Russia Arrests Wall Street Journal Reporter on Spying Charge (apnews.com) 86
Russia's security service arrested an American reporter for The Wall Street Journal on espionage charges, the first time a U.S. correspondent has been detained on spying accusations since the Cold War. The newspaper denied the allegations. From a report: Evan Gershkovich was detained in the Ural Mountains city of Yekaterinburg while allegedly trying to obtain classified information, the Federal Security Service, known by the acronym FSB, said Thursday. The service, which is the top domestic security agency and main successor to the Soviet-era KGB, alleged that Gershkovich "was acting on the U.S. orders to collect information about the activities of one of the enterprises of the Russian military-industrial complex that constitutes a state secret." Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Wednesday: "It is not about a suspicion, is it about the fact that he was caught red-handed." "The Wall Street Journal vehemently denies the allegations from the FSB and seeks the immediate release of our trusted and dedicated reporter, Evan Gershkovich," the newspaper said. "We stand in solidarity with Evan and his family."
First round FSB draft pick (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Why do we still deal with that failed state?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ours are shinier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure that was the point.
no sympathy for dumbass in-country (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
To try and report the news that's being suppressed?
Re:First round FSB draft pick (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the state of the Russian military overall: Army, Air Force, and Navy. The Russian (USSR) Navy (submarine fleet) used to be top notch. There's a trick to that, good subs need good crews to operate them and they need a LOT of maintenance. Every single time you defer maintenance on a nuclear warship, the cost goes up. That rise in costs isn't linear, it's logarithmic. Let's say, 200,000 to 400,000 to 1,600,000 and so on, until you get to the point it's cheaper to buy new than fix what you have... Unfortunately you still have to dispose of the old one, and that also costs a LOT of money. How much? Well look at how much of the Northern Fleet is rusting in the harbor instead of being maintained or disposed of properly.
Now consider that nuclear weapons, while being some of the most awesomely destructive things ever built, also are the most complex and costly things to build. Then, to add insult to injury, that cost is just the start. To maintain a nuclear weapon is one of the most finicky, complex, and expensive things a military can undertake. Just sitting in a carefully controlled environment these things degrade.
Now remember that Russia can't maintain tank or other armored ground vehicles, and the petro-state is failing to keep an adequate fuel supply. Their aircraft are having maintenance issues with things as simple as radios. The soldiers are getting "bullet resistant" vests filled with cardboard or other junk. Oh, and they are giving their soldiers rusty guns, barely any ammo, and expired/moldy rations.
Tell me again why we are treating Russia as anything other than a pathetic failure? The only thing Putin was doing was bluffing NATO while hoping to get some territory to declare victory with a land bridge. I've got to hand it to the Ukrainians... they've shown how tough they are holding back superior numbers being used as cannon fodder and laid bare the fact Russia is now a toothless paper bear coasting on the reputation gained by the USSR. Pretty much everyone now has to admit the ONLY people Russia can attack are people who don't have the weapons to shoot back.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Tell me again why we are treating Russia as anything other than a pathetic failure?"
I can easily answer that in one word.
Pussies.
Our country has turned into a pathetic excuse of Freedom. We thought we could spend our way to dominance but we failed. We let lines that WE drew in the sand get crossed. I thought we had Star Wars (missile system, not movie), and The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and other various methods of shooting down enemy threats because they sure spent my tax dollars on it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably because Russia is pretty much guaranteed to still have nukes that work and direct and open warfare between two nuclear powers is scary as shit and something no thinking person in this world wants.
I suppose brainlessly bashing America rather than thinking critically for even a moment would be a bit rough for a month breather like yourself though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, not "except America". America has never gone to war with another nuclear power. At the point nukes were used, the entire combined arsenal of the world's nuclear powers was two small air-dropped bombs. Nowadays it's thousands of warheads on ICBMs.
Re:First round FSB draft pick (Score:4, Insightful)
No thinking person... oh wait... except "America", who had no problems using them on civilians, twice.
It's called a negative/negative decision. Bad things result regardless of which way the decision goes. The atomic bombs saved American AND JAPANESE lives. Blockade or invasion would have killed far more civilians.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
My dad used to buy
My grandpa could have ordered a Thompson submachine gun out of the Sears catalog and have it delivered for cash.
My great-grandpa used to ride his bike to the hardware store with a handwritten note from his dad and come back with a bundle of dynamite for blowing stumps.
Re: (Score:3)
The atomic bombs saved American AND JAPANESE lives.
What they did was force rapid Japanese surrender to the US rather than leaving the chance that the Soviets would invade Japan and it would become part of the Soviet Union. It is extremely hard to agree with the actual means. It is though, hard to argue that Japan is not a lot better off not having been beaten by the Soviets rather than the US. Whatever other faults the US has, at least as far as Japan goes, it was better than the Russians. Not perfect, but better.
Re: (Score:2)
The atomic bombs saved American AND JAPANESE lives.
What they did was force rapid Japanese surrender to the US rather than leaving the chance that the Soviets would invade Japan and it would become part of the Soviet Union.
Let's imagine the Russians could successfully invade, ignoring their lack of equipment and experience at amphibious operations (no, river crossings do not count).
There would have still been too many American casualties and too many Japanese casualties. Probably many more of the latter. So this third option of letting the Russians join in would not have provided a better outcome either.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's imagine the Russians could successfully invade, ignoring their lack of equipment and experience at amphibious operations (no, river crossings do not count).
They certainly planned to invade. The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 9th (or 8th, depending on source), 1945 (in between the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings) and Japan surrendered about 5 days later (although it did not become fully official until September 2nd). Despite Japan's surrender, the Soviets still kept fighting them to take more Japanese territory. Also, notably, the Russians invaded South Sakhalin island on the 11th of August, a few days before the surrender and kept going th
Re: (Score:2)
Let's imagine the Russians could successfully invade, ignoring their lack of equipment and experience at amphibious operations (no, river crossings do not count).
They certainly planned to invade.
They planned to do what they did. Seize imperial japan's assets on the asian mainland and a handful of small weak islands. The latter was the extent of their naval capabilities. They did not posses the capabilities to assault and hold a large heavily contested beach like the US.
From the Japanese perspective, there was a sudden and very effective Soviet amphibious advance from the North ...
No, there was a token weak advance. Stalin did not possess the amphibious infrastructure. The soviet military was a land base forced, not a naval power of any credibility at that time.
Re: (Score:2)
They planned to do what they did. Seize imperial japan's assets on the asian mainland and a handful of small weak islands. The latter was the extent of their naval capabilities. They did not posses the capabilities to assault and hold a large heavily contested beach like the US.
The Soviet Marshal Aleksandr Vasilevsky planned to invade Hokkaido through landing at the port of Rumoi in two waves with air and sea support from Sakhalin. So when I say that they planned to invade, I mean it literally. They ended up scrapping the plans because of the terms of the surrender. It may have also been impractical to actually execute the plan, but they planned for it nonetheless. Materially, if they could have done it or not, the Japanese believed that they _could_ do it.
No, there was a token weak advance. Stalin did not possess the amphibious infrastructure. The soviet military was a land base forced, not a naval power of any credibility at that time.
The naval power of the S
Re: (Score:2)
The Soviet Marshal Aleksandr Vasilevsky planned to invade Hokkaido through landing at the port of Rumoi ...
This supports my point. Its a tactic born of the lack of a modern amphibious capability. Its 19th century tactics.
The naval power of the Soviet Union at the time might not have been much to speak of, but the Imperial Japanese Navy was basically a thing of the past at that point.
We are not talking about a sea battle. We are talking about an amphibious landing, that's fighting ground forces not naval forces.
Also, the Soviet plan involved making use of US ships for the invasion, ...
Which supports my point, the Soviets lacked amphibious capabilities.
Re: (Score:2)
This supports my point. Its a tactic born of the lack of a modern amphibious capability. Its 19th century tactics.
It supports your point that Russia did not have much amphibious capacity, but not your point that the Soviets were not planning to invade. They quite clearly were planning to invade, so I'm not really sure where you're going with this or even exactly what you're disagreeing about.
We are not talking about a sea battle. We are talking about an amphibious landing, that's fighting ground forces not naval forces.
Sure, but it's fighting ground forces with ground forces and Hokkaido was not as well defended as Honshu. The Japanese still had ground forces, to be sure, but so did the Soviets and they were willing to take massive casualties. I
Re: (Score:2)
This supports my point. Its a tactic born of the lack of a modern amphibious capability. Its 19th century tactics.
It supports your point that Russia did not have much amphibious capacity, but not your point that the Soviets were not planning to invade.
Militaries plan for everything and anything. The 19th century tactics probably means they dusted off a plan from the Russo-Japanese War era.
It's whether they have realistic capabilities that is of importance.
Sure, but it's fighting ground forces with ground forces and Hokkaido was not as well defended as Honshu.
As I said, they attacked some weak targets. That was the limits of their capabilities.
Which supports my point, the Soviets lacked amphibious capabilities.
Which is irrelevant to a plan that would have involved borrowing those capabilities.
Straw man. My argument is that they lacked the capabilities. A conceded point it seems.
Their plan was an unrealistic paper plan as the US only had the equipment for the planned US invasion of Nov 1945.
Honestly I am unclear on your point. Remember, what I originally said, regarding the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasak was "What they did was force rapid Japanese surrender to the US rather than leaving the chance that the Soviets would invade Japan and it would become part of the Soviet Union."
The point i
Re: (Score:2)
Militaries plan for everything and anything. The 19th century tactics probably means they dusted off a plan from the Russo-Japanese War era.
It's whether they have realistic capabilities that is of importance.
It might be what is of importance in actually winning the battle. It is not important for the simple question of whether or not they planned for the invasion, which is the question we are _actually_ debating. The answer is still that they did. Not just some dusty backup plan. It was the plan supported by the Marshal of the Soviet Union and had a decent chance of being attempted.
Hitler, for example, had some impractical military plans, but his militaries still executed them. Up until they got sick of him any
Re: (Score:2)
Militaries plan for everything and anything. The 19th century tactics probably means they dusted off a plan from the Russo-Japanese War era.
It's whether they have realistic capabilities that is of importance.
It might be what is of importance in actually winning the battle.
The Soviets won no amphibious battles except for those attacking remote, weak islands. That was the limit of their capabilities.
It is not important for the simple question of whether or not they planned for the invasion, which is the question we are _actually_ debating.
No, what we are actually debating is whether the Soviet amphibious threat to the Japanese homeland was a major factor in surrender. It was not since such a capability did not exist.
Not just some dusty backup plan.
Your statement that they landed at a port on one of these weakly defended islands demonstrates Russo-Japanese era planning/capabilities not 1945 planning/capabilities.
It was the plan supported by the Marshal of the Soviet Union and had a decent chance of being attempted. Hitler, for example, had some impractical military plans ...
Yes, Soviet planning/capabilities we
Re:First round FSB draft pick (Score:5, Insightful)
No thinking person... oh wait... except "America", who had no problems using them on civilians, twice.
. This is one of the most foolish comparisons possible -- talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the first and only times nuclear weapons were used -- like it's relevant to our current times. The Japanese kind of did attack the ostensibly neutral US first, and also refused to surrender after the first nuke. The US could have then used nuclear arms in the Korean War, and outright conquered Russia after WWII, but actively decided not to.
During this time and thereafter, in Russia the dictator Stalin killed far more of his own people than were killed in WWII, with estimates ranging from 6-9 million killed in the Stalinist purges. In China, Mao Zedong killed even more, 25-35 million, during the Great Leap Forward.
And you think these countries have some type of moral high ground? In their systems, human life is meaningless, and they would have used nukes just the same if they could. Unfortunately, they developed (largely via espionage) nuclear weapons after the US, so now they had a nuclear-armed opponent to compete against.
Re: (Score:2)
“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”
Mark Twain
We werent at war with another nuclear power and the grand total of the worlds nukes was the two that we used as opposed to today where both Russia and the US have an "extinction event" amount of them as in either country could make humanity extinct by using them which is the exact reason why modern nuclear war is avoided.
Re: (Score:2)
Mainly a hot war between two superpowers will force nations to take a side, and none of the superpowers, nor countries want that. A lot of countries are winning by playing both sides, and a hot war directly between superpowers, as opposed to a superpower versus a puppet state would mean that they have to pick a faction and deal with the consequences if that faction doesn't fare so well, which could even mean being overrun and all citizens "cleansed".
It also means that there is a good chance both superpower
Cause some nukes will still work (Score:2)
Sure, a ton of their nukes would probably fail on use but given the number of nukes they have it's pretty much guaranteed that some would still work and that nebulous "some" is enough to give the entire West pause because even "some" could still wipe out a number of major cities.
Unless it's "all of their nukes will fail" Russia still needs to be treated as a nuclear power and I think it's pretty much assured that some still do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt it. But your opinion reflects the propaganda that has been fed to the American people about the outcome of a nuclear war.
Nuke them til they glow and shoot them in the dark!
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt it. But your opinion reflects the propaganda that has been fed to the American people about the outcome of a nuclear war.
Nuke them til they glow and shoot them in the dark!
I don't get what you mean about the reflection of my opinion. You yourself said it doesn't matter. Are you implying that a nuclear war is winnable?
Re: (Score:2)
Very winnable.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I keep hearing that. It's just hard to take it serious, we've already seen the rest of their army.
Re: First round FSB draft pick (Score:1)
Unless he's some kind of celebrity, don't count on it. Britney Griner literally broke Russian law and we extracted her but not another guy who has a longer sentence and didn't break any laws at all.
Operation Mockingbird (Score:3)
To be fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
First thought: Russia has probably classified "any information detrimental to the image and reputation of Russia". Much like how they made it illegal to say anything negative about the war in Ukraine, mention any problems within the Russian military(including things like how corruption is stealing like half the money), etc...
So, given that Russia is NOT a free country, it actually makes perfect sense.
Something as simple as "Oh, how many tanks can Russia really produce/refurbish per month" is definitely a "State secret" right now, and it can even be as "off topic" as "how has that chemical factory recovered after it's mysterious fire" - when a few percent of its output goes towards some military purpose like making rocket fuel, or some additive to jet fuel, etc...
Re:To be fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
While that is all plausible, it is unimportant. Russia doesn't need evidence to justify a fascist action and it can fabricate what it needs anyway. The more interesting question is why the western press has journalists there at all. You should not engage when the rules are radically different for the other side.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, yes, I was just pointing out that even if they don't have anything against that reporter(or their news agency) specifically, reporting anything is currently a minefield there.
That said, Evan Gershkovich is an eminently Russian name, I think, and his work history includes working for the Moscow Times.
As such, I figure he's a Russian citizen who found an employment niche working for foreign news services(He also worked for a French company), as a foreign correspondent, giving the WSJ regular doses of Ru
Re: (Score:2)
We are deeply concerned by the troubling reports that Evan Gershkovich, an American citizen, has been detained in Russia.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/bri... [whitehouse.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
He was born in New York .... To Soviet émigré parents
Some answers (Score:5, Interesting)
Something as simple as "Oh, how many tanks can Russia really produce/refurbish per month" is definitely a "State secret" right now, and it can even be as "off topic" as "how has that chemical factory recovered after it's mysterious fire" - when a few percent of its output goes towards some military purpose like making rocket fuel, or some additive to jet fuel, etc...
Surprisingly, there's an answer to that question: none.
Russia cannot make more tanks at the present time. There is one (count them: one) factory in Russia that can make their modern tanks, they don't have the necessary materials such as (electronic) chips or armor, and Russia has been using older tanks from storage. These older tanks are inferior to any modern tank in terms of capability and armor.
Here's a scorecard [ukrinform.net] of the war to date (-ish).
Russian losses from the war are around 172K, no one has pushed back against that number and other estimates [ukrinform.net] I've seen are in that ballpark. About 3600 tanks lost.
Ukraine casualties are not published, but GCHQ estimates Ukraine losses at 1-to-6 of Russian losses, so Ukraine losses are probably on the order of 30K.
It's a little hard to sort through the numbers because news outlets say "deaths" or "casualties" and don't specify whether it's military, civilian, or a combination.
For comparison, estimates of the initial Ukraine invasion were 160,000 men and 1200 tanks. At the start of the war, Russia had an estimated military of 1 million with reserves of 1 million (2 million total), and note that not all military are combat personnel, and Russia has a very long border that it also needs to defend.
(Bahkmut, a small city, was necessary but not sufficient for Russia to take in its recent push but had no special tactical value to Ukraine. The Ukraine military was well fortified in the area, had an easy avenue of retreat, and decided to simply make taking the city as expensive as possible while slowly retreating. This pushed Russian casualties over 1,000 *each day* for the past couple of weeks, and was a very good strategic decision. Reports of the seriousness of the downfall of Bahkmut by the right-wing media are seriously overstated.)
Look here [criticalthreats.org] for good tactical information, and look here [ukrinform.net] for information that's completely one-sided, but accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Surprisingly, there's an answer to that question: none.
That that is the answer isn't actually material to arresting the reporter over it.
Or whatever other reason they trump up.
Re: (Score:2)
ALL your numbers are wrong.
So what do you think are the real numbers, and more importantly to this discussion given what you've just said, where did you get them?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So IOW all your source is doing is assuming the Russian numbers are meaningful in some way? Nice
Re: (Score:2)
Ukrainian officials said Russia still manages to produce "several dozens" T-90s a month. And they say they are spotted (and often quickly destroyed) on the battlefield. That is below the estimated Russian losses: 150 destroyed tanks a month. So in the long run their tank forces are indeed being annihilated.
And i agree they are using obsolete tanks from storage. They give them to their local auxiliary militias.Very old T-62Ms have already been destroyed on the battlefield and T55s have been spotted on convoy
Re: (Score:2)
Russia has been able to manufacture on average about 120 new tanks per year during the last two decades. One dozen new T-90s per month is believable. Maybe two dozens if including refurbished T-72s.
Anybody stupid enough to go to Russia... (Score:2)
Anybody stupid enough to go to the hellhole that is Russia does not get a bit of my sympathy. The only worthwhile thing to do in that country is murder police, soldiers, and party members. It's freeplay for psychos.
Re: (Score:1)
It was indeed a risky gamble. Dictators don't give a flying fudge about due-process, especially grumpy ones who are losing a war they had a numerical advantage with.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called volunteering to be a hostage.
Re:Anybody stupid enough to go to Russia... (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.wsj.com/news/autho... [wsj.com]
Evan Gershkovich is a reporter covering Russia, Ukraine and the former Soviet Union. He was previously a reporter for Agence France-Presse and the Moscow Times and a news assistant at the New York Times.
With that name, while sources say he's a US Citizen, and that he speaks fluent Russian, I figure that he has family and such in Russia, and is from a family that emigrated from Russia/USSR at some point.
He's been living in Moscow for quite some time acting as a news correspondent. So he went there when things were "good" and failed to leave when they went sour.
Re: (Score:2)
His parents emigrated from the soviet Union, he Was born in New York
Re: (Score:3)
Anybody stupid enough to go to the hellhole that is Russia does not get a bit of my sympathy. The only worthwhile thing to do in that country is murder police, soldiers, and party members. It's freeplay for psychos.
Reporters regularly travel to extremely risky regions, including war zones and repressive dictatorships, in order to report the truth.
Being a Russian reporter in Russia is extremely risky [cpj.org], are they "stupid" or brave for taking a risk to do the right thing?
Either way, arresting a foreign journalist is a significant break from the norm. Most likely this is Putin trying to scare foreign journalists out of Russia or at least clamp down on their reporting.
Re: (Score:1)
And when Trump is coronated as the Dear Leader in 2024, he will do fuck all to try to get this guy back.
Sort of like Biden with the two Americans currently being held. One of which is a military veteran. Neither of which is represented by a Democratic Party lobbying group.
Re: (Score:2)
"the two Americans currently being held"
Do you honestly believe there are only 2 Americans being held in Russian prison right now? I would guess hundreds or thousands.
News Alert: Not all Americans are good people. Some should be in prison because they are criminals and a menace to wherever they are located.
Re: (Score:2)
"the two Americans currently being held"
Do you honestly believe there are only 2 Americans being held in Russian prison right now? I would guess hundreds or thousands. News Alert: Not all Americans are good people. Some should be in prison because they are criminals and a menace to wherever they are located.
Well that's kind of implied by mentioning only the two political prisoners.
Re: (Score:2)
They are "political prisoners" because you defined them as that.
Brittney Griner was caught with an illegal (in Russia) THC vape cartridge or possible multiple cartridges. She was also labeled by many as a political prisoner. She didn't even contest the charges. She admitted the cartridge(s) were hers and she forgot she had them. Nonetheless, she brought illegal drugs into the country and was caught, tried, and sentenced.
Paul Whelan, the "military veteran" was court-martialed from the marines (see details be
Re: (Score:2)
They are "political prisoners" because you defined them as that.
Actually, because the best data says they are framed.
Brittney Griner ...
Straw man.
Paul Whelan's COURT-MARTIAL records ...
Writing bad checks in the US is not evidence of spying.
Re: (Score:2)
"The best data" according to you "says they are framed." How much do you know about the specific case, evidence found, the trial, Russian law and all the other fineries to adequately determine whether someone is actually guilty or not?
straw man: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
Plenty of people believe Brittney Griner was a "political prisoner", so I'm not sure how that qualifies as a straw man.
And yes, writing bad che
Re: (Score:2)
"The best data" according to you "says they are framed." How much do you know ...
Its the position of the gov't. He got setup by accepting a thumb drive he thought had something else on it.
straw man: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
Yes, introduction of Griner is that. She intentional brought drugs into Russia.
And the fact that he was kicked out of the military for lying, writing bad checks, wrongfully using another’s social security number (identity theft), and dereliction of duty kinda cancels his "military veteran" status.
Not to the Democratic Party. They believe a Soldier who deserted his comrades in a war zone, intentionally went over to the enemy, got some of his comrades killed, is a veteran who must be returned.
Rupert Murdoch owns WSJ is fully responsible. (Score:3)
Rupert Murdoch, oligarch owner of the WSJ is fully responsible for getting his US Citizen employee he sent to Russia back.
Rupert Murdoch is good friends with Putin. Don't waste tax payer resources on this one, put all public pressure and spotlight on Rupert, the owner and person fully responsible for this. Go google for the pictures of him and Putin.
Plausible enough either way (Score:2, Interesting)
Seems rough all around.
Russia is heavy-handed about what they consider espionage, but in many regards so is the US. While Russia has criminalized all kinds of things most of the world considers free speech and journalism, we only have to look at Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, to see the same by the US. Neither nation is the shining beacon of journalistic freedom they proclaim to the world.
Russia is also in a position with their war that they'll grasp at straws, look for anything that is remotely suspicio
Re: (Score:2)
Seems rough all around.
Russia is heavy-handed about what they consider espionage, but in many regards so is the US.
Major false equivalency.
While Russia has criminalized all kinds of things most of the world considers free speech and journalism, we only have to look at Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, to see the same by the US. Neither nation is the shining beacon of journalistic freedom they proclaim to the world.
Edward Snowden is an intelligence official who leaked classified information, I'm not sure there's a country on the planet that wouldn't try to arrest him if he'd been part of their intelligence service. Maybe he gets a light sentence or even pardoned/commuted, but he faces justice.
As for Assange, he was directly working with leakers like Snowden encouraging him to leak classified data. Again, every nation is going to have big problems with that. Maybe they won't prosecute, but they'
Re: Plausible enough either way (Score:2)
The current policy - - last updated in 1997 - - is that the Intelligence community may not use U.S. news correspondents or media representatives as agents unless they are specifically authorized by a waiver. That is from Section 309 of the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1997.
The carefully written policy applies to major accredited journalists specifically does not apply to freelance or non-accredited journalists (see their definition), and allows for several high ranking officials to authorize a waiver
US citizens should not be allowed to go there (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The travel advice is DO NOT TRAVEL, and if you are there leave immediately ...
But this is Advice ... as US Citizens are free to travel wherever they want to
Re: (Score:2)
Western Countries have been using reporters as... (Score:1)
Possibly true... or not (Score:2)
While the WSJ "vehemently denies the allegations", that doesn't mean they aren't true.
No serious person would deny that the US DOES indeed have spies in Russia and elsewhere around the world. And, it's pretty obvious that being a journalist would be a great cover for a spy since it can let them travel nearly anywhere without suspicion and interview and ask people questions about nearly anything.
So.... it isn't crazy to believe the man is a spy, the WSJ knows nothing about it, and Russiahttps://news.slashdot
Suspect behavior (Score:2)
travel.state.gov: Do not travel to Russia (Score:2)
The advice is dated February 13, 2023. Now the US government is going to come under pressure from this guy's family, friends and employer to negotiate with Russia for his release. The more concessions the US makes to secure his release, the more I'm going to think he was actually a spy, especially any kind of prisoner exchange.
Sounds like they want a spy back (Score:1)