OSINT Group313

Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) Collection Team with Technical Focus on Russia. RTs for the purposes of archiving. Any commentary is only personal opinion.

[OSINT Group313 @OSINT_Group313]

@PrivateBrewing @PhillipsPOBrien It would absolutely take at least months, potentially 6-18

[OSINT Group313 @OSINT_Group313]

@aniru4h @PhillipsPOBrien Yup. Just pointing out that you honing in on the use of the word “probably” and asserting it is the mark of incorrect analysis is simply incorrect when it comes to these topics

[OSINT Group313 @OSINT_Group313]

@aniru4h @PhillipsPOBrien In the world of geopolitics and intelligence, it’s actually the opposite. Making definitive statements is the mark of amateurs. Even the most professional intelligence agencies use “confidence statements” to say what degree of “probably” they mean

[OSINT Group313 @OSINT_Group313]

Capping wells is a very big deal. Catastrophic national level capping is virtually unheard of and will have lasting impacts. I do not think they will capitulate, but I do think they’re scared of what a truly collapsed economy will do.

The IRGC functions primarily because of greasing pocketbooks, not ideology, although the diehards are true believers. When the money flows break down, the vast majority of the methods the IRGC has used for decades becomes questionably reliable, at best. Will it guarantee their downfall? Of course not. Does it make their fate unknown? Yes. Not because the people rise up, most likely, but rather that the system of power collapses internally.

[OSINT Group313 @OSINT_Group313]

You might have been misreading my post

Iran is absolutely a risk (arguably the biggest) of the entire region to the USA

Force being used against Iran is justified, likely necessary, and frankly long overdue.

I was simply stating that “they can’t reach the US” being used as a counter-argument is fundamentally ignorant of how things work

[OSINT Group313 @OSINT_Group313]

@realjammerjoh @MarioNawfal I mean, yes and no.

Iranian claims are borderline worthless. They’ve claimed to sink warships and carriers multiple times now, without any of them even being hit so far.

US claims so far have either been accurate or intentionally corrected post facto

[OSINT Group313 @OSINT_Group313]

At scale, and without direct military downstream connections, some of that may be war crimes… but only by very modern standards

WWII was fought and won by doing exactly this kind of thing. Frankly, super powers have generally failed at most wars when unwilling to dismantle large scale infrastructure

[OSINT Group313 @OSINT_Group313]

@CMarieMartinez @Bking78120265 @JavierBlas That is a fairly simplistic problem the IRGC well solve in the coming years after this war

[OSINT Group313 @OSINT_Group313]

@DefenceGeek The IRGC chose to reopen conflict. This likely qualifies as a separate use of military force and renews President Trump’s 60 day timer for authorizations.

Which, to be fair, may have been the plan

[OSINT Group313 @OSINT_Group313]

This opinion is flawed in so many ways. Firstly, I’m not sure why civilians tend to be obsessed with the idea of things being cowardly or not. That’s not how militaries work, at least professional grade ones. If a military puts a soldier in a position where he has to be brave, it should be because they already exhausted the options where they could not be exposed to risk. If we send in a group of infantry to destroy an objective that a drone or missile could take care of, then there needs to be a good reason for why we didn’t choose the unmanned method.

Secondly, the concept of proportionality in war (both legally and for war discussions) is mainly referencing collateral effect, and is NOT in relation to the enemies actions. In other words, it’s not about being a “proportional response” to what the enemy just did. It’s about the military utility of a target being proportional to the risk or damage you’re exposing to non-combatants. So using that term in the original post is, well, just non-sense, as FPV drones are the most proportional and discriminate weapon ever made.

Lastly, we ban weapons for their inhumane methods (typically defined by unnecessary suffering) or for indiscriminate effects (think chemical and biological). Bullets and precision bombs are the classical example of about as “humane” as you can get when killing people while still being discriminatory in their targeting (knowing what you’re shooting at and that target being a legal combatant). FPV drones are, once again, a prime example of best case. They are hyper discriminatory, don’t expose non-combatants to unnecessary risk, and don’t kill in a method that causes unnecessary suffering.

[OSINT Group313 @OSINT_Group313]

It’s because you’re on X. If you want to see the Russian version, go to the Cyrillic Telegram feeds, they’re full of this stuff from the Russian perspective targeting Ukrainians. Although Russian tastes are usually a bit more brutal, so their most favorite viral hits are things like the sledge hammer execution videos that went viral 3-4 times.

[OSINT Group313 @OSINT_Group313]

The main issue is lofted length. Being denied the airspace means max standoff flight distances, which dramatically increases the INS drift in a GPS denied environment. With a slightly closer launch window, these would likely perform well the vast majority of the time, which goes to show you the combined importance of having not just good weapons, but survivable air assets able to push further into an air defense zone

[OSINT Group313 @OSINT_Group313]

@IRomen77 @FaytuksNetwork It’s genuinely hard to explain both how factually incorrect you are… and how commonly ships would have sunk if what you’re describing worked in that way

Fortunately, it simply doesn’t.

Ship design is built to handle issues, including a punctured engine room.

[OSINT Group313 @OSINT_Group313]

That’s not how ships work. If it was, we’d have a LOT more on the ocean floor. Disabling an engine room via punching a hole in it with penetrating fire is considered a standard best practice. The rooms are hyper compartmentalized and while the ship is likely to be rendered inoperable, catastrophic cascading fire or ignition of onboard fuel is very unlikely. Hence why this engine room attack, like normal, didn’t not result in ship wide fire.

[OSINT Group313 @OSINT_Group313]

@IRomen77 @FaytuksNetwork 5” guns into an unarmored engine room is not a sinking event. Plus those tankers are pretty hardened against fire considering their contents. Unlike what Iran has been doing, which is less nuanced and more likely to cause catastrophic inaccurate and indiscriminate damage

[OSINT Group313 @OSINT_Group313]

@no_itsmyturn Wouldn’t be much of a blockade if you aren’t willing to enforce it.

[OSINT Group313 @OSINT_Group313]

@KobeissiLetter So basically a “no”