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?
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.