Why Russia’s Vast Security Services Fell Short on Deadly Attack
www.nytimes.com
The factors behind the failure to prevent a terrorist attack include a distrust of foreign intelligence, a focus on Ukraine and a distracting political crackdown at home.

The adversarial relationship between Washington and Moscow prevented U.S. officials from sharing any information about the plot beyond what was necessary, out of fear Russian authorities might learn their intelligence sources or methods.

  • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    111·
    9 months ago

    But even in your case of letting all the spies be killed to save one civilian, it would in the end result in more dead civilians because if a country does that to its own spies, nobody will want to be a spy for them anymore

    Ridiculous from top to bottom.

    First, you’re taking the U.S. at its word that there was anyone on its side in real danger. There is no reason to trust the U.S., and many reasons to think they’re lying – they’re fighting a proxy war against Russia, after all.

    Second, it’s laughable to take the premise of additional intelligence possibly endangering some spy and turning that into “this would kill all U.S. spies.”

    Finally, the U.S. has fucked over countless lackeys in the past and will continue to do so. Dying for your country is what these people already signed up for, and there will be more meat for the grinder whatever happens to a spy here or there, because of a million reasons, but mostly because who the hell is telling recruits about some active spy that gets burned?

    • HopFlop@discuss.tchncs.de
      12·
      9 months ago

      First, you’re taking the U.S. at its word that there was anyone on its side in real danger.

      No, but the statement we are discussing assumes this from the start: “I would happily sacrifice the life of every single American spy abroad for a single innocent life.”

      Second, it’s laughable to take the premise of additional intelligence possibly endangering some spy and turning that into “this would kill all U.S. spies.”

      Yeah but we’re discussing the case where it would kill all spies. My statement was in response to (I repeat): “I would happily sacrifice the life of every single American spy abroad for a single innocent life.”

      Finally, the U.S. has fucked over countless lackeys in the past and will continue to do so. Dying for your country is what these people already signed up for

      Yeah but this is not “dying for your country” (it wouldnt benefit the USA in any way) but rather “dying for a single civilian of an adversary country”. They didnt sign up for that.

        • HopFlop@discuss.tchncs.de
          32·
          9 months ago

          I don’t care about impossible thought experiments

          Then don’t comment on one and don’t waste my time telling me that my answer to a morality question is “ridicolous” because it didn’t happen.

          • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            9·
            9 months ago

            Lmao waste your time? You’re on a shitposting forum, you’re doing that yourself.

            I didn’t pose any hypotheticals, I pointed out that your weepy moralizing over the idea of endangering spies is ludicrous.

            • HopFlop@discuss.tchncs.de
              32·
              9 months ago

              No, you tried shifting the discussion and when I told you what was being discussed, you simply said you’re uninterested.

              First, you’re taking the U.S. at its word that there was anyone on its side in real danger.

              No I’m not. I never claimed anyone was in danger.

              Second, it’s laughable to take the premise of additional intelligence possibly endangering some spy and turning that into “this would kill all U.S. spies.”

              Yeah it is and nobody did. I certainly didnt.