8 ms·

> The FSB, which serves as Russia’s internal intelligence agency, said it conducted its operation at the request of US authorities This needs to be understood

• brotoss 5y ago
  Elaborate?
  • boringg 5y ago
    Good that they are cracking down on ransomware gangs; bad that they are looming over an invasion of ukraine.
    • denton-scratch 5y ago
      The US made an agreement under George HW Bush that they would not extend the boundaries of the NATO area beyond West(!) Germany. They now have troops in places bordering Russia, like Poland. It's not really surprising the Russians have tooled-up. And it's worth noting that the Russian troops are all still in Russia (apart from the troops in Crimea, and the surrogates in eastern Ukraine). I'm not for a moment trying to defend Russian bellicosity in Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea. I'm just noting that it's understandable, given repeated Western violations of promises and treaties. Treaties signed by the USA, in particular, might as well be used toilet-paper (ask Iran).
      • denton-scratch 5y ago
        Wow, first time I ever got a maximum -4 downvote (maybe many more). Maybe it was because of rude remarks about toilet-paper. Well, hands up - it was phrased provocatively. Sorry.
      • boringg 5y ago
        I'm not making any opinion - I'm merely answering the question about what OP was referring to the confused question asker.
      • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > US made an agreement under George HW Bush that they would not extend the boundaries of the NATO area beyond West(!) Germany This isn’t fully true. It’s been alleged. But Gorbachev has publicly admitted he has no memory of it. There were no agreements signed nor even public statements made backing it up. Which is strange since the U.S. and USSR did sign a memorandum on Germany’s reunification, in the context of which this supposed agreement was made. All of which is irrelevant given Russia signed the Budapest memorandum in 1994, an actual treaty, not some secret handshake hocus pocus, which Putin is presently violating. So it’s weird for it to be waiving the flag of broken agreements.
        • itchyjunk 5y ago
          Is UN supposed to enforce treaties? I suppose treaties aren't really legal contracts but some type of metal legal contract where nations themselves are legal persons? Is there a list of treaty breach being enforced in some way? I suppose sanctions are how they generally do it, right?
          • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
            > Is UN supposed to enforce treaties? No. It’s supposed to “enforce” treaties signed under its auspices, but even that requires SC approval, which any member can veto.
          • denton-scratch 5y ago
            International treaties generally set out on their face what remedies there are for violations. The WTO is often the forum for resolving problems with trade treaties. Multilateral treaties are often formed under UN auspices, so that (e.g.) the IMO regulates mulilateral maritime agreements. But in general, I think the assumption is that parties enter into international treaties because both parties reckon the agreement to be a "win". I'm not aware of anyone ever trying to enforce a mutual-defence treaty - if you violate one of those, I think people just take it that the treaty is over. There's no "international law", as such; there's just a web of agreements.
        • eukgoekoko 5y ago
      • zhdc1 5y ago
        > The US made an agreement under George HW Bush that they would not extend the boundaries of the NATO area beyond West(!) Germany. Is this what you're talking about? https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconceptions-debate-russia/myth-03-russia-was-promised-nato-would-not-enlarge https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconception... > However, Gorbachev neither asked for nor was given any formal guarantees that there would be no further expansion of NATO beyond the territory of a united Germany.34 The issue was not even under discussion at NATO at the time, since the Warsaw Pact and the USSR were both still in existence. Even if the Warsaw Pact’s days were clearly numbered, there was no expectation in Western capitals in the autumn of 1990 that the USSR would collapse a year later. Compare with https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russia-a-nato-member/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russia... > As early as December 1991, Russian President Boris Yeltsin wrote to NATO leaders saying that his country would join the Alliance some time in the future. Yeltsin’s successor Vladimir Putin, hinted during his first presidential term that Russia could become a full fledged member of the Atlantic Alliance.
      • raverbashing 5y ago
        So, is the 1994 security agreement about the withdraw of nuclear weapons from Ukraine and signed by Russia toilet-paper as well? They are the only signatary that actually violated Ukraine's territorial integrity.
      • daanlo 5y ago
        As far as I am aware there is no signed international agreement that NATO would not extend into Eastern European countries like Ukraine. This is wishful thinking on behalf of Putin and an attempt to put themselves into a victim role. If Russia wants less NATO troops close to their borders then they should consider not invading their neighbours.
        • ener 5y ago
          NATO bases appeared at Russia's borders way before any invasion happened. In fact, all NATO furtherance's were done at the time when Russia was in its weakest state, democratic and still trying to play nice to the West.
      • openasocket 5y ago
        It should be made clear that the promise not to extend the boundaries of NATO was an informal understanding, it was not written into any treaty, and was made by someone without the authority to ensure that would actually happen. JCPOA aside, there's plenty of treaty-breaking that Russia has engaged in. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine wound up with a large supply of nuclear weapons on its soil, making it the country with the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile. Ukraine agreed to give up those nuclear weapons to Russia, on the condition that Russia not violate its territorial sovereignty, in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The annexation of Crimea is a clear violation of that agreement (maybe Ukraine will ask for its nukes back). There's also the INF treaty, which the Russians violated with variants of their Iskander missile system. Granted, the Trump administration decided to piss in the proverbial swimming pool rather than try to get Russia back into compliance, but Russia did genuinely start this. > And it's worth noting that the Russian troops are all still in Russia (apart from the troops in Crimea, and the surrogates in eastern Ukraine). To be clear, more than a few Russian soldiers have been captured in eastern Ukraine, it's not just surrogates fighting. > I'm not for a moment trying to defend Russian bellicosity in Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea. I'm just noting that it's understandable, given repeated Western violations of promises and treaties. I really don't see how military actions in those places is "understandable," in the context of "Western violations". Annexing Crimea did nothing to improve Russia's security against NATO. If anything it hurt Russia's place in the international community and hardened NATO against it. Keep in mind that they didn't annex Crimea because Ukraine was thinking of joining NATO, it's because they were thinking of joining the EU. This isn't about security concerns, this is about maintaining regional hegemony over Eastern Europe.
        • denton-scratch 5y ago
          > Annexing Crimea did nothing to improve Russia's security against NATO. Really? Russia's naval base at Sevastopol is in the Crimea. That's a very large naval base, and provides their only naval access to the Mediterranean. In order to station an old carrier off the shore of Syria, they had to sail it from the Baltic, through the English Channel, round through the Straits of Gibraltar. That must have been pretty humiliating. It would have been smart for Ukraine to negotiate something with Russia giving them the right to continue using that naval base.
      • julius_deane 5y ago
        > Russian troops are still in Russia except the ones that are not. ayyy, the gymnastics > I'm not defending... nah, you're excusing
        • denton-scratch 5y ago
          > nah, you're excusing You can put it that way, if you like ad-hominem attacks based on forged "quotes". I'm actually pretty angry with Russian military incursions into their neighbours, and I'm glad they withdrew quickly from Kazakhstan. But I think NATO should have disbanded when the Warsaw Pact disbanded. It has no business operating in e.g. the Middle East. The West has acted provocatively, and it's no surprise if Russia is provoked.
          • julius_deane 5y ago
            are we still talking about the current time invasion of ukraine or are we going to what-about this thread?
  • eganist 5y ago
    Rus: "We'll support you with your interests if you at the very least turn a blind eye to ours" That's my naive read, anyway.
    • easy_rider_2137 5y ago
      Russia, not Rus. Rus and Russia are two totally different things.
      • meepmorp 5y ago
        Maybe OP is suggesting Putin wants to restore the medieval glory of Kievan Rus',
        • easy_rider_2137 5y ago
          That would be like Islandia resurrecting British Empire. Literally, well maybe actually Islandia has more right to do so than Russia have anything to do with Rus'.
      • usr1106 5y ago
        RUS is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_vehicle_registration_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_vehicle_registra... of Russia, I cannot see anything wrong with that. No idea what Rus might be.
        • eganist 5y ago
          In fairness, I should've contracted even further to the ISO 3166 code "RU" Vehicle codes are only slightly less clear than the ISO codes, but they're used in a surprising number of places, like international sports. Edit: Oh wait, I'm mis-speaking. Sports tend to use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-3, which includes RUS So yeah, I guess I don't feel bad.
        • madars 5y ago
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27
  • pluc 5y ago
    Russia doesn't usually care much about its nationals hacking outside of its borders.
• shin_lao 5y ago
  More like the US put a gun on Russian head and told them "we can hurt you more than you can hurt us". Russia infrastructure is old and the country is very corrupt. Wouldn't be surprised there was a "proof of concept" to show they mean business.
  • coldtea 5y ago
    >More like the US put a gun on Russian head and told them "we can hurt you more than you can hurt us". 2022 US? Yeah, the President's geriatrician is right on it...
  • birdyrooster 5y ago
    Especially considering the support US is giving its domestic hackers. Russia knows this isn’t an arms race they want to be part of. Look at our recent spin-up for maritime privateering to counter China, you know we could ramp up attacks on Russian industry and commerce with cyber too.
  • nix23 5y ago
    Being downvoted for having a neutral view....
    • adventured 5y ago
      I didn't downvote them, however I'm guessing the downvotes are because their statement is either false or close to it. The US is the world's largest economy, loaded with ~$165 trillion in household assets, having persistent supply chain problems, running at 50 year highs on inflation, and it's still wildly exposed to cyber attacks despite decades of warning shots across its bow. It's exposed to almost a comically idiotic degree. Russia can cause a lot of disruption and havoc with the US economy if it wants to. The US has three potent recourses at that point: try to unplug Russia as it pertains to the global Internet (not very effective other than to further isolation); drive chaos and civil war on its borders and attempt to flood terrorism into Russia (eg from Kazakhstan etc.), which is a dangerous proxy kinetic action toward Russia (they can swing back); pull Russia from SWIFT (they're slightly prepared for that, however it would still hurt a lot regardless) and try to more seriously isolate them globally economically (it'll drive Russia further into China's arms, which may be a mistake at this juncture; it might be better if Russia is able to independently fend off China's inevitable attempts to turn Russia into its subservient over time). None of those are great options, although dramatically increasing global economic isolation is probably the best option. Russia is a weak nation economically and structurally. As an entity, Russia shouldn't exist and can only be held together through a never-ending reign of authoritarian / totalitarian iron fist dictator types; it requires a constant application of severe force upon the population (eg stripping them of all media, protest and speech rights) to hold it all together, otherwise Russia would explode into numerous separate countries very rapidly. Why does that matter? It matters because we're going to keep getting an endless line of Putins, it's the only type that can operate Russia as it's presently constructed. Putin knows exactly what it takes to hold Russia together, it's the naive West that has been surprised by what he has done / what he became (golly gee, the people of Russia want freeeeedom too, they're just like us, dur dur dur - aka the early 1990s naive worldview; Russia can only be one of two things: some slight variation of what it is presently, which requires a Putin, or it has to explode into pieces). When you're a weak nation with some potent systems you can attack a very rich superpower with, it's a huge problem for the rich superpower. It's the classic line about how if you owe someone ~$1,000, you have a problem; and if you owe someone $1 billion, they have a problem (ignoring for a moment whether it's very accurate, you get the point). If you're facing off with North Korea, trading cities in a nuclear exchange with them is a massive losing contest for the US, trading NYC for Pyongyang is not an even exchange; trading Los Angeles for Hamhung is not an even exchange; North Korea has an epic scale advantage in such a terrible exchange. Russia has a similar advantage in how it can persistently stab the US with economically damaging cyber attacks; the US will struggle greatly to find an even exchange in hitting back, because Russia is economically feeble and it's difficult to upset the Putin cart with targeted social chaos attacks (like trying to disrupt various infrastructure or supply chains for Russia to cause political problems for Putin; they'll just oppress or murder the domestic population as needed to maintain control).
• mzs 5y ago
  cooperation > “As a result FSB and Min of Internal Affairs effotts, REvil ceased to exist, their infrastructure was neutralized,” per RIA > An “informed source” told Interfax that Russia won’t extradite detained members of REvil with Russian passports to the US. Source didn’t specify whether all the detained hackers are Russians. Mary Ilyushina · @maryilyushina · 6:57 AM · Jan 14, 2022 https://twitter.com/maryilyushina/status/1481973752292417543 https://twitter.com/maryilyushina/status/1481973752292417543
  • kgeist 5y ago
    IIRC Russian law prohibits extradiction and there's no treaty between US and Russia.
• rafale 5y ago
  They are probably not gonna serve jail time. Their brains are too valuable. They will likely get a desk at the FSB headquarters.
  • pelasaco 5y ago
    for sure they are going to work for FSB
    • netizen-936824 5y ago
      That's literally what the comment you're replying to is saying
      • claaams 5y ago
        but think about this, them getting arrested is actually them being coerced into working for the FSB.
        • netizen-936824 5y ago
          Oh wow yea and on top of that, I wonder if anyone has considered that they might be getting forced to work for the FSB!
  • sdenton4 5y ago
    New acqi-hiring strategies coming soon to a megacorp near you!
    • maerF0x0 5y ago
      also if you make prisons really really ugly, psychologically, then people are more likely to take your "offer" .
  • hooande 5y ago
    > Their brains are too valuable. lol. don't make them out to be geniuses. REvil was basically a successful startup. not even a unicorn AND it's going to land them in prison for some amount of time. Putin showed Biden that's he's acting in good faith. No one at that level cares what happens to a bunch of hackers
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]