Putin Claims Russia Proposed a Cyber War Treaty In 2015 But the Obama Admin Ignored Them (qz.com) 193
An anonymous reader writes: Russian president Vladimir Putin (who denies any Russian part in the hacking) claims the Obama administration ignored a proposal in 2015 that might have avoided all of this. His administration suggested working out a cyber treaty with the US but was ignored by Obama officials, Putin told film director Oliver Stone in Showtime's four-part series broadcast this week. "A year and a half ago, in fall 2015, we made proposal to our American partners that we work through these issues and conclude a treaty on the rules of behavior in this sphere," he said in Stone's documentary The Putin Interviews. "The American side was silent, they didn't reply to us."
Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Does anyone else remember the hack that recently crippled a bunch of countries?
The one developed by the USA?
HERPaDERRRRRRRRP
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, not everybody has forgotten, and the worst thing is that Dagobert "grab em by the pussy" Trump is still in charge, continuing to cripple his country and the rest of the world, as if nothing had ever happened!
Man. SOMEONE'S pussy sounds awful sandy right now.
Go stand over the bidet for a couple minutes. Maybe that'll change your disposition...
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the environment of this admission I can't be the only one who doubts this.
I don't doubt it, but I think he is spinning it. Think about the problem of attribution in the cyber realm, then think about what good such an agreement would be? All it would do is become something for groups to use to try and attack others in public while doing absolutely nothing to stop any of the cyber attacks. The administration probably "ignored it" (meaning told them to take a hike) because they saw it as a nothing-burger proposed solely for propaganda reasons.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
As the subject says...REALLY? Think before you type. If it was 'pure propaganda' why wouldn't Putin/Russia simply announce it to the world back in 2015?
Look, I think Putin's an 'asshat' for various reasons but assuming the Russian's wouldn't make such a proposal assumes that we are ALWAYS better than 'them'.
Sure, it may be very difficult to come up with a treaty in this space that would have real impact but to not even try is just not reasonable.
Look, when will people understand that even in the West the '3
Re: (Score:3)
Oh dear...
If it was 'pure propaganda' why wouldn't Putin/Russia simply announce it to the world back in 2015?
Mostly because it'd be laughed at. Russia's been the poster child for psyops (including data manipulation and exfiltration) since WWII. If they unilaterally promise that they won't do nasty psyops things, there's no reason to believe them.
...assuming the Russian's wouldn't make such a proposal assumes that we are ALWAYS better than 'them'.
That's a false equivalence. Assuming the Russians wouldn't make such a proposal assumes that the Russians wouldn't make such a proposal. It would also be a safe assumption that the Americans would make such a proposal, but only with enough exceptions that it wou
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think the more realistic explanation is that it was ignored because it means the U.S. would have to knock-off (or obfuscate behind a third party for purposes of deniability, because lets face it we're not going to stop doing it) a lot of the stuff it's doing.
Exactly. Russia doesn't have the NSA, it doesn't have a direct point of access to the world's biggest Internet companies...Russia can't do 10% of what the US does in the "cyber sphere". The biggest cyber warfare nation on the Earth is the USA. They are ahead of everyone else combined by light years.
So of course Obama ignored it, Obama was a big fan of the NSA. As is the entire federal government. Any cyber treaty would severely limit what the US can do NOW, while only theoretically limiting what other count
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Treaties need to be verifiable and respected to be of any use. No possible good could have come of signing such a treaty with someone who claims that his military is just on vacation when they invade another country and that his hackers are just unemployed patriots.
That's a really nice Internet you have there... (Score:3)
I'm sure you wouldn't want anything to happen to it...
Putin proposing a "cyber war treaty" is like the Mob proposing that they will "protect you".
Re:That's a really nice Internet you have there... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you realize how big the NSA is?
American three letter agencies spend more money 'cyber spying' on each other than the total Russian cyber budget. Which isn't to say the Russians don't have talent or that any amount of money will turn a paper pusher into a hacker.
The Americans didn't respond because they thought they were miles ahead. Recent releases show they _could_ just own anyone with any connected consumer device (e.g. router, PC, Mac, Android, iOS, Linux based etc etc).
I'm thinking the OpenBSD guys are acting kind of smug, but where they owned too? I can't keep up.
Re: (Score:3)
The 3 letter agencies do more than just spy on Russia... Besides which, as I stated elsewhere, there is no point in signing a treaty with anyone who claims that his Military is just on vacation when they invaded a neighbor and that his hackers are merely unemployed patriots.
Re: (Score:2)
A toothless treaty that you're not going to abide by anyhow...
I'm not arguing for the treaty, just saying it wouldn't make sense for the USA to curtail the NSA when apparently so far ahead. At the time the spooks were basking in the afterglow of Stuxnet, not the butthurt of their bosses being shown to be cyber clowns.
Re: (Score:2)
Never argued against the 3 letters not wanting a treaty (nor that their development/use of 0days is somehow "wrong" or that they "should" have just silently turned them all over to the makers so that they could be patched -- which they ended up doing anyway months before the exploits were revealed).
As for appearances, Putin may rue overusing his little green men & "patriots". The 3 letter agencies are not without resources as you pointed out & everyone now expects him to use them. There are many way
Re: (Score:2)
Russia has it's own issues. We can't help, we can only hurt. We're just going to have to accept that Russia will follow it's own course.
What can you say about Russian pride?
How old is Putin? What kind of succession planning has he done?
All the currencies are in for a rough ride. Baby boom gets good and settled into retirement and we're strapping nitrous to the printing presses at the mint.
Re: (Score:2)
Allow Putin to continue to continue to hack everyone else's elections with no consequences? Allow him to continue to seize territories from those he hasn't had the appetite to turn on yet?
I have no problem with Russian pride when they're not using it to trample on the rights of others.
Putin is 64. Whether or not he has groomed a successor or ossifies until his 90s matters little to me as long as his foreign adventurism is contained.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia's pride is currently breaking it's back, financially.
And the rest of the world has it's own fish to fry, with our demographic/retirement issues. Russia has that too.
We don't want Russia collapsing either, think about Russian weapon/rocket engineering talent selling itself to the highest bidder in the middle east.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree about the effort Putin is forcing Russias into. If oil prices don't come up Putin is going to have as much success as Maduro.
Russia's recent demographics are actually getting better recently (but again, I agree globally).
Not so sure that anyone would be willing to bankroll the Russian rocket scientists a second time should they need it after another Russian overextension in a couple years. With NK building solid fuelled ICBMs today and almost certainly willing to sell to anyone willing to help them av
Re: (Score:2)
We paid to keep Russia in the rocket business after the fall of the USSR.
And nothing, basically, has changed, we don't want the rusky _talent_ taking its knowledge to the third world.
We don't want a power vacuum or violent revolution in a nuclear power. Russian space is a great source of pride for them. Everybody needs a little pride, it's not like it's a sin.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm well aware that we bankrolled the fUSSR rocket scientists or I wouldn't have written "willing to bankroll the Russian rocket scientists a _second_ time".
Again, I have no problem with Russian pride when they're not using it to trample on the rights of others.
I just don't think that the now much smaller pool of russian rocket scientists are large and unique enough for us to want to bankroll again when NK is building it's own solid fuelled ICBMs & the Russians still don't have Angara flying regularly e
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose just accepting that everyone crazy will have ICBMs soon is one POV.
And in furtherance, it looks like even India and Pakistan are growing up a little...nukes do that. N Korea on the other hand, China has got to do something soon.
Who else is 'on deck'? Japan doesn't need help, if they want to they can. Most of western Europe is the same...slackers! S Korea? Malaysia? The Venezuelans are crazy enough, but they can't afford the bills. Brazil swears 'they're out', so does S. Africa. Burma? Thailan
Re: (Score:2)
Does my acceptance/refusal that NK has solid fueled ICBMs change the fact that they have them? Nope. Does yours? Nope.
The only power that could "peacefully" stop NK's mad course is indeed China -- who have refused to do so for decades. I'm right there with you hoping that they do so before it is too late but reviewing their past inaction and projecting forward does not inspire hope that they will do so.
You're thinking of Kaningrad, It was never a part of Latvia but was a German enclave that was the heart of
Re: (Score:2)
Russia still has some really talented material scientists, just to start. Who built the lean burning turbopump? Get them all. All the guys that debugged the common pump, multi nozzle engines...it goes on. ULA is flying with Russian engines.
The people I'm thinking of are the kind you build teams around, not cogs in machines.
Russia is a mess, if they want out, they'll find a way. But many will be Russian patriots.
Russia is bleeding money from all orifices. She will come around. Don't 'corner' bears wit
Re: (Score:2)
No question that Russia has excellent materiels scientists that were able to develop oxygen rich engines that usually don't RUD, but Space-X has gone in different directions where the russian expertise just isn't applicable.
Spaces-X's in-house development teams certainly don't need to be broken down and reformed around people that Russia isn't going to let go anyway -- they're already doing great & have largely outperformed _everybody_ else.
Nukes are terrible weapons but having them doesn't give Russia
Re: (Score:2)
The Americans didn't respond because they thought they were miles ahead.
They probably are. It's just that American (and everyone else's) infrastructure is still in the stone age.
Re: Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well it could be true-ish. He may have proposed a treaty.
But that should immediately raise questions like, what would the treaty have agreed to? Were the terms fair? Did we have reason to believe Putin intended to honor such a treaty?
Re: (Score:2)
Thank goodness we have Trump now (Score:1, Funny)
And a Putin-friendly Republican party. There will be peace in our time!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So how are the republicans "putin-friendly" when they not only maintain sanctions, but are following Obama's same playbook. You do realize that Russia's main concern was Hillary would do something that would trigger WWIII because she was so incredibly hawkish that it made neocons blush. You can even see that in her emails, where she wanted to directly bomb russians in Syria, and start seizing assets from them. Pretty easy to figure out why the Kremlin was cheering when Trump was elected, it might just ha
Re: Thank goodness we have Trump now (Score:1)
Regular formal communication, presence in the Oval Office, return of seized compounds, softer rhetoric.... oh, wait, you're a troll...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Regular formal communication, presence in the Oval Office, return of seized compounds, softer rhetoric.... oh, wait, you're a troll...
So you're saying that the US shouldn't have formal communication with a country that has a massive nuclear arsenal? Remember what happened the last time that went on, and the only reason we're having this discussion is because the USSR captain refused to pull the trigger. You mean the same presence that other nations have? The one that Obama pulled because reasons. So you want to argue that a Russia surrounded by NATO bases, shouldn't have some of their dignity back under a new administration. Are you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes but you're forgetting one thing: Hillary has a vagina. And that's just downright progressive. And diverse. Progressive and diverse both sound like good things. How can two things that sound good be bad? Do you think women are bad? You must if you don't want Hillary, A WOMAN, to have whatever she wants. You're basically a nazi, aren't you?
-Gawker
Re: Thank goodness we have Trump now (Score:4, Interesting)
The Senate are serious about it, voting 98-2 for more sanctions on Russia; the House will probably follow suit. Trump would like to be buddies with Putin. The investigations should eventually find out how much sympathy and influence Russia has in the various other factions in Trump's Administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Well we are moving to pu sanctions back in place on Iran which cuts off a big competitor to Russian oil interests by driving the price of their oil back up to the point where Russia is competitive again.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
he republicans are all talk to appear tough for the public ...
Someone not paying attention to the senate or house recently. Yep sure looks like it.
Hillary and Obama did not threaten the start of WW3 as much as they threatened to stop Putin's theft from Russia
So let's go with that. You wonder why the Russian government seriously believed that if Hillary was elected that there would be a war. [inquisitr.com] Would you perhaps like to claim that the inquisitr is a right-wing publication to save face before you find out that it's a left-wing publication.
THAT is why Putin was so desperate that he worked to get Trump elected ...
Yes, he worked so hard that we have no proof that they were involved. Or that the DNC email leaks show the exact opposite of what you're trying
Re: (Score:3)
Russia's primary concern is oil exports. She was going around the world promoting fracking technology as a means for countries to be more energy independent
Actually this is utter bullshit. Russia's primary concern is natural gas exports. She was going around the world trying to undercut Russia's ability to apply pressure on the EU because Russia supplies ~30% of their natural gas...via a pipeline through Syria. Now ask yourself why this was so important, that the US decided to involve itself in Syria and back the opposing side to overthrow Assad. While Russia supported Assad. Remember that part where the US was funneling weapons to terrorists because they
Re: (Score:2)
Love the US sticking it's nose into the Qatar situation and making it much worse lately. Then going and selling billions worth of weapons to both sides. Brilliant.
Re: (Score:2)
Maintaining the stalemate between Sunni/Shia is a tough job, but somebody has to do it.
See also: Iran/Iraq war. That was a GOOD war.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that what you call it when you help the Saudi's to bomb civilians in Yemen? Bet you're really happy setting up drone strikes on civilians and calling airstrikes on hospitals.
And now Trump is basically letting the military do whatever it wants, including setting troop levels in Afghanistan [washingtonpost.com]. Talk about giving up the pretext of being Commander. Guess it was too hard.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how arabs fighting arabs is our problem? More an opportunity. Keep em busy until the oil is irrelevant, than ignore.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean going to? That deal was approved under the Obama regime and there's no actual back-track mandate available in the deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Syria is between Russia and Europe?
The pipeline through Syria would further weaken Russia's position. But so will the natural gas liquefaction facilities in Qatar and the east coast of the USA. They are kind of screwed.
Russia is, more or less, a resource export economy during a resource glut. About the only thing that can help Russia is a big middle east war involving Saudi and Iran.
A treaty only makes sense between equal players (Score:4, Insightful)
and the US arrogantly thought that they were better hackers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's bad for groups that keep lots of secrets, that's obvious.
I'm still waiting for the Ds or Rs to be fully triggered and the mutual dirt dump to start. Anybody that's been watching for a few decades, can come up with examples where 'important people' were about to go to prison, when suddenly the dogs backed off. From both sides of the isle.
I recognize MAD when I see it, even if I don't have the actual dirt.
Re: (Score:2)
You could probably remove the "cyber" from that statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia has been ruled by one man and his associates for decades. He has a clue about operation security.
Compare that to the political parties in America. The media. No group larger than two has a chance of keeping a secret, long term. Parts of America aren't really trying, overconfidence. Thought media was on their side and were just down to a little 'cultural cleanup'...surprise!
Re: (Score:2)
and the US arrogantly thought that they were better hackers.
The US probably thought that Russia had absolutely no intention of stopping hacking. All this was was a ploy to try to bind the US in some agreement while Russia lies about how they couldn't possibly be behind the hacking!
What, the hacking, did you think Russians were behind it?
Oh, are you bringing up the hacking charges again? Russians were not nearly as involved as you think they were.
Talking about the hacking during the election again? Ok, we Russians were behind it, but that was a long time ago, and it
Blaming Obama? (Score:3, Insightful)
You know Putin didn't think that talking point up on his own. The guy who has changed his story three times about Russian hacking now tries out a new strategy.
We can't stay united with people who think it's okay for Russians, or any country, to meddle in our elections...as long as the meddling is working for them. If this was Hillary Clinton working with the Russians the hypocrite right would be burning the country down.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy who has changed his story three times about Russian hacking now tries out a new strategy.
Does Russia have it's own version of Twitter? Does Putin use it, like, all the time? I think you see where I'm going with this. How do you say 'fake news' in Russian?
Re:Blaming Obama? (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you say 'fake news' in Russian?
Prawda - now known as "Russia Today".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that most governments consider treaties "gentlemen's agreements" nothing else, unless there is some type of oversight. As long as neither side is openly doing things, and aren't violating the spirit of that agreement anything goes and it's always been like that. USSR or Russia, US or GB everyone plays by those same rules. But wouldn't it be interesting to find out that this was actually the case? It would sure lend credence to the CIA and NSA being state actors using their tools to fake att
And the US would? (Score:2)
My, how quickly we forget about the Snowden leaks. How quickly we forget about topping nearly a dozen countries in the Middle East, sponsoring colored revolutions all over the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
The US Government (at least certain sections) was caught treating everyone as an enemy.
I'm not in any way endorsing or approving of Russia, I am saying that if the US behavior is no better we should be fixing our own. Nowhere in the list of Noble Traits will you find the word "hypocrite".
Something to c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, we shouldn't be supportive of meddling in elections just because it works in our favor. That means that Clinton, and a good chunk of the US intelligence agencies, should be stopped.
I've seen Hillary (?) Clinton seen accused of a lot of things, but this is a new one. I'm not going waste energy asking for proof, but what exactly is she supposed to have done this time?
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like it done to you then don't do it to others.
Aside from all the elections America has interfered in [washingtonpost.com], the US recently targeted its allies and hacked the phone of the German leader [telegraph.co.uk].
Re:Blaming Obama? (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point, if you want to point out all the flaws of Hillary Clinton and the radical Democrats who assaulted or shot at Trump Supporters or GOP members, feel free to also point out the racists who were incensed about the removal of Confederate statues or Samuel Houston's statue which is even more entertaining because he despised the Confederacy. Feel free to also point out the Trump supporters who shot and killed various people for "looking" Muslim. I own the fact that yes there was Bernie Supporter who shot up a GOP team. That's sad and I don't know where he managed to get the message that violently attacking GOP officials was okay. Violently attacking anyone is not okay. Yet the GOP needs to own their own extremist and that's something they don't care to do. Most of the time they don't acknowledge this happening. I think the most we managed to get out of Trump was a, "Stop It" and that was after he was questioned and begged. Bernie has apologized time and again over this single individual.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So you support the removal of historical statues and scrubbing of history? That's what you're talking about when you're saying that. Would you like me to point out all those fake hate crimes that Clinton and Bernie supporters claimed in order to get in the news and try making the "look at all this violence" that isn't actually happening and several of those people were criminally charged for false police reports. How about those muslims that were filing false police reports against Trump supporters. You
Re: (Score:3)
So you support the removal of historical statues and scrubbing of history?
Scrubbing of history? I support the removal of statues of people who fought a war to preserve the institution of slavery. I know it's very chic now to try to whitewash the history of the Civil War and pretend it's just local state control over the big bad feds, but at least in the 1860s the Southerners were a bit more honest about what they were actually fighting for.
The Confederacy is one of the greatest symbols of our shameful past, where we thought it was fine for a man to keep another man like property.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Scrubbing of history? I support the removal of statues of people who fought a war to preserve the institution of slavery. ...
So you are supporting the scrubbing of history by removing those statues. You should really dust off a history book, because slavery was actually a very small part of it. There was far more to the issue then just that. If you don't want to look like a book burner, perhaps you'd be better off wanting to show the entire history of it? Which do you think is more likely true: That bigotry and racism grows when exposed, or when it's suppressed and hidden from sight. Where there is no counter arguments agai
Re: (Score:2)
So you are supporting the scrubbing of history by removing those statues.
That's not scrubbing history, they're usually going into museums. I have no interest in whitewashing. The northerners sure as hell didn't fight the Civil War to free the slaves, but most of the Southern states seceded to protect slavery.
What this is doing is removing them from a place of honor. Our places of honor should be reserved for people who, you know, actually deserve honor.
You should really dust off a history book, because slavery was actually a very small part of it. There was far more to the issue then just that. If you don't want to look like a book burner, perhaps you'd be better off wanting to show the entire history of it?
Over half of the Confederate states put, in their article of succession, the preservation of the Southern way of life through th
Re: (Score:2)
That's not scrubbing history, they're usually going into museums.
Which is why several of the statues are now sitting in city junk heaps right? If you're removing them from a place, you're white washing it. If you want to add a counter plaque feel free I doubt you're going to get much in the way of complaints.
Over half of the Confederate states put, in their article of succession, the preservation of the Southern way of life through the institution of slavery as a primary motivation, or even the sole motivation for succession. Sure, it was all states rights, but funny that the "states' right" that they talked the most about was slavery.
You must have read one that belonged in a different timeline, because the ordinances of secession spell out something that's fundamentally different then that. [civil-war.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, you at least acknowledged that the Quebec attack happened! That puts you one ahead of Trump.
The real question is, why should Trump acknowledge it? The guy liked him because of a pro-nationalist stance that's it. But let's compare that to someone like Jessee Benn. You know about them right? They're a self-proclaimed Hillary supporter, who wrote for the Huffington Post and wrote an article calling for the murder of Trump because "impeachment isn't enough" [archive.is] in his eyes. Hillary is going to say this is unacceptable right? The DNC? They've been pretty silent so far. Or perhaps someone would like
Re: (Score:2)
Did any of them also offer to pay for a legal defense? [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh here we are. Are you the pro-russian troll, or the teabagger obsessed with the Clintons? It has become so hard to tell these days.
See that ID? Yeah. So what are you? A paid shareblue poster trying to cover up for the Clintons. Maybe you can explain why when Clinton lost the election that the international arm of the clinton foundation [observer.com] shut down almost right away as the donation stream abruptly stopped. Would you like to explain why when people wanted to talk with the Obama administration they'd be stonewalled, [washingtonpost.com] then suddenly when they made large contributions to it they had access. And they used it to directly gain access to speci [go.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you can explain why when Clinton lost the election that the international arm of the clinton foundation [observer.com] shut down almost right away as the donation stream abruptly stopped.
The Clinton Foundation isn't shutting down. They started shutting down parts of it as long ago as last summer. One of the explanations at the time was that they were actually trying to get rid of some of the international programs that would represent conflicts of interest if she were to be elected president.
The other stories you cited, about Clinton Foundation donors getting access to the State Department, have already been investigated. Basically, it appears that some donors seemed to be trying to use
Re: (Score:2)
If you can prove she committed a crime, lock her up.
Comey already did that remember?
Re: (Score:2)
Comey's conclusion was that there was nothing there to prosecute-- essentially that there were some bad decisions, even some reckless behavior, but nothing criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
But to add to this, I don't really care. I have no attachment to Clinton. Lock her up. Whatever. Go dig up Nixon's corpse and put that in jail, too, if it makes you happy.
But the past misdeeds of some other politician should not serve as an excuse or as cover for the current president to commit crimes. Let the investigations go forward, and if there's a case that he committed criminal acts, lock him up.
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Putin if he signed a treaty: We do not hack other nations, those are independent patriotic Russians.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think so? Did he have a hard time explaining why Russia bombed the Free Syrian Army after they stated their intention of combating ISIS in Syria?
There's not much explaining going on most of the time, just plain denial.
Flagged as Spam (Score:3, Funny)
Most likely it came from a .ru domain, got flagged as spam, and ended up in Obama's junk folder.
Even if he could find the email, the link will have been sanitized with a [Malware Domain] marker.
Pics (with timestamp) or it didn't happen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet there was a button involved (Score:2)
And it was red and sat on a yellow base.
Wonder where Putin got that idea?
Putin statement suggests contradiction (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
..while publicly declaring he proposed in essence, a cyberwar treaty that "might have avoided all this".
Here's what Obamas' reaction to that email must have been. [troll.me] Only a fool (and someone with the initials 'D.T.') would fall for something as obvious as that.
Re: (Score:2)
Who started it is the most childish fucking question in the world.
It doesn't fucking matter. What matters is that adults in positions of power stop acting like goddamned children before they get us all killed.
This lingering concept of "I want to rule the world." stopped applying when we could press a button and shield ourselves from the sun for thousands of years (Not that it matters because >half the population of the planet will be dead at that point).
We'll go back to exploration and conquest when shit
Sooo.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't doubt we had something to do with Stuxnet. But the Israelis took a victory lap over it. Credit where it's due.
Putin sez: We propose a treaty to stop doing... (Score:2)
Scandal Rag (Score:1)
You didnt get peace, so you went to war? (Score:2)
ShrÃdinger's cake? (Score:1)
Putin-ish: "We totally didn't hack the election, but it wouldn't have been a problem if the US had signed this treaty that we sent in 2015, which would have stopped us from hacking the election, which we totally didn't do..."
We've been missing the point. Putin is a dark comedy masterpiece. Can we all just applaud his ability to drop these lines without bursting into laughter?
Re: Shrodinger's cake? (Score:1)
And, by the way, that was properly spelled before Slashdot's system munged the ever loving fuck out of it.
Diacritical marks are, apparently, for suckers...
Message from Russia Waiting for You (Score:2)
It probably got blocked by the SPAM filters.
Of course Obama ignored him - Everyone did (Score:2)
"Thanks, Obama"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)