36 ms·
Exactly this, and also they are trying to keep some deniability here, so variations are good.
by sandos 19d ago
Exactly this, and also they are trying to keep some deniability here, so variations are good.
- hgomersall 19d agoWhy would you want to keep it deniable? What's the point in this sort of sabotage if nobody knows you did it?
- grim_io 19d agoRussia is trying to avoid retaliation through stricter sanctions, for example.
- ChrisMarshallNY 19d agoThey seem to be very good at "mob tactics." No one can prove anything, for example, but anyone knows that people that piss Putin off, need to stay away from windows in high places.
- nico_h 19d agoThe windows are entirely blameless. If a window gets near you, it’s already too late, you’re now just a message “pour encourager les autres”.
- vlovich123 19d agoThat’s because the distinction between the Russian mob and the government is nonexistent
- the_mitsuhiko 19d agoDoubt is always good.
- DrScientist 19d agoThe ideal scenario is everyone suspects it's you but can't prove it. You have both the desired threat, but no concrete biases for an official response. Also an uncertainty limits action - it might be a random event, it could even be a false flag. One of the problem's here is narratives are being spun by multiple actors and it depends on who you believe.
- spwa4 19d ago> The ideal scenario is everyone suspects it's you but can't prove it. Why? EU countries have shown time and time again they won't do anything. I mean for God's sake, Russia was caught sending THREE remote controlled flying bomb on a German airfield, with another one found by a passerby before it was launched. They contained professionally made Russian explosives. There is no doubt who did it. This was not the first, or the 10th time they got caught. I mean Russia murdered someone in the UK with polonium, for God's sake. The idea that the Kremlin is worried in the slightest that you can prove it's them is absurd. They leave their fingerprints knowing there will be no reaction.
- brookst 19d agoBecause being too blatant will galvanize the public and create support for open war. The goal is to ensure all reasonable people know, while keeping enough deniability that Russian-funded right-wing groups can sow doubt about attribution and response policy’s They don’t care whether it can be proven in court or by people paying close attention. They care whether it can’t be denied even by their aligned agents in western countries.
- TFYS 19d agoMaybe it depends on the country, but here the public automatically assumes everything like this done by Russia and these increase support for open war. I don't think Russia wants deeper European involvement in the war, so I'm having trouble understanding why Russia would be doing this. They're already having difficulties in Ukraine, how would angering the European public and increasing the support for further involvement help Russia achieve its goals?
- NotSuspicious 19d agoExactly. If anything, the country that would benefit most from heightened Europe-Russia tensions (as a result of these sorts of infrastructure "accidents") isn't even on the continent. I'm not ruling out Russia completely, but it would sure be stupid for them to effect this strategy. Additionally, Russians weren't the ones that blew up a pipeline at the start of the Russia-Ukraine war.
- hnlmorg 19d agoBecause otherwise it would be an act of war. At which point they might as well have just fired a rocket into the country.
- red-iron-pine 19d agofinish the thought: this means you need to retaliate. You either step up and hit back, or look weak and invite further problems. random vandals -- that's just local scumbags being scumbags. These things happens, no need to start WWIII
- yakshaving_jgt 19d ago> You either step up and hit back, or look weak and invite further problems. The latter is exactly what the western world did in 2014, and its why we have this much larger war now.
- LtWorf 18d agoSo we should attack russia, cause WW3 because you are paranoid that they might do that first?
- yakshaving_jgt 18d agoWe should forcibly remove russian occupying forces from Ukraine. That would be enforcing international law, not pushing for war.
- LtWorf 18d agoAre we also going to invade USA to make them stop attacking iran, venezuela and so on?
- yakshaving_jgt 18d agoThat would probably need to come from domestic public pressure. Different countries work differently. What would work for russia would not necessarily work for the USA.
- vintermann 19d agoIf the main point is slowing/frustrating drone production? It would honestly be kind of fair game to sabotage production of drones that would be used against you, even if they're made in a country you're not at war with --- if it wasn't for Russia having a lot of responsibility for that war in the first place (to put it mildly).
- vincnetas 19d agowhat do you mean "fair game"? by the same logic russia attacking ukraine is also "fair game". "hei cmon im just atacking my neighbor its fair game, what else should i do"
- deleted 19d ago[deleted]
- vintermann 19d agoI mean what I said: if you're being attacked by drones, then no one can fault you for trying to sabotage the production of those drones, even if they're made in a different country than the one which is sending them against you. But, you can and should fault Russia for getting into that position in the first place, that their neighbor is attacking them back with drones.
- vincnetas 19d agobut why are you attacked by drones thats the million dollar question...
- vintermann 19d agoWhich I answered?
- Sabinus 19d agoI guess no one can fault the West for retaliating by paying people to light stuff on fire in Russia, for deterrence. And I guess no one can blame the West for sending Ukraine more missiles to fire into Russia, to end the war.
- vlovich123 19d agoThis isn’t a show of power. Sabotage works best when your target doesn’t even realize it was sabotage. Similarly it’s best if you misattribute blame because then you’re fighting the wrong party and looking for ghosts. Russia throwing journalists out of windows or paining with Novachok - that’s a “it’s us, you can’t do anything about it, don’t fuck with us” power signal that benefits from “plausible” deniability - you can’t prove it was us.
- bulbar 19d agoIt's not about demonstrating, it's about results and this is only training.