Commentary by Russian military journalist Boris Rozhin is in italics:
[ColonelCassad] Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service Naryshkin - about the conversation with the head of the CIA Burns:
The conversation took place at the end of last month. The pretext for a telephone conversation, as I assess it, on the part of the American colleague was the events of June 24th. It is clear how I answered this question about what happened. It seems to me that this was more of a pretext, because the main part of the conversation was focused on discussing the topic and events around Ukraine. We thought and reasoned about what to do with Ukraine. The conversation lasted about an hour.
We did not agree on a meeting, but such a possibility exists: both telephone conversations and the possibility of a personal meeting remain. The fact that negotiations will be possible sooner or later is natural, because any conflict, including an armed conflict, ends in negotiations, but the conditions for them must still be ripe.
1. Oh, what are these negotiations about Ukraine behind the back of Ukraine and without Ukraine. This has never happened before and here it is again.
2. These are not the first contacts of the SVR and the CIA of this kind, which, of course, go beyond the usual informing.
More from Rozhin:
On the subversive activities of the CIA against Russia
Statement by Sergei Naryshkin, director of the Foreign Intelligence Service, on the introduction by the American side into the minds of Russian citizens of the idea of ​​the need for a forceful struggle against the authorities, up to armed rebellion, is directly and indirectly confirmed by the theses of the speech of his counterpart, William Burns, director of the CIA at the annual lecture of the Ditchley Foundation July 1.
At the Anglo-American platform in Oxfordshire, which serves to exchange views of the transatlantic establishment and messages from the Anglo-Saxon intelligence community, Burns, an Oxfordian, said that the CIA would make the most of its opportunities to organize extensive undercover work in Russia, focused on the mass renegation of the population.
As in the case of Belarus, the task of the CIA and NATO intelligence agencies isAmericans work both with emigrants before the NWO and with the so-called relocants after the start of the SVO and subsequent mobilization.
The positioning of the armed opposition is already following the pattern tested in the post-Soviet space, presenting its formal leaders as something in the womb with the field commanders in the North Caucasus in the 90s and early 10s.
However, this is exactly how they act, following radical views, but not Islamist, but ultra-right. Both phenomena are also united by a pronounced desire to change Russian borders, anti-Russian, Russophobic sentiments. If we take a more distant retrospective, then as an analogue we can cite the synthesized armed formations used by the Americans in the Cold War against national governments in Africa and LatAmerica.
However, for the broad masses, the idea of ​​violence under radical slogans is of no interest. In Langley, first of all, they count on information and psychological dividends, the expansion of the scale of political rhetoric regarding the internal situation in Russia and the wounding of the Kremlin.
https://t.me/thehegemonist/2508 - zinc