S06.E09: Jennings, Elizabeth

[khyber]

Costa Ronin (Oleg) usually does a live blog on twitter. So if you're on the east coast you can follow along. @costaronin

[Umbelina]

6 hours ago, Dev F said:

The show has made it clear that if Renee is a spy, P&E don't know about it. And unless Gabriel was lying at the exact moment when he was being most honest with Philip, he didn't know either. The idea seems to be that if she's an operative at all, she's been compartmentalized away from P&E and their handlers.

But it's not like it's some wacky coincidence. Philip suspects that the Centre created a honeypot for Stan based on the Jenningses' reports on him over the years. (Presumably it would also be based on Nina's reports, but I don't think Philip knows about those.) If Stan married yet another KGB agent, it's because the people who knew him most intimately ensured that Renee would be just what he was looking for.

I agree completely.

Renee seems to have molded herself to be Stan's dream woman, and just "happened" to bump into him at the gym.  How many times have we watched Elizabeth or Philip do that? 

5 hours ago, Misstify said:

I agree 100%.  I just don't see how a Renee KGB revelation can happen in the final episode without stomping all over the dramatic tension re: the spy-friend relationship that has been built up since episode 1.  I'm not giving up hope, though; I'll be looking for a very cleverly written and executed twist!

I do.  Easily.  Last montage of the season, it's all settled, one of the minor scenes in the montage is Renee putting a chalk mark on a mailbox (or another fast spy thing like picking up a dead drop) and we realize that even though the FBI is rounding up embedded spies?  Russian spying continues in the USA.  Which it does and did, long after the Cold War finished.  It's not "out there" it's reality.

3 hours ago, Bannon said:

It is bad writing, no matter what Renee does or does not do in this final episode, and really, really, bizarre casting.  I would be interested in hearing from Laurie Holden as to how the role was described to her. Why didn't the producers save some money by hiring a 40ish attractive unknown actor, who would work for scale? There are likely hundreds of actors who could have played this nothing part, without any difference noticed by the audience.

I completely disagree.  Everything about Renee SCREAMS that she's doing a honey pot.  She's doing it very well, since even most viewers don't think it's true after the writers deliberately had Philip be suspicious.

I'm prepared to eat my words, but honestly, the only LOGICAL thing is?  She's a spy, and she is honeypotting Stan, for one reason or another.

38 minutes ago, JennyMominFL said:

I’m so stressed out about this finale. I’m going to watch with a drink of vodka. See,s right. I want them to be caught and yet I don’t. I want Stan to bust them but I don’t. And I want Oleg safe somehow. 

We should all go put some Vodka in the freezer right now for the show!  If I could afford the good caviar, I'd be celebrating with that too, but I hate the cheap stuff, so no caviar for me.

[Bannon]

10 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

.

I completely disagree.  Everything about Renee SCREAMS that she's doing a honey pot.  She's doing it very well, since even most viewers don't think it's true after the writers deliberately had Philip be suspicious.

I'm prepared to eat my words, but honestly, the only LOGICAL thing is?  She's a spy, and she is honeypotting Stan, for one reason or another.

 

They may be screaming that, but it is still crappy writing. This is a show about the psychological lives of the characters. For them to have a recurring character over multiple seasons, whose inner life has been totally obscured from the audience, is, in my view, horrible writing. 

3 hours ago, Dev F said:

I would imagine the writers didn't want someone who'd just play "nothing part," but someone who would be able to pull off "behaving in a way that seems vaguely suspicious, but maybe it's all in our imaginations." It hasn't been a hugely rewarding role up to this point, but it hasn't been an easy role, either. A lesser actress could've easily screwed up the balance one way or another, making her seem either so innocuous that it's insane for Philip or us to wonder whether she's a spy, or so obviously a plant that Stan looks like a complete idiot for not realizing.

And certainly the fact that Laurie Holden is probably best known for playing a maybe friendly, maybe devious informant on The X-Files plays in to what the producers have been trying to accomplish with the character.

To me, it's really cheesy, and unworthy of this wonderful cast.

[Misstify]

34 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I do.  Easily.  Last montage of the season, it's all settled, one of the minor scenes in the montage is Renee putting a chalk mark on a mailbox (or another fast spy thing like picking up a dead drop) and we realize that even though the FBI is rounding up embedded spies?  Russian spying continues in the USA.  Which it does and did, long after the Cold War finished.  It's not "out there" it's reality.

For me, that would not be a good ending.  Spying continues...but within Stan's marriage?  That seems like a whole other show, or at least something that should have been explored earlier, not in the final moments which, IMO, should be all about Elizabeth and Philip and the final choices they make after 6 seasons.  Anyway...time to start prepping the viewing area!  Have fun!

[whiporee]

My only doubts about Renee is that after Martha, EVERY significant other would be seriously vetted. I don't this suspension of disbelief could survive another breach at that level. 

Plus, when Renee hooked up with Stan, he was off counter intelligence. 

I'm still betting CIA or NSA. But there's a good chance it's nothing. 

[Umbelina]

I don't expect Renee to be caught or exposed to anyone but us.

[Bannon]

4 hours ago, Dev F said:

Wait, no, new prediction: Elizabeth is the one who poisons Renee, because she realizes how much it would destroy Philip to know that she's out there turning another person he cares about into a doomed puppet. Not only would Liz be symbolically killing the most ruthless and heartless part of herself, but she'd be paying Philip back for his actions in the pilot, when he gave up his dreams of defecting to quell his wife's pain by killing Timoshev.

 

Well, just for consistency of character, Liz has to slaughter somebody. Why not Renee? I would like her to employ a new method. If I remember right she has shot, stabbed, strangled, poisoned, crushed, and asphyxiated her victims. I don't remember her running over anybody yet, but that's kind of standard t.v.  murder cliche. We need something different. She's left the house, so we can't have her get Renee in the garage, with a weed-whacker er, whacking. Maybe she can catch Renee at her office job, and jam her through a paper shredder. Imagine explaining that mess to Paige........

Liz: "The paperwork for The Cause is like The Battle of Stalingrad, Paige!!

Paige: "I GET it, Mom!!"

Edited May 31, 2018 by Bannon

[Avaleigh]

I'm not going to pass up my second to last chance to talk about an episode of one of my favorite shows ever. I really will miss this show and these characters.

Regarding this episode, I keep thinking about the conversation between Elizabeth and Paige. While I was almost entirely on Elizabeth's side regarding the confrontation (Paige can lose me with the slut shaming and her overall hypocrisy), there were two things that I was glad to see Paige call her mother out on--

She lets her mother know that this guy feels like his life was "ruined" because of what Elizabeth did. As viewers we've long known this info and even though Philip has gone there with Elizabeth in terms of discussing how their jobs regularly ruin people's lives, it must have been an eye opener for Elizabeth to hear the truth about her work from one of her children.

The truth is that Elizabeth is a professional life ruiner. She ruins people's lives every season. She's ruined multiple lives in every single episode this season. Elizabeth defensively dismisses spy sex as something that isn't a big deal but ultimately knows that her real feelings about it are the reason she kept the truth from Paige for years and didn't want her daughter engaging in the same kind of work. To me this was a huge moment for the character of Elizabeth so I think the scene worked well in that sense even if I rolled my eyes over Paige's hypocrisy and use of the word whore. 

The other important thing was Elizabeth finally being called on the fact that she's lied to Paige for years and didn't stop lying even after Paige was finally told the truth about her parents' jobs and identities. Elizabeth was acting like Claudia and was doing the very thing she couldn't forgive Claudia for doing. 

I hope Keri gets another Emmy and Golden Globe nod for this season because she really brought it for me in this episode. The last two seasons might not have been what I wanted for the show, but I'd still like for Keri and Matthew to walk away with awards to recognize their entire run on this show. Their performances have been the most wonderful and reliable part of this incredible series. 

[Clanstarling]

3 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I have to hand it to you.....if I had to wait until tomorrow....I can't even imagine that. Good luck.  I hope the cable holds out. I'm nervous because we have had thunderstorms for days and they are still in the forecast.  The doppler radar looks okay right now, but, you never know.  

I anticipate there will be a lot of activity on the boards both during and after the finale.  I bet it will be more than 11 pages, but, maybe, I'm overestimating.  I forget that not everyone is as fanatical about this as I am. 

Yeah, I figure I am underestimating. I wish I didn't have to wait, but such is life.

32 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Well, just for consistency of character, Liz has to slaughter somebody. Why not Renee? I would like her to employ a new method. If I remember right she has shot, stabbed, strangled, poisoned, crushed, and asphyxiated her victims. I don't remember her running over anybody yet, but that's kind of standard t.v.  murder cliche. We need something different. She's left the house, so we can't have her get Renee in the garage, with a weed-whacker er, whacking. Maybe she can catch Renee at her office job, and jam her through a paper shredder. Imagine explaining that mess to Paige........

Liz: "The paperwork for The Cause is like The Battle of Stalingrad, Paige!!

Paige: "I GET it, Mom!!"

Ha!

She still has that cyanide pill, but I guess that counts as poison. Does dropping a car on a guy count as running over? LOL. Maybe she can catch Renee at the gym and whack her with a free weight.

[dr pepper]

41 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Well, just for consistency of character, Liz has to slaughter somebody. Why not Renee? I would like her to employ a new method. If I remember right she has shot, stabbed, strangled, poisoned, crushed, and asphyxiated her victims. I don't remember her running over anybody yet,

 

Well she crushed a man under his own car so that's kind of a stationary running over.

[Joe Hellandback]

Ohhhh, it's all so close now, bridges burnt, loyalties torn, how will it end?

1. Oh the scene between Paige and Elizabeth is painful to watch but hypocritical given how Paige was also willing to slut it up for Mother Russia?

2. I was so glad that Stan told his FBI friend of his suspicions, I was so scared that he would be killed and his suspicions would die with him.

3, Clever scene as Elizabeth approaches the target, you genuinely wonder what she will do for a second.

4. The scene between Elizabeth and Claudia is great, you genuinely wonder what her reaction will be and when you see it what actually happens it is so credible and heartfelt it's brilliant.  

[sistermagpie]

3 hours ago, Joe Hellandback said:

1. Oh the scene between Paige and Elizabeth is painful to watch but hypocritical given how Paige was also willing to slut it up for Mother Russia?

I think part of the reveal here is that she actually wasn't willing. It seemed all along like she was eager to honeytrap but she was really more talking about having actual relationships and if they also provided intel...what to do with that? She asked her mother, "Why would I sleep with them if I didn't like them?" and she really meant it. She honestly thought her mother was telling her not to date anybody with info or something. I don't know exactly how it worked in her head, but it was about Paige not seeing honeytraps as acceptable.

[SusanSunflower]

I think it was more that Paige didn't see that honeytraps were part of the job description, part of the arsenal,  sexual allure exploiting men's vanity and lust as a weapon.  I didn't believe that Jackson would have loudly bemoaned having been bamboozled into what amounted (in the right light) to a criminal, even treasonous act (if such unwitting aid to the enemy is taken on face value, like Paige being enlisted to "drive getaway" or act as "lookout" on missions she didn't comprehend).  Jackson should have -- of course -- put national security first and discretely confessed to having been apparently used, led around by his libido and youthful naivete by a skillful and determined mysterious older woman.  That Jackson had been so targetted and used was not something for him take "personally" by him or -- god knows -- by Paige.  

eta:  Three years!!! When was Elizabeth going to get around to teaching Paige the facts of life??  

Edited June 2, 2018 by SusanSunflower

[Joe Hellandback]

2 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I think part of the reveal here is that she actually wasn't willing. It seemed all along like she was eager to honeytrap but she was really more talking about having actual relationships and if they also provided intel...what to do with that? She asked her mother, "Why would I sleep with them if I didn't like them?" and she really meant it. She honestly thought her mother was telling her not to date anybody with info or something. I don't know exactly how it worked in her head, but it was about Paige not seeing honeytraps as acceptable.

I'll have to rewatch the scene but I think she was hinting pretty strongly at all this, her mother and handler were teaching her all the other ways of espionage?

 

1 hour ago, SusanSunflower said:

I think it was more that Paige didn't see that honeytraps were part of the job description, part of the arsenal,  sexual allure exploiting men's vanity and lust as a weapon.  I didn't believe that Jackson would have loudly bemoaned having been bamboozled into what amounted (in the right light) to a criminal, even treasonous act (if such unwitting aid to the enemy is taken on face value, like Paige being enlisted to "drive getaway" or act as "lookout" on missions she didn't comprehend).  Jackson should have -- of course -- put national security first and discretely confessed to having been apparently used, led around by his libido and youthful naivete by a skillful and determined mysterious older woman.  That Jackson had been so targetted and used was not something for him take "personally" by him or -- god knows -- by Paige.  

eta:  Three years!!! When was Elizabeth going to get around to teaching Paige the facts of life??  

I think if he believed it was a matter of national security he would, I think he believed this was corporate espionage and she let him.

 One other thing, Elizabeth breaks into their emergency stash which I always thought they would have. So why didn't Philip dip into that to save their business?

[sistermagpie]

1 minute ago, Joe Hellandback said:

I'll have to rewatch the scene but I think she was hinting pretty strongly at all this, her mother and handler were teaching her all the other ways of espionage?

They never taught her honeytrapping. Elizabeth flat-out lied that it was a thing that happened.

1 minute ago, Joe Hellandback said:

I think if he believed it was a matter of national security he would, I think he believed this was corporate espionage and she let him.

Given the focus of the Summit I think Jackson did suspect this was actual espionage and not just corporate.

2 minutes ago, Joe Hellandback said:

 One other thing, Elizabeth breaks into their emergency stash which I always thought they would have. So why didn't Philip dip into that to save their business?

I think for that very reason--if you dip into the emergency stash it's gone. They wouldn't have had it to run.

[LisaM]

I thought this was a great episode. My heart was in my mouth while Philip was running. Poor Oleg.  Father Andrei is not too swift.  The Stan gets a clue came too late and was too rushed. Topsy turvy wow... 

[John Potts]

Philip did pretty well to extract himself from the FBI trap - now where can they run to? Rather burnt their bridges with Claudia. I wonder how long they've had that extraction plan? And the big question - will they try to save Paige too? I'm sure it would be against procedure (and may result in their own capture) but it would be a very human thing to do.

On ‎24‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 4:29 AM, Erin9 said:

So finding out her parents slept around for work is what angers Paige. It should. But I couldn’t quite feel sorry for her. Or feel her outrage. Though HT did good. Well- she was lied to as well. That was it too. Like mother, like daughter there.

Paige - you're an idiot. What exactly did you think was involved in espionage? You're trying to get secret information out of people - did you think nobody got hurt on the way? What exactly has she been learning these past three years? Did like that Liz betrayed Claudia for lying to her and then straight up lied to her daughter!

On ‎24‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 4:36 AM, chocolatine said:

I was waiting for the moment when Claudia would weaponize that pot of hot fish soup. But then when she resignedly ate it like it was her last meal, I figured that she knew on some level that "her people" had lost.

She may have lost the battle but she'll ultimately win the war. One of the results of the (1991) coup against Gorbachev was to propel one former KGB officer into politics (Vladimir Putin), with the intention of "Making Russia great again".

On ‎24‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 5:08 PM, Ina123 said:

The problem I had was with Paige suddenly putting it together just with "older woman" and "ruined my life"

It did seem a bit of a leap. Is Elizabeth the only "older woman" in DC?

On ‎25‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 2:10 AM, Reneeiskgb said:

What is preventing Philip from simply going home?  It's probably something obvious, but I don't get it.  He's changed his clothes and look, and he evaded the FBI, so what is the issue?

In espionage terms, they are "toasty" (one step down from burned) - the FBI are hot on their heels. You want to get out before you're captured. You definitely don't want to lead them back to your home where you may have left (knowingly or accidentally) all sorts of info about recent activities, contacts, etc.
 

On ‎24‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 10:59 PM, Umbelina said:

It's difficult enough for most kids/people to picture their parents having sex, let alone boning randoms, especially randoms that are your age.

I can vouch for that, and I'm in my mid 40s!

[Plums]

I want to just express a lot of appreciation for that interaction between Stan and Aderholdt by the elevator. Like, Dennis is clearly incredulous at the entire idea that Philip and Elizabeth are spies and thinks Stan is being paranoid, but my favorite part is particularly his reaction to the notion that Elizabeth could have been Gregory's girlfriend.  He's hung out with them socially a few times at that point and has this vision of the Jennings as this super normal, upper middle class, suburban white family. The idea of the Elizabeth he has in his head at one point having been the girlfriend of a drug dealing, radical, black militant was too crazy to even be in the realm of consideration. I love that this image doesn't seem to deter Stan at all, but that it would be immediately absurd to Dennis. The show very rarely commented on race, but I thought that moment was a nice subtle detail. 

[dubbel zout]

The more I think about that, the more Aderholt's lack of imagination amuses me. More than one former hippie/radical in the '60s became a yuppie in the '80s. (Elizabeth isn't technically a yuppie, but she superficially leads a very conventional life.) It wasn't exactly unheard of.

[Clanstarling]

9 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

The more I think about that, the more Aderholt's lack of imagination amuses me. More than one former hippie/radical in the '60s became a yuppie in the '80s. (Elizabeth isn't technically a yuppie, but she superficially leads a very conventional life.) It wasn't exactly unheard of.

I mean, Elridge Cleaver became a Mormon AND a conservative Republican by then. Change happens.

[sistermagpie]

12 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

The more I think about that, the more Aderholt's lack of imagination amuses me. More than one former hippie/radical in the '60s became a yuppie in the '80s. (Elizabeth isn't technically a yuppie, but she superficially leads a very conventional life.) It wasn't exactly unheard of.

To be fair, Curtis was talking about Elizabeth being Gregory's girlfriend *now*--or at least at the time of his death in 1981, which was long after Elizabeth would have gone straight. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎24‎.‎5‎.‎2018 at 7:03 AM, Erin9 said:

I pretty much loathed Stan tonight. Him telling Oleg he didn’t care if Gorbachev was ousted had to be one of the dumbest things he could say. First- it’s bad news for the US. It just is. That shouldn’t be rocket science to him. 

Second- as Oleg had to spell out in painstaking detail- he risked EVERYTHING in the hope for a better future with Gorbachev- the same kind of future Stan values. Get that through your thick skull, indeed Stan. 

Stan is, like Nina once said a cop - he wants to arrest spies whereas a real contra-spy  would want to turn them and use them.  

Plus, Stan is morally black and white doesn't see the big picture. Sometime spying is necessary - even enemies can have common interests (at least preventing war) and/or there is important to have precice information (f.ex. when Philip realized that there was no political coup in Washington after Reagas' assassination attempt).

It's really ironic that if Stan had earlier revealed P&E, that would have been good to the US (and his partner and at least Gaad would be alive), but now it's harmful. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎24‎.‎5‎.‎2018 at 6:36 AM, chocolatine said:

I'm glad Elizabeth protected Nesterenko, but I also feel sad for Tatiana that that's how her life turned out. That's now the second woman who's slept with Oleg and ended up dead. And Oleg, even though he's in deep shit, is still alive.

I have no pity towards Tatiana. She wanted to steal a dangerous disease that couldn't have safely handled in the USSR (that's why Oleg prevented her) - and her motive was only to promote her career. Plus, she was anti-Gorbatchev.  

[Umbelina]

8 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I have no pity towards Tatiana. She wanted to steal a dangerous disease that couldn't have safely handled in the USSR (that's why Oleg prevented her) - and her motive was only to promote her career. Plus, she was anti-Gorbatchev.  

I loved Tatiana.  She was doing her job by obtaining that bioweapon.  I also liked her because she rose through the ranks, though without family connections, and without using her sexuality to get ahead.  She was about to be appointed the first ever female Resident, chief of station, from the Soviet Union.  Unfortunately for her, she was sabotaged, or foolishly trusted the charming Oleg.

She's very much like Elizabeth, a "just following orders" SPY, who trusted and believed in the USSR.  She was also probably told, just like Elizabeth and William and Philip that the USSR needed that bioweapon to survive/protect their country.  If you hate her for that, you have to hate Philip, Liz, and William as well as Gabe.  They all did it.

As far as being a part of the Coup?  Was that ever clarified, I honestly can't remember, but I don't think so.  For all we know, she, like Elizabeth, was simply told that diplomat was a traitor and needed to be eliminated.

One thing that was completely off though, about this story, is that the KGB taping equipment was specifically designed in a way that the field agents COULD NOT listen to it, they simply turned it over to their handlers.  So, in reality, Elizabeth would have never listened to that tape, and she would have believed Claudia, and killed the diplomat. 

It was one of the "throw away known spy protocols" that the writer's used for dramatic purposes throughout the series.

CIA and FBI agents equipment did allow them to listen to what they had recorded, the KGB?  Never.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Umbelina

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

I loved Tatiana.  She was doing her job by obtaining that bioweapon.  I also liked her because she rose through the ranks, though without family connections, and without using her sexuality to get ahead.  She was about to be appointed the first ever female Resident, chief of station, from the Soviet Union.  Unfortunately for her, she was sabotaged, or foolishly trusted the charming Oleg.

She's very much like Elizabeth, a "just following orders" SPY, who trusted and believed in the USSR.  She was also probably told, just like Elizabeth and William and Philip that the USSR needed that bioweapon to survive/protect their country.  If you hate her for that, you have to hate Philip, Liz, and William as well as Gabe.  They all did it.

As far as being a part of the Coup?  Was that ever clarified, I honestly can't remember, but I don't think so.  For all we know, she, like Elizabeth, was simply told that diplomat was a traitor and needed to be eliminated.

I don't think that Tatiana was just following the orders. If Oleg knew that the Soviets couldn't handle the disease safely, Tatiana must have known it too.. She was an expert of bioweapons. But she didn't care because she wanted to promote her career. That was her main motive, not her country.

Of course she knew about the coup. Even formerly she had more information from the Center than Arkady, her nominal boss. 

And there was the scene where she said that Oleg wasn't trusthworthy. Of course one can't know if she meant Oleg's betrayal of her or if suspected his current mission. 

She was of course perfectly justified to be angry towards Oleg for betraying her and aborting her career hopes. But she had herself made a mistake of telling him about her job although that was against the rules. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎24‎.‎5‎.‎2018 at 7:31 AM, kikaha said:

Yes, an intelligence agent serving his country might leave his kids on Thanksgiving.  I think that was Stan's realization and his point about the Jennings.  It doesn't t make a lot of sense a travel agent would fly off on business during the holiday, with her partner/husband rushing after her.  But it sure might make sense for spies to do so. 

Are all Americans really conformists? Are there no Americans who puts work before her family or who hates family parties?

[Umbelina]

20 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

I don't think that Tatiana was just following the orders. If Oleg knew that the Soviets couldn't handle the disease safely, Tatiana must have known it too.. She was an expert of bioweapons. But she didn't care because she wanted to promote her career. That was her main motive, not her country.

Of course she knew about the coup. Even formerly she had more information from the Center than Arkady, her nominal boss. 

And there was the scene where she said that Oleg wasn't trusthworthy. Of course one can't know if she meant Oleg's betrayal of her or if suspected his current mission. 

She was of course perfectly justified to be angry towards Oleg for betraying her and aborting her career hopes. But she had herself made a mistake of telling him about her job although that was against the rules. 

Of course she was following orders.  William knew, and he told Gabe and Philip, who told Elizabeth.  They ALL knew, so Tatiana was no more guilty than everyone else.

I don't think there is any evidence "she didn't care" anymore than there was for the others.  Oleg wanted to be a hero, like the guy who didn't return nukes when it was really sun on the clouds, averting world devastation.  He was an idealist, a bit like later Philip, but I certainly wouldn't want him reporting to me, and doing whatever he chose, that was, right or wrong, treason.  Philip, Elizabeth, William, and Gabriel did the same thing Tatiana did as far as bioweapons. 

When did wanting to be valuable enough to be promoted become a crime for a woman?  Tatiana was from a poor family, she grew up with very little, and worked her way up in a male dominated organization, she didn't have Oleg's freedom, money, or connections, to disobey orders and just do whatever she wanted to do.

Oleg wasn't trustworthy, he betrayed the KGB, and Tatiana should report that, as a loyal KGB officer, much as Elizabeth reported her own cuckolded husband.

Can you elaborate on Tatiana knowing about the coup?  I honestly don't remember a single scene when she knew about the coup, let alone was a member.  I could be wrong though, and missed something, @sistermagpie do you remember?  I thought she was just doing what Center told her to do, as a loyal KGB officer, kill the traitor.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Umbelina
clarified

[sistermagpie]

36 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Are all Americans really conformists? Are there no Americans who puts work before her family or who hates family parties?

Really as travel agents I'd think they'd be more likely to have an emergency that weekend.  Plenty do put work first and Thanksgiving is the biggest travel day of the year. Nowadays there even has to be protests to allow people in retail the day off!

Re: the coup I was trying to remember and I think my impression was just that she knew Oleg wasn't working for the Centre and was capable of shady stuff. She may have found out before the assassination attempt but she may have just been told this guy was a traitor. Not sure about that but that's how I remember it.

[Dev F]

8 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I don't think that Tatiana was just following the orders. If Oleg knew that the Soviets couldn't handle the disease safely, Tatiana must have known it too.

I'm not sure I would assume that Tatiana knows that. Oleg's entire character arc for season 4 lays out the reasons why he lost faith that his government could and would protect the bright and capable patriots who serve its whims. That realization is presented as a new and meaningful step in his development as a character, so I wouldn't take it as a default assumption that Tatiana necessarily shares.

7 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Re: the coup I was trying to remember and I think my impression was just that she knew Oleg wasn't working for the Centre and was capable of shady stuff. She may have found out before the assassination attempt but she may have just been told this guy was a traitor. Not sure about that but that's how I remember it.

There's no direct indication that she knew about the coup, though her scene with the new rezident in "The Great Patriotic War" may be intended to suggest that her disillusionment over Oleg's betrayal has primed her to be receptive to it. She makes a rather mushy case for why she doesn't trust Oleg, and when the rezident expresses disappointment over her hedging, she suggests that the KGB put pressure on Oleg's father to find out why he's back in the United States. The rezident quietly replies, "They should get rid of his father and everyone like him," and Tatiana very cautiously nods before issuing a more forceful condemnation of Oleg for his disloyalty. It's possible to interpret this as her expressing the right sentiments to the right person to be brought into the hardliners' conspiracy.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Dev F

[Roseanna]

10 minutes ago, Dev F said:

The rezident quietly replies, "They should get rid of his father and everyone like him,"

That's the same attitude that Claudia has: when she returns home, she wants to continue to fight the enemies. But who are those enemies? They are Communists who want reforms and they are opposed by a group inside the KGB and the army.

[Roseanna]

8 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Of course she was following orders.  William knew, and he told Gabe and Philip, who told Elizabeth.  They ALL knew, so Tatiana was no more guilty than everyone else.

I don't think there is any evidence "she didn't care" anymore than there was for the others.  Oleg wanted to be a hero, like the guy who didn't return nukes when it was really sun on the clouds, averting world devastation.  He was an idealist, a bit like later Philip, but I certainly wouldn't want him reporting to me, and doing whatever he chose, that was, right or wrong, treason.  Philip, Elizabeth, William, and Gabriel did the same thing Tatiana did as far as bioweapons. 

When did wanting to be valuable enough to be promoted become a crime for a woman?  Tatiana was from a poor family, she grew up with very little, and worked her way up in a male dominated organization, she didn't have Oleg's freedom, money, or connections, to disobey orders and just do whatever she wanted to do.

Oleg wasn't trustworthy, he betrayed the KGB, and Tatiana should report that, as a loyal KGB officer, much as Elizabeth reported her own cuckolded husband.

Treason is a crime that is entirely defined by the date and who happens to be in power. Those Germans who were condemned as traitors by the Nazis are considered to be heroes now. And "just following orders" isn't accepted as a defence after the WW2.

I don't think that Oleg "wanted to be a hero" - he followed his conscience. Which can be good or bad or both. In Oleg's case he did good to millions, but bad to William.  

Actually, it's not possible to be a hero in ones own mind. Heroism must be recognized by others and it depends on results.   

[Roseanna]

About treason and loyalty:

First, an external authority may require loyalty from people. This external authority may be f.ex. ones country or a party. Previously, also having sex with another than one's spouse was sanctioned by law. Secondly, one can voluntarily choose loyalty towards some group, somebody, something or oneself.

So how do you define a traitor? Initially, I say that an external traitor appears to otherwise as she really is. When she deceives something that demands her to be loyal, she often does it because she has in her heart chosen loyalty to some other although she at the same time pretends to be loyal to the former.

Instead, an internal traitor deceives the group, the person, the matter, or her own conscience to which she is voluntarily committed and to which or to whom she really wants to be loyal but she is unable to do so for some reason.

Often there are also situations where a person has to choose between two things: when she is loyal to another, she must deceive another. Different people make different choices: which is more important: the homeland or the party? party or spouse/friend? a homeland or a conscience? And finally: me or others? In these cases, judgment by law may be different than personal perception of right or wrong.

 Of course, there are also cases in which a person betrays simply to get money other benefits. Betrayal may also be caused by force such as torture or treats against family.

[sistermagpie]

11 hours ago, Dev F said:

I'm not sure I would assume that Tatiana knows that. Oleg's entire character arc for season 4 lays out the reasons why he lost faith that his government could and would protect the bright and capable patriots who serve its whims. That realization is presented as a new and meaningful step in his development as a character, so I wouldn't take it as a default assumption that Tatiana necessarily shares.

Also, Oleg is that he has access to special information via his father. Iirc, it's his father who told him about Petrov and what he did. Earlier his father told him that the submarine accident happened because they didn't test the propeller Philip and Elizabeth provided well enough. So he's got a unique pov as somebody inside the room of the top people. And in this case the top person is his father who also has a lot of integrity and doesn't lie about what he sees to make the top brass look better. 

Tatiana's background gives her much more reason to focus on other things and feel better about assuming the people at the other end would be able to handle what she's sending them. Oleg sees these people more as ordinary people and equals. His privilege has made it easier for him to challenge things in ways none of the other characters could start out doing.

8 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Often there are also situations where a person has to choose between two things: when she is loyal to another, she must deceive another. Different people make different choices: which is more important: the homeland or the party? party or spouse/friend? a homeland or a conscience? And finally: me or others? In these cases, judgment by law may be different than personal perception of right or wrong.

 

This seems to be where most of our major Russian characters are in Season 6. There are no Timoshevs who are working for the Americans for money. They're all mostly loyal to somebody in authority--Gorbachev vs. the people in charge of the coup. They all think they're doing what's best for the country. Though I tend to lean towards the Arkady/Oleg/Philip interpretation because they seem to be putting what they see as the welfare of the people first while Claudia seems more loyal to an idea she won't question no matter what the reality on the ground. 

But even she genuinely sees that as being truly loyal and not betraying her values. 

Elizabeth, of course, is the one with the biggest choice because she's the person who's most committed to avoiding choices throughout the show. It's really the natural climax of the show that her potential choice would come from Philip because most of the show is her coming to trust him as much as the Centre. She and Philip both often function as a conscience for the other.

[Umbelina]

11 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Treason is a crime that is entirely defined by the date and who happens to be in power. Those Germans who were condemned as traitors by the Nazis are considered to be heroes now. And "just following orders" isn't accepted as a defence after the WW2.

I don't think that Oleg "wanted to be a hero" - he followed his conscience. Which can be good or bad or both. In Oleg's case he did good to millions, but bad to William.  

Actually, it's not possible to be a hero in ones own mind. Heroism must be recognized by others and it depends on results.   

I really hate the way the word "hero" is thrown around as well.  It's used far too often, I agree.

Oleg though?  Specifically said how much he admired the guy who didn't fire the nukes, and how he wanted to be like him.  Which is admirable of course, but it partially comes from his privileged position, he had the luxury of being "special" and a powerful connected father, and money.  He was sent to the USA, a very preferential assignment, not through hard work, but because of his money and family connections to the powers in control.

My point is that Tatiana had none of those head starts, she started and succeeded without money, without connections, through hard work alone.  She didn't have a powerful daddy to help her get her jobs, or to bail her out if she broke rules.  She was a dedicated KGB officer, a true believer, and she got her bosses the results they needed, which included access to all the bioweapons their enemy, the USA, was creating.

Did she think they would use them, or that they would try for antidotes if the country that had dropped two nuclear bombs (for no real reason as we know now) on Japan, decided to use bioweapons against the people of Russia?    It's a big leap to know what Tatiana really believed about that, because the show never made it clear.

11 hours ago, Dev F said:

I'm not sure I would assume that Tatiana knows that. Oleg's entire character arc for season 4 lays out the reasons why he lost faith that his government could and would protect the bright and capable patriots who serve its whims. That realization is presented as a new and meaningful step in his development as a character, so I wouldn't take it as a default assumption that Tatiana necessarily shares.

There's no direct indication that she knew about the coup, though her scene with the new rezident in "The Great Patriotic War" may be intended to suggest that her disillusionment over Oleg's betrayal has primed her to be receptive to it. She makes a rather mushy case for why she doesn't trust Oleg, and when the rezident expresses disappointment over her hedging, she suggests that the KGB put pressure on Oleg's father to find out why he's back in the United States. The rezident quietly replies, "They should get rid of his father and everyone like him," and Tatiana very cautiously nods before issuing a more forceful condemnation of Oleg for his disloyalty. It's possible to interpret this as her expressing the right sentiments to the right person to be brought into the hardliners' conspiracy.

Thanks.  We got so little of Tatiana that for me it's a huge leap to think she was part of the Coup itself.  Personally, simply because she had no real value to the kind of people involved in the Coup, I find it doubtful she was included.  She was following the orders of her boss, Center, and obviously was told to eliminate the diplomat.  I think it's far more likely she was simply told to do that, and she may not have been given any reason at all.

8 hours ago, Roseanna said:

About treason and loyalty:

First, an external authority may require loyalty from people. This external authority may be f.ex. ones country or a party. Previously, also having sex with another than one's spouse was sanctioned by law. Secondly, one can voluntarily choose loyalty towards some group, somebody, something or oneself.

So how do you define a traitor? Initially, I say that an external traitor appears to otherwise as she really is. When she deceives something that demands her to be loyal, she often does it because she has in her heart chosen loyalty to some other although she at the same time pretends to be loyal to the former.

Instead, an internal traitor deceives the group, the person, the matter, or her own conscience to which she is voluntarily committed and to which or to whom she really wants to be loyal but she is unable to do so for some reason.

Often there are also situations where a person has to choose between two things: when she is loyal to another, she must deceive another. Different people make different choices: which is more important: the homeland or the party? party or spouse/friend? a homeland or a conscience? And finally: me or others? In these cases, judgment by law may be different than personal perception of right or wrong.

 Of course, there are also cases in which a person betrays simply to get money other benefits. Betrayal may also be caused by force such as torture or treats against family.

Of course, but again, Tatiana was a loyal soviet, and believed in the cause.

As far as her knowledge of Soviet equipment being faulty, perhaps she knew, perhaps not, she wasn't a factory worker or scientist, she was a KGB officer.  However, we DO specifically know that Gabriel, William, Philip, and Elizabeth were aware of Soviet inadequacies in handling the bioweapons, yet they did it anyway.  Oleg, who was also aware, since that's why he told the FBI about the operation?  Knew as well.

Of all of them, Oleg was the only one to balk.  So, if you hate Tatiana for that, you must also hate Gabe, William, Philip, and Elizabeth as well.  The only difference is Tatiana is a supposition, the others are a sure thing according to the show.

Also, Tatiana put it together that Oleg had tuned on the KGB, through, partially, her misplaced trust and infatuation with him.  She didn't seem to have acted on that, until she said she didn't trust him, or the reasons for his visit.  Anyone who cared about their country would have done the same, she wasn't his judge and jury, she didn't have that kind of power, but she did have a duty to report her lack of trust in a fellow KGB officer.

[Umbelina]

6 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

This seems to be where most of our major Russian characters are in Season 6. There are no Timoshevs who are working for the Americans for money. They're all mostly loyal to somebody in authority--Gorbachev vs. the people in charge of the coup. They all think they're doing what's best for the country. Though I tend to lean towards the Arkady/Oleg/Philip interpretation because they seem to be putting what they see as the welfare of the people first while Claudia seems more loyal to an idea she won't question no matter what the reality on the ground. 

The reality though?  It all led to the destruction of their county, the end of socialism, and eventually the rise of Putin and opportunistic capitalism that rewarded criminals and made things worse in many ways.  What would have happened if the Coup as planned in the show had taken place?  Would all that have happened?  Would the Soviet Union had collapsed largely, in part, due to the increased freedoms that led or encouraged the everyday people to stand up to tanks, or the soldiers to back down during the real coup less than 3 years later?

History, as they say, is written by the victors.  WAS that the best thing for Russia?  I'm not talking about at that particular moment in time, I'm thinking more historically.  In two hundred years, what will historians say about the capitalist/socialist conflicts and power grabs?  Or the two systems and all of the dirty tricks, from inception to destruction?

[sistermagpie]

18 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

The reality though?  It all led to the destruction of their county, the end of socialism, and eventually the rise of Putin and opportunistic capitalism that rewarded criminals and made things worse in many ways.  What would have happened if the Coup as planned in the show had taken place?  Would all that have happened?  Would the Soviet Union had collapsed largely, in part, due to the increased freedoms that led or encouraged the everyday people to stand up to tanks, or the soldiers to back down during the real coup less than 3 years later?

 

True--I wasn't basing my feelings on the way things turned out but just the way they seemed to be reasoning. I think I think a lot more like Oleg and Philip than I do like Claudia and Elizabeth, so what they think they're doing makes more sense to me. Claudia and Elizabeth are more conservative and I'm more liberal, so I probably would be there too. 

But none of them can know if they're doing the right thing. None of the reformers here foresee their actions working towards the end of Communism and neither do the conservatives. History doesn't prove either side right it just says this is how things panned out. But just looking at their actions here it seems like everyone's trying to do what's right and just seeing that differently. There's a lot of unknown variables! That also makes me think of this:

32 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Of all of them, Oleg was the only one to balk.  So, if you hate Tatiana for that, you must also hate Gabe, William, Philip, and Elizabeth as well.  The only difference is Tatiana is a supposition, the others are a sure thing according to the show.

 

This seems important to me because there's two issues here. One is whether or not the Soviets are able to handle the bioweapons. Then there's the issue of what they're going to use it for. It seems like pretty much all the characters see it as a defense but worry about the danger of just having the thing. It feels like Philip is the one that comes closest to philosophically asking whether it's good for them to have it just in principal and even that doubt is answered by William's question of whether he's okay with the Americans having it.

The government immediately weaponizing the thing and using it in Afghanistan doesn't seem to be on anybody's radar. Or at least not at the front of their minds. I guess one could dig into why that is, but everyone seems to genuinely see it as defensive rather than offensive.

[Roseanna]

3 hours ago, Umbelina said:

The reality though?  It all led to the destruction of their county, the end of socialism, and eventually the rise of Putin and opportunistic capitalism that rewarded criminals and made things worse in many ways.  What would have happened if the Coup as planned in the show had taken place?  Would all that have happened?  Would the Soviet Union had collapsed largely, in part, due to the increased freedoms that led or encouraged the everyday people to stand up to tanks, or the soldiers to back down during the real coup less than 3 years later?

History, as they say, is written by the victors.  WAS that the best thing for Russia?  I'm not talking about at that particular moment in time, I'm thinking more historically.  In two hundred years, what will historians say about the capitalist/socialist conflicts and power grabs?  Or the two systems and all of the dirty tricks, from inception to destruction?

 

2 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

True--I wasn't basing my feelings on the way things turned out but just the way they seemed to be reasoning. I think I think a lot more like Oleg and Philip than I do like Claudia and Elizabeth, so what they think they're doing makes more sense to me. Claudia and Elizabeth are more conservative and I'm more liberal, so I probably would be there too. 

But none of them can know if they're doing the right thing. None of the reformers here foresee their actions working towards the end of Communism and neither do the conservatives. History doesn't prove either side right it just says this is how things panned out. But just looking at their actions here it seems like everyone's trying to do what's right and just seeing that differently. There's a lot of unknown variables! That also makes me think of this:

Well, Gorbatchov was a Communist and never intended to terminate the Soviet Union. But the dangerous phase in the dictatorship or an authoritarian state is always when a new ruler wants to renew it.

To me, the question doesn't concern only Russia but also other peoples: f.ex. the Estonians had a chance to regain their independence and they succeeded to create a democratic state and a prosperous economy. And one of the reasons certainly is that they had never become Soviet persons at heart.  

[sistermagpie]

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

To me, the question doesn't concern only Russia but also other peoples: f.ex. the Estonians had a chance to regain their independence and they succeeded to create a democratic state and a prosperous economy. And one of the reasons certainly is that they had never become Soviet persons at heart.  

Very true! I tend to think of both sides we see on the show as just a couple of forces in a sea of other forces. The tipping point wound up being what it was, but it's hard to point to one thing and say how things would be if it were removed--or, of course, to say which ending would have been better for everyone, especially Soviets who weren't Russian etc.

It's a bit like WWI--it started with an assassination but it wasn't a war over an assassination.

[Roseanna]

15 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Also, Tatiana put it together that Oleg had tuned on the KGB, through, partially, her misplaced trust and infatuation with him.  She didn't seem to have acted on that, until she said she didn't trust him, or the reasons for his visit.  Anyone who cared about their country would have done the same, she wasn't his judge and jury, she didn't have that kind of power, but she did have a duty to report her lack of trust in a fellow KGB officer.

Tatiana must have told her superiors that she had told Oleg and that she suspected that he had told the FBI. Otherwise, why would Oleg's home had searched after he returned home? And Arkady said to Oleg that he knew what he had done. 

[Roseanna]

7 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Very true! I tend to think of both sides we see on the show as just a couple of forces in a sea of other forces. The tipping point wound up being what it was, but it's hard to point to one thing and say how things would be if it were removed--or, of course, to say which ending would have been better for everyone, especially Soviets who weren't Russian etc.

It's a bit like WWI--it started with an assassination but it wasn't a war over an assassination.

It's not possible that the result would be "better for everyone". If your job was to teach Marxism-Leninism, there was no need for it any more. On the other hand, many of the elite who had lived a priviledged life, saved their position. 

I think that the people in the West were naive to believe that country who had never had a civil society and people who had no experience about the market economy, could miraculously become "just like us". They would have needed more help - one should have remembered that whitout it, West Germany's fate would have been different.  

[Roseanna]

16 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Also, Oleg is that he has access to special information via his father. Iirc, it's his father who told him about Petrov and what he did. Earlier his father told him that the submarine accident happened because they didn't test the propeller Philip and Elizabeth provided well enough. So he's got a unique pov as somebody inside the room of the top people. And in this case the top person is his father who also has a lot of integrity and doesn't lie about what he sees to make the top brass look better. 

Tatiana's background gives her much more reason to focus on other things and feel better about assuming the people at the other end would be able to handle what she's sending them. Oleg sees these people more as ordinary people and equals. His privilege has made it easier for him to challenge things in ways none of the other characters could start out doing.

You make a good case. However, many former Finnish Communists said that they didn't "know" what kind of country the Soviet Union really was. They could only have gone to the library to get information - but they didn't want to do it. The more honest answer was that "all my friends thought like that" - so they rejected information that would have separated them from their peer-group on which they were fully dependent.  

Therefore, I think the real difference berween Oleg and Tatiana is in character. Oleg is an individualist, Tatiana is a conformist.  

16 hours ago, Umbelina said:

My point is that Tatiana had none of those head starts, she started and succeeded without money, without connections, through hard work alone.  She didn't have a powerful daddy to help her get her jobs, or to bail her out if she broke rules.  She was a dedicated KGB officer, a true believer, and she got her bosses the results they needed, which included access to all the bioweapons their enemy, the USA, was creating.

I am not all sure that all, or even the majority of the Soviet elite, even the KGB officers, were "true belivers". On the basis how they acted after the Soviet Union fell, I think they were careeristis who did everything that was the "norm". Former Communists began to to go to the Church. Persons who had written that the USSR had alays been a peace loving country and other countries had always been wrong, now began to understand the other side and see faults in their (although only so long it was the "norm"). Diplomats who used to arrange a reception to celebrate the October Revolution, now send invitations to pre-Christmas parties.

[Umbelina]

8 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Tatiana must have told her superiors that she had told Oleg and that she suspected that he had told the FBI. Otherwise, why would Oleg's home had searched after he returned home? And Arkady said to Oleg that he knew what he had done. 

I wonder about that.

If I were her, I wouldn't have told.  After all my hard work to rise through the ranks, why would I expose that I had revealed a super top secret mission to anyone?  Remember, she didn't even tell anyone which department she worked for, Oleg guessed. 

If it were me, I might imply that Oleg may have overheard something, but I would NOT tell the KGB I had spilled my guts during orgasm afterglow.

8 hours ago, Roseanna said:

It's not possible that the result would be "better for everyone". If your job was to teach Marxism-Leninism, there was no need for it any more. On the other hand, many of the elite who had lived a priviledged life, saved their position. 

I think that the people in the West were naive to believe that country who had never had a civil society and people who had no experience about the market economy, could miraculously become "just like us". They would have needed more help - one should have remembered that whitout it, West Germany's fate would have been different.  

The west was totally shocked that the USSR collapsed, it was a very big deal that they were shocked, and the CIA was nearly disbanded because they hadn't realized it might happen.

As for the rest of us?  I'm not sure about "most."  Many of us do realize the issues with capitalism, and that the USSR collapsing was best for the wealthy world runners who really don't want the masses in control.  Even though we were happy for the people and certainly for the soviet satellite countries, and thrilled to see the wall come down, and thought that having more freedoms for the regular people would be great?  Maybe some thought they would end up just like us (which in many ways they have, the rich are rich and the poor are still poor.)

I was friends with an escapee though, and he tempered my enthusiasm quickly.  He correctly predicted there would be another Stalin-like leader sooner rather than later.  He told me the people there probably would not adjust to not having the State control everything, they were too used to it, all the way back to the Czars.  He told me they would be lost at handling it all, and that criminals, KGB, and other rich/highly placed people would prosper, but the poor or average people would be helpless.

So, it's hard to say what I thought then, I know I argued with him about it, but he was adamant, Russia would eventually long for a strong, dictator like leader.  He pointed out the day to day issues they simply would not know how to cope with.  Renting a place to live, buying your own food with your own money instead of issued coupons, finding a job, health care, all of those and more had been state-supplied as long as any of them have been alive.  I can't remember all the details, but he explained those, and many other things, like having electricity, arranging for that, or who would work in the plants, who would pay them, on and on.

8 hours ago, Roseanna said:

You make a good case. However, many former Finnish Communists said that they didn't "know" what kind of country the Soviet Union really was. They could only have gone to the library to get information - but they didn't want to do it. The more honest answer was that "all my friends thought like that" - so they rejected information that would have separated them from their peer-group on which they were fully dependent.  

Therefore, I think the real difference berween Oleg and Tatiana is in character. Oleg is an individualist, Tatiana is a conformist.  

I am not all sure that all, or even the majority of the Soviet elite, even the KGB officers, were "true belivers". On the basis how they acted after the Soviet Union fell, I think they were careeristis who did everything that was the "norm". Former Communists began to to go to the Church. Persons who had written that the USSR had alays been a peace loving country and other countries had always been wrong, now began to understand the other side and see faults in their (although only so long it was the "norm"). Diplomats who used to arrange a reception to celebrate the October Revolution, now send invitations to pre-Christmas parties.

I know you think it's character alone.  I wish you would at least consider that it was also privilege and money. 

Oleg never suffered in his life, and no matter what he did, daddy was connected and could probably make it all go away.  He had less risk, and he had more exposure to freedoms, nice food, nice private house, nice education, got to go to the USA, nice clothes, he knew the "right people."  Yes, he was a good guy, and I adored him on the show, but if he had been raised, or faced what Tatiana had faced, would he have even made it into the KGB?  Probably not honestly.  He had charm, and connections, and he was a man.  He may have simply been a factory worker or farmer, if that's what his daddy had been. 

Tatiana, on the other hand, grew up in two rooms with a big family and shared bathrooms, kitchens, hallways with several other families, not in an apartment or flat, but just in a house.  She obviously had to do very well in school, and in the party, to even be considered for the KGB.  Then, she had to work her way to a very high rank, and important trusted position.  If SHE stepped out of line or screwed up?  She'd get a bullet to the head, like Nina.  Another reason I liked her is the clothes she wore, no frivolous, or even flattering colors to accentuate her looks.  Drab, brown, professional clothing.  She didn't use sex, looks, flirting to get ahead, she used her brain, her loyalty, her professionalism.

If we switched the roles?  She may very well have been willing to buck the system, but she was doing as well as she possibly could inside the system.

Also, honestly, why should the USA, their main enemy, especially then, with Reagan constantly calling them the "evil empire" and other things, have a dangerous bio weapon, and not her country?  Aside from that, those decisions were well above her pay grade.  Her job was to get it, and not to question her superiors, who could have her killed in an instant, and probably wouldn't have one moment of regret about it.  Killing Oleg?  Bigger deal, because he was a rich kid with a powerful daddy.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Umbelina

[sistermagpie]

9 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Therefore, I think the real difference berween Oleg and Tatiana is in character. Oleg is an individualist, Tatiana is a conformist.  

 

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

I know you think it's character alone.  I wish you would at least consider that it was also privilege and money. 

 

I lean toward Umbelina on this. Oleg did clearly have a character that led him to do independent, admirable things, but from what we know of his background, his upbringing had a lot to do with that. As Umbelina said, he'd spent a life mostly avoiding the day-to-day hardships our other Russian characters dealt with. He had a sense of security they just didn't have, and also probably the confidence that comes with being part of the elite. Also his father was a man of integrity who brought his kids up to value that trait. Which in its own way probably gave him the confidence to even question his father's beliefs about things. It seems he'd even been shielded from the harsh truth about his mother's suffering, iirc, which gave him even more reason to want a more just USSR.

Tatiana's ambition was the thing that got her out of a much harder life and letting herself wonder if she was really doing the right thing, etc. would probably be something she just saw as making it harder to succeed. Of course we don't know as much about her, but we know that professional success would mean something very different to her. There's a circular logic thing there--if she wasn't so focused on success, she wouldn't be in the position to be even wondering about this.

As to whether or not she told the KGB about her suspicions about Oleg, I'm trying to remember the scene where Oleg is questioned. As I remember it, I got the impression that she hadn't told--which would make sense since she'd probably get in trouble for talking to him and might just fall under suspicion herself. The men questioning Oleg focused on Stan Beeman being part of the team that caught William. Oleg said that was just because Stan was Counterintelligence--of course he'd be part of that op. It doesn't seem like a stretch to me to think that the KGB just suspected on their own that Oleg, the guy who skedaddled out of DC right after this happened, had tipped off the FBI agent he was known to be in private communication with. Their whole relationship would probably make the KGB nervous even as they hoped to profit by it since who knows what they might do in private?

I believe they asked Oleg about Tatiana and whether she'd ever mentioned her work to him. Oleg admitted that they had an affair but said she never talked about the work. If Tatiana had told them her suspicions I'd think they would have thrown that at him and definitely not believed him. They'd made the connection from bioweapon to Tatiana to Oleg to Stan. They would have been looking for proof that secret intel was passed along it. Oleg denied passing it Stan and denied getting it from Tatiana. If Tatiana had admitted giving it to him I can't imagine he wouldn't have been toast. 

Arkady, otoh, was possibly just going by instinct based on knowing Oleg and not concerning himself with Tatiana. 

Edited November 21, 2018 by sistermagpie

[Roseanna]

2 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I wonder about that.

If I were her, I wouldn't have told.  After all my hard work to rise through the ranks, why would I expose that I had revealed a super top secret mission to anyone?  Remember, she didn't even tell anyone which department she worked for, Oleg guessed. 

If it were me, I might imply that Oleg may have overheard something, but I would NOT tell the KGB I had spilled my guts during orgasm afterglow.

 

51 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

As to whether or not she told the KGB about her suspicions about Oleg, I'm trying to remember the scene where Oleg is questioned. As I remember it, I got the impression that she hadn't told--which would make sense since she'd probably get in trouble for talking to him and might just fall under suspicion herself. The men questioning Oleg focused on Stan Beeman being part of the team that caught William. Oleg said that was just because Stan was Counterintelligence--of course he'd be part of that op. It doesn't seem like a stretch to me to think that the KGB just suspected on their own that Oleg, the guy who skedaddled out of DC right after this happened, had tipped off the FBI agent he was known to be in private communication with. Their whole relationship would probably make the KGB nervous even as they hoped to profit by it since who knows what they might do in private?

I believe they asked Oleg about Tatiana and whether she'd ever mentioned her work to him. Oleg admitted that they had an affair but said she never talked about the work. If Tatiana had told them her suspicions I'd think they would have thrown that at him and definitely not believed him. They'd made the connection from bioweapon to Tatiana to Oleg to Stan. They would have been looking for proof that secret intel was passed along it. Oleg denied passing it Stan and denied getting it from Tatiana. If Tatiana had admitted giving it to him I can't imagine he wouldn't have been toast. 

Arkady, otoh, was possibly just going by instinct based on knowing Oleg and not concerning himself with Tatiana. 

You may be right. It certainly would have been very unwise from Tatiana to tell about Oleg because she had broken the rules by telling him. And then the KGB would have been sure - now it only had suspicions and the country was no longer like it was under Stalin - they searched for proof and didn't find it (although they could have fabricated it).  

[Roseanna]

2 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Another reason I liked her is the clothes she wore, no frivolous, or even flattering colors to accentuate her looks.  Drab, brown, professional clothing.  She didn't use sex, looks, flirting to get ahead, she used her brain, her loyalty, her professionalism.

Yes, she was just like the female Soviet operative in Ninotchka and Silk Stockings but unlike them never succumbed to American luxuries, only to Oleg's sex skills. 

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

I lean toward Umbelina on this. Oleg did clearly have a character that led him to do independent, admirable things, but from what we know of his background, his upbringing had a lot to do with that. As Umbelina said, he'd spent a life mostly avoiding the day-to-day hardships our other Russian characters dealt with. He had a sense of security they just didn't have, and also probably the confidence that comes with being part of the elite. Also his father was a man of integrity who brought his kids up to value that trait. Which in its own way probably gave him the confidence to even question his father's beliefs about things. It seems he'd even been shielded from the harsh truth about his mother's suffering, iirc, which gave him even more reason to want a more just USSR.

Yes.  His upbringing was so different, they traveled, went to exclusive events, had a really nice house, and Oleg's success was assured from the moment he was born.

Good point about his moral father, I'm sure that was another important influence.  Another good point about how shielded he was from harsh realities of all kinds, but especially his mother's time in the Gulag.  Would he have been so willing to risk that fate by committing treason if he'd known, let alone with an FBI agent who could easily expose him?  If his mother had told him, or his father, about the realities of Russian prisons, would he have hesitated?

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

I believe they asked Oleg about Tatiana and whether she'd ever mentioned her work to him. Oleg admitted that they had an affair but said she never talked about the work. If Tatiana had told them her suspicions I'd think they would have thrown that at him and definitely not believed him. They'd made the connection from bioweapon to Tatiana to Oleg to Stan. They would have been looking for proof that secret intel was passed along it. Oleg denied passing it Stan and denied getting it from Tatiana. If Tatiana had admitted giving it to him I can't imagine he wouldn't have been toast. 

Yes, I think so too.  I'm so bummed we got all those new people in season 5, but nothing of Tatiana, because I found her fascinating.  She was a unique character, and could have been a great counterpoint to Granny's talk about women and equal rights in Russia, or even how the average person really lived.

8 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

You may be right. It certainly would have been very unwise from Tatiana to tell about Oleg because she had broken the rules by telling him. And then the KGB would have been sure - now it only had suspicions and the country was no longer like it was under Stalin - they searched for proof and didn't find it (although they could have fabricated it).  

Stalin was gone, and the mass round ups of innocents, and many of the Gulags were gone, but certainly not all.  Lubyanka continued in it's torture, and we saw soviet justice when Nina was killed. 

Tatiana may have faced the same fate.  Oleg, were he from Tatiana's background, would have as well.  If not for daddy, Oleg's polite questioning would have been quite different, he would almost certainly be imprisoned for questioning, and I'd bet torture would have been part of that.  His daddy, and his dead brother, his daddy's only other son, REALLY protected Oleg.

6 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Yes, she was just like the female Soviet operative in Ninotchka and Silk Stockings but unlike them never succumbed to American luxuries, only to Oleg's sex skills. 

I think it was mutual with Oleg and Tatiana, he wasn't using her to find information after all, they were just two attractive people who got along, and took it to the next step.

She was very attractive, but honestly, I rarely noticed that unless I really looked.  She hid it, and I admired her for that, she obviously used skills alone to get ahead.

[sistermagpie]

55 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Good point about his moral father, I'm sure that was another important influence.  Another good point about how shielded he was from harsh realities of all kinds, but especially his mother's time in the Gulag.  Would he have been so willing to risk that fate by committing treason if he'd known, let alone with an FBI agent who could easily expose him?  If his mother had told him, or his father, about the realities of Russian prisons, would he have hesitated?

I imagine it was especially important that he learned about it as an adult when he already had his own pov on things. If he'd grown up with the idea it might have shaped him, made him fear that, or just made him feel differently. Instead, iirc, he learns about it when he's already getting frustrated with things and he's already felt they went to hard on Nina etc. So it becomes part of that.

Philip, too, learns about his family's intimate associate with the camps late in life, having been shielded from it to an extent. And he basically does the same thing--he takes that information and puts it in the context of what he's already feeling, that he's a person just part of the problem. He joined the oppressors. 

[Roseanna]

9 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Another good point about how shielded he was from harsh realities of all kinds, but especially his mother's time in the Gulag.  Would he have been so willing to risk that fate by committing treason if he'd known, let alone with an FBI agent who could easily expose him?  If his mother had told him, or his father, about the realities of Russian prisons, would he have hesitated?

It could influence both ways. There were families that opposition was tradition, sometimes since 19th century.

We were told nothing about Oleg's friends: after returning home he had only work and his parents although in the US he seemed a quy who made friends easily. The friends he had as youth were hardly dissidents, but in any case living in Moscow (or Leningrad) was different than growing up in the periphery like P&E and probably Nina and Tatiana.

[Roseanna]

9 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Stalin was gone, and the mass round ups of innocents, and many of the Gulags were gone, but certainly not all.  Lubyanka continued in it's torture, and we saw soviet justice when Nina was killed. 

Yes, but Nina was guilty in the eyes of law. During Stalin's time, people were condemned for treason or sabotage that they hadn't committed. No proof wasn't needed. And the infamous paragraph 58 could be interpreted in such a way that there wasn't people who couldn't be condemned if needed. 

But when Andropov was the head of the KGB, his tactics was prevention: when a person was warned of consequences, it was often enough. If not, she at least took the risk knowingly.    

[Roseanna]

8 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I imagine it was especially important that he learned about it as an adult when he already had his own pov on things. If he'd grown up with the idea it might have shaped him, made him fear that, or just made him feel differently. Instead, iirc, he learns about it when he's already getting frustrated with things and he's already felt they went to hard on Nina etc. So it becomes part of that.

Philip, too, learns about his family's intimate associate with the camps late in life, having been shielded from it to an extent. And he basically does the same thing--he takes that information and puts it in the context of what he's already feeling, that he's a person just part of the problem. He joined the oppressors. 

Yes, it's essential that both learned only as adults. 

Nadezda Mandelstam said that when asked people about One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch of Solzehnitsyn, the answer told also the past of a person and that of her family. It was natural that families of prisoners and guards had a different view. Only, in the Soviet Union a guard could become a prisoner, or vice versa. And of course there were hardliners who believed in Stalin even before the execution team.