4 ms·

I don't see why an official would publicly broadcast active wartime capabilities and tactics that might not be known. And, there's a strong possibility that we

by nomel 5y ago

I don't see why an official would publicly broadcast active wartime capabilities and tactics that might not be known. And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent. There's an active war. If history has taught us anything, psyops is as sure as death, in war.

gpm 5y ago
> I don't see why an official would publicly broadcast active wartime capabilities and tactics that might not be known. That explains the anonymous officials not agreeing with this stance. That doesn't explain the non-government experts not agreeing that this is the reason though. They don't have any special knowledge and wouldn't be telling the Russians anything they didn't already know. > And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent There's probably a degree of this, but from what I've seen it also seems to be legitimately the case that they are somewhat incompetent. Besides which, the Russian's letting that psyop succeed, would itself be direct evidence of incompetence.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Re: psyops, Russia has many of the same weaknesses as China, in that their practitioners cannot conceive of an independent, actively contradicting and adversarial infosphere. Inside Russia or China, psyops is muting whoever says something you don't like, and deciding on and disseminating the message of the day. Outside of Russia or China, that looks very different, with everyone opining on your message whenever they feel like it, in addition to virality being a huge component of message reach. That's a very different skillset to navigate successfully.
eitland 5y ago
> And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent. Given their unencrypted radio communication they have done a fair effort to support that idea themselves.
- nomel 5y ago
  I don't see how that's a sign of incompetence, rather than a sign of aging military equipment. Incompetence would be relaying important, uncoded, information over an unencrypted signal, in a way that would result in some disadvantage. For example, saying "shoot here" then having a tank round go through the wall 5 seconds later wouldn't benefit from encryption.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > For example, saying "shoot here" then having a tank round go through the wall 5 seconds later wouldn't benefit from encryption Of course it would. Otherwise: * the enemy could analyse your strategy and tactics and predict your approach; and worse: * the enemy can impersonate command, say "approach through there" and have the tank go through an anti-tank ditch There's no excuse for unencrypted military communications. One would think the Russians would have learned their lesson from freaking Tannenberg a century ago, but it seems not.
    - nomel 5y ago
      > the enemy could analyse your strategy and tactics and predict your approach; and worse Encryption won't encrypt the shell going through the wall, which could just as easily be analyzed with the constellation of spy satellites focused on the region. > the enemy can impersonate command, say "approach through there" and have the tank go through an anti-tank ditch This would be uncoded communications that would put them at a disadvantage. If that did happen, then yes it would be incompetence. Is there any evidence that this is happening? I find it unlikely that they would believe any voice coming over the line, considering what you're saying is an "attack vector" that has been present and known for, literally, the last 131 years. Do you have anything that supports this very negative view of the intelligence of the average Russian soldier/commander?
      - ricktdotorg 5y ago
        i don't believe GP was specifically impugning the intelligence of the average Russian soldier/commander, more commenting on the apparently high displayed level of incompetence shown in the field so far (of which the use of wide-open unencrypted HF radio comms with basic tone squelch/CTCSS at the company<->battalion<->brigade level is just one example). it was not a critique of intelligence, if anything it was a critique pointing out the failure of high-level RU military planners. what kind of competent general staff lets [at least some] of their battalion-and-below radio comms go out into open frequencies that are easily listened to, transmitted on and also easily jammed by consumer-grade cheap chinese radios? that is madness. it is incompetent. (edit: for grammar)
vkou 5y ago
> And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent. It's not a strong possibility, it's a 100% guarantee. Aside from big, trivially disproven announcements ("This side now controls such and such city"), you're not going to see an accurate picture of literally anything in this conflict until months, if not years after the fact, when historians will pour over, and fit together first-hand accounts and records. In the meantime, parts of the picture may be accurate, but nobody here has any idea which parts are true, which are propaganda, or what particular purpose that propaganda serves.
paulmd 5y ago
> And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent. Definitely. You're not going to hear about the encounters where the Russians smoke the Ukrainians and they have serious loss of life/equipment or don't come back at all. Not that there's not a lot of organic sentiment around the world, but Ukraine seems to have a very good PR corps pushing news of their victories and memes about the situation. And unlike a lot of these attempts, they aren't "how do you do fellow kids" type shit where it's super obvious. Exhibit A: the Ghost of Kiev. Regardless of whether he exists or not, he's a great case study in propaganda.

by nomel 5y ago

gpm 5y ago

> I don't see why an official would publicly broadcast active wartime capabilities and tactics that might not be known. That explains the anonymous officials not agreeing with this stance. That doesn't explain the non-government experts not agreeing that this is the reason though. They don't have any special knowledge and wouldn't be telling the Russians anything they didn't already know. > And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent There's probably a degree of this, but from what I've seen it also seems to be legitimately the case that they are somewhat incompetent. Besides which, the Russian's letting that psyop succeed, would itself be direct evidence of incompetence.

ethbr0 5y ago
Re: psyops, Russia has many of the same weaknesses as China, in that their practitioners cannot conceive of an independent, actively contradicting and adversarial infosphere. Inside Russia or China, psyops is muting whoever says something you don't like, and deciding on and disseminating the message of the day. Outside of Russia or China, that looks very different, with everyone opining on your message whenever they feel like it, in addition to virality being a huge component of message reach. That's a very different skillset to navigate successfully.

eitland 5y ago

> And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent. Given their unencrypted radio communication they have done a fair effort to support that idea themselves.

nomel 5y ago
I don't see how that's a sign of incompetence, rather than a sign of aging military equipment. Incompetence would be relaying important, uncoded, information over an unencrypted signal, in a way that would result in some disadvantage. For example, saying "shoot here" then having a tank round go through the wall 5 seconds later wouldn't benefit from encryption.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > For example, saying "shoot here" then having a tank round go through the wall 5 seconds later wouldn't benefit from encryption Of course it would. Otherwise: * the enemy could analyse your strategy and tactics and predict your approach; and worse: * the enemy can impersonate command, say "approach through there" and have the tank go through an anti-tank ditch There's no excuse for unencrypted military communications. One would think the Russians would have learned their lesson from freaking Tannenberg a century ago, but it seems not.
  - nomel 5y ago
    > the enemy could analyse your strategy and tactics and predict your approach; and worse Encryption won't encrypt the shell going through the wall, which could just as easily be analyzed with the constellation of spy satellites focused on the region. > the enemy can impersonate command, say "approach through there" and have the tank go through an anti-tank ditch This would be uncoded communications that would put them at a disadvantage. If that did happen, then yes it would be incompetence. Is there any evidence that this is happening? I find it unlikely that they would believe any voice coming over the line, considering what you're saying is an "attack vector" that has been present and known for, literally, the last 131 years. Do you have anything that supports this very negative view of the intelligence of the average Russian soldier/commander?
    - ricktdotorg 5y ago
      i don't believe GP was specifically impugning the intelligence of the average Russian soldier/commander, more commenting on the apparently high displayed level of incompetence shown in the field so far (of which the use of wide-open unencrypted HF radio comms with basic tone squelch/CTCSS at the company<->battalion<->brigade level is just one example). it was not a critique of intelligence, if anything it was a critique pointing out the failure of high-level RU military planners. what kind of competent general staff lets [at least some] of their battalion-and-below radio comms go out into open frequencies that are easily listened to, transmitted on and also easily jammed by consumer-grade cheap chinese radios? that is madness. it is incompetent. (edit: for grammar)

vkou 5y ago

> And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent. It's not a strong possibility, it's a 100% guarantee. Aside from big, trivially disproven announcements ("This side now controls such and such city"), you're not going to see an accurate picture of literally anything in this conflict until months, if not years after the fact, when historians will pour over, and fit together first-hand accounts and records. In the meantime, parts of the picture may be accurate, but nobody here has any idea which parts are true, which are propaganda, or what particular purpose that propaganda serves.

paulmd 5y ago

> And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent. Definitely. You're not going to hear about the encounters where the Russians smoke the Ukrainians and they have serious loss of life/equipment or don't come back at all. Not that there's not a lot of organic sentiment around the world, but Ukraine seems to have a very good PR corps pushing news of their victories and memes about the situation. And unlike a lot of these attempts, they aren't "how do you do fellow kids" type shit where it's super obvious. Exhibit A: the Ghost of Kiev. Regardless of whether he exists or not, he's a great case study in propaganda.