
| states, outside of those states themselves.
| captn3m0 wrote:
| > In both cases, she used sophisticated tradecraft that sought to
| leave no trace in databases accessible to European authorities.
| For instance, she booked her trips and bought her plane tickets
| using her Czech passport, registering only that nationality with
| the Greek airline. But upon crossing the Russian border,
| Saposnikova used her secret Russian passport, thus bypassing the
| need to obtain a Russian visa issued to her as a Czech citizen
| and eliding the digital footprint associated with the relevant
| application.
|
| Wouldn't the Greek airline (and Greek exit immigration control)
| check for a valid Russian visa for a Czech passport? They had to
| put the exit stamp on _something_?
|
| Or did she use the Russian passport, but then wouldn't that get
| scanned into the system?
| mmsc wrote:
| The airline only needs to be physically shown a passport which
| will get the person into the destination: they don't record it.
| So you book with the Czech passport, go through border control
| with the Czech passport, then show the airline staff the
| Russian passport.
| mrighele wrote:
| I may be wrong, but every time you do a check-in you are
| giving your information and they record it, and you have to
| show the same document at boarding time.
|
| This doesn't mean that it must be the same document that you
| used to enter or exit the country though, although depending
| on the destination the airline may require proof that you can
| enter the destination country, like a visa or a passport,
| because having a passenger refused entry may be an hassle for
| them.
|
| You can use a document to exit the departure country, another
| for the airline (with the caveat above) and another one for
| the destination, even with different names on them.
| mmsc wrote:
| You would should both to the airline staff. "This is my ID
| I used, and this is my ID which allows me entry so you(the
| airline) won't have to bring me all the way back to my
| arrival point." Airline staff will not record this second
| form of ID: it's only to show the staff for a moment.
| eastbound wrote:
| Okay, but spies, terrorists and tax evaders (or military
| duty evaders for Iran) with double nationality have been
| using the double-passport trick for over a century: Is it
| time that airlines feed their incoming passenger list to
| the destination authority?
|
| I mean... isn't that built-in to the system already? I
| never supposed entering Thailand that I wasn't already
| known to the Thai border police, who surely must have
| checked that I'm not a banned and/or wanted criminal,
| right? Or is this system supposed to a single safety net
| of the destination's border agent recognizing a fake
| passport just by checking the numbers in a DB? Is that
| why TPB's founders escaped to Thailand, is this why
| Wolkswagen's pollution manager thought he could cross the
| USA freely on holidays without spending 8 years in jail,
| is this why Carlos Ghosn escaped Japan?
|
| Or do countries carefully avoid reaching an agreement on
| airline IT systems, just because they do need each
| others' spies to cross freely?
| tharkun__ wrote:
| It's not even a "trick". It's just normal for dual
| citizens to make things faster.
|
| Leave Canada on Canadian passport. You just get nods and
| wave throughs. Enter European country on EU passport in
| the smaller line (or nowadays automated border control
| stations). Just scan passport, (don't) smile for the
| photo and off you go. Flying back Canadian passport is on
| file and the CBSA just asks you some basic questions and
| waves you through.
| darksim905 wrote:
| >they don't record it
|
| naive.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| At least some of them certainly do record it. I have multiple
| passports and have had difficulties several times with an
| airline that has one of my passports listed, that doesn't
| show the right of entry to the other country and which I was
| not intending to use for that flight. Moreover, if you are
| travelling on a codeshare flight, for instance, all airlines
| involved will record your travel documents, but only the
| airline operating the flight will be able to make updates to
| them.
|
| edit: they certainly do not anywhere rely on eyeballing a
| piece of paper and letting some random staff member say "yup
| looks legit".
| robocat wrote:
| Is there a conflict between (a) wanting to exit a country
| using the passport you entered it on*, and (b) wanting to
| enter a flight using the passport you will exit on?
|
| * don't want to be recorded as an overstayer
| tharkun__ wrote:
| That's a definite maybe!
|
| Some countries make the airline need to know in advance
| whether to let you even board. Say the US with the
| electronic visaless authorization. You gotta give the
| airline your ESTA. Canada wants to know as well. So you
| need to have your PR card or Canadian passport on file or
| the electronic authorization.
|
| But that doesn't stop you from entering Europe on a
| European passport. You can have your say Canadian
| passport on file and fly out on that. At the destination
| you show your European passport (smaller line ups and
| basically you are just waived through). You never show
| the Canadian passport in the EU on arrival. You have the
| Canadian one on file and show that when leaving so they
| let you board. Back in Canada you use your Canadian
| passport to enter.
|
| This way you never get any visa stamps and you "fly
| through passport control" on either end.
|
| So yeah, even if this is maybe used by "sleeper agents"
| it's also just normal for dual citizens.
| seydor wrote:
| > Furthermore, Elena owned a company registered in the Marshall
| Islands and controlled two bank accounts in Switzerland.
|
| If airlines could be fooled, you'd think at least Swiss banks
| would do some KYC
| immibis wrote:
| The whole reason Swiss has a banking reputation is that it
| _didn 't_ do KYC. At all.
| wcunning wrote:
| Up until the war on terror and the US no longer accepting
| that excuse. They do extensive KYC now.
| epolanski wrote:
| Swiss banking system changed a lot during the last 15
| years.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| >They had to put the exit stamp on _something_?
|
| Are exit stamps a thing in Schengen area for EU citizens? I
| usually just pass an automatic gate after scanning the
| passport. It does not have any European marks. Stamp is
| historically a permission to leave, which EU citizens do not
| need: we are free to leave and return back.
| brnt wrote:
| As a European I've never had exit or entry stamps when
| leaving or entering the Union. The only stamps I ever got are
| from (some) non-EU countries.
| yread wrote:
| They are at least for nonEU ppl. Friend got in big trouble
| because border agents didn't stamp her passport - she went to
| the us, got an exit stamp but no entry or exit stamp from us
| and no entry stamp in eu (lots of ppl got lazy...). A routine
| visit to immigration office suddenly turned into pretty
| strict questioning and several hours of waiting until they
| check her passport.
| switch007 wrote:
| AIUI the stamps are to record your stay duration in the zone
| and to determine if you've complied with the stay limit (90
| days in 180 days). The limits do not apply to EU citizens,
| hence no stamps needed
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Like a real life episode of The Americans
| imwillofficial wrote:
| I have no idea why this comment is getting trashed
| mmsc wrote:
| > In both cases, she used sophisticated tradecraft that sought to
| leave no trace in databases accessible to European authorities.
| For instance, she booked her trips and bought her plane tickets
| using her Czech passport, registering only that nationality with
| the Greek airline. But upon crossing the Russian border,
| Saposnikova used her secret Russian passport, thus bypassing the
| need to obtain a Russian visa issued to her as a Czech citizen
| and eliding the digital footprint associated with the relevant
| application.
|
| " sophisticated tradecraft " lol what?
|
| It's generally illegal in most countries to use another country's
| passport within the country your passport is from. You can't have
| a German and Argentinian passport and enter Germany with the
| German passport and leave with the Argentinian one. Nor can you
| leave Germany with just the Argentinian one. You can go to other
| Schengen countries, but you can't leave the Schengen region
| ("since is your entrance stamp?")
| chatmasta wrote:
| Many (most?) countries do not require you to show _any_
| passport when exiting the country. (But if you're traveling by
| air, then the next country you enter will likely share your
| passport details with the country you just departed.)
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| Can you give an example? Sounds strange to me. Even within
| Schengen area there can be temporary border checks and you
| usually need to identify yourself when leaving it.
| askonomm wrote:
| In-shengen border controls are extremely easy to bypass,
| and if you travel a lot you know exactly where they are
| (especially since it is quite rare). Baltic countries have
| no checks at all at the borders, so you can go Sweden to
| Finland, Finland to Estonia, Estonia all the way down to
| Poland without any checks at all, easy. I know there's
| often a check at the France / Spain border, but I also know
| they only check busses and rarely any cars, so you can just
| either drive through with a rental car or just walk over (I
| once got my ID stolen and could not get over with a bus, so
| I hitchhicked / walked from Nice to Barcelona).
| mmsc wrote:
| Those in-Schengen checks for buses and so on are largely
| just "do you have a valid passport?" and I'm not aware of
| any real checks of visa status, overstay checks, etc.
|
| If you get caught without a passport, you get detained
| though. If you've forgotten your passport somewhere,
| someone else can take it to an airport (or a physical
| border) and the border control at the airport can then
| confirm your identity.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| > In-shengen border controls...
|
| I'm talking about temporary border controls that any
| country within the area may implement in certain
| circumstances according to the agreement. They are not
| the norm, Schengen is supposed to have only an external
| border.
| anthk wrote:
| You can trivially head from Irun to Hendaye.
| Moto7451 wrote:
| No one checked my passport going from Germany to Poland
| or Poland to France this past week by air.
|
| Per the EU's website, Romania and Bulgaria don't check
| when flying between them.
|
| https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/entry-
| exit/eu-c...
| FabHK wrote:
| Examples/source? According to this stack overflow question,
| the US is (fairly) unique in not having immigration exit
| checks.
|
| https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/122289/why-
| don-t-...
| llmllmllm wrote:
| The UK doesn't have exit checks.
| mmsc wrote:
| Of the ~50 countries I've been to in the past 10 years,
| The UK is the only one I remember which I did not need to
| show any ID when leaving. I thought it was strange
| because this is just one way countries catch overstays.
| zarzavat wrote:
| They get the records from the airlines. They don't need
| to pay someone to stamp passports at the border to know
| who is overstaying.
| mmsc wrote:
| Sure (and I'm not sure if that's actually how it works),
| but the border control also physically stops someone from
| leaving after they've overstayed. If someone has
| overstayed, they just go to the airport and hop on a
| plane with no consequences.
| zarzavat wrote:
| Some countries do fine overstayers, but UK is quite happy
| for people to leave with no penalty, it just doesn't want
| them to come back again afterwards.
|
| If someone overstays without a good reason then they are
| probably not entering the UK again for a long time.
|
| The consequences are almost worse without the exit
| controls because overstayers will waste money on a flight
| only to get turned around at the border - assuming they
| don't need a visa or ETA.
| chatmasta wrote:
| But what's the point of catching an overstay if they're
| leaving already? It's more important to catch them when
| they try to re-enter (at which point you could have
| collected data from airlines to estimate whether they
| previously overstayed).
|
| Exit checks are pretty pointless if there's no violation
| that would lead to enforcement other than deportation
| (since the traveler is already self-deporting).
| mmsc wrote:
| Deportation is just the end result. Fines, blacklisting,
| even imprisonment is possible in many countries.
| portaouflop wrote:
| So you keep them from leaving and imprison them in your
| country (essentially paying for their upkeep and
| rendering them useless for your economy). And you do that
| to solve the problem of illegal immigration.
|
| It's so stupid it sounds like a policy some right wingers
| in my country might actually want to make reality.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Britain has a fairly unique attitude, it must be left-
| over from the empire - best summed up as "this is the
| garden of Eden, and the worst punishment is exile'
|
| When the 15 year old girl joined Isis, and then
| subsequently re-appeared in a refugee camp with a
| newborn, there was little desire to arrest her and figure
| out if she is guilty or a victim. We just took away her
| British passport and washed our hands of her. I thought
| the government would at least rescue the baby, but
| apparently nobody cared and it perished in the inhumane
| conditions of the refugee camp.
|
| This is somewhat unique - for example Russia could come
| after you, or arrest you on entry, but they don't have
| this idea of exile as punishment.
| wildylion wrote:
| You sure they don't?
|
| As in, 'you have 2 days to GTFO, or we'll land you in
| prison for a few years to think of your actions'.
|
| Happened many, many times since the start of this
| horrific war and many times before.
|
| Source: I'm one of the lucky ones who managed to GTFO
| from Russia and find a job abroad.
|
| Also, Russia is [contemplating](https://novayagazeta.eu/a
| rticles/2024/04/25/russia-reportedl....) stopping issuing
| passports abroad - to try and catch the 'undesirables'
| again. Which would leave many people de-facto stateless.
| This is what Belarus did quite a while ago, by the way.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| I believe the idea of not issuing passports is the
| opposite -> to get people to come back to Russia where
| they can face consequences?
| wildylion wrote:
| "Either you stay the F out and become de-facto stateless,
| or you're going to prison". Simple as that.
|
| I'm actually pretty surprised that Russia didn't do it
| yet, as Belarus did a while ago.
| zarzavat wrote:
| It tends to be the opposite. The UK is so strict about
| overstays that it doesn't need to fine anybody to enforce
| the rules.
|
| The countries that fine people are usually (not always)
| more open to allowing them back in again.
|
| I'm not aware of countries that imprison overstayers,
| although I'm sure there must be some. Detainment awaiting
| deportation yes, but usually if you show up at a border
| and try to leave after overstaying most countries will
| not interfere with your exit (with or without a fine).
| zarzavat wrote:
| It tends to be the opposite. The UK is so strict about
| overstays that it doesn't need to fine anybody to enforce
| the rules.
|
| The countries that fine people are usually (not always)
| more open to allowing them back in again.
|
| I'm not aware of countries that imprison overstayers,
| although I'm sure there must be some. Detainment awaiting
| deportation yes, but usually if you show up at a border
| and try to leave after overstaying most countries will
| not interfere with your exit (with or without a fine).
| bee_rider wrote:
| If someone has overstayed you might want to note that
| down in case they come for another stay, right?
| arccy wrote:
| if you don't get any record of them leaving, from a
| manned border crossing or an airline reporting to you,
| then they've overstayed
| chatmasta wrote:
| You can also assume the first record of them entering
| another country is the date they left your country, since
| a person cannot be two places at once.
| pmayrgundter wrote:
| Well, they can immediately charge a fee (personal
| experience) and also it may be applicable for other
| matters in-flight.. let's say you're applying for a visa
| but have overstayed the current one. If they don't check
| until re-entry, they wouldn't catch this
| jowea wrote:
| Maybe it's a requirement for for air travel only? Why do
| all those countries bother? Surely they don't all have
| exit visa requirements?
| spullara wrote:
| When taking the Chunnel recently there are two passport
| checks on the way to the train, leaving UK and then 20 ft
| later entering France.
| RegnisGnaw wrote:
| Canada
| pseingatl wrote:
| They regularly check people flying to certain destinations.
| Catch a flight to Colombia from Miami and you'll find the
| friendly Border Patrol Customs agents in the jetway.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| At least in some countries in Schengen area they check both
| passports on the outbound travel to Russia, e.g. in Narva,
| Estonia (,,You don't seem to have Russian visa, do you have
| another passport?")
|
| However, you don't have to be very smart and sophisticated to
| simply choose another route and use connection in Istanbul to
| avoid this check...
| mmsc wrote:
| > they check both passports on the outbound travel to Russia,
| e.g. in Narva, Estonia
|
| Who is "they"?
|
| If "they" is the airline, then physically show them the
| Russian passport: they don't record this information, they
| only need to see it to confirm that they won't have to fly
| you back (for free?) to your departing location.
|
| If border control (again: by flying), simply saying "my
| flight is to the UK" works.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| >Who is "they"?
|
| Narva is a pedestrian and car crossing. EU has a border
| with Russia/Belarus.
|
| > If border control (again: by flying), simply saying "my
| flight is to the UK" works.
|
| FYI in many places (not everywhere, rarely in Europe)
| border control will look at your boarding pass too.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > " sophisticated tradecraft " lol what?
|
| I feel that there was a huge loss of competence - our security
| services are far too busy chasing around lone terrorists with
| low-tech tools and no op-sec.
|
| The military industrial complex is so deep in grift it can only
| produce enough weapons to fight third world countries with
| minimal losses
| mistermann wrote:
| > " sophisticated tradecraft " lol what?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
| ericol wrote:
| I think what this means is that she used her Czech passport
| when leaving a country, and used the Russian passport when
| entering Russia (Thus leaving no trace of her entering the EU
| as a Russian national).
|
| That's far from "sophisticated tradecaft" though. For instance
| a large % of Argentinians have double nationality (Myself
| included) and we do this all the time when travelling to
| Europe.
| immibis wrote:
| That's what any sane dual citizen would do. Use your Schengen
| country passport within Schengen and your home country
| passport when entering your home country. Maybe you wouldn't
| go to the lengths of using two different passports on _one
| flight_ (you 'd show your Russian passport when boarding a
| flight to Russia) but if you did, it wouldn't be that
| weird...
| syngrog66 wrote:
| Russian website, yikes
| Krasnol wrote:
| > On 23 July 2021 Russia's Ministry of Justice added The
| Insider to its list [ru] of "foreign mass media performing the
| functions of a foreign agent".[66][67] On 14 December 2021 a
| court in Moscow ordered the outlet to pay 1 million rubles.[68]
| On 15 July 2022, the publication was banned in Russia alongside
| Bellingcat. Following this restriction, any Russian citizen who
| aids Bellingcat or The Insider may face criminal prosecution;
| they would also be restricted from citing their publications.
| The office of the Prosecutor-General of Russia said that they
| were banned due to "posing a threat to the security of the
| Russian Federation"
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Insider_(website)
| int_19h wrote:
| I do wonder how they managed to retain that domain name. Most
| news orgs that were banned in Russia moved to other TLDs.
| Krasnol wrote:
| Yes, I thought that too but since we're on the Cold War
| level again, it might be a trick and the article a
| glorification of Russian agents...on the other hand, they
| work with Bellingcat and if those guys don't think it's
| fishy...at least I wouldn't dare to question their
| resources.
| cryptonector wrote:
| > Travel and border crossing data, recently made available thanks
| to an avalanche of terabytes leaked from Russian government
| databases, showed that Elena Saposnikova is in possession of a
| secret Russian passport. Critically, her nine-digit passport
| number is part of a numerical range reserved exclusively for
| members of Unit 29155, differing from those of her colleagues
| only by its last two digits. Saposnikova's is 646518955.
|
| That is very sloppy of Russia. Why even bother doing something so
| dumb?
|
| > Saposnikova used this passport to travel between Greece and
| Russia on at least two occasions, once in December 2015 and the
| second time in December 2017. In both cases, she used
| sophisticated tradecraft that sought to leave no trace in
| databases accessible to European authorities. For instance, she
| booked her trips and bought her plane tickets using her Czech
| passport, registering only that nationality with the Greek
| airline. But upon crossing the Russian border, Saposnikova used
| her secret Russian passport, thus bypassing the need to obtain a
| Russian visa issued to her as a Czech citizen and eliding the
| digital footprint associated with the relevant application.
|
| How does "bypassing the need to obtain a Russian visa" "elide the
| digital footprint associated with the relevant application"? Why
| would the Czech government learn of a visa application to Russia?
|
| The airline most likely would want to know that Saposnikova had a
| visa, so they would have looked, and Saposnikova would have shown
| them her Russian passport, which the airline probably would have
| reported to Czech authorities (I imagine that's what happens
| normally).
|
| So this is just more sloppiness, or at least TFA reaches the
| wrong conclusion about the point of not Saposnikova not applying
| for a visa. Perhaps she should have applied for a visa so as not
| to have to reveal her Russian passport to the airline, or she
| should have had a different Russian passport to show the airline.
|
| In any case, having a block of passport numbers for a super-
| secret ops team is just beyond dumb. It's so dumb that I'm not
| sure I believe it -- I might sooner believe that such evidence
| was planted than that such evidence is real, but maybe the
| Russians just don't have enough Soviet-era intelligence clue left
| and haven't developed enough post-Soviet intelligence
| capabilities.
| eastbound wrote:
| Yes: "Great, you're our spy now. Keep it secret. Also, please
| always carry on you this piece of Russian evidence with serial
| numbers adjacent to _all our other moles_ , because otherwise
| our own border patrol may reject you on entry with your Czech
| passport, I decided."
|
| So they're telling us that Russia is that bad at spying. But
| the first commercial supersonic jet was the Tupolev 144, not
| the Concord.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| >That is very sloppy of Russia. Why even bother doing something
| so dumb?
|
| Some old-fashioned generals did not account for the digital
| footprint that may be left and modern data mining capabilities
| when they designed it. In fact, that digital footprint may have
| not existed yet when the entire scheme was designed. When you
| need to tell everyone doing ID check that this person must not
| be bothered, you give them plates from some VIP series or a
| passport with a certain number - it was a common practice in
| Russia. I'm pretty sure that this has changed in last few years
| after those investigations and they write the laws and design
| the databases assuming zero trust (public property registries
| now hide or obfuscate information about some entries for
| example).
| cryptonector wrote:
| I too can guess that the point of the ID block was for
| Russian migration controls to more easily understand that
| "these people are special", but that would be idiotic whether
| it was done in 1950, in 1970 or in 2020.
| epolanski wrote:
| And what's the point of Russian border control having them
| know?
|
| They are Russian citizens with a Russian passport, they can
| enter their country without issues.
| cryptonector wrote:
| I know right? What tremendous foolishness. It's
| incredible, as in just not believable.
| epolanski wrote:
| > That is very sloppy of Russia. Why even bother doing
| something so dumb?
|
| Because the scheme predates today's digital capabilities.
| cryptonector wrote:
| Why would they have needed this in 1970, or 1950?
| What2159 wrote:
| Let's focus on the real enemy TikTok. </sarcasm> Why isn't there
| more focus on Russia. Not saying China isn't spying but that why
| the CIA gets billions. Russia is actively blowing shit up.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-29 23:00 UTC)