Where was Russias great cyber warfare teams? They wouldn't have held back against consumer devices.
From what I've read western agencies helped Ukraine and the cyber efforts were mostly neutered.
It's one thing to be a random org in peace time but in war the deep penetration into Chinese networks will have exposed plenty of Chinese efforts not yet disrupted and all that was super secret and careful before turns into open warfare.
So it's not like the west is going in blind. The US spends mountains on this stuff, not including the mass of western commercial infosec companies tracking these critical "threat groups" as their business model. NSA is huge as it is and who knows how many federal and DOD agencies have cyber mandates these days.
All systems are inherently vulnerable but some mass back doors in routers has been speculated to death by people way smarter than me and most I've read is that the risk is largely over stated to the civilian population. The router doomsday scenarios are always super hand wavvy in the details.
Are you really arguing about ~$5mil a month in drones? Thats around the cost of ONE PATRIOT interceptor or 5 HIMARS salvos. Its not going poof, its splattering invaders.
If you really want to get outraged by something read about russians behind Lancet suicide drones https://www.sensusq.com/blog/sensusq-analysis-on-the-zala-42... Son of the de facto owner/ceo of the company currently works at UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) in Geneva.
Oryx has been proven to be providing false numbers well over a dozen times, including in the pentagon documents.
Re: Ukraine claims - is that the one where they claimed to have destroyed 4,700 tanks out of 3,500?
MediaZona, an organization run by strongly anti-Putin, pro-Ukraine owners in partnership with the BBC, is going to be the most accurate casualty information you can actually get: https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/11/casualties_eng
And please, enlighten me: how exactly are they taking that many tank losses when they’re literally dug in, not moving, and have pulled the tanks back? They don’t even have to fight, the Ukrainians are doing a fine job tripping every land mine in the region by themselves.
> Oryx has been proven to be providing false numbers well over a dozen times, including in the pentagon documents.
Oryx literally counts visually documented losses on both sides it’s likely to be a lower bound with rather large confidence on both sides of the conflict.
But it’s still a lower bound.
How is that “proven to be false”.
> MediaZona, an organization run by strongly anti-Putin, pro-Ukraine owners in partnership with the BBC, is going to be the most accurate casualty information you can actually get: https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/11/casualties_eng
But those numbers are very different to the pentagon documents, so they must be false right?.
> And please, enlighten me: how exactly are they taking that many tank losses when they’re literally dug in, not moving, and have pulled the tanks back? They don’t even have to fight, the Ukrainians are doing a fine job tripping every land mine in the region by themselves.
Because Russia isn’t dug in and not moving they are constantly trying to counter attack.
Not only that dug in tanks and tanks behind the front line are still vulnerable to drone borne weapons which are very popular in this war.
> Where was Russias great cyber warfare teams? They wouldn't have held back against consumer devices.
The difference is that we’re fighting a proxy war with Russia over Ukraine. With Taiwan, it will be a direct war due to the security guarantees we have given Taiwan.
> Where was Russias great cyber warfare teams? They wouldn't have held back against consumer devices.
I don't think their goal has ever been sabotage as much as it has been intelligence gathering, but I suspect a lot of their efforts have gone underreported.
Russia did successfully brick thousands of consumer satellite modems to disrupt communications in the opening hours of the Ukraine campaign. Everybody reported on Elon Musk swooping in and playing savior, but they acted like he's the first person to bring satellite service to Ukraine and neglected to mention incumbent ISPs' devices operating in the area had been destroyed in targeted cyberattacks (later, Russia went low-tech and just started lobbing artillery at ground stations).
Because of this oversight, nobody really understood why he pulled the service from the front lines-- he saw what Russia was capable of and didn't want Starlink to become a military target itself.
