The Estonian Spy Case - Herman Simm

[selil]

I prefer Collins or Hallicrafters but have a Kenwood and Yeasu.

the transmitter twin of this receiver - SLR-M Scott Marine Radio Receiver (WWII vintage), which works fine (despite its alternative use as a 50 lb. boat anchor) - except for those odd signals emanating from the Tallinn area.

[Stan]

Had a Collins for years but never had the cash for a Kenwood.

I have this mental picture of the radio system Rene used in Allo Allo under granny's bed

I prefer Collins or Hallicrafters but have a Kenwood and Yeasu.

[jmm99]

I prefer Collins or Hallicrafters but have a Kenwood and Yeasu.

can you use them for boat anchors.

Back in that day (mid-1950's), Hallicrafters SSB was the receiver - among our remote-area amateur radio people.

Regardless of its merits, the Scott opened up the wide world to me - VOA, RFE, BBC; and Radio Moscow's English service. The last taught me how fleet of foot you had to be to be a "good SovCom" - one month, the announcers would be praising Program X; the next month, they would condemn it. When I read Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 a few years later, the agitprop process was very familiar.

[Stan]

We're really reaching this time with all the makings of a catastrophic failure

Much of what NATO does is secret; it must be since it holds all of the military strategy and tactics of the Pentagon and our 25 allies. But this belief fell apart this month when Estonia, the tiny country on the Baltic Sea with just more than a million people, announced that two top government officials, a husband and wife team, had betrayed NATO's most intimate secrets to Russia.

The result: Russia, which always rejected NATO, has found that a detour through Estonia was the perfect way to stab into the heart of NATO.

[jmm99]

but its bottom line is clear enough:

.... Can we trust and, even more important, can we afford the NATO alliance?

In 2009, do we need NATO? After all, as one top intelligence official in Washington said, "It must be assumed that the Russian intelligence service still has a few more Simms in the alliance."

Who has the most to gain from all this ? Is this a little wilderness of mirrors ?

[Ken White]

He presumes that any information applicable to the US defense establishment is automatically available to anyone in NATO. That's not correct, nor is 'most' or 'a lot' correct -- very little and low order at that would be correct. There are other dumb statements as well...

Regardless, the case will lead to far-reaching consequences for our newly elected president. Can we trust and, even more important, can we afford the NATO alliance?

Far reaching consequences? Beyond doubtful. You can't trust anyone -- and we know that, have done so for many years. As for affordability, this is not the first nor will it be the last time US classified info has been leaked by a NATO Ally; NATO has some political merit so affording it is not really an issue.

In 2009, do we need NATO? After all, as one top intelligence official in Washington said, "It must be assumed that the Russian intelligence service still has a few more Simms in the alliance."

Doh. Well, of course they do -- the FSB /GRU is easily the worlds most effective intel service collaborative. That statement doesn't pass the 'so-what' test.

Dateline D.C. is written by a Washington-based British journalist and political observer.

A British journalist who says "...our newly elected president..." arouses my suspicion. A 'political observer' commenting on intel matters arouses my chuckle factor.

Yes, it is a mass of smoke and mirrors.

[Old Eagle]

I did a lot of work with partner intel services in the "new democracies". They are great folks, but there was never any doubt that their former partners probably left some friends behind. That's why we have tiered access.

At the same time it's unfair to single out our allies and partners when some of the most egregious damage was done here in the States -- Ames, Hanson, Walker.

Disband NATO over an intel leak? I don't think so.