[stackola]

... is what the intelligence agency would say.

[JumpCrisscross]

> is what the intelligence agency would say

Intelligence agencies will say anything. Everyone crafting pet conspiracy theories today belies either underlying motive or incompetence. (I tend to assume the latter.) It’s in the same category as same-day armchair crash investigation. Fact-driven analysis not yet possible, the discussion gets dominated by those fitting data to their worldviews.

[stackola]

And yet you make the assertion "What it is not is a successful covert operation by a competent intelligence agency."

"Coicidence theories" (for lack of a better word) are just as difficult to prove on day 1.

[JumpCrisscross]

> you make the assertion "What it is not is a successful covert operation by a competent intelligence agency."

Yup. Because obvious, minor disablement not in anyone’s interest. Russia, U.S. or Europe. It might be latent capabilities firing early (fuckup), rogue elements (fuckup), et cetera. But anyone arguing this news benefits America or Moscow is already outside reality.