Or working at one scada company that built the system for all three.
I'm just saying that it's convenient to just blame russia for everything without any proof.
I'm just saying that it's convenient to just blame russia for everything without any proof.
So, who else?Who has a motive and the capabilities to do this?
Realistically... by stirring the shit up in europe, the country that gains the most is.. well.. USA. Do something, blame russia, make EU economy worse, worsen the relations, make european countries stop production due to energy crisis, sell them american products, and if things get even worse, sell weapons, maybe even to both sides if things get desparate enough, watch europe destroyed again while their own economy gets a great boost.
It seems more of a response/warning to the sending of weapons that has a tiny bit of teeth but not enough to escalate further.
If they consider themselves at war with NATO this attack does make sense.
Realistically... by stirring the shit up in europe, the country that gains the most is.. well.. USA. Do something, blame russia, make EU economy worse, worsen the relations, make european countries stop production due to energy crisis, sell them american products, and if things get even worse, sell weapons, maybe even to both sides if things get desparate enough, watch europe destroyed again while their own economy gets a great boost.
EU <-> Russia relations are about as bad as they can get short of open war, trying to make them worse is somewhere between meaningless and self-destructive for the US. If the US wanted to escalate they have easier ways.
Russia is better off when the alternatives to their energy are poorly performing or nonexistant.
Don't make it more complicated than it is. You can go round-and-round all day with: it looks like A did it, but oh that's what they _want_ me to think, or maybe _that's_ what they want me to think. Really 9 times out of 10 it's the obvious.
It also looked like iraq had weapons of mass destruction and iraqi soldiers were killing babies... but a few years later, it looked a bit different.
This war is just one of the many in the last decades, and the west only cares, because it's the russians doing it and not americans/nato. The world that didn't care about a 20 year long occupation of afghanistan (... and iraq, syria, libya, etc.), because the media didn't tell them to care... now they care, again, because of the media. So yeah... an attack, where russia literally gains nothing and the result is only worse relations seems iffy to me.
They're two hairs away from direct war. You've lost the plot.
This hack attack "attacks" Germany without actually doing any meaningful damage. It serves US interests more than Russian.
>Really 9 times out of 10 it's the obvious.
9 out of 10 hack attacks are attributed on the basis of little more than an IP address and the politically convenient culprit is blamed. It'd be an easy thing to get away with.
The US has little to gain, Germany<->Russia relations are already in the trash. Why bother trying to achieve what Russia already did for you?
The US has a _lot_ to lose and extremely little to gain. If they were shown to be at fault it would be a huge PR win for Russia and would basically tank the goodwill that intra-NATO has gained.