3 ms·

> Obama telling Putin to "cut it out" isn't enough. No matter what is happening behind the scenes. Our next president might not even go that far. The article s

by tjfl 10y ago

> Obama telling Putin to "cut it out" isn't enough. No matter what is happening behind the scenes. Our next president might not even go that far. The article states, "Eventually they discovered that the Russian-speaking hacker..." I'd like to see more than a Russian-speaking hacker before attributing this to the Russian government.

akhilcacharya 10y ago
I'm sure there's a reason why the US intelligence agencies are saying the latter instead of the former for other breaches.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- pbz 10y ago
  That may be the case, but should we really just take their word without evidence?
  - akhilcacharya 10y ago
    Because there's no real counter evidence, and these are agencies that are tasked with finding this out as their job? I'll trust the CIA over the FSB/GRU any day of the week.
    - Gargoyle 10y ago
      >I'll trust the CIA over the FSB/GRU any day of the week. Perhaps, but that's irrelevant to the issue of attribution at this point.
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      "There is no real public counter evidence that there aren't WMDs in Iraq, and these are agencies that are tasked with finding this out as their job"
    - boomboomsubban 10y ago
      Their job is to find it out who did this, informing the US population is not part of their job and quite often is counter productive. Don't trust any of them, your interests are more similar to a Russian civilian than any of the agencies.
    - int_19h 10y ago
      Most importantly, there is a very strong motive for Russia specifically to do so. And the rhetoric of the Trump administration, both before and after the election, bears it out. Most tellingly, there was exactly one thing that Trump asked to change in the then-preliminary GOP platform when he became the party's candidate - and that was the stance on Ukraine. The original document included language such as "lethal defensive weapons" - which was what Republicans in the Congress were demanding from Obama ever since the occupation of Crimea - and then it became the much more vague "appropriate assistance". To Russia, this is crucial, because its ability to wage successful "undercover war" in Ukraine hinges significantly on its technological superiority. For example, by supplying the local militias with new and shiny tanks with modern reactive armor (and some "vacationing" drivers and gunners), they significantly diminish AT capabilities of Ukrainian infantry; and in a war where both sides are unable or unwilling to use the air force, armor is the next best thing when it comes to close infantry support. But if Ukrainian troops were to get, say, Javelins (the single most asked thing by them to date), that would change matters a lot. And it's not that Russia couldn't crush Ukrainian army, such as it is, in a head-on confrontation, Javelins or not. It's just that it would be too overt for plausible deniability.

by tjfl 10y ago

akhilcacharya 10y ago

I'm sure there's a reason why the US intelligence agencies are saying the latter instead of the former for other breaches.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pbz 10y ago
That may be the case, but should we really just take their word without evidence?
- akhilcacharya 10y ago
  Because there's no real counter evidence, and these are agencies that are tasked with finding this out as their job? I'll trust the CIA over the FSB/GRU any day of the week.
  - Gargoyle 10y ago
    >I'll trust the CIA over the FSB/GRU any day of the week. Perhaps, but that's irrelevant to the issue of attribution at this point.
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    "There is no real public counter evidence that there aren't WMDs in Iraq, and these are agencies that are tasked with finding this out as their job"
  - boomboomsubban 10y ago
    Their job is to find it out who did this, informing the US population is not part of their job and quite often is counter productive. Don't trust any of them, your interests are more similar to a Russian civilian than any of the agencies.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    Most importantly, there is a very strong motive for Russia specifically to do so. And the rhetoric of the Trump administration, both before and after the election, bears it out. Most tellingly, there was exactly one thing that Trump asked to change in the then-preliminary GOP platform when he became the party's candidate - and that was the stance on Ukraine. The original document included language such as "lethal defensive weapons" - which was what Republicans in the Congress were demanding from Obama ever since the occupation of Crimea - and then it became the much more vague "appropriate assistance". To Russia, this is crucial, because its ability to wage successful "undercover war" in Ukraine hinges significantly on its technological superiority. For example, by supplying the local militias with new and shiny tanks with modern reactive armor (and some "vacationing" drivers and gunners), they significantly diminish AT capabilities of Ukrainian infantry; and in a war where both sides are unable or unwilling to use the air force, armor is the next best thing when it comes to close infantry support. But if Ukrainian troops were to get, say, Javelins (the single most asked thing by them to date), that would change matters a lot. And it's not that Russia couldn't crush Ukrainian army, such as it is, in a head-on confrontation, Javelins or not. It's just that it would be too overt for plausible deniability.