The Przewodów incident

How to navigate in the high risk - high uncertainty information environment

While of no comfort to the families of the two Poles that were killed in Przewodów yesterday, most signs now points towards errant Ukrainian SAM(s) as the likely explanation for yesterday's explosion, and not wayward Russian missiles, or something intentional. Thus, the risk of this incident snowballing into something bigger is low.

Shashank Joshi @shashj

Poland's president also says "very likely" that it was Ukrainian air defence. I think that all but settles the issue.

BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking

“No sign of intentional attack” as missile hits Poland, says Polish president Andrzej Duda says blast “very likely” caused by Ukrainian air defence Follow updates https://t.co/yDx1c3cRYz

However there were some dynamics involved yesterday that needs to be highlighted.

Observations

I personally decided to refrain from commenting on this incident early on, and await official statements. In a situation that has potential to become very significant, involving escalatory risks, speculation isn't helpful, bad takes might become dangerous.

In any such episode, what's known through open sources will only be fragments and small pieces of information, NEVER the entire picture. That is why one must wait for official statements from the government(s) involved, in this case the Polish Government. There were a lot of bad reporting, un-caveated bad analysis, jumping to conclusions and just plain bad takes yesterday, from a large variety of sources.

A lot politicians, and the public, get their news and narratives from social media. There is a risk bad information could influence reactions, and in some instances maybe create unwarranted publicpanic.

John Helin @J_JHelin

This and its terrifying Knowing how politicians can get their narratives from social media, the amount of wilful mis- and disinformation is fucking worrying, and can lead to the rhetoric escalating before actual facts are known.

Shashank Joshi @shashj

Imagine Twitter during the Cuban missile crisis. You'd have dodgy OSINT accounts claiming the B-59 had fired its torpedoes. An obscure defence minister would tweet that the US should immediately invade Cuba. A clickbait BREAKING account would tell us that U2 wreckage was a B-52.

How to navigate in the high risk, high uncertainty information environment

• Acknowledge uncertainty. Initially there will few hard facts available.

• Avoid speculation.

• Avoid confirmation bias.

• Be patient. Wait for official comments and/or statements.

• Don't listen to sources who jump to conclusions, offer un-caveated analysis, and are overconfident. Initial impressions could very well be wrong.

• Be aware that some sources/parties may twist the facts to fit their own agenda.

Summing up

We got lucky this time. This incident was highly likely the result of an unfortunate accident, the sort that can happen in a war of this scale and intensity.

The next time it could be something else, a Russian test of Western resolve can't be ruled out, as pressure mounts.

If the same dynamic that occurred yesterday happens in such an instance, it might very well help the Russians accomplish what they want, adding to the dangers, increasing the risk of escalation.

All who participate in the public discourse has a responsibility to mitigate these risks; journalists, politicians, pundits, commentators, OSINT-accounts and news aggregators alike

Be aware of your responsibilities, don't feed the beast.

Regards

The Lookout