Letter from Prague

Bet those seaside apartments across the bay are really cheap these days...
 
 

Modern CPUs have dedicated hardware for encryption, so that is not really a concern unless in very very constrained environments.
When you watch a youtube video on a phone on a tablet, that video is going through at least two layers of encryption - your device's connection to your wifi or to mobile network is encrypted, and all connections between web browser or app and Google's servers are encrypted as well.
That doesn't mean there aren't vulnerabilities, especially if the protocol designer is kind of a dummy, like in my favorite talk here: 
 
 

Modern CPUs have dedicated hardware for encryption, so that is not really a concern unless in very very constrained environments.
When you watch a youtube video on a phone on a tablet, that video is going through at least two layers of encryption - your device's connection to your wifi or to mobile network is encrypted, and all connections between web browser or app and Google's servers are encrypted as well.
That doesn't mean there aren't vulnerabilities, especially if the protocol designer is kind of a dummy, like in my favorite talk here: 
 
 

Modern CPUs have dedicated hardware for encryption, so that is not really a concern unless in very very constrained environments.
When you watch a youtube video on a phone on a tablet, that video is going through at least two layers of encryption - your device's connection to your wifi or to mobile network is encrypted, and all connections between web browser or app and Google's servers are encrypted as well.
That doesn't mean there aren't vulnerabilities, especially if the protocol designer is kind of a dummy, like in my favorite talk here: 
 
 

Modern CPUs have dedicated hardware for encryption, so that is not really a concern unless in very very constrained environments.
When you watch a youtube video on a phone on a tablet, that video is going through at least two layers of encryption - your device's connection to your wifi or to mobile network is encrypted, and all connections between web browser or app and Google's servers are encrypted as well.
That doesn't mean there aren't vulnerabilities, especially if the protocol designer is kind of a dummy, like in my favorite talk here: 
 
 

Big part of suicide drone autonomy is cameras and image processing, and we can make cheap cameras (in visible spectrum) and cheap chips that are pretty good at image processing. Basic communication is also easy, motors, batteries, everything is COTS and already accessible.
Once you go into things like "every drone can see in far infrared" or "every drone has satellite uplink" or "every drone has AESA radar or similarly complex electronics so it can become anti-radiation missile" or something, that is where I can imagine things might get expensive.

And that's even before you get to the overlap between EW and direct energy weapons. For non-autonomous drone, short and well targeted blast can destroy receivers and render it uncontrollable without needing to broadcast in all direction all the time. Lasers can destroy cameras at way lower power levels than that are needed for vaporizing something.
None of this means drones are defeated - but I think "we haven't seen majority of the arms race yet" is pretty safe position. It also makes me somewhat frustrated that I don't see major Western militaries investing into this, but maybe it's just classified.

Big part of suicide drone autonomy is cameras and image processing, and we can make cheap cameras (in visible spectrum) and cheap chips that are pretty good at image processing. Basic communication is also easy, motors, batteries, everything is COTS and already accessible.
Once you go into things like "every drone can see in far infrared" or "every drone has satellite uplink" or "every drone has AESA radar or similarly complex electronics so it can become anti-radiation missile" or something, that is where I can imagine things might get expensive.

Big part of suicide drone autonomy is cameras and image processing, and we can make cheap cameras (in visible spectrum) and cheap chips that are pretty good at image processing. Basic communication is also easy, motors, batteries, everything is COTS and already accessible.
Once you go into things like "every drone can see in far infrared" or "every drone has satellite uplink" or "every drone has AESA radar or similarly complex electronics so it can become anti-radiation missile" or something, that is where I can imagine things might get expensive.

I love how Czech president responded "let this be a warning what can deepening hatred and aggression in society lead to" which reads like "you did this to yourself, dude".

I thought Ukraine attacked with dismounted infantry as well - except then we call it "infiltration" and "fog eating snow".
What is the difference in how Russia does it and how Ukraine does it? There's probably some nuance I'm missing. I think in that nuance we might see some answers?

Mass. The UA had been using small dispersed forces in its tactical bitings last summer. The RA has been using small Cbt teams as short sharp stabs. (and paying for it).  From what we can see this was a large dismounted wave with some mech elements.  Numbers of 50k have been thrown around.  The aim was not infiltration-to-erode, it was to take and hold ground with what looks like unit sized dismounted troops.  That is a different kettle of dead Russians.

This is a well known problem is politics, called "They go low, we go high." There's a youtube video that nicely explains it in US politics context: 
But long story short - if you have two sides fighting, and one is willing to do absolutely everything, legal or not, moral or not, monstrous or not, and the other limits itself to what is "proper", then if that "bad guy" side is able to manipulate various systems to its advantage, it will win.

I love how Czech president responded "let this be a warning what can deepening hatred and aggression in society lead to" which reads like "you did this to yourself, dude".

I love how Czech president responded "let this be a warning what can deepening hatred and aggression in society lead to" which reads like "you did this to yourself, dude".

The British and the French already have troops in Ukraine doing targeting for Stormshadow / SCALP, killing Russians without a declaration of war. 
Your high horse is not just dead, you actually never realised it was an alligator you were riding this whole time. You are not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy.
The "letter of the law" was always the principle of fools and children. The intent behind a law is where the true value of principle lies. If you abandon the intent for the letter, you never had principles to begin with.

Aye. I am worried of the "They go low you stay high" scenario, which will lead to the eventual end of international law.
People seem to miss that international law is not a value by itself, it is a means to an end. Like any law it requires enforcement. At the moment we can see that enforcement is not possible. 
What is the purpose of international law? To reduce, via many island hops, human suffering. 
Once the suffering created by upholding a law becomes bigger than the suffering it prevents, the minority that limits itself to endure that suffering and faces an existential threat has to do a pro and contra analysis.
Sorry, but we are not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy. We have hot conventional war in Europe, we have the nation's which care for an orderly world being dangerously undermined, we have a whole series of side conflicts in the developing world where the anti-democratic forces are happily slaughtering their opposition to install strongarm dictator types, and a brewing conflict in the Pacific. 
If we need to break some eggs to make this global omelette, you won't see me demanding the US government to be pulled in front of the ICC, which they openly ignore anyway (and ask yourself why they do - because they see it the same way. Hegemony is never clean, but I am content with the label "least dirty").

There is no breaking of international law in not telling Ukraine "you can't use Western weapons to attack Russia". There is no breaking of international law in not telling Ukraine "stop attacking refineries". There is no breaking of international law in being asserting in protecting our airspace.
You could see the difference when Iran launched missiles at Israel and US, UK, France and possibly others went to intercept. Is someone intercepting missiles Russia is launching at Ukraine?

This is a well known problem is politics, called "They go low, we go high." There's a youtube video that nicely explains it in US politics context: 
But long story short - if you have two sides fighting, and one is willing to do absolutely everything, legal or not, moral or not, monstrous or not, and the other limits itself to what is "proper", then if that "bad guy" side is able to manipulate various systems to its advantage, it will win.

I love how Czech president responded "let this be a warning what can deepening hatred and aggression in society lead to" which reads like "you did this to yourself, dude".

This is rumint at this point, buuuuut seems there is a connection to our proper topic of discussion.
 

There is no breaking of international law in not telling Ukraine "you can't use Western weapons to attack Russia". There is no breaking of international law in not telling Ukraine "stop attacking refineries". There is no breaking of international law in being asserting in protecting our airspace.
You could see the difference when Iran launched missiles at Israel and US, UK, France and possibly others went to intercept. Is someone intercepting missiles Russia is launching at Ukraine?

This is a well known problem is politics, called "They go low, we go high." There's a youtube video that nicely explains it in US politics context: 
But long story short - if you have two sides fighting, and one is willing to do absolutely everything, legal or not, moral or not, monstrous or not, and the other limits itself to what is "proper", then if that "bad guy" side is able to manipulate various systems to its advantage, it will win.

I love how Czech president responded "let this be a warning what can deepening hatred and aggression in society lead to" which reads like "you did this to yourself, dude".

Watched it and finally we have a word for those "barn on wheels" Russian vehicles - Perun calls them "Assault Shed" 😁