Energy Firms Hacked in Largest Coordinated Attack on Denmark's Infrastructure
securityweek.com
securityweek.com
What is really worrying is the SolarWinds attack - it allowed Russians to plant deep roots in many big orgs around the world and it might take years to uproot them all.
Assuming they can all be found. Chances are that some of these will simply remain undetected.
Did it? You know it was the Russians?
https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/oversight-of-the-federal-...
> We have seen the far-reaching disruptive impact a serious supply-chain compromise can have through the SolarWinds intrusions, conducted by the Russian SVR.
Do you remember when North Korea hacked Sony films?
That's preposterous at best and lunatic territory at worst.
Is your account name a wordplay on 'Pravda'?
You should probably check up on what the brief of the FBI is before continuing to post in this thread. Hint: it's the very first word of the definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigatio...
Imagine you are dealing with a liar. If this person then tells they are good, and even provide a brief to say so, should believe them?
You think because it says 'protect' it must be true? If it says 'defense' does that also mean countries only defend themselves from attack? Or can you also defend yourself, by invading other countries? Isn't that when 'attack' is the right word?
Note that these are borderline acts of war, we're not talking about some minor stuff, even though in the context of the present conflict they are in fact minor, but that's just because there is already a hot war going on and most parties are trying to contain the conflict, not broaden it (they've had plenty of excuses to do so).
Just the fact that two things are possible does not make them automatically equally possible, this is the 'both sides' fallacy and hence logic failure.
If you want to see an example of how this might be done, can I recommend the entertaining movie: 'Wag the dog'?
What we are really talking about is the problem of presentation. Very few people/companies have a very broad reach. If you are an agency/organisation that is able to intercept and alter the message that is sent, perhaps even create the message completely (you can call this propaganda or spin) if no one is checking the reality on the ground, would you do it? Do you think those organisations tasked with governing minds (govern mente) would consider this as the easiest way to manage their message? And, as a consumer, how would you know the truth of whatever is portrayed?
There are plenty of reasons not to take the presentation we are provided literally.
The FBI consists of so many people that an effort like this isn't going to pass unnoticed so it really doesn't make any sense to postulate that they did it when there is a perfectly good explanation available already that also happens to fit all of the available data.
Santa's elves (if we're going to allow fiction...) could have done it too but nobody in their right mind would suggest we raid lapland to get at them because we pretty much know who is behind this even if we can't do much about it short of isolating Russia from the Internet. Which I would be absolutely fine with and any country that offers them transit can get blocked as well. Having a connection to the internet comes with the implicit assumption that your country does not want that connection to wreak havoc on the rest of the world.
As for the FBI abroad: they have local people called liaison officers that rely heavily on cooperation with their counterparts abroad, if the FBI was ever caught in a circumstance like the one you suggest all of that would go out the window and that would be an extremely high price to pay.
Moreover, Russia had high hopes the EU will not manage without Russian gas. They even made this scary video on how the whole EU will freeze[1]. But we managed to solve the problem and nobody in Europe is fearing the next winter. It would be a strange coincidence if power plants in the EU started malfunctioning in February causing country-wide outages because of some complex software problems that got undetected for months...
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01399-3 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5x4RzDL8ps
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/...
As for what Ukraine would win: hypothetically: they could cause Germany to stop relying on Russian gas a bit quicker. But there are other parties that stood a lot more to gain from this and 'qui bono' is an even better question, especially in the context of a false flag. The fact that the trail that was uncovered was a mile wide is in itself quite suspicious.
I'm dubious that the risk to European support is worth it for Ukraine; they're hardly the only ones with means, motive, and opportunity.
There are so many little factoids about this thing that it is very hard to make sense of it, for instance this little tidbit:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/28/russian-navy-v...
Barring some country coming out and admitting it, we may never know for certain.
Anonymity, 'people familiar with his role', that bit is repeated over and over.
I'll reserve my skepticism until there is hard proof and even then: if it turns out that this was a rogue action how much weight should be attached to it? Does that rule out some invisible paymaster?
Ukraine top government officials have denied involvement and knowledge of involvement and that's where it stands for now. The article would have been improved if it had said 'Allegedly' in the title, which given the thin sourcing is not a minor oversight.
But nobody knows who the paymasters were. Note that there are still Ukrainians fighting on the Russian side and that 'the fog of war' is a thing.
https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour...
In this case they were also one of the countries most strongly lobbying against the pipeline. I don't think it should exist either, so even though I "blame" the US for having blown it up, I think it's a good thing it happened.
A democratic or diplomatic solution would have been nicer. So... thanks but not thanks?
The US because I agree with you about their history of playing such games; Russia because they are currently doing stupid things and blaming everyone else for it; and Ukraine because (while it would be really risky if they were found out) it has an obvious direct benefit of making it much harder for anyone in the EU to spend money on Russian gas even if they wanted to.
There could be others, but I'm not sure who. China doesn't seem likely to be interested to me, but I could be wrong. North Korea seems like a chaos gremlin, but I don't think they have the capability.
Greenpeace? :P
But the others all have motive means and opportunity to varying degrees. The one thing that is still most underdeveloped is how hard it really is to perform a feat like this.
Note that the original cast of Greenpeace might not have been all against doing something like that. They started out as what today would be called eco-terrorists, and they had some pretty amazing capabilities for a group that small. Beware of intelligent and dedicated people. Their roots are in anti-war and anti-nuclear groups and over time their goals broadened. Today's Greenpeace is a gentle marketing club in comparison with how it all started.
A turning point was the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, after that the nature of the organization changed considerably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
Ironically, it served as a wake-up call that something like Greenpeace is very much needed and was probably one of the biggest reasons people changed from 'neutral' to 'pro environment'. The French did not exactly do themselves a service with that action.
Or in other words: you're being a useful idiot for Russia.
Really, we are all so far removed from the geopolitical reality, who can say what is the truth of the matter? Please share your info/reasoning, if you think you have a special reason for thinking you have a better handle on it than others.
In fact, this is really a general comment, that I direct at anyone who purports to know this or that.
The only account that actually makes sense is still Seymour Hersh's - especially given the small matter of Biden's public threat and the motives.
> I also believe that WaPo may be making Ukraine look like they've coordinated the attack in order to keep blame away from any US involvement.
No, that's not what the WaPo is doing.
> The most unlikely guilty party would of course be Russia, who has the most to lose in Nord Stream's sabotage.
This is factually incorrect for a number of reasons, a big part of which is that Russia has more to gain from dividing the EU than from losing Nord Stream.
Myself, I am trying to establish the truth of the matter - I don't accept so-called authoritative sources when they are proven liars. The only way I know of to satisfy myself off the truth is to verify it personally. Involving myself in these narratives, is like acting upon (convincing) hearsay or gossip. It's simply not part of my life.
I won't call for harm to people I do not know on account of a story that could be a lie.
Or in other words: you're being a useful idiot for Ukraine.
Do you see now how useful your comment is?
To try to make both sides as equal, as if both are lying to the same extent and there's the same amount of evidence for either side and that we cannot know anything.
I say that comments like these are useful idiots for Russia because they're echoing the Russian propaganda and talking points.
Am I echoing "EU propaganda"? (Which is really the whole western world, not just EU.)
Not willing to entertain the idea that yes Ukraine is lying and engaging in propaganda too (just like the Russians), I'd say that yes you are echoing western propaganda; though it may not be conscious, hence the word echo.
"To try to make both sides as equal, as if both are lying to the same extent and there's the same amount of evidence for either side and that we cannot know anything."
I said that's a poisonous perspective to anyone who actually values reasonable discussion and trying to ascertain the truth, because you're effectively saying only your side (ukraine) is right and suggesting anything else is russian propaganda. So again that's why I think your perspective is poisonous.
"To try to make both sides as equal, as if both are lying to the same extent and there's the same amount of evidence for either side and that we cannot know anything."
I'm not suggesting it.
> I said that's a poisonous perspective to anyone who actually values reasonable discussion and trying to ascertain the truth, because you're effectively saying only your side (ukraine) is right and suggesting anything else is russian propaganda. So again that's why I think your perspective is poisonous.
You are not going to get much traction with this nonsense, there is no 'my side' or anything else but thank you for confirming what 'your side' is.
When you have something productive to add to the conversation, let me know.
This is a fine starting point, but only if you ignore the mountains if evidence where Russia has consistently lied about everything from Ukraine being Nazis to who set up the torture chambers on liberated land, while racking up thousands of war crimes.
Implying that both sides lies to the same extent is just stupid wrong, and is exactly the narrative that Russia wants to promote.
Of course everyone uses propaganda, but there's an incredibly large difference between what the free world can get away with and what the totalitarian Russian government csn and will do.