Western journalists criticized the U.S. intelligence report of «Russian hackers»

Western journalists criticized the U.S. intelligence report of «Russian hackers»© Fotolia/ Tomasz Zajda

Many Western journalists covering Russia, received with bewilderment the U.S. intelligence report of «Russian hackers», criticizing him for lack of evidence and bizarre conclusions, as well as «Amateur» level.

The CIA, the FBI and homeland security issued on Friday a report in which it once again accused Russia of «interfering in American elections,» but refused to give any evidence, citing the confidentiality of intelligence. While the report showed that U.S. intelligence agencies draw conclusions about the «secret operations of Russia’s influence on elections» by such sources as the reports on Russian television and writing in social networks. Almost half the report was devoted to RT and Sputnik, and data for RT were mostly five years ago.

No evidence of the American side is again presented, as in the previous accusations against Russia, despite numerous denials by the Russian party and requests confirmation. In addition to representatives of the Russian Federation on bezosnovnogo of such statements was said and by trump, who called them ridiculous.

Many journalists have drawn attention to the fact that the report has no evidence base. «Is it just me, or this report looks more like something that amounted to a few journalists a couple of days, rather than a serious intelligence service for months?» asked on Twitter of the Moscow correspondent of the Guardian Shaun Walker.

Is it just me or does the report look more like something a few journos compiled over a couple of days, not serious Intel agencies over years?

— Shaun Walker (@shaunwalker7) January 6, 2017

«Intelligence report on Russia is a little more than just a collection of assumptions. I understand protecting sources and methods, but the report is weak,» — wrote in his microblog on Twitter chief editor of the Weekly Standard, author of the Fox News Stephen Hayes.

The intel report on Russia is little more than a collection of assertions. Understand protecting sources/methods, but it’s weak.

— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) January 6, 2017

Journalist Kevin Rothrock called the report «lubitelskoe» and «awkward moment» and commented on some of the strange passages from the document. «New diabolical plots @RT_com: they covered Occupy Wall Street’s campaign to destroy America» — ironically Rothrock.

More diabolical plots by @RT_com: it’s covered Occupy Wall Street, a well-known campaign to destroy America. pic.twitter.com/ULPll5IOFm

— Kevin Rothrock (@KevinRothrock) January 6, 2017

He also ironically accepted the fact that American intelligence was seen as indisputable proof of «Russian interference in the election» statements LDPR leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky that Russia is happy about the election trump. «I can’t believe my eyes. Is that really part of the us intelligence report?» — posted by Rothrock on Twitter.

I cannot believe my eyes. Is this really part of the US government’s intelligence case? pic.twitter.com/s5IpTJALIv

— Kevin Rothrock (@KevinRothrock) January 6, 2017

The editor of the Moscow Times Matthew Chapter called the report «questionable at best».

Reading declassified US intel report on #Russia|n hacking. Must say, I find this approach (sentence #1) iffy at best https://t.co/HwI4FVhtHM pic.twitter.com/D6EoNT7fXc

Matthew Kupfer (@Matthew_Kupfer) January 6, 2017

American writer and journalist Glenn Greenwald was also surprised that the report does not provide proof. «This new report is that 1) literally half — o RT 2) it contains the same assumptions many times 3) does not include any confirmations, statements,» wrote Greenwald on Twitter.

NYT is explicitly pointing out a key fact about the «new» report: it contains only assertions, literally *no evidence* https://t.co/NwSq1kME0E pic.twitter.com/MtMmYjRsvn

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 6, 2017

«Long-overdue DNI report actually gives no new information and is essentially a boring story about RT. What nonsense,» wrote journalist Mike Tracy.

The long-awaited DNI report provides essentially no new evidence and is mostly a screed about RT. What a joke. https://t.co/oEdcXbV9ns pic.twitter.com/kttpkS67hk

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 6, 2017

«Regardless of what anybody thinks about Russian hacks, the fact that half of the report is the introduction to advertising campaign RT five years ago, it looks strange,» — wrote on Twitter journalist Adam Johnson.

regardless of one’s thoughts on Russian hacking the fact that half the report was a 5-year-old Intro to Marketing breakdown of RT is bizarre

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) January 7, 2017

«The DNI report says that some shows RT cost Hillary (Clinton) elections. And it has nothing to do with the fact that Hillary was a terrible candidate?» – wrote on Twitter journalist Paul Watson. The intelligence report also includes those programs RT that stopped on the channel long before the presidential elections in 2016.

The DNI report says some RT shows are what cost Hillary the election. ?

Nothing to do with Hillary being a dreadful candidate?

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) on 6 January 2017.

The Financial Times correspondent in Moscow, Max Seddon also mocks the fact that the report is written well-known things, for example, that Russian state media are financed from the budget. «Declassified U.S. intelligence report on Russian hacks full of sensations like the one that «RT is controlled by the Kremlin,» writes Seddon.

The declassified US intel report on Russian hacking is full of bombshells like «RT is controlled by the Kremlin.» https://t.co/XnurfF4mJn

— max seddon (@maxseddon) January 6, 2017

Some journalists drew attention to the reservations of the intelligence agencies that their «high confidence» in something, for example, in the «Russian intervention» does not mean that this information is necessarily true.

Some experts and observers, without contradicting the official line of the us authorities expressed disappointment with the report.

«I am disappointed with the lack of «wow-factor» in the report,» he wrote on Twitter Andrew Weiss, President of the expert of the Carnegie endowment, referring to the lack of surprises.

I get the disappointment about the lack of «wow» in the report. But way too much is at stake to blow sources and methods esp in cyber domain https://t.co/gU68FJe3wy

— Andrew S. Weiss (@andrewsweiss) January 6, 2017

And ex-Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul noted that «many questions remained unanswered».

Glad to see the DNI report published today, but SO MANY questions still left unanswered. I worry that this story will fade, esp after 1-20-17.

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) January 7, 2017

A former correspondent of Western media in Moscow and editor of BuzzFeed’s Miriam elder has not questioned the contents of the report, but wrote: «it Hurts to see that reports about Russia are out of control.»

It’s so painful to watch Russia reporting spiral out of control.

— Miriam Elder (@MiriamElder) January 6, 2017

A longtime critic of Russia, member of the Atlantic magazine, Julia Ioffe summed up his impressions: «One thing is clear from a reading of the report of the DNI (office of the Director of national intelligence) hacking: this is what happens when your universities are no longer teaching specialists in Russia».

One thing is clear from reading the #DNI #hacking report: this is what happens when your universities no longer train Russia specialists.

— Julia Ioffe (@juliaioffe) January 6, 2017

The current report is a declassified version of the big report, which was presented by U.S. intelligence at the request of President Barack Obama. In October, the official representatives of the U.S. intelligence community stated that «Russian hackers» were behind the cyber attacks on the electoral system of the country. Later CIA through the media accused Russia of hacking the servers of the party Democratic party to help Donald Trump, who won the presidential elections on 8 November. Evidence of Russia’s involvement in hacking attacks with the aim of influencing the result of the presidential election, the American authorities did not show. Russian authorities deny such accusations.