Talk:GRU Unit 29155

Alternative source for NYT article.

The Independent has reprinted Michael Schwirtz's October 2019 NYT article and it may be viewed without a subscription:

The Independent - Michael Schwirtz - Top secret Russian unit seeking to destabilise Europe, security officials say, 09 October 2019: Despite it having been in operation for at least a decade, Western intelligence agencies have only recently learned of the prolific Unit 29155.

    ←   ZScarpia   17:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Scepticism

I'm watching a certain editor gradually firm up the wiki; he tells us that we must trust the anonymous intelligence services, trust the New York Times and dismiss naysayers as conspiracy theorists. I'll put it on the record that the originating article was rubbish and written by an author that was slaughtered by Bellingcat (1) a fortnight ago for wrongly identifying the Chechen contract killer in Berlin as Vladimir Alekseevich Stepanov. (2) There are many evident problems with the article, for example the purported HQ has a online photographic portfolio showing it to be dilapidated. (3) Additionally, two of the agents mentioned can be placed near GRU facilities but not in the east of Moscow; Sergeev with an heatmap of his 2018 phone activity (4) and Moiseev with 2017 traffic tickets. (5) IMHO scepticism is justified, can the editor in question explain his credentials and why he believes that it isn't?

(1) https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2019/09/27/new-evidence-links-russian-state-to-berlin-assassination/ (2) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/world/europe/berlin-murder-russia.html? (3) podpolkovnikvvs.livejournal.com/222086.html (4) https://twitter.com/bellingcat/status/1144697959608700929 (5) https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/11/22/second-gru-officer-indicted-montenegro-coup-unmasked/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezfield (talk • contribs) 19:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

These publications came earlier and do not tell anything directly about "Unit 29155". So no, this is not a criticism of the publication in NYT. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The above is original research (WP:OR) and as MVBW said irrelevant to Unit 29155; we need a reliable source that sows direct skepticism about the existence of Unit 29155. Attacking the credibility of a NYT investigative reporter who has been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize isn't going to get very far on the RS Noticeboard. -- GreenC 21:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

No, when the purveyor of falsehoods is found to be peddling more falsehoods they become an unreliable source (unRS). In this Twitter spat the day after publication the editor of The Insider Roman Dobrokhotov recognises his organisation as a primary source and laments how the New York Times author could produce such rubbish. (1) Roman judges the piece from its claim that a former military man might be appointed as head of a special forces unit.

(1) https://twitter.com/Dobrokhotov/status/1181941015193755649 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezfield (talk • contribs) 12:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source. Let's wait for Bellingcat or The Insider to publish a formal response to the NYT piece, then we will have a decent source and can see what they are skeptical of. They seem ego-busted the NYT piece didn't give them credit for information used in the NYT article, but also believe some conclusion are possibly inaccurate. Let's wait for a formal response that we can use on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 15:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

James Bond

The Alpine ski resort hide out made me think of James Bond. A Google Search confirms there are multiple sources making the connection. Putin has even boasted of a 'James Bond-style' facility. This sort of puerile fantasy writ-large by dictators and thugs is not uncommon. It helps explain the theatrical nature of Russia's operations ie. exotic poisons vs. a simple hit and run or bullet. Something to keep an eye out for as more sources come to light. -- GreenC 20:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Is advice received by the US president about the bounty programme relevant to this article?

I have made a couple of attempts to include Trump's statement that US intelligence told him that reports of a bounty programme "were not credible". I can't see why we would not include this in the article. Any thoughts? Burrobert (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes because it is way too complicated to explain here without becoming a WEIGHT problem. It took three convoluted paragraphs at Russian_bounty_program#United_States_reactions. Any attempt to do so here will wind up being POV unless you include all this information. And at the end of the day, it's irrelevant - it's an internal US controversy that is tangential to the topic of the article. -- GreenC 00:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The sentence is quite straightforward and is almost a direct quote so doesn't contain any interpretation or require explanation: "President Donald Trump said that US intelligence advised him that it did not find the information credible". Burrobert (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It opens further questions. Did you read Russian_bounty_program#United_States_reactions. Was he even briefed? There is conflicting information. And again, why is this US political scandal being included here in the first place. -- GreenC 00:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The sentence doesn’t mention the issue of whether he was briefed. It doesn’t discuss the “scandal”. It is a quote from the president of the United States about the reliability of the information about the bounty program. It was placed in a section called Alleged bounty program. Burrobert (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The section already says there were conflicting intelligence reports, but there is nothing concerning "reliability" of information, only how much information is available and what weight to give that information. Assuming one can trust the President is accurately Tweeting what happened [his Tweets are often not reliable], the CIA advisement to the President was by a single CIA briefer who did not reflect the finding that "C.I.A. and the National Counterterrorism Center had assessed with medium confidence — meaning credibly sourced and plausible, but falling short of near certainty", so taken out of context that quote by the President gives a wrong impression of the intelligence, clearly the assessment merits some credibility. Which is why this topic needs to be handled in its own article with appropriate context. -- GreenC 01:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• what is the relevance of “there is nothing concerning "reliability" of information”? Isn’t it relevant to mention the reliability of the information we are putting before the reader when that reliability has been discussed by the president and other people? In any case, isn’t the sentence beginning “The NSA dissented, ....” about reliability?
• we don’t need to trust the accuracy of the president’s tweets as we will be attributing them. We have no way of knowing how accurate they are. Just as we have no way of knowing the accuracy of any of the statements made about the alleged programme. Burrobert (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• The Tweet by President Trump does not accurately reflect what we know about the intelligence assessment. Trump's angular opinion is not relevant in this article unless you want to highlight his POV for some reason, in which case we would need to balance it with other POVs, as done at Russian_bounty_program#United_States_reactions. Otherwise the article has a POV problem. And even then, it would have a WEIGHT problem with too much emphasis on Trump and the controversy over what he knew, when etc.. this article is about Unit 29155 not Trump. -- GreenC 03:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Trump’s tweet is part of what we “know” about the intelligence assessment. I don’t see where POV is relevant here. There is no opinion involved, it is a simple statement of what Trump said the intelligence agencies told him. Burrobert (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

We know a lot of things that are not included here, they are detailed in the main article. The section currently does a good job explaining what the agencies said and where they differ. Trump's advisement "not credible" is not relevant to the article about Unit 29155, unless you intention is to agree with him and emphasis his controversial position. -- GreenC 14:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Allegation removed

I have removed a sentence affirming the implication of this unit in the Catalan referendum of 2017. The reason for this is that the source (the link in the article was dead, this one works: https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2019/11/21/inenglish/1574324886_989244.html) merely reports on an allegation made before a court, largely based on a Spanish police (not intelligence) report. Apparently the allegation was not supported by evidence and dismissed by the court and the public prosecutor: https://elpais.com/espana/2021-05-17/la-audiencia-nacional-archiva-la-investigacion-sobre-la-presencia-de-espias-rusos-en-cataluna-durante-el-proces.html. It seems prudent to remove the sentence altogether so as not to detract from the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.228.76.7 (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

60 Minutes episode about GRU Unit 29155

Link to a March 31, 2024 CBS News 60 Minutes segment about GRU Unit 29155: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/havana-syndrome-culprit-investigation-new-evidence-60-minutes-transcript/ 98.123.38.211 (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

GreenC the comments about causes of Havana Syndrome are not compliant with WP:MEDRS requirements. Thus my removal of them. This should not become a WP:PROFRINGE content fork of the Havana Syndrome article. Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Well it's a good thing the article doesn't assert what causes HS because if it did I would be the first to remove it. -- GreenC 19:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that the mention of nonlethal acoustic weapons is just... coincidental? Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:BMI

The 60 minutes report, as far as it relates to non biomedical claims (see WP:BMI), can and should be included. This article is not making any biomedical claims. -- GreenC 19:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It at the very least heavily implies a WP:FRINGE cause in acoustic weaponry. This is BMI. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Projects

Responding to a recent edit summary: no please do not remove WikiProject:Skepticism. Simonm223 (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see why does this WikiProject apply here (or to Havana syndrome page, for that matter), if it is added only because of the claims that directed energy weapons/acoustic weapons are involved. They are clearly not WP:FRINGE and those weapons do exist in the real world – at least from what I see from these two articles on them (which are not marked with WP:SKEPTICISM, btw) and the peer-reviewed papers brought up on Havana syndrome's talk page. TinyClayMan (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)