Does the best-known approach just boil down to weighing the cost/benefit of (acting | not acting) x P(most likely aggressor | some other cause)? Or has someone figured out a better approach?
Are you sure that false-flag attacks always involve a media blitz?
Just thinking that if I were planning a false flag, and I know that people would recognize it as such because of the media blitz, then I'd look for a workaround. That seems consistent with what we have here.
See GP… the point of a false flag is to drive a narrative. Otherwise you are just damaging yourself for no reason.
I agree. A false-flag attack is all about optics.
But IIUC the GP, they're saying the SATCOM failure isn't widely known, so it wouldn't make sense as a false-flag attack.
That's where GP loses me. Because we are discussing it here, as members of the general public. And the discussion isn't limited to a small nerdy site like HN; it's also being covered by Reuters [0].
[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/satellite-outage-kno...
Unfortunately with all the censorship, service withdrawals, disconnections etc (from both sides) makes this approach .... difficult ....
My opinion is, let all the information flow. People are not sheep that need herding by the powers that be (again, I refer to both 'sides' here).