3 ms·
So if I'm understanding the article correctly, they didn't find much in the way of specific evidence that Russia was interfering in (say) the Brexit referendum
by makomk 6y ago
So if I'm understanding the article correctly, they didn't find much in the way of specific evidence that Russia was interfering in (say) the Brexit referendum and they're blaming it on the government and security services not looking hard enough? This feels like it's getting worryingly into conspiracy theory territory, especially given the quality of the publicly available claims of Russian interference which this appears to be referencing as proof there must be something there.
Edit: OK, I'm reading through the actual report now and it doesn't reassure. They literally reference the Buzzfeed "From Russia With Blood" piece which relies on the idea that Russia are so good at disguising killings that any death of a Russian-linked person - anything from a heart attack to a suicide of someone showing signs of depression who had made previous attempts - is in fact probably an assasination. This is well into conspiracy theory territory; it's basically unfalsifiable.
Also, it's clear from the report that they know the UK intelligence agencies had a lot of other work on their hands regarding the terrorist threat, and this consumed a substantial amount of the resources that would previously have been dedicated to Russia, so to attribute this to the intelligence services supposedly not wanting to know about Russian interference seems itself like an attempt to interfere with the UK political process.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoThey didnt find because they avoided looking very hard. Because uk leave vote is such a sensitive issue politically.
- cameronbrown 6y agoThat's circular logic.
- Traster 6y agoNo it's not. "I didn't find my keys, because I didn't look" isn't circular logic, it's cause and effect. It doesn't mean you'll find your keys if you do look. Circular logic is when you tell me "I'm not going to look for my keys, because there's no evidence that I can find them" - of course you can't find them if you don't look. Which is the official government line: >The UK government rejected the committee's call for a full assessment by intelligence agencies of potential Russian meddling in the 2016 referendum, saying it had "seen no evidence of successful interference". They won't investigate, because there's no evidence, and there's no evidence because they chose to ignore the evidence at the time of the referendum - as found by this report. To bring us back to the key analogy - "I've been walking around with my eyes closed and haven't found my keys, so clearly I shouldn't look for my keys, because I haven't found my keys"