LinkedIn just deleted my most recent exposè of Yana Dianova but she cannot touch this blog.  She will, once again, attempt to delete this blog, which is cross-posted to, among many other social media platforms, LinkedIn.

Now the truth is a matter of public record and will hang on the internet – forever.

In an effort to counter any attempts by Yana Dianova to expunge the truth, I am blogging Mr. Berger’s excellent article below.  It is currently on LinkedIn but she will claim it is “defamatory”, because it exposes her with facts and truth and she will most likely attempt to delete it quickly.  Now it is publicly available – forever.

In Russia, the truth can be suppressed. Not so in the real world.

It would have been so simple for her to have been friendly, to be a decent human being. But constant attacks, abuse, and haranguing have forced these actions. She only has herself to blame.

The below article contains definitive proof of Ms. Dianova abusing the use of LinkedIn. She abuses her position and her authority and uses intimidation as a weapon.  LinkedIn is an unwitting tool for her use and abuse.  Yana Dianova is a Russian troll.

</end editorial>

By James Berger

Global Competitive Intelligence Specialist – Attorney

Jun 6, 2016

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gone-truth-linkedin-lies-libel-james-berger

Episode 1 – “The Scarlett Affair” (In which a Former High-Ranking CIA Officer is Seriously Defamed on LinkedIn; Presents Detailed Evidence of the Misconduct; but then Quickly Learns that Some LinkedIn Members are More Equal than Others) 

“Professional” may not mean what you think it means… You’re about to experience a face-to-face encounter with one of LinkedIn’s most unfortunate realities. Although this network claims to enforce professional standards (SeeLinkedIn User Agreement Rules 1 and 8.2 – available at:https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement), LinkedIn actually only enforces its User Agreement either arbitrarily or not at all.

Even in the most egregious of circumstances – for example, when a Member specifically proves, well beyond a preponderance of the evidence, that their honorable career has been illegally defamed, Linkedin both refuses to help and even admits that its real policy is to protect the offending party rather than abide by its binding membership contract. With the libel still visible to all – and even being repeated by other Members – the victim next discovers there are only two unfair options: suffer baseless reputational harm OR spend countless hours reminding his fellow Members that, even if LinkedIn no longer values integrity, the rest of us can still do so ourselves.  [See Exhibits 1-3, below]

You have the right to know: Is LinkedIn safe? Are YOU at risk?

In the incident recounted in this article, LinkedIn’s response came courtesy of something/someone that sounds downright Owellian – a representative from LinkedIn’s “Department of Trust & Safety,” specifically, one using the moniker“Scarlett.” (Just a guess, but he/she probably isn’t especially easy to locate in the “real word…”) As dictators like Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un could assure you, cloaking a regime’s misdeeds in anonymity may not be original but it sure as heck works…

Critically, the foregoing applies to ALL sections of LinkedIn’s rules.What was once a website for professional networking has been transformed into a playground for foreign propagandists, liars, political extremists (left and right), scam-artists, pornographers, anti-Semites, racists, jihadis, homophobes, and countless others seeking to twist LinkedIn’s original mission into a sad and dangerous mockery of a once great idea.

For a growing and publicly owned company, now hosting roughly 450 million global Members, such blatant misconduct is hardly a small issue – especially because LinkedIn specifically promotes its business based on assumptions of honesty, trust and fair-dealing. 

WHY THIS MATTERS: Admittedly, this particular case may feel more like a spy novel than something most LinkedIn Members might encounter. The underlying narrative does indeed evoke tropes pulled straight from the Cold War itself. Do not be fooled. EVERYTHING you’ll see is 100% relevant to YOUR social media experience – not James Bond’s.

Put simply, LinkedIn Members are getting a raw deal. In consideration for their valuable personal information and/or paid subscriptions, LinkedIn promises to provide a specific set of services. These include adherence to the conditions in its User Agreement. The User Agreement is a binding contract that LinkedIn also employs as a marketing device. Therefore, the company’s failure to give Members the “benefit of their bargain” is what lawyers call a “breach of contract” (or in the worst instances, “fraudulent inducement”). In other words, what’s happening here has a lot more in common with Bernie Madoff than any Bond villain (or Dr. Evil, for that matter…)

Amazingly, despite the fact that LinkedIn settled a class action lawsuit as recently as 2015 – specifically due to breaches of its User Agreement – conditions for Members have only worsened. [See https://www.linkedinclassactionsettlement.com/Documents/SettlementAgreement.pdf] Something has to give.

WHAT YOU WILL LEARN: First, you will see a written complaint (Exhibit 1) submitted to LinkedIn on behalf of Mr. Charles Leven, a long-time LinkedIn Member and, as noted, a retired high-ranking CIA officer. (By way of full disclosure, I am currently serving as Mr. Leven’s attorney.) This evidence is not subjective. Rather it shows LinkedIn being used deliberately to defame Mr. Leven’s reputation in a manner amounting to “actual malice.”

[NOTE: Links to all of the original threads are included in Exhibit 1 so that readers can evaluate them in their entirety and draw independent conclusions]

The “attacker,” Ms. Yana Dianova, a citizen of the Russian Federation and member of an organization called the Russian International Affairs Council, uses LinkedIn to portray Mr. Leven as having engaged in criminality while performing his official duties for the United States government. Ms. Dianova bases this eroneous claim on source materials that both the Russian and US intelligence communities have subsequently declared to be 100% false. Despite being offered numerous explanations, opportunities to correct the record and to retract her libelous statements, she instead repeats this libel under the ludicrous guise that she had merely asked some sort of “innocent” question. As you will see, the complaint sent to LinkedIn includes a timeline of events, provides all necessary context, presents screenshots of the libel, screenshots of Mr. Leven’s defense and also highlights the absurdity of Ms. Dianova’s subsequent response.

Exhibit 2 then contains the previously mentioned screenshots of LinkedIn’s responses to complaint – namely, Scarlett’s refusal to take action or to address Mr. Leven’s substantive claims.

AND THEN… IT ONLY GETS WORSE: Additionally, you’ll see screenshots referencing several (now voluntarily deleted) LinkedIn threads in which a LinkedIn Member named Evan Hogewood chose to repeat the IDENTICAL libel previously posted by Ms. Dianova. While (so far) there is not definitive proof of a “direct” connection between these events, the Hogewood libel demonstrates exactly why LinkedIn’s failure to enforce its rules poses such serious dangers. In the new “wild west” of social networking, libel ripples through time and space at unimaginable speed. Repetition becomes virtually inevitable.

Nevertheless, the difference in outcomes does offer some hope and points toward a partial solution. After being informed of the truth by other LinkedIn Members who had read Mr. Leven’s defense, Mr. Hogewood eventually decided to do the right thing. He publicly admitted that he had been deceived by Russian propaganda; renounced his lies; and issued a profound apology to Mr. Leven. This set of screenshots constitutes Exhibit 3.

CONTRASTING SCARLETT WITH HOGEWOOD: According to Scarlett, Libel is merely “people communicating freely.” She also rather bizarrely argues that LinkedIn doesn’t owe Mr. Leven protection because the corporation is itself protected from liability by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. (Incidentally, even if Scarlett’s interpretation of Section 230 is correct, she neglects to mention that (a) LinkedIn can still CHOOSE truth over lies; and (b) that while the CDA may shield LinkedIn from damages caused by Member malfeasance, it has NOTHING to do with LinkedIn’s contractual obligations).

PROBLEM SOLVED? HARDLY… How many other LinkedIn Members saw Ms. Dianova’s comments and believed them? How many failed to read Mr. Leven’s defense or to see Mr. Hogewood’s apology? (As the complaint points out, Ms. Dianova attacked Mr. Leven in the most devious possible manner – by “blocking” Mr. Leven first so that he wouldn’t even learn about the libel, be able to discuss it directly or mount a comprehensive defense until after it had been discovered by others!)

WELCOME TO LIBEL – Version 2.0: Defamation has been condemned by law going back at least as far as Ancient Rome. But in today’s era of social networks, for the first time in history, the potential permanently to damage a person’s reputation has morphed into an exponential threat. For reasons the company won’t explain, LinkedIn is siding with the perpetrators. ATTENTION MUST BE PAID.

After all, if LinkedIn refuses to act in a matter where indisputable evidence is presented by someone who once held the civilian rank of a Three Star General, how can any Member feel secure? Are you comfortable knowing that it’s Scarlett who has your back?

NOW, WITHOUT FURTHER INTERRUPTION: EPISODE ONE – “THE SCARLETT AFFAIR”  (NOTE: If any of these images are difficult to view, depending on your device, either “double clicking” or magnifying should remedy the problem – Otherwise please provide feedback in the comments section and I’ll do my best to produce larger versions ASAP)

Following the presentation, I am also providing several suggestions for any Members seeking to follow Mr. Leven’s example and help restore the professionalism that the vast majority of LinkedIn’s users originally came here to find.

Exhibit 1: The written complaint presented to LinkedIn (multiple times and by multiple persons) detailing the libel perpetrated against Mr. Charles Leven by Ms. Yana Dianova and requesting enforcement of the User Agreement.

Exhibit 2: A representative sample of LinkedIn’s responses to Mr. Leven’s complaint from “Scarlett” – an individual that LinkedIn described as specializing in user defamation issues (Numerous other attempts to inform LinkedIn were met with identically negative results – and usually even identical language)

Exhibit 3: Mr. Evan Hogewood’s admission and apology upon realizing he had been duped by Russian propaganda and his retraction of the identical libel originally published by Ms. Dianova.

HOW YOU CAN HELP? START BY PRACTICING WHAT LINKEDIN PREACHES: PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

LinkedIn’s User Agreement (especially the rules set forth in sections 1 and 8.2) is fair, responsible and would lead toward a uniquely professional online community. Hence, even if LinkedIn won’t enforce its standards, there is A LOT you can do:

• QUESTION: Look back closely at the this presentation. Ask yourself what it says about the parties involved. Question the nature of Scarlett’s lack of  response. Try to decide whether this network truly represents professionalism or perhaps has some other agenda. If so, what might that be?

• OBSERVE: When you see something, say something. The same rule that applies on subways and in airports is just as relevant in an online community. The lonely voice of the injured victim is a sad cry in dark compared with a chorus of good Samaritans (especially BEFORE the injury has occurred)

• RESIST: When you see lies, dispute them. If you encounter suspicious claims, demand evidence. And when propaganda rears its ugly head, call it what it is. Never be content to lie down in the face of injustice.

AND Finally, always remember that LinkedIn is still YOUR network. The User Agreement is a binding contract between YOU and a publicly owned corporation. Consider: if some other business routinely breached its obligations, would you just do nothing? If your answer is “NO,” now is the time to stop giving LinkedIn an unearned free pass. You’ll be protecting yourself, your fellow Members and – as the above evidence illustrates – speaking out for common decency, the rule of law and mutual respect.

COMING SOON… EPISODE 2: “The Agenda – LinkedIn’s Abandonment of Decency, Respect and Morality”

Source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gone-truth-linkedin-lies-libel-james-berger

Globalfoundries, based in Abu Dhabi, will make microchips for U.S. jets and spy satellites

By DOUG CAMERON

June 5, 2016 4:42 p.m. ET

The Pentagon has decided to rely on an Abu Dhabi-owned company to supply the most advanced microchips used in U.S. spy satellites, missiles and combat jets.

A senior U.S. Defense Department official said in an interview that the Pentagon has reached a seven-year agreement with Globalfoundries Inc., one of the big four global chip makers, to supply the microchips. Terms weren’t disclosed.

The agreement ends months of uncertainty over supplies of such chips but is just the first step in a broader effort to protect sensitive military systems from cyberattacks and other tampering.

Globalfoundries last year acquired from International Business Machines Corp. the two plants—in Burlington, Vt., and East Fishkill, N.Y.—that make the chips. IBM had been the near-monopoly supplier of the chips to the Pentagon for more than a decade and paid Globalfoundries $1.5 billion to take the unprofitable business off its hands.

Lawmakers and watchdogs such as the Government Accountability Office had expressed concern about the Pentagon’s reliance on a single source for some of its state-of-the-art chips. “Due to market trends, supply chain globalization and manufacturing costs, the [Defense Department’s] future access to U.S.-based microelectronics sources is uncertain,” the House Armed Services Committee said in a recent report.

The new Globalfoundries agreement, which was previously undisclosed, runs until 2023. Meanwhile, the Pentagon will seek to identify more suppliers and expand protections needed to prevent chips from being tampered with or falling into the wrong hands.

The Pentagon also is moving away from a reliance on purely U.S.-made chips, widening its net of vendors to keep up with changes in commercial technology that are outpacing the defense world.

“Our goal is to look globally,” Andre Gudger, the Pentagon’s deputy assistant secretary for manufacturing and industrial base policy, said in an interview. “We want access to the latest and the greatest.”

The plants where chips are assembled have long been viewed by the Pentagon as a vulnerable part of the military supply chain.

The biggest concerns were over technology theft and any insertion of rogue elements that could be remotely triggered to access equipment, or so-called kill switches that render equipment useless.

In 2004 the Pentagon launched a vetting system of what are now more than 70 companies, including about 20 so-called trusted foundries. But the two heavily guarded former IBM factories in Vermont and upstate New York produced almost all of the custom-made chips used in the most sensitive weapons systems, effectively leaving the government reliant on a single supplier in the U.S.

With the semiconductor industry’s center of gravity shifting to facilities in Asia that churn out hundreds of millions of chips for consumer-electronics devices, the Pentagon has much less influence on an industry it helped fund and develop in the 1960s and 1970s.

While military users accounted for as much as one-quarter of global chip demand in the early 1980s, that had fallen to less than 0.1% by the turn of this decade, according to the Trusted Access Program Office, which coordinates buying for the Pentagon and intelligence agencies.

The military relies on customized chips rather than the mass-produced ones used in cellphones. For instance, while the new F-35 combat jet contains several hundred advanced chips—manufacturerLockheed Martin Corp. won’t disclose the exact number—production runs for the most sensitive military-grade processors range from a few dozen to 1,000. That compares with tens or even hundreds of millions for consumer-electronics devices.

Chip makers have shifted their focus to the larger consumer market, where competition led to technology being refreshed in months or weeks, while military chips ordered in small numbers might be upgraded once or twice a year, industry officials said.

“We have fallen behind in what our typical electronics have in them,” said Bill Chappell, a program director at the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as Darpa.

‘There’s a lot of wariness and concern, but it’s a great opportunity to open the door to a much greater supply chain.‘

—Bill Chappell, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

Opening the military market to more producers of the most advanced commercial chips, would allow the Pentagon to keep pace with technology developments, officials said. But that also will require new ways to monitor chips to ensure they haven’t been tampered with, whether manufactured in the U.S. or overseas.

For example, Darpa is developing a tiny tagging device for chips that can be embedded in processors from any manufacturer and used to detect malicious content or an attempt to tamper with the technology.

“There’s a lot of wariness and concern, but it’s a great opportunity to open the door to a much greater supply chain,” Mr. Chappell said.

Mr. Gudger, the Pentagon official, said the Darpa technology is only one avenue being explored. While others are largely classified, options include “blind” manufacturing where chip makers produce individual parts that are later assembled in a secure facility.

The work on vetting and tagging chips has also attracted interest from other industries, including utilities and financial services, looking to counter the rising threat of cyberattacks.

Globalfoundries—which has expanded through acquisitions and has significant operations in Germany, Singapore and upstate New York—provides the Pentagon’s immediate needs. But a coalition of U.S. chip makers including Cypress Semiconductor Corp. has been pressing the Pentagon to help fund upgrades to fabrication plants owned by U.S. companies to allow them to take on the most sensitive work.

For some, the main safeguard remains keeping the trusted-foundry program focused on domestic manufacturing.

“That [chip] foundry needs to be in the U.S.,” said Norton Schwartz,Air Force chief of staff from 2008 to 2012 and now president of Business Executives for National Security, an industry trade group.

Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/pentagon-takes-foreign-chips-partner-1465159332

This is what Russia wants.

Otherwise, Russia would not have acted so provocatively on so many occasions, threatened to use nukes, and invaded Georgia and Ukraine – twice each.

Russia also broke the agreements of the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation, and Security in Paris. It also publicly “officially suspended the CFE Treaty on November 29, 2007 when Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the Law № 276-FZ on that matter” and it continues to violate the Minsk agreements.

</end editorial>

Baltops 16 drills will take place on Hanko peninsula

As part of the international naval exercise Baltops 16, NATO forces will arrive – for the first time ever – in Finland, which is not the Alliance member. It is reported by the Finnish channel Yle.

During three days, from June 6 to June 9, NATO troops will practice landing and fighting operations at the Syndalen army firing range, on the peninsula Hanko.

200 U.S. Marine Corps servicemen, 60 British soldiers, 50 German troops and an Italian reconnaissance platoon will take part in these joint military exercises.

The drills will also feature two warships – U.S. Navy dock landing ship USS Carter Hall and Royal Navy biggest ship HMS Queen.

Baltops is the largest annual military exercise in the Baltic Sea. Finland has been taking part in the exercise for about twenty years, but it is the first time when the drills are held in the country.

18 NATO partners and allies – including 4,500 military personnel, 50 vessels, 60 flying craft and one submarine – are taking part in Baltops 16. This year marks the first time in the exercise’s nearly half a century that Baltops has taken place so far north.

Source: http://uatoday.tv/politics/nato-troops-land-in-finland-for-the-first-time-ever-667650.html

Ksenia Sobchak is a famous journalist and television host turned activist – in Russia. She is officially being smeared by the Russian government on its official news outlet.

Rossiyskaya Gazeta (Russian: Российская газета, lit. Russian Gazette) is a Russian government daily newspaper of record which publishes the official decrees, statements and documents of state bodies.

Wikipedia

“In the State Duma suggested to carry Ksenia Sobchak in the cage” which roughly translates to the Russian government is stating Ksenia Sobchak should have been carried in a “brig” on an airplane following a recent incident on the ground.  

Only superficial digging is needed to reveal Ksenia Sobchak is a major pain in the butt to the Kremlin.

At first I couldn’t find any mention of the incident with Sobchak, nobody outside Russia seemed to carry the story.  Then I found “Pregnant Ksenia Sobchak justified for a riot in the plane” in Russian.

Apparently a passenger refused to show his boarding pass, delaying the flight’s departure for 40 minutes, causing Sobchak to miss an award ceremony she was supposed to host. She confronted the flight attendants and they became upset.  The flight was delayed 2 1/2 hours.  Why didn’t the flight attendants kick off the uncooperative passenger?  Because, well, Russia.

A video of the incident is posted here, there is no brawl, no riot, and certainly no need to throw Ksenia Sobchak in a cage on the plane.

Yes, being both an activist and a journalist are doubly dangerous occupations in Russia.  Yes, Ksenia Sobchak confronted seemingly unprofessional flight attendants, and, oh my gosh, swore at them.

Why is this incident even being discussed in the Russian State (national) Duma?  Because, Russia.

It is explained in this recent article by Anna Nemtsova, the daughter of the late Boris Nemtsov who was allegedly murdered on orders by the Kremlin.  In “The Death of Free Media in Russia” Anna Nemtsova explains that the Kremlin became enraged at the disclosure of the Panama Papers, one of the targets of their rage was the media conglomerate RBC (Russian Business Consulting). Russia began raiding their offices and targeting their people, using government powers and offices. Ksenia Sobchova was working for RBC when she confronted Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, asking him directly if Yekaterina Tikhonova was his daughter – which he did not deny.  This story hits him personally, to admit he has a second daughter, he is excessively secretive about his private life.

This might be the explanation for the Duma’s outrage.

Because, Russia.

‘Ultra-Orthodox Jewish’ gunmen and ‘terrorists’: Tel Aviv attack in world media

By i24news
Published: 06/09/2016 – 01:56pm, updated: 03:51pm

Misleading media headlines draw fury of Jewish and pro-Israel readers

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a topic that is widely followed world-wide and as such, terror attacks like the one that occurred Wednesday night in Tel Aviv are widely covered in international media, and often published with distorted or misleading headlines.

The headline shared by the pro-Israel NGO StandWithUs on Facebook gathered a number of reactions such as “It’s just so g-d dam disrespectful!!!!!! Innocent people were murdered tonight and they have the audacity to publish such a headline. What’s the point of a headline like that????”

Another comment read ” RT stop supporting terrorists and promoting Anti Semitism!”

RT’s updated headline on Thursday read “‘Harsh terror attack’: 2 Palestinian gunmen kill 4 in Tel Aviv shopping center.”

In the first paragraph of RT’s updated article they keep the initial description of the gunmen, writing “the attackers, wearing black suits described by witnesses as ultra-Orthodox Jewish outfits, have been detained.”

The word “terrorists” is mention twice in the article after this, but it is not until the fifth paragraph that RT quoted police as saying that the attackers were Palestinian.

US based CNN news infuriated some readers after it initially reported the attack with the word terrorist in quotation marks.

In the caption accompanying a tweet linking to their story, CNN wrote “Tel Aviv shooting update: -shots fired at outdoor market – at least 3 dead – 2 “terrorists” captured.

Tel Aviv shooting update:

– Shots fired at outdoor market
– At least 3 dead
– 2 “terrorists” captured

Latest: https://t.co/NE6Lhpuksl

— CNN (@CNN) June 8, 2016

One Twitter user replied to the tweet, saying “hey @CNN if you walk into a coffee shop and shoot women & children, you are a terrorist. no ” ” needed.”

The headline of the CNN story, updated at 8:51 GMT, reads “2 suspects, 4 victims in Tel Aviv terror attack identified,” with the word terror written without quotes.

Inside the story, however, CNN also quoted a “police source” as saying that “the attackers were dressed as Hasidic Jews.”

The New York Times almost completely left the word terror out of their report, using only once in a sentence reading “reigniting fears of terrorism in Israel just as a recent wave of Palestinian attacks had seemed to be waning.”

Throughout the article the New York Times instead refers to the terrorists as “gunmen” and “attackers.”

Another outlet to leave the word terror out of their report was Britian’s BBC News, who used the word only when quoting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the police and eyewitnesses.

This is not the first time during the latest round of violence that international media outlets have drawn criticism for showing alleged bias with their headlines.

Last February the head of Israel’s Government Press Office (GPO), Nitzan Chen, said that Israel will consider revoking GPO cards from international media outlets that give distorted headlines about attacks on Israelis.

“This time we won’t sit in silence, we’ll consider revoking press cards from journalists and editors who are neglectful in their jobs, and give headlines that are the opposite from the reality,” he said in February.

A wave of Palestinian knife, gun and car-ramming attacks erupted in October. Most of the attacks have been stabbings, although there have also been occasional shootings.

Source: http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/society/116165-160609-ultra-orthodox-jewish-gunmen-and-terrorists-tel-aviv-attack-in-world-media

David McCabe

The Department of Commerce gave its approval Thursday to a hotly debated plan to transition away from United States control of the domain name system.

“The Internet’s multistakeholder community has risen to the challenge we gave them to develop a transition proposal that would ensure the Internet’s domain name system will continue to operate as seamlessly as it currently does,” Larry Strickling, who heads the agency’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), said in a statement.

The domain name system helps direct users easily around the web by connecting numerical addresses with the names — like Google.com — consumers associate with websites.

Strickling told reporters that “we have determined that the proposal in meeting our criteria has broad support from the Internet stakeholders, it will support and enhance the multistakeholder model, it will maintain the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system, it will meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA functions and it maintains the openness of the Internet.”

“And most importantly, the proposal meets another key condition and that is it does not replace NTIA’s role with a governmental or intergovernmental solution.”

For years, the United States has controlled the domain name system through a contract it has with a nonprofit, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The Obama administration initiated steps in 2014 to hand over control to an international group of stakeholders.

Now that the Department of Commerce has signed off on the plan, provided to the agency in March, ICANN has until August to address some issues raised by its review. The contract expires at the end of September, and Strickling said the agency would consider in “early August” whether it needs to be extended.

It’s a critical step in a transition that has been a source of significant controversy. Several tech groups support the proposal. But conservative critics of the transition say that it stands to be handled poorly or place control of a key part of the Internet in the hands of unfriendly governments.

Sen. Ted CruzTed CruzObama administration approves transition of Internet domain system Kasich: ‘Hard to say’ whether I’ll support Trump What happens to Ryan after Trump loses? MORE (R-Texas), who recently dropped out of the presidential race, introduced a bill on Wednesday that would prohibit the government from handing over control over the domain name system without Congress’s authorization. Another, less strict, bill was gaining ground last year before Cruz put a hold on it.

Lawmakers have also placed a funding restriction on the transition, but Strickling said that will only matter if the restriction extends into the next financial year.

“The transition would not take place prior to the end of this fiscal year, and so we will see what the situation will be for 2017,” he said.

“As of now the contract would expire on its own terms at the end of September,” he added. “That doesn’t require any affirmative action on our part but we are working with Congress and want to get them comfortable with our assessment of this plan and hopefully that won’t be an issue when we get to the end of September, provided ICANN’s done its work and is ready to go.”

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/282860-commerce-approves-domain-name-transition

By Michele A. Berdy

Jun. 09 2016 13:53

Обуздáть: to curb

Normal people have normal hobbies. They garden. They hike through the woods. They collect stamps. I am not a normal person. My favorite pastime is scouring the Internet to find the original statement of a U.S. official that in Russian translation is an outrageous insult to the great Russian nation, its history, its leaders, and its ice cream. Why do I do this? Because most of the time in the original it’s not so insulting, or not insulting at all, or something else altogether.

It started with this “quote” from McFaul: “The United States should curb Russia according to need and respond to it,” which appears to have been a translation of this: США должны в соответствии с потребностями обуздать Россию и ответить ей. This appeared in a blog by Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova, who said McFaul’s statement взорвал рунет (exploded the Russian Internet), although I couldn’t find any indication of that. I mean, McFaul is important, but he’s not a naked Kim Kardashian.

The “explosive” word here is обуздать, which has the primary meaning of “to bridle” (узда is a bridle). It has associations of breaking a free or lively horse: Удалось обуздать его амбиции (We were able to rein in his ambitions.) And there is a whiff of violence in it, like in this quote of Josef Stalin: Мы должны обуздать всех тех, кто раскалывает наши братские партии на Западе и на Востоке (We must rein in those who are splitting up our fraternal parties in the West and East.) So the image is of breaking and bridling the free spirit of Russia. Damn Yanks.

This Russian quote appears to then have been picked up and translated back into English and spread among the trolls: “The United States needs ‘to rein in’ Russia and respond to its actions.” “Michael McFaul said that Russia must be curbed.” “McFaul said the need (sic) to ‘restrain’ Russia.” One blogger must have used machine translation: Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia said that Russia must “curb.”

Of all the translations, I thought “to curb” was the farthest off. Although it means to limit or constrain, the image is of putting up a boundary. But, just in case, I decided to consult an actual dictionary. I know — crazy, right? And there I discovered that “to curb” is the perfect translation of обуздать. When “curb” entered English it meant “a strap passing under the jaw of a horse used to restrain the animal.” Handy things, dictionaries.

But what did McFaul say? Here’s his quote in the English version of Postimees: “Tragically again, NATO has to deter Russian threats.” That’s it. No curbing, no Russia, no United States.

So the Russian Internet is outraged by a quote they made up. When asked what he thought about it, McFaul said: Это было очень странно, честное слово. Объяснений я пока не видел. Я не понимаю, честное слово. (It was very strange, to be honest. I can’t explain it. Honestly, I just don’t get it.)

Join the club.

U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt has stressed that the international community is not sufficiently aware of the role of Russia in the war in Donbas.

“I think a big part of the Kremlin’s tactic from the start of this aggression has been to see how much they can get away with without provoking an international reaction. That’s why they sent the “little green men” into Crimea. It wasn’t to hide it from the United States’ government, from our intelligence. We had a very clear picture of what Russia was doing. It was to create confusion. The objective of this Russian informational warfare is not to win the argument – it’s to win the war. As we say they have weaponized information,” Pyatt said on air of ArmyFM.

“I don’t think Americans know as much as they should about what this country has gone through over the past two years and three months.”

“Everybody knows the story of the Buk missile and MH17, a lot of people know the story of the Donetsk airport. But I don’t think there is enough knowledge in the United States or in Europe of what Russia continues to do. Russia continues to provide command and control and intelligence for the armies of the so-called ‘DNR’ and ‘LNR.’

Russia continues to rotate troops and to supply new ammunition and equipment,” he said.

“Last week, the Russian-supported separatists shot down two drones of the OSCE. One of those had been shot by an anti-aircraft missile. Another had recently sided long ranged 152mm self-propelled artillery, both of which were sophisticated, prohibited weapon systems supplied by Russia.”

“So, it’s important for Ukraine, for the United States and other partners to keep highlighting that there is a victim and an aggressor in this war. And that the Kremlin is a very long way from complying with the obligations that it made under the Minsk agreements,” Pyatt said.

Source: http://www.unian.info/politics/1370495-pyatt-world-community-not-enough-aware-of-russias-role-in-donbas-war.html

Get BBG Digital Audio/Video Updates

by bbg-digi-av

Get the latest news about digital audio/video trends, tools and announcements delivered to your in box.

http://tinyletter.com/bbg-digi-av

WASHINGTON – Thomas Kent a long time Associated Press journalist has been appointed the new President of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Chairman of the network’s Board of Directors Jeff Shell announced today.

BY WILLIAM COURTNEY AND MICHAEL HALTZEL ON 6/11/16 AT 5:00 AM

A top goal of Russian foreign policy is to erode Western opposition to its aggression in Ukraine. But many of Moscow’s tactics are clumsy and self-defeating. Not surprisingly, the European Union is likely once again to renew sanctions.

Some in Europe are uneasy with the robust sanctions imposed in response to Russia’s aggression in eastern Ukraine, especially those in the financial and energy sectors that harm economic interests in the sanctioning countries.

Last month in Japan, however, G-7 leaders—including U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Francois Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi—backed them. The sanctions were “linked to Russia’s complete implementation of the Minsk agreements and respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty.”

To seek relief from Western sanctions, the Kremlin is waging a campaign of public distortion and intimidation aimed at splitting Europe from America, and Europeans from each other.

And there are, to be sure, troubling indications of support for sanctions relief, such as from leading German Social Democrats and the French Senate, which on Wednesday voted a non-binding resolution calling for a “gradual and partial” lifting of sanctions, plus dark rumors that Hungary’s right-wing government may seek to block consensus on sanctions renewal at this month’s European Union summit. But Russia’s overall effort is weakened by internal contradictions.

How has Moscow erred? Seeing Europeans as weak, unprincipled and gullible, the Kremlin angers and dismays them by its war on Ukraine and associated propaganda. A similar error in the early 1980s caused Moscow to fail to achieve its top foreign policy goal—dissuading NATO from deploying Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) missiles in Europe as a counter to comparable Soviet SS-20 missiles.

As Mark Twain observed, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” How so with Moscow’s policies on missiles in the 1980s and Ukraine today?

• In the 1980s, Soviet propagandists hoped to weaken the commitment of the UK and West Germany to deploying NATO INF missiles by lambasting British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. Today, Russian propagandists back British exit from the European Union, opposed by Cameron; they attack Angela Merkel; and in France they support populist leader Marie Le Pen, who opposes Hollande.
• In the 1980s, the Soviet war of Afghanistan and support for martial law in Poland undermined Moscow’s effort to charm the West into scuttling its missile plan. Now, Moscow’s attempt to weaken Western sanctions is being undermined by its backing of repeated violations of the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine, called for in the Minsk agreements, and by military intimidation tactics in the Nordic-Baltic region.
• The downing of passenger airliners played a role then and now. In 1983, two months before INF missiles were to be deployed, the Soviets downed Korean Airlines 007, causing 269 deaths. In 2014 over Ukraine, Russian forces or their proxies shot down Malaysian Airlines 17, causing 298 fatalities. In both cases Moscow showed no contrition, thereby hardening attitudes in the West.
• In November 1981 President Ronald Reagan proposed the elimination of INF missiles in Europe as part of a “dual-track” policy of preparing to deploy the missiles along with negotiations to eliminate the need for them. NATO did deploy in late 1983, but four years later a treaty embodying the zero option was concluded. Today, NATO’s dual tracks seek full implementation of the Minsk agreements while at the same time beefing up security and economic aid to Ukraine and strengthening the alliance’s military capabilities in Central Europe and the Nordic-Baltic – where the foreign ministers of Finland and Sweden were recently included in NATO deliberations for the first time.
• Then, credible INF negotiations were important for preserving NATO unity on missile deployments. Today, Western insistence on implementation of the Minsk agreements – whatever their deficiencies – is vital for retaining European backing of sanctions.

In the early 1980s, Western unity was strained by differences over the transfer of technology to the USSR for construction of a large gas pipeline from Siberia to Europe, and by President Ronald Reagan’s plan for a futuristic initiative to develop defenses against long-range ballistic missiles, which would have violated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. Today, the West has no internal disagreements of comparable importance, making it harder for the Kremlin to fracture consensus.

These factors, taken together, undermine Moscow’s aim of weakening Western opposition to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. Propaganda and deception by Russia Today and Sputnik appear to be less than effective. Even so, heightened leftist and nationalist pressures in Europe could wear down support for sanctions. The West must bend every effort to maintain a unified position on them.

Broader public opinion may be amenable to holding the line. In mid-May, the favored Russian performer in the wildly popular Eurovision Song Contest lost to the Ukrainian entry. The Russians cried foul, claiming that in their voting, other European countries had politicized the contest. This may not have been a case of Russian paranoia. Nobody likes a bully.

William Courtney is an adjunct senior fellow at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation and was U.S. ambassador to Kazakhstan and Georgia. Michael Haltzel is a senior fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations of Johns Hopkins.

Source: http://www.newsweek.com/putin-trying-bully-europe-dropping-sanctions-468479

Miss Slavyansk-2016 nominates herself for troll of the week.  I can’t blame her, however, she’s suffering from Russian propaganda overload and she’s like some politicians, she’ll say, do, or delete anything to win.

An anonymous source whispered this in my ear:

Some very interesting reading, and not sure which is the most interesting.

Russian propaganda broadcasts in Eastern Ukraine are not being watched much any more, other than in Russian occupied areas. Moreover a survey last year indicated that “true believers” in Russian propaganda will be true believers and watch the propaganda religiously – this reflects other case studies of true believers, like F-35 worshippers, facts are no deterrent to belief.

Ukrainians are now beaming FM radio and TV into Crimea over the border from Kherson Oblast. Russians would like to jam it.

The famous TV tower at Mount Karachun near Slovyansk, felled by Russian artillery fire in mid 2014, is being replaced by a new tower, soon to broadcast. It is a strategic asset as it covers much of central Donbass with TV broadcasts, one of the reasons Girkin’s handlers picked Slovyansk as the initial stronghold for the invasion effort. Not dumb.

Pocket Vocabulary of Kremlin-speak carries choke-on-coffee warning!

The Garrels interview about culture, values, attitudes in provincial Russia is a good snapshot of Putin’s primary support base – a survivalist culture, a deeply entrenched “Russian exceptionalism” attitude, serfish obesiance to Muscovy, and blinkered view of the world outside Russia. A notable comment was whether “Putin created the culture, or vice versa” – the reality appears to be co-evolution.

Russian television not so prevalent in eastern Ukraine, study finds Less than six percent of residents in unoccupied eastern Ukraine watch programs about politics on Russian television every day, a new study by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology finds. The study, which was conducted from May 20 to June 2, 2016, found that Ukrainian national television channels were the dominant source of political news in eastern Ukrainian, as well as throughout the country. The study upends widely held assumptions about the singular dominance of Russian television in eastern Ukrainian households. “This is a stereotype that does not reflect reality,” said Anton Grushetsky, Head of the Quantitative Surveys Department at the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, referring to the common assumption that most people in eastern Ukraine watch Russian television. According to the study, 72 percent of residents in the unoccupied east do not “get information of a political nature” from Russian television at all. Less than six percent watch Russian television nearly every day for news about politics, 7.8 percent watch it several times a week, and six percent watch it several times a month.

Press releases and reports – Index of Russian propaganda efficiency

The National Council and the Ministry of Defense are working to overcome blocking of broadcasting in occupied Crimea – Kostinsky National Council of Ukraine on Television and Radio Broadcasting and the Ministry of Defence are working together on the blocking of the signal broadcast from the territory of Russia annexed Crimea to Kherson. This was stated by a member of the National Council Sergey Kostinsky at a meeting on improving the quality of Ukrainian broadcasting in the Kherson region and the Crimea, according to Tsenzor.NET with reference to the press service of the Kherson Regional State Administration. Also read: Occupants can not drown out the signal to Ukrainian radio in Crimea – Kostinsky “Also national broadcast in the first place, there must be a high-quality local broadcasting, which will be distributed in all regions of Ukraine “, – quotes Kostinsky press service. Now the village Chongar Genichesky district installed a tower through which the supply is carried out in Ukrainian language radio test mode via the 5- . kilowatt transmitter on the territory of the southern districts of the region and the Crimea “This work further to increase Ukrainian broadcasting, work continues on the construction of the TV tower is already under way in a Chongar and plan to install a second tower in Kalanchak..”, – informed and the Kherson Regional State Administration. Read on “Tsenzor.NET”: on TV National Council has developed a strategy for broadcasting in the Russian-occupied Crimea on the eve of the Kherson region visited the head of the SBU Basil Hrycak, who personally checked how the Ukrainian broadcasting on the territory annexed Crimea. May 26 in the Kherson Regional State Administration said that from the territory of mainland Ukraine Ukrainian radio began to apply to the territory of Russia annexed Crimea. So far, in the test mode. According to the administration, in the Crimea, Ukrainian radio broadcasts at a frequency of 101.4 FM. Occupation “prosecutor” of the Crimea Natalia Poklonskaya said its “Office” will inspect Ukrainian radio station broadcasting on the territory of the peninsula on the subject of “extremism” and in case of detection of these facts, broadcasting will be silenced.

Ukraine Council on Television and Radio Broadcasting reveals its strategy on Crimea — Ukrinform NewsThe National Council of Ukraine on Television and Radio Broadcasting has drafted a development strategy for expanding broadcasting in the Kherson region and organizing coverage in the occupied Crimea, a member of the National Council Serhiy Kostynsky told Krym.Realii site.

Crimean TV: RESTART? – Podpricelom

In Crimea, set to offer broadcast TV tower in Ukraine – The Company | NewsMeIn Crimea, the Crimean parliament deputy Valery Aksenov proposed the idea to install the TV tower along the Ukrainian border.

Yurii Stets: “The frequencies of “BTB” TV channel will be transferred to the public broadcaster – the “Kultura” (“Culture”) TV channel Ministry of Information Policy of Ukraine

MIP Monitoring mission reports to MPs on stages of the TV tower reconstruction on Karachun mountain Ministry of Information Policy of Ukraine

TV tower on mount Karachun work in autumn – Kostinskaya – Ukrop News 24       TV tower on mount Karachun near Slavyansk should be up and running this fall. This broadcast 5 channel said a member of the national Council on television and radio Sergey Kostinsky. Now began the active phase of construction, the zero set of the section.

Construction of the tower near Slovyansk passed into the active phase, said Kostynskyy         Tower at Mount Karachun near Slavyansk to be erected this autumn. This is in the air “Channel 5” in the “Look” said a member of the National Council on Television and Radio Sergey Kostynskyy. According to him, construction of buildings passed into the active phase. Therefore, it is expected that in September it will transmit a signal.

Miss Slavyansk-2016 openly supports militant “DNR”: “These freaks-banderla-liars need shooting.” picture story Miss Slavyansk-2016, which was chosen a few days ago, Vladislav Tatkalo during the occupation of the city openly supported the insurgents. At the moment it did not change its position. A week ago Tatkalo stated that “Slavyansk be released” this year. Information about the Mission Slavyansk informed on Facebook journalist Dmitry Butt, transfers Tsenzor.NET with reference to the fourth power . “Schaub zagibli Bandera nafig forever” – such posts previously wrote winner Miss Slavyansk under the name of Vladislav (Alice Weiss) in VKontakte network. At the moment, this account removed. Instead, there are several neutral belonging Tatkalo. Still, the journalist managed to take screenshots of its records.

Pocket Vocabulary of Kremlin-speak  |  EUROMAIDAN PRESSEuromaidan Press | Use this short vocabulary to translate the language the Kremlin uses in its broadcasts into human language:

Russia’s Vladimir Putin’s Complete Works to Be Published – NBC News During Soviet times, every leader had his complete works published. Now Russian President — Vladimir Putin is joining the club.

A Journey into Putin’s Country – SRB Podcast [Sean Guillory]        Anne Garrels is a former foreign correspondent for National Public Radio and the author of Naked in Baghdad which chronicled the events surrounding the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. Her most recent book is Putin’s Country: A Journey into the Real Russia.

Argentina refuses to broadcast Russia Today The State Enterprise “Radio and Television of Argentina” stops broadcasting RT (Russia Today) in the country. This was reported on the channel’s website. It is reported that the decision of the Argentine authorities to terminate broadcasts RT is connected with the need to free up frequencies for provincial TV channels. RT Channel launched in Argentina in 2014 by agreement between the country’s president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and Russian President Vladimir Putin. “The inclusion of RT in Spanish in the Argentine state television network was the first time that a foreign channel has received such a possibility,” – said in a statement. In turn, Russian Ambassador to Argentina Victor Coronelli announced that if notice of termination broadcast TV channel RT in Argentina confirmed, this decision of the Argentine authorities will not correspond to the nature of the current relations between the two countries

Obviously, my friends in Moscow have contacted their friends in Serbia.

Thank you very much for your generous contributions to my page count.  All the extra hits from Russia and Serbia reassures me that we can all be friends, I’m relatively certain you visited me just for the company.

My friends have also noticed the extra added attention.

…and I was feeling ignored and lonely this morning.  My firewall logs were so empty.  I haven’t had a Network Monitor visit me in such a long time, I almost forgot what it felt like. I’m certain you don’t have an available zero-day exploit to waste on little old me, or do you?  You’re going to make me beef up my firewalls aren’t you?  Too bad, increased firewall security also means friends being called to help monitor.

To my Moscow friends, please, these little script kiddies just aren’t cutting the mustard.  I have some suggestions for people more worth your money.

To my new Serbian friends, check your bank accounts, Russians notoriously don’t pay what they promise.

Here’s a better idea. Just quit it. You’re embarrassing yourself.

I have never seen an analysis of Russian propaganda by Levada.  As a matter of fact, I have never seen anything from Levada other than their results.

Can I trust Levada research and analysis of anything?

The chart of the index of Russian propaganda efficiency by macro-regions looks odd at first glance, until I actually looked at the labels. My initial blush was Russian propaganda looked increasingly efficient, then I realized it wasn’t a timeline, it was by macro-regions of Ukraine progressing eastward.  D’oh.  For about 1/2 second I thought Russia was doing something right.

Second thought, great baseline analysis.  This is what the BBG needs to do. *hint* Call me.

</end editorial>

Kiev International Institute of Sociology

Laboratory of sociological assistance to information security

Between February 14 and February 24, 2015 Kiev International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) conducted the nation-wide public opinion poll. The survey was conducted in 108 settlements in all regions of Ukraine, (except the Autonomous Republic of Crimea) according to the random sample, which is representative for adult population of Ukraine (aged 18 and over). Totally 2013 respondents were interviewed face-to-face during the field stage. In Donetsk and Luhansk regions the poll was conducted both in territories controlled by Ukraine’s government forces, and territories controlled by separatist forces.

Statistical sample error (with probability of 0.95 and design-effect of 1.5) does not exceed 3.3% for indicators close to 50%; 2.8% for indicators close to 25%; 2.0% for indicators close to 10%; 1.4% for indicators close to 5%.

Russia’s information warfare against Ukraine helped Russia to reach success in annexation of Crimea, to gain support for those actions from its population and to provoke the war in Donbass.

There are only a few reasons why a television station would deliberately report negatively on the European refugee crisis.

Personal bias by the station’s owner and/or senior editor.

Second, to undermine the stability of the country.  Russia comes to mind, this is one of the purposes of Russia’s Information Warfare program.  I also may be repeating myself.

I also may be repeating myself.  The station’s owner and/or senior editor may be a Russian agent of influence.

We have seen many examples of the second.  Russia has an active program in most countries of the West to infer instability.

Right now this may be mere coincidence but, grouped with many other signs of Russian IW I have seen in Czechia, I believe this is deliberate, by Russia.

</end editorial>

by Sydney Smith June 09, 2016

After accusations that the station ordered staff to negatively report on refugees, Czech TV station Prima News will undergo an investigation.

Prima sent iMediaEthics a press statement announcing its board appointed “three objective experts” to investigate the station’s “editorial independence” and reporting on refugees.

As iMediaEthics reported previously, independent Czech news site HlídacíPes reported (based on anonymous sources and a leaked recording of an editorial meeting from September) that Prima told staff to report negatively on refugees. HlídacíPes analyzed Prima’s coverage of refugees before and after that September meeting and found a significant shift from positive to negative reports on refugees. Prima, the third-most-watched TV station in the country, denied the allegations.

The Prima statement about the investigation sent to iMediaEthics reads in full:

“TV Prima News is based on principles of objective journalism and freedom of the press. This independence has recently been subject to speculations.

“As a consequence of this, the Board of Prima has decided to appoint an independent assessment to be performed by three objective experts that will look over conditions for editorial independence as well as objectivity of the coverage around the refugee crises since September 2015.

“The experts will report their findings to the Board who will then decide on necessary actions. The experts will report their findings to the Board which will then decide on necessary actions. Timing and other details around the assessment will be made public in the next coming week.”

iMediaEthics also heard from The Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting, which regulates Czech TV stations, in response to our inquiry about the allegations against Prima. The council sent iMediaEthics a statement saying it can’t investigate any internal guidelines but that if a station did tell staff to report with bias it would be “alarming.”

The council’s full statement reads:

“The Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting has no power which would enable it to verify or investigate internal guidelines which employees of any television receive.

“If it is true that employees of a specific broadcaster are literally instructed to prepare reports in contradiction with the principles of objectivity and neutrality and in contradiction with the Broadcasting Law, the situation is alarming.

“Whether the broadcaster, following such guidelines, really provides biased and imbalanced information, can the Council analyse only on the basis of monitoring and assessment of broadcast content. The Council can only deal with that what has been broadcast on television.

Source: http://www.imediaethics.org/biased-reporting-refugees-czech-prima-investigation/