What Michael said. It's also worth noting that dwelling on whether that document is authentic is a privilege of peace. We could debate whether 'we' are 'at war,' what kind of war it is, etc etc, but that too is a privilege of peace. No one in Ukraine would doubt that we're at war; only those who at a remove from the hostilities would bother. I think the ethical stance is to acknowledge that while war might not be raging where you or I happen to be, there is one — and the threat of being draw into direct hostilities implies that we're already involved. This, btw, is the logic that dominates pretty much *all* discussions about NATO engagement, weapons transfers, no-fly zones, and all the rest. We'd do well to apply those criteria in contexts like this one as well — in part because the *systemic* risk is that forgeries will be used to justify escalation.
As for the document in question, when we ask whether it's authentic in practice that means we're asking about its provenance, as if it were an artwork or last will and testament. Hence the immediate nerdy turn toward questions about Bellingcat's and other sources' bona fides. Obviously, there are reasons to keep these aspects in mind, but we should also note their effect: attention shifts decisively away from the substance of what the document claims. The go-to example: When Churchill feigned ignorance of Nazi plans to flatten Coventry, in order to hide the fact that Allies had cracked Nazi codes, that surely involved the production of fictional documents, and very probably planting some as well. Were those fictional docs 'authentic'? Well, yes and no. The Nazis would have paid close attention to any docs they captured, but for the people of Coventry that focus on provenance would have been both abstract and misleading. If this doc purported to be minutely detailed Russian battle plans and the concern was that it might have been planted to mislead opponents in specific ways, yes — but it doesn't do that at all, does it? So my hot take in *this* context: some fanfic is as good as the real thing, and some is even better. Either way, does anyone doubt for a minute that it offers a reasonably accurate view into the mentality of Russian ~security bureaucracy? Or that it's at least as accurate as the overwhelming majority of what the Western media are publishing? Cheers, Ted On 14 Mar 2022, at 13:34, Michael Benson wrote: > Hi David, > > Regarding what I agree is a puzzling discrepancy, namely between the video > on March 2nd and the tweet I cited three days later, I've DM'd Christo > Grozev asking for clarity and will forward what I hear back, if anything. > > Of course he wrote the following in that March 5th thread: "Ukraine had > previously leaked fake FSB letters as psy-ops." So I would assume that's > very likely what he was referring to in the video. > > Anyway, you've read his rationale for taking it seriously, so I won't echo > it here. Beyond observing that Gulag.net is an utterly credible and ethical > entity, and when Grozev says he ran the text by some FSB types who believed > it genuine, believe me he's well positioned to have done just that. As lead > Russia investigator for Bellingcat, he has authored investigations that > uncovered the identities of Alexei Navalny's putative assassins; the > Russian officers who shot down Malaysia Flight 17 over Ukraine; the Skripal > poisonings; etc. Check out his bio, he's got quite the record. In fact I'd > go so far as to say he's a kind of searchlight illuminating things that > some very powerful interests would like to keep dark, which is why I > thought that thread worth passing on. > > Best wishes from Ottawa, > Michael # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
