As far as I'm aware, only the Danes used it in that role and they binned it in 2003, Taiwan is getting a land based version but I don't think its operational yet. The Argentinians managed to put a couple of Exocets on to a trailer and jury-rig a fire control system for it during the Falklands, however if you want to kill the Russian warship with the thing you will have to unload quite a few missiles at it to get past its defences.

The EU, the UK and others ...

Yes - the record of #3 on the list of "The World’s Largest Oil Reserves By Country" is particularly egregious on that score, isn't it.[/sarcasm]

While MbS no doubt relishes the recent turn of events, let's see how long he gets to enjoy his moment in the sun.
.

The question I was responding to was...

So the answer is "yes, there is such a thing".

I know just about nothing about oil refinging. But an interested individual can google up information on the subject like depending on the refinery type it may be able to use almost any Crude oil type available. Apparently a coker refinery can use almost any crude oil available in the market. More importantly and being informative for an amateur like myself there are lists of refineries that have already stopped making new deals with the russkies: https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...il-2022-03-21/
Those refineries will make it up with something else then, they will not just shut down the refinery.

Why am I asking to shut down the pipelines: Shutting the russian oil and gas pipelines will be painful yes, but that is the fastest way to influence without going to war. 60% of Russian exports and 40% of GDP is of oil and gas. Cut that out and they will run out of money very very fast.
In 2014 the drop in oil price caused the Russian economy to plummet. Add that to the other sanctions currently and see what happens...

The issue is that in 2014 the oil price went down to around $40 per barrel. Now the russians are selling their crude oli with a discont at $70 per barrel. That is a level that makes them loads of cash. So either make the price plummet or cut the pipelines, Which one is manageable by the European countries? There really is only one option and it is shutting down the pipelines, it will in any case be cheaper than having a war raging through central Europe.
Now add the shutdown of gas pipes and we are starting to talk of something meaningful. A combined impact, like a Javelin, first blow breaks the tanks reactive armor and the second blows the turret off.

Here we go, should say hit by a "Neptune": missile, damage not yet known, the ship is probably "Admiral Essen", picture below:




https://phototass4.cdnvideo.ru/width...20/1258265.jpg

Yes and the British don't have such a thing, so how it the village idiot in No 10 going to give Ukraine one.

Once again, that wasn't the question I was responding to.

Please indicate where it says that NATO will use its forces for non-member states.

Harpoon. You are right. I see that my eyes skipped over the coastal-defence battery because - for some reason - it wasn't highlighted like the other variants.

No changes in tactics

It seems that the Russian war machine hasn't adapted what has, until now, been a successful game plan. Why should they, they kept winning. What have we learned? Nothing? Should we really wait for economics to defeat them or are we (and they) waiting for exhaustion to set in?

I don't know which defences they might be, but I am dubious of their capabilities, and not only because of the effectiveness - or other - of Russian systems in this war. From memory, one weapons system that has been used frequently over the last 20 years is Patriot, and it certainly didn't used to be particularly effective i.e. strike rate for missiles fired. I note that in the only case where a missile did hit a U.S. ship ( USS Stark ) the CIWS did not function.

You brought this up so, please indicate which treaty they would be in breach of, rather than failing to answer the question and attempting to redirect?

I can give you a long list of operations NATO has carried out for and with non-member states, none of which breached an apparent treaty.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52060.htm

It's ok. You can admit you were mistaken. No one will think less of you, indeed some may even think better of you.

I am saying that that it is a certainty that many NATO members would veto any action as an alliance against Russia. This is already clear from the "hot-potato" issue of Mig 29's, with Poland saying it would supply them - but to the US and not Ukraine -for operation from Germany and the US swiftly refusing. It may be hypocrisy, but Russia is not Serbia.

Admit I was wrong ? Well, I believe I just did that with the Harpoon question, but please, spare me your approbation, it has very little worth.

Blimey, Italy have sent MG42's, the mainstay heavy machine guns of the Germans in WW2 but built in italy post war and chambered for 7.62×51mm NATO along with a bunch of 50 cals.

Russian DIY decoys?

How much longer are European and NATO leaders going to stand back and watch the atrocities being committed in Ukraine?

Putin must be challenged militarily as well as financially.

Do you want WW3 to begin?

I could not agree more. The current NATO stance is simply reinforcing Putins belief that he can do whatever he wants as long as he possesses nukes. NATO is simply watching a massacre from the sidelines and will be judged by history as both impotent and afraid.

But there is more going on than meets the eye I think. The USA has repeatedly said that they will militarily defend Taiwan if China invades. However Taiwan is NOT a NATO member and China is a Nuclear power. Why the difference in stance? Why does Americas core ‘principled’ reason for not defending Ukraine suddenly not apply elsewhere?

I have 2 thoughts on this. Firstly it could be down to money - the US does immense trade with Taiwan and little with Ukraine. Secondly, it could simply be a bluff - if China invades and threatens Nuclear consequences for anyone who interferes, do you believe the USA will really fight?

In any event, NATO has proven itself utterly unwilling to even consider intervening against a nuclear power in Ukraine, and therefore has no moral authority to complain about anything Russia does in my opinion. Either put your money where your mouth is, or shut up.

WW3 is the inevitable consequence, it cannot be prevented other than by regime change in Russia. Putin has been given permission by NATO to do as he pleases in his view. Biden and others have repeatedly stated they will not intervene if NATO is not attacked, and that leaves an awful lot of the world available for him (and Xi) to ‘annex’. We fight him now or we fight him later after many more are massacred.

This conflict will take longer. Economic sanctions will show much more effect over time. And Russian public opinion will need time as media access is very limited.

NATO is guarding it's member's borders but not part of the fight inside Ukraine. It is very important to not get carried away by emotions as this conflict can easily escalate beyond control. Maybe someone is even interested to let exactly this happen to make his own errors disappear within some widening conflict?

I am puzzled by the fact that NATO comes up on this thread constantly.
If a group of countries goes to fight for Ukraine, IT IS NOT A NATO OPERATION. Even if all those countries would be a part of NATO.

NATO is a defence organisation that defends its members in case of an attack from outside.
If a NATO member country goes to a peace keeping action it is NOT a NATO action.
If a NATO country attacks some third country, it is not an article 5 trigger.

To make it simple. Imagine for arguments sake that Poland decides to assist Ukraine by sending troops to help dismantle the russian laid minefields in Belarus/Ukraine border. It is not a NATO action.
Russia decides to shoot at these Polish troops on Ukrainian soil: it is not a Article 5 triggering action.
Russia then decides to launch missiles to Poland, now you have an article 5 triggering action.

That's because it was switched on, but placed in stand-by mode so it didn't fire. Even an old Phalanx could down an Exocet, even two