This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.12.15.226 (talk) at 16:44, 24 June 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:44, 24 June 2007 by 66.12.15.226 (talk)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Russia B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
This article needs improvement
Tag
Large portions of this are written in an uncited and overly praising tone of voice. 68.39.174.238 17:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. This article is almost unreadable. It should be improved.Biophys 02:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It is also completely unsourced. Please provide sources. Otherwise, one can remove unsourced statements at any time.Biophys 02:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Some parts of the article look like advertisement. Please come and enroll!Biophys 02:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh really? Biophys have you ever seen CIA article? Or you are afraid of CIA and don't mess with their advertisement page? Vlad fedorov 03:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- No one provided any sources. So, I begin editing with sources that I have.Biophys 02:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Biophys, why not try the SVR homepage? It has an org chart. The Kouzminov book is good, but basically rehashes a bunch of warmed over stuff we already know about. He makes the same mistake many authors and so-called "experts" on Russian security services make concerning SVR's organizational structure in applying the old KGB structure to today's SVR. Since he has failed to read and thoroughly peruse the SVR web site and actually contact the SVR directly for information, it actually calls into question the timeliness of the information he provides in his book and thus its accuracy. Biophys, I think you seem to have some sort of chip on your shoulder concerning SVR and that might affect your objectivity. The information in the article can be found in the official RF sites (Kremlin and both the Federation Council and Duma) and on the SVR's official home page. So, at this point it is referenced. I recommend "Tag" be removed (that does not mean that as new information comes forth that we can't make edits as the need arises in the future).
- When we are writing an article about a notable person, it is always important to use some outside sources about him, not something that he is telling about himself. Same thing with organizations. Secondary rather than "primary" sources are recommended by WP:SOURCE policy. This is especially the case, when this is not an ordinary organization, but organization that suppose to hide its work methods and intentions (budget is classified, etc.).Biophys 04:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Kouzminov provides several Appendices in his book. One for the former KGB First Directorate structure, and another about SVR. So, I am using his data for SVR. Biophys 04:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- This article has one huge problem. It does not tell anything concrete about work of SVR.Biophys 04:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
First, Biophys SVR is an intelligence service. They don't really talk about what they really do. Neither does CIA, SIS, Mossad, PRC MSS, RAW, etc. They all have P.R. offices though, just like any corporation or other government agencies. Intelligence, like it or not, is a secret business--that means they don't publicize the various facets of what they do. Most major corporations have Intelligence units (or contract such work out); every government engages in intelligence work. Perhaps you would like to ask the Department of Homeland Security about what exactly their intelligence unit actually does or is supposed to be doing. Whether we like it or not intelligence gathering and analysis has been on-going for thousands of years and will always be going on. Intelligence, Biophys, is the second oldest profession (or occupation), it kind of is human nature to want to know what the other guy is up to or planning to do.
Intelligence organizations, by virtue of what they are, do not exist for the sake of publicizing concrete information concerning their missions, sources and methods. If they started doing that, they'd be out of business. Biophys, I think the problem you're having is that as a scientific person you probably believe in broad information dissemination about every concrete facet and boring detail; intelligence is more into the safeguarding of information in order to protect individuals and populations. Can you really verify everything in CIA, SIS wikipedia sites? Not entirely. Should it still be there? Yes, unless it's something extremely bizarre or designed to unduly negatively slant an opinion (as we've all seen with vandalism). Biophys, these are articles to share information about various organizations; we're not writing a longitudinal study for publication in JAMA or SCIENCE.
Abuses of power and authority can occur in any organization. We could discuss why a female CIA Logistics Officer "misappropriated" an alleged $ 1 million in U.S. taxpayer money; or the on-going investigation into procurement abuses concerning the former CIA Executive Director. We could write books about handling of "petty cash" in Iraq. We could spend eons delving into the abuses of the KGB. It isn't common but it does happen that an intell chief in an embassy is declared PNG (persona non grata) by the host government or is denied entry into a country. We could talk about the SIS's operational sloppiness (Rock in the Park) in Moscow that could have jeopardized the lives of many agents that the British were running. Biophys, the reality is that effective intelligence work generally involves operational success and that means no one knowing what's going down or how it went down. That's why we only generally hear about the failures, the embarassments, the disasters with respect to any intelligence service. Admittedly, we don't hear about when they do it right because if they're doing it right...we don't hear about it.
On to the organizational structure...The SVR on their 2007 web site states what their organizational structure is. According to proper reporting criteria (and American Psychological Association style), that's what has to be reported. 2007 information trumps 2006 (since the book you cite was published in 2006- the information probably was current 2005 at best). If you question the veracity of what the SVR's current organizational structure is then, do you question what CIA, DIA, SIS, et. al. state their organizational structures to be? I don't. If SVR, CIA, FBI, DIA, SIS, et.al. tell you what their current organizational structures are, you have to accept it. They know their organizations far better than you or I do. Kouzminov does not cite the SVR 2007 web site which is currently available. Anyway, if you read the wikipedia sites on the various intelligence services, you have some vague notion of why they exist at least and what their respective organizational missions are. That's good enough.
Let's collect some information
It was claimed at The Intelligence Summit that "Russian intelligence operatives working for SVR in Damascus intercepted Israeli communications in the July, 2006 in Lebanon, to the advantage of Hezbollah".
- The Indian Playground of the Soviet KGB - interesting in retrospective
- Litvinenko's Poisoning: Detailed Unfolding of Events "Russian intelligence operations in London are carried out mostly by the SVR, Russia’s overseas intelligence agency, and the GRU, its military intelligence"
- "Official London agreed to station a legal SVR representative, withdrawing its demand to the SVR to reach an agreement with the Russian Military Intelligence (GRU), so they would both have only one representative in the British capital. However, the British disliked the candidacy of Vyacheslav Gurginov as the official SVR man in London, and he was denied a visa in February, 1994. The British said he was involved in supplying secret data to Saddam Hussein." MI-6 versus KGB-FSB: The Battle in MoscowBiophys 05:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Igor the assassin reportedly worked for SVR .Biophys 05:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)