Ukraine slides closer to NATO with buckets of experience fending off Moscow's cyberattacks Ukraine has taken another step toward deepening its ties to NATO by signing an agreement to formalize its participation in the security alliance's Joint Center for Advanced Technologies in Cyber Defense (CCDCOE). The CCDCOE functions as a cyber-defense knowledge hub, research institution, and training and exercise facility …
I always wondered if there was ever an off-centre of excellence, personally I'd like to be considered to join a centre-left of excellence. Top-right feels too strict....
Mines with the. Self-help book "how to lose friends and alienate people", I'll see myself out.
Sure. See how good that was for Germany - high energy bills bcz of no cheap gas, back into burning coal, activating nuclear plants that were planned to be disabled, industry slowing down bcz of no gas, entering recession.
Bravo !
The Ukraine mess was caused by NATO expanding into Russia's borders.
Only imagine if Russia did the same in Canada !
...in 1941 ? When Germany sent panzer against Russia by the thousands ? I'm not sure why so many people wish those times back
Sadly, many in the West do. Hence the pressure to stage a repeat and send German panzers through Poland to fight Russians on Ukrainian soil. Some may even end up sporting the same livery, which may be one of the reasons why Germany's a little hesitant to see history repeating itself, and old division's insignia painted on their Leopards. Plus Germany doesn't have thousands of tanks. Poland's saying they're going to export 14, we're exporting 14, those won't make much difference along a 1,000km contact line. But that's been the problem over the last year with weapons being sent in dribs & drabs, and rapildy eliminated. It's also strange that as Russia's an expansionist, existential threat, our leaders are so keen to disarm NATO, especially when our military leaders are warning that war stocks are just a tad depleted. I guess the people keen to see NATO disarmed and the EU de-industrialised are getting their wish. Downside is if Russia decides not to stop at Ukraine, it goes nuclear and everyone dies. Yey!
The cyber stuff is also a little curious. One of the sad aspects to this conflict is Ukraine had a thriving IT sector doing all sorts of neat software development. Ok, so that also included hacking, and a number of Ukrainian cybercrime groups have been disrupted and members arrested. So there is probably a lot of cyberwarfare knowledge that could be shared, but perhaps not enough thought about whether it should be shared, or could be restricted and controlled.
Weapons sent in drips and drabs are largely to enable adequate training for crew and maintenance personnel.
And there has been very little rapid elimination.
The Oryx website (which uses geolocated imagery to confirm equipment lost) records 38 Himars systems supplied, none lost, 15 MLRS supplied, none lost, 54No 105mm L119 howitzers supplied, 1 lost (damaged), etc, etc.
Clearly, not every system destroyed is recorded, equally clearly the systems being supplied to Ukraine are not being rapidly eliminated.
Bear in mind that the Russian claims for what they have destroyed are pure fantasy - they claim to have destroyed 1000 bayraktars, when the total production run (for all users ) is about 450, they claimed to destroy M2 Bradley's last year, when there still aren't any in Ukraine, etc
The Oryx website (which uses geolocated imagery to confirm equipment lost) records 38 Himars systems supplied, none lost.
Ah, OSI. How.. reliable. Snag is it can only confirm using geolocated imagery, if said imagery exists. And this is very much a propaganda war, and Oryx's claim has very little merit. It's back to the old challenge of the null hypothesis. If you want to claim 'none lost', just show 38 HIMARS. Obviously Ukraine isn't going to do that, because Russia really wants to destroy them. There won't be any reliable accounting until after the dust has settled, and the butcher's bill produced.
...equally clearly the systems being supplied to Ukraine are not being rapidly eliminated.
I'm unclear. But again, that's propaganda for you. Keeping the narrative consistent can be challenging. So Ukraine captured hundreds of tanks, AFVs and thousands of rounds of ammunition as a result of their offensives, and Russia's desperate retreat. Where are they now, and why do they need more tanks, artillery etc?
they claimed to destroy M2 Bradley's last year, when there still aren't any in Ukraine
There are probably no black swans either. Again it's one of those NCND things, or pics or it didn't happen. Actually there are Bradleys in Ukraine. Sort of. So the M270 MLRS is based on a Bradley hull, but heavily modified. So it's possible a heavily damaged and carefully photographed M270 could be mistaken for another Bradley variant. But there have been no M270's destroyed. Rest is more a Germany thing, ie as they're US made and export controlled, there shouldn't be any in Ukraine, unless another operator has donated some. Oh, and..
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/drib#noun
Because last time, those who didn't wish for war didn't get war until countries that would have been their allies had been crushed, then they got war without help and in some cases got to experience the joys of occupation by an enemy who wasn't very nice about it.
Oh, and because watching people get crushed by a military force that's trying to destroy their government, committing war crimes (even if you accepted that they're allowed to engage in lawful war which they are not), and expanding the rule of a despotic government when you have the power to do something about it is kind of bad. I assume you don't care about any of that or have your invalid what-about-something-completely-different argument ready, so I figured I'd start with the amoral part.
Its about preening or Peacock arse to the world "LOOK HOW MORAL WE ARE!", Meanwhile Office Workes have to where their Winter Coats at their Desks, in order to preserve what Gas is left. I just pray the Reichtag is being kept at a comfortable temp. Wouldn't want our Moral Politicians catching the big "C" now....
A little ironic that one of the casus belli that the invaders invoked was the presence of NAZI in UA. A case of being careful of what you wish for. Now if not your actual swastikaed NAZIs you are likely to be facing hardware of which any panzer unit from WW2 would be proud.
Am I alone in seeing a rough parallel between Britain and Empire facing the Axis alone when many USA isolationists acused Britain of provoking Germany, and some of the current apologists. Joe Kennedy was one such fool.
Churchill, I think, said "give us the tools..." ; the President of UA has invoked a similar sentiment.
I am now old enough too have lived through times that are for many are just history. The distortions and misrepresentions have driven me to distraction. "Stop telling me this nonsense. I was there!"
A little ironic that one of the casus belli that the invaders invoked was the presence of NAZI in UA. A case of being careful of what you wish for. Now if not your actual swastikaed NAZIs you are likely to be facing hardware of which any panzer unit from WW2 would be proud.
I think Russia's expecting to see Das Reich and Galacia panzers again, and German politicians probably hope they don't. Or Russia will just watch the rail lines into the west of Ukraine and destroy them as they cross the border. But yes, history is repeating itself, with a few twists. Germans are helping kill Slavs again, as are some Ukrainians. Other Ukrainians are fighting fascists again, and it can all get a little confusing.
As for the panzers, we can rely on the Bbc to get things wrong-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64401211
Nato's secretary general said Germany's decision came at a "critical moment in Russia's war" and would "help Ukraine to defend itself, win and prevail as an independent nation".
They can have a picture of Stoltenberg standing infront of NATO banners, and the Bbc still gets their name wrong. It also seems confused about dependent vs independent.
>Please specify and cite your claims.
Actually, not just Porishenko but also Macron and Merkel are on record as saying recently that "The Minsk agreements were just a tool for buying time while the Ukraine's military was built up". Back in 2014, after the coup/pivot to the West (depends on your point of view) Russia was much stronger militarily than Ukraine and could have invaded at will. It didn't because there wasn't a need -- UA wasn't a threat. Crimea was an oddity because it includes a significant number of Russian naval facilities (which, incidentally, were never part of Ukraine, then or now -- they were "Russian federal areas") so it was unlikely that the Russians would just walk away and hand NATO the keys. After 2014 there was a nasty little civil war in the East, a war that has solid historical foundations, hence the proposal for federation that would have fixed it once and for all. (Donbass are Russians but they're also "Fiercely Independent Russians" so being part of a UA federation would have suited everyone.) This civil war went on for yeas, killing 14000 people, displacing a couple of million and getting nowhere. There was a 'final offensive' planned for last year that might have factored into Russian planning (I'm not Russian so I don't know what their thinking is). Historically, though, this area is handy for access to the oil rich regions on the Caspian and also controlling Russian trade routes through the Caspian (see the video series "WW2 In Real Time" to get a feel for how this all works) which means coming under NATO control would be utterly unacceptable to Russia.
Its all out there. You just have to read it.
>See how good that was for Germany - high energy bills bcz of no cheap gas, back into burning coal, activating nuclear plants that were planned to be disabled, industry slowing down bcz of no gas, entering recession.
I can't think of a better reason for enduring a little hardship, than helping defend a country that's being invaded.
>The Ukraine mess was caused by NATO expanding into Russia's borders.
Ukraine is not Russia.
I don't see any ships laden with nukes heading into Ukraine from the US, so that they can be stationed on Russia's borders. If this was the case, then Russia might have something to gripe about, although ti still wouldn't justify a land invasion
Of course, the US's treatment of Cuba isn't exactly a shining example of doing things right, but, as they say, "two wrongs don't make a right".
I don't see any ships laden with nukes heading into Ukraine from the US
that's because Turkey has closed the Bosphorus for warships. Which shows on which side Turkey is, despite being in the NATO. Another proof of that is that they are forbidding Sweden to join, thus giving a diplomatic victory to Russia. Which also shows how "isolated " Russia is, even amongst NATO "partners ".
The problem with that line of reasoning is that it leads to "nuclear-armed nations can subjugate not-nuclear-armed nations with no consequences".
That gives an extremely strong incentive for every nation to seeking nuclear weapons. Which will lead to more and more unstable states having nuclear weapons. That's a foolproof recipe for disaster.
The only way to keep the world unburnt is to make it extremely clear that nuclear weapons can only be considered against existential threats, and that breaking this doctrine will invite an existential threat. That way, a nation can remain non-nuclear, which is good for humanity in general, and still have a reasonable expectation of conventional international support against aggression.
trouble with Russia (though, fair to say, with any country that feels it can do whatever it decides) is that 'existential threat' is fully flexible, shifting goalposts, and they move them, as it fits their purpose. Putin falling out of the high window, pushed by CIA agents? Existential threat. Russian soldiers deserting en masse and going back home with their arms and starting Russia-wide riots? Russians getting a serious kicking in Crimea - existential threat, cause like 'crimea OURS!', right? Russia not able to 'liberate' the rest of Ukrainian territory they claim to be part of Russia? Existential threat, cause it's like, '...disrupting territorial integrity and foreign invaders - nato! nato! on your soil, etc, etc'. Russia falling apart, economically (sure, not for some time yet), perhaps politically, due to sanctions - existential threat. Basically, they try to blackmail the world by saying: do as we say, or else we'll nuke the world, cause we! are mad! russians!
Ironically, although they will never admit that, this nuke waving is a proof their conventional military is shit. Not that you need this nuke dick, you see it every day. Fortunately, it won't get that much better, because their whole political (and social) system is shit. They can (and do) make some improvements, but only within the overall shitty system.
btw, there's been some talk of removing nuclear weapons completely from this planet, in the context of Russia's threat, but let's not kid ourselves, you can't expect that much from the naked ape, can you.
That metaphorical high window is far more likely to be left open by someone in the Kremlin once they see that Putin is inviting an existential threat.
It's a metaphorical window, of course, Putin is far too paranoid to go anywhere near an open window, and the sort of people who would push a failed leader out of a window in past times have a lot of much nastier methods at their disposal, as Russian extra-judicial assassinations (and attempts) have proven.
One thing is willy-waving, another is what actually happens. I do not believe that Putin actually wants to break MAD doctrine. If he went insane and gave that order, I do not think it would be executed, and I think his leadership would end shortly thereafter.
Removing nuclear weapons completely is not going to happen. If someone holds that as their main plan to keep the world unburnt, I would not want him/her in charge of keeping the world unburnt.
Nice job, if you can get it. Let some other country provide your nuclear sunscreen--why pay for it yourself?
Simple: there is absolutely NO WAY to ensure that the nuclear response is guaranteed. Sure, before the first nuke flies, the plan works great. But once it does, what is the actual incentive in the next moment for some third power to respond?
Arm yourself or be a slave. It really is that simple. Always has been.
Simple: there is absolutely NO WAY to ensure that the nuclear response is guaranteed. Sure, before the first nuke flies, the plan works great. But once it does, what is the actual incentive in the next moment for some third power to respond?
It's much the same as NATO and Article 5. All for one and all for one and all that. NATO buys the One's weapons, and if one of it's customers is attacked, Article 5 just means the One will think about a response. And much like with mutual defence treaties in general, discovering your 'ally' won't actually committ tends to happen at the most inconvenient moment.
At least with nuclear, you COULD guarantee a nuclear response. Just have Black Nest hooked up to an automated firing solution, and Bob's your armageddon scenario. Russia already tried that with it's fail deadly solution and process automation.
What NATO has taught the world though is the problems with bluffing when playing hight stakes poker. Iraq dropped hints about WMD programs, Iran and Israel did the same, we knew some aspects of Iraq's projects because we supplied Iraq (and Iran, because playing both sides is twice the fun, twice the profit). So we bombed the snot out of Iraq because WMD and 45mins to doomsday. MSM printed handy graphics showing Iraqi missile ranges etc. So by the time media sets were built, the public was suitably terrified and mostly went along with the show to rid the world of a dictator and his WMD.
Which never really existed.
But no matter. It served to demonstrate to the RoW that if you want to avoid the same thing happening to you, you don't bluff. You do what N.Korea has done and demonstrate you can actually produce instant sunshine. Probably. And of course to make sure the RoW really understands how peace, democracy and global stability really works, we've invaded Libya, Syria, Afghanistan etc etc as well. They didn't have nukes either.
The downside of everyone helping Ukraine defend itself is a potenial escalation of hostilities.Lets Play Global Thermonuclear War .... or perhaps not..
Too late I'm afraid-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/01/german-fm-says-quiet-part-fighting-war-russia/
Coming on the heels of Germany’s announcement to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock has declared “we are fighting a war with Russia” at a meeting of the European Council.
“We have to do more also on tanks,” Baerbock said. “But the most important, crucial part is that we do it together, and we do not do the blame game in Europe, because we are fighting a war against Russia, and not against each other.”
Even though she's Germany's Foreign Minister, and thus should understand the consequences of what she's saying, Russia will probably just continue to take the pish out of the EU's elite rather than consider this a formal declaration of war. She is a Green after all.
The Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI) has published a report which places the Register article above in differing context.
Preliminary Lessons in Conventional Warfighting from Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: February–July 2022Mykhaylo Zabrodskyi, Jack Watling, Oleksandr V Danylyuk and Nick Reynolds
30 November 2022
https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf
An article written by Felix Livshitz and published by RT casts the significance of the RUSI report in a manner inconsistent with prevailing Western opinion on Ukraine's progress and continuing ability to counter Russia's "Special military operation".
https://www.rt.com/news/570203-british-scientists-russias-total-dominance/(VPN from UK may be required. Ironically, the USA is a reliable VPN end-point for this purpose.)
Livshitz's writing mentions the RUSI report has received unusually scant attention from Western MSM other than Forbe's magazine. He suggests media eyes are staying downcast because the part of the RUSI assessment concerning Russia's electronic warfare prowess is unpalatable. He makes telling quotations from the report which among other things show Ukraine's use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), apparently the very best NATO could supply, was abject failure.
To quote from Livshitz, who himself quotes from the RUSI document -
These systems, RUSI states, were envisioned to be “critical to competitiveness” in a hypothetical future battlefield, by providing “situational awareness and target acquisition” second to none. However, as it turned out, the “attrition rates” of these high-tech drones were “extremely high” from February to July due to Russian electronic warfare prowess, and thy were destroyed completely at around 90%.
and
"A “more common” means of “mission failure” was “disruption of a UAV under control through electronic warfare, the dazzling of its sensors or the denial of its navigational systems from determining the accurate location of a target.”
and
“In other instances, the Russians successfully struck the ground control stations of the UAV. In aggregate, only around a third of UAV missions can be said to have been successful.”
and
The report’s conclusion was that the weaponry the West had sent and planned to send to Ukraine “does nothing to improve Ukraine’s odds of deterring Russia, or even defending against a Russian invasion once it has begun,” and any attempt to arm Kiev was “not likely” to defend “Ukraine’s sovereignty.”
The RUSI is highly regarded in military circles, many cuts above the ridiculous 'Atlantic Council', and close to the UK government. Weaknesses exposed in the report, and their consequences for current policy of throwing armaments at Ukraine, are stark: realism atop a sea of delusion, fantasy, and wishful thinking.
...what matters is that those who make decisions read it.
I suspect they have, and it's why Biden's discovered he's transitioned from being the 'Big Guy' to the fall guy. One possibility is the US is looking for an exit strategy, and one option is to blame this fiasco on Biden. He's already very exposed over his and his family's involvement in Ukraine.
Biden might be the fall guy but the troublemakers Blinken.
I think there are many suspects, and Blinken and/or WestExec execs or clients. Strange outfit that lobbies and doesn't, all at the same time. But I think that's why stuff is happening. Project Ukraine goes back to probably the early part of the 21st Century, then obviously got a bit of a win with the 2014 regime change. Then hordes of Washington lobbyists descended on it to generate loads of cash in advisory and consultancy fees. That included Republicans as well as Democrats, and of course friends and family like Hunter's Burisma no-show job.
Anyone who's done any work in and around that region knows that that's how it works. Businesses are given names and bank account numbers to pay salaries to for employees that don't exist.
I'm also curious if things are moving forward to a corruption stage. There was the helicopter crash, then resignation, and now more firings/resignations over 'corruption'. Especially Tymoshenko and other people aligned with this party-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKROP
So if there's a purge, or if it's going to result in the purged going to the media and speaking out of school. If they survive that long. I also like the Tom Burridge bit in the wiki article, which shows he really doessn't understand Ukrainian politics.
Do you have a page reference for that last quote? Because when I used the find function on 'sovereignty' or 'invasion', nothing like that showed up. It appears to be a fabrication.
RUSI is highly regarded, and when I want to read RUSI's opinion, I go to the RUSI website (who have a reputation for truthful analysis), not RT (who don't).
RUSI is highly regarded, and when I want to read RUSI's opinion, I go to the RUSI website (who have a reputation for truthful analysis), not RT (who don't)
Luckily, Long John Silver provided a link to the PDF in his original post. It appears to confirm some rumors of devious things, like Russians being able to hijack and effectively steal some Ukrainian drones.
I know he provided the link to the pdf document - I had already seen the document so was already aware of it. I did a search on the document and couldn't find the specific quote that RT claim is in the document, so was querying the accuracy of that quote.
I did a search on the document and couldn't find the specific quote that RT claim is in the document, so was querying the accuracy of that quote.
Perhaps read the document instead? This is from p.59-
Defeating UAS does not mean kinetically destroying them. It simply means denying the UAS the ability to achieve its mission. This could be done through the dazzling of sensors, or denial of navigation or control. The most efficient protection against UAS is EW and ensuring that electronic attack and electronic protection is available at all echelons.
which vaguely matches the first quote. The RUSI paper's written with contributions from two Ukrainian officers. They tend to be pretty tight lipped when it comes to OPSEC and specifics of their own losses. I have no idea who RT used as sources for their article, but it's no great stretch of the imagination to find examples of how 'could be done' is being done. There have been plenty of other reports claiming Russia is actively using EW to spoof GPS and generally interfere with drones. The quotes were from the RT article, not claimed to be directly from the RUSI paper. That also mentions British Army exercises using decoy CPs, which is a standard tactic that's been taught pretty much since EW and direction finding became a thing. So it's reasonable to expect Russia to be doing this, and if it can identify UAS control signals, locate the transmitter, it's probable that UAS operators have been targetted. It's easy enough to locate a transmitter in a rural area after all, especially if it's a commercial drone like a DJI that's transmitting on widely known frequencies.
It's worth reading the paper, and hoping that TPTB are reading it and taking the recommendations on board. This is one of those sad situations where theory regarding modern battlefields is being put into practice, with devastating consequences.
So you didn't find that last quote claimed by RT either, then.
I haven't read the RT article, so no idea if it claims to be a direct quote from the RUSI paper, or elsewhere. This is the more salient point from the conclusion-
For Ukraine, victory is essential but can only be achieved with the ongoing support of its international partners.
Obviously Ukraine's facing an existential threat, and "can't win", unless we keep supporting it. It also "can't lose", because that may be an existential threat to the EU, UK, NATO, and the West in general who confidently predicted Russia would withdraw and seek terms within weeks of the 'shock and awe' sanctions being applied. A year later, that hasn't happened, and our 'leaders' seem determined to bring about a peace of the dead. Left to it's own devices, Ukraine may have sought terms already, but that would have almost certainly involved surrendering any claim to Crimea, which is politically unacceptable. So we keep pouring weapons into Ukraine so they can die for our leader's egos.
But like any conflict, it drifts back on topic, so what lessons can we, and should we learn from this war? One thing that's certain is that drones and the EW environment are playing a massive part.
"A year later, that hasn't happened, and our 'leaders' seem determined to bring about a peace of the dead. Left to it's own devices, Ukraine may have sought terms already, but that would have almost certainly involved surrendering any claim to Crimea, which is politically unacceptable. So we keep pouring weapons into Ukraine so they can die for our leader's egos."
It has nothing to do with ego. You and Chamberlain would have got on well. Both blind to reality. Russia is the threat. If it is allowed to win in Ukraine then what of its other former vassel states? Do you want another Prague Spring?
Ooh, a PDF from an obvious Russian troll, here let me open that right away. PDFs are never an attack vector.
What's that, a pop-up saying I need to log into my bank account right away, well I'd better do that then, even though they've spelt "user name" wrongly and the domain ends in .ru.
The ENTIRE point of these drones is that they are supposed to be relatively disposable & low-cost. A mission success rate of 1/3 is TERRIFIC if you typically have 3-4 missions active in the same area at a time.
I don't believe for a second that we expected these drones to survive a significant EW attack--based on what I learned about EW while I was in SatCom in the USAF 1987-91. The physics doesn't change.
some drones Ukrainians produce close to the front line are designed and built as _fully_ disposable, i.e. for one-off 'kamikaze' missions (fpv goggles, by the way). And _very_ low cost, they quote 'a few hundred dollars' per unit cost. Given their effectiveness, anything from wounding a soldier, blowing up a gun or a machine gun post, or causing some damage to armour (they can carry up to 1kg explosive charge), you can't get much cheaper and more effective than that... I'm surprised this hasn't been expanded to the 'tens of thousands' of units, but appears to remain a relatively a low-level, local initiative.
btw. I haven't heard any comments that this 'home-made' drones have been counter-measured by Russian ew, though they do mention, more than once (and show), how the Russians 'grab' and / or disable their dji consumer drones. In one recent case, what caused morbid merriment was their drone with a granade was brought down by the Russians who were directly below, with expected consequences.
It's a scarily fast progress though, and I dread to think of the drone swarms on the battlefields, no later than in a few years' time.
some drones Ukrainians produce close to the front line are designed and built as _fully_ disposable, i.e. for one-off 'kamikaze' missions
Blame the media. They discovered drones late and haven't got the branding sorted, Sometimes they're 'suicide' drones to invoke suicide bombers, sometimes they're 'kamikazis', but that might be racist or just rhyme with forbidden words. Reality is as you say, they're just RC bombs.
And _very_ low cost, they quote 'a few hundred dollars' per unit cost. Given their effectiveness, anything from wounding a soldier, blowing up a gun or a machine gun post, or causing some damage to armour (they can carry up to 1kg explosive charge), you can't get much cheaper and more effective than that
Yep, although some caution is needed, ie if a weapon is designed to wound rather than kill, it may start drifting into war crimes territory. But as the old saying goes, the first time ain't a war crime.
It's a scarily fast progress though, and I dread to think of the drone swarms on the battlefields, no later than in a few years' time.
It's not really that fast, it's just taken a bit of time for people to wake up and smell the coffee. Syria's been attacked years ago by their terrorists using cheap, disposable drones. Sometimes they're explosive filled, sometimes just use strap-on mortar shells as a payload. Some tried to drop grenades, but pulling pins requires slightly more expensive servos. Or there's Israel, where their terrorists have been firing home made rockets, drone, incendiary ballons in Israel's general direction for decades. Or there's Saudi where Yemenis have been using drones for a while.
Flight Controller Stabilizing Gyroscope w/ M8N GPS Module for FPV RC Airplane, £35 on Ebay. Available from here-
http://www.lefeirc.com/pro_47413359.html
Which... isn't Iran, but may be given similar pariah status by our leaders soon. Because we can't compete. But it's nothing new. The media's been making a big fuss, mostly because they're liberal arts grads, not engineers. Some nice, anonymous person briefs journalists about the threats from Iran, Russia, China, N.Korea or whoever's next on the regime change list, and journalists dutifully regurgitate it. They just can't conceive that reasonably smart people can build UAVs and 'military' stuff, without having the backing of a state or extremely generous defence budget. Sad reality is it's really not that difficult, and a lot is pretty much plug & play, especially with all the information freely available on the Internet.
Not to kick a puppy when it's down, but hasn't Ukraine been home to quite a few hacking/cracking/virus/spam/phish/ransom groups in the past 20-25 years? Perhaps not state-sponsored groups like in Russia or NK, but not very actively state-policed either, if memory serves. I mean, God bless 'em if/when they kick the Ruskies back across the border, but they really shouldn't wear white to their NATO Cybersecurity wedding, should they?
Eastern Europe, not just Ukraine throughout the 80s and 90s had a lot of cracking groups. Evidence? Ample archives of yarrred software cracktros. Some of the top demo writing ground to this day share such origins. Fairlight being an obvious example.
In fact their presence has a lot to do with the downfall of the Soviet Union; the skills were essential to coordinate communications needed. And so it shall be again to break the Poo Tin; whose media stranglehold is internally known to be bollocks by many Russian citizens. The issue is what can they do about it.
.... Take Care to Beware and Be Aware of Priceless Irreversible Unintended Consequences
Does Tom "Now Russia will have to play defense.” Kellermann, senior VP of cyber strategy at software vendor Contrast Security, not know the best form of defence is almighty overwhelming attack on financial supply lines/SWIFT networks/star media muppets and state actor puppets/wannabe Caesars in a Tragic Comedy of Errors Great Game Play?
Can NATO and Russian invaders weather such as would be akin to waves of <a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/nuclear-winter”>Nuclear Winter Storms</a> and would surviving leaders of the altercation escape, ideally mercifully quick, merciless death at the hands of raging mad and innocent mobs ?
Is that the Global Grand Master Plan? Madness and Mayhem in Conflict and Titanic CHAOS [Clouds Hosting Advanced Operating Systems]?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
