Scrutable

Grumble wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 13, 2023 9:44 pm

jimbob wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 13, 2023 8:06 pm

Grumble wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 13, 2023 8:00 pm

At that age probably not got a criminal record. They won’t ask about political opinions, just looking for criminal record and foreign connections.

If you have access to strategic military intelligence, I would hope that there is a bit more vetting.

They can ask very personal questions about sexual history and all sorts of things if they want to, but again, what’s a 21 year old going to have?

Yes, indeed.

At the moment we don't know whether the 21 year old was cleared to receive the documents, or whether he abused the system or was given them by someone else. It looks like the documents were emailed to a wide distribution list so perhaps a friend forwarded them to him.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 13, 2023 2:53 pm

It looks like the documents had been folded. So the leaker may have just printed them and carried them out in their pocket. Sounds simple but security checks will be looking for weapons and searches of people with clearance will be rare (clearance means that they are supposed to be trusted).

Paper copies were photographed in his parent's kitchen. https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/16465 ... 22067?s=20

Not impossible that he just fished the originals out of the trash.

While Teixeira was relatively inexperienced in the military, he had access to highly classified military intelligence through a Defense Department computer network known as the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System, said a U.S. official familiar with the matter. The system would have allowed Teixeira to read and potentially print classified documents, though there are guidelines to handle those in accordance with the law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ment-leak/

That's the same network that Chelsea Manning had access to.

There will likely be further restrictions to who can access it. But there are tradeoffs. Perhaps in a few years time someone sitting in a base somewhere in the US won't be able to connect the dots and and avert a major attack.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:29 am

While Teixeira was relatively inexperienced in the military, he had access to highly classified military intelligence through a Defense Department computer network known as the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System, said a U.S. official familiar with the matter. The system would have allowed Teixeira to read and potentially print classified documents, though there are guidelines to handle those in accordance with the law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ment-leak/

That's the same network that Chelsea Manning had access to.

There will likely be further restrictions to who can access it. But there are tradeoffs. Perhaps in a few years time someone sitting in a base somewhere in the US won't be able to connect the dots and and avert a major attack.

If you are relying on someone that low then you have problems.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:17 am

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 13, 2023 2:53 pm

It looks like the documents had been folded. So the leaker may have just printed them and carried them out in their pocket. Sounds simple but security checks will be looking for weapons and searches of people with clearance will be rare (clearance means that they are supposed to be trusted).

Paper copies were photographed in his parent's kitchen. https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/16465 ... 22067?s=20

Not impossible that he just fished the originals out of the trash.

They should be shredded. Even our office has confidential trash. And all photocopying and printing is linked to our accounts (via our badges).

jimbob wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 14, 2023 10:41 am

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:17 am

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 13, 2023 2:53 pm

It looks like the documents had been folded. So the leaker may have just printed them and carried them out in their pocket. Sounds simple but security checks will be looking for weapons and searches of people with clearance will be rare (clearance means that they are supposed to be trusted).

Paper copies were photographed in his parent's kitchen. https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/16465 ... 22067?s=20

Not impossible that he just fished the originals out of the trash.

They should be shredded. Even our office has confidential trash. And all photocopying and printing is linked to our accounts (via our badges).

Looks like that wasn't the method anyway. But what should happen isn't always what does happen.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 14, 2023 10:36 am

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:29 am

While Teixeira was relatively inexperienced in the military, he had access to highly classified military intelligence through a Defense Department computer network known as the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System, said a U.S. official familiar with the matter. The system would have allowed Teixeira to read and potentially print classified documents, though there are guidelines to handle those in accordance with the law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ment-leak/

That's the same network that Chelsea Manning had access to.

There will likely be further restrictions to who can access it. But there are tradeoffs. Perhaps in a few years time someone sitting in a base somewhere in the US won't be able to connect the dots and and avert a major attack.

If you are relying on someone that low then you have problems.

Someone could sign up at 18 and have completed basic training and advanced training as a intelligence analyst within a year. The thing about the armed forces everywhere is that there is rapid turnover in personnel, they face recruitment problems and an intelligence analyst isn't a high status role that would attract the ambitious.

The European Commission is considering halving its proposed €500 million short-term joint defence procurement fund for Ukraine to €250 million, instead prioritising the long-term modernisation of Europe’s defence industry, three EU sources told EURACTIV.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/defenc ... ment-fund/

Solving some of Europe's arms production problems would probably be in Ukraine's long-term interests, especially if its to be a long war. But of course there's a short-term cost.

The stakes for Ukraine in the coming months could not be higher, senior officials in Kyiv told the FT. They are worried that a counteroffensive that fails or does not win back a large amount of Ukrainian territory could lead western supporters to push Kyiv to open negotiations with Moscow.

Andriy Sybiha, deputy head of the office of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, told the FT in an interview this month that there is no room for mistakes.

“We are in a decisive moment now,” he said. “We need to show successes.”

https://www.ft.com/content/2f966366-5a5 ... 735ac871ff

Difficult for Ukraine to managed expectations. If they're too low then Ukraine may fear that pessimistic predictions may inhibit donors. But unrealistically high expectations might lead to successes being perceived as failures, which could also inhibit donations in the future.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 20, 2023 7:24 am

The stakes for Ukraine in the coming months could not be higher, senior officials in Kyiv told the FT. They are worried that a counteroffensive that fails or does not win back a large amount of Ukrainian territory could lead western supporters to push Kyiv to open negotiations with Moscow.

Andriy Sybiha, deputy head of the office of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, told the FT in an interview this month that there is no room for mistakes.

“We are in a decisive moment now,” he said. “We need to show successes.”

https://www.ft.com/content/2f966366-5a5 ... 735ac871ff

Difficult for Ukraine to managed expectations. If they're too low then Ukraine may fear that pessimistic predictions may inhibit donors. But unrealistically high expectations might lead to successes being perceived as failures, which could also inhibit donations in the future.

And some expectation management can be found here: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/04/19/7398524/

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 20, 2023 7:24 am

The stakes for Ukraine in the coming months could not be higher, senior officials in Kyiv told the FT. They are worried that a counteroffensive that fails or does not win back a large amount of Ukrainian territory could lead western supporters to push Kyiv to open negotiations with Moscow.

Andriy Sybiha, deputy head of the office of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, told the FT in an interview this month that there is no room for mistakes.

“We are in a decisive moment now,” he said. “We need to show successes.”

https://www.ft.com/content/2f966366-5a5 ... 735ac871ff

Difficult for Ukraine to managed expectations. If they're too low then Ukraine may fear that pessimistic predictions may inhibit donors. But unrealistically high expectations might lead to successes being perceived as failures, which could also inhibit donations in the future.

It feels worth pointing that that it's rainier than usual at the moment over there, and that means the continuation of Bezdorizhzhia. If the plan is a combined arms breach+breakout, then firm ground is needed. Leaves on trees also important for concealing movements.

There's lots of hints being dropped something's coming, units training in large numbers, with new equipment, hundreds and hundreds of soldiers making their way across a training ground, as well as new tactical markings (an arrow), but the worst thing to do right now would be to go off half-cocked.

The Ukrainians are hinting something is coming, but as to what, they are playing their cards close to their chest. It's likely that most of the politicians asked about this don't know any details. Hell, the leaked documents saw the Americans with a better idea of Russian disposition than Ukrainian.

Stoltenberg has said all Nato allies have now agreed that Ukraine should become a Nato member. No indication of timescales though.

Very pleased that my fears regarding Boris Pistorius were unfounded. A radical improvement on his predecessor, and quite correct when he (as reported, I'm not getting this first hand as my knowledge of German is abysmal) acknowledges it is reasonable to conduct limited operations on Russian soil if militarily necessary.

Brightonian wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 7:32 am

Stoltenberg has said all Nato allies have now agreed that Ukraine should become a Nato member. No indication of timescales though.

I hope I'm being over-cynical, but as I understand it you cant join NATO when already in a conflict? Will this turn into a pressure to accept a less-than-great peace in exchange for sped up NATO accession.

Imrael wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:05 am

Brightonian wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 7:32 am

Stoltenberg has said all Nato allies have now agreed that Ukraine should become a Nato member. No indication of timescales though.

I hope I'm being over-cynical, but as I understand it you cant join NATO when already in a conflict? Will this turn into a pressure to accept a less-than-great peace in exchange for sped up NATO accession.

I've seen a lot of pushback about this from people who interpret it as if you already in a conflict and join NATO, the continuance of that conflict wouldn't trigger Article 5.

Imrael wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:05 am

as I understand it you cant join NATO when already in a conflict?

I'm not sure the articles prevent it, or the triggering of article 5 if a new member joined whilst at war... but I suspect it's all rather academic as NATO would have to agree to the new member joining at that moment - I.e. NATO would have to defacto choose to get directly involved (which they could do anyway for non-members). They're not likely to allow Ukraine to join until it is at peace with Russia with an agreed border.

Imrael wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:05 am

Will this turn into a pressure to accept a less-than-great peace in exchange for sped up NATO accession.

I don't know - could have the opposite effect, if Putin wants "less NATO" on its borders and NATO won't let Ukraine join unless at peace with established borders, then Russia essentially has a VETO over Ukraine's joining by continuing hostilities and not reaching any agreements.

TopBadger wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 10:57 am

Imrael wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:05 am

as I understand it you cant join NATO when already in a conflict?

I'm not sure the articles prevent it, or the triggering of article 5 if a new member joined whilst at war... but I suspect it's all rather academic as NATO would have to agree to the new member joining at that moment - I.e. NATO would have to defacto choose to get directly involved (which they could do anyway for non-members). They're not likely to allow Ukraine to join until it is at peace with Russia with an agreed border.

Or they could just write specific terms for the accession of Ukraine. It's a Treaty Organization. Treaties are negotiable.

Imrael wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:05 am

Brightonian wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 7:32 am

Stoltenberg has said all Nato allies have now agreed that Ukraine should become a Nato member. No indication of timescales though.

I hope I'm being over-cynical, but as I understand it you cant join NATO when already in a conflict? Will this turn into a pressure to accept a less-than-great peace in exchange for sped up NATO accession.

Yes and no.

The enlargement criteria were agreed in the 1990s and they included a requirement that aspirant members needed to settle border disputes and internal conflicts. These principles were codified into a series of diplomatic processes. This made sense then because there were several actual and potential conflicts in the newly post-Soviet states and the carrot of NATO membership encouraged them to resolve matters peacefully.

Politically, the existing NATO members didn't want to get drawn into armed conflicts.

But none of this is written into the North Atlantic Treaty. NATO has also been able to cope with members that had tense border disputes (eg Greece and Turkey) or intense civil wars within their territory (eg Turkey).

So if there was enough political support it wouldn't too difficult to change the accession process for Ukraine. However, I doubt that the political support for Ukraine joining before a resolution or at least stabilization exists at present at least. Leaving aside European peaceniks, Turkey has been able to block Sweden joining and I expect that it would do similar to Ukraine while the fighting is ongoing, and if not them there may be problems from Hungary, Bulgaria and Greece.

I expect that NATO membership may be offered as part of a peace agreement (either formally or informally). Ukraine would reasonably ask for guarantees that it wouldn't be invaded again and joining NATO would be the best way of doing that.

Though its worth noting that membership wouldn't mean that the alliance would automatically declare war after any Russian attack. Doing so would be a political decision.

TopBadger wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 10:57 am

Imrael wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 21, 2023 8:05 am

as I understand it you cant join NATO when already in a conflict?

I'm not sure the articles prevent it, or the triggering of article 5 if a new member joined whilst at war... but I suspect it's all rather academic as NATO would have to agree to the new member joining at that moment - I.e. NATO would have to defacto choose to get directly involved (which they could do anyway for non-members). They're not likely to allow Ukraine to join until it is at peace with Russia with an agreed border.

Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

There are situations in which an attack may not result in the use of armed force by other NATO members. For example Russia has initiated cyber attacks and sabotage against NATO members which didn't cross the threshold.

ETA ultimately what to do in the event of an attack is a political decision.

Looks like the most likely scenario for the bomb on Belgorod was a glide bomb where the wings didn't deploy, and thus it fell like a normal bomb. Having seen footage, I don't think the claim that there were no casualties can be true, though I wouldn't say there were definitely fatalities - the bomb fell right next to a busy street, traffic stopped for a moment, then resumed, and when the (presumably delay-fused) bomb actually explodes it manages to flip a moving car over.

It must be remembered that this bomb only fell on a Russian city because it missed its target, which was most likely a Ukrainian city. Kharkiv isn't near an active frontline.

Russian cruise missile strike on Ukraine overnight. Most missiles shot down, but some got through. Missiles hit residential buildings in Uman and Dnipro. Deaths between the two strikes are into double figures, and the figure for the Uman strike keeps rising.

Trying to keep out cruise missiles, which fly very low, keeping them below the radar horizon of any ground-based radar they don't pass almost directly over, is exceptionally difficult. Ukraine have been asking for more effective fighter jets since the start of the war. If training had started then, based on timings it took Finnish pilots to convert and estimates from simulator based studies, Ukrainian pilots would have been operating them for months, saving many lives. Instead, the USA come out with ridiculous claims - eighteen months to convert from one jet to another when Finnish pilots without English converted in half that time and Ukraine has several dozen pilots with the right English standards to knock months of that and the RAF takes people from trainers to Typhoons in somewhat less than that time - and refuses aid, just as they refuse to supply the weapons needed to cripple Russia's logistics in occupied Ukraine, and block strikes on Russian logistics on the Russian side of the border that would starve their frontline forces of shells even as Ukrainians die to prevent a Russian victory we would all suffer from. Likewise, many of these missiles are launched from the Black Sea Fleet, yet, per leaked documents, the USA pressured Ukraine out of a major attack on Novorossiysk on 24-02-2023, the anniversary of the Russian escalation.

Among US voters:

A recent Wall Street Journal poll found continued erosion in support for helping Ukraine in its fight against Russia. While the number of voters who believe the U.S. is providing the right amount of support has remained stable, an increasing number of people believe that Washington is too involved.

Some 38% of voters said in a survey this month that the U.S. was doing too much to help Ukraine, up from 6% last March, shortly after the war began. The share who say the U.S. should do more has fallen from 46% last March to 20% now.

About 35% say the U.S. is doing the right amount, a number that has remained the same since last March.

Some 60% of Republicans said the U.S. was doing too much, up from 48% when the Journal asked the question in October. In the new survey, 15% of Democrats said the U.S. was doing too much—in line with the October survey—and 42% of independents said the U.S. was doing too much, up from 33% in the previous poll.

U.S. officials said the White House will be watching the offensive closely, understanding that its success or its failure will have a strong effect on the Biden administration’s ability to maintain support from Congress and the American people.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/future-u-s ... d-1d4bac4e

As noted in the article the Republican control of the House means that Biden may have problems maintaining support at current levels. Ukrainian victories would make that task easier.

From a pure Machiavellian geopolitical perspective, foregoing the chance to take out a major rival at little or no risk to yourself is utterly nuts. It will also destabilise the region if Russia gains anything from this adventure. All for short term political gain. Add in the ethics of stopping a fascist taking over another country, it borders on evil collaboration.

bjn wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 29, 2023 1:01 pm

From a pure Machiavellian geopolitical perspective, foregoing the chance to take out a major rival at little or no risk to yourself is utterly nuts. It will also destabilise the region if Russia gains anything from this adventure. All for short term political gain. Add in the ethics of stopping a fascist taking over another country, it borders on evil collaboration.

The more extreme Republicans frequently praise Putin and Orban, and admire the socal cohesion they are trying to produce.

"Social cohesion" sounds like the most unpleasant euphemism since "ethnic cleansing".