Slashdot Mirror


Russian Troops Traced To Ukrainian Battlefields Through Social Media

New submitter wienerschnizzel writes: Vice News has released a report on how they were able to trace a member of the regular Russian army from his base near the Ukrainian border toward the battlefields in the contested territory in eastern Ukraine, then back to his home in Siberia using the pictures he uploaded on his social media profile.

The methodology used is based on a report by the Atlantic Council think tank released earlier this year, which asserts that information on the movement and operations of the regular Russian troops can be easily gathered from publicly available sources (such as the social media). The Russian government still denies any involvement of Russian troops in the fights in Ukraine.

117 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Wait a friggin minute... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Informative

    Okay, opinions and feelings inside, the veteran in me demands to know: "WTF, have you idiots never heard of COMSEC/OPSEC?"

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by idontgno · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm a veteran too. I'm coming to the conclusion that OPSEC is dead, because social media guarantees the loosest lips in history.

      The only way to "fix" this is either submitting social media participation of military personnel to military censorship, or a strongly enforced ban on military member participation in social media.

      Which, I suspect, wouldn't work.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by TWX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      US forces have had problems with this too, and not just the Geraldo Rivera incident. If I remember right there was a soldier or airman that took a selfie with some cool helicopters or something that had landed at his Iraqi base, and insurgents started shelling when they realized what was there. Admittedly these aircraft were out in the open exposed so it's still possible that they'd have been seen and targeted anyway, but the particular method through which their presence was initially identified was the photo.

      Mind you, I don't think that the US has very many instances of this happening, but it's not without precedent. I'd argue it's just another form of, "loose lips sink ships."

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by almitydave · · Score: 5, Funny

      Loose tweets sink fleets?

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    4. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by oneiron · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why should they lose convenience from and waste time/money on OPSEC/COMSEC when there are no broadly imposed consequences as long as they simply lie about it?

    5. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by TWX · · Score: 2

      Couldn't banning personal electronics capable of live network communication help and picture taking help? Seems like it would make sense for the military to proactively come up with ways to allow its members to still have the connection to home through social media, but in ways that make it less unsafe for units. Hell, set up a 'selfie stand' or some designated area for soldiers to have their pictures taken that won't compromise operational security, and use cameras that don't take location data, so that pictures are safe and can't be used for targeting coordinates...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Informative

      Honestly though ...

      It's not your problem to deal with Russia's opsec. And if you're going to have a bunch of conscripts doing mandatory service ... well, don't expect them to give a damn.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by PPH · · Score: 1

      a strongly enforced ban on military member participation in social media.

      Which, I suspect, wouldn't work.

      I suspect that OPSEC leaks via social media will be easier to identify and deal with than through traditional means. The classic HUMINT methods involving buying a soldier a drink, hooker, or pile of blow were difficult to detect. Social media, by comparison, is easy to scan automatically. And mentions of Crimea or Ukraine (or Yemen and Iraq) are easily detectable and passed over to the security department.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Ooh! I wish I had mod points for that. I like it!

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    9. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      See also: ISIS man posts selfie (or some other vapidity) to Twitter. Guy at US CentCom sees it, within 20 hours they match the background to where it was taken from, verify it, and drop a bomb on an ISIS command center.

      There's always going to be SOME idiot who just can't resist posting a selfie of him in his T-72 cupola with something that's verifiably Ukraine in the background. Who remembers Ric Romero's brilliant "Draw a plot of where we're coming from in the sand on international TV" incident from 2003? Not that it mattered since we were converging on Baghdad from literally every direction - but suppose Ric's dad had been embedded with the 101 and radioed out "Now Wolf, here we are at Saint Marie-du-mont..." in the clear.

      This is basically a human version of why the IoT terrifies me. Now when every stupid device that has no reason to contain so much as a transistor contains a processor, a writeable memory, and a wifi stack, there's always going to be SOME dee-dee-dee device that compromises the network and you'll (a) never figure out which one until it happens and (b) haha, the manufacturer wrote the 'blow jtag fuses' bits so good luck applying a patch

    10. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Couldn't banning personal electronics capable of live network communication help and picture taking help?

      We are unable to keep cellphones out of our prisons. It is unlikely we are going to keep them out of an operational area spread across a large geographic region.

    11. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by TWX · · Score: 2

      Soldiers are supposed to be trained to follow orders and that there are consequences for not following those orders. Sure, some will disobey orders, but if there are penalties for being caught or for the ramifications of unauthorized use then it would probably work better than in prisons.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    12. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      Maybe it should be dead. Honestly, without this how would we, the people, ever know the truth?

      The truth has been denied to the public for far too long. Its not like using lies to manufacture the public image of your war in one way or another, either to deny you were causing it, or when it really started, or what the real reasons are.... it wasn't even remotely new when the Gulf of Tonkin happened.

      The lack of ability for large forces to maintain exactly this kind of secrecy is probably the best thing to ever happen in history.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    13. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is not an entirely new problem. During the Falklands war, the BBC reported that several British ships had been hit by bombs, but luckily casualties were minimal because the fuses on the bombs were defective and they didn't explode. The next day, Argentina swapped out the bad fuses, and had much better results.

    14. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Bah ... loose tweets sheep bleats. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    15. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe the soldiers don't like the fact that they're there, either, and are TRYING to draw attention to the fact so the Kremlin will get embarrassed and pull out.

    16. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I suspect that OPSEC leaks via social media will be easier to identify and deal with than through traditional means.

      Yeah, the selfie is pretty easy to identify. The guy holding the camera? That's your damned security leak.

      Plus you have to consider than many cell phones embed the GPS coordinates in EXIF tags in the picture ... which means if you can get it in real time, you know where to start shelling. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    17. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by vurian · · Score: 1

      Wow! Well played indeed!

    18. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      But it works both ways.. win-win... I don't see preventing a surprise attack as a bad thing. Do whatever it takes to hinder the process of war, I say.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    19. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From what I've seen of the military (as a civilian contractor assisting in setting up equipment), those guys use their personal cellphones like crazy to coordinate. Banning personal phones would probably just piss everyone off and turn into something that's ignored unless someone decides they don't like you.

    20. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by halivar · · Score: 1

      Their ships and exocets were effective, deadly, and few.

    21. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by idontgno · · Score: 2

      You don't happen to work for the Public Affairs office at Patrick AFB, do you?

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    22. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I think Russia wants Ukraine to know they are there. Denying it is mostly just another way to thumb their noses.

    23. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by edis · · Score: 1

      Determination of Russia is applicable within its borders, the same goes for the rights of Ukraine. Being aggressor and liar is not as much relative, as some KGB-ists in power would want.

      --
      Servant of karma
    24. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Until Russia stops being nationalist idiots? I agree there. Unless you mean Ukraine is being nationalistic, which is sort of silly. Sure, there are a few hard right morons there but in the minority, except that this feeds into the Russian nationalist paranoia that the entire world is filled with reincarnated nazis out to get them. When Russia today calls others nationalist and fascist it's so ironic you could make hammers from it.

      The "democratically" elected leader stole much of the country's money, everyone hated him except Putin. He wasn't overthrown, he fled the country because he knew he couldn't keep the crimes a secret much longer. The corruption dropped by half once he left.

    25. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by painandgreed · · Score: 2

      Okay, opinions and feelings inside, the veteran in me demands to know: "WTF, have you idiots never heard of COMSEC/OPSEC?"

      This is all part of Russian PSYOPS. You can practically hear Putin saying "Ya, we have soldiers there. So, whatcha gonna do about it? You don't have the balls to do what it takes and counter us Russians."

    26. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by oneiron · · Score: 1

      First, everything you said is completely irrelevant to anything I said. Maybe you misread a bit of condescension into my post and thought I was expressing a one-sided opinion? In truth, I was merely pointing out the obvious.

      Second, we all know the superpowers of the world have been doing this kind of garbage since the beginning of time. The simple existence of a terrible precedent does not make it OK to repeat it.

      Third, your bottom line and its apparent definition of "west-backed" is a little flimsy. You're treading dangerously close to relegating your opinion to the scrap heap with all of the other harebrained conspiracy theories you can read about over at infowars. Other than that, you seem to have some interesting insights.

      Side note: I noticed another reply accusing you of being a paid Russian shill, but that kind of criticism is just no fun....sooo... I've enjoyed watching and rooting for "The Americans" on FX, and I've got this amusing image of you as an aging/irrelevant former sleeper who still believes and trolls the internet picking fights for Mother Russia. Please don't kill me.

    27. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You're talking about 18-20 year olds, many of whom are conscripts, and for whom the main attraction of going along with this is to show off just how badass they are. It's hard to get more anti-COMSEC than that short of intentional sabotage.

    28. Re: Wait a friggin minute... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Not to forget, they were fighting for a just cause, and you were not. Morale matters.

    29. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by znrt · · Score: 1

      your bottom line and its apparent definition of "west-backed" is a little flimsy.

      what are you smoking? western implication in the orange revolution, the euromaidan and the current civil war has been constant, obvious, even public and is well documented.

      You're treading dangerously close to relegating your opinion to the scrap heap with all of the other harebrained conspiracy theories

      gosh, sounds terrible. like being expelled from your sect or something ...

    30. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by znrt · · Score: 1

      Soldiers are supposed to be trained to follow orders and that there are consequences for not following those orders.

      it's easier than that: soldiers are not supposed to be carrying out covert operations in foreign countries the aren't officially at war with. just let them tweet, what's the problem?

    31. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Really lame western propaganda. The regions in contention were part of Russia and as to be expected many Russians lived there. In particular that region was part of the Don Cossack region of Russia. Now a large chunk of the Ukraine is substantively Zaporozhian Cossacks and the conflict is really between those two groups. Now as you can or at least should be able to imagine those Russians living in the area that used to be part of Russia have many, many relatives in the rest of Don Cossack Russia and oh yeah some are in the Russian army or were in the Russian army. To think they would not volunteer and cross the border when their relatives are being killed is so damned stupid. To think the Russian government would seek to make itself look really bad by trying to stop them, is even more stupid.

      I have seen a photo a self declared military volunteer from Abkhazia of all places, not there because he is defending Russian but to be kill puppets of the US (for the obvious George McCain reason, had to shoot his mouth off with "I am Georgian"). Volunteers are coming from all over Russia to fight the US and the Russian government has zero intention of suffering major political damage by trying to stop them. The Don Cossacks would be furious if the Russian government tried to stop them.

      So the whole escapade was a fucked idea from the get go, run by self serving psychopaths. Bunch of US corporations thought they could clean up and OKed the idea. Russia let it happen because they knew they would be able to recover the Crimea as a result (the US comically thought they were outsmarting Russian intelligence). Europe was totally sucked but now no longer trusts the US in the least and the move is on to free itself from occupation by US forces. The US won a 100 billion dollar debt and climbing (investing 5 billion to do so), the Ukraine is a basket case that no sane person wants anything to do with (Russia was happy to get rid of it, at least the Zaporozhian part and now they are Europe's problem).

      Russia is huge and that bit of the Ukraine historically part of Russia and populated by Russians is tiny. The government cares not one whit whether that area being contested becomes part of Russia again or not (it seems inevitable now as those people will never ever choose to be ruled by a government that used artillery on them and that has declared that people living in that region would lose their properties and be compulsory relocated to other parts of the Ukraine to live in government controlled poverty without assets.)

      Shit dude, you want to die, just go to that part of the world and declare who you are and what you support, don't expect much from people who have been shelled by artillery. People are dying, it is now some fucking stupid American game, oh sorry, that's right, it is some stupid American game.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    32. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Hindering process of war can often lead to more death and suffering. Take for instance the estimated casualty rates and time an invasion of Japan was said to cost compared to dropping the A-bombs. Some estimates say it saved 35 million lives and we know the process of war is hell- not that nuking is much better.

    33. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The guy in the video was from Siberia, not just over the border in Russia. He is also contracted to serve Russia until next year, and his contract began before he was in Ukraine. If he's not actively fighting as a Russian serviceman, he's doing a damn good impression of one, and Russia is helping him every step of the way by not calling him out.

    34. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by rseuhs · · Score: 1

      Because cell-phones are sending out signals (otherwise they are pretty useless) it would be trivial to effectively ban them in prison if the state really wanted to.

    35. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by rseuhs · · Score: 1

      The US is currently involved in undeclared wars in Pakistan, Jemen, Uganda ... and Ukraine.

    36. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by rseuhs · · Score: 1

      They would have won with submarines and ballistic missiles. Surface ships are obsolete since the invention of the ballistic missile.

    37. Re:Wait a friggin minute... by znrt · · Score: 1

      that's exactly what i mean, yes. the u.s., russia, israel, nato ... all of them are. people here seem to find this to be normal, even acceptable. they are actually worried about it not becoming public. like it's okay to kill and burn as long as you can't see it, and you keep the butchers out of harm. just ... wow!

  2. So? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Putin will still keep insisting that the soldiers are on their vacation or have been honourably discharged shortly before.

    It is seriously not news, not since the photos of a disabled T72B3 have been published. Russia actively helps separatists in the region and will continue doing so in the foreseeable future.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    1. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Putin will still keep insisting that the soldiers are on their vacation or have been honourably discharged shortly before.

      It is seriously not news, not since the photos of a disabled T72B3 have been published. Russia actively helps separatists in the region and will continue doing so in the foreseeable future.

      I'd also like to point out the Americal military "advisors" helping the Ukrainian army. This conflict has long passed the threshold of regional proxy war.

    2. Re:So? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Putin has invented a new military strategy: Implausible denyability.

    3. Re:So? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Putin has invented a new military strategy: Implausible denyability.

      Not that new. It also happened in the cold war. Which is what Putin dreams of reigniting.

    4. Re:So? by gtall · · Score: 2

      The American involvement might have something to do with the agreement NATO and the Russian signed to preserve Ukraine were they to give up the nukes they had after the Soviet Union collapsed. They dutifully gave up the nukes, Russian reneged, the U.S. attempted (weakly) to honor the agreement. They rest of NATO is AWOL, as they so frequently have been.

    5. Re:So? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There was no signed agreement, just a memorandum, which is neither binding nor really applicable in this case (it is about Ukraine being attacked with nuclear weapons).

      The actual treaty that has been broken by the presence of Russian troops there is the Belavezha accord, which opens another can of worms entirely, but, frankly, American involvement in that matter is, indeed, very much questionable, as would be the involvement of the rest of NATO.

      And as for your "as they so frequently have been" - so far a NATO country hasn't ever been under attack (except for that short skirmish between Turkey and Greece, which, incidentally, are both NATO countries). There was zero reason for NATO being involved in anything whatsoever but unfortunately Americans don't know the difference between defense and offense.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    6. Re:So? by halivar · · Score: 2, Informative

      See, you know how we can tell you're a Russian hack? A REAL Slashdotter would have said "USian" out of disdain. You Russian astroturfers are pathetic. Get a real job.

    7. Re:So? by bossk538 · · Score: 1

      Putin's denials are convincing enough domestically. For example 65% of Russians still believe that flight MH-17 was shot down by Ukrainian armed forces. I don't know what the percentage who believe that regular Russian armed forces are active in Ukraine, but I imagine it is even higher.

    8. Re:So? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem with uninformed people is that they usually shout the loudest, especially chickenhawks like you.

      First, Ukraine is not a part of NATO. Never has been. Second, it is very much a civil war where both sides get help from foreign powers. Except that the separatist side also gets heavy weapon support, but this is also not something that hasn't happened before. Here is a funny historical fact for you: during the American civil war, Russian Far East fleet was stationed in San Francisco and Russian Baltic fleet was staying in New York to prevent the British to help the Confederacy. Yes, Russians have helped you during your civil war. And Americans were close to helping Russians during the Crimean war.

      Third, so far nobody has ever been charged for war crimes after shooting down a civilian airplane. Your people have actually received a medal for that. And Crimean annexation was probably the only understandable thing Russia has done in that conflict.

      And last, don't be so cocksure about Apaches. Russians have long been prepared for them and the last time USA has been fighting in a war without any kind of air superiority is very long ago.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    9. Re:So? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Putin has invented a new military strategy: Implausible denyability.

      Basically this. I feel like it's basically meant to help supporters when defending their positions. Putin's supporters basically claim a) Russia isn't really doing anything in Ukraine, b) even if they are it's justified since the West started it.

      Instead of jumping right to "b" opponents need to get past "a" and actually get the Putin supporter to admit Russia is even involved. It just puts another layer of BS that needs to be dispelled before you can debate Russia's actions directly.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    10. Re:So? by swb · · Score: 1

      I think Putin is capable of being photographed climbing onto a T-72 flying the Russian flag, surrounded by Russian soldiers while standing in front of the sign that says "Welcome to Donetsk, Ukraine! Population 944,000" while explaining to a NY Times correspondent that no Russian troops are in Ukraine.

      And do it all with a straight face.

    11. Re:So? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I've also seen it described as 'ambiguous warfare.'

    12. Re:So? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      I think Putin is capable of being photographed climbing onto a T-72 flying the Russian flag, surrounded by Russian soldiers while standing in front of the sign that says "Welcome to Donetsk, Ukraine! Population 944,000" while explaining to a NY Times correspondent that no Russian troops are in Ukraine.

      And do it all with a straight face.

      You ever noticed you never see Vladimir Putin and the Iraqi Minister of Information together at the same time? Hmmm....

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    13. Re:So? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Oh, there are real separatists there. Ukraine has been running on separatism for centuries.

      You can say that the conflict is between western and eastern Ukraine, but this oversimplifies things too much. Historically western Ukraine belonged to Poland, thus many in the west are catholic and speak a language that is more Polish than Ukrainian. Moreso, parts of western Ukraine used to belong to Poland before WW2. Then there is central Ukraine which is Ukraine proper and where people speak actual Ukrainian. Eastern Ukraine is more or less an artificial construct. Parts of it were transferred from Russia to Ukraine in the early 1920ies, Crimea was given to Ukraine in 1954. People on Crimea mostly consider themselves Russian, many of them hate Ukrainians. Other eastern Ukrainians have obvious Russian roots, most of them speak Russian in their daily lives but it is not nearly as clear cut as in Crimea. They are also mostly orthodox, not catholic. Then there is southern Ukraine, which is like a different country altogether and Transnistria, which de-jure belongs to Moldavia, but has been a part of Ukraine once and is de-facto independent.

      Anyway, a huge problem is that despite this inner conflict Ukraine is not a federation, but a centralist state and when nationalists push west Ukrainian values to east Ukrainians, they are understandably unhappy and vice versa. After the previous president - from east Ukraine - was removed by a mob, the provisional government grossly overstepped their mandate by trying to introduce language laws, coercing members of parliament and banning the largest oppositional party. Several prominent neo-Nazi party members rose to power then and this, obviously, pissed off enough people in Donbass to start a civil war. By bombing civilians, Ukrainian government has helped the separatists recruiting more people. Unfortunately, people weren't enough and as soon as separatists were starting to lose the civil war, Russia stepped in with their military aid. Mind you, there are still real honest-to-god separatists, but by now there are probably just as many Russian soldiers there.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    14. Re:So? by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 2
      I stand correct, Ukraine isn't part of NATO. That doesn't change anything else. Russia claims over and over again that they are not involved. That is clearly a lie. And I think that is the real issue. Russia is lying about its involvement. In each of the example you gave, did any of the combatants lie about their involvement? No, Russia lies about its involvement because it would be against international law to do what they are doing.

      I'm pretty sure about the AH-64s. They can fly NOE and engage with the AH-64D's radar without exposing themselves. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The AH-64D Apache Longbow, is equipped with a glass cockpit and advanced sensors, the most noticeable of which being the AN/APG-78 Longbow millimeter-wave fire-control radar (FCR) target acquisition system and the Radar Frequency Interferometer (RFI), housed in a dome located above the main rotor.[249][250] The radome's raised position enables targets detection while the helicopter is behind obstacles (e.g. terrain, trees or buildings). The AN/APG-78 is capable of simultaneously tracking up to 128 targets and engaging up to 16 at once, an attack can be initiated within 30 seconds.[251][252] A radio modem integrated with the sensor suite allows data to be shared with ground units and other Apaches; allowing them to fire on targets detected by a single helicopter.

      They were literally made to fight Russian SAMs and tanks in the eastern european theater. They have (almost) never been used in that role. Read up on the AH-64D's capabilities. Do the Russians have anything that can combat that? I'm not aware of anything. Shoulder launched SA-7 maybe, but not at night and not against helis flying NOE - and that's the only way AH-64s operate prior to achieving air superiority. And I didn't even bring up the F15, F16, F18 or F22.

      And what makes you think the USA can't achieve air superiority against the Russians? Is that a joke or something? The US could send just a fraction of the 20 aircraft carriers it has into the black sea and they would have an order of magnitude more resources than the Russians.

      The Russians? They have 1 aircraft carrier.

      And let's not forget about the stealth aircraft. It would be a shame to lose all of your C&C on day one. But that's pretty much how it goes down in a war with the US. And what does Russia have to counter that? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. On day one, all C&C would be gone, any fighting that continued would be commanded by the highest ranking officer on the ground, not from central command. Add air superiority and it effectively makes all Russian armor irrelevant. After a week or two of fighting (working) Russian armor would be a rare sight. The US doesn't even need to send aircraft to attack the armor, they could destroy it with cruise missiles fired from submarines or missile frigates if they wished. And the Russians can do nothing about it.

      Oh they could try and field their aging Navy against the US, but with 20 aircraft carriers and dozens of nuclear attack submarines the Russian navy is heavily outmatched.

      And don't forget the US army has been fighting wars for a long time. That means we have a lot of skilled veterans - something that the Russians are lacking. So US has more and better skilled men and equipment that was purpose built to destroy the Russian army.

      Maybe you can explain how the Russians could stand a chance, because I'm not seeing it.

      Read Red Storm Rising. It's about a theoretical engagement of NATO and Warsaw pact countries in the 1980's. And Russia has only declined in military power since then.

      Today, Russia would get decimated by the US and might lead to nuclear war, and that more than anything else is why the two countries don't engage in fighting directly.

    15. Re:So? by qaz123 · · Score: 1

      And you believe the other version. The keyword is "believe".

    16. Re:So? by swb · · Score: 1

      I think he should go to Vegas and play poker. My guess is he'd probably end up winning enough to offset the effect of sanctions.

    17. Re:So? by Woeful+Countenance · · Score: 1
      "The Russian government is responsible for shooting down a passenger jet and murdering hundreds of people."

      Not only the Russian government: "Iran Air Flight 655 was an Iran Air civilian passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai. On 3 July 1988, the aircraft operating this route was shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes. ... All 290 on board, including 66 children and 16 crew, died."

    18. Re:So? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      I just knew you are from the 101st chairborne division.
      1) Russians have a lot of things that can kill an Apache. Tunguska for example. And fixed wing aircraft.
      2) Aircraft carriers can be destroyed by supersonic anti ship missiles - something Russians can and do build very well, making the carriers just huge targets. Even the Brits during the cold war were aware of this kind of an asymmetrical answer.
      3) USA does not use stealth aircraft before achieving air superiority anymore because they are too afraid to lose one of the very expensive birds because they aren't that stealthy - even Serbians have managed to shoot down an F-117 with a bloody Mig-21 - and you can only optimise the stealth capabilities against certain radar frequencies. L and S band radars can see stealth aircraft well enough and as for the ability of USA to fight this kind of war - American army was already overstretched fighting under-equipped savages in two countries, staying in Afghanistan for a decade and still losing that war.

      But I can see you have read too much Tom Clancy for your own good.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    19. Re:So? by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 1

      1) Russians have a lot of things that can kill an Apache. Tunguska for example. And fixed wing aircraft.

      Apparently you don't know what NOE means. Fixed wing aircraft and AAA's cannot engage an heli flying NOE because they cannot pick it up on radar. Because of the radar configuration on the AH-64D it can engage armor while NOE - that is unique to that heli and it was made to counter exactly the threats you listed. Also, AAA and SAMs are loath to turn on their radar because of F16s and F18s flying constant wild weasel missions, so even if they did try and engage it would be like turning on a homing beacon for a HARM missile.

      2) Aircraft carriers can be destroyed by supersonic anti ship missiles - something Russians can and do build very well, making the carriers just huge targets. Even the Brits during the cold war were aware of this kind of an asymmetrical answer.

      Seriously? Yes, the US has many answers to anti ship missiles. From the phalanx cannon arrays to the AIM120 fired from aircraft screens. Anti ship missiles are not some sort of panacea against aircraft carriers - in fact, thats one of the reasons carriers travel with so many phalanx cannons!. If you really want to know how that might play out, read Tom Clancy - there is more than one engagement with anti ship missiles fired from Russian TUs. It's fiction, but it's hard science using the real stats. Which is a hell of a lot better that pure conjecture. (that's what you're doing btw, pure conjecture)

      3) USA does not use stealth aircraft before achieving air superiority anymore because they are too afraid to lose one of the very expensive birds because they aren't that stealthy

      Woah, you mean the first stealth aircraft ever, one designed in the 1970s, was shot down? I guess we should scrap the B2, F22 and F35 projects! The F117 has always been a nightmare, I don't even think it's in service anymore. But more to the point, yes the US would use B2s against C&C targets, you're just being foolish if you don't think so. And your logic is flawed too. You're saying the US is afraid of losing its stealth tech - but at the same time you say the stealth tech is worthless - sounds like you have some shit to figure out there.

      American army was already overstretched fighting under-equipped savages in two countries, staying in Afghanistan for a decade and still losing that war.

      In other words, the US has bases that surround Russia that it can launch strikes from? And you're posing that as a disadvantage? Hmmm... Shaky reasoning. And I'm not so sure about the overstretched part. Did the US start the draft and I missed it?

      But I can see you have read too much Tom Clancy for your own good.

      For my own good? Maybe for your own good. I read some Clancy, and other other publications, like Janes. So yeah, educating myself on the topic has really worked out well. I'm able to articulate my point in detail. How's that whole "lack of meaningful knowledge" working for you? Do you feel like you're able to argue your point succesfully without any actual citations or facts to backup your conjecture?

    20. Re:So? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Rushing hands leave the Merkins askew.

    21. Re:So? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It helps to have total and complete control over domestic news media.

    22. Re:So? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      "The Russian government is responsible for shooting down a passenger jet and murdering hundreds of people."

      Not only the Russian government: "Iran Air Flight 655 was an Iran Air civilian passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai. On 3 July 1988, the aircraft operating this route was shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes. ... All 290 on board, including 66 children and 16 crew, died."

      Yup, and the US admitted they did it.

      The soviets are still lying about their little incident.

    23. Re:So? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I don't see what's questionable about NATO involvement, so long as the legitimate government of the country has asked for that involvement - which it did. Last I checked, that's what sovereignty means, among other things.

    24. Re:So? by microbox · · Score: 1

      It astounds me how naive nationalists of all kinds tend to be. The Ukranians have the same dignity as every other country, and being crushed into a civil war is a high price to pay for a bunch of Russians to feel "proud" of their country. It is rather pathetic really.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    25. Re:So? by microbox · · Score: 1

      Great powers can no longer win wars because of Nukes. The calculus is quite different to what you suggest. Don't get sucked into a pissing match with some Russian nationalist. Sure they've got good weapons, but nobody seriously thinks that Russia would have a chance in a conventional war against the west.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    26. Re:So? by bytesex · · Score: 1

      The F117 was taken down with a SAM. Someone had discovered its radar signature when it opened its bomb bay door.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    27. Re:So? by bytesex · · Score: 1

      According to Russia, the West helped stage an undemocratic coup there. And although there have been democratic elections since, this still has a ring of truth to it.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    28. Re:So? by guacamole · · Score: 1

      This is exactly my point of view about the Ukrainian conflict. The ethnic tensions in the Ukrainian politics have existed for two decades since the dissolution of USSR. One thing I don't understand is why can't West (and Central) Ukrainian nationalists admit and accept that Ukraine is a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual country. Why can't Ukraine be the Switzernland of the East Europe? The solution is simple, transfer as much political power as possible into the regions. Allow people to elect their provincial governors, mayors, and legislatures directly. Let every region decide on its own how much Russian they want to use for administrative and education purposes. As far as I can tell, Ukrainian nationalists have not learned anything. Last month, they appointed Saakashvili, the former president of Georgia, who is scandalously famous for having started the 2008 war in South Ossetia, as the governor of Odessa. Just imagine how insulting it is to people who are living there. Not only they weren't allowed a democratic vote, but moreover Kiev got such a hideous figure appointed to be a governor there.

      So I honestly, don't feel much compassion for the Ukrainian state. It's probably going to fall apart, in the long and short term, unless they start to learn from their mistakes. Through their past actions and inability to resolve their inner conflict, they have opened the door for Russia to interfere in their internal affairs.

    29. Re:So? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Overstepping the NATO mandate, obviously. Would not be the first time, though. The whole reason for the bloody mess there is because several parties have grossly overstepped their mandates. Continuing to do so will make it even worse.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    30. Re:So? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      How is deploying NATO troops to NATO countries overstepping the NATO mandate?

    31. Re:So? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that was my fault for confusing the threads. Obviously Ukraine is not a NATO country.

      So far as I know, though, NATO is not involved there in any official way. All the "boots on the ground" are American, and represent US directly, sidestepping NATO.

    32. Re:So? by Xest · · Score: 1

      Western involvement in Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO. All Western support for Ukraine has been done by sovereign nations in an individual capacity.

      Being a member of NATO does not remove Britain or America's sovereignty in the exact same way that Russia invading Ukraine does not remove Ukraine's sovereignty in being able to ask for the assistance of sovereign Western nations.

      Unlike Russia, Western countries in Ukraine have been explicitly invited there as sovereign nations, by a sovereign nation.

      The only NATO response to the crisis has been to bolster NATO forces in NATO member states and to comment on the security implications of the situation and how they might eventually impact NATO.

      You seem desperate to criticise the West here, but the only problem state here is Russia in that it has invaded and even annexed part of a foreign sovereign state. This isn't Afghanistan or Iraq where NATO and the West really did fuck up in overstepping their mark. The West is wholly in the right on this one.

    33. Re:So? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Not after giving the captain a fuckin' medal for his wonderful actions. Both Russia and the US are fucked up when it comes to notions of national pride and military prowess. It's like watching two pumped-up muscle-heads at the gym having an argument over protein shakes or some other bullshit. It'd be fine if they kept it to themselves, but when it kicks off, other people suffer from their stupidity.

    34. Re:So? by rseuhs · · Score: 1

      So the USA helping organ-trading Albanians to secede from a democratic government is just fine, but Russia helping Russian-speakers to secede from a coup-d'etat government is evil? How so?

    35. Re:So? by rseuhs · · Score: 1

      There never was a cold "war". Right from the 1940's to 1991 the USSR sold oil and gas to the West in exchange of much needed machinery and technicians. It may have been a cold peace, but it's not a war when enemies are trading with each other.

    36. Re:So? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      When USA helped Albanians secede, said "democratic government" wasn't exactly democratic, and it was actively killing those very Albanians.

      Meanwhile, nothing of a kind happened in Ukraine.

      But, in any case, I think that the way Kosovo was handled was a mistake.

    37. Re:So? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      But in reality, in Kosovo, NATO bombing, and KILLING ordinary Yugo citizens. They are not good either.
      When KLA is in power, they suppressed Serbians community, to drag them out. The West was silent.
      All the top official figures of Kosovo *ARE* crimes, but whitewashed by their master.
      The same were/are happened with Lon Nol/Kherme Rough in Cambodia (e.g) in the past or Syria at the moment.
      Yes, Assad is not a good guy, but definitely better than the "moderate" groups, which is actually terrorists.

      All true, and I do not dispute that. NATO are not knights in shining armor. It's just sometimes they are a less bad option. And sometimes it's not clear which is which, at least not right away. E.g. Serbian government was deliberately massacring and driving out Albanians in Kosovo, and refused to back down despite repeated attempts to solve the problem diplomatically - I feel that armed involvement on humanitarian grounds was justified there.

      But the way it was actually done, bombing civilian or dual use targets with significant collateral damage (esp. that bridge bombing that got the train, and pretty much all the bombs dropped on Belgrade), was not good at all. And, of course, once Serbian military and paramilitary withdrew from Kosovo, KLA and sympathetic locals have simply turned the tables and started burning down Orthodox churches and attacking Serbs - and that was simply ignored.

      OTOH, if NATO didn't intervene, how many civilian Albanians would have died? I don't know, but I suspect it would have been even worse (even just looking at it from a cold hard numbers perspective, as Kosovo has more Albanians than Serbs).

      Odessa massacre, how about this after one year? No one was convicted despite that dozens were burnt alive.

      Are you aware of the events of that day immediately leading to the massacre? There is a lot of mythology surrounding that whole thing, Unlike many people who get the picture mainly from Russian agitprop imagine it, it wasn't just a spontaneous "hey, let's go kill some separatists" kind of thing.

      To remind, the event started with a demonstration/rally of anti-separatists through the city - that one was peaceful (i.e. they didn't intentionally seek out anyone to attack), but had some people armed, mostly with sticks, baseball bats and such, on the basis that they wanted something to defend themselves if attacked. The local Antimaidan has decided that they want to counter that show of force with their own, and prepared another column that was deliberately sent on an intercept route, and started attacking the demonstration when they met.

      So it began as a stones-and-sticks fight that was initiated by Antimaidan, and then gradually escalated from there. If you watch some of the videos from earlier that day, you can see Antimaidan fighters using firearms, and being covered by the riot police using their shields while doing so (i.e. the police was seemingly aligned with them without going all the way in). Here are two videos capturing the same event from two different angles - you can clearly see a fat guy with an AK (or, more likely, Saiga) firing:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      You can tell that this is filmed from the Antimaidan side because they're all wearing red armbands without any black, and some of them are wearing striped orange/black ribbons.

      Consequently, the first dead body of that day (with a bullet wound) was one of the pro-Maidan demonstrators. Several more followed. From there it escalated as pro-Maidan activists have called for more support, and that has arrived with firearms as well.

      Obviously, nothing quite like being shot at and seeing people die around you to wind up a mob. So when their numerical superiority forced the Antimaidan guys to disperse, the crowd decided to "teach them a lesson", and

    38. Re:So? by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      My parents taught me at a very early age that TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT.

    39. Re:So? by whodunit · · Score: 1

      Pardon sir, but you are wrong.

      The AH-64D Apache utilizes a mast-mounted radome - it can "see" the outlines of tanks and other vehicles by popping its radome over the top of ridgelines like a submarine using a periscope to see above the waves. This also allows it to select and illuminate targets without being exposed to hostile fire. Then it fires AGM-114L (Longbow) Hellfire missiles; (the only Hellfire missile to use radar guidance) to eliminate enemy short-range mobile SAMs and AA guns. This is, of course, presuming that the US would not attain air superiority and simply bomb them with GPS-guided JDAMS from 10,000 feet above their missile engagement ceiling.

      As for the "supersonic missiles," welcome to the 80s, pal. That tech has since been sold to the Indians (who've made their Brahmos series of missiles from it.) It's second-hand quality tech. Back in the 80s, the Russians planned on pitting an entire regiment of Backfire bombers with Sunburns against a carrier battle group - the F-14 and the Phoenix missile were purpose-built to demolish this threat. We didn't bother retaining either the weapon or the aircraft, because the Sunburn is 80s tech and our fleet missile defense systems are 2015 tech. With carrier-launched AWACS radar support, these weapons will be picked up at long range and destroyed by SM-6 interceptors before they even see a US ship.

      As for stealth:

      1. The F-117 was hit by a Surface-To-Air missile system, not a "MiG-21," The SAM was operated by an extremely competent officer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... 2. The advent of the F-22 makes the F-117 and its relative vulnerabilities obsolete. The F-22's combination of reduced radar cross-signature and supersonic flight ability lets it release a guided bomb from long-distance (well outside enemy radars detection zone against the F-22) with enough energy that it can simply glide all the way to the target. All the standoff advantage of a cruise missile, but almost undetectable and a lot cheaper.

      As for " staying in Afghanistan for a decade and still losing that war," you must have us confused with the Russians, who evacuated and left so much equipment that we found a lot of their armored vehicles being used by the Taliban. Everyone was worried they might have a few working Stingers we gave them for fighting the Russians - turns out it's what the Russians LEFT them that was more dangerous; including some ZSU-23 SPAAGs. During the war, they ran out of AK-74s, so they started issuing old AK-47s. Then they ran out of AK-47s and started issuing Mosin Nagants - the mass-produced bolt-action rifle from WWII best known to Westerners as the $120 rifle at Cabellas that broke high school kids buy. That, sir, is what a "lost war" looks like. Right now US drones rule the skies over Afghanistan, and the local populace lives knowing that someone thousands of miles away could kill them with the press of a button. And they know the US can afford to do it indefinitely. This is the country that built a massive fleet of specialized armored vehicles to protect against IEDs, gave half of them away to the new Iraqi army and sold the rest to domestic police departments because they didn't need or want them anymore. That's the kind of obscene wealth the United States throws around in its military programs. Only three nations can operate an aircraft carrier; the most complete means of power projection ever devised. France has one. Russia has one. Argentina has a broken-down French carrier they can hardly keep floating; and the Indians and Chinese are buying their own broken-down Russian ones.

      The United States fields eleven. Eleven aircraft carriers. Nuclear-powered ones. As well as massive surface fleets designed to protect them from any conceivable attack.

      Criticize the morality and wisdom of America's military expenditures and use of force till the cows come home, for all I care - but when you start trying to deny the unassailable military might of the United States, you come across as a raging moron to anybody with a goddamn brain or the ability to spend five minutes on Wikipedia.

  3. Vice is full of propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    need to cite a new source

  4. Vacation by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    He was just going for a vacation.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Vacation by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 2

      He was just going for a vacation.

      I hear the battlefields of Ukraine are beautiful this time of year.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
  5. Absence of OPSEC is compensated by disinformation by Trachman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Absence of OPSEC is counter-weighted with several hundred paid internet workers who do nothing else but work day and night to sway internet opinion.

    As such, if there will be a report that there were dozens of Russians captured and hundreds of Russians killed, for each and every of the report there will be dozens of comment explaining that such findings are incorrect and fake. And that graves of the Russians are fake. And that Ukrainians are fascists and Nazis, from the failed state. Just read some of the comments for this article.

    Regular reader of any news will be flooded with contradicting information and will choose to believe what he wanted to believe.

  6. It's not like we don't already know by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Just because we can easily track individual troops on Social Media, doesn't mean we don't have other ways of knowing what's going on. Of course it's nice to get independent confirmation of troop movements from external sources, but if the Russians really thought there was an operational risk here, they'd fix it. It's not like it's a hard problem to fix, just make your troops leave their personal devices at home. Further, The Russians are NOT stupid and obviously recognize this problem and have taken steps to keep their troops off of social media with information that really matters.

    My guess (and yes, I'm only guessing) the Russian's fully understand what information they are allowing out though social media and they have decided that it's not worth the effort to stop the information leak more than they already have. Plus, I'm sure we know a whole lot more about what's really going on than the Russians would like us to know, even without the social media angle. Further, I wouldn't put it past the Russians to be using social media to pass misinformation too. After all, this is just a revamped cold war.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:It's not like we don't already know by bytesex · · Score: 1

      "just make your troops leave their personal devices at home."

      The impression I get is that it is exactly this that all armed forces all over the world are struggling with. A lot. Apparently, you can order a youngster these days to do a lot. But not that they leave their phone at home. Also, bear in mind that when soldiers get to take their own phones, then armies don't have to buy expensive welfare network capabilities.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    2. Re:It's not like we don't already know by bobbied · · Score: 1

      This is the military... IF the information leak is even slightly a problem, the cost of plugging the leak is about nothing. It may not be well tolerated by the troops, but it's not going to cost you much to put a standing order in place that says "When deployed or in transit to and from a deployment, you leave all personal electronic devices at home." Then you inspect the personal gear of any troops arriving to assure the order is being followed.

      My point is that if this was a serious problem, any formal military with reasonable discipline can and would easily deal with this. That they choose not to tells me that the information being disclosed is not that important.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  7. Re:Neo-fascists run Ukraine now--it's a fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If anyone put the neofascists into power, it was Putin. His power grab enabled the neofascists to say "See? We we right about Russia all along!" And who can argue with them?

  8. Re:So Putin First Name is by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

    And his last name is actually "Dracul", but don't say it out loud or he will hear and visit you at night.

  9. Re:Volunteers? by halivar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do Russian soldiers often take their tanks on vacation with them? How stupid do you have to be to believe this?

  10. Cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm sure the US won't have a problem with Russian bases on Cuban soil. Or perhaps even Mexican soil.

    What's that? It's been done? What was the US reaction? 50 years of petty isolationist aggression towards a state that didn't tow the line? Well, I'm sure that other South American countries were treated fairly, right?

    What a fucking naked empire the US is. It's lost every moral position it once held. You think 300 million people are going to hold back 1 billion or more people who want it bad? Who are harder than you? Who want it more than you? Who will do it for less than you?

    70 years on top is pretty good in terms of world history. OK - so you're no Great Britain, or Rome, or the Mongol Empire. But you had a good run, considering you had two seas to separate you from the wars of the twentieth century. You put a man on the moon. No one will forget that. All that history will applaud is whether you had the sanity to see the direction in which the world is moving. You can lose it the hard way like most empires do, or start adjusting like the Brits like had the sense to do.

    1. Re:Cuba by halivar · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the US won't have a problem with Russian bases on Cuban soil. Or perhaps even Mexican soil.

      What's that? It's been done? What was the US reaction? 50 years of petty isolationist aggression towards a state that didn't tow the line?

      If the Russians want use the American model, embargo trade with Ukraine and be done with it. The rest of your post is histrionic babble.

    2. Re:Cuba by halivar · · Score: 1

      It's called a dictionary. Use it.

    3. Re:Cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the Russians want use the American model, embargo trade with Ukraine and be done with it.

      They should copy it fully. Embargo Ukraine, ban any ships that stop on Ukrainian ports, sponsor an invasion, fail to assassinate the Ukrainian President twice a week, and only agree to stop trying to kill them when the US puts missiles on Ukrainian soil.

      Ukraine isn't really comparable to Cuba. They've oil pipelines essential to the Russian economy. So if Russia attempted only an embargo now they'd lose money. Plus they have a delicate situation as part of Ukraine was/is Russian.

    4. Re:Cuba by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You have to try the Bay of Pigs first before the embargo, though. And a couple of failed assassination attempts on the head of state.

    5. Re:Cuba by rseuhs · · Score: 1

      Half of Ukraine would freeze to death without Russian gas in the winter. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

    6. Re:Cuba by halivar · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it would be good for Ukraine, did I?

  11. Re:Meanwhile Islamists joined the pro-Ukraine side by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    The neo-Nazi Ukraine government has joined up with Islamic militants.

    The Tatars of Ukraine are not particularly militant, and have good reasons to oppose Russia. Under Russian rule, more than 100k Tatars starved to death, and many more were deported to Siberia, where about half died.

    Russia is on the right side of this conflict.

    Partly. The people in Donbas speak Russian, and have closer economic and social ties to Russia than to Western Ukraine. It is reasonable to allow them to go their separate way. But that is not really Russia's objective, and they have sabotaged negotiations that could have led to that. Russia is more interesting in creating a festering drawn-out stalemate, dividing NATO, and spreading instability throughout Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe. So far they have been very successful.

  12. Re:Absence of OPSEC is compensated by disinformati by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    You won't find many such comments here. Not that they don't exist - it's just that the Russian propaganda workers are focusing primarily on Russian-language media.

  13. Re:Volunteers? by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

    Do Russian soldiers often take their tanks on vacation with them? How stupid do you have to be to believe this?

    You would be surprised at the vehicles people drive around in: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... British grant you but funny none the less. I specially like where he comments: "I don't like driving along in the tank with my head sticking out but the good thing about the tank is that you can always find a parking space" .. would you try to argue with him over a parking space?

  14. Re:They are "volunteers" by Passman · · Score: 1

    There are no volunteers, or tanks or war in Free Russian republic of Ukraine. This report and all reports like it, and photos are evil conspiracy made by Mr President Obama to destroy Russia and kill her beautiful children. And I am not paid to make comments like these! I enjoy technology news for nerds very much.

    Looks like Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf has a new job.

    --
    Minne-snow-da: Winter is comming...
  15. Re:Ukraine war damage on Google Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If one looks at the streets and neighborhoods, then it is clear that there are very few cars in Donetsk and Luhansk and no traffic on the highways, while Mariupol to the south is active with trucks and cars everywhere. So in Eastern Ukraine, everybody just packed up and left it to the militants/terrorists/idiots whatever one can call them.

  16. Re:Volunteers? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    It is vehicle stories like that which just bring a smile to my face. Someone did it because they can, no other justification is needed. This is the same reason why I want to have my MG Midget be a supercharged alcohol burner with extensive additional modifications to the 1275cc A-series engine.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  17. Re:Volunteers? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Well sure, and they even politely stop at the border to get their passports stamped and some vodka at the duty free store

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  18. Re:Absence of OPSEC is compensated by disinformati by Kjella · · Score: 2

    You won't find many such comments here. Not that they don't exist - it's just that the Russian propaganda workers are focusing primarily on Russian-language media.

    Here in Norway I can assure you we have plenty Putin shills commenting on news stories, I assume it's the same for most NATO countries. Putin got Russia in his back pocket, it's the public opinion in the west and all the sanctions they're looking to sway.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  19. Re:Absence of OPSEC is compensated by disinformati by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Funny thing is, while you are completely right with what you write, these comments have indeed some truth in them.

    There have been more than enough fake reports from Ukrainian government. For fuck's sake, they've once even claimed that they were attacked by Russian tactical nukes, which lead to facepalms even in their own parliament. I've been to Ukraine two months ago, their mass media really is crazy hysterical and lying. I thought that German mass media here is bad, but it is like BBC compared to Fox News.

    And there are indeed neo-Nazis in Ukrainian national guard. I've seen them, too. Scary stuff. They are not a majority anymore, not since the draft has begun. But the volunteers in the beginning of the conflict were mostly the militant arm of Maidan - neo-Nazis.

    It is also true that Ukraine is a failed state. Has been a failed state for 20 years.

    Even so, it is not an excuse to send troops there to kill people and destabilise the situation even further.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  20. Re:They are "volunteers" by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, you pay to make favorable comments!

  21. Re:Volunteers? by caseih · · Score: 2

    That's really good. Just enough "you could be right" sentiment to make us believe you're expressing a real, valid, independant opinion, and not a paid post from the kremlin's trolling factories. Very well played indeed.

  22. Re:Absence of OPSEC is compensated by disinformati by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    You won't find many such comments here. Not that they don't exist - it's just that the Russian propaganda workers are focusing primarily on Russian-language media.

    I think there are plenty of such comments here, however, they do not have karma and are ACs.

  23. Re:Meanwhile Islamists joined the pro-Ukraine side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Russia-the-state has a lot fewer objectives than Russia-the-people. If Russia was an anarchic state without a military and foreign relations ministry, your words might have weighed more.

  24. Social media issues by phorm · · Score: 2

    Russia isn't the only one having issues with social media

    ISIS had a little bit of kaboom come their way after an errant social-media posting as well.

    Wonder if dude got a selfie of that?

  25. how is this actually a problem? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    The solution to cells in prisons is simple, deploy cell jamming technology on guard towers. The solution to cells in deployed platoons is throw the soldier disobeying solider into a prison where they have jamming technology on guard towers.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  26. Re:Meanwhile Islamists joined the pro-Ukraine side by faway · · Score: 1

    According to the source I listen to, one set of the Islamists are Chechens, brought in to "protect" factories. There is another set coming from possibly Syria. These are not Tartars.

  27. Re:Meanwhile Islamists joined the pro-Ukraine side by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    You should listen to more than one source. You might have then found out that Chechens and Dagestanis are among those fighting on the separatist side, too.

    And yes, there are Chechens fighting on the Ukrainian side. Those are mostly Chechen nationalists from the 90s. They're Muslims (just as pro-separatist Chechens are), but they are not Islamists.

    And then you have stuff like this, which is pure trolling (this particular picture is of separatists, but it happens on both sides).

  28. Re:Volunteers? by guacamole · · Score: 1

    Oh man, if they can take their T-72B3 tanks on vacation, that's so great. Where can I sign up? (and yes, T-72B3 has been sighted in Ukraine a year ago).

  29. Re:Absence of OPSEC is compensated by disinformati by rseuhs · · Score: 1
    Poroshenko also once held up Russian civilian passports from supposedly dead Russian soldiers in a press conference - obviously not knowing that Russian soldiers have military (that means different) passports.

    He seems to be one of those people who cannot distinguish a plausible lie from a wild fary-tale.

  30. Re:Volunteers? by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 1

    Work makes me take my laptop when I go on vacation.

  31. Russia has Social Media.... by eyendall · · Score: 1

    Russia has Social Media, we have Edward Snowden. God bless him.

    By the way, the Russians don't give a f*ck who thinks they have troops operating in the Ukraine. It is not an OpSec failure but a point of pride. The more people think so, the prouder the Russians are of it. Plus they have deniability: " We deny that we have Russian troops in the Ukraine". There you have it: the official denial.

  32. They're working for Uber by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    The Russian government still denies any involvement of Russian troops in the fights in Ukraine.

    The Russian Government is subcontracting many of it's army to Uber, on an hour by hour basis. Whenever they're in the Ukraine, they're actually touting for business to move Ukrainians westwards.

    Their advertising tactics are a bit more dramatic than the average "chugger" though.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"