7 ms·

> And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent. Given their unencrypted radio communicat

> 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)
      - nomel 5y ago
        > 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 One that is part of a military that has old radio equipment (maybe from competently allocating funding to something more important), so they have no other choice. I'm sorry, but that doesn't require incompetence. Incompetence would be if they let it unexpectedly impact their invasion. Competence for an invasion doesn't require encryption (see Crimea). An encrypted radio channel makes things easier, but it may not be required for the invasion of Ukraine, which is the context here. The definition of competence: the ability to do something successfully or efficiently. The purpose of this war isn't to unlock all achievements with a high score, it's to take Ukraine. They're still progressively taking Ukraine, and they've only sent in 1/3 of the forces from the border (last numbers I saw). Yes it's madness.

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)
    - nomel 5y ago
      > 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 One that is part of a military that has old radio equipment (maybe from competently allocating funding to something more important), so they have no other choice. I'm sorry, but that doesn't require incompetence. Incompetence would be if they let it unexpectedly impact their invasion. Competence for an invasion doesn't require encryption (see Crimea). An encrypted radio channel makes things easier, but it may not be required for the invasion of Ukraine, which is the context here. The definition of competence: the ability to do something successfully or efficiently. The purpose of this war isn't to unlock all achievements with a high score, it's to take Ukraine. They're still progressively taking Ukraine, and they've only sent in 1/3 of the forces from the border (last numbers I saw). Yes it's madness.