Classified Ministry of Defence documents found at bus stop
bbc.com
bbc.com
> "We have a strong, legitimate narrative", they said, noting that the presence of the embedded journalists (from the BBC and Daily Mail) on board the destroyer "provides an option for independent verification of HMS Defender's action".
As does this leak, if you believe the provenance.
I am 99% sure Russia would rather have the leaks that highlight the crippling lack of ability in Britain's armed forces, caused by austerity, or a true impact assessment of Brexit. I also think it's very odd that the only papers leaked were these two: it's a strange thing to specifically print out these reports. I also think it's downright odd that they're printed --- most high-level classified documents seem to exist on secure, airgapped, immobile computer systems.
I think it's pretty common to print classified documents, since as you say the electronic copies normally live on specific airgapped networks. If you'll need them somewhere without access to that network (e.g. most meetings) printing is the easiest option.
GCHQ used to use banners and footers that said:
SECRET//NOFORN
There was a bunch of other classification criteria on the cover such as declassification date (if any) and under who’s authority it was classified.
GCHQ (being a British intelligence agency) has never used NOFORN as that’s an American handling caveat.
The old equivalent would be UK Eyes Alpha (UK nationals, no contractors or embeds) or it’s modern equivalent UK Eyes Only.
And no the UK rarely writes “other classification criteria” on the front of documents. Again you’re thinking of the USA. Along with double slashing // also an American thing though occasionally used this side of the pond.
Light the cover page on fire before reading the document? Light the document on first instead of reading it? Try and read it while it is burning? Pack it in a pile of pages, light them on fire, and read it after it burns (surprisingly, that actually sort of works)?
Foreign intelligence agencies would develop their own discrete sniffer machines to detect faint traces of soot on people to identify potential intelligence personnel. Counter-intelligence would work on psyops campaigns to promote the health benefits of soot & encourage people to use new deodorants and other body grooming products laced with soot to throw them off soot sniffers. The most advanced burn-while-reading devices would have intricate ventilation and ash-isolation chambers with furnaces that burn hot enough to vaporize the ash to the sub-micron level. Portable versions would occasionally malfunction and spontaneously combust the bearer, fueling that particular subset of the tinfoil hat community.
It would be an entire soot-based intelligence community arms race, hilariously ridiculous and immensely fascinating.
(I've also been told by government friends that there are plenty of very significant government locations where you would assume they have a Top Secret classified, airgapped network, but they don't, even though they have appropriately classified rooms for storing and reading Top Secret print documents.)
The UK population as a whole seem ok with how the COVID response has been managed (see below link).
I know that an opinion on the UK COVID response doesn’t necessarily have to match an opinion on the competency of the health secretary, and even that both can be independently rubbish.
The below link does appear to show a disconnect between what was achieved and what people think was achieved.
There seems a whiff of nationalistic exceptionalism about it. If the response was good, it would be weird to sack the architect.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/06/23/people-in-adva...
Calling Hancock hopeless is almost certainly a reference to text messages sent by the Prime Minister calling Hancock "totally fucking useless" and the fact jilted former adviser Dominic Cummings [2] said Hancock "should have been fired for at least, 15-20 things"
Of course, you might very well ask if Hancock is so bad, why did the PM keep him as health secretary during perhaps the biggest health crisis of all time?
It's possible Hancock isn't all that bad, and we're just seeing political manoeuvring here to make Hancock take the blame for the lack of PPE, the failure to keep even a single new variant out of the country, the failure to protect care homes, the cheating to hit testing targets, the inept track-and-trace effort run by cronies, the insistence on keeping borders wide open and allowing foreign holidays, the dodgy supply contracts given out to friends and family, and so on.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/16/cummings-te... [2] https://youtu.be/dpAwUaL7JcQ?t=27
This was a particularly bad one though and everyone is failing to contain it, it’s easy to blame health leaders.
https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/bda759474...
To me this says the tolerance for local deaths rates -> lockdowns doesn't seem to be per capita but "bad enough" compared to other countries around them, or just hospital tolerance in general. With some exceptions like Brazil who ignore the international reputation or Peru who doesn't have the financial (or more likely leadership) capability to make a difference.
In countries like India, where the per-capita death rate is a tiny fraction of the UK's, the media creates a sense of pandemonium. Of course, it is pandemonium in India at the moment - but it was also pandemonium in the UK when NHS staff were wearing bin bags, except, in the UK, the PM is married to the ex of the most powerful newspaper editor, the opposition is on holiday, and everybody is anxious to avoid asking any awkward questions (aside from, amusingly, Dominic Cummings).
Madk usage has been very very high in the UK, and the risk of dying from covid has never been high, it has always been the aggregate effect on medical infrastructure causing a collapse in treatment availability, nit just limited to covid treatment, that has been the danger.
Things I would leak if I wanted more budget.
What was the deal with the story on HN a few days ago before the story dropped, saying that AIS showed a RN warship off Crimea and people were claiming live cams and direct observation showed it still in port in Odessa? Was this the Defender? It's very hard to Google for now. The date filtering tools aren't good enough. The lines between fiction and real life are blurred.
Sure feels like the UK are engaging in firehose disinfo, as Russia has practiced for years. It seems impossible to understand what's really going on, and I fear even historians won't be able to figure it out because 10 years from now these events will be buried by even crazier happenings. Strange times.
Here is a report[0] from the ship during the time of events. As the leaked documentation shows, the encounter had been anticipated, so I guess it was a tough call to put a journalist on board.
The reason MoD denies the “warning shots were fired” phrasing (and BBC puts it in quotes) is most likely to defuse the sizzling situation. Either UK frames the events as “warning shots were fired by Russian navy in Ukranian waters at a British ship” and has a conflict that requires following up, or it denies Russian framing of events (leaving it open to interpretation—say Russian navy suffered equipment malfunction that resulted in ammunition ending up in Ukranian waters some distance away from the British ship, stuff happens) leaving it for them to follow up—which Russia can’t really do, as no major country accepts its jurisdiction over Crimea (even China abstained on the relevant UN vote).
Which UN vote are you referring to?
(Also interesting to note that Israel was absent)
Voting against the resolution was an option. Presumably that means a country doesn’t necessarily believe Ukraine deserves to remain in control of this part of its territory. Zimbabwe and Belarus, among a few others, have voted against. China is the most prominent country among the few who abstained. The rest voted for Crimea being part of Ukraine.
It's not as cut and clear de jure as it may seem, international law almost never is.
Russia does not de facto "unlawfully" occupy it, because law is not a matter of fact. It's not even under occupation anymore, it's almost entirely annexed now.
Most Crimea hates Russia, and Russians (while being ethnically Russian at that.)
It's not hard to understand that was spread as a part of propaganda campaign.
Britain has absolutely no obligation to follow up on warning shots there. It's bizarre to claim so. Britain didn't follow up on an actual invasion, warning shots will be ignored.
The UN vote you are citing wasn't to accept Russian jurisdiction over Crimea, it was to reject it. Abstention is support of the status quo for major powers that can't be bullied.
In reality, everyone accept Russian control of Crimea de facto. Even the Ukrainians, propaganda and internal politics aside, have largely accepted it as a ground fact that cannot be changed. It is what it is.
Putin can call it “warning shots” all he wants. As long as the UK maintains poker face he can do zilch about it, unless he is willing to either literally attack the UK or withdraw from Crimea.
“It is what it is” and “everyone accept” are not acceptable justifications for rogue actor behavior.
If a British boat goes into Crimean territorial waters and refuses to leave and gets sunk, the only result with be a sunk British boat, pretty much. What is Britain going to do, increase sanctions?
Wether that had a "right" to be there doesn't care. It doesn't matter if I had the right or way when I get run over by tank, I get run over anyways.
They might not too, it's borderline, but no one knows quite where that line is. If forced to bet on an outcome I would bet on nato sinking a Russian ship of comparable size also in Crimean waters.
This type of fantasizing reminds me of someone getting bullied in the schoolyard and then dreaming that he is beating up his nemesis. Neither the UK nor NATO are going to start a shooting war near crimea, and the UK Navy simply isn't in a position to do anything there. Everyone knows this. Fantasizing about things being otherwise isn't a good use of anyone's time.
Exactly. No one wants a war, and no one’s starting it, including Russia whose only choice is to make noise at passing UK warships and live with it. Got to admire the move by the British, who understand that well.
Seems to me it was toxic internal propaganda and nothing actually useful. Meanwhile Russia sees absolutely no consequence, and they won't.
It has shown itself an aggressor and is alone against pretty much the whole developed world. It won’t start a war, since it will lose (both the war and the approval of own population, already not that far from revolution or civil war). All it can do is watch and bite its elbow.
Britain is not able and not interested in retaking Crimea. It will not happen. They can shoot back at useless targets, but if Britain provokes a war with Russia in Crimea it will simply be defeated.
Interestingly as an aside Reuters reported at the time Bombs were dropped, certainly not repeated by the BBC https://www.reuters.com/world/russian-forces-fire-warning-sh...
The whole information sphere around this feels very “managed”.
edit: here we are, found it https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/o765q4/russi...
The children were making clocks in school (typical $1 mechanism, AA powered) with the CD as a clock face. The parent had forgot to send in a CD and was curious what the child was using, and saw it said something like "Top Secret, return to DoD if found", or something to that effect.
Was part of a period where a lot of MoD, MI5, MI6, etc docs were turning up on unsecured laptops, USB keys, left on trains, and the like.
If you had the option to remain anonymous by going to a trusted media organization that has a reputation of balancing the public right-to-know with national security concerns, and avoid getting Richard Jewell treatment, you’d take it.
Nothing suspicious about that at all!
"If divulged, this document could bring about very dire consequences for all of Europe, even war." The minister's wife is probably trying to hide evidence of some previous tryst from her husband, but got the documents mixed up..
"Secrets found on replacement bus service" does have a ring of "too funny to be true", though.
But I'm half joking about it being a dead drop. (Only half because the UK has been very deeply penetrated by foreign intel operations before)
One explanation for USB vs. printouts, I guess it would depend on the security measures in place. The ability to use USB drives could be disabled in various ways to prevent bulk data removal while printing was still allowed. Or the reports were centrally printed out and distributed to various recipients, so it was never digitally accessible to the person who lost it.
The only benefit to Europe and the US of complaining about the annexation is to put pressure on Russia. Nobody wants the ethnic cleansing that would occur if Russia actually retreated from Crimea (and any Russian politician, dictator or not, who allowed that to happen would lose their political career and maybe their life.) If it weren't for the horrifying virulence of Ukrainian nationalism, I'm sure a lot of the ethnically Russian residents would be glad to be separate from Russia.
Do you seriously think that if the residents of Crimea freely voted, they would vote for a Russian retreat?
The original poster was a Brit and as a Brit taking Russia's side doesn't line up with long term strategic goals.
I also think crimea is a part of Russia. It was for 100s of years, most people who live there are Russian. The fact some drunken communist gave it away to an ally holds very little water compared to those factors.
I also think that the cold War should have ended in the 1990s. Our insistence on continuing it is what created the Putin we see today. He used to be an internationalist. But the need for an enemy is too deep for us right now.
Picking Russia as a friend because they are stronger makes you weaker.
Fortunately it is possible to be friends with someone without fighting someone else. That's how 99% of friendships work 99% of the time. The US and UK are allies even though the US didn't fight Argentina in the Falklands and the UK never really engaged in Vietnam.
If the Ukraine was part of NATO and Russia invades that triggers an automatic response. Troops would be sent.
The UK didn't request assistance in the Falklands. No one attacked America in the Vietman war. The US was backing up the south Vietnam government.
No, it triggers treaty obligations. Adherence to those is not automatic. Of course, if NATO admitted Ukraine now, given that there is an ongoing war in which Russia is openly occupying part of Ukraine and attacking other parts, it would be very close to a declaration of war by the existing NATO powers against Russia.
> The UK didn't request assistance in the Falklands
NATO’s collective defense obligations only applies to attacks on member-state territory in Europe or North America. [0]
The Falkland Islands are very much not in either of those continents.
[0] North Atlantic Treaty, Article 5; https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...
Article 5 is triggered by attacks, not whether the attacker claims they are attacking, and both Ukraine and NATO already officially recognize the fact of Russia’s military intervention in Eastern Ukraine as well as the harder-to-obfuscate fact of Russia’s occupation of Crimea.
Ukraine will never be part of NATO. For it to be would require change to the NATO approval process that bars states with territorial disputes from entering, and any attempt to change this would be seen by Russia (correctly) as a declaration of war and they would successfully invade the rest of Ukraine.
Beyond that, it's not even certain NATO would risk nuclear warfare to save Ukraine. Because that's what it would take. Russia has the firepower to make sure the status quo will not change, no matter what.
It was a dream of US and EU that Russia would take over the entire Ukraine, so that Russia would have to feed the hostile population and at the same time suffer more sanctions. But thankfully we didn't pick the bait. Now Ukraine is like a "suitcase without a handle" for EU and US: too inconvenient to continue carrying and seems too valuable to simply throw it away. They have to feed it to prevent a complete collapse, but they don't have any more gains from having Ukraine under control.
(Assuming that what you are saying is true. Although in your previous comment fact checking wasn't a strong point.)
Hmmmm…