Russia invades Ukraine. Volume 2

[TTmonkey]

Rogue86 said:

TTmonkey said:

Dumb bombs have shelf lives. But people still drop bombs that are 80 years old and they mostly still work, because it matters less if a few fail to be 100% efficient.

There is a substantial technological difference between those and a Harpoon missile.

Well that’s the complete point I made, so well done for your insightful reply.

[pingu393]

SlimJim16v said:

MOTORVATOR said:

SlimJim16v said:

The countries suffering from Russia's blockade of Ukraine should send their navies to protect and escort Ukraine's exports. From what I've read in the articles linked above, the st has already started hitting the fan in poorer countries.

The useless UN should be doing something.

The Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits are closed to all warships other than those returning to base so would require a bit if escalation from Turkey Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova to put anything meaningful Navy wise in there.

Well, Turkey is one of those suffering.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/16/t...

Is it not a ban on ships involved in the conflict? NATO is not involved

[havoc]

Evanivitch said:

Reportedly, but UK stocks of harpoon are approaching end of life and very few available.

Salvo them then.

...saves scrapping the buggers, and if a few fail, there's always spares...

[MOTORVATOR]

pingu393 said:

SlimJim16v said:

MOTORVATOR said:

SlimJim16v said:

The countries suffering from Russia's blockade of Ukraine should send their navies to protect and escort Ukraine's exports. From what I've read in the articles linked above, the st has already started hitting the fan in poorer countries.

The useless UN should be doing something.

The Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits are closed to all warships other than those returning to base so would require a bit if escalation from Turkey Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova to put anything meaningful Navy wise in there.

Well, Turkey is one of those suffering.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/16/t...

Is it not a ban on ships involved in the conflict? NATO is not involved

Closed to any countries ships with the exception of those returning to their Black Sea base port.

NATO is not involved as you say, however it would take those four countries to be in agreement for the Montreaux convention to be relaxed as the closure is on rather shaky ground anyway. You would need to transit three of those countries waters to get to where you want to be and likely utilise the Moldovan coastal access agreement for access to keep Ukraine out of the loop as much as possible.

So yeah get a couple of NATO warships in there as protection by putting the finger up to Putin but you still haven't resolved the issue of the minefields?

[QuickQuack]

MOTORVATOR said:

pingu393 said:

SlimJim16v said:

MOTORVATOR said:

SlimJim16v said:

The countries suffering from Russia's blockade of Ukraine should send their navies to protect and escort Ukraine's exports. From what I've read in the articles linked above, the st has already started hitting the fan in poorer countries.

The useless UN should be doing something.

The Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits are closed to all warships other than those returning to base so would require a bit if escalation from Turkey Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova to put anything meaningful Navy wise in there.

Well, Turkey is one of those suffering.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/16/t...

Is it not a ban on ships involved in the conflict? NATO is not involved

Closed to any countries ships with the exception of those returning to their Black Sea base port.

NATO is not involved as you say, however it would take those four countries to be in agreement for the Montreaux convention to be relaxed as the closure is on rather shaky ground anyway. You would need to transit three of those countries waters to get to where you want to be and likely utilise the Moldovan coastal access agreement for access to keep Ukraine out of the loop as much as possible.

So yeah get a couple of NATO warships in there as protection by putting the finger up to Putin but you still haven't resolved the issue of the minefields?

That's not quite correct. It isn't war ships of any country that are banned, it is only those of the aggressor state. Turkey may allow war ships of a Black Sea state under attack to pass through, and it may also allow war ships of countries with which it has treaties of mutual assistance, such as NATO member states, to pass through. Obviously, Turkish war ships can go through without hindrance under any circumstance.

Saying that, only Black Sea states are allowed to transit their capital war ships through the straits (with the exception of certain circumstances which are currently do not apply), and so any NATO ship passing through couldn't be a capital ship or exceed 10,000 tonnes, and can only remain in the Black Sea for a maximum of 21 days, all of which rather limits the usefulness of such a venture.

[FourWheelDrift]

MOTORVATOR said:

Closed to any countries ships with the exception of those returning to their Black Sea base port.

What if a country sells or leases a submarine to the Ukrainian Navy and it's home port is stated as Odessa?

[Buzz84]

FourWheelDrift said:

MOTORVATOR said:

Closed to any countries ships with the exception of those returning to their Black Sea base port.

What if a country sells or leases a submarine to the Ukrainian Navy and it's home port is stated as Odessa?

A bit like a flag of convenience, like it.

[QuickQuack]

Buzz84 said:

FourWheelDrift said:

MOTORVATOR said:

Closed to any countries ships with the exception of those returning to their Black Sea base port.

What if a country sells or leases a submarine to the Ukrainian Navy and it's home port is stated as Odessa?

A bit like a flag of convenience, like it.

The initial statement is wrong. However, the rules for submarines differ from ships. Only Black Sea states may pass submarines through the straits but they must have been constructed, purchased or repaired outside the Black Sea, so another country selling Ukraine a submarine is pretty much a prerequisite. Also, Ukraine doesn't have any other coastal waters other than the Black Sea so the home port of the vessel by definition would be in the Black Sea. Thereafter, see what I've written regarding aggressor state vs state under attack.

[Byker28i]

AP are running the story of a medic in Mariupol with footage smuggled out from a bodycam she's Now a Russian prisoner being shown on Russian tv all bruised
https://twitter.com/i/status/1527298759948140545

[MOTORVATOR]

QuickQuack said:

MOTORVATOR said:

pingu393 said:

SlimJim16v said:

MOTORVATOR said:

SlimJim16v said:

The countries suffering from Russia's blockade of Ukraine should send their navies to protect and escort Ukraine's exports. From what I've read in the articles linked above, the st has already started hitting the fan in poorer countries.

The useless UN should be doing something.

The Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits are closed to all warships other than those returning to base so would require a bit if escalation from Turkey Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova to put anything meaningful Navy wise in there.

Well, Turkey is one of those suffering.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/16/t...

Is it not a ban on ships involved in the conflict? NATO is not involved

Closed to any countries ships with the exception of those returning to their Black Sea base port.

NATO is not involved as you say, however it would take those four countries to be in agreement for the Montreaux convention to be relaxed as the closure is on rather shaky ground anyway. You would need to transit three of those countries waters to get to where you want to be and likely utilise the Moldovan coastal access agreement for access to keep Ukraine out of the loop as much as possible.

So yeah get a couple of NATO warships in there as protection by putting the finger up to Putin but you still haven't resolved the issue of the minefields?

That's not quite correct. It isn't war ships of any country that are banned, it is only those of the aggressor state. Turkey may allow war ships of a Black Sea state under attack to pass through, and it may also allow war ships of countries with which it has treaties of mutual assistance, such as NATO member states, to pass through. Obviously, Turkish war ships can go through without hindrance under any circumstance.

Saying that, only Black Sea states are allowed to transit their capital war ships through the straits (with the exception of certain circumstances which are currently do not apply), and so any NATO ship passing through couldn't be a capital ship or exceed 10,000 tonnes, and can only remain in the Black Sea for a maximum of 21 days, all of which rather limits the usefulness of such a venture.

Nope as I said what they've implemented is on shaky ground.

"He stated that the Turkish government has warned all countries (whether bordering the Black Sea or not) not to send warships via the straits to the Black Sea during the Russia-Ukraine war. He emphasized that no such attempt has occurred thus far."

'Turkish minister’s statements are considered as an official declaration of the Turkish government regarding the passing regime over the straits.'

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/02/turke...

[QuickQuack]

MOTORVATOR said:

QuickQuack said:

MOTORVATOR said:

pingu393 said:

SlimJim16v said:

MOTORVATOR said:

SlimJim16v said:

The countries suffering from Russia's blockade of Ukraine should send their navies to protect and escort Ukraine's exports. From what I've read in the articles linked above, the st has already started hitting the fan in poorer countries.

The useless UN should be doing something.

The Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits are closed to all warships other than those returning to base so would require a bit if escalation from Turkey Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova to put anything meaningful Navy wise in there.

Well, Turkey is one of those suffering.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/16/t...

Is it not a ban on ships involved in the conflict? NATO is not involved

Closed to any countries ships with the exception of those returning to their Black Sea base port.

NATO is not involved as you say, however it would take those four countries to be in agreement for the Montreaux convention to be relaxed as the closure is on rather shaky ground anyway. You would need to transit three of those countries waters to get to where you want to be and likely utilise the Moldovan coastal access agreement for access to keep Ukraine out of the loop as much as possible.

So yeah get a couple of NATO warships in there as protection by putting the finger up to Putin but you still haven't resolved the issue of the minefields?

That's not quite correct. It isn't war ships of any country that are banned, it is only those of the aggressor state. Turkey may allow war ships of a Black Sea state under attack to pass through, and it may also allow war ships of countries with which it has treaties of mutual assistance, such as NATO member states, to pass through. Obviously, Turkish war ships can go through without hindrance under any circumstance.

Saying that, only Black Sea states are allowed to transit their capital war ships through the straits (with the exception of certain circumstances which are currently do not apply), and so any NATO ship passing through couldn't be a capital ship or exceed 10,000 tonnes, and can only remain in the Black Sea for a maximum of 21 days, all of which rather limits the usefulness of such a venture.

Nope as I said what they've implemented is on shaky ground.

"He stated that the Turkish government has warned all countries (whether bordering the Black Sea or not) not to send warships via the straits to the Black Sea during the Russia-Ukraine war. He emphasized that no such attempt has occurred thus far."

'Turkish minister’s statements are considered as an official declaration of the Turkish government regarding the passing regime over the straits.'

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/02/turke...

Did you fully read what I wrote? I said Turkey may..., i.e., it is up to Turkey if the Turkish government wishes to allow the passage of these war ships. Turkish government has been sending military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine including the Bayraktar TB2 drones which have been very successfully deployed. At any given point, if a notification or a request to transit a war ship through the straits is received, it will be up to the Turkish government to decide what to do with it, to allow the request or to deny the passage. A state is still free to notify or submit a request, but the request may/is likely to be denied.

It would be dangerous for Turkey as it would place it directly against Russia even though the two are not at war, but it is theoretically possible. In fact, if you had followed the Op Ed link near the bottom of the page that you've linked to written by the same author who happens to be an ex-Turkish naval officer, you would've seen that the author says exactly the same same thing, feasible but dangerous for Turkey.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/02/op-ed...

And here's the full text of the original Montreux Convention that the Turkish government signed:

https://www.kiyiemniyeti.gov.tr/userfiles/file/mev...

[Crumpet]

Byker28i said:

AP are running the story of a medic in Mariupol with footage smuggled out from a bodycam she's Now a Russian prisoner being shown on Russian tv all bruised
https://twitter.com/i/status/1527298759948140545

fk me, that’s a hard watch! The kids must be the same age as mine.

[BikeBikeBIke]

MOTORVATOR said:

Nope as I said what they've implemented is on shaky ground.

"He stated that the Turkish government has warned all countries (whether bordering the Black Sea or not) not to send warships via the straits to the Black Sea during the Russia-Ukraine war. He emphasized that no such attempt has occurred thus far."

'Turkish minister’s statements are considered as an official declaration of the Turkish government regarding the passing regime over the straits.'

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/02/turke...

I've had an idea: The Odessa-Gdansk Canal.

I need a shovel, a sturdy wheelbarrow and time...

[gfreeman]

Byker28i said:

AP are running the story of a medic in Mariupol with footage smuggled out from a bodycam she's Now a Russian prisoner being shown on Russian tv all bruised
https://twitter.com/i/status/1527298759948140545

A hard watch indeed

[pinchmeimdreamin]

QuickQuack said:

Did you fully read what I wrote? I said Turkey may..., i.e., it is up to Turkey if the Turkish government wishes to allow the passage of these war ships. Turkish government has been sending military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine including the Bayraktar TB2 drones which have been very successfully deployed. At any given point, if a notification or a request to transit a war ship through the straits is received, it will be up to the Turkish government to decide what to do with it, to allow the request or to deny the passage. A state is still free to notify or submit a request, but the request may/is likely to be denied.

It would be dangerous for Turkey as it would place it directly against Russia even though the two are not at war, but it is theoretically possible. In fact, if you had followed the Op Ed link near the bottom of the page that you've linked to written by the same author who happens to be an ex-Turkish naval officer, you would've seen that the author says exactly the same same thing, feasible but dangerous for Turkey.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/02/op-ed...

And here's the full text of the original Montreux Convention that the Turkish government signed:

https://www.kiyiemniyeti.gov.tr/userfiles/file/mev...

So, if Bulgaria had asked the RN to have a test drive of a couple of type 45 destroyers it would be up to Turkey if they could transit to the Black Sea

Edited by pinchmeimdreamin on Friday 20th May 21:50

[MOTORVATOR]

QuickQuack said:

MOTORVATOR said:

QuickQuack said:

MOTORVATOR said:

pingu393 said:

SlimJim16v said:

MOTORVATOR said:

SlimJim16v said:

The countries suffering from Russia's blockade of Ukraine should send their navies to protect and escort Ukraine's exports. From what I've read in the articles linked above, the st has already started hitting the fan in poorer countries.

The useless UN should be doing something.

The Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits are closed to all warships other than those returning to base so would require a bit if escalation from Turkey Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova to put anything meaningful Navy wise in there.

Well, Turkey is one of those suffering.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/16/t...

Is it not a ban on ships involved in the conflict? NATO is not involved

Closed to any countries ships with the exception of those returning to their Black Sea base port.

NATO is not involved as you say, however it would take those four countries to be in agreement for the Montreaux convention to be relaxed as the closure is on rather shaky ground anyway. You would need to transit three of those countries waters to get to where you want to be and likely utilise the Moldovan coastal access agreement for access to keep Ukraine out of the loop as much as possible.

So yeah get a couple of NATO warships in there as protection by putting the finger up to Putin but you still haven't resolved the issue of the minefields?

That's not quite correct. It isn't war ships of any country that are banned, it is only those of the aggressor state. Turkey may allow war ships of a Black Sea state under attack to pass through, and it may also allow war ships of countries with which it has treaties of mutual assistance, such as NATO member states, to pass through. Obviously, Turkish war ships can go through without hindrance under any circumstance.

Saying that, only Black Sea states are allowed to transit their capital war ships through the straits (with the exception of certain circumstances which are currently do not apply), and so any NATO ship passing through couldn't be a capital ship or exceed 10,000 tonnes, and can only remain in the Black Sea for a maximum of 21 days, all of which rather limits the usefulness of such a venture.

Nope as I said what they've implemented is on shaky ground.

"He stated that the Turkish government has warned all countries (whether bordering the Black Sea or not) not to send warships via the straits to the Black Sea during the Russia-Ukraine war. He emphasized that no such attempt has occurred thus far."

'Turkish minister’s statements are considered as an official declaration of the Turkish government regarding the passing regime over the straits.'

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/02/turke...

Did you fully read what I wrote? I said Turkey may..., i.e., it is up to Turkey if the Turkish government wishes to allow the passage of these war ships. Turkish government has been sending military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine including the Bayraktar TB2 drones which have been very successfully deployed. At any given point, if a notification or a request to transit a war ship through the straits is received, it will be up to the Turkish government to decide what to do with it, to allow the request or to deny the passage. A state is still free to notify or submit a request, but the request may/is likely to be denied.

It would be dangerous for Turkey as it would place it directly against Russia even though the two are not at war, but it is theoretically possible. In fact, if you had followed the Op Ed link near the bottom of the page that you've linked to written by the same author who happens to be an ex-Turkish naval officer, you would've seen that the author says exactly the same same thing, feasible but dangerous for Turkey.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/02/op-ed...

And here's the full text of the original Montreux Convention that the Turkish government signed:

https://www.kiyiemniyeti.gov.tr/userfiles/file/mev...

Did you fully read what I wrote?

You've posted a link there to editorial opinion four days earlier to refute what they actually did four days later!

Of course yes Turkey can change it's mind at any time in the future but as of now the straits are closed to any warships from any country, as I stated initially, and you argued was not quite correct and it was only the aggressor country banned? The Ministers statement was quite clear ALL countries.

It's all semantics anyway as I very much doubt Romania / Bulgaria want a couple of tooled up carriers / destroyers on their doorstep right at this moment and if they sailed into Ukraine waters it would be no different than us putting boots on the ground or aircraft in their skies to protect rail and highway movements for Ukr.

[sisu]

One thing to understand is the joy, the liberation of being evil that people within Russia (as did the Nazi's in the 1930s) of drawing the symbol on the door of the neighbour. Vandalism is the liberation of doing bad is what drives them, a metaphor would be a Football supporter in a national match. The anger you see and the justification of horrific, barbaric acts that rationally you would not understand.
You can see it with people who are criminal, they embrace that part of themselves. If no one thinks I am good then I will be the antithesis of evil. It is an easy jacket to wear, you want respect in other ways because you can't get it by those you yearn to be loved by.

Germany wanted respect for humiliation it suffered and that dissociation of how bad people can be is important to understand. Not being yourself is what makes people do horrific things.

[BikeBikeBIke]

I have no idea how it took 3 months. Every one of their posts for three months I've added a meme or a link to something that's awkward for them.

[S17Thumper]

The dick pic was the straw that broke the camels back.

[The Wookie]

sisu said:

One thing to understand is the joy, the liberation of being evil that people within Russia (as did the Nazi's in the 1930s) of drawing the symbol on the door of the neighbour. Vandalism is the liberation of doing bad is what drives them, a metaphor would be a Football supporter in a national match. The anger you see and the justification of horrific, barbaric acts that rationally you would not understand.
You can see it with people who are criminal, they embrace that part of themselves. If no one thinks I am good then I will be the antithesis of evil. It is an easy jacket to wear, you want respect in other ways because you can't get it by those you yearn to be loved by.

Germany wanted respect for humiliation it suffered and that dissociation of how bad people can be is important to understand. Not being yourself is what makes people do horrific things.

“He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.”