|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
Russian Federation192 Posts
On March 12 2026 04:53 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2026 04:13 Yurie wrote:On March 12 2026 03:08 Xamo wrote:
I'd guess that Russia is struggling to maintain positions after loosing their Starlinks. Al least, the turn coincides in time with that event. Ucranians having way better battlefield information and easier/faster coordination has to make a huge difference.
Did they re-enable telegram for military use? Was also at the same time. https://en.thebell.io/russia-prepares-telegram-endgame/Doesn't' seem so: Show nested quote +Things continued to escalate quickly. On Feb. 21, the FSB announced that using Telegram on the frontline in Ukraine created “a threat to soldiers’ lives.” Then on Feb. 24, newspapers Rossiyskaya Gazeta and Komsomolskaya Pravda simultaneously reported that “based on FSB files” an investigation had been opened into Durov on charges of aiding terrorism — a crime which carries up to life in prison. Durov later appeared to confirm a case had been opened, calling Russia a “sad spectacle of a state afraid of its own people.” Seems like it's basically a criminal offense for soldiers to be using it, even if they can get on to it via VPN's and they are gradually shutting it down for the rest of the country with April 1st being the final shutdown date.
Telegram is going to be blocked in Russia in April, but it is allowed to use it on the frontline territories, because it is the only reliable source after the end of starlink
|
On March 12 2026 23:01 EEk1TwEEk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2026 04:53 Jankisa wrote:On March 12 2026 04:13 Yurie wrote:On March 12 2026 03:08 Xamo wrote:
I'd guess that Russia is struggling to maintain positions after loosing their Starlinks. Al least, the turn coincides in time with that event. Ucranians having way better battlefield information and easier/faster coordination has to make a huge difference.
Did they re-enable telegram for military use? Was also at the same time. https://en.thebell.io/russia-prepares-telegram-endgame/Doesn't' seem so: Things continued to escalate quickly. On Feb. 21, the FSB announced that using Telegram on the frontline in Ukraine created “a threat to soldiers’ lives.” Then on Feb. 24, newspapers Rossiyskaya Gazeta and Komsomolskaya Pravda simultaneously reported that “based on FSB files” an investigation had been opened into Durov on charges of aiding terrorism — a crime which carries up to life in prison. Durov later appeared to confirm a case had been opened, calling Russia a “sad spectacle of a state afraid of its own people.” Seems like it's basically a criminal offense for soldiers to be using it, even if they can get on to it via VPN's and they are gradually shutting it down for the rest of the country with April 1st being the final shutdown date. Telegram is going to be blocked in Russia in April, but it is allowed to use it on the frontline territories, because it is the only reliable source after the end of starlink
How do you use telegram without internet?
|
Russian Federation192 Posts
|
But it’s unrelated to starlink. They don’t serve remotely the same purpose. Starlink is an ISP, telegram is a communication platform.
|
The Guardian article is from 11 Feb 2026, the one I posted is from 4 Mar 2026, I don't think that the troops are allowed to use Telegram anymore and a month old article certainly doesn't prove so.
|
Yeah, I’m not sure how enforced that sort of thing is. My main point was telegram in no way solves the no starlink problem. It would be a very fake excuse for why the military was allowed to use it.
My hopeful, but unlikely prediction is that Ukraine makes some drones for tomahawks trade deal in the near future. Hopefully Russia helping Iran finally teaches lil Donnie that they are not his friends.
|
I honestly don't think Ukraine needs tomahawks, they are way too expensive and do a job that other things can do in a cheaper way, while they can still be intercepted, at $3 million a pop, that is a very expensive calculus.
More interceptors, THAADs, Patriot batteries, more F-16s or perhaps even some F-18 growlers and similar capabilities would be more important in my humble opinion, Ukrainians are doing pretty well with their cheap and domestically built flamigos and other long range munitions.
|
Using mobile internet other than starlink for front liner seems the easiest way to get spotted though, the fsb might be onto something there. Wifi at 2.4ghz is much safer with starlink compared to other bands.
|
On March 13 2026 08:51 0x64 wrote:
Using mobile internet other than starlink for front liner seems the easiest way to get spotted though, the fsb might be onto something there. Wifi at 2.4ghz is much safer with starlink compared to other bands.
Also, mobile internet requires towers very close to you. These towers are obviously very easy to detect, and pretty fragile. If they actually are an important part of your military communication lines, i assume your enemy can just take them out whenever they want to.
I'd also be very surprised if civilian mobile connections were hard to jam.
People are so used to mobile connections being available everywhere that they don't consider the infrastructure that goes into providing that service. For high data connections, you need a tower every few hundred meters. For normal usage, every few km.
|
On March 13 2026 15:05 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2026 08:51 0x64 wrote:
Using mobile internet other than starlink for front liner seems the easiest way to get spotted though, the fsb might be onto something there. Wifi at 2.4ghz is much safer with starlink compared to other bands. Also, mobile internet requires towers very close to you. These towers are obviously very easy to detect, and pretty fragile. If they actually are an important part of your military communication lines, i assume your enemy can just take them out whenever they want to. I'd also be very surprised if civilian mobile connections were hard to jam. People are so used to mobile connections being available everywhere that they don't consider the infrastructure that goes into providing that service. For high data connections, you need a tower every few hundred meters. For normal usage, every few km.
I don't know about this particular conflict, but P2P/mesh networks using drones to extend range is a thing. Not really sufficient for large data transfers though.
|
Russian Federation618 Posts
On March 13 2026 03:23 Billyboy wrote:
Yeah, I’m not sure how enforced that sort of thing is. My main point was telegram in no way solves the no starlink problem. It would be a very fake excuse for why the military was allowed to use it.
My hopeful, but unlikely prediction is that Ukraine makes some drones for tomahawks trade deal in the near future. Hopefully Russia helping Iran finally teaches lil Donnie that they are not his friends.
Yes, it doesn't, but they are different kinds of problems. Starlink was (and is used in the same manner by AFU) used to provide frontline troops with internet, which is, while also used for communication, primarily is used for remote drone control with good connection (there are other means, but Starlink is by far the best). Second use is communication. Again, there are other means, but Starlink is, again, far better option. So absence of Starlink for RAF damages drone operations first, comms second (and rest with access to good quality internet third).
However there are still other means of internet connection on the front, but either less secure or further to the rear. Still, there are means, and soldiers and officers actively using internet for all military communication - from coordination between units to communication with volunteers or their comrades sent on vacation about buying necessary supplies, or simply writing back home. Telegram is the best suited platform for this, as it is secure, universal (meaning you don't need to wire the phone like with dedicated military messengers), you can install it on your own phone (with military messengers you basically need to buy and donate separate phone to the army, since they don't provide one, but the phone has to be specifically wired), it's stable (if anything happens with military messengers, which are quite shitty, you must give the phone to dedicated technician to solve the problem) and gives access to communication with anyone, including the civilians (which helps greatly with all the volunteering stuff, which is of great importance to the front, as army never provides enough of what is needed, in many - doesn't provide at all).
Considering all the necessities above, I guess acting military pressed the issue at least for a time being. MAX doesn't solve a lot of those problems (like creating your own channels for volunteer stuff, as MAX approves manually every created channel. It also has ton of security issues. Also people on the front aren't eager to trust their private discussions to some eager FSB or military counterintelligence officials.
|
|
|
The networking piece, mobile and wifi networks is a perticulary fasinating part of the war:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-slams-ubiquiti-products-keep-203750691.html?guccounter=1
As an example, since I'm in the field, and I did procure quite a bit of networkign equipment in my life I always liked Ubiquity, until it turned out that the fuckers are more then happy to sell to anyone, even if they know their stuff will end up in Russia and eventually on the front lines.
Where the mobile signal infrastructure doesn't reach or is to weak, they do shit like this:
So communications and networking are obviously incredibly important, yes, satellite internet is the most reliable and powerful as shown by the impact of Starlink whitelisting having on the front lines, but there are many other adaptations around WiFi and mobile internet that help troops on both sides communicate and conduct operations with drones.
Obligatory fuck Trump, not like the move was not telegraphed from the moment the bombs started dropping on Teheran but still, fuck that guy.
|
On March 13 2026 17:46 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2026 03:23 Billyboy wrote:
Yeah, I’m not sure how enforced that sort of thing is. My main point was telegram in no way solves the no starlink problem. It would be a very fake excuse for why the military was allowed to use it.
My hopeful, but unlikely prediction is that Ukraine makes some drones for tomahawks trade deal in the near future. Hopefully Russia helping Iran finally teaches lil Donnie that they are not his friends. Yes, it doesn't, but they are different kinds of problems. Starlink was (and is used in the same manner by AFU) used to provide frontline troops with internet, which is, while also used for communication, primarily is used for remote drone control with good connection (there are other means, but Starlink is by far the best). Second use is communication. Again, there are other means, but Starlink is, again, far better option. So absence of Starlink for RAF damages drone operations first, comms second (and rest with access to good quality internet third). However there are still other means of internet connection on the front, but either less secure or further to the rear. Still, there are means, and soldiers and officers actively using internet for all military communication - from coordination between units to communication with volunteers or their comrades sent on vacation about buying necessary supplies, or simply writing back home. Telegram is the best suited platform for this, as it is secure, universal (meaning you don't need to wire the phone like with dedicated military messengers), you can install it on your own phone (with military messengers you basically need to buy and donate separate phone to the army, since they don't provide one, but the phone has to be specifically wired), it's stable (if anything happens with military messengers, which are quite shitty, you must give the phone to dedicated technician to solve the problem) and gives access to communication with anyone, including the civilians (which helps greatly with all the volunteering stuff, which is of great importance to the front, as army never provides enough of what is needed, in many - doesn't provide at all). Considering all the necessities above, I guess acting military pressed the issue at least for a time being. MAX doesn't solve a lot of those problems (like creating your own channels for volunteer stuff, as MAX approves manually every created channel. It also has ton of security issues. Also people on the front aren't eager to trust their private discussions to some eager FSB or military counterintelligence officials.
Yes, I totally get why Russian troops would like to use Telegram. But I was pushing back on eek saying they were allowed telegram as a replacement for starlink. Because that makes no sense.
|
|
|
Shipboarding is a surprisingly common occurance, and is a lot less dramatic than one would think. The whole concept requires that the crew lets it happen, as you can't safely board a ship that is actively changing course. A lot of the time, nothing comes of it. Only extremely rarely do they seize the ship
It's a lot closer to being pulled over by the police than any kind of act of war.
I'm not sure what excuse you're referring to, but the main issue with US and Venezuela was that they simply blew up the boats, and then shot at the survivors. An act of war which was illegal both internally and internationally, not to mention breaking quite a few human rights and Geneve convention clauses
|
On March 14 2026 01:21 Excludos wrote:Shipboarding is a surprisingly common occurance, and is a lot less dramatic than one would think. The whole concept requires that the crew lets it happen, as you can't safely board a ship that is actively changing course. A lot of the time, nothing comes of it. Only extremely rarely do they seize the ship It's a lot closer to being pulled over by the police than any kind of act of war. I'm not sure what excuse you're referring to, but the main issue with US and Venezuela was that they simply blew up the boats, and then shot at the survivors. An act of war which was illegal both internally and internationally, not to mention breaking quite a few human rights and Geneve convention clauses
I am referring to the later tanker seizures, for example:
The White House described the ship as a "Venezuelan shadow fleet vessel deemed stateless after flying a false flag and had a judicial order" against it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y2v8ngl14o
Same thing is being used here. If a ship is false flagged (lying about which nation it is sailing under) it can be seized without breaking maritime law. (The US is not a signatory so they don't actually need excuses.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://imgl.krone.at/scaled/4028878/v343e7c/full.jpg?imop=Resize,width=700)
