So the foreign intelligence services gave them a button push so it's not a direct cyber war on Russia.
Fun fact, I was internal auditor in a bank (I will not specify the year(s) for safety/privacy). We did the due diligence and ended up buying a Ukrainian bank. Part of the 'collections' was really to smash people's faces. Believe it or not. But sure.. you know best.
My only qualm with them is their not so great support for gay people, but then during the war ofc the party line is now they love their gay soldiers. Would have been nice to see more action around that beforehand but I get it. Even other first world countries still have plenty of problems as a gay person, especially gay men.
This is a silly expression for written text, since I always read both tomatoes as 'tomato', before realising the intention. :)
That position sounds very weird.
I think the most likely explanation is it's the Ukrainians defending Ukraine against Russia's unjustified invasion.
China etc have seen the strategies used in sanctions. They know how to limit their impact now.
It's also brought Russia/China/Iran/North Korea and wider Brics together.
It's been a disaster for the west. The measure of success was Russia weakened and ideally Putin weakened or gone. And instead Russia have shrugged off the sanctions, and Putin is much stronger.
And the Russian military has gained real battle tested knowledge.
A disaster for the west, aside from their weapons companies/Ukrainian investments. And any NATO spend increases.
Russia itself has been the biggest loser. Massive budget deficits, massive inflation. 1M of its smartest people have moved abroad. 1M Russian casualties in the war. Demographics and economy are disastrous.
That and Russia is now a pariah state. No one is going to invest there for a very long time after what Russia did.
Everyone there is doing fine.
The world order is changing to a level you won't believe - Russia, Venezuela were reported by WSJ or similar to even be running journalist schools in Africa to break the media control there by western media brands.
As long as they don't say anything critical against the regime. Or have the misfortune of flying in/around Russia while morons are at the trigger of surface to air missiles (cf. MH17 and Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243). Or have the misfortune of getting conscripted to die in the meat grinder.
> The world order is changing to a level you won't believe - Russia, Venezuela were reported by WSJ or similar to even be running journalist schools in Africa to break the media control there by western media brands.
Yes, Russia, the known beacon of journalistic freedom. How many journalists have been murdered by the regime?
The fact that those Wikipedia sections / articles exist is very telling:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novaya_Gazeta#Deaths_and_attac...
> media control there by western media brands.
Anyone blindly lumping together all "western" media is not to be taken seriously. Especially when comparing with fucking Russia of all places. You can find plenty of disagreements in various "western" media (consider The Guardian vs Financial Times vs Le Figaro vs Le Monde vs NY Times vs Washington Post). Nobody dares contradict the official line in Russia, even calling the war a war, or they get tortured and murdered.
Lmao, food prices skyrocketed, quality plummeted, interest rates are at record highs, budget deficit. Totally doing fine, comrade.
Russia is hedging that the "pariah state" label will wear off pretty quickly. The current US government has as recently as March floated the idea of normalising business ties, and constantly flip-flops it's position.
However, the biggest loser has definitely been Europe (including Britain). High energy prices have cascaded the cost of living crisis, which in turn has led to a rightward shift in politics. As a continent, we are unprepared for any sort of defence, having used the US as a backstop for years and now the US constantly toys with the idea of dropping NATO support. Alone, we don't have enough manpower, ammunition, and we haven't been keeping up with the evolution of modern warfare (drones and related technology) taking place in the Russo-Ukrainian war.
Many large businesses have returned to Russia. "No one is going to invest" is a naive childish thinking. They outperformed growth expectations in 2024, unemployment rate dropped from 5.8% in 2020 to 2.3% in 2025. GDP is surging, insane tech and energy investments from China. Plus Russia has a very low public debt. All in all, their economy is pretty resilient despite what they say in the mainstream media.
Because a massive amount of men were conscripted?
> GDP is surging
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
Spending ~30% of the country's budget on military hardware that will get blown up might look good, GDP wise, but is utterly unproductive.
Considering the current rate of inflation, switching the EU economies to war production would save so much money and lives, and bring down prices.
1m is not a lot
Edit: as per my comment below, casualties are not deaths. It's a wider definition.
For anybody still questioning why the civilized word must stop Russia, i'd suggest to mediate a couple seconds over the parent comment (the commenter in the parent and in his other comments presents Russian position quite correctly)
The definition of which is quite wide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualty_(person)
>"A casualty, as a term in military usage, is a person in military service, combatant or non-combatant, who becomes unavailable for duty due to any of several circumstances, including death, injury, illness, missing, capture or desertion."
1 million casualties is an absolutely massive number, regardless of your total population. How many of your fellow citizens would you be willing to throw into the meatgrinder until you say “that not ok”?
Is this seriously the depth of your understanding of Russian tactics (what you described isn't a strategy to begin with...). I recommend watching every tactical analysis video on Mark Tacacs YT channel (he's a NATO military officer, not some pro-RU source):
All they can effectivley do, until they grow new soldiers, is defense.
Sure they can bomb from afar. But even of they take the Ukraine now, they have no force to hold it with.
Right? Right? Putin totally only planned a multi-year stalemate where he lost his best troops on a dash to capture Kyiv. Totally!
> All they can effectivley do, until they grow new soldiers, is defense.
I'm genuinely curious what your information diet/sources looks like that would lead you to make such statements.
According to Ukrainian sources, Russian end strength in Ukraine continues to increase and they are maintaining a strategic reserve of personnel as well:
https://kyivindependent.com/russia-plans-to-increase-groupin... The Russian military plans to increase its grouping in Ukraine by 150,000 soldiers in 2025, equivalent to around 15 motorized infantry divisions, Presidential Office Deputy Head Pavlo Palisa said on April 3, Ukrainian media outlet Suspilne reported.
"Their formation is ongoing. The Russians have no problems with recruiting personnel now..."
https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/syrskyi-warns-russia-stockpi... "Moreover, Russia maintains an additional 121,000 troops in its strategic reserve—comprising 13 divisions, as well as various regiments and brigades—that could be deployed to the battlefield if necessary."
"This means their army grows by an average of 8,000 to 9,000 soldiers every month," the Commander-in-Chief noted.
As for Russia only being able to defend, how do you square that with this Finnish analysis group's tracking of Russian territorial control rates increasing every month this year?
https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1l30kb...
That data roughly matches one of Reddit's most prolific meta-analysts, who mostly uses Suriyak data (the most reputable Russian mapper):
https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1lpspn...
Israel and the US's stance with Iran, was something not as plausible when Russian strength existed in the region. Russia complained and threatened, but naturally nothing has come of it. They have no capacity to do anything, or project power. There is no Russian strength in the Middle East any more. Why? They cannot extend their power beyond their borders.
This is doubly unfortunate for Russia, as Iran was, I repeat was sending massive amounts of shells, drones, and more to Russia. For some odd reason, they've stopped (sarcasm).
Using reserve troops is what Russia could do if their back was to the wall. They need troops in country, or there will be a revolt within. Remember, Russia is not a democracy, but a totalitarian state controlled by a dictator with an iron fist. If their 'reserves' are drawn down too far, there will be insurgency.
Hiring mercenaries (in the article aka contract soldiers) from anywhere including China, isn't the same as getting seasoned, loyal troops. And it doesn't discount what I'm saying. They have lost their capacity to project power, and are now relying upon mercenaries to shore up their troop levels. They're spent.
Yes, on using human wave attacks, trenches, and cheap Iranian drones. Oh, and at the cost of almost all trained troops and modern equipment. Not a very good deal.
> It's been a disaster for the west. The measure of success was Russia weakened and ideally Putin weakened or gone. And instead Russia have shrugged off the sanctions, and Putin is much stronger.
Russia started the war, they are the ones who need to win it. The fact that they are stalled is a win for Ukraine, who are the ones trying to survive. The Russian economy is in shambles (cf. the Broken window fallacy), as are their army, navy and air force. It will take them decades to rearm back to the same level. Putin isn't stronger, really. He entered a quagmire of a war he cannot back out of (will appear weak) nor can he actually win in any way. He's stuck.
> It's also brought Russia/China/Iran/North Korea and wider Brics together.
Are you sure you understand what BRICS is? Everyone using Russia's predicament to get cheap natural resources doesn't mean that e.g. Brazil or India are closer to Russia...
This war is the most recorded in human history. Can you share some videos of these Russian human wave attacks? Can you describe the objective delineating criteria between a normal attack by an infantry battalion or regiment, and a "human wave" attack? Regarding trenches and "cheap" Iranian drones.....should the Russians NOT practice basic principles of force protection/use of fortifications? Should they NOT leverage novel cost-effective munitions to wage war and instead use massively-expensive gold-plated equipment? How is that working out for the US and allies, who can't produce more than ~600 Patriot missiles per year at a cost of ~$4M per missile.....meanwhile Russia is throwing 500 drones and missiles at Ukraine every few days....
BTW, I recommend these vids about "human waves":
Putin caused
1 NATO to get 2 new members, gg Putin
2 NATO to invest more in weapons, gg Putin
3 killed or wounded 1 million Russians while the population was already in decline and I would bet the birth rate is decreasing because of the war
4 economy is fucked, Gazprom reported first time ever no proffits, interests rates increased
5 the idiots managed to hit again a civilian airplane, and i read recently Azerbajan and Armenia are cooperating to get rid of Ruzzians on their lands
6 Ruzzian weapon exports are fucked
7 Ruzzian army is a joke asx strength now, and the people are seen as low life orcs, killing, raping, torturing creatures
8 Kremlin is a joke, from 3 day operation to 3+ years, people flying from windows, politicians unable to admit a drone hit happened and claiming is debbry,
9 Putin pulled his secret weapons the donkeys after 3 years of keeping them hidden and failed to ado any significant progress
10 Ruzzia advances in Ukraine slower then a snail, check the numbers. and there are more than 1000 Ruz casualties for square km
11 I can see this Zeds complaining about the West decadence while using iPHone, driving German cars and wearing expensive wtches (even Putin can't stand to put his ass on a Ruzzian car)
How is Ruzzia stronger? The only way I could think a Zed would claim this is something like "Zed eats excrements daily for an year and after barely surviving this he claims he is stronger because someone in the West would die if he eat so much excrements, the Zed not realizing that the solution is to execute the tzar and stop eating excrements.
Any Russian (not Ruzzian) can be honest and admit that this is not going according to the plan, Putin tried to repeat the Crimean invasion, his KGB friends told him that Ukrainians will receive the Zeds with flowers , the informations were wrong and Putin seems to be incapable to stop the disaster and keep his throne so he is willing to sacrifice the people and the empire just to keep is throne.
That's one way to get nominated for Nobel peace prize.
Net Russian gains in June 2025 were 572 km^2.* In order for your statement to hold true, Russia would have suffered over half a million casualties in June alone. Where is your evidence to support such an assertion?
* https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1lpspn...
Or my average is not a daily or monthly, do it again for the last 1 year. 2 years.
Can you also calculare for us how many years until Ruzzia reaches Kyiv and how many casualties ?
And even land cost them more in soldiers more than the pre-war population that lived there; it's literally a special grave digging operation. Soviet stockpiles of armor are basically depleted; now it's the buggy and moped meta. They've completely failed to support their supposed allies (i.e. Assad, Iran, Armenia). A good chunk of their strategic aviation fleet is gone. Car bombings of generals continue all over Russia and occupied territories, which brings the question, will it even stop if they "win"? They've finally been demoted from being an aircraft carrier operating nation. Their frozen assets are literally killing Russian soldiers. National wealth fund has ~20-30% of the prewar assets. Something similar in gold reserves. Interest rates are beyond effed, and recruits are largely joining for the money needed in the terrible economy caused by Putin himself. Who annexed 4 oblasts only to legally deploy the 18 year olds Putin promised not to deploy in Ukraine (as it's no longer Ukraine in Russian law). Non-military industrial output is on a steady decline. Price capping on bread. Fossil fuel output at minimums, and with low prices.
So what is Russia winning at?
I think Ukrainians (and Russians as well) aren't tech illiterate. They are (both) more than capable in this matter.
So I don't see why it would be the case that Ukraine could not have done this by themselves. They have done previous attacks by themselves. I don't see why that would be the case.
It would kind of be like saying, "Oh, if Russia does a cyberattack, it can't have been them acting alone. It must have been China that gave them the stuff to just press a button."
The point is that US made Ukraine do something that the US wanted to do but did not do because were it the US, then it would have had repercussions on US, so they made Ukraine do their dirty work.
The Russian regime (and apparently a lot of Russians) deem Ukrainians as an inferior ethnic group - they call them "little Russians".
Ukrainian authorship would mean:
- Ukrainians are competent people with agency (which they are of course, for lots of reasons) - this plays into ethnophobia;
- their government, military, etc, is competent, functional with agency - this plays into government legitimacy;
- Overall, in a lot of instances, the Russian government is incompetent, even more incompetent than the guys their propaganda has been trying to paint as corrupt, incompetent people who are being manipulated.
That's why a lot of time Russian propaganda trys to spin Ukrainian wins as "NATO/CIA/MI6/external agent did this".
For example, they tried really hard to bend reality to remove the credit for the Ukrainian drone operation that destroyed a lot of bomber jets, saying it was planned and executed by CIA, MI6, Israel, etc [0].
This is what we're dealing with here: massive ethnophobia and propaganda.
So in their propaganda, Ukraine can't be competent and stand on its merit, because that would mean they're not inferior people and that they have agency.
You should always be wary of someone making these claims without any evidence.
[0]https://uacrisis.org/en/rospropaganda-zaplutalas-v-pavutyni
> The term Little Russia is now anachronistic when used to refer to the country Ukraine and the modern Ukrainian nation, its language, culture, etc. Such usage is typically perceived as conveying an imperialist view that the Ukrainian territory and people ("Little Russians") belong to "one, indivisible Russia".Today, many Ukrainians consider the term disparaging, indicative of Russian suppression of Ukrainian identity and language. It has continued to be used in Russian nationalist discourse, in which modern Ukrainians are presented as a single people in a united Russian nation. This has provoked new hostility toward and disapproval of the term by many Ukrainians. In July 2021 Vladimir Putin published a 7000-word essay, a large part of which was devoted to expounding these views. [0]
Ethnical slurs, or any other slurs, change over time. If you go back in time 100+ years, and you use a modern ethnic or racial slur it will be empty of meaning. Just like a lot of slurs from the past lost their meaning over the years. But the "historical meaning" is constantly being used by Russian propaganda, where they claim one needs to go back to the 1200's, and their interpretation of history, to try to make sense of the current genocide attempt in Ukraine.
There's no logic behind that approach because current actions speak for themselves, including the context of recent history, and that's enough.
Unless you still see that slur being used by Russian nationalists as an endearing term to address their "brotherly nation" which they support being erased from the map.
meanwhile, russian intelligence services have already directly attacked nato countries, with barely any real deniability.
Bulgaria: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/01/arms-dealer-10...
Poland: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/12/poland-to-clos...
And UK.
Plus a million cyberattacks against all sorts of infrastructure.
Now, predictably upon being told that it happens you pivot to NATO is useless.
Which is it: a set of attacks so obscure no reasonable person would be aware, or a horrendous onslaught where Article 5 should have been invoked and a mass retaliation begun?
NATO countries historically didn't invoke Article 5 even for terrorist attacks killing their own citizens. It takes a certain level before it makes sense to invoke, normally something beyond the capacity of that country to handle.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackerangriffe_auf_den_Deutsch...
Do you have any evidence that it was foreign intelligence services?
What foreign intelligence services ? Also if you think there isn't a constant barrage of attacks coming from everyone, you're not ready for the real world.
On the other hand (and I'm not defending a drone company), anyone that has a business should know by now that ransomware (with our without deletion) is a real thing, and it's not an 'if' question, it's a 'when' question.
I have never worked with/for a Russian company, so it would be interesting to hear/read from someone who has, how 'well organized' are they? GRC-wise. Assuming that someone would run the COBIT framework on them (Russian companies), would the 'average' be 'ok' or it's a big mess (kinda like working for an EU company in early 00's)?
This is not a real reason. This explanation hides the real reason: Russia is a valuable geopolitical partner for USA. Regarless who are in power in USA - all presidents tried to make deals/contacts with Russia.
There is no value for USA in getting Russia loose this war, have internal instability or split in 20-ish national states.
USA wins more from russia being as it is today with all it blood, suffering and hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by the regime thrive for survival.
Actually USA are afraid to push too much to cause internal issues in Russia. And russian ruling class knows that.
There are ticket sales systems for people being transported, but much is freight trains, and if there was an easy way to disrupt that, you can be sure that Ukraine would've done it by now, because the Russian military heavily depends on rail-based supplies.
They should have checked the source codes and added some changes to make drones unpredictably unreliable
"Oh this totally innocent code change? Oh look it makes the gps act weird if longitude is between a certain range how weird"
Look at successful cyber campaigns like stuxnet or an actual hardware sabotage from Israel. The attacks were dormant until they were ready for maximum effect. Randomly disabling a production site, without a strategic context, is going to be an isolated win, or an operational victory.
I remember reading some articles about the pentagon being a bit upset at some of the strategic decisions of Ukraine's armed forces where they often push for morale boosting moments at big costs(i think 2 years ago they spent lots of resources to get a strategically irrelevant town). And honestly this is also what it looks like: You dont see a coordinated attack but spurious disconnected events. I think when you are gasping for air you hold on to anything you can, but still the goal is to win, not just look like winning.
If you never bootstrap from zero (nor simulate this) then your systems probably have cycles in their deployment dependencies. Your config pusher is deployed from Jenkins/Puppet/Ansible but 2 years ago someone made Jenkins dependent on the config pusher for its own config. Now you cannot just deploy these systems in order, you have to replay the history before that change.
Bootstrapping from zero will never be easy and will always take some time. I don't think you can prepare your way out of this, short of preparing a fully redundant, fully separate secondary infrastructure.
Testing this reliably is difficult, though, and often these procedures and their documentation is outdated.
What you can do is to have a sandbox environment where you periodically do a full setup exercise from a prepper disk. Conceptually it's not that different from testing backup recovery (ok, most companies neglect this too, so maybe you have a point :) ).
- know your threats
- assess your risks based on identified threats
- backup 3-2-1 strategy (3 copies of your data on 2 independent storage places with 1 copy offline and offsite)
- "build the world from scratch" plan with the assumption that all infra is completely and irreversibly destroyed.
- assume you have already been hacked but you don't yet know about it. Build your indicators of compromise based on that simple assumption.
Observing how some "groups of people" act in a totally ignorant fashion is amusing.
Deliberately blocking the supposed enemy from hearing you does strike me as irrational, though. The mere fact they're doing Russian censors' job should probably make them recheck if they got anything wrong in their decision process, just in case.
Some non-Ukrainian do as well, seemingly with no rhyme or reason, I run into this so routinely that I have an entire thread: https://mastodon.social/@grishka/111934602844613193
One day I decided to change my main disk and used the opportunity to rebuild everything from scratch and from backups. I was up in about an hour.
And then I spent a week fixing this and that, ah yes I changed that too and, crap, I cannot remember why this thingie is set up this way. And some more.
This is a one-man lab, with simple services, all on docker. I also work in IT.
Recovering from scratch a whole infrastructure managed by many people over the years is a titanic task.
I helped to recover my nearby hospital as a volunteer when it was ransomwared. The poor two IT guys over there has no idea how to recover and the official help was pityful.
I also helped with a ransomware attack on a large company. The effort people had to do to remember why something was that way, or just remember whatever was colossal. Sure a lot of things were "documented" and "tested" but reality hit hard.
Everything is quickly strapped together due to teams being understaffed. Preparing infrastructure in a way such that it can easily be recreated is easily twice the effort as “just” setting it up the usual way.
Turns out some of the software running on it had some weird licensing checks tied to the hardware so it refused to start on the new server.
It turns out that the company that made this important piece of software doesn't even exist anymore.
This is why I like docker, if you keep the sources, you recover no matter what (at least until the "no matter what" holds water)
I think this is an outdated view. In modern enterprises DR is often one of the most crucial (and difficult) steps in building the whole infra. You select what is crucial for you, you allocate the budget, you test it, and you plan the date of the next test.
However, I'd say it's very rare to do DR of everything. It's terribly expensive and problematic. You need to choose what's really important to you based on defined budgets.
Either that bites you sooner or later, or you're lucky and grow; suddenly, you're a larger organisation, and there are way too many moving parts to start from scratch. So you do a half-hearted attempt of creating a backup strategy held together by duct-tape and hope, that kinda-sorta should work in the worst case, write some LLM-assisted documentation that nobody ever reads, and carry on. You're understaffed and overworked anyway, people are engaging in shadow IT, your actual responsibilities demand attention, so that's the best you can do.
And then you've grown even bigger, you're a reputable company now, and then the consultants and auditors and customers with certification requirements come in. So that's when you actually have to put in the work, and it's going to be a long, gruesome, exhausting, and expensive project. Given, of course, that nobody fucks up in the mean time.
This all got stored in the cloud, but also locally in our office, and also written onto a DVD-R, all automatically, all verified each time.
Our absolute worst case scenario would be less than an hour of downtime, less than an hour of data loss.
Similarly our dev environments were a watered down version of the live environment, and so if they were somehow lost, they could be restored in the same manner - and again, frequently tested, as any merge into the preprod branch would trigger a new dev environment to automatically spin up with that codebase.
It takes up-front engineering effort to get in place, but it ended up saving our bacon twice, and made our entire pipeline much easier and faster to manage.
"No, Restore is" I would say to stunned faces...
A few months from now, I'd love to have written down decisions for my current project:
- Why did I decided to use Kysely over Drizzle, Knex, Prisma, TypeORM or other ORM/SQL tool?
- How am I going to do migrations?
- Why am I using one of Deno/Bun over sticking to nodejs?
- Why did I structure the project as a directory per feature over controllers/models/services directories?
- Why did I fork this library and what are the steps to keep this thing updated? Do I plan to upstream my changes? Is there a GitHub issue or PR about it?
- Why am I hosting in one of AWS/GCP/Azure? Why not lambda functions? Why docker?
- Why did I pick this specific distribution of kubernetes over the other also lightweight alternatives?
- Why did I even start this project and what do I aim to accomplish with it?
So I created a # Decisions section in README.md
This way I don't keep doubting my own decisions and wasting time opening 20 documentation tabs to compare solutions yet again.
Technical decisions used to be in the daily-notes.org file, but keeping in a separate file makes it more accessible to LLMs. I actually started that practice before LLMs were in common use, I struggle to remember why.
Should that "why" be in technical-decisions.org or daily-notes.org?
Sure it can help, but it's just not a one fix solution people thing. If you want a good test of your IAC, just provisioning a brand new environment first time using only your iac.
Um, sorry but what do you mean ?
How did they prevent threat actors presenting themselves as volunteers, were you vetted?
A far bigger risk is accepting incompetent volunteers if anything.
Half of the work is to know what you need, the other half is to know how you do it, while the third half is to cope with all the undocumented tinkering which happened along the way. So in that regard, starting from scratch can be acceptable, as long you are not starting from zero, and can build up on the knowledge and experience of the previous run(s). I mean, there is a whole gaming-genre about this, which is quite popular. And usually you have the benefit that you might be able to fix some fundamental failures which you had to ignore because nobody wanted to take the risk.
However, because in a previous life I'd been responsible for backups and involved in disaster recovery planning I was already kind of prepared with:
- a mirrored on site copy of backups (that they either didn't find or chose to leave behind)
- older hardware that had once been performing the duties of the existing seized gear (I'm a bit of a hoarder, I like repurposing or keeping for just such an occasion)
- multiple off site backups
- pretty good documentation of my setup
I was back up and running within a day or two and had lost maybe a couple of days of data. And it's a home lab, so nothing super important anyway, but a (not really) nice resilience test.
It also gave me the experience to work out a few structural changes to further limit the impact of an event that takes out a bunch of processing and storage.
(After 8 months they told me to pick up all my gear, they found nothing, but thanks for traumatising my kids)
I suppose it could be used sparingly but Ukraine would have no way of knowing when to use it. Perhaps a Bluetooth or whatever else the drone has on board "keep away" beacon for vips.
I'm very dubious that there would be such an amount of “critical” data pretty much anywhere, besides the banking and insurance sector. And particularly not at a drone manufacturer.
Rather than just disrupting comms, this targeted destruction could slow or derail drone deployment timelines significantly. It demonstrates how cyber operations are now deeply integrated into military strategy.
This isn't new. Cyber attacks have always been used in military strategy since their existence.
lnsru•5h ago
HPsquared•5h ago
skrebbel•4h ago
andy_ppp•4h ago
sjw987•3h ago
I visited Russia a few years ago. Commercially, they have all the same technology we have (for me, in the UK). Like us, they outsource most of their manufacturing to China, but internally they produce software equivalent to (or to be honest greater than) what we produce. The difference seems to be that a lot of Russian software, websites and apps are more local, which gives the illusion that it's not as good. Google is multinational, whereas the equivalence Yandex sticks to Russian and Slavic language countries. I was actually quite surprised to see in some areas they are ahead in digitising things (government services, payments). I expected the opposite.
Whatever software you can think of originating from the US, UK, or wherever, Russia has an equivalent. The major difference isn't the technical ability, but the commercial and cultural reach of that technology. Most of the world is happy to use Facebook, except Russia (and some others) who uses VK. We don't use VK, because it's Russian and we already use Facebook. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Uber (all artificially high value commercial products) have Russian equivalents. Sometimes they are even combined into one (Yandex has an Uber-like service within it). And when it comes to hardware, none of us are particularly strong with that. We all designate that to China, who sells it to all of us equally.
Whenever we hear about cyberwarfare, cybercrime and exploits, we usually pin it on Russian/Chinese speaking hackers. Russia seems to have better primary, secondary and tertiary education in computing, and, like the rest of Eastern Europe, produces many of the better programmers (something you can see in open source communities). From discussions with Russians, the level of maths, science and computing education is higher at a younger age than it was for me in the UK. Quite a lot of what would be A-level (18) Maths in my country was taught at Russian secondary school level (16).
In warfare, Russia has made fools of themselves in Ukraine, but on the other hand war is (sadly) the greatest contributor to military evolution. We see that with the introduction and evolution of drone warfare. Our UK Challenger tanks have been disabled and destroyed by far lower cost drones. All the technology associated with that (comms, jamming, avoiding jamming, self-targeting) is being rapidly developed by both Ukraine and Russia on the battlefield right now.
Where exactly would a decade back put them, technologically speaking?
ajuc•2h ago
Every country had it's own facebook. The difference was not features but scale.
Russia scales to million of users. Facebook/Google etc. scale to billions of users.
Everybody use Office, Chrome, commercial CADs, etc. Russia has no alternatives in most of these categories, and where it has alternatives - it's usually global (i.e. mostly made by programmers paid by western corporations) open source project they fork and add a russian skin over it.
> And when it comes to hardware, none of us are particularly strong with that.
USA and EU design the top-end chips and make crucial parts of the machines that produce chips (see ASML).
Russia was left behind in 90s and tries to catch up using some open-source alternatives around RISC-V. But they have no capability of designing nor producing chips anywhere near modern desktop CPUs.
Russian Lancet drones use smuggled Nvidia AI chips for example. We do not use smuggled Russian chips :)
ivan_gammel•3h ago
joules77•4h ago
Western support to Ukraine has been a real joke - https://carnegieendowment.org/europe/strategic-europe/2025/0...
praptak•3h ago
ceejayoz•1h ago
walterlw•42m ago
ndsipa_pomu•32m ago
biblioteca•3h ago
Even accounting systems are able to usually run fairly independently.
It’s not that IT and business and manufacturing support software engineers don’t help, but they aren’t necessary, especially if they’re just making the same thing over and over.
crinkly•4h ago
braggerxyz•1h ago
mrweasel•4h ago
DeMars launched, and procurement basically stopped for a year. Only the items my friend was in charge of remained in stock, through out the launch/roll-out process.
ChrisMarshallNY•3h ago
Switching to a new system; even when it is for the better, is a painful, expensive process.
The company that I worked for, did a successful transition to SAP, but it took about two years, and a lot of butthurt.
cluckindan•2h ago
mensetmanusman•1h ago
pjc50•1h ago
perlgeek•3h ago
Probably also depends on the complexity of the orders and workflows.
worldsayshi•3h ago
It's a bit surprising that we don't have that feature as a requirement for most IT infrastructure. It would make it so much more usable.
rubyfan•3h ago
ndsipa_pomu•33m ago
jjani•3h ago
worldsayshi•2h ago
mark-r•1h ago
"Understandable and fixable" depends more on the complexity of the application rather than the fact it's in Excel.
morkalork•18m ago
frteger•3h ago
You could also be making surgical parts that help save lives.
Overall though, I think I’d rather be making nice practical furniture that hopefully people would never throw away. While I support people that want to protect, war is horrible.
cluckindan•2h ago
greelin•2h ago
As an old software engineer, I can say with certainty that software engineering is a very, VERY wasteful practice. We could all be running Windows 3 right now, DOS, or some old Unix. The overhead involved in making actual advancements shows our slow progress as a species, and that we’re in a thread discussing a drone manufacturing facility being blown up in a war and how much that matters.
I think the natives had it right to live off of the land peacefully, and if anything to devote full time on science to determining what we do to help life survive in the universe.
ordu•1h ago
I can't agree with you. People have got their human mind as a result of ever increasing and self-inflicted costs driven by a competition among males. They developed minds to play politics and they came to a point when 20% of metabolism of human body was devoted to its brain.
The result of such a wasteful way to spend their energy resources? Humans colonized all the Earth, drove to the extinction almost all big animals, and now there are as much humans on the Earth as mosquitos. Looks like a win, doesn't it?
These things go off the rails sometimes. Just today I've found a new example to it:
highlanders who had practiced brutal initiation ceremonies “in which they were forced to drink only partly slaked lime that blistered their mouths and throats, were beaten with stinging nettles, were denied water, had barbed grass pushed up their urethras to cause bleeding, were compelled to swallow bent lengths of cane until vomiting was induced, and were required to fellate older men, who also had anal intercourse with them” gave them up after only minimal contact with outside disapproval. Some later told anthropologists they felt “deeply shamed” by their treatment of their own sons and were relieved to stop.[1]
The waste of resources into useless things doesn't lead to good outcomes each time, but I believe that software engineering will lead to something. I'm not Jesus, I can't predict exactly what the beneficial results will be, but at least I can point to a growing ability of engineers of handling complexity. It lags behind their ability to create complexity, but still it grows.
[1] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-arguments-about...
tantalor•28m ago
Is this sarcasm?