>>84561 Quoth wikileaks:
>Purported internal documents, from a UK government "counter-Russia" influence network targeting mostly Europe and US, appear on site often alleged to be used by Russian state hackers.
so you're not far wrong. However;
>Our assessment is that the documents are too British, too bureaucratic, too boring and line up too much with known operations to not be mostly accurate, but modifications or one bogus document out of 25 can't be ruled out without further testing.
The scribd article is still an interesting read, whatever slant you might think it's pushing.
>>84562 I think they're trying to push the documents as evidence of some shady operation to exercise state power to spread disinformation. Not only does it require some incredible mental gymnastics to reach this conclusion, it's pretty rich coming from the Russians. It's like Jimmy saville calling John Worboys a predator.
>>84563 That's exactly what the scribd thing says. Also
>We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of being fabrications.
I wouldn't really trust wikileaks analysis of anything anymore, it has become apparent the entire opperation is just Julian Assange and that he has been flipped since pre American election to working for the ruskies.
>>84565 You think the Russians got Assange to publicise these documents with the coda "these were posted on a website Russian propagandists use" then later add "It looks like they have been fucked with" ?
>>84560 Bringing the UK to the brink of a cold war and pissing off a possible major trading partner at a time when we are negotiating brexit, are you seriously supporting II ?
These fools contributed to Russiagate, which has now degenerated into 750,000 donated by linkedin founder to pay for fake Russian bots to manipulate the US elections.
