Russlands invasjon av Ukraina [Ny tråd, les førstepost]

[Brother Ursus]

 

 

 

 

Ser ut til at vinterstormene har gjort stor skade på de russiske forsvarsverkene foran Krim-broen også, samt muligens ødelagt eller i det minste skadet tre skip

Endret 29. november 2023 av Brother Ursus

[Brother Ursus]

https://censor.net/ua/video_news/3458351/putin_zaklykav_rosiyiskyh_jinok_narodjuvaty_po_8_diteyi_video

"Russian dictator Vladimir Putin called on Russian women to give birth to 8 children each to overcome the demographic crisis"

Tar minst 19 år å få dem klare da, Putin... da lever ikke du lengre.

[torbjornen]

Sitat

12:08 

Hamas: Fleire russiske gissel blir sette fri onsdag

 

Fleire russiske gissel blir sette fri frå Gaza onsdag. Det seier ein talsmann for Hamas, ifølge AFP. Frigjevinga skal skje uavhengig av avtalen Hamas har med Israel om å sette fri gissel mot at palestinske fangar blir sette fri, skriv Haaretz. Frigjevinga av dei russiske gislane onsdag er ei takk til Russlands president Vladimir Putin, seier Hamas.

 

[Brother Ursus]

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putin-debunks-his-own-propaganda-by-disarming-russias-nato-borders/

From Norway in the Arctic north to Kaliningrad in the west, Russia is making a mockery of Putin’s claims by dramatically reducing its military presence along the country’s borders with the NATO Alliance

 

[Brother Ursus]

https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-artillery-shells-us-eu-see-different-results/392288/?oref=d1-homepage-top-story

In race to make artillery shells, US, EU see different results

DOD’s early success may founder on Congressional inaction, while Europe’s private firms await orders.

By February 2023, European production was at 300,000 rounds annually, according to Estonian defense officials. By November, capacity had risen again, though assessments differ. European Commissioner for the Internal Market Thierry Breton suggested that Europe could now make some 400,000 rounds annually. Estonia’s Pevkur, speaking at a November media roundtable, put the figure between 600,000 and 700,000—and said it would reach one million rounds in 2024.

In March, the EU announced it would spend 2 billion euros ($2.2 billion) to send one million 155mm shells to Ukraine within a year. The money is split between paying countries to send stockpiled shells to Ukraine and acquiring new shells from EU members and Norway under a joint procurement scheme.

But the EU will not meet its goal this year, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius confirmed recently. In September, Estonian defense official Kusti Salm said the plan would likely be fulfilled by mid-2024.

And in the long term, Pevkur said, even more shells will be required—to backfill stocks, support NATO regional plans, and keep Ukraine in the fight. 

“My estimation is that we have to produce in the next ten years around 3 million rounds in a year,” the Estonian minister said. 

In October, NATO’s senior military officer, Adm. Rob Bauer, said that the price for one 155mm shell had risen from 2,000 euros ($2,171) at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion to 8,000 euros ($8,489.60). 

For comparison, the U.S. currently pays $3,000 for its most modern shells, according to an Army spokesperson. That price includes the charge, fuze, and shell body. 

Unlike the U.S., European 155mm production is primarily in the hands of the commercial market. That means that European countries can incentivize production increases through purchases, but cannot order factories to invest in automation, double shifts, or build new plants, as the U.S. has. 

“There really isn’t any government that can command industry to produce more, they have to place orders through contracts,” said CFR’s Loss. 

European munitions firms, meanwhile, have few opportunities to raise money from private hands, thanks to regulations on banks and arms makers, Loss said. They therefore have trouble increasing production merely on the expectation of higher orders. 

Jeg mangler ord. Det er idiotisk.

[Dragavon]

Brother Ursus skrev (16 minutter siden):

Jeg mangler ord. Det er idiotisk.

Det er slik det blir når blårussen får styre og alt skal bli markedsstyrt og billigst mulig.

[Dragavon]

Sitat

Russland på vei til OSSE-møte: Flere Nato-land boikotter
BRUSSEL (VG) Onsdag ettermiddag er utenriksminister Espen Barth Eide (Ap) på vei til et europeisk sikkerhetsmøte i Skopje. Dit kommer også Russlands utenriksminister Sergej Lavrov. Derfor boikottes møtet av flere Nato-land.

https://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/i/2BaRgl/russland-paa-vei-til-osse-moete-flere-nato-land-boikotter

[Skjelvgråt]

Hvorfor får ikke Ukraina samme tilgang? 

https://theintercept.com/2023/11/25/biden-israel-weapons-stockpile-arms-gaza/

[Brother Ursus]

 

 

Genialt nok hadde russerne også lagret en AT-mine på toppen av BTR'en sin.

[Dragavon]

 

[Dragavon]

 

[Pop]

8 hours ago, Drogin said:

Jeg vil anta planen var å tiltreke fiendtlig artilleri, og rekke å avfyre et par skudd for og så trekke seg tilbake.
Og ødelegge fiendens artilerri med kontra-beskytning. Jeg synes ikke det ser ut som den forsøker å gå til frontangrep eller bane vei for noe, det virker som den skal gjøre et mindre fremstøt og så trekke seg tilbake.

Slik dynamikken er nå med minefelter, ingen air-superiority, enorme mengder artilleri + droner hos både ukraina og russland, så fungerer det ikke å sette inn en større gruppe med combined arms

Det er i så fall ganske ukjent taktikk for Natos kavalerienheter. Man vil ikke tiltrekke seg artilleri med de dyreste kjøretøyene (MBT), eller et fullt mannskap for stridsvogn. Stridsvogn er heller ikke noe for kontra, særlig ikke når artilleri som regel skyter i ballistisk bane og dermed er langt unna og utenfor synsfeltet. Dette gir bare ikke mening.

[JK22]

Det er nylig blitt kjent at Biden MÅ ANGRIPE VENEZUELA MED EN GANG fordi det er meldinger om kampgny i et grenseområde mellom Venezuela, Guyana og Brazil. Mye av grensen mellom de to nabolandene er ufremkommelig med våtterreng i jungelomgivelser og meget steile fjell, slik at det bare er mulig med militære bevegelser i den brasilianske delstaten Roraima og dels i den guyanske grenseregionen der. 

Dette handler om Vestens økonomisk overlevelse, vi har nylig fått inflasjonen under kontroll og er i ferd med å bringe energikrisen til akseptabel nivå selv om det fremdeles er kritisk i Tyskland hvor den irrasjonelle motviljen mot en gjenåpning av atomkraftverkene står i vegen. Guyana er blitt kritisk viktig fordi den har de største oljefeltene som noensinne er funnet i hele det tjueførste århundret, og kan produsere 1.1 mill. oljetønner per dag om ikke mange år, allerede nå er hundretusener av oljetønner på vei ut, spesielt til USA hvor behovet for tungolje er akutt, for med Guyana trenger ikke USA å kjøpe tungolje fra andre land som Russland (og Iran). 

Så Guyana må beskyttes med ALLE MIDLER fordi det er blitt meget kritisk viktig. Venezuela under Maduro-regimet gjør krav på Guyana Esequiba som en imperialistisk tyv ved å basere sitt krav på et imperium - det vil si det spanske riket som allerede i 1600-tallet gav avkall på dette området til Nederland, som siden mistet det til Storbritannia. Venezuelanerne helt siden selvstendigheten i 1800-tallet bestridt det britiske territoriet, og i 1895 klarte de å få USA til å støtte dem, som munnet ut i en voldgiftsavgjørelse i Haag i 1899 hvor det var besluttet at det venezuelanske kravet er ugyldig, slik at bare grensejusteringer gjenstår. I 1965 etter Guyana bli selvstendig, nektet Venezuela som en TYV å erkjenne den folkerettslige kunngjørelsen fra 1899. En ny avtale måtte til, men guyanerne måtte siden stolt på at deres status som et engelskspråklig land med nære bånd med Storbritannia og senere USA skulle beskytte dem. 

I 2015 bli oljefunnet offentliggjort, og plutselig fikk det lutfattige landet en gave fra himmelen, de er i besittelse av enorme rikdommer som gjør dem ettertraktet, og USA som straks fikk med seg dette, var raskt med å gi omfattende støtte, med sterk støtte av EU og OAS (Latin-Amerika) - med et eneste unntak; Venezuela. Maduro-regimet begynte å lage støy og deretter trakasserte skip som kom inn i guyanske sjøterritorier, men i 2020 ble amerikanske krigsskip og kystvaktskip sendt til Guyana for å beskytte landets suverenitet. 

Brasil støtter Guyana, selv om Lula ikke er en venn av USA, er han en realistisk ideolog som forstår de reelle omstendighetene - at det er snakk om en fattig stat som risikeres å overfalles av en tyv som vil stjele til seg nylige oppdagede rikdommer. Og Lula trenger oljefeltene i Guyana fordi hans politiske makt avhengiges av å gjøre Nord-Brazil, som regjeres av opposisjonen, fornøyd med ham. Nord-Brazil er i en økonomisk boom som så langt trues av en sterk tørke for tiden. 

Biden må gripe inn allerede på timet om Venezuela skulle invadere Guyana. 

[JK22]

Pop skrev (4 minutter siden):

Det er i så fall ganske ukjent taktikk for Natos kavalerienheter. Man vil ikke tiltrekke seg artilleri med de dyreste kjøretøyene (MBT), eller et fullt mannskap for stridsvogn. Stridsvogn er heller ikke noe for kontra, særlig ikke når artilleri som regel skyter i ballistisk bane og dermed er langt unna og utenfor synsfeltet. Dette gir bare ikke mening.

Selve stridsvognen var 1,7 km fra frontlinjen og deretter 2,4 km fra nærmeste russisk forskansning - mye tyder på at den gikk på en granatbårne mine ved ren og skjær uflaks. Det er ikke uvanlig for ukrainerne og russerne å bruke deres stridsvogner som artilleri fordi flatbaneskyts har sin nytte. Ukrainerne med vestlige stridsvogner har en stor fordel ved at de kunne skyte lengre vekk med større treffsikkerhet enn med de sovjetiskbygde stridsvognene.

Og russerne var ganske sparsomt da de prøvd å ødelegge stridsvognen, som kan tyder på at de frykter ukrainsk kontraild. 

[Pop]

1 minute ago, JK22 said:

Selve stridsvognen var 1,7 km fra frontlinjen og deretter 2,4 km fra nærmeste russisk forskansning - mye tyder på at den gikk på en granatbårne mine ved ren og skjær uflaks. Det er ikke uvanlig for ukrainerne og russerne å bruke deres stridsvogner som artilleri fordi flatbaneskyts har sin nytte. Ukrainerne med vestlige stridsvogner har en stor fordel ved at de kunne skyte lengre vekk med større treffsikkerhet enn med de sovjetiskbygde stridsvognene.

Og russerne var ganske sparsomt da de prøvd å ødelegge stridsvognen, som kan tyder på at de frykter ukrainsk kontraild. 

Jeg hadde skjønt mer om det var natt og de ville utnytte Leos meget gode optikk. Men ja, jeg kan tenke meg at dette var mye uflaks. Et mål på 2km unna kan være grei skuring for Leo. På hjerkinn delte vi skyteskiver i to med tårn-MGen på 1000m.

[Thor.]

Ukrainere får prøve surstrømming fra Sverige. OBS: oppkast

https://v.redd.it/9zssy6okmb3c1

[Brother Ursus]

 

 

Jeg vil tippe Venezuela forsøker å hjelpe Putin med å skape kaos.

Vi kan forvente oss fler angrep på ting som kan øke oljeprisen globalt.

EDIT: Blir sagt videoen er gammel, og fra Colombia. Men resten av informasjonen skal stemme.

Endret 29. november 2023 av Brother Ursus

[Brother Ursus]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/29/ukraine-military-aid-american-economy-boost/

Here is the best-kept secret about U.S. military aid to Ukraine: Most of the money is being spent here in the United States. That’s right: Funds that lawmakers approve to arm Ukraine are not going directly to Ukraine but being used stateside to build new weapons or to replace weapons sent to Kyiv from U.S. stockpiles. Of the $68 billion in military and related assistance Congress has approved since Russia invaded Ukraine, almost 90 percent is going to Americans, one analysis found.

Spoiler

But you wouldn’t know that from the actions of some U.S. lawmakers. When Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance (R) joined a United Auto Workers picket line in October at the Jeep assembly plant in Toledo, he said he wanted to “show some support for the UAW workers” in his state. Yet he has not shown the same solidarity with the UAW workers in Lima, Ohio, who are churning out Abrams tanks and Stryker combat vehicles for Ukraine thanks to the military aid that Congress has approved. Vance opposes Ukraine aid, as does Rep. Jim Jordan (R), whose House district includes Lima.

Ohio voters might have expected their elected leaders to be pushing the (reluctant) Biden administration to give Ukraine more Lima-produced tanks and vehicles — or to require that more of them be included in the aid package for Ukraine that Congress will soon take up. Instead, Vance and Jordan are fighting to stop Ukraine from receiving any more union-made tanks and combat vehicles from America’s only tank factory.
Advertisement

It’s not just them. In all, 31 senators and House members whose states or districts benefit from funding for Ukraine have voted to oppose or restrict that aid. They include some of the most prominent anti-Ukraine voices in Congress, such as Republican Sens. Josh Hawley (Mo.), Tommy Tuberville (Ala.) and Mike Braun (Ind.), as well as Republican Reps. Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Bill Posey (Fla.), Anna Paulina Luna (Fla.) and Lance Gooden (Tex.).

At a time when both major parties are competing to win working-class votes and strengthen the U.S. manufacturing base, our military aid to Ukraine does exactly that — it is providing a major cash infusion into factories across the country that directly benefits American workers. It is also creating jobs and opportunities for local suppliers, shops, restaurants and other businesses that support the factories rolling out weapons.

Until now no one had mapped out precisely where these U.S. military aid funds are going. My American Enterprise Institute colleagues Clara Keuss, Noah Burke and I have catalogued the weapons systems being produced in the United States for Ukraine — tracing the states and congressional districts where they are being made and how senators and House members voted on the funding. We analyzed contracts and press releases and spoke to defense industry experts, diplomats and Pentagon officials to determine where U.S. tax dollars end up.

We have identified 117 production lines in at least 31 states and 71 U.S. cities where American workers are producing major weapons systems for Ukraine. For example, aid that Congress has already approved is going to, among many other places:

    Simi Valley, Calif.; Fullerton, Calif.; Andover, Mass.; Forest, Miss.; and York, Pa., to build Switchblade unmanned aerial systems, radar systems and tactical vehicles.
    York, Pa., and Anniston, Ala., to build Bradley infantry fighting vehicles.
    Aiken, S.C.; Elgin, Okla.; Sterling Heights, Mich.; Endicott, N.Y.; York, Pa.; and Minneapolis to build Howitzers.
    Peoria, Ill.; Clearwater, Palm Bay and Niceville, Fla.; Camden, Ark.; Lancaster and Grand Prairie, Tex.; Rocket Center, W.Va.; and Trenton, N.J., to build HIMARS systems.
    Anniston and Huntsville, Ala., and Camden, Ark., to build parts for the Hydra-70 rocket.
    Farmington, N.M.; Orlando; Tucson; and Troy, Ala., to build Javelin antitank missiles.

Many other weapons systems are being built for Ukraine in factories around our country. Nor does this list count the suppliers that provide these contractors with parts, such as plastic and computer chips, or produce smaller items for Ukraine such as cold-weather and night-vision gear, medical supplies, spare parts and millions of rounds of small-arms ammunition. As one Ukrainian official told me, “Every single state in the U.S. contributes to this effort.”

In other words, as happens with foreign military aid, our aid to Ukraine is not only creating American jobs but also reinvigorating our dangerously atrophied defense industrial base. Vance said in October that “The condition of the American defense industrial base is a national scandal. Repairing it is among our most urgent priorities.” Well, our aid to Ukraine is doing exactly that.
Advertisement

For example, the United States had not built a single new Stinger antiaircraft missile since 2005. The terrorists we were fighting in recent decades did not have jet fighters, so production faltered. Now, thanks to the Ukraine aid that Vance opposes, the Pentagon signed a $624.6 million contract last year to build Stinger missiles in Tucson, to replace about 1,400 sent to Ukraine. Without our Ukraine resupply effort, the Stinger production line likely would have remained dormant — perhaps until bombs started dropping in a conflict over Taiwan.

Or take the $600 million being used to build two weapons systems for Ukraine in St. Charles, Mo. One is the Joint Direct Attack Munition-Extended Range (JDAM ER), an air-launched GPS-guided weapon that converts dumb bombs into precision-guided glide bombs with a range of up to 45 miles (triple the range of the original weapon). The other is the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB), a weapon system newly developed for Ukraine that can be launched from High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and can travel 93 miles, almost double the range of current ground-launched precision munition systems.

If we were not aiding Ukraine, the United States would not be producing either of these weapons. The funding Congress has provided to manufacture both systems injects many millions of dollars into Missouri’s economy and is busying production lines for these advanced capabilities. Those systems will now be available for the United States and Taiwan should a conflict erupt with China, as well as available for Israel.

Workers in West Plains, Mo., are using Ukraine aid to build the MIM-104 Phased Array Tracking Radar for the Patriot missile system that shocked the world this year by downing Russia’s supposedly “invincible” hypersonic missile. This saved Ukrainian lives and proved in real battlefield conditions that the upgraded Patriot system might help defend against hypersonic threats from other adversaries.

Most senators would take credit for these successes. Not Hawley, who is trying to cut funding for these systems being built in his state. The same goes for Rep. Jason T. Smith, who represents Missouri’s 8th Congressional District, where the Patriot radars are built, yet has voted against such aid multiple times. Missouri’s other Republican U.S. senator, Eric Schmitt, has not yet voted on Ukraine aid but has said, “I don’t support these forever wars.” Perhaps he will support defense investments that benefit Missouri workers and strengthen our military production capacity to defend against Communist China?

Among the most shocking examples of our defense industrial base’s decline is our struggle to produce a relatively simple munition: 155-millimeter artillery shells. These shells would be in high demand in any conflict the United States fights. Ukraine is firing 6,000 to 8,000 such shells a day, and Israel is ordering them by the tens of thousands. But before Russia invaded Ukraine last year, the United States was producing fewer than 15,000 shells per month. So the Pentagon has allocated $1.5 billion to boost production by 500 percent, and is on pace to reach 100,000 per month.
Advertisement

Thanks to our withered defense production capacity, including a lack of machine tools, reaching that rate will take two years. Even then, the U.S. output in 2025 is likely to not match that of Russia in 2024. But were it not for our aid to Ukraine, those U.S. production increases would not be happening. Thanks to money Congress approved to arm Kyiv, shells are being assembled in Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, Pa., and in a new factory in Camden, Ark., using components (including explosives, propellant, primers, fuses and shell bodies) produced in such U.S. cities and towns as Kingsport and Cordova, Tenn.; Bristol, Pa.; Middletown, Iowa; and Coachella, Calif. A factory being built in Mesquite, Tex., is expected to produce about 20,000 shells a month and employ at least 125 workers after it comes online early next year. The president of the Mesquite Chamber of Commerce told the New York Times that lawmakers who oppose Ukraine aid are “voting against your constituents. … You’re literally saying no to the people you’re representing.” Yet Rep. Lance Gooden (R), who represents Mesquite, voted against the aid that is helping to fund the new plant in his district.

Our aid to Ukraine is not only forcing the Pentagon to rapidly increase the United States’ ability to produce weapons; it’s also modernizing the U.S. military. As retired Army Maj. Gen. John G. Ferrari, now a colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, recently pointed out, we are giving Ukraine weapons systems that are often decades old and then replacing our stockpiles with more advanced versions. “Because of the existing budget pressures on the Army, it wouldn’t be able to afford this needed modernization of equipment on its own,” Ferrari wrote in an op-ed. “By transferring weapons and gear to Ukraine, the Army would receive more modern weapons in return.”

The U.S.-led effort to arm Ukraine reinvigorates our defense production capacity in still other ways. The United States is also creating incentives for NATO allies to donate their old U.S.-produced and Soviet-era weapons systems to Ukraine by authorizing the sale of newer, modern U.S.-made systems to replace them. For example, Poland sent 250 older Soviet and German tanks to Ukraine and signed a $4.75 billion deal in April 2022 to buy 250 M1A2 Abrams replacement tanks that will be produced at the Lima, Ohio, factory. Poland subsequently made a $1.4 billion deal for additional tanks. Poland also sent its Soviet-made Mi-24 attack helicopters to Ukraine and then signed a $12 billion deal to purchase 96 Apache helicopters that will be built in Mesa, Ariz.

Efforts to arm and equip Ukraine have also dramatically boosted sales of U.S.-made F-35 fighter jets. This benefits workers at production facilities in Palmdale, Calif.; East Hartford, Conn.; Middletown, Iowa; and Fort Worth, as well as in other U.S. cities that produce parts for the jets. Finland, which finalized a $9.4 billion deal to purchase 64 F-35s, has said the new planes will allow it to donate its old F/A-18 Hornet fighters to Ukraine. Norway, which has donated old F-16 fighters to Ukraine, is purchasing 52 F-35s as well as spending $293 million to arm them with 580 StormBreaker Small Diameter Bombs made in Tucson, Ariz.,. Denmark and the Netherlands are donating 61 F-16s to Ukraine and replacing them with additional F-35s.

In all, our analysis found that there are at least 13 production lines in 10 states and 11 U.S. cities producing new American-made weapons for NATO allies to replace the equipment they have sent to Ukraine. As Mark Cancian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies has concluded, “much of the money directly supporting Ukraine is spent not abroad, but here in the United States.” This makes it “a misnomer” to call the $68 billion he calculates we have spent to arm Ukraine “aid.”

We asked for comments from the lawmakers who voted against aid that is going to their districts. “Manufacturing weapons in Ohio is good. You know what’s better? Using them for our own defense rather than sending them to a corrupt money pit in Eastern Europe,” Vance said. “There’s no question why Ukraine wants Abrams tanks … but our constituents have great concerns about seemingly unlimited taxpayer money being used to fund the war in Ukraine,” a spokesman for Jordan replied. “Alabama is right to be proud of our role in securing America’s national defense, but the United States cannot get involved in every conflict around the world,” said Tuberville. “We borrow $1 trillion every six months, and our growing national debt is our most dire national security threat,” said a spokesman for Braun. “I don’t vote for or against wars based on which congressional districts get the jobs,” Gaetz responded.

As I have pointed out, it is in the United States’ vital interests to arm Ukraine in its fight to defeat Russian aggression. Our support for Ukraine is decimating the Russian military threat to NATO, restoring deterrence with China, dissuading other nuclear powers from launching wars of aggression, and improving American military preparedness for other adversaries. The “America First” case for helping Ukraine is clear.

But if those arguments are not persuasive, then this should be: Our military aid to Ukraine is revitalizing manufacturing communities across the United States, creating good jobs here at home and restoring the United States’ capacity to produce weapons for our national defense. Helping Ukraine is the right thing to do for U.S. national security. It is also the right thing to do for American workers.
correction

 

[Brother Ursus]

 

 

[Brother Ursus]