biochem wrote:The cia analysts claim (at least from what is publically available) appears to be based on circumstantial evidence. In the spy world that's often the norm. The fbi looking at the same evidence (they get to see the classified stuff) finds it inconclusive. The nsa hasn't weighed in yet. All 3 have overlapping jurisdiction here ( cia foreign, fbi domestic, nsa cyber). The cia refuses to defend their position to congress. Possible reasons for this 1. The position is indefensible and the analyst who leaked the info lied or significantly misinterpreted the evidence. 2. There is an internal dispute at the cia. 3. They are afraid some politician will leak the name of their spy and get him/her killed.
#3 is ALWAYS used as an excuse, it´s the same as with how the USN goes with the "we don´t talk about what submarines are doing" crap.
Thing is, if it really was the Russians doing things, then this leak would make any such fear irrelevant because the number of potential spies is so limited that this leak by itself would be easily enough to identify the person.
More importantly, >99% of information CIA gets has absolutely nothing to do with "spies", spies are simply far too cumbersome and inefficient, and unless you have an insanely well placed spy(which nowadays is ridiculously hard, because the vast majority of nations have become very effective at making that not happen), you can get the same information by much easier means.
Seriously, it´s only a few years ago that the US department of defense had a PM structure that literally ANYONE could access.
Sure, the majority of messages there was petty and silly stuff, PMs of anything from grunts complaining about bad food at this or that base to a general arguing about grand strategy and why the latest vehicle X or weapon system Y was amazingly good/a stupid purchase etc etc..
I didn´t actively trawl it(unlike some), but i certainly went and read some stuff there, lots of so called "top secret" stuff openly and freely readable to anyone that could get on the internet, and they had that system ( supposed to be an INTERNAL PM system for the military and DoD ) for over half a decade(that i know of).
The point being however, is that that kind of nonexistant security, is not unusual, not in USA, not in most places, even if the US DoD was one big step above and beyond the usual lackadasial nonsecurity.
The cia refuses to defend their position to congress.
That pretty much confirms that they don´t believe in it themselves, and that its a politically hackjob. Like the "proof" of Iraqi WMDs in 2003.
Or like a lot of the "proof" a certain dood went with to the UN, despite the fact that it took me and others only MINUTES after seeing it to debunk most of it as complete rubbish, and the rest as nonevidence.
The cia analysts claim (at least from what is publically available) appears to be based on circumstantial evidence.
Nothing unusual about that, but we have a VERY reliable source contradicting that "evidence" which means it´s nothing BUT circumstantial, which is essentially rubbish.
Also, something you might not realise, is the fact that Russia is extremely opposed to "meddling in other countries", and have been so ever since becoming its own nation again, and even the USSR simply did not do "regimechange", it´s basically outside their zone of comfort/arrogance, both because they don´t want to cause escalation where it´s used against them, but also because they prefer not causing chaos(because that makes for unreliability in potential allies AND enemies, and Russians hate that).
Forcing regimechange however has become a favorite pastime for USA, and it tends not to care at all if a place is messed up by it, just another form of "collateral damage" apparently.
So, whoever is doing the mediawar against Russia is projecting USAs tactics on them.