The Washington Post Throws Shade on a Major CNN “Scoop” About Intercepted Russian Communications and Rightfully So – Opinion

On Monday, CNN’s crack foreign policy team of Natasha “Fusion” Bertrand, Jim Sciutto, and Katie Bo Lillis broke an exclusive on Ukraine US intel indicates Russian officers have had doubts about full scale Ukraine invasion. What the story purports to show are senior Russian officers dishing over how messed up an invasion of Ukraine would be, how badly they might get their asses kicked, and how twisty-panties they feel about their carefully plotted “false flag” attack being publicly revealed (more on the “false flag” story can be found at Sparks Fly in Must-See Exchange After Reporter Presses White House on ‘False Flag’ Claims and State Department Spox Accusing AP Reporter of Using Russian Talking Points Showcases the Biden White House Answer for All Bad Press Coverage).

Four people who were familiar with intelligence have said that intercepted communication obtained by the US has revealed that Russian officials fear that an invasion of large scale in Ukraine will prove more costly and difficult than Russian President Vladimir Putin or other Kremlin leaders realise.

Sources have indicated that three of these sources are military and intelligence operatives.

Two sources claimed that the officials also complained about western countries discovering their plans and making them public, citing intercepted communications.

There is no evidence that these officials are opposed to the overall plan, or would revolt against Putin’s orders, two of the sources said. Another source familiar with the US intelligence noted that Russia has a professional military that would be expected to effectively carry out Putin’s orders.

A senior European official stated that Russian defence personnel still believe it will prove difficult. “In the assessments we see it is clear some people on the [Russian] defense side are not really understanding what the game plan is,” the official said. The official added that the assessments suggest the defense personnel think “it’s a very difficult game plan to stand up.”

Let’s review the bidding in this story. The sourcing is “four people familiar with the intelligence.” While that is better than anything John Kirby or Ned Price have offered in support of their “false flag” claims, that is not very substantial.

The story, if true, could have significant implications. It shows some reluctance by Russian officers to take part in a “minor incursion” into Ukraine and would indicate that the whole plan to do so, to the extent that one exists, has raised doubts and concerns. Did I already say “if true?”

This story is not credible for many reasons. First and foremost, the sourcing is so skeevy as to scream, “don’t believe this crap.” Second, two of the biggest tools at the Home Depot that is CNN, contributed to this report. The story’s information would have been highly classified, so leaking it could trigger a massive counterintelligence investigation by the FSB. They were communicating with non-secure people or classified information. This is not what an intelligence agency responsible would desire. This would trigger a top-level counterintelligence review within our Intelligence Community. That is what a responsible leaker wouldn’t want. The story has not been covered by any other news outlets. Google only shows this story in those outlets which credit CNN for the information.

It happens all the time. What is the chance that a news outlet gets a big scoop and no other significant outlets can comment on it?

CNN is the only one who got the news. I don’t think anyone believes CNN has sources who talk to it exclusively about a story of this magnitude. The most plausible explanation for the false story is therefore that it is not true.

Interestingly, the Washington Post ran a story today that mentioned the CNN “scoop” in passing. It is the headline What is it about Russia that the U.S. intelligence service seems so apathetic?

It has this to say.

One explanation is that there are two. One is that the United States has raised the cost of Putin’s aggressive military actions by shining light on Russian activities surrounding Ukraine. Putin’s ability to surprise is greatly diminished every time the United States declares intelligence that Russia is prepping for war. Russian officials must then deny that Russia has any hostile intention toward Ukraine, despite having a large number of troops. Perhaps Putin may be deterred slightly by public attention.

It is possible to escalate tensions, but it also makes Putin more difficult to back down. An alternative option to this is that the United States would like to show Russia it’s fully aware of its intentions and be able to engage in information operations on its own. CNN’s report on the resistance of Russian soldiers to an invasion in full scale is a prime example.

This first statement might actually be true. It seems a bit reckless, however, to me, even if true. The likelihood of an armed conflict increases by making it more expensive for Putin to back down. Putin doesn’t know that the West may impose financial sanctions on Russia following an invasion of Ukraine. This is because Russia will be more concerned about his political survival than the consequences of the West’s actions. But recklessness in dealing with this situation seems to be viewed by the Biden foreign policy goon squad as a feature, not a bug (see Why Today’s Austin-Milley Press Conference Convinces Me That Joe Biden Wants Conflict With Russia in Ukraine).

Second thesis seems more plausible. We don’t have any real intelligence such as described by CNN. The Intelligence Community is pushing the story instead. a head-f*** oops, my bad–an information operation. They will continue to chase the Russians for quite a while trying to bury their story. The story will also be pointed out by other Russians, causing some confusion.

Now we have to answer the last question. Is CNN being played by the Intelligence Community? Everyone knows their desperate need for relevancy and how poor their editorial control is. Did CNN lie to its audiences in exchange for future favours? None of these possible answers are a good look for a journalism enterprise that bills itself as journalistic.