Directly to the source: http://csis.org/publication/reference-note-russian-communica...
The original url [1] was blogspam—that is, it was a knock-off (or excerpt) of some other, more original source. In such cases HN strongly prefers the original source.
Submitters: blogspam is usually easy to recognize. Please check for that and post the original instead.
1. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/info_on_russi...
You really really should.
"Blogspam" is an attribute of an article, not an author [1]. I defined it above, and even included "or excerpt" to cover the current case.
I enjoy reading Schneier. Many of his articles are on-topic for HN. But the more lightweight ones often aren't (because there are more solid sources and we only want so many about a given topic). As for as a mere excerpt like this, there shouldn't even be a question.
None of this means these pieces aren't appropriate on Schneier's site. It's natural for his blog to be a clearinghouse for stuff he didn't write, but wants to share. Not all of it, though, is perfect for HN, where (a) the front page is space-constrained; (b) we want the most substantive pieces on a given story; (c) we prefer original sources.
1. Had I said "spamblog", you'd have had a point. :)