Category Archives: Military

The WH, DHS and State Taking on a Higher Middle East Threat

Posted on by

We have been making demands to list the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror organization for years. While other allied nations have taken a more aggressive posture with listing the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat, the United States remains uncommitted. Are some pieces beginning to line up for national security?

The State Department is at least taking ‘some’ steps however in the right direction, but it regards Egypt.

Image result for Lewaa Al-Thawra

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Ahmed Abu Zeid welcomed the decision made by the United States to include the groups of “Hasm” and “Lewaa El-Thawra”, affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization, on the US list of terrorist organizations. He regarded the decision as a positive development in the recognition of Egypt’s international partners, primarily the UnIted States, of the danger the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots pose to the security and stability of Egypt and its people.

 The Spokesperson added that the US decision is a practical display of solidarity with Egypt against terrorism, and the despicable attempts that aim to hinder its developmental trajectory and economic launch. This stance was recently expressed by the US officials at the highest levels, and represents an important step forward towards adopting an international comprehensive and effective strategy to eradicate and root out terrorism.

Okay, that is a good thing. But there are a few more piece of news to add.

A Department of Homeland Security draft report from late January called on authorities to continuously vet Sunni Muslim immigrants deemed to have “at-risk” demographic profiles.

The draft report, a copy of which was obtained by Foreign Policy, looks at 25 terrorist attacks in the United States between October 2001 and December 2017, concluding there would be “great value for the United States Government in dedicating resources to continuously evaluate persons of interest” and suggesting that immigrants to the United States be tracked on a “long-term basis.”

The CBP draft report comes on the heels of a controversial study by DHS and the Justice Department, released on Jan. 16, which claimed that three out of every four individuals convicted of international terrorism or terrorism-related offenses were immigrants. Critics have charged that the joint report had serious methodological issues and cherry-picked the data to justify the Trump administration’s restrictive immigration policies. Read more here for context.

What is the Trump administration coming to learn that the previous administration refused to address?

Following the events of September 11, 2001, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard helped relocate al-Qaeda members and leadership by providing them with new clothes, shoes, Iranian passports and money.

Image result for Atiyyatullah al-Libi

These details were discovered in a series of letters from the al-Qaeda communication officer Atiyyatullah al-Libi, whose real name is Jamal Ibrahim al-Shtaiwi al-Musrati. He was appointed by Osama bin Laden himself as an al-Qaeda envoy in Iran.

The letters also reveal the nature of the cooperation between Iran and one of the al-Qaeda fighting factions in Libya.

Image result for iranian revolutionary guard corp meets nader

Letters from a member of the Libyan al-Qaeda fighting groups called Nader, addressed to Atiyyatullah al-Libi who in turn informed bin Laden about its content, showed that the Iranian regime’s approach to its international relationships is based on interests, not friendship.

This is what the Iranian Revolutionary Guard confirmed in a meeting with Nader while arranging for his departure from Iranian territory in 2007. They said: “We have no friends in the world, even the place you are going to, there are only common interests between us.”

According to the letter, this took place at the headquarters of al-Qaeda leaders and the al-Zarqawi group in one of the compounds dedicated for them.

An Iranian passport and a warning not to return

At the end of these discussions, the Revolutionary Guards granted the al-Qaeda fighter, Nader, an Iranian passport with an entry stamp, according to the letter. He added that he met a “Kurdish brother” who lent him a sum of money, after which al-Qarry (an al-Qaeda leader who was killed by an unmanned US drone in Afghanistan in 2017) sent him another $1,080.

Al-Masry becomes Ayman al-Zawahiri’s deputy in Syria

The escape was in 2007, as mentioned in a letter from Atiyyatullah to Osama bin Laden which was found as part of what is known as the Abbottabad files.

Nader remained in Iran along with Abu al-Khair al-Masry and Muhammad Rajab Abdul Rahman, the second-highest ranking commander of al-Qaeda.

“Abdulhadi al-Libi left a week before me, and I do not know anything about him. As for Abdullah Rajab, he stayed with us for a year and 4 months, while his family stayed in a house in Zahedan, which made him psychologically ill. But after a year and 4 months, they reunited him with his family and told him you have to stay here,” Nader said.

Despite the fact that Iran kept Abu al-Khair al-Masry for more than a decade and a half, the Revolutionary Guard sent him to Syria in 2013 as a deputy of Ayman al-Zawahiri who was the top leader of al-Qaeda. Al-Masry was killed in Idlib, north of Syria, in 2015.

Al-Qaeda recruitment and the move to Syria

The Iranian’s coordination with the Syrian regime in recruiting al-Qaeda elements, and directing them according to the common interests of both parties, was revealed in a letter showing parts of negotiations between the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and a number of al-Qaeda factions in Evin prison.

Nader reunited with al-Qaeda members in Evin prison three weeks before he was released, and they were all sent to a “secret location”.

Bin Laden’s companions and al-Zarqawi

Iran’s Evin prison was not limited to Osama bin Laden’s companions and fighters, it also housed the al-Zarqawi group, including Abu al-Qasim, known as “Khaled Al Arouri”, al-Zarqawi’s assistant who is currently based in Syria and is part of what is known as the Khorasan Qaeda group.

This group’s leaders moved from Iran to Syria in 2013. The prison also housed the Yemeni Ali Saleh Hussein, known as “Abu al-Dahak”, who was close to Osama bin Laden, and was the link between al-Qaeda and its supporting organizations in Chechnya.

 

IS the U.S. Taking Over the 5G Network?

Posted on by

 

 

A 5G network owned by the United States government? It’s not going to happen.

The U.S. government considering its own 5G network is nothing new, frightening, or likely to happen.

Could the Trump White House be pondering a nationalized 5G network? Yes, it’s distinctly possible. But it’s also highly unlikely to happen and the story is being blown dramatically out of proportion.

The latest Twitterverse kerfuffle was kicked up by an Axios report alleging consideration of “an unprecedented federal takeover of a portion of the nation’s mobile network to guard against China”. That’s an alarming claim, no matter what side of the political aisle you’re on. Axios is a relatively new publication, but they’ve made a name for themselves since their 2016 launch with a number high profile exclusives and well-sourced and researched pieces. This 5G report is well-sourced, but also takes a number of alarmist steps that ignore how the U.S. federal government actually functions.

Image result for 5g photo

Here’s what Axios is reporting:

We’ve got our hands on a PowerPoint deck and a memo — both produced by a senior National Security Council official — which were presented recently to senior officials at other agencies in the Trump administration. … The documents say America needs a centralized nationwide 5G network within three years.

Axios goes on to describe two options laid out in the report: that the government builds its own 5G network or that the various competing carriers in the US build their own. It’s worth noting that this is a proposal made by a single NSC member. This is how the government is supposed to work. The NSC is just one of many competing interests in the federal government, and its mandate is to advance strategies to maintain and enhance the security of the United States. It would indeed be in the national defense interests of the U.S. military to have a government-controlled high-speed low-latency nation-wide wireless network — rapid and clear communication is vital for successful military operations, and a 5G network would be enormously useful in that.

But… the NSC is still just one of many loud voices in the United States government. The Departments of State and Commerce and Justice would all have competing opinions on the proposal for a federal network, from international trade implications to pushback from the carriers that spend billions on lobbying. Not to mention the cost of such an endeavor.

Image result for 5gphoto

There is historical precedent for large investments that would support both military operations and civilian needs. The Interstate Highway System was funded by the federal government not just to dramatically improve inter-state travel and commerce — the primary impetus for its creation was the need to be able to quickly deploy military force throughout the United States in the event of a foreign invasion. The constellation of GPS satellites we rely on for navigating the world today is a U.S. Air Force project that was originally built for military purposes (and the government still has a switch to downgrade GPS accuracy for non-U.S. military users if deemed necessary).

Talk of a federally owned communications cellular network has been going on for decades, but it was kicked into high gear after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The strikes on New York City and the Pentagon didn’t just reveal the unpreparedness of the United States for such an unsophisticated attack — it also exposed weaknesses in the civilian-owned and operated cellular networks of the time. On that day the cellular networks in New York and DC were overwhelmed by the sheer number of users trying to access services — and that was well before today’s high-speed wireless internet services.

The biggest pushback would come from cellular network operators. Every U.S. carrier has already invested heavily in 5G, from research to live regional tests to making preparatory upgrades to their transmission infrastructure to handle the eventual roll-out of 5G-capable transceivers and consumer devices. Billions of dollars have already been laid out with the expectation that there will be much more invested in the networks and billions more reaped in profit. You can be certain that Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint have already contacted their lobbying firms to communicate their displeasure.

Specialized equipment has long been a part of the military’s inventory. Just this weekend the story of expensive new refrigerators for Air Force One provoked outrage once the context of what the purchase actually consisted of (five bespoke flight-grade walk-in cooling units to store up to 3,000 meals on what is essentially a flying White House). Equipment like tanks and aircraft carriers and grenades is all exclusively manufactured for the military, to its specification. But the military has long also used off-the-shelf civilian hardware when it meets its needs and costs. Walk into the Pentagon and you’ll find government-issued HP and Dell laptops and officers walking around with issued iPhones running on Verizon and AT&T.

The United States has long had an interplay between the needs of the federal government and the civilian population. Sometimes there are things that only the government could effectively fund, organize, and operate, like the interstate system or GPS satellites. The costs behind those become easier to justify when they’re also available to civilian users. Conversely, there are things the civilian market is far better at — AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile all have enormous expertise in cellular networks, they’ve already made huge investments in their network infrastructure that they’ll be able to leverage in building their 5G networks, and they’re already responsive to the needs of their customers — both civilian and government.

This proposal was dead in the water before it was ever presented. It’s almost amusing, following the Trump administration’s push against Net Neutrality being framed as unleashing the potential of web services and internet providers, to now see a proposal to create a national 5G network that the government would then lease to the carriers.

It’s worth repeating: this is just a proposal from one part of the government. Axios notes that it was already presented to other agencies, where I have no doubt it was met with significant resistance, if not outright derision. After all, the Trump government is supposed to be one that gets out of corporate business (for better or worse), and “we’re going to build a 5G network and you’ll just rent access from us because we’re the federal government” runs 100% counter to that.

There’s much the government could do to promote and accelerate the development and deployment of 5G networks in the United States, though it’d have to come with oversight than the billions of government subsidies paid to Verizon for a fiber network it never built. Grants to ensure deployment into rural areas, subsidies for low income access, regulation clean-up to ease the way for new installations, funding of university and corporate research projects in artificial intelligence and domestic development of these technologies — all of this is already within the wheelhouse of what the federal government can do, and sometimes already does.

Proposals like this are just how the government works. The military side of the equation is going to propose everything they can think of to ensure the most efficient and most effective military they can imagine, while the diplomats will propose their own missions and initiatives to promote their goals, and the economists are going to come with an entirely different set of proposals about trade and monetary policy and financial regulations. These will all be simultaneously complementary and contradictory. This is the nature of government — a dozen departments with competing goals in different arenas jockeying for limited resources. Their proposals are just part of what feeds into the decision-making process of the President and Congress, which are supposed to strike a balance between the needs of the military, business, international partners, civilians, and (of course) politics.

I would be utterly shocked if a government-owned 5G network ever comes to fruition. It’d be massively expensive and inefficient, not to mention well outside the government’s expertise and capability. It’d also see immediate and costly legal challenges, not to mention stand on legally tricky ground when the carriers have already paid billions to the government for the frequency licenses they need to deploy their own 5G networks.

The government would also have to pay for this somehow, and after a $1.5 trillion-dollar tax cut, there’s not a lot of spare cash laying around for GovCell.

Updated 10:33 a.m. Jan. 29: Here’s a statement from FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who also says it ain’t gonna happen:

“I oppose any proposal for the federal government to build and operate a nationwide 5G network. The main lesson to draw from the wireless sector’s development over the past three decades—including American leadership in 4G—is that the market, not government, is best positioned to drive innovation and investment. What government can and should do is to push spectrum into the commercial marketplace and set rules that encourage the private sector to develop and deploy next-generation infrastructure. Any federal effort to construct a nationalized 5G network would be a costly and counterproductive distraction from the policies we need to help the United States win the 5G future.”

DAVOS, a Chinese Summit, Take Caution President Trump

Posted on by

But we cant trust the Chinese….now or ever. Is this World Economic Forum a setup for world leaders? Just could be. So far, full reliance and trust with China regarding control of North Korea has been a fool’s errand.

A ‘fractured’ world, enhancing globalization and then the United States…where does she fit in? Hummm

Image result for one china policy photo

There is this stupid thing called the One China Policy. President Xi Jinping has exploited this agreement from 1972 and he is taking control of Asia and moving east to the cultural and economic and military expense of other nations. The One China Policy devours Taiwan completely. But there is more as defined in the China Constitution.

The latest trade bout is over President Trump’s moves against hardware—solar panels for now, with steel, aluminum and billions of dollars in machinery behind that in the “imbalance” that the U.S. administration resolves to rectify.  These accounts are subject to various distortions—the iphone being the classic case of misplaced export-import value—but arithmetic is what matters in Washington today. (Is the weakening dollar buying any quiet?)

In technology there is a welter of issues ranging from perceived security threats to the American state (Huawei blocked again) to perceived threats to the Chinese state (Internet social media).   Mixed into that are matters of piracy and intellectual property and barriers to trade (for example, the Great Firewall’s boost to China’s internal Web economy).  Perversely, a cyber age that ought to bring the world closer is aggravating tensions between the two greatest economies.

This second contentious area connects to worsening fears among Western intellectuals about freedom of dissent in China as repression under Xi Jinping is stepped up. Even more broadly, the U.S. establishment has grown wearily cynical about the fundamental hope underlying China’s accession to the WTO in 2000:  That, in granting Beijing a pass on massive disruption of American industry through lower-cost production, the West was winning a liberalization of China that would pay dividends for generations.  Only the die-hard Sinophiles believe that now. One upshot: A heightened guardedness about strategic industries on the American side, too.

Finally, there’s the military front.  Xi has made clear his intent to finish modernizing the Chinese force to project power for, he says, his country’s legitimate (and peaceful) ends.  Those clearly entail more presence, or dominance, of naval areas, including the South China Sea, as well as the trade routes extended vastly through the Belt and Road Initiative.  That inevitably leads to encirclement alarms in smaller rival nations and, oh yes, in the US Navy as well.  This is likely to result in a series of skirmishes and other rubs that the world can survive.  More here from Forbes.

Davos’ theme in sync with China’s policies: expert

China’s shared future ideal will benefit ‘fractured world’

This year’s theme of the World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland – Creating a Shared Future in a Fractured World – fits perfectly with China’s economic foreign policies and the Belt and Road initiative, say Chinese economists and experts.

Some 70 heads of state and government and 38 leaders of international organizations are heading for Davos and the annual WEF which runs from Tuesday to Friday.

This year China’s participation at the forum will focus on more specific areas and measures to boost the world economy and promote rulemaking to reform globalization, experts said.

China will be represented by Liu He, a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and director of the General Office of the Central Leading Group for Financial and Economic Affairs, the Xinhua News Agency reported.

National leaders including French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will also attend the WEF.

Chinese President Xi Jinping told last year’s WEF that China was determined to safeguard free trade and globalization.

His ideas were well received and have encouraged leaders of other countries to use the WEF to expand their influence, Bai Ming, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, told the Global Times on Monday.

“This year, Liu, as the senior official in charge of financial and economic areas, will bring more specific and targeted ideas to the forum,” said Bai.

With this year’s theme focused on a “Fractured World,” Klaus Schwab, founder and chief executive of the WEF, told the Xinhua News Agency that nations and economies are increasingly adopting competitive positions due to divergent interests, and fractures are also emerging within countries, as many societies continue to face instability.

“Regional integration, which has been encouraged globally in the past, has also caused fractures for globalization,” said Wang Yiwei, the Jean Monnet chair professor at Renmin University of China, while commenting on the competition between countries and coalitions from different regions.

Wang believes China’s Belt and Road initiative will turn competition into cooperation by establishing inter-connection between countries of different regions by boosting infrastructure cooperation, free trade and investment.

“China’s ambition to build ‘a community of a shared future for mankind’ has perfectly matched the theme of the WEF this year,” he said.

China can also push rulemaking in emerging fields like artificial intelligence and e-commerce, which could activate the next round of economic growth, with China as a leading country in these areas, Wang added.

Jack Ma and Liu Qiangdong, founders of China’s e-commerce giants Alibaba and JD.com, will also attend the forum.

China’s representative Liu has been an advocate of open and common interests with other countries.

Divided and uncertain West

However, the US will sell “America First” at the WEF, and Trump’s tax reforms are likely to directly impact the EU by attracting high-tech enterprises from Europe. This scenario could lead other major economies to back away from seeking common interests, and struggles of different interests could emerge at the WEF, Bai said.

“Western leaders are all impacted by their domestic politics, and in many cases, domestic pressure will impact their decision-making in the international arena. China is the most united and certain major economy, and it will continue to be the main engine of the global economic recovery,” Wang said.

“China is more reliable than others,” he added.

SECDEF Rumsfeld’s Thoughts on September 10, 2001

Posted on by

SecDef Said Biggest Threat on 9/10/2001: Pentagon Bureaucracy

Archive FOIA Lawsuit Wins Monthly Releases Thanks to Pro Bono Representation by Skadden Arps

Washington D.C., January 24, 2018 – On the day before September 11, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld believed the gravest threat to American national security was Pentagon bureaucracy, according to “snowflakes” he wrote that were released by the Defense Department after a five-year Freedom of Information Act fight and lawsuit by the National Security Archive.

At 10:15 AM on September 10, Rumsfeld authored a snowflake – the term used to describe his usually one-page, often one-sentence, memos that he sent to his underlings to ask a question or issue an instruction – bemoaning the quantity of DOD agencies, surgeons general, inspectors general, judge advocates general, Congressional Relations functions, and Public Affairs functions.  He concluded the memo by asking, “Is this all really necessary?”  In a separate September 10 item, he pondered abolishing the Armed Forces Staff College.

The same day, Rumsfeld gave a speech warning, “This adversary is one of the world’s last bastions of central planning.  It governs by dictating five-year plans.  From a single capital, it attempts to impose its demands across time zones, continents, oceans, and beyond….You may think I’m describing one of the last decrepit dictators of the world [but] the adversary’s closer to home.  It’s the Pentagon Bureaucracy.”

The September 10 memo is one page out of an estimated 59,000 pages the Pentagon has begun to provide in segments to the Archive in response to its FOIA suit.

The next snowflake in the corpus is dated September 12, 2001.  In it, Rumsfeld instructs, “Someone ought to be thinking through what kind of an event we are going to have for the people who died here.”  In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Pentagon budget expanded from 325 billion in FY 2001 to 447 billion in FY 2006 and military personnel estimates rose from 76,888 to 111,286 during the same period, ending Rumsfeld’s war on bureaucracy.

Rumsfeld eschewed modern email communication and used paper and ink instead, because he believed it was much easier to keep paper on file and track the progress of his dictums and queries.   Though quick for Rumsfeld to dictate or type, these memos requesting actions, position papers, or research were a significant burden on Pentagon employees, growing, in Rumsfeld’s own words, “from mere flurries to a veritable blizzard.” According to Washington Post reporter Robin Wright, one of the first to disclose Rumsfeld’s use of snowflakes, it was not uncommon for him to send up to 60 snowflakes on a given day.

Rumsfeld began publishing a relatively small subset of these snowflakes to publicize his 2011 memoir Known and Unknown.  The DOD release of these documents to Rumsfeld caused a stir among researchers and historians whose FOIA requests for the same material, made years earlier, continued to languish in the DOD queue.  In June of 2011, the Archive filed a FOIA request for the entire body of snowflakes.  Six years later, not having received a single snowflake from that request, the Archive filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Defense.

Represented pro bono by the firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, the Archive filed its complaint on March 17, 2017.  Skadden attorneys Melissa Smith, Cliff Sloan, and Gregory Craig of Skadden Arps, had the pleasure of hearing the Department of Defense attorney Mark Harrington confess at an August 7, 2017, hearing, “As far as the delay in the initial response to the request, all I can do is fall on our sword; that was too long.”  Judge Tanya S. Chutkan agreed, calling the DOD six-year delay “unconscionably long.”

The Department of Defense is now releasing the snowflakes on a rolling monthly basis.  In addition to highlighting particular items, the Archive is posting them in their entirety online as they become available to us on a special section of our website named “Rumsfeld’s Snowflakes.”

The full corpus of snowflakes is a critical historical resource.  The snowflakes serve as a sort of ultimate Pentagon chronology, touching on such diverse DOD issues as staffing, Rumsfeld’s personal requests, advice from such notables as Frank Gaffney and Newt Gingrich, communications from Rumsfeld to President George W. Bush, relations with Russia, China, and other nations, and the DOD’s strategy and conduct in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

On this page, peruse a selection of snowflakes the Archive found notable, then explore the first full release, with more to come!  Finally, tweet other notable releases using the hashtag #rummysnowflakes.

 

snowflakes-13.jpg
snowflakes-51.jpg
snowflakes-54.jpg

 

The U.S. has a Russian Problem, but it is Worse in the UK

Posted on by

Remember the polonium death in Britain? There was a chilling documentary about it. The case still rolls on.

Image result for Aleksandr Litvinenko photo

The United Kingdom has frozen the assets of two Russians accused of carrying out the 2006 killing in London of former Federal Security Service officer Aleksandr Litvinenko.

London on January 22 issued the order to freeze the assets of Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun under the terms of the Antiterrorism, Crime, and Security Act of 2001.

Dmitry Kovtun (left) and Andrei Lugovoi have denied any involvement in Aleksandr Litvinenko's death. (combo photo)

On January 21, Judge Robert Owen, who chaired the British government inquiry into the Litvinenko killing, said he was certain Lugovoi and Kovtun killed Litvinenko by placing a lethal dose of polonium 210 in his tea during a meeting on November 1, 2006.

Litvinenko, who was an outspoken critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, died several days later.

Both men deny any involvement in Litvinenko’s death. However, British investigators found traces of polonium 210 in hotels, restaurants, and aircraft used by Lugovoi. Lugovoi was reportedly treated for radiation poisoning in Moscow in December 2006.

Lugovoi, a former Soviet KGB agent, was elected a member of the Russian State Duma in 2007. Putin awarded him a state medal “for services to the motherland” in 2015. Hat tip

Meanwhile, we have the case of Andrey Borodin that lives in Britain and he is a wanted man by none other than Vladimir Putin.

Mr Borodin, who is sought by Moscow on fraud and corruption charges, which he strongly denies, and who was granted asylum in February, told The Independent: “Given that my successful application for asylum in the UK included all details of the Russian criminal investigations and argued that they are politically motivated, I now believe that the Russian authorities are via the media trying to lend credibility to their claims by referring to the Swiss investigation.”

He added: “My lawyers are engaging with the Swiss authorities and I am confident that a satisfactory conclusion will be reached in the not too distant future.”

It emerged in April that Mr Borodin was the target of a potential assassination plot involving a hitman who claimed to have been approached by Chechen political figures and offered as much as £600,000 to kill him in Britain.

The banker, who is a close ally of the former mayor of Moscow Yury Luzhkov, arrived in Britain in March 2011 after a warning that, following years of lucrative success negotiating Moscow’s treacherous nexus of business and politics, his star was on the wane.

The details of the assassination plot, brought to the attention of MI5 after the hitman pulled out of the deal, were considered to be credible. More chilling details to the story here.

So why do should we care? Perhaps the pressure of nefarious Russian plots and history would explain much of the goings-on in the U.S. political architecture…right? Russia, Russia, Russia….everywhere.

Yes…it seems that Andrey Borodin has hired a U.S. lobby firm, BGR Government Affairs to represent him. The filing form is here. Apparently at issue is a visa problem and well the case is assigned to  Haley Barbour, former Mississippi governor and Republican National Committee chair, and Maya Seiden, a former State Department aide under Secretary Hillary Clinton.

Related reading: Russia posing most complex challenge since Cold War: UK army chief 

In another meanwhile, after the unchallenged Hillary Clinton scandal of Skolkovo and Silicon Valley, there is yet another operation underway.

(Reuters) – Masha Drokova, a 28-year-old Russian political activist turned venture capitalist, on Tuesday joined a small family of Russian nationals who have set up shop as Silicon Valley venture investors.

Drokova’s new firm, Day One Ventures, will make investments of $100,000 to $1 million from a fund that initially totals nearly $50 million, a person familiar with the matter said. Drokova hopes her experience as an angel investor and a prior career in public relations will give her edge.

“Masha knows a lot of people,” said Serguei Beloussov, a senior investing partner at venture firm Runa Capital and who worked with Drokova until 2014. “She is good in that she gets access to very good startups.”

Drokova’s new fund comes as relations between the United States and Russia remain fraught and foreign investments of all types into U.S. technology companies receive more scrutiny.

She is following the lead of several other Russian investors who say that being based in the United States – and raising money from wealthy individuals rather than institutions – helps them get better access to startups and curtails concerns about the source of their money, even if some of it still comes from Russia.

Close to 20 percent of Runa Capital’s $135 million fund comes from wealthy Russian individuals, said Beloussov, who is Russian-born but now a Singapore citizen. Silicon Valley firm GVA Capital, managed by Russian native Pavel Cherkashin, has raised money from individuals in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Georgia.

“There is a growing number of funds like us – Russian-speaking fund managers in the U.S. but sourcing checks from Russia and the former Soviet Union,” said Cherkashin. “That trend is growing.”

Cherkashin estimates startup investments from U.S.-based fund managers who raise capital from Russia has more than tripled over the last three years. This would include a 2016 investment in Uber by FortRoss Ventures, which has an office in Silicon Valley and whose funds come mostly from Russian investors, including state-owned Sberbank.

Drokova said her fund comes from individual entrepreneurs in the United States and Europe.

Drokova spent five years as a leader of a Kremlin-backed youth political movement in Russia called Nashi before moving to the United States at age 23. She now describes her political views as “liberal” and says she is no longer involved in Russian politics.

Drokova said her nationality and political work have not yet posed any challenges in her new career. But other Russians who have venture firms in Silicon Valley say they still run into obstacles, including extra scrutiny when they try to open U.S. bank accounts.

Sergey Gribov of Flint Capital, a venture firm whose partners are Russian-born but does not raise money in Russia, said he discloses all the details of his funding sources to head off suspicions.

“From time to time it comes up,” he said. “I would say it helps to be transparent.”