Biden says Russia exploring revenge cyberattacks United States President Joe Biden has revealed "evolving intelligence that the Russian Government is exploring options for potential cyber attacks" and that the risks posed to critical infrastructure are so significant that hundreds of US organizations have been given classified briefings on the matter. The president said any …
Biden says Russia exploring revenge cyberattacks
No shit, Sherlock. Whoever would have guessed?
Propaganda Rule No 1 ...... Keep on inventing phantom virtual enemies one is in control of to do vain battle with and declare are a danger to friendly forces and ignorant allies alike?
You just described the Russian government playbook. “Ukraine is a threat they’re going to join NATO and attack us” The reality is Ukraine couldn’t join NATO before the Russians started a war and invaded. You can’t join if part of your territory is invaded and it was, by Russia in the Crimea years ago.
It's exactly like when Russia went into Iraq with the claim that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda and WMDs. Firing 30mm guns at civilians, journalists and aid workers in 'double-tap' ambushes.
Just like when they went to war in Vietnam because of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Or when they converted the richest african country into a failed state with open-air slave markets, because Khadaffi was giving viagra to his troops to struggle-snuggle female prisoners...
Those russians... always lying and never appearing in The Hague to answer for their war crimes....
Excellent whataboutery there.
Russians have also claimed that they're there just doing de-nazification and ousting the government - never mind that the President is Jewish; Ukraine is making dirty/nuclear bombs; Ukraine is committing genocide.
Do you agree with those Russian claims?
Was waiting for the whataboutery commenr...
Pointing out hypocricy is not whataboutery. If one side has a history of lying, that side is hardly in a position to be taken seriously as they're accusing others of doing what they've been doing themselves for decades already.
It sounds as if you are defending a bunch of lying warmongers responsible for the death of an estimated 1.5 million Iraqis... are you supporting lying warmongers?
In the first place, I can't see anyone estimating 1.5 million casualties in Iraq. Credible estimates max out at about 1 million. Iraq Body Count documents less than 300,000.
In the second place, against those casualties should be offset the many thousands of Iraqis, and much larger numbers of foreigners, murdered annually by Saddam's regime before its removal. There is no doubt that Saddam did have a WMD program, and even went out of his way to convince the world that he had the wherewithal to make an A-bomb. The fact that this subsequently proved to be a bluff does not affect its validity as a justification for intervention.
But even without the whole WMD thing, we're talking about a regime that had repeatedly started wars of conquest against its neighbours, committed multiple acts of genocide against its own people, and manipulated an international inspection to make it report that half a million children had been killed by sanctions, in a bid to get them lifted. These are well documented, now uncontested, facts. So what do you think is the baseline of casualties that we should be comparing against?
The invasion of Iraq was botched, no doubt. But in terms of justification, it was downright noble.
Good, it's 'only' a million according to your information...
we're talking about a regime that had repeatedly started wars of conquest against its neighbours, committed multiple acts of genocide against its own people
This regime, was a steadfast ally of the US while committing these atrocities and was supplied by its western allies with the material to commit said atrocities. That is, until they invaded Kuwait under the misread assumption that the US had given the nod that it was ok for their, then ally, to do so.
The invasion of Iraq was botched, no doubt. But in terms of justification, it was downright noble.
Under all international law, this was a war of aggression perpetrated by the US, resulting in (your estimate) a million Iraqi people being killed and you're trying to white-wash this act by saying it was 'noble'.
The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
"Pointing out hypocricy is not whataboutery. If one side has a history of lying, that side is hardly in a position to be taken seriously as they're accusing others of doing what they've been doing themselves for decades already."
I am accusing Russia. This doesn't mean that I am defending USA. How is that a difficult concept?
Having a black president of course does not mean that white supremacists no longer exist, but it does mean it would be a bit silly to accuse him of personally heading a Nazi program of genocide against non-whites. Similarly, Zelensky being Jewish does not mean Ukraine has no problems, but it should make claims that he is the head of a Nazi regime appear just a little bit suspect.
it should make claims that he is the head of a Nazi regime appear just a little bit suspect.
I have not seen anyone making this particular claim. I may have just missed that though.
I do see people make the quite ludicrous opposite claim though.
There are verified neo-nazi elements in Ukraine, and up to few years ago, even such mainstream media outlets such as the BBC reported on this being a serious threat to Ukrainian democracy.
Ukraine is the only country on the planet who has incorporated a known neo-nazi militia into its regular army.
Does this mean that all Ukrainians are neo-nazis? Of course not. Does it mean there is a serious internal issue within Ukraine wir
th neo-nazi elements? Most certainly.
What's happening in Ukraine is a deep tragedy, but for people who have been following the events since 2013/2014, nothing of what recently happened came as a surprise and instead of simplifying a very complex situation to a 'Ukrainians good', 'Russians Bad', it would be a lot more productive to reflect on the complexity of the situation.
In this debacle there are no winners, aside from a select few people who have seen the worth of their stock portfolio increase.
Appearing to do nothing about neo-nazis is a problem. I remember when Azov first appeared on our screens, proudly displaying their allegiance to Das Reich and the SS by their insignia. Not a good look.
Ukraine didn't seem concerned. Because Azov were later folded into their regular army, and then promoted to regiment. So Ukraine missed a couple of chances to address this problem with simple solutions. Hold a parade, issue new insignia, order the troops to place the old ones in the burn barrels you've thoughtfully provided.
For some reason, that didn't happen. Zelensky concentrated in more important issues, like arresting his predecessor for 'high treason', media suppression and generally ignoring Minsk.
Again, this doesn't justify Russia's invasion, but might have helped avoid it.
Or the general regime change playbook. For operational security reasons, there are details I cannot reveal publicly about these incidents. But I can confirm that in at least one attack, the wolf was drinking vodka, clear evidence it was personally trained by Putin.
Dear government. We're IT types. We can handle the truth. We can enhance operational security, if we have details. We're familiar with trickbot, ryuk and wizard spider due to Ukrainian and Russian cybercrimals using them. The connection to Putin seems rather tenuous though.
But such is politics. We're from the the government, we're hear to help. We know Russia hacked our own emails, servers, latops, although for operational security reasons we wiped those devices to prevent evidence becoming public. There will be more on this, and other war crimes once our fact checkers have eliminated all evidence of our now President bragging about bombing Belgrade for 78 days.
(On which point, maybe thanks to the MSM and politicians, truth has become rather flexible. So the Discovery Channel has a reality show about a place called 'Blind Frog Ranch'. Treasure hunters find a cave, and assume it's Montezuma's lost gold. They dive into the cave and find a large log structure. That's dated to 16th century, so must be lost gold. So in keeping with archaeological best practices, they attempt to drag the large box of rocks out of the flooded cave. Naturally, this fails. But the rocks are checked and found to conceal elemental gallium. And the 'reality' show skips deeper down the rabbit hole.)
"You just described the Russian government playbook"
It's not just the Russian playbook. It's a well established ploy extremists have used to justify their acts many times around the globe.
By vain battle you mean Mariupol, Kyiv or Kharkiv? ......Potemkine!
No, I do not mean Mariupol, Kyiv or Kharkiv. I refer very specifically and quite categorically to any wilful and wanton cyber conflict both against or for competitive friend or opposing provisional foe alike you may not fully know .... nor ever will be able or enabled to know fully.
Down that path be endless myriad dragons and daemons impervious of slaying intent on being contented with all manner of necessary deserved destruction and mayhem/madness and chaos.
You stepped into a big trap set up by the Anglosaxons. Ukraine will bleed you white like Afghanistan did: Motivated Infantery plus cheap+nasty infantery weapons (Stinger, Javelin, MILAN, Panzerfaust 3) which destroy your tanks, helos and ground attack planes.
You still have the option to call it a day, negotiate something (e.g. some kind of Ukraine Neutrality) and then extract yourself from the furnace. You made your point that Kiev were bad boys* and had to be punished. They are now punished.
And next time, do the punishment via air attacks. Blow up some barracks, planes, bridges, factories from the air, if the Ukrainians become too cocky again.
*shelling civilians from Donezk airport, burning Russians alive in Kiev etc.
Russia doesn't want to punish Ukraine. It wants to annex it. It started with Crimea. Next is was Donetsk and Luhansk. On the list now are Kharkiv, Mariupol, maybe Odessa.
Russia knows well about air attacks. They know how to bomb theaters, maternity hospitals, civilian housings. Mariupol lies at 80% in ruins. Russia killed tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians. And still continues to do so, daily.
Providing weapons to the brave Ukrainian people to defend against the Russian invasion is the least that democracies can do to help to defeat Putin Khuylo's dictatorship.
It always helps to be understanding if you want to convince somebody about some course of action. RT says* the war is about beating back Ukrainian brutality.
So I pick up this argument and show them a way out of the dead end street.
*whatever the true motives were, you have to take the other side by their words. And knowing Russian Rage Psychology a bit, I consider it at least partially true.
TBH, that's what I expected to happen. Russia occupies Donbas to pressure Ukraine into granting those regions local autonomy. They become much like Wales or Scotland. Which I suspect would be the outcome anyway.
Alternatively, Ukraine takes the opportunity to recapture Donbas and Crimea, and more people die. Things like Mariupol are progressing much the same way as sieges always have. Encircle, besiege, call for surrender. If the answer is 'nuts!’, tighten the noose and ask again. Defenders and civilians get squeezed into a smaller area, and more die.
Luckily Mariupol isn't surrounded on account of it being a port. So in theory, a naval blockade could allow humanitarian aid ships in, and civilians out. But at the moment, politicians seemed determined to sacrifice Mariupol because the propaganda value is worth more than Ukrainian lives. But that's been Ukraine's fate for the last few hundred years, being a pawn in other nation's geopolitics.
So far, Putin has done all the escalation. From threats, to annexation, to invasion, bombing of civilian targets, placing nuclear forces on "special alert" (a status that doesn't exist, incidentally, so means absolutely bugger all except that he wants us to remember he's got them), and now he's strongly trailling the use of chemical or possibly even biological weapons.
Every time, every single time, the west has backed down, and Putin has responded by escalating further.
Sooner or later we're going to have to stand up and call his bluff. Frankly I'd rather we did it now. While he still has something to lose.
Every time, every single time, the west has backed down, and Putin has responded by escalating further.
If you think that the history of this conflict started 2 months ago, then, yes, you're right.
However, if you dig a little deeper, you can see that the lynch-pin in this conflict was the coup orchestrated by the US in 2014 of the then democratically elected government, with Victoria Nuland's infamous leaked 'F the EU' phone-call.
With the attention span of people being no more that a couple of days at most nowadays, I didn't expect any other response, nor do I expect that most people who think the same as you and mostly skim headlines for their 'news', are interested in what happened in the prelude to the current conflict.
It was glorious when the slippery Miss Nuland revealed to the unspeakable Rubio, in the robotic atmosphere of congress [ or a parliament ], that yes, Ukraine does have joint US/Ukraine biological research laboratories so dangerous the Russians must never get near them
[ But if the results do get out and spread havoc and US/Ukrainian research does bad things to people, it will be because of the Russians... ]
.
Little Marco was expecting her to join with the ludicrous American Media self-anointed 'Fact-Checkers', and say no, Ukraine has no biological weapons.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y39veTO7kF4
There's also the regular waving of false flags. NATO warns Russia is planning to use CBW in false flag operation. So when they are used against civilians or Russians, we can blame Russia. So basically the Syrian routine. Might even be some White Helmets available to help with staging and set dressing.
Much more plausible if only one side has CBW capability, so Nuland's answer was a bit awkward.
Providing weapons to the brave Ukrainian people to defend against the Russian invasion is the least that democracies can do to help to defeat Putin Khuylo's dictatorship.
I disagree. Supplying weapons is simply delaying the inevitable and leading to the deaths of more civilians and the potential for a mix-up and larger conflagration between NATO and Russia, in the meantime.
Every diplomatic effort must be made to reach a negotiated settlement.
Dear Anon,
it's all about God and Devil dichotomy.
Burger Builder Club are dancing with Satan while others, serving at their side either lick their shoes, or just playing those who see and hear, but in fact, blind and deaf they are.
Please try not to fall into the trap of etnicity or race - this is just differences in obfuscation of human DNA.
They want to become new pharaons. I don't ask you to trust it, Anon. Just be sure that you have your own eyes, ears and skin. They will tell yoi
Nixon: having nuclear armed B52 circling over the north pole in order to pressure Russia to press the Vietnamese. see GIANT LANCE.
Macron: "in case of large scale attack we will nuke". Flying Mirages in the black sea area, doing nuclear training runs
Putin: flying in two types of nuclear bombers training missions(personally). Then doing mad talk several times.
Biden: flying B52s in practice attack runs over Ukraine. Not talking mad, though.
Now, what do we make out of this ? Ignore the mad talk and pray every day ?
Now, what do we make out of this ? Ignore the mad talk and pray every day ?
what I take out of this is that some politicians are preparing people's minds to the use of nuclear arms. And it's going to be the other side's fault.
Considering that the US financial system is broke, and it's only living on fumes provided by the FED, but that that can't go on forever without hyperinflation, I fear that the Wall-Street banksters need some bogeyman to accuse of the implosion of their Ponzi-scheme. Russian nukes would be a perfect target for that: "of sorry, all your money in the banks is gone, it's the fault of big bad Putin using weapons of mass destruction "
I'm not deleting a thing. I don't even know if you're the same AC as the one I replied to.
Apparently you have trouble reading or understanding this sentence in the CNN article:"The flight over Romanian airspace put the bombers right on the edge of NATO countries, adjacent to Ukrainian air space"
Are you just moving the goal posts?
It's just classic and operant conditioning. Blow the dog whistle, observe the response. Nudge units pat themselves on the back.
This has been pretty evident since Russia stated an objective to 'de-nazify Ukraine. No! Russians are Nazis and Putin is Hitler. Given the number of Russians killed by the Nazis and their allies during WW2, this both highly insulting, and inaccurate.
Ukraine actively participated in the Holocaust. Mainly because there was some ideological alignment between the OUN and the Nazis, ie national socialism and a strong Ukrainian national identity. And Ukraine formed it's post-WW2 army around an SS division. Fast forward to 2014, and the appearance of openly neo-Nazi groups like Azov, Svoboda etc etc. Or the glorification of war criminals like the OUN, or Stepan Banderas.
Which must have made Zelensky's call with Israel interesting because they know damn well Ukraine's involvement in the Holocaust, and attempts at revisionism. Which is also a bit odd given Zelensky's Jewish, thus can't be a Nazi.
So 2014 showed Azov shelling Ukrainian Russians. Spot of ethnic cleansing, just like the good'ol days of the OUN. And to makes their allegiance clear, they adopt the wolfsangel and black sun emblems. Copying an SS division's insignia is waved away as coincidence, the black sun harder to justify given it was pretty much invented by a Nazi occultist for the SS.
So for a Jewish guy, it's not a good look. One simple option would have been to force Azov to re-brand. Better yet, make wearing Nazi and other hate symbols illegal. I can't remember if that's an EU thing or not, but by dealing with it back in 2014, Russia wouldn't have the de-nazification excuse.
Instead, Ukraine expanded Azov from a battalion to a regiment, and promoted it to special forces. Just what NATO and the world needs, Tier-1 neo-Nazis. Especially given creating false flags and general skullduggery is what SF units does.
The poor optics seems recognised. NATO used an image of a Ukrainian, then pulled it because the person was wearing a black sun. Azov don't seem to be displaying it as much, possibly because they know it might draw unwelcome attention from snipers.
Still doesn't explain why Zelensky's done nothing about it. Unless he can't, because he has no control over his forces. Or he understands Ukrainian politics, and knows a presidential limo won't survive against the anti-tank missiles Azov now has. They're much better equipped now than they were during the 2014 coup.
Well, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact did not make them allies, it was a non-agression pact to carve up Poland and other chunks of Eastern Europe. Naturally Russians (and historians) tend to find the idea that Russia was an ally, or started the war rather offensive. Especially as Russia invaded Poland a couple of weeks after Germany triggered WW2.
But the issues went back much earlier. Like the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Or the 1918 Poland-Ukrainian War, which ended with Poland annexing a large part of Ukraine. That obviously caused ethnic tensions, and some brutal ethnic cleansing. Not helped by stuff like the charming Mr Beria, or Russian agricultural reforms that resulted in Holodomor.
But ironically, part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was to restore Ukraine's territorial integrity. So if Russia did start WW2, it did so to protect Ukraine.
(also somewhat ironic that Ukraine wanted to re-brand the Molotov cocktail given the name was coined by the Finns as a sarcastic response to Russia dropping 'food aid' on them during their Winter War. And footage of Ukrainians filling crates showed that many years later, they still don't know how to make them. Especially after video from the 2014 coup showed what happens.)
Somehow in your history lesson you forgot to mention how Germany and Russia started WWII as allies.
You're falsely representing the Molotov-Ribbentop pact as an alliance, while it was no such thing; it was a non-aggression pact that included dividing up the 'buffer' country of Poland.
This is something called geo-politics; in the case of the Russians it is well documented that both the Germans and Russians knew that they would eventually clash. The Molotiv-Ribbentrop pact was just a way for Russia to be able to build up their military after the extensive 'cleansing' by Stalin, while for the Germans it was convenient as they could focus their attention to the west without interference from the Russian.
By annexing half of Poland, Russia also thought to obtain a buffer-zone in case the Germans eventually would decide to invade.
I believe it's Churchill who said (I am possibly paraphrasing) 'In geo-politics there are no friends, only interests.' In this case the Russians in the followup to WW2 acted in their own interest. Pretending any western country did not act in a similar manner is ignorant at best. Just look at how the Allies reacted to the invasion of Poland; the German invasion of Poland should have triggered a declaration of war from the UK, yet it didn't do this because it was not prudent to do so at the time.
The US supplied the Mujahedin in Afghanistan to give the russians a bloody nose, they were essentially setting the stage for their own ousting from Afghanistan just recently, as the Mujahedin evolved into what his now the Taliban.
Grow up. The world is not black and white, good and bad.
There are only different degrees of assholes.
This statement does not make any sense. If with 'they' you mean 'Soviet Union', then why, if they wanted to attack at the first possible opportunity, would they need to have a buffer zone? Buffer zones are defensive sacrifice zones that can be used for strategic withdrawals.
Aside from that, any arm-chair historian can tell you that the Red Army was far from being ready, due to Stalin's culling of military leadership and was not even able to defend the territory they already owned, until it drastically reorganised late 1941. This is why the Germans initially made huge strides towards Moscow in the first year of operation Barbarossa.
You have no clue.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us-b-52-bombers-fly-in-country-bordering-ukraine_4318493.html
https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-04-22/h_bd912675dd0570d8d1820d7fc502fa58
https://www.flugrevue.de/militaer/gleichzeitige-bomberfluege-usaf-uebung-polar-roar/
This post has been deleted by its author
Putin was still playing cold war.
Of course, it was Putin, who wanted to keep the cold war going.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule
Not US weapons manufacturers.
Please get a clue.
Your first link says B52s flew over a country bordering Ukraine. If you can't tell the difference between "Ukraine" and "a country bordering Ukraine", you might just be a Putin propagandist.
(Incidentally, Epoch Times? Srsly?)
The second story says the same thing but from CNN, attributing it to the USAF. So I'll accept it's probably true, for what that's worth.
My German is a bit rusty, but since your third link is dated from 2016, I find it hard to believe it says much about the current war.
So your evidence for your previous insinuation - is nothing of the sort.
The latest pretext to draw the West into conflict.
What is the advantage to Putin to start a punch up where, at best, everyone gets a bloody nose and at worse we all get destroyed ?
Unless the thinking is "I am going down, I'll take everyone else with me."
I always assumed that politicians had some sense of history: how will they be viewed in 200 years time, hero or villain ?
What is the advantage to Putin to start a punch up where, at best, everyone gets a bloody nose and at worse we all get destroyed ?
Unless the thinking is "I am going down, I'll take everyone else with me."
I always assumed that politicians had some sense of history: how will they be viewed in 200 years time, hero or villain ?
The mad man hypothesis is a very dangerous line of reasoning to follow because you can up constructing a logical argument for using a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
It's worth remembering, only one nation has been crazy enough to use nukes so far and it wasn't Russia.
Was that when he and his family were being starved by the original nazis in St. Petersburg?
And by starved, I mean that some.people were pushed to cannibalism after years of siege.
It might explain why he *really* does not like nazis...
Wait, isn't there might be a quote we can trot out at this point?
Oh, and here it is:
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
Knowing why something happens is not the same as condoning or endorsing it.
It does give insight in how to eventually fix any issues that happen as a result of that or prevent the same thing from happening in the future.
While you're quoting Nietzsche; I have a quote for you as well:
'Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat is'.
I agree. But in situations like these, it is often tricky to offer a bare explanation and have it read *only* as that bare explanation; it often tends to be *read* as if the existence of an explanation makes the behaviour in some sense excusable, reasonable, or somehow less bad.
This tendency is not really all that problematic when an explanation is offered for (e.g.) shouting angrily at the dog, but generally I feel it's always safer to qualify any such explanations in more extreme situations.
As an aside, in this context the rat story is interesting. Presumably we are intended to think that Putin feels he has learned something important from the rat's successful behaviour, and to an extent copied it -- but then why did Putin not *also* consider that the rat in the story could be Ukraine?
That was just evidence of climate change. Or would be, if was happening now. Except Ukraine's made Holodomor denial a crime, so the official answer is Russian genocide, ie deliberate rather than a disastrous policy decision that also resulted in the death of millions of Russians.
I do see state-sponsored attacks by Russia being attempted.
I also think Biden is giving a heads-up to the industry folks.
OTOH, what we don't know are the tools that NSA will use to block the attacks. In the industry, the going mantra is: state-sponsored cyber-attacks require the NSA to step in.
Putin never realized that democracies look splintered and slow but on the whole are much more powerful than dictatorships. He just handed the West the keys to Russia. They are going to grind him down and destroy the Russian army and the economy once and for all.
I do see state-sponsored attacks by Russia being attempted.
Some evidence might be required for this statement.
As for grinding down another state with economics; the USD seems going to be snubbed by OPEC as the only currency it's being traded in and by now even (some) people who don't know anything about exonomics see that the US is never able to pay back their state debt, without huge inflation rates (notice your petrol price going up?)
The EU in the meantime is in a similar situation, where the ECB is buying up bonds of some of the southern european countries as fast as these can issue them to keep their economies afloat.
Meanwhile European economies have shot off their foot with a 12 gauge, in their lapdog attempts at sanctoning Russia, while heavily crippling any trustworthiness in their financial system and billions of Euros of orders in other trade with Russia, that were needed to recover from 2 years of corona.
Interesting times ahead and quite a lot of cheerleaders who think they are standing on the sidelines...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
