[82lsju]

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

sadly, Ferrari now sells an SUV....

https://www.ferrari.com/en-EN/auto/ferrari-purosangue

[82lsju]

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

sadly, Ferrari now sells an SUV....

https://www.ferrari.com/en-EN/auto/ferrari-purosangue

[Goose]

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

With a little luck we can see if Porsche Caymans are drone resistant. I don't think Porsche make tanks anymore, but maybe it is in their DNA somehow :-).

[Goose]

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

With a little luck we can see if Porsche Caymans are drone resistant. I don't think Porsche make tanks anymore, but maybe it is in their DNA somehow :-).

[82lsju]

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

With a little luck we can see if Porsche Caymans are drone resistant. I don't think Porsche make tanks anymore, but maybe it is in their DNA somehow :-).

well I have a Cayman (two seater mid-engine car) and I don't think it would do well versus a drone...

there is a market for vintage Porsche tractors....

https://www.classic.com/m/porsche/tractors/

and

https://bringatrailer.com/porsche/tractor/

[82lsju]

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

With a little luck we can see if Porsche Caymans are drone resistant. I don't think Porsche make tanks anymore, but maybe it is in their DNA somehow :-).

well I have a Cayman (two seater mid-engine car) and I don't think it would do well versus a drone...

there is a market for vintage Porsche tractors....

https://www.classic.com/m/porsche/tractors/

and

https://bringatrailer.com/porsche/tractor/

[Mick]

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

sadly, Ferrari now sells an SUV....

https://www.ferrari.com/en-EN/auto/ferrari-purosangue

[Mick]

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

sadly, Ferrari now sells an SUV....

https://www.ferrari.com/en-EN/auto/ferrari-purosangue

[82lsju]

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

sadly, Ferrari now sells an SUV....

https://www.ferrari.com/en-EN/auto/ferrari-purosangue

well they eventually came to the conclusion of all the others (e.g., Maserati, Lamborghini, Bentley, and others) that people who owned one of their cars also owned an SUV so why not get those sales too....and the Ferrari SUV pricing starts at just under $400k, of course the "cheapest" current Ferrari is Roma (at $280k) the 296 (which is a great looking car) is just under $350k....an "economical" alternative is the McLaren GTS for just $220K....

of course I'll never own any of these.....and as many wise people have pointed out is is "more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow" and yes I do regret having sold my 1974 Alfa Romeo GTV when I got my 2008 Cayman, the later is a "better" car on all dimensions, but unless you are driving on the track the GTV was more "fun".....

[82lsju]

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

sadly, Ferrari now sells an SUV....

https://www.ferrari.com/en-EN/auto/ferrari-purosangue

well they eventually came to the conclusion of all the others (e.g., Maserati, Lamborghini, Bentley, and others) that people who owned one of their cars also owned an SUV so why not get those sales too....and the Ferrari SUV pricing starts at just under $400k, of course the "cheapest" current Ferrari is Roma (at $280k) the 296 (which is a great looking car) is just under $350k....an "economical" alternative is the McLaren GTS for just $220K....

of course I'll never own any of these.....and as many wise people have pointed out is is "more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow" and yes I do regret having sold my 1974 Alfa Romeo GTV when I got my 2008 Cayman, the later is a "better" car on all dimensions, but unless you are driving on the track the GTV was more "fun".....

[dabigv13]

https://x.com/Nrg8000/status/1925473157714256060

Myanmar rebels have shot down a regime Mi-17 in flight. The innovations from the Ukraine conflict are spreading.

Helicopter operations in warfare will need to adapt to this new threat. Only way to avoid is to move fast, not linger over target, and even then if there are enough drones, only one needs to get lucky.

[dabigv13]

https://x.com/Nrg8000/status/1925473157714256060

Myanmar rebels have shot down a regime Mi-17 in flight. The innovations from the Ukraine conflict are spreading.

Helicopter operations in warfare will need to adapt to this new threat. Only way to avoid is to move fast, not linger over target, and even then if there are enough drones, only one needs to get lucky.

[GK3]

https://x.com/Nrg8000/status/1925473157714256060

Myanmar rebels have shot down a regime Mi-17 in flight. The innovations from the Ukraine conflict are spreading.

Helicopter operations in warfare will need to adapt to this new threat. Only way to avoid is to move fast, not linger over target, and even then if there are enough drones, only one needs to get lucky.

Good points!  Assuming we are talking about helicopters operating over the FEBA, the drones can be launched quickly and fairly easily it seems so a zone that is mostly free of drones can be the opposite very quickly. All these new technologies are going to require a lot of rethinking by the military of every country. If the ramjet 155 mm round with GPS guidance actually works then transportation networks, tunnels, supply dumps etc are going to suddenly be reachable. The further you have to move supply and fuel dumps from the front the harder it is to launch offensive operations, add in the new drone capability it may significantly change tactics and what is possible.  It could also mean that a few billion dollars of old hardware suddenly becomes not much better than a boat anchor.

[GK3]

https://x.com/Nrg8000/status/1925473157714256060

Myanmar rebels have shot down a regime Mi-17 in flight. The innovations from the Ukraine conflict are spreading.

Helicopter operations in warfare will need to adapt to this new threat. Only way to avoid is to move fast, not linger over target, and even then if there are enough drones, only one needs to get lucky.

Good points!  Assuming we are talking about helicopters operating over the FEBA, the drones can be launched quickly and fairly easily it seems so a zone that is mostly free of drones can be the opposite very quickly. All these new technologies are going to require a lot of rethinking by the military of every country. If the ramjet 155 mm round with GPS guidance actually works then transportation networks, tunnels, supply dumps etc are going to suddenly be reachable. The further you have to move supply and fuel dumps from the front the harder it is to launch offensive operations, add in the new drone capability it may significantly change tactics and what is possible.  It could also mean that a few billion dollars of old hardware suddenly becomes not much better than a boat anchor.

[Leftcoast]

Myanmar rebels have shot down a regime Mi-17 in flight. The innovations from the Ukraine conflict are spreading.

Helicopter operations in warfare will need to adapt to this new threat. Only way to avoid is to move fast, not linger over target, and even then if there are enough drones, only one needs to get lucky.

My mind tends to quickly flow to doomsday scenarios.  Are these drone based systems more likely to "leak" to domestic terrorists than older systems (say shoulder mounted MANPADS)?

[Leftcoast]

Myanmar rebels have shot down a regime Mi-17 in flight. The innovations from the Ukraine conflict are spreading.

Helicopter operations in warfare will need to adapt to this new threat. Only way to avoid is to move fast, not linger over target, and even then if there are enough drones, only one needs to get lucky.

My mind tends to quickly flow to doomsday scenarios.  Are these drone based systems more likely to "leak" to domestic terrorists than older systems (say shoulder mounted MANPADS)?

[Goose]

Myanmar rebels have shot down a regime Mi-17 in flight. The innovations from the Ukraine conflict are spreading.

Helicopter operations in warfare will need to adapt to this new threat. Only way to avoid is to move fast, not linger over target, and even then if there are enough drones, only one needs to get lucky.

My mind tends to quickly flow to doomsday scenarios.  Are these drone based systems more likely to "leak" to domestic terrorists than older systems (say shoulder mounted MANPADS)?

Absolutely. Right this minute they can buy a DJI drone, mount an explosive on it, and they are in business. It must however be said that the vast majority of drones do not hit their targets even when used by experienced and well-trained operators. The statistics are pretty clear on that point. Thus a terrorist may have say a one in four chance of hitting his target using a single drone. This is already assuming said terrorist has lots of practice operating a drone.

Launching and guiding a drone is lots less "attention getting" than firing a MANPADS. MANPADS leave a significant backblast. Even having a MANPADS is illegal. Having a drone is not. Of course, if you are don't care if you get caught it doesn't matter. Against airliners that are not expecting to evade attack, MANPADS are undoubtedly much more effective. Probability of kill in that case has to be near to 100%. MANPADS also have warheads that are much better suited to the task than something "home brew". That said, a drone without a warhead can do great damage to an airliner that runs into it. An inert drone probably won't bring the airliner down, but it could if it got lucky.

[Goose]

Myanmar rebels have shot down a regime Mi-17 in flight. The innovations from the Ukraine conflict are spreading.

Helicopter operations in warfare will need to adapt to this new threat. Only way to avoid is to move fast, not linger over target, and even then if there are enough drones, only one needs to get lucky.

My mind tends to quickly flow to doomsday scenarios.  Are these drone based systems more likely to "leak" to domestic terrorists than older systems (say shoulder mounted MANPADS)?

Absolutely. Right this minute they can buy a DJI drone, mount an explosive on it, and they are in business. It must however be said that the vast majority of drones do not hit their targets even when used by experienced and well-trained operators. The statistics are pretty clear on that point. Thus a terrorist may have say a one in four chance of hitting his target using a single drone. This is already assuming said terrorist has lots of practice operating a drone.

Launching and guiding a drone is lots less "attention getting" than firing a MANPADS. MANPADS leave a significant backblast. Even having a MANPADS is illegal. Having a drone is not. Of course, if you are don't care if you get caught it doesn't matter. Against airliners that are not expecting to evade attack, MANPADS are undoubtedly much more effective. Probability of kill in that case has to be near to 100%. MANPADS also have warheads that are much better suited to the task than something "home brew". That said, a drone without a warhead can do great damage to an airliner that runs into it. An inert drone probably won't bring the airliner down, but it could if it got lucky.

[dabigv13]

Wire guided FPV drones (note the Myanmar one was not wire guided, Myanmar probably is not really using much EW) are essentially unjammable, easy to make, and easy to use. There will be many thousands of people with expertise coming out of the Ukraine conflict on both sides, and this knowledge has already been shared deliberately with Syrian forces. No reason to think Myanmar was tought these techniques, would be trivial to learn how to make and use them on their own.

They will surely be used in future assassinations and terror attacks. Really just a matter of time. We have already seen one attempted drone assassination in Venezuela in 2018.

[dabigv13]

Wire guided FPV drones (note the Myanmar one was not wire guided, Myanmar probably is not really using much EW) are essentially unjammable, easy to make, and easy to use. There will be many thousands of people with expertise coming out of the Ukraine conflict on both sides, and this knowledge has already been shared deliberately with Syrian forces. No reason to think Myanmar was tought these techniques, would be trivial to learn how to make and use them on their own.

They will surely be used in future assassinations and terror attacks. Really just a matter of time. We have already seen one attempted drone assassination in Venezuela in 2018.

[Goose]

Wire guided FPV drones (note the Myanmar one was not wire guided, Myanmar probably is not really using much EW) are essentially unjammable, easy to make, and easy to use. There will be many thousands of people with expertise coming out of the Ukraine conflict on both sides, and this knowledge has already been shared deliberately with Syrian forces. No reason to think Myanmar was tought these techniques, would be trivial to learn how to make and use them on their own.

You are undoubtedly correct that Myanmar was not using any EW techniques. The MI-17 is transport helicopter. It is not resistant to small arms fire nor (especially) 12.5 mm fire. Frankly I would much rather have a 12.5 mm machine gun rather than a drone to use against an MI-17. With a machine gun I get many shots on goal, not just one. An MI-17 can simply turn and outrun my drone if the pilot sees it. Drones are quite slow, even compared to a helicopter. The helicopter cannot outrun my 12.5 mm bullets and I can shoot a lot of them.
 
I agree that fiber-optic drones cannot be jammed. They are also relatively easy to make if one has access to the plans and the parts. Obtaining those two things is relatively easy. I do not at all agree these drones are "easy to use" (although easy is relative :-), especially as a weapon (as opposed to reconnaissance purposes). It takes quite a bit of training and experience to be effective with these kamikaze drones. Accurately "leading" a (potentially rapidly) moving target takes practice and skill. Drones aren't fast, so if you start out "wrong" you may never be able to compensate. Obviously many people learn to do it, but it is not something you just pick up in a week. It is harder than flying a "recreational" drone because the automatic stabilization feature has to be disabled to allow rapid maneuvers. The rotor wash of the helicopter will also knock the drone around a lot. Hitting the helicopter from a distance would not be trivial. As the very low hit rate of drones in the Ukraine war demonstrates even experienced and trained operators miss a lot, even on relatively fixed targets.

They will surely be used in future assassinations and terror attacks. Really just a matter of time. We have already seen one attempted drone assassination in Venezuela in 2018.

For sure. It you are targeting people in the open you also don't have to be all that good. Close counts with fragmentation grenades.

[Goose]

Wire guided FPV drones (note the Myanmar one was not wire guided, Myanmar probably is not really using much EW) are essentially unjammable, easy to make, and easy to use. There will be many thousands of people with expertise coming out of the Ukraine conflict on both sides, and this knowledge has already been shared deliberately with Syrian forces. No reason to think Myanmar was tought these techniques, would be trivial to learn how to make and use them on their own.

You are undoubtedly correct that Myanmar was not using any EW techniques. The MI-17 is transport helicopter. It is not resistant to small arms fire nor (especially) 12.5 mm fire. Frankly I would much rather have a 12.5 mm machine gun rather than a drone to use against an MI-17. With a machine gun I get many shots on goal, not just one. An MI-17 can simply turn and outrun my drone if the pilot sees it. Drones are quite slow, even compared to a helicopter. The helicopter cannot outrun my 12.5 mm bullets and I can shoot a lot of them.
 
I agree that fiber-optic drones cannot be jammed. They are also relatively easy to make if one has access to the plans and the parts. Obtaining those two things is relatively easy. I do not at all agree these drones are "easy to use" (although easy is relative :-), especially as a weapon (as opposed to reconnaissance purposes). It takes quite a bit of training and experience to be effective with these kamikaze drones. Accurately "leading" a (potentially rapidly) moving target takes practice and skill. Drones aren't fast, so if you start out "wrong" you may never be able to compensate. Obviously many people learn to do it, but it is not something you just pick up in a week. It is harder than flying a "recreational" drone because the automatic stabilization feature has to be disabled to allow rapid maneuvers. The rotor wash of the helicopter will also knock the drone around a lot. Hitting the helicopter from a distance would not be trivial. As the very low hit rate of drones in the Ukraine war demonstrates even experienced and trained operators miss a lot, even on relatively fixed targets.

They will surely be used in future assassinations and terror attacks. Really just a matter of time. We have already seen one attempted drone assassination in Venezuela in 2018.

For sure. It you are targeting people in the open you also don't have to be all that good. Close counts with fragmentation grenades.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-signal...00197.html

The arrival of the Russian fighter does not, of itself, demonstrate that Russia is "ready for war" if "the west" seizes a tanker flying no flag inside the EEZ of a "member" state.  The Estonian warship did not proceed with the action because it didn't want to risk that Russia was quite willing to sink it. In fact, Russia is very sure such an action will not start a war. Estonia will not attack Russia over it. It would however greatly increase tensions in an already tense situation.

Situations like this unfortunately invite a collision of NATO forces with Russian forces. IMO it is much safer for all concerned that seizing these "shadow fleet" ships take place as far from any Russian forces as possible. The IO is such a place. If the Russians are willing to put Russian flags on these ships, the "west" would be in no position to seize them. It would however put countries like India in a position of openly violating sanctions, a place it really doesn't want to be.

As we in the US, of all peoples, should understand, Russia is attempting to use "neutral" ships to carry otherwise "banned" goods between Russia and "neutral" nations. This practice goes back to at least the 1600s. In this case the vessels involved are clearly operating under Russian control and are Russian owned. Historically such a situation has always resulted in the "neutrality" of the vessels involved in such trade being stripped away, especially when the opponents (in this case, "the west") have the capability to do so in waters where intervention by the targeted belligerent is almost impossible. Hard to imagine this case will eventually be any different. Yes, it is risky, but there are no obvious alternatives.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-signal...00197.html

The arrival of the Russian fighter does not, of itself, demonstrate that Russia is "ready for war" if "the west" seizes a tanker flying no flag inside the EEZ of a "member" state.  The Estonian warship did not proceed with the action because it didn't want to risk that Russia was quite willing to sink it. In fact, Russia is very sure such an action will not start a war. Estonia will not attack Russia over it. It would however greatly increase tensions in an already tense situation.

Situations like this unfortunately invite a collision of NATO forces with Russian forces. IMO it is much safer for all concerned that seizing these "shadow fleet" ships take place as far from any Russian forces as possible. The IO is such a place. If the Russians are willing to put Russian flags on these ships, the "west" would be in no position to seize them. It would however put countries like India in a position of openly violating sanctions, a place it really doesn't want to be.

As we in the US, of all peoples, should understand, Russia is attempting to use "neutral" ships to carry otherwise "banned" goods between Russia and "neutral" nations. This practice goes back to at least the 1600s. In this case the vessels involved are clearly operating under Russian control and are Russian owned. Historically such a situation has always resulted in the "neutrality" of the vessels involved in such trade being stripped away, especially when the opponents (in this case, "the west") have the capability to do so in waters where intervention by the targeted belligerent is almost impossible. Hard to imagine this case will eventually be any different. Yes, it is risky, but there are no obvious alternatives.

[Goose]

https://militarnyi.com/en/news/russia-be...f-finland/

Now Russia is escorting these tankers through the "danger area". Again, history repeats. If "the west" wishes to compel Russia to "make peace" in Ukraine short of a total Russian victory it must find a way to do so. There are sanctions in place, but it appears they will not have the desired effect in the near term. Given that, the only choices are 1) status quo and hope Russia quits before Ukraine collapses, or 2) find a way to increase the pressure on Russia that will compel them to seek an end to the war.

One possibility is to start seizing tankers from the shadow fleet. This process would need to happen somewhat rapidly to "work". Some of the Russian POL is exported in tankers flying national flags that are not flags of convenience. At present, 52% of Russian POL exports are carried by the "shadow fleet". Russia understands its vulnerability and is attempting to transfer all this business to customers that it can serve by pipeline. That is going to take time. If Russia is given that time the seizures will not "work".

Another possibility is to sanction any nation that buys Russian POL products. This approach is difficult to make work. First of all, some nations, even NATO nations would have to have at a minimum limited "exemptions". They depend on Russian crude oil for their refineries. These refineries are not  quickly convertible to process other crude oil. Furthermore, crude oil shipped in from other nations via tankers would be significantly more expensive than Russian oil arriving by pipeline. Second, the "shadow fleet" can be used to "launder" the oil. Nations can claim they aren't buying Russian oil when clearly they actually are. The politics of applying sanctions to these countries is difficult. There are also a few countries that are difficult to sanction because their trade with "the west" is minimal. North Korea is a prime example but there are others.

The "west" could also do both. There may be other possibilities, but I don't know what they might be. Would such actions drive Russia to the peace table "for real"? Will any such actions be adopted? If not, the alternatives are quite grim.

---

https://www.yahoo.com/news/graham-warns-...44453.html
If implemented, this would exercise the second option mentioned above. It might "work", but I don't see how such a tariff would be enforced if the executive branch chooses not to do so. It would simply be a gesture.

[Goose]

https://militarnyi.com/en/news/russia-be...f-finland/

Now Russia is escorting these tankers through the "danger area". Again, history repeats. If "the west" wishes to compel Russia to "make peace" in Ukraine short of a total Russian victory it must find a way to do so. There are sanctions in place, but it appears they will not have the desired effect in the near term. Given that, the only choices are 1) status quo and hope Russia quits before Ukraine collapses, or 2) find a way to increase the pressure on Russia that will compel them to seek an end to the war.

One possibility is to start seizing tankers from the shadow fleet. This process would need to happen somewhat rapidly to "work". Some of the Russian POL is exported in tankers flying national flags that are not flags of convenience. At present, 52% of Russian POL exports are carried by the "shadow fleet". Russia understands its vulnerability and is attempting to transfer all this business to customers that it can serve by pipeline. That is going to take time. If Russia is given that time the seizures will not "work".

Another possibility is to sanction any nation that buys Russian POL products. This approach is difficult to make work. First of all, some nations, even NATO nations would have to have at a minimum limited "exemptions". They depend on Russian crude oil for their refineries. These refineries are not  quickly convertible to process other crude oil. Furthermore, crude oil shipped in from other nations via tankers would be significantly more expensive than Russian oil arriving by pipeline. Second, the "shadow fleet" can be used to "launder" the oil. Nations can claim they aren't buying Russian oil when clearly they actually are. The politics of applying sanctions to these countries is difficult. There are also a few countries that are difficult to sanction because their trade with "the west" is minimal. North Korea is a prime example but there are others.

The "west" could also do both. There may be other possibilities, but I don't know what they might be. Would such actions drive Russia to the peace table "for real"? Will any such actions be adopted? If not, the alternatives are quite grim.

---

https://www.yahoo.com/news/graham-warns-...44453.html
If implemented, this would exercise the second option mentioned above. It might "work", but I don't see how such a tariff would be enforced if the executive branch chooses not to do so. It would simply be a gesture.

[BostonCard]

WSJ editorial board agrees with the secondary sanctions.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump..._permalink

I think this only works because oil is relatively cheap now. If oil were pricey, I think we’d balk; oil is fungible and anything that reduces supply would push prices up.  Maybe with oil hovering at $60/barrel that’s fine, but if anything happens and oil shoots up to $100 and gas prices nationally go north of $4/gallon and I bet we lose our nerve.

BC

[BostonCard]

WSJ editorial board agrees with the secondary sanctions.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump..._permalink

I think this only works because oil is relatively cheap now. If oil were pricey, I think we’d balk; oil is fungible and anything that reduces supply would push prices up.  Maybe with oil hovering at $60/barrel that’s fine, but if anything happens and oil shoots up to $100 and gas prices nationally go north of $4/gallon and I bet we lose our nerve.

BC

[Goose]

WSJ editorial board agrees with the secondary sanctions.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump..._permalink

I think this only works because oil is relatively cheap now. If oil were pricey, I think we’d balk; oil is fungible and anything that reduces supply would push prices up.  Maybe with oil hovering at $60/barrel that’s fine, but if anything happens and oil shoots up to $100 and gas prices nationally go north of $4/gallon and I bet we lose our nerve.

BC

The supply of oil is "artificially" limited by OPEC+. The US is also not operating anywhere near capacity. As long as the US and OPEC+ are willing to increase the supply to compensate for the lost Russian production the price of oil will not spike. Kazakhstan has been exceeding OPEC+ quotas for quite a while. Just make that officially OK and problem solved :-). You are correct in being concerned about the price of oil being driven up if the Russian supply is curtailed/off limits.

The US and "the west" plus OPEC+ will need to manage the supply effectively. Even more important they will have to ensure that the publicity around secondary sanctions reassures the oil market that a price run-up will not happen. Ideally there would be an agreement in place with India that guarantees them a supply of oil at a price no higher than the maximum limit already established for Russian oil. Whether the administration can and will prioritize executing this diplomatic coup is TBD.

[Goose]

WSJ editorial board agrees with the secondary sanctions.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump..._permalink

I think this only works because oil is relatively cheap now. If oil were pricey, I think we’d balk; oil is fungible and anything that reduces supply would push prices up.  Maybe with oil hovering at $60/barrel that’s fine, but if anything happens and oil shoots up to $100 and gas prices nationally go north of $4/gallon and I bet we lose our nerve.

BC

The supply of oil is "artificially" limited by OPEC+. The US is also not operating anywhere near capacity. As long as the US and OPEC+ are willing to increase the supply to compensate for the lost Russian production the price of oil will not spike. Kazakhstan has been exceeding OPEC+ quotas for quite a while. Just make that officially OK and problem solved :-). You are correct in being concerned about the price of oil being driven up if the Russian supply is curtailed/off limits.

The US and "the west" plus OPEC+ will need to manage the supply effectively. Even more important they will have to ensure that the publicity around secondary sanctions reassures the oil market that a price run-up will not happen. Ideally there would be an agreement in place with India that guarantees them a supply of oil at a price no higher than the maximum limit already established for Russian oil. Whether the administration can and will prioritize executing this diplomatic coup is TBD.

[BostonCard]

So, what you are saying is that Saudi Arabia could singlehandedly end the war by opening the taps wide, driving the price of oil low enough to bankrupt Russia.  I agree.  But they would bankrupt themselves too.


BC

[BostonCard]

So, what you are saying is that Saudi Arabia could singlehandedly end the war by opening the taps wide, driving the price of oil low enough to bankrupt Russia.  I agree.  But they would bankrupt themselves too.


BC

[Goose]

So, what you are saying is that Saudi Arabia could singlehandedly end the war by opening the taps wide, driving the price of oil low enough to bankrupt Russia.  I agree.  But they would bankrupt themselves too.


BC

Fortunately they don't have to go to that extreme to accomplish the mission. Russia needs to sell a certain volume of unrefined oil to keep their economy going. It isn't necessary to drive their sales to zero, but only to a level where they can't make ends meet. There aren't far from there already due to existing sanctions. Their sovereign wealth funds are pretty close to exhaustion. Losing India as a customer without replacement would probably be enough. India will pay the market rate, just not to Russia. Saudi actually increases sales and profit that way. They would like to make more profit per unit volume, but they can't do that as long as Russia is selling everything they possibly can. Getting Russia back inside the OPEC+ limits would be a win for Saudi and the rest of the oil producing nations.

[Goose]

So, what you are saying is that Saudi Arabia could singlehandedly end the war by opening the taps wide, driving the price of oil low enough to bankrupt Russia.  I agree.  But they would bankrupt themselves too.


BC

Fortunately they don't have to go to that extreme to accomplish the mission. Russia needs to sell a certain volume of unrefined oil to keep their economy going. It isn't necessary to drive their sales to zero, but only to a level where they can't make ends meet. There aren't far from there already due to existing sanctions. Their sovereign wealth funds are pretty close to exhaustion. Losing India as a customer without replacement would probably be enough. India will pay the market rate, just not to Russia. Saudi actually increases sales and profit that way. They would like to make more profit per unit volume, but they can't do that as long as Russia is selling everything they possibly can. Getting Russia back inside the OPEC+ limits would be a win for Saudi and the rest of the oil producing nations.

[dabigv13]

https://x.com/A_SHEKH0VTS0V/status/1928052750421471317

Interesting details have emerged about the elimination yesterday of Zaur Gurtsiyev, a Russian war criminal who commanded air operations during the capture of Mariupol in Ukraine in 2022. 1/4
...
According to VChK-OGPU sources, Gurtsiyev was drawn into a scheme involving a homosexual honey trap. He met a man on a gay dating website, and they exchanged explicit photos. 2/4
....
The man was part of a set-up. When they eventually agreed to meet in person, he was given a device supposedly intended to record compromising material on Gurtsiyev. 3/4
....
But this, too, was a deception. The “equipment” was not for recording; it was a bomb. When the two met, the device detonated, killing both men. 4/4

https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/192...8303358386

The second link has video of the operation. There is no gore but you do see one person walk up to another one, and then a large explosion.

Both sides have previously used unwitting suicide bombers, Ukraine famously with the truckers blowing up the Kerch bridge. I expect these operations to become more common as US involvement with the conflict recedes. Gloves are off.

[dabigv13]

https://x.com/A_SHEKH0VTS0V/status/1928052750421471317

Interesting details have emerged about the elimination yesterday of Zaur Gurtsiyev, a Russian war criminal who commanded air operations during the capture of Mariupol in Ukraine in 2022. 1/4
...
According to VChK-OGPU sources, Gurtsiyev was drawn into a scheme involving a homosexual honey trap. He met a man on a gay dating website, and they exchanged explicit photos. 2/4
....
The man was part of a set-up. When they eventually agreed to meet in person, he was given a device supposedly intended to record compromising material on Gurtsiyev. 3/4
....
But this, too, was a deception. The “equipment” was not for recording; it was a bomb. When the two met, the device detonated, killing both men. 4/4

https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/192...8303358386

The second link has video of the operation. There is no gore but you do see one person walk up to another one, and then a large explosion.

Both sides have previously used unwitting suicide bombers, Ukraine famously with the truckers blowing up the Kerch bridge. I expect these operations to become more common as US involvement with the conflict recedes. Gloves are off.

[fullmetal]

I had a visceral reaction to the news that Ukraine had used a suicide bomber, mostly because I've often associated suicide bombing as a civilian terrorism tactic.  As a targeted, military tactic...I just can't judge Ukraine because they do need to win this war, and the calculus is plain to see.  Glory to the heroes.

[fullmetal]

I had a visceral reaction to the news that Ukraine had used a suicide bomber, mostly because I've often associated suicide bombing as a civilian terrorism tactic.  As a targeted, military tactic...I just can't judge Ukraine because they do need to win this war, and the calculus is plain to see.  Glory to the heroes.

[dabigv13]

I'm not sure what the best term for it is, tbh. The bomber isn't intending to commit suicide. This is an article about Russian intelligence services using this method. The unwitting bombers and bomb makers are recruited through social media. Sometimes they are offered money, other times they are blackmailed, such as by threat to release hacked intimate photos.

https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/russia...e-bombers/

It is certainly unsavory.

[dabigv13]

I'm not sure what the best term for it is, tbh. The bomber isn't intending to commit suicide. This is an article about Russian intelligence services using this method. The unwitting bombers and bomb makers are recruited through social media. Sometimes they are offered money, other times they are blackmailed, such as by threat to release hacked intimate photos.

https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/russia...e-bombers/

It is certainly unsavory.