A coordinated online campaign has reportedly encouraged users to alter fuel station information on digital maps across Russia, creating confusion among drivers.
The activity involves changing station statuses by marking locations with available fuel as empty or showing closed stations as operational.
Supporters of the campaign claim the effort is designed to disrupt travel decisions, increase uncertainty, and create additional pressure around fuel availability.
First they bomb the fuel refineries and distribution system creating extreme real shortages.
Then they follow up by cyber-attack (really, just using the lame insecure open interface) of the website that Russians are trying to use to help them deal with the shortages…
Sounds like a solid followup blow to me.
Eh, I find it petty. The fact that there are gas shortages is already enough of a blow. But this to me sounds to be as much “warfare” as scam calling Russian grandmas to convince them to sell their apartments and donate to AFU. Just gives Russian people even more reasons to blame Ukraine, less reasons to trust Ukrainians, and making the life of (surprisingly unclear amount) of them living in Russia even harder. I’m rather dumbfounded at why people are seemingly in support of such actions, as I don’t see how it could in any way be beneficial for Ukraine. Best case scenario is couple of Petrovichs are late to work at their drone factories. Worst case are mass arrests of Ukrainians and pro-Ukraine Russians who blew their cover for nothing.
The people of Ukraine are having their homes destroyed, their families murdered, and their children kidnapped
The people of Russia don’t have gasoline
This is indeed terrible, but do you imply that everything Ukraine does now is fair game because of it? Would you also cheer them on if they openly used chemical weapons, tortured POW’s, and terrorized Russian citizens and nationals?
I’m not an expert on international law or human rights, but I think posting fake gas prices and " used chemical weapons, tortured POW’s, and terrorized Russian citizens and nationals" are in slightly different categories.
Of course bad faith arguments usually don’t hold water…
Are they?
Only the magnitude is (and yes, a lot) different, but category is very much the same.
Yes they are. Read the full snippet, not just the highlighted bit. The “Its primary intent is […] To further a terrorist group organization’s objectives”
God you’re dumb. You’re almost cyber terrorizing Lemmy!
No you.
Do I instill fear, panic, or physical disruption of your critical infrastructure?
What’s your point? How does that absolve the action out of this definition. Speak it out.
Is a website that collects crowdsorced gas prices critical infrastructure? It feels that you trolling and they trolling of just… Trolling. It’s not even hacking! Are review bombs on steam or google maps cyber terrorism?
My point is that you can’t cherry pick a few words from a definition and call it a day. Same as you can’t try to deviate from your original comparison that posting fake gas prices is like torture.
I’m going to walk back the dumb comment. You’re smart enough to see when you’re saying dumb things and to try to spin to a different direction. Just not smart enough to realize you said something dumb until after you post it.
Although is you need me to spell it out further, I might have to walk back my walk back :)
Edited map does not really create fear or disruption of critical infrastructure, and I’m not sure about panic either
Russia invaded their country. As far as I’m concerned anything they do is fair game until every Russian soldier is off their land.
You seriously just doubled down that “anything” includes torture and violation of international law. Even when it does not benefit the war effort whatsoever? What is wrong with you?
Russia invaded their land and killed their citizens without cause. If you want to bitch about violating international law, bitch about that. As far as I’m concerned the defending can do whatever they have to do to end the threat as long as it stops when the invading force leaves. Ukraine didn’t start this conflict.
Here we go, you’ve finally you’ve said it, it’s not really anything, was it? Of course there is an asterisk.
Now thats cleared up, lets go back to the original comment. Does posting misinformation on community gas maps do anything to end the threat? How? I’ll remind you that it does not affect military in any capacity as they dont use public gas stations.
It affects the population. Who will get pissed off and start causing trouble at home. Dividing the Russian governments attention. It affects commerce so there’s less money moving around, therefore less tax to pay for the war.
When under attack, there is no “enough of a blow”. Polite restraint is the privilege of the dominant; one who fights for their life can’t afford it. Anything that disrupts the aggressor’s will or ability to continue their aggression is fair game.
The only consideration is whether it’s worth the cost. In case of messing with that map, the cost is trivially low. Might as well hope that it undermines support for the war effort. The hate against Ukraine clearly exists, I don’t think there’s much to salvage there without taking control of Russian propaganda machines. What remains is making people weary of the deprivations their oh so strong leader failed to prevent.
In this conflict, it would appear that Ukraine is demonstrating more polite restraint than Russia. Targeting energy to erode political support for the war - in the Summer as opposed to the past 4 winters where Russia has done the same to Ukraine.
“Polite restraint” here is a political tool. It signals to outside observers that you’re not out for blood and brutality, which isn’t just a moral point but also an economic calculation: If you’re interested in long-term trade with a given economic area, a brutal and destructive government just doesn’t instill as much confidence in stable and reliable agreements. Brutality is more likely to galvanise resistance and lead to future instability, trade disruptions etc.
A party that makes a point of demonstrating adherence to some international standards of “polite” warfare, no matter how performative those standards are, is just a more attractive trading partner. If they’ll abide by those norms and (partially unwritten) agreements, that is an indicator they’ll also abide by whatever contracts and agreements you make in the future.
In a way, it’s circular: they show polite restraint to demonstrate their willingness to prioritise the values it signals over petty vengeance.
There is also strategic value, both in avoiding the type of galvanised resistance I alluded to above by taking it slow and in gradually building up a “new (worse) normal” for the opponent’s populace, such that the relief of peace will feel like an improvement and thereby make that peace more popular.
Of course, moral considerations will also play a part, but international relations unfortunately don’t often indulge in the luxury of morality for it’s own sake. It just happens to be a desirable byproduct sometimes.
The images and stories coming out of Ukraine seem hard to view as anything other than brutal. Blowing up houses while people sleep?
Definitely. Russia was calculating from the assumption that brutality would accelerate their victory. If you have the power to just take the land, whether you’ve got the moral high ground doesn’t matter: the others will have to do business with you anyway. If they had indeed won quickly, the whole thing would have been swept under the rug. But they haven’t, their assumption was proven wrong, their brutality hasn’t had the intended effect and now they’re stuck in a prolonged conflict of their own making while giving the international community plenty of reasons to condemn and impose sanctions and all that.
So Russia’s brutality is a gamble that the dynamic laid out in the previous comment won’t apply to them.
Ukraine never had that illusion. They never had the power to plan from a position of such strength. To play it “safe” is strategically critical for them. They have to be circumspect. It’s good they are, of course.
Does it, though? Lived in Russia most of my life and not once I saw army vehicles at a gas station. Pretty sure they have their own fuel distribution network.
The political will is more than just the army.
If I understood correctly, many Russians are or were in favour of the war, which is hardly surprising while they’re not the ones suffering the cost. Even when they do, a populace under the impression that the cost is some sacrifice for a good or necessary war can be quite resilient. And even if they lose faith in the war, there is a certain amount of patience and tolerance.
But the greater that cost becomes, the more that support will erode. The more their lives will be disrupted, the more discontent the regime will have to devote resources to quell or at least smooth over. It probably won’t escalate to the point of open revolt unless the regime is particularly inept, but the greater the tensions and pressure, the more the strategic calculations will shift to alleviating these tensions (precisely to avoid revolt).
For people with a little spare time that might not be able to contribute directly, it’s a low-barrier way to be at least a bit of a nuisance, amplifying the perceived impact of the shortage in ways propaganda can’t so easily handwave away.
Wether such measures have great impact is hard to gauge, particularly while starting but also often in retrospect, because social pressure and dynamics are complicated, war is messy and emotions are hard to calculate. But if it utilises a previously untapped resource (by mobilising people willing to troll the Russian populace), it’s worth a shot.
I’d like to close my argument with a note on strategic commumication: You are absolutely right that keyboard warriors risk far less than actual “might get blown to chunks” fighters. But what does calling it out achieve? Does it help the soldiers to know their international support is useless? Does it help the misguided to tell them they’re worthless? Do you expect those you consider cowards to go “you know, that dude is right, let me uproot my life and risk death to volunteer at a front alien to me”?
By encouraging them to keep trying to be a pain in the ass of imperial aggressors, you might recruit even the reluctant, the lazy, the cowardly to become a sort of “digital guerilla”. They might not be of much use now, but the more people look for places to sting, the greater the chance that someone will find a place where it does actually hurt. Better to have them try something than do nothing.
If that means patting them on the back and going “Sure buddy, you’re helping, keep doing your thing”, that’s worth more than demanding all or nothing from them.
Not quite. Russians for the most part just want to be left the fuck alone. The ones that do support it only do because TV is their only source of information and their support is limited to calling foreign leaders names in their kitchens and shitposting on facebook and whatsapp to their information deprived peers. When the push comes to shove they would only ever accept the duty if they were too lazy to find a way out. So most people on the front line are either criminals or gamblers who don’t really have a choice.
I feel like it does the opposite by diluting a definitive victory:
Oil refinery got blown up which led to fuel shortages - “fucking Putin and his cronies can’t keep their shit together, couldn’t spare an AA from one of their villas to protect critical infrastructure, fuck them”.
I’m late to work because I had to spend 10 more minutes going to a different station because someone posted misinformation - “fucking Ukrainians trying to ruin my day again, fuck them, maybe Putin was onto something…”.
The difference is: one action is directed by the government at a government, the other - at the people by the people.
What I think really happens is that people who were assholes just gotten an excuse to be assholes. I’d like to be proven wrong, but I’m yet to see anything actually good come out of NAFO and the likes. So far they’ve only managed to turn quite a few anti-war Russians against directly supporting Ukraine, by means of afforementioned scam calls, harrassment of opposition leaders and of people in neutral countries. It’s especially appalling to see coming from able-bodied young men who clearly fled conscription, and I’d like to counter the argument by saying that we shouldn’t encourage nor cheer laziness and pure national hatred. After all, they don’t have to go to the meat grinder, there are quite a lot of opportunities far behind the frontlines, I honestly would’ve probably gone myself if I were allowed and not for the severe consequences of it.
There will be some who have this reaction, but it takes one hell of a PR spin to make them think that the Ukranians, after 4 years of siege and bombings throughout their territory, aren’t justified in whatever payback they might be able to give.
It elevates the Ukranian people from “irrelevant, has no impact on me” to something to at least think about.
Why so? I think it’s the intent that matters more than the magnitude. As Russian, I cheer whenever Ukraine bombs military targets on Russia’s territory (or anything that’s boosting Russia’s GDP for that matter) and I find US’s ban on doing that to be outright criminal. A drone blew up an apartment building in my home city with no military targets in sight, and I truly believe it was a result of miscalculation, jamming or some other fault, same with Russian drones on Kiyv and cluster munitions dropped on Donbas. But don’t you dare spit in my coffee while we’re both sit in the same boat as refuges of war in Tbilisi, and I’m not going to shit through anyone’s car sunroof regardless if the plate says RU or UA either. Planting national tensions is exactly what Putin wants, just so that he could one day say “Look, they’re all assholes, let’s go fuck em up” and call for full on proper mobilization instead of tiptoeing with partial ones.
You mean nukes? Our (US side) propaganda implies that full on proper mobilization happened 4 years ago and Russia is out of non-nuclear options.