The purpose of a false flag is to drive a certain narrative, so it's always accompanied by incessant media coverage. That is not the case here, the attack is likely for genuine tactical purposes.

Everything you are describing would still have an intended audience - the audience may be smaller, or niche, but they still exist.

> That is not the case here

Are you sure that false-flag attacks always involve a media blitz?

Just thinking that if I were planning a false flag, and I know that people would recognize it as such because of the media blitz, then I'd look for a workaround. That seems consistent with what we have here.

> What’s the point of a false flag if nobody knows about it?

I agree. A false-flag attack is all about optics.

But IIUC the GP, they're saying the SATCOM failure isn't widely known, so it wouldn't make sense as a false-flag attack.

That's where GP loses me. Because we are discussing it here, as members of the general public. And the discussion isn't limited to a small nerdy site like HN; it's also being covered by Reuters [0].

[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/satellite-outage-kno...

What’s the point of a false flag if nobody knows about it?

See GP… the point of a false flag is to drive a narrative. Otherwise you are just damaging yourself for no reason.

Do you have an example of a false flag without a media circus around it?

I usually use a 'what are either side saying about it' and then apply a 'there are always three sides to things <side A's, side B's' and the true event>' heuristic transform filter.

Unfortunately with all the censorship, service withdrawals, disconnections etc (from both sides) makes this approach .... difficult ....

My opinion is, let all the information flow. People are not sheep that need herding by the powers that be (again, I refer to both 'sides' here).