[secondaryacct]

I found it interesting for the purely operational aspect: management ask for analysis without context, doesnt like answer so force better number, bubbles up for months to the top, war is declared on the basis of analysis, all is fucked because analysis was devoid of meaning.

Now, need to fix the shit and Z stands for Nazi, Zelensky is war hero, Chechens dont understand why they were erased even before killing one civilian and there s no way it ends with a win for Russia.

Love it cause even if completely fake, it's probably 100% true :D

[grugq]

Creating a long fake is riskier than a short fake. Making mistakes is a risk, and so the more content the more risk.

As for the “reality” of working as an analyst in FSB it seems pretty accurate. Even if not true, it carries a certain truth.

The general analysis is consistent with what most people I’ve spoken with think. Russia is in a bad spot. They need to turn the narrative on Ukraine (one idea we thought of was a dirty bomb from waste)… I don’t think the content can prove it is authentic or not. Maybe when the author is found an punished we’ll hear about it.

The intelligence war has been amazing. The early game of leaking operational plans was incredible. To say “we have so much access we can burn it with abandon” is a huge flex.

The real time intelligence enabling the Ukrainians to respond precisely has also been incredible. From OSINT analysis to the OSINT crowd sourced collection using geolocation tagged videos and photos. Truly a new operational environment for an army to fight in.

Then all the perception management. Truly remarkable achievement. This will be in the textbooks as a case study, if… you know, we make to a point where we still have textbooks

[jacquesm]

Don't underestimate the value of a couple of AWACS flying non-stop over Eastern Poland and Romania.

[the_af]

> Creating a long fake is riskier than a short fake. Making mistakes is a risk, and so the more content the more risk.

But this isn't really a long piece. It's very short in actual content, only padded with prose.

And what exactly is the risk anyway? That someone will identify it as Ukrainian disinformation? That's very low stakes, which we know because it has already happened with other bits of "info".

[watwut]

What I found interesting was unconditional acceptance of "we did happy result analysis because otherwise we get criticize as always, had we knew it will end with failed conquest we would totally make truthful analysis to save Russia". Totally.