How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[JonS]

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Right, but the number of people with clearance to see this specific stuff is said to be in the low thousands tops.  A manageable number.

No, not really. Every one who needs a clearance needs to be checked, not just these few thousand - you can't just ignore 99% of the problem in order to declare the remaining 1% eminently solvable.

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, JonS said:

No, not really. Every one who needs a clearance needs to be checked, not just these few thousand - you can't just ignore 99% of the problem in order to declare the remaining 1% eminently solvable.

For sure (see previous post).  I'm just saying there are different levels of clearance and for stuff like this that should mean the highest standards have already been applied.  And don't even get me started on how poorly people with clearances are monitored.  I bet more than one of this character's coworkers will, under questioning, admit they thought the guy was "off" and yet didn't report on him and his supervisor didn't do any checking up.

It's really not that difficult to spot those who view the entire world through a political skewed perspective, be it right or left.  With a tiny bit of experience and training it should be pretty easy to get onto the trail of someone.  Especially if the person looking has access to tools an information. 

Steve

[JonS]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

lie detector

don't work

Quote

Assessments of polygraphy by scientific and government bodies generally suggest that polygraphs are highly inaccurate, may easily be defeated by countermeasures, and are an imperfect or invalid means of assessing truthfulness.^[10][11][12] A comprehensive 2003 review by the National Academy of Sciences of existing research concluded that there was "little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy."^[13] The American Psychological Association states that "most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies."^[5]

 

[JonS]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

the highest standard should apply.

But why? It's only classified SECRET. That's basically just a records check and an interview where they ask about your consumption of porn. Ahem.

Before you say "well, obviously this should have been classified more highly then", can I remind you that you JUST mentioned the work underway to cut down on overclassification, which is also a real problem (not least because people who need access to overclassifed info aren't allowed to see it)

[Bulletpoint]

46 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Doesn't matter, same thinking applies... it's a pointless effort that will be easily breached where Ukraine wants to breach it, making the rest of no practical use.

Steve

I think it's of limited use, but not completely pointless.

It's an easy thing to dig with modern machinery, and might buy the defence a bit of time, as it takes more time to channel 100 tanks through a small gap than having them just drive line abreast across the fields.

But of course it then depends on what - if anything - the Russians will able to do with that bit of extra time. I doubt they will be able to do very much at all.

[chrisl]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

With a better designed vetting process this could be fairly easily worked around.  For example, being told to hand over access to all social media accounts during application process and being subjected to random inspections while holding classification.  Couple things like this with a lie detector test and I think we're well on the way to scoping out who we're hiring:

Interviewer (I) = do you have any social media accounts you haven't told us about?

Prospect (P) = no.

I = well, this needle here shows you're lying.  What account are you not telling us about and what is your user name?

P = well, I go by JewKiller666 on whitepower.com.  But I hardly use it so I thought I didn't need to mention it.

I = yeah, well, don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.  NEXT!

 

Of course I am being a bit flip here, but my guess is that the vetting process is not geared towards the full spectrum of whackos out there.  It needs to be on the lookout for people who are, basically, antisocial generally.  You know, because antisocial people tend to do antisocial things.

I wouldn't be half surprised if they still have a type written question like "have you ever been a member of the Communist Party USA?"  OK, I'm being flip again... so I'll just stop there.

Steve

It's actually been updated and replaced with several similar questions: "been a member of an organization devoted to terrorism" and "been a member of an organization dedicated to the use of violence or force to overthrow the US government".  The latter one may have also been there in the "communist party" days.  The form is online, and those questions are way at the back in section 29.  

As far social media accounts - they have limited ability to find them if you're using pseudonyms and making even a little effort to stay anonymous if you don't self report them.  They do lie detector tests for some clearances, but those don't actually work.  There's also nothing ensuring that the people evaluating the investigations aren't total wackos who prefer to approve other total wackos.

 

[Battlefront.com]

18 minutes ago, JonS said:

don't work

 

And yet they are still used in conjunction with other tools.  Why?  Because when used properly it can help a trained person know if they need to look deeper somewhere. The more tools the more chances of stumbling upon something.  And, unfortunately, stumbling plays a big role in this.

14 minutes ago, JonS said:

But why? It's only classified SECRET. That's basically just a records check and an interview where they ask about your consumption of porn. Ahem.

As far as I know that isn't how it works.  Just because you have a SECRET clearance doesn't mean you have access to a specific form of SECRET documents.  Who gets to see what is dependent upon control process, which is a different type of vetting.  This guy, whomever he is, was allowed into a fairly select subset and that's where the problem is.

14 minutes ago, JonS said:

Before you say "well, obviously this should have been classified more highly then", can I remind you that you JUST mentioned the work underway to cut down on overclassification, which is also a real problem (not least because people who need access to overclassifed info aren't allowed to see it)

Yeah, except that this isn't what I said.  The problem in the US is there are too many documents that are put into some form of classification that requires clearance.  The vast majority of this is extremely low level and greatly questionable.  But it is easier to approve someone requesting classification than it is to challenge it, so it gets classified even if it shouldn't be.  Since the volume is so f'n huge, there needs to be a huge number of people who get to see it. 

However, there should be things that are highly classified and have limited distribution.  These documents were in that category and it has been stated as such.  So they were appropriately classified at the high end, but at least one person explicitly granted access to view these documents shouldn't have.

Steve

 

[Hapless]

@Bearstronaut mentioned this earlier, but I think it got a bit lost in the mix. A little too close, if true.

[Battlefront.com]

20 minutes ago, chrisl said:

It's actually been updated and replaced with several similar questions: "been a member of an organization devoted to terrorism" and "been a member of an organization dedicated to the use of violence or force to overthrow the US government".  The latter one may have also been there in the "communist party" days.  The form is online, and those questions are way at the back in section 29.  

Yup, if the form asks simple questions then one gets simple answers.  I don't have time to check the form, but there should be more subtle questions on there to help raise flags.  I'm not a psych guy, but it really isn't that tough if you a) know what you're trying to ferret out and b) if you want to ferret it out.

20 minutes ago, chrisl said:

As far social media accounts - they have limited ability to find them if you're using pseudonyms and making even a little effort to stay anonymous if you don't self report them.  

Sure, but the more specific the application is then there's more lying required to answer "correctly".  The more lying, the more chances the person will get caught.

20 minutes ago, chrisl said:

They do lie detector tests for some clearances, but those don't actually work.  

See above comment.  As I understand it it's been ruled out as a primary tool because it is unreliable, but it is still used because coupled with other tools it still has some value.

20 minutes ago, chrisl said:

There's also nothing ensuring that the people evaluating the investigations aren't total wackos who prefer to approve other total wackos.

Yeah, and that gets us into a whole 'nother area of concern which has been in the news lately.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, Hapless said:

@Bearstronaut mentioned this earlier, but I think it got a bit lost in the mix. A little too close, if true.

Yup, and this isn't the first time this has happened since the Cold War started.  It's EXACTLY the sort of thing that is thought of when people warn about unintentional escalation events.  Even the best trained and best equipped forces make mistakes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Black_Hawk_shootdown_incident

Steve

[chrisl]

44 minutes ago, JonS said:

But why? It's only classified SECRET. That's basically just a records check and an interview where they ask about your consumption of porn. Ahem.

Before you say "well, obviously this should have been classified more highly then", can I remind you that you JUST mentioned the work underway to cut down on overclassification, which is also a real problem (not least because people who need access to overclassifed info aren't allowed to see it)

The only one I saw where I could read the markings has “Top Secret” on it, but no indication of SCI. It may be a mix of Secret and TS, but SCI is harder to sneak out in your pocket so without seeing it all I’d suspect none was SCI.

[chrisl]

13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Ask simple questions you get simple answers.  I don't have time to check the form, but there should be more subtle questions on there to help raise flags.  I'm not a psych guy, but it really isn't that tough if you a) know what you're trying to ferret out and b) if you want to ferret it out.

Sure, but the more specific the application is then there's more lying required to answer "correctly".  The more lying, the more chances the person will get caught.

See above comment.  As I understand it it's been ruled out as a primary tool because it is unreliable, but it is still used because coupled with other tools it still has some value.

Yeah, and that gets us into a whole 'nother area of concern which has been in the news lately.

Steve

The simple questions are mostly just there so they can bounce you immediately for having lied on the form if the investigation and interviews indicate that you did those things.  And if you make a good effort to conceal them before getting caught, they can charge you criminally.  
 

You’re correct that simply being cleared doesn’t get you access to anything.  You still have to have a “need to know”, which can be pretty minimal depending on what it is.  I’ve worked with suppliers who offered to tour me through their classified technology areas if I’d had a clearance.  They have to processing a little paper, but apparently not a big deal for them.

[Aragorn2002]

Time for some serious mole hunting for the West. Lots of Philbies around. 

[Fenris]

From todays ISW, another example of the russian art of shooting yourself in the foot.  Hopefully this treatment will hasten discontent and further loss of influence with central asia.

Quote

The domestic ramifications of the acceptance of the ideology of “Russification” are manifested in the responses by Russian authorities and prominent Russian milbloggers to ethnic minorities in Russia. Several Russian milbloggers and commentators published their reactions to a recent news story about the murder of a 17-year-old Russian student by a group of Tajik migrants in Chelyabinsk and used the story to criticize Central Asian migrants and ethnic minority communities for failing to integrate into Russian society.[2] Head of the Russian Investigative Committee Alexander Bastrykin accused migrants of destabilizing Russia by importing terrorism and extremist ideologies and emphasized the role of migration policy in ensuring public order.[4] Social media footage circulated on April 12 shows a group of Russian men reportedly giving the Nazi salute and walking past administrative buildings in Ufa, Bashkortostan while shouting “Russia is for Russians.”[5] These instances of xenophobia and racism exemplify the crux of domestic “Russification.” The war in Ukraine has empowered the most virulent voices in the information space to consolidate their ideology and project it both towards the Ukrainian people and towards non-Slavic minorities in Russia itself. This dynamic will likely escalate as the war continues and will outlive Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, pervading the Russian domestic space for years to come.

These domestic-facing ramifications of “Russification” ironically continue to place the onus of the war effort on the communities that it marginalizes. Bastrykin has previously called for military authorities to specifically recruit migrants from Central Asia and the Caucasus who received Russian citizenship because these migrants have a “constitutional obligation to protect the country that received them.”[6] Russian officials at the Sakharovo migrant center in Moscow are reportedly requiring the center’s employees to offer migrants contracts for military service, as ISW previously reported.[7] Russian officials have continuously targeted migrant and ethnic minority communities in ongoing force generation efforts, which largely places the military burden of the “Russification” project in Ukraine on communities and individuals that are its targets domestically.[8]

 

[Yet]

@Steve, 

strat-wise: would it make sense for the UA if before your plan to head to Tokmak and Vasilyvka, to make a 'distraction attack' from Vuhledar to Volnovahka(and stop there)? 

it is a 30km ride, though would be a logistical challenge.

Armies can start from Pokrovs'ke area, for both the distraction and the main. It would throw of the RU, and taking Volnovahka cuts the mariupol/donesk line, it places the shore (m14, railway) in main artillery range, and it makes therefore troop replacements and logistics for RU a damn bit harder. Any troops between the Volnovakha and the main offense will have any the more reason to crap their pants and run. 

Would love to hear where this doesnt make sense (next to difficult logistics to supply Vuhledar area). Other thing i can imagine is that every square meter out of Vuhledar is being tripple mined

[The_MonkeyKing]

Highly detailed account of the resent intelligence leak from the US

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/04/12/discord-leaked-documents/

paywall bypass: https://archive.is/2023.04.13-013915/https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/04/12/discord-leaked-documents/

[Seedorf81]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

With a better designed vetting process this could be fairly easily worked around.  For example, being told to hand over access to all social media accounts during application process and being subjected to random inspections while holding classification.  Couple things like this with a lie detector test and I think we're well on the way to scoping out who we're hiring:

Interviewer (I) = do you have any social media accounts you haven't told us about?

Prospect (P) = no.

I = well, this needle here shows you're lying.  What account are you not telling us about and what is your user name?

P = well, I go by JewKiller666 on whitepower.com.  But I hardly use it so I thought I didn't need to mention it.

I = yeah, well, don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.  NEXT!

 

Of course I am being a bit flip here, but my guess is that the vetting process is not geared towards the full spectrum of whackos out there.  It needs to be on the lookout for people who are, basically, antisocial generally.  You know, because antisocial people tend to do antisocial things.

I wouldn't be half surprised if they still have a type written question like "have you ever been a member of the Communist Party USA?"  OK, I'm being flip again... so I'll just stop there.

Steve

I laughed out loud, when I read this fictional and seemingly ridiculous interview.

But then I thought of some of the people I recently met in the neighborhood, at work, and on the Internet; and it dawned on me:

that fictional interview may be much less ridiculous than it looks.

Maybe I've turned into a negative grumpy old man, but the amount of antisocial, ignorant, "ever-complaining about the stupidest things" and "blame everyone but oneself" kinda people seems to grow by the minute.

 

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Time for some serious mole hunting for the West. Lots of Philbies around. 

See my banner. My Holiday Snap San Diego Naval Base. Where else in the world can you do this? Security is not their strongest point. Besides their fillet mignon is excellent.

Edited April 13, 2023 by chuckdyke

[Beleg85]

4 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Time for some serious mole hunting for the West. Lots of Philbies around. 

It would half-as-bad if some idealistic spy was there. Unfortunatelly (and entirely predicatably given crazy environment we leave in) one of largest leaks of XXI cent. seem to be done by lone nerd who wanted to show himself against his gaming pals.

The funniest part in article is that this "OG" needed to constantly force attention of other guys, who chiefly wanted to play Tactical Shooters and watch Gun channels instead of analyzing complicated top-secret leaked documents. How boring.

[Yet]

Poor guy got the wrong channel; who is the smart one and leaks topsecret RU intel here please? 

 

[Aragorn2002]

47 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

It would half-as-bad if some idealistic spy was there. Unfortunatelly (and entirely predicatably given crazy environment we leave in) one of largest leaks of XXI cent. seem to be done by lone nerd who wanted to show himself against his gaming pals.

The funniest part in article is that this "OG" needed to constantly force attention of other guys, who chiefly wanted to play Tactical Shooters and watch Gun channels instead of analyzing complicated top-secret leaked documents. How boring.

The Western obsession with money also doesn't help. I fear we have no idea how much Western society is penetrated by Putin's pals.

[riptides]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

With a better designed vetting process this could be fairly easily worked around.  For example, being told to hand over access to all social media accounts during application process and being subjected to random inspections while holding classification.  Couple things like this with a lie detector test and I think we're well on the way to scoping out who we're hiring:

Interviewer (I) = do you have any social media accounts you haven't told us about?

Prospect (P) = no.

I = well, this needle here shows you're lying.  What account are you not telling us about and what is your user name?

P = well, I go by JewKiller666 on whitepower.com.  But I hardly use it so I thought I didn't need to mention it.

I = yeah, well, don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.  NEXT!

 

Of course I am being a bit flip here, but my guess is that the vetting process is not geared towards the full spectrum of whackos out there.  It needs to be on the lookout for people who are, basically, antisocial generally.  You know, because antisocial people tend to do antisocial things.

I wouldn't be half surprised if they still have a type written question like "have you ever been a member of the Communist Party USA?"  OK, I'm being flip again... so I'll just stop there.

Steve

You are missing the co-worker and immediate physical family and friends part.

They too should be questioned about said individual when said individual is being reviewed.

I seldom hear of that.

 

 

[chrisl]

3 minutes ago, riptides said:

You are missing the co-worker and immediate physical family and friends part.

They too should be questioned about said individual when said individual is being reviewed.

I seldom hear of that.

 

 

For TS and higher, they are.  When people are getting their clearances renewed the investigators make appointments and then come around and interview both the person given as a reference on the SF-86 and anybody else that person refers to as familiar with person under investigation.  If they come looking for someone who they didn't have an appointment with they'll even ask random people in the area "hey, do you interact much with X?  I'm here reviewing their clearance, do you have a few minutes?"

[cesmonkey]

I can imagine this intelligence leak is going to lead to extensive Congressional hearings.

Below is the chair of the House Intelligence Committee:

 

[kevinkin]

36 minutes ago, chrisl said:

 I'm here reviewing their clearance, do you have a few minutes?"

One issue, while rare, can circumvent a lot of diligent review. Someone can get hired at a low level of clearance and befriend (romantic relationship even) a person higher up the ladder. Any mistakes the higher level friend makes can mess with all the checks and balances. Relationship breaks up, and there is hell to pay. Revenge porn Intel. I think the work place environment was more strict on these things during the Cold War. You needed to follow the rules to the letter. Now, to retain people (and not be so mean) , those with low level classifications have become an afterthought. They can be easy prey for adversaries too.