How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[DesertFox]

It aint over before its over...

 

 

[akd]

Supposedly a VDV company (but that could be 4 guys):

 

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, kraze said:

Deepfake scare has been going on for at least a decade now, but I haven't seen a single deepfake video that looked legit.  And if so called "professionals with a budget" would be able to do something with all of it - they would.

The problem is that roughly 30% of the population believes anything they READ because they have defective information filters (combination biology and environment).  In the world of politics, all you need to do is fool some of the people some of the time and you win an election, get support for undermining democracy, and then do bad things.

Steve

[Bearstronaut]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The problem is that roughly 30% of the population believes anything they READ because they have defective information filters (combination biology and environment).  In the world of politics, all you need to do is fool some of the people some of the time and you win an election, get support for undermining democracy, and then do bad things.

Steve

It's wild because pretty much everybody is saying "maybe this isn't such a good idea" and AI developers are like "Ima do it anyways."

[Billy Ringo]

45 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

 

 

 

There is absolutely no sense of self-awareness as to how insane this is, and it seems to be pervasive within the Russian culture. 

 

"Narcissim:  selfishness, involving a sense of entitlement, a lack of empathy, and a need for admiration, as characterizing a personality type."

 

Narcissist are simply unable to understand or conceptualize that their behavior is abnormal or unacceptable to others.  Thus--they lack the introspective ability to learn from their mistakes and correct their behavior. 

 

From everything I've seen over the past 18 months--this is Russia which makes it extremely difficult to engage in reasonable and productive discourse to try to put an end to their madness.

 

 

 

 

 

[sburke]

13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The problem is that roughly 30% of the population believes anything they READ because they have defective information filters (combination biology and environment).  In the world of politics, all you need to do is fool some of the people some of the time and you win an election, get support for undermining democracy, and then do bad things.

Steve

I think you way low balled that estimate. Now if you’d said the 30% who CAN’T read believe anything they hear I’d have been with you. 

[FancyCat]

 

 

[akd]

3 minutes ago, Billy Ringo said:

 

There is absolutely no sense of self-awareness as to how insane this is, and it seems to be pervasive within the Russian culture. 

 

"Narcissim:  selfishness, involving a sense of entitlement, a lack of empathy, and a need for admiration, as characterizing a personality type."

 

Narcissist are simply unable to understand or conceptualize that their behavior is abnormal or unacceptable to others.  Thus--they lack the introspective ability to learn from their mistakes and correct their behavior. 

 

From everything I've seen over the past 18 months--this is Russia which makes it extremely difficult to engage in reasonable and productive discourse to try to put an end to their madness.

 

 

 

 

 

pretty sure that is satire...

[Harmon Rabb]

I like his thinking.

I like BSF ships sinking.

[Butschi]

3 hours ago, kraze said:

I haven't seen a single deepfake video that looked legit.

That's probably because you didn't recognize it as deep fake.

3 hours ago, kraze said:

Deepfake scare has been going on for at least a decade now

It's really of no consequence how long it has been around. The technology is developing at what looks like an exponential rate. Sorry to say but "at least for a decade" says that you don't know much about the topic. Most of what constitutes modern "AI" (machine learning methods is a better word) hasn't even been around that long. Much of it not even half a decade.

[FancyCat]

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

[this quote is from something The_Capt quoted, not something he wrote]

Yet there is no evidence that disintegration of the state would be likely. The preconditions for a break-up are lacking: the regions lack the political leaders, resources, ideologies and instruments to challenge Moscow.

Who the HELL wrote this?  Obviously it is nobody that knows anything about Russian history, authoritarian governments, or how Humans work.

The Russian government is full of self enriching, narcissistic criminals appointed by Putin.  They ALL have local power structures and they ALL have rivals within those power structures.  Those that feel they are too exposed to do it on their own, and think they can work with the new power system, will remain at their posts.  But someone within their more immediate circle might not, so a smooth transition of power is not guaranteed even if the existing Putin flunkies decide to throw in with the new power in the Kremlin.

In fact, the lack of strong institutional leaders is exactly what makes this situation so dangerous.  There won't be just one obvious choice to take over X region, there will likely be at least two murderous scumbags that think they should be the one exploiting the locals.  There be breakaways from Moscow's control, but then many of these places will turn into nasty warzones themselves.

The other thing this is that this problem has always existed in Russia, but the "Tzar's" strong hand keeps everything in check.  The ruling elites down to the local level rely upon Putin for their jobs, their lives, and their looted public funds.  That's the deal they made and they're fine with it as long as the gravy train functions.  So what happens when Putin is gone?  They're going to give up their gravy train ride?  No.  They are instead going to evaluate their options based on whomever gains control of the Kremlin.  If that takes too long or isn't someone they feel they can work with, what might said individual do with all that power and wealth he's about to lose?  Willingly hand it over to someone else?  Some might (i.e. flee), but history says many will not.  The ones that remain loyal to the Kremlin will then have to ward off challenges at their level by people who would rather have the job.  Some will be violently insistent about it too.

Even with Putin in charge Russia is on a razor's edge of violent collapse (1917) or partially controlled collapse (1990s).   With him gone, things will not be pretty.

Honestly, it amazes me what can get passed around by so-called experts.

Steve

[DesertFox]

11 minutes ago, akd said:

pretty sure that is satire...

Yes it is satire, as Darth Putin is as well.

[Battlefront.com]

21 minutes ago, Bearstronaut said:

It's wild because pretty much everybody is saying "maybe this isn't such a good idea" and AI developers are like "Ima do it anyways."

To their credit, many are now the leading voices for slowing down, regulating, or even banning certain AI technologies.  There was a recent defection of the "AI Godfather" from Google and a horde of his peers signing a letter:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65452940

Unfortunately, it might be too little too late.

Steve

[Holien]

18 minutes ago, sburke said:

I think you way low balled that estimate. Now if you’d said the 30% who CAN’T read believe anything they hear I’d have been with you. 

The 80/20 rule works pretty well on most things...

Now as to which way?

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, DesertFox said:

Yes it is satire, as Darth Putin is as well.

This is what happens when organizations don't go out and grab usernames on emerging social media platforms before the fakesters do!  This is why "Igor Girkin" on Twitter is a source of great information about how evil Russia is despite the name

Steve

[Huba]

So it looks like Ukraine will buy/ get a battery or two of ground launched Naval Strike Missiles from us. This is rather interesting development. So Poland at the moment has 4 batteries (12 launchers total) and probably around a 100 missiles for them. There was a big order for more made recently, worth IIRC around $500M or so, enough for double what we have already. Polish milnet was in a bit of a pickle regarding it, as what we have is enough for our foreseeable needs, with more needed either for foreign deployments, or indeed to allow sending what we have to Ukraine.

So I wonder what applications will these have, given that UA Harpoons already keep the BSF at bay around Odessa? One application would be striking ground targets of course, NSM is capable of that but it would be a waste of very expensive missile (with relatively small warhead). It doesn,tt have the range to strike Sevastopol or Kerch ( 220km stated range, while 300 is needed). I guess it could be used to attack ships in the Sea of Azov ports like Mariupol or Berdyansk, flying overland, thus denying Russian their use for resupplying the front. IMO this would be it's primary use now.

If Ukrainians manage to push the frontline a bit though, It would spell doom for the BSF, attacking ships on anchor in Crimean ports, but more importantly it could cover the entire Sea of Azov and thus trap it in the eastern part of the Black Sea.

Link to the original article (in English)
https://defence24.com/armed-forces/polish-coastal-defence-missiles-heading-to-ukraine-exclusive

Edited June 28, 2023 by Huba

[Taranis]

For History, 01-15th June Sum Up :

 

 

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Who the HELL wrote this?  Obviously it is nobody that knows anything about Russian history, authoritarian governments, or how Humans work.

The Russian government is full of self enriching, narcissistic criminals appointed by Putin.  They ALL have local power structures and they ALL have rivals within those power structures.  Those that feel they are too exposed to do it on their own, and think they can work with the new power system, will remain at their posts.  But someone within their more immediate circle might not, so a smooth transition of power is not guaranteed even if the existing Putin flunkies decide to throw in with the new power in the Kremlin.

In fact, the lack of strong institutional leaders is exactly what makes this situation so dangerous.  There won't be just one obvious choice to take over X region, there will likely be at least two murderous scumbags that think they should be the one exploiting the locals.  There be breakaways from Moscow's control, but then many of these places will turn into nasty warzones themselves.

The other thing this is that this problem has always existed in Russia, but the "Tzar's" strong hand keeps everything in check.  The ruling elites down to the local level rely upon Putin for their jobs, their lives, and their looted public funds.  That's the deal they made and they're fine with it as long as the gravy train functions.  So what happens when Putin is gone?  They're going to give up their gravy train ride?  No.  They are instead going to evaluate their options based on whomever gains control of the Kremlin.  If that takes too long or isn't someone they feel they can work with, what might said individual do with all that power and wealth he's about to lose?  Willingly hand it over to someone else?  Some might (i.e. flee), but history says many will not.  The ones that remain loyal to the Kremlin will then have to ward off challenges at their level by people who would rather have the job.  Some will be violently insistent about it too.

Even with Putin in charge Russia is on a razor's edge of violent collapse (1917) or partially controlled collapse (1990s).   With him gone, things will not be pretty.

Honestly, it amazes me what can get passed around by so-called experts.

Steve

Weirdly my sense is that the liberal humanist are some of the loudest warhawks in this whole thing - saw something very similar back in Kosovo days.  They work very hard to convince themselves that the worse could never happen while at the same time try to down-play the consequences if it does.  All so they can uphold a doctrine of hard intervention to re-establish a global liberal human security centric order.  Responsibility to Protect kinda falls apart in a proxy war situation against a failing nuclear power.  We are in a nation or state security situation and a different set of calculations needs to be employed.

The risk when viewed through a probability/consequence lens might be LOW for probability (which I very much doubt, in fact I think it quite the opposite) but the consequences are EXTREME.  As in “worse than the war itself” extreme.  A risk assessment like that cannot be ignored or wished away.  Now it cannot hijack the proceedings either, it could have very well shut down any western response but instead a highly united incremental strategy was selected (or emerged).  This one is right up there with Russian nuclear response - sure we think it is pretty darn low but we are still not doing overt NATO strikes into the Russian homeland for a reason.

[Butschi]

29 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

To their credit, many are now the leading voices for slowing down, regulating, or even banning certain AI technologies.  There was a recent defection of the "AI Godfather" from Google and a horde of his peers signing a letter:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65452940

Unfortunately, it might be too little too late.

Steve

The defectors are really few and far in between. It is true that the big tech companies are now calling for regulation themselves but that is more a mix of advertising (look, our AI I so good we ourselves don't even know what it is capable of!) and raising thresholds for entering the market (large companies will find it easier to employ enough people to make sure the company is compliant with regulations).

But mostly it's a rapidly growing market that everyone wants a share of.

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The risk when viewed through a probability/consequence lens might be LOW for probability (which I very much doubt, in fact I think it quite the opposite) but the consequences are EXTREME.

Well, the other risk is labeling something LOW probability that is more likely to be HIGH probability.

The entire premise of Putin's "Power Vertical" is to keep things in balance with him at the top.  Remove him and... they expect balance to be maintained?  Not likely, even if the exact scenario can't be accurately predicted at this moment.

Again, these guys really need to look around with their eyes and minds more open to reality.  If someone detonated a tac nuke in Washington DC when all of government was there, and they all died, the US would break up into a MINIMUM of two groups of US States claiming they are going to rebuild without the other.  It is likely to be 4-5, but only 2 or 3 will emerge pretty much solid from the get go.  There will be internal fighting in all, though some way more than others.

If the strongest democracy on Earth, arguably one of the strongest nations in the history of organized government, would likely disintegrate if the central power disappeared, why would one of the least stable autocracies on Earth somehow come out unscathed?

Steve

[cesmonkey]

42 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Who the HELL wrote this?  Obviously it is nobody that knows anything about Russian history, authoritarian governments, or how Humans work

I guess that would be these people:

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/06/how-end-russias-war-ukraine/fallacy-6-russias-defeat-ukraine-will-lead-greater-instability

https://www.chathamhouse.org/about-us/our-people/department/russia-and-eurasia-programme-122

Annette Bohr
Associate Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Programme

Kateryna Busol
Former Academy Associate, Russia and Eurasia Programme

Keir Giles
Senior Consulting Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Programme

John Lough
Associate Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Programme

Orysia Lutsevych
Deputy Director, Russia and Eurasia Programme; Head of the Ukraine Forum

James Nixey
Director, Russia and Eurasia Programme

James Sherr
Associate Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Programme

Simon Smith
Chairman, Steering Committee, Ukraine Forum, Russia and Eurasia Programme

Kataryna Wolczuk
Associate Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Programme

[Butschi]

14 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

LOW for probability (which I very much doubt, in fact I think it quite the opposite) but the consequences are EXTREME

Back in the day when we were about to switch on the Large Hadron Collider at CERN the risk of producing a black hole was all over the media. It was usually dismissed by particle physicists but my boss said: "We had better be really sure about that. Because even if the probability of producing a black hole is only one in a billion we are still killing 6 people on average..." (world population was only 6 bln at that time)

[Battlefront.com]

It seems the plot is thickening!  Some (probable) arrests and deaths are emerging, as are some (maybe) facts about how the coup unfolded.  Yet my underlying premise and overarching concept of this whole mess still looks more likely to be correct than incorrect.

The FSB finds out about Prig looking to kidnap/arrest the two most senior MoD officials a few days ahead.  All they apparently did was warn them to not be there.  They took no action against Prig, even though multiple options were available to them that could have avoided the clown show that in fact happened.  They could have tried to arrest or kill him, for example.  Putin could have gone on the air and said he had ordered Prig's arrest on treason BEFORE the mutiny.  Even if these actions failed, it would have at least shown Putin was "all knowing" and "a man of action" instead of the clueless, bumbling feeb that fled Moscow the second things got hot.

So again, the conclusion is the FSB was not acting in Putin's interests.

We also have the report of a death.  The official in question, Travnikov, wasn't in power or favor, but he could have had friends.  Or he could have died an early death due to stupidity (like operating an ATV without a helmet while drunk... happens enough around where I live to not surprise me!).  Not clear yet.  Even if he was part of the plot, he was a minor element and Putin could afford to have him killed to send a message to the more important ones that he's not playing around.  Happens.

Then we have the (possible) arrest of Surovikin.  This would be interesting if true, because unlike Travnikov, Surovikin was likely key to what happened, possibly even defacto leader.  If that's true, and Putin in fact arrested him, it seems Putin has regained the upper hand.  Or maybe he overplayed it.  Too soon to tell.

Things are still in flux.  I won't be satisfied things have settled down favorably for Putin for several weeks if not months.  Some things are just not going to be evident right away.  Especially the FSB element.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

I guess that would be these people:

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/06/how-end-russias-war-ukraine/fallacy-6-russias-defeat-ukraine-will-lead-greater-instability

https://www.chathamhouse.org/about-us/our-people/department/russia-and-eurasia-programme-122

Annette Bohr
Associate Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Programme

Kateryna Busol
Former Academy Associate, Russia and Eurasia Programme

Keir Giles
Senior Consulting Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Programme

John Lough
Associate Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Programme

Orysia Lutsevych
Deputy Director, Russia and Eurasia Programme; Head of the Ukraine Forum

James Nixey
Director, Russia and Eurasia Programme

James Sherr
Associate Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Programme

Simon Smith
Chairman, Steering Committee, Ukraine Forum, Russia and Eurasia Programme

Kataryna Wolczuk
Associate Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Programme

With credentials like that these people should KNOW better than to make a statement like that.

Russia dissolving into civil war is not a "low probability event".  In fact, it seems that Putin himself fears it above all else.  Otherwise he'd have mobilized earlier last year and would have already mobilized a second time this year.

Steve