In a break with the past, U.S. is using intel to fight an info war with Russia, even when the intel isn’t rock solid

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Source: NBC News.

The gist of the story is that U.S. intelligence agencies admit to going public with unsubstantiated assertions when doing so might confer an advantage to U.S. interests.

It is not that officials lie to the public. Instead, they say things they can’t prove in order to strike a blow in information warfare.

I’m not entirely opposed to policies that allow for the declassification of intelligence guesswork — even weaponizing it — but I think the public needs to factor this revelation into its thinking. To the extent we might distrust something an enemy says, we should also distrust what our own leaders say. It is only prudent.

Published by John Todd Roberts

Published

38 thoughts on “In a break with the past, U.S. is using intel to fight an info war with Russia, even when the intel isn’t rock solid”

  1. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Or, in this case, disinformation with preliminary information.

    President Biden has used this early public disclosure of intelligence findings to very good effect. His warnings that an invasion was fully in the works before it happened were derided, but proved to be accurate, and is one reason the democratic nations’ response was so quick, coordinated, and decisive. His warnings that a false flag operation as a pretext by Russia was in the works seems to have kept that from happening.

    Of course, you have to take anything from any government with a grain of salt. But some grains are bigger than others. There is a world of difference between our disclosing preliminary intelligence and Russia just making stuff up.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. RE: “There is a world of difference between our disclosing preliminary intelligence and Russia just making stuff up.”

      On the other hand, there is no difference between our making stuff up and Russia making stuff up. For example, Biden accuses Russia of war crimes when there is no solid evidence of Russian war crimes.

      Like

      Reply

          2. RE: “Or, if you prefer your war crimes up close and personal, the atrocities committed by Russian forces in the suburbs of Kyiv are indisputable.”

            Why, because Human Rights Watch says so?

            Why is HRW not investigating reports of Ukranian war crimes?

            Like

          3. So the maternity hospital that Lavrov admitted weeks ago was a target and bombed.

            Your propaganda interview stressed that it was not Russia and not bombed, but shelled.

            You guys can’t get your stories straight. HRW has boots on the ground and has. And will continue, to document Russia’s war crimes.

            Because Putin “says so”, you believe him. Even when the lies are both obvious and contradictory, as in the Mariupol bombing, you keep pumping out red propaganda.

            Now, your opinion is your opinion.

            poleznyye idioty

            Liked by 2 people

          4. “Why is HRW not investigating reports of Ukranian war crimes?”

            Let me answer with words that even you will understand. . . “Fake News!”

            There are no CREDIBLE reports of Ukraine committing war crimes to investigate. But should Russia decide to allow access to non-Putin journalists AND they have evidence they would like HRW to investigate, there is no doubt they would do so. If you read their report, you would know that they bend over backwards to be objective, avoid hyperbole, and let witnesses say what they want to say not matter what it is.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. RE: “So the maternity hospital that Lavrov admitted weeks ago was a target and bombed.”

            I qoogled Lavrov’s comments on the maternity hospital and found that on March 10 he denied that Russian forces had attacked it. If you have other information I’d like to see it.

            RE: “HRW has boots on the ground and has.”

            I searched HRW’s web site. They are investigating Russian war crimes only. Alleged Ukrainian war crimes like this one seem to be of no interest to them:

            https://rumble.com/vyvlnl-savage-woman-found-tortured-in-mariupol-school-basement-military-base.html

            Like

          6. “We’re not planning to attack other countries. We didn’t even attack Ukraine,” Lavrov

            Odd, I thought send tanks and 125,000 men deep into Ukraine along with bombing raids and long range missile attacks might be considered an attack.

            “Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, said without evidence on Thursday that Russia had bombed a maternity hospital in Ukraine because it contained Ukrainian militants.“

            https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-says-mariupol-maternity-hospital-militia-base-no-evidence-2022-3

            Now you found a denial on the same day?

            Cite please.

            Your man is lying either way I suppose.

            Red propaganda…it’s what’s for dinner… evidently.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. RE: “There are no CREDIBLE reports of Ukraine committing war crimes to investigate.”

            If you say so. There are multiple western journalists in Ukraine who have been collecting Ukrainian war crime reports. Even the NYT reported the crime of Ukrainian soldiers filming the torture and execution of Russian POWs. But I’ll take your word for it.

            Like

          8. Actually, there is no need for an investigation of the Russian soldiers being abused and some shot in the legs (not executed). Ukraine has acknowledged that it happened – something Putin never does.

            Criminal acts done by individuals are criminal acts and there are criminals in both armies. Criminal acts done under orders from higher authorities is a different matter. That is where “war crimes” and the need for international tribunals becomes apparent.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. More evidence from Der Spiegel. . .

            “Russian soldiers discussed atrocities against civilians over the radio

            The images of murdered civilians from Bucha shock the world. According to SPIEGEL information, the BND recorded the radio traffic of suspected perpetrators. Accordingly, the brutal acts are part of the strategy of Putin’s army.”

            The BND is Germany’s version of MI6 or the CIA. Here is the full report. . .

            https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/possible-evidence-of-russian-atrocities-german-intelligence-intercepts-radio-traffic-discussing-the-murder-of-civilians-in-bucha-a-0a191c96-634f-4d07-8c5c-c4a772315b0d

            Liked by 1 person

          13. Even the New York Post does not believe Russia’s LIES. But you do? Laughable.

            Notice this reference to Lavrov in YOUR link. . .
            “We didn’t attack Ukraine in the first place,” the gaslighting Lavrov said.”

            See the hint there? Try real hard.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. RE: “The images of murdered civilians from Bucha shock the world. According to SPIEGEL information, the BND recorded the radio traffic of suspected perpetrators.”

            Read the correction at the end of Spiegel piece. The radio traffic is non-specific. It might be evidence of Russian war crimes, but I find it hard to believe that Russian military were speaking of such things using non-secure communications in a war zone.

            Like

          15. “but I find it hard to believe that Russian military were speaking of such things using non-secure communications in a war zone.”

            Then you are not paying attention. It has been widely reported that Russia’s secure comms systems have failed. Many a Russian, including at least one General, has paid with their lives for using insecure comms. With that said, you have ZERO idea of the BND capabilities to monitor and decrypt “secure” channels if they were using such.

            Does your unquestioning Putin support now require you to assert that BND and Der Spiegel are lying?

            Liked by 1 person

          16. RE: “Your man is lying either way I suppose.”

            In this case, your Business Insider piece is lying. It attributes a statement to Lavrov, but doesn’t quote him. In fact, according to Business Insider, it was Zelensky who said Russia attacked the hospital.

            Like

          18. The U.N. did not present evidence. The U.N. received evidence. I do not know what evidence they received to reach their decision to remove Russia from the Council. It is not a thing they have done very often and I’m sure they didn’t make the decision lightly. Given the nature of the organization, I think it’s safe to assume they had worldwide sources and both sides of the issue was argued thoroughly… and they decided against Russia. Maybe it was the German Intelligence Agency’s intercepted radio traffic of Russians discussing murdering civilians. https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/possible-evidence-of-russian-atrocities-german-intelligence-intercepts-radio-traffic-discussing-the-murder-of-civilians-in-bucha-a-0a191c96-634f-4d07-8c5c-c4a772315b0d Or maybe it was the satellite videos of atrocities being committed. Or maybe it was the intercepted call between a Russian soldier and his wife, where he tells her about going on “safari,” hunting children and shooting the legs off of a little Ukrainian girl. Maybe they were presented with eye-witnesses. I don’t know what evidence was presented to them. All I know is, they made a decision to remove a major member of the Council for some reason and I don’t think it was hearsay. As for the “crimes” Ukraine has committed… if I watched a foreign soldier, who had invaded my country, shoot the legs off my child, I don’t think there is a war crime in the world I wouldn’t commit to take him out.

            Liked by 2 people

          19. RE: “See the hint there? Try real hard.”

            No, I don’t. I don’t care if Lavrov lies. I’m only trying to show Mr. Rothman that he is misinformed about Lavrov’s statements.

            Like

          21. RE: “With that said, you have ZERO idea of the BND capabilities to monitor and decrypt “secure” channels if they were using such.”

            Actually, I do. I happen to know that encrypted radio communications today are virtually impossible to to decrypt. For BND to have intercepted Russian SIGINT, the Russians must have been using non-secure communications, an almost unbelievable possibility.

            Like

          22. When the Ukrainian forces and paramilitaries retreated into the cities and intermingled with civilians, that was a war crime, and made those cities legitimate targets. Deliberate killing of recognizable civilians remains criminal, but civilians killed in the course of combat in those places are the responsibility of the combatants who sheltered among them.

            Like

          23. “When the Ukrainian forces and paramilitaries retreated into the cities and intermingled with civilians, that was a war crime.”

            As usual you pontificate with half-truths or imagined “knowledge”. Simply retreating into cities does not constitute a “war crime.” Here is the actual statute published by the International Criminal Court based on the Rome Statute of 1998 which established the ICC and codified the laws it is to enforce.

            Article 8 (2) (b) (xxiii) War crime of using protected persons as shields
            Elements
            1. The perpetrator moved or otherwise took advantage of the location of one or more civilians or other persons protected under the international law of armed conflict.

            1. The perpetrator intended to shield a military objective from attack or shield, favour or impede military operations.

            2. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.

            3. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

            The list of codified war crimes is a long one. Russian has violated a great number of them with this invasion.

            Click to access elementsofcrimeseng.pdf

            Liked by 1 person

          24. “Elements
            1. The perpetrator moved or otherwise took advantage of the location of one or more civilians or other persons protected under the international law of armed conflict.”

            Which is exactly what the Azov did, Including setting up a military command in a maternity hospital.

            Like

          25. “Which is exactly what the Azov did, Including setting up a military command in a maternity hospital.”

            Made up facts and Russian LIES don’t count. While making this claim the Russian LIAR also said this:

            “There have been no women, children, or staff in this maternity hospital for a long time, we said that at the UN Security Council on March 7,” Lavrov said during a press conference in Antalya.

            And yet the dead and wounded bodies of the people who were not there WERE there.

            https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-says-mariupol-maternity-hospital-militia-base-no-evidence-2022-3

            Do you really not understand that if a story has ONLY Russian sources, it is not reliable? Do you not understand that dead and wounded mothers, staffers and babies in the rubble make clear that Lavrov was LYING?

            Liked by 1 person

  2. Politicians and world leaders lie all of the time about everything including military successes or enemy failures to bolster a positive public view of their involvement so unrest doesn’t settle in. I don’t trust anyone in the current administration, especially that idiot in the oval office or cackling Kam. Everything they have said abt the border crisis, inflation, energy, gang violence, Ukraine, etc have mostly been coverups for the truth. Nothing to see here now move along…

    Like

    Reply

    1. Your skepticism sounds healthy to me. I think it useful to have this story on the record for the next time someone says, “I believe my country’s lies and I don’t believe my enemy’s lies.”

      Like

      Reply

      1. “I believe my country’s lies and I don’t believe my enemy’s lies.”

        Which is “your country” and which is “your enemy”.

        That is an honest question based on the continued posting of Russian propaganda.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

      2. RE: “That is an honest question based on the continued posting of Russian propaganda.”

        I don’t post Russian propaganda. I post information that interests me for purposes of discussion. I hope — against hope, apparently — that people who believe falsehoods may be edified.

        Like

        Reply

        3. …” that people who believe falsehoods may be edified.”

          You seem to be one of the people that needs to be “edified”. What you call “information” is blatant disinformation and Russia produced propaganda. You are a fool to tell others to believe what is said and then deny you are trying to convince others to believe the same garbage you are spreading.

          Like

          Reply

Leave a comment