Tinfoil hat time: it sounds like these “found” documents mostly contain information that MoD would want to leak.
> "We have a strong, legitimate narrative", they said, noting that the presence of the embedded journalists (from the BBC and Daily Mail) on board the destroyer "provides an option for independent verification of HMS Defender's action".
Quite. It's very cold-war-esque. It has a definite soupçon of publicity about it, and mostly supports the government's narrative about them vaguely being competent – we did pre-plan a trip to navigate around Crimea [a place where the British haven't traditionally had the best time!] and we also plan to keep a toe in the fort in Afghanistan -- allies be damned. Conveniently, it also comes as Borris has just lost a Tory safe seat, his philandering and "hopeless" health secretary has just been forced to resign, and people across the political spectrum are fed up with him.
I am 99% sure Russia would rather have the leaks that highlight the crippling lack of ability in Britain's armed forces, caused by austerity, or a true impact assessment of Brexit. I also think it's very odd that the only papers leaked were these two: it's a strange thing to specifically print out these reports. I also think it's downright odd that they're printed --- most high-level classified documents seem to exist on secure, airgapped, immobile computer systems.
> it also comes as Borris has just lost a Tory safe seat, his philandering and "hopeless" health secretary has just been forced to resign
The UK population as a whole seem ok with how the COVID response has been managed (see below link).
I know that an opinion on the UK COVID response doesn’t necessarily have to match an opinion on the competency of the health secretary, and even that both can be independently rubbish.
The below link does appear to show a disconnect between what was achieved and what people think was achieved.
There seems a whiff of nationalistic exceptionalism about it. If the response was good, it would be weird to sack the architect.
> If the response was good, it would be weird to sack the architect.
Calling Hancock hopeless is almost certainly a reference to text messages sent by the Prime Minister calling Hancock "totally fucking useless" and the fact jilted former adviser Dominic Cummings [2] said Hancock "should have been fired for at least, 15-20 things"
Of course, you might very well ask if Hancock is so bad, why did the PM keep him as health secretary during perhaps the biggest health crisis of all time?
It's possible Hancock isn't all that bad, and we're just seeing political manoeuvring here to make Hancock take the blame for the lack of PPE, the failure to keep even a single new variant out of the country, the failure to protect care homes, the cheating to hit testing targets, the inept track-and-trace effort run by cronies, the insistence on keeping borders wide open and allowing foreign holidays, the dodgy supply contracts given out to friends and family, and so on.
I've never been convinced that per capita was a sufficient metric on it's own. I've been following the country numbers (globally) for the last year and the trendlines have been similar almost across the globe with few exceptions:
To me this says the tolerance for local deaths rates -> lockdowns doesn't seem to be per capita but "bad enough" compared to other countries around them, or just hospital tolerance in general. With some exceptions like Brazil who ignore the international reputation or Peru who doesn't have the financial (or more likely leadership) capability to make a difference.
My feeling was more that it related to how independent the media was, and how powerful the opposition is. The UK is going through a sort of low point on both counts, so there wasn't really anybody to make a fuss (aside from the occasional scientist).
In countries like India, where the per-capita death rate is a tiny fraction of the UK's, the media creates a sense of pandemonium. Of course, it is pandemonium in India at the moment - but it was also pandemonium in the UK when NHS staff were wearing bin bags, except, in the UK, the PM is married to the ex of the most powerful newspaper editor, the opposition is on holiday, and everybody is anxious to avoid asking any awkward questions (aside from, amusingly, Dominic Cummings).
It was the weirdest thing - I'm english, so I was watching the UK news, while also watching the graph of cases/deaths on a daily basis (my mum was in a high risk group). I was literally sending them emails of the statistical risk of dying of covid vs other dangerous things, because the media set this tone of complete normalacy, when it was actually a very high risk enviroment. It led to basically nobody wearing masks, for instance.
Madk usage has been very very high in the UK, and the risk of dying from covid has never been high, it has always been the aggregate effect on medical infrastructure causing a collapse in treatment availability, nit just limited to covid treatment, that has been the danger.
> I also think it's downright odd that they're printed --- most high-level classified documents seem to exist on secure, airgapped, immobile computer systems.
I think it's pretty common to print classified documents, since as you say the electronic copies normally live on specific airgapped networks. If you'll need them somewhere without access to that network (e.g. most meetings) printing is the easiest option.
If you've lived around government circles for long enough (in my case, merely existing in Canberra for a decade) you inevitably hear stories of senior public servants running through airport terminals, briefcase with classified documents in hand, because the Minister is going to get a plane in ten minutes and their signature is needed on an order for some critical law enforcement or defence matter that has arisen in the last couple of hours.
(I've also been told by government friends that there are plenty of very significant government locations where you would assume they have a Top Secret classified, airgapped network, but they don't, even though they have appropriately classified rooms for storing and reading Top Secret print documents.)
Light the cover page on fire before reading the document? Light the document on first instead of reading it? Try and read it while it is burning? Pack it in a pile of pages, light them on fire, and read it after it burns (surprisingly, that actually sort of works)?
I suppose any of those would work, but I like that idea of lighting it and frantically trying to read it while it's burning. Or maybe a sophisticated read-while-burning machine that continuously burned that page you had just finished along with something to stir the ashes.
Foreign intelligence agencies would develop their own discrete sniffer machines to detect faint traces of soot on people to identify potential intelligence personnel. Counter-intelligence would work on psyops campaigns to promote the health benefits of soot & encourage people to use new deodorants and other body grooming products laced with soot to throw them off soot sniffers. The most advanced burn-while-reading devices would have intricate ventilation and ash-isolation chambers with furnaces that burn hot enough to vaporize the ash to the sub-micron level. Portable versions would occasionally malfunction and spontaneously combust the bearer, fueling that particular subset of the tinfoil hat community.
It would be an entire soot-based intelligence community arms race, hilariously ridiculous and immensely fascinating.
GCHQ (being a British intelligence agency) has never used NOFORN as that’s an American handling caveat.
The old equivalent would be UK Eyes Alpha (UK nationals, no contractors or embeds) or it’s modern equivalent UK Eyes Only.
And no the UK rarely writes “other classification criteria” on the front of documents. Again you’re thinking of the USA. Along with double slashing // also an American thing though occasionally used this side of the pond.
> "Following the transition from defence engagement activity to operational activity, it is highly likely that RFN (Russian navy) and VKS (Russian air force) interactions will become more frequent and assertive," one presentation warned.
What was the deal with the story on HN a few days ago before the story dropped, saying that AIS showed a RN warship off Crimea and people were claiming live cams and direct observation showed it still in port in Odessa? Was this the Defender? It's very hard to Google for now. The date filtering tools aren't good enough. The lines between fiction and real life are blurred.
Sure feels like the UK are engaging in firehose disinfo, as Russia has practiced for years. It seems impossible to understand what's really going on, and I fear even historians won't be able to figure it out because 10 years from now these events will be buried by even crazier happenings. Strange times.
Here is a report[0] from the ship during the time of events. As the leaked documentation shows, the encounter had been anticipated, so I guess it was a tough call to put a journalist on board.
The reason MoD denies the “warning shots were fired” phrasing (and BBC puts it in quotes) is most likely to defuse the sizzling situation. Either UK frames the events as “warning shots were fired by Russian navy in Ukranian waters at a British ship” and has a conflict that requires following up, or it denies Russian framing of events (leaving it open to interpretation—say Russian navy suffered equipment malfunction that resulted in ammunition ending up in Ukranian waters some distance away from the British ship, stuff happens) leaving it for them to follow up—which Russia can’t really do, as no major country accepts its jurisdiction over Crimea (even China abstained on the relevant UN vote).
I'm not sure a convincing answer to a charge of a disinfo is to cite leaked info on print that should never have been printed to begin with and that was published by a state media outlet of an interested party.
Britain has absolutely no obligation to follow up on warning shots there. It's bizarre to claim so. Britain didn't follow up on an actual invasion, warning shots will be ignored.
The UN vote you are citing wasn't to accept Russian jurisdiction over Crimea, it was to reject it. Abstention is support of the status quo for major powers that can't be bullied.
In reality, everyone accept Russian control of Crimea de facto. Even the Ukrainians, propaganda and internal politics aside, have largely accepted it as a ground fact that cannot be changed. It is what it is.
The British were never attacked or threatened during the annexation of Crimea. “Warning shots were fired at UK navy in the waters where UK navy was in its right to be” would mean British navy being threatened.
Putin can call it “warning shots” all he wants. As long as the UK maintains poker face he can do zilch about it, unless he is willing to either literally attack the UK or withdraw from Crimea.
“It is what it is” and “everyone accept” are not acceptable justifications for rogue actor behavior.
The British weren't attacked here. They went into waters they don't control.
If a British boat goes into Crimean territorial waters and refuses to leave and gets sunk, the only result with be a sunk British boat, pretty much. What is Britain going to do, increase sanctions?
Wether that had a "right" to be there doesn't care. It doesn't matter if I had the right or way when I get run over by tank, I get run over anyways.
If Russia attacks the British navy in Ukrainian (according to everyone but the Russians) waters which the British navy has permission to be in, that's just an outright aggressive act of war. Britian, and/or other members of nato, might well decide to shoot back.
They might not too, it's borderline, but no one knows quite where that line is. If forced to bet on an outcome I would bet on nato sinking a Russian ship of comparable size also in Crimean waters.
> Britian, and/or other members of nato, might well decide to shoot back.
This type of fantasizing reminds me of someone getting bullied in the schoolyard and then dreaming that he is beating up his nemesis. Neither the UK nor NATO are going to start a shooting war near crimea, and the UK Navy simply isn't in a position to do anything there. Everyone knows this. Fantasizing about things being otherwise isn't a good use of anyone's time.
> Neither the UK nor Nato are going to start a shooting war near crimea, and the UK Navy simply isn't in a position to do anything there
Exactly. No one wants a war, and no one’s starting it, including Russia whose only choice is to make noise at passing UK warships and live with it. Got to admire the move by the British, who understand that well.
So let me understand your point correctly, Britain, by doing absolutely nothing useful and needlessly increasing tensions and creating a risk of war by transiting a ship that could have been blown up any second, was doing an admirable move?
Seems to me it was toxic internal propaganda and nothing actually useful. Meanwhile Russia sees absolutely no consequence, and they won't.
Exploiting the conundrum that Russian dictatorship has holed itself into, making it question own decisions without unnecessary bloodshed?
It has shown itself an aggressor and is alone against pretty much the whole developed world. It won’t start a war, since it will lose (both the war and the approval of own population, already not that far from revolution or civil war). All it can do is watch and bite its elbow.
NATO is not required to an will not reply to such a request as a matter of treaty.
Britain is not able and not interested in retaking Crimea. It will not happen. They can shoot back at useless targets, but if Britain provokes a war with Russia in Crimea it will simply be defeated.
A vote to support territorial integrity of Ukraine and invalidate on international level the 2014 referendum in Crimea sounds right about the same as a vote to continue recognizing Crimea as part of Ukraine and not Russia.
No, it's quite different. It's not a vote on accepting jurisdiction, it's a vote on rejecting it, with the status quo being compatible with acceptance.
The vote was on the UN resolution that reaffirms territorial integrity of Ukraine, thereby rejecting Russian jurisdiction over Crimea. The resolution was proposed by Canada, Ukraine (naturally) and others, and 100 countries voted in favor. What am I missing?
Status quo as it stands is Ukraine de jure in control of Crimea, and Russia de facto unlawfully occupying it.
Voting against the resolution was an option. Presumably that means a country doesn’t necessarily believe Ukraine deserves to remain in control of this part of its territory. Zimbabwe and Belarus, among a few others, have voted against. China is the most prominent country among the few who abstained. The rest voted for Crimea being part of Ukraine.
International law is a stupid and weak thing. Yes, the case for Ukraine controlling Crimea de jure is strong. But at the same time self-determination exists, and no one seriously contests that the majority of Crimeans would rather belong to Russia.
It's not as cut and clear de jure as it may seem, international law almost never is.
Russia does not de facto "unlawfully" occupy it, because law is not a matter of fact. It's not even under occupation anymore, it's almost entirely annexed now.
There was a great article several years ago about parents discovering their child came home with a UK MoD classified CD of data.
The children were making clocks in school (typical $1 mechanism, AA powered) with the CD as a clock face. The parent had forgot to send in a CD and was curious what the child was using, and saw it said something like "Top Secret, return to DoD if found", or something to that effect.
Was part of a period where a lot of MoD, MI5, MI6, etc docs were turning up on unsecured laptops, USB keys, left on trains, and the like.
Why would a U.K. MOD CD have return to DOD written on it? Depending on where it came from it wouldn’t have any such markings. It would just be a certain colour. Note the highest document the bbc showed is on red/pink paper. Those pink CD’s are a pain to order.
The member of the public upon realizing the sensitive nature of the documents immediately thought: 'hmmm, better contact the BBC and tell the whole world about it.' Yikes
> A member of the public, who wishes to remain anonymous
If you had the option to remain anonymous by going to a trusted media organization that has a reputation of balancing the public right-to-know with national security concerns, and avoid getting Richard Jewell treatment, you’d take it.
This is some kind of real life modern Sherlock Holmes story. We have the Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans, The Adventure of the Second Stain, and The Adventure of the Naval Treaty as possible models..
"If divulged, this document could bring about very dire consequences for all of Europe, even war." The minister's wife is probably trying to hide evidence of some previous tryst from her husband, but got the documents mixed up..
The question of "why not USB" is relevant regardless of what happened. Having sensitive printed documents traveling about like that isn't very secure.
But I'm half joking about it being a dead drop. (Only half because the UK has been very deeply penetrated by foreign intel operations before)
One explanation for USB vs. printouts, I guess it would depend on the security measures in place. The ability to use USB drives could be disabled in various ways to prevent bulk data removal while printing was still allowed. Or the reports were centrally printed out and distributed to various recipients, so it was never digitally accessible to the person who lost it.
You don’t want to plug USB sticks into a SUKEO network. Far too much hassle getting them from approved suppliers, making sure they’re not tampered with so on. Much easier to print documents and write a log of it up in a 102.
I'd wager that major intelligence agencies installed people within airline cleaning services to obtain exactly this sort of waylaid documentation with regular success (pre-COVID).
I'm a brit. This pointless bs is exactly why I wish we'd cut "defense" spending. Defense means picking a fight with Russia to pretend Crimea is part of Ukraine!? No thanks.
Crimea is part of the Ukraine. Just because it was invaded because Russia needs that strategic port doesn't mean it is not worth standing up to Russia. Don't you think the UK is better off protecting Ukraine, making friends and trying to prevent Russia from taking over another country or all of the Ukraine. Wouldn't a strong Ukraine make the UK safer?
Do you care about politics or fact? De Facto, Crimea is simply under total Russian control, and there is no internal or external force that will change that for the foreseeable future. It being part of Ukraine is just a paper fiction.
I think we'd be better making friends with Russia. I think making friends with anyone means making friends (trade, support, cultural exchange etc), not sending warships. If we provoke an incident and Ukraine pays the price I doubt they'll thank us.
I also think crimea is a part of Russia. It was for 100s of years, most people who live there are Russian. The fact some drunken communist gave it away to an ally holds very little water compared to those factors.
I also think that the cold War should have ended in the 1990s. Our insistence on continuing it is what created the Putin we see today. He used to be an internationalist. But the need for an enemy is too deep for us right now.
Being a friends means having their back when someone bigger attacks them. When times are good everyone wants to be your friend but a true will be there when you are down.
Picking Russia as a friend because they are stronger makes you weaker.
So you're proposing war with Russia over the Ukraine then? Because that's the alternative here.
Fortunately it is possible to be friends with someone without fighting someone else. That's how 99% of friendships work 99% of the time. The US and UK are allies even though the US didn't fight Argentina in the Falklands and the UK never really engaged in Vietnam.
> If the Ukraine was part of NATO and Russia invades that triggers an automatic response.
No, it triggers treaty obligations. Adherence to those is not automatic. Of course, if NATO admitted Ukraine now, given that there is an ongoing war in which Russia is openly occupying part of Ukraine and attacking other parts, it would be very close to a declaration of war by the existing NATO powers against Russia.
> The UK didn't request assistance in the Falklands
NATO’s collective defense obligations only applies to attacks on member-state territory in Europe or North America. [0]
The Falkland Islands are very much
not in either of those continents.
> Russia claims that they are not participating in any hostilities in Ukraine
Article 5 is triggered by attacks, not whether the attacker claims they are attacking, and both Ukraine and NATO already officially recognize the fact of Russia’s military intervention in Eastern Ukraine as well as the harder-to-obfuscate fact of Russia’s occupation of Crimea.
None of the examples you cited are relevant to NATO. Vietnam and the Falklands are outside the statue of Article 5, unambiguously.
Ukraine will never be part of NATO. For it to be would require change to the NATO approval process that bars states with territorial disputes from entering, and any attempt to change this would be seen by Russia (correctly) as a declaration of war and they would successfully invade the rest of Ukraine.
Beyond that, it's not even certain NATO would risk nuclear warfare to save Ukraine. Because that's what it would take. Russia has the firepower to make sure the status quo will not change, no matter what.
There's no reason for Russia to take over the entire Ukraine. Ukraine is a failed state, poorest country in Europe, it is drowning in problems. Just look at the stats from ukrstat.gov.ua
It was a dream of US and EU that Russia would take over the entire Ukraine, so that Russia would have to feed the hostile population and at the same time suffer more sanctions. But thankfully we didn't pick the bait. Now Ukraine is like a "suitcase without a handle" for EU and US: too inconvenient to continue carrying and seems too valuable to simply throw it away. They have to feed it to prevent a complete collapse, but they don't have any more gains from having Ukraine under control.
Moldova is the poorest country in Europe. Ukraine is 2nd and Serbia is 3rd. Out of some wacky coincidence these are also the European countries that had very strong alignment with Russia.
Out of some wacky coincidence all the countries where US staged color revolutions (Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Tunis, etc, etc) are doing much worse in all areas of life than before.
Crimea is currently populated by 70% ethnic Russians, who have been the majority for at least 50 years, and the plurality for at least 120 years. The reason it became part of Ukraine is because the USSR transferred it there from Russia in 1954.
The only benefit to Europe and the US of complaining about the annexation is to put pressure on Russia. Nobody wants the ethnic cleansing that would occur if Russia actually retreated from Crimea (and any Russian politician, dictator or not, who allowed that to happen would lose their political career and maybe their life.) If it weren't for the horrifying virulence of Ukrainian nationalism, I'm sure a lot of the ethnically Russian residents would be glad to be separate from Russia.
Do you seriously think that if the residents of Crimea freely voted, they would vote for a Russian retreat?
Well, see, you guys have signed a treaty to protect Ukraine’s integrity. A few years ago you kind of chickened out of it when it mattered and now it’s a matter of putting on a show to come off as at least slightly credible.
> "We have a strong, legitimate narrative", they said, noting that the presence of the embedded journalists (from the BBC and Daily Mail) on board the destroyer "provides an option for independent verification of HMS Defender's action".
As does this leak, if you believe the provenance.