Talk:Russiagate

Definitions

BRIEF OF FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY, December 8, 2017

Throughout, a hallmark of Russian active measure operations has been its reliance on intermediaries or ‘cut outs’ inside a country to facilitate active measure campaigns. These actors include political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web operators, shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro Russian businessmen. They range from the unwitting accomplice who is manipulated to act in what he believes is his best interest, to the ideological or economic ally who broadly shares Russian interests, to the knowing agent of influence who is recruited or coerced to directly advance Russian operations and objectives.

Several obvious problems here. Russian is undefined, first use is, Across history, the Russians have adapted their strategy as technology and circumstances have changed. Who are 'the Russians', and who are not ? Is anybody who adapted their strategy, etc, a Russian?

In particular, Article 13 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation prohibits for the state to adhere to any ideology. So 'ideological allies of the Russian Federation' is undefined (one can say they do not exist, or say that everybody is such an ally); then what are they talking about? --Resup (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Новогоднее обращение Алексея Навального, by Алексей Навальный Published on Dec 31, 2017 --Resup (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Russian information

Moved from US presidential elections

Russia is ready to publish correspondence with the United States about the alleged hacking of the server of the Democratic Party in 2016. NKTSKI Deputy Director Nikolai Murashov noted that in accordance with intergovernmental agreements, these data cannot be disclosed without the consent of the other party. TASS, Rus, Robo-Eng, December 11, 2018

• Russia provided the United States with comprehensive information about the hacking of the server of the US Democratic Party during the elections in 2016. Nikolay Murashov, Deputy Director of the National Computer Incident Coordination Center (NCCTS) of Russia, said that the first message about the alleged intervention of the Russian Federation in the work of the Democratic Party’s server was only on October 31, 2016.

  “After that, there were a number of additions to it, which contained certain technical information about the perfect performed hack

  google mistranslates совершенном, =common spelling of совершённом, = which was performed/committed a conjugation from совершать=commit, do, perform

  All this information was analyzed by us, even before President Trump’s inauguration, our answer, which was exhaustive in our view, was sent to the American side.” noted Murashov.

Muller report

Alleged hacking activities, p 36+, against (1)Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) (2) Democratic National Committee (DNC). Alleged transfer to a leased computer in Arizona. (1)"GRU appears to have compressed and exfiltrated 70 GB of data" from DCCC (2) "GRU officers accessed DNC mail server" and "Unit 26165 officers appear to have stolen thousands of emals and attachments", "which were later released by WikiLeaks in July, 2016".

All descriptions of investigative techniques which led to those conclusions are suppressed and so cannot be evaluated. --Resup (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The best would be to try it in a court, as VIPS have suggested (US or international). --Resup (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Post-Mueller: illegal spying cover-up?

Pretty gross/disturbing picture portraying 'counter-intelligence investigation' of 2016 as a legal cover-up of political spying/surveillance, from conservative sources linked on the mainpage. Remains to see where it will lead; weather Barr will get to the bottom of it? IMO, real problem is vast, poorly regulated data collection, initially justified by anti-terrorism but quite predictably evolving into snooping (and alas, with gross worldwide consequences) --Resup (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Dec. 2020: Another round?

Nakashima er all,. Dec. 13, 2020 --Resup (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

July 15, 2021: Another round?

• Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House - The Guardian, July 15, 2021

  No clue, but I doubt. Too easy to fake. Suspicious timing (third recount announced in Arizona). Suspicious formatting, equal-length lines, like a MS Word alignment. Suspicious plot, such sort of real documents do not circulate and do not end up in the Guardian; that would ruin the source with little benefit, apart from propaganda/gov comm. It was denied of course (Peskov), and the meeting took place but with different agenda. They are under no pressure to inform about meetings which are not to be announced, presumably. Special part on page 14, and bed wetting on page 18? Crap. Why to write all that crap without any crap? Unless for the Guardian? But, the whole world is pretty fucked up so, a ? ... --Resup (talk)

• Craig Murray 1, 2, July 15, 2021

  The Kremlin is full of super cyber espionage operatives, it says. And yet apparently they print out their top secret documents on a 1970s Gestetner duplicator or something with similar definition. Top secret minutes with no classification page heading.

  And either a colossal font size or Kremlin meeting minutes are produced on narrow strips of paper.

• Ivan Tkachev (and backed by Alperovich, July 15, 2021

  I have counted 4 linguistic errors and a couple of dubious instances of word usage.

  • a comma shouldn’t be used before ‘и может’ (noted: English grammar used ?)

  •‘делегЕтимизация’ is spelled with an orthographic error (noted: indeed, but could be native)

  •‘провокация возникновения’ is not how native speakers say, even in bureaucratic language (noted, indeed, and a bit above bureaucratic)

  • ‘занимающих роль’ is a lexical mistake. (noted , indeed , "a role" is not "occupied"; ill-spoken or non-native, hard to know) --Resup (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

2023

According to reports, Podesta was spearphished, that does not require state-level sophistication, neither Bears, Mossad, or the Reptilians. Phishing is typically for money, so it needs to be sold. Obviously somebody helped them to find their way to W'leaks, but AFAIK it was not traced. James Bafford stuff about Molho illustrate that there could be alternative backers. While Archimedes group are essentially social media influencers, again, it shows that those are not unique. In the end of the day, one needs to be more concerned with my so many people had reasons to desire a change. (Note that US Jews , Israelis, are traditionally siding with Democrats, not Republicans; and that Prigozhin, Deripaska, and all others, are, similarly, persons with free wills and their own brains as well). --Resup (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)