13 ms·
Department Press Briefing – February 3, 2022
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- h2odragon 5y ago> MR PRICE: It is intelligence information that we have declassified. > QUESTION: Well, where is it? Where is the declassified information? > MR PRICE: I just delivered it. Epic exchange.
- kspacewalk2 5y agoHow do you imagine this going down otherwise? Do you want them to declassify the name of the source, or just the department where he works?
- aunty_helen 5y agoIf you're going to declassify something, I would expect at least a document on official letter head, with any level of restricted clearance being crossed out and a declassified stamp over top. Then to give substance, they would need to add the title of this hn post "Russia to use crisis actors to stage a flag annd start was in days" as the content of that document.
- hashimotonomora 5y agoIn essence it’s the same. You just seem to respect written documents more.
- aunty_helen 5y agoSo does the Associated Press it seems, as per the exchange during the press conference. But yes, I would probably want some form of intelligence briefing being declassified in paper form before pointing the finger at a nuclear adversary. That ol' extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence thing. Or do you think that some spy in Russia, telephoned a guy in the pentagon, that telephoned a guy in the whitehouse, that setup a press conference and then telephoned a guy to brief him about something he should say, that may or may not help to provoke a war? Seems a bit far fetched.
- SantalBlush 5y agoNo, the reporter explicity said, "It's not the format, it's the content." They were looking for evidence, they didn't care whether it was written or not.
- r721 5y agoWhy did you bring up HN post title? It's not in the briefing, seems to be OP's (quite exaggerated) summary. Price's words: "We don’t know if Russia will necessarily use this or another option in the coming days."
- aunty_helen 5y agoOk from the first paragraph of the press briefing then, I would expect a document with at least the following: >Russia is planning to stage fabricated attacks by Ukrainian military or intelligence forces as a pretext for a further invasion of Ukraine.
- jacksonkmarley 5y agoSounded like the guy had just heard so much stuff he considered pure bullshit, that he just ran out of suspension of disbelief. As far as really important stuff (perhaps this isn't a good example?), they could actually just reveal everything, after all having an informed public seems pretty important in a democratic society. Does that ever happen? Get all the secret agents out and just blow the lid? It would have to be going-to-war level stuff though.
- rich_sasha 5y agoReminds me of this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZA4J1f_NFw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZA4J1f_NFw
- j4yav 5y agoReminded me of this as well: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM, with the back and forth talking past each other.
- keltex 5y agoHere's the video. Definitely worth watching: https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1489336004637044746 https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1489336004637044746
- j4yav 5y agoThe whole thing is an incredible read. The evidence is that we said it, so you don’t need evidence.
- maxerickson 5y agoThe government person doesn't characterize it as evidence, only information. So they are sharing the information vs sharing the evidence. Which isn't very satisfying, but it is at least coherent.
- bostonsre 5y agoThe speaker probably could have articulated it a little better and not played so coy about the line of questioning.
- j4yav 5y agoIt’s a fair point. They were sort of talking past each other about information and evidence.
- burrows 5y agoWhat definitions of evidence and information are you using?
- j4yav 5y agoI am referring to the specific words in the transcript that they were using as they talked past each other, not trying to (re)define anything. The member of the press seemed to be under the impression that information should be associated with evidence, while the speaker did not.
- bryant 5y agoIn fairness, if the actual data (classified) or information (classified) can be merged with context known only by the adversary, the disclosure of such data jeopardizes sources and methods (https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column_article/why-protecting-sources-and-methods-really-matters https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column_article/why-protecting...), giving the adversary an opportunity to either detect sources or alter their own methods to avoid further disclosure. That's why what you're seeing disclosed is essentially only the knowledge. tl;dr: disclosing data could tell the adversary how we found out, leading to changes by the adversary or deaths of spies crucial to how we learned what we learned.
- ampgt 5y agoThe reporters are asking tough (but correct) questions. The government is also doing its diligence to protect sources and methods. The thing to remember, though, the point of releasing this information is probably to prevent Russia from using this method. It would be pretty ironic if the US government releases this information.. and then a few days later such a video is released. Time will tell.
- mc32 5y agoNo. The government is saying “believe us” with no supporting or corroborating evidence. None. On the other hand Ukraine itself is saying it’s not a crisis…
- axiosgunnar 5y agoWhat did you expect him to say? "Sure, here is a high resolution video allowing everyone to figure out the locations of your spy cameras, and btw we got the hint from Ivan Snitchovsky, a double agent aged 35, he lives here and this is a picture of him. Oops, he's probably dead by now and a valuable source of intelligence is gone!"
- mc32 5y agoMaybe they shouldn’t have pulled all the stops on the “yellovske” from Niger for Saddam nonsense and they’d have credibility. I mean goddam it the gov of Ukraine is saying hold up, we don’t see the same alarm you do.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- kadoban 5y ago> Maybe they shouldn’t have pulled all the stops on the “yellovske” from Niger for Saddam nonsense and they’d have credibility. That was two decades ago and totally different people and political party. Be skeptical, but don't just be blindly anti. > I mean goddam it the gov of Ukraine is saying hold up, we don’t see the same alarm you do. Odds are pretty good that they see it the same way, they just don't want their economy to crater while waiting.
- axiosgunnar 5y agoWhat did you expect him to say? "Sure, here is a high resolution video allowing everyone to figure out the locations of your spy cameras, and btw we got the hint from Ivan Snitchovsky, a double agent aged 35, he lives here and this is a picture of him."
- beepbooptheory 5y agoPlease don't spam like this, you just gotta pick a thread to reply to and stick with it.
- mc32 5y agoIsn’t this the packaging that as used as an excuse to invade Iraq? Unfortunately for them, their previous lies have caught up to them so we will need more believable sources than “because we said so”.
- xtracto 5y ago>Unfortunately for them, their previous lies have caught up to them so ... The sad thing is that they dont need anything. The USA is going to go pick up a fight with Russia, exercise their war muscle to both reactivate that side of the economy and the sense of nationalism that the government needs from its citizens and which has been slowly eroding in the last 20 years or so. Wag the dog indeed.
- stelonix 5y agoSomething a bit different from what Powell did at the UN in 2003? "Trust us" is the biggest bullshit the national security apparatus has pulled on the US population and frankly it's disgusting there hasn't been a single law to outlaw bullshit "declassified" press conferences without a single piece of evidence. 19 years later there's people defending vague ideas like "we can't show you or they'll know!!!!1". No, you have such evidence, you take your agent out and you publish it in order for the world to know and to drive Russia away from doing it. Spouting things with no evidence is the real false flag campaign.
- csee 5y ago
- keewee7 5y agoRussia and Putin have a recent history of using false-flag attacks. The 1999 Russian apartment bombings are universally considered false-flag attacks by Russian journalists and historians who are not on the Kremlin payroll.
- hnthrowaway0315 5y agoLast time at least they showed some white powder. My hunch is Ukraine is preparing to launch an offensive against the rebels (low intensity fights have been since the separation) and Russia will step in whatsoever. I don't expect Russian to launch a full scale offensive because it just doesn't make sense.
- burrows 5y agoI liked this as well. > MR PRICE: Matt, there’s a second point. This is derived from intelligence, intelligence in which we have confidence — > QUESTION: Well — > MR PRICE: — in which we have confidence, otherwise — > QUESTION: The same confidence you had in WMD in Iraq? I mean, what — > MR PRICE: Otherwise – otherwise – otherwise we would not be making it public in the way we are. But here’s the other point: Intelligence and evidence, these are two separate things. It is no — What does he mean, “Intelligence and evidence are two separate things”? Is he saying that claims and evidence are different things?
- ivan_gammel 5y agoTo me it looks like it is the way to shift responsibility from intelligence community to a political figure. If intelligence community presents some evidence, they bear responsibility if that evidence is wrong. If they have only some intelligence, they are not 100% sure and Administration must take responsibility for any actions based on it. When Administration says they have confidence, they basically say, ok, we think that this data is correct and we take political responsibility for believing in it. Whether I’m right or not, I do not know for sure. But look at WMD „evidence“ presented by Colin Powell, and it starts looking the same.
- yucky 5y agoTrust The Government™
- mc32 5y agoThese people are playing dangerous games with millions of lives potentially at stake and economies at the precipice of collapse. At last since the Iraq war the intelligence services really lost any independent credibility they had during the Cold War. It’s the boy who cried wolf once too many times. Maybe they’re right, but just as likely they are making it up for realpolitik or worse domestic politics.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago> but just as likely they are making it up for realpolitik or worse domestic politics. Are you talking about US or Russian intelligence services here? As it could easily apply to both.
- mc32 5y agoYes.
- vintermann 5y agoSure the Russian intelligence services are untrustworthy, but they're not the ones demanding to be blindly trusted this time around.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoAre the US intelligence "demanding to be blindly trusted" ? Or - hypothetically - if the US intelligence is only 80% reliable - isn't it still worth signalling to their Russian counterparts that "we see you, don't try it" ? That might be the real intended audience. Isn't this also a fairly plausible accusation about Russia, given previous operations, e.g. "little green men" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrainian_War) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrain... and apartment bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings
- another_why 5y ago
- leephillips 5y ago>MR PRICE: I’m sorry you are doubting the information that is in the possession of the U.S. Government. That’s literally his job.
- clarge1120 5y agoQuite literally, and the primary reason The Press is written, by name, into the US Constitution.
- sofixa 5y agoAnd it's not like the US government hasn't already been caught lying many times ( Iraq WMD, drone strikes, etc. etc.)
- koenigdavidmj 5y agoVideo version: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_DTSSvtg19I https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_DTSSvtg19I The journalist is from the AP, for additional context.
- i67vw3 5y agoThere is a full non-youtube video with subtitles on the website.
- r721 5y ago>To be clear, the production of this propaganda video is one of a number of options that the Russian Government is developing as a fake pretext to initiate and potentially justify military aggression against Ukraine. We don’t know if Russia will necessarily use this or another option in the coming days.
- Canada 5y agoWell, that is just disgusting. Shame on Putin and Russia. They should have some class and find a teenage girl to accuse the Ukrainians of killing newborn babies. Or failing that, at least make something up about WMDs...
- beebmam 5y agoKeep in mind that Russia has gathered hundreds of thousands of troops & their equipment on the border of Ukraine, for zero good reason other than to bully, intimidate, or invade. This is entirely a crisis of Russia's making.
- mistrial9 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- gjsman-1000 5y agoPersonal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.
- mistrial9 5y agoapologies to all involved if that seemed too personal; I can't edit it, so rephrase that point of view exactly is the result of ... no personal hard feelings, I wish peace for all here, sorry to appear otherwise
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- huhtenberg 5y agoThis is a rather shallow and naive way of looking at things. Put bluntly, Ukraine is a strategic buffer between Russia and the West, keeping their nukes and armed forces at arm's length. Ukraine didn't like this role, it wanted out, but it underestimated how much this would tip the balance. They moved too fast and against a now-pissed former and powerful ally. Hence the result. That is, there is a pretty good reason for Russia to do all this even if their methods are painfully crude.
- lordleft 5y ago
- petesergeant 5y agoThis is two days old
- Grimburger 5y agoThis is the sort of content that is best viewed a few days or weeks old.
- clarge1120 5y agoThe irony of the false flag becomes near paradoxical when one actor accuses another of preparing a false flag.
- juanani 5y ago
- i67vw3 5y agoThe Gov credibility is so much damaged that I am not going to believe it. E.g., Afghanistan bomb strike which killed the NGO Guy and the kids. If some other nation had done a similar air strike which killed innocent civilians, there would be sanctions one after another. E.g., Sanctions were imposed on Belarus just for landing the plane with a fake hijacking plot. The same was done by American gov on President of Bolivia Eva Morales due to the possibility that Snowden was on the flight.
- aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago>Brussels Belarus.
- i67vw3 5y agoMy bad. I have edited the comment, I confused the city name with the country as both of them start with the same letter.
- sgt101 5y agoHow can the USA sanction the USA?
- keewee7 5y ago>If some other nation had done a similar air strike which killed innocent civilians, there would be sanctions one after another. You mean just like Russia recently did in Africa? >On 16 and 17 January 2022 at least 65 civilians were killed by Russian mercenaries from the Wagner Group supported by armed forces in Aïgbado and Yanga villages near Bria in the Central African Republic during operation against rebels from Coalition of Patriots for Change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%AFgbado_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%AFgbado_massacre These "mercenaries" have just been relocated by Russia to the Ukrainian border. Has the world already forgot the daily Russian bombings in Syria a few years ago that killed thousands of civilians? Russia and Russian-armed Syrian groups were responsible for the vast majority of casualties in Syria.
- foolzcrow 5y ago
- keewee7 5y agoJust a reminder that Russia and Putin have a recent history of using false-flag attacks. The 1999 Russian apartment bombings are universally considered false-flag attacks by Russian journalists and historians who are not on the Kremlin payroll. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings#Russian_government_involvement_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings#Rus...
- aunty_helen 5y agoJust a reminder that America has a recent history of using intelligence to start wars in other countries. The 2002 invasion of Iraq due to the presence of WMD is universally consider lies and propagandar by journalists and historians who are not on The White House payroll. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
- bspammer 5y agoThis information isn't being used to try and start a war, but to try and stop a war. There's a big difference to begin with. A second difference is that that was 20 years, and 3 administrations ago.
- slackfan 5y agoRecent? You mean dating back to at minimum the Spanish-American, and possibly the Civil war?
- timmytokyo 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- sedan_baklazhan 5y agoEven this terrible concept has a "Defense" section in Wikipedia. Did you read it?
- elil17 5y ago
- NotAWorkNick 5y agoOk this sort of makes sense but 2 things spring to mind here - #1) Any actual things/events will be automtically doubted even if true. Given the restriction on live casting to YT this leaves citizen journalism effectively muzzled. #2) Pot meet kettle. Google Yellow Uranium Hoax and the "Sexed Up Dossier". Personal Opinion Only - I find it sad seeing the Internet being weaponised
- austincheney 5y agoI keep joking to my wife that I will be in Ukraine this time next year. That makes her frown, but maybe caviar will be cheaper there.
- tpoacher 5y agoHonest question, fully admitting my ignorance here, not an intention-to-troll question: How do we know for sure the real title shouldn't be: "US to stage false flag information campaign claiming 'russia is about to use crisis actors to stage false flag operation and start war in days', followed by false flag operations in Ukraine, in order to justify upcoming unilateral action against Russia?" Like, I've seen soo many unprovoked articles in the last few days about how the US is "actively" gearing for war over something Russia "may" do, it's all a bit reminiscent of the "War on Iraq/Terror/WMD" stuff to me, and we all know how that ended up. Furthermore, what I'm more worried when hearing press releases like that is that it's exactly the kind of talk that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I mean, it's chicken and egg situation, isn't it? If got whiff that someone was planning an armed raid to my house on the pretext of finding guns, first thing I'd do would be to arm myself to fend off the raiders. If I heard that someone was accusing me of "planning to throw eggs at the school windows", my first thought would be that someone is planning to do this on my behalf already in order to frame me, and maybe I should go near the school with some eggs and wait for the offenders. At what point do we take such speculative projections justifying real military actions at face value without questioning the intelligence and motives involved?
- clarge1120 5y agoAnother honest question that was prompted by the remembering WMD debacle: why is the American military going to fight in a border war between Russia and Ukraine?
- Invictus0 5y agoWhich came first, this press release, or Russia amassing 150k troops on Ukraine's border? Come on, unilateral military action against Russia? You can't be serious.
- 2a0c40 5y agorelevant: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1489757554326523907?s=20&t=6_hvqt_iK7kW9Xm4UcG79A https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1489757554326523907?s=20&...
- 5y ago
- Invictus0 5y agoWhat is going on in the comments here? Are there really people on HN that think Russia spent all that time, money, and effort to amass their troops on the border just as a ruse, and the intelligence services are just making it all up?
- clarge1120 5y agoWhat’s going on with this comment? Do you trust the government? Why?
- Grimburger 5y ago> Russia spent all that time, money, and effort To enrich some oligarchs associated with the Kremlin and play geopolitics about energy? Yeah it wouldn't be surprising in the slightest.
- Invictus0 5y agoI don't even know what to say. Do you understand the cost and logistical challenges of such a troop movement? Is it lost on you that Russia already invaded Ukraine once in the last 10 years? The false flag attack has historical basis and is so obviously plausible that I'm convinced half of the commenters here are either astroturfing or are just trying to score cheap "don't trust the govt, man!" points. This is a serious issue, millions of lives hang in the balance here, and all the commenters here want to play armchair general. I'm in disbelief.
- Grimburger 5y ago> Do you understand the cost and logistical challenges of such a troop movement? It's a fraction of Russian forces already close by, then there's another 2 million reserves just waiting around at home. Supply/movement costs are barely a rounding error and it's bizarre to hear otherwise as though they care about taxpayer waste? Spending the most on nothing is basically a political sport there. Then there's this: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/03/world/europe/putin-sanctions-proofing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/03/world/europe/putin-sancti... Putin is in an excellent position to weather any western sanctions from stirring the pot, and we all know it. Germany, the de facto leader of the EU just threw away it's nuclear powerplants becoming ever more reliant on Russia for its vital energy needs for the next few decades. They know how strong a position they have and are going to cause trouble over the Ukraine NATO thing without fear, that's pretty much the extent of it. It's the usual 5 eyes nonsense where our media hypes it up for months and then nothing. You should try talking to some South Koreans or Taiwanese about this phenomenon, it will be their turn again next year. It's far too late in winter to be invading anyone.
- stevespang 5y ago
- timmg 5y agoI'm definitely no expert. But it feels to me that Russia really does not want to invade Ukraine. This feels like a bluff. It's been going on too long and has been too telegraphed. I worry that the West "calling this bluff" will force Putin into doing something he doesn't really want to do, though. Maybe there will be a "minor incursion" then some kind of "agreement" so everyone can save face?
- hh3k0 5y agoIt's not a bluff if you are prepared to go through with it.
- lostmsu 5y agoYou mean further invade Ukraine? They are already approximately 2.5 states (of 24) inside it.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> But it feels to me that Russia really does not want to invade Ukraine. Then they should probably stop invading and occupying Ukraine. Or do you mean that they have succeeded in convincing you that they don't really want to invade more of Ukraine? Maybe, I mean, they might well not want to do that right now if they can instead use the threat of doing so as leverage to get a firm commitment from NATO not to protect Ukraine in the future and to withdraw from other places in Eastern Europe, effectively committing to recognize Russia’s Greater East Europe Co-Prosperity Sphere. That would be the bigger win than anything they could get by an immediate further invasion.
- alkonaut 5y agoOf course they don’t. They want to reach their strategic goals with minimum cost of course. But right now it looks like they have actually lost on the strategic side with NATO expansion accelerated by at least a decade in Sweden/Finland and post Cold War readiness being brought back to Europe at a pace that you wouldn’t have believed a couple of years ago. So the threat hasn’t exactly paid off yet, and what’s worse, they might have painted themselves into a corner where open conflict is the least bad option, at least if Putin wants to save his strong man face (not that the Russian public wants the war despite endless propaganda in every news outlet). Perhaps Putin can accept the de facto re-incorporation of Belarus into Russia that took place last week in plain sight as a win and be happy with that.
- slackfan 5y agoFalse Flags and Crisis Actors are a dangerous conspiracy theory.
- ReptileMan 5y agoFrom the same sources that claimed there are WMD in Iraq.
- Proven 5y ago
- AcerbicZero 5y agoIf you believe that Russian intentions for Ukraine will be published weeks in advance in by an American media outlet, I have a bridge over the Dnieper river to sell you.
- PaywallBuster 5y agoThe press conference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DTSSvtg19I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DTSSvtg19I the fun part start at 2 minutes
- slackfan 5y agoThere will absolutely not be a war. Both sides got what they wanted (oil prices over a hundred US a barrel, and a significant bump to defense stocks), meaning the milindustrial complex can continue for a while longer and Russia gets out of its economic slump. It's a win/win.
- jmacd 5y agoI will never ever forget watching Colin Powell deliver his Iraq speech. I was a child and very impressionable. I had the Desert Storm trading cards. All of them. I thought wow here is this credible general telling us how how bad these people are. Years and years later I understood the depravity of his speech and the actions of the "the west" in starting that war. I think it is the only time in my life that I felt truly betrayed, and the realization happened while I was thinking about the topic in a grocery store aisle. My hands felt clammy. Even more years later my job at a large software company had me extremely close to Powell. Like in the same room with him for long stretches of time and having 1-on-1 conversations. Every fibre in me wanted to say to him, calmly: You told a lie and it killed a lot of innocent people. Their lives matter too. I didn't say it. I did my job and kept it at that. I don't know to this day if I had a moral obligation to say something, but ultimately I didn't because I knew he didn't care. So yes, false flags. They only happen when something is inevitable. War is here.
- IAmGraydon 5y agoExcept…Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN did not lead to the invasion of Iraq. He was there to persuade the UN to pass a second resolution supporting military action against Iraq and at that he failed. George Bush was going to invade Iraq either way, and he did. Of course, Powell’s speech did not help the credibility of the US.
- clarge1120 5y ago> George Bush was going to invade Iraq either way, and he did. Which is why I wince at the fact that I ever supported this crime. It had nothing to do with the American interests, but that didn’t stop the bloodshed. Now they’re determined to do it all over again, saying the same malarkey they said back then about protecting freedom or something.
- yucky 5y ago>Powell’s speech did not help the credibility of the US. That is revisionist, and 100% incorrect. Bush did not have much credibility on the world stage or even at home. Powell did. When he co-signed what Bush and the other warmongers were saying, the public became willing to accept the necessity of the war. I vividly remember the speech and the absolute difference it made in most people's minds about the pending invasion, not just globally but among the US general public as well. He was one of the few people with credibility on both sides of the aisle and on the world stage.
- the-dude 5y agoAlso, the enemy has weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching the capitals of Europe. Let's not forget.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- nabla9 5y agoI think the US intelligence is correct. Russia is actively crating false flag causes, getting ready to war. They have even blood supplies, and riot control for occupation arriving. At the same time I think the decision is to attack is not made and probability of large scale attack is maybe 10-30%. President of Ukraine and their defense minister think similarly. If Russia botches the attack, or resistance and partisan warfare is worse than anticipated, and Russian military is humiliated. The easiest way for authoritarian leader to be toppled is if they screw up war and humiliated military leadership is not sitting idly taking blame.
- jl6 5y agoIt’s clear to me that the example of Iraq and WMDs was a bare-faced lie by the US government, concocted to start a war. But does that mean I automatically believe the opposite of anything the US government says from that point onwards? We have to consider more than just the source of the claim. For Iraq, the US war hawks made it clear they had an objective of going to war in the Middle East. Their plans were obvious. This seems like a completely different setup. We’re supposed to disbelieve this statement because it’s part of the US government’s evil plan to… prevent a war happening? And I say this as someone who thinks Russia does actually have legitimate beef with the prospect of NATO expansion, despite their thuggish approach to negotiation.
- clarge1120 5y agoThere is no reason to trust the government, any government, which is why the Bill of Rights limits the US government’s power over citizens and the press.
- another_why 5y ago> But does that mean I automatically believe the opposite of anything the US government says from that point onwards? It means that you can't trust governments when it comes to major political conflicts. Lies for the "greater good" have always been a standard thing in such situations
- kortex 5y agoI get that folks are jaded over the Iraq WMD things. I get it. The US itself is not above disinformation at times. But to imply that Russia isn't willing, able, or actively running disinformation ops, and in fact it's the US State Dept that's lying and running the false flag...like, what!? Russia: - we have no intentions of putting missiles in Cuba - we're not rolling tanks into Afghanistan - dunno how that polonium got into that spy's tea - idk, that spy just happened to die from a nerve toxin that's only produced in one russian chemical weapons facility. I'm hardly read up on world politics but anyone paying attention to basic history knows that this is what Russia does. They constantly gaslight the rest of the world with a thin veil of plausible deniability, while leaving obvious "calling cards" as a message of deterrence to anyone that can read between the lines.
- Yoofie 5y agoThis is what everyone does, period. > But to imply that Russia isn't willing, able, or actively running disinformation ops Literally no one (of significance) is saying this. This is a straw man. > and in fact it's the US State Dept that's lying and running the false flag Not sure where you are reading this, but the U.S actually has a long history of conspiring and attempting false flag operations and unlike most others, hundreds of thousands people end up displaced and dead after U.S involvement.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- aunty_helen 5y agoIronically the Cuban missile crisis was retaliation caused by the buildup of arms surrounding Russia… the same thing they’re complaining about now. They roll tanks, USA flies drones. How’s that war with Yemen you’re not in going? They kill spies, people get suicided in prison. Epstein not killing himself isn’t such a funny meme now. Anyone paying attention knows that you only get one side of the argument when you live inside that countries sphere of influence. USA is literally the only one that wants war here. Russia doesn’t, Ukraine doesn’t, Europe doesn’t, Germany doesn’t. So ask yourself, why would America want to make a country look like an unstable and aggressive force when countries have started to trust them enough to replace their nuclear power generation with cheap Russian gas instead of American imported LNG??? No freaken idea.
- irthomasthomas 5y agoDang, I think this is flagged only because, at first glance, it looks like blogspam? But this is absolutely relevant news for us, here at HN.
- another_why 5y agohttps://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/2/moscow-ups-ukraine-rhetoric-as-diplomatic-push-continues-liveblog https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/2/moscow-ups-ukraine-r... "US State Department spokesperson Ned Price has rejected Moscow’s assertion that Washington is escalating tensions by sending additional troops to Europe, accusing Russia of attempting to turn “reality upside down”. “These are not permanent moves; they are precisely in response to the current security environment in light of this increasingly threatening behaviour by the Russian Federation,” Price told reporters." Oh, so there are troops on both sides. Who could've thought
- alkonaut 5y agoRussia already claimed they downed a Ukrainian drone which then very clearly in the photos wasn’t Ukrainian. Not sure who that propaganda was for, but likely a domestic audience as it was quickly taken apart anywhere there is critical media (as they must have understood it would be).
- sam_lowry_ 5y ago