Exposing Wikileaks: expert opinions

WikiLeaks, a website specializing in the distribution of classified documents, published through the world's leading media on Sunday evening, 28 November, over 250 thousands of letters from US diplomats.

The published correspondence includes data on the US foreign policy strategy with respect to many countries, corruption, and a description of world leaders, including Russian. The world leaders in the declassified documents are given unflattering characteristics. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, as follows from Der Spiegel for November 29, mentions with the adjectives “faded” and “indecisive”. Afghan President Hamid Karzai is described as "prone to paranoia," and German leader Angela Merkel allegedly "avoids risks and rarely takes a creative approach." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is compared with Adolf Hitler.

Spanish El Pais pays attention to the characterization of Vladimir Putin. The chairman of the Russian government is called the "alpha male" (alpha-dog in the original) and a politician who adheres to authoritarian methods, whose personal leadership style allows him to be compared with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. "

The leak has already been called the largest diplomatic attack, since the frank statements from the correspondence can permanently ruin relations between states.

The source of this leak in US military intelligence is now facing trial, but this does not prevent world publications from quoting published documents.

REX newsreader Sergei Sibiryakov asked this question to experts from different countries about this resonant event.

IA REX: Which of the secrets revealed through publications on the notorious WikiLeaks site seemed to you the most important?

Kirill Pankratov - Ph.D., (Acton, Massachusetts, USA): I managed to get acquainted with a very small proportion of materials. For me the greatest interest was the events around the conflict in South Ossetia and Georgia in August 2008. The materials once again confirm what was known to an unbiased observer: that the main responsibility for the outbreak of war lies with the government of Georgia. I analyzed some of the details of this in my LiveJournal: For example, during 7 and 8 in August - at the time of the conflict escalating, dispatches of the US ambassador to Georgia, Tefft, contain a large number of fragmentary, and mostly unconfirmed reports of the growing hostilities, mainly from Georgian sources. But the only official message from a neutral party - OSCE observers - clearly indicated the beginning of the conflict. It was a massive and unprovoked shelling of Tskhinval and the suburbs of the Georgian heavy artillery that began around 11 hours of the night of August 7, and the invasion of thousands of Georgian soldiers a few hours later. An alternative point of view, which would have at least a part of the neutrality and authenticity of this, is not found in diplomatic correspondence.

Vladimir Korobov - Director of the Center for Research of the South Ukrainian Borderlands, Candidate of Sociological Sciences (Kherson, Ukraine): Until I learned from these "secrets" nothing new. But if sites are “lit”, it means that someone needs it ...

I suppose that story with the site WikiLeaks - is working out new technologies of information warfare. The most likely organizer of these events and the source of these new information technologies is the USA. This "leak" of course, inspired. Most likely, they are preparing a large-scale international information scam. One can only guess who, what country or political force will be the target of the upcoming “revelations”. One thing is clear - only the epithets addressed to Putin or Berlusconi will not end; it will be a more serious matter, it is clear that an expensive, large-scale operation has begun, which few can do. Soon we will know the true purpose of creating the WikiLeaks project and we will be able to guess what forces and what money are behind it.

Yuri Blikov - screenwriter, film director, psychologist (Odessa, Ukraine): I did not read the English original, and especially the entire volume of documents. These are thousands of files. From what has come to me in the Russian translation, I do not consider a single document to be important. However, any of these files will become most important if it is used as a pretext for inflating an international scandal and a means of putting pressure on opponents.

David Aidelman - political analyst and political consultant (Jerusalem, Israel): As an Israeli, I was primarily interested in the issues of the attitude of the Arab countries to Iran and Pakistan, as well as things relating directly to Israel.

The published documents contain information that representatives of some Arab states, including the King of Saudi Arabia, called on the US to attack Iran in order to end its nuclear program.

It became clear to everyone why Israel could not complete the military operation "Cast Lead" in Gaza and finish off the power of Hamas. On the eve of the operation, the Israeli government consulted with Egypt and Abu Mazen, trying to “probe” the question of whether they would not agree to take control of the Gaza Strip if Israel depots Hamas. According to Barak, both Fatah and Egypt considered the Israeli proposal unacceptable.

A number of confidential materials relating to the Pakistani nuclear program have become known, and Washington and London’s concern that Pakistan is at the brink of economic collapse, and that enriched uranium from the Pakistani research reactor may end up in the hands of extremists or religious radicals who may use weapon mass destruction for terrorist purposes.

I was also interested in materials relating to the "behind the scenes" of the orange events in Ukraine and the events of the Ossetian war of 2008.

The main conclusion from this poll is extremely harshly simple: the USA as a “world policeman” is not much smarter than the guard who stands at the crossroads near your house.

Michael Dorfman - publicist, editor, publisher (New York, USA): I have not read all 250.000 documents. From what the mass media have squeezed for us, there is nothing critically important there that can change the situation or cause harm. Moreover, there is nothing about what would not have written before. If someone unflatteringly responded about one of the leaders (for example, Putin is an alpha male), this does not change anything.

Putin, Berlusconi, Gaddafi or Merkel were also not so called in open sources.

Miroslava Berdnik - journalist and publicist (Kiev, Ukraine): But in fact, the disclosure of any secrets in question? What is it that journalists would not publicly write in their materials, bloggers did not discuss, ordinary people didn’t talk about kitchens, it became known thanks to WikiLeaks publications? Well, the characteristics that American diplomats of world leaders, including Russian, awarded in informal correspondence are revealed, didn’t journalists themselves call Putin “alpha male”, Berlusconi - nondescript, Merkel - uncreative, and Ahmadinejad - not compared with Hitler? So far, nothing exclusive except for the publication of the requirement to illegally get the personal data of the UN staff, including fingerprints and biometric data and the appeal of Saudi King Abdullah and the leaders of Jordan and Bahrain asking the US to launch an air strike on Iran, we have not read. Much more scandalous, for example, for Ukraine, was not the news that drunken Lutsenko shared with US diplomats that he was instructed to arrest Turchinov and Kozhemyakin for the destruction of documentation about Tymoshenko’s connection with Semyon Mogilevich, and “plums” in the Internet media report of the Security Service of Ukraine on the recruitment of individual Ukrainian diplomats by the CIA. And what followed? Nothing at all.

Larisa Beltser-Lisyutkina - cultural studies teacher at the Free University (Berlin, Germany): So far, no. What is published, rather curiosities than seriously. Well, I read the statements of American diplomats about the heads of state. Could not read. No sensations. Nothing even close to the similar publication of photos from Abu Ghraib. Waiting for the next portions of revelations. For more serious topics.

Alexey Dubinsky - teacher, inventor, consultant (Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine): Until I met there is nothing particularly important. In my opinion, the sensationalism of these materials is greatly exaggerated. Let's wait for the publication of all documents and see if any of the famous American personalities will resign.

Yuri Yuriev - political constructor (Odessa, Ukraine): I do not think this is a secret. The essence of any document is that it is confirmed not only by its contents. Otherwise, it can be fake or tendentiously compiled. So these documents are not confirmed either by the removal of persons responsible for the secrecy regime, or by the initiation of investigative cases, or even by the pursuit of servers hosting these "documents" ... They were simply called "dangerous", as in Ukraine they called dangerous books by Gleb Bobrov Epoch of the Stillborn "and Oles Buziny" Ghoul Taras Shevchenko "and much else was called dangerous ... But who called this correspondence" dangerous "and why? This is the main secret of this whole epic with WikiLeaks ... Now, RuNet is puzzled over this, why do they advertise this WikiLeaks, turning it into a source of secrets, not dull correspondence with gossip and nicknames, and is this not a warm-up? for a big drain of compromising material from the USA in order to defeat with slander given targets outside the USA? Here it is, the main secret of WikiLeaks ... The real secret. However, let us wait for the publication of military and state secrets of a really high level, all of a sudden they will occur before this site starts to compromise US international competitors ...

IA REX: Has your opinion changed on various aspects of international politics after the publication of diplomatic correspondence on the WikiLeaks website?

Kirill Pankratov: Not too much. On the whole, the opened archives confirm, rather than refute, what we know about international politics and domestic politics of many countries from ordinary available sources. Somewhat surprised, perhaps, is the level of paranoia with regard to Iran - both in America itself and in the Middle East kleptocratic regimes, which the USA has made its allies and to which much more claims can be made than Iran itself in terms of violating human rights or supporting terrorism . Yes, we knew that in the countries mentioned Iran is not loved; but not to the same cave hatred and obsession ...

Vladimir Korobov: No, it has not changed. The role of information technology in international politics is well known. Nothing fundamentally new in the revelations of WikiLeaks while I do not see. I disagree with those who compare the scandal around WikiLeaks with the “11 of September global diplomacy”. Lavrov is right - “funny reading” so far nothing more. I really liked the American commentary - the words “this is incomplete information”, I need to adopt this term.

Yuri Blikov: Absolutely nothing has changed. Diplomats, in their private and sharp statements, do not tell anything new that it is impossible to track normal analytics from open sources, at least in the translations available to me. As for all the juicy details - it is interested in the yellow press, but not me.

David Aidelman: I think that, like all participants in this survey, I have not yet read in detail not only all the documents thrown into the network, but even most of the published ones. It will take a long time to read this correspondence thoughtfully, to compare the documents with each other, with other information. This long and painstaking work will serve to better understand some conflicts and personalities.

From what I see now, 99% published is a waste of diplomatic activity that is not interesting in itself, but can provide extensive material for subsequent analysis.

Michael Dorfman: My opinion has not changed. Such a style and set of expressions reign at corporate meetings, on boards of directors, and everywhere. He is part of a business false-democratic, populist business etiquette that has penetrated into all areas of American life. I have had to deal with the internal correspondence of several countries, and everywhere I meet not the best examples of popular culture — Hochmaism, swearing, superficial judgments, stereotypes.

Miroslav Berdnik: It is no secret to anyone that any diplomatic representation in any country collects files on the most promising journalists, politicians, local government officials, civil society activists, etc. Diplomats meet with many of them (I don’t touch on a different kind of activity now, a report on which is being held in the column of other departments), thus receiving unofficial information about their country of residence. Then reports for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are compiled. There is nothing exceptional in the fact that the “cuisine” of US diplomatic work has become public. Is that to some extent in the mass consciousness began to formalize the tacit influence of US diplomacy.

Larisa Belzer-Lisyutkina: Not. So far, nothing new has been discovered.

Alexey Dubinsky: No, it has not changed.

Yuri Yuriev: No, it has not changed. Western foreign policy has always been a colonialist character, and only in the last century did it leave the direct epithets "natives" and "slaves" to the Aesopian language of etiquette. And who has deprived the West of the “white man’s burden” and in general “theories of racial inferiority” - we remember perfectly well, since it was our ancestors who argued with the broadcasters about these theories ...

IA REX: What will be the consequences of this drain, the revealing disclosure of secret documentation?

Kirill Pankratov: This will change diplomatic practices and privacy protocols more than any other event in recent years. I'm not sure that many of these changes will be for the better. For example, one can expect a more ornate and ambiguous language, to the detriment of accurate analysis, even for confidential and secret diplomatic correspondences, more than all sorts of "fog of war" which only hinders the adoption of correct decisions. The most important information will be even more separated from the main channels of communication, transmitted separately, often in an allegorical and veiled form, so that even the disclosure of “secrets” leaves many ambiguities and grounds for various interpretations.

Vladimir Korobov: A new potent information warfare technology will be developed and prepared. If everything ends only on letters from diplomats, the scandal will quickly disappear.

Yuri Blikov: Yes, no. It is just one more tool in the global trading of world players. Among other means it is not even a joker. I am sure that most of these materials have long become the property of intelligence services. Only the fact of giving publicity works, and this, with rare exceptions, does not affect big politics.

David Aidelman: The saddest thing is that this published correspondence threatens a huge number of people all over the world, such steps put their lives at risk. Including the lives of people whose activities seem useful to me.

Disclosures harm global relations between different states. Even the smallest secrets can be destructive when they become public property. The US will have to pay dearly for repairing the damage caused by these leaks.

Michael Dorfman: If someone wants to use them for anti-American propaganda, then it is difficult to imagine what can be said for new things that have not been said without these documents. All these quarter-million telegrams do not equal the strength of photographs from Abu Ghraib prison. In practical terms, then, of course, the authorities will send the strictest instructions, like what, to write in the official telegrams. Conduct courses and trainings.

Miroslav Berdnik: As I have already said, the main result of the “plum” was the formalization in the mass consciousness of the tacit influence of the United States, as well as the reduction of the “threshold of sensitivity” of people to the publication of scandalous information about politicians. It is possible that this was one of the goals of creating the WikiLeaks project. It is hard to imagine that a source of leakage of hundreds of thousands of pieces of information could be an ordinary US Army, as they are trying to convince us. No matter how unpleasant the heads of the diplomatic departments of the leading countries that the internal kitchen has become known, they have already rallied around the United States and expressed their full support and understanding. Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, commented: “Well, this, of course, is an amusing reading, expands our knowledge of human potential, but in practical politics we prefer to be guided by the specific actions of our partners. We will continue to use just that as the main criterion. ” And Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, reassured everyone: “One foreign colleague told me: do not worry, you would know how we call you. I am glad that there is an understanding on this issue, but at the same time, I want to assure everyone: we are taking aggressive steps to punish those who stole and made public this information. ”

Larisa Belzer-Lisyutkina: We must wait until the entire volume of materials will be made public. I think that, first, governments will become more cautious in their words and actions, given the possibility of a leak. Secondly, they will try to adopt legislation that criminalizes this kind of disclosure of state secrets. Thirdly, the state websites on which documents of ministries and departments are published will be expanded, the contingent of documents that are classified as "secret" will be minimized.

Alexey Dubinsky: This publication will not cause any special consequences. First, the policy of the US State Department is well known to all interested parties around the world and no one takes foreign diplomats for white and fluffy knights of light; intelligence from other countries has repeatedly received access to confidential sources.

Secondly, the State Department officials are well aware of what can and cannot be written down in documents. I wonder if anyone will be able to benefit from these “revelations”?

Yuri Yuriev: In the world - unless the philistine, until it reaches the really important secrets, such as this November. For example, where the newest "Raptor" over Alaska has disappeared. What an unknown US ballistic missile launched from California. How is the provocation of South Korea connected with the signing of the Russian Federation and China agreement on the direct clearing of the ruble and the yuan. Who, through the IMF, sets conditions for Ukraine, so that there is political instability between the ruble and euro zones And a similar level of secrets.

And for the creator of the site there is a phrase: "The Pentagon denies involvement in the prosecution of the founder of Wikileaks" and search engines show that the level of "drain" is not at all those secrets, as a result of which the verdict is passed and the performers leave. I think that this is some kind of conflict between the State Department and the NSA, where the NSA wants money no less than the military, but there is not enough reason for funding ... The military inflate Korea, and "security" - WikiLeaks. According to the classic of the West S.N. Parkinson, "a real rat-catcher will always let a couple of rats go", and it looks like the NSA has released a rat with correspondence pieces they need ... Or someone thinks that at the "orange threat level", according to the US classification , would anonymous and chained proxies really threaten?

IA REX: What conclusions should come diplomats and statesmen after the scandal with WikiLeaks?

Kirill Pankratov: That in the era of digital information and the universally accessible Internet, any secrets tend to leak out for public viewing. Moreover, it’s not to drop by drop, but massively, with entire archives: you can’t endure so much material in your bosom in paper form in your bosom. And back this genie in a bottle is no longer pounding.

Vladimir Korobov: In the information age, the space and lifetime of political, diplomatic secrets has been greatly reduced, and the theory of “securitization” is becoming less and less interesting and less applicable. I would call the upcoming era "world without secrets." While the “secrets” are bluff. The work of Russian intelligence in the United States turned out to be a bluff, the work of American and British intelligence in Saddam’s Iraq, etc., etc., turned out to be a bluff. WikiLeaks is another bluff, which they are trying to give credibility by “draining” secondary diplomatic correspondence.

Yuri Blikov: An elementary simple conclusion, which has already been reached by many of our businessmen and officials who are accustomed to living in conditions of total piracy: any, even a little bit valuable, databases - need to be stored in computers isolated from the network, or in general, on separate media.

David Aidelman: It will take years for foreign affairs agencies around the world to create new secure communication systems to prevent leaks of secret information in the future. But diplomats already have to unlearn gossip.

Michael Dorfman: Those who will speak with the Americans will have to choose diplomatic expressions. It is generally worth doing without leaks. And the most important conclusion is that we live in an open world, and doing things the old way is harder.

Miroslav Berdnik: As I said, I consider the creation of WikiLeaks and the publication of secret information there by a large-scale special operation, the goals and objectives of which are unknown to us. And our own diplomats and intelligence officers can only wish to increase their professionalism and carry out personnel work in such a way that we do not have to blush when this or that confidential information suddenly becomes known.

Larisa Belzer-Lisyutkina: There is only one conclusion: in the era of electronic media, everything secret becomes apparent.

Alexey Dubinsky: It's obvious that:

1. Now all secret becomes clear much faster. Not a hundred years, but long before the expiration of the statute of limitations.

2. Manuscripts simply did not burn, and digital documents have good chances to multiply and get into the network. At the same time, the information is not distorted and is copied exactly as it is.

3. Access to someone else's secret information is now received not only by the best special services, but also by interested individuals and non-governmental organizations.

And conclusions should be made such:

- Any confidential documents should be done carefully, considering that in a few years they can leak into the public access to the network.

- The policy of transparency of actions and statements may be more profitable than participation in secret conspiracies. Even more attention should be paid to the justification and public relations support of their actions.

- The Internet is becoming an even more effective channel for draining information. And it can be used in the information war,

giving the network the necessary (dis) information.

- Every active politician becomes even more necessary service for analyzing such large amounts of information.

Yuri Yuriev: Keeping secrets to keep secrets is not the SBU diplomas by the hands of the US ambassador to Ukraine ... Let them draw their own conclusions, or order a security audit of their DARPA structures using the "friendly hack" method to any fresh forces from outside the US official and allies. Perhaps then they will learn about themselves much more unpleasant, but useful for the future ...