Defence Blog Magazine Russia uses tactics of strategic deception DEFENSE & SECURITYNEWS By Dylan Malyasov Dec 7, 2023

In a geopolitical landscape dominated by shifting alliances and strategic maneuvering, the Russian approach to conflict resolution often veils ulterior motives. Despite calls for peace and temporary ceasefires, the Russian modus operandi seems rooted in exploiting diplomatic processes to buy time for economic recovery and military resurgence.

At present, while global attention is fixated on the Middle East, Moscow actively advocates for “peace talks” concerning Ukraine, enlisting partners from Turkey and the UAE.

Ukrainian intelligence has previously indicated Russia’s contemplation of freezing the conflict—a move that could grant Russia until 2028 to rebuild its military might, potentially expanding aggression beyond Ukraine to the Baltic states.

This practice of tactical maneuvers is not new for the Kremlin; Putin himself has adeptly manipulated public statements and actions. Drawing parallels, the Russian-Chechen conflict saw a similar pattern, dividing the bloody conflict into phases after significant losses suffered by Russian forces against local resistance. Initially aiming to annex the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Russia faced staunch opposition, leading to a divided conflict. Ultimately, the conflict resulted in the withdrawal of Russian forces and the preservation of Chechnya’s independence.

Post the Russian defeat in the first Chechen war, discontent brewed within Russian political circles, particularly the military, regarding the outcome. Concerns surfaced that the Chechen issue remained unresolved, setting a precedent for other national autonomies historically annexed by force.

To reinitiate hostilities, a formal pretext was utilized, purportedly combating non-governmental armed formations considered a terrorist threat. The second war proved more successful for Russia, primarily due to active targeting of civilian populations. Mass clearances of settlements resulted in substantial civilian casualties. Between 1999 and 2002, an estimated 16,000 lives were lost, a significant toll for the relatively small population of the republic.

Russia’s hybrid tactics extended beyond direct engagements. Signing agreements with other states, it employed proxies to destabilize regions, providing a formal pretext for resuming hostilities. This was evident in the 2008 Russo-Georgian war, where Russian intervention followed actions by South Ossetia and Abkhazia—regions under Russian influence—creating conflict with Georgia’s armed forces.

This intervention was preceded by formal appeals from the separatist groups of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to the Russian parliament for recognition. Simultaneously, Georgia proposed international peacekeeping forces in the separatist regions, prompting escalated Russian actions post-April 2008. Despite Western initiatives for peaceful resolutions, rejected by separatists and Russia, the conflict escalated into a full-scale war with Russian forces occupying significant Georgian territory, termed by Russian propaganda as “peace enforcement.”

Throughout history, Russia has demonstrated a pattern of ceasefire simulations only to resume conflicts under diverse pretexts. Understanding this historical context becomes imperative in assessing current geopolitical tensions and forecasting potential escalations in global security.

In a similar vein, the crisis in Ukraine unfolded along analogous lines when, employing their proxies and even involving, for the first time, the deployment of the private military company (PMC) “Wagner,” Russians gained control over Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine. Notably, at that juncture, official Moscow distanced itself from Wagner and the separatist factions, labeling them as “little green men.”

Moscow and Putin consistently denied direct involvement in Ukraine. On March 4, 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin asserted that the forces in Ukraine were not Russian Federation troops but rather “self-defense units” who acquired weapons from local Ukrainians. Simultaneously, media reports analyzing the armaments of the “little green men” revealed Russian weaponry.

It wasn’t until April 17, 2014, that Putin publicly acknowledged Russian military presence in Crimea. The direct involvement of state institutions in creating and managing the PMC “Wagner” was only acknowledged in 2023 during an attempted coup led by the group’s leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, who subsequently perished in an explosion aboard his private plane over Russian territory.

Initially, the Kremlin denied the existence of the PMC “Wagner,” later referring to it as a “volunteer group” before eventually acknowledging its direct involvement. Putin personally confirmed Russia’s full support and provision of the private military company on June 27 during a meeting with the Ministry of Defense officials.

During the period from 2014 to February 2022, Ukraine pursued diplomatic avenues to resolve the conflict, resorting to ceasefire agreements, notably the Minsk Agreements. These agreements, signed by parties in the Normandy Format, involved Russia and Putin himself as negotiators. However, they were consistently violated, primarily by Wagner mercenaries and proxy forces controlled by the Russian Ministry of Defense.

The tenure of Russia under Putin’s leadership has been characterized by the use of clandestine hybrid tactics, propaganda, and a blatant disregard for international law and legal accountability. Adopting a modus operandi akin to organized crime syndicates, the Kremlin feigned agreement signings only to breach them using its hybrid forces. Furthermore, on the international stage, Moscow reneged, denounced, and terminated several crucial agreements concerning human rights, disarmament, and the prevention of global conflicts.

Therefore, the likelihood of Russia, under Putin’s helm, adhering steadfastly to its commitments in the future appears improbable. Expecting the Russian regime to acknowledge its mistakes and engage in talks to create a foundation for a long-term peaceful process might not align with its historical patterns.

Hence, it’s imperative not to don rose-colored glasses and anticipate that the Russian regime will concede its errors or engage in negotiations for the establishment of a prolonged peace process.

Bill Gates name-checked Elon Musk and Steve Jobs during a fireside chat on Thursday. The Microsoft founder said he considers himself "very nice" compared to his fellow tech leaders. But Gates acknowledged that a certain level of intensity is required in innovative fields. Bill Gates said he considers himself a more relaxed boss than many of his tech compatriots at the top.

The Microsoft founder name-checked Elon Musk and Steve Jobs during a fireside chat on Thursday after being awarded the Peter G. Peterson Leadership Excellence Award by the Economic Club of New York.

The talk's moderator asked Gates about the lessons he learned in creating a culture of innovation during his time at the helm of Microsoft.

The billionaire, who co-founded the technology company with his childhood friend Paul Allen in 1975, said leaders like himself have to think about how "hardcore" they should be when spearheading innovative companies.

"Everybody is different. Elon pushes hard, maybe too much," Gates said, referencing Musk. "Steve Jobs pushed hard, maybe too much."

"I think of myself as very nice compared to those guys," he added with a laugh.

Jobs co-founded Apple in 1976 with Steve Wozniak, while Musk is the founder and SpaceX and the Boring Company, and cofounder of OpenAI and Neuralink.

Gates has a checkered history with both men. He and Jobs nursed a decades-long love-hate relationship, going from allies to rivals and back again several times. Their back-and-forth competitive spirit is often credited with spurring major innovations at both Microsoft and Apple over the years.

Steve Jobs Bill Gates Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Beck Diefenbach/Reuters; Mike Cohen/Getty Images for The New York Times

After Jobs died in 2011, Gates said he respected the Apple founder and was grateful for their competition.

The philanthropist's relationship with Musk has been even more turbulent in recent years. The two men have publicly poked at each other and frequently disagree on everything from space travel to climate change.

Gates told Musk's biographer, Walter Isaacson, that the Tesla CEO was "super mean" to him in 2022.

"Once he heard I'd shorted the stock, he was super mean to me, but he's super mean to so many people, so you can't take it too personally," Gates told Isaacson.

But Gates acknowledged during the Thursday discussion that a "certain intensity" is required to succeed as an innovative leader.

"In my 20s, I was monomaniacally focused on Microsoft," he said. "I didn't believe in weekends or vacations.'

The moderator asked Gates to confirm an urban legend that has circulated in recent years in which the billionaire memorized all of his employees' license plates during the early days of Microsoft so he could track who was putting in long hours at work.

"It wasn't that many license plates. We only had a few hundred employees," Gates said, seemingly confirming the tale.

"I can still tell you when they came in and out," he added.

Gates cites his intensity with the "positive experience" he had at Microsoft, which he said still guides his thinking today.

"I view every problem through this innovation lens," he said.

"For most markets where DoorDash operates, customers are prompted to tip on the checkout screen, with a middle option already selected by default. If they want to, they can adjust the tip later from the status screen while awaiting their food, or even after it’s delivered. That’s changing today; while blaming New York City’s minimum wage increase for delivery workers, DoorDash announced that for “select markets, including New York City,” tipping is now exclusively a post-checkout option"

It seems so ridiculous given tipping fatigue, that DoorDash is making what should be a given sound like a negative.

The Fifth National Climate Assessment is the US Government’s preeminent report on climate change impacts, risks, and responses. It is a congressionally mandated interagency effort that provides the scientific foundation to support informed decision-making across the United States.

Ukrainian forces claim to have destroyed a Russian 2S19 Msta-S self-propelled howitzer with a highly maneuverable racing drone rigged with explosives.

Shared on X (formerly known as Twitter) by civil rights activist Serhii Sternenko, a video showing a Russian 2S19 Msta-S self-propelled howitzer which was destroyed by a Ukrainian First-Person-View (FPV) racing drone laden with explosives.

In dramatic footage, the Russian self-propelled howitzer is being blown to pieces in a huge blast.

Ukrainian Soldiers are strapping rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and self-made bombs to cheap racing drones and using them to attack the Russian armored vehicles and trenches.

https://twitter.com/sternenko/status/1712764228837224856

The inexpensive racing drones are apparently so effective that Ukrainian forces can quickly locate and destroy enemy heavy armored vehicles with minimal cost and risk to themselves.

• Russia is launching "unusual" numbers of carrier killer missiles, among others, at urban areas in southern Ukraine.
• The Kh-22 missile is inaccurate when used this way and exceptionally dangerous.
• Its reported use in recent attacks on Odesa indicates Russia is continuing to engage in indiscriminate destruction.

I have to admire a company following through on the e-waste reduction by doing it's own updates of the Android OS for an EOL chip. I just wish the fairphone 3 was actually more usable.

No one in the Android ecosystem can hold a candle to Apple's software support timeline for the iPhone, but there is one company that comes the closest: Fairphone. Following in the footsteps of the Fairphone 2, the Fairphone 3 is also getting an Android-industry-best seven years of OS support. Fairphone continues to run circles around giant tech companies that have a lot more resources than it does, and it's doing this even in the face of component vendors like Qualcomm dropping support for the phone's core components.

The company announced today that the Fairphone 3, which was released in 2019, has had its support extended to 2026, making for seven years of updates. The company also just released Android 13 for the Fairphone 3. Google's own 2019 phone, the Pixel 4, shut down support in October 2022.

Fairphone strives to make sustainable smartphones, designing its products to be repairable and also offering replacement parts for sale online. Part of that sustainability mission is an absolutely herculean effort to keep the Android updates flowing, even when Qualcomm drops critical software support for the SoC. Fairphone says the Snapdragon 632 SoC in the Fairphone 3 was only supported up to Android 11, so continuing to support the Fairphone 3 meant doing the upgrades all by itself.

For the normal update process, Google releases a new build to the Android open source repository, then SoC vendors like Qualcomm take those builds to create a "Board Support Package (BSP)" for each SoC, which includes updated drivers, proprietary blobs, and all the other bits of code that make the hardware work. Android phone manufacturers usually start their work from these SoC-supported builds of Android, so they only need to add support for their additional hardware. With Qualcomm dropping support for the Fairphone 3 SoC, Fairphone had to do the BSP update work on its own. Fairphone is the only Android phone manufacturer that does this. Everyone else shuts down support along with the SoC vendor.

While seven years of updates is incredible, the one thing you could ding Fairphone for is that the updates don't arrive at a regular cadence. The company actually skipped Android 12 to deliver Android 13 due to all that "build the BSP yourself" work. Monthly security updates probably don't arrive that regularly either. Still, Fairphone doing this with a fraction of the budget of larger companies shows that the usual excuses Android manufacturers make aren't valid. Any company could offer longer support if it wanted to; they're all just content forcing people to upgrade and creating e-waste.

... On Saturday, the r/IAmA moderators announced that they will no longer perform these duties:

Active solicitation of celebrities or high-profile figures to do AMAs. Email and modmail coordination with celebrities and high-profile figures and their PR teams to facilitate, educate, and operate AMAs. (We will still be available to answer questions about posting, though response time may vary).

Running and maintaining a website for scheduling of AMAs with pre-verification and proof, as well as social media promotion.

Maintaining a current up-to-date sidebar calendar of scheduled AMAs, with schedule reminders for users.

Sister subreddits with categorized cross-posts for easy following.

Moderator confidential verification for AMAs.

Running various bots, including automatic flairing of live posts The subreddit, which has 22.5 million subscribers as of this writing, will still exist, but its moderators contend that most of what makes it special will be undermined.

"Moving forward, we'll be allowing most AMA topics, leaving proof and requests for verification up to the community, and limiting ourselves to removing rule-breaking material alone. This doesn't mean we're allowing fake AMAs explicitly, but it does mean you'll need to pay more attention," the moderators said.

The mods will also continue to do bare minimum tasks like keeping spam out and rule enforcement, they said. Like many other Reddit moderators Ars has spoken to, some will step away from their duties, and they'll reportedly be replaced "as needed." ...

An interesting long read on China policy change. To quote the point:

But a great leader needs a great policy, and in Xi’s China there is always a new one. In December 2022, the government announced the less flashy but more reassuring “consumption-led growth”—the centerpiece policy of an ambitious new 12-year economic plan. For the first time in modern Chinese history, the country’s planners would prioritize “expanding household consumption” over “effective investment” as a long-term strategy. In practical terms, China’s growth would now be driven mainly by household spending decisions and not by the state directing or subsidizing companies to build and produce according to diktat.

Almost universally, economists have praised consumption-led growth. Indeed, if carried out properly, this policy shift would help China avoid the dreaded middle-income trap—a phenomenon in which declining productivity and falling investment returns in developing nations lead to stagnating living standards.

Sensible though it is, consumption-led growth in Xi’s China is doomed to fail. As Xi has done so often in the past, he will back away from the policy once the inevitable backlash from powerful constituencies, including state-owned enterprises, local governments, and the national security bureaucracy, takes hold. The Chinese people, knowing that the leader will bury the initiative at the first signs of worry from the party, will be reluctant to embrace it. Instead, they will hunker down, saving—in a country with the highest savings rate on earth—yet more of their meager earnings for the expected hard times ahead.

The bad, although expected news is that according to Similarweb via Gizmodo Reddit traffic is back to pre-protest levels. The caveat is that some of the traffic might still indicate protests, (i.e. John Oliver pics). Most interesting:

However, Similarweb told Gizmodo traffic to the ads.reddit.com portal, where advertisers can buy ads and measure their impact, has dipped. Before the first blackout began, the ads site averaged about 14,900 visits per day. Beginning on June 13, though, the ads site averaged about 11,800 visits per day, a 20% decrease.

For June 20 and 21, the most recent days for which Similarweb has estimates, the ads site got in the range of 7,500 to 9,000 visits, Carr explained, meaning that ad-buying traffic has continued to drop.>>>

Article from a few weeks ago, but now that G. Elliott Morris is taking over without Nate's models, I'm curious what lemmy's think about political polling analysis from FiveThirtyEight?

Verge interviewed the maker of Relay for Reddit and says he might survive on a subscription only model of $2-3 USD per month. Lots of limitations inherent in that, but maybe.

How do lemmies feel about this?