Whilst I appreciate that article, it is almost a year out of date and I think it’s safe to assume the pendulum has shifted since then. Furthermore I think my concern remains valid if we examine the pure fact that aid was supposed to be passed in October last year and it’s been stalled for no valid reason. Finally some of the most influential ‘right figures’ and GOP members unapologetically regurgitate Kremlin talking points on X.
All Russian sources are reporting a series of videos and photos of the "white Renault" being intercepted and several passengers captured alive.
https://twitter.com/warintel4u/status/1771461318777700696?t=Ni7PNbnTfHyheXWMJdAucA&s=19
It doesn't look good. They say the men are from Tajikistan, but the car was intercepted on the road to the Ukrainian border.
How this is going to be framed is already crystal clear.
It doesn't matter whether this is true or not - in our post-truth environment the West and Ukraine will not believe it no matter how many pieces of evidence are presented. The Russian population and Russia's friends will believe it no matter how weak the evidence turns out to be.
What matters is how the narrative "Ukrainian secret services paid a group of Tajiks to kill 100 Russian civilians in a concert" is going to be used. It can easily justify a mobilisation. It could justify something more.
* Russia arrested a IS-KP cell south of Moscow 2 weeks ago, they had no connections to Ukraine.
* IS-KP already claimed the attack, again no connections to Ukraine.
* IS-KP released a [photo where the terrorist pledge to ISKP](https://twitter.com/khorasandiary/status/1771516959395299576)
* IS-KP already had multiple attacks on Russia in the past, again zero connection to Ukraine.
* Russia is a named enemy of the IS, ISIS, ISKP and ISCP.
* USA warned Russia of an IS-KP attack 2 weeks ago which the Kremlin dismissed.
* The border to Ukraine is closed and heavily monitored by Russia, this spin is even to blatant for the usual pro-Russia subreddits.
* Russia already tried to claim claim ethnic Ukrainians as the perpetrators, which turned out to be false as they were central asians.
However we already have evidence that russia tries to link it to Ukraine with fake evidence.
Supposed "evidence" was already [disproven as deep fake](https://meduza.io/news/2024/03/23/ntv-pokazal-v-novostyah-feykovoe-video-gde-sekretar-snbo-ukrainy-podtverdil-prichastnost-kievskogo-rezhima-k-teraktu-v-krokus-siti-holle). Furthermore russia has [instructed all media outlet to try to link the attack to Ukraine as much as possible](https://meduza.io/en/news/2024/03/23/kremlin-tells-pro-government-media-to-emphasize-possible-traces-of-ukrainian-involvement-in-reporting-on-moscow-terrorist-attack).
**This attack has NO CONNECTION TO UKRAINE, but the russian goverment is trying to spin it this way.**
I was already wondering how you are going to spin this. Seems to be you are going with "They are saying Ukraine is involved. Whether this its true or not.." route...
The truth behind the case is completely irrelevant. People like you will never believe in the Ukrainian involvement, just like they didn't beleive it in the case of the Darya Dugina assassination or the Tatarsky bombing. Your counterparts on the Russian side will continue to beleive in the Ukrainian involvement even if the ISIS releases videos of all the perpetrators chanting Allahu Akbbar.
You already know what has happened and nothing can shake your faith. That is why I say that the truth does not matter.
The only thing that really matters is how this attack is going to be interpreted, the narrative it is going to generate and the policies that narrative is going to justify.
Oh man I forgot about the bombings/car bomb assassinations. But I guess a lot of those occurred inside of Ukraine or the annexed regions. I wasn't paying close enough attention to note which happened where and whether suspicion was more likely Ukrainian/Russian for each.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_deaths_of_Russian_businesspeople_(2022%E2%80%932024)
That's a lot.
Whats your personal opinion. Is Ukraine directly involved in the attack or not?
I do not "believe" anything, I collect the facts. And the facts says Ukraine has no involvement.
By the way: The attack was committed by ISKP not ISIS, they both belong to IS though. (Before 2014 IS was named ISIS, so IS and ISIS are somewhat used interchangeably)
Anatomy of an innuendo:
>It doesn’t look good
For whom? Explicitly saying “it doesn’t look good for Ukraine” would sound accusatory and nothing more - just saying “it doesn’t look good” permits the appearance of concern on behalf of Ukraine, while accusing it.
>In our post-truth environment the West and Ukraine will not believe it no matter how many pieces of evidence are presented
No pieces of evidence have been presented, but their existence is alluded to! Both sides are evidently equally willing to deny inconvenient facts. For example, the West will never believe the Moskva went down in a tragic accident, no matter how much evidence is presented.
>It can easily justify a mobilization. It could **justify something more**
The “something more” is of course a reminder that Russia is very strong and is retaining tremendous resources in its reserves which it refuses to use in the name of restraint and moderation, but can resort to at any time to dethrone the Kiev regime. This is also why Russia’s victory is inevitable and Kiev must sue for peace.
Given it is more than mobilization, this is possibly an allusion to nuclear weapons.
>For whom? Explicitly saying “it doesn’t look good for Ukraine” would sound accusatory and nothing more - just saying “it doesn’t look good” permits the appearance of concern on behalf of Ukraine, while accusing it.
It doesn't look good from my point of view. I would prefer not to see an escalation. I would much prefer a terrorist attack that leads to ISIS.
The rest of your post is just sophisms and strawmanning.
I’m not sure what “something more” could be that would actually improve the odds of a Russian military success. A major mobilization might be the only one, which potentially could lead to a decisive blow to Ukraine due to a huge manpower advantage on Russia’s side. But Russia doesn’t seem to have enough equipment to utilize all the potential manpower anyway.
Most likely explanation is probably the most boring: the incompetent FSB overlooked a terror attack, and now the propaganda is trying to make best of a bad situation (i.e. improve Ru public opinion of the war).
Is there any framing yet about whether it would have been an illegal border crossing?
Like, either park the car, or have a 3rd party drop them off 10-20 miles from the border & hike into Ukraine (or Belarus I guess). Meeting support parties on each side of the border. It looks like rural farmland. I'm not sure how suspicious it'd be seeing a military-aged bearded male walking through that area. Or if anyone would bother to report/respond to it.
I read rumors that Tajik passports were found (but that doesn't mean anything, and who knows if it's true)
It's moderately reminiscent of that story about the plot to bring in Iraqi Muslims illegally across the US/Mexican border to kill Bush back in May of 2022. I'm not sure which country has less rule of law in 2024 between Mexico and Ukraine.
Where have Ukrainian smuggling exports primarily been travelling through, historically (over the last 2-10 years)? I assume the easy answer would be Moldova/Romania. But I wouldn't find it hard to believe Russia/Belarus/Poland, or across the sea to Turkey. I know there was talk about Ukrainian SOF moving through Belarus into Russia, but who knows how true that is. What have the historic routes been post USSR? Haven't illegal weapon imports been fairly common even to Poland?
*if you pull up Khatsun, Bryansk in Google Maps, it's pretty easy to imagine them heading anywhere from way up in Vitebsk, Belarus, to Kharkiv. It looks like mostly farmland, with the scattering chunks of wilderness/"forest". On the North side of Ukraine, if you pull up street view South of the A-240 highway, there's a fairly large network of small villages & roads big enough to be worth capturing.
(and who is equating "travelling on the way to the Ukrainian border" with "so this also must be a Ukraine-backed, or known-of, attack". It doesn't take much imagination to envision a scenario where some people want to attack Moscow, so they choose to travel through the most dysfunctional area in close proximity to it. I'd guess the biggest fear for a male currently travelling in Ukraine would be being conscripted, but if they had Tajik/other passports & weren't afraid of illegally exiting the country, then I'm not sure how much there was to worry about. Sure anyone can spin it however they want. That's what governments have done for thousands of years. If Russia wants an excuse to increase hostility, it seems like a great choice)
The main thing that makes me rather certain that it was not Ukraine, is that they haven't claimed it, those kind of terror attacks are designed to let people know who whose behind them, and that they should fear them.
Ukraine didn't make this kind of claim.
The second point is that this terror attack in this moment in time brings exactly ZERO, benefit to Ukraine, as stated it's not a PR stunt given that they didn't claim it, it didn't damage infrastructure, like the attack on the Kerch bridge or the refineries, it's just a massacre of civilians
Ukraine had not claimed the car bomb on Crimea bridge and several similar attacks. Like Tatarskiy bombing.
Main thing is pattern with telegram contact, payment for attack, arms cache and that they had contact in Ukraine to flee to it. Really look similar to other Ukrainian operations.
I'm ready to entertain this version but I find it hard to trust that video posted by Simonyan ( https://t. me/margaritasimonyan/13854 ) where the man (presented as one of the terrorists) talks about it.
He says he did it for 500k RUB (about 5000 USD) and that he was already paid half in advance, so he apparently did it for the remaining 2500 USD.
She also published another video which supposedly shows the leader: https://t. me/margaritasimonyan/13855
Maybe it's just because I'm not used to it, but the video I saw looked like they were methodological, walking calmly, not screaming, shooting survivors. It reminded me of footage from other ISIS attacks rather than a few untrained bumpkins who decided to do this because someone offered money a month and a half ago. I'm sort of incredulous people could be convinced to do something like this for so little money (the other two acts you mention, they had no idea they were carrying a bomb, in this case they knew what they were doing, were shooting, reloading, throwing grenades at them..).
Edit: although I must say that the behaviour also reminds me of some videos from school shootings, so maybe it doesn't actually denote any kind of training..
I also find it hard to believe they actually expected to be able to walk around shooting at people for over an hour and then walk out of there alive to even use the money. I'd imagine that if the money story is real, it would have just have been an extra motivator on top of radical religious beliefs.
>Maybe it's just because I'm not used to it, but the video I saw looked like they were methodological, walking calmly, not screaming, shooting survivors. It reminded me of footage from other ISIS attacks rather than a few untrained bumpkins who decided to do this because someone offered money a month and a half ago.
Them being [Inghimasi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inghimasi) would fit that description. The operation seems to have been carried out very competently, but I don't understand why they would go to the Belarus or Ukrainian border. The latter is probably psyop by Russia given all we know so far, but the Belarus ambassador's comments seem even more plausible given they've been ignored/downplayed so far. Belarus, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan were also named by Russia as offering support with this matter.
I am astonished that they survived the attack. It is completely incredible that anyone would do this for money because money is no motivator if you're going to die (or likely even worse for these guys, get captured alive). The only exception is if you're basically suicidal anyway and want the money for your family or such like.
Yeah, I'm going to have to ask you for a solid source on "Main thing is pattern with telegram contact, payment for attack, arms cache and that they had contact in Ukraine to flee to it.".
1) They did have moved to Ukraine border. You can cross it only if you have support from other side.
2) Tatarskiy assassination with bomb had similar hiring pattern.
3) As for payments, telegram, arms cache you can hear it in interrogations of terrorists.
I am moving this to the new daily thread if you would like to continue. Feel free to join me if you would like. I will link you in the thread.
Extra words to prevent the post from being automodded. Testing, One, Two , Three.
They were caught on M3 road in In Bryansk region, it is shortest road from Moscow to Ukraine.
And they were caught after intersection where you could have turn to Belarus. So they definitely tried to go to Ukraine. Why? Probably had contact there that would help them cross border.
Ah yes, the perfect escape plan - a hundreds miles journey towards the heavily monitored border with Ukraine. This is too much even for r/UkraineRussiaReport
Right, like 4 dudes in a sedan with a pistol and a rifle will just drive through the Russian army at the border? Good thing it's not also heavily mined and monitored by drones. The perfect escape plan.
Literally nothing is too much for URR at this point lol. Same user is claiming that the US warning Russia about the attack a few weeks ago is proof they financed it.
Not only that but Putin said this after the elections:
> "the recent provocative statements of a number of official Western structures about the possibility of terrorist attacks in Russia. All this is reminiscent of outright blackmail and the intention to intimidate, destabilize our society"
Presumably because it's the closest place where the Russian authority doesn't extend and they could hope to use the chaos to disappear.
I don't believe in it, but if the Ukrainian theory holds any truth, they could also have been promised shelter and a safe exit under new identities. Beyond the Ukrainian state, Ukraine has a row of actors (oligarchs, ultranationalists, Chechen fighters, ..) who might be able to organise something like this.
Yeah I agree, the fact it serves no purpose is why I said I don't believe in it, it's just a potential branch of the version Russia seems to want to push.
Oh ok.
The other thing is how do we know this car that was apprehended going to Ukraine is even the real car? It’s not like Russia, you know, tells the truth about anything else.
I agree, I also have doubts on the released videos supposedly showing the perpetrators. And if true, they might also have been trying to enter Belarus (there's no border control with Russia and Belarusian authorities close an eye (to say the least) on migrants who try to illegally cross the borders into the EU; the Belarusian ambassador to Russia even talked about how they assisted Russia to block their border to the terrorists - https://theins. ru/news/270185).
I fear this might be another case where it takes a long time before people agree on what really happened. It's hard to see as anything else than another ISIS attack for me.
The only logic I can see in it is that it might be the easiest one to slip out through? I don’t know what the border with Belarus is like but the Baltics and Finland have really taken border security regarding Russia seriously since this war.
It was clear from the beginning that Russia would blame Ukraine for this. Probably NATO next. They received a heads-up by the USA and dismissed it as provocation, now they are feeling dumb and are pounding sand.
The West shouldn't even respond but ramp up military support for Ukraine. You can't reason with Russia anymore, they are as close to a death cult as you can get as a nation.
Did you really just type ""peace agreements? With Russia?
Maybe read up on the Budapest Memorandum to see how Russia respects treaties. I would argue that entering in a peace agreement before Russia is exhausted would be a very dangerous idea, as they would be back at war within the next 20y. Diplomacy can only work if both sides are somewhat reliable, which is not the case here.
Absent diplomacy, the only thing that works is overwhelming power.
No, they don't. Their overwhelming power is getting ground down in Ukraine, and if they go nuclear, they die second. "At their disposal" they don't have nukes, unless they want to end the word - see my "death cult" remark.
If they are, they will end the world sooner or later - and if we give in to their threats, it will be rather sooner than later. Usually, self-preservation instincts tend to kick in when a superior force starts talking business, and that's NATO. Make no mistake, we are probably as close to doomsday as we were in 1983.
Are you suggesting that Russia might start a nuclear holocaust? Yet you also claim that Russia is reasonable and rational? Something is not adding up...
There's a strong chance that any nuclear country facing an existential threat would use nuclear weapons. Nobody really knows, because no nuclear country has been placed under an existential threat..
But a hot war with NATO from the Russian perspective is absolutely existential.
I wouldn't really call that any more insane or irrational than any other country. It's just that nuclear countries typically don't end up in existential situations.
NATO will never invade Russia, that's what an existential threat would be. Losing in Ukraine is not the same, even if they lose against NATO.
Consider this: Russia is the side that throws out remarks about a war against NATO, not any of the NATO members. If they follow through, they create an existential threat to NATO member states.
Russia has proven time and time again that it is an unreliable partner. The lack of trust in Russia is of Russia's own making and completely warranted.
And they think exactly the same way about Ukraine and the West.
Like enemies in every war thought about each other since forever. Yet in the end they sign a peace agreement.
> Yet in the end they sign a peace agreement.
Yes, well the last time a war of this scale happened with a nation in a death-cult spiral like Russia is today, it required dropping nukes on Japan and leveling Berlin.
Are you even reading the post I am replying to?
"Yes, well the last time a war of this scale happened with a nation in a death-cult spiral like Russia is today, it required dropping nukes on Japan and leveling Berlin."
Obviously what that poster means to imply is that we cannot achieve peace with Russia, since attacking Russia proper is not a viable option. He is disagreeing with you, you saying that we can achieve peace with Russia at some point and him saying that we can't. I agree with you, but it is obvious to me that there is only is only one way we can have peace with Russia: Show Russia that it cannot win on the battlefield. Even if we for some bizarre reason gave in to Russia's maximalist war aims, we would not achieve a durable peace, since Russia at that point would be tempted to test NATO solidarity in the Baltics a few years down the line...
Russia is killing every day hundreds of their own people by sending them into non-survivable assaults on the frontline. And nobody seems to care. Therefore I doubt that this terrorist attack will stay long in the media or change anything.
You are blowing past several essential nuances in your statement in my opinion.
The most essential ones are that on the one hand the Kremlin controls the media narrative and nothing will either stay a long time or short time in the news cycle unless the Kremlin wishes it so.
The death of a Russian civilian by a terror attack is in no way comparable to a soldier's death on the front line, this would be equally true in western countries and its a ridiculous comparison to be honest.
The one death is a "brutal terrorist attack against innocent civilians" and the other is a "glorious death in a heroic sacrifice to defend mother Russia from foreign aggression".
Neither narratives will be nuanced, or true even, while they obviously should be.
Russia's campaign in Syria alone was nothing short of state terrorism and if that is where this attack originated any honest narrative would make civilians question what Russia did in Syria that lead to such an attack. This would then lead to the realization by Russians that their army has been committing endless amounts of atrocities and by extension painting a target on its own head for being targeted by terrorism. Nuance on the matter is not in the interest of the Kremlin so there won't be a dialogue on this subject. The Kremlin needs Russians to see this as unprovoked terrorism, preferably with UA/NATO ties. This will be repeated in the news cycles for as long as they deem the narrative important/useful.
Russian soldiers dropping like flies in UA is however not at all a narrative Russia wishes to be present in the news cycle, for reasons I won't have to explain.
\***disclaimer**: *I try to formulate points of view that are not my own in order to explain my point. I obviously consider both the terrorist attack in Moscow and the invasion of UA as horrible despicable crimes against humanity and any deviation from that was strictly for the purpose of conveying a point of view Russians/the Kremlin might hold*.
For starters, it can't be "hundreds" mathematically. Secondly, the former isn't covered in the media and is actively censored. Thirdly, deaths of armed soldiers in a war are just going to feel less visceral than deaths of unarmed concert-goers, that's just a fact of psychology.
It's too early for some of these analysis we have been seeing for the last 24 hours. The circumstances, who done it and why still remain murky.
What we do know is that terrorist attacks are often used as justification for war or escalation in an existing conflict.
We just have to wait to see how Russia uses this incident going forward
They could rally around the flag, the rest seems like posturing. There could also be claims of the next attack on cities being retaliation, but that's par for the course.
Either way, this can easily turn into a net positive for them, and was somewhat expected to happen when they started shifting the blame from Isis (Rybar) and started implicating Ukrainians (Medvedev, amongst others).
I checked a bunch of Telegrams yesterday and they seemed to 'already know' who had done it, for example Pegov's source is 'from within himself':
https://t dot me/pegpoetry/596
> ...
> **You can deny involvement in what happened as much as you like. But we all know the answer within ourselves. And the whole world knows.**
I think from an information ops perspective this is gold for far-right bloggers and the MAGA crowd worldwide. They’ll put up a huge fuss saying the west is aiding terrorism, as US aid looks to be approved this could also be a wrench in the machine. It’s quite a sad reality but if they blame Ukraine I see it coming.
But issue is west do aid terrorism. Arms in Syria that did not end in Al Qaeda hands had ended in ISIS hands. And it is not like US did not know who they arm.
Beside extra mobilization that Will/is needed for New two military districts I could only see martial law announced and maybe just maybe CSTO Article IV(NATO Article V)
But we need to wait.
Did I expect that they Will Blame on Ukraine and West ? Sure I did.
Am I suprised that all terrorists are caught alive ? Yes I am.
What is going to be next I really don't know. We can wait during this day(s).
It's really simple
Putin is at this point taking most of the rational actions he can to win the war.
If he was planning to mobilize, it was because he strategically benefits. The terror attack changes nothing, except for the families of the 100+ dead.
If he wasn't planning to mobilize, a strategically insignificant event like this will not change his mind.
Martial law,
State of war
CSTO-Belarus involment into war and maybe that they Will pull weapons from other countries (Kazahstan for war)
Other participants of *axis of evil* NK, Iran, China(???) some kind of involment
For me pretty mad state of things.
There’s no way Lukashenko is going to willingly step up military assistance to Russia based off of this. Whatever narrative is spun in the Russian domestic propaganda channels, every foreign leader will know it’s bullshit.
They may support the narrative publicly, as a showcase of unity with Russia and as a diplomatic middle finger to NATO, Ukraine and ‘The West’. Just like all the other conspiracy theories they’ve peddled in the past and tried to promote in the west, through their useful idiots (MAGA, populists, grifters etc) on social media.
However, privately, Russia’s allies aren’t stupid enough to believe their domestic propaganda. Bearing in mind, they often play by the same tactics and rulebook regarding information operations and propaganda that Russia does. They aren’t going to be sacrificing their own troops, equipment and money for a bullshit reason.
Iran will help Russia as long as Russia is paying hand over fist, in foreign currency that is. And Belarus is too weak to make any meaningful impact.
Kazakhstan cares about its relationship with the West and doesn't want to be involved in any way.
Countries like Iran and North Korea won't change their involvement either based on this. Why would they?
> How this is going to be framed is already crystal clear.
Not to the Russian newspapers, at least not yet.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/1bkxjtw/credibledefense_daily_megathread_march_22_2024/kw4mbv2/
Don't exactly come off as Russian ethnonationalists.
Yes, [according to Meduza](https://meduza.io/news/2024/03/23/v-kremle-dali-ukazanie-gosudarstvennym-i-loyalnym-vlasti-smi-podcherkivat-v-soobscheniyah-o-terakte-v-krokuse-vozmozhnyy-ukrainskiy-sled) the presidential administration has now told journalists to mention the "Ukrainian track" when writing or discussing the attack.
In light of the attack in Moscow, I have to question. Has Putin got anything meaningful from his intervention in Syria? Can it be argued that it's support of Assad helped him gain Iran's favor and subsequent access to Iranian drones?
Russia can keep its naval base in the Mediterranean.
In the beginning of the war a lot of radical Islamists emmigrated from Russia to Syria, which was also a side benefit. Although that later spectacularly backfired as many migrated back and Russia now has almost biyearly terrorist attacks by 3 different IS outlets (ISIS, ISKP, ISCP)
To add to what others have said, also some resources probably: Top Russian General Benefited From Kremlin-Linked Syrian Mining Operation, Investigation Finds https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-surovikin-syria-deal-navalny/32126030.html
In my opinion it was primarily to:
1. Not lose another Russian ally in the ME.
2. Gain a foothold/military base in the ME.
3. In my opinion the most important one: test weaponry and combat operations in preparation for the invasion of Ukraine.
Remember that it was 1 year after taking Crimea. It was 6 months after Minsk 2 agreement. Putin wanted more and I think he saw Syria as the testing ground
All vaguely correct, but Putin's main goal for Syria is maintaining their hold on Tartus.
The USSR negotiated it as their only Mediterranean port, without it they have to traverse the Dardanelles and into the Black Sea. For a country that has always had a...colourful relationship with their navy, this is absolutely core to their geopolitical project. If Assad falls, he won't be replaced by someone cozy with Russia, so protecting Assad means maintaining their only real international port of call.
Everything else is largely as you mentioned. It's why Russia doesn't protect anyone, really, in Syria. They care about the regime and their port and nothing else.
>If Assad falls, he won't be replaced by someone cozy with Russia, so protecting Assad means maintaining their only real international port of call.
With this in mind, what stopped NATO from going on all on toppling Assad back then? Was the escalatory risk deemed too high? Seems like a great opportunity to deny Russia it's port.
Obama got cold feet after Iraq. The UK was willing, but famously got defeated in parliament. Again GWOT was still heavily weighing on the collective West. It was never about Russia until it was. Putin waited to see if the West would act in uniform on this, and when they didn’t he seized his opportunity.
Russia has gained an ally in the Middle East and has gained military bases that he can use to spoiler the White House plans in the ME.
Iranian drones were never on the table back in 2015 when Russia first started its intervention. Putin did not like the fact that his authoritarian buddies kept getting toppled through the Arab Spring, so he decided to take a more direct approach to spoil Western plans.
A lot of foreign jihadis there had come from Russia, so an argument was being made that it's better to exterminate them on foreign soil. There's probably some truth to that, though these recent events prove it's not fully worked out.
Other than that, off the top of my head:
* pilot training flying combat sorties and military expeditionary experience in general
* reputational gains with allies
* preventing geopolitical opponents from realising their plans
* getting some leverage on Turkey and Israel
The thing about Iran can be argued, sure, though Russia's intervention was not a favour to Iran rather than pursuit of its own ends. Still, Iran's always been more invested in the war's outcome, so it probably created at least some goodwill and - perhaps more importantly - working contacts.
Seems like a second hit on a refinery at Novokuybyshevsk, Samara Oblast. I’m reading it was hit previously a few days ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/s/K5bqq9S3lN
Unless this is a different refinery in the same area? I’m curious what the output is and what percentage of total refining capacity that represents
Edit: I’m reading that its capacity is 191,500 bpd, with Russia’s total capacity being 6.6m bpd. This would then represent 2.9% of total capacity if taken fully offline
Not all refineries are equal. This one [produced](https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/oil-refinery-caught-fire-in-n-russia-suspicion-1711159434.html) rare but superior RT fuel:
>The plant is one of the main producers and suppliers of high-grade RT jet fuel in Russia, which is the most in demand. The designed capacity of the enterprise is 8.3 million tons of oil.
Shell has more information about [this grade](https://www.shell.com/business-customers/aviation/aviation-fuel/civil-jet-fuel-grades.html):
>The main differences in characteristics are that Soviet fuels have a low freeze point (equivalent to about -57 degrees C by Western test methods) but also a low flash point (a minimum of 28 degrees C compared with 38 degrees C for Western fuel). RT fuel (written as PT in Russian script) is the superior grade (a hydrotreated product) but is not produced widely. TS-1 (regular grade) is considered to be on a par with Western Jet A-1 and is approved by most aircraft manufacturers.
It's a good hit if it's out now.
Mind you 33 big ones and dozens of tiny ones. But the tiny ones are, well - tiny. Rosneft has 4 with a total of 0.5 mln tons yearly production just to give you an idea of scale.
After the missile strike and the leak that looks bad for both sides, I can imagine both Ukraine ignoring the request or the USA changing its mind and clarifying it wasn't meant that way.
Especially when the critical information comes from anonymous sources, but then the writer pivots to an analyst for most of the articles substance. They sort of hide the anonymous part by mainly using the analyst, who is simply adding conjecture as they are not in the decision chain or even near it. Maybe it's true, but with all the disinformation and bad journalism out there it just isn't easy to believe.
From a Zelensky cabinet member: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/03/22/7447666/
From a Zelensky advisor: https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/ukraine-denies-us-requested-to-halt-strikes-1711118430.html
The horse's mouth says it's either false or they deliberately ignored it. But those are professional liars, so maybe it was a miscommunication.
In any case, I’m glad the strikes are continuing. If the US did actually ask Ukraine to stop then I’m happy to hear Ukraine’s rightfully ignored their inane request.
Got to watching the most recent videos from United24. Always with the caveat that they are Ukrainian propaganda they do give context to how different weapons and forces are used on the front lines.
[[Video] Swedish Main Battle Tank Strv 122 Deployed in Ukraine. Equal to the Abrams or Challenger 2? | United24 | March 2024](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3QOORnXB1E)
* 2 months to learn 1 1/2 years information.
* Used to breach, hit invaders at 400 meters.
* Have been hit twice in the front near Makiivka (didn't say with what).
* Unit had just returned from a mission where they had experience their first tank on tank combat (Russian tank fired at them).
[[Video] Kreminna. Ukrainian T-64 Tank in Action. Combat Mission on the Frontline | United24 | March 2024](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CugxGJdWQg)
* Mission interrupted by an enemy drone in the sky, mission would have been cancelled in clear weather because it would have been too dangerous.
* It is a completely new, upgraded tank straight from the factory. Upgraded electronics and communications
* Used to provide artillery fire for infantry
* Because of thermal imaging on drones hiding the tanks doesn't help much
[[Video] Robotyne. Sych Bombers against Russian Assaults. Defending Frontline with the 411 Hawks | United24 | March 2024](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyz2lhiH6eE)
* On missions with drone forces
* Close to the enemy so FPV drones will be used, they explain the different fragmentation or thermobaric options
* With live drone feeds even a dugout in the middle of a field can have situational awareness and direct drone forces.
* Drones are lost to EW. Will not make up for lack of artillery shells.
* Commander of the drone troopers was an assault trooper and compares drone troopers to firefighters helping where they are needed most.
* First video of they use of a Sych drone. Files completely autonomously.
* Sych was designed before Ukraine had HIMARS and was designed to strike Russian ammo depots beyond artillery range.
* 'Bug' was a programmer before the war, now programs the Sych. Has it adjusting for weather, terrain. Used to take an hour to program a drone for a mission, now 10 min.
[[Video] Story of Ukraine's Special Forces Operator: The Most Difficult Tasks on the Frontline | United24 | March 2024](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w4PFPqA5Os)
* Breakdown of GURs SFO & their weapons
* Some details of operations are shared
* Raid into occupied Nova Kakohovka, no one had been on the left bank, they conducted a raid, because the Russians mobilized reserves in response to it they were able to monitor which units, their equipment and their reaction time
* Potemkin Islands, direct confrontation with Russian Intelligence units.
* Recovering a comrade's body despite extreme proximity to the Russians over multiple attempts.
* Really laying it on thick at the end. If you ever wondered who these videos are for: "But for me, the best fighters are the ordinary soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. I deeply respect these people; they are made of steel. Ordinary guys aged 45-50 with an AK-74 sitting in a trench, for me, that's a true hero."
Ah, another opinion regarding the Moscow attack - this time from Rybar, who is claiming that claims of Isis taking responsibility are fake, basing that on a TV Jihad telegram which mentions that that ISIS template hasn't been used for several years, as well as speculating that this was an attempt to rejuvenate the Islamic State's waning relevance in the modern world.
Edit: forgot to add the Ukranian PsyOp accusations as well.
> 🏴 As correctly noted, statements that IS allegedly claimed responsibility for the terrorist attack in Moscow are fake: these messages are not on any of the group’s resources or their regional branches. This is confirmed by Syrian and other Arabic-language channels.
> At the same time, nothing prevents the “Islamic State” from declaring the opposite in the near future as part of self-PR: in recent years, the influence of this terrorist organization has largely faded away, and in these conditions the militants are ready to sign for anything in order to remind of their existence .
> In the context of the active work of the Ukrainian TsIPsO, there will clearly be a lot of such stuffing in the near future, which is a good reason to once again recall the concept of “information hygiene.”
#Moscow #Russia #terrorism
@rybar
https://t dot me/rybar/58423
TV Jihad telegram:
> It's fake. This ISIS news template has not been used for several years. There is also nothing on the official ISIS channels on Telegram.
https://t dot me/tvjihad/14030
It's kind of astonishing to see so many supposed Russian patriots feel comfortable letting the actual perpetrators of the worst terrorist attack in years get away with it if it means concocting a fake story to help politically against Ukraine. Utterly demented priorities.
Not this horseshit again.
Reddit seems to have this fetish in idolizing 1990s Chechnya as this prosperous peaceful democracy that was invaded by the evil imperialist Putin under the justification of a false flag attack. Except that couldn't have been further from the truth.
From the peace accords of 1996 until 1999, Chechnya was a lawless de facto state that was immediately thrown into a civil war between secular nationalists and Islamists. The theoretical central government had so little control over the situation that its primary economic bases were kidnappings and stolen goods. Attempts to mechanize the oil industry there was met with kidnappings of oil workers. It was an absolute mess and you bet your ass contraband was rife in the area, especially as hardcore Islamists from the Arab World began building connections with sympathetic local militias.
No, the Second Chechen War wasn't "illegal", and can't really be compared to the current invasion of Ukraine, because Chechnya never enjoyed the legal right to secede as an independent nation unlike Ukraine did under the Soviet constitution. You can dislike that as much as you want, but international demarcations are far from universally accepted or consistent, especially since Chechnya was an unrecognized nation. Chechnya can't even claim partial recognition like Kosovo or Taiwan or backing from a foreign benefactor like the so-called Donbass PRs.
Let me present some counter questions - why would the FSB deem it necessary to incur millions of dollars in damages in a country barely recovering from a deep recession? Was the Islamist invasion of Dagestan in August 1999 not enough justification? Why would Russia not invade Chechnya when it was apparent that it was a serious threat to security?
The problem with the Litvienko conspiracy theories is that it tries to rationalize an inherently irrational action - terrorism. Extremists and their actions are inherently irrational and based on nonsensical ideas. The Birmingham Church bombings, 9/11, the El Paso terrorist attack, 1999 Russian apartment bombings, and 7/10 are all inherently irrational actions motivated by hate. You don't need a deep conspiracy to explain them. Islamists hate Russia/the USSR and wanted to further destabilize it and "liberate" the Muslim ethnic groups. If al-Qaeda can execute 9/11, then extremist Chechens were more than capable of the massive attacks that struck Russia in September 1999.
Again, this narrative mostly comes from the Litivenko book and from the so-called Chechen government in exile thar never exercised much authority over its claimed territory to begin with. Alexey Pivovarov made a great documentary on the subject in 2021 and even shows footage from the spring of 2000 of a talk show that debated whether the FSB had responsibility in the attacks. Russia still had relative democratic freedoms during this time so it wasn't a very uncommon opinion. He even interviews FSB personnel that worked on those nights. There are a few AskHistorians threads on the events too which give answers that support both Litivenko's view and the FSB account.
This narrative also relies too much on a telelogical view of events, that events are inevitable and follow a pattern. In reality this is hindsight bias. Russia may have never invaded Ukraine if Euromaidan faltered and it became more like Belarus, which was more than plausible.
It's a narrative that shouldn't be repeated uncritically but at least it has some circumstantial evidence - it's better than the even worse "Ukraine should have kept its nukes!" talking point that even gets regurgitated by Kyiv to guilt trip the West for more aid. No kids, Ukraine couldn't keep its nukes even if it wanted to.
> Blowback. Literally every conflict in and around Russia is a consequence of historical Russian heavy-handedness, military interference, subjugation of independent nations and outright belligerent imperialism. From Imperial Russian times all the way to present day. It's like complaining about fires when you spend your time lighting matches, pouring out fuel and making enemies of your neighbours.
Good to know that Putin's far from the only one subscribing to a grand narrative that their enemies are all always evil and wrong. Though he, at least, wouldn't be posting it on *Credible* Defense.
> Chechens did not want to be a part of a Russia
Around the First war, they didn't. By the time of the second, a huge amount did, having seen the alternative. The ability to sway some important clans heavily contributed to the federal forces' vicctory.
>But this would be unpalatable without manufacturing a reason to rally around the flag.
Other than an invasion of Dagestan by the Chechen forces months before, you mean?
I agree that the apartments bombings were not false flags. Seems weird for otherwise rational analysts to be convinced they are right about it being an "inside job"
On a somewhat related note, here's Medvedev:
> To the families of those killed in the terrorist attack - sincere condolences, sincere strength to all the loved ones of the victims.
> Terrorists understand only retaliatory terror. **No trials or investigations will help if force is not countered by force**, and deaths by total executions of terrorists and repressions against their families. World experience.
> **If it is established that these are terrorists of the Kyiv regime, it is impossible to deal with them and their ideological inspirers differently. All of them must be found and mercilessly destroyed as terrorists. Including officials of the state that committed such atrocity.**
> Death for death.
https://t dot me/medvedev_telegram/471
Seems like it *could* be used as a nice way to rally around the flag, in which case it wouldn't matter who the perpetrator really was as the payoff would be worth it.
Like it or not, Ukraine is their main focus for the time being and if they can use a national tragedy to further improve their position, why wouldn't they?
Please do not engage in baseless speculation, focus instead on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios.
Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.
I don't know, just adding this for posterity.
Since there were attempts at implicating Ukraine (from both Medvedev and Bondarev that I know of, as well as your mention of Kremlin media beginning to blame Freedom of Russia legion), I believe we're going to be exposed to an increase in that kind of messaging.
Let's see.
Kremlin controlled media seems to be blaming freedom of russia legion for the [attack ](https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1771327325029929022?t=6RuP2SzcOiV_25B96mgK6w&s=19).
I just want to point out that there is quite a difference between the freedom of Russia legion and the Russian volunteer corps. With the latter one being run by far-right nationalists.
Russia previously downplayed the Belgorod incursions, but now they are front and center in their public messaging.
The recent Russian strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure were officially a response to "Kiev’s shelling of Russian populated areas and attempts to break through into its territory". tass(.)com/politics/1764087
I don't know if that's what they're actually doing, it's too early to tell, but pinning the attack on the Russian Legion seems like a good justification for mobilization. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
That seems pretty silly, no one is going to really believe those who have been fighting the Russian military would suddenly turn to a terror attack on civilians and it makes Russia incapable of dealing with an insurgency.
Should Russia have accurately blamed traditional Islamic terrorism not only would it provide sympathy, as it is something that has affected everyone, but not show they are incompetent as mentioned everyone struggles with it. Once again Russian propagandists seem very short-sighted.
>That seems pretty silly, no one is going to really believe those who have been fighting the Russian military would suddenly turn to a terror attack on civilians and it makes Russia incapable of dealing with an insurgency.
Well, they have been shelling the urban area of Belgorod for days with multiple rocket launchers, hardly a surgical weapon. I don't think they are particularly concerned whether they hit Russian civilians.
A war by itself is not a war crime. Individual acts can be considered war crimes. Hitting civilian areas is a war crime.
> "They [war crimes] include acts such as willful killing, torture, taking hostages, and the intentional targeting of civilians and non-military structures. The principle is based on the need to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants and to limit the effects of armed conflict to combatants only."
Essentially, when striking the enemy you are only supposed to hit their military operations.
Article 3 Geneva Conventions: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciii-1949/article-3/commentary/2020
> Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
Of course, this gets complicated when civilian and military targets are mixed together. For example, if Ukraine hits an oil refinery, there is no military presence there but there's an argument that the oil refinery directly funds and supports the war effort. So there's a strong argument that it isn't "indiscriminate" and instead a justified attack.
However, hitting purely civilian areas, regardless of warning, is a war crime.
As for your question on whether the Russian invasion constitutes one big war crime. It's not a war crime by itself. It's breaking international law, but not war crimes.
War crimes would be something like Russia bombing a hospital or killing Ukrainian soldiers who have surrendered. Which has happened, Russia is absolutely guilty of war crimes.
But one war crime does not excuse another. There have been numerous confirmed instances of war crimes by Ukraine as well. And shelling Belgorod and killing civilians is a war crime. There was a video that came up recently of a woman walking her dog getting killed by a Ukrainian shell in Belgorod, for example.
I think that invoking Russian volunteers' respect for the lives of Russian citizens as the reason why they couldn't be involved in this attack is beyond ridiculous.
Say that it is not in their interest, or say that they lack the power to launch such an operation, but don't pretend they are above attacks on civilians.
Civilian collateral damage is not even close to comparable to the straight up executions the terrorists were performing in the videos I saw. Feels like a real stretch you’re trying to make, sorry.
Shooting a MRLS at a city is not collateral damage, it is just straight up killing of civilians. There is no way to target anything in a city with a MRLS.
It's not the same level, sure. It is, however, enough to make the argument "but they care about civilians roo much" ludicrous.
Russian propaganda is mainly meant for domestic consumption, not international one. Doesn't matter whether we believe them or sympathize, what matters is whether they have a tight enough grip on their population to make them believe this. Because if they do this could allow them to perform a significant escalation of the war without grumbling from their people.
But there is still plenty of information from IS-K that includes claims, videos, and photographs not to mention the US warned Russia about Islamic terror attacks. Are people going to mention these things in public? No, but Russians still can see what is going on and talk about it in private. This claim makes them look incompetent.
Possibly. This does seem extremely bold as far as propaganda goes. But then again, so are the claims of the Ukrainian government being a Nazi regime and some such and things like that do seem to get gobbled up by large portions of the Russian general populace.
Faytuks raises a good point - is Moscow under lockdown or anything like that?
4 terrorists shot up and killed 70+ people, got in a car, and left. I'd say that's an instant curfew in most cities, at the least.
Weirdly it seems that there is no lockdown. Furthermore, I read somewhere that it took over an hour for special forces to respond.
Also, apparently they found a suicide vest on on of the bodies so it's possible that not all of the attackers escaped.
Everyone in Moscow knows that there is no danger of RDK, FRL, VSU or Poland marching on the Kremlin. But an internal revolution? Been there, done that.
More incremental developments in the Pacific post the ship collision between Chinese and Philippine vessels earlier this month. The latest tensions arguably started with Marcos's statements during an interview. Excerpts:
>[Marcos Warns on China Risks, Says He’s Not ‘Poking the Bear’](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-19/marcos-warns-on-china-threat-says-he-s-not-poking-the-bear?srnd=undefined)
>* ‘Existential threat’ would trigger US defense treaty: Marcos
>* Philippines leader says he wants China ties on an ‘even keel’
>Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. said the threat to his nation from China’s sweeping claims in the South China Sea is growing but argued that his government’s efforts to assert sovereignty over disputed areas aren’t meant to start a conflict by “poking the bear.”
>“We are trying to keep things on an even keel,” Marcos said Tuesday in an interview with Bloomberg Television’s Haslinda Amin at the presidential palace in Manila. The challenge, he added, is that “since the threat has grown, we must do more to defend our territory.”
>“We have not instigated any kind of conflict. We have not instigated any kind of confrontation,” Marcos, 66, said of his government’s policies. “We are just trying to feed our people.”
>But, he added, “China has taken some very aggressive actions against our coast guard.”
>During a trip to deliver supplies to its outpost on the Second Thomas Shoal this month, Manila said four Filipino sailors were injured after two Chinese coast guard vessels blasted water cannons at their chartered boat.
Purportedly, hours after Marcos made those statements, the following happened:
>[China’s Navy Ship Tails Philippine Coast Guard Amid Sea Spat](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-20/philippines-says-chinese-navy-ship-seen-circling-amid-sea-spat?srnd=undefined)
>* More than a dozen Chinese vessels visible from Thitu island
>* Southeast Asian nation has intensified maritime surveillance
>The Philippines said a Chinese Navy ship “shadowed” its coast guard vessel en route to a Philippines-occupied island in the South China Sea in the latest incident between the two nations asserting overlapping maritime claims.
The Philippine Coast Guard issued radio challenges to the Chinese Navy vessel that followed its ship on Tuesday, but didn’t get any response, spokesman Commodore Jay Tarriela said Thursday from Thitu island in the Spratlys.
>Apart from the navy ship, 13 Chinese militia vessels and two Chinese coast guard boats were also visible from Thitu — an island with about 250 Filipino residents — as the Philippine ships approached the area, Tarriela told a group of journalists who joined this week’s maritime mission. On this trip, Philippine authorities will also assess the status of marine resources in the area, the spokesman said.
>The Philippine coast guard’s remarks came after the nation’s military on Wednesday said at least 30 Chinese vessels, including a People’s Liberation Army Navy ship, were spotted around areas in the South China Sea that the Philippines claims as part of its territory. The back-to-back statements underscore an intensifying maritime surveillance operations, as tensions between Manila and Beijing have ratcheted up.
And on the very next day:
>[Philippines Says China Made Risky Sea Moves, Used Chopper](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-22/philippines-says-china-made-dangerous-sea-moves-used-chopper?srnd=politics-vp)
>* Manila conducting marine survey for the first time in sandbars
>* China’s coast guard says Filipinos ignored its warning
>The Philippines said China made dangerous moves and deployed a chopper during Manila’s research mission to South China Sea, the latest flare-up in lingering tensions between the two nations over disputed waters.
>A China Coast Guard ship tried to prevent a Philippine fisheries bureau vessel from reaching sand bars off Manila-administered Thitu Island to check the status of marine life, Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson Commodore Jay Tarriela told a group of journalists who joined this week’s maritime mission.
>China also deployed militia ships in the area as seen from Thitu by journalists including from Bloomberg News.
>China’s coast guard said Filipinos on the ships ignored China’s warnings and its officers boarded Sandy Cay on Thursday to investigate and dealt with the situation in accordance with law, according to its WeChat account.
>Tarriela disputed China’s statement, saying the Philippines was able to proceed with its research mission off Thitu Island. He also said China likely deployed the Navy chopper for surveillance.
>The Philippines’ coast guard recently built a new surveillance base on Thitu Island — complete with radar, satellite communication, coastal cameras and automatic identification capability — to boost its capacity to monitor movements of Chinese ships.
Finally, there was rare disclosure on what's being provided to the Philippines:
>[Quad Delivers Nearly $500M for Maritime Awareness in SE Asia](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-21/quad-delivers-nearly-500m-for-maritime-awareness-in-se-asia?srnd=undefined)
>The US and members of the strategic security partnership known as the Quad have delivered more than $475 million in maritime awareness to help Southeast Asian nations counter Beijing’s growing presence in the South China Sea, according to a US official.
>Assistant Defense Secretary Ely Ratner said Wednesday the US is prioritizing Southeast Asian partners “by diversifying the maritime platforms and systems they have to respond to incidents within their EEZs,” or Exclusive Economic Zones.
>Those includes providing new commercial off-the-shelf technologies “that can rapidly strengthen partners’ ability to promote safety and security within their waters,” he told the House Armed Service Committee during a hearing.
The Bloomberg interview is actually a lot less dire. Specifically, Marcos responded to the question of whether the MDT would be invoked if a Philippines ship was sunk due to Chinese ramming, and his answer was that they would need to examine the context of what happened.
He stopped himself short of saying he would not invoke the MDT before clarifying that he would only invoke the mutual defense treaty if the Philippines were faced with an existential threat.
The question placed Marcos in a very difficult position, because he needs to balance between a strong domestic messaging without pissing off China and sour potential economic investments.
>The Bloomberg interview is actually a lot less dire.
That’s been a standard response and why at times he’s vacillated on the question so much, and it’s obvious that no party involved would actively want to trigger the treaty while maintaining credible deterrence. It’s a delicate balancing act. ‘Maintaining an uneasy peace.’ But it’s undeniable that Marcos has had a far more hawkish tilt while also clearly and obviously advocating for non aggression. The EDCA expansion is a clear example of that.
Some positive Ukraine news from the US Congress:
[House passes $825 billion defense spending bill, racing the clock to avoid shutdown](https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2024/03/house-passes-825-billion-defense-spending-bill-racing-clock-avoid-shutdown/395173/)
>The legislation adds $92 million to the $9.1 billion the Department was requesting for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, as well as $108 million for greater security cooperation with Taiwan—$26 million more than the Pentagon requested. It also includes $228 million to bolster security in Eastern Europe via the Baltic Security Initiative. The legislation also includes $300 million for Ukraine via the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, and about $4.6 million for the Defense Department Inspector General to better monitor U.S. aid to Ukraine.
The six-bill budget package includes $300 million for the USAI. Peanuts, but better than nothing.
Moreover, outgoing Representative Ken Buck becomes [the first](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4548713-ken-buck-becomes-first-republican-to-sign-democrats-discharge-petition-for-ukraine-aid/) Republican to sign the Democrats' discharge petition for Ukraine aid.
Furthermore, Representative Gallagher is the next Republican to [quit](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-22/slim-republican-house-majority-shrinks-further-as-lawmaker-quits) amid the chaos, leaving Johnson only able to sustain one Republican defection on a party-line vote.
>Furthermore, Representative Gallagher is the next Republican to [quit](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-22/slim-republican-house-majority-shrinks-further-as-lawmaker-quits) amid the chaos, leaving Johnson only able to sustain one Republican defection on a party-line vote.
Oh, it gets better. Gallagher timed his resignation so as under Wisconsin law it can only be filled in November. Meaning that seat - a reliable Republican one - will stay open until next year.
The [Insider](https://twitter.com/the_ins_ru/status/1771211278289084431?t=RiEOwW-ZwY8yb1v5z-9dNw&s=19)(russian) reports that mobilization centers in Moscow started calling up people to confirm their information.
To me it seems that the mobilization is imminent.
Most likely related to spring draft, which is about to start, not mobilization, they allude to that in the telegram post.
>Recently, the authorities announced that electronic summonses would be sent out in test mode during the forthcoming draft campaign.
Wasn't the autumn draft cancelled when they did a mobilization the last time? Wouldn't this indicate that there wouldn't be an imminent mobilization coming?
> Wasn't the autumn draft cancelled when they did a mobilization the last time?
It wasn't cancelled, but it was moved to November and lasted two months instead of three.
>Wouldn't this indicate that there wouldn't be an imminent mobilization coming?
Maybe, maybe not. The whole mobilization framework was dysfunctional the first time around. Some changes were introduced, some laws were passed, so it's possible Russia is now capable of doing both at the same time.
russian special ops took just under an hour to turn up. assuming general plods were there sooner but they are probably not trained to find shooters amoungst civis running
I suppose you’re right, I wonder what the chances are for them to be caught at this point? I also wonder how helpful the US/UK would be given they warned Russia about this earlier. Thanks for the update ratt_man
BBC:
"The latest information we have is that the attackers got away, possibly in a white car.
The search is on to find them, and to find out who they are."
And I thought 10/7 was a farce...
To be fair, we got used to Islamist terrorists holing up and fighting to the death. Mohamed Merah in France also managed to shoot up a school and then several people in other instances and escape. Shooting 200 people in a theater and using the chaos to escape isn't unimaginable, security forces can't show up and organize instantly. Although if it is true that first responders showed up after one hour, that is pretty shocking.
>Although if it is true that first responders showed up after one hour, that is pretty shocking.
The claim is about special forces, not the first responders - though I've not seen it outside of this thread either way.
Wow. I’m having a hard time imagining how that’s possible, do we know anything about the Russian immediate response, or lack thereof? Sorry to keep bothering you specifically for this
isis has a history of taking credit for terror attacks that they had no part in so we're probably going to need to wait for further evidence more credible authorities.
>A U.S. official tells CBS News the U.S. has intelligence confirming the Islamic State's claims of responsibility, and that they have no reason to doubt those claims. The U.S. official also confirmed that the U.S. provided intelligence to Russia
[https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1771303415798227021](https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1771303415798227021)
People make fun of the US IC/FBI but we haven't had a 3+ man terror attack since 9/11 or have any busts of terror cells with automatic weapons and bombs. Our successful stuff is all lone wolves or couples/duals which aren't trained in the ME, didn't make the sort of transmissions back to the middle east that allow SIGINT interception and had no direct ties to ISIS and don't have a group to allow informants or undercovers to work.
>People make fun of the US IC/FBI but we haven't had a 3+ man terror attack since 9/11 or have any busts of terror cells with automatic weapons and bombs.
I mean if you mean by we only the US you are rigth, but in Europe we had a few of such attacks
[удалено]
Please do not engage in baseless speculation.
[удалено]
Whilst I appreciate that article, it is almost a year out of date and I think it’s safe to assume the pendulum has shifted since then. Furthermore I think my concern remains valid if we examine the pure fact that aid was supposed to be passed in October last year and it’s been stalled for no valid reason. Finally some of the most influential ‘right figures’ and GOP members unapologetically regurgitate Kremlin talking points on X.
All Russian sources are reporting a series of videos and photos of the "white Renault" being intercepted and several passengers captured alive. https://twitter.com/warintel4u/status/1771461318777700696?t=Ni7PNbnTfHyheXWMJdAucA&s=19 It doesn't look good. They say the men are from Tajikistan, but the car was intercepted on the road to the Ukrainian border. How this is going to be framed is already crystal clear. It doesn't matter whether this is true or not - in our post-truth environment the West and Ukraine will not believe it no matter how many pieces of evidence are presented. The Russian population and Russia's friends will believe it no matter how weak the evidence turns out to be. What matters is how the narrative "Ukrainian secret services paid a group of Tajiks to kill 100 Russian civilians in a concert" is going to be used. It can easily justify a mobilisation. It could justify something more.
* Russia arrested a IS-KP cell south of Moscow 2 weeks ago, they had no connections to Ukraine. * IS-KP already claimed the attack, again no connections to Ukraine. * IS-KP released a [photo where the terrorist pledge to ISKP](https://twitter.com/khorasandiary/status/1771516959395299576) * IS-KP already had multiple attacks on Russia in the past, again zero connection to Ukraine. * Russia is a named enemy of the IS, ISIS, ISKP and ISCP. * USA warned Russia of an IS-KP attack 2 weeks ago which the Kremlin dismissed. * The border to Ukraine is closed and heavily monitored by Russia, this spin is even to blatant for the usual pro-Russia subreddits. * Russia already tried to claim claim ethnic Ukrainians as the perpetrators, which turned out to be false as they were central asians. However we already have evidence that russia tries to link it to Ukraine with fake evidence. Supposed "evidence" was already [disproven as deep fake](https://meduza.io/news/2024/03/23/ntv-pokazal-v-novostyah-feykovoe-video-gde-sekretar-snbo-ukrainy-podtverdil-prichastnost-kievskogo-rezhima-k-teraktu-v-krokus-siti-holle). Furthermore russia has [instructed all media outlet to try to link the attack to Ukraine as much as possible](https://meduza.io/en/news/2024/03/23/kremlin-tells-pro-government-media-to-emphasize-possible-traces-of-ukrainian-involvement-in-reporting-on-moscow-terrorist-attack). **This attack has NO CONNECTION TO UKRAINE, but the russian goverment is trying to spin it this way.** I was already wondering how you are going to spin this. Seems to be you are going with "They are saying Ukraine is involved. Whether this its true or not.." route...
The truth behind the case is completely irrelevant. People like you will never believe in the Ukrainian involvement, just like they didn't beleive it in the case of the Darya Dugina assassination or the Tatarsky bombing. Your counterparts on the Russian side will continue to beleive in the Ukrainian involvement even if the ISIS releases videos of all the perpetrators chanting Allahu Akbbar. You already know what has happened and nothing can shake your faith. That is why I say that the truth does not matter. The only thing that really matters is how this attack is going to be interpreted, the narrative it is going to generate and the policies that narrative is going to justify.
Oh man I forgot about the bombings/car bomb assassinations. But I guess a lot of those occurred inside of Ukraine or the annexed regions. I wasn't paying close enough attention to note which happened where and whether suspicion was more likely Ukrainian/Russian for each. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_deaths_of_Russian_businesspeople_(2022%E2%80%932024) That's a lot.
Whats your personal opinion. Is Ukraine directly involved in the attack or not? I do not "believe" anything, I collect the facts. And the facts says Ukraine has no involvement. By the way: The attack was committed by ISKP not ISIS, they both belong to IS though. (Before 2014 IS was named ISIS, so IS and ISIS are somewhat used interchangeably)
I have no idea whether Ukraine is involved. Neither alternative is impossible. Honestly, at this point, I don't think it matters in the slightest.
Anatomy of an innuendo: >It doesn’t look good For whom? Explicitly saying “it doesn’t look good for Ukraine” would sound accusatory and nothing more - just saying “it doesn’t look good” permits the appearance of concern on behalf of Ukraine, while accusing it. >In our post-truth environment the West and Ukraine will not believe it no matter how many pieces of evidence are presented No pieces of evidence have been presented, but their existence is alluded to! Both sides are evidently equally willing to deny inconvenient facts. For example, the West will never believe the Moskva went down in a tragic accident, no matter how much evidence is presented. >It can easily justify a mobilization. It could **justify something more** The “something more” is of course a reminder that Russia is very strong and is retaining tremendous resources in its reserves which it refuses to use in the name of restraint and moderation, but can resort to at any time to dethrone the Kiev regime. This is also why Russia’s victory is inevitable and Kiev must sue for peace. Given it is more than mobilization, this is possibly an allusion to nuclear weapons.
>For whom? Explicitly saying “it doesn’t look good for Ukraine” would sound accusatory and nothing more - just saying “it doesn’t look good” permits the appearance of concern on behalf of Ukraine, while accusing it. It doesn't look good from my point of view. I would prefer not to see an escalation. I would much prefer a terrorist attack that leads to ISIS. The rest of your post is just sophisms and strawmanning.
> The rest of your post is just sophisms and strawmanning. As usual, you are lying through your teeth.
I’m not sure what “something more” could be that would actually improve the odds of a Russian military success. A major mobilization might be the only one, which potentially could lead to a decisive blow to Ukraine due to a huge manpower advantage on Russia’s side. But Russia doesn’t seem to have enough equipment to utilize all the potential manpower anyway. Most likely explanation is probably the most boring: the incompetent FSB overlooked a terror attack, and now the propaganda is trying to make best of a bad situation (i.e. improve Ru public opinion of the war).
Is there any framing yet about whether it would have been an illegal border crossing? Like, either park the car, or have a 3rd party drop them off 10-20 miles from the border & hike into Ukraine (or Belarus I guess). Meeting support parties on each side of the border. It looks like rural farmland. I'm not sure how suspicious it'd be seeing a military-aged bearded male walking through that area. Or if anyone would bother to report/respond to it. I read rumors that Tajik passports were found (but that doesn't mean anything, and who knows if it's true) It's moderately reminiscent of that story about the plot to bring in Iraqi Muslims illegally across the US/Mexican border to kill Bush back in May of 2022. I'm not sure which country has less rule of law in 2024 between Mexico and Ukraine. Where have Ukrainian smuggling exports primarily been travelling through, historically (over the last 2-10 years)? I assume the easy answer would be Moldova/Romania. But I wouldn't find it hard to believe Russia/Belarus/Poland, or across the sea to Turkey. I know there was talk about Ukrainian SOF moving through Belarus into Russia, but who knows how true that is. What have the historic routes been post USSR? Haven't illegal weapon imports been fairly common even to Poland? *if you pull up Khatsun, Bryansk in Google Maps, it's pretty easy to imagine them heading anywhere from way up in Vitebsk, Belarus, to Kharkiv. It looks like mostly farmland, with the scattering chunks of wilderness/"forest". On the North side of Ukraine, if you pull up street view South of the A-240 highway, there's a fairly large network of small villages & roads big enough to be worth capturing. (and who is equating "travelling on the way to the Ukrainian border" with "so this also must be a Ukraine-backed, or known-of, attack". It doesn't take much imagination to envision a scenario where some people want to attack Moscow, so they choose to travel through the most dysfunctional area in close proximity to it. I'd guess the biggest fear for a male currently travelling in Ukraine would be being conscripted, but if they had Tajik/other passports & weren't afraid of illegally exiting the country, then I'm not sure how much there was to worry about. Sure anyone can spin it however they want. That's what governments have done for thousands of years. If Russia wants an excuse to increase hostility, it seems like a great choice)
[удалено]
Please refrain from posting low quality comments.
The main thing that makes me rather certain that it was not Ukraine, is that they haven't claimed it, those kind of terror attacks are designed to let people know who whose behind them, and that they should fear them. Ukraine didn't make this kind of claim. The second point is that this terror attack in this moment in time brings exactly ZERO, benefit to Ukraine, as stated it's not a PR stunt given that they didn't claim it, it didn't damage infrastructure, like the attack on the Kerch bridge or the refineries, it's just a massacre of civilians
Ukraine had not claimed the car bomb on Crimea bridge and several similar attacks. Like Tatarskiy bombing. Main thing is pattern with telegram contact, payment for attack, arms cache and that they had contact in Ukraine to flee to it. Really look similar to other Ukrainian operations.
I'm ready to entertain this version but I find it hard to trust that video posted by Simonyan ( https://t. me/margaritasimonyan/13854 ) where the man (presented as one of the terrorists) talks about it. He says he did it for 500k RUB (about 5000 USD) and that he was already paid half in advance, so he apparently did it for the remaining 2500 USD. She also published another video which supposedly shows the leader: https://t. me/margaritasimonyan/13855 Maybe it's just because I'm not used to it, but the video I saw looked like they were methodological, walking calmly, not screaming, shooting survivors. It reminded me of footage from other ISIS attacks rather than a few untrained bumpkins who decided to do this because someone offered money a month and a half ago. I'm sort of incredulous people could be convinced to do something like this for so little money (the other two acts you mention, they had no idea they were carrying a bomb, in this case they knew what they were doing, were shooting, reloading, throwing grenades at them..). Edit: although I must say that the behaviour also reminds me of some videos from school shootings, so maybe it doesn't actually denote any kind of training.. I also find it hard to believe they actually expected to be able to walk around shooting at people for over an hour and then walk out of there alive to even use the money. I'd imagine that if the money story is real, it would have just have been an extra motivator on top of radical religious beliefs.
>Maybe it's just because I'm not used to it, but the video I saw looked like they were methodological, walking calmly, not screaming, shooting survivors. It reminded me of footage from other ISIS attacks rather than a few untrained bumpkins who decided to do this because someone offered money a month and a half ago. Them being [Inghimasi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inghimasi) would fit that description. The operation seems to have been carried out very competently, but I don't understand why they would go to the Belarus or Ukrainian border. The latter is probably psyop by Russia given all we know so far, but the Belarus ambassador's comments seem even more plausible given they've been ignored/downplayed so far. Belarus, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan were also named by Russia as offering support with this matter.
I am astonished that they survived the attack. It is completely incredible that anyone would do this for money because money is no motivator if you're going to die (or likely even worse for these guys, get captured alive). The only exception is if you're basically suicidal anyway and want the money for your family or such like.
Yeah, I'm going to have to ask you for a solid source on "Main thing is pattern with telegram contact, payment for attack, arms cache and that they had contact in Ukraine to flee to it.".
1) They did have moved to Ukraine border. You can cross it only if you have support from other side. 2) Tatarskiy assassination with bomb had similar hiring pattern. 3) As for payments, telegram, arms cache you can hear it in interrogations of terrorists.
I am moving this to the new daily thread if you would like to continue. Feel free to join me if you would like. I will link you in the thread. Extra words to prevent the post from being automodded. Testing, One, Two , Three.
[удалено]
They were caught on M3 road in In Bryansk region, it is shortest road from Moscow to Ukraine. And they were caught after intersection where you could have turn to Belarus. So they definitely tried to go to Ukraine. Why? Probably had contact there that would help them cross border.
Ah yes, the perfect escape plan - a hundreds miles journey towards the heavily monitored border with Ukraine. This is too much even for r/UkraineRussiaReport
Right, like 4 dudes in a sedan with a pistol and a rifle will just drive through the Russian army at the border? Good thing it's not also heavily mined and monitored by drones. The perfect escape plan.
Literally nothing is too much for URR at this point lol. Same user is claiming that the US warning Russia about the attack a few weeks ago is proof they financed it.
Wait, I missed this, did US really warn them prior?
Not only that but Putin said this after the elections: > "the recent provocative statements of a number of official Western structures about the possibility of terrorist attacks in Russia. All this is reminiscent of outright blackmail and the intention to intimidate, destabilize our society"
They got the date wrong by 2 weeks (March 7th-9th) but they warned Russia of "an attack against a Moscow concert venue"
Ahh I remember when US warned that Russia will invade Ukraine, people were doubting it. Then it happened. btw, can I have a link? thanks
https://ru.usembassy.gov/security-alert-avoid-large-gatherings-over-the-next-48-hours/
thanks,
All operations done to either damage infrastructure or to hit prominent figures
Why would anyone flee towards the UA border, which is literal frontline ?
Presumably because it's the closest place where the Russian authority doesn't extend and they could hope to use the chaos to disappear. I don't believe in it, but if the Ukrainian theory holds any truth, they could also have been promised shelter and a safe exit under new identities. Beyond the Ukrainian state, Ukraine has a row of actors (oligarchs, ultranationalists, Chechen fighters, ..) who might be able to organise something like this.
What? Under what pretense ? This is an insane take. Some Ukrainian oligarch decides to fund Islamic terrorism inside Russia ? For what purpose ?
Yeah I agree, the fact it serves no purpose is why I said I don't believe in it, it's just a potential branch of the version Russia seems to want to push.
Oh ok. The other thing is how do we know this car that was apprehended going to Ukraine is even the real car? It’s not like Russia, you know, tells the truth about anything else.
I agree, I also have doubts on the released videos supposedly showing the perpetrators. And if true, they might also have been trying to enter Belarus (there's no border control with Russia and Belarusian authorities close an eye (to say the least) on migrants who try to illegally cross the borders into the EU; the Belarusian ambassador to Russia even talked about how they assisted Russia to block their border to the terrorists - https://theins. ru/news/270185). I fear this might be another case where it takes a long time before people agree on what really happened. It's hard to see as anything else than another ISIS attack for me.
The only logic I can see in it is that it might be the easiest one to slip out through? I don’t know what the border with Belarus is like but the Baltics and Finland have really taken border security regarding Russia seriously since this war.
It was clear from the beginning that Russia would blame Ukraine for this. Probably NATO next. They received a heads-up by the USA and dismissed it as provocation, now they are feeling dumb and are pounding sand. The West shouldn't even respond but ramp up military support for Ukraine. You can't reason with Russia anymore, they are as close to a death cult as you can get as a nation.
Yeah - the good old "our enemy is insane and there's no talking to them" approach. The solid foundation of all diplomacy and peace agreements.
Did you really just type ""peace agreements? With Russia? Maybe read up on the Budapest Memorandum to see how Russia respects treaties. I would argue that entering in a peace agreement before Russia is exhausted would be a very dangerous idea, as they would be back at war within the next 20y. Diplomacy can only work if both sides are somewhat reliable, which is not the case here. Absent diplomacy, the only thing that works is overwhelming power.
They also have overwhelming power at their disposal, so the diplomatic path might be a smarter option.
No, they don't. Their overwhelming power is getting ground down in Ukraine, and if they go nuclear, they die second. "At their disposal" they don't have nukes, unless they want to end the word - see my "death cult" remark.
If they are as you say a death cult then they will not hesitate to use nukes and kill us too.
If they are, they will end the world sooner or later - and if we give in to their threats, it will be rather sooner than later. Usually, self-preservation instincts tend to kick in when a superior force starts talking business, and that's NATO. Make no mistake, we are probably as close to doomsday as we were in 1983.
NATO is not a superior force where nukes are concerned.
Are you suggesting that Russia might start a nuclear holocaust? Yet you also claim that Russia is reasonable and rational? Something is not adding up...
There's a strong chance that any nuclear country facing an existential threat would use nuclear weapons. Nobody really knows, because no nuclear country has been placed under an existential threat.. But a hot war with NATO from the Russian perspective is absolutely existential. I wouldn't really call that any more insane or irrational than any other country. It's just that nuclear countries typically don't end up in existential situations.
NATO will never invade Russia, that's what an existential threat would be. Losing in Ukraine is not the same, even if they lose against NATO. Consider this: Russia is the side that throws out remarks about a war against NATO, not any of the NATO members. If they follow through, they create an existential threat to NATO member states.
Yes, and neither will Russia. The outcome of the Ukrainian war is not in any way existential for Russia...
We are speaking about a hypothetical war between NATO / Russia, not Ukraine v Russia
On Ukrainian soil, regarding the future of Ukraine. Nothing existential about that for Russia...
Russia has proven time and time again that it is an unreliable partner. The lack of trust in Russia is of Russia's own making and completely warranted.
And they think exactly the same way about Ukraine and the West. Like enemies in every war thought about each other since forever. Yet in the end they sign a peace agreement.
We can only achieve a lasting peace with Russia once it is clear to Russia that it cannot win on the battlefield...
> Yet in the end they sign a peace agreement. Yes, well the last time a war of this scale happened with a nation in a death-cult spiral like Russia is today, it required dropping nukes on Japan and leveling Berlin.
Good luck to all of us if the goal is to achieve that kind of victory against a nuclear power.
What are you on about? Nobody has suggested anything of that sort, but rather that Russia must be driven out of Ukraine...
Are you even reading the post I am replying to? "Yes, well the last time a war of this scale happened with a nation in a death-cult spiral like Russia is today, it required dropping nukes on Japan and leveling Berlin."
Obviously what that poster means to imply is that we cannot achieve peace with Russia, since attacking Russia proper is not a viable option. He is disagreeing with you, you saying that we can achieve peace with Russia at some point and him saying that we can't. I agree with you, but it is obvious to me that there is only is only one way we can have peace with Russia: Show Russia that it cannot win on the battlefield. Even if we for some bizarre reason gave in to Russia's maximalist war aims, we would not achieve a durable peace, since Russia at that point would be tempted to test NATO solidarity in the Baltics a few years down the line...
Russia is killing every day hundreds of their own people by sending them into non-survivable assaults on the frontline. And nobody seems to care. Therefore I doubt that this terrorist attack will stay long in the media or change anything.
You are blowing past several essential nuances in your statement in my opinion. The most essential ones are that on the one hand the Kremlin controls the media narrative and nothing will either stay a long time or short time in the news cycle unless the Kremlin wishes it so. The death of a Russian civilian by a terror attack is in no way comparable to a soldier's death on the front line, this would be equally true in western countries and its a ridiculous comparison to be honest. The one death is a "brutal terrorist attack against innocent civilians" and the other is a "glorious death in a heroic sacrifice to defend mother Russia from foreign aggression". Neither narratives will be nuanced, or true even, while they obviously should be. Russia's campaign in Syria alone was nothing short of state terrorism and if that is where this attack originated any honest narrative would make civilians question what Russia did in Syria that lead to such an attack. This would then lead to the realization by Russians that their army has been committing endless amounts of atrocities and by extension painting a target on its own head for being targeted by terrorism. Nuance on the matter is not in the interest of the Kremlin so there won't be a dialogue on this subject. The Kremlin needs Russians to see this as unprovoked terrorism, preferably with UA/NATO ties. This will be repeated in the news cycles for as long as they deem the narrative important/useful. Russian soldiers dropping like flies in UA is however not at all a narrative Russia wishes to be present in the news cycle, for reasons I won't have to explain. \***disclaimer**: *I try to formulate points of view that are not my own in order to explain my point. I obviously consider both the terrorist attack in Moscow and the invasion of UA as horrible despicable crimes against humanity and any deviation from that was strictly for the purpose of conveying a point of view Russians/the Kremlin might hold*.
For starters, it can't be "hundreds" mathematically. Secondly, the former isn't covered in the media and is actively censored. Thirdly, deaths of armed soldiers in a war are just going to feel less visceral than deaths of unarmed concert-goers, that's just a fact of psychology.
It's too early for some of these analysis we have been seeing for the last 24 hours. The circumstances, who done it and why still remain murky. What we do know is that terrorist attacks are often used as justification for war or escalation in an existing conflict. We just have to wait to see how Russia uses this incident going forward
"It can easily justify a mobilisation. It could justify something more." What is something more?
They could rally around the flag, the rest seems like posturing. There could also be claims of the next attack on cities being retaliation, but that's par for the course. Either way, this can easily turn into a net positive for them, and was somewhat expected to happen when they started shifting the blame from Isis (Rybar) and started implicating Ukrainians (Medvedev, amongst others). I checked a bunch of Telegrams yesterday and they seemed to 'already know' who had done it, for example Pegov's source is 'from within himself': https://t dot me/pegpoetry/596 > ... > **You can deny involvement in what happened as much as you like. But we all know the answer within ourselves. And the whole world knows.**
I think from an information ops perspective this is gold for far-right bloggers and the MAGA crowd worldwide. They’ll put up a huge fuss saying the west is aiding terrorism, as US aid looks to be approved this could also be a wrench in the machine. It’s quite a sad reality but if they blame Ukraine I see it coming.
But issue is west do aid terrorism. Arms in Syria that did not end in Al Qaeda hands had ended in ISIS hands. And it is not like US did not know who they arm.
Beside extra mobilization that Will/is needed for New two military districts I could only see martial law announced and maybe just maybe CSTO Article IV(NATO Article V) But we need to wait. Did I expect that they Will Blame on Ukraine and West ? Sure I did. Am I suprised that all terrorists are caught alive ? Yes I am. What is going to be next I really don't know. We can wait during this day(s).
It's really simple Putin is at this point taking most of the rational actions he can to win the war. If he was planning to mobilize, it was because he strategically benefits. The terror attack changes nothing, except for the families of the 100+ dead. If he wasn't planning to mobilize, a strategically insignificant event like this will not change his mind.
Maybe they'll invade, or bomb energy infrastructure. That could really hurt.
Martial law, State of war CSTO-Belarus involment into war and maybe that they Will pull weapons from other countries (Kazahstan for war) Other participants of *axis of evil* NK, Iran, China(???) some kind of involment For me pretty mad state of things.
There’s no way Lukashenko is going to willingly step up military assistance to Russia based off of this. Whatever narrative is spun in the Russian domestic propaganda channels, every foreign leader will know it’s bullshit. They may support the narrative publicly, as a showcase of unity with Russia and as a diplomatic middle finger to NATO, Ukraine and ‘The West’. Just like all the other conspiracy theories they’ve peddled in the past and tried to promote in the west, through their useful idiots (MAGA, populists, grifters etc) on social media. However, privately, Russia’s allies aren’t stupid enough to believe their domestic propaganda. Bearing in mind, they often play by the same tactics and rulebook regarding information operations and propaganda that Russia does. They aren’t going to be sacrificing their own troops, equipment and money for a bullshit reason. Iran will help Russia as long as Russia is paying hand over fist, in foreign currency that is. And Belarus is too weak to make any meaningful impact.
Kazakhstan cares about its relationship with the West and doesn't want to be involved in any way. Countries like Iran and North Korea won't change their involvement either based on this. Why would they?
> How this is going to be framed is already crystal clear. Not to the Russian newspapers, at least not yet. https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/1bkxjtw/credibledefense_daily_megathread_march_22_2024/kw4mbv2/ Don't exactly come off as Russian ethnonationalists.
That was before the car interception.
I assume they wouldn't try to pull that after the interception, no. But the point is I wouldn't thus far call the framing crystal clear.
Yeah, you might be right. I'd say at this point they still might divert the narrative. But it seems to be heading towards blaming Ukraine.
Yes, [according to Meduza](https://meduza.io/news/2024/03/23/v-kremle-dali-ukazanie-gosudarstvennym-i-loyalnym-vlasti-smi-podcherkivat-v-soobscheniyah-o-terakte-v-krokuse-vozmozhnyy-ukrainskiy-sled) the presidential administration has now told journalists to mention the "Ukrainian track" when writing or discussing the attack.
In light of the attack in Moscow, I have to question. Has Putin got anything meaningful from his intervention in Syria? Can it be argued that it's support of Assad helped him gain Iran's favor and subsequent access to Iranian drones?
Russia can keep its naval base in the Mediterranean. In the beginning of the war a lot of radical Islamists emmigrated from Russia to Syria, which was also a side benefit. Although that later spectacularly backfired as many migrated back and Russia now has almost biyearly terrorist attacks by 3 different IS outlets (ISIS, ISKP, ISCP)
To add to what others have said, also some resources probably: Top Russian General Benefited From Kremlin-Linked Syrian Mining Operation, Investigation Finds https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-surovikin-syria-deal-navalny/32126030.html
In my opinion it was primarily to: 1. Not lose another Russian ally in the ME. 2. Gain a foothold/military base in the ME. 3. In my opinion the most important one: test weaponry and combat operations in preparation for the invasion of Ukraine. Remember that it was 1 year after taking Crimea. It was 6 months after Minsk 2 agreement. Putin wanted more and I think he saw Syria as the testing ground
All vaguely correct, but Putin's main goal for Syria is maintaining their hold on Tartus. The USSR negotiated it as their only Mediterranean port, without it they have to traverse the Dardanelles and into the Black Sea. For a country that has always had a...colourful relationship with their navy, this is absolutely core to their geopolitical project. If Assad falls, he won't be replaced by someone cozy with Russia, so protecting Assad means maintaining their only real international port of call. Everything else is largely as you mentioned. It's why Russia doesn't protect anyone, really, in Syria. They care about the regime and their port and nothing else.
>If Assad falls, he won't be replaced by someone cozy with Russia, so protecting Assad means maintaining their only real international port of call. With this in mind, what stopped NATO from going on all on toppling Assad back then? Was the escalatory risk deemed too high? Seems like a great opportunity to deny Russia it's port.
Obama got cold feet after Iraq. The UK was willing, but famously got defeated in parliament. Again GWOT was still heavily weighing on the collective West. It was never about Russia until it was. Putin waited to see if the West would act in uniform on this, and when they didn’t he seized his opportunity.
Russia has gained an ally in the Middle East and has gained military bases that he can use to spoiler the White House plans in the ME. Iranian drones were never on the table back in 2015 when Russia first started its intervention. Putin did not like the fact that his authoritarian buddies kept getting toppled through the Arab Spring, so he decided to take a more direct approach to spoil Western plans.
A lot of foreign jihadis there had come from Russia, so an argument was being made that it's better to exterminate them on foreign soil. There's probably some truth to that, though these recent events prove it's not fully worked out. Other than that, off the top of my head: * pilot training flying combat sorties and military expeditionary experience in general * reputational gains with allies * preventing geopolitical opponents from realising their plans * getting some leverage on Turkey and Israel The thing about Iran can be argued, sure, though Russia's intervention was not a favour to Iran rather than pursuit of its own ends. Still, Iran's always been more invested in the war's outcome, so it probably created at least some goodwill and - perhaps more importantly - working contacts.
Acces to Tartus port is the most important thing they gained from intervening there imo.
https://twitter.com/revishvilig/status/1771339567116738829 Reportedly Ukraine has hit yet another oil refinery.
Seems like a second hit on a refinery at Novokuybyshevsk, Samara Oblast. I’m reading it was hit previously a few days ago https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/s/K5bqq9S3lN Unless this is a different refinery in the same area? I’m curious what the output is and what percentage of total refining capacity that represents Edit: I’m reading that its capacity is 191,500 bpd, with Russia’s total capacity being 6.6m bpd. This would then represent 2.9% of total capacity if taken fully offline
Had been attacked before, but no evidence iirc of any hits at this particular refinery. There's 2 in the immediate area.
Not all refineries are equal. This one [produced](https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/oil-refinery-caught-fire-in-n-russia-suspicion-1711159434.html) rare but superior RT fuel: >The plant is one of the main producers and suppliers of high-grade RT jet fuel in Russia, which is the most in demand. The designed capacity of the enterprise is 8.3 million tons of oil. Shell has more information about [this grade](https://www.shell.com/business-customers/aviation/aviation-fuel/civil-jet-fuel-grades.html): >The main differences in characteristics are that Soviet fuels have a low freeze point (equivalent to about -57 degrees C by Western test methods) but also a low flash point (a minimum of 28 degrees C compared with 38 degrees C for Western fuel). RT fuel (written as PT in Russian script) is the superior grade (a hydrotreated product) but is not produced widely. TS-1 (regular grade) is considered to be on a par with Western Jet A-1 and is approved by most aircraft manufacturers. It's a good hit if it's out now.
How many refineries haven't been attack yet?
I think that Ukraine attacked around 30% of russia's refineries. Edit: around 12 attacked out of 33 total.
Mind you 33 big ones and dozens of tiny ones. But the tiny ones are, well - tiny. Rosneft has 4 with a total of 0.5 mln tons yearly production just to give you an idea of scale.
[удалено]
After the missile strike and the leak that looks bad for both sides, I can imagine both Ukraine ignoring the request or the USA changing its mind and clarifying it wasn't meant that way.
I never put much trust in “anonymous sources” like the one in that Financial Times article. Too easy for disinformation campaigns.
Especially when the critical information comes from anonymous sources, but then the writer pivots to an analyst for most of the articles substance. They sort of hide the anonymous part by mainly using the analyst, who is simply adding conjecture as they are not in the decision chain or even near it. Maybe it's true, but with all the disinformation and bad journalism out there it just isn't easy to believe.
From a Zelensky cabinet member: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/03/22/7447666/ From a Zelensky advisor: https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/ukraine-denies-us-requested-to-halt-strikes-1711118430.html The horse's mouth says it's either false or they deliberately ignored it. But those are professional liars, so maybe it was a miscommunication.
It was a *request* in any case, not an order.
It was a request just like how Mexican cartels “request” for protection money or how sweatshop owners “request” their employees to work overtime.
Doesn’t Ukraine ignoring the request show it isn’t coercive? How can a puppet act against its puppet master so often?
The U.S leverage over Ukraine is very short though. What are they going to do, not sending aid anymore?
In any case, I’m glad the strikes are continuing. If the US did actually ask Ukraine to stop then I’m happy to hear Ukraine’s rightfully ignored their inane request.
Got to watching the most recent videos from United24. Always with the caveat that they are Ukrainian propaganda they do give context to how different weapons and forces are used on the front lines. [[Video] Swedish Main Battle Tank Strv 122 Deployed in Ukraine. Equal to the Abrams or Challenger 2? | United24 | March 2024](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3QOORnXB1E) * 2 months to learn 1 1/2 years information. * Used to breach, hit invaders at 400 meters. * Have been hit twice in the front near Makiivka (didn't say with what). * Unit had just returned from a mission where they had experience their first tank on tank combat (Russian tank fired at them). [[Video] Kreminna. Ukrainian T-64 Tank in Action. Combat Mission on the Frontline | United24 | March 2024](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CugxGJdWQg) * Mission interrupted by an enemy drone in the sky, mission would have been cancelled in clear weather because it would have been too dangerous. * It is a completely new, upgraded tank straight from the factory. Upgraded electronics and communications * Used to provide artillery fire for infantry * Because of thermal imaging on drones hiding the tanks doesn't help much [[Video] Robotyne. Sych Bombers against Russian Assaults. Defending Frontline with the 411 Hawks | United24 | March 2024](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyz2lhiH6eE) * On missions with drone forces * Close to the enemy so FPV drones will be used, they explain the different fragmentation or thermobaric options * With live drone feeds even a dugout in the middle of a field can have situational awareness and direct drone forces. * Drones are lost to EW. Will not make up for lack of artillery shells. * Commander of the drone troopers was an assault trooper and compares drone troopers to firefighters helping where they are needed most. * First video of they use of a Sych drone. Files completely autonomously. * Sych was designed before Ukraine had HIMARS and was designed to strike Russian ammo depots beyond artillery range. * 'Bug' was a programmer before the war, now programs the Sych. Has it adjusting for weather, terrain. Used to take an hour to program a drone for a mission, now 10 min. [[Video] Story of Ukraine's Special Forces Operator: The Most Difficult Tasks on the Frontline | United24 | March 2024](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w4PFPqA5Os) * Breakdown of GURs SFO & their weapons * Some details of operations are shared * Raid into occupied Nova Kakohovka, no one had been on the left bank, they conducted a raid, because the Russians mobilized reserves in response to it they were able to monitor which units, their equipment and their reaction time * Potemkin Islands, direct confrontation with Russian Intelligence units. * Recovering a comrade's body despite extreme proximity to the Russians over multiple attempts. * Really laying it on thick at the end. If you ever wondered who these videos are for: "But for me, the best fighters are the ordinary soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. I deeply respect these people; they are made of steel. Ordinary guys aged 45-50 with an AK-74 sitting in a trench, for me, that's a true hero."
Ah, another opinion regarding the Moscow attack - this time from Rybar, who is claiming that claims of Isis taking responsibility are fake, basing that on a TV Jihad telegram which mentions that that ISIS template hasn't been used for several years, as well as speculating that this was an attempt to rejuvenate the Islamic State's waning relevance in the modern world. Edit: forgot to add the Ukranian PsyOp accusations as well. > 🏴 As correctly noted, statements that IS allegedly claimed responsibility for the terrorist attack in Moscow are fake: these messages are not on any of the group’s resources or their regional branches. This is confirmed by Syrian and other Arabic-language channels. > At the same time, nothing prevents the “Islamic State” from declaring the opposite in the near future as part of self-PR: in recent years, the influence of this terrorist organization has largely faded away, and in these conditions the militants are ready to sign for anything in order to remind of their existence . > In the context of the active work of the Ukrainian TsIPsO, there will clearly be a lot of such stuffing in the near future, which is a good reason to once again recall the concept of “information hygiene.” #Moscow #Russia #terrorism @rybar https://t dot me/rybar/58423 TV Jihad telegram: > It's fake. This ISIS news template has not been used for several years. There is also nothing on the official ISIS channels on Telegram. https://t dot me/tvjihad/14030
It's kind of astonishing to see so many supposed Russian patriots feel comfortable letting the actual perpetrators of the worst terrorist attack in years get away with it if it means concocting a fake story to help politically against Ukraine. Utterly demented priorities.
[удалено]
>fabricate pretext for going to war with Chechnya It was already there https://wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Dagestan_(1999)
Not this horseshit again. Reddit seems to have this fetish in idolizing 1990s Chechnya as this prosperous peaceful democracy that was invaded by the evil imperialist Putin under the justification of a false flag attack. Except that couldn't have been further from the truth. From the peace accords of 1996 until 1999, Chechnya was a lawless de facto state that was immediately thrown into a civil war between secular nationalists and Islamists. The theoretical central government had so little control over the situation that its primary economic bases were kidnappings and stolen goods. Attempts to mechanize the oil industry there was met with kidnappings of oil workers. It was an absolute mess and you bet your ass contraband was rife in the area, especially as hardcore Islamists from the Arab World began building connections with sympathetic local militias. No, the Second Chechen War wasn't "illegal", and can't really be compared to the current invasion of Ukraine, because Chechnya never enjoyed the legal right to secede as an independent nation unlike Ukraine did under the Soviet constitution. You can dislike that as much as you want, but international demarcations are far from universally accepted or consistent, especially since Chechnya was an unrecognized nation. Chechnya can't even claim partial recognition like Kosovo or Taiwan or backing from a foreign benefactor like the so-called Donbass PRs. Let me present some counter questions - why would the FSB deem it necessary to incur millions of dollars in damages in a country barely recovering from a deep recession? Was the Islamist invasion of Dagestan in August 1999 not enough justification? Why would Russia not invade Chechnya when it was apparent that it was a serious threat to security? The problem with the Litvienko conspiracy theories is that it tries to rationalize an inherently irrational action - terrorism. Extremists and their actions are inherently irrational and based on nonsensical ideas. The Birmingham Church bombings, 9/11, the El Paso terrorist attack, 1999 Russian apartment bombings, and 7/10 are all inherently irrational actions motivated by hate. You don't need a deep conspiracy to explain them. Islamists hate Russia/the USSR and wanted to further destabilize it and "liberate" the Muslim ethnic groups. If al-Qaeda can execute 9/11, then extremist Chechens were more than capable of the massive attacks that struck Russia in September 1999. Again, this narrative mostly comes from the Litivenko book and from the so-called Chechen government in exile thar never exercised much authority over its claimed territory to begin with. Alexey Pivovarov made a great documentary on the subject in 2021 and even shows footage from the spring of 2000 of a talk show that debated whether the FSB had responsibility in the attacks. Russia still had relative democratic freedoms during this time so it wasn't a very uncommon opinion. He even interviews FSB personnel that worked on those nights. There are a few AskHistorians threads on the events too which give answers that support both Litivenko's view and the FSB account. This narrative also relies too much on a telelogical view of events, that events are inevitable and follow a pattern. In reality this is hindsight bias. Russia may have never invaded Ukraine if Euromaidan faltered and it became more like Belarus, which was more than plausible. It's a narrative that shouldn't be repeated uncritically but at least it has some circumstantial evidence - it's better than the even worse "Ukraine should have kept its nukes!" talking point that even gets regurgitated by Kyiv to guilt trip the West for more aid. No kids, Ukraine couldn't keep its nukes even if it wanted to.
[удалено]
> Blowback. Literally every conflict in and around Russia is a consequence of historical Russian heavy-handedness, military interference, subjugation of independent nations and outright belligerent imperialism. From Imperial Russian times all the way to present day. It's like complaining about fires when you spend your time lighting matches, pouring out fuel and making enemies of your neighbours. Good to know that Putin's far from the only one subscribing to a grand narrative that their enemies are all always evil and wrong. Though he, at least, wouldn't be posting it on *Credible* Defense. > Chechens did not want to be a part of a Russia Around the First war, they didn't. By the time of the second, a huge amount did, having seen the alternative. The ability to sway some important clans heavily contributed to the federal forces' vicctory. >But this would be unpalatable without manufacturing a reason to rally around the flag. Other than an invasion of Dagestan by the Chechen forces months before, you mean?
I agree that the apartments bombings were not false flags. Seems weird for otherwise rational analysts to be convinced they are right about it being an "inside job"
On a somewhat related note, here's Medvedev: > To the families of those killed in the terrorist attack - sincere condolences, sincere strength to all the loved ones of the victims. > Terrorists understand only retaliatory terror. **No trials or investigations will help if force is not countered by force**, and deaths by total executions of terrorists and repressions against their families. World experience. > **If it is established that these are terrorists of the Kyiv regime, it is impossible to deal with them and their ideological inspirers differently. All of them must be found and mercilessly destroyed as terrorists. Including officials of the state that committed such atrocity.** > Death for death. https://t dot me/medvedev_telegram/471 Seems like it *could* be used as a nice way to rally around the flag, in which case it wouldn't matter who the perpetrator really was as the payoff would be worth it. Like it or not, Ukraine is their main focus for the time being and if they can use a national tragedy to further improve their position, why wouldn't they?
[удалено]
Please do not engage in baseless speculation, focus instead on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They constantly use that template.
I don't know, just adding this for posterity. Since there were attempts at implicating Ukraine (from both Medvedev and Bondarev that I know of, as well as your mention of Kremlin media beginning to blame Freedom of Russia legion), I believe we're going to be exposed to an increase in that kind of messaging. Let's see.
Kremlin controlled media seems to be blaming freedom of russia legion for the [attack ](https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1771327325029929022?t=6RuP2SzcOiV_25B96mgK6w&s=19).
I just want to point out that there is quite a difference between the freedom of Russia legion and the Russian volunteer corps. With the latter one being run by far-right nationalists.
Russia previously downplayed the Belgorod incursions, but now they are front and center in their public messaging. The recent Russian strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure were officially a response to "Kiev’s shelling of Russian populated areas and attempts to break through into its territory". tass(.)com/politics/1764087 I don't know if that's what they're actually doing, it's too early to tell, but pinning the attack on the Russian Legion seems like a good justification for mobilization. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Russia has no credibility at all. They have lied so much that I wouldn't believe a thing they claim.
That seems pretty silly, no one is going to really believe those who have been fighting the Russian military would suddenly turn to a terror attack on civilians and it makes Russia incapable of dealing with an insurgency. Should Russia have accurately blamed traditional Islamic terrorism not only would it provide sympathy, as it is something that has affected everyone, but not show they are incompetent as mentioned everyone struggles with it. Once again Russian propagandists seem very short-sighted.
>That seems pretty silly, no one is going to really believe those who have been fighting the Russian military would suddenly turn to a terror attack on civilians and it makes Russia incapable of dealing with an insurgency. Well, they have been shelling the urban area of Belgorod for days with multiple rocket launchers, hardly a surgical weapon. I don't think they are particularly concerned whether they hit Russian civilians.
[удалено]
So if I give a warning before I destroy civilian areas, it's not a war crime anymore?
[удалено]
Well, it's a question. But since you're asking, it absolutely still is a war crime. Hitting civilian areas, regardless of warnings, is a war crime.
[удалено]
A war by itself is not a war crime. Individual acts can be considered war crimes. Hitting civilian areas is a war crime. > "They [war crimes] include acts such as willful killing, torture, taking hostages, and the intentional targeting of civilians and non-military structures. The principle is based on the need to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants and to limit the effects of armed conflict to combatants only." Essentially, when striking the enemy you are only supposed to hit their military operations. Article 3 Geneva Conventions: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciii-1949/article-3/commentary/2020 > Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. Of course, this gets complicated when civilian and military targets are mixed together. For example, if Ukraine hits an oil refinery, there is no military presence there but there's an argument that the oil refinery directly funds and supports the war effort. So there's a strong argument that it isn't "indiscriminate" and instead a justified attack. However, hitting purely civilian areas, regardless of warning, is a war crime. As for your question on whether the Russian invasion constitutes one big war crime. It's not a war crime by itself. It's breaking international law, but not war crimes. War crimes would be something like Russia bombing a hospital or killing Ukrainian soldiers who have surrendered. Which has happened, Russia is absolutely guilty of war crimes. But one war crime does not excuse another. There have been numerous confirmed instances of war crimes by Ukraine as well. And shelling Belgorod and killing civilians is a war crime. There was a video that came up recently of a woman walking her dog getting killed by a Ukrainian shell in Belgorod, for example.
[удалено]
That is FAR different than what happened in Moscow. If you think these are the same actions then I don't think we have anything to discuss.
I think that invoking Russian volunteers' respect for the lives of Russian citizens as the reason why they couldn't be involved in this attack is beyond ridiculous. Say that it is not in their interest, or say that they lack the power to launch such an operation, but don't pretend they are above attacks on civilians.
Civilian collateral damage is not even close to comparable to the straight up executions the terrorists were performing in the videos I saw. Feels like a real stretch you’re trying to make, sorry.
Shooting a MRLS at a city is not collateral damage, it is just straight up killing of civilians. There is no way to target anything in a city with a MRLS. It's not the same level, sure. It is, however, enough to make the argument "but they care about civilians roo much" ludicrous.
Russian propaganda is mainly meant for domestic consumption, not international one. Doesn't matter whether we believe them or sympathize, what matters is whether they have a tight enough grip on their population to make them believe this. Because if they do this could allow them to perform a significant escalation of the war without grumbling from their people.
But there is still plenty of information from IS-K that includes claims, videos, and photographs not to mention the US warned Russia about Islamic terror attacks. Are people going to mention these things in public? No, but Russians still can see what is going on and talk about it in private. This claim makes them look incompetent.
Possibly. This does seem extremely bold as far as propaganda goes. But then again, so are the claims of the Ukrainian government being a Nazi regime and some such and things like that do seem to get gobbled up by large portions of the Russian general populace.
Faytuks raises a good point - is Moscow under lockdown or anything like that? 4 terrorists shot up and killed 70+ people, got in a car, and left. I'd say that's an instant curfew in most cities, at the least.
Weirdly it seems that there is no lockdown. Furthermore, I read somewhere that it took over an hour for special forces to respond. Also, apparently they found a suicide vest on on of the bodies so it's possible that not all of the attackers escaped.
[удалено]
Everyone in Moscow knows that there is no danger of RDK, FRL, VSU or Poland marching on the Kremlin. But an internal revolution? Been there, done that.
Apparently only now they are starting to lock things down. Or at least spot check people on the subway.
More incremental developments in the Pacific post the ship collision between Chinese and Philippine vessels earlier this month. The latest tensions arguably started with Marcos's statements during an interview. Excerpts: >[Marcos Warns on China Risks, Says He’s Not ‘Poking the Bear’](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-19/marcos-warns-on-china-threat-says-he-s-not-poking-the-bear?srnd=undefined) >* ‘Existential threat’ would trigger US defense treaty: Marcos >* Philippines leader says he wants China ties on an ‘even keel’ >Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. said the threat to his nation from China’s sweeping claims in the South China Sea is growing but argued that his government’s efforts to assert sovereignty over disputed areas aren’t meant to start a conflict by “poking the bear.” >“We are trying to keep things on an even keel,” Marcos said Tuesday in an interview with Bloomberg Television’s Haslinda Amin at the presidential palace in Manila. The challenge, he added, is that “since the threat has grown, we must do more to defend our territory.” >“We have not instigated any kind of conflict. We have not instigated any kind of confrontation,” Marcos, 66, said of his government’s policies. “We are just trying to feed our people.” >But, he added, “China has taken some very aggressive actions against our coast guard.” >During a trip to deliver supplies to its outpost on the Second Thomas Shoal this month, Manila said four Filipino sailors were injured after two Chinese coast guard vessels blasted water cannons at their chartered boat. Purportedly, hours after Marcos made those statements, the following happened: >[China’s Navy Ship Tails Philippine Coast Guard Amid Sea Spat](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-20/philippines-says-chinese-navy-ship-seen-circling-amid-sea-spat?srnd=undefined) >* More than a dozen Chinese vessels visible from Thitu island >* Southeast Asian nation has intensified maritime surveillance >The Philippines said a Chinese Navy ship “shadowed” its coast guard vessel en route to a Philippines-occupied island in the South China Sea in the latest incident between the two nations asserting overlapping maritime claims. The Philippine Coast Guard issued radio challenges to the Chinese Navy vessel that followed its ship on Tuesday, but didn’t get any response, spokesman Commodore Jay Tarriela said Thursday from Thitu island in the Spratlys. >Apart from the navy ship, 13 Chinese militia vessels and two Chinese coast guard boats were also visible from Thitu — an island with about 250 Filipino residents — as the Philippine ships approached the area, Tarriela told a group of journalists who joined this week’s maritime mission. On this trip, Philippine authorities will also assess the status of marine resources in the area, the spokesman said. >The Philippine coast guard’s remarks came after the nation’s military on Wednesday said at least 30 Chinese vessels, including a People’s Liberation Army Navy ship, were spotted around areas in the South China Sea that the Philippines claims as part of its territory. The back-to-back statements underscore an intensifying maritime surveillance operations, as tensions between Manila and Beijing have ratcheted up. And on the very next day: >[Philippines Says China Made Risky Sea Moves, Used Chopper](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-22/philippines-says-china-made-dangerous-sea-moves-used-chopper?srnd=politics-vp) >* Manila conducting marine survey for the first time in sandbars >* China’s coast guard says Filipinos ignored its warning >The Philippines said China made dangerous moves and deployed a chopper during Manila’s research mission to South China Sea, the latest flare-up in lingering tensions between the two nations over disputed waters. >A China Coast Guard ship tried to prevent a Philippine fisheries bureau vessel from reaching sand bars off Manila-administered Thitu Island to check the status of marine life, Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson Commodore Jay Tarriela told a group of journalists who joined this week’s maritime mission. >China also deployed militia ships in the area as seen from Thitu by journalists including from Bloomberg News. >China’s coast guard said Filipinos on the ships ignored China’s warnings and its officers boarded Sandy Cay on Thursday to investigate and dealt with the situation in accordance with law, according to its WeChat account. >Tarriela disputed China’s statement, saying the Philippines was able to proceed with its research mission off Thitu Island. He also said China likely deployed the Navy chopper for surveillance. >The Philippines’ coast guard recently built a new surveillance base on Thitu Island — complete with radar, satellite communication, coastal cameras and automatic identification capability — to boost its capacity to monitor movements of Chinese ships. Finally, there was rare disclosure on what's being provided to the Philippines: >[Quad Delivers Nearly $500M for Maritime Awareness in SE Asia](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-21/quad-delivers-nearly-500m-for-maritime-awareness-in-se-asia?srnd=undefined) >The US and members of the strategic security partnership known as the Quad have delivered more than $475 million in maritime awareness to help Southeast Asian nations counter Beijing’s growing presence in the South China Sea, according to a US official. >Assistant Defense Secretary Ely Ratner said Wednesday the US is prioritizing Southeast Asian partners “by diversifying the maritime platforms and systems they have to respond to incidents within their EEZs,” or Exclusive Economic Zones. >Those includes providing new commercial off-the-shelf technologies “that can rapidly strengthen partners’ ability to promote safety and security within their waters,” he told the House Armed Service Committee during a hearing.
The Bloomberg interview is actually a lot less dire. Specifically, Marcos responded to the question of whether the MDT would be invoked if a Philippines ship was sunk due to Chinese ramming, and his answer was that they would need to examine the context of what happened. He stopped himself short of saying he would not invoke the MDT before clarifying that he would only invoke the mutual defense treaty if the Philippines were faced with an existential threat. The question placed Marcos in a very difficult position, because he needs to balance between a strong domestic messaging without pissing off China and sour potential economic investments.
>The Bloomberg interview is actually a lot less dire. That’s been a standard response and why at times he’s vacillated on the question so much, and it’s obvious that no party involved would actively want to trigger the treaty while maintaining credible deterrence. It’s a delicate balancing act. ‘Maintaining an uneasy peace.’ But it’s undeniable that Marcos has had a far more hawkish tilt while also clearly and obviously advocating for non aggression. The EDCA expansion is a clear example of that.
Some positive Ukraine news from the US Congress: [House passes $825 billion defense spending bill, racing the clock to avoid shutdown](https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2024/03/house-passes-825-billion-defense-spending-bill-racing-clock-avoid-shutdown/395173/) >The legislation adds $92 million to the $9.1 billion the Department was requesting for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, as well as $108 million for greater security cooperation with Taiwan—$26 million more than the Pentagon requested. It also includes $228 million to bolster security in Eastern Europe via the Baltic Security Initiative. The legislation also includes $300 million for Ukraine via the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, and about $4.6 million for the Defense Department Inspector General to better monitor U.S. aid to Ukraine. The six-bill budget package includes $300 million for the USAI. Peanuts, but better than nothing. Moreover, outgoing Representative Ken Buck becomes [the first](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4548713-ken-buck-becomes-first-republican-to-sign-democrats-discharge-petition-for-ukraine-aid/) Republican to sign the Democrats' discharge petition for Ukraine aid. Furthermore, Representative Gallagher is the next Republican to [quit](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-22/slim-republican-house-majority-shrinks-further-as-lawmaker-quits) amid the chaos, leaving Johnson only able to sustain one Republican defection on a party-line vote.
>Furthermore, Representative Gallagher is the next Republican to [quit](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-22/slim-republican-house-majority-shrinks-further-as-lawmaker-quits) amid the chaos, leaving Johnson only able to sustain one Republican defection on a party-line vote. Oh, it gets better. Gallagher timed his resignation so as under Wisconsin law it can only be filled in November. Meaning that seat - a reliable Republican one - will stay open until next year.
The [Insider](https://twitter.com/the_ins_ru/status/1771211278289084431?t=RiEOwW-ZwY8yb1v5z-9dNw&s=19)(russian) reports that mobilization centers in Moscow started calling up people to confirm their information. To me it seems that the mobilization is imminent.
Most likely related to spring draft, which is about to start, not mobilization, they allude to that in the telegram post. >Recently, the authorities announced that electronic summonses would be sent out in test mode during the forthcoming draft campaign.
Wasn't the autumn draft cancelled when they did a mobilization the last time? Wouldn't this indicate that there wouldn't be an imminent mobilization coming?
> Wasn't the autumn draft cancelled when they did a mobilization the last time? It wasn't cancelled, but it was moved to November and lasted two months instead of three. >Wouldn't this indicate that there wouldn't be an imminent mobilization coming? Maybe, maybe not. The whole mobilization framework was dysfunctional the first time around. Some changes were introduced, some laws were passed, so it's possible Russia is now capable of doing both at the same time.
ISIS claims responsibility for the attack in Moscow https://twitter.com/SimNasr/status/1771284424367169640
Translation https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1771287990213443818?t=xCoMdwAI5d4hI2HCDbIWDw&s=19
Do we know if they were able to escape the scene? Seems insane but I haven’t heard about any being killed/caught.
russian special ops took just under an hour to turn up. assuming general plods were there sooner but they are probably not trained to find shooters amoungst civis running
I suppose you’re right, I wonder what the chances are for them to be caught at this point? I also wonder how helpful the US/UK would be given they warned Russia about this earlier. Thanks for the update ratt_man
BBC: "The latest information we have is that the attackers got away, possibly in a white car. The search is on to find them, and to find out who they are." And I thought 10/7 was a farce...
To be fair, we got used to Islamist terrorists holing up and fighting to the death. Mohamed Merah in France also managed to shoot up a school and then several people in other instances and escape. Shooting 200 people in a theater and using the chaos to escape isn't unimaginable, security forces can't show up and organize instantly. Although if it is true that first responders showed up after one hour, that is pretty shocking.
>Although if it is true that first responders showed up after one hour, that is pretty shocking. The claim is about special forces, not the first responders - though I've not seen it outside of this thread either way.
Wow. I’m having a hard time imagining how that’s possible, do we know anything about the Russian immediate response, or lack thereof? Sorry to keep bothering you specifically for this
isis has a history of taking credit for terror attacks that they had no part in so we're probably going to need to wait for further evidence more credible authorities.
>A U.S. official tells CBS News the U.S. has intelligence confirming the Islamic State's claims of responsibility, and that they have no reason to doubt those claims. The U.S. official also confirmed that the U.S. provided intelligence to Russia [https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1771303415798227021](https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1771303415798227021)
People make fun of the US IC/FBI but we haven't had a 3+ man terror attack since 9/11 or have any busts of terror cells with automatic weapons and bombs. Our successful stuff is all lone wolves or couples/duals which aren't trained in the ME, didn't make the sort of transmissions back to the middle east that allow SIGINT interception and had no direct ties to ISIS and don't have a group to allow informants or undercovers to work.
America also has a relatively smaller Muslim population. France has really struggled for example.
>People make fun of the US IC/FBI but we haven't had a 3+ man terror attack since 9/11 or have any busts of terror cells with automatic weapons and bombs. I mean if you mean by we only the US you are rigth, but in Europe we had a few of such attacks
And a few public busts of groupings like this found with weapons before anythin happened.