Tag Archives: Russia

Worst cyber-crime is in US, Russia

Posted on by

As I blogged yesterday, the IP addresses attacking me trace back to a Netherland hosting company called Ecatel Network.

ECATEL NETWORK

Ecatel has become notorious for hosting bad actors, from the Russian spammers to pedophile networks.  It also has a reputation for brushing off requests for help from the victims.

Trying to figure out what was going on, I did a bit of research into the world of cyber-crime.

AKAMAI REPORT – CHINA LEADS CYBER-CRIME?

The mainstream media likes to portray cyber-crime as essentially a foreign threat. China, especially, is fingered as the bad guy.

For instance, in January,  US-based Akamai Technologies issued a report  placing China at the head of global hacking, responsible for 35% of cyber-attacks world-wide.

More recently,  the US government pressed cyber-warfare charges against five of China’s army officers.

Nigerians scamsters are rumored to run a close second.

There are two things wrong with this picture. The first is the source of the information.

Akamai Technologies is a “content-delivery network” head-quartered in Cambridge, Massachussetts.

It was founded by an MIT applied math professor, Tom Leighton, and a graduate student at MIT, Daniel Lewin, later killed on AA flight 11, which crashed during the September 11, 2001 attack.

According to his MIT bio, Leighton is a specialist in cryptography,  digital rights, and algorithms for network applications. He also chaired a Presidential committee on Cyber-Security.

Akamai’s co-founder,  COO, and President was the founder of the Road-Runner cable service. Its CEO was a senior VP from IBM.

Akamai’s privacy policy states that it collects IP addresses and effectively tracks clients.

Its partners include Microsoft and Apple and its clients include the BBC, the White House,  Facebook, Twitter, Adobe Systems, Netflix, Yahoo, ESPN Star (India),  China Central Television and Al Jazeera, among many others.

How likely is it that reports from Akamai on cyber-crime are untouched by political pressure?

WORLD HOSTS REPORT –  US, RUSSIA LEAD CYBER-CRIME

Point two. The statistics don’t support Akamai’s pious propaganda.

The Chinese do indeed have a very high number of IP addresses attached to their malicious activity. If sheer volume were the only criterion, China would dominate.

However,  as far as the number of malicious sites and the level of threat involved, the world’s leading cyber-criminals aren’t Chinese.  Not even close.

They are in the US and in Russia, closely followed by smaller countries like the Netherlands, the Ukraine, and Romania.

In Host Exploit’s authoritative World Hosts Report of March 2013, five of the top twenty  malware hosts were based in the US; four were in Russia, two each in the Netherlands, Germany, and the Ukraine.

Chinanet Backbone was the only host from China that made the top twenty.

What was especially interesting to me was to find the originator of the attacks on my computer, Ecatel network, at the top of the list of the world’s leading hosts for malware.

Host Exploit also breaks down cyber-crime by country, with Russia leading the pack.

This is its list of the world’ top ten cyber-crime havens in 2013:

1. The Russian Federation (RU)

2. Belarus (BY)

3. Ukraine (UA)

4. The British Virgin Islands (VG)

5. The United States (US)

6. Romania (RO)

7. Netherlands (NL)

8. Poland (PL)

9. Turkey (TR)

10. Bulgaria  (BG)

 

The political use of “anti-Semitism” in the Ukraine

Posted on by

Tablet Magazine:

“It’s use the Jew day in Ukraine—again. For millennia, treatment of a country’s Jews has served as the canary in the coal mine, and now the canary is tweeting all over the American and Israeli media. According to reports, a leaflet, now basically debunked and yet still inspiring fury all over Twitter, was handed out in Donetsk, the heavily Russian-speaking town in Eastern Ukraine, instructing Jews to register with authorities.

According to Ynet, the flier read as follows:

“Dear Ukraine citizens of Jewish nationality, due to the fact that the leaders of the Jewish community of Ukraine supported Bendery Junta [Stepan Bandera] and oppose the pro-Slavic People’s Republic of Donetsk, (the interim government) has decided that all citizens of Jewish descent, over 16 years of age and residing within the republic’s territory are required to report to the Commissioner for Nationalities in the Donetsk Regional Administration building and register.”

The media response was predictable. USA Today, the Jerusalem Post, and others were quick to proclaim “Jews ordered to register in Ukraine!” cleverly omitting one important question: By whom? The word “Jews” is even trending on Twitter.

The flyer is both real, and not. It’s important to see this in the context of how the Jews have been used from the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine: as fodder for the provocation machine. Indeed, Julia Ioffe at The New Republic reached out to the Donetsk Jewish community, who dismissed the flier as an attempt by Western Ukrainians to delegitimize the pro-Russian sentiment in the Eastern part of the country, just as the Russians used accusations of anti-Semitism to delegitimize the Maidan revolutionaries.

As Ioffe puts it, “This may be just another tactic to smear the so-called anti-Maidan in the east of Ukraine: you think we’re fascists? Well, take a look at these guys.” The Jews of Ukraine are not registering.”

“Non-interfering” Kerry Cheers Overthrow Of Ukrainian Gvt

Posted on by

Daniel McAdams at LRC blog comments on John Kerry’s interventionist position on Ukraine:

“I am on RT today discussing John Kerry’s Munich trip, where he met the Ukraine opposition parties and said that the US is “fully behind” those seeking to overthrow the democratically-elected government by force — right before he warned any outside powers against interfering in Ukraine’s internal affairs.”

See also “US and Europe stand with people of Ukraine, says John Kerry,” The Guardian, Feb. 1 , 2014

NATO has joined Kerry to bully the Ukrainians government not to crack down on violence:

“Nato’s chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said he was “very concerned by attempts to involve the military in the crisis”.

The equivalent in terms of international provocation would be if the Russian President were to proclaim solidarity for the Occupy movement on US soil and warn American police against any militarized response.

While Kerry was double-dealing with the Ukrainians and thumbing the American nose at Russia, a little research turns up the interesting point that the largely peaceful Ukrainian protest suddenly turned violent at the same time as  Kerry’s visit and stepped-up support for it.

“Russia slams West’s support for Ukraine opposition,” AP, The Washington Post, Feb. 1, 2014

“The protests had been mostly peaceful until mid-January, when demonstrators angered by the new anti-protest laws launched violent clashes with police. Three protesters died in the clashes, two of them from gunshot wounds. Police insist they didn’t fire the fatal shots.“

See also “Russia slams as circus Kerry Ukraine opposition meetings,” Daily Star, Feb 1, 2014

“Russia’s outspoken Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin called Kerry’s upcoming meetings a “circus” in a tweet on Friday.

“It’s also necessary to involve Verka Serdyuchka in the talks,” he said in apparent sarcasm, referring to Ukraine’s bombastic drag queen pop star.

“Her/his authoritative opinion should be heard by the White House and taken into account!”

Is this another covert destabilization effort in the tradition of the color revolutions?

Evidently so.  At Storyleak.com, Michael Thomas breaks down the history:

“What is particularly surprising about the current color revolution unfolding in the Ukraine is that this nation was the site of the very same CIA implementation plan back in 2004/2005.  The Orange Revolution, as it was known at the time, was a classic CIA-engineered plot to impose their political outcome on the Ukrainian people. And they succeeded with flying colors.

That CIA-sponsored coup d’etat was so successful that it has since been used as a model for every other CIA-manufactured scheme that has toppled governments and reversed fair election outcomes the world over. In fact, the Ukraine is where the various social network utilities were used so effectively that the new MO has become known as the digital blitzkrieg. Never in human history have so many citizens been stampeded in the direction of overthrowing their government while being completely ignorant of the real forces manipulating the cattle prods.”

The article suggests that the Ukrainian government seems to be master-minded, as well the protesters. The result is that the Ukraine is being shepherded into the Eurozone, a communistic/fascistic scheme that will allow the patrons of the Eurozone to replenish their depleted treasuries:

“…. the Ukraine is looked to as a temporary savior because of its many large and robust markets, well established industrial base and transportation links to Asia, as well as it vast natural resources and raw materials.”

Ukraine: In Russia’s Sphere Of Influence, Not America’s

Posted on by

At Forbes, Doug Bandow at Cato has written an excellent piece on the turmoil in Ukraine, over which the imperial bullies in DC (and their covert adjutants are salivating:

“Washington should endorse justice and human dignity, which justifies support for honest elections and warnings against police brutality.  Of course, America’s message would have greater credibility if Washington better respected such values both at home and in its dealings with other nations which don’t always share America’s “interests and values.”

But Ukraine’s “economic health,” “European future,” “turn toward Moscow,” and reengagement “with the European Union” aren’t American values and are barely American interests.  Indeed, they really aren’t proper U.S. concerns.  How would Americans feel if Ukrainian politicians showed up at an “Occupy Wall Street” rally in Washington vowing to stand with protestors in demanding economic redistribution, a North American Union, and a turn away from Europe—all in the name of Ukrainian “interests and values”?

It’s obviously difficult for Washington to imagine any issue that doesn’t warrant U.S. meddling, but Ukraine’s status is one.  Alexander J. Motyl of Rutgers University (Newark) spoke of Washington and Brussels having “vital interests at stake in Ukraine.”  Only in Kiev’s dreams.

More extreme was former UN Ambassador John Bolton, who contended “that tectonic plates are being realigned in Europe” and that Ukraine is “the great prize.”  Robert Zubrin of Pioneer Energy argued that “the events unfolding in Ukraine right now are of global historic importance.”  Indeed, he added, Moscow’s reach for influence in Kiev is part of a “dark program” which “threatens not only the prospects for freedom in Ukraine and Russia, but the peace of the world.”   To suggest that Ukraine is vital to global peace is beyond exaggeration.

A stable, democratic Ukraine would be good for all concerned—and America’s Ukrainian diaspora deserves credit for its long-standing support for its homeland—but Kiev’s orientation isn’t important to Washington.  Ukraine spent centuries subject to Moscow and the U.S. never noticed. Vladimir Putin wants to reestablish Russian influence, but that doesn’t mean he can put the Soviet Humpty Dumpty back together.  Today’s protests in Kiev demonstrate that Ukraine will never be a quiescent tool of Moscow.

On the security side, Russia’s activities in Ukraine do not threaten the U.S.  The reverse, however, is not true.  Bringing NATO up to Russia’s southern border cannot help but be seen as dangerous by Russia—imagine Americans would view the Warsaw Pact expanding to Mexico. Washington’s policy today looks like the fabled “Brezhnev Doctrine,” what is mine is mine, and what is yours is negotiable.  America seeks to dominate not only the Western Hemisphere, Europe, and Central Asia, but all along Russia’s borders.  Washington wants to hold all of the geopolitical chips.

The better strategy would be for the West to treat Russia with respect, acknowledging that it has legitimate interests in Ukraine, while using the prospect of greater economic opportunity to convince Kiev to look westward.  Yanukovich has been rented, not bought.  Complained the Economist:  “Mr. Yanukovich’s favored option seems to be to preserve the status quo and refrain from joining either camp while continuing to milk both.”  Which sounds like a sound strategy from Ukraine’s standpoint.  The EU, which obviously has the most at stake, could up its offer and reconsider its political demands.  How badly does it want to “win”?

Moreover, Europe should look for compromise opportunities with Moscow.  Kiev has proposed creation of “a tripartite commission to handle complex issues.”  Such an approach has promise.  Former congressional staffer Jim Jatras cited recent talks between the EU and Russia over “aspects of the AA with Ukraine that Moscow considers detrimental to its own economy, specifically a massive flow of EU products into Russia via Ukraine.”  All would benefit with greater links between the EU and the Russian-lead CU, which might reduce Moscow’s pressure on Kiev.

Ukraine matters, to Ukraine.  It also matters to Russia.  But less to Europe and much less to the U.S.  If Kiev wants to look east, so be it.  The West is most likely to win influence if it makes itself more attractive, not if it treats the issue like a new Cold War.  Despite Russia’s money Yanukovich’s reelection prospects are weak and Ukraine is likely to eventually join the West.  If not, however, so be it.  The country never was the EU’s or Washington’s to lose.”

Paradise Of Gangsters

Posted on by

Will this be the future of the US?

David Guyatt at DeepBlackLies.co.uk on Russia immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union:

GANGSTERS PARADISE

Organized crime in Russia is out of control. Criminal “brigades” own everything of value and can “acquire” any commodity in any quantity if the price is right. Ferocious criminal gangs ship out nuclear warheads with the same aplomb that they plunder train-loads of stolen bank-notes. Fearless and ingenious they even ripped-off Russia’s entire gold reserves. Continue reading →

Soros And Shock Therapy In Poland

Posted on by

From William Engdhal, “The Secret Financial Network Behind George Soros,” 1996 (Executive Intelligence Review):

[Note I: I mentioned Engdahl’s piece about Soros and Rothschild earlier, with the disclaimer that EIR is a Larouche outfit often labeled conspiracist and anti-Semitic, but nonetheless acknowledged to have produced good research. This piece, as I found it on the net, is not extensively sourced, which is why I’ve not previously linked it. However, having recently found old newspaper articles substantiating at least a part of the material, I’m going ahead and posting it.

Note II: Soros has a variety of interesting business associations. He has ties with Jim Rogers, through the Quantum Fund, which Rogers left to form his own group; with Rees-Mogg, the British journalist and Agora associate/writer; and with James Goldsmith, the Anglo-French financier, who was at one time Rees-Mogg’s primary financial backer. But, Goldsmith, a speculator and corporate raider in the 1980s, was vehemently opposed to GATT and the drive to globalize in teh 1990s, which seems to rather complicate the economic hit-man narrative. Rogers’ pronouncements, as much as I’ve followed them, often directly contradict Soros’ public statements.

Thus, in my opinion, while there could well be collusion at work among some (or even all) of these entities, from the record, at least, the situation is much muddier. For instance, if you look at what Goldsmith has to say about globalization in the 1990s, he is anti-agribusiness, anti-nuclear power, and anti-GATT. That diverges sharply from Engdahl’s general premise, which is best exemplified in the shock-doctrine advocated by Soros in Russia, via economist Jeffrey Sachs (the best account of which is by journalist Ann Williamson, who testified on the matter to Congress).

The truth is, many people advocate many kinds of things from ideology. That ideology is often shared by their business associates, since people with shared ideologies usually end up working in the same place. That doesn’t automatically mean they are all working hand-in-glove, or even know each other more than superficially. Even the joint ownership of a fund or corporation, unless it is over a long period of time, does not have to imply that the owners are all in agreement with each other’s financial goals. That said, there are suggestive connections noted in this piece that are relevant both to the debt crisis in Europe and to the ongoing manipulation of the markets, which is why I want to link the piece, despite the problems with it that I’ve noted.

Here’s an excerpt relevant to the situation in Poland:

“Poland: In late 1989, Soros organized a secret meeting between the “reform” communist government of Prime Minister Mieczyslaw Rakowski and the leaders of the then-illegal Solidarnosc trade union organization. According to well-informed Polish sources, at that 1989 meeting, Soros unveiled his “plan” for Poland: The communists must let Solidarnosc take over the government, so as to gain the confidence of the population. Then, said Soros, the state must act to bankrupt its own industrial and agricultural enterprises, using astronomical interest rates, withholding state credits, and burdening firms with unpayable debt. Once this were done, Soros promised that he would encourage his wealthy international business friends to come into Poland, as prospective buyers of the privatized state enterprises. A recent example of this privatization plan is the case of the large steel facility Huta Warsawa. According to steel experts, this modern complex would cost $3-4 billion for a western company to build new. Several months ago, the Polish government agreed to assume the debts of Huta Warsawa, and to sell the debt-free enterprise to a Milan company, Lucchini, for $30 million!.

Soros recruited his friend, Harvard University economist Jeffery Sachs, who had previously advised the Bolivian government in economic policy, leading to the takeover of that nation’s economy by the cocaine trade. To further his plan in Poland, Soros set up one of his numerous foundations, the Stefan Batory Foundation, the official sponsor of Sach’s work in Poland in 1989-90.

Soros boasts, “I established close personal contact with Walesa’s chief adviser, Bronislaw Geremek. I was also received by [President Gen Wojciech] Jaruzelski, the head of State, to obtain his blessing for my foundation.” He worked closely with the eminence gris of Polish shock therapy, Witold Trzeciakowski, a shadow adviser to Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Soros also cultivated relations with Balcerowicz, the man who would first impose Sach’s shock therapy on Poland. Soros says when Walesa was elected President, that “largely because of western pressure, Walesa retained Balcerowicz as minister.” Balcerowicz imposed a freeze on wages while industry was to be bankrupted by a cutoff of state credits. Industrial output fell by more than 30% over two years.

Soros admits he knew in advance that his shock therapy would cause huge unemployment, closing of factories, and social unrest. For this reason, he insisted that Solidarnosc be brought into the government, to help deal with the unrest. Through the Batory Foundation, Soros coopted key media opinion makers such as Adam Michnik, and through cooperation with the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, imposed a media censorship favorable to Soros’s shock therapy, and hostile to all critics.

Russia and the Community of Independent States (CIS): Soros headed a delegation to Russia, where he had worked together with Raisa Gorbachova since the late 1980s, to establish the Cultural Initiative Foundation. As with his other “charitable foundations,” this was a tax-free vehicle for Soros and his influential Western friends to enter the top policymaking levels of the country, and for tiny sums of scarce hard currency, buy up important political and intellectual figures. After a false start under Mikhail Gorbachov in 1988-91, Soros shifted to the new Yeltsin circle. It was Soros who introduced Jeffery Sachs and shock therapy into Russia, in late 1991. Soros describes his effort: “I started mobilizing a group of economists to take to the Soviet Union (July 1990). Professor Jeffery Sachs, with whom I had worked in Poland, was ready and eager to participate. He suggested a number of other participants: Romano Prodi from Italy; David Finch, a retired official from the IMF [International Monetary Fund]. I wanted to include Stanley Fischer and Jacob Frenkel, heads of research of the World Bank and IMF, respectively; Larry Summers from Harvard and Michael Bruno of the Central Bank of Israel.”

Since Jan. 2, 1992, shock therapy has introduced chaos and hyperinflation into Russia. Irreplaceable groups from advanced scientific research institutes have fled in pursuit of jobs in the West. Yegor Gaidar and the Yeltsin government imposed draconian cuts in state spending to industry and agriculture, even though the entire economy was state-owned. A goal of a zero deficit budget within three months was announced. Credit to industry was ended, and enterprises piled up astronomical debts, as inflation of the ruble went out of control.

The friends of Soros lost no time in capitalizing on this situation. Marc Rich began buying Russian aluminum at absurdly cheap prices, with his hard currency. Rich then dumped the aluminum onto western industrial markets last year, causing a 30% collapse in the price of the metal, as western industry had no way to compete. There was such an outflow of aluminum last year from Russia, that there were shortages of aluminum for Russian fish canneries. At the same time, Rich reportedly moved in to secure export control over the supply of most West Siberian crude oil to western markets. Rich’s companies have been under investigation for fraud in Russia, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal of May 13, 1993.

Another Soros silent partner who has moved in to exploit the chaos in the former Soviet Union, is Shaul Eisenberg. Eisenberg, reportedly with a letter of introduction from then-European Bank chief Jacques Attali, managed to secure an exclusive concession for textiles and other trade in Uzbekistan. When Uzbek officials confirmed defrauding of the government by Eisenberg, his concessions were summarily abrogated. The incident has reportedly caused a major loss for Israeli Mossad strategic interests throughout the Central Asian republics.

Soros has extensive influence in Hungary. When nationalist opposition parliamentarian Istvan Csurka tried to protest what was being done to ruin the Hungarian economy, under the policies of Soros and friends, Csurka was labeled an “anti-Semite,” and in June 1993, he was forced out of the governing Democratic Forum, as a result of pressure from Soros-linked circles in Hungary and abroad, including Soros’s close friend, U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos.”

Anne Williamson on the IMF’s Role in the Mexican Crisis

Posted on by

An expert on the neo-liberal rape of Russia, as well as on international finance in general, Anne Williamson testified before the Committee on Banking and Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives, on Sept. 21, 1999.  The testimony is well worth reading through today. It shows how precisely the situation in the 1990s during the various financial crises parallels the crisis today in the US. Even the actors are the same  – from Harvard to the IMF to Goldman Sachs.

This is why I’ve consistently argued against any policy prescribed by this government. Anything suggested by such a corrupt group of actors should be suspect.  There’s no point criticizing a Summers or a Geithner or a Paulson alone, when those who oppose them also accept the underlying premises of their arguments; they merely split the difference over a solution that is in essence no different. That is, their “differences” are essentially cosmetic.

I had the privilege of talking at length to Anne and found that her own experiences with the media and publishers were much like mine, only worse. The reasons for that are obvious.  Ask for reform of the IMF or of the World Bank or of the Fed and you will get a sympathetic ear. Ask for the abolition of these institutions and you have questioned the entire system and the credibility of the functionaries and apparatchiks who run it. That’s unforgivable.

“Some governments — especially those with an election on the horizon — actually want to devalue since national exporters, their goods now being cheaper, sell more goods. Global lenders like the IMF are also fond of devaluations because a rising national income from bargain exports leave plenty in the national kitty for principal and interest payments to them. (Global direct investors — the “good guys” — fear devaluations, because their profits calculated in a devalued domestic currency buy fewer dollars for repatriation.)

But when exchange rates depreciate rapidly the specter of capital flowing out of a country appears. Foreigners and residents put their savings elsewhere. The currency goes into free fall, its value plummets, more investors flee and at the end of the cycle, interest rates skyrocket. This is exactly what happened in Asia in 1997, in Russia in 1998 and will soon happen in both Brazil and China.

Yet to curse the speculators is useless; since the 1972 collapse of Bretton Woods that broke the international link between the dollar and gold, the fear of the syndrome described above is the only remaining bit of discipline in the international system. How much better, the globalists reason, if there were to be one central bank and one fiat currency for everyone so that then national leaderships (and the financial oligarchies they sustain) could inflate and rob their own populations in unison, thereby perpetually enserfing all the world’s people….”

And on the role of the IMF:

“In mid-July 1994 — at the very moment dollar-based Mexican tesobonos were being oversold to prosperous clients of Goldman Sachs and other U.S. investment banks, which, in turn, would lead to the 1995 Mexican bailout and the introduction of moral hazard into the world’s financial system — Michel Camdessus told a press conference that he intended to press for the creation of a new IMF facility to give members resources with which to defend themselves against speculative attacks in financial markets.

In other words, long before bailouts of entire countries became routine Camdessus wanted a new loan program to feed the last disciplinarians in the world’s financial system — currency speculators — so that national governments might become even more unaccountable to their citizens. At the time, The Economist slammed the proposal, saying it was “absurd and almost certainly unworkable,” since Camdessus “bizarrely” was assuming the IMF would know more about economic fundamentals than the markets. And that assumption, The Economist noted, was the very assumption which had been the undoing of the USSR’s centrally planned empire. But Camdessus’ 1994 plan is the very one the U.S. President proposed just this week!”

Read the rest of her testimony here.