News   May 06, 2024
Looks All-But Finished, Isn't
 186     0 
News   May 03, 2024
Assembly's Blueprint for Sustainable Urban Living in the GTHA
 1.1K     1 
News   May 03, 2024
RAD's State of the Market 2024 to Feature Talks on AI and Real Estate
 706     0 

2022/24 Russian-Ukrainian War

https://twitter.com/x/status/1497807146179776514

See also this link.

KGB archives show how Chrystia Freeland drew the ire (and respect) of Soviet intelligence services​


The Soviet Union’s secret police, the infamous KGB, praised her savvy and erudition, even as she frustrated their attempts to spy on her in Cold War Ukraine. They tagged her with the code name Frida. But today we know Chrystia Freeland as Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

Ms. Freeland’s ties to Ukraine are no secret, but materials uncovered from the KGB archives in Kyiv illuminate her role in the Ukrainian independence movement while on exchange there from Harvard University.

In the former Soviet republic – now Moscow’s antagonist – access to information on the communist period is guaranteed, both as part of reckoning with Ukraine’s past and explicitly as a rebuke to Russia, which is seeking once again to impose itself on the country.

The materials show what drew the Soviet intelligence services’ attention to the then-troublesome young Canadian, who was the subject of denouncements in the Soviet press and even warranted a feature in top-secret KGB documents.

In articles bearing titles like “Abuse of Hospitality,” Soviet newspapers publicly lambasted the Canadian visitor for recklessly meddling in the Soviet Union’s affairs with malice aforethought.

What business, the Kyiv newspaper Pravda Ukrainy asked, did someone from Edmonton have leading a civic organization for the preservation of the Ukrainian language in Ukraine? Why did someone in Ukraine to study Ukrainian spend so little time doing so at the university sponsoring her visit – and why study when, as the televised rallies at which she spoke time and again clearly showed, she spoke the language flawlessly?

Even Pravda, the official broadsheet of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, condemned her by name, and others like her, for their efforts to tear Ukraine away from the USSR.
Click to expand...
Ms. Freeland, in a written statement to The Globe and Mail, said: “I am aware that my work with pro-democracy and environmental activists invoked the ire of the Soviet KGB. I remember being the target of smear campaigns in the Soviet press.

“Though I was eventually forced to leave the country, I have no regrets about my time in Ukraine during the Soviet period. Out of this experience, what struck me, very powerfully, was how quickly a rotten political system could collapse, and how important the work of brave dissidents could be.”

Ms. Freeland was part of a flood of tourists; activists; missionaries; students; and even historians, purporting to work in the archives (but suspected by authorities, including the KGB, of having ulterior motives), visiting the Soviet Union during its final years. But she is unique in having become a top-secret published case study for the KGB in just how much damage one determined foreigner could do to the USSR as they knew it.
Click to expand...
The Soviet Union’s state media tended to adopt a breathless style when exposing what it saw as the wicked machinations of foreigners such as Ms. Freeland. However, the KGB’s Colonel A. Stroi, based in Kyiv, dispensed with the feigned indignance in his report on the woman giving him so much grief in the pages of Sbornik KGB SSSR (Digest of the KGB of the USSR), the KGB’s top-secret, in-house journal.

Ms. Freeland, and her ilk, were a threat to the Soviet Union – but one which had to be handled delicately: Treating her too harshly could give credence to the “libellous” stories told in Ukrainian émigré communities about how the KGB treated national minorities in the Soviet Union.

According to the KGB, Ms. Freeland was more than just an agitator for, as Col. Stroi derisively put it, “the liberation of Ukraine” who coerced Soviet citizens into staging marches and rallies to attract Western support. She delivered cash, video- and audio-recording equipment, and even a personal computer to her contacts in Ukraine.

All of this took place under the watchful eye of the KGB, which surveilled Ms. Freeland. Its officers tailed her wherever she went; tapped her phone calls to Ukrainians abroad; bugged her accommodation; read her mail; and had an informer, codenamed Slav, insert himself into Ms. Freeland’s circle and gain the young Canadian’s trust.
Click to expand...
But Ms. Freeland knew the rules of the road. She used a Canadian diplomat at the embassy in Moscow, known to the KGB as Bison and suspected of being a spy, to send material abroad in a diplomatic pouch that could not be intercepted or read.

She increasingly avoided major gatherings, lest her participation draw too much attention to her. And the Soviet secret police’s subtler attempts to curtail her activities failed: Her teacher at Kyiv’s Taras Shevchenko University, on the KGB’s orders, increased her workload. But the student, ostensibly on a visa to study Ukrainian, was so fluent that she did not need to attend class in the first place in order to make grades – much to the KGB’s chagrin.

Instead, she spent her time traversing Ukraine, purporting to visit far-flung family members, but in fact working as a fixer for visiting journalists from Canada, Britain and the United States, for example taking a BBC film crew to Lviv to meet leaders in the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Countless “tendentious” news stories about life in the Soviet Union, especially for its non-Russian citizens, had her fingerprints as Ms. Freeland set about making a name for herself in journalistic circles with an eye to her future career prospects.

Col. Stroi certainly objected to what Ms. Freeland was doing in Ukraine, but the KGB officer could not help but be impressed. She was “a remarkable individual” with “an analytical mindset.” The young Canadian was “erudite, sociable, persistent, and inventive in achieving her goals,” nefarious as they may have been in the eyes of Soviet intelligence.

The student causing so many headaches clearly loathed the Soviet Union, but she knew its laws inside and out – and how to use them to her advantage. She skillfully hid her actions, avoided surveillance (and shared that knowledge with her Ukrainian contacts) and expertly trafficked in “misinformation.” The conclusion is inescapable: Chrystia Freeland, this KGB officer was saying, would have made an excellent spy herself.

Ms. Freeland’s time in the Soviet Union came to an end when customs agents at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport, tipped off by the KGB, searched her luggage as she returned from a trip to London and found anti-Soviet materials. Even more worrying, they discovered a veritable how-to guide for running an election destined for use by non-Communist Party candidates campaigning for Ukrainian independence in the Soviet Union’s first-ever free elections. She was denied re-entry on March 31, 1989.
Click to expand...

Some 30 years later, there is no love lost between Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister and the current leader of Russia, himself a former KGB officer, Vladimir Putin. And she still cannot fly into Moscow – since 2014, Chrystia Freeland has once again been the target of Kremlin sanctions, barred from entering the country.
Click to expand...
 
Richard White said:
This was is likely not going the way Putin had expected.

He thought it would be done and over with in a day or so with Ukraine not putting up much a fight. What he likely did not account for was stiff resistance from both the Ukrainian military and civilian populations. He also likely did not expect this to drag on for 3 days now with little ground gained.

As this is dragging on, it gives Ukraine the rest of the world time to react and take action against Russia. It also makes Putin look bad at home.

I doubt he expected this to drag on long enough for Russia to be cut off from Swift, Europe to militarize, Airspace to be cut off and Ukraine to call in reinforcements from average people across the globe.

This is starting to go sideways for Putin and he is being backed into a corner. I would not be surprised if he put nuclear weapons in Belarus, and along the shores of the Bering Strait.

If he does not take Kiev in a week, you will likely see questions being raised in Russia. This war is deeply unpopular and may be Putins undoing.
Click to expand...
I am following along on a private military related forum. Some of the members are tapped into some interesting social media feeds and are able to offer some insightful analysis based on what they are hearing. The problem is, confirming information is difficult. 'Anonymous' has been doing some creative hacking - apparently they have been able to get around Russia's blocking of western media sources. There are some reports that some Russian legislators and oligarchs have spoken out against the attack. Who knows. Let's see how many 'commit suicide' or have 'heart attacks' by morning.

Apparently, the bottom has fallen out of the ruble.

Turkey is blocking Russian ships from entering the Black Sea - or it's not, depending on what your read.

Clearly, this has not gone as Russia planned. Ukraine forces and citizenry are making a valiant stand, but will it ultimately be their Alamo? Some are saying that the initial wave was largely conscripts and the professional units were held in reserve. Why commit your first string if you think it is going to be a walk in the park? Putin said he didn't want a strong NATO on his border; it seems he got what he didn't want, if you can believe recent statements.

Belarus apparently just amended the non-nuclear statement in their constitution (on a weekend?) which give legitimacy for Russia to roll their tactical nuclear forces close to the border and Kyev. Kinda scary, particularly, as you say, he is backed into a corner. From a personal, political and power perspective, he can't lose this.

Why would Putin want to put nukes along the Bering Strait?
 
lenaitch said:
Why would Putin want to put nukes along the Bering Strait?
Click to expand...

One word. Alaska.

It's not Washington DC or Florida but it would send a message. It would also put both Canada and the US on high alert.

Anchorage is only 695 miles from the Bering Strait. Nome is only 165 Miles.

It would be a modern day cuban missle crisis.
 
Richard White said:
One word. Alaska.

It's not Washington DC or Florida but it would send a message. It would also put both Canada and the US on high alert.

Anchorage is only 695 miles from the Bering Strait. Nome is only 165 Miles.

It would be a modern day cuban missle crisis.
Click to expand...

Why would that be strategically advantageous?
 
This caught my attention:



Our foreign minister appears to be verging on bragging that we (Canada) have trained the Ukrainian armed forces...

She's also unequivocal in 'our' (Canada's) support of Ukraine joining NATO.

I must have missed similarly strong language being used domestically here.....

****

May I add........perhaps we should see how Ukraine's military performs before possibly (over) reaching for credit............
 
lenaitch said:
I am following along on a private military related forum. Some of the members are tapped into some interesting social media feeds and are able to offer some insightful analysis based on what they are hearing. The problem is, confirming information is difficult. 'Anonymous' has been doing some creative hacking - apparently they have been able to get around Russia's blocking of western media sources. There are some reports that some Russian legislators and oligarchs have spoken out against the attack. Who knows. Let's see how many 'commit suicide' or have 'heart attacks' by morning.

Apparently, the bottom has fallen out of the ruble.

Turkey is blocking Russian ships from entering the Black Sea - or it's not, depending on what your read.

Clearly, this has not gone as Russia planned. Ukraine forces and citizenry are making a valiant stand, but will it ultimately be their Alamo? Some are saying that the initial wave was largely conscripts and the professional units were held in reserve. Why commit your first string if you think it is going to be a walk in the park? Putin said he didn't want a strong NATO on his border; it seems he got what he didn't want, if you can believe recent statements.

Belarus apparently just amended the non-nuclear statement in their constitution (on a weekend?) which give legitimacy for Russia to roll their tactical nuclear forces close to the border and Kyev. Kinda scary, particularly, as you say, he is backed into a corner. From a personal, political and power perspective, he can't lose this.

Why would Putin want to put nukes along the Bering Strait?
Click to expand...

They don't need to use nukes - they could have used their own fuel-air bombs (in fact, thermobaric weapons are amongst the arsenal as part of this buildup), which is as destructive at the low end and produces no fallout (of the radioactive, nevermind the political kind). Everyone has nukes, nobody dares to use them other than as a psychological weapon. Yes, we know Russia has them - and if they use it, his Rodina will be ash - as it has been the case for the past 70 years. I don't think that even China or India can be silent if he pulls that trick.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Richard White said:
One word. Alaska.

It's not Washington DC or Florida but it would send a message. It would also put both Canada and the US on high alert.

Anchorage is only 695 miles from the Bering Strait. Nome is only 165 Miles.

It would be a modern day cuban missle crisis.
Click to expand...

Why bother, they already have ICBMs and SLBMs (to say nothing of cruise missiles) - and the Bering Strait isn't worth much at this point (not until it became part of an ice-free route).

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Why bother, they already have ICBMs and SLBMs (to say nothing of cruise missiles) - and the Bering Strait isn't worth much at this point (not until it became part of an ice-free route).

AoD
Click to expand...
Yup, this is the difference that we need to keep in mind about modern warfare, especially if we find ourselves in global conflicts with Russia or China.

It's not like the old days where North America was relatively insulated from an attack simply due to our geography.

Obviously, a land invasion in NA remains incredibly unlikely no matter the circumstances, but many countries, including Russia have the ability to bomb us from halfway around the world. There is obviously still strategic value to controlling certain locations, but in terms of missle and bombing capability, being able to stage missiles close to certain countries (a la Cuban missile crisis) is much less relevant.

To that end, the recent referendum in Belarus to allow nukes is not a strategic move but rather one based on intimidation and scare tactics.
 
Bjays92 said:
Yup, this is the difference that we need to keep in mind about modern warfare, especially if we find ourselves in global conflicts with Russia or China.

It's not like the old days where North America was relatively insulated from an attack simply due to our geography.

Obviously, a land invasion in NA remains incredibly unlikely no matter the circumstances, but many countries, including Russia have the ability to bomb us from halfway around the world. There is obviously still strategic value to controlling certain locations, but in terms of missle and bombing capability, being able to stage missiles close to certain countries (a la Cuban missile crisis) is much less relevant.

To that end, the recent referendum in Belarus to allow nukes is not a strategic move but rather one based on intimidation and scare tactics.
Click to expand...

But that nuclear capability has already been place for over half a century. It's a useless strategy - other than as a suicide pact (and a guarantee against invasion of home territory). Also keep in mind their ability to project conventional force is nowhere near what it had been during the Soviet days. They can of course bomb us, but what would that achieve, given they have little ability to hold any territory here? Absolutely nothing other than shock value, and if they do that, you can almost be sure that the resolve against them would multiply a hundred-fold.

What I am sure they will do is try and fan the flames of internal division even more - it's a low-cost, high reward strategy that keep us occupied (and I think our division is proxy to that in the US players - just watch the behaviour at CPAC this weekend, for example). We need to focus on information hygiene above all else - and treat the far right as the threat it truly is. I would not be surprised if some of them are trying to fan separatist sentiments (there are already hints of that in social media).

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
But that nuclear capability has already been place for over half a century. It's a useless strategy - other than as a suicide pact (and a guarantee against invasion of home territory). Also keep in mind their ability to project conventional force is nowhere near what it had been during the Soviet days. They can of course bomb us, but what would that achieve, given they have little ability to hold any territory here? Absolutely nothing other than shock value, and if they do that, you can almost be sure that the resolve against them would multiply a hundred-fold.

AoD
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying about the nuclear issue, because I agree fully, there's nothing new and using nukes is suicide. Doesn't mean Putin's rhetoric still isn't a scare tactic even if the odds of him using nukes are incredibly low.

Also I agree Russia has zero benefit to bombing us (though that could be a larger concern if we were caught in a conflict with China) but on the same token, who knows what a madman backed into a corner might do. This invasion has been disastrous for Putin so far, if Ukraine's numbers are anywhere close to true, they've killed more than 5000 Russian troops in 5 days. That would be more losses than the US suffered in Iraq in over 10 years and Afghanistan in 20. That's nothing short of a catastrophic failure. It's worse than the disaster that was the Dieppe raid, which was over 80 years ago long before our modern warfare capabilities significantly reduced the number of deaths in the combat field.

Like you said, the Russian military is not what it was and this is a massive embarrassment for Putin, I can't imagine he'll take it very well.
 
Bjays92 said:
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying about the nuclear issue, because I agree fully, there's nothing new and using nukes is suicide. Doesn't mean Putin's rhetoric still isn't a scare tactic even if the odds of him using nukes are incredibly low.

Also I agree Russia has zero benefit to bombing us (though that could be a larger concern if we were caught in a conflict with China) but on the same token, who knows what a madman backed into a corner might do. This invasion has been disastrous for Putin so far, if Ukraine's numbers are anywhere close to true, they've killed more than 5000 Russian troops in 5 days. That would be more losses than the US suffered in Iraq in over 10 years and Afghanistan in 20. That's nothing short of a catastrophic failure. It's worse than the disaster that was the Dieppe raid, which was over 80 years ago long before our modern warfare capabilities significantly reduced the number of deaths in the combat field.

Like you said, the Russian military is not what it was and this is a massive embarrassment for Putin, I can't imagine he'll take it very well.
Click to expand...

I think their leadership have a different perspective on the value of lives than we do (it's part and parcel of their tragic history) - on one hand, it does bind us to popular opinion around the cost of conflicts; on the other, it is a human resource, and I don't think Russia is in any position to squander it given their already precarious economy and demography - just look at the stats regarding the latter.

AoD
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DSC
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top