525
Digital warfare reaches fuel maps as Ukrainian users create confusion across Russia
(www.techradar.com)
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2026
525 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
87748 readers
4118 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.