The Dire Predictions About a Russian Cyber Onslaught Haven't Come True in Ukraine. At Least Not Yet. (washingtonpost.com) 66
An anonymous reader shares a report: Ukraine's core cyberdefense has done better than expected because it focused on the issue after Russian hackers briefly knocked out power to swaths of the country in 2015 and 2016, said David Cowan, a veteran cybersecurity venture capitalist and corporate director, and because it has had help from American and European experts. "I would have thought that by now Russia would have disabled a lot more infrastructure around communications, power and water," Cowan said. "If Russia were attacking the U.S., there would be more cyber damage." The absence of major disruptions predicted by cyberwar doctrine has allowed Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky to deliver propaganda coups with little more than a smartphone and a data link.
They pretty clearly weren't ready for the invasion (Score:3)
Right now Ukraine is still going to fall it's just going to be an embarrassment for Putin and potentially more Vietnam than Afghanistan. All still bad, but Putin's brutal enough he can get the country under control.
Re: (Score:2)
Sad thing is if we'd have been bolstering Ukraine's defenses for the last 4 years instead of hitting them up for pre-election quid pro quo then Russia might not have invaded. e.g. if the Ukraine had been bristling with anti-air defenses some of the Russian generals might have decided to tell Vlad "sorry Boss, that's a bad idea" instead of letting it ride and hoping for the best.
I think building up their (Ukraine's) defenses would have set Putin into action quickly. They don't want an aligned country on their border; they want a neutral state at worst or a puppet state at best. This is fallout for trying to get Ukraine and Georgia into NATO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They pretty clearly weren't ready for the inva (Score:2)
You know, it's possible for both sides of an argument to be wrong. Doubly so in a war.
Re: They pretty clearly weren't ready for the inv (Score:2)
NATO should have stuck to agreements not to expand East after reuniting Germany and Russia shouldn't have done an invasion right now.
But if China were trying to put troops and missiles in Mexico, I'd expect the US to roll tanks down to Mexico City to make it stop if we had to just as if Mexico tried to take back Texas and the Southwest I'd be dumping 62gr 5.56x45 into invaders.
Ultimately, I'm not willing to pay $4/gal for gas because of shit going down in a country I have no ties to after politicians I didn
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it's possible. But not in this case.
If NATO is a Russian security concern, the best thing it can do is stop threatening its neighbors. NATO membership comes with costs as well as benefits; nobody would want to join if they didn't need those benefits. The Finns and the Swedes took a pass on NATO membership, and look: they're seriously considering it now. That wasn't some kind of nefarious machinations by the US, that was entirely Putin's own doing.
Re: (Score:3)
At the same time though it completely justifies all the eastern European and Baltic nations that lobbied for themselves to be part of NATO. If Russia wants those nations to not be part of the alliance so it can bully them same as it did in the USSR days, they are naturally going to want to be part of it.
Re: (Score:2)
If NATO didn't keep moving eastward, would Russia have been threatening smaller states?
The answer to this is almost assuredly "yes". [wikipedia.org] The USSR has a long history of using military force to maintain what it sees as it's sphere of influence and Russia has never really stopped that tradition. The first Chechen war was in 1994, 5 years before the first group of post Soviet NATO expansion. Their modus operandi is to exploit separatist conflicts to claim influence and territory.
The problem the realists have had from what I can tell is in boiling down everything to purely what happens between Wa
Re: (Score:2)
Good answer, and thanks for the link to the informative wiki article.
"America does it with soft economic power and that is far more appealing to nations today than Russia's hard military power." +1 insightful. I'll note that China has learned this lesson (regarding Africa), and is watching the world reaction closely, in regards to their own interests in absorbing Taiwan.
To a certain extent China can sit back, learn and profit from this.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, that same last two hundred years of history completely justifies why the Baltic states and Poland, in particular, wanted under the NATO umbrella as soon as possible. It's very clear now that any of the former Soviet satellite states outside of NATO are now under threat.
And rationalist theory doesn't explain precisely what Putin's objectives are. He's hinted at reabsorbing Ukraine into Russia, far greater ambitions than simply making puppet states in Donbas and Luhanskh. And if there are rationalists
Re: (Score:2)
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that Putin started believing his own crazy theoretical nonsense he started using to brainwash the Russian public, most if which is smart enough to know it's bullshit but also smart enough to know you don't go around correcting Putin's message. Surrounded by 'yes' men, Putin actually, sincerely, deep-down, believed the Ukrainian populace would welcome his troops with open arms to save them from their "nazi" government. It's the only thing that makes even the s
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty good assessment. As I heard one Ukranian exclaim something to the effect of "Putin has done more to unite the Ukrainian people then we've been able to accomplish in twenty years." And perhaps NATO. As for the US...we'll see.
Frankly, I think if Putin had gone into Donbas, stop and formed a defensive perimeter, the world reaction would not be as strong.
I thought at first Putin was just doing a little proactive clearing of the battlespace, but, after looking at Putin's speeches I realized his g
Re: (Score:2)
He has a 20km column moving on Kiev. This is a war of conquest. There's simply no other alternative. You don't commit your forces to that extent, get Belarus involved to give you cover, if you're not looking at some form of annexation; either integrating Ukraine into the Russian Federation, or cut it into pieces and create puppet states.
He already has Crimea, Donbas and pretty effectively controls Lusanzh. If this was just carving out ethno-political daughter states, he's already 90% there, and they'd be a
Re: (Score:2)
One of Putin's stated goals is to "demilitarize Ukraine". Instead he is "guerillazing" a population of 40M. I'm not sure this would be considers a pro move.
Not Bully, Invade (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Centralization of power also has another effect - disruptive transitions of power when the strongman dies or is deposed.
Putin does not "deserve" to stay in power. But I am worried about what happens next time the Russian nuclear football gets fumbled. Think about Iraq and Libya after Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi got what they deserved. Chaos in Russia would be extraordinarily dangerous to the continued existence of humanity. We need the economic sanctions to hurt Russia, but a grand mal s
Re: (Score:2)
Noah Smith who writes for Bloomberg has a pretty good blog post about this very issue and he argues that we need to have a Marshall Plan for Russia if and when Putin is gone to keep them stable and retool their economy.
Beyond sanctions: An off-ramp for post-Putin Russia [substack.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"We need the economic sanctions to hurt Russia, but a grand mal seizure is something we really need to avoid."
I wonder about this too. On a very small level, I have to decide if I'm going to apply my own "sanction" against Russia. I enjoy playing a online free-to-play game, "World of Warships", and have tossed them money periodically. Do I now delete the game? The game developers have nothing to do with the invasion of Ukraine--am I punishing people who may be against the invasion? Will I create an enemy I
Re: (Score:2)
Read what I said again. Stating that Putin has interest just like the US has interests, isn't a sign of support. Ukraine should be able to decide what is best for them, and from the news I am seeing they want to be in the EU, and or NATO. That threatens Putin, in a manner similar to Cuba and the US/Bay of pigs. And so it goes...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cuba was/is a sovereign nation and they for reasons of their own took USSR/soviet assistance. This conflicted with the Monroe Doctrine, and under JFK led to the Bay of Pigs brinksmanship. So the answer to the second question is no. Was Cuba able to decide for themselves: yes. Was Cuba able to decide for themselves without consequences? No.
IS this right or wrong. No. There is no simple right or wrong here, and there are consequences. Very severe consequences.
I've been hearing that for ages (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And arguments for gun control are bunk; people get concealed carry weapons for protection. There is no reason to have gun free zones...
What you don't agree? You mean when the gun barrels tend to point your direction my word that its only for defense isn't good enough for you! My assurances that I won't allow an uauthorized party get control of such dangerous tools or have some kind of accident myself are not completely comforting to you?
Now - I am a 2A absolutest to the core but at least I can understand th
Re: (Score:2)
Sad thing is if we'd have been bolstering Ukraine's defenses for the last 4 years instead of hitting them up for pre-election quid pro quo then Russia might not have invaded. e.g. if the Ukraine had been bristling with anti-air defenses some of the Russian generals might have decided to tell Vlad "sorry Boss, that's a bad idea" instead of letting it ride and hoping for the best.
I think building up their (Ukraine's) defenses would have set Putin into action quickly. They don't want an aligned country on their border; they want a neutral state at worst or a puppet state at best. This is fallout for trying to get Ukraine and Georgia into NATO.
There's a narrative going around that this is the west's fault for the NATO expansion and floating the idea of membership for Ukraine and Georgia.
I think the proper narrative is that not letting in Ukraine and Georgia was the real mistake.
Why should the people of Ukraine and Georgia suffer under Russian dictatorship just because we're worried that Russia will be mad for not being allowed to conquer them? It's not like Russians are entitled to an empire of puppet states.
If we were worried about Russia feelin
Re: (Score:2)
Georgia and Ukraine were stated by GW Bush in 2008 Bucharest to be ready for a MAP (membership action plan) for NATO membership. NATO was all set to have them both become members despite the warnings by some NATO members that this was uncessarily offensive to Putin/Russia. How did Putin respond? He siezed control of Georgia in the Russo-Georgian war. Your narrative of NATO denying either country NATO memberships isn't accurate. We weren't placating Putin, we were actively pursuing Ukrainian membership
Re: (Score:2)
the Russian generals might have decided to tell Vlad "sorry Boss, that's a bad idea" instead of letting it ride and hoping for the best.
Vlad would have done it anyway.
Wars of attrition are Russia's thing.
Re: (Score:3)
In dictatorships unless all the Generals basically stand up and say "No", with pistols pointed at the despot, it usually ends up pretty badly for the General in question. Basically without an actual coupe, if you're lucky you'll end up thrown out of the Army.
Putin still has to worry about that coupe (Score:2)
Putin hasn't lost his mind, he's just old, dying and wanted to seize Ukraine and give it to Russia for some silly legacy of his. The Generals went along because they know they can win eventually and the cost probably won't break Russia (probably. Maybe).
If Ukraine could mount a defense that would hurt for real (like bombing those convoys) then the generals would know the public was gonna revolt (since th
Re: (Score:2)
Wars of attrition on its home turf are. Afghanistan and Chechnya demonstrated that that doesn't always work quite so well when Russia is forced to project its military forces outside its borders. The Russian Winter is its friend in its own defense, it can work the other way once it starts rolling the tanks across the border.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Trump asked Ukraine? Sometimes sarcasm is hard to detect. I know the conspiracy theories, that the prosecutor that Biden didn't like was a good honest citizen rooting out corruption, but in reality he was one of the most corrupt and wasn't doing anything. Remember, if Giuliani says it's true, then it's likely false.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that Russia is as unprepared as they seem. The information available via operational computer networks may be worth more to Russia than the disruption of those networks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that Russia is as unprepared as they seem. The information available via operational computer networks may be worth more to Russia than the disruption of those networks.
Could be.
Other f'rinstances: let poorly trained shock troops take the lead and absorb the losses. Toss a few missiles westward to get civilians to leave, then claim anyone left is a combatant, and city destruction can begin in earnest. Take the Donbas and the south, then wait for the logistics trains to catch up.
While the West is ecstatic that Ukraine hasn't folded in three days or a week, I do remember it took three weeks for the US to roll into Baghdad.
Only need to survive (Score:3)
Right now Ukraine is still going to fall it's just going to be an embarrassment for Putin and potentially more Vietnam than Afghanistan. All still bad, but Putin's brutal enough he can get the country under control.
The probability of Ukraine winning was low, but has been steadily rising over the last few days.
All the tactical analysis I've read indicates that there's no way Russia can win this, even if they switch from strategic attacks to generalized (ie - population) attacks. Population attacks would be counterproductive if you want to take over a country, because once you take out the (example) electric grid you want to put it back online afterwards. You don't want to inherit a demolished, needy population.
That 40-
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't make any bets for or against Putin. People have simplistic views of leaders, either as geniuses or fools, maybe even madmen. But they're like anyone else: prepared to tackle familiar challenges but less prepared on unfamiliar territory.
Starting a war with a large country on the edge of the EU is less like his past exploits than Putin realized, so he's getting pasted for his miscalculations. But surviving an internal political knife fight is familiar territory for him. So he may prove surprisi
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is the first country in history that has been, as kids nowadays say, CANCELED.
Not only half the world refuses to do business with them. They are also refusing them shipping, and almost effectively preventing them from flying.
And they're "deplatforming" them as well since the EU is refusing to carry their propaganda media as well.
Sieges are common in warfare. But this is a siege not only in a nationwide scale, also THE LARGEST NATION IN THE WORLD scale.
Saying this is "familiar territory" for even the
Re: (Score:2)
By that argument the regime in North Korea should have been overthrown years ago.
I'm not saying the regime *will* survive. I'm saying it's more complicated than Putin automatically being ousted if he fails the people badly enough. He rules by fear and intimidation as you can see by his public humiliation of his own ministers. As long as the people around him are cowed we can't count on any sort of palace coup.
Far more dangerous to him than any economic catastrophe is the example of popular Ukrainian resista
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say that that Putin will fall, I just said that what happened in Russia is unchartered territory for anyone. They'll have to relearn a LOT of tactics they've used in the past to get around the sanctions.
Regarding NK, it's a completely different situation as they're a puppet state of China, fully financed by them. They controll absolutely all media, and their population has never enjoyed any sort of freedom. Not to mention the heavy brainwashing. No pre-NK people remain, and all their kids after tha
Re: (Score:2)
How can they not have enough fuel? They have maps, they can calculate the distance to Kyiv and hence how much fuel they would need to get there.
They probably run the engines while stationary and this will have used up some fuel, but surely a lot less than would be used propelling the vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard with no form of evidence that some Russians were puncturing the fuel tanks purposefully to disable the vehicles to prevent them from being able to perform the actions they were being asked to do. This was alongside the claim that many of them thought these were to be training exercises and they aren't prepared to do what they are being asked to do. Who knows. If Russians soldiers are denying commands, due to morality, they have my respect.
Re: (Score:2)
They were also told this was just a military exercise, not a long term invasion. At this point I think they're re-jiggering supply routes.
Re: (Score:2)
The generals knew this wasn't just an exercise. The planners knew this wasn't an exercise.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I gather, they were expecting Zelenskyy to flee the country leading the Kyiv government to simply collapse at the sight of the invading army. The tanks would have had enough fuel to roll into Kyiv without resupply if there was no resistance. Following that, Russia would have opened supply lines from the border by road and by air (to the airport that they have also failed to secure). Any delay, and the plans are thrown into chaos.
IOW they did not plan for the unexpected, because their leadership on
Re: (Score:2)
but nobody wanted to tell Putin. Sad thing is if we'd have been bolstering Ukraine's defenses for the last 4 years instead of hitting them up for pre-election quid pro quo then Russia might not have invaded. e.g. if the Ukraine had been bristling with anti-air defenses some of the Russian generals might have decided to tell Vlad "sorry Boss, that's a bad idea" instead of letting it ride and hoping for the best.
Right now Ukraine is still going to fall it's just going to be an embarrassment for Putin and potentially more Vietnam than Afghanistan. All still bad, but Putin's brutal enough he can get the country under control.
I wouldn't count on Ukraine falling, we're in a race to see if the Ukrainians can hold out long enough for the Russian economy to collapse (or for the oligarchs to blink and replace Putin).
With this invasion, Putin was simply out of time. His machinations in the west had failed. Russian money has been pouring into various western far-right and anti-establishment groups to little or no avail. AFD in Germany, Vox in Spain, the NRA and Trump in the US. All of it has failed. Even the successes like AFD becom
"more "cyber" damage??, really? (Score:2)
I think there'd be alot more than that.
US is a member of NATO, and an attack on any single NATO member is taken as an attack on all. Russia would not be able to withstand the combined onslaught of all NATO allies in a conventional battle, which would leave Russia with nothing to lose, and they would therefore initiate nuclear launches. It would be the end of the world as we currently know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia and any nuclear armed states all have second strike capability, its the primary component of MAD. You can't ever get all the launch sites, there are always planes in the air and submarines in the oceans ready to launch. The US certainly has Ohio class subs parked in the North Sea and Mediterranean right now for that very reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When Krakatoa blew, it released energy more than 4 times that of Tsar Bomba, which itself was about 10 times larger than a typical expected nuke yield today.
The worldwide "winter" which followed the Krakatoa explosion lasted for approximately 4 years.
I think it will take more than 8 bombs.
Just sayin'...
Re: (Score:2)
All NATO systems are designed to detect launches, and the counterlaunches are nearly automatic. These kinds of war games were run many times during the Cold War, and they didn't produce a winner, just a whole lot of losers.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if it's just Putin with the suicidal thoughts, would the rest of the people necessary to launch nukes carry on with it? Remember, you just don't push a magic button to launch a nuke, there is a chain of command and procedures that get followed.
Re: (Score:2)
I realize this, but after receiving the order to launch, if the necessary people perceive, as Putin evidently does, that Russia's very existence is imminently threatened if Ukraine is allowed to join NATO, then that perception would entirely legitimize such a launch within Russia's own chain of command, because in that mindset, there is nothing left for them to lose.
It's irrational, of course... NATO has no interest at all in attacking Russia, but all it will take is for certain people to believe that na
THe other shoe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where are the cyber attacks on Russian infrastructure - power grid, nuclear plants, railroads, pipelines etc. For me that is a bigger mystery.
You think Russian infrastructure is up to date? Some of it may be, like the railroad system hackers took out for a bit in the beginning of all this, but much of it is still using Cold War technology. Russia is pretty much a second world country, if not close to third.
Hackers are not super geniuses (Score:3)
Despite how smart you felt in your teen years, for being able to get into a big boys computer. Hacking isn't a skill for the elite few, where governments can just get the best of the best and be able to get into any system they want like in the movies.
Hackers get into systems that are often poorly maintained and managed by their owners. With security flaws that are years old, and yet left unpatched. Or via social engineering via finding that one poor person who decides to click the link and install the software.
Hacking with the support of your government, often means you have a job hacking, vs trying to goof off on your free-time, and what you do won't have the police knocking on your door if you happen to get caught.
However the scope of damage is limited by the fact there are a lot of security pro's out there who keep the systems secure and up to date, making hacking much more difficult even with an army of hackers.
Re: (Score:1)
> Hackers get into systems that are often poorly maintained...
There's a saying in sports that the most successful teams are those who take full advantage of the opponent's mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect its also the case that Russian intelligence is absolute shit. They might have the skilled intruders and the exploits/tools but they probably don't even know what to hit to inflict meaningful harm.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, *some* hackers are; the kind that are hired by national cyber-warfare agencies. If this were Israel attacking Ukraine, Ukraine's infrastructure and command and control facilities would have been crippled by cyber attacks.
I suspect we're seeing is just another manifestation of the corrosive effects of years of corruption on Russia's war fighting capability. It's possible Russia paid a lot of money for cyber warfare capabilities but a lot of it ended up lining somebody's pockets.
2000 ISPs (Score:2)
Ukraine has about 2000 small ISPs in the country as opposed to half a dozen extremely large ones in the US. While a very large ISP has more resources to stop attacks, the sheer number of separate small systems there that need to be attacked seems to be an advantage to me.
Please improve your editor skils (Score:2)