Thread: Russia launches Ukraine invasion

Musk's meddling in the war to me is treason. Because of him, the ships in Sevastopol have been able to fire on Ukrainian civilians many times since he did this. Many civilians died because of him, he needs to have his Top Secret clearance removed and Starlink needs to be nationalized immediately.

SpaceX cut off Starlink satellite internet service to Ukrainian submarine drones last year just as they were launching an attack on the Russian Black Sea Fleet, according to a new biography of SpaceX founder Elon Musk.

The new details of the previously reported incident underscore how dependent multiple governments have become on a man who controls both a dominant means of high-speed communication and a major platform for public discourse, X.

Musk bought X, then known as Twitter, last year, after building SpaceX into a Washington powerhouse.

The armed submarine drones were poised to attack the Russian fleet, according to a CNN report that cited an excerpt of a forthcoming biography of Musk by Walter Isaacson, the former chief executive of CNN. Instead, according to the book, which goes on sale Tuesday, the drones “lost connectivity and washed ashore harmlessly.”

Ukrainian and American officials scrambled to get service restored, according to the report, appealing to Musk directly. Musk eventually agreed.

But the recounting of the incident is a reminder of that the SpaceX founder amassed enormous influence because his competitors proved incapable of keeping up with a dizzying pace of innovation. Thatinfluence shows the delicate balance government must navigate when companies innovate faster than their competitors — or the government itself.

“One of the advantages is the huge amount of innovation coming out of the private sector, which the government wants to leverage to stay ahead of China and others,” said Brian Weeden, the director of program planning at the Secure World Foundation, a think tank. “The flip side is it gives a lot more power to the private sector and particularly to billionaire individuals who control those companies and technologies.”

At X, Musk’s power and mercurial decisions have caused consternation for some officials and civil society experts as propaganda spreads ahead of a wave of elections across the world next year.

Cutting Ukraine’s mission off in midstream “is a great example of the power of communications platforms being concentrated in the hands of a few private companies,” said Bret Schafer, an analyst at the Alliance for Securing Democracy.

Musk stopped warning X users when the content they were viewing was from state-controlled media, and propagandists from Russia and elsewhere took advantage to amplify their content by buying verification checkmarks.

A study commissioned by the European Union found this week that Russian propaganda was reaching more people on X than before the war in Ukraine. And in the face of criticism about rising hate speech, Musk has sued one nonprofit and threatened to sue another, the Anti-Defamation League.

“It’s really scary to see him using his corporate resources to try to squash critics and skeptics,” said Paul Barrett, deputy director of New York University’s Stern Center for Business and Human Rights.

“You would expect people with this kind of corporate power to operate from self interest or to make mistakes. But you would not expect someone who provides an ally with crucial technology and then snatches it back when they are using it in the middle of a war. Whatever responsible corporate behavior is, that’s not it.”

SpaceX’s Dragon capsule is the only way NASA can send its astronauts to and from the International Space Station. It launches sensitive national security satellites for the Pentagon and the National Reconnaissance Office. It launches more rockets than any other company or country — this year it has already surpassed its record last year of 61 — and operates more satellites than any other entity on Earth, with more than 4,500 in orbit.

SpaceX started providing Starlink internet service to Ukraine after Russia’s invasion, creating a lifeline for the country when its communications systems had largely been knocked out. But according to Isaacson’s book, Musk grew concerned about Ukraine’s military using them for offensive purposes, according to the CNN report.

“How am I in this war? Musk asked,” according to Isaacson. “Starlink was not meant to be involved in wars. It was so people can watch Netflix and chill and get online for school and do peaceful things, not drone strikes.”

In February, Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX’s president and chief operating officer, told reporters something very similar.

“We were really pleased to be able to provide Ukraine connectivity and help them in their fight for freedom,” she said. “It was never intended to be weaponized, but the Ukrainians have leveraged it in ways that were unintentional and not part of any agreement.”

Since reports surfaced of SpaceX shutting off satellite communication in Ukraine last year, the Pentagon has granted SpaceX a contract. The details of the contract are unknown — on Thursday Pentagon spokesman Jeff Jurgenson declined to say more “due to the critical nature of these systems.” But Weeden said placing Starlink under contract should allow the Pentagon more control and possibly prevent the service from being suddenly shut off again.

“That is the balance that the Defense Department has to grapple with as it focuses on this commercial technology: Is it losing control in some way?” Weeden said. But the government is not helpless and has ways to rein companies in: “You can address a lot of those concerns through contracting mechanism or other legal agreements,” he said.

When SpaceX first launched its Starlink constellation, Musk said the chances of success were not guaranteed. Other satellite companies had tried and failed in the past, given the enormous cost to launch and operate hundreds or thousands of satellites. But in large part because SpaceX is vertically integrated, meaning it not only builds the satellites but launches them itself on its reusable Falcon 9 rocket, it has so far been able to be successful.

In addition to being used in Ukraine, the constellation is used to connect remote communities, and it has been a key part of hurricane recovery efforts as well as in other natural disasters where connectivity is lost.

When SpaceX started Starlink, others were eyeing the market for satellite internet as well. At the time, Musk said, “it’s always good to have competition.” But Starlink has since outpaced its competition.

Another satellite provider, OneWeb, went bankrupt and then was resurrected and operates a far smaller network. Amazon plans to launch thousands of satellites but has yet to send up a single one. It is also facing a lawsuit from one of its shareholders, who alleges the company “acted in bad faith” when awarding launch contracts to other commercial companies, including Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin, but not to SpaceX.

“Despite being the launch provider with the most proven track record and the lowest prices in the industry, SpaceX was seemingly not considered by Amazon,” the suit alleges. (Bezos owns The Washington Post. Interim CEO Patty Stonesifer sits on Amazon’s board.)

SpaceX is also the sole provider to NASA for crew transportation to the space station. But that’s not because NASA just awarded one contract. It awarded two specifically so that companies would have to compete against each other, driving down the cost and increasing reliability. But the other company to win a contract, Boeing, has yet to fly any astronauts and may not until next year, leaving SpaceX as the only provider.

“SpaceX has been truly innovative in several key areas, launch and large constellation broadband internet — two things people have long dreamed of but have been tried and failed before,” Weeden said. “SpaceX has managed to make them a reality. In many other industries soon after there are breakthroughs, that encourages more competition. And the innovative technology proliferates across multiple companies. But in the case of SpaceX, we haven’t yet seen competitors who have managed to do what they can do.”

That dominant position didn’t come easy. SpaceX was initially locked out of Pentagon launch contracts and had to sue the Air Force to be allowed to compete. It also fought to earn NASA as a customer, and now it is one of the space agency’s most reliable partners.

A good portion of that success stems from Musk himself, who works relentlessly and pushes his teams to as well, attempting to overcome seemingly insurmountable odds. Building rockets that would fly to space and then land safely so that they could be reused is one example, especially as many had told Musk it was impossible. Building a constellation of thousands of satellites was another. Both were accomplished relatively quickly, which is part of the SpaceX ethos.

“You can always go faster than you think you can. Hands down,” Kiko Dontchev, SpaceX’s vice president of launch, said during a recent conference presentation. “There’s always time to gain. There’s always efficiencies to be brought. You think you went fast enough? … You can go faster. Every time my team is like, 'Dude, we can’t go faster.’ You’re like, ‘Yes, you can.’ Move the goal posts. You’ll be surprised what happens when you challenge people.”

SpaceX has also thrived operating under what are known as fixed-priced contracts, where the contractor must eat any cost overruns. Traditionally, big Pentagon contracts operated under “cost-plus” contracts, allowing companies to be reimbursed if they went over their bid. That, critics have argued, has stifled innovation and allowed companies to move slowly.

The Space Force is also looking to SpaceX and its Starship, which, once flying, will be able to lift enormous amounts of mass to orbit. And it has praised SpaceX for keeping its Starlink constellation online even while Russian jammers were able to interfere with other networks.

“The quality of the link is excellent,” Ukraine’s minister for digital transformation, Mykhailo Fedorov, told The Post last year. “We are using thousands — in the area of thousands — of terminals, with new shipments arriving every other day.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...usk-biography/

Originally Posted by Takeovers

I do disagree strongly with Elon Musks position of suggesting that Ukraine gives up territory for peace. Unfortunately he is by no means alone with this position.

Who else ?

Orban ?

I think that he sees it as an fait acompli

About fucking time. Goodbye, Kerch Bridge and Black Sea fleet...

The Biden administration is likely to send Ukraine long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, to help in its fight to repel the Russian invasion of its territory, according to U.S. officials.

"They are coming," said one official who had access to security assistance plans. The official noted that, as always, such plans are subject to change until officially announced.

A second official said the missiles are "on the table" and likely to be included in an upcoming security assistance package, adding that a final decision has not been made. It could be months before Ukraine receives the missiles, according to the official.

With a range of up to 190 miles, depending on the version, deploying ATACMS could allow Ukraine to reach targets nearly four times further away than with the currently-provided rockets for its U.S.-made High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and M270 multiple-launch rocket systems.

The administration has until now rejected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's requests for the weapons, even after the United Kingdom and France have sent comparable Storm Shadow missiles, due to concerns both over escalation with Russia and of maintaining America's own stockpiles.

In July of 2022, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said the U.S. was "prepared to take risk," but implied that sending ATACMS could lead to direct conflict with Russia.

"There are certain capabilities the president has said he is not prepared to provide. One of them is long-range missiles, ATACMS, that have a range of 300 kilometers, because he does believe that while a key goal of the United States is to do the needful to support and defend Ukraine, another key goal is to ensure that we do not end up in a circumstance where we are heading down the road towards a third world war," he said at the Aspen Security Forum.

One year later at the same event, Sullivan was less definitive.

"Whether or not we ultimately give ATACMS will be a decision for the president. He has spoken with President Zelenskyy about it. They continue to have that conversation," he said this July.

The Biden administration has taken an incremental approach with the types of weapons it has sent to Ukraine since the invasion, ramping up from handheld launchers, to sophisticated air-defense platforms, to armored vehicles, and reversing earlier decisions not to send Abrams tanks or to train Ukrainians on advanced F-16 fighters.

With Ukrainian forces struggling to break through heavily-defended Russian lines more than expected in its ongoing counteroffensive, political pressure in Washington over sending military aid has increased -- along with a desire to see more progress on the battlefield.

A surprising discovery could also ease the administration's choice to send the weapons: The U.S. has found it has more ATACMS in its inventory than originally assessed, the two officials told ABC News.

The serviceability of the rediscovered stockpile is not yet clear, nor which specific type of missiles it contains. ATACMS come in several forms, from missiles with large high-explosive warheads, to anti-personnel cluster-munition versions that drop hundreds of bomblets on targets.

In addition to giving Ukrainian crews much greater standoff distance when striking Russian positions -- making it more difficult for the Russians to fire back -- ATACMS could also help Ukraine more easily reach targets in Crimea.

"I think specific targets in Crimea would be command and control, logistics hubs -- especially ammunition facilities -- and air bases," said Mick Mulroy, an ABC News contributor who served as a CIA officer and deputy assistant secretary of defense.

The U.S. has committed more than $43.7 billion in security aid to Ukraine since the beginning of the invasion in February 2022.

US likely to send long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine for the first time: Officials - ABC News

^ Maybe this will pressure the Germans to send their Taurus without modifications to prevent long range capability. It is capable of reaching targets ~300 miles distant and would help Ukraine significantly.

Originally Posted by Troy

It is capable of reaching targets ~300 miles distant and would help Ukraine significantly.

Maybe

In which way ?

The possibility that the U.S. will send to Ukraine long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) could be a game changer for Kyiv's goal of retaking Crimea, former U.S. General Ben Hodges has said.

He told Newsweek: "Crimea is the decisive terrain of this war, so isolating it and then making it untenable are the two necessary steps that lead to its liberation."

ABC News cited an unnamed U.S. official as saying that the weapons were coming. Another official said the system was on the table and likely to be included in an upcoming U.S. security package for Kyiv, although a final decision had not been made. Newsweek has been unable to verify these claims. We have contacted the U.S. State Department for comment via its request form.

ATACMS have a range of up to 190 miles and would allow Ukrainian forces to reach targets much further away than rockets from the U.S.-supplied High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and M270 multiple-launch rocket systems.

Hodges, a retired Lieutenant General, was the former commanding general of the United States Army Europe. He is among military figures who have repeatedly called for Washington to provide Kyiv with long-range systems to enable it to retake Crimea, which Moscow seized in 2014.

The systems could be used to hit command and control, logistics hubs, especially ammunition facilities, and air bases on the peninsula. Kyiv has said it wanted to recapture Crimea as part of its war aims.

Hodges wrote on X (formerly Twitter) that if the ABC report was true and if Germany agreed to provide its Taurus cruise missiles, "Ukraine will soon make Crimea untenable for Russian forces, especially Black Sea Fleet. Sevastopol, Saky, Dzankoy all easily within range."

Washington has held back providing ATACMS as it balances concerns about how to supply military assistance to Ukraine without escalating the conflict started by Moscow. However, the U.K. and France have sent comparable Storm Shadow missiles.

President Joe Biden hinted in May that the prospect of Ukraine getting ATACMS was still in play.

In July, U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan said that Biden had spoken with his Ukrainian counterpart about providing the weapons and that "whether or not we ultimately give ATACMS will be a decision for the president."

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said in August that Kyiv's forces would deploy long-range missiles, such as ATACMS, only within its own borders.
It comes as U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced a new $1 billion military aid package for Ukraine during a surprise visit to Kyiv this week.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukra...hodges-1825752

Originally Posted by helge

Maybe

In which way ?

Routing, it is not enough to just fire missiles directly at a target anymore. Routing, dummies and ECCM are needed to achieve a successful hit. E.g., the longer range enables the missile to attack from the less protected directions.

Originally Posted by Troy

Routing, it is not enough to just fire missiles directly at a target anymore. Routing, dummies and ECCM are needed to achieve a successful hit.

I do not think that is what he was asking about. I really do not think he understands the strategic implications that this weapon system will have in the theater.

SBS training paying off once again. This is a daring raid...

Ukrainian Commandos Ejected Russian Forces From Their Oil-Platform Bases Near Snake Island

Ukrainian commandos riding in gun-armed rigid-hull inflatable boats raided two Russian-controlled oil platforms 25 miles east of Snake Island in the western Black Sea in a series of raids beginning in late August.

The commandos ultimately boarded the so-called “Boyko Towers” platforms, seized a radar and some rockets and survived a gun run by a Russian Sukhoi Su-30 fighter-bomber. A Ukrainian missileer firing a man-portable anti-aircraft missile apparently damaged the Sukhoi and forced it to break away.

Ukraine’s military intelligence agency characterized the raids as resulting in the permanent capture of the platforms—actually, “liberation” would be more accurate, as Russian forces seized the platforms from their Ukrainian owners back in 2015. “For Ukraine, the operation of returning the drilling platforms had a strategic significance,” the intel agency stated.

But it’s more accurate to say the Ukrainians have denied—at least for now—the Russian exploitation of the platforms for military purposes. There’s a good chance neither country fully can control the platforms unless and until the balance of power in the Black Sea significantly shifts.

That, however, is a kind of win for Ukraine. In dismantling Russia’s defensive architecture in the western Black Sea, Ukraine is making it more and more dangerous for the surviving vessels of the bottled-up Russian Black Sea Fleet to operate anywhere near the Ukrainian coast with any degree of confidence.

At the same time, Kyiv’s forces also are creating a zone of relative safety through which grain ships can sail to and from Odesa or Ukraine’s ports on the Danube River. “Deprived of surveillance equipment stationed on these towers, Russia loses the capability to fully control the Black Sea waters,” the intel agency stated.

After capturing the two oil platforms in 2015, the Russians moved them closer to the Ukrainian coast—and installed surface-search radars as well as support equipment for helicopters. The platforms functioned as naval sensor outposts with a secondary role of refueling and rearming assault helicopters.

Think of the Boyko Towers as the middle link in a chain of Russian naval installations stretching from occupied Crimea with its excellent ports through the western Black Sea to Snake Island, which lies astride the main grain-shipping route 80 miles south of Odesa.



Russian forces captured Snake Island on the first day of Russia’s wider war on Ukraine in late February 2022—and held it until last summer, when a combined force of Ukrainian commandos, fighter-bomber pilots, drone crews and long-range howitzer gunners ejected the Russians from the tiny treeless island.

Today neither side keeps troops on Snake Island, although it’s likely the Ukrainians have greater freedom of movement to and from the island. The same outcome is likely for the Boyko Towers.
The big, mostly immobile oil rigs are easy targets for anti-ship missiles, armed drones, helicopters and fighter-bombers. If either side tries permanently to occupy the platforms, there’s very little preventing the other side from striking the platforms—and making their garrisons very unhappy.

Consider what a sextet of U.S. Navy destroyers did to two oil platforms Iranian forces were using as staging bases in the Persian Gulf in 1988. Amid escalating Iranian attacks on shipping through the Gulf, the American ships surrounded the platforms, shrugged off some half-hearted defensive gunfire and then blasted the platforms into burning hulks.

White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater hilariously called the fiery destruction of the platforms a “measured response.”

The Boyko Towers are no less vulnerable. When, during the same 1987-1988 clash with the Iranians, U.S. forces adapted a pair of oil-support barges into lightly-defended commando bases, the barges’ crews complained they were being “hung out to dry.”

There’s no compelling reason for Kyiv to hang any of its own troops out to dry by stationing them on the Boyko Towers. What matters is that the Russians can’t use the platforms to impede the flow of grain from Ukrainian ports north and west of the oil platforms—or use them to detect Ukrainian navy’s explosive-laden drone boats as they’re infiltrating the Black Sea Fleet’s ports in Crimea.

To those ends, it’s victory for the Ukrainians merely to keep the Russians off the oil rigs—even if they can’t themselves permanently garrison the same rigs.

Ukrainian Troops Ejected Russians From Oil Platforms Near Snake Island

Some U.S. officials and military experts believe that Ukraine's plodding three-month-old counteroffensive may now have gained enough momentum to keep pushing past Russian defensive fortifications in southern Ukraine -- meeting an original goal for the effort that has moved slowly since June.

The progress on the ground is happening as Ukraine is on the verge of receiving new weapons, like 31 M1 Abrams tanks, and as some of its pilots have begun the language training needed to prepare them to fly American-made F-16 fighter jets.

ABC News also reported last week that the Biden administration is also likely to provide Ukraine the long range ATACM missiles, with a range of 190 miles, it has been requesting since last year.

It remains unclear how the new weapons deliveries will change the battlefield, but U.S. officials think it is possible that Ukraine is now poised to make territorial gains in the south past the stronger than expected Russian defensive fortifications that had long stymied Ukraine's counteroffensive.

The key point on the battlefield is near the town of Robotyne in southern Ukraine where a U.S. official told ABC News that Ukrainian forces had used dismounted infantry to get through the first obstacle belt using dismounted infantry whose movement has been enabled by the use of U.S.-provided cluster munitions in large open spaces that have targeted Russian vehicles and trenches.

The official said Ukraine has still not used the bulk of its combat power in the counteroffensive and that Ukrainian combat engineers are now working to broaden the battlefield opening near the town to allow entry for more troops.

In a rare interview last week, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Director of Analysis Trent Maul told The Economist that after reaching Russia's second line of defenses it is a "realistic possibility" that Ukrainian troops will be able to break through all of Russia's defensive lines in southern Ukraine by the end of 2023. Though Maul cautioned that limited ammunition and worsening weather could make this "very difficult."

"Had we had this conversation two weeks ago, I would have been slightly more pessimistic," Maul told The Economist. "Their breakthrough on that second defensive belt … is actually pretty considerable."

In the last two weeks, Ukrainian troops have regained almost a third of the nearly 42 square miles of territory taken back by Russia since the start of Ukraine's counteroffensive according to data compiled by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a Washington think tank that has closely monitored the war in Ukraine.

"Penetrating a prepared defensive position like this is incredibly hard and difficult even for the U.S. military," Fred Kagan, the director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute, told ABC News.

"The Ukrainians are doing it under much more difficult circumstances than we would and this initial penetration is very important," he added.

"You get the feeling that they're about to really get through the main defenses, but I just can't tell for sure, but it feels like we're on the verge of something here in the next few weeks," retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, formerly the top U.S. Army commander in Europe, told ABC News.

For the past three months, Ukraine's troops have been slowed by the vast minefields that Russia laid last winter as the first part of a three layered defense built behind its front lines in southern and eastern Ukraine in anticipation of a Ukrainian counteroffensive. Behind the minefields Russia placed a second line of anti-tank "dragon's teeth" and a third line of defensive trenches manned by thousands of Russian troops being kept in reserve.

The minefields significantly slowed down Ukraine's initial advance of armored vehicles that U.S. and western officials had expected would allow Ukrainian troops to quickly smash past Russian defenses.

The heavy Ukrainian troop and heavy equipment losses led Ukraine's senior military leaders to change their tactics to a more methodical approach spread across various points across the 600 mile front line with Russia.

That switch was at odds with the infantry, armor, and artillery training provided to Ukrainian troops, by U.S. and European militaries, to break through Russian lines with a quick coordinated break at one location that would open the way for a larger Ukrainian force.

Ukraine's slow progress raised doubts among U.S. officials as to whether Ukraine's counteroffensive would ever reach its goal of reaching deep into south Ukraine to sever the land bridge, connecting Crimea with eastern Ukraine, that Russia's military had established last year.

But security analysts monitoring the fighting in Ukraine see the recent battlefield progress as a sign that the tactical switch by Ukraine's military was a more realistic plan given the limitations of Ukraine's military.

"Looking at where the offensive stands today, Ukraine's decision to attrit Russian forces via fires and advance incrementally with small units played to its strengths," Michael Kofman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Rob Lee, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute's Eurasia Program wrote in a recent essay.

"On the Russian side, we see plenty of evidence that they have lost a lot of artillery, their logistics, their headquarters, their own ability to move reserves, has been significantly degraded," Hodges told ABC News.

"And I think that's in large part due to the Ukrainian adaptation to the environment to the situation on the ground," he said.

"I think the Ukrainians quickly realized that they had to focus on degrading Russian artillery versus just … pushing through these enormous minefields," at great cost to lives and vehicles said Hodges.

Hodges believes that Ukraine also adapted by launching long range drone attacks inside Russia that demonstrate that Ukraine's counteroffensive is much more comprehensive than just a land campaign.

While security analysts agree that Ukraine's counteroffensive in the south appears to be building momentum they note that what happens next depends on several factors.

"For Russia, the problem is straightforward," Kofman and Lee wrote in their essay. "The entrenchments matter most if they're manned. If their forces are degraded, and they lack reinforcements, these defenses will slow down but not impede Ukraine's advance. It also depends whether Russia chooses to employ its reserves for counterattacks or to man the multiple lines of defense."

"For Ukraine, the primary challenge is not in breaching Russian lines, but rather doing so with sufficient forces in reserve to exploit that breach toward its objectives," they wrote.

Ukraine will soon receive added firepower to assist in the future phase of the counteroffensive including 31 American-made M1 Abrams tanks that will arrive this fall. But how they will be used will depend on battlefield conditions.

Ahead of its counteroffensive Ukraine received dozens of German-made Leopard tanks and armored vehicles for a large mechanized assault that U.S. and western countries had recommended to Ukraine's military leaders.

The weapons deliveries conjured images of potential large tank battles, but reality on the ground is much different as Ukraine has used its tanks in small numbers mainly to support small numbers of advancing troops.

But the possibility for Ukraine to break past Russia's second layer of defenses could allow Ukraine's armor forces to engage in a rapid maneuver operation that could lead to direct engagements with Russian tanks.

"That is the phase in which you would expect to see Russian tanks maneuvering in the rear to defend against advancing Ukrainian columns, where the Russians don't have simply dug in defensive positions to be potent all the time," Kagan told ABC News.

"The fact that we're not seeing it in his phase doesn't mean that there isn't reason to expect that we will see it coming up," he added.

The approach of winter conditions has led to speculation that Ukraine has to achieve its counteroffensive goals in the next two months, but some analysts believe Ukraine will continue its operations to prevent Russia from rebuilding its personnel and equipment.

"They're going to keep up the pressure. They don't want to give Russia one minute to regroup, to rearm, to give more forces, more conscripts, train," said Hodges. "They're going to keep pressure on them."

Ukraine'''s slow-going counteroffensive against Russia building momentum: ANALYSIS - ABC News

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

The problem with snubby, is because that pathetic excuse for a teleprompter reader (Biden) does not like Musk, then he must track down the same path like a lamb (Sheep!)

What nonsense are you blathering on about? Takeovers was quoting an article I posted not my own words/opinion.

Just wait until ATACMS are delivered.

Explosions tore through a shipyard at the headquarters of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in Crimea before dawn on Wednesday, damaging at least two ships and setting off a blaze that continued to burn into the early morning, according to Russian officials.

The Russian Ministry of Defense said in a statement that Ukraine had fired 10 cruise missiles at the facility in the city of Sevastopol at the same time as it targeted a Russian warship on the Black Sea with three maritime drones. Air defense systems shot down seven cruise missiles, and the patrol ship Vasily Bykov destroyed all the unmanned drones, the ministry said.

The rare acknowledgment of a successful Ukrainian attack came after local residents broadcast images of explosions and raging fires in the shipyard on social media. Mikhail Razvozhaev, the Russian-backed governor of Crimea, later shared a photo that appeared to show the port side of a Ropucha-class large landing ship that sustained damage. Ukrainian officials had no immediate comment on the strikes on Wednesday.

Mr. Razvozhayev said at least 24 people were injured at the Sevmorzavod shipyard. The initial explosions, and sounds of air defenses, were first reported at about 2 a.m.

The conflict on the Black Sea has escalated in the past few months, expanding another battlefront in the nearly 19-month old war in Ukraine. Ukraine has increasingly targeted Russian military operations, including bases, naval facilities and ammunition depots, on the Crimean peninsula, which Russia invaded in 2014 and illegally annexed. Moscow has ramped up attacks on Ukrainian ports, grain facilities and other civilian infrastructure since it backed out of a deal to allow Ukraine to ship grain through the Black Sea.

Crimea, which is connected to Russia by a single bridge that been repeatedly attacked, is home to Moscow’s Black Sea Fleet and provides a vital link in the Russian military’s supply chain that supports tens of thousands of soldiers now occupying a vast swath of southern Ukraine.

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia views the territory as a prized possession, and since Moscow illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, the Kremlin has studded the peninsula with military bases. It was used as a springboard for Russia to launch its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and Russia has since used it as a base to launch thousands of missiles and drones at Ukrainian towns and cities.

President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine has said that military facilities in Crimea are legitimate targets. For more than a year, Ukraine has targeted Russia’s bases there with drones, missiles and sabotage operations.

Last October, Ukraine struck the Russian naval base at Sevastopol with maritime drones. Kyiv has expanded its ability to strike at long range, and attacks have grown bolder and more sophisticated.
A Ukrainian maritime drone struck a Russian warship hundreds of miles from the coast in August, demonstrating the growing range and attack capabilities of the unmanned boats. The strike forced the Russian Navy to take new defensive measures to protect its fleet.

Despite the increase in Ukrainian attacks on Crimea, Russian officials have downplayed the strikes, suggesting that life has gone on as normal on the peninsula.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/12/w...a-ukraine.html

Russia’s out-of-control military spending

The Russian economy has been profoundly affected by the war in Ukraine, with the 37% of national spending that currently goes on defence predicted to rise to as much as 45% by the year’s end. As well as contributing to the ruble’s continuing fall, the massive increase in military spending is creating wider problems for the country’s economy that risk repeating the mistakes of the past.

Russia’s out-of-control military spending. With spending on the war in Ukraine potentially accounting for 45% of Russia’s budget by the end of the year, what are the implications for the rest of the economy? — Novaya Gazeta Europe

Originally Posted by bsnub

The Russian Ministry of Defense said in a statement that Ukraine had fired 10 cruise missiles at the facility in the city of Sevastopol at the same time as it targeted a Russian warship on the Black Sea with three maritime drones. Air defense systems shot down seven cruise missiles, and the patrol ship Vasily Bykov destroyed all the unmanned drones, the ministry said.

This is a lie, of course. They did not shoot down any missiles, there were not 10 fired either. Everything that the ruzzian MOD says is a lie. It really is frustrating that the western media continues to quote this tripe.

Just a couple of observations while every one is deciding who will eventually win, from Helge and OhOh on one side, to snubby and co on the other. Despite having an overwhelming force and a huge disparity in equipment and Russia having months if not years to plan this invasion and despite Russias devastating attacks on cities civilians and infrastructure, the Russians have in fact taken very little if you look at the lines before the invasion albeit with huge donations of western equipment to Ukraine . in spite of an overwhelming air force they do not rule the skies. The incompetence at times is almost mind boggling. However the pro russian posters celebrate some destroyed equipment the fact is Russia has barely advanced anywhere in favourable weather so it is unlikely they will do much more than defend in the poorer weather and hope atrition will save their day or at least trump get in and strangle arms supply. Should that happen America will cease to dominate in the world of diplomacy and again the title of an unreliable partner will resonate around the west. I doubt Trump will succeed but no doubt Putin has put that in his hope chest and if not, at least another republican. There is certainly no hope of peace until Putin sees the U.S. election results. The west has to stop drip feeding Ukraine. IMO they should've had F16s in the air by now and a lot of more sophisticated equipment much earlier. Had they done so they would have probably been more advanced. In truth I dont know the end result. The only think I do know is the west must be resolute and give Ukraine more sophisticated weapons. It is farcical to believe Russia will then attack NATO when it cant defeat one country on its doorstep.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Just a couple of observations while every one is deciding who will eventually win, from Helge and OhOh on one side,

As far as I remember, I haven't made such predictions.

If you'll direct me there, I'll be grateful.

I can however predict the losers

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

In truth I dont know the end result.

In truth, that makes two of us

Originally Posted by helge

As far as I remember, I haven't made such predictions.

If you'll direct me there, I'll be grateful.

I can however predict the losers

The world will be the loser if we allow a virtual dictator to do as he pleases with little consequence. We did that after Crimea and look how that went.


In truth, that makes two of us

Please direct me to the positive posts from you on the Ukraine and any anti Russian posts you have made. I must have missed them all but I doubt you can. My opinion is based on your pro russian posts. I doubt many on TD (ohoh accepted) would disagree with me.
I admit I am biased towards Ukraine but thats just me.
I tend to support the side that is wronged and before you go whatabout, no i didnt support Iraq invasion, vietnam, the illegal bombing of Laos and a host of other countries that have suffered regime change or attempted regime change from Nicaragua, Cuba, El Salvador to Chile just to name a few.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Just a couple of observations while every one is deciding who will eventually win, from Helge and OhOh on one side, to snubby and co on the other.

Originally Posted by helge

As far as I remember, I haven't made such predictions.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Please direct me to the positive posts from you on the Ukraine and any anti Russian posts you have made.

By "positive" post do you then mean "optimistic" posts ?

Again: Where have I predicted who will win ?

I haven't cause I don't know.

The problem is that you don't know the difference between apples and oranges.

For the rest of your post, I'll put that down to your ignorant heritage.

Originally Posted by bsnub

None of those rinkydink little countries compare to the occupations of................

Originally Posted by bsnub

their whataboutism

Brilliant, Digby

Originally Posted by bsnub

When you are talking about Imperialism, nothing comes close to ruzzia.

Expect a few reds from our british posters

^ Indeed, the Russian empire didn't even come close.

As you say, there are only losers in this war.

Originally Posted by helge

Expect a few reds from our british posters

don't be daft, it wasn't British Imperialism, someone had to civilise the wogs, wops, dagos, slopes and wobblies

Originally Posted by Troy

Indeed, the Russian empire didn't even come close.

As you say, there are only losers in this war.

The post I made had nothing to do with England. I was addressing Helga's constant whataboutism, where he tries to justify ruzzia's genocidal attack on Ukraine. Way to turn it into a dick measuring contest.

Nice to see some asshole biased mod came in here and deleted my response but left all the other non-news related posts in here. Total shit moderation.