Trump’s National Security Adviser, John Bolton, accused Russia (ah, what wasn’t Russia accused of…) of stealing “hypersonic weapon” technology from the United States.
What is worth noting:
1. Even in the United States it is recognised that the Russian Federation is now ahead of the United States in this segment of armaments (this issue was raised at meetings of the Senate Defense Committee and in the reports of think tanks associated with the Pentagon). If Russia is ahead of the United States at the expense of “stolen” American technologies, it is reasonable to ask why, with such advanced technologies, is the United States lagging behind the Russian Federation in this matter? Does Russia know better how to work with American technology than the United States itself? Or maybe US technology isn’t that advanced?
“At the end of March last year, US Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC, drew attention to the need to focus efforts on the development of hypersonic weapons and defense systems, and acknowledged the unprecedented lag of the United States in the arms race in this domain behind Russia and China.
The statement of the Secretary of Defense of the strongest power in the world was discussed in the US Senate to determine ways to confront such weapons. As General John Hyten, Head of the Strategic Command of the Armed Forces, noted, only nuclear weapons can resist hypersonic weapons. Donald Trump, in turn, was angry and called Russian President Vladimir Putin, demanding that tensions in the arms race between the countries be reduced.” (source)
2. No factual evidence of “technology theft” has of course been presented, so take our word for it. This is a fairly typical approach to accusing Russia of anything. The Russians are so bad that there is no point in proving and explaining something separately. Especially when the goal is to explain why the existing backlog has arisen and why it is necessary to increase the defence budget.
“Washington uses ‘collective attribution’ tactics to accuse other countries of carrying out cyber attacks. For this purpose, a group of countries unilaterally ‘may issue a verdict of guilt for the commission of a cyber attack’. Such a concept is called ‘Name and Shame’, said Deputy Secretary of the Security Council of Russia Oleg Khramov in an interview with the Russian Newspaper.
The evidence base in such cases can be ‘collective attribution’ – a joint determination of the source of the attack. At the same time, ‘the technology of such attribution is not disclosed,’ explained Khramov, so its mechanism is not reliable.
Describing the American concept, the Deputy Secretary of the Security Council said that the main factor in determining the perpetrator is the political context, and the evidentiary argument – the ‘well-known thesis of highly likely’. The expression was widely known in connection with the case of the Skripals concerning the poisoning of the former GRU colonel Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yuliya with a toxic substance named ‘Novichok’. In particular, the expression was used by the British Ambassador to Russia Laurie Bristow during a briefing for diplomats, during which he accused Russia of a ‘marathon of lies’ over the Skripals case.
The ultimate goal of the ‘name and shame’ concept is to legalise US information-military operations against ‘inconvenient’ states, ‘up to and including the use of nuclear arsenals,’ he said”. (source)
3. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with industrial-technological espionage. All leading countries are engaged in this (including the United States on the territory of the Russian Federation), so that if domestic intelligence through agency or technical channels was able to obtain valuable technologies of one kind or another, it can only be welcomed (officially this is never recognised), and distinguished scouts given state awards (again informally). China is the best example in this issue – it does not reflect upon itself, but takes everything that Chinese intelligence will reach, with its subsequent introduction into various spheres of military-civilian production.
Copyright © 2019. All Rights Reserved.