5 ms·

That's just it, doing something unbelievably stupid for marginal gain is the Russian M.O. right now. There are still people in hazmat suits cleaning up leftover

That's just it, doing something unbelievably stupid for marginal gain is the Russian M.O. right now. There are still people in hazmat suits cleaning up leftover nerve agent in Salisbury.

rdiddly 8y ago
There is good reason to doubt the Skripal story -- among other things the apparent lack of hard evidence, the absence of any discernible upside for Russia the purported perpetrators, and the already-existing climate of relentless and politically convenient warmongering against Russia for going on 2-3 years now. If Russia is being set up for military attack, then we're currently seeing a propaganda campaign pretty similar to many others. Fool me once... shame on me etc. How do you know I'm wrong? You heard it from one of those same sources? I'm not saying I would outright believe RT or any of Putin's outlets either, but that's exactly the point: a healthy dose of skepticism is called for.
- wafflebear 8y ago
  Do you dispute that Russia poisoned Litvinenko as well? Enemies of the Russian state just seem to be poisoned by incredibly rare substances every now and again.
  - rdiddly 8y ago
    I don't know much about that case, but a cursory read on Wikipedia (which could itself be biased and/or misinformed) is a bit more convincing than the Skripal case. Nonetheless we're getting pretty far afield. Select two incidents where any nation has killed its double-agents or whistleblowers (and I doubt there are any nations that lavish fond treatment on their double-agents in particular), and you now have evidence against that country equivalent to that upon which you declared Russia the only possible country brazen enough to carry out these two embassy attacks (assuming they were attacks).
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Select two Skripal, Litvinenko, Gorbuntsov, Perepilichnyy and others. Not two.
      - rdiddly 8y ago
        The person I'm conversing with mentioned two, and based on that, concluded Russia is the #1 suspect here, and the only country brazen enough to do it. All you have to do is pick two assassinations by any other country, and that country is now equally brazen. The point is that the statement is weak, not that there have been two assassinations in history. Get it now?
- favorited 8y ago
  > politically convenient warmongering against Russia for going on 2-3 years now You realize Russia has invaded (and annexed territory from) multiple neighboring sovereign nations over the last 10 years? The idea that the west is simply posturing to set up a war with Russia while Russia is starting actual wars is laughable.
  - lawnchair_larry 8y ago
    They actually haven’t done that. There are other sides to both of those stories that are pretty well supported and make for a far simpler and more straightforward explanation. It’s politically unpopular to discuss that though. Even floating the idea that there might be a rational explanation is enough to invite knee-jerk downvotes and accusations of being a fake Russian troll account. I find it quite bizarre.
    - rdiddly 8y ago
      Doubly so, given that the amount of digging required is so very minimal!
  - rdiddly 8y ago
    Your haughtiness really doesn't improve or bolster your point. Google "Victoria Nuland Viktor Yanukovich regime change" together for some examples of contrary information. Hillary's State Dept. (Nuland et al) destabilized the Ukraine in the first place (2014), to get rid of Yanukovych (duly and democratically elected by a sovereign nation), who maybe coincidentally had previously been leaning toward joining the Russian/Asian trade & cooperation zone instead of NATO. Hmm interesting. Kiev soon turns into a neo-Nazi shitshow. Crimea, made up almost entirely of ethnic and linguistic Russians, holds a referendum and votes to join Russia. "There's a big powerful country with a big military next door, that we used to be a part of anyway, that can protect us from neo-Nazis and US meddling alike? Huzzah, welcome the tanks!" For Russia it's their best shot at a warm-water port, so I agree it is a bit convenient for them. But think about what the US would do if Russia toppled, say, Ontario. Do we let foreign governments create failed states on our borders? We almost started WW3 over Cuba.
  - 8y ago
exelius 8y ago
I don’t know it’s so much Russia’s MO as the result of a decentralized Russian intelligence community that overlaps heavily with criminal elements. So some Russian mafia cell may be spying on Americans hoping Putin throws some legitimate business their way if they prove their worth by murdering a defector with some poison they “found”. The downside to this structure is that you have rogue agents you can’t control. The upside is that clandestine operations are very difficult to uncover if nobody in Russia knows about it.
lawnchair_larry 8y ago
As a general rule, if you ever think an adversary is is doing something unbelievably stupid for marginal gain, you should be worried, because it’s a good indication that you’re the stupid one and going to make a stupid mistake. They either had nothing to do with it, or they did have something to do with it and it was for good reasons (good for them, not us) that we don’t understand. But them doing it because they are stupid is probably not one of the explanations.

That's just it, doing something unbelievably stupid for marginal gain is the Russian M.O. right now. There are still people in hazmat suits cleaning up leftover nerve agent in Salisbury.

rdiddly 8y ago

There is good reason to doubt the Skripal story -- among other things the apparent lack of hard evidence, the absence of any discernible upside for Russia the purported perpetrators, and the already-existing climate of relentless and politically convenient warmongering against Russia for going on 2-3 years now. If Russia is being set up for military attack, then we're currently seeing a propaganda campaign pretty similar to many others. Fool me once... shame on me etc. How do you know I'm wrong? You heard it from one of those same sources? I'm not saying I would outright believe RT or any of Putin's outlets either, but that's exactly the point: a healthy dose of skepticism is called for.

wafflebear 8y ago
Do you dispute that Russia poisoned Litvinenko as well? Enemies of the Russian state just seem to be poisoned by incredibly rare substances every now and again.
- rdiddly 8y ago
  I don't know much about that case, but a cursory read on Wikipedia (which could itself be biased and/or misinformed) is a bit more convincing than the Skripal case. Nonetheless we're getting pretty far afield. Select two incidents where any nation has killed its double-agents or whistleblowers (and I doubt there are any nations that lavish fond treatment on their double-agents in particular), and you now have evidence against that country equivalent to that upon which you declared Russia the only possible country brazen enough to carry out these two embassy attacks (assuming they were attacks).
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Select two Skripal, Litvinenko, Gorbuntsov, Perepilichnyy and others. Not two.
    - rdiddly 8y ago
      The person I'm conversing with mentioned two, and based on that, concluded Russia is the #1 suspect here, and the only country brazen enough to do it. All you have to do is pick two assassinations by any other country, and that country is now equally brazen. The point is that the statement is weak, not that there have been two assassinations in history. Get it now?
favorited 8y ago
> politically convenient warmongering against Russia for going on 2-3 years now You realize Russia has invaded (and annexed territory from) multiple neighboring sovereign nations over the last 10 years? The idea that the west is simply posturing to set up a war with Russia while Russia is starting actual wars is laughable.
- lawnchair_larry 8y ago
  They actually haven’t done that. There are other sides to both of those stories that are pretty well supported and make for a far simpler and more straightforward explanation. It’s politically unpopular to discuss that though. Even floating the idea that there might be a rational explanation is enough to invite knee-jerk downvotes and accusations of being a fake Russian troll account. I find it quite bizarre.
  - rdiddly 8y ago
    Doubly so, given that the amount of digging required is so very minimal!
- rdiddly 8y ago
  Your haughtiness really doesn't improve or bolster your point. Google "Victoria Nuland Viktor Yanukovich regime change" together for some examples of contrary information. Hillary's State Dept. (Nuland et al) destabilized the Ukraine in the first place (2014), to get rid of Yanukovych (duly and democratically elected by a sovereign nation), who maybe coincidentally had previously been leaning toward joining the Russian/Asian trade & cooperation zone instead of NATO. Hmm interesting. Kiev soon turns into a neo-Nazi shitshow. Crimea, made up almost entirely of ethnic and linguistic Russians, holds a referendum and votes to join Russia. "There's a big powerful country with a big military next door, that we used to be a part of anyway, that can protect us from neo-Nazis and US meddling alike? Huzzah, welcome the tanks!" For Russia it's their best shot at a warm-water port, so I agree it is a bit convenient for them. But think about what the US would do if Russia toppled, say, Ontario. Do we let foreign governments create failed states on our borders? We almost started WW3 over Cuba.
- 8y ago

exelius 8y ago

I don’t know it’s so much Russia’s MO as the result of a decentralized Russian intelligence community that overlaps heavily with criminal elements. So some Russian mafia cell may be spying on Americans hoping Putin throws some legitimate business their way if they prove their worth by murdering a defector with some poison they “found”. The downside to this structure is that you have rogue agents you can’t control. The upside is that clandestine operations are very difficult to uncover if nobody in Russia knows about it.

lawnchair_larry 8y ago

As a general rule, if you ever think an adversary is is doing something unbelievably stupid for marginal gain, you should be worried, because it’s a good indication that you’re the stupid one and going to make a stupid mistake. They either had nothing to do with it, or they did have something to do with it and it was for good reasons (good for them, not us) that we don’t understand. But them doing it because they are stupid is probably not one of the explanations.