There's been much skepticism in recent years about whether microwaves were the cause of these officers' conditions.
This news confirms that govt agencies are taking the microwave theory seriously as a confirmed explanation for these conditions. It's reasonable to agree with the conclusion at this point.
Its never reasonable to agree with the opaque conclusions of spy agencies in any country, especially when the conclusion points the finger at a hostile pwoer.
There is literally no reason to believe public communications from a spy agency against their enemies (note: that does not mean that they can't be true, it just means that the truth of them is never the reason why the communication is put out).
This presumes a conspiracy amongst officers forced into early retirement to create a convincing false narrative.
What reason would the USIC have for lying about this? It seems unlikely that we would ever retaliate in kind, especially not after bringing attention to these incidents.
What reason would they have for telling the truth? A spy agency's official communications are always meant to elicit some response, it is never simply to disclose some information, since their default mode is to hoard information.
In this case, their motive is obviously to create an image of Cuba as a devious enemy of the United States who is willing to hurt low level officers in chronic ways, a dishonorable enemy.
This probably comes in the context of generally improving relationships with Cuba on almost the entire American continent, while the USA is still maintaining its illegal embargoes.
Now, is it possible that they chose to use a true story to advance this narrative? Yes, it is, absolutely. But if they want to spread this message and don't have a true story they are willing to share, nothing would stop them from sharing a false one instead.
It's funny that we treat intelligence agencies' statements as unassailable truths when these people have committed to lying to everyone they know about what they do.
> What reason would the USIC have for lying about this?
There's an entire industry revolving around blaming geopolitical enemies of wrongdoing without evidence, where the intelligence community plays a key part. This is done in order to control the narrative, steer the public perception and to keep a semblance of adherence to international law, in order to justify unilateral political, economic or military hostility. The reality is always more nuanced, and it's definitely a safe bet to not believe whatever empty accusations they come out with.
Controlling the narrative like they do, the cumulative effect of it is that they are able to convince the public of quite crazy assertions, which would be rightly treated as conspiracy theories had they come from some other source. These crazy assertions of course requires equally crazy political reactions. E.g. people genuinely believe that most US geopolitical enemies are literally rogue, bandit states, requiring draconic policing by the US. It's a children's view of the world, leading people to look the other way when it harms innocents.
The intelligence community has a looong history of doing this. It's a central part of the playbook which is readily admitted in more casual contexts.
Their continued unilateral embargo of Cuba, deemed illegal by the UN, needs some constant justification. Especially in light of Cuba's diplomatic efforts in the rest of the world (most recently, dispatching Cuban doctors to help care for Covid19 patients all over the world, starting with the outbreak in Lombardia).
So according to this conspiracy theory, part of the mission was to evacuate all of our diplomats from Cuba to create the appearance that we were fleeing these supposed REW attacks?
I have no idea what the truth is. My only point is that we (as the general public) should never take the word of spy agencies for anything, especially not about what their perceived enemies are doing.
Perhaps what they said happens to be absolutely true. Perhaps they have withdrawn their diplomats for fear of other attacks (e.g. poisoning, as Canadian authorities have apparently claimed). Perhaps they have withdrawn their diplomats in order to create some impression that they are in danger. Perhaps they have withdrawn their diplomats because they intend to do something that they think could put them in danger.
There are myriad possibilities, but until we get a chance to see classified reports or we get some independent reports about what is going on, we shouldn't speculate based on nothing more than the claims of spy agencies.
Edit to add: if the story would have been "Cuban intelligence agency reports how US diplomats faked symptoms to claim they were being attacked", would you believe this claim? Even as a Cuban? I for one would not - and just as I wouldn't believe this claim, I will also not believe the opposite claim from US intelligence.
The only "conspiracy" is that it is called an attack without evidence. It's so easy to do that, and is hardly conspiratorial in nature. No one's making any claims about the real causes or what really happened here. It is the usual ordeal, you take some happenstance, often heavily distorted, and frame your enemies for it. This is especially common with regards to cybercrime. People will eat it up, often no matter how little it conforms to common sense.
There have been instances of false-flag operations, most notably the Gulf of Tonkin incident which served as pretext for an escalation of the Vietnam war. But it doesn't have to be to serve its purpose.
Clearly there's evidence. You can contact the vets who are currently suffering. Plz look on SOCMED and ask them for an interview, then draw your own conclusion.
Evidence comes in many forms. There doesn't appear to be evidence in the form of a recovered weapon or technical recording/logging of an attack as it happened, at least nothing that has been disclosed.
However, the injuries are real and ongoing. It took a long time for consensus agreement that these events were malicious targeting by hostile govts against our diplomats, using remote energy weapons. Even just with the evidence made public, it's the most plausible explanation.
>Even just with the evidence made public, it's the most plausible explanation.
It's not the most plausible explanation, but it is the most convenient one. It shifts the blame and reinforces the narrative. They don't even have a coherent idea regarding how such a weapon would work in practice, it's pure speculation.
No they haven't, it's simply one possible explanation. It's still be "best" (i.e. most convenient) theory. Besides, these "attacks" even happened in Washington DC. Was that Russia also? Who did it, how did they do it, and where are the weapons? Russia is the US's favorite boogeyman, and I'm sure they will "retaliate" through economic sanctions or military intervention. In all likelihood, the Havana Syndrome is a fabricated narrative and mere pretext for unilateral aggression.
Consider the last paraphraph of the article:
> "Most importantly, if and when more evidence is gathered, Putin, Nikolai Patrushev, and their officers must be held to account."
This is not "news", it is war propaganda. Besides, it's immensely hypocritical. When was American government and intelligence officials ever held to account for orchestrating and instigating violent aggression abroad?
It's categorically false to say intel agencies (or the slight "these people") never deal in truth. That is not how misinfo/disinfo works. Additionally, intel agencies play an integral role in providing truthful and accurate products, for govt and industry partners.
It would be more correct to say that they never deal in truth with the public. Of course they are a source of well researched and painstakingly obtained truths for government decision makers, but never for the public.
They are also known to hoard 0-days for years, and use some of them in their own attacks against others (such as, quite likely, Stuxnet). So, even there, the reason why they release information about some cyber threats isn't the simple fact of their existence, it is some other calculation of the effect of releasing this information.
The good part about releasing information about exploits and such is that they can be easily verified to exist, so there is no need to trust the spy agency. Any claims they make about the source of those exploits is not easily verifiable, and since you can't trust them, should be ignored.
Tech has been too premature to achieve "fluorescent purple" while simultaneously achieving mission objectives. Besides, the hoarding all got burned last decade and the agencies have clearly evolved.
What's the significance of attribution of exploit source?
> Besides, the hoarding all got burned last decade and the agencies have clearly evolved.
You claim this based on what? Kaspersky has recently found what they claim is (another) massively complex US malware in the wild.
> What's the significance of attribution of exploit source?
As in my example above, people always look for the source of an exploit and claim various actors created them. This creates certain reputations for these actors, just as in the claim from Kaspersky above (which may or may not itself be true - Kaspersky is a private company, but it is also known to work with the Russian government, which is clearly antagonistic to the US).
One massively complex malware is nothing compared to 2010's shtshow.
Noone can bullsht too often; attribution for hacks/tools as disinfo has limited utility value. And, again, attributing brain injuries to REW's as disinfo wouldn't help and they know that.
I still don't believe the US would decide to lie about this matter.
This news confirms that govt agencies are taking the microwave theory seriously as a confirmed explanation for these conditions. It's reasonable to agree with the conclusion at this point.