How can a Russian warship be deployed to the Black Sea when no Russian warship can get through the Bosphorus? Surely it must have been there all along?
ETA the headline from that Telegraph rolling news page in case it changes:
Warship carrying Kalibr missiles deployed to Black Sea as Russia 'prepares fresh attacks'
Theres more than on sea east of the Bosphorus and linked to the Black Sea
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Azov
How can a Russian warship be deployed to the Black Sea when no Russian warship can get through the Bosphorus? Surely it must have been there all along?
Russian port of Stevastopol in crimea? if you zoom in on google maps satelite view theres a few military ships there.
These are deffinatley not commercial vessles https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/44%C2%B03 7'24.8%22N+33%C2%B033'18.1%22E/@44.6231025,33.5559323,275m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x3a134cf8bd3d856!8m2!3d44.6235445!4d33.555017
Another article on small diameter bombs
If the bomb component could be replaced by a basic container then I could see this being a great development for Evri.
It would certainly remove the need for a calling card to say "I left it in the shed" when your shed looks like:
I see you're a racist now father?
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1597267755660894208?s=20&t=f9QeYni0bvLGmKaRMWT3lQ
How can a Russian warship be deployed to the Black Sea when no Russian warship can get through the Bosphorus?
AIUI in peacetime you can navigate warships with notification to Turkiye
In wartime only those registered to Black Sea bases can navigate, Turkiye has sent many RF vessels the long way around since February
Montreux Convention 1936... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits
Turkiye has sent many RF vessels the long way around since February
What's the long way round?
What’s the long way round?
The Med fleet navigate via the N. Atlantic to St Petersburg and Vladivostock. Refits, resupply of Syrian garrison and annual navy days
They really should be negotiating now. Any gains made by Ukraine will come at such a high cost.
Thay are still stealing children. Would you talk to state sponsored kidnapping regimens?
They really should be negotiating now. Any gains made by Ukraine will come at such a high cost.
Negotiating what, exactly? Given the losses, damage and war crimes committed so far, any further losses really aren't an issue, at national level (tragic at a human level, obviously)
They really should be negotiating now. Any gains made by Ukraine will come at such a high cost.
That's up to Ukraine without pressure from outside, but I can't see it happening any time soon. Based on past experience, any promises Russia makes in negotiations would be worthless. They would only use it to rearm and reorg before attacking again. If you watch any of the Russian media monitoring videos by Julia Davis on youtube, you will see a constant barrage of genocidal talk denying the right of Ukraine to even exist unless it's part of Russia. They acknowledge the rapes and atrocities and in some cases call for more. They have a pathological hatred of the 'hohols' for having the temerity to resist the warm embrace of mother Russia. Russia won't stop until Ukraine is completely subjugated, unless they get a proper bloody nose and dose of humiliation at the hands of Ukraine along the way. IMO that is happening and will continue to do so.
Negotiating for peace. UK didn't move when Russia was where they are now in 2014 (Donbas). So why continue to support Ukraine? It's costing an utter fortune, for what benefit?
Negotiating for peace.
Which will involve Ukraine ceding more of their sovereign territory. Why should they? It would reward and encourage territorial land grabs by an authoritarian regime. Where next? Poland? Estonia? Lithuania? Should they just roll over and negotiate away their territory too?
UK didn’t move when Russia was where they are now in 2014 (Donbas).
We should have, not doing so was a mistake which emboldened Putin. We have learnt that lesson
So why continue to support Ukraine? It’s costing an utter fortune, for what benefit?
To prevent a belligerent pariah state in Europe from rebuilding an empire it believes is it's by right. By invading it's democratic neighbours. Russia will destabilise the whole of Europe for years to come if they get away with this. It's in our own self interest to help Ukraine, as well as being the right thing to do morally IMO.
I honestly don't understand how anyone can look at the mass graves in Kherson, Bucha and elsewhere, the deliberate destruction of hospitals and schools, the kidnapping of children, torture and rape, Wagner scum sledgehammering people to death and say the victims should negotiate with the culprits. Especially when they still have the means and the will to fight back and expel them.
are now in 2014 (Donbas). So why continue to support Ukraine?
That's exactly the point, the world did nothing when Russia annexed Donbass & Crimea, believing their lies that they wouldn't attack again...
And here we are
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1597005533760073729?t=ocYSUCo1vjWv0HGaP7CVVA&s=19
They really should be negotiating now. Any gains made by Ukraine will come at such a high cost.
That’s up to Ukraine without pressure from outside, but I can’t see it happening any time soon. Based on past experience, any promises Russia makes in negotiations would be worthless. They would only use it to rearm and reorg before attacking again.
Exactly. It's Ukraine's decision whether or not to negotiate. There is absolutely no evidence that Russia is ready to enter into negotiations in good faith anyway, they will just play for time to rearm before renewing their attacks. Honestly, why would anybody trust any promises that Russia makes?
Well said, bloke...
What’s the long way round?
The Med fleet navigate via the N. Atlantic to St Petersburg and Vladivostock. Refits, resupply of Syrian garrison and annual navy days
Ah, I thought you meant a long way round into the Black Sea.
It’s costing an utter fortune, for what benefit?
To demonstrate to one UN member state that it cannot invade another UN member state with impunity. Something which ought to be blindingly obvious and pretty much Rule #1.
To demonstrate to one UN member state that it cannot invade another UN member state with impunity. Something which ought to be blindingly obvious and pretty much Rule #1.
Yep, it's this, basically.
+Another 1 to what Bloke said
There are no good options if you're holding out for one, even if Russia packs up and leaves there'll be a festering sore of resentment that will poison Russian politics and Rus-Uke relations for decades. But neither side is anywhere near a place where the politics have changed enough to force some sort of settlement. Ukraine is still fighting to exist, and arguably so is Putin.
UK didn’t move when Russia was where they are now in 2014 (Donbas).
Not even slightly accurate. One example: In Feb 2015 the UK launched Op. Orbital which had trained 22000 Ukrainian personnel by the time of the 2022 invasion with trainers from the UK army, navy and air force.
In 2022 it morphed into the UK-led multi-national Op. Interflex that between July and September had trained a further 5000 personnel with trainers from UK, Canada, New Zealand and Netherlands, with other countries following later
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orbital
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Interflex
UK was also the first European country to send "lethal" aid.
Had you said, "The EU didn't move..."
"I think that, for example, [of] the discussion on the Ukrainian Training mission [EU Training Mission in Ukraine]. We had been discussing about the Ukrainian Training Mission before the war for months. “Do we have to send a training mission to Ukraine?”, “No, come on, Ukraine, training mission, military in Ukraine...”. And then, boom, the war comes and people said: “we should have done it.” Yes, we should have done it." Josep Borrell 10/10/2022
@kimbers I honestly expected that head banger to finish with One People, One Realm, One Leader!
Just been reading about Ukranian production of 152mm shells restarting, which is good news. The wewstern 155mm weapons are coming with shells supplied, but the soviet 152mm weapons they have a lot of, have no ready supply of ammunition.
The wewstern 155mm weapons are coming with shells supplied, but the soviet 152mm weapons they have a lot of, have no ready supply of ammunition.
Easy to whizz 1.5mm off the radius on a big lathe I suspect.
I'd maybe take out the shell and propellant first 🙂
The wewstern 155mm weapons are coming with shells supplied, but the soviet 152mm weapons they have a lot of, have no ready supply of ammunition.
I gather Russia has been supplying a fair bit to Ukraine.
Indeed!! Although many of the ones seen online, you wouldn't want to put in a weapon you were anywhere near!!!
The talking heads and Kremlin propagandists are finally realising, on national TV that they are complicit in war crimes and are going to be tried at the Hague. Good.
https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1597468838333149187?s=20&t=E97DND8anSGpjZSajQneoQ
I didn't take it like they were scared though - it was more confrontational, calling out others that are concerned about being tried for war crimes and that Russia should just, as she said, 'turn the world to ashes'.
There were saying those in high places were scared of the Hague and yes, berating them for it. But did also acknowledge I think that they, the 'presenters' were complicit. It was Solovyov (the muppet dressed like a Bond villain) who made the comment about turning the world to ashes. He always does that, on nearly every clip I've seen him in, ever since the start of the war. All he needs is a cat on his lap for the complete pound shop Blofeld effect.
tthew
Full MemberEasy to whizz 1.5mm off the radius on a big lathe I suspect.
Just get the dremel out. Or fit a -3mm spacer.
It was Solovyov (the muppet dressed like a Bond villain) who made the comment about turning the world to ashes.
Ahh okay, I just read the subtitles (in the office with the sound down) – my mistake.
It was Solovyov (the muppet dressed like a Bond villain) who made the comment about turning the world to ashes. He always does that, on nearly every clip I’ve seen him in, ever since the start of the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher
' It’s costing an utter fortune, for what benefit?' Because it doesn't benefit most of us to have an aggressive fascist country next to Europe.
I was in the supermarket today, and there were a couple of kids in front of me. They used Ukraininan passports as i.d. to but beer, and it occured to me that they aren't refugees, but they're here, Norway, getting trained to go back and fight. Very, very sobering, and I have a kid in army training now. I bought their beer for them.
Because it doesn’t benefit most of us to have an aggressive fascist country next to Europe.
Russia straddles Europe and Asia. The border is the Ural mountains and the Ural river.
Moscow is in Europe.
Some frontline photos from Reuters https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/pictures-inside-battle-ukraine-2022-02-28/ (the date in the link seems at odds with the content)
Ignore the tech and they could be be taken during the last century, terrible
Really good report on the the earlier stages of the war from RUSI, February to July 2022. It's a long read but has lots of interesting facts e.g. the assault on Kiev being stopped mainly by massed artillery rather than anti tank missiles, the very low lifetime of drones in combat and the amount of preparation that Ukraine had made since 2014.
It also points out that whilst Russia's capabilities were overestimated before February, we shouldn't write them off - they have adapted and given the right leadership can be effective. Hopefully, Putin will continue to meddle and set unrealistic objectives so that won't come to pass.
Ignore the tech and they could be be taken during the last century, terrible
I know the World Cup is here to distract the plebs but reporting has gone very quiet recently
Are both sides preparing for a winter offensive?
More likely just consolidating and trying to ensure they survive the winter.
From that Telegraph report posted above (interesting read, thanks, and echoed by a report over on CNN I read earlier. Grim stuff.)
Left is WW1, right is Ukraine. Human kind is a bit messed up isn't it?
I would imagine Ukraine will attempt to continue to degrade Russian supply lines to make life in those trenches ever more miserable through the Winter but I would be surprised if they didn't seek to take more military advantage during the Winter. I think Russian forces in the South West (the ones who evacuated Kherson) are in a precarious position.
Maps and updates here... https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates
The Russians need to capture Bakhmut because it's a sizeable town and they are short of anything to show their advance, having retreated from pretty much everywhere else
It also puts a couple of other towns within artillery range. It's all for the home crowd rather than making military sense
The talking heads and Kremlin propagandists are finally realising, on national TV that they are complicit in war crimes and are going to be tried at the Hague. Good.
I wouldn't think we'll ever see that happening.
I agree it's unlikely, but not impossible. I live in hope.
The Russians need to capture Bakhmut because it’s a sizeable town
It's also protecting two of Ukraine's major command and control hubs in Kramatorsk and Slovyansk, if Russia can push through Bakhmut and take those they can justifiably claim to hold all of Donetsk oblast, which with be a huge boost for Russia domestic support for the war. Hence why Russia, and the Wagner group in particular, are throwing so many unfortunate young men at it.
That's a huge 'If' of course, the Ukrainians are fully aware of this plan and have used the time the gallant defense of Bakhmut has bought to greatly reinforce both Kramatorsk and Slovyansk.
This is also pinning a huge number of Russia troops in place, which opens the possibility of a fresh Ukrainian offensive elsewhere, Ukraine has received large amounts of winter gear from the likes of Canada and Finland and there are strong indicators that the moment the group freezes hard enough to allow mass vehicle movement that we will see.... something.
Hence why Russia, and the Wagner group in particular, are throwing so many unfortunate young men at it.
"Over the top" so to speak.
Didn't work for Britain in WW1, and unlikely to work for Russia today.
Yup, there's a huge defenders' advantage at play, hence why, even though Ukrainian casualties are terrible the Russian ones are likely to be far, far worse, especially as anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that many of these attacks are being lead by Wagner's new penal units, who are being used as little more than cannon fodder.
Even if that's just hearsay or propaganda the Bakhmut meat grinder is still likely to go down as one of the grimmest battlefields of the 21st century.
Ukrainian casualties in the defence of Bakhmut are huge too, it's an apocalyptic meat grinder. At least they have internal supply lines, well prepared defensive positions, decent food, clothing, medical care, leadership and the opportunity to rotate out of the front line for a rest occasionally. They are also crystal clear about what they are fighting for. None of these factors seem to apply to the RF. It's going to be a tough winter for all the combatants, but worse for the Russians I think.
Edit: Was typing as @hatter posted, hence making some of the same points.
So far 300,000 mobilised troops have bought them nothing. Thousands of high quality troops have been relocated from Kherson to the Bakmut area and have gained them a negligible advance so far. As long as the west holds firm in its support, this is only going one way. In the long run Russia will benefit from losing.
The Beeb reporting that Russia is using X-55 nuclear missiles in Ukraine but with this warheads removed.
Allegedly to deplete Ukrainian air defences and to cause kinetic damage on impact.
They really are pushed for munitions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63826082
Yea, not buying the moral argument for helping out. The UK financial sector has been helping out Russian gangsta's for years.
Also, if you think there's a cost of living crisis now, wait until Zelensky throws a tantrum and NATO pump the country full of tanks and aircraft - that's what it'll take to push the Russians out.
The guardian on the rolling coverage seemed to suggest that the Russians are withdrawing from parts of Zaporizhzhia and southern Kherson. Is this just positive spin, or is another withdrawal?
Well Mike Martin is tweeting again. No smoke without fire and all that.
https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1598417002707550209
Telegraph saying the same thing too. Russians have apparently pulled out of Oleshky across the river from Kherson. Perhaps they know that the rest of Kherson is toast. Whilst they can still supply the region, it isn’t much easier that supplying the right bank. And their soldiers are crap. Could be preparing to fall back into n their new defensive positions protecting Crimea..
Is that them withdrawing on some fronts to shorter defensive lines?
finephilly
Free Member
Yea, not buying the moral argument for helping out. The UK financial sector has been helping out Russian gangsta’s for years.
Also, if you think there’s a cost of living crisis now, wait until Zelensky throws a tantrum and NATO pump the country full of tanks and aircraft – that’s what it’ll take to push the Russians out.
I think there is a moral argument, more so if you consider the UK complicit in helping the Russian elite but in addition it is in our own interests to aid Ukraine. If more of that was done back in 2014 I doubt we would be discussing a war in Ukraine right now.
The cost of living crisis is due to many things, none of which are remotely Ukraine's fault. Indeed we likely paid more out for unusable PPE from Tory "mates" than we have given in aid to Ukraine but that's not relevant to the help we should be giving Ukraine either.
As for singling out Zelensky as somehow being the protagonist and throwing a tantrum, you do mean Putin really don't you? Don't you?
There's a moral argument for sure. Lots of UK tory MP's with twitchy sphincters at the moment.
It would be a shame if they committed suicide.
Not withstanding the usual whataboutery and false equivalences, the moral argument for supporting Ukraine is pretty watertight IMHO, it's a rare example where the morally right thing to do is also good politics.
Mike Martin, whose analysis of the war has been pretty solid so far, has suggested that Tokmak is likely to be where it all kicks off again.
Looking at the map you can see his logic; the railway line that runs from Crimea, through Melitopol and then Eastwards to Russia takes a deviation Northwards to run straight through Tokmak, bringing much closer to the front lines. Based on that alone, Tokmak is the obvious easiest place to push towards if the Ukrainians are trying to get the railway within HIMARS range.
With the Kerch strait bridge still far from repaired this railway line is the key supply route for Crimea and the Russian forces in the Kherson oblast. If Russia wants to hold on down there through this winter they really want to keep it open.
However, the sheer obviousness of this and the fact that the Ukrainians have repeatedly proven the be highly adept at feints and other such misdirection means that any move on Tokmak could also be designed to draw troops away from a much bigger move elsewhere, just as they did in Kherson/Kharkiv in early Sept.
Apologies for the double-post but this just popped up in my feed and I feel it's worth posting, an hour long interview with a British volunteer in Ukraine's Foreign legion. First part of 2 apparently.
Ukraine war: Russia demands annexations recognised before talks
Meaning they have no interest in negotiation. Which I reckon probably suits Ukraine too.
Meaning they have no interest in negotiation. Which I reckon probably suits Ukraine too
Yep, it's nice to see that they something they can agree on!
Meaning they have no interest in negotiation.
I think their reasoning is that they can get the U.S. and E.U. to pressure Ukraine to make concessions. However, I think the Russian foreign ministry don't really understand the political situation in the West as well as they think they do. Diplomats and analysts who submitted reports that contradicted the official policy line were sidelined, so Putin has just been hearing what he wanted to hear - the West is weak and will capitulate in the face of aggressive Russian policy.
Diplomats and analysts who submitted reports that contradicted the official policy line were sidelined, so Putin has just been hearing what he wanted to hear – the West is weak and will capitulate in the face of aggressive Russian policy.
Yep, great at being a dictator but a really shitty poker player
Yea, not buying the moral argument for helping out
Considering we signed an agreement with them that in exchange for them giving up their nukes we'd act as backup for them in the event they had issues and blithely looked on while Russian troops ran amok in Crimea and Donbass I'd say we have rather an obligation to help now.
Considering we signed an agreement with them that in exchange for them giving up their nukes we’d act as backup for them in the event they had issues and blithely looked on while Russian troops ran amok in Crimea and Donbass I’d say we have rather an obligation to help now.
We had an obligation to help 8yrs ago but failed, and emboldened Russia, of course we should be helping now
Considering we signed an agreement with them that in exchange for them giving up their nukes we’d act as backup for them in the event they had issues
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. At the time it felt like Ukraine giving them up was making the world a safer place, but if they'd kept those nukes there would be no war now.
It seems like the Ukraine of 8 years ago was quite different to the Ukraine of 2022, or at least its army is. Part of why Russia thought it would just roll over Ukraine's army in February this year was because they were pretty much able to do that 8 years ago. Their army has become a lot more effective in the intervening years, probably in part due to the training and aid the West did provide following those invasions.
Considering we signed an agreement...We had an obligation to help
Chief amongst the "we" is Russia who flagrantry ignored the Budapest Memorandum by crossing Ukraine's borders.
The Budapest Memorandum included the UN Security Council providing a resolution for assistance, what it didn't do was provide an obligation to assist.
It was a political rather a legal document that Russia has taken advantage of. Russia later threatened the use of nuclear weapons, a further breach
snip...but if they’d kept those nukes there would be no war now
Maybe. In 1990 Ukraine decided that they'd be better off without nuclear weapons and acceding to the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons made financial sense to them. Russia was their ally, they'd be given the financial means to get rid of a high-maintenance item and access to advanced nuclear power technology as a result (Chernobyl had gone badly wrong only four years before). The agreement served them well for 1/4 century
It's reported by Reuters that President Macron has said "The West should consider how to address Russia's need for security guarantees if President Vladimir Putin agrees to negotiations about ending the war in Ukraine" https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-war-ukraine-latest-news-russian-troops-pull-back-near-kherson-2022-12-01/
More importantly the world should consider how to address Ukraine's need for security guarantees
In the same article "Sweden deported a Kurdish man with alleged ties to Turkish militants as Ankara keeps up pressure on the Nordic country to meet its demands in return for NATO membership"
Sweden is moving towards NATO membership https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-war-ukraine-latest-news-russian-troops-pull-back-near-kherson-2022-12-01/
Ukraine has struck Engles Airbase, 600km inside Russia. It’s home to their bombers.
What with?
What with?
A quick glance at Twitter suggests all sorts of theories and mad claims, from on the ground special forces to new drone with 100km distance and big warhead...
Ukraine just announced today that they're developing a kamikaze drone with a 1000KM range and a 75KG warhead.
Looks like initial tests have been....promising.