Don’t believe the stories about : the people in blue : these are not the secret organizers of the terrorist attack from the FSB, but ordinary concert visitors. An easy OSINT exposure session for those who missed everything : Meduza

casbt1osint.blogspot.com

View Original

Who are these “men in blue”? And why do we even pay attention to a version that looks like conspiracy theories?

On the second day after the terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall, a TikTok video from Polish journalist Marcin Rola went viral on social networks. He was not the author of the version about the organization of the attack by the Russian authorities, but simply posted on his account a video filmed by one of the visitors to the Picnic concert at the moment when terrorists burst into the auditorium and opened fire on people. Rola accompanied this with the following comment:

URGENTLY! Terrorist attack in Russia?! A huge number of killed and wounded! The famous building Crocus City Hall in Moscow is on fire. WHO IS BEHIND THIS?

Twitter users saw the answer to the Polish journalist’s question right in the footage he posted. Allegedly, a group of at least four men, dressed in blue jeans and blue sweaters of different cuts and shades, began shouting calls to lock the doors a few seconds before the terrorists burst into the hall. These details were enough to create and promote the version about a secret group of intelligence officers who coordinated the terrorist attack.

It is difficult to say who the original source of the theory was, but here is its comprehensive presentation in one of the first widely circulated “tweets”:

Someone even saw the faces of specific security officials in the blurry footage:

A few more hours later, the version acquired additional details: allegedly at least one member of the secret group was not only present in the Crocus hall on the evening of March 22, but also detained the alleged perpetrators of the terrorist attack in the Bryansk forest early in the morning of March 23. In this case, the “arguments”, in addition to the flowers of the sweater and jeans, were a similar haircut and a watch on the left hand of both men.

Finally, the last (and, perhaps, the only truly suspicious) element of the theory was the express investigation of the Belarusian opposition project NEXTA. Journalists of the publication found a photograph of one of the alleged intelligence officers on the website of a sports center located in the Sosenskoye settlement in Moscow. At the same address, NEXTA found out, is the headquarters of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (GRU). In addition, the authors of the material suggested that one of the members of the “blue” group was also presented as a concert visitor who allegedly neutralized an armed terrorist (the authorities and state media did not provide evidence of this episode four days after the terrorist attack).

Of course, the theory was not born out of nowhere: since the late 1990s, Kremlin critics have suspected Vladimir Putin and his circle of involvement in organizing terrorist attacks for political gain. Then, a few days after the explosions of residential buildings in Buinaksk, Moscow and Volgodonsk, bags of sugar were found in the basement of a house in Ryazan , in which traces of hexogen were also found during examination. In the first hours after the discovery, law enforcement agencies actively began to investigate the incident and look for the people who pawned the bags, but the very next day, then FSB director Nikolai Patrushev (now still the influential secretary of the Russian Security Council) announced that the whole incident turned out to be just an FSB exercise for checking the vigilance of citizens. The expression “Ryazan sugar” has since become a common noun, denoting the “Kremlin trace” in the organization of certain crimes.

As the authors of the Signal newsletter noted , on the day of the terrorist attack in Crocus, traffic to the page about the explosions in Moscow in 1999 on Wikipedia increased more than 200 times. So part of society was obviously waiting for the version of “Ryazan sugar” - and found confirmation of their expectations in the “men in blue”.

And now - the revelation session

In general, it will be very short. Our colleagues conducted their own investigation on the evening of March 26 and convincingly debunked the “men in blue” version. They showed other photographs of members of the mysterious group and learned some details of their biography. OSINT researchers were helped by facial recognition programs in identifying these people.

• The “GRU employee” discovered by NEXTA turned out to be physical education teacher Dmitry Erokhin, Mediazona editor Maxim Litavrin and independent journalist Andrei Zakharov found out.

• Another “special service agent” was de-anonymized by the editor-in-chief of The Insider, Roman Dobrokhotov, and an investigator from the Bellingcat project, Hristo Grozev . According to Dobrokhotov, the man’s name is Dmitry Druzhkov and he is an “oil worker at VNIIST .”

• Later, this person gave a short interview to TASS, in which he also assured that he had nothing to do with the special services, but was engaged in construction - and attended the concert as an ordinary spectator with his child.

• Litavrin and Zakharov also drew attention to the fact that at another moment from the video recording of the detention of the alleged terrorists one can see the face of a man whom NEXTA and many social network users mistook for a member of the “blue group”, from which it becomes obvious that this is a different person - which is obvious at least by the facial hair of the detainee and its absence on the concert viewer (facial recognition programs also believe that this is a different person).

 

X + Y = mathematics of modern generations: who are boomers and buzzers and who should we expect next

casbt1osint.blogspot.com

View Original

We are only talking about the modern generation of buzzers, but the meaning of the words “millennial” or “baby boomer” is not familiar to everyone. Although they have the same general concept - it is a characteristic name for a certain generation.

In 1991, the world was captivated by the theory of generations of American researchers. It has been proven that each new generation has certain common characteristics. According to the work Generations by William Strauss and Neil Gole, a generation changes every 20-25 years.

We will tell you more about generations and its modern varieties in the material.

What does “generation” mean?

A generation is usually called a group of people who were born and grew up in a certain period of time. The formation of which was influenced by various factors. The most common are considered to be historical events and the economic order in the country.

These properties determined the creation of common values, habits, and life views among people of a certain generation. Very often we don’t notice it, but in fact they have a significant impact on our lives: we have different communication styles, we set priorities and goals differently.

In simple terms, a generation is the similar behavior and values ​​of people of approximately the same age group.

Baby Boomers

mid 1940s - early 1960s

Baby boomers or the “rock and roll and illegal substances” generation.

This is the most romantic and courageous generation in history, which did not tell a fairy tale, but created it. The first flight into space and a walk on the Moon inspired them with the idea of ​​a bright future.

The post-war surge in birth rates caused the so-called “baby boom”. This is what the name of the generation hints at. They were the largest generation before the millennials. Baby Boomers can be considered very family-oriented people.

A common trait that Baby Boomers have in common is a winning mentality. Inspired by the victory in the war, they were motivated to change the world.

This is a generation with a high level of optimism. Patriotism also occupied a leading place in their lives; after the victory, they believed in the state. Post-war reconstruction brought with it a surge of collectivism and faith in the future.

So, you are a baby boomer if:

• born between 1940-1960s
• you have a high level of patriotism and love the team
• optimist who believes in a better future
• workaholic working for the benefit of the state
• family is your highest value

Generation X

mid-1960s - early 1980s

Generations of “children with keys around their necks” or from the meaning of X - “Unknown”.

“Boomer” parents worked until late, while “Xers” had to take on responsibility for themselves: getting ready for school, studying homework, cooking, doing household chores. Because of this independence, Generation X began to be called the generation of “children with keys.”

Sociologists believe that this is a generation of single individualists focused on work and career growth, which is why among the “Xers” there are many workaholics who now occupy leading positions in companies.

It's no surprise that 55% of startup founders belong to Generation X. Generation X is called the middle child between the two greatest generations - boomers and millennials.

So, you are a “child with keys around his neck” if:

• born between 1960-1980s
• you always rely only on yourself
• independent and responsible in everything
• work and career are a priority

Generation Y

mid-1980s — mid-1990s

Millennials (those born between millennia) or the “social media” generation.

This is the first generation to learn about the Internet and its power. Generation Y grew up during the development of technology and social networks.

They do not put a prestigious job and career like the X's in first place. They are more likely to have a flexible schedule and development in different areas. “Greeks” will not work for 30 years in a company in order to rise through the ranks of a certain profession.

This is the first generation for whom it is not necessary to know everything in the world; it is worth just knowing where to find the necessary information on the Internet.

They are energetic and easily adapt to anything. In addition, the focus is primarily on spiritual wealth, not material wealth.

According to Time magazine, millennials are the “Me” generation who prioritize themselves and their development.

So, you are from “Generation Me” if:

• born between 1980s and mid-1990s
• self-development comes first for you
• you adapt to everything very quickly
• constantly looking for yourself and your place in the world

Buzzers

thread 1990s — 2010s

Generation Digital or “millennials on steroids”.

This is a generation that does not remember a time without phones and the Internet.

Buzzers are the youth of today and the future of our state. Sociologists predict that this generation will become the most entrepreneurial. In speed and mental development they are ahead of the previous generation. Like millennials, buzzers value diversification and self-expression.

For them, the limit of the real and virtual world is practically erased, because the entire technological process has been with them almost from birth.

Their common goal is to fight inequality and destroy social stereotypes. This generation is admired for its consciousness and desire to change the world from a young age. A prime example of this is Greta Thunberg, a Swedish environmental activist.

So, you are a zoomer if:

• born between the late 1990s and 2010s
• Since childhood you have had a page on social networks
• used to destroying all stereotypes and defending my opinion
• trying to make this world a better place

Are buzzers the latest generation?

American researchers wrote: “The alphabet ends with the letter “Z,” what next? Definitely “A”. This is where the cycle of generations comes in handy. According to Australian demographer Mark McCrindle, the buzzer generation (Z) is already gradually being replaced by another generation - the alpha (A).

It is assumed that from now on the names of future generations will be named in Greek alphabetical order. That is, after alphas (A), perhaps there will be betas (B).

Generation A is our future

According to the work of Mark McCrindle, Generation A are children born after 2010 (until 2025).

“Alpha” is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, so this generation is entrusted with a considerable mission: to create a new world. If buzzers are the future of the modern economy, then alphas are our future in all its spheres.

Sociologists suggest that the alpha generation will be even smarter, become more adaptive to new living conditions and completely get rid of all racial and gender stereotypes in different areas of life.

Also in terms of global wealth, Generation Alpha is predicted to be the richest generation in history. In addition, Generation A will be the first generation to be born entirely in the 21st century.

 

After the terrorist attack in Crocus: politicians and propagandists demand a tightening of migration policy. Could this really have prevented the attack? We're talking to migration researcher Salavat Abylkalikov — Meduza

casbt1osint.blogspot.com

View Original

Immediately after the terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall, there was a sharp surge in xenophobia in Russia. Migrant workers from Tajikistan report increasing cases of aggression - not only at the everyday level , but also from security forces . At the same time, State Duma deputies began to propose limiting the entry of migrants into Russia, and former presidential candidate Vladislav Davankov took the initiative to deport them for the “smallest offense” and introduce digital control. Is Russian migration policy capable of ensuring security for the country (and not destroying the economy)? Meduza spoke about this with demographer Salavat Abylkalikov, a visiting researcher at Northumbria University in the UK and a CARA fellow .

— There is no exact data on what legal basis the alleged perpetrators of the terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall were in Russia. But the Russian authorities have already voiced several initiatives to tighten immigration policy. In your opinion, should the state react to such events in this way?

“It seems to me that initially the discussion [about the causes and consequences of the terrorist attack] both in Russian society and in government went in the wrong direction. I think that any terrorist attack is a failure of the intelligence services, because they should be primarily involved in preventing them. And if a terrorist attack occurs, by minimizing casualties. When intelligence services, instead of monitoring the situation [with terrorism], developing their network of agents, interacting with colleagues from other countries, are engaged in the fight against dissidents, this is a natural result.

It's not about migration as such. In any large country there are millions of migrants, but there are always only a few terrorists. And when there is talk about tightening migration policy or some kind of mass repression [against migrants], we are actually talking about collective punishment [of migrants]. Although specific individuals are to blame, and highly paid and authorized people should have worked with them. And they, apparently, were doing something wrong.

A separate issue is fire safety, evacuation possibilities, as it was all agreed upon. Together with the terrorist attack, in fact, there was a repetition of the tragedy in “Winter Cherry”. But this is not what is being discussed, but migration policy.

— Speaking more broadly, and not just in relation to the terrorist attack in Crocus City Hall, do you think the checks that migrants now undergo when entering Russia and receiving documents are sufficient to ensure safety? And is it even possible to pose the question this way?

“It seems to me that the “sieve” that stands at the border when checking migrants, and indeed everyone who enters the country, cannot be so small [to thoroughly check everyone]. Otherwise we will stop all our economic activities. It is simply impossible to check everything during border control.

And if every time you close the borders with the countries where terrorists come from, then paradoxically it will turn out that terrorist organizations, and not the multinational people of Russia through state authorities, will determine its foreign and domestic policy.

- But there are also checks when preparing documents - residence permits, work permits, and so on. How thorough are they? Is it easy to get around them?

— My practice shows that the more “control”, the more irresponsibility, chaos and corruption. Referring to the works of [migration specialist] Olga Chudinovskikh , I can say that, for example, the absolute majority of recipients of Russian citizenship [as a second] acquire it in an accelerated manner.

But still, I don’t think that the issue of terrorism and the issue of migrants obtaining Russian citizenship are so closely related. I believe that it is necessary to prevent the crimes themselves and imprison specific perpetrators, and not punish or repress everyone indiscriminately.

— How acute, in your opinion, is the problem of integrating migrants into Russian society? Has anything changed in recent years?

— In my opinion, issues of integration or adaptation of migrants are mostly left to chance. But at the same time, people mostly come to Russia from post-Soviet countries, and their integration requires less effort and resources - for example, many know Russian, although, of course, this becomes more difficult for younger generations. And the way of life in Tashkent or, say, Dushanbe is not so radically different from Russia.

— So the idea that there is a big problem with the integration of migrants in Russia is, rather, part of xenophobic rhetoric?

- Partly. But, of course, there are problems, it’s just that no one really deals with it. And it is unlikely that he will do so in the near future.

— In recent years, experts have noted that more and more citizens of Tajikistan are receiving Russian citizenship. Is this really true in comparison with immigrants from other post-Soviet countries? What is this connected with?

— Let's look at which post-Soviet countries migrants came to Russia from. At one time these were the Baltic countries, but now hardly anyone wants to come from there to the Russian Federation - the economic gap is growing and widening. Especially in Lithuania and Estonia. Belarus is close to a level of development comparable to Russia [for example, in terms of wages]. Previously numerous migrants from Moldova, thanks to the visa regime with the EU and the ease of obtaining Romanian passports, have largely reoriented towards the European Union. Azerbaijan itself began to grow rich in oil and gas. There are also Georgia and Armenia - but these are all [relatively] small countries.

So that leaves the Central Asian states. But Kazakhstan has also become rich, wages there are already almost higher than in Russia. Turkmenistan was isolated throughout the post-Soviet period. Uzbekistan, the largest country in the region [by population], still provides a lot of migrants, but at the same time, after the arrival of the new president [Shavkat Mirziyoyev], there were very serious reforms and rapid economic development [began]. So for many Uzbek citizens the question arises about whether it makes sense to go to Russia.

And only Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan remain - rather poor countries that can provide Russia with migrants. But people from Kyrgyzstan are less likely [than citizens of Tajikistan] to apply for Russian citizenship. Because thanks to the regulation of migration within the Eurasian Union , they can work in the Russian Federation without special permission.

At the same time, competition for migrants is intensifying among receiving countries - this also includes the European Union, Turkey, South Korea and others. So they will gradually attract migrants from Central Asia to themselves, and the attractiveness of Russia will decrease.

— In 2023, the influx of migrants to Russia fell to its minimum. Is this precisely because the economic attractiveness of Russia is decreasing, plus now migrants are at risk of being mobilized?

— The ruble exchange rate has dropped very much , especially compared to 2022. As a result, sending money home has become less profitable. Other factors may also play a role: reports that migrants could be sent to war may have frightened some. And the current information agenda [after the terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall] will also certainly have an impact.

— Since Russia’s economic attractiveness for migrants is declining, will their influx continue to decline?

— Migration, more than any other demographic process, depends on the economic situation. On the one hand, Russia’s economic problems and the weakening of the ruble will help reduce the migration influx. At the same time, against the backdrop of a shortage of personnel in the Russian labor market (and record low unemployment in the Russian Federation), the huge demand for labor is increasingly noticeable, so migrants actually face a dilemma: there is little money, but they can easily find a job; There will probably be discrimination, but there is no need to learn a new language - say, Korean, Arabic or English. Which side of the scale will tip the scale?

It still seems to me that over time, migration growth will greatly decrease, because new generations who have not had experience of migrating to Russia will probably initially decide to go to Turkey, the UAE, Qatar, South Korea or somewhere else.

— Taking into account the needs of the labor market for labor, could the Russian authorities do something to attract more migrants? And is this realistic?

“It’s hard to say what can be done here.” The best advice is to develop the Russian economy. You can, of course, introduce some special programs to simplify entry, but the question is not only how easy it is to come to Russia, but whether there will be people willing to come. And if they come, will they stay? And at the same time, the very logic of economic development pushes employers to attract migrants - they simply have no choice. And if we return to the terrorist attack, experience shows that the outbursts of xenophobia that such extreme events cause quickly fade away - we can recall, for example, the situation with migrants from Georgia during and immediately after the 2008 war.

Now, due to general instability and a difficult economic situation, people have a need to declare someone guilty. As a rule, it is easiest to blame those who are different from us - either in sexual preferences, or in views, religion, skin color, eye shape, language, and so on. And the latter are quite easy to identify. The war will contribute to the growth of crime in society - the price of human life has decreased. Disadvantaged people with combat experience will return to the country, and the level of intolerance will increase. And all this will also fuel hatred and xenophobia.

Interviewed by Margarita Lyutova