> it allowed Russians to plant deep roots in many big orgs around the world and it might take years to uproot them all
Did it? You know it was the Russians?
Did it? You know it was the Russians?
https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/oversight-of-the-federal-...
> We have seen the far-reaching disruptive impact a serious supply-chain compromise can have through the SolarWinds intrusions, conducted by the Russian SVR.
Do you remember when North Korea hacked Sony films?
That's preposterous at best and lunatic territory at worst.
Is your account name a wordplay on 'Pravda'?
You should probably check up on what the brief of the FBI is before continuing to post in this thread. Hint: it's the very first word of the definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigatio...
Imagine you are dealing with a liar. If this person then tells they are good, and even provide a brief to say so, should believe them?
You think because it says 'protect' it must be true? If it says 'defense' does that also mean countries only defend themselves from attack? Or can you also defend yourself, by invading other countries? Isn't that when 'attack' is the right word?
Note that these are borderline acts of war, we're not talking about some minor stuff, even though in the context of the present conflict they are in fact minor, but that's just because there is already a hot war going on and most parties are trying to contain the conflict, not broaden it (they've had plenty of excuses to do so).
Just the fact that two things are possible does not make them automatically equally possible, this is the 'both sides' fallacy and hence logic failure.
If you want to see an example of how this might be done, can I recommend the entertaining movie: 'Wag the dog'?
What we are really talking about is the problem of presentation. Very few people/companies have a very broad reach. If you are an agency/organisation that is able to intercept and alter the message that is sent, perhaps even create the message completely (you can call this propaganda or spin) if no one is checking the reality on the ground, would you do it? Do you think those organisations tasked with governing minds (govern mente) would consider this as the easiest way to manage their message? And, as a consumer, how would you know the truth of whatever is portrayed?
There are plenty of reasons not to take the presentation we are provided literally.
The FBI consists of so many people that an effort like this isn't going to pass unnoticed so it really doesn't make any sense to postulate that they did it when there is a perfectly good explanation available already that also happens to fit all of the available data.
Santa's elves (if we're going to allow fiction...) could have done it too but nobody in their right mind would suggest we raid lapland to get at them because we pretty much know who is behind this even if we can't do much about it short of isolating Russia from the Internet. Which I would be absolutely fine with and any country that offers them transit can get blocked as well. Having a connection to the internet comes with the implicit assumption that your country does not want that connection to wreak havoc on the rest of the world.
As for the FBI abroad: they have local people called liaison officers that rely heavily on cooperation with their counterparts abroad, if the FBI was ever caught in a circumstance like the one you suggest all of that would go out the window and that would be an extremely high price to pay.
Moreover, Russia had high hopes the EU will not manage without Russian gas. They even made this scary video on how the whole EU will freeze[1]. But we managed to solve the problem and nobody in Europe is fearing the next winter. It would be a strange coincidence if power plants in the EU started malfunctioning in February causing country-wide outages because of some complex software problems that got undetected for months...
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01399-3 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5x4RzDL8ps