TheVulture

If anything, history has shown that excessive militarism is NOT conducive to peace, and that is the basic assumption most European countries operate under.

Civilian and cargo are not equal. Civilian is a passenger cruise liner, for example. Any "civil" cargo ship can potentially carry military or dual purpose cargo. Russian civil freighters for example, were involved in so-called "Syria express" along with military auxiliary vessels and landing ships, carring vehicles, ammunition and fuel.   
Since 21st of July, according to decision of National Security Council     A N Y   cargo ship, heading to Russian ports or to ports on occupied Ukrainian territory can be considered as those, which carry military-related cargo with all risks for them. Also since 20th of July, due to the same decision, Ukraine prohibited any shipping in Kerch strait as potentially dangerous and this statement was shared to all ship-operators. 
Also together with this decisions Zelenskiy made a statement that Ukraine will be more and more to transfer a war on Russian territory. Most of Russian population support the war or indiffrent and think this is "too far" from them.
This is not a border conflict, not a conflict with civilized opponent, where both sides stick to different rules of war and conventions. This is the same existential war on annihilation as WWII. We can't win this war wearing a "white coat" in order not to make nervous different lefist organizations like HRW and some western governments representatives, expectng in horror nukes because of each UKR strike on Russian territory. Of course, we can't do retaliation carpet bombing like on Drezden in 21st century, but we will strike enemy economical infrastructure and significant objects like Moscow towers (by the way only two "broken windows" caused start of exodus from these towers some commercial tenants and appartment leesess - and this is also economical losses for towers owners)
Video of strike on the tanker:
 

Putin says Russia withdrew army from Kyiv because it was "asked" (yahoo.com)
🤣🤣🤣

KevinK,
The next sentences are from a few recent reactions you posted:
 
- "We can't let nuclear blackmail stand".
- "Putin's nuclear buster has to be challenged".
- "Who is afraid of nuclear escalation anyway".
 
And now you wrote that highlighted (by me) remark in the quoted post.
 
For starters, I am afraid of nuclear escalation. I even fear the use of just one, yes just one, nuke. Not because of my own safety, (A. The Netherlands isn't exactly a top-target for nukes and B. I'm old, and have lived a less than pleasant life so far, so if dying through a nuke comes next, so be it.), but of the EXCEPTIONAL HORROR a (load of) nukes creates for at least tens of thousands, but possibly hundreds of millions, of humans. (Not to mention flora, fauna, environment etc.)
The effect of nuclear bombs exceeds every other horrible thing we humans used against one another, by so much, that it cannot even be imagined what multiple nukes will do on the scale of gruesome.
Your reactions, and maybe I copied them out of context, seem to indicate to me that you either firmly belief that nukes won't be used (again), WHICH I THINK IS A DANGEROUSLY WRONG ASSUMPTION, or you seem to think that the use of nukes would be less dangerous for the world, then when Russia would defeat Ukraine.
Your remark about "not letting stand nuclear blackmail" baffles me, because the way I see it is that the world since 1945 (or 1949, when Stalin got his nukes) has been living in this constant state of "blackmail". Because possible mutual destruction is a form of two-sided blackmail, and I do not think it wise to disturb that, how ridiculous the situation may be.
Nuclear war is, to say it very euphemistically, not to be taken lightly, but some of your postings make me nervous and I wonder, do you realize what you are talking about?
 
( Sad disclaimer: For the ones that would assume that I am thinking that the Russians will defeat Ukraine, or assume that I would want the Russians to defeat Ukraine..
 I am absolutely sure Russia wil NOT defeat Ukraine and Russia should get the hell outta there.)
 
 

There was presumably at least one vehicle near the explosion: a married couple were killed and their daughter injured IIRC. So it is possible that there was a burning vehicle at the explosion site which could be responsible for the blackening on the road sections.
But that's just a wild *** guess with no actual evidence. 

Are you guys really discussing indescriminately shelling civilians in a traffic jam and/or kidnapping children? 
Seriously,  WTF. Is this a Wagner Telegram channel or some ****? 
Get a grip on yourselves. 

Perhaps rail bridges have higher engineering requirements (a loaded goods train has a lot more mass in a small area than any road traffic), meaning that an explosive USV isn't a feasible way to damage the rail bridge reliably, while the road bridge has a high chance of being completely severed.

I suspect a but factor might be something I heard from a Polish guy: for western Europe (and America) the second world war ended nearly 80 years ago, and was something from our grandparents generation. For eastern Europe, the second world war was something that ended 30 years ago when they were finally no longer occupied by a hostile power, and was something in the direct experience of the majority of people alive today.
After the war, while western Europe had 50 years of peace, albeit with the threat inherent in the cold war, eastern Europe had 50 years of being forcibly occupied by the Soviet Union, which Russia is obviously the prime mover of and the continuation of in most ways.
This has built some very different world views into the bulk of the populations in either region.

I'm not the biggest fan of Ben Wallace (although he's one of the better of the Tory party), but on this I think the quote being thrown everywhere rather misrepresents what he said - it's rather more in line with what people on this thread have said that Ukraine can't take western support for granted in the sense that they need to be politically savvy about how public statements can sound to the western public. I.e. don't say stuff and present an attitude that is going to give leverage to the political factions that are rather more pro-Russian. Quoting a BBC article:
 
Ben Wallace's comments in full
More now on the latest comments from UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace.
In his briefing with reporters, he said that Ukraine had to remember it was asking countries to give up their own stocks of weapons.
“There is a slight word of caution which is, whether we like it or not, people want to see gratitude,” he said. “My counsel to the Ukrainians is sometimes, look, you are persuading countries to give up their own stocks.
"And yes, the war is a noble war and yes, we see it as you doing a war not just for yourselves but also our freedoms. But sometimes you have got to persuade lawmakers on the Hill in America [US Congress].
"You have got to persuade doubting politicians in other countries that it is worth it, it’s worthwhile and they are getting something for it. That’s just the reality of it.”
He said there would sometimes be "grumbles" from US lawmakers, but he insisted that Ukraine would join Nato.
“The win here for Ukraine is the sort of cultural acceptance that Ukraine belongs in Nato.
"You have heard the [UK] prime minister say Ukraine belongs in Nato and the word 'belongs' implies it's fate, implies it’s going to happen.”

Also confirmed on pro-Russian Telegram milinfolive:
 https://t.me/milinfolive/103396
As a result of the strike by the British Storm Shadow cruise missiles on the ZKP of the 58th Army in the Berdyansk region, the deputy commander of the Southern Military District, Lieutenant General Oleg Tsokov, was killed.

I'm not the biggest fan of Ben Wallace (although he's one of the better of the Tory party), but on this I think the quote being thrown everywhere rather misrepresents what he said - it's rather more in line with what people on this thread have said that Ukraine can't take western support for granted in the sense that they need to be politically savvy about how public statements can sound to the western public. I.e. don't say stuff and present an attitude that is going to give leverage to the political factions that are rather more pro-Russian. Quoting a BBC article:
 
Ben Wallace's comments in full
More now on the latest comments from UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace.
In his briefing with reporters, he said that Ukraine had to remember it was asking countries to give up their own stocks of weapons.
“There is a slight word of caution which is, whether we like it or not, people want to see gratitude,” he said. “My counsel to the Ukrainians is sometimes, look, you are persuading countries to give up their own stocks.
"And yes, the war is a noble war and yes, we see it as you doing a war not just for yourselves but also our freedoms. But sometimes you have got to persuade lawmakers on the Hill in America [US Congress].
"You have got to persuade doubting politicians in other countries that it is worth it, it’s worthwhile and they are getting something for it. That’s just the reality of it.”
He said there would sometimes be "grumbles" from US lawmakers, but he insisted that Ukraine would join Nato.
“The win here for Ukraine is the sort of cultural acceptance that Ukraine belongs in Nato.
"You have heard the [UK] prime minister say Ukraine belongs in Nato and the word 'belongs' implies it's fate, implies it’s going to happen.”

I'm not the biggest fan of Ben Wallace (although he's one of the better of the Tory party), but on this I think the quote being thrown everywhere rather misrepresents what he said - it's rather more in line with what people on this thread have said that Ukraine can't take western support for granted in the sense that they need to be politically savvy about how public statements can sound to the western public. I.e. don't say stuff and present an attitude that is going to give leverage to the political factions that are rather more pro-Russian. Quoting a BBC article:
 
Ben Wallace's comments in full
More now on the latest comments from UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace.
In his briefing with reporters, he said that Ukraine had to remember it was asking countries to give up their own stocks of weapons.
“There is a slight word of caution which is, whether we like it or not, people want to see gratitude,” he said. “My counsel to the Ukrainians is sometimes, look, you are persuading countries to give up their own stocks.
"And yes, the war is a noble war and yes, we see it as you doing a war not just for yourselves but also our freedoms. But sometimes you have got to persuade lawmakers on the Hill in America [US Congress].
"You have got to persuade doubting politicians in other countries that it is worth it, it’s worthwhile and they are getting something for it. That’s just the reality of it.”
He said there would sometimes be "grumbles" from US lawmakers, but he insisted that Ukraine would join Nato.
“The win here for Ukraine is the sort of cultural acceptance that Ukraine belongs in Nato.
"You have heard the [UK] prime minister say Ukraine belongs in Nato and the word 'belongs' implies it's fate, implies it’s going to happen.”

I'm not the biggest fan of Ben Wallace (although he's one of the better of the Tory party), but on this I think the quote being thrown everywhere rather misrepresents what he said - it's rather more in line with what people on this thread have said that Ukraine can't take western support for granted in the sense that they need to be politically savvy about how public statements can sound to the western public. I.e. don't say stuff and present an attitude that is going to give leverage to the political factions that are rather more pro-Russian. Quoting a BBC article:
 
Ben Wallace's comments in full
More now on the latest comments from UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace.
In his briefing with reporters, he said that Ukraine had to remember it was asking countries to give up their own stocks of weapons.
“There is a slight word of caution which is, whether we like it or not, people want to see gratitude,” he said. “My counsel to the Ukrainians is sometimes, look, you are persuading countries to give up their own stocks.
"And yes, the war is a noble war and yes, we see it as you doing a war not just for yourselves but also our freedoms. But sometimes you have got to persuade lawmakers on the Hill in America [US Congress].
"You have got to persuade doubting politicians in other countries that it is worth it, it’s worthwhile and they are getting something for it. That’s just the reality of it.”
He said there would sometimes be "grumbles" from US lawmakers, but he insisted that Ukraine would join Nato.
“The win here for Ukraine is the sort of cultural acceptance that Ukraine belongs in Nato.
"You have heard the [UK] prime minister say Ukraine belongs in Nato and the word 'belongs' implies it's fate, implies it’s going to happen.”

I suspect a but factor might be something I heard from a Polish guy: for western Europe (and America) the second world war ended nearly 80 years ago, and was something from our grandparents generation. For eastern Europe, the second world war was something that ended 30 years ago when they were finally no longer occupied by a hostile power, and was something in the direct experience of the majority of people alive today.
After the war, while western Europe had 50 years of peace, albeit with the threat inherent in the cold war, eastern Europe had 50 years of being forcibly occupied by the Soviet Union, which Russia is obviously the prime mover of and the continuation of in most ways.
This has built some very different world views into the bulk of the populations in either region.

I suspect a but factor might be something I heard from a Polish guy: for western Europe (and America) the second world war ended nearly 80 years ago, and was something from our grandparents generation. For eastern Europe, the second world war was something that ended 30 years ago when they were finally no longer occupied by a hostile power, and was something in the direct experience of the majority of people alive today.
After the war, while western Europe had 50 years of peace, albeit with the threat inherent in the cold war, eastern Europe had 50 years of being forcibly occupied by the Soviet Union, which Russia is obviously the prime mover of and the continuation of in most ways.
This has built some very different world views into the bulk of the populations in either region.

I'm not the biggest fan of Ben Wallace (although he's one of the better of the Tory party), but on this I think the quote being thrown everywhere rather misrepresents what he said - it's rather more in line with what people on this thread have said that Ukraine can't take western support for granted in the sense that they need to be politically savvy about how public statements can sound to the western public. I.e. don't say stuff and present an attitude that is going to give leverage to the political factions that are rather more pro-Russian. Quoting a BBC article:
 
Ben Wallace's comments in full
More now on the latest comments from UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace.
In his briefing with reporters, he said that Ukraine had to remember it was asking countries to give up their own stocks of weapons.
“There is a slight word of caution which is, whether we like it or not, people want to see gratitude,” he said. “My counsel to the Ukrainians is sometimes, look, you are persuading countries to give up their own stocks.
"And yes, the war is a noble war and yes, we see it as you doing a war not just for yourselves but also our freedoms. But sometimes you have got to persuade lawmakers on the Hill in America [US Congress].
"You have got to persuade doubting politicians in other countries that it is worth it, it’s worthwhile and they are getting something for it. That’s just the reality of it.”
He said there would sometimes be "grumbles" from US lawmakers, but he insisted that Ukraine would join Nato.
“The win here for Ukraine is the sort of cultural acceptance that Ukraine belongs in Nato.
"You have heard the [UK] prime minister say Ukraine belongs in Nato and the word 'belongs' implies it's fate, implies it’s going to happen.”

This would be the part about how this war is about a lot more than Ukraine trying to defend itself.  To be entirely brutal (yet accurate), this was became a major opportunity after about Apr 23.  An opportunity to knock Russia back in line with the international community and a global status quo that has endured for about 30+ years.  Russia was dumb enough and ill-prepared enough so the West scrambled for the chance at a nasty proxy war that 1) would not lead directly to NATO being pulled in/WW3, 2) could be contained to Ukraine and not blow up and out from there, 3) shore up NATO in both membership and funding, 4) result in regime change in Russia that we could do business with but not risk security everywhere, and 5) did not turn Russia into a complete freefall.  Not a great or easy opportunity but there it is.  The other option was to simply let it happen but that was simply letting things slide too far.
This is why we are doubling down on Ukraine - intersection strategic interests.  Not because we like them so much, or really care about their suffering.  There are lists of nations who were (and are) burning right now that we averted eyes and changed the channel.  There are conflicts that we stayed out of that were worse than Ukraine but that happened on the periphery.  Russia in Ukraine is right smack dab in the wheelhouse of challenging how we thought the world works.  We thought that nation states negotiating with war was over.  Intra-state and non-state, sure and nasty business "over there".  To have an international great power go "nope, we like the way of the gun and there is nothing you can do about it" risks the entire scheme.
So, no, we are not sending billions in military support or opening up our entire ISR architecture to Ukraine because it is the right thing to do in defending "the little guy".  Politicians are going to spin it that way because people buy it.  But this is harsh calculus time - we defend the scheme or risk it failing entirely.  Ukraine was the opportunity of a generation to have a war with Russia without really having a war.  Don't believe me, if Azerbaijan invades  Armenia again does anyone think they are going to see this sort of heat and light?  Why?  Because the rules based order can tolerate small side powers scrapping away, but one of the big boys...nope. 

I suspect a but factor might be something I heard from a Polish guy: for western Europe (and America) the second world war ended nearly 80 years ago, and was something from our grandparents generation. For eastern Europe, the second world war was something that ended 30 years ago when they were finally no longer occupied by a hostile power, and was something in the direct experience of the majority of people alive today.
After the war, while western Europe had 50 years of peace, albeit with the threat inherent in the cold war, eastern Europe had 50 years of being forcibly occupied by the Soviet Union, which Russia is obviously the prime mover of and the continuation of in most ways.
This has built some very different world views into the bulk of the populations in either region.

I suspect a but factor might be something I heard from a Polish guy: for western Europe (and America) the second world war ended nearly 80 years ago, and was something from our grandparents generation. For eastern Europe, the second world war was something that ended 30 years ago when they were finally no longer occupied by a hostile power, and was something in the direct experience of the majority of people alive today.
After the war, while western Europe had 50 years of peace, albeit with the threat inherent in the cold war, eastern Europe had 50 years of being forcibly occupied by the Soviet Union, which Russia is obviously the prime mover of and the continuation of in most ways.
This has built some very different world views into the bulk of the populations in either region.

I suspect a but factor might be something I heard from a Polish guy: for western Europe (and America) the second world war ended nearly 80 years ago, and was something from our grandparents generation. For eastern Europe, the second world war was something that ended 30 years ago when they were finally no longer occupied by a hostile power, and was something in the direct experience of the majority of people alive today.
After the war, while western Europe had 50 years of peace, albeit with the threat inherent in the cold war, eastern Europe had 50 years of being forcibly occupied by the Soviet Union, which Russia is obviously the prime mover of and the continuation of in most ways.
This has built some very different world views into the bulk of the populations in either region.

Also confirmed on pro-Russian Telegram milinfolive:
 https://t.me/milinfolive/103396
As a result of the strike by the British Storm Shadow cruise missiles on the ZKP of the 58th Army in the Berdyansk region, the deputy commander of the Southern Military District, Lieutenant General Oleg Tsokov, was killed.

Also confirmed on pro-Russian Telegram milinfolive:
 https://t.me/milinfolive/103396
As a result of the strike by the British Storm Shadow cruise missiles on the ZKP of the 58th Army in the Berdyansk region, the deputy commander of the Southern Military District, Lieutenant General Oleg Tsokov, was killed.

Also confirmed on pro-Russian Telegram milinfolive:
 https://t.me/milinfolive/103396
As a result of the strike by the British Storm Shadow cruise missiles on the ZKP of the 58th Army in the Berdyansk region, the deputy commander of the Southern Military District, Lieutenant General Oleg Tsokov, was killed.

Also confirmed on pro-Russian Telegram milinfolive:
 https://t.me/milinfolive/103396
As a result of the strike by the British Storm Shadow cruise missiles on the ZKP of the 58th Army in the Berdyansk region, the deputy commander of the Southern Military District, Lieutenant General Oleg Tsokov, was killed.

Not really a surprise in the end. There was too much pressure from just about every other NATO member (Hungary excluded) for Sweden to join. It was always about Erdogan holding out for some concessions on other issues, and presumably they've managed to find an acceptable compromise. I'm going to guess that Turkey is out of luck on its desire to have various PKK members in Sweden extradited, but they've probably got some economically beneficial trade-offs.