Reports indicating the Russian Slava-class cruiser Moskva was hit by two missiles fired from near Odessa. Confirmed.
Reports indicating the Russian Slava-class cruiser Moskva was hit by two missiles fired from near Odessa. Confirmed.
In reply to 02Pilot :
So without any form of real navy the Ukrainians have destroyed two Russian ships and damaged multiple more? I was saying in jest earlier that the Russians may have to surrender to Zelensky but damn kid...
02Pilot said:Reports indicating the Russian Slava-class cruiser Moskva was hit by two missiles fired from near Odessa. Confirmed.
Russia threatens to escalate to nuclear if Baltic states join NATO
https://www.foxnews.com/world/russia-nuclear-threat-sweden-finland-nato
I say NATO welcomes Sweden, Finland and Ukraine in.
In reply to QuasiMofo (John Brown) :
For clarity, I think they mean that they're going to increase the proximity and number of their nuclear capability in the Balkans if they join NATO. So more of a threat to escalate further.
QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:Russia threatens to escalate to nuclear if Baltic states join NATO
https://www.foxnews.com/world/russia-nuclear-threat-sweden-finland-nato
I say NATO welcomes Sweden, Finland and Ukraine in.
I agree. Get it over with already.
bobzilla said:QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:Russia threatens to escalate to nuclear if Baltic states join NATO
https://www.foxnews.com/world/russia-nuclear-threat-sweden-finland-nato
I say NATO welcomes Sweden, Finland and Ukraine in.
I agree. Get it over with already.
Yup. Do it now. Putt Putt is going to do what Putt Putt does anyway, we may as well show him we don't care for the temper tantrums.
The Russian statement on the Baltic Sea area is pointless. There are plenty of nuclear weapons in that area already. There is little they can do beyond reinforcing their stockpiles in the area.
The question Sweden and Finland in NATO is a very interesting one. In a number of ways it makes far more sense that Ukraine joining, for a whole variety of reasons: the Scandinavians are already much closer to interoperability already; their economies are developed to the point where they can support their commitments to the alliance; they are not on territory controlled by the Soviet Union (with the exception of some parts of Finland), nor do they have significant Russian minorities or cultural ties. The Russians will scream bloody murder if the Finns join, but there's also not a lot they can do about it (if you think the Ukrainian resistance is impressive, wait until you see how the Finns react to a Russian invasion). The really intriguing question comes if the Finns decide to join but the Swedes do not. Sweden then effectively bandwagons itself into the NATO sphere behind Finland without the commitment to contribute to its defense. The Russians have probed Swedish defenses quite a bit over the years, and if they remain outside NATO I would expect that would ramp up, as the Swedish coast would be prime landing territory for a thrust into Scandinavia in a general war. A lot more espionage activity in Sweden would also be expected in such a situation.
02Pilot said:The Russian statement on the Baltic Sea area is pointless. There are plenty of nuclear weapons in that area already. There is little they can do beyond reinforcing their stockpiles in the area.
The question Sweden and Finland in NATO is a very interesting one. In a number of ways it makes far more sense that Ukraine joining, for a whole variety of reasons: the Scandinavians are already much closer to interoperability already; their economies are developed to the point where they can support their commitments to the alliance; they are not on territory controlled by the Soviet Union (with the exception of some parts of Finland), nor do they have significant Russian minorities or cultural ties. The Russians will scream bloody murder if the Finns join, but there's also not a lot they can do about it (if you think the Ukrainian resistance is impressive, wait until you see how the Finns react to a Russian invasion). The really intriguing question comes if the Finns decide to join but the Swedes do not. Sweden then effectively bandwagons itself into the NATO sphere behind Finland without the commitment to contribute to its defense. The Russians have probed Swedish defenses quite a bit over the years, and if they remain outside NATO I would expect that would ramp up, as the Swedish coast would be prime landing territory for a thrust into Scandinavia in a general war. A lot more espionage activity in Sweden would also be expected in such a situation.
I don't have an excellent handle on the defensive capabilities of countries (and, to be frank, it sounds like a lot of the experts didn't, either), but I believe the Finns to be a big step above the Ukrainians in terms of defense, and the Poles to be a big step above that. I think this is basically the last chance Putt Putt has at getting more Lebensraum (reference intentional) and maybe he might just start to get a hint that this is true.
I don't know about the Swedes, but NATO membership has to start looking better and better as this goes on.
QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:So without any form of real navy the Ukrainians have destroyed two Russian ships and damaged multiple more? I was saying in jest earlier that the Russians may have to surrender to Zelensky but damn kid...
I'm having fantasies about Boghammers mounting ATGM...
In reply to tuna55 :
The advantages the Finns have over the Poles are 1) much more defensible geography, and 2) a long history of civilian marksmanship (so do the Swedes, for that matter). Poland has been run over as many times as it has primarily because of the terrain (and being in a bad neighborhood).
As to the Lebensraum reference, I understand the association you're making, but it really doesn't apply here. Hitler's logic was based on Germany's WW1 experience of starvation and lack of resources under blockade; for him, Lebensraum was necessary for an autarkic Third Reich to establish and maintain its position by colonizing and exploiting new territory (his models were British India and US westward expansion, by the way; he wrote "Russia will be our India"). Russia has more than enough capability to provide itself with natural resources and food. Traditionally, because Russia's population and industrial base is so biased to the extreme western part of the country, the concern about gaining control of land in that area is purely a matter of strategic defense, not living space. This is relevant because it affects the motives and acceptable end-states for the current conflict; Hitler understood that an isolated, resource-poor Germany could not survive without expanding, whereas Putin has no such requirements.
Looks like the missile they used is a Ukrainian developed variation of a Russian missile, with a range of around 280km. Also, they where JUST being delivered to the military when Russia attacked. That would reach from the Odessa coast to near Sevastopol (western Crimea peninsulas). Interestingly enough one comment on them is:
This missile travels at subsonic speed. It is estimated that due to its subsonic speed that anti-ship missile can be intercepted rather easily, especially by advanced defense system.
So.... again... doesn't speak well for Russian capabilities. One wonders if they tricked them, or they where just caught unaware, perhaps assuming their military might has suppressed any attempt to attack?
You can also see in the map below that it was struck while being near the famous Snake island, and of course was one of the ships that attacked it. It is now being towed back to Sevastopol. The rest of the Russian ships are now quickly making distance from the coast. I love the comment from the Russia about trying to figure out the source of the fire...
Some perspective on the attack:
Ministry of Defense of Russia: As a result of a fire on the missile cruiser Moskva, the ammunition detonated, the ship was seriously damaged. The crew was completely evacuated, the causes of the fire are being established.
U.S. Official says less than half a dozen Russian warships in northern Black Sea have moved further away from the coast after the incident with Moskva
In reply to aircooled :
Yeah sometimes ships catch fire when they are near hostile port cities for some reason.
The rumor is that they flew a drone close by the ship to distract the crew and defense systems while they launched the missiles. This is a cool tactic if true.
These read like what I was worried about regarding La Pen.
Russian warship finally completed the order it was given by the Ukrainian garrison.
I don't really see anything especially wrong with Le Pen's approach here. Distasteful as it may be, the only options for dealing with Russia after Ukraine is settled are some form of rapprochement or continued tensions at the expense of focusing on China, which is the far greater long-term concern. As far as pulling out of NATO's integrated command structure, it's not really a huge deal, and it's most assuredly not the same as pulling out of NATO (which would be a huge deal).
Politically it's a razors edge though. Are enough French voters smart enough to understand the difference? I see an angle where that could be painted as a treacherous opinion that sides with her friend the war criminal and removes their safety net from the rest of the world. I'm sure there are spin doctors there as well
Javelin said:Russian warship finally completed the order it was given by the Ukrainian garrison.
Ha!
02Pilot said:I don't really see anything especially wrong with Le Pen's approach here. Distasteful as it may be, the only options for dealing with Russia after Ukraine is settled are some form of rapprochement or continued tensions at the expense of focusing on China, which is the far greater long-term concern. As far as pulling out of NATO's integrated command structure, it's not really a huge deal, and it's most assuredly not the same as pulling out of NATO (which would be a huge deal).
I am not so sure, I think this quote is pretty much saying "We will take the defense of others for our own benefit, but will not use our own force to defend others per the treaty."
Le Pen said:
"I would place our troops neither under an integrated NATO command nor under a future European command,"
QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:Politically it's a razors edge though. Are enough French voters smart enough to understand the difference? I see an angle where that could be painted as a treacherous opinion that sides with her friend the war criminal and removes their safety net from the rest of the world. I'm sure there are spin doctors there as well
I will take that as a no. Look what happened here in the USA. Scary times. Everyone is so divided and misinformation is rampant. Russia did a good job at that.
Humor aside, there are still people on both sides dying because of Putin and his Generals.
tuna55 said:In reply to aircooled :
The rumor is that they flew a drone close by the ship to distract the crew and defense systems while they launched the missiles. This is a cool tactic if true.
This is a good tactic in high school dodge ball too.
EDIT: Not knocking the tactic, I think it is very smart. It just reminded me of when you lob a ball up and then blast them while they are looking up to catch it.
I don't have any quote or references but I believe France has always been a bit distant with NATO. I think they refused to use NATO bases at some point, instead using there own. Weird stuff like that.
France, I think, has had a bit of a "but... we are still a major world power" kind of attitude after WWII. Not that they are not a powerful nation, but certainly not the world traveling one they used to be.
Sort of a short man syndrome for a nation if you will.
This seems to be the relevant statement here:
Le Pen emphasised that better ties with Russia would also prevent Moscow from becoming too close to China, noting that she was echoing an argument made by Macron in the past.
Supporting an association with Russia to help avoid them becoming a subordinate to China is not an unreasonable position, but I am sure will be presented a "Putin lover" by her opposition. It's really hard to see how any reasonable person at this point would have a truly favorable general opinion of Putin at this point. She might be a bit wacky, but it's hard to believe she is that wacky.
aircooled said:I don't have any quote or references but I believe France has always been a bit distant with NATO. I think they refused to use NATO bases at some point, instead using there own. Weird stuff like that.
France, I think, has had a bit of a "but... we are still a major world power" kind of attitude after WWII. Not that they are not a powerful nation, but certainly not the world traveling one they used to be.
Sort of a short man syndrome for a nation if you will.
Yes, and if I recall correctly, they refused to let our F-111s fly over their airspace when we bombed Libya in 1986, so they had to take a much longer route from their bases in the UK.
You'll need to log in to post.
