Thread: Russia launches Ukraine invasion

Ukrainian forces earlier in May used Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 drones to destroy three Russian ships near Snake Island. Troops destroyed one Serna-class Russian landing craft and two Raptor-class patrol boats, according to a statement from the Ukrainian Operational Southern Command.

The embarrassing losses hit Russia just days before the May 9 Victory Day parade. Ukraine estimates the attack caused 46 casualties and destroyed two Tor surface-to-air missile systems.

Helping the Drones Strike

The United States is set to help Ukraine continue to carry out successful strikes like this. In a recent $300 million military aid package to Ukraine, the U.S. pledged more guided-rocket systems that can be paired with Ukraine’s fleet of TB2 drones and used in attacks against Russian ships, vehicles, and military infrastructure.

Precisely how many TB2s Ukraine has left is unknown. Russia has released several figures in recent weeks claiming to have destroyed as many as 37 drones, out of a fleet of 35 at the time. This would give Russian forces a kill rate of over 100%.

What is the Bayraktar TB2?

The Bayraktar TB2 is a Turkish-made, medium-altitude long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicle. It can be controlled remotely and used both for surveillance and for missile strikes. In service since 2014, the drone is used mostly by the Turkish military, although it saw action in the Nagorno-Karabakh war between Armenia and Azerbaijan in 2020. Its use in Ukraine, however, has given the drone a much higher profile.

Flat, gray, and powered by a rear-mounted propeller, these drones use laser-guided missiles that are substantially less expensive than equivalents manufactured in the United States.
The drone has repeatedly defied expectations in Ukraine, as well as in conflicts in the Caucasus and Africa. Despite being slow and flying at relatively low altitudes, the drone’s ability to carry guided missiles has made it easy for Ukrainian fighters to strike Russian military targets with great precision.


Speaking to the New Yorker, former State Department official Rich Outzen said the drone “enabled a fairly significant operational revolution in how wars are being fought.”
“This probably happens only once every thirty or forty years,” Outzen said.

Russian fighters have been largely unable to jam or shoot down the aerial vehicles so far, giving Ukraine a big advantage as Russian troops try to take full control of the Donbas region.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/05/...drones-better/

The United States is sending billions of dollars in military equipment to Ukraine, including heavy artillery, drones and antitank missiles. Administration officials have publicly enumerated those contributions, practically down to the number of bullets. But they are far more cautious when describing another decisive contribution to Ukraine’s battlefield success: intelligence about the Russian military.

Information about the location and movements of Russian forces is flowing to Ukraine in real-time, and it includes satellite imagery and reporting gleaned from sensitive U.S. sources, according to U.S. and Ukrainian officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the cooperation.

“The intelligence is very good. It tells us where the Russians are so that we can hit them,” one Ukrainian official said, using his finger to pantomime a bomb falling on its target.

The United States is not at war with Russia, and the assistance it provides is intended for Ukraine’s defense against an illegal invasion, Biden officials have stressed. But practically speaking, U.S. officials have limited control on how their Ukrainian beneficiaries use the military equipment and intelligence.

That risks provoking the Kremlin to retaliate against the United States and its allies, and heightens the threat of a direct conflict between the two nuclear powers.

The administration has drawn up guidance around intelligence-sharing that is calibrated to avoid heightening tensions between Washington and Moscow. Given to intelligence personnel at the working level, the guidance has placed two broad prohibitions on the kinds of information that the United States can share with Ukraine, officials said.

First, the United States cannot provide detailed information that would help Ukraine kill Russian leadership figures, such as the most senior military officers or ministers, officials said. Valery Gerasimov, the chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, and Sergei Shoigu, the defense minister, for example, would fall into that category.

This prohibition does not extend to Russian military officers, including generals, several of whom have died on the battlefield. But a senior defense official said that while the U.S. government is “self-limiting to strategic leadership on paper,” it also has chosen not to provide Ukraine location information for generals.

The United States is not “actively helping them kill generals of any kind,” the defense official said.

The second category of prohibited intelligence-sharing is any information that would help Ukraine attack Russian targets outside Ukraine’s borders, officials said. That rule is meant in part to keep the United States from becoming a party to attacks that Ukraine might launch inside Russia. Those concerns led the administration to halt earlier plans to provide fighter jets, supplied by Poland, which Ukraine could have used to launch attacks on Russian soil.

U.S. officials have not discouraged Ukraine from undertaking those operations on its own.

Ukraine should “do whatever is necessary to defend against Russian aggression,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken told a congressional panel last month. He added that “the tactics of this are their decisions.”

Blinken made his remarks after Ukrainian officials said unexplained fires and explosions against sensitive targets in Russia were justified, without claiming responsibility for them.

In addition to the restricted categories of intelligence-sharing, the United States has a rule against providing what officials call “targeting information” to Ukraine. The United States will not, officials said, tell Ukrainian forces that a particular Russian general has been spotted at a specific location, and then tell or help Ukraine to strike him.

But the United States would share information about the location of, say, command and control facilities — places where Russian senior officers often tend to be found — since it could aid Ukraine in its own defense, officials said. If Ukrainian commanders decided to strike the facility, that would be their call, and if a Russian general were killed in the attack, the United States wouldn’t have targeted him, officials said.

Not targeting Russian troops and locations but providing intelligence that Ukraine uses to help kill Russians may seem like a distinction without a difference. But legal experts said the definition of targeting provides meaningful legal and policy guidance that can help the United States demonstrate it is not a party to the conflict, even as it pours military equipment into Ukraine and turns on a fire hose of intelligence.

“If the U.S. were providing targeting information to a foreign party, and we’re closely involved in targeting decisions, we’re directing those forces and they’re acting as a proxy for us,” said Scott R. Anderson, a former State Department official who was the legal adviser for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. “That might be seen as getting close to the line of actually attacking Russia, at which point Russia could arguably respond reciprocally.”

“Targeting intelligence is different from other kinds of intelligence-sharing for this reason,” added Anderson, who is now a fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Ukraine’s sinking of the Moskva, the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, illustrates how the United States can provide helpful intelligence that, however indirect, risks pulling the country deeper into the war.

In April, Ukraine spotted the vessel off its shores. Information provided by the United States helped to confirm its identity, according to officials familiar with the matter.

The United States routinely shares intelligence with Ukraine about Russian ships in the Black Sea, which have fired missiles at Ukraine and could be used to support an assault on cities such as Odessa, a senior defense official explained. But, the official stressed, that intelligence is not “specific targeting information on ships.” The information is intended to help Ukraine mount a defense. Ukrainian officials could have decided that, rather than strike the Moskva, they should make steps to fortify protections around Odessa or evacuate civilians.

“We did not provide Ukraine with specific targeting information for the Moskva,” Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said in a written statement. “We were not involved in the Ukrainians’ decision to strike the ship or in the operation they carried out. We had no prior knowledge of Ukraine’s intent to target the ship. The Ukrainians have their own intelligence capabilities to track and target Russian naval vessels, as they did in this case.”

But absent the intelligence from the United States, Ukraine would have struggled to target the warship with the confidence necessary to expend two valuable Neptune missiles, which were in short supply, according to people familiar with the strike.

The sinking of such an important vessel, and one that had the capability to defend itself against anti-ship missiles, was a humiliation for Russian President Vladimir Putin and one of Ukraine’s most dramatic successes in the war so far, analysts said. In keeping with the intelligence-sharing rules, which are designed to avoid escalating the conflict in Putin’s eyes, Biden administration officials repeatedly stressed they had not directly aided Ukraine in the attack.

On Friday, the day after The Washington Post and other news organizations revealed the U.S. role in the Moskva strike, Biden made separate calls to CIA Director William J. Burns, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, a senior administration official said. The president made clear he was upset about the leaks and warned that they undermined the U.S. goal of helping Ukraine, the administration official said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...e-sharing-war/

Now that is hilarious.

Originally Posted by sabang

Now that is hilarious.

Exactly what did you find funny, dummy?

Moscow Says EU Becoming ‘Aggressive, Militant'


Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Friday said he doubted the motives of Ukraine's intention of joining the European Union while accusing Brussels of ambitions beyond the European continent.


Ukraine, where Russia launched a military campaign on Feb. 24, "is ready to declare a neutral, non-aligned status," Lavrov told reporters following a meeting of CIS foreign ministers in Tajikistan's capital Dushanbe.

"At the same time, they are trying in every possible way to emphasize their desire to become an EU member," Lavrov added.


"There are serious doubts about how harmless such a desire is from Kyiv," he said.


Russia has insisted at stalled peace talks that Ukraine drop its ambition to enter the U.S.-led military alliance NATO and declare itself "neutral."


Kyiv has admitted it is unlikely to become a NATO member — but has forged ahead with an application to join the 27-nation EU since the start of the conflict.


Lavrov accused the EU of transforming from a "constructive, economic platform" into an "aggressive, militant player, declaring its ambitions far beyond the European continent," pointing to moves in the Indo-Pacific region.


"They are rushing to follow in the tracks already laid by NATO, thereby confirming the trend that they are merging with the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) and will in fact serve as its appendage," he said.


Moscow Says EU Becoming ‘Aggressive, Militant' - The Moscow Times

Ukraine’s MFA slams Russia as its ship moves stolen Ukrainian grain to Syria


A Russian merchant ship loaded with grain stolen in the occupied territories of Ukraine has been spotted in the Syrian port of Latakia.
CNN has identified the vessel as the bulk carrier Matros Pozynich, referring to shipping sources, Ukrainian officials, and Maxar Technologies satellite images.


On April 27, the ship weighed anchor off the coast of Crimea. The next day, it was seen at the port of Sevastopol. From Sevastopol, the Matros Pozynich transited the Bosphorus strait and made its way to the Egyptian port of Alexandria. Egypt was warned that the grain was stolen, and the shipment was turned away. The Matros Pozynich steamed toward the Lebanese capital of Beirut with the same result. Maxar Technologies shows it traveled to the Syrian port of Latakia.


The Matros Pozynich is reported to be laden with nearly 30,000 tonnes of Ukrainian wheat, according to Ukrainian officials. The ship is one of three ships involved in the trade of stolen grain, according to open-source research and Ukrainian officials.


Meanwhile, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmytro Kuleba reacted sharply.


"Russia has committed a triple crime: it bombed out Syria, temporarily occupied a part of Ukraine, and is currently selling Ukrainian grain it has stolen there to Syria. I would like to remind everyone involved in this murky business that theft has never brought anyone luck," Kuleba stated.


Anyone participating in the selling, transportation, or purchase of our stolen grain is an accomplice to this crime, he noted.


Egypt and Lebanon declined to acquire the stolen Ukrainian grain following efforts by Ukrainian diplomats. Other consumer countries were also warned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine that Russian grain consignments may contain Ukrainian grain looted by Russian occupants.


“Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs strongly opposes Russia's activities in disposing of food unlawfully seized from the Ukrainian farmers. Russia once again proves its criminal nature as a looter-state,” reads the statement.


Ukraine’s MFA underscores that Russian occupants have already seized at least 400-500 thousand tonnes of grain worth more than $100 million. Almost all grain-laden ships departing Sevastopol transport stolen Ukrainian goods.

Ukraine’s MFA slams Russia as its ship moves stolen Ukrainian grain to Syria

^ From the same POLL SHOCK!

US Poll shock! Support for 'President Meghan' growing as Biden loses ground with voters

THE prospect of Meghan Markle running for US President has been boosted with a new poll showing she is one of the preferred candidates.

There have been reports the Duchess of Sussex would like to make a pitch for the White House and her political ambitions have been supported in the Democracy Institute/ Express.co.uk monthly US tracker poll published today. Asked which female candidate they want, respondents put Markle second behind Michelle Obama but ahead of Vice President Kamala Harris and Hilary Clinton.

Poll shock! Support for “President Meghan” growing as Biden loses ground with voters | Politics | News | Express.co.uk

Harry as First Man- why not. The Empire Strikes Back! (p.s:- anything would be better than slowjoe & co.)

Gonna be a lot more Republicans in the house in a few months.... plus of course the American public cares about domestic matters first and foremost. Better be hoping for some quick results, or meaningful peace negotiations, rather than a quagmire methinks norts. It does look like Vlad can afford to stick this one out.

Originally Posted by misskit

Moscow Says EU Becoming ‘Aggressive, Militant'

So Puffy's dummy, speaking on behalf of a country that invaded a sovereign nation and has committed war crimes against that country's civilian population, says "The EU is become aggressive".

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Ankara could block the pair from joining the US-led military alliance, with unanimous agreement needed on new members.

FULL- Erdogan says Turkey opposed to Finland, Sweden NATO membership | NATO News | Al Jazeera

Originally Posted by sabang

Ankara could block the pair from joining the US-led military alliance, with unanimous agreement needed on new members.

Erdogan is just using it as leverage to get into the EU, or be allowed F35 fighter jets. A deal will be made.

Originally Posted by pickel

Erdogan is just using it as leverage to get into the EU, or be allowed F35 fighter jets. A deal will be made.

I'm pretty sure most of Europe does not want open borders with Turkey.

Maybe Finland and Sweden could simply replace them in NATO. Erdogan is proving he can't be trusted.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Maybe Finland and Sweden could simply replace them in NATO. Erdogan is proving he can't be trusted.

I would agree with this. Fuck Erdogan

Originally Posted by bsnub

I would agree with this. Fuck Erdogan

Does make some nice drones though.

There is no mechanism in NATO policy to expel a member, and to create such a policy would require a unanimous vote. A deal will be made of some sort.

Originally Posted by pickel

There is no mechanism in NATO policy to expel a member, and to create such a policy would require a unanimous vote. A deal will be made of some sort.

It has been discussed before; funnily enough because of Turkey.

"Should the conditions for the existence of a material breach be satisfied, NATO’s member states would be entitled, by unanimous agreement, to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part or to terminate it either in their relations with the defaulting state or among them all (Article 60(2) of the Vienna Convention). For these purposes, a unanimous decision of the North Atlantic Council, excluding the defaulting state, would suffice. ".

https://www.justsecurity.org/66574/can-turkey-be-expelled-from-nato/

Originally Posted by David48atTD

Does make some nice drones though.

Got a point there.

Let’s face it, Turkey occupies a good chunk of access to the Bosphorus and NATO’s southern flank. There is also the relationship with Greece to consider, especially over the Cyprus question.
The dividing line in Cyprus is currently quiet and under the auspices of the UN, should probably remain so.

I agree that Ergogan is a bit of a loose horse in this situation.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

"Should the conditions for the existence of a material breach be satisfied,

Vetoing an applicant would not be considered a material breach though. It is their right. A deal will be made.