Archive for the 'Boris Berezovsky' Category

Why Russia needed to have Boris Berezovsky dead early in 2013

July 16, 2014

Russia needed to have Boris Berezovsky dead before the Boston bombing in April 2013 if it was responsible for it. If Berezovsky was alive, he would have accused Putin of being behind the Boston Bombing. So if Russia knew it was coming, it also knew it had to have Berezovsky dead if it wanted to avoid that. Berezovsky was a billionaire and former ruler of Russia in effect. His speaking out would have carried weight and been widely reported.

Did Russia know the Boston Bombing was coming in April 2013? Did it know the date and the place?

Putin’s comments after the Boston Bombing about Anatoly Chubais advised by CIA agents, ie Andrei Shleifer.

The coming of Sergei Guriev as a fake dissident fleeing Russia.

The use of the CIA outing in Moscow to distract attention from Snowden leaving Hawaii. Once both were public, Berezovsky would have seen that Putin had used the CIA in May to distract Snowden leaving Hawaii.

Berezovskly also would have understood how Putin was using leverage over Michael McFaul from the plagiarism kompromat on Duffie.

What about before Snowden?

Berezovsky would have seen Snowden as linked to the Boston Bombing and possible to the Aaron Swartz case. He might have spoken up about Russia’s surveillance systems and methods.

When Pierre Wauthier was killed, Berezovsky could have seen that it was about Ackermann gathering information from Russia
and Wauthier suspecting it.

The consideration of Larry Summers for the Fed chairman and then Stanley Fischer for vice chairman. Berezovsky might have tried to make a deal to expose them or leak information.

What about the bombings in Volgograd before the Olympics?

Berezovsky would have said Putin was behind them.

Josef Ackermann joining Renova Group would also have given Berezovsky a chance to speak out.

Stanford SIEPR Agenda Day award to Stanley Fischer. Berezovsky would have seen through the whole thing as well as Sergei Guriev going there.

The invasion of Crimea, Berezovsky would have opposed. Berezovsky would have seen that Putin was using Stanley Fischer as leverage over Obama, because Obama was complicit in covering up Fischer’s crimes. Berezovsky could have spoken out or leaded information.

The further invasion of Eastern Ukraine, Lugansk (or Luhansk) and Donetsk would have been the same thing. Berezovsky would have been tempted by each act of Putin to reuse the Stanley Fischer kompromat to speak out or leak out.

This is draft and preliminary. The above is hypotheses and speculation. Comments and corrections welcome. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

Advertisements

re: “Boris Berezovsky and the Bizarro Effect”

December 6, 2006

Comments on:
“Boris Berezovsky and the Bizarro Effect
In a world turned upside down, the gangsters are the “good” guys” by Justin Raimondo.

“The media campaign to discredit Putin has no real evidence to support it. It seems to be related to American foreign policy goals.”

Justin Raimondo is very knowledgeable on the history of Russia in the 1990’s and 2000’s. He has followed the oligarchs while the mainstream media has done so only episodically.

Raimondo gives a good argument for the Non-Putin Hypothesis. Much of his argument is to try to raise doubts in our minds about the allegations made about Putin, inconsistencies in some current accusers of Putin with past statements, and doubts about Berezovsky.

All of this is true, but we are still left with the Putin Hypothesis, that this was a sanctioned hit on Litvinenko by the Russian government with Putin’s personal approval as the leading hypothesis. The response of Russia to the investigation is to circle the wagons. This comes off as a Russian government operation.

Moreover, all of Litvinenko’s accusations against Putin are increased in probability. Some of them may start from a low level to those inclined to give any accused the benefit of the doubt. But some have been made by others and have to be considered more seriously than to be dismissed as conspiracy theory. This applies particularly to the apartment building bombing of 1999.

Raimondo at times makes the argument that everything comes out, therefore Putin can’t have ordered the apartment bombing. This is like the fallacy in the Post recently that any proven conspiracy is not a conspiracy.

conspiracy site:usdoj.gov

gives over 15,000 hits. Many of these are reporting convictions for one conspiracy or another. Some may not be guilty, and some of these crimes should not be crimes, but they are still there to challenge all those who dismiss conspiracy theories.

conspiracy site:state.gov

also has some interesting results, including the statement that the Russian intelligence service was behind rumors that the CIA was behind spreading aids in Africa. The latter appears to have been done without the help of the CIA as Russia admitted after the fall of the Soviet Union. Note the State Dept dismisses that the CIA was behind Aids as a conspiracy theory, but affirms that the KGB was behind the rumors of CIA culpability without any sense of irony.

How to Identify Misinformation

“The U.S. military or intelligence community is a favorite villain in many conspiracy theories.

For example, the Soviet disinformation apparatus regularly blamed the U.S. military or intelligence community for a variety of natural disasters as well as political events. In March 1992, then-Russian foreign intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov admitted that the disinformation service of the Soviet KGB intelligence service had concocted the false story that the AIDS virus had been created in a US military laboratory as a biological weapon. When AIDS was first discovered, no one knew how this horrifying new disease had arisen, although scientists have now used DNA analysis to determine that “all HIV-1 strains known to infect man” are closely related to a simian immunodeficiency virus found in a western equatorial African chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes troglodytes. But the Soviets used widespread suspicions about the U.S. military to blame it for AIDS. (More details on this.)”

So the rule is simple, if they say CIA did it, its a conspiracy theory, if they say the KGB or FSB or SVR did it, then its not a conspiracy theory. This is the official rule from the US Dept of State on how to tell a conspiracy theory from truth.
The same no doubt applies to all of us. Raimondo has no problem accusing Berezovsky of conspiracy, or the neocons of conspiracy, but defends Putin to the death of Litvinenko. This charming consistency in knowing who his enemies are is characteristic of Raimondo, as it is no doubt of all of us. However, in this case, Raimondo may have given us a good argument to pause in our judgement of Putin, but not enough to save him. This is special pleading and all the rest.

Russian intelligence is a hierarchical fear driven career service bureaucracy. Their day work is to do bad things. Loyalty to each other is their only means of avoiding exposure and censure if not prosecution. That applies to the Litvinenko murder and everything that Litvinenko accused Putin of.

One final note on the State web site. ” Primakov admitted.” What about the CIA in the 1980’s? They didn’t expose this? So a corollary of the State Dept Rule is that if its true and Russian intelligence is doing it or al Qaeda or the Taliban, the CIA can’t figure it out. After all, the lives saved are just middle Americans, whom the MSM have already sanctioned the removal of.

If the Saudis or Pakistan ISI are doing it, CIA might be able to figure it out, but they can’t tell. That might interfere with post agency employment in the lucrative business of body snatching aka extraordinary rendition, secret prisons, detentions, interrogation, Project Mkultra, releasing toxins in the New York subway system for fun and games, and John Yoo sanctioned mischief.

==Post Story

Moscow Restricts UK Cops
quote Face it, Russia is our enemy, they supply Iran with nuclear equipment and training. Now Russia has agreed to do the same for North Korea. Russia has not agreed with the US or England on UN matters ever, same with China, end quote tharmonwv | Dec 5, 2006 3:55:02 PM and dpklln comments are right. We need to do a ground invasion of Iran, remove its nuclear program, subs, and missiles. Then surround Pakistan and make it give up its nukes, subs and missiles. euge_s | Dec 6, 2006 8:17:30 AM and 135ABC | Dec 5, 2006 3:30:32 PM need to be deprogrammed.

==Background Material

Litvinenko allegations against Putin

This article represents hypotheses, speculation or opinion.

read more | digg story

Milton Friedman Lost Witness on Russia’s Plagiarism Files

November 16, 2006

“SAN FRANCISCO — Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who advocated an unfettered free market and had the ear of three U.S. presidents, died Thursday at age 94.”

Questions Friedman might have answered on Russia’s Plagiarism Files and use of plagiarism.

1. Was Koopmans a communist or spy?

2. Was there plagiarism involving Andrew D. Roy a victim in 1952 at U Chicago. Was Roy work being given to Markowitz?

3. Was Milton Friedman the one who told Alfred Cowles this was happening?

4. Is that why Cowles had the Managing Editor of Econmetrica resign and move the editorial office to Northwestern?

5. Was pressure used by the Soviets on plagiarism to get nominations for Kantorovich and Koopmans for the 1975 Nobel Prize 1 year ahead of Friedman.

6. Why did Friedman have a feud with Koopmans that he was still writing about in his 1998 autobio.

7. This was written about in a recent book by Martin J. Beckman who was at Cowles Commission around 1952. Beckman takes the side of Koopmans, who is dead. Why are Friedman and Beckmann still fighting this in 1998 and the 2000’s? Is it because Russia used this to pressure low interest rate loans in the 1990’s from Stanley Fischer at IMF and Larry Summers at Treasury, a nephew of Arrow and Samuelson?

8. Stanley Fischer was hired at UChicago in 1969 from MIT. Did they think he had plagiarized Nils Hakansson?

9. Did Richard Posner as a U Chicago prof know of this in the 1970’s?

10. Was Eric Posner given tenure at U Chicago in 1998 as an attempt to influence Judge Posner not to tell this to the FBI or USAO Mass? (speculation of course)

11. Did Russia use pressure to get IMF loans in the 1990’s based on this?

12. Was this info passed to the US Supreme Court during Bush v. Gore to influence the vote against Gore? (this would be hearsay from Friedman)

13. Did they know in the 1950’s that Russia had used plagiarism to help get Klaus Fuchs into Los Alamos and to pressure Niels Bohr to try to influence Churchill and Roosevelt to give the bomb secret to the Soviets?

14. Did Paul A. Samuelson on the Council of the Econometric Society in 1952 know the true story about the Managing Editor of Economerica resigning, along with the editorial Secretary, and the editorial office being moved?

15. Harry Markowitz didn’t receive his Ph.D. until Sep 1955 Quarter, the first date after the Cowles Commission left University of Chicago in July 1955. Was this because Alfred Cowles wouldn’t let Markowitz get his Ph.D.? Or was it someone at Cowles like Koopmans?
Above is speculation not assertions.

16. Markowitz admitted that he didn’t do the formulas of “algebraic simplicity” and “wide acclaim” taught to MBA students and in textbooks in 1987, 3 years before he got the Nobel Prize with the press release using exactly those words. Why did the Press Release use these words? Why are MBA students taught that Markowitz did those formulas and not Roy when Markowitz himself admits Roy did them and that he Markowitz did not?

17. Markowitz thanks Kenneth Arrow in 1955 for giving him the idea of what his thesis at UChicago was, an algorithm for mean variance optimization with short sale constraints. Wolfe did this too at about the same time. These were published in the Naval Research Logistics Quarterly c. 1956. Jacob Wolfowitz, also published in that journal.

18. The Markowitz article was published in March 1952 in Journal of Finance, a second rate journal edited at U Chicago business school. This Markowitz article contained no important formulas as results, just a graph to illustrate mean variance choice with short sale constraints. There is no formula even today for that, just an algorithm. The Roy article was published in July 1952 in Econometrica, the top journal in econ, in July 1952. Econometrica was also edited at U Chicago, in effect by the Cowles Commission. The Roy article did mean variance choice without short sale constrainst and got the formula solutions taught to MBA’s and in textbooks today that are credited to Markowitz. Jacob Wolfowitz wrote the article after Roy’s in the July 1952 issue. Did Wolfowitz know why the managing editor resigned?

19. Did Jacob Wolfowitz tell this to Paul Wolfowitz before Jacob died in 1981?

20. There are many ties from Jacob Wolfowitz to MIT econ in 1969, the year that Robert C. Merton, Paul A. Samuelson, and Stanley Fischer duplicated in part the 1966 UCLA thesis of Hakansson. These include Robert Engle, Robert Solow, and others. Search on Jacob Wolfowitz in the Nobel Prize site.

21. Did Valery Makarov put pressure on US profs at the 1972 Warsaw economics conference? Attendees included Martin Weitzman, then at MIT, now at Harvard, William A. Brock, Martin J. Beckmann and othes.

These are questions, speculation, hypotheses or opinion. All other disclaimers apply.

 

=Note added

Some earlier Cowles papers by Markowitz are now available on line.  The above has to be revised in light of these.

http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/au/m.htm#Markowitz-Harry

In particular,

CCDP Economics 278, “Towards a Theory of Financial Behavior” (plus Errata) [15pp] (May 1950)
CCDP Economics 294, “Investment Company Behavior Equations” [7pp] (October 1950)
CCDP Economics 295, “On the Certainty Equivalence and Risk Discount Hypotheses” [16pp] (November 1950)

 

 

read more | digg story

Larry Summers joins DE Shaw as MD

October 21, 2006

Washington Post reports that Larry Summers is joining hedge fund DE Shaw as a managing director.

Speculation on whether Russia used academic kompromat to pressure low interest rate loans in the 1990’s from Fischer and Summers was posted at Washington Post.

The following is speculation. Larry Summers and Stanley Fischer arranged billions in low interest rate loans for Russia in the 1990’s. Boris Berezovsky was the main oligarch for Russia. He had a Ph. D. in math from Moscow State University and was a manager at the Institute of Control Sciences.

There were incidents at UChicago in 1952 and MIT in 1969. The latter involving Fischer and Samuelson the uncle of Summers. There was a conference in Warsaw in 1972, where Makarov of USSR may have put pressure on US profs, some still alive, for Arrow and Samuelson, uncles of Summers to nominate Kantorovich for the Nobel Prize in economics in 1975. This was part of a larger history by Russia to use such methods starting in 1925.

Russia may have used this again in the 1990’s to pressure loans from Summers and Fischer from IMF and then use those for loans for shares. LTCM may have realized this and traded Russian government bonds. The USAO Mass investigated Harvard starting in 1997. All of the above may have been concealed from it.

Jacob Wolfowitz, Paul’s father knew of incidents up to 1981. Paul may have used this to get the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 during the USAO Mass investigation, and hearings on LTCM bailout and loans to Russia.

Yoo or others may have passed this to Silberman to Scalia during Bush v. Gore and used it against Gore. Above is speculation.

See following for more information.

Russia Used Plagiarism Files to Gain atomic know-how.

The above has a detailed analysis of texts in physics in quantum mechanics on whether Dirac and Fowler plagiarized Max Born and Pascual Jordan and then whether Kapitza knew it and Russia used that to help pressure Niels Bohr in 1944 to advocate to turn over atomic know how to Russia. In a meeting with Churchill after Bohr got a letter from Kapitza at the Soviet embassy in London, Churchill got very angry. Lindemann, Churchill’s scientific adviser likely told him the details. Kapitza had published an obit of Rutherford in 1937 coyly implying that there had been plagiarism at Cavendish Lab. Fowler was Rutherford’s son in law and was involved.

Russia’s Plagiarism Files: Summaries and links

The Washington Post: A Wikipedia Of Secrets

This starts with the 1925 incident and reviews quickly the possible use for atomic know how spying by Russia and also China. It covers in detail, including internet searches the 1969 MIT incidents where Summers’ uncle, Paul Samuelson duplicated in part the work of a 1966 UCLA thesis received at MIT in 1966 by Prof Karl Shell who chaired a session at which it was presented by its author Nils Hakansson. Hakansson also presented his paper at Harvard in early 1969. Hakansson was on faculty with Yale from 1967 with Stiglitz who edited the first two volume of Samuelson’s papers.

A paper extending this to uncertain lives was submitted by Hakansson from Yale to a journal and published in 1969. A similar chapter appeared in Stanley Fischer’s thesis in 1969 without citation. Fischer later cited the Hakansson paper in a 1972 publication. This article then continues to discuss briefly India and Pakistan’s potential knowledge of this entire history starting with Bhabha at Cambridge England in 1927.

The PM of India gave a speech at Moscow State University in 2005 name dropping many of those involved in the physics and econ cases, including Kapitza and Kantorovich.

More on loans to Russia, US v. Harvard, etc.

David Warsh at EconomicPrincipals.com has extensive materials on the Harvard case but not these other issues of plagiarism, etc.

A recent summary is

The Light Gray Curse

Note that Warsh suggests the possibility of kompromat but doesn’t discuss what it might be. Warsh also doesn’t depart from, although he doesn’t uphold either, the standard story of the 1990’s that professors from Harvard, MIT, and University of Chicago took over and ran Russia and that Russian intelligence accepted that meekly. I.e. at the same time as they were running Aldrich Ames (tried 1994) and Robert P. Hanssen (arrested 2001) and finding moles in Russian intelligence, they also accepted with meekness that these profs would control and run Russia is the standard history.

The standard history, i.e. from Harvard and the government, is that Russian intelligence, which used profs like Klaus Fuchs and Bruno Pontecorvo to get the secret of the atom bomb, had no files on academia in the US, including unouted communists or spies, and simply accepted meekly that Harvard profs would run Russia. Warsh doesn’t say he acceps such a fairy tail, but he doesn’t go beyond suggesting the possibility of kompromat either.

Note that in 1994, Sudoplatov published a book accusing J. Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi and Szilard of being quasi agents by going along with Russian intelligence activities. The US profs in physics reacted with fury and were on PBS’s The News Hour to denounce this book. Sudoplatov was retired in Moscow. He had been a top Soviet spy in WWII. He was responsible for the execution of Leon Trotsky in Mexico.

Yet according to Harvard econ dept, etc. Russian intelligence meekly accepted Harvard econ profs like Shleifer, Summers and Fischer taking over and running Russia. According to Harvard econ dept, Russian intelligence despite its great successes simply accepted that Harvard econ dept would run Russia from the HIID grant and from IMF (Stanley Fischer) and US Treasury (Larry Summers). Harvard econ in effect said to the USAO Mass that Russian intelligence never made any attempt to use any files it might have to influence Summers, Fischer and Shleifer but just let them take over Russia without doing anything to stop it. According to Harvard econ, Russian intelligence meekly accepted that Shleifer, Summers and Fischer would run Russia while at the same time it was running as spies Aldrich Ames, a high level agent in US CIA’s counter-intelligence and Robert P. Hanssen a high level US operative in counter-intelligence, both against Russia.

2 Former Treasury Chiefs Add Clout to Hedge Funds”
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 21, 2006; Page D01

Comment page link is here.
All other disclaimers apply.

%d bloggers like this: