Politico published a story on Thursday morning that claims the Pentagon briefed US lawmakers on suspected “directed-energy attacks” on US troops that unnamed officials allege Russia was behind.
The only example cited in the report was an incident in Syria in Fall 2020 that allegedly affected several US troops, giving them “flu-like symptoms.” Shortly after the story was published, it was debunked by comments from Gen. Frank McKenzie, the head of US Central Command, which oversees US military operations in the Middle East.
“I have found no evidence of those attacks in US Central Command,” McKenzie told the Senate Armed Services Committee during a hearing. Before McKenzie’s comments were included in the Politico report, the original story said a Pentagon spokesperson told Politico that “the department is not aware of directed-energy attacks against US troops in Syria.”
Doubling down, Politico published another story about the threat of “directed-energy attacks” later on Thursday. This story cites more unnamed sources who say Pentagon officials briefed the House Armed Service Committee on Wednesday about the “growing and urgent threat of directed-energy attacks on US troops in the Middle East.”
The story said briefers also suspected Russia but had no evidence that Moscow was responsible for these alleged directed-energy attacks. One source told Politico that a briefer said the origin of the technology needed for such attacks is “more likely than not in Russia.” Another source said, “The briefers also pointed to China as a possible culprit, and didn’t know for sure who was behind the attacks.”
Politico’s sources also contradicted each other about the briefing. Four people “briefed on the matter” told Politico that the briefers “are especially concerned about the vulnerability of US personnel in the US Central Command area of operations. But another source that was described as a “Defense Department official” said the Central Command region was “not a part of the discussion.”
It’s tough to know how much truth there is to any of the claims made in these Politico reports, and they are likely just efforts to increase escalations against Moscow. But the US government has accused its adversaries of the types of attacks in the past that they claim are carried out using some high-powered radiofrequency or microwave devices.
Since 2016, there have been stories of US diplomats reporting headaches and illnesses that have became known as “Havana syndrome.” A recording was released to The Associated Press of noise that US diplomats said they heard when the symptoms started. Scientists analyzed the recording and concluded the noise was the call of a Caribbean species of cricket.
Regardless of the fact that crickets likely caused the so-called Havana Syndrome, Politico still cited the incident as an example of a possible energy-directed attack against US personnel.
I once considered it a good measure of newsmedia performance to check how many of their readers believe a claim at various points. Like CNN once did, polling how many people believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Then you could hold a paper somehow responsible for what its readers believe in.
But that is a quite limited assessment.
A typical assymetric lifetime of a Russia propagandaclaim
– it gets taken up because it reinforces the bad reputation of the Russians
– it gives more credibility to the next smear of the Russians and helps build up a critical mass
– it gives more credibility to the people spreading the next smear
– it reduces credibility of people contradicting the smear
– it raises the threshold for contradicting evidence
– strong contradicting evidence remains in dissident media while mainstream media ignore it because it is not confirmed by reputable sources
– mainstream media accept the debunking quietly
In the end you could try to poll the result of a Russia campaign claim
– how many people accept the debunking of the claim
– how many retain the buildup of reputation damage to Russia
– how many believe the additional claims which built on top of the other claims
– how many give no credibilty to the debunkers of Russia claims(they cannot be reputable sources).
– how many never believe the debunking
– how many never find out about the debunking.
The current situation is becoming increasingly hermetic: debunking already had difficulty reaching the mainstream because they tended to ignore it until a reputable source confirmed it, but the new anti-disinformation culture makes this a hard policy. Extreme groupthink as a voluntary choice.
It has become simple. All you have to do is put out the most outrageous claim. Pure invention. It gets reported thousands of times. It becomes a myth we accept. Debunking is a slow process and debunkers are marginalized.
Even when courts rule — as was the case of Swiss Court of Appeals vs Olympic Committee on Russian athletes drug abuse —does not mean other bodies must obey. Olympic committee still illegally banns athletes.
It matters nothing that the downing of Malaysian plane over Donbas was investigated poorly, that crucial evidence was avoided. The shadow of Russian culpability remains.
It matters nothing that if Skripal’s saga is so poorly constructed and basic science ignored —if the story is made into a movie script, it would be a comedy. Yet, it has been piously invoked as truth beyond dispute! Even two Russians are identified in area, without any plausible link to the victims in the course of the day.
Now — those same two Russians are “identified” to be involved in an ammunition explosion in Czech Republic back in 2014! Why? To torpedo deal to buy Russian vaccine! The pattern of repeating — same guys — is something that is easier remebered.
Navalni — another mystery that is not explainable by the science. Again, Novichock, another repetition. But no explanation how do the victims survive and for a poison that acts in seconds — why it took good part of a day for any of its presumed victims to be affected.
Election meddling? No proof of it in 2016, but why lose a valuable script? So, election interference in 2020.
Bounties on US soldiers? No proof, but let us keep on talking!
There was an Agatha Christie Poirot story called Clocks. In which the murderers came up with multitude of details to frame an innocent woman for a murder.
The purpose of Russian guilt is carefully constructed to create an image of bad Russian people and bad country — Russia.
The problem for the two main authors of the story is — global credibility. Both US and UK have become known for slandering , inventing lies to justify invasions, etc.
What has also changed is Russia’s assessment of US intentions. It no longer believes that such accusations are one-off, or a series of irritants. Russia now believes that the systemic demonization s underway.
It is not the first time that Russian or more generally Slavic ethnicity is being treated as either inferior or dangerous.
But the key is — why? The concern for Crimea or Donbas, or Ukraine is a fake one as well. Justice should have called for Crimea to return to Russia long time ago. Justice for Donbas people is more important then the rights of Ukrainian Nazis . But it is not.
So what is the goal? Force Russia into capitulation — so that we can talk to China from the position of strength?
Or hope China jumps on anti-Russian wagon?
Or is the conclusion that trashing Russia would make many with ancient grievances happy — and China is more valuable as billion of hard working, obedient producers?
Whatever it is — and there are many possible scenarios — it signifies intention to use military force.
Worse yet — Anglo-Saxon mentality assumes that an option to switch to favorable compromise is always available.
But it is not. Past the point of no return lays the abyss of mistrust. Russia has reached it. China probably was there sooner.
Propaganda can kickstart antirussian groupthink but once started it gets a momentum of its own. Policymakers whom you’d expect to stand above the propaganda are often swept away by it just as well. The opponents on the other hand often display an enormous patience for when the West comes around and offers a new opening. That’s because of the imbalance in power: they don’t have the luxury of choice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
The US military might be experimenting on civilians.
Crickets.
As they were in Cuba. However, isn’t there a 17-year cicada cycle about to start?