How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[mosuri]

3 hours ago, Astrophel said:

Maybe you should visit Seoul one day.  The situation feels anything BUT stable or safe.  The city is overshadowed by mountains in North Korea into which everybody knows North Korea has spent 50 years digging tunnels and embedding all kinds of artillery - these days including nuclear.  It is nice you see American uniforms driving around on occasion but it does not make you feel any safer.

I've been to Seoul a few times on business trips. Felt like any bustling big city to me. To be fair those trips included limited contact with locals and I may be particularly thick or maybe living next door to the Evil Empire during cold war sets my calibration differently but still, what's that statement based on? Yes, the norks are not far away, but people still go on with they day to day business (extremely successfully, too).

[kevinkin]

6 hours ago, Teufel said:

From these two sources we can draw the conclusion that approx 75% of the annual cost spent on Afghanistan is sent to Ukraine. And just looking at the military expenditure it’s 50%. But let’s stick to 75% as reference when comparing.

You are forgetting the cost the US paid in blood and treasure and sustaining US troops on the ground in a reasonable, confrontable and compassionate way. Fast food and the Super Bowl. Now let's go kill some rag heads. It's difficult to compare expenditures when US citizens are not coming back in thousands of body bags. But there is this trend that the US just prints money to throw at problems. And the authoritarian regimes in China and Russia know that we have become too soft to follow through on anything believing we can reinvent cultures in our own image. 

[Teufel]

54 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

You are forgetting the cost the US paid in blood and treasure and sustaining US troops on the ground in a reasonable, confrontable and compassionate way. Fast food and the Super Bowl. Now let's go kill some rag heads. It's difficult to compare expenditures when US citizens are not coming back in thousands of body bags. But there is this trend that the US just prints money to throw at problems. And the authoritarian regimes in China and Russia know that we have become too soft to follow through on anything believing we can reinvent cultures in our own image. 

Only included monetary value as you well pointed out.

The discussion on body counts is very important but can’t add much on that. Ukrainians are dying right now and that’s no different than Americans from my point of view. But if anyone wants to try and weigh in that value then the overall monetary support should be greater. For the simple reason, American lives are spared.

It’s a sickening idea to suggest but if we gonna try to argue that American lives can be spared by sending more aid - who would be against that?

Edited July 31, 2023 by Teufel

[Teufel]

7 hours ago, Butschi said:

Thanks, I can very much respect that.

You are good! One of the more interesting and important questions I’ve seen in some time. Thank you for posting it. The simple questions are never irrelevant, quite the contrary as you showed with your first post. Saw the activity it suddenly generated as it was great perspective you offered.

Just my two cents but keep it up! Need more sensible people like yourself in these discussions. Got more than few knuckleheads like Moi.

Again, well done!

[kevinkin]

2 hours ago, Teufel said:

sending more aid

My point is that some in the US think printing and sending money to Ukraine to keep them in a war is cost effective. I have said many times it is cruel. If it's in the world's interest to defeat Russia, get to done. Nuance kills. But it does sell a lot of books and munitions. So why are the good guys titrating down their weapons stocks instead of just getting to thing over quickly with absolute certainty? Books and other sales? Yep. In the west we are more interested in the biopic of addicted rock star than a role model like say Derik Jeter. And I hate the Yankees. But can recognize good vs evil. In the US, the two are blurred.   

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by kevinkin

[Battlefront.com]

Early on in this war we kept track of all the losses Russia was racking up by continuing to fight in Ukraine.  It was a massive list before which we seemed to lose interest in updating because it was just silly long already.

There is no way, no how, in no reasonable way this war will end with anything other than a Russian strategic defeat.  Someone can case out the specific way it ends, or even stays frozen, 100 ways to Sunday and the conclusion will still be strategic Russian defeat.  And not just by Western definitions, but by Russian as well.

Russia went into this war to secure several long term strategic objectives:

• political, economic, and social domination over all of Ukraine
• challenging the West's influence in Russia's former Soviet sphere
• cementing fear amongst other former Soviet states that they need to bow to Russia or face significant consequences
• increasing its projection of both soft and hard power beyond the Soviet sphere
• apparently Putin wanted this war to put him right up there with Peter the Great in the history books
• solidifying power for Putin's regime for another 10 years
• providing some method for stabilizing (at a minimum) Russia's declining economic power while at the same time continuing the system of corruption that keeps Putin in power
• being treated as a peer by the US and other Western economic partners
• continuing its general policies of weakening the West through political and economic corruption, especially through the use of petroleum products

Oh, there's probably a lot more that I'm skipping over, but this is enough for the purposes of the discussion.

What objectives on this list can Russia check off as being accomplished?  Not a single one.  So by any reasonable Russian definition of "winning", Russia has absolutely lost.  Worse, many of the things Russia sought to achieve were improvements over where things were before they started the war, yet in fact they are vastly worse off than when they started.  Coming out behind where you started is the very definition of "loss" and not "win".

On top of all of this there's a rather long list of things Russia now has that it never wanted.  Oh, like regime instability, pariah state status, massive chunk of its dwindling prime worker demographic being dead/wounded/mentally damaged, extremely large loss of
"treasure", loss of the bulk of its Soviet military legacy, likely loss of arms export opportunities, solidifying resistance to everything Russian, the collapse of its EU alternative for post-Soviet states, cut off from foreign investment, etc.  All kinds of stuff like that.

The war could end tomorrow with Ukraine surrendering on terms favorable to Russia or the war could continue in a frozen state for another 10 years and the fact is that Russia will still be a loser by its own standards as well as more objective ones.

Steve

[danfrodo]

18 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Early on in this war we kept track of all the losses Russia was racking up by continuing to fight in Ukraine.  It was a massive list before which we seemed to lose interest in updating because it was just silly long already.

There is no way, no how, in no reasonable way this war will end with anything other than a Russian strategic defeat.  Someone can case out the specific way it ends, or even stays frozen, 100 ways to Sunday and the conclusion will still be strategic Russian defeat.  And not just by Western definitions, but by Russian as well.

Russia went into this war to secure several long term strategic objectives:

• political, economic, and social domination over all of Ukraine
• challenging the West's influence in Russia's former Soviet sphere
• cementing fear amongst other former Soviet states that they need to bow to Russia or face significant consequences
• increasing its projection of both soft and hard power beyond the Soviet sphere
• apparently Putin wanted this war to put him right up there with Peter the Great in the history books
• solidifying power for Putin's regime for another 10 years
• providing some method for stabilizing (at a minimum) Russia's declining economic power while at the same time continuing the system of corruption that keeps Putin in power
• being treated as a peer by the US and other Western economic partners
• continuing its general policies of weakening the West through political and economic corruption, especially through the use of petroleum products

Oh, there's probably a lot more that I'm skipping over, but this is enough for the purposes of the discussion.

What objectives on this list can Russia check off as being accomplished?  Not a single one.  So by any reasonable Russian definition of "winning", Russia has absolutely lost.  Worse, many of the things Russia sought to achieve were improvements over where things were before they started the war, yet in fact they are vastly worse off than when they started.  Coming out behind where you started is the very definition of "loss" and not "win".

On top of all of this there's a rather long list of things Russia now has that it never wanted.  Oh, like regime instability, pariah state status, massive chunk of its dwindling prime worker demographic being dead/wounded/mentally damaged, extremely large loss of
"treasure", loss of the bulk of its Soviet military legacy, likely loss of arms export opportunities, solidifying resistance to everything Russian, the collapse of its EU alternative for post-Soviet states, cut off from foreign investment, etc.  All kinds of stuff like that.

The war could end tomorrow with Ukraine surrendering on terms favorable to Russia or the war could continue in a frozen state for another 10 years and the fact is that Russia will still be a loser by its own standards as well as more objective ones.

Steve

Reminds me of seeing quotes from true believers in Germany in late 1944: "Don't worry, Hitler has a plan for victory!".  yes, your cities are in rubble and you have thousands of casualties per month and the front is getting closer & closer to Germany, including collapse on RU front that was only slowed due to overextended RU supply lines.  Allied planes fill the sky day & night.  But don't worry, he's got a plan.  

The cost of this war to Russia is horrific and will have consequences for a generation.

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

The war could end tomorrow with Ukraine surrendering on terms favorable to Russia or the war could continue in a frozen state for another 10 years and the fact is that Russia will still be a loser by its own standards as well as more objective ones.

I am totally in board with the notion that Russia/ Putin has lost. I'm just not sure a frozen conflict with Ukrainian territory under Russian control could be counted as a victory for Ukraine.

Personally I hope this discussion is mute and Ukraine gets what it wants.

[kevinkin]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

What objectives on this list can Russia check off as being accomplished? 

Surviving in China's hip pocket for one with its old elites still humping underage women. Let's get this correct. All Russians know they are losers. They actually love being losers. But their culture has not been defeated. Until they are humiliated, Russia can always spin something someway and continue pumping energy and remain  a gangster state. There is nothing in this war that will change that unless the US enters in a major way.  

Meanwhile the US is graduating youth who can't add or subtract. If someone want's to think Russia is a loser today on July 31, 2023, go grab a weapon and see how long you, the armchair general, survives on the steppe. I believe there is a big difference in the words loser and defeated. A loser can get up off the mat and fight another day. The defeated can't for generations. So all the enumerations above are as cute as they are meaningless. 

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by kevinkin

[chris talpas]

With the recent posts on the Russian economy, this video has relevance:

 

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, IanL said:

I am totally in board with the notion that Russia/ Putin has lost. I'm just not sure a frozen conflict with Ukrainian territory under Russian control could be counted as a victory for Ukraine.

Ukraine not having a clear cut victory does not mean Russia somehow won.  For Russia to win it has to get something that it wanted at an acceptable cost.  I'd also argue that part of the cost calculation is if there was a significantly better means of achieving that particular goal.  If all Russia winds up with for all the costs associated with this war is a frozen conflict, how is that different than the frozen conflict they already had for the 8 years prior to launching this war?  Did Russia have options for keeping the previous frozen war going without trashing its military, economy, global power, and internal stability?

The question about what "winning" means for Ukraine is an entirely different discussion requiring an entirely different analysis.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, kevinkin said:

Surviving in China's hip pocket for one with its old elites still humping underage women. Let's get this correct. All Russians know they are losers. They actually love being losers. But their culture has not been defeated. Until they are humiliated, Russia can always spin something someway and continue pumping energy and remain  a gangster state. There is nothing in this war that will change that unless the US enters in a major way.  

Meanwhile the US is graduating youth who can't add or subtract. If someone want's to think Russia is a loser today on July 31, 2023, go grab a weapon and see how long you, the armchair general, survives on the steppe. I believe there is a big difference in the words loser and defeated. A loser can get up off the mat and fight another day. The defeated can't for generations. So all the enumerations above are as cute as they are meaningless. 

 

Er, what?

The discussion was about Russia somehow coming out of this war as a "winner".  Arguing about if Russia is a "loser" or "defeated" implies that it hasn't won since neither of those conditions are in any way, shape, or form associated with any type of victory that I'm aware of.  I also think believing a nation's goals for war are as meaningless and irrelevant as the results is... well... an unsupportable argument.  Nations do not go to war to be defeated, ergo they believe they need something from the wars they wage.  And if they don't get it, then it is fairly reasonable to presume that is a harmful outcome in their own eyes.

As for whether Russia will come out of this as the "loser" or the "defeated" is unknown yet.  Short to mid term the effect, especially for Ukraine, might not matter.  Long term... for sure, there's plenty of discussion to be had.  But to presume that the US is the only way to determine which way things go is preposterous.  Russia could fraction into a dozen sub states with none of them allied with the Moscow based rump of Russia.  This would give Russia the economic and military power of... I dunno... Portugal?  Russia's old ways would most likely be "defeated" in this scenario and the US doesn't need to do anything extraordinary to make that happen.  It's already pushing Russia towards that possible outcome with the aid it is providing to Ukraine and the leadership it is taking within NATO.

Steve

[A Canadian Cat]

33 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Ukraine not having a clear cut victory does not mean Russia somehow won.  

Which was in part my point. And other people's. We are viamently agreeing 

33 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The question about what "winning" means for Ukraine is an entirely different discussion requiring an entirely different analysis.

And that was what I thought we were talking about. Again in part. Can Ukraine be happy with a victory the includes a frozen conflict? Do they get all that they want if the Russian army still controls some territory? Maybe it looks better if they cut thier losses off and let them keep some sliver but what about the Russian bills that claim whole provinces as part of Russia? Can they still get NATO membership in that situation?

Of course it is Ukrainian's decision in part but if Ukraine wants NATO membership these issues matter to how well the Ukraine wins.

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, IanL said:

And that was what I thought we were talking about. Again in part.

Yup, but this started out with some thinking there is a way for Russia to somehow "win" this war by simply not fully losing it.  Impossible given the costs.  However, it is absolutely possible for Ukraine to "win" this war without Russia fully losing it.

10 minutes ago, IanL said:

Can Ukraine be happy with a victory the includes a frozen conflict? Do they get all that they want if the Russian army still controls some territory? Maybe it looks better if they cut thier losses off and let them keep some sliver but what about the Russian bills that claim whole provinces as part of Russia? Can they still get NATO membership in that situation?

Simply remaining a free and independent state is a massive win with the costs, as horribly high as they might be, worth it.  Which is the fundamental problem when a conflict pits an attacker with limited goals against a defender that views the conflict as existential.  Our two countries just experienced this with Afghanistan. 

Can Ukraine survive as a viable state without the territory Russia currently occupies?  Absolutely.  Can it survive with the destruction to its infrastructure and people that it's likely to suffer before the war ends?  Absolutely.  Just look at fairly recent historical examples, such as Germany winding up doing quite well even though it was crushed into rubble and had a huge chunk of its traditional lands and having the rest split into two.  Even the people of state that violently split apart, such as Yugoslavia, can come out ahead even if nobody can envision how while the lead is still flying around.

The form of victory that Ukraine may experience is, of course, cloudy at the moment.  Let's presume a sorta worst case scenario where Ukraine doesn't regain much more of its terrain and, for a variety of reasons, is forced to negotiate with Russia to stop the war.  Let's also presume that Russia steps back from its ridiculous maximalist demands and agrees to something (on paper) that Ukraine will agree to. Further, let's presume that in reality it doesn't end the war and that there is still at least the threat of violence for the foreseeable future.  What is the likely course of events for Ukraine?

I think what we'd see is the non-occupied and non-frontline parts of Ukraine rebound with help from its current partners in the West.  It will become a stronger state than it was prior to the invasion, even if it is weaker territoriality.  NATO will come up with some sort of framework, so will the EU.  I expect that individual states, however, will not wait and will also go further than their allies may.

Russia, on the other hand, will continue to deteriorate as a cohesive state.  This trend was already evident before 2014 and certainly long before 2022.  This war has accelerated it big time.  Whatever it tries to do to Ukraine going forward will have to be better balanced with the other needs of the Russian state, especially things which are necessary for it to simply survive.

At some point in this worst case scenario Russia will falter in some significant way.  At that point Ukraine will have opportunities of some sort and abilities to capitalize on them to some degree.  What and how much are way too iffy to predict even with all the assumptions I've made for this particular scenario, so it's best not to try and get into specifics.  Suffice to say that Ukraine will be on the assent even under this scenario, Russia on the decent.

Steve

[Carolus]

The more I read about the economic situation, the more puzzled I am about the strategy of the "Western bloc".

The West is the biggest contributor to the Russian war effort at the moment. Export sanctions work, sure, but import sanctions are being easily dodged, with the knowing approval of Western companies which know their goods do end up in Russia even if they take a detour via Keyman Islands, and it is not necessary to be a CIA sleuth to see this.

But Western governments are not reacting, are they?

Yes, the legal basis for intervening does not really exist ("These Iskander missile guidance chips? Oh these are going to Zimbabwe, honest guvnor" - "My apologies, please continue"), and a legal basis is important and necessary for Western government actions, but that is amendable with some effort.

There isn't even a hint of legislative suggestions to amend the sanctions in Europe to address this issue. If I have overlooked something, please tell me I am wrong.

Ukraine isn't fighting Russia with Chinese support.

Ukraine is fighting Russia with China and the entire West in support, at the same time. Just that the contributions of the West to the Russian war effort are steady and continuous and growing every quarter. The Western contribution to the Ukrainian war effort is an irregular drop of an ecclectic collection of material.

I don't know what the strategy is here. Western nations are spending vast amounts of money to shoot down or pledge to repair the damage caused by weapons they helped build in Russia, quite knowingly and willingly.

When Russia says it is in a war with NATO, who knew that they actually meant they are in a war with NATO as a partner financing Russia to shoot at NATO donations to Ukraine.

I am more puzzled than anything about what's the big picture here. Not even sad or dissapointed anymore or anything like that.

My hopes that the public bumbleshucking of Western politicians is a result of our democratic systems bringing a broad range of personalities into power (as it should knid of), but behind the curtains steely-eyed military, intelligence and strategy analysts have worked on an overall strategy is shrinking. 

I think the bumbleshucking is genuine and every Western country really is just improvising with its pants around its ankles at the moment.

Edited August 1, 2023 by Carolus

[JonS]

Meanwhile ...

https://apnews.com/article/france-china-russia-chip-technology-smuggling-66a8a4edcaf7137e109a16d6d300cd94

https://www.dutchnews.nl/2023/07/man-arrested-for-dodging-sanctions-against-russia/

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/suspected-russian-intelligence-operative-extradited-estonia-face-charges-related

 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by JonS

[FancyCat]

48 minutes ago, Carolus said:

The more I read about the economic situation, the more puzzled I am about the strategy of the "Western bloc".

The West is the biggest contributor to the Russian war effort at the moment. Export sanctions work, sure, but import sanctions are being easily dodged, with the knowing approval of Western companies which know their goods do end up in Russia even if they take a detour via Keyman Islands, and it is not necessary to be a CIA sleuth to see this.

But Western governments are not reacting, are they?

Yes, the legal basis for intervening does not really exist ("These Iskander missile guidance chips? Oh these are going to Zimbabwe, honest guvnor" - "My apologies, please continue"), and a legal basis is important and necessary for Western government actions, but that is amendable with some effort.

There isn't even a hint of legislative suggestions to amend the sanctions in Europe to address this issue. If I have overlooked something, please tell me I am wrong.

Ukraine isn't fighting Russia with Chinese support.

Ukraine is fighting Russia with China and the entire West in support, at the same time. Just that the contributions of the West to the Russian war effort are steady and continuous and growing every quarter. The Western contribution to the Ukrainian war effort is an irregular drop of an ecclectic collection of material.

I don't know what the strategy is here. Western nations are spending vast amounts of money to shoot down or pledge to repair the damage caused by weapons they helped build in Russia, quite knowingly and willingly.

When Russia says it is in a war with NATO, who knew that they actually meant they are in a war with NATO as a partner financing Russia to shoot at NATO donations to Ukraine.

I am more puzzled than anything about what's the big picture here. Not even sad or dissapointed anymore or anything like that.

My hopes that the public bumbleshucking of Western politicians is a result of our democratic systems bringing a broad range of personalities into power (as it should knid of), but behind the curtains steely-eyed military, intelligence and strategy analysts have worked on an overall strategy is shrinking. 

I think the bumbleshucking is genuine and every Western country really is just improvising with its pants around its ankles at the moment.

Global economy. While you do have good points regarding these chips falling into Russia, it's important to note the nature, these parts are flowing via 3rd party countries largely. Not only that, many of these parts are not considered sensitive, or consumer grade, they are in many cases produced in 3rd party countries like China, so transfer is even easier.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/russia-ukraine-war-exports-sanctions-western-technology-5a3eff69

Quote

"Ukraine is currently firing up to 8,000 rounds of artillery a day...according to American officials."  "The US is now also working to ramp up supply of the shells, with a target of producing up to 90,000 a month by FY 2025...compared with 24,000 now"

 

[kevinkin]

3 hours ago, IanL said:

And that was what I thought we were talking about. Again in part. Can Ukraine be happy with a victory the includes a frozen conflict? Do they get all that they want if the Russian army still controls some territory? Maybe it looks better if they cut thier losses off and let them keep some sliver but what about the Russian bills that claim whole provinces as part of Russia? Can they still get NATO membership in that situation?

Of course it is Ukrainian's decision in part but if Ukraine wants NATO membership these issues matter to how well the Ukraine wins.

I thought so as well. The expectations for Ukraine are being toned down faster than their body bags pile up. Sorry to be so blunt, but throwing devalued US cash at this war is cowardly.  Especially when some fairly bright minds can't define what a defeated Russia would look like. "Could" "might" "probably" "maybe" do not bring Ukraine any closer to being a safe and happy place to live. Unless the west acts fast, Putin's gangsters will out last Ukraine's. It's simple arithmetic. Let's stop being jerks about it. Putin holds a nuclear option over the world's head and can do as he pleases until Russians say enough is enough. But that's not happening since the elites have purposely created a zombie state - a cancer culture that has to be excised. I suppose 50 years from now when we are all pushing up daisies we can look down and say we did x y and z. Lazy ineffectual efforts and just watch Russia and Ukraine fight again and again as testing grounds for Raytheon and war gamers. 

 

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

At some point in this worst case scenario Russia will falter in some significant way.  At that point Ukraine will have opportunities of some sort and abilities to capitalize on them to some degree.  What and how much are way too iffy to predict even with all the assumptions I've made for this particular scenario, so it's best not to try and get into specifics.  Suffice to say that Ukraine will be on the assent even under this scenario, Russia on the decent.

Well that's one hell of a way to fight a war. Thinking like that got McClellan fired. 

"At that point Ukraine will have opportunities of some sort and abilities to capitalize on them to some degree."

Er, what? 

Here is the point: if Russia is weak and ready to fall or break apart (I do enjoy Portugal BTW), why not force them over the cliff now? It will serve as an example to others like Iran and China. Given the trajectory the west in on, now is the last chance. The US will find any reason to back away from this war. Putin will find any reason to stay in it. 

Edited August 1, 2023 by kevinkin

[Teufel]

8 hours ago, kevinkin said:

My point is that some in the US think printing and sending money to Ukraine to keep them in a war is cost effective. I have said many times it is cruel. If it's in the world's interest to defeat Russia, get to done. Nuance kills. But it does sell a lot of books and munitions. So why are the good guys titrating down their weapons stocks instead of just getting to thing over quickly with absolute certainty? Books and other sales? Yep. In the west we are more interested in the biopic of addicted rock star than a role model like say Derik Jeter. And I hate the Yankees. But can recognize good vs evil. In the US, the two are blurred.   

 

I hear you, we on the same page here. I can’t see any other way forward in the long term other than putting our money where our mouths are. There is the idiom “you can’t be a little bit pregnant”, either we have complete and utter commitment or we don’t.

I’ve already made my point clear on the subject, Putin or no Putin the Sovjet Russian system just put on pinstripes. Nothing else changed, same blood thirsty system.

Love this poster from Prague, summarizes it better than anything I seen.

[kevinkin]

4 minutes ago, Teufel said:

There is the idiom “you can’t be a little bit pregnant”, either we have complete and utter commitment or we don’t.

I have to say those that take middle of the road positions on all this are not dumb. Kicking the can down the road is a perfectly viable strategy when you are 65 and are financially independent. Why rock the boat? But when you observe a situation that is changeable in your lifetime, why not go for it? That said, the war in Ukraine, as disgusting as it is, only previews the fight the world will have over Africa and South America. We won't see it. But I do see our kids are ill prepared to fight it. They will trade a thumb and a couple of fingers for their cell phone hands down. 

[Teufel]

Few updates of actual events

Freely translated/summarized

It is necessary to turn on the light at the end of the tunnel, to understand what is slow\fast. At the current pace of the offensive, the Armed Forces will reach Azov in 60-65 days. Excellent. I will live with this.

Edited August 1, 2023 by Teufel

[Teufel]

Unconfirmed claims from Israel, see link claims that Sierra Leone flagged ship is first to break the Russian blockade and of Ukrainian ports. The more relevant part is that P8 Poseidon is following the path of the ship across the Black Sea. Very interesting if true due to capabilities of P8 has been described by US Navy Admiral as “the most effective platform we have for wide-area searches and localization of maritime threats”. Note that includes sub-marines as well.

If true and not just sensationalism news, it’s time for Russia to show up or their bluff is called about attacks on ships breaking the blockade. Time for some !

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/ukraine-conflict/1690835345-ship-sailing-from-israel-becomes-the-first-to-break-russia-s-grain-blockade

Edit - lost my reading glasses, see Carolus post below.

Edited August 1, 2023 by Teufel

[Carolus]

7 minutes ago, Teufel said:

If true and not just sensationalism news, it’s time for Russia to show up or their bluff is called about attacks on ships breaking the blockade. 

Ship tracker shows it did a 360° and moonwalked out of there. I posted about that on the previous page.

Would have been very interesting, of course, to see if Russia blinks.

Edited August 1, 2023 by Carolus

[Teufel]

On air defense in Moscow, and actual activities during the night.

Most advanced system in the World is covering skies over Moscow. The Ukrainians will break their heads against a wall if they try Moscow says.

I guess forgot to add that must been really bad Russian copy of shoji paper walls from Japan. Because most advanced AA systems achieve what actually?

 

[kevinkin]

A couple of P8s bundled with a flight of F-35s could sink the entire Russian Black Sea fleet if they dared to engage. Not overnight, but quickly. The P8 is wonderful technology. Something ground pounders just can't understand. Why the US is withholding their technological edge is is hard to fathom. This edge is in the air and on the sea. Not the ground. A handful of M1s and Bradleys .. sure that will defeat Russia at it's own game. Window dressing.