Seymour Hersh has written another article about the war in Ukraine, giving rise to much amusement on social media over the following phrase, which Hersh attributes to a U.S. intelligence officer:
Zelensky has no plan, except to hang on. It’s as if he’s an orphan – a poor waif in his underwear – and we have no real idea of what Zelensky and his crowd are thinking…
Specifically, the phrase “a poor waif in his underwear” is an idiom not found in English. It’s Russian – “мальчик в трусиках” (lit., “boy in panties”). So it’s quite strange, therefore, that this expression should be used by a U.S. intelligence officer speaking to another English speaker, unless that officer – Hersh’s source – is not, in fact, a U.S. intelligence officer, but rather a Russian one.
Twitter, of course, remembered the incident in April 2022 when bungling Russian FSB agents were tasked with planting incriminating evidence on some supposed Ukrainian spies, and left a note – supposedly from a Russian neo-Nazi – which was signed not with an illegible signature, as they were instructed, but literally with the words “signature illegible”.
But there’s more to this slip-up by Hersh’s source. In 2014, there was a famous story on Russia’s Channel One in which it was claimed that Ukrainian forces had crucified a small “boy in panties”. Cue outrage. And while the story was obviously false, it has “forever remained in the hearts of the patriots of the Russian world”, with the boy even having been resurrected to avenge his ancestors. And recently, Prigozhin has been mocked by Russian-speaking Ukrainians as a “boy in panties”.
Of course, there’s rather more than just an ill-chosen idiom to suggest that Seymour Hersh’s secret, high-level U.S. intelligence source is not what he claims to be. There’s also the fact that everything this supposed U.S. official says follows the Russian propaganda line and is outright false or at least misleading, including a number of ludicrous claims that Hersh clearly hasn’t bothered to check. For instance, a central claim is that Ukraine couldn’t have attacked the Kerch Bridge without U.S.-supplied seaborne drone technology, which ignores the fact that Ukraine is fairly open about its own development of long-range aerial and seaborne drones, for instance offering their Magura V5 for sale at a recent arms fair. It also ignores the fact that building a seaborne drone with a combination of GNSS and backup INS, as well as radio and satellite comms, could be done in a variety of ways using off-the-shelf components. And let’s not forget that Ukraine has been attacking Sevastopol with seaborne drones repeatedly for months now.
To unpick the other claims made by Hersh’s source would be to miss the wood for the trees. The story is that the claims made by Hersh’s source almost certainly derive from a Russian government source, and that Hersh is – at best – an old fool if he actually believes his source to be a U.S. intelligence officer. This isn’t the first time I’ve criticised Hersh for the absurd claims of his single anonymous source who implausibly has access to every high-level U.S. meeting but who doesn’t know basic facts (which does leave open the possibility of it being President Biden, admittedly). However, he seems impervious to criticism, and his stories are gleefully picked up by Russian state media without him ever seeming to question what’s going on. It was an old tactic of the KGB’s Department D to “wash” fake stories through unwitting, naïve or actively complicit media outlets around the world, allowing the Soviet government then to “report” on those stories – as if from a distance – and refer to them as though true. And I’d wager that’s what’s happening here.
But I’m not accusing Hersh of knowingly propagating Russian government disinformation. I have no evidence for that, and in any case it’s easy to be deceived by someone who’s a cunning adversary (albeit perhaps not a cunning linguist).
Let’s imagine a hypothetical scenario. Let’s imagine I’m an award-winning journalist, known for my hard-hitting investigative journalism uncovering the misdeeds of my own government. People offer me tips all the time, but I’m quite careful which ones I take seriously. Then someone I know sends me an email, saying they’ve met someone whom they think could be an interesting source. He says that this guy often drinks at a certain downtown watering hole, and offers to introduce me when I’m next in town. Or maybe it’s public knowledge that I’m due to appear at a certain event. But through whatever means, a meeting can be arranged. And when I meet the guy, either through an introduction or because I just “randomly” bump into him, he says how interesting and important my work is – he flatters me – but is also vague about his own work (which might be in “government” or perhaps “the Department of Defence”). Perhaps someone else at that bar or that event comes up to him and speaks to him as if he’s a figure of worth and importance. And maybe, if things go well, he invites me to dinner; or he at least gives me his card, perhaps saying that I should contact him if I’m working on anything interesting.
Specific circumstances can be tailored for specific individuals, but let’s assume there’s a second meeting. When I walk into the bar or restaurant, perhaps I see him talking to someone who looks a lot like a known – current or former – senior intelligence official, who walks away before I can identify them properly. Perhaps he leaves my guy with an official-looking document, or some other visible token. Or perhaps there’s just some important-looking person flanked by people dressed like they’re a government protection detail – maybe the Secret Service – who treat my guy like he’s a somebody. Impressions can be moulded this way. It might never be so crude as to involve fake government IDs, or even any specific claims. There’s no public database of government intelligence officers that I can refer to, so I’m left to assess his credibility based on instinct and… confidence.
When it comes to confidence, he might drop some (accurate) information about something going on in the world that hasn’t become public knowledge yet, or through a host of means available to him convince me that he’s privy to inside knowledge. If he’s a Russian agent, he could feed me (accurate) details about what Russia is intending to announce over the next few days, while saying it derives from U.S. intelligence. And he needn’t be – and almost certainly wouldn’t be – a Russian intelligence officer; but rather, a U.S. citizen with an authentic American accent. Maybe – probably? – he doesn’t even know he’s working for Russia, because he’s flattered by all the attention too, and was convinced on grounds so flimsy that it would be embarrassing for him to admit. And this is before we get into the weirder Derren Brown-esque, Zersetsung territory.
I’m reminded of that story of the high-level secretary who worked at NATO headquarters during the Cold War, who was convinced (probably through similar means) that her boyfriend of several years was a Western intelligence agent. When she learned he was actually a Russian spy – and realised how many top secret documents she’d given him – she threw herself out of the nearest window in horror.
In sum, I think Seymour Hersh should investigate his own “U.S. intelligence” contact, because their liaison is looking increasingly dangerous.
Stop Press: Dan Hannan in the Washington Examiner says the Russians are becoming wantonly cruel in the manner in which they’re prosecuting the war.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I’m confused! Which one is he? The grotesque scaley ugly one, or the one with horns?
L Rons and the Uke apologists are on the right.
The first casualty of war is the truth.. but Hersh’s take on Zelensky is pretty accurate I think.. he’s a tool, being used by those with the real power and their plans. Zelensky has no plans other that getting out alive, he does what he’s told.. end of!
That’s all very interesting. So we’ve learned that intelligence officers in America and Russia tell lies. What’s your point, you haven’t got one, why didn’t you say that instead of wasting 2000 words, unless you are being paid by the word?
David VanDriessen: You know, this could be really positive experience for you guys. There’s a wonderful and exciting world out there when we discover we don’t need TV to entertain us.
Butt-head: Uh-huh huh huh! He said “anus”!
Beavis: “Entert-ain us”, “ainus”. Oh yeah!
Very thin supposition. I don’t buy it. One sentence and not particularly one an Englishman wouldn’t use. Frankly, if we go with the idea that it is a Russian expression, anyone with knowledge of the area and people involved might well use an expression from that country.
The Russian translation supplied makes clear it’s actually barely the same sentence. ‘A poor waif in his underwear’ and the Russian ‘boy in panties’ might be vaguely in the same ballpark, but at opposite ends at best. The idea that this means ‘Russian collaborator!’ is ridiculous and would be laughed out of court. It’s an extraordinarily tenuous link, so thin that you could accuse half the English-speaking world of working for Russia on the basis of finding an expression used by an Englishman and a vague equivalent from Russia.
We’re dealing with one not very nice government whose military has invaded the country of another not very nice government. Zelensky vs Putin is akin to Saddam Hussein against Ayatollah Khomeini. These are wars we’re better off staying out of; just as with our old deals with Saddam Hussein, supporting one leader will bite us in the arse a couple of decades later.
Underwear aside, I can’t imagine Zelenskyyyyyy has a plan and if so what it is. Not sure what plan the UK has, TBH. Keep going until we can quietly withdraw from the situation without looking like idiots or worse? Keep going indefinitely?
With our underwear aside!, Invade crimea and get them to nuke us! That’ll show them ugh!
Basically, we’re screwed by Alexander Johnson’s decision to take sides and and push for the war to continue, rather than negotiate a settlement. He didn’t – and doesn’t – speak for me about this ridiculous conflict. Now we’re stuck with going along with whatever decisions are made by the cabal running that senile old coot in the White House, who are mostly worried about their biolabs and Hunter Biden’s businesses and are willing to risk a nuclear war. If Biden’s mob get the heave-ho, I expect the US will withdraw everything but token backing from Ukraine pretty quickly and force a negotiated settlement. It’s 15 months until the presidential election, so Zelensky must be feeling the heat on the soles of his feet by now.
There is a school of thought that the Ukraine war meeting that Saudi Arabia is convening is aimed at convincing Ukraine to agree to talks with Russia without pre-conditions. If Russia is now in the strong position of having dug into Eastern Ukraine so well that Ukraine cannot shift them? then unconditional peace talks would seem the only sensible option if Ukraine hopes to salvage anything out of this horrendous war.
What about the simple explanation? Hersh has been working for the communists^WRussians since the Vietnam war and he still does? What was his claim to fame? The so-called My Lai massacre, a completely run-of-the-mill occurence whenever regular troops have to deal with guerilla fighters wearing civilian’s attire in order to hide more easily among the population. Gets weaponized whenever the wrong people do it, otherwise covered up. Shouldn’t the peope who are the proximate cause for this because of the war crimes they keep committing share some of the responsibility for it? And how did the Vietcong treat Vietnamese people on the other side, anyway? By hugging and kissing them?
I agree that the notion Hersh is a witting agent is a very tempting one, but it’s not always a completely black vs. white situation. Humans are extremely capable of rationalising their actions so as to make themselves feel good in their own eyes, and it would only take a fig leaf – like someone implausibly pretending to be a U.S. intelligence officer – to allow that rationalisation. He comes across as self-righteous enough for that.
Now, I do definitely believe there is some Russian intelligence officer “handling” Hersh and feeding him the garbage he spouts, and that’s been going on for a while (maybe since Vietnam). And the degree to which Hersh is being duped is stunning, but I just don’t think he’s a Walter Duranty character, and absent actual evidence of Hersh being aware of what’s going on, the notion that he’s simply a useful idiot wins out for me. Listening to his rambling semi-coherent interviews has convinced me he genuinely believes he has an inside line to US intelligence, and he doesn’t have enough of a coherent fact-based worldview to realise the truth.
“Seymour Hersh’s Latest ‘Scoops’ About Ukraine Don’t Stand Up to Ian Rons Scrutiny”.There, fixed it for you.
No need to read the article.
And the difference is? Article represents opinion of author! is hardly surprising.
Reds under the bed! This is all getting just way too Mccarthyist and conspiratorial.
The only public figure I see in the world right now being remotely honest about this conflict is RFK Jr, and I think Ian Rons could learn a lot from him. It’s possible to denounce Russia’s recent actions, and acknowledge that 30 years of western deception, aggression and NATO expansion would inevitably lead to a military response, especially when it came to Ukraine, through which Russia has been invaded several times. This is called ‘balance’.
Ian Ron’s’ one-sided version of events, that ignores the context of these decades of aggression by NATO is getting seriously tiring.
War is a dirty business. No-one has clean hands or a clean conscience. As for who is this and who is that, I find disbelieving 100% of what each side says is the best approach.
A friend recently put me on to Martin Gilbert’s magisterial book, ‘Holocaust’, and so I’m a little biased against Ukraine, given the astounding cruelties that nation has been capable of in the past. No romantic bland-and-white goodies/baddies version of this for me; the expression ‘six of one, a half-dozen of the other doesn’t do the situation justice. But the phrase “a poor waif in his underwear” is a peach. I’ll be using that one regularly from now on.
Every time I read an Ian Rons piece, I wonder if I’m right to support Daily Sceptic.
Hersh is one of Putin’s useful idiots, nothing more
Ian Ian stop with the multiple accounts
I’m disappointed in this attempt to smear the one mega-journalist still exposing corruption and lies of our politicians and governments. The only question about Zelensky is WHO will take him out? Once the people realise that the death of 350,000 young men on the battlefield was simply to line the pockets of US Senators, they’ll not be happy.
Yet more total bollards from Ian Rons