Putin’s Chaos Strategy Is Coming Back to Bite Him in the Ass

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/26/...im-in-the-ass/

ck in March, when the U.S. elections still seemed far away — back before anyone had heard the name Fancy Bear and before everyone knew John Podesta’s risotto secrets — I was in Moscow talking to a Russian who had previously worked in the Kremlin. Over the course of a wide-ranging conversation, it became clear that we agreed on one key characteristic of Vladimir Putin. He called it the “Putin Paradox” and defined it thus: The Russian president’s tactical instincts for how to seize an opportunity are so brilliant, and yet the strategic outcomes are almost invariably disastrous. Seven months later, the saga of Russian meddling in America’s presidential election has managed to illustrate the “Putin Paradox” perfectly.

There can be little serious debate at this point that Moscow is indeed meddling. Despite Donald Trump’s skepticism, the U.S. intelligence community has collectively blamed Russia for the hack of Hillary Clinton’s campaign emails, which were released by the website WikiLeaks, and the hack of the Democratic National Committee. In addition to this more hands-on interference, Russia’s foreign-language state media, notably the RT television network and Sputnik press agency, consistently push a partisan, anti-Clinton line and spread claims of election rigging and other shenanigans. (This is tame, by the way, in comparison with the over-the-top rhetoric of Russian TV host and propagandist Dmitry Kiselyov, who claimed the U.S. establishment might kill Trump rather than let him become president — but such bombast is intended for domestic consumption and not to influence the U.S. vote.) There are also concerns, still unproven, that Russians could hack electronic voting systems on Election Day.

And yet, for all this effort, what has been achieved? There have been some successes — but they seem likely to come at a very high cost.

The success of Russia’s intervention must be measured relative to its goals. Although a Trump victory seems increasingly unlikely, there’s little reason to think that’s what the Kremlin ever really wanted. The Republican nominee may seem like something of a fellow traveler now — it was noticeable that even during the third debate he batted away opportunities to distance himself from Putin — but he would be an unpredictable president. Putin has gotten used to operating as the wildest man on the geopolitical stage; a Trump presidency might severely cramp his style and his strategic calculations.

Rather, the aim of all of Russia’s election interference was to do two things. First, to weaken Clinton, such that on her inauguration she would be too busy coping with a disgruntled Democratic left, an embittered Republican right, and a divided country in between to devote energy to confronting and toppling Putin. It is too early to be sure, but if anything, the hacks actually seem to be doing the unthinkable and bringing Democrats and mainstream Republicans together in their shared anger at Moscow.

Second, by undermining the very legitimacy of U.S. democracy, Russia’s hacking sought to weaken U.S. legitimacy abroad, dismay its friends, and provide fuel for a global propaganda campaign that, at its heart, tries to convince people not that the Russian system is better than the rest, so much that it isn’t any worse. That propaganda has resonated somewhat, but it is hard to demonstrate that anything the Russians are doing is more damaging than the Trump campaign itself.

But just like the Crimean annexation (which led to sanctions and massive costs to the state treasury), the Donbass adventure (which led to more sanctions and has mired Russia in an expensive, undeclared war), and the Syrian intervention (where Putin backed away from an early withdrawal, leaving him stuck in yet another open-ended war), today’s Russian achievement is poised to become tomorrow’s debilitating disaster. Russians who chortled at the original WikiLeaks revelations and felt sly satisfaction at the havoc created by “their” hackers are now expressing concerns about possible U.S. retaliation and, more importantly, what this will mean for future Russo-American relations. As one bitterly grumbled, “Let’s get used to sanctions until we’re in the grave.”

Clinton is no friend of Putin’s. But she is a pragmatic operator less interested in starting new crusades than clearing up old conflicts; had Putin waited until her inauguration and offered some kind of deal on Syria, maybe even Ukraine, it seems likely that she would at least have considered it. With his smear-and-leak antics, though, Putin appears to have managed to convince Clinton and those around her that the Kremlin represents a clear and present danger to American democracy and Western unity. As a Washington insider put it to me, “Expect now to see Putin’s nightmares” — maybe even that long-rumored quiet support for regime change in Russia — “come true once Hillary’s in the Oval Office.”

In Moscow, the realization is growing that a few months of schadenfreude during the U.S. presidential campaign are not going to be worth the likely fallout. The foreign-policy elite fear that Washington is preparing to call Moscow’s bluffs in the Middle East and Europe and also push harder on a wavering European Union to maintain and even step up pressure on Russia. The political and business elite are concerned that even if the United States does not actively push for regime change, it will clamp down all the more tightly on their opportunities to travel abroad and invest. One senior parliamentary aide recently expressed to me the worry that “Russia is becoming the new South Africa,” referring to the 30-year era of boycotts and sanctions that isolated that country when it was still white-ruled and characterized by apartheid.

[RandomGuy]

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/26/...im-in-the-ass/

Clinton is no friend of Putin’s. But she is a pragmatic operator less interested in starting new crusades than clearing up old conflicts; had Putin waited until her inauguration and offered some kind of deal on Syria, maybe even Ukraine, it seems likely that she would at least have considered it. With his smear-and-leak antics, though, Putin appears to have managed to convince Clinton and those around her that the Kremlin represents a clear and present danger to American democracy and Western unity. As a Washington insider put it to me, “Expect now to see Putin’s nightmares” — maybe even that long-rumored quiet support for regime change in Russia — “come true once Hillary’s in the Oval Office.”

In Moscow, the realization is growing that a few months of schadenfreude during the U.S. presidential campaign are not going to be worth the likely fallout. The foreign-policy elite fear that Washington is preparing to call Moscow’s bluffs in the Middle East and Europe and also push harder on a wavering European Union to maintain and even step up pressure on Russia. The political and business elite are concerned that even if the United States does not actively push for regime change, it will clamp down all the more tightly on their opportunities to travel abroad and invest. One senior parliamentary aide recently expressed to me the worry that “Russia is becoming the new South Africa,” referring to the 30-year era of boycotts and sanctions that isolated that country when it was still white-ruled and characterized by apartheid.

Putin has made mis-step after mis-step, domestically, economically, and diplomatically.

[pgardn]

Putin has made mis-step after mis-step, domestically, economically, and diplomatically.

The most underperforming region in recent history.

Huge mineral wealth. Vast expanses of land for agricultural staples... and they can't do with it due to endemic corruption and reliance on some authoritarian leader as a fall back for an incredible lack of creativity, efficiency, and cooperation of state ins utions. People think the US is poor at the aforementioned, holy mother of ivory, Russia is a mess. An absolute cluster F.

[Axl Rose]

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/26/...im-in-the-ass/

ck in March, when the U.S. elections still seemed far away — back before anyone had heard the name Fancy Bear and before everyone knew John Podesta’s risotto secrets — I was in Moscow talking to a Russian who had previously worked in the Kremlin. Over the course of a wide-ranging conversation, it became clear that we agreed on one key characteristic of Vladimir Putin. He called it the “Putin Paradox” and defined it thus: The Russian president’s tactical instincts for how to seize an opportunity are so brilliant, and yet the strategic outcomes are almost invariably disastrous. Seven months later, the saga of Russian meddling in America’s presidential election has managed to illustrate the “Putin Paradox” perfectly.

There can be little serious debate at this point that Moscow is indeed meddling. Despite Donald Trump’s skepticism, the U.S. intelligence community has collectively blamed Russia for the hack of Hillary Clinton’s campaign emails, which were released by the website WikiLeaks, and the hack of the Democratic National Committee. In addition to this more hands-on interference, Russia’s foreign-language state media, notably the RT television network and Sputnik press agency, consistently push a partisan, anti-Clinton line and spread claims of election rigging and other shenanigans. (This is tame, by the way, in comparison with the over-the-top rhetoric of Russian TV host and propagandist Dmitry Kiselyov, who claimed the U.S. establishment might kill Trump rather than let him become president — but such bombast is intended for domestic consumption and not to influence the U.S. vote.) There are also concerns, still unproven, that Russians could hack electronic voting systems on Election Day.

And yet, for all this effort, what has been achieved? There have been some successes — but they seem likely to come at a very high cost.

The success of Russia’s intervention must be measured relative to its goals. Although a Trump victory seems increasingly unlikely, there’s little reason to think that’s what the Kremlin ever really wanted. The Republican nominee may seem like something of a fellow traveler now — it was noticeable that even during the third debate he batted away opportunities to distance himself from Putin — but he would be an unpredictable president. Putin has gotten used to operating as the wildest man on the geopolitical stage; a Trump presidency might severely cramp his style and his strategic calculations.

Rather, the aim of all of Russia’s election interference was to do two things. First, to weaken Clinton, such that on her inauguration she would be too busy coping with a disgruntled Democratic left, an embittered Republican right, and a divided country in between to devote energy to confronting and toppling Putin. It is too early to be sure, but if anything, the hacks actually seem to be doing the unthinkable and bringing Democrats and mainstream Republicans together in their shared anger at Moscow.

Second, by undermining the very legitimacy of U.S. democracy, Russia’s hacking sought to weaken U.S. legitimacy abroad, dismay its friends, and provide fuel for a global propaganda campaign that, at its heart, tries to convince people not that the Russian system is better than the rest, so much that it isn’t any worse. That propaganda has resonated somewhat, but it is hard to demonstrate that anything the Russians are doing is more damaging than the Trump campaign itself.

But just like the Crimean annexation (which led to sanctions and massive costs to the state treasury), the Donbass adventure (which led to more sanctions and has mired Russia in an expensive, undeclared war), and the Syrian intervention (where Putin backed away from an early withdrawal, leaving him stuck in yet another open-ended war), today’s Russian achievement is poised to become tomorrow’s debilitating disaster. Russians who chortled at the original WikiLeaks revelations and felt sly satisfaction at the havoc created by “their” hackers are now expressing concerns about possible U.S. retaliation and, more importantly, what this will mean for future Russo-American relations. As one bitterly grumbled, “Let’s get used to sanctions until we’re in the grave.”

Clinton is no friend of Putin’s. But she is a pragmatic operator less interested in starting new crusades than clearing up old conflicts; had Putin waited until her inauguration and offered some kind of deal on Syria, maybe even Ukraine, it seems likely that she would at least have considered it. With his smear-and-leak antics, though, Putin appears to have managed to convince Clinton and those around her that the Kremlin represents a clear and present danger to American democracy and Western unity. As a Washington insider put it to me, “Expect now to see Putin’s nightmares” — maybe even that long-rumored quiet support for regime change in Russia — “come true once Hillary’s in the Oval Office.”

In Moscow, the realization is growing that a few months of schadenfreude during the U.S. presidential campaign are not going to be worth the likely fallout. The foreign-policy elite fear that Washington is preparing to call Moscow’s bluffs in the Middle East and Europe and also push harder on a wavering European Union to maintain and even step up pressure on Russia. The political and business elite are concerned that even if the United States does not actively push for regime change, it will clamp down all the more tightly on their opportunities to travel abroad and invest. One senior parliamentary aide recently expressed to me the worry that “Russia is becoming the new South Africa,” referring to the 30-year era of boycotts and sanctions that isolated that country when it was still white-ruled and characterized by apartheid.

The US intelligence community has collectively blamed Russia for the hack? I've only seen the DHS and the DNI make statements and all they said was that hack was consistent with Russian methods.

[TheSanityAnnex]

“That Putin is releasing Hillary's emails now is a coy demonstration that he has everything she ever emailed in his back pocket, including the deleted stuff,” says Jason Matthews, a 35-year CIA veteran who served in Moscow. The Russians didn’t need to hack Clinton’s private email servers, he tells Newsweek , because “they collected them via SIGINT”—signals intelligence, or electronic eavesdropping—”when Hillary and company sent them unencrypted.” For the Spetsviaz, Russia’s version of the NSA, he says, “it was like finding gold without once swinging a pickaxe.”


And it left no trace. Investigators found no “direct evidence” that Clinton’s email account had been “successfully hacked,” FBI Director James B. Comey testified, which “both private experts and federal investigators immediately understood” to mean that “it very likely had been breached, but the intruders were far too skilled to leave evidence of their work,” according to David Sanger, the New York Times cyber expert.
If U.S. intelligence officials are to be believed, Putin has escalated the battle by feeding Wikileaks purloined Clinton campaign emails. But they’ve offered no definitive proof of a link between the two.

http://www.newsweek.com/russian-hack...odunnit-509505

[hater]

If all evidence shows that The hacks came from Russia then that pretty much rules Russia out as faking the source of a hacks is a trivial exercise for sophisticated hackers


Most likely the attacks came from North Kora or and Iran.

average Joe Smoe american re believing lers propaganda

[RandomGuy]

If all evidence shows that The hacks came from Russia then that pretty much rules Russia out as faking the source of a hacks is a trivial exercise for sophisticated hackers


Most likely the attacks came from North Kora or and Iran.

average Joe Smoe american re believing lers propaganda

"faking the source of a hacks is a trivial exercise for sophisticated hackers"

Not as trivial as you seem to think. Patterns, language, small bits of code here and there.

I guess we can add the intricacies of coding and networks to the List of Things Hater Doesn't Know as Much About as He Thinks He Does

[RandomGuy]

The US intelligence community has collectively blamed Russia for the hack? I've only seen the DHS and the DNI make statements and all they said was that hack was consistent with Russian methods.

In a statement from the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., and the Department of Homeland Security, the government said the leaked emails that have appeared on a variety of websites “are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.”

The emails were posted on the well-known WikiLeaks site and two newer sites, DCLeaks.com and Guccifer 2.0, identified as being associated with Russian intelligence.

“We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities,” the statement said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us...ails.html?_r=0

[RandomGuy]

The bits that I have read noted that Putin may not have had to directly order the hacking and leaks, but his civil and defense intelligence agencies would do so on their own volition to curry favor with him.

Given the fawning coverage of Trump in the official mouthpieces of the Russian government, Putin's preference is fairly well telegraphed.

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us...ails.html?_r=0

Like I said, only the DHS and DNI has made a statement. The whole 17 intelligence agencies thing Clinton was spewing was bull . And the DHS and DNI have made no definitive statements on the hack...why?

[TheSanityAnnex]

“That Putin is releasing Hillary's emails now is a coy demonstration that he has everything she ever emailed in his back pocket, including the deleted stuff,” says Jason Matthews, a 35-year CIA veteran who served in Moscow. The Russians didn’t need to hack Clinton’s private email servers, he tells Newsweek , because “they collected them via SIGINT”—signals intelligence, or electronic eavesdropping—”when Hillary and company sent them unencrypted.” For the Spetsviaz, Russia’s version of the NSA, he says, “it was like finding gold without once swinging a pickaxe.”

If this is the case her unsecure setup most definitely caused harm to National security

[RandomGuy]

Like I said, only the DHS and DNI has made a statement. The whole 17 intelligence agencies thing Clinton was spewing was bull . And the DHS and DNI have made no definitive statements on the hack...why?

In a statement from the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., and the Department of Homeland Security,

[TheSanityAnnex]

We believe

not definitive.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"faking the source of a hacks is a trivial exercise for sophisticated hackers"

Not as trivial as you seem to think. Patterns, language, small bits of code here and there.

I guess we can add the intricacies of coding and networks to the List of Things Hater Doesn't Know as Much About as He Thinks He Does

There is also the assumption that intelligence is only electronic in nature.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

not definitive.

What is not definitive from the statement? That it came from Russia or exactly who gave the orders?

Once again the critical thinking skills of TSA are on display.

[TheSanityAnnex]

What is not definitive from the statement? That it came from Russia or exactly who gave the orders?

Once again the critical thinking skills of TSA are on display.

"We believe" is not definitive.

No single intelligence agency has said "it was Russia", for you to claim it was indeed Russia is foolish.

[TheSanityAnnex]

And frankly I don't care where it came from I'm just glad the corruption has been put in the open.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"We believe" is not definitive.

No single intelligence agency has said "it was Russia", for you to claim it was indeed Russia is foolish.

Subjects and predicates are hard for theStupidityAnnex.

You are going to believe your alt right takes no matter what. I just think its funny how dumb you are.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Subjects and predicates are hard for theStupidityAnnex.

You are going to believe your alt right takes no matter what. I just think its funny how dumb you are.

PBS alt right takes stupid
If you need more "alt right" takes there are direct quotes all over the place from ex-NSA/ex-CIA saying the exact same thing.



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...hacked-emails/


The hacking and public release of Democratic campaign and committee emails made the news and a presidential debate, with more leaks expected to come.
This week, WikiLeaks published more emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta. Nearly 20 batches of campaign emails were released over the last month, in addition to Democratic National Committee emails released earlier this year.

In the final presidential debate on Oct. 19, Clinton said do ents released by WikiLeaks were part of Russian espionage on the U.S. She called on Republican candidate Donald Trump to acknowledge the Russia connection and condemn such actions.


“She has no idea whether it’s Russia, China, or anybody else. She has no idea,” said Trump.

“I am not quoting myself. I am quoting 17, 17 intelligence agencies. Do you doubt 17 military and civilian agencies?” Clinton asked.

“Our country has no idea,” Trump responded.


Clinton was citing the Oct. 7 statement from the U.S. intelligence community saying it was “confident that the Russian government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and ins utions.”
Analysts say, however, that the ability to determine who cyber attackers are, where they’re located and sometimes who ordered their operations is rarely definitive and comes in degrees of confidence.


Beyond the government’s headline assertion that Russia is to blame, “it’s important to parse the public statement pretty closely,” said Susan Hennessey, a national security fellow at the Brookings Ins ution. “They’re being really careful in their word choice.”
The Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security said in a statement earlier this month that “only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”
But that statement does not mean that the U.S. has “direct evidence of senior official-level involvement,” Hennessey said.


Without more definitive statements, it’s difficult for some technical experts to take the government’s word on faith, she and others have said.


“There’s no evidence that this was done by the state itself, only evidence it was done by non-state actors that might be Russian-speaking,” said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of the cyber security consultancy firm Taia Global, referring to the evidence available to the public.


That evidence, which was released by private threat assessment companies rather than official channels, indicates hackers used Cyrillic keyboards and operated during Moscow working hours.
But indicators of iden y like timestamps, language preferences and IP addresses “can be manipulated or faked rather easily,” said Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, a senior security researcher at Kaspersky Lab.
Trump has a point when he says we can’t know for sure, said Cris Thomas, an information security professional known online as Space Rogue.


“I don’t know what [evidence] they have that couldn’t have been faked,” Thomas said.


Sophisticated attackers have learned how to tamper with the technical indicators to mask their iden y, or at least send analysts in the wrong direction.

Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of CrowdStrike, hired by the Democratic National Committee to assess its breach, wrote a blog post attributing the hack to two separate Russian-intelligence affiliated groups, Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear.
Alperovitch classed both as sophisticated actors, writing on CrowdStrike’s blog that their “tradecraft is superb, operational security second to none.”


Fancy Bear is “very, very good at deception campaigns,” said Brian Bartholomew, who co-authored a report about the deception tactics that complicate attribution.
But, he added, the group has recently seemed “a little more lax” about getting caught.

[RandomGuy]

not definitive.

Depends on how much you understand the couching of language when it comes to the intelligence community.

"we believe" = pretty strong statement, only given when there is quite a bit of evidence to support the theory.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Depends on how much you understand the couching of language when it comes to the intelligence community.

"we believe" = pretty strong statement, only given when there is quite a bit of evidence to support the theory.

How much do you really understand about the couching of language when it comes to the intelligence community?



Clinton was citing the Oct. 7 statement from the U.S. intelligence community saying it was “confident that the Russian government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and ins utions.”
Analysts say, however, that the ability to determine who cyber attackers are, where they’re located and sometimes who ordered their operations is rarely definitive and comes in degrees of confidence.


Beyond the government’s headline assertion that Russia is to blame, “it’s important to parse the public statement pretty closely,” said Susan Hennessey, a national security fellow at the Brookings Ins ution. “They’re being really careful in their word choice.”
The Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security said in a statement earlier this month that “only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”
But that statement does not mean that the U.S. has “direct evidence of senior official-level involvement,” Hennessey said.


Without more definitive statements, it’s difficult for some technical experts to take the government’s word on faith, she and others have said.


“There’s no evidence that this was done by the state itself, only evidence it was done by non-state actors that might be Russian-speaking,” said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of the cyber security consultancy firm Taia Global, referring to the evidence available to the public.


That evidence, which was released by private threat assessment companies rather than official channels, indicates hackers used Cyrillic keyboards and operated during Moscow working hours.
But indicators of iden y like timestamps, language preferences and IP addresses “can be manipulated or faked rather easily,” said Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, a senior security researcher at Kaspersky Lab.
Trump has a point when he says we can’t know for sure, said Cris Thomas, an information security professional known online as Space Rogue.


“I don’t know what [evidence] they have that couldn’t have been faked,” Thomas said.


Sophisticated attackers have learned how to tamper with the technical indicators to mask their iden y, or at least send analysts in the wrong direction.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

PBS alt right takes stupid
If you need more "alt right" takes there are direct quotes all over the place from ex-NSA/ex-CIA saying the exact same thing.



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...hacked-emails/


The hacking and public release of Democratic campaign and committee emails made the news and a presidential debate, with more leaks expected to come.
This week, WikiLeaks published more emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta. Nearly 20 batches of campaign emails were released over the last month, in addition to Democratic National Committee emails released earlier this year.

In the final presidential debate on Oct. 19, Clinton said do ents released by WikiLeaks were part of Russian espionage on the U.S. She called on Republican candidate Donald Trump to acknowledge the Russia connection and condemn such actions.


“She has no idea whether it’s Russia, China, or anybody else. She has no idea,” said Trump.

“I am not quoting myself. I am quoting 17, 17 intelligence agencies. Do you doubt 17 military and civilian agencies?” Clinton asked.

“Our country has no idea,” Trump responded.


Clinton was citing the Oct. 7 statement from the U.S. intelligence community saying it was “confident that the Russian government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and ins utions.”
Analysts say, however, that the ability to determine who cyber attackers are, where they’re located and sometimes who ordered their operations is rarely definitive and comes in degrees of confidence.


Beyond the government’s headline assertion that Russia is to blame, “it’s important to parse the public statement pretty closely,” said Susan Hennessey, a national security fellow at the Brookings Ins ution. “They’re being really careful in their word choice.”
The Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security said in a statement earlier this month that “only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”
But that statement does not mean that the U.S. has “direct evidence of senior official-level involvement,” Hennessey said.


Without more definitive statements, it’s difficult for some technical experts to take the government’s word on faith, she and others have said.


“There’s no evidence that this was done by the state itself, only evidence it was done by non-state actors that might be Russian-speaking,” said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of the cyber security consultancy firm Taia Global, referring to the evidence available to the public.


That evidence, which was released by private threat assessment companies rather than official channels, indicates hackers used Cyrillic keyboards and operated during Moscow working hours.
But indicators of iden y like timestamps, language preferences and IP addresses “can be manipulated or faked rather easily,” said Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, a senior security researcher at Kaspersky Lab.
Trump has a point when he says we can’t know for sure, said Cris Thomas, an information security professional known online as Space Rogue.


“I don’t know what [evidence] they have that couldn’t have been faked,” Thomas said.


Sophisticated attackers have learned how to tamper with the technical indicators to mask their iden y, or at least send analysts in the wrong direction.

Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of CrowdStrike, hired by the Democratic National Committee to assess its breach, wrote a blog post attributing the hack to two separate Russian-intelligence affiliated groups, Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear.
Alperovitch classed both as sophisticated actors, writing on CrowdStrike’s blog that their “tradecraft is superb, operational security second to none.”


Fancy Bear is “very, very good at deception campaigns,” said Brian Bartholomew, who co-authored a report about the deception tactics that complicate attribution.
But, he added, the group has recently seemed “a little more lax” about getting caught.

YOu are moving the goalposts, dumb . We were discussing the sentence in question. Now that you finally realize your error you move position.

That article doesn't say what you think it does although admitting ignorance as one of the quotes does would be a good role model for you.

[TheSanityAnnex]

YOu are moving the goalposts, dumb . We were discussing the sentence in question. Now that you finally realize your error you move position.

That article doesn't say what you think it does although admitting ignorance as one of the quotes does would be a good role model for you.

I've said from the start there has been no definitive proof it was the Russians and none of our intelligence agencies have said they have any definitive proof. Goalpost is where it's always been. Show me any US intelligence agency saying it was the Russians.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've said from the start there has been no definitive proof it was the Russians and none of our intelligence agencies have said they have any definitive proof. Goalpost is where it's always been. Show me any US intelligence agency saying it was the Russians.

They are ambivalent between Russia at large and the top brass. Your reading skills remain ty.