Quote:Ukrainian missile attack hits Russian warship and reconnaissance vessel, navy says

KYIV, March 26 (Reuters) - A Ukrainian missile attack struck a Russian naval reconnaissance vessel and a large landing warship that Moscow captured from Kyiv during the annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014, Ukraine's navy said on Tuesday.

Ukraine hit the vessels during an attack on Crimea at the weekend, the navy said. The fact of that strike was already known, but the military had said it hit two other warships, the Azov and Yamal large landing ships.

The navy said the Konstantin Olshansky large landing ship was struck with a Neptune anti-ship missile, sustaining damage that Kyiv was still assessing.

"Currently, this ship is not combat-capable," navy spokesman Dmytro Pletenchuk said on national television, adding that the Ivan Khurs reconnaissance vessel had also been hit.

There was no immediate comment from Russia.

Russia's Black Sea Fleet, which Moscow used to project power into the Mediterranean and Middle East before the war, has suffered a string of blows as Ukraine has picked off warships and even a submarine with naval drones and missiles.

Earlier this month, Russia confirmed the appointment of a new head of its navy in what was seen in Ukraine as tacit acknowledgement of the success of their naval attacks even though Ukraine does not have any large warships of its own.

The Konstantin Olshansky, then a Ukrainian warship, was captured by Russia along with much of the Ukrainian navy in 2014 when the Kremlin's troops seized control of Crimea, the traditional base of the Black Sea Fleet.

Russia cannibalised the vessel for parts for other landing ships, Pletenchuk said.

But Ukrainian strikes on large landing ships created a shortage and forced the Russian navy to prepare the ship to be brought back into service over the past year, he said.

"It had gone through a renovation and was being prepared for use against Ukraine, so unfortunately the decision was taken to strike this (ship)," he said.

He added that a Ukrainian-made Neptune anti-ship missile was used for the strike.

"Out of 13 (large landing ships), four have been destroyed, four are being repaired, and five are in working order," he said.

The Yamal and Azov warships that were also hit over the weekend have been taken for repairs, Pletenchuk said.

(03-31-2024, 10:24 PM)727Sky Wrote:

Quote:Why the UK says Ukraine can now target Russia with British weapons

In a clear response to a Russian intelligence service arson attack on a London factory, the United Kingdom has said that Ukraine can use British weapons to strike targets inside Russia.

This bears particular note in relation to the U.K.’s Storm Shadow cruise missile, a number of which Ukraine possesses. Ukraine has previously used these missiles to great effect in targeting Russian naval forces in Crimea. But assuming its aircraft can survive Russian air defenses along Ukraine’s northeastern border, Ukraine will now be able to use Storm Shadow to reach targets in and around the Russian cities of Voronezh Kursk, Bryansk, and Orol. This will allow Ukraine to hold Russian command and logistics elements at far greater risk, complicating Russian ambitions to seize Ukraine’s eastern bastion city of Kharkiv.

This is a significant shift in U.K. policy. Britain has strongly supported Ukraine since the start of the war in February 2022, including (as first reported by the Washington Examiner) with robust special forces deployments. But in terms of British weapons provided to Ukraine, until now, the U.K. had restricted their use to Russian targets inside Ukraine. Two things have changed in the last few weeks, however.

First, Russian forces have made tactically significant offensive advances against Ukrainian forces. This has led to growing fears that a likely Russian offensive this summer may lead to major breakthroughs for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s forces. This concern underlines why France is warning that any such breakthrough might constitute grounds for a military intervention in Ukraine’s support. In that sense, the U.K. announcement is likely, in part, also designed to pressure France to allow its Storm Shadow equivalent, SCALP, to be used by Ukraine in the same manner.

Second, Russian intelligence services have launched a covert sabotage campaign against Western targets that Moscow deems to be providing support for Ukraine. Germany recently arrested two people suspected of plotting attacks on targets inside that country. And in March, a Ukrainian-owned warehouse in London was set alight by a group led by a person acting under Russian direction. Further incidents of this kind are anticipated across Europe in the coming weeks. As an extension, an unexplained fire on Friday at a major Diehl Group factory (Diehl is supplying military equipment to Ukraine) in Berlin will have to be investigated carefully.

At least from the U.K. government’s perspective, though, the key motive here is a refusal to allow Russia to set the terms of escalation in relation to the war in Ukraine. Russia wants the West to believe that its continued support for Ukraine risks a direct NATO-Russia confrontation and potentially even nuclear war. This intimidation game is a long-standing one that continues to pay dividends in dividing the West about how far to go in supporting Ukraine. Germany still refuses to provide Ukraine with its Taurus cruise missiles in the face of these threats, for example. The United States is similarly putting greater pressure on Ukraine to avoid striking targets inside Russia. Other European powers, such as Spain, want a return to appeasement.

It’s unsurprising, then, that Moscow is doubling down on its intimidation narrative in response to the U.K. announcement. Putin’s chief spokesman Dmitry Peskov declared on Friday that the U.K. decision “could potentially pose a danger to European security, to the entire European security architecture.” Playing to the Kremlin’s favorite nuclear war line, foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova asked, “How irresponsible and callous do you have to be not to realize what such statements lead to, especially with regard to countries with nuclear weapons?”

Yet what the Kremlin doesn’t seem to understand is that its war on Ukraine has already demolished the entire European security architecture. The U.K. and France recognize that just as Russian nuclear threats were effectively deterred in the Cold War, so can they be deterred today. But to allow Russia to set the terms of this conflict would be to allow Russia to dominate Europe.

And if the 19th and 20th centuries proved anything, it’s that the enabling of single-state dominance of Europe doesn’t ever lead anywhere good.

Quote:Putin spends about $120bn a year on the war – 5.4% of Russia’s $2.2 trillion GDP – with the most commonly used Russian shell costing about $500.

European aid to Kyiv over two years amounts to $88bn – about 0.25% of the EU’s GDP – with shells that cost between $5,000 and $8,000.

This means that, if we include the American contribution, Putin is outproducing the West by at least 2.5:1. This year, without US support, that ratio jumps to 4:1.

At the start of the war, Russia’s population was 142 million to Ukraine’s 40 million – a ratio of about 3.5:1. Now, two years later, that ratio is 7:1. And yet, we demand that Ukraine continue to fight on – but with what?

At the current rate, Kharkiv will fall within the year, and Odesa – next year. By 2026, Ukraine will be capable only of maintaining a small-scale partisan resistance – and that is in the best case scenario.

Lviv will be preserved if Polish troops, as part of NATO, enter the city. This is a more optimistic scenario, provided that the Ukrainian Armed Forces continue their heroic resistance despite all the challenges.

What is the thought process at play? ‘Perhaps if Putin takes Ukraine, he will calm down’? Perhaps he will – although as I have said before, that is highly unlikely.

More likely, when the war is over, Russian soldiers will be at Poland's border. And they'll be joined by some Ukrainians, resentful of the Western betrayal and, in need of some way to earn a living, forced to join a united Russian-Ukrainian army under Russian command.

We saw a similar dynamic happen in Donbas.

I’m sure nobody who has thought about this, really wants to see such an outcome. But as it stands, this is the most likely one. The only way to prevent it is for Western countries to step up their efforts to aid Ukraine and hinder Putin.

Without the support of its allies, Ukraine cannot be expected to fight off the invasion forever. Putin certainly has the support of his own allies. Xi Jinping has said that there are no limits to Sino-Russian co-operation. What can this tell us?

It tells us that when democracies are not willing to unite and act decisively, then dictators feel empowered to act as they please without fear of consequences.

It’s important to keep in mind that Putin does not need territory. Putin needs a war for his domestic goals. And a weak West makes a wonderful target for him.

If the West hopes to trick the world’s autocrats into a world war, then it’s well on the way to realizing that aim.

I work to draw attention to the nuances of Russian policy that mainstream outlets often miss. Follow for more analysis.