russia poisioning

[phart]

Ah the UK response to the threat just seen some tweets there.

 

[aaid]

19 minutes ago, phart said:

Just back in, damning in what context? The way it was handled? The way Russia behaved? How strong the evidence is?

 

Specifically with respect to the Brexit referendum, there is no evidence of any collusion.  However that's only because there was no government investigation carried out to look into interference.  They didn't find any evidence because they didn't go looking for any.  

its less an absence of evidence, rather it's evidence of absence. 

[phart]

Just now, aaid said:

Specifically with respect to the Brexit referendum, there is no evidence of any collusion.  However that's only because there was no government investigation carried out to look into interference.  They didn't find any evidence because they didn't go looking for any.  

its less an absence of evidence, rather it's evidence of absence. 

Yeah just reading that. Look there is no evidence... did you look for evidence... well about that...

[Shaundy]

Live on bbc 2 . Excellent fun . Even the UKers at the table couldn’t hide their glee at the Alex Salmond is a Russian spy bit . Fek in Britnats 

[phart]

I had a look at this ages ago as someone pointed it out to me.

https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics?fbclid=IwAR1O2ChI6i5zUyim5RUFwM7INIdr0Hn0N2ARkcYhtN_1zpBNTwS2lzapd2o

[Dave78]

In exactly what way are the Russians supposed to have influenced the Indyref/Brexit referendum?

A few hundred twitter trolls in St. Petersburg. Is that it?

How many Yes/Leave votes was that worth? An insignificant amount i'm sure.

And while we're on the subject of twitter bots, what the hell do we think the 77th Brigade of the British army do each day?

 

 

[ParisInAKilt]

17 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

In exactly what way are the Russians supposed to have influenced the Indyref/Brexit referendum?

A few hundred twitter trolls in St. Petersburg. Is that it?

How many Yes/Leave votes was that worth? An insignificant amount i'm sure.

And while we're on the subject of twitter bots, what the hell do we think the 77th Brigade of the British army do each day?

 

 

I thought the Russian angle was debunked or maybe that was just the US election 

[Hertsscot]

10 hours ago, Dave78 said:

In exactly what way are the Russians supposed to have influenced the Indyref/Brexit referendum?

A few hundred twitter trolls in St. Petersburg. Is that it?

How many Yes/Leave votes was that worth? An insignificant amount i'm sure.

And while we're on the subject of twitter bots, what the hell do we think the 77th Brigade of the British army do each day?

tbh even if the Russians were interfering (and we and our allies would never do that, would we?) there's still no make excuses for all those people who believed a charlatan like Farage over Brexit, willingly voted Tory and were content to have a well known liar to become PM.

[Orraloon]

So, let me get this right. 

The media are reporting that Russia tried to interfere with both referendums. But there is no evidence that they did, because nobody bothered to look for any evidence.

Is that about it?

 

[Orraloon]

"Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said a new law requiring foreign agents to register in the UK was being looked at."

WTF????????

[aaid]

12 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

"Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said a new law requiring foreign agents to register in the UK was being looked at."

WTF????????

Not as stupid an idea as it sounds on the surface it's something that's been the law in the USA since the 1930s.  However, it only makes it easier to prosecute people that you've caught spying, it won't actually stop it and in this context is nothing other than a distraction.

Talking about distractions, have you noticed that whenever the government needs someone to go and act as a human shield when they're in the position of having to defend the indefensible, it's Grant Shapps.    

[aaid]

11 hours ago, Dave78 said:

In exactly what way are the Russians supposed to have influenced the Indyref/Brexit referendum?

A few hundred twitter trolls in St. Petersburg. Is that it?

How many Yes/Leave votes was that worth? An insignificant amount i'm sure.

And while we're on the subject of twitter bots, what the hell do we think the 77th Brigade of the British army do each day?

 

 

The report doesn't make any judgement on whether or not there was any actual influence - ie. whether there was any impact on the actual result - as that's pretty much impossible to quantify.

What it does suggest is that in the light of Russian attacks on en Marche in France, the DNC email servers in the USA and some open source evidence of interference in the 2014 Scottish referendum that there should've been an investigation around the 2016 EU referendum.    The point is that no-one really knows whether it's just a few hundred twitter trolls in St. Petersburg or something deeper as there's been no investigation into that.   Although this obviously happened after the report had been written, they also cited the Government revealing last week that Russia were responsible for hacking and leaking in the 2019 General Election - although of course that points Labour as the "bad actor" and Stewart Hosie pointed out that although the SIC had asked to see the intelligence to support that, they hadn't been given it so far.

On the Scottish Referendum, while this is being spun as being interference *in* the Scottish Referendum, in fact the report only references actions *after* the referendum designed to throw doubt on the validity of the count itself and hence the result - some of which I recall being touted here as "proof" at the time.   

In truth - in the same way that we don't know of the extent of any interference in the Brexit referendum, we don't know if they were interfering before the fact in the Scottish referendum because no investigation was carried out, despite the DCMS requesting that the government do so.

Of course the real question isn't about what Russia might have done or not done and what impact that might have had but why are they - the UK Government - so reluctant to do a drains-up investigation into the 2016 referendum, what is it that they don't want to find or to have exposed?

[wee-toon-red]

I haven't seen it anywhere else, and notwithstanding your comments about it being post-indyref "interference", but has the actual content or nature of the "open source" evidence been highlighted anywhere?

[aaid]

34 minutes ago, wee-toon-red said:

I haven't seen it anywhere else, and notwithstanding your comments about it being post-indyref "interference", but has the actual content or nature of the "open source" evidence been highlighted anywhere?

Yes, it's in the report.  Specifically this piece - 

https://medium.com/dfrlab/electionwatch-scottish-vote-pro-kremlin-trolls-f3cca45045bb

 

[phart]

I see that was produced by the Atlantic council.

[Dave78]

28 minutes ago, aaid said:

Yes, it's in the report.  Specifically this piece - 

https://medium.com/dfrlab/electionwatch-scottish-vote-pro-kremlin-trolls-f3cca45045bb

 

Interesting, ta.

 

But in terms of it affecting anything, it all seems like a storm in a teacup (vodka shot glass?) to me.

[aaid]

13 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

 

But in terms of it affecting anything, it all seems like a storm in a teacup (vodka shot glass?) to me.

Who knows, the intelligence services certainly don't.

If anyone was expecting a direct line from Putin to Farage, for example, to be uncovered then they'll be disappointed.

if there is anything then it's probably in spreading disinformation but then the actual participants in both referendums were pretty adept at that - not Yes obviously 😉

[aaid]

48 minutes ago, phart said:

I see that was produced by the Atlantic council.

I make no comment on its veracity whatsoever.  It's only relevance in this context is that it concerned activities *after* the 2014 referendum whereas the SIC report which references it has been spun as claiming it "confirms Russian interference *in* the Scottish Referendum" which is either an outright lie or extremely disingenuous depending on how charitable you are being. 

[phart]

27 minutes ago, aaid said:

I make no comment on its veracity whatsoever.  It's only relevance in this context is that it concerned activities *after* the 2014 referendum whereas the SIC report which references it has been spun as claiming it "confirms Russian interference *in* the Scottish Referendum" which is either an outright lie or extremely disingenuous depending on how charitable you are being. 

I don't know either just noticed that at the side. Sometimes the best propaganda between nations is just to tell the truth about what they're doing. As so much shit going on behind the scenes.

[wee-toon-red]

32 minutes ago, aaid said:

I make no comment on its veracity whatsoever.  It's only relevance in this context is that it concerned activities *after* the 2014 referendum whereas the SIC report which references it has been spun as claiming it "confirms Russian interference *in* the Scottish Referendum" which is either an outright lie or extremely disingenuous depending on how charitable you are being. 

Thanks for posting the link in your other post. My asking for more information was precisely to help show someone that the only sign of any involvement was post-indyref rather than pre.

[aaid]

16 minutes ago, wee-toon-red said:

Thanks for posting the link in your other post. My asking for more information was precisely to help show someone that the only sign of any involvement was post-indyref rather than pre.

This is the actual piece in the report that refers to 2014.  Where there's a *** that means that is particular section has been redacted.
 

Quote

41. There has been credible open source commentary suggesting that Russia undertook influence campaigns in relation to the Scottish independence referendum in 2014.₄₄ However, at the time ***. It appears that *** what some commentators have described as potentially the first post-Soviet Russian interference in a Western democratic process. We note that – almost five years on – ***.₄₅

The two foot notes referenced are 
 

Quote

44 For example, it was widely reported shortly after the referendum that Russian election observers had suggested that there were irregularities in the conduct of the vote, and this position was widely pushed by Russian state media. We understand that HMG viewed this as being primarily aimed at discrediting the UK in the eyes of a domestic Russian audience. More recently, we note the study by Ben Nimmo – #ElectionWatch: Scottish Vote, Pro-Kremlin Trolls, 12 December 2017.

45 Oral evidence – GCHQ, *** December 2018 ***.

I've seen some spin from people who should know better that "ah, but the redacted bits *must* relate to activities during the 2014 referendum".   That's obvious bollocks.  They *might* but unless you have an unredacted version you'll never know.   They may relate to the Scottish Referendum, they may relate to another election entirely, for example, the 2014 EU elections and not necessarily the UK ones.

Edit - actually the redacted parts are more likely to refer to the 2014 Ukrainian presidential elections.

Edited July 22, 2020 by aaid

[Grim Jim]

The Conservatives accepting £1,765,804 from Lubov Chernukhin might have been more influential.

Ruth wisely keeping her head down again though.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18597951.davidson-hasnt-20k-dinner-russian/

 

[wee-toon-red]

21 minutes ago, aaid said:

This is the actual piece in the report that refers to 2014.  Where there's a *** that means that is particular section has been redacted.
 

The two foot notes referenced are 
 

I've seen some spin from people who should know better that "ah, but the redacted bits *must* relate to activities during the 2014 referendum".   That's obvious bollocks.  They *might* but unless you have an unredacted version you'll never know.   They may relate to the Scottish Referendum, they may relate to another election entirely, for example, the 2014 EU elections and not necessarily the UK ones.

Edit - actually the redacted parts are more likely to refer to the 2014 Ukrainian presidential elections.

Cheers. I'd seen the report piece but had missed the footnotes.

[Orraloon]

It shouldn't really be a surprise if Putin tried to interfere with the Independence referendum considering Cameron asked him to do it.

[phart]

Just been reading Stewart McDonald MP's twitter timeline regarding Russia enquiry. WTF my reading of it is he's bawdeep in the security services. Recommending Oliver Kamm, Luke Harding.

I've not spent nearly as much time on current affairs last 24 months as I used to, but as someone who spent the better part of a decade reading everything I could on "black ops" my spider senses are tingling like fuck.