Is Ukraine about to have a war?

[Less Hair]

I agree that what Russia has done might be enough to throw it out of the UN Security Council. But then wouldn't India be next in line to become permanent member, the arch rival of China and finally the global No.1 by population? For China a weakened Russia in the SC is way more comfortable to deal with. So likely no SC change from my view.

[NutLoose]

FDR,

Ukraine has already threatened to shell Belgorod due to some of the rocket attacks on Kharkiv are coming from there, see

https://www.farsnews.ir/en/news/1401...n-wih-Shelling

Re the stolen grain, see my post in jetblast, they have already tried to sell some to Egypt but following a Ukrainian request they turned it away, the ship is now off Syria and they worry the grain may be filtered through Syria to other countries.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by NutLoose

FDR,

Ukraine has already threatened to shell Belgorod due to some of the rocket attacks on Kharkiv are coming from there, see

https://www.farsnews.ir/en/news/1401...n-wih-Shelling

Re the stolen grain, see my post in jetblast, they have already tried to sell some to Egypt but following a Ukrainian request they turned it away, the ship is now off Syria and they worry the grain may be filtered through Syria to other countries.

Quite, and they have also likely conducted strikes there or the Belgorodivians need to sort out their wiring safety, like many locations in Redland. driving tracks and boots over the border of terrain into Redland would raise eyebrows with the natives. There is no question that Redland has it's legitimate borders, what is in question is everything else that the magic mushrooms are adding to the national pastime of paranoia. Russia has ZERO legal claim to CRIMEA, or to the eastern areas of UKRAINE, so taking action to make it uncomfortable for every single Redland troop that is not there by invitation of the legitimate government of the country is within the rules of the game, and keeps world opinion on side with the recipients of Redlands paranoid yet so ineffective military aspirations.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by NutLoose

FDR,

Ukraine has already threatened to shell Belgorod due to some of the rocket attacks on Kharkiv are coming from there, see

https://www.farsnews.ir/en/news/1401...n-wih-Shelling

Re the stolen grain, see my post in jetblast, they have already tried to sell some to Egypt but following a Ukrainian request they turned it away, the ship is now off Syria and they worry the grain may be filtered through Syria to other countries.

Russia is a failed state in every respect that one may care to consider.

They have subjugated their own population by violence and murder, to the point that an already cowering population, used to being beaten by their masters since 947AD consider it a good day if they are not being personally sent to the Gulag, wishing only for the return to the good ol' days of sending your neighbor to the Gulag on innuendo and obsequience.

Russia's claim to honor is from the Great Patriotic War, an event that was much worse due to the purge of the military command by Stalin that pre-dated Barbarossa, and which followed as hardly an improbable response from the Molotov - Von Ribbentrop agreement (Aug 23, 1939) setting up to carve up a sovereign neighbor. Lie down with dogs, you get fleas. Western teaching on the USSR has usually contended that more Russians, Belorussians, and Ukrainians died at the hands of Stalin's regime during the Great Patriotic War than died from the German invasion. Snyder (2011) suggests that is slightly incorrect. The Russians did deliberately kill 3.3 million Ukrainians in 1932 - 33. At least a further 1.7 million USSR citizens died from famine from 1930 - 33. The most recent review of USSR civilian casualties related to Barbarossa is approximately 11 million. USSR contended that 1.65 million Ukrainians died in military service, Ukraine's own estimate is 7 million.

The Russians that wistfully remember the good ol' days seem to forget how much brutality and death came with those leaders.

The decision by Putin to have a tiff with his neighbors, breaking every treaty and agreement that had been made and putting Russian honor down the waste pipe is going to have flow-on effects to the 3rd world, and we could see more people die as a direct result of his paranoid actions than Stalin achieved along with his pact mate, the vegetarian painter corporal. Around 1.5 billion people are looking at insufficient food supplies in Q4 of 2022 directly from Putin and his actions. What that results in is going to be pretty darn interesting; usually, nothing good comes of it.

[NutLoose]

Even the leader of the original Donbas breakaway in 2014 has nothing good to say about the leadership nor Russian involvement in the donbass

https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1522626542240735239

[fdr]

Dippers

Does any friendly force out there have spare dipping capable ASW helos at present, I wonder? That is something that would make a difference to the Black sea situation. Not to make light of the task, but getting a few drivers up to speed, and finding basic active sonar capable operators would not be the most arduous task. Needs CAP, but Ukraine seems to have such ability still. That would be a good days work.

[NutLoose]

Remember the Russian battalion loss at the river crossing…. This makes you wonder at the Russians gullibility.

Twitter

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by fdr

Pity Ukraine doesn't have a squadron of S-3's. In the absence of dedicated ASW assets, it would appear that the benefit of drone ISR with high res side-looking SAR would seem to be worthwhile, coupled with drone platforms with standoff missile cape, with warheads that may be effective against a snorting target, that is an open question.

USN retired S-3's in 2009, though a few were used out at the test center for a while. The idea the Koreans had for getting some out of the boneyard eventually lost steam in about 2017ish. Getting out of the boneyard and rendering them operational would be a non trivial undertaking, although it may still be doable, except for this little bit: how many subcontractors still make the parts and spare parts that are need to keep a squadron or a wing flying?
Bottom Line: don't hold your breath on S-3's coming back any time soon.
Dipping Sonar: not a great search tool, but a fine localization/attack tool.

[ORAC]

The Russians may not have air superiority over Ukraine, but I’m certain they’d manage to engage anyone conducting hostile ASW against their Kilos in the Black Sea.

They may carry some Kalibr, but they are rapidly exhausting their stocks - better to pressure the USA to provide Patriot though its only a bridge level asset) and/or Israel Iron Dome.

p.s, both Estonia and Israel have denied claims that the latter gave the former permission to pass over their Blue Spear SSMs to UKR.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Originally Posted by Less Hair

I agree that what Russia has done might be enough to throw it out of the UN Security Council.

Isn't it impossible to remove Russia from the UN Security Council due to them being a permanent member and thus having the power to veto any such decision?

[Just This Once...]

Originally Posted by The Helpful Stacker

Isn't it impossible to remove Russia from the UN Security Council due to them being a permanent member and thus having the power to veto any such decision?

Probably but there is an alternative narrative where the UNSC charter references the USSR and lists the countries therein. Russia took the seat when the USSR collapsed but in doing so it denied the seat to all the other countries that it was supposed to represent, which was against the original charter.

The argument is that the UNSC is setup to endure, maintain the status quo and not trouble the permanent members or not really do anything of note. So many believe that the UN should go back to doing nothing and protecting the status quo but be more aggressive in doing nothing. The permeant seat should go back to all former USSR countries and they can all elect who they want in that former USSR seat for a given period. Those former USSR states listed could even vote for Russia... or not.

[WideScreen]

Originally Posted by Petit-Lion

Seven-feet long missile, wider than the barrel, and not lined up.

Not to say, these projectiles move at such a speed, the missile should have been blurry. Though, the picture shows a very sharp image of the projectile.

Also, the perfectly blue, postcard sky is hard to believe, etc.

Fake.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by West Coast

He has many detractors, from Mad Dog Mattis on down to me,

FWIW, the 'get out of the tank business' lobby in the USMC is a number of decades old. (per my notes above). I disagree with Berger's idea that "China" is the core fight (though it needs to be prepared for, certainly). USMC has to be ready to fight in every clime and place where we can take a gun. Maybe the General ought to listen to the Marine Hymn again.

[albatross]

Originally Posted by NutLoose

Remember the Russian battalion loss at the river crossing…. This makes you wonder at the Russians gullibility.

https://twitter.com/CanadianUkrain1/...C--Z7Z5asqAAAA

An excellent example of “Persistence in the Face of Reality”.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by The Helpful Stacker

Isn't it impossible to remove Russia from the UN Security Council due to them being a permanent member and thus having the power to veto any such decision?

Originally Posted by Just This Once...

Probably but there is an alternative narrative where the UNSC charter references the USSR and lists the countries therein. Russia took the seat when the USSR collapsed but in doing so it denied the seat to all the other countries that it was supposed to represent, which was against the original charter.

The argument is that the UNSC is setup to endure, maintain the status quo and not trouble the permanent members or not really do anything of note. So many believe that the UN should go back to doing nothing and protecting the status quo but be more aggressive in doing nothing. The permeant seat should go back to all former USSR countries and they can all elect who they want in that former USSR seat for a given period. Those former USSR states listed could even vote for Russia... or not.

Yes, and no; the devil isn't even in the details, it is in the political will to take action without offending the privileged position that the other PMs of the UNSC hold. However, this war of naked aggression by Russia breached treaties that they entered into twice in December 1991 the Minsk accord and the Alma-Ata protocols, and again on 5 December 1994 "the Budapest Memorandum. Russia had signed treaties to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. They have done the opposite. The west had obligations with the denuclearising of Ukraine, and conveniently sidestepped those by stating that it was more of a memo than a treaty, and wasn't ratified, and the dog ate my homework. What it is is dishonorable, and the west owes Ukraine biggly for that stab in the back. Without our word, what the heck are we?

The USSR breakup was mismanaged by the UN, and the succession of Russia was incorrect at that time and remains so to this date. It has never been approved by the UNGA, it was just let slide to avoid any further hassles at that time. How is that playing out since then? How many wars has Russia started since January 1992 when they assumed the seat of the USSR. The Charter has never been amended to place Russia on the UNSC as a PM, although that is debatable. The problem there is semantics as to whether Russia was the continuing state or not. That is a matter that can be resolved simply by CHAPTER XIV, THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Art 92-96, and would be binding on all members. There is little doubt that Russia is a recidivist offender in breaching Art 4(1) repeatedly, and is subject to action under Art 6. The problem is that in normal conditions, the UNSC would debate the matter and send the matter to the UNGA for a 2/3rd majority of those that actually cast votes, not all countries, just those that vote for or against the resolution. That would be to evict the offending nation (Art 6), or to suspend them (Art 5).

Ordinarily, at that point everyone involved wrings their hands as to whether that would get pushback from USA or PRC, but it isn't so clear cut. The point is the next step that can be taken avoids the UNSC in the process, and that is to amend the Articles of the UN Charter directly and remove the USSR from the UNSC directly, then do a vote. A reading of the UN Charter indicates that does not require any approval by the UNSC at all, and once the USSR is removed from the UNSC, then the UNSC can run a vote on Art 5 or Art 6 for Russia. There is nothing other than fear of the effect on other members of the UNSC that arise from that, however, there is also no way that the PM of the UNSC can actually stop that if there is a 2/3rds majority in the rest of the UNGA. An amendment of the UN Charter is well overdue, and it certainly should have automatic sanctions on any member who is aggressive to it's neighbors, that is what the damn building was put up to do, and it is the one thing that it has uniformly refused to actually do, which has resulted in no single day of the last 77 years that did not involve murder conducted under the legal fiction of an obscene monstrosity that the UN has become. (actually, the UN did it's job, once, in 1950; by chance in the vote of the UNSC to put UN troops into Korea in response to the naked aggression of a peripheral puppet state to a UNSC PM that had walked away from all dealings with the UN at that time, the USSR).

I would like to see Art 108 applied with some creativity by the 2/3rds of the world states that are affected by the flaws of the UN Charter as it currently stands. Statements that this is dreaming are easy to make, but the rules permit it and all it misses is the will to do so, to make a world that we would actually prefer to live in rather than the one we settle for as our collective lords and masters barely pass the test to be able to provide adult supervision in their own domains.

A better discussion getting to the same conclusions as I have made can be found in the follow on post...

Spoiler

 

 

CHAPTER XIV THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Article 96
1. The General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question.
2. Other organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies, which may at any time be so authorized by the General Assembly, may also request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.

Article 94
1. Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.
2. If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.

The Article 108 process can also be done quickly, and when a member is threatening other nations with buckets 'o sunshine, it is not unreasonable to run another amendment to remove directly Russia from the UNSC and from PM of the UNSC, and secondarily, to expel or suspend them from the UN until they learn some manners/kulturny.

Now the immediate complaint against this is that Russia would veto any such action under Article 108, and a skim reading of the charter may come to that position, except that, Article 27(3) applies to a UNSC nation in a dispute, and Russia would be required to abstain from any UNSC vote on matters related to their actions.

Article 27 Voting
1. Each member...
2. Decisions of the Security Council...
3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.


Chapter VI is riveting reading, and even Article 52(3) is but Russia has a major issue in Chapter VI that means that they are obliged to abstain from any obvious wordsmithing of a resolution arising from their wanton aggression with Ukraine, and with pretty much most of NATO, Finland, Sweden and well, everyone who's name isn't Vlad the Inhaler. Note that Article 35(1) appears to have bene routinely overlooked and not exercised, as it circumvents the actions of the UNSC directly, today.... ooops.

It is pretty simple to join dots within Chapter VI and Article 52(3) to force abstention of Russia from the UNSC votes involving Russia.

CHAPTER VI PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
Article 33
1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 34
The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 35
1. Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.
2. A state which is not a Member...
3. The proceedings of the General Assembly in respect of matters brought to its attention under this Article will be subject to the provisions of Articles 11 and 12.

Article 36
1. The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.
2. The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties.
3. In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.

Article 37
1. Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.
2. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.

Article 38
Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 33 to 37, the Security Council may, if all the parties to any dispute so request, make recommendations to the parties with a view to a pacific settlement of the dispute.

Article 52 Regional Arrangements
1. Nothing in the present Charter the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action, provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.
2. The Members of the United Nations entering into such arrangements or constituting such agencies shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council.
3. The Security Council shall encourage the development of pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies either on the initiative of the states concerned or by reference from the Security Council.


What continues to be frustrating is that many Ukrainian civilians and servicemen are needlessly dying while Fort Fumble (UN) sits on their bloated butt and does nothing other than lament their impotence. The Prime minister of Finland has a bigger pair of balls than all of the windbags that we have sitting in the UN Secretariat Building, at 405 E 42nd St, New York, NY 10017, USA, combined. Russian conscripts that had no idea why they are being sent to die, who have committed atrocities that are in keeping with the murderous history of Russia and Putin are also victims in part, and it is past time for their fragging of their officers. I understand that the Russian officers are indeed worried about that already, apparently requiring conscripts visiting HQ to strip down to show they pose no threat to their lords and masters. What a disgrace that Putin has turned Russia into. Tolstoy would write new text of lament on the tragegy that arises from a cowered population led by a despotic sociopath.

IMHO

LW-50, just PM me with your objections...

[ORAC]

All Russian landing ships docked at Novorossiysk have sortied to sea. No public int on their location.

hopefully they are heading back through the Bosporus to their home ports in the Northern and Pacific fleets. Otherwise….

https://twitter.com/covertshores/sta...AWExdepte5n-ZA

[fdr]

Originally Posted by albatross

An excellent example of “Persistence in the Face of Reality”.

“There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must not be attacked, towns which must not be besieged, positions which must not be contested, commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed.”

“To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.”

“Be where your enemy is not.”

“The opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.”

“Do not swallow bait offered by the enemy. Do not interfere with an army that is returning home.”

“If his forces are united, separate them.”

Voldemort makes whoever may have been Sun Tzu look pretty doggone priescient. Alternatively, he has been watching reruns of Lt E. BlackAdder going forth, and is still trying to move his drinks cabinet 3 feet closer to Odessa by repeating the same plan for the 37th time, as no one would expect that.

[Obba]

Aviation point: This guy is a 737 pilot.

Update from Ukraine | The most Stupid FAIL of ruzzian Army in Ukraine - YouTube

Edit: not his most recent post - but all are worthy of watching....

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by ORAC

All Russian landing ships docked at Novorossiysk have sortied to sea. No public int on their location.

hopefully they are heading back through the Bosporus to their home ports in the Northern and Pacific fleets. Otherwise….

Would that not be a breach of the Montreux Convention (albeit one to which the West would probably turn a blind eye under the circumstances) ?

[fdr]

Originally Posted by ORAC

All Russian landing ships docked at Novorossiysk have sortied to sea. No public int on their location.
hopefully they are heading back through the Bosporus to their home ports in the Northern and Pacific fleets. Otherwise….

NOPE

That needs ISR on top to determine where they are going. I would think there is zero chance that they are going to turn right at Kerch, they are heading with high probability towards Odessa to try and make a fashion statement. Time to get a lot of intel and harpoony things ready to go and have some reception. Their remaining LCT/LCA are diminished but they are on their way to cause mischief. This is the thing that needs to be stopped in its tracks, and that means there needs to be lots of intel. FORTE11 probably could do with some CAP I would think.





















It's 422nm from Novorossiysk to Odessa... that is between 28 and 32hrs at 15kts-13kts around the traps. beaches on the North East side of the city are fairly clear for a landing area, but you gotta go right past downtown to get there, or come around the coast, all of which would be painful on the receiving end, there is no surprise factor at that point. The only surprise that exists is bombardment by the Kilos and all of the other remaining Kalibr-equipped ships, and the remainder of their surface to surface ballistic and cruise missiles. No point doing that too early, so the ISR cover from the assets in the area become pretty darn important at this time. There are some landing beaches to the south of the city, they would seem to make some sense, and would also be in keeping with the mental model that Putin has that he wants to do something to join up Transylnitpikhoovia or whatever it is called today.


They have, what...

• 1 x Gator left?
• 4x Ropucha?
• 1x Ondatra...?
• 10 x Grachonok?

That is what was part of the fleet in the Black Sea,

HOWEVER... nothing has stopped repositioning of a bunch of Sernas down the Don from St Petersburg... a ship of 3.6m draft can run down there, max mast height 144'...

At this point, I would think that the "Speshul Military Operation" is on it's last legs from the Redlands manager's point of view, and he has one good last push to make a difference before having to go and lick his wounds. He does not have an ability to reconstitute his ground forces at any time soon, so he is looking at what other options exist, and one is a surprise case of having moved a flotilla of tubs down the Volga-Don waterway from the northern fleet and the baltic fleet to give sealift for the next bunch of future deceased to be transported.

Within the remaining Black sea fleet, there is limited uplift...
Sernas, 92 troops,
Ropucha: 300 troops & 10 MBTs....

But add the pacific fleet, baltic, and northern fleet vessels and you have enough for a small football stadium. The RU Navy also has a good fleet size of patrol boats that have surface-to-surface missile capability.

All in all, it is a possible point of attack that Redland may undertake within their capabilities. There is no possibility that a movement of that size of shipping would go unmissed by the NRO, so it would be interesting to see what the intel says about where the ships are in the Pac, Nothern, and Baltic fleets at present.

Russia maintains satellite reconnaissance capability still, they haven't been subject to the epidemic of bad wiring so far... so Ukraine would need to be as cunning as a rat with a gold tooth in positioning counter-fire capability that can survive a preparation barrage by surface-to-surface, from land and sea, and air-to-surface missiles.

It won't procrastinate for very long if it is going to happen, it will be in the next 3 days. more or less, the weather seems to be great for all sides, it's a full moon today... tides are negligible... Russian NVG is.... meh.... probably not going to want it too dark.

I'm thinking Arby's... or a landing on the Southside of the City around Tuesday/Wednesday early AM.... and a force larger than the remaining Black Sea uplift, probably enough for around 5,000 troops. Now, where the heck they will get 5K fit non puke your tummy up troops from is unknown, but the Russian navy has some points to make and this would certainly be something for the popcorn and a 6-pack. The naval infantry count around 12K total... on a good day. They have been in action in Mariupol so they already have some recent experience.

Can Ukraine see off a mid-size landing? I'm not a marine... I respect them, but this isn't marines like the USN or UK... It is more akin to Lichensteins marines I would think. There is little chance that they have practiced any combined operations, but they still do have an airforce, kind of, and some boats, floating still, and the troops come from.... more conscripts, or does the RU Navy have really good marines, or is this another showing of the special skills of the Spetsnaz, the ones that got bit at Hostomel.

Gotta go get some popcorn.

PS: no offense to Lichenstein, it's a nice place... has streets and everything.