[swayvil]

Raise stress level. Reduce efficiency. Decrease morale.

That's mere sabotage there. A very good reason to do it.

There could be more specific reasons too. The effects of all that on certain procedures and decisions. Part of a larger plan.

And such a convenient technology. It begs to be used.

[matthewdgreen]

Seems like this plan would work better if it didn't leave a big trail of breadcrumbs back to its perpetrator.

[hedora]

Speculation from actual victims suggests it was intimidation from Russian agents who knew there would be no response as long as Trump was in the White House.

Some victims were approached by the Russians and told to go back to the US immediately before (within a day or two) of the attacks.

Such warnings are apparently extremely unusual, and a violation of professional etiquette between the US and Russian intelligence agencies.

[rendall]

> "Some victims were approached by the Russians and told to go back to the US immediately before (within a day or two) of the attacks."

I'm skeptical, tbh. Every single time someone has proof that it's definitely the Russians, I follow that rabbit hole and the actual evidence is tenuous or non-existent

As for its being Russians in this case, it's still turtles all the way down: Just as it makes no sense that it's the hosting country, it makes no sense that it's the Russians, especially if they tip their hand in such a way. What advantage would Russia have for intimidating the US embassy staff by sending thugs to "get out or else"? The embassy are glorified messengers with limited negotiating skills. Even if the entire diplomatic corps quit en masse, the US would just send more.

If there were some advantage to sickening, crippling and otherwise poisoning diplomatic staff, why are there not more such incidents across the world?

[matthewdgreen]

I don't think you or I have any access to the real evidence that would allow us to make a meaningful determination. We have almost none of the raw intelligence, and we're facing off with foreign intelligence agencies who have strong enough operational security to ensure that we won't gain access to such evidence.

We have intelligence agencies that pour hundreds of billions of dollars per year into recruiting human sources at the highest levels of foreign governments, intercepting vast amounts of encrypted data, and doing all sorts of complex analysis. It's entirely possible that the CIA has a source within Russian intelligence that has already handed them a copy of the machine's blueprints and operational plans, but the CIA can't reveal that information because it would destroy sources and methods. So instead, they're taking secret internal actions while also pushing hard on public agencies like NAS to look carefully at the non-classified evidence.

I guess it's also possible that the CIA has no evidence and just wants to pick a fight with Russia for some private reason of its own. I can't rule that out, but it would rely on a lot of people -- including Trump appointees -- having seen the (lack of) evidence and basically agreeing to go forward anyway. That seems surprising to me.

I think at the end of the day the best thing you can do is weigh motivations. Does Russia have a reason to mess with embassy staff? Well, it doesn't make sense to me personally, but then again, neither does killing your opponents in public using Novichok or Polonium. Does the bureaucratic CIA have some incentive to promote a baseless intelligence war with Russian agents, one that is likely to get people on both sides hurt? It's possible, but also seems pretty unlikely.