“As Director, I have no more profound obligation than to take care of our people and, throughout this process, I have been determined to address this difficult challenge with honesty and compassion. We will continue to remain alert to any risks to the health and well-being of Agency officers.”
CIA Director William J. Burns
March 1, 2023
April 8 2024 — The Editorial Board of The Washington Post has just posted an interesting piece regarding Havana Syndrome. I believe that the conclusion should end with ‘no matter who’ instead of ‘no matter what’. Follow us on Twitter: @INTEL_TODAY
RELATED POST: On This Day — And thus a new syndrome was born… [Havana Syndrome – October 3 2017]
RELATED POST : On This Day — The Genesis of the Havana Syndrome (July 27 2016)
About the Editorial Board (1) — Editorials represent the views of The Post as an institution, as determined through discussion among members of the Editorial Board, based in the Opinions section and separate from the newsroom. Let us read the key statements together.
The title of this opinion piece is : “‘Havana syndrome’ might have been a Russian attack. The U.S. can’t stop investigating.”
RELATED POST : Havana Syndrome — New Evidence Links Russia to Mysterious Attacks
Let me be very clear. It is important for the U.S. to continue investigating these incidents thoroughly, given their potential implications for national security and international relations.
Understanding the origins and mechanisms behind Havana syndrome is crucial not only for addressing the health and well-being of affected individuals but also for preventing similar incidents in the future and holding responsible parties accountable.
If there’s evidence suggesting Russian involvement, it would undoubtedly have far-reaching consequences and necessitate a careful and strategic response.
Yet, I am a bit puzzled by the title. Would it be less important if another state (or non-state) actor was responsible. Would the potential victims care less if, for instance, Israel or China was behind these attacks?
ChatGPT appears to agree…
The title of the opinion piece seems to emphasize the possibility of Russian involvement, which could reflect broader geopolitical tensions between the United States and Russia. However, the implications of such incidents, regardless of the perpetrator, are indeed significant for the affected individuals and for U.S. national security.
If another state or non-state actor were responsible for the attacks, it would still be a matter of grave concern. The safety and well-being of U.S. diplomats and personnel are paramount, regardless of the identity of the perpetrator. Additionally, the investigation into these incidents would likely remain a priority, as understanding the nature and source of the attacks is crucial for preventing future occurrences and ensuring accountability.
Ultimately, regardless of the responsible party, the focus should be on addressing the health impacts on the victims, determining the cause of the incidents, and taking appropriate measures to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
The opinion opens with the following statement:
“A just-published investigation by Russian, American and German journalists has unearthed startling new information about the so-called Havana syndrome (…) The new information suggests but does not prove that Russia’s military intelligence agency is responsible. Earlier, agencies in the U.S. intelligence community had concluded that it is very unlikely a foreign adversary is responsible. They need to look again.”
We can all agree with that recommendation. The assertion that earlier assessments by U.S. intelligence agencies concluded it was very unlikely for a foreign adversary to be responsible contrasts with the new information brought forth by the investigative report.
This contrast underscores the need for a reassessment of the evidence and for a thorough examination of potential foreign involvement, particularly in light of the emerging findings.
The call for U.S. intelligence agencies to revisit their conclusions underscores the importance of maintaining vigilance and pursuing rigorous investigations into these incidents. The potential implications of foreign involvement in such attacks necessitate a comprehensive and ongoing effort to uncover the truth and ensure the safety and security of U.S. personnel.
Let’s keep on reading.
A possible cause for the injuries was identified by the National Academy of Sciences in 2020 as the use of “directed, pulsed radio frequency” energy, but there has been little evidence until now about a perpetrator.
The most recent Annual Threat Assessment from the Office of Director of National Intelligence, dated Feb. 5, found that the symptoms “probably were the result of factors that did not involve a foreign adversary.”
Two new medical studies, published on Monday, have found that US government officials suffering from Havana syndrome symptoms do not show any discernible physical damage or alteration.
RELATED POST : ODNI — ANNUAL THREAT ASSESSMENT 2024 [People with ‘Havana Syndrome’ Show No Brain Damage or Medical Illness]
One of the studies examined brain imaging, while the other looked at blood biomarkers and clinical assessments of hearing, vision, hand-eye coordination, cognitive ability and balance.
“Neither study, detected any significant differences between a control group, and about 80 current or former US government officials suffering from a cluster of symptoms, often debilitating, known as Havana syndrome, named for the site of the first recorded cases among diplomats and intelligence officials in 2015.” [The Guardian]
The Editorial Board the points out the recent work related to the development of ‘non-lethal acoustic weapons’ in Russia.
But the new investigation by the Insider, a Russian investigative news outlet, in collaboration with CBS’s “60 Minutes” and Germany’s Der Spiegel, paints a different picture. It identifies the possible culprit as Unit 29155, a “notorious assassination and sabotage squad” of the GRU, Moscow’s military intelligence service. Senior members of the unit received “awards and political promotions for work related to the development of ‘non-lethal acoustic weapons’” — a term used in the Russian military-scientific literature to describe both sound- and radiofrequency-based directed energy devices. The investigation found documentary evidence that Unit 29155 “has been experimenting with exactly the kind of weaponized technology” experts suggest is a plausible cause.
And the comes the conclusion:
The U.S. intelligence community needs to conduct a full, aggressive inquiry that takes into account all aspects of the incidents — sometimes easier said than done in such investigations. It must include everything: counterintelligence information, case investigatory data, clinical data, and possible concepts of operation for the attacks based on plausible mechanisms and devices identified by earlier research. It needs access to all the available intelligence — including anything previously buried or ignored — and be unbound by preconceived notions about what happened.
Along with the new information, there are compelling reasons to dig deeper. If the incidents are a deliberate attack, the perpetrator must be identified and held to account. Along with sending a message to those who might harm American personnel, the United States needs to show all those who might join the diplomatic and intelligence services that the government will protect them abroad and at home from foreign adversaries, no matter what.
As I already pointed out in my comment about the title, the conclusion should end with ‘no matter who’ instead of ‘no matter what’.
Ending the conclusion with “no matter who” instead of “no matter what” would better emphasize the focus on holding the perpetrator accountable, regardless of their identity.
This would reinforce the principle of accountability and deterrence against potential threats, irrespective of the specific actor involved.
What do you think?
REFERENCES
Note 1 — Members of the Editorial Board: Opinion Editor David Shipley, Deputy Opinion Editor Charles Lane and Deputy Opinion Editor Stephen Stromberg, as well as writers Mary Duenwald, Shadi Hamid, David E. Hoffman, James Hohmann, Heather Long, Mili Mitra, Eduardo Porter, Keith B. Richburg and Molly Roberts.
Unraveling Havana Syndrome: New evidence links the GRU’s assassination Unit 29155 to mysterious attacks on U.S. officials and their families — The Insider (April 1, 2024)
‘Havana syndrome’ linked to Russian unit, media investigation suggests — The Guardian
ANNUAL THREAT ASSESSMENT OF THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
(February 5, 2024)
People with ‘Havana Syndrome’ Show No Brain Damage or Medical Illness — Scientific American (MARCH 18, 2024)
=
Havana Syndrome — The view from The Washington Post
“We continue to closely examine anomalous health incidents [Havana Syndrome], particularly in areas we have identified as requiring additional research and analysis.”
CIA ANNUAL THREAT ASSESSMENT 2024
Intel Today 