Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Brisketexan 104537]

13 minutes ago, ABSR said:

You mean like Ukraine did when they relinquished all their nukes to Russia for concessions and agreement of sovereignty?   Not sure the lesson learned from this is to give up your nukes and it will make your country more secure.

That's his point.

One of the worst geopolitical lessons/outcomes of the war on Ukraine is "if you have nukes, never ever ever give them up....and if you don't have any....get some ASAP." Russia is fighting a war of nuclear blackmail, and has asymmetrical power to do so because it has nukes and its opponent doesn't.

[MillerEP 30339]

https://www.threads.net/@_nickmelnick/post/DA4UVR5IiJH?xmt=AQGztchAfYjTqkIjS6csLdiItIasum3KHFn5PLgVWtHNYg

🐝🍑 A Ukrainian FPV kamikaze drone delivers a painful sting to a Russian soldier in the Kherson region.

 

^Lulz, imagine your buddies having to tell that story to your loved ones

 

https://www.threads.net/@ghostoflviv_/post/DA36Zx4SW3h?xmt=AQGztchAfYjTqkIjS6csLdiItIasum3KHFn5PLgVWtHNYg

The fire at the oil depot in Feodosia, occupied Crimea, has quickly spiralled out of control.
Russian authorities have evacuated more than 1,000 people from the area.

[Bevo 13516]

7 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

That's his point.

One of the worst geopolitical lessons/outcomes of the war on Ukraine is "if you have nukes, never ever ever give them up....and if you don't have any....get some ASAP." Russia is fighting a war of nuclear blackmail, and has asymmetrical power to do so because it has nukes and its opponent doesn't.

Russia is also assisting Iran with its nuclear program.

[BamaATL 16592]

I don't know how to post this without putting about 8 tweets, so I will spar all, and leave that for someone with skills.  This is insane, it details the paperwork requirements for lost equipment/requisition for the Russian Army.  Just pure batshittery.

 

[KYHorn 16833]

Who would be willing to die for a little money? 

"North Korea is likely to deploy members of its regular armed forces to Ukraine in support of Russia, South Korea's defense chief said Tuesday, in the latest sign of deepening military cooperation between Pyongyang and Moscow...

 

'As Russia and North Korea have signed a mutual treaty akin to a military alliance, the possibility of such a deployment is highly likely,' Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun told lawmakers during a parliamentary audit session."

[NeverMarryAStripper 21781]

I’m not sure that really matters since they don’t have anything to replace it with

that was meant as a reply to the paperwork tweet, not the NK tweet

Edited October 9 by NeverMarryAStripper

[Orange&White 5516]

That is just fewer mouths for Kim Jung to feed.

[BamaATL 16592]

 

[Gatorubet 30083]

Quote

The Russian coal industry - one of the largest raw material sectors of the economy, including more than 30 mono-cities and hundreds of thousands of employees - is always rushing to a severe crisis.

Having lost Western markets, faced with a sharp drop in demand in "friendly" countries and multi-billion losses, coal companies began to sharply reduce production.

According to Rosstat, in July, coal production in Russia fell by 6.7% in annual terms, and its total volume - 31.5 million tons - was the lowest since the 2020 pandemic. Relative to the peaks shown in December 2022, coal companies lost about 12 million tons of monthly production, or 27%.

Coal production, the main product of coal miners, which accounts for 80% of production, fell by 8.2%, and anthracite, the most valuable variety, by almost a quarter (23.7%). In August, according to Rosstat's operational statistics, the decline in coal production accelerated to 10.1% year-on-year.

Western sanctions have become a key problem for the coal industry, says Janis Kluge, a researcher at the German Institute for International Security Problems. Unlike oil and gas, which the European Union continues to buy, albeit in small volumes, coal fell under a total embargo, and Asian countries that bought Russian coal last year sharply reduced demand.

Deliveries to China in the first half of 2024 fell by 8% and their growth is not predicted, the head of the Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation Sergei Tsivilev complained in September. The fact is that Beijing imposed duties on Russian coal, the minister explained. At the same time, other suppliers - Indonesia and Australia - did not fall under them, because they are part of the free trade zone with the PRC.

India reduced coal imports from Russia by 55%, and Turkey by 47%, according to CREA estimates. Total coal exports from Russia in January-July fell by 11.4%, to 112.6 million tons. And since the coal miners exported about half of the production, the blow turned out to be sensitive for them, Kluge states.

The Russian coal industry is entering the most severe crisis in the last 30 years, says Maxim Ivanov, an independent expert in the field of energy. In addition to sanctions, Chinese duties and forced discounts, the fall in world coal prices affects: in the first half of the year they fell by 34%, to $132 per ton on the terms of FOB Newcastle (Australia) - in the largest coal hub in the Asia-Pacific region.

As a result: according to Rosstat, more than half of coal companies have become unprofitable, and the balanced financial result of the entire industry has become negative. The total loss of the coal industry for January-July amounted to 7.1 billion rubles. At the same time, the losses of unprofitable companies increased by 3.4 times, and the profits of profitable companies decreased by 72%.

Coal workers face payment blocking, inaccessibility of imported equipment due to sanctions and are forced to offer discounts to customers who avoid "toxic" companies from Russia, Kluge lists. In addition, it is expensive to transport coal to Asia: if one tanker holds oil for $50 million, and its delivery to India costs $5 million, then a ship with coal carries cargo for only $15-20 million and transportation costs "eat" up to a third of the revenue.

The Russian government lays in the energy strategy a steady increase in coal production - from the current 438 million tons per year to 482 million tons in 2030 and 556 million in 2050. But there is hardly a demand for this coal, Ivanov believes: China is developing its own production, Asian countries are striving for the transition to "green" energy, and metallurgists around the world are introducing low-carbon technologies.

"In this regard, the closure of a number of coal mining enterprises remote from export markets and specializing in thermal coal mining seems inevitable," the expert believes.

More good news from Russia per the Moscow Times

[SL Xpress 7504]

20 hours ago, ABSR said:

You mean like Ukraine did when they relinquished all their nukes to Russia for concessions and agreement of sovereignty?   Not sure the lesson learned from this is to give up your nukes and it will make your country more secure.

That's exactly my point. You and I are on the same page. And that's the problem.

1) In my view along a long enough timeline nuclear weapons will eventually be used

2) The fewer countries that have the capability of using them, the better, with the ideal being zero, second best being one or two, depending on whether you agree having two nuclear adversaries is better than one country having a monopoly. I lean in favor of one, but there are legitimate arguments for two. I'm just not going to go down that rabbit hole. Mind you, we're talking existential terms, so whether the country with all the nukes is benevolent or comic book villain evil is less important than the fact they're less likely to end the human race if they're the only ones with the weapons, at least for the sake of the discussion I'm engaging in. 

The more countries that possess them after one or two, the greater the likelihood they'll be used.

3) To have fewer countries possess nuclear weapons, there have to be incentives for them not to possess them. The incentives must be greater than the current incentives to possess them. Right now the incentives for giving up nuclear weapons are not aligned with my goal of having fewer countries possessing them. For example, North Korea and Iran have both faced severe sanctions and isolation to give up their nuclear weapons programs, but possessing them and suffering the consequences are weighed against what has happened to Ukraine, which has had their country torn apart, first through subterfuge and then by direct invasion. Something that would have been given pause on some level if the threat of nukes had existed. 

So securing a country's sovereignty even after they give up nukes is paramount, but also making the consequences of keeping them has to be elevated to an existential level to some degree, otherwise the incentives to give them up fall short. 

[SL Xpress 7504]

22 hours ago, Trey3216 said:

I'm gonna have to say I disagree here to an extent.   You have to remember some of the one-off items that were researched and built initially for military use, like computers, and see that those dollars have almost infinitely multiplied their initial research investments.  Yes, most big ticket items don't resort in that kind of multiple, but you have to factor all of it in if you're going to make a blanket statement regarding R&D multiples.   

 

Military expenditures can increase productivity indirectly. Talking about military expenditures being inherently inflationary refers to military items themselves not contributing to an increase in productivity. An aircraft carrier is not going to make the economy more productive. A trebuchet is not going to make the economy more productive. Which is not to say the resources shouldn't be spent on those items. But it is an inherently inflationary investment. 

I would argue that in the US, military investment is basically our only national investment in manufacturing at this point, in ways that I would argue are critical for our long term economic output. But that still doesn't change the concept of military expenditures as being inherently inflationary. 

But yes, all kinds of advancements have come from military investment. Mainframe computers simply being one in a long long list, going back to the dawn of mankind. I will say that often it's because military use can demand the expenditure of resources because of its existential nature that the same civilian R&D would not. Not to mention humans are galvanized in a different way when faced with extraordinary circumstances. Then there's the simple fact that if one tribe invests in their military and the neighboring tribe invests in their civilian economy, history shows that the tribe that invests in their military simply takes over their neighbor, in which case we can wonder how much of a consolation it is for the latter tribe that they invested in the less inherently inflationary activity. 

[Parliament 14121]

Lotsa great tech comes out of military spending.  Trama medicine, satellite stuff, Hot Pockets.  All contribute to the economy.

Edited October 9 by Parliament

[MissingInAction 24807]

What gives me hope about this planet not being nuked is the insane amount of steps required to make it happen.

Not just politically but physically.

It's not like some dotard can just press a button.

[Trey3216 15325]

55 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

 

Military expenditures can increase productivity indirectly. Talking about military expenditures being inherently inflationary refers to military items themselves not contributing to an increase in productivity. An aircraft carrier is not going to make the economy more productive. A trebuchet is not going to make the economy more productive. Which is not to say the resources shouldn't be spent on those items. But it is an inherently inflationary investment. 

I would argue that in the US, military investment is basically our only national investment in manufacturing at this point, in ways that I would argue are critical for our long term economic output. But that still doesn't change the concept of military expenditures as being inherently inflationary. 

But yes, all kinds of advancements have come from military investment. Mainframe computers simply being one in a long long list, going back to the dawn of mankind. I will say that often it's because military use can demand the expenditure of resources because of its existential nature that the same civilian R&D would not. Not to mention humans are galvanized in a different way when faced with extraordinary circumstances. Then there's the simple fact that if one tribe invests in their military and the neighboring tribe invests in their civilian economy, history shows that the tribe that invests in their military simply takes over their neighbor, in which case we can wonder how much of a consolation it is for the latter tribe that they invested in the less inherently inflationary activity. 

In a sense, air craft carriers do make the economy more productive via protection and streamlining of trade routes.  

[Brisketexan 104537]

4 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

In a sense, air craft carriers do make the economy more productive via protection and streamlining of trade routes.  

Yep.  Control of the seas is a giant "economic advantage" strategy and policy.  You may reasonably debate the morality of it (including the costs/toll it exacts on third parties), but our military hegemony makes our country more prosperous and profitable.

[SL Xpress 7504]

Just now, Trey3216 said:

In a sense, air craft carriers do make the economy more productive via protection and streamlining of trade routes.  

Sure, and the fact that the US has the most powerful military with the most robust projection of force in the history of the world helps in regards to having the world's reserve currency and subsidizes the cost of our debt. There are tremendous financial advantages to being stronger militarily than our neighbors. It's the equivalent of other countries offering us tribute for our protection. Everyone sells us goods, and then either keeps the dollars they earn as a reserve currency, or agrees to buy our debt (and our assets) so that we can continue to enjoy a standard of living we're not currently actually producing enough goods and services that other countries want to pay for it. 

But Russia doesn't have that advantage. And it still doesn't make an effective counterpoint that spending on the military is inherently inflationary. It is. 

Just to review, the article was specifically about how Russia's economy is spiraling into a hyperinflationary economy. They list a bunch of reasons why spending 41% of their GDP on their military is helping to create that issue. My basic point is that the military spending by itself is also inherently inflationary. 

The US's ability to parlay our military might into advantageous economic relationships via both our friends and foes does not apply to Russia in the same way, especially as they're subject to severe sanctions by most of the developed world, and are mired in a battle of attrition for assets in the Donbas that aren't currently of a great deal of economic value, since in order to take control of them Russia has to obliterate them first. 

[Gandalfish 330]

I feel like it's been a quiet few days in Ukraine.

Is this a good thing? Bad Thing? Just a sign of the summer campaigning season winding down?

[Trey3216 15325]

2 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Sure, and the fact that the US has the most powerful military with the most robust projection of force in the history of the world helps in regards to having the world's reserve currency and subsidizes the cost of our debt. There are tremendous financial advantages to being stronger militarily than our neighbors. It's the equivalent of other countries offering us tribute for our protection. Everyone sells us goods, and then either keeps the dollars they earn as a reserve currency, or agrees to buy our debt (and our assets) so that we can continue to enjoy a standard of living we're not currently actually producing enough goods and services that other countries want to pay for it. 

But Russia doesn't have that advantage. And it still doesn't make an effective counterpoint that spending on the military is inherently inflationary. It is. 

Just to review, the article was specifically about how Russia's economy is spiraling into a hyperinflationary economy. They list a bunch of reasons why spending 41% of their GDP on their military is helping to create that issue. My basic point is that the military spending by itself is also inherently inflationary. 

The US's ability to parlay our military might into advantageous economic relationships via both our friends and foes does not apply to Russia in the same way, especially as they're subject to severe sanctions by most of the developed world, and are mired in a battle of attrition for assets in the Donbas that aren't currently of a great deal of economic value, since in order to take control of them Russia has to obliterate them first. 

I wasn't debating Russia's spending being inflationary, I was saying that military spending, writ large, cannot be blanket charged as inflationary and non-contributory economically because of the facts that there is a prime example of where military spending is econonomically contributory (US).    It moreso has to do with the structure of our economies, as you said.  Our military spending is economically contributory vis a vis trade routes, it's directly contributory in arms sales to other nations, and keeping the dollar as a stable reserve currency (also as you said), and indirectly due to R&D that typically would have not been allocated strictly due to the enormous upfront costs that eventually rolls into the private sector via technological advancement.  Whereas, Russia is primarily a raw material/natural resource nation.  Outrageous military expenditures in such a nation inherently leads to inflation as more and more materials are required to feed the monkey, and fewer and fewer of those materials are exported for economic gain.  Russia is a few steps ahead of Zaire and Zimbabwe vis a vis technological ability to absorb hyperinflation during periods of gross overspending militarily. 

 

Long story short, I was disagreeing of the blanket statement, not the part about Russia.  

[SL Xpress 7504]

44 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Lotsa great tech comes out of military spending.  Trama medicine, satellite stuff, Hot Pockets.  All contribute to the economy.

But the output itself does not. 

I am not making an argument countries should reduce their military spending. In fact, I am of the opinion we are not spending enough on our conventional forces right now. I am particularly biased towards the Navy, which is the key to our projection of power.

Which sounds absurd given how much our spending dwarfs everyone else, and how much of the national budget consists of defense spending. But it's still my point of view. Nonetheless, regardless of all the wonderful benefits of spending money on our defense industry, there are opportunity costs, and one of the overall costs is that defense spending is inherently inflationary.

It's just that at 4% of GDP the inflationary contribution is negligible in ways that at 41% of GDP it is not. 

[Armybrat 40710]

16 hours ago, Bevo said:

Russia is also assisting Iran with its nuclear program.

Then we need to assist Poland with theirs.

Edited October 9 by Armybrat

[SL Xpress 7504]

1 minute ago, Trey3216 said:

I wasn't debating Russia's spending being inflationary, I was saying that military spending, writ large, cannot be blanket charged as inflationary and non-contributory economically because of the facts that there is a prime example of where military spending is econonomically contributory (US).    It moreso has to do with the structure of our economies, as you said.  Our military spending is economically contributory vis a vis trade routes, it's directly contributory in arms sales to other nations, and keeping the dollar as a stable reserve currency (also as you said), and indirectly due to R&D that typically would have not been allocated strictly due to the enormous upfront costs that eventually rolls into the private sector via technological advancement.  Whereas, Russia is primarily a raw material/natural resource nation.  Outrageous military expenditures in such a nation inherently leads to inflation as more and more materials are required to feed the monkey, and fewer and fewer of those materials are exported for economic gain.  Russia is a few steps ahead of Zaire and Zimbabwe vis a vis technological ability to absorb hyperinflation during periods of gross overspending militarily. 

 

Long story short, I was disagreeing of the blanket statement, not the part about Russia.  

How much economics have you studied?

You can argue the blanket statement as much as you want. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But in this case your opinion is wrong.

Talking about something as inflationary doesn't mean it's inherently bad. Spending money on something that isn't meant to be consumed or assist in making other goods and services is inflationary. The fact that it helps all that other stuff continue to occur is salient. 

[Armybrat 40710]

4 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

 

Edited October 9 by Armybrat

[MillerEP 30339]

45 minutes ago, Gandalfish said:

I feel like it's been a quiet few days in Ukraine.

Is this a good thing? Bad Thing? Just a sign of the summer campaigning season winding down?

Things are still going as usual, we're just not posting as much, probably because it's football season, NHL season, and baseball postseason. Oh and election season.

https://www.threads.net/@tsua_23/post/DA6GNDRoCwE?xmt=AQGzlaBXhnVtbR3XO4CM5FWN_KOFRB8KHt3yvnO5lUeDhA

The Unmanned Systems Forces of the Ukrainian Armed Forces confirmed the damage to the 67th arsenal in the Bryansk region of Russia.
It is noted that there are 2 dozen such objects on the entire territory of Russia.If the warehouse was fully equipped, it probably stored up to 22,000 tons of ammunition.
Destruction of this arsenal will be felt immediately, especially by the operational group "North".This is the 3rd large ammunition depot blown up within a month, which provides for this group.

 

https://www.threads.net/@kyivindependent_official/post/DA57Ow6ora0?xmt=AQGzlaBXhnVtbR3XO4CM5FWN_KOFRB8KHt3yvnO5lUeDhA

⚡️ Two more IRIS-T anti-aircraft systems arrive in Ukraine.
Initially a hesitant partner, Germany has become Ukraine's second-largest military donor after the U.S.

[BamaATL 16592]

2 hours ago, Gandalfish said:

I feel like it's been a quiet few days in Ukraine.

Is this a good thing? Bad Thing? Just a sign of the summer campaigning season winding down?

I think it's a combination of things.  For one, the weather is getting ready to change, and both sides are well aware, so preparations are being made on both sides.  There has been movement on the Donbas side of things, in the favor of Russia, but marginal thus far.  One thing I have noticed for the last month or so is the Ukrainians have gotten tighter on op/spec info being out their on their end.  I'm not sure what this means, but I suspect there is a reason.  

[Chad Fuck 17548]

15 hours ago, Orange&White said:

That is just fewer mouths for Kim Jung to feed.

And fewer soldiers for him to worry about causing a revolution and/or defecting.

[jdhorn92 1538]

3 hours ago, MillerEP said:

Things are still going as usual, we're just not posting as much, probably because it's football season, NHL season, and baseball postseason. Oh and election season.

 

I got you dog, I think you meant NFL. 

[pops 6972]

2 hours ago, BamaATL said:

I think it's a combination of things.  For one, the weather is getting ready to change, and both sides are well aware, so preparations are being made on both sides.  There has been movement on the Donbas side of things, in the favor of Russia, but marginal thus far.  One thing I have noticed for the last month or so is the Ukrainians have gotten tighter on op/spec info being out their on their end.  I'm not sure what this means, but I suspect there is a reason.  

Feels like a calm before a storm. We've had these luls in info before and then 

[MillerEP 30339]

https://www.threads.net/@kyivindependent_official/post/DA6ISYpI5-r?xmt=AQGzlaBXhnVtbR3XO4CM5FWN_KOFRB8KHt3yvnO5lUeDhA

⚡️2,300 Ukrainian soldiers being trained in France as part of new brigade.

The French military is training and equipping Ukraine's Anne de Kyiv brigade in France, the first instance of a foreign country training a Ukrainian brigade on its territory, the French Embassy in Kyiv said on Oct. 9.

 

https://www.threads.net/@ghostoflviv_/post/DA6hamTCXvF?xmt=AQGzJt--gfKWbmMnxrr-rW2t-O8R04gK5OMlIQKcEeqn9g

The Armed Forces of Ukraine successfully hit a storage base for Russian drones in the Krasnodar Territory.
It's reported that approx. 400 Iranian-made Shahed drones were stored at this location.

[Chad Fuck 17548]

23 minutes ago, pops said:

Feels like a calm before a storm. We've had these luls in info before and then 

This man.  I can't help but believe all these fuel and ammo depo attacks aren't some sort of big shaping operation.  

[MillerEP 30339]

1 hour ago, jdhorn92 said:

I got you dog, I think you meant NFL. 

Nope, NHL started yesterday. I don't watch it, but I gave it a shout-out for vteanz' sake. He's one of the very few who pretends that he knows what the rules are.

[HellesBier 185]

There is still shit happening but the ukes keep a lid on it. The Ukrainians I am with told me a couple of nights a go a military train was hit that had a couple hundred casualties. That shit doesnt get out because they want Western support. I cant confirm it but they sent me the telegrams. I take everything with a grain of salt. 

[Player 4575]

What gives me hope about this planet not being nuked is the insane amount of steps required to make it happen.
Not just politically but physically.
It's not like some dotard can just press a button.

Have you watched this? It’s chilling, but very well done.

We’ve been very lucky on more than one occasion to avoid annihilation due to technical malfunctions, false alarms, etc.

[bolverk 29394]

Here are a couple of interesting articles about 1) proposals for Ukraine to enter into NATO with only part of its territory being included under Article 5 (similar to Germany before reunification or even the US/France today with overseas territories) and 2) Zelensky saying that decisive action to end the war will take place no later than 2025, which I think is notable because I don't recall him ever laying out a definitive timeframe like this before.

For the first article, I've spoilered the opinions of analysts for length who were interviewed for the story. Generally, they seem pretty skeptical. Anyway, it was supposed to be discussed at next week's Ramstein Summit, which has now been postponed due to Helene/Milton.

 

As signs of talks about West Germany model for Ukraine peace emerge, experts weigh in on feasibility
Uncertainty looms over what Zelensky’s ‘Victory Plan’ seeks and could achieve by floating NATO’s umbrella for parts of territory controlled by the country

Ukraine is seeking membership in the NATO military alliance as a part of its plan to end Russia’s war, and recent reports suggest a West Germany model is seriously being discussed among Kyiv and its allies.

During a September visit to the U.S., Head of the Presidential Office Andriy Yermak said that accession to the alliance is part of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s “victory plan” to cease the bloody battles that have now been raging for more than two and a half years.

While Ukraine’s long-dreamed NATO membership has widely been dismissed as a non-starter, especially after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the alliance's former Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told the Financial Times that there may be ways to make it possible.

“If there is a line that is not necessarily the internationally recognized border,” Stoltenberg told the FT in an interview published on Oct. 4.

Referring to the historical examples of NATO protecting West Germany or Japan’s security guarantees from the U.S., Stoltenberg, while warning that “no parallels are 100 percent correct,” suggested a membership model for Kyiv-controlled parts of Ukraine. Russia currently controls about 20 percent of Ukrainian territory.

“When there is a will, there are ways to find the solution. But you need a line which defines where Article 5 is invoked, and Ukraine has to control all the territory until that border,” he told the FT. His reference to Article 5 relates to the part of the NATO pact treaty that obliges all members to consider an attack on one member of the alliance as an attack on all in the territory defined by Article 6.

In an interview with the Kyiv Independent, Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Breckelman confirmed that talks are ongoing about the potential peace plan in which the Ukrainian-controlled part of the country enters NATO in the West Germany model. He did not elaborate further on the allies’ reactions thus far or how far the talks are at this stage.

But in an interview aired Monday with CBS News’ 60 Minutes, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harras, the Democratic party candidate facing off with Donald Trump on the Republican ticket in this autumn’s presidential election, suggested that talk of Ukraine joining NATO would be discussed at a later point.

Asked if she supported the expansion of NATO to Ukraine, Harris said it was one of the “issues that we will deal with if and when it arrives at that point … right now, we are supporting Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russia’s unprovoked aggression.”

The issue, along with further weapons supplies for Ukraine, is expected to be further discussed by Western allies at the Oct. 12 Ukraine Defense Contact Group gathering at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, which gathers countries almost monthly to agree upon support for Ukraine, and will this time be convened by U.S. President Joe Biden.

The Kyiv Independent asked six experts about the feasibility of a potential NATO membership model without Ukraine regaining control over all of its borders, whether such a peace formula would work, and whether it is actually deliverable or instead being used by the Ukrainian side as a negotiating tactic.

cont'd

Spoiler

Jan Kallberg
a non-resident senior fellow with the Transatlantic Defense and Security program at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA)
“(Regarding the feasibility of the NATO membership on parts of Ukraine) No. First, Ukraine needs to hold more terrain in Kursk (Oblast) and other areas for Russia to be deeply concerned. Second, NATO is too split to make a decisive move. Especially as Hungary and Slovakia deviates from what has been traditional NATO outlooks. Also, it is evident that Hungary sees an opportunity in a Ukrainian downfall to regain the limited areas that have a Hungarian population in Western Ukraine. So Hungary is ready to trade decades of European geopolitical instability for small-minded national chauvinistic goals. There are several countries that firmly believe that a Russian victory will lead to a larger, more devastating war in the near future, so a Russian win-peace plan is no peace; it is the overture and staging for a disaster that will spread over the continent.”

Oleksiy Melnyk
co-director of foreign policy and international security at the Kyiv-based think tank Razumkov Center
“There are some confusing messages coming from different sources. The official position of the Ukrainian government, President (Volodymyr) Zelensky, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has been that there will be ‘no trade of territory for a ceasefire, for peace.’ At the same time, we learned from international sources that first it was a kind of idea, and later on from kind of controlled leaks that there are some negotiations behind closed doors, considering these kinds of options: granting NATO membership for the government control territories in exchange for Ukraine's government changing position towards these maximalist goals of liberating the whole territory of Ukraine in its international borders.

“It seems to me that there is a kind of game underway. Definitely, there must be some discussions about a possible compromise. I don't know whether Ukrainian officials clearly stated their readiness to consider such a compromise. I suppose that, for the moment, there is some discussion like this. The Ukrainian government doesn't admit it publicly. I don't know how we can proceed if President Zelensky maintains the same position.

“It (possible NATO membership on Ukrainian-controlled territories of the country) hardly looks possible at the moment. We all know the position of other NATO members who are not ready to take such a risk. They don't want to buy a ticket for war. It's what they see in this proposal if it is to be realized.

“(A potential NATO membership on Ukrainian-controlled parts being part of a peace formula) could involve negotiating tactics, both with our partners and testing the ground of the possible compromises or negotiations with the Russian Federation. Our international partners are not ready to make such a radical political step; let's talk about practical decisions of lifting the restrictions or providing more weapons. It's important to see what the Kremlin's reaction is. Again, if you assume that there are some closed-door talks or consultations on the second track, maybe these issues are now discussed somewhere in different formats. This is my assumption, and I can't prove it by any evidence.

“(Regarding the 'Victory Plan') I also assume that Biden's visit next week or this week to Ramstein (Germany for the Ukraine Defense Contact group talks) is probably one reason that he's going to meet his European counterparts personally.

“Maybe he will discuss the details not just limited to Zelensky's plan of victory but broader because we also know that the White House recently presented its own strategy for Congress, which is also confidential. Maybe that’s a format. Ramstein format will be the place where leaders, Ukrainian leaders, European and American leaders will try to find some common ground or to develop at least a common strategy. There can be talks in a wider format because there are 50-plus countries. I don't think that President Biden is ready to share with all of them all the details. But at least in the NATO format, I think that they will be quite sensitive discussions.”

Ben Hodges
retired U.S. Lieutenant General and former Commanding General of US Army Europe
“I can’t comment on the Victory Plan as I have not seen it myself. I will say that I have zero confidence that Russia will ever fully live up to any agreement about Ukraine and therefore it is in the best strategic interest of the West to help defeat Russia and crush its imperialistic ambitions.

“I would also say that I trust President Zelensky and his judgment about what is best for Ukraine.”

Mykola Davydiuk
Ukrainian political analyst
“Ukraine has not said anywhere that it will leave these territories. It did not publicly announce anywhere that the territories temporarily occupied by Russia would be left behind.

“Japan does not recognize the occupation of the Kuril Islands, but the rest of Japan's territory is protected by the U.S. – in this case, we are talking about NATO. There is a similar story with Germany. When (partitioned) Germany joined NATO, a part of its territory was covered by Article 5. The rest of the territory joined later. In fact, this is not only about Article 5, but also about Article 6, which states that Ukraine joins NATO, but not the entire territory is covered by this. For example, continental France is covered by protection, but there are some islands that belong to France, somewhere in the distant overseas territories –  they are, well, not under the umbrella of NATO. And this gives Ukraine the opportunity to try to find the possibility of joining NATO, or at least receiving an invitation. Because Russia's motivation was to attack Ukraine, so that it did not join NATO, as (Russian Foreign Minister) Lavrov said today in an article in Newsweek, to ensure that Ukraine did not have opportunities and capabilities.

“But, for example, today, the Moscow Times reported that (Russian President Vladimir) Putin does not go to his estates in Sochi because Ukrainian drones are flying there. That is, after two and a half years of war, Russia was not able to destroy all military capabilities here (in Ukraine). On the contrary, they grew.

“Today we have drones that fly to the aurora borealis – they can fly two thousand kilometers. Ukraine today has the ability to increase its military capabilities, to produce more weapons and to unite more of the world in order for it to help Ukraine.

“Second, it changed the very essence of the obligation. More than half of the Russian population wants Russia to leave the territory of Ukraine. The so-called ‘special military operation’ did not achieve any military plans and goals.

“That's why Putin may consider agreeing to Ukraine’s accession to NATO, for example, in exchange for the lifting of sanctions or the return of usage of the gas pipeline through Ukraine. Therefore, it is possible to negotiate with Russia. Where possible, there is a comprehensive package of agreements. For example, maybe Russia could accept Ukraine joining NATO but with the absence of military bases and nuclear demilitarization, such that Ukraine will not have nuclear weapons. This is a possible scenario.

“Today there is another problem. Ukraine should be given hope and given a hand.

“Ukraine should be given a hand of support and help not only with weapons that immediately go to the battlefield. Ukraine is now making enormous contributions to the security situation of the West. But we also need an understanding that you and I stand on these common values, that it is queued up to enter NATO, and there is an application for entry. A partial introduction is a demonstration that we are together and that we are really doing the same job and they are waiting for us there. But (for the West to) just to use Ukraine and say, well, like, ‘Sorry, friends, we helped you, but like no (you can't enter NATO),’ well, that would be a very strong blow to pro-Western sentiments (in Ukraine).

“Ukrainians have greatly contributed to weakening the enemy, the biggest enemy on the European continent. And the Ukrainians say that we would also like to join this big family, but a safe one, because we cannot be in a constant state of war. If Ukraine is left like this in the future, the results can be very negative for everyone.”

Oleh Saakian
Ukrainian political analyst and Head of the Platform for Social and Humanitarian Initiatives and Innovations "United Coordination Center"
“I am not aware that such a scenario is in the plan. It seems unlikely to me, because it will not be accepted by (the Ukrainian) society, it will not be accepted by some of the NATO countries that avoid war with the Russian Federation at all costs. It will free Russia's hands to attack other European countries in a hybrid way now (for example, with Moldova, Armenia, the Balkans and the Baltics), to incite other regions aligned with China's actions in the Indo-Pacific region. Such a variant of freezing would be an anaesthetic that does not cure but would simply make the destructive processes less visible to the general public and more dangerous.”

Dr. Jenny Mathers
Senior Lecturer in International Politics, Aberystwyth University
“I believe that Putin is not likely to accept such an offer, trading land in Ukraine for NATO protections for the rest of Ukraine, unless Russia is clearly defeated on the battlefield and Putin believes he has no better options. The whole purpose of invading Ukraine, both in 2014 and afterward, has been to remove Ukraine from NATO's influence and return it to Russia's control.

“Some members of NATO probably would be willing to offer Ukraine full membership or close to the equivalent protection sooner rather than later, although by no means all, in large part out of precisely the concern of a direct military confrontation between NATO and Russia that has dictated the hesitations over providing Ukraine with certain types of weapons or permission to use Western-supplied weapons in certain ways.

“Overall, then, I don't think this proposal has a realistic chance of success.

“But Zelensky may be using it to try to move his supporters off the fence and push them to make more concrete security guarantees to Kyiv. He may also be trying to score a public relations victory over Putin, who keeps claiming that he is ready to negotiate (although, in fact, he has shown himself unwilling to consider any change in his demands or compromise).”

 

Battlefield situation calls for decisive action to end war in 2025, Zelensky says

The situation on the battlefield calls for decisive action to end Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine "no later than in 2025," President Volodymyr Zelensky said during his visit to Croatia on Oct. 9.

"In October, November and December we have a real chance to move things toward peace and lasting stability. The situation on the battlefield creates an opportunity to make this choice — the choice for decisive action to end the war no later than in 2025," Zelensky said.

Speaking at the "Ukraine - South East Europe" summit, he added that Kyiv is counting on the leadership of U.S. President Joe Biden as well as "strong and wise steps" from the U.K., France, Germany, and Italy "to bring security and peace to Europe."

Throughout 2024, Ukraine has faced a challenging situation in its defense of the front line, particularly in Donetsk Oblast, where Russia has consistently concentrated its offensive potential.

Zelensky's remarks come days after Ukrainian forces withdrew from Vuhledar, one of the key strongholds of Ukraine's defense of southern Donetsk Oblast. Russian forces have been also focusing their efforts against the towns of Pokrovsk and Toretsk, where outnumbered and outgunned Ukrainian soldiers are slowly losing ground under Russian pressure.

Kyiv has been working on the points of peace formula since July and is going to finish a document peace framework by November while preparing for the second peace summit, according to Zelensky.

Next to this, Ukraine developed a victory plan "that can bridge the gap between the current situation and the successful peace summit."

The five-point plan has been presented to Biden during Zelensky's trip to the U.S. in late September. Kyiv was planning to unveil it to other leaders at the Ramstein-format meeting later this week, but the summit was postponed after Biden had canceled his overseas travel.

"When the plan is fully implemented, Russia will lose the ability to threaten Europe," Zelensky said.

 

[bolverk 29394]

 

[bolverk 29394]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/09/north-korean-troops-fighting-for-putin-killed-in-ukraine/

North Korean soldiers have probably been killed fighting for the Kremlin on the front lines in Ukraine, South Korea has said.

Kim Yong-hyun, South Korea’s defence minister, said reports that six North Korean officers were killed last week in a missile strike near Donetsk were “highly likely”.

He said: “We assess that the occurrence of casualties among North Korean officers and soldiers in Ukraine is highly likely.” 

Speculation that Kim Jong-un, the North Korean dictator, would send his soldiers to fight in Ukraine for Russia has been rife but this would be the first known evidence of them being stationed on or near the front line.

Analysts said the six officers may have been helping to manage supplies of North Korea’s missiles and artillery shells that Kim has been sending to the Kremlin for more than a year.

Both Ukraine and Russia have foreign volunteers fighting in their armies, but this would be a rare example of a foreign state ordering its soldiers to fight in the war.

In 2022, there were reports that soldiers from Syria, an ally of Russia, would be sent to Ukraine to fight for Vladimir Putin’s forces, but there has been no evidence that this happened.

South Korea’s defence minister said his government considered Russia and North Korea to have essentially agreed to a military alliance pact.

“The issue of deploying regular troops is highly likely due to the mutual agreements that resemble a military alliance between Russia and North Korea,” he said.

North Korean artillery shells and missiles have become a vital source of weapons for Russia.

In June, Putin travelled to North Korea in June for the first time since 2000 to sign a “comprehensive strategic partnership agreement” and to thank Kim personally for his support.

The chemistry between the two dictators was clear at their meeting: they laughed at each other’s jokes, chinked glasses of red wine as they toasted their future successes and drove around the grounds of a villa in Pyongyang together in a Russian luxury car that Putin had given to the dictator.

Analysts have said that North Korean artillery shells are poor quality but are essential to the Kremlin because there are so many of them.

The shells helped Russia plug a shortage in the second half of last year and allowed its forces to push forward using costly mass infantry tactics over the past 12 months.

The US-based Institute for the Study of War said North Korea had delivered 4.8 million artillery shells to Russia by June, deliveries which it said had “enabled Russia to maintain a significant artillery advantage over Ukraine”, which has struggled to maintain supply lines.

In September, reports from Ukraine said North Korean missiles had also been fired at Ukrainian troops. There have also been reports from Russia that South Korean labour may be imported to fill gaps in Moscow’s labour force, created by the war in Ukraine.

Lim Eul-chul, a professor at the Institute for Far Eastern Studies in Seoul, said that after sending Russia weapons, it was a logical next step for Kim to send his soldiers to Ukraine.

“It’s crucial for North Korea to learn how to handle different weapons and gain real-world combat experience,” he said.

Kim, who inherited control of North Korea when his father died in 2011, has become such an important ally for the Kremlin that Putin dispatched Sergei Shoigu, the secretary of his security council, to Pyongyang in mid-September for “unspecified bilateral discussion”.

This fondness appears to be reciprocated by Kim. On Monday, he sent his personal congratulations to Putin on his 72nd birthday, calling him his “closest comrade”.

 

[bolverk 29394]

 

Text below

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/10/08/the-ukrainian-air-forces-new-bomber-brigade-will-fly-supersonic-french-jets/

Ex-French Dassault Mirage 2000-5 fighters will arrive in Ukraine in the first quarter of next year, French defense minister Sébastien Lecornu announced Tuesday.

But first, the delta-wing supersonic fighters “will be equipped with new equipment,” Lecornu wrote, including systems for air-ground combat and electronic warfare.

Lecornu’s comments seem to confirm what observers have suspected since France pledged surplus Mirage 2000s to the Ukrainian war effort back in June: the Ukrainian air force will arm its former French jets with the same French-made munitions it’s already hanging on its old Soviet-made Mikoyan MiG-29, Sukhoi Su-24 and Sukhoi Su-27 warplanes. These include SCALP-EG cruise missiles and Hammer glide bombs.

Armed for precision attacks on ground targets as far as 155 miles away, the single-seat, single-engine Mirages will reinforce the Ukrainian air force’s aging, swing-wing Su-24s. Meanwhile, the approximately 85—or 84, now that one has crashed—ex-European Lockheed Martin F-16s Ukraine is getting will reinforce the only slightly younger MiG-29s and Su-27s.

Surviving French Mirage 2000-5s—out of the 37 “dash-fives” Dassault built for the French air force in the 1990s—are scheduled to retire between now and 2029, but Lecornu has said their replacements, new Dassault Rafales, could arrive early and speed up the process.

With a little bureaucratic urgency, there’s no reason France couldn’t equip the Ukrainian air force with a couple of dozen Mirage 2000-5s through 2025—enough to expand the air force’s existing bomber unit, the 7th Tactical Aviation Brigade, or form a new brigade.

A second bomber brigade is the likelier outcome, given how much the 7th Tactical Aviation Brigade has already expanded in the 31 months since Russia widened its war on Ukraine.

Ukraine inherited around 200 of the 1970s-vintage Su-24s when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Thirty years later, just a dozen or so of the two-seat, twin-engine bombers were still active with the 7th Tactical Aviation Brigade.

Flying into action with gravity bombs, and later glide bombs and cruise missiles, the Su-24s suffered heavy losses. The Russians have shot down no fewer than 18 of the vintage bombers, most of them early in the war before the bombers shifted to strikes with long-range munitions.

That the Ukrainians have lost more Su-24s than they had at the start of the wider war speaks to their determined effort to identify old Su-24 airframes at various storage sites and restore them to flightworthy status. Older pilots and navigators have come out of retirement to fill the jets’ cockpits.

In a recent interview with Voice of America, Col. Yevhen Bulatsyk—the 7th Tactical Aviation Brigade’s commander—said the brigade has “much more” now than it did in February 2022. More bombers. More crews.

The Ukrainian air force clearly has plans to retain the Su-24s in service for the foreseeable future. It’s even developing a new locally made glide bomb to give the bombers more weapons options.

As Mirage 2000s arrive, they could fill out a new brigade that would fight alongside the battle-hardened 7th Tactical Aviation Brigade, adding mass to the Ukrainian air force’s deep strikes on Russian warships, air-defense batteries, headquarters and supply depots in occupied southern and eastern Ukraine.

The ex-French jets will need aircrews and ground crews, of course. According to Lecornu, “the training of Ukrainian pilots and mechanics continues.”

[Judge Roybeanbag 11802]

8 hours ago, Parliament said:

Lotsa great tech comes out of military spending.  Trama medicine, satellite stuff, Hot Pockets.  All contribute to the economy.

You forgot TANG.  

[Schulz2.0 28761]

[BamaATL 16592]

 

 

[Parliament 14121]

13 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Damn.  She went in dry.

[Foosters 17725]

Was this Orban roast on Comedy Central? Would love to catch a replay 

[KYHorn 16833]

48 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

 

 

Maybe it's the Mossad pager operation in my head, but these North Korean and Iranian stocks keep getting blown up. Makes me wonder if Ukraine is receiving intel from some allies. Or, maybe it's Russians giving it all up

[Parliament 14121]

I wanna see Iranian drone factories doing that.  

[Steel Shank 9409]

4 hours ago, MillerEP said:

Nope, NHL started yesterday. I don't watch it, but I gave it a shout-out for vteanz' sake. He's one of the very few who pretends that he knows what the rules are.

[atomheartbevo 89396]

44 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Was this Orban roast on Comedy Central? Would love to catch a replay 

Have a few hours?  Because pretty much all of the non-Hungarians roasted him.

 

[atomheartbevo 89396]

5 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

This man.  I can't help but believe all these fuel and ammo depo attacks aren't some sort of big shaping operation.  

Wipe out the ability to move fuel and ammo around in large quantities (also affecting the ability to move men around) and hit the Kerch bridge and then Zerg rush Crimea?

[Parliament 14121]

And/or let them freeze to death this winter.

[BamaATL 16592]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

Wipe out the ability to move fuel and ammo around in large quantities (also affecting the ability to move men around) and hit the Kerch bridge and then Zerg rush Crimea?

Something I've been wondering lately is when they are going to use the F16s in an offensive way.  Up til now, they've only been used in air defense (that's been reported anyway).  With the 24 now arriving from Denmark, suddenly they have about 50 by my count, with more coming.  They've kept tight on how many actual pilots they have, but that is beginning to be a pretty serious potential force.  I'm guessing that at some point, they will exhaust Russian air defense in a certain area with a combination of Himars, drones, missiles and decoys, and then make a serious and large scale airstrike, with the idea of opening a corridor.  

[Judge Roybeanbag 11802]

13 minutes ago, Parliament said:

And/or let them freeze to death this winter.

Starving them for ammo, fuel and supplies.  When winter hits the Russians will have to move in supplies from further and further away, if they can even move in the snow, and those that can move will be much easier for the UK to track and take out.

[drt 637]

43 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Something I've been wondering lately is when they are going to use the F16s in an offensive way.  Up til now, they've only been used in air defense (that's been reported anyway).  With the 24 now arriving from Denmark, suddenly they have about 50 by my count, with more coming.  They've kept tight on how many actual pilots they have, but that is beginning to be a pretty serious potential force.  I'm guessing that at some point, they will exhaust Russian air defense in a certain area with a combination of Himars, drones, missiles and decoys, and then make a serious and large scale airstrike, with the idea of opening a corridor.  

I would assume they have not enough pilots for the airframes they're getting, and will keep those that they do real close to the vest.  I guess it also depends on the standoff distance of the ordinance they have.  If we give them some of the fun stuff, maybe that kicks stuff off when the ground freezes.