9 ms·

We’re talking about Ukraine and Russia, there has been a war going on for years now. Nobody needs or wants plausible deniability here.

by pyrale 1y ago

irjustin 1y ago
There are plenty of reasons to have plausibly deniability even this late into the war.
- bilekas 1y ago
  Only if you're on the invading offensive side.
taway1a2b3c 1y ago
I think the point being made is that Western agencies (5-eyes) would give Ukranian intelligence the button to push (indirect action) and not push it themselves (direct action).
- trhway 1y ago
  By going to war with Ukraine Russia (very foolishly in my view) exposed itself to a number of possible "indirect actions" which weren't possible before as "direct actions". Like for example Ukrainian drone hitting one of the Russian strategic missile defense radars. Ukraine can potentially hit other strategic assets not that involved in the current war - say nuclear submarines for example.
  - v5v3 1y ago
    Russia and all non-usa allies have been the winner. China etc have seen the strategies used in sanctions. They know how to limit their impact now. It's also brought Russia/China/Iran/North Korea and wider Brics together. It's been a disaster for the west. The measure of success was Russia weakened and ideally Putin weakened or gone. And instead Russia have shrugged off the sanctions, and Putin is much stronger. And the Russian military has gained real battle tested knowledge. A disaster for the west, aside from their weapons companies/Ukrainian investments. And any NATO spend increases.
    - timeon 1y ago
      Hardly anyone is 'winner' here.
    - vardump 1y ago
      China has been a big winner, it can now get cheap energy and it gets to set Russia whatever conditions it pleases. Russia is now utterly dependent on China for many imports. Russia itself has been the biggest loser. Massive budget deficits, massive inflation. 1M of its smartest people have moved abroad. 1M Russian casualties in the war. Demographics and economy are disastrous. That and Russia is now a pariah state. No one is going to invest there for a very long time after what Russia did.
      - v5v3 1y ago
        Russians and foreigners travelling to Russia regularly blog live. Everyone there is doing fine. The world order is changing to a level you won't believe - Russia, Venezuela were reported by WSJ or similar to even be running journalist schools in Africa to break the media control there by western media brands.
        sofixa 1y ago
        > Everyone there is doing fine. As long as they don't say anything critical against the regime. Or have the misfortune of flying in/around Russia while morons are at the trigger of surface to air missiles (cf. MH17 and Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243). Or have the misfortune of getting conscripted to die in the meat grinder. > The world order is changing to a level you won't believe - Russia, Venezuela were reported by WSJ or similar to even be running journalist schools in Africa to break the media control there by western media brands. Yes, Russia, the known beacon of journalistic freedom. How many journalists have been murdered by the regime? The fact that those Wikipedia sections / articles exist is very telling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novaya_Gazeta#Deaths_and_attacks_on_journalists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novaya_Gazeta#Deaths_and_attac... > media control there by western media brands. Anyone blindly lumping together all "western" media is not to be taken seriously. Especially when comparing with fucking Russia of all places. You can find plenty of disagreements in various "western" media (consider The Guardian vs Financial Times vs Le Figaro vs Le Monde vs NY Times vs Washington Post). Nobody dares contradict the official line in Russia, even calling the war a war, or they get tortured and murdered.
- timeon 1y ago
  Sure, it is always omnipotent Western agencies... while some Western governments are halting support in critical moments - which has bigger impact on the war. I think Ukrainians (and Russians as well) aren't tech illiterate. They are (both) more than capable in this matter.
- victorbjorklund 1y ago
  Why would that be the case? Ukraine has a very large IT sector and they have a lot of good IT security specialists. To be honest, a lot of cybercriminals have been from Ukraine. So I don't see why it would be the case that Ukraine could not have done this by themselves. They have done previous attacks by themselves. I don't see why that would be the case. It would kind of be like saying, "Oh, if Russia does a cyberattack, it can't have been them acting alone. It must have been China that gave them the stuff to just press a button."
  - johnisgood 1y ago
    That is not how I read the parent comment. I read it as US making Ukraine do what US wanted to do.
    - oneshtein 1y ago
      It's tough to say that Ukraine and US are allies right now. US refuses to hold security assurance, as promised, and forbids Ukraine to restore nuclear arsenal, as before the promise. Bullies behave is such way, not allies.
      - johnisgood 1y ago
        It is irrelevant to my interpretation of the aforementioned parent comment. The point is that US made Ukraine do something that the US wanted to do but did not do because were it the US, then it would have had repercussions on US, so they made Ukraine do their dirty work.
        pjc50 1y ago
        Curious use of "made" here when it's something that Ukraine would have very much wanted to do, this cyberattack.
        johnisgood 1y ago
        Both benefit'd, then.
- libertine 1y ago
  Not really, the point being made goes deeper. The Russian regime (and apparently a lot of Russians) deem Ukrainians as an inferior ethnic group - they call them "little Russians". Ukrainian authorship would mean: - Ukrainians are competent people with agency (which they are of course, for lots of reasons) - this plays into ethnophobia; - their government, military, etc, is competent, functional with agency - this plays into government legitimacy; - Overall, in a lot of instances, the Russian government is incompetent, even more incompetent than the guys their propaganda has been trying to paint as corrupt, incompetent people who are being manipulated. That's why a lot of time Russian propaganda trys to spin Ukrainian wins as "NATO/CIA/MI6/external agent did this". For example, they tried really hard to bend reality to remove the credit for the Ukrainian drone operation that destroyed a lot of bomber jets, saying it was planned and executed by CIA, MI6, Israel, etc [0]. This is what we're dealing with here: massive ethnophobia and propaganda. So in their propaganda, Ukraine can't be competent and stand on its merit, because that would mean they're not inferior people and that they have agency. You should always be wary of someone making these claims without any evidence. [0]https://uacrisis.org/en/rospropaganda-zaplutalas-v-pavutyni https://uacrisis.org/en/rospropaganda-zaplutalas-v-pavutyni
  - cpursley 1y ago
    That’s not the meaning behind “Little Russia”, please considering doing a historical deep dive.
    - libertine 1y ago
      You don't need much of a historical deep dive to see how it's currently being used: > The term Little Russia is now anachronistic when used to refer to the country Ukraine and the modern Ukrainian nation, its language, culture, etc. Such usage is typically perceived as conveying an imperialist view that the Ukrainian territory and people ("Little Russians") belong to "one, indivisible Russia".Today, many Ukrainians consider the term disparaging, indicative of Russian suppression of Ukrainian identity and language. It has continued to be used in Russian nationalist discourse, in which modern Ukrainians are presented as a single people in a united Russian nation. This has provoked new hostility toward and disapproval of the term by many Ukrainians. In July 2021 Vladimir Putin published a 7000-word essay, a large part of which was devoted to expounding these views. [0] Ethnical slurs, or any other slurs, change over time. If you go back in time 100+ years in any context, and you use a modern ethnic or racial slur, it will most likely empty of meaning. Just like a lot of slurs from the past have lost their meaning over the years. But the "historical meaning" is constantly being used by Russian propaganda, where they claim one needs to go back to the 1200's, and their interpretation of history, to try to make sense of the current genocide attempt in Ukraine. There's no logic behind that approach because current actions speak for themselves, including the context of recent history, and that's enough. You can get a pretty clear picture of this whole event starting in the 1990s. Unless you still see that slur being used by Russian nationalists as an endearing term to address their "brotherly nation" which they support being erased from the map. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Russia#Modern_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Russia#Modern_usage
- libertine 1y ago
  The point is trying to claim something without any evidence that supports it.

We’re talking about Ukraine and Russia, there has been a war going on for years now. Nobody needs or wants plausible deniability here.

by pyrale 1y ago

We’re talking about Ukraine and Russia, there has been a war going on for years now. Nobody needs or wants plausible deniability here.

irjustin 1y ago

There are plenty of reasons to have plausibly deniability even this late into the war.

bilekas 1y ago
Only if you're on the invading offensive side.

taway1a2b3c 1y ago

I think the point being made is that Western agencies (5-eyes) would give Ukranian intelligence the button to push (indirect action) and not push it themselves (direct action).

trhway 1y ago
By going to war with Ukraine Russia (very foolishly in my view) exposed itself to a number of possible "indirect actions" which weren't possible before as "direct actions". Like for example Ukrainian drone hitting one of the Russian strategic missile defense radars. Ukraine can potentially hit other strategic assets not that involved in the current war - say nuclear submarines for example.
- v5v3 1y ago
  Russia and all non-usa allies have been the winner. China etc have seen the strategies used in sanctions. They know how to limit their impact now. It's also brought Russia/China/Iran/North Korea and wider Brics together. It's been a disaster for the west. The measure of success was Russia weakened and ideally Putin weakened or gone. And instead Russia have shrugged off the sanctions, and Putin is much stronger. And the Russian military has gained real battle tested knowledge. A disaster for the west, aside from their weapons companies/Ukrainian investments. And any NATO spend increases.
  - timeon 1y ago
    Hardly anyone is 'winner' here.
  - vardump 1y ago
    China has been a big winner, it can now get cheap energy and it gets to set Russia whatever conditions it pleases. Russia is now utterly dependent on China for many imports. Russia itself has been the biggest loser. Massive budget deficits, massive inflation. 1M of its smartest people have moved abroad. 1M Russian casualties in the war. Demographics and economy are disastrous. That and Russia is now a pariah state. No one is going to invest there for a very long time after what Russia did.
    - v5v3 1y ago
      Russians and foreigners travelling to Russia regularly blog live. Everyone there is doing fine. The world order is changing to a level you won't believe - Russia, Venezuela were reported by WSJ or similar to even be running journalist schools in Africa to break the media control there by western media brands.
      - sofixa 1y ago
        > Everyone there is doing fine. As long as they don't say anything critical against the regime. Or have the misfortune of flying in/around Russia while morons are at the trigger of surface to air missiles (cf. MH17 and Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243). Or have the misfortune of getting conscripted to die in the meat grinder. > The world order is changing to a level you won't believe - Russia, Venezuela were reported by WSJ or similar to even be running journalist schools in Africa to break the media control there by western media brands. Yes, Russia, the known beacon of journalistic freedom. How many journalists have been murdered by the regime? The fact that those Wikipedia sections / articles exist is very telling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novaya_Gazeta#Deaths_and_attacks_on_journalists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novaya_Gazeta#Deaths_and_attac... > media control there by western media brands. Anyone blindly lumping together all "western" media is not to be taken seriously. Especially when comparing with fucking Russia of all places. You can find plenty of disagreements in various "western" media (consider The Guardian vs Financial Times vs Le Figaro vs Le Monde vs NY Times vs Washington Post). Nobody dares contradict the official line in Russia, even calling the war a war, or they get tortured and murdered.
timeon 1y ago
Sure, it is always omnipotent Western agencies... while some Western governments are halting support in critical moments - which has bigger impact on the war. I think Ukrainians (and Russians as well) aren't tech illiterate. They are (both) more than capable in this matter.
victorbjorklund 1y ago
Why would that be the case? Ukraine has a very large IT sector and they have a lot of good IT security specialists. To be honest, a lot of cybercriminals have been from Ukraine. So I don't see why it would be the case that Ukraine could not have done this by themselves. They have done previous attacks by themselves. I don't see why that would be the case. It would kind of be like saying, "Oh, if Russia does a cyberattack, it can't have been them acting alone. It must have been China that gave them the stuff to just press a button."
- johnisgood 1y ago
  That is not how I read the parent comment. I read it as US making Ukraine do what US wanted to do.
  - oneshtein 1y ago
    It's tough to say that Ukraine and US are allies right now. US refuses to hold security assurance, as promised, and forbids Ukraine to restore nuclear arsenal, as before the promise. Bullies behave is such way, not allies.
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      It is irrelevant to my interpretation of the aforementioned parent comment. The point is that US made Ukraine do something that the US wanted to do but did not do because were it the US, then it would have had repercussions on US, so they made Ukraine do their dirty work.
      - pjc50 1y ago
        Curious use of "made" here when it's something that Ukraine would have very much wanted to do, this cyberattack.
        johnisgood 1y ago
        Both benefit'd, then.
libertine 1y ago
Not really, the point being made goes deeper. The Russian regime (and apparently a lot of Russians) deem Ukrainians as an inferior ethnic group - they call them "little Russians". Ukrainian authorship would mean: - Ukrainians are competent people with agency (which they are of course, for lots of reasons) - this plays into ethnophobia; - their government, military, etc, is competent, functional with agency - this plays into government legitimacy; - Overall, in a lot of instances, the Russian government is incompetent, even more incompetent than the guys their propaganda has been trying to paint as corrupt, incompetent people who are being manipulated. That's why a lot of time Russian propaganda trys to spin Ukrainian wins as "NATO/CIA/MI6/external agent did this". For example, they tried really hard to bend reality to remove the credit for the Ukrainian drone operation that destroyed a lot of bomber jets, saying it was planned and executed by CIA, MI6, Israel, etc [0]. This is what we're dealing with here: massive ethnophobia and propaganda. So in their propaganda, Ukraine can't be competent and stand on its merit, because that would mean they're not inferior people and that they have agency. You should always be wary of someone making these claims without any evidence. [0]https://uacrisis.org/en/rospropaganda-zaplutalas-v-pavutyni https://uacrisis.org/en/rospropaganda-zaplutalas-v-pavutyni
- cpursley 1y ago
  That’s not the meaning behind “Little Russia”, please considering doing a historical deep dive.
  - libertine 1y ago
    You don't need much of a historical deep dive to see how it's currently being used: > The term Little Russia is now anachronistic when used to refer to the country Ukraine and the modern Ukrainian nation, its language, culture, etc. Such usage is typically perceived as conveying an imperialist view that the Ukrainian territory and people ("Little Russians") belong to "one, indivisible Russia".Today, many Ukrainians consider the term disparaging, indicative of Russian suppression of Ukrainian identity and language. It has continued to be used in Russian nationalist discourse, in which modern Ukrainians are presented as a single people in a united Russian nation. This has provoked new hostility toward and disapproval of the term by many Ukrainians. In July 2021 Vladimir Putin published a 7000-word essay, a large part of which was devoted to expounding these views. [0] Ethnical slurs, or any other slurs, change over time. If you go back in time 100+ years in any context, and you use a modern ethnic or racial slur, it will most likely empty of meaning. Just like a lot of slurs from the past have lost their meaning over the years. But the "historical meaning" is constantly being used by Russian propaganda, where they claim one needs to go back to the 1200's, and their interpretation of history, to try to make sense of the current genocide attempt in Ukraine. There's no logic behind that approach because current actions speak for themselves, including the context of recent history, and that's enough. You can get a pretty clear picture of this whole event starting in the 1990s. Unless you still see that slur being used by Russian nationalists as an endearing term to address their "brotherly nation" which they support being erased from the map. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Russia#Modern_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Russia#Modern_usage
libertine 1y ago
The point is trying to claim something without any evidence that supports it.