8 ms·

The implication of CIA having high confidence and NSA having moderate confidence was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals int

The implication of CIA having high confidence and NSA having moderate confidence was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence. This makes it more difficult to show proof. What kind of proof would be sufficient enough to be convincing, without burning the source? I cannot think of a good answer to that question, although I truly wish they did figure out a way to declassify some of the evidence used to create their judgements. > not the typical product of intelligence analysis under any circumstances. This statement is untrue. That release is absolutely what an Intelligence Community Assessment looks like. Other declassified ICAs are public, so you do not even need to take my word for it.

grandalf 10y ago
> was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence. My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence. The closest thing to evidence was blaming an individual in the Ukraine for allegedly acting at the behest of the Russian government. In order to be credible, the analysis would have to offer a sense of what Russia/Putin's alleged strategic mindset was. How did he benefit from the overwhelmingly likely event that HRC got elected and revelations that Russia meddled came out? One must believe not only that Putin meddled, but that he saw Trump's victory as a sure thing and worth risking escalation over. It seems likely that if someone like HRC or McCain had been in office, retaliatory military action by the US might have occurred.
- willstrafach 10y ago
  Personally I do not have enough knowledge on the circumstances to credibly argue one way or another with regards to the alleged meddling. > My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence. This is not the case. The declassified version only had open source evidence. In combination with the fact that the general public is not going to know how exactly to read an ICA or read between the lines, the release was not very helpful, as it understandably lead many to think that they were presenting their full case, rather than the reality of "evidence is too sensitive so here is some analysis of RT!" being what they put in the ICA. Definitely not a good strategy, as I said, this would have been far better for critical discussion if they figured out a way to declassify actual evidence.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    > this would have been far better for critical discussion if they figured out a way to declassify actual evidence. True. I think it's very important in situations like this to recall how the alleged evidence for the Iraq war turned out not to exist. The methods used by intelligence agencies are far from infallible.
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  This is not a reasonable conclusion. It seems clear that Russia felt it didn't have much to lose, given their behavior prior to the election, including their own fiery rhetoric. And, the notion that we would have "likely" engaged militarily is not only unfounded, it is highly improbable. Russia's strategic mindset and their method for waging war has been oft-repeated by the intelligence community, foreign policy experts, and pretty much anyone whose job it is to assess these things. It's easy to find. But, you honestly don't seem to believe anything from those who express concern for U.S. national interest in this matter, unless it comes from Trump, of course.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    > the notion that we would have "likely" engaged militarily is not only unfounded, it is highly improbable. I think you are mistaken about this. There was great disagreement between Obama and HRC on how to handle Russia, and many such as McCain (and HRC) felt that the US lost a key opportunity to forcefully stop Russia from conducting mischief in Europe and the middle east. All that was needed, as HRC was days away from being sworn in, was the right triggering event. I think HRC's team began the high intensity Russia-blaming while still under the impression that HRC would be commander in chief very soon.
    - unclebucknasty 10y ago
      Possibly. If you ignore the fact that your claim is pure conjecture that departs sharply from our history of dealing with Russia. Moreover, confronting Russia militarily over election-hacking would have been a strikingly disproportionate response. On the other hand, you seem to be ignoring Russia's rhetoric and posturing at the time. And, also the fact that they'd already invaded a sovereign nation. Instead, you've managed to turn it all around to paint those in the U.S. who expressed concern over Russia's agression as the actual aggressors. And you've combined that stance with intense scrutiny of U.S. intelligence conclusions that seem to perfectly explain Trump's otherwise inexplicable behavior. Now, why is that?
      - grandalf 10y ago
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  > My read of it Here's some reading material that you missed: https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE-Russian-Malicious-Cyber-Activity https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE... https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ... http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html https://www.threatconnect.com/guccifer-2-0-dnc-hack-fancy-bears/ https://www.threatconnect.com/guccifer-2-0-dnc-hack-fancy-be... > One must believe not only that Putin meddled, but that he saw Trump's victory as a sure thing and worth risking escalation over. Or that he wanted to delegitimize the Clinton presidency. > It seems likely that if someone like HRC or McCain had been in office, retaliatory military action by the US might have occurred. Nonsense. Increased economic sanctions are more effective against Russia's failing petroeconomy.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    The attribution of those hacks did not implicate Russia and especially did not implicate Putin. There may be other, secret evidence that does, but it was not revealed to the public for scrutiny. I think it goes without saying that Russia engages in mischief around the world in ways that hinder the US, and the US does the same to Russia. Nothing about this is a sudden, triggering event that calls for military strikes (as McCain has called them an "act of war"). The notable aspect of all this is not that it happened, but that it is being framed with the same "we must unseat Saddam immediately" urgency that we have seen before when warmongers try to manipulate our judgment. A lot of people risked their lives to end the cold war. I can think of few things more irresponsible than fanning the flames of a minor incident to the point where someone like McCain is calling for military retaliation (which he effectively did). It could be argued that a stronger bluff was needed against Russia over the Caucuses or Crimea, but that ship has sailed and the opportunity was lost. We can count on US hawks to try to turn any event into a trigger, but that doesn't mean it is a big deal or that it represents a threat to US national security.
    - lern_too_spel 10y ago
      > The attribution of those hacks did not implicate Russia They absolutely did implicate Russia. Read them again. The rest of your post is bloviating about a military escalation that exists only in your mind.

grandalf 10y ago

> was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence. My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence. The closest thing to evidence was blaming an individual in the Ukraine for allegedly acting at the behest of the Russian government. In order to be credible, the analysis would have to offer a sense of what Russia/Putin's alleged strategic mindset was. How did he benefit from the overwhelmingly likely event that HRC got elected and revelations that Russia meddled came out? One must believe not only that Putin meddled, but that he saw Trump's victory as a sure thing and worth risking escalation over. It seems likely that if someone like HRC or McCain had been in office, retaliatory military action by the US might have occurred.

willstrafach 10y ago
Personally I do not have enough knowledge on the circumstances to credibly argue one way or another with regards to the alleged meddling. > My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence. This is not the case. The declassified version only had open source evidence. In combination with the fact that the general public is not going to know how exactly to read an ICA or read between the lines, the release was not very helpful, as it understandably lead many to think that they were presenting their full case, rather than the reality of "evidence is too sensitive so here is some analysis of RT!" being what they put in the ICA. Definitely not a good strategy, as I said, this would have been far better for critical discussion if they figured out a way to declassify actual evidence.
- grandalf 10y ago
  > this would have been far better for critical discussion if they figured out a way to declassify actual evidence. True. I think it's very important in situations like this to recall how the alleged evidence for the Iraq war turned out not to exist. The methods used by intelligence agencies are far from infallible.
unclebucknasty 10y ago
This is not a reasonable conclusion. It seems clear that Russia felt it didn't have much to lose, given their behavior prior to the election, including their own fiery rhetoric. And, the notion that we would have "likely" engaged militarily is not only unfounded, it is highly improbable. Russia's strategic mindset and their method for waging war has been oft-repeated by the intelligence community, foreign policy experts, and pretty much anyone whose job it is to assess these things. It's easy to find. But, you honestly don't seem to believe anything from those who express concern for U.S. national interest in this matter, unless it comes from Trump, of course.
- grandalf 10y ago
  > the notion that we would have "likely" engaged militarily is not only unfounded, it is highly improbable. I think you are mistaken about this. There was great disagreement between Obama and HRC on how to handle Russia, and many such as McCain (and HRC) felt that the US lost a key opportunity to forcefully stop Russia from conducting mischief in Europe and the middle east. All that was needed, as HRC was days away from being sworn in, was the right triggering event. I think HRC's team began the high intensity Russia-blaming while still under the impression that HRC would be commander in chief very soon.
  - unclebucknasty 10y ago
    Possibly. If you ignore the fact that your claim is pure conjecture that departs sharply from our history of dealing with Russia. Moreover, confronting Russia militarily over election-hacking would have been a strikingly disproportionate response. On the other hand, you seem to be ignoring Russia's rhetoric and posturing at the time. And, also the fact that they'd already invaded a sovereign nation. Instead, you've managed to turn it all around to paint those in the U.S. who expressed concern over Russia's agression as the actual aggressors. And you've combined that stance with intense scrutiny of U.S. intelligence conclusions that seem to perfectly explain Trump's otherwise inexplicable behavior. Now, why is that?
    - grandalf 10y ago
lern_too_spel 10y ago
> My read of it Here's some reading material that you missed: https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE-Russian-Malicious-Cyber-Activity https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE... https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ... http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html https://www.threatconnect.com/guccifer-2-0-dnc-hack-fancy-bears/ https://www.threatconnect.com/guccifer-2-0-dnc-hack-fancy-be... > One must believe not only that Putin meddled, but that he saw Trump's victory as a sure thing and worth risking escalation over. Or that he wanted to delegitimize the Clinton presidency. > It seems likely that if someone like HRC or McCain had been in office, retaliatory military action by the US might have occurred. Nonsense. Increased economic sanctions are more effective against Russia's failing petroeconomy.
- grandalf 10y ago
  The attribution of those hacks did not implicate Russia and especially did not implicate Putin. There may be other, secret evidence that does, but it was not revealed to the public for scrutiny. I think it goes without saying that Russia engages in mischief around the world in ways that hinder the US, and the US does the same to Russia. Nothing about this is a sudden, triggering event that calls for military strikes (as McCain has called them an "act of war"). The notable aspect of all this is not that it happened, but that it is being framed with the same "we must unseat Saddam immediately" urgency that we have seen before when warmongers try to manipulate our judgment. A lot of people risked their lives to end the cold war. I can think of few things more irresponsible than fanning the flames of a minor incident to the point where someone like McCain is calling for military retaliation (which he effectively did). It could be argued that a stronger bluff was needed against Russia over the Caucuses or Crimea, but that ship has sailed and the opportunity was lost. We can count on US hawks to try to turn any event into a trigger, but that doesn't mean it is a big deal or that it represents a threat to US national security.
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    > The attribution of those hacks did not implicate Russia They absolutely did implicate Russia. Read them again. The rest of your post is bloviating about a military escalation that exists only in your mind.