Russia State TV: WH source quietly tells Russians that "Number of Russian Diplomats NOT Being Cut"

[kpete]

#Russia's state TV reports that an unnamed high-level White House source quietly told the Russians that the number of Russian diplomats in the U.S. is not being cut (they can send 60 other diplomats to replace the ones being expelled). They quote the source: "The doors are open."

Link to tweet

SOURCE:

Link to tweet

[kentuck]

1. It's all a charade by Trump...

He doesn't want to piss off Putin.

[Farmer-Rick]

2. Well of course Putin's Puppet would never really stand up to his master.

[Baitball Blogger]

3. Trump is undermining America.

[Raster]

4. tRump* is a Russian Asset, plain and simple...

...and has been for a number of years.

[mopinko]

5. till he starts freezing assets, it's all window dressing.

[Igel]

6. Of course. If you don't know what words mean, it's hard to understand.

The diplomats were "expelled", meaning they were declared personae non gratae. The individuals named have so many days to leave the country before they lose diplomatic status. Those individuals are targeted and must leave. The positions they filled are still there and can be filled. So ...

There's a second thing that's important, and that's stipulating the number of diplomatic staff Russia can have in the US with immunity. If you cut that number, then they can't be replaced. I haven't seen a report that we cut their staffing numbers.

A consulate was closed, and that means if Russia's staff number wasn't reduced they can beef up staffing elsewhere. When Russia closed the US SP consulate, they stipulated a reduction in US diplomatic staffers. They also reduced the numbers of British diplomatic staffers.

Now, this might just be American reporter stupidity. The Western international relations geeks talk about individuals, but behind that there may be staffing reductions--I doubt it. But Lavrov and Putin and everybody in between in Russia first talk staffing reductions, and only then say what that entails for numbers of people leaving.

One lets the staffers get replaced. That's disruptive, but they can just get shuffled. Send the Russian spies in Britain to the US, send those in US to Britain. Similar enough language.


This only affects those with diplomatic immunity. There are many unofficial diplomatic workers in the US--they work in all kinds of fields, and many might be citizens. It's also likely that many are here illegally--come in under a tourist visa, stay, and get funded by Moscow for doing stuff in the US. Russia has a fairly good way of cutting down on illegal immigration; the US, not so much. (And if you use a Venezuelan or Nicaraguan operative, you'd even get a lot of people defending you if you're caught.)

When you're actually doing things instead of screaming and preaching and venting, the definitions of the words used matter a lot, and being caught off guard by one's own lack of knowledge isn't grounds for being outraged at others. Well, unless you're a child. None of those here, though.

[sharedvalues]

7. Be careful. Russia lies. Intentionally

Deza: intentional lies to muddy the waters.

Link to tweet

?s=20

[sharedvalues]

8. We need to go after Putins money in the US. Forget diplomats

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2018/03/29/its-time-to-go-after-vladimir-putins-money-in-the-west/

[dalton99a]

10. Good article

Putin and his friends have not accumulated their vast fortunes to consume them, but rather, to maintain power in Russia. The irony is that having undermined property rights in Russia, they — like other Russians — can only safeguard their savings abroad in countries that enjoy the rule of law, allow anonymous ownership and have sufficient financial depth for their vast fortunes.

Many countries have the rule of law, but just a few of them — those with Anglo-American law — allow large-scale anonymous ownership. Most European countries do not. Numerous small islands allow anonymous ownership, but they lack financial depth. Only two countries can harbor most of the Russian offshore wealth — the United States and Britain — because they allow anonymous investment in real estate on a large scale.

Twenty-nine countries, including most E.U. countries, already demand full disclosure of beneficiary owners, and 11 others have agreed to do so, too. They have all come to the same conclusion: Anonymous ownership has become a major threat to national security. Prime Minister David Cameron promised to demand full disclosure in May 2016, but he resigned two months later, and his successor, May, has shown no interest in doing so even after the nerve-agent attack in Salisbury.

The United States needs to catch up. Congress is currently considering two bills that go in the right direction. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has submitted a draft of the True Incorporation Transparency for Law Enforcement Act for corporate transparency, and in the House of Representatives the Counter Terrorism and Illicit Finance Act has been submitted. Congress should adopt one of these bills. The important thing is to unearth secret ownership by sanctioned individuals and entities.

[sharedvalues]

13. Yup nice. Anders Asland good piece in WaPo

[HipChick]

9. typical smoke and mirrors

[former9thward]

11. RT is constantly mocked on DU.

Now its being believed? No, thanks.

[Hassler]

12. A grifter gotta grift. Just another day in the life of the Kremlin Candidate.