There is a HUGE difference between the two. > Binney was a Russia specialist and worked in the operations side of intelligence, starting as an analyst and endi

There is a HUGE difference between the two. > Binney was a Russia specialist and worked in the operations side of intelligence, starting as an analyst and ending as a Technical Director prior to becoming a geopolitical world Technical Director. In the 1990s, he co-founded a unit on automating signals intelligence with NSA research chief Dr. John Taggart. Binney's NSA career culminated as Technical Leader for intelligence in 2001. Having expertise in intelligence analysis, traffic analysis, systems analysis, knowledge management, and mathematics (including set theory, number theory, and probability), Binney has been described as one of the best analysts in the NSA's history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intellige... William Binney is a heavyweight (NSA Technical Director), an insider, Russia expert (especially regarding SIGINT). I don't see that Thomas Rid has done anything but teaching and writing while working for various USG affiliated think thanks. While that might be admirable in itself, what credibility does he have regarding the expertise or the inner workings of US or Russian intelligence? I don't see much, even when not compared to Binney. Another difference: By working for USG affiliated think thanks (RAND Corporation, SWP), Rid is just another exceptionally well paid [1] alibi provider for the imperial politics the US oligarchy leads. And that makes him very biased, which in turn makes his writing very biased. So biased in fact, that it insults my intelligence. How are the Esquire editors so stupid not to think that I will take Rid's name, Google it and find out (in less than five minutes!) that he's a shill? [1] Normal professors cannot afford to live "in the Barbican in the City of London". And he even has chuzpe to brag about it!