The list says "Reported Russian Military and Civilian Intelligence Services (RIS)" followed by "Alternate Names" which implies that they a) discuss RIS - actors and b) discuss the objects of the same nature - alternative names for the objects of the same nature - RIS/actors.
By naming both actors and tools they show that they either do not have the ability to write reports or that they do not know the difference between the two, for example if this part of the report was writen separately, after all the bulk of the said report is not about attibution but about prevention and other security measures.
Further you imply that:
- there is sufficient evidence in the (classified version of the) report.
- that said evidence is valid.
As we have seen previously (Iraq being the best known example but there are others) this is not nessesary the case so I would not trust the report, especially if there are simpler explanations around (ie wikileaks explanation about a whistleblower) and if the reports themselves lack data and are writen incompetently.
Regarding the purge. You assume that they are right. What if they are wrong, and the politicians in those agencies (after all the high end officers can also be political apointees) have warped the reports? Morever the purge is nessesary as not only is the intel comunity known to falsify their reports to fit a political agenda (Iraq? ISIS?) but they would also sabotage POTUS policies, much like Pentagon sabotaged the Russia-US deal over Syria.
__________________
Grumpy as always.
|