Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 05-13-2025

(05-13-2025, 08:29 AM)Maple Leaf Wrote:  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/european-economist-says-russias-economy-145833777.html

Article in Russia economy and the war in Ukraine

Interesting article. IMO removing the "shadow fleet" from doing business is a task "the west" can and should execute. Taking this long to do the obvious certainly hasn't helped the attempt to drive Russia out of the war economically. Equally, given the increase in OPEC production the US should put pressure on India to stop buying Russian oil. For that matter, they could buy US oil, thereby improving the balance of payments issue they are undoubtedly already under pressure to "fix". The Russians can currently still sell their oil via re-export from other nations. The "shadow fleet" is generally flagged by countries that have no ability or desire to "protect" these ships. Re-export from China (and a few other countries) is another case entirely. The west needs to ensure that existing trade does not grow to replace the "shadow fleet".
 
Unfortunately the ability of "the west" to predict what effect sanctions will have on Russia's economy is demonstrably limited. We have, over the last three years, repeatedly seen forecasts that "Russia can't lasts beyond ...". These predictions have been uniformly wrong. It does however appear that on the military front the war in Ukraine is slowing down. It may be that it is just the reporting that is slowing down, but without doubt we hear almost nothing about a Russian "spring offensive". Again, that may be because Russia expects to get what it wants (and perhaps more) through negotiations and is therefore holding off on the "meat offensives". It also may be that Russia is not able to generate them as easily as before.
 
Ukraine is definitely "war weary". Russia probably is also, although how much is unknown. However, as of now there is no end in sight. That may change quickly if Russia decides to negotiate a settlement that Ukraine and the Europeans can stomach. I have no idea when/if that will happen. Putin may figure the Europeans will lose interest pretty soon and hold on for that outcome. Stronger economic sanctions may preclude that approach and are therefore useful, even if they are not "decisive".

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 05-15-2025

https://www.yahoo.com/news/estonia-warns-russia-may-military-104713817.html

This "shadow fleet" has been a "problem" all along. The Russians don't want to put a Russian flag on them because these tankers then would become legitimate targets to be detained for sanction violations. That would put many countries, e.g. India in a tight spot. Receiving oil directly from Russia is unpopular in western circles but at least it is "legal" if the price cap is enforced. These "shadow" tankers are not flying Russian flags so they are (or at least can be) assumed to be transporting "legal" cargo. Since "free ships make free goods" these ships are notionally inviolate.
 
The "west" has been somewhat reluctant to stop these ships because it may create a direct conflict with Russia, despite the fact these vessels are not Russian flagged. It is a difficult problem, but IMO the US (and the "west") should make it clear to Russia that these ships will be stopped on the high seas and their cargo "inspected" to determine if it violates sanctions. If it does, the cargo will be considered contraband and these ships will be impounded. Russia cannot be allowed to have it both ways. If the ships are claiming the advantages of neutrality they must not be carrying "contraband", in this case Russia oil at a price greater than the allowed ceiling price. The problem for the "west" is that such an interpretation is possible only if the US and "the west" are parties to the war in Ukraine. Obviously we are already far over that line, but this would be a very public confirmation of that fact. Make Russia put a Russian flag on them. Then sales of oil at over the price cap will subject nations doing so to existing sanctions.

The question of applying secondary sanctions to countries buying Russian oil at any price, even below the cap, is a different question. Since IMO the US is nowhere near contemplating this action there is no point in speculating about its advisability. Eliminating the "grey market" bypass around existing sanctions is IMO a necessary step before even considering more "serious" sanctions.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 05-15-2025

An interesting read on the Shadow Fleet issue & possible approaches and consequences:
  Russia’s ‘Shadow Fleet’ and Sanctions Evasion: What Is To Be Done?  (Nick Childs, Jan 2025)

I liked the ideas mentioned at the end about sanctions on specific ports and crewing organizations, but it wasn't clear how effective they might be.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 05-15-2025

(05-15-2025, 11:11 AM)M T Wrote:  An interesting read on the Shadow Fleet issue & possible approaches and consequences:
  Russia’s ‘Shadow Fleet’ and Sanctions Evasion: What Is To Be Done?  (Nick Childs, Jan 2025)

I liked the ideas mentioned at the end about sanctions on specific ports and crewing organizations, but it wasn't clear how effective they might be.

The article indeed tries to illuminate the possibility of enforcing sanctions by actions taken inside the EEZ or territorial waters of states that support those sanctions. While the Baltic and the English Channel make that mechanically possible, IMO there is no way that the necessary actions can be taken without violating UNCLOS/International law. The US and the UK are "experts" in this field, with the UK's experience going back to the 14th century :-). The simple fact has always been that in wartime, nations do what they believe is necessary.
 
The fact that the US and the western nations are not actually at war with Russia forecloses almost all actions they can legally take against ships that have visited "hostile" ports. The can't declare a blockade. They have no legal status to define "contraband" items. UNCLOS does not allow interfering with "innocent passage" because a ship MAY not be properly insured. FWIW the US did not sign UNCLOS. We follow it when it is "convenient". The "good" news is that if the "innocent passage" provision is violated, the nation that has legal standing to complain is the state where the vessel is "flagged". I don't believe any of these nations want to call attention to their "flag of convenience" status. IMO they will not protest. Russia can't protest, because it is not their ship being stopped. That said, Russia may adopt other solutions of a more kinetic nature. There is a history of this kind of action starting wars, so it must be carefully considered. OTOH the west applying sanctions in the first place raised those kind of questions.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - rogpodge - 05-16-2025

https://x.com/raging545/status/1923039330966053099

The replies say that a basic jet engine can be bought online for about $400. Carbon fiber isn't cheap, however. Interesting about the relatively small (13ish lbs) payload.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 05-16-2025

(05-16-2025, 01:29 PM)rogpodge Wrote:  https://x.com/raging545/status/1923039330966053099

The replies say that a basic jet engine can be bought online for about $400. Carbon fiber isn't cheap, however. Interesting about the relatively small (13ish lbs) payload.

This relatively small payload is a constant and persistent limitation of the relatively small drones used by both Ukraine and Russia in this war. The hope is that the ability to reliably precisely hit targets in a vital spot compensates for the small size. However we also know (via reports from both sides) that the "hit rate" for drones is well under 50%. That isn't so bad actually, as the hit rate for bullets fired is much, much lower. If the target is a small group of Russian soldiers attempting to infiltrate into Ukrainian lines an anti-personnel  warhead weighing 6 kg can, if properly fabricated, do lots of damage. It could be considered roughly equivalent to a direct hit from an 80 mm mortar shell.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Hurlburt88 - 05-17-2025

I read this morning in the WSJ that russia is building up troops.   Does anyone have information on the latest 155mm shell situation for Ukraine?   I assume it is "not good" but haven't seen specifics in a while

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 05-17-2025

(05-17-2025, 09:48 AM)Hurlburt88 Wrote:  I read this morning in the WSJ that russia is building up troops.   Does anyone have information on the latest 155mm shell situation for Ukraine?   I assume it is "not good" but haven't seen specifics in a while

I haven't seen reliable specifics really ever. This is not surprising. Even when the US was supplying 155mm shipments we would know how many shells we shipped, but not how many of the previous shipments had been expended. Ukraine isn't going to talk about that publicly. Things have been "not good" for quite awhile. The Europeans are shipping more than previously, but it is unclear to me how much more. One often hears about intentions but not subsequently about actions.

The buildup of Russian troops is concerning. It would appear to give them the ability to attack Ukraine on multiple fronts and spread Ukraine too thin at least somewhere. The fact the attacks have not started yet is a bit strange. The weather is good enough for it. It may be that Russia is just taking longer than they hoped to "get ready". It also may be that they still believe they will get by negotiation what they want without more heavy fighting. This may (or may not) be relevant
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-appoints-russian-ground-forces-184140998.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-replaces-commander-russias-ground-forces-appoints-him-security-council-2025-05-15/
The General will reach the mandatory retirement age this year. However it is an opportunity for Putin to appoint a younger, more aggressive general. The Yahoo article also confirms that a buildup for an offensive is ongoing. Whether it will be a "general" offensive or one targeted to specific objectives is unknown.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 05-18-2025

https://www.yahoo.com/news/estonia-says-russia-detained-tanker-155145484.html

So a new "tanker war" is (in slow motion) erupting. The Liberian flagged tanker was exercising its right of innocent passage through Russian waters on an internationally recognized shipping lane. Russia has detained the tanker. Several NATO nations have done the same to tankers carrying Russia oil but flying flags of convenience. The article says that Estonia will from now on "guide" vessels leaving its ports through the shallower Estonian territorial waters to avoid this problem. Russia cannot do the same because their territorial waters do not reach the North Sea.

Russia can export oil through the Black Sea route with the territorial waters of Türkiye being the only obstacle to reaching international waters. I doubt Türkiye would seize any of these "grey market" tankers. The Straight of Gibraltar is also a bottleneck, but I doubt Morocco would stop such vessels either.  I also seriously doubt Egypt would stop such ships usage of the Suez Canal (unless their credit was no good :-) That is why I suggested in a previous post that stopping such vessels in international waters may be required in order to close the "grey market" loophole. Of course, that carries with it potential serious consequences. It is an act of war, but the offended party is the nation where the vessel is registered and whose flag it flies. That would not be Russia.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 05-18-2025

The problem is that there seems to be an ansymmetric application of the rules.  Russia has no compunction about severing fiber optic cables in the Baltic, mostly because it has plausible deniability.  The offending vessels are not Russian flags, and it’s impossible to prove that it wasn’t negligence that the vessel was dragging an anchor rather than an intentional effort to sever fiber optic lines.

The West tries to pay lip service to international rules, so it’s not going to detain vessels with Russian oil sailing in international waters.  If I were Ukraine, I would “accidentally” hit one of the vessels with a drone ship.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 05-18-2025

BC, if Ukraine hit any oil tanker, there would be an outcry over the environmental aspect. 

But, if the US wanted to impose 200% tariffs on the countries whose flag these vessels fly, that might cause some rethinking

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 05-18-2025

(05-18-2025, 11:17 AM)M T Wrote:  BC, if Ukraine hit any oil tanker, there would be an outcry over the environmental aspect. 

But, if the US wanted to impose 200% tariffs on the countries whose flag these vessels fly, that might cause some rethinking

Doubt it. Indeed some of these flags of convenience would become more expensive. However many of the small nations involved in this practice have little export commerce with the US, and what little they do have is easily replaced. Liberia and Panama do have lots of commerce with the US, but many of the other alternative flags of convenience do not.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 05-18-2025

(05-18-2025, 11:10 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  The problem is that there seems to be an ansymmetric application of the rules.  Russia has no compunction about severing fiber optic cables in the Baltic, mostly because it has plausible deniability.  The offending vessels are not Russian flags, and it’s impossible to prove that it wasn’t negligence that the vessel was dragging an anchor rather than an intentional effort to sever fiber optic lines.

Actually it isn't so hard to "prove" that it was intentional. The vessel was underway and yet had gear (the anchor) deployed at depth. That is intentional. It was not anchored originally and then had the anchor drag. Also, there would be no reason to be anchoring in a shipping channel unless some kind of casualty had occurred. It is also no longer a "passage" if you anchor while in transit. If the ship was operating with its AIS turned off that is also a breach of the law. The real problem is that the owner of the ship may be judged liable for damages (due to carelessness or criminal intent, doesn't matter) but so what? Such a judgement doesn't immediately repair the damage and  the corporation that owns the ship undoubtedly doesn't have the money to pay anyway. The ship's master may go to prison, but again so what? Who cares? Certainly not Russia.

The more serious problem, at least from Ukraine's point of view, is the ships that carry Russian oil that don't tear up seabed cables or do anything else "illegal" for that matter. They just move oil at above the sanctions limited price. This allows Russia to get enough cash to keep fighting.

Quote:The West tries to pay lip service to international rules, so it’s not going to detain vessels with Russian oil sailing in international waters.  If I were Ukraine, I would “accidentally” hit one of the vessels with a drone ship.

BC

It may indeed be true that the West will not elect to stop these tankers in international waters. That clearly is beyond any legal right they have. However interfering with the right of innocent passage/uninterrupted voyage is equally beyond their legal rights. The West is indeed already violating international rules by stopping vessels making such transits. In the cases where there is reason to believe the vessel in question has committed some breach of the law, it can be justified. However, the majority of the "grey" tankers don't commit such actions. They are "just" violating sanctions. Yet some of them have been stopped.

IMO unless the West decides it is going to enforce its sanctions Russia will continue to evade them. Enforcing these sanctions would require either stopping the "grey" tankers on the high seas or sanctioning all nations who receive cargo from these ships. Either one will create issues.

Ukraine does not have the ability to hit tankers in the Baltic Sea with drone ships. The Baltic nations would not take kindly to the damage it would cause environmentally even if Ukraine could accomplish a "one off" attack. Ukraine could probably accomplish such attacks (at least occasionally) in the Black Sea. However, Russia would respond by sinking "neutral" flagged grain ships leaving Ukraine. Tit for tat, nobody could claim otherwise. If Ukraine thought it was a reasonable tradeoff they would already be doing it. I suspect Ukraine anticipates the Russians would have more success than Ukraine would in such a battle. Ukraine needs the money from grain just as Russia does from oil.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 05-18-2025

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/new-head-russian-land-forces-distinguished-himself-ukraine-2025-05-16/

This is Putin's new head of ground forces. It is my guess he is being appointed to end the war in Ukraine "soon". Whether he can actually do that is a good question, but IMO it isn't indicative that Putin is thinking about peace in the immediate future. Even if he is, he is at the very least creating a viable "plan B".

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 05-19-2025

(05-18-2025, 05:06 PM)Goose Wrote:  https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/new-head-russian-land-forces-distinguished-himself-ukraine-2025-05-16/

This is Putin's new head of ground forces. It is my guess he is being appointed to end the war in Ukraine "soon". Whether he can actually do that is a good question, but IMO it isn't indicative that Putin is thinking about peace in the immediate future. Even if he is, he is at the very least creating a viable "plan B".

On another tangent, I have been reading about France's new laser weapons designed to fry drones and other electronic equipment from range.  This report covers a turret mounted device with a range of 1 km.  I have read other stuff that indicates they now have a man portable unit with a range of 500 m. I have no idea if this weapon gives away it's launchers location or whether or whether it simply fries the target and know ones knows where it came from.

https://www.google.com/search?q=French+laser+weapon&rlz=1C1VDKB_enUS1137US1139&oq=French+laser+weapon&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTg4NTdqMGoxNagCCLACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 05-19-2025

(05-19-2025, 06:32 PM)GK3 Wrote:  

(05-18-2025, 05:06 PM)Goose Wrote:  https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/new-head-russian-land-forces-distinguished-himself-ukraine-2025-05-16/

This is Putin's new head of ground forces. It is my guess he is being appointed to end the war in Ukraine "soon". Whether he can actually do that is a good question, but IMO it isn't indicative that Putin is thinking about peace in the immediate future. Even if he is, he is at the very least creating a viable "plan B".

On another tangent, I have been reading about France's new laser weapons designed to fry drones and other electronic equipment from range.  This report covers a turret mounted device with a range of 1 km.  I have read other stuff that indicates they now have a man portable unit with a range of 500 m. I have no idea if this weapon gives away it's launchers location or whether or whether it simply fries the target and know ones knows where it came from.

https://www.google.com/search?q=French+laser+weapon&rlz=1C1VDKB_enUS1137US1139&oq=French+laser+weapon&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTg4NTdqMGoxNagCCLACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

It gives away its launch location only if something else is the the direct line of fire to "see" it. Since the beam gets wider the further away you are it is conceivable a very sensitive laser detector could target the shooter. However, given the geometry constraints it is unlikely to be a very effective option. My concern would be how well the French weapon actually works, and even if it does it seems probable that a laser hardened drone could be easily built. We shall see.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 05-20-2025

(05-19-2025, 07:00 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(05-19-2025, 06:32 PM)GK3 Wrote:  

(05-18-2025, 05:06 PM)Goose Wrote:  https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/new-head-russian-land-forces-distinguished-himself-ukraine-2025-05-16/

This is Putin's new head of ground forces. It is my guess he is being appointed to end the war in Ukraine "soon". Whether he can actually do that is a good question, but IMO it isn't indicative that Putin is thinking about peace in the immediate future. Even if he is, he is at the very least creating a viable "plan B".

On another tangent, I have been reading about France's new laser weapons designed to fry drones and other electronic equipment from range.  This report covers a turret mounted device with a range of 1 km.  I have read other stuff that indicates they now have a man portable unit with a range of 500 m. I have no idea if this weapon gives away it's launchers location or whether or whether it simply fries the target and know ones knows where it came from.

https://www.google.com/search?q=French+laser+weapon&rlz=1C1VDKB_enUS1137US1139&oq=French+laser+weapon&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTg4NTdqMGoxNagCCLACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

It gives away its launch location only if something else is the the direct line of fire to "see" it. Since the beam gets wider the further away you are it is conceivable a very sensitive laser detector could target the shooter. However, given the geometry constraints it is unlikely to be a very effective option. My concern would be how well the French weapon actually works, and even if it does it seems probable that a laser hardened drone could be easily built. We shall see.

Another major improvement in an old weapon is the ramjet 155 round.  I wonder if it will be accurate enough to make the payload downgrade worth it.  They are talking of making them available by the end of this year.  If you can actually bring targets within 150 km under accurate fire it would probably require some major rethinking of where you put supply dumps, refueling points etc. 
https://euro-sd.com/2025/05/major-news/44385/tiberius-launches-sceptre/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 05-21-2025

Well this is a new one. Russia is now using assault Porsches (well if you call the Cayenne a Porsche).

https://x.com/RALee85/status/1925316330783158709

Also a former aide to exiled, pro-Russian former Ukraine president Yanukovych was assassinated in Madrid. No one has claimed it, but probably the work of Ukrainian intelligence. Andriy Portnov had fled to Russia in 2022, but apparently had been living in Spain more recently.

Supposedly the assassins shot him several times in the back before going up closer to deliver some words and the coup de grace to the head.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/53110

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - 82lsju - 05-21-2025

(05-21-2025, 03:55 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Well this is a new one. Russia is now using assault Porsches (well if you call the Cayenne a Porsche).

https://x.com/RALee85/status/1925316330783158709

well Porsche is a "truck company", the Cayenne is the best selling model (units) for Porsche, the Macan is a close #2, add the two together and you get ~2/3rds of Porsche worldwide unit sales....

https://www.best-selling-cars.com/brands/2024-full-year-global-porsche-worldwide-car-sales/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 05-21-2025

I'm just being snobbish. If we start seeing safari 911's, Russia will have my attention.

---