[Goose]

https://x.com/DAlperovitch/status/1929264612723102004

Given that Ukrainian drones that attacked Russian strategic bombers today used Ardupilot over 4G/LTE comms, I would expect FSB to start filtering MavLink drone control protocol (which is unencrypted) within Russian telcos soon. It likely is not a difficult addition to SORM

The protocol is by itself unencrypted, but nothing prevents Ukraine from overlaying an encryption layer on top of it. That would make it unrecognizable. The packet length could also be randomized to remove that signature. I am unaware of any definite information that Ukraine used Ardupilot software in this attack. It would not be totally amazing if they did. They have been playing with it for quite a while. I did find these https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=IokyotAGbJI  https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/thread...e_vignette. 4G supports 5 to 100 megabit transfer rates. That is enough for HD video. This is a feasible approach to the problem. Network delays would probably make precision drone control impossible, but that isn't required to hit a stationary, large target. In fact, once the drone is properly targeted no control would be necessary. I doubt these airbases are in GPS denied territory. If they are in GPS denied area then the drone would need to be periodically corrected until it was close enough.

---

Apparently, the U.S. was not told in advance about this operation. I wouldn’t have expected them to.

However, no doubt this was triggered by the possibility of a cease-fire in the near future, just as was Russia's massive number of drone attacks over night and in the last week.  The optimist in me believes this signifies that both countries believe something may change soon.  Both sides may have gone all in just before the talks, and the "2 week" deadline.

FWIW, I doubt that a possibility of a cease-fire was a significant consideration :-). If anything, IMO it was somewhat the opposite. Putin and Russia wants to demonstrate to Ukraine that Russia can pound them into submission. The hope is that Ukrainian morale will collapse or that they will economically be unable to fight anymore. Of course if they are willing to surrender now, that is fine too. It would be a unilateral cease fire by Ukraine. Ukraine on the other hand wanted to demonstrate that they could strike back heavily and that they are far from done. Both the Ukrainian and Russian strikes have actual kinetic effects that are important. They also both have internal and external political objectives. The external one is to demonstrate the combatant isn't giving up on the war and the internal one (especially in Ukraine) is to lift the internal morale.

One never knows. This seems to be an operation that the US would not want to have prior specific knowledge of.  Even if the US wasn't told, I could believe maybe the US knew something was in process.   It would be foolish to think Ukraine was simply putting out the fires from the Russian drones without doing anything more.  I have to admit I wondered "Why a 2-week deadline?".

As far as the "two week" comment by the administration, CNN had a piece on exactly that showing the president repeatedly using that same time estimate for all sorts of things, going back to 2024. I wouldn't assume this particular occasion is any different.

I do note that a major difference between Russia and Ukraine is that today's strikes by Ukraine were clearly against the military.  They could have struck deep in major Russian cities instead, hitting power stations, shopping areas, and apartments, just as it seems Russia has been doing.  Of course, in such a case, Russia would have come to the talks with its people strongly against Ukraine.  Now, the Russian people may just be questioning the war and Putin.

Considering these strikes were against the military, and apparently quite successful, I have to admire the Ukrainians for this.

Agree. These were definitely "legitimate" targets.

The implications of this kind of attack against a country (say, the US) in a Pearl Harbor type surprise attack or a terrorist attack is concerning.  What if a terrorist group attacked one or several major civilian airports in this fashion?

The implications of this attack on the risk to NATO countries is interesting.  The German defense chief just warned that Russia might attack a NATO country in 4 years.  I should defer to Goose, but, perhaps naively, I suspect this attack significantly reduced that risk.  It doesn't reduce the number of tanks or shells that Russia is stockpiling (per that article) but it does weaken the air cover for any attack.

This attack slightly reduced the number of strategic assets that Russia could deploy against NATO countries. Russia launching ALCMs against military targets in the NATO countries is definitely a threat. It isn't anywhere near the foremost one however. This attack by Ukraine had no effect on "air cover" as such since these aircraft do not provide that capability. They are offensive weapons whose lifetime in a conventional war with NATO will be very short.

[Goose]

https://x.com/DAlperovitch/status/1929264612723102004

Given that Ukrainian drones that attacked Russian strategic bombers today used Ardupilot over 4G/LTE comms, I would expect FSB to start filtering MavLink drone control protocol (which is unencrypted) within Russian telcos soon. It likely is not a difficult addition to SORM

The protocol is by itself unencrypted, but nothing prevents Ukraine from overlaying an encryption layer on top of it. That would make it unrecognizable. The packet length could also be randomized to remove that signature. I am unaware of any definite information that Ukraine used Ardupilot software in this attack. It would not be totally amazing if they did. They have been playing with it for quite a while. I did find these https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=IokyotAGbJI  https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/thread...e_vignette. 4G supports 5 to 100 megabit transfer rates. That is enough for HD video. This is a feasible approach to the problem. Network delays would probably make precision drone control impossible, but that isn't required to hit a stationary, large target. In fact, once the drone is properly targeted no control would be necessary. I doubt these airbases are in GPS denied territory. If they are in GPS denied area then the drone would need to be periodically corrected until it was close enough.

---

Apparently, the U.S. was not told in advance about this operation. I wouldn’t have expected them to.

However, no doubt this was triggered by the possibility of a cease-fire in the near future, just as was Russia's massive number of drone attacks over night and in the last week.  The optimist in me believes this signifies that both countries believe something may change soon.  Both sides may have gone all in just before the talks, and the "2 week" deadline.

FWIW, I doubt that a possibility of a cease-fire was a significant consideration :-). If anything, IMO it was somewhat the opposite. Putin and Russia wants to demonstrate to Ukraine that Russia can pound them into submission. The hope is that Ukrainian morale will collapse or that they will economically be unable to fight anymore. Of course if they are willing to surrender now, that is fine too. It would be a unilateral cease fire by Ukraine. Ukraine on the other hand wanted to demonstrate that they could strike back heavily and that they are far from done. Both the Ukrainian and Russian strikes have actual kinetic effects that are important. They also both have internal and external political objectives. The external one is to demonstrate the combatant isn't giving up on the war and the internal one (especially in Ukraine) is to lift the internal morale.

One never knows. This seems to be an operation that the US would not want to have prior specific knowledge of.  Even if the US wasn't told, I could believe maybe the US knew something was in process.   It would be foolish to think Ukraine was simply putting out the fires from the Russian drones without doing anything more.  I have to admit I wondered "Why a 2-week deadline?".

As far as the "two week" comment by the administration, CNN had a piece on exactly that showing the president repeatedly using that same time estimate for all sorts of things, going back to 2024. I wouldn't assume this particular occasion is any different.

I do note that a major difference between Russia and Ukraine is that today's strikes by Ukraine were clearly against the military.  They could have struck deep in major Russian cities instead, hitting power stations, shopping areas, and apartments, just as it seems Russia has been doing.  Of course, in such a case, Russia would have come to the talks with its people strongly against Ukraine.  Now, the Russian people may just be questioning the war and Putin.

Considering these strikes were against the military, and apparently quite successful, I have to admire the Ukrainians for this.

Agree. These were definitely "legitimate" targets.

The implications of this kind of attack against a country (say, the US) in a Pearl Harbor type surprise attack or a terrorist attack is concerning.  What if a terrorist group attacked one or several major civilian airports in this fashion?

The implications of this attack on the risk to NATO countries is interesting.  The German defense chief just warned that Russia might attack a NATO country in 4 years.  I should defer to Goose, but, perhaps naively, I suspect this attack significantly reduced that risk.  It doesn't reduce the number of tanks or shells that Russia is stockpiling (per that article) but it does weaken the air cover for any attack.

This attack slightly reduced the number of strategic assets that Russia could deploy against NATO countries. Russia launching ALCMs against military targets in the NATO countries is definitely a threat. It isn't anywhere near the foremost one however. This attack by Ukraine had no effect on "air cover" as such since these aircraft do not provide that capability. They are offensive weapons whose lifetime in a conventional war with NATO will be very short.