Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (187001)	4/26/2022 1:12:12 AM
From: TobagoJack	1 Recommendation Recommended By Maurice Winn Respond to of 217711

Speculation below, but should it turn out that NATO had hand in sinking of the flag ship, then … well … difficulties might arise Of course, naturally, UK could have done it, and planted evidence against the Germans, or against the Americans Very complicated zerohedge.com Escobar: The Moskva Riddle Authored by Pepe Escobar, Neither NATO nor Russia is telling us what really happened with the Moskva, the legendary admiral ship of the Black Sea fleet. NATO because in theory, they know. Moscow, for its part, made it clear they are not saying anything until they can be sure what happened. One thing is certain. If the Russian Ministry of Defense finds out that NATO did it, they will let loose all the dogs from Hell on NATO, as in asymmetrical, lethal and fast. On Moskvas location: it was positioned near one of 3 drilling rigs, used for monitoring a whole sector of the Black Sea with hydrophones and NEVA-BS radar, the most westward one, BK-2 Odessa, approximately 66 km northeast from Snake Island. The whole thing was integrated in the regional monitoring systems. As in everything, literally, was monitored: ships, low flying targets, smaller echoes, even the bobbing head of an unsuspecting swimmer. So there was a quite slim chance that anything not to mention subsonic Neptune missiles and Bayraktar drones could have slipped through this aerial net. So what could have possibly happened? It could have been some kind of underwater drone, released either from some sneaky sub, or by a SBS team, coming from the western coast, with a stopover at Snake Island. Then that drone somehow managed to drill itself through the Moskvas hull from below and exploded its payload inside. What follows comes from a top source in Brussels: serious, trustworthy, proven record spanning nearly two decades. Yet he may be just spreading disinformation. Or bragging. Or that may be rock solid intel. Before we start, we should point out its hard to believe the Neptune/Bayraktar fairytale angle. After all, as weve seen, the Russian fleet had established a multidimensional surveillance/defense layer in the direction of Odessa. The Moskva was near Odessa, closer to Romania. A year ago, the source maintains, a new phased array locator was installed on it: the illumination range is 500 km. According to the standard Ukrainian narrative, first the Moskva was hit by a drone, and the locators and antennas were smashed. The Moskva was half blind. Then according to the Ukrainian narrative they launched two Neptune cruise missiles from the shore. Guidance was carried out by NATOs Orion, which was hanging over Romania. The missiles zoomed in on the ship with the homing heads turned off, so that the radiation beam would not be detected. So we have guidance by NATOs Orion, transmitting the exact coordinates, leading to two hits, and subsequent detonation of ammunition (thats the part acknowledged by the Russian Ministry of Defense). A strategic hitThe Moskva was on combat duty 100-120 km away from Odessa controlling the airspace within a radius of 250-300 km. So in fact it was ensuring the overlap of the southern half of Moldova, the space from Izmail to Odessa and part of Romania (including the port of Constanta). Its positioning could not be more strategic. Moskva was interfering with NATOs covert transfer of military aircraft (helicopters and fighter jets) from Romania to Ukraine. It was being watched 24/7. NATO air reconnaissance was totally on it. As the Moskva killer, NATO may have not chosen the Neptune, as spread by Ukrainian propaganda; the source points to the fifth-generation NSM PKR (Naval Strike Missile, with a range of 185 km, developed by Norway and the Americans.) He describes the NSM as able to reach the target along a programmed route thanks to the GPS-adjusted INS, independently find the target by flying up to it at an altitude of 3-5 meters. When reaching the target, the NSM maneuvers and deploys electronic interference. A highly sensitive thermal imager is used as a homing system, which independently determines the most vulnerable places of the target ship. As a direct consequence of hitting the Moskva, NATO managed to reopen an air corridor for the transfer of aircraft to the airfields of Chernivtsi, Transcarpathian and Ivano-Frankivsk regions. In parallel, after the destruction of the Moskva, the Black Sea Fleet, according to the source, no longer seems to have a ship equipped with a long-range anti-aircraft missile system. Of course a three-band radar Sky-M system remains in play in Crimea, capable of tracking all air targets at a range of up to 600 km. One wonders whether this is enough for all Russian purposes. So what do we really have here? Fantasy or reality? There was only one way to know. I ran the info past the inestimable Andrei Martyanov, who knew the Moskva as Slava in 1981 when she was afloat in the Northern Bay of Sevastopol and my class which was at first summer practice on board of old cruiser Dzerzhinsky was given an extensive introduction to her. So, she was an old lady and it is too bad that she had to finish her long life this way and at this time. Martyanov, once again, was the consummate professional, stressing no one, at this stage, really knows what happened. But he made some crucial points: Per NSM (if we accept this version), even with its Low Observability and GPS guidance under normal (that is sea up to state 5-6) and normal radio-permeability, even the Moskvas old frigate radar would have seen those missiles in distances of tens of kilometers, somewhere between 15-20 for sure. NSM, as any NATO anti-shipping missile, are subsonic, with their velocity roughly 300 meters per second. That leaves, even in a 15 kilometer range, 45 seconds to detect track and develop a firing solution for whatever on duty AD complex. More than enough reaction time. Martyanov also stresses, it is impossible to hide the external impact of the anti-shipping missile one will immediately know what hit the ship. Moreover, to hit and sink such a target as the Moskva one has to launch a salvo and not only two missiles, likely 3-4 at least. In this case, Russia would know who attacked Moskva. Does NATO know? I am positive this event has NATO written all over it, if it is not an internal sabotage which absolutely cannot be excluded at this stage. I am sure if Nebo was operational it would have seen the salvo. Which brings us to the inevitable clincher: If NATO was involved, I am sure we will see some retaliation, after all, as I am on record all the time, US bases in Middle East and elsewhere are nothing more than fat prestigious targets. So get ready: something lethally asymmetrical may be about to pop up. Sent from my iPhone

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (187001)	4/26/2022 1:21:46 AM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217711

Interesting path to defeating Russia edition.cnn.com Austin's assertion that US wants to 'weaken' Russia underlines Biden strategy shift Washington (CNN) — As Russia's invasion of Ukraine has transformed into a grinding war of attrition with no meaningful peace deal in sight, the US and its allies have begun to convey a new, longer-term goal for the war: to defeat Russia so decisively on the battlefield that it will be deterred from launching such an attack ever again. That message was delivered most clearly on Monday, when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin told reporters after a trip to Ukraine's capital city of Kyiv that "we want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine." A National Security Council spokesperson said that Austin's comments were consistent with what the US' goals have been for months -- namely, "to make this invasion a strategic failure for Russia." "We want Ukraine to win," the spokesperson added. "One of our goals has been to limit Russia's ability to do something like this again, as Secretary Austin said. That's why we are arming the Ukrainians with weapons and equipment to defend themselves from Russian attacks, and it's why we are using sanctions and export controls that are directly targeted at Russia's defense industry to undercut Russia's economic and military power to threaten and attack its neighbors." US officials traveling with Austin said that the message is one that he planned to reiterate, according to a senior administration official. Russia coming out of the conflict weaker than before is an idea that other Biden administration officials have referenced. US officials, however, had previously been reluctant to state as plainly that the US' goal is to see Russia fail, and be militarily neutered in the long term, remaining cautiously optimistic that some kind of negotiated settlement could be reached. One eastern European official told CNN that mentality was incredibly frustrating. "The only solution to this is for Ukraine to win," he said. The shift in strategy has come about over the past few weeks, evidenced by a growing tolerance for increased risk with the more complex, western weaponry being sent in, and is a reflection of the belief that Putin's goals in Ukraine would not end if he manages to seize part of Ukraine, as they didn't after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, a British diplomat said. "Even if they come up with some fix where (Putin) gets a bit of the Donbas and it all goes dormant, logic would dictate there's more road to run in this. So therefore what you can take off the battlefield in this window is not only a short-term win it's also a longer term strategy as well." Now, there is a growing realization among US and Western officials -- especially after the Russians' massacre of civilians in the Ukrainian town of Bucha -- that Russia needs to be hurt so much economically and on the battlefield that its aggression is stopped for good, US and Western officials told CNN. "So it has already lost a lot of military capability," Austin said. "And a lot of its troops, quite frankly. And we want to see them not have the capability to very quickly reproduce that capability." Biden administration officials are optimistic that that is an achievable goal, sources told CNN. Administration officials and congressional sources said they believe that the continued military support to Ukraine could result in significant blows to Russia that will impair their long-term military capabilities, strategically benefiting the US. Already, the US has begun to send heavier and more sophisticated equipment to Ukraine that it had refrained from providing in the past, including 72 howitzers and Phoenix Ghost tactical drones. "The way we are looking at this is that it's making an investment to neuter the Russian army and navy for next decade," said a congressional source familiar with the ongoing military assistance to Ukraine. White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Monday that while "obviously right now the war is in Ukraine," the US and its allies are "are also looking to prevent (Russia) from expanding their efforts and President Putin's objectives beyond that too." A delicate 'balancing act' Officials noted, though, that the US and its allies are carefully threading a needle when it comes to penalizing Russia -- both because of the collateral damage harsh sanctions could have on the global economy, and because of the risk that Putin could lash out if he is backed too far into a corner. A source familiar with the US' intelligence assessments about Russia said "there is certainly a balancing act that needs to be taken into consideration" when punishing the country, "whether it's in the sanctions space or in the military and intelligence support space." This person added that while the US still assesses that Putin's red lines for use of nuclear weapons haven't changed, "one of those red lines is regime stability," they said -- meaning that Putin could lash out if he feels his rule is seriously threatened. A US official said separately that he believes Austin's comments were not helpful for that reason, and because it could play into the Russian propaganda line that NATO and US support for Ukraine is a power play. The goal is not to tell the Russians that "no matter what, the US and NATO are going to weaken you," this official said, but rather that the West will aim to punish Russia as long as it is at war with Ukraine. A State Department spokesperson said that the sanctions the US and its allies have put in place are "all in response to Putin's war of aggression in Ukraine. They are intended to prevent Putin from buying more ammo, guns, missiles -- to stop him from funding his war machine, to stop the killing. They are also intended to punish those who actively support Putin's unprovoked, brutal war. This is not about harming the Russian people." It is still unclear what the US would do about the sanctions if Russia reached a meaningful peace deal with Ukraine and withdrew its forces. Multiple sources told CNN that in that scenario, the US would likely consider lifting some sanctions, in a show of good faith, while keeping others. The US and allies, including the UK, have also been weighing the feasibility of a "snapback" mechanism that would allow them to quickly reimpose the sanctions should Moscow violate any agreements reached with Kyiv, the sources said. But with the conflict still raging and the prospects of a peace deal looking increasingly dim, those options are a very long way off from being implemented, officials said. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in March that Russia's change in behavior must be "irreversible" before the US considers lifting sanctions. "They will want to make sure that anything that's done is, in effect, irreversible, that this can't happen again, that Russia won't pick up and do exactly what it's doing in a year or two years or three years," Blinken said in an interview with NPR. Shifting concerns about escalation Russia's poor performance and significant losses on the battlefield have contributed significantly to the US' increasingly emboldened posture, officials said. Whereas Washington had been previously concerned that sending heavy artillery might be viewed as a provocation, Biden has announced billions of dollars in new shipments of tanks, missiles and ammunition over the past month, an indication that some initial worries about escalating the conflict have waned. The US is also preparing to train Ukraine's armed forces on more state-of-the-art, NATO-capable weapons systems, Austin told reporters on Monday -- a move that will allow the US and its allies to provide more powerful weapons to Ukraine more quickly, since those systems are more readily available than the Soviet-era equipment the west has had to scrounge for to date. "There are a number of shifts happening simultaneously," the British diplomat said. "One is looking at future capabilities and that's related to the artillery and more modern weaponry. Two, let's take out what's on the battlefield." Biden himself has been steadily ratcheting up the rhetoric in describing Putin -- going from calling him a war criminal to saying he cannot remain in power to accusing him of committing genocide -- despite worries among some of his advisers the language could cause Putin to lash out. But the President has downplayed those concerns in private, according to people familiar with the conversations, saying that articulating what is plainly evident is more important than risking possible escalation. And he has underscored that Russia's military capabilities don't appear as strong as the US once believed. Ambassador Nathan Sales, who until 2021 served as acting under secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights at the State Department, said the "bottom line" is that "a weaker Russia means a more stable world," and that the US should prepare for its Russia policy "As long as Putin is calling the shots, Russia is going to be a malign actor," he said. "And so we can't hope for Russia to be a constructive and responsible player in Europe or in the broader international system." Sales added that the US should therefore prepare for "a prolonged period" of its Russia policy being aimed at limiting its ability "to cause mischief around the world." Sent from my iPhone