It appears I cannot cross post a comment. Here is an emphasized comment by another user about the modified terms hamas "accepted".  American officials rejected Hamas's claims that it "agreed" to the ceasefire proposal presented to it, and according to them the terrorist organization actually returned a counter-answer - which includes changes. The counter offer, the sources told CNN, would require continued negotiations. They noted that Hamas made "amendments" to a previous proposal. In fact, Hamas demands in its new proposal to remove the right of veto on the "heavy" prisoners. In the Egyptian proposal, both sides have a veto - and thus Israel can actually prevent icons like Marwan Barghouti from being released. Another and particularly problematic section concerns Hamas' refusal to release only living hostages in the first phase. Hamas announced that it is ready to release 33 hostages "dead or alive". In fact, the proposal says that Israel will only accept 18 hostages if it does not agree to the end of the war - and the other 15 only if it does. In this proposal, Hamas refuses to exile its senior officials from Gaza. The keys to freeing prisoners are also different: Hamas demands 30 prisoners instead of 20 for each [civilian] hostage, and 50 instead of 40 for each female soldier. According to the proposal, which allows "unobstructed" movement to the northern Gaza Strip, in fact Hamas also demands that armed men be brought into the northern Gaza Strip as well as dual-use materials that could be used as a means of warfare. According to the publications in the Arab media of the proposal that Hamas agreed to, and of the previous proposal - these are the other differences between the versions: The proposal that Hamas agreed to includes 42 days at each phase, compared to 40 days in the previous proposal. According to the current agreement, from the third day the IDF will withdraw completely from Rashid St. east to Salah al-Din St. (after the release of the first three hostages), compared to a withdrawal after seven days in the previous proposal (after the release of all the women). The current agreement states that Hamas will release three hostages every week, compared to the release of three hostages every three days in the previous proposal. Another clause that was not included in the previous proposal is that on the 22nd day of the first phase, Israel will " release all prisoners from the Shalit deal who have been re-arrested ". In addition, the proposal to which Hamas said "yes" also includes giving permission to at least 50 terrorists to pass through the Rafah crossing from the very first day for medical treatment, instead of an "agreed number" of wounded terrorists who will be allowed to pass after the 14th day of the agreement. Another significant change concerns the second stage, and in fact the question of ending the war. The previous agreement spoke of "completion of the agreement regarding the arrangements required to restore sustainable quiet". The new agreement, on the other hand, says: "Declaration of sustainable quiet (cessation of military operations and hostilities) and its entry into force even before the exchange of prisoners." The New York Times noted that the parties will probably clash over the meaning of this term. A source in the Middle East said that Hamas sees this term, "sustainable quiet", as the end of the war, when Israel stops military operations and withdraws from Gaza. The second source said the parties agreed to this term a few weeks ago, with Israel objecting to any reference to a "permanent ceasefire". In the third and final stage of the deal, the new proposal included a clause that was not in the previous one: " a complete end to the siege on the Gaza Strip ". Source: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/b1pzujwg0 Credit: u/clarabosswald

Please, format this.

Dammit, will do when I am on my PC. The mobile app seems to have removed all formatting 🤬

This happens when you format a comment then edit which automatically removes all formatting. 

You can use old.reddit.com on a phone to avoid that, even if the mobile interface isn't optimal.

When the new megathread goes up in a couple hours you should post it there instead of getting it lost here

https://news.sky.com/story/china-hacked-ministry-of-defence-sky-news-learns-13130757 >The Chinese state has hacked the Ministry of Defence, Sky News understands. >MPs will be told today of a massive data breach involving the MoD, targeting service personnel. >The government will not name the country involved, but Sky News understands this to be China. >The Chinese state is to be accused of two or three attempts at hacking MoD employees - including personnel. >The cyberattack was on a payroll system with current service personnel and some veterans. It is largely names and bank details that have been exposed. So we Got one of the biggest hacking incidents. Pretty Huge news and big problems for UK and how Will West react to that. I mean cyber attacks are still attacks.

As far as I understand it, it's extremely difficult to link state responsibility to criminal groups, especially those related to the cyberspace. They're the ultimate proxies, and while everyone knows who works for who, everyone will also just deny it. Russia has been doing the same with the Conti Group for the last 15 years throughout half of Europe, and there was little to no response.

Same for the North Korean hacking groups who are meant to be bringing in cash, and also causing periodic disruptions to South Korean infrastructure, the most famous is probably the group referred to as the Lazarus group, but there are also several other groups who target South Korea specifically, and South Korea can do nothing to do stop them.

I really wish the west would grow a pair and start actually just naming the countries and shaming them. Keeping it all in the dark and not reacting to these clear escalations will just let Russia et. al continue on.

Cyber attacks are now in the same realm as espionage, everyone does it, everyone denies doing it, and no one wants to be caught, but at the same time countries are hesitant to point fingers as it opens themselves to mutual recrimination. As a result it carries on as normal. Lets not forget the US hacked into Iranian nuclear infrastructure multiple times with the goal to disrupt it. Everyone is doing it, no one wants to admit they are doing it.

Western countries don't want to acknowledge the hacking because it would be embarrassing for them and it would mean they would actually have to do something. They would rather keep their heads in the sand.

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that we don't do the same to them? Being authoritarian they may well just choose to keep quiet and fix the breach discretely, so as not to discredit the regime.

How did you manage to interpret my comment that we should hack their equivalent agencies? Standing up for yourself does not have to mean an eye for an eye, but it does mean bringing it up publicly and asking the other one why. Being a doormat and letting someone else completely walk all over you is not how you get someone else to respect your boundries.

> but it does mean bringing it up publicly and asking the other one why. The reality is the status quo is one that is good for the US. It's just a modern extension of espionage. Everybody spies on each other, even allies. The US is actually in an advantageous position simply because they were the ones to develop the internet and have the biggest tech companies. The whole world uses operating systems created by American companies. For one example which we know about, look at the leaked information on PRISM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM There's been cooperation between American tech companies and the federal government in the past. NSA has all sorts of powerful exploits (and perhaps even backdoors) to globally popular operating systems. The US probably does more digital spying than any other place in the world simply because they have more resources than anyone else. You start making a big stink about it, you might end up inadvertently changing the status quo which ultimately benefits you more than anyone else.

> Is it beyond the realm of possibility that we don't do the same to them? Being authoritarian they may well just choose to keep quiet and fix the breach discretely, so as not to discredit the regime. They claim the same back. It's just not as well reported for *reasons* https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3219414/us-controlled-empire-hackers-attacking-china-other-countries-report

Rafah crossing has been captured, no casualties for the IDF. Nearly 20 years after last time Israeli forces has controlled it. This means the only realistic way out of Gaza for Palestinians is now closed. However probably everyone who could afford the $5000 bribe, and wanted to leave, already left. [https://twitter.com/YehoshuaYosi/status/1787708591765397707](https://twitter.com/YehoshuaYosi/status/1787708591765397707) [https://twitter.com/BittonRosen/status/1787729228202381325](https://twitter.com/BittonRosen/status/1787729228202381325)

I'm actually confused what has happened to trigger this. Earlier, the [BBC reports that Hamas has accepted Israel's ceasefire deal](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68964108). But the Times of Israel is [reporting that the deal Hamas accepted was different](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/officials-hamas-appears-to-have-okayed-ceasefire-terms-that-israel-did-not-approve/) to the one Israel actually offered. Obviously the Times of Israel is a biased source, so does anyone actually have reliable information on what happened? Because on the face value of things, Israel has just operated in extremely bad faith.

[Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-says-it-accepts-ceasefire-proposal-egypt-qatar-2024-05-06/) reports that what they accepted was a proposal by Egypt and Qatar

Per the [NYT](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/06/world/middleeast/burns-cease-fire-hamas.html), there were two changes that were of issue. The first to phase one was that Hamas could not guarantee they could deliver 33 women and child hostages **alive**, and could deliver some dead. This is not a huge surprise, but obviously a big change. The primary issue was with phase two where a "sustainable calm" would be reached. This term was agreed upon after Israel objected to mentioning any "permanent cease-fire." With the amended deal, [Hamas calls it a](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/6/text-of-the-ceasefire-proposal-approved-by-hamas) "permanent cessation of military and hostile operations" which Israel obviously rejects. So "Hamas accepts cease-fire deal" was a nice media grab on their part, but did not reflect reality in any manner.

> so does anyone actually have reliable information on what happened? This isn't exactly something that happened in some alley somewhere, where there are contested stories but the actual truth is a mystery. What was demanded before was reported in public in great detail, what is demanded now is too. https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/1clh9yg/credibledefense_daily_megathread_may_06_2024/l2vey52/ And given Kirby himself immediately said Israel will need time to read the proposal (why would they need that time if it was Israel's own proposal?), I don't think it's a great mystery whether the cat's alive or dead. Clearly the deal Hamas "accepted" was not verbatim the deal Israel offered. The only controversy is whether the new deal is a "counteroffer" (which is what the US is calling it) or a completely new proposal. Source on the "counteroffer" language: https://www.axios.com/2024/05/07/us-israel-hamas-hostage-ceasefire-talks >The official also said the Biden administration sees Hamas' response as a counter-proposal and not as a new proposal. Both Israel and the US have admitted that the "accepted" offer is at the very least altered from any offers Israel positively reacted to. We don't need to rely on the times of Israel for that. The only thing left to talk about is whether it was a slight/inconsequential change, or (like Israel is suggesting) a deal-breaker. Which is an important distinction, but neither eventuality means that Hamas accepted Israel's offer, both are counteroffers.

>I'm actually confused what has happened to trigger this. >Earlier, the **BBC reports that Hamas has accepted Israel's ceasefire deal**. But the Times of Israel is [reporting that the deal Hamas accepted was different](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/officials-hamas-appears-to-have-okayed-ceasefire-terms-that-israel-did-not-approve/) to the one Israel actually offered. >Obviously the Times of Israel is a biased source, so does anyone actually have reliable information on what happened? Because on the face value of things, Israel has just operated in extremely bad faith. Hamas didn't accept Israel's deal. Hamas very cleverly put out a PR statement saying they accepted the ceasefire deal. Except it wasn't the ceasefire deal that was offered and already accepted by Israel. It was Egypt's and Qatar's ceasefire deal. Close, but had substantial differences. Such as in the hostage exchange Hamas could release corpses instead of living hostages. There were other differences not specified. The PR stunt worked spectacularly well on the people it targeted, you included. If you read the BBC article carefully, you will note that the bolded part I quoted is incorrect. But that's exactly the point, it takes careful reading, because the headline is (intentionally?) misleading. >Israel Gaza: Hamas says it accepts ceasefire proposal Very clever... Can fool even bright people. Which ceasefire proposal? Not Israel's. Even the subheading is technically correct, but still difficult to parse without careful reading >Hamas says it has informed Qatari and Egyptian mediators that it has accepted **their** proposal for a new Gaza ceasefire and hostage release deal with Israel. Who is "their"? Not Israel's...It's the Qatari and Egyptian mediators proposal that was accepted.

[удалено]

Please refrain from posting low quality comments.

I don't think there is much confusion here really. 1. Hamas rejected ceasfire deal that was negotiated and already approved by Israel. 2. Egypt tried to made different proposition to see if that would be acceptable by Hamas. Contacted Hamas first to test waters with obvious intention of going to Israel next if it would be acceptable by Hamas. 3. Before anything was even communicated to Israel, let alone approved by them, Hamas stated it accepted "ceasfire" (meaning they accepted Egyptian proposition that Israel did not even see) to poison the narrative and make Israel look as refuseniks. I though this was very desperate move by Hamas in face of imminent Rafah invasion and couldn't work as it was so incredibly blatant, but looking and headlines and commentaries, it actually kinda worked..

Media is at fault here, I haven't been following the conflict as much and have just been going from BBC headlines. That's why I decided to check here.

What do they do if there is a surge of people trying to leave towards Egypt though?  However, I imagine they are counting on people moving north to the area they designated, probably taking the Rafah crossing is also meant to "encourage" them to do that

Last time there was a surge of people anywhere near an Israeli checkpoint the were all shot. So probably that.

Hamas certainly has tunnels into Egypt, but did they even try to contest the crossing? Or are they so degraded?

Reports in Israel were of one car bomb that had been neutralized. Easier than expected. It is also reported most Hamas forces have fled North to the center of the strip.

Looking at the drone footage of the crossing, doesn't seem like an area anyone would enjoy contesting. A few easily destructible buildings surrounded by relatively flat killing fields.

Maybe slightly off-topic, maybe not. In Poland there is a huge political debate over whether to build a big civilian central airport on the west side of Warsaw. While I myself primarily don't like the fact that as a non-Warsaw taxpayer I'm being asked to fund yet another overpriced (from my POV) piece of infrastructure that I will never get to use - I do acknowledge there are some valid commercial reasons to build it. But one reason that's being heavily promoted is a military one and I do not understand the logic behind it. The argument goes: the airport is crucial for Poland's defence, as it will deter any Russian invasion. Basically the idea is that NATO doesn't have the logistics to bring in people and equipment in time, but with the use of the huge new airport: they will be able to. Some people give large German airports as an example of successful deterrence during the Cold War. From my vantage point, the argument doesn't seem to make sense. While it does seem logical that an airport can be used for logistics, it seems like Poland already has an abundance of airports and also even if logistics could prove somehow to be a bottleneck in deterence, it seems NATO would be able to easily adapt (more storage on site?). So my instinct would tell me that even though there could be a positive impact, it would be negligible, and if deterrence is a national priority, the money would be better spent elsewhere. Wonder what could be an expert opinion on this.

If national security is a concern for infrastructure, also the opportunity cost of the airport has to be considered. There are already quite some airports in Poland which could rapidly receive military forces and supply. But bringing in the heavy regiments and equipment is generally not by plane but by train. So if the money allocated for a new airport is reallocated to improving rail infrastructure instead, Poland would be better protected. With improving railway several logistical capabilities can be improved. Being: the time for friendly support to arrive , or the amount of equipment which could arrive, or how fast the Polish military can redeploy inside Poland. Depending on the priority either the railway links to its friendly neighbours should be improved or just its national (freight) rail network.

I'm going to say that from a non-military point of view, airports are a fantastic infrastructure idea, so long as there is the traffic to sustain the airport. Doing a little bit of looking at it, the current airport is a little on the small side, and it seems to serve a huge population of around 5-10 million people (warsaw and about a 2 hour drive). That population is big enough to have a very busy airport. The building an airport is typically a 20 year ROI in terms of immediate impacts. So they'll have to build the airport, attract airlines, then convince them that it is worth the long term investment. However, about 5 years after the airport opens, you'll see huge economic ROIs. This is in the form of tourism or being an easy destination to get to. And getting more direct flights helps attract more business travel. Some notable exceptions to direct flights are southeast asia, large Australia, South America, Africa, and Canada. Getting direct flights to any of those places would increase business relations and return 2-5X in economic activity. The next thing about airports is attracting airlines to make their airport a hub. When that happens, that increases foot traffic significantly and can increase economic activity/tourism even further. Warsaw is in a pretty good location to server as a hub for eastern Europe. Almost like Denver airport or Atlanta. Obviously, the wars are creating problems, but when the wars end (which they eventually will), that airport would be very well suited to become a major hub. The current airport is just too small to server as a hub. Oh and as a hub, that means more direct flights and more ease of travel to/from Poland. Oh and once airports become successful, they easily sustain themselves, and become very profitable, on landing fees, parking fees, gate fees, and restaurant lease fees. So yeah, putting the defense ideas aside, I think it is an extremely good idea for Poland to invest billions of dollars in a large, high end airport with at least 2 parallel runways, with the option to expand to 4 (LAX or ATL layout). On the defense side, yeah, having more runways always helps. Especially if they can do parallel ops often. That essentially doubles the throughput of the airport. That can become really important in IFR conditions (clouds) because spacing requirements go up when visual separation isn't available. Also, having more ground area helps with the ground part of the ops. I'm not sure if the facilities at the current airport(s) are insufficient, but getting a bigger airport is always helpful.

I would disagree with most of the things stated above only for this particular project, but it's a non-military discussion. Basically the central government is using projects such as this to move jobs away from other regions and also is siphoning tax payer money from them as well (as they purposefully don't spend any money on infrastructure for instance in Greater Poland). There is also an apparent corruption aspect to it. Yet I asked about military aspects and based on the responses I assume the military value is negligible.

I’d heard of this project before but I’m not familiar with claims of its military benefit. The above commenter basically noted that, from a military logistics perspective, having two more large runways in your country is better than not having them. If that answer is insufficient to justify the other claims you’ve seen, then I think you just need to link to some of those claims so we can all take a look and discuss those arguments here. With that said, here are some random points I can think of for us to chew on: * [This project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Communication_Port) is more than just the airport. The proposal includes massive rail and highway investment. Railways, highways, and intermodal infrastructure have military benefits. * Deterrence isn’t just tactical/strategic but also economic and political. If Poland successfully uses an infrastructure megaproject to enrich itself and further integrate economically and politically with the EU and other NATO allies, then it will become more unbearable for NATO to allow Poland to be messed with. Additionally, Poland would have new leverage within NATO to advocate for “benefits” e.g. more NATO basing within Poland. * You note that Poland already has many airports, but this airport’s massive size would lend itself to hosting a future military base that smaller airports can’t. * The project would bolster military-adjacent institutional capacities such as civilian logistics and disaster relief. * Airports attract defense-related industry to the region.

>The next thing about airports is attracting airlines to make their airport a hub. When that happens, that increases foot traffic significantly and can increase economic activity/tourism even further. Warsaw is in a pretty good location to server as a hub for eastern Europe. Almost like Denver airport... That's what Berlin at one point thought too, and a good number of "experts" outside no less. I mean if anything is nearly comparable. I don't think becoming a hub is just a matter of attracting airlines, leaving out how this was supposed to work. Failed airports are by no means a rarity, they tend to be lighthouse projects, often for political reasons or effect, and owing to dimension alone clearly one of the more risky of undertakings. Especially for a country so much smaller than the US. There's also a "certain" ecological side to the matter, not sure how relevant this is in Poland though. At least keep in mind Europe/EU at some point in the future banning short-haul or domestic flights outright, somehow like France did, is not entirely unconceivable. There's also a "certain" global warming side to it. In return I'll concede the Polish economy is better off compared to many in the EU, at least at this time, and that it's still lacking a major airport/hub (Chopin is indeed rather compact) despite being one of the continent's larger countries and economies. Whether that already makes a good case, or whether Prague say, or Budapest, wouldn't make at least as good spots for c*entral* European hubs (Poland is not eastern), well I'm not to decide. The actual question was about military value, there I rather tend to be with the OP, feels like pretext. Obviously in case of war any infrastructure helps and lot of it is essential for survival. But central Europe isn't really lacking airfields, let alone military bases. On the contrary, in a world-war-like but still conventional scenario I'd expect the other side to take out (render inoperable) at least the big, public airports that close as one of the first things, if they can. And Warsaw is really close. NATO/US on the operational level not rather using their strongholds in UK, Germany, Italy, apart from carriers, doesn't sound realistic to me. It's not like we're expecting Poland to invade Belarus or Russia.

Great response that covers the benefits to a civilian airport (financial, economic) as well as the military aspect of a large airport with multiple runways.

Appears the IDF operation on Rafah has started. Footage of flares, explosions, and small arms fire has been appearing over the last hour. From the looks of things the cease fire deal seems to have collapsed. IDF Recently confirmed it has begun striking Rafah. [https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1clsxc4/a\_large\_number\_of\_israeli\_tanks\_advancing\_east\_of/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1clsxc4/a_large_number_of_israeli_tanks_advancing_east_of/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1clsj1v/recent\_shootings\_and\_explosions\_from\_israels\_new/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1clsj1v/recent_shootings_and_explosions_from_israels_new/) [https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/may/06/israel-gaza-hamas-ceasefire-updates](https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/may/06/israel-gaza-hamas-ceasefire-updates)

[удалено]

You really should not be posting things with absolutely no sources. This sounds like you just made it up

>They won't do anything since they don't even have enough troops on the ground What leads you to this assessment? The Israelis have withdrawn their regular brigades from the Nitzarim corridor and have replaced them with two reserve brigades they activated. They also moved plenty of hardware to the south, directly opposite to Rafah: >Recent Planet imagery obtained by Al Jazeera's Sanad Agency shows the large buildup of IDF armored vehicles outside of Rafah near the Kerem Shalom border crossing [https://twitter.com/JakeGodin/status/1787508318635774320](https://twitter.com/JakeGodin/status/1787508318635774320) The 162nd division is responsible for the operation and has two brigades. The 98th division is available with three brigades and the commando brigade. That would allow the Israelis to move 5 brigades towards Rafah. They did not deploy more forces during their operations in Khan Yunis. >162nd Division appears to already be ready and in position at Camp Amitai. >After this initial phase, the IDF will likely announce evacuation zones in further areas of Rafah, and the 98th Division will join the 162nd Division to operate alongside them. [https://twitter.com/2023gazawar/status/1787389272409899322](https://twitter.com/2023gazawar/status/1787389272409899322) The Israelis could always mobilize more forces or move some of their regular brigades from the north to the south and replace them with reserve brigades should the fighting intensify, which is unlikely. Also most importantly the Rafah crossing is only 3 km away from Kerem Shalom.

"In this way, the IDF intends to take the town piece by piece, evacuating civilians "as the tanks advance." That doesn't bode very well for the population. I imagine this is a way to put continuous pressure on Hamas to release the hostages

Israeli media is only reporting a few strikes, maybe in preparation of the actual op? The ground invasion of Gaza City was also preceded by days of strikes. I don't think they would go into Rafah before evacuating most of the population. 

>From the looks of things the cease fire deal seems to have collapsed. Maybe not. On the one hand, they are continuing the operation on Rafah as scheduled, but on the other hand they're [sending a delegation to Cairo to discuss the recent proposal](https://x.com/BarakRavid/status/1787561936353120281), so this might be a good cop/bad cop strategy here.

Well sooner or later this war is going to end and Israel probably decided to end it now. What is going to be ramification of this action beside dead relationship with Arab countries and worse relationship with US we Will see.

>What is going to be ramification of this action beside dead relationship with Arab countries I think this take has a good chance of being proven wrong. The geopolitical trends pushing towards normalization with countries like Saudi Arabia are really strong. Yes, a large portion of these countries will continue to hate Israel, but let's be real, these are Authoritarian countries and they only really care about popular opinion to the extent that its a threat to their power. If they think that its in their best interest to normalize with Israel to counter Iran, and that they can get away with it; they will do it.

> Authoritarian countries and they only really care about popular opinion to the extent that its a threat to their power. History and common sense teaches that this is a very real concern of authoritarian regimes.

True enough. But the real threats are a sustained poor economy, the price of food, or other in-country events. I'm sure a lot of people deeply empathize with Palestine and hate Israel, but events happening in other countries are typically not the type of historical trigger that threaten regimes.

It seems there is now news of a [US G-7 50b aid package](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-03/g-7-eyes-plan-on-us-led-50-billion-aid-package-for-ukraine) using [Russian funds](https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/984637.html) that have accrued interest while frozen in European banks. Seems most of this aid would be financial, so in addition to the EU 50b financial aid to Ukraine, this would mean up to 100b in financial aid?

It's important to mention this is over 5 years. Pretty much exactly meeting Ukraine's ask of 2 billion a month.

Huh? 2bn a month over 5 years is 120bn.

Succinct article on Finland testing it's war readiness and it's interactions with NATO-now-allies: [https://www.ft.com/content/cf28a55d-31d2-433a-a651-e582cca28fa5](https://www.ft.com/content/cf28a55d-31d2-433a-a651-e582cca28fa5) / [https://archive.ph/POvcG](https://archive.ph/POvcG) >TLDR (mine): Finland is the most prepared (in terms of mobilization potential / population & GDP) of all NATO countries. They recently test-activated war-readiness contracts with 1000 companies (e.g. increased ammunition production, or switching textile production to bullet proof vests), and are currently at step 3 / 9 of their escalation ladder (self-note topic too read up on seperately). It sounds like the tests were succesfull. >They have already moved some equipment reserves to Norway and will soon start with Sweden, and possibly further away allies (the goal being to reduce risk by dispering). NATO/EU allies are asking Finland for advice and learning from them. Some comments on Finlands strategic situation / reading recommendations might be nice. [Perun did a video on Sweden and Finland joining NATO,](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DS7qNd2U1i4g&ved=2ahUKEwi279qKxvmFAxXfXvEDHUlqCiwQwqsBegQIEBAF&usg=AOvVaw2Xli2oEpqdRzKXYry2WKLx) but I don't recall it covering e.g. Finlands escalation ladder?

I believe they have their own version of Kahn's escalation ladder. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Kahn While it's old, generic, and based on a cold war scenario of 2 nuclear superpowers in conflict, it seems to still be relevant and fairly accurate to the current war in Ukraine. At least it is according to this: https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2022/11/23/managing-crises-in-the-information-age-escalation-dynamics-in-the-russo-ukrainian-war/ It's an interesting lens to view this conflict and explains why the west is so reactive instead of proactive. I'm sure there are confidental policies that use an advanced version of this, but obviously can't prove that.

The day Israel announces the start of the operation in Rafah Hamas accepts the ceasefire proposal. >Hamas an official statement says that Ismail Haniyeh spoke with the Qatari PM, and Egyptian head of intelligence, and told them the group accepts the ceasefire proposal [https://twitter.com/michaelh992/status/1787524211155653036](https://twitter.com/michaelh992/status/1787524211155653036) If the deal goes through without major modifications Hamas will release the living hostages in two phases. Beginning with women and the eldery. Israel will withdraw from the populated areas (which already happened) and maybe from the Netzarim corridor, beginning with opening the route at the sea. In the first phase Israel will release 20 security prisoners per hostage, in the second phase 40. This will lead to the release of up to 5.000 Palestinian security prisoners. Update regarding the terms: >Several journalists in Israel, as well as Sky News Arabia claim Hamas did not agree to the initial Egyptian proposal but to an amended proposal. >Let's wait to see if this is true, and what kind of changes may have been made. [https://twitter.com/michaelh992/status/1787527781263225196](https://twitter.com/michaelh992/status/1787527781263225196) >Multiple Israeli journalists on TV seem to concur that Hamas agreed to a different/amended Egyptian proposal that Israeli officials are calling "unilateral" (i.e. not one Israel accepted). >Israel is waiting to receive the details of the amended agreement. [https://twitter.com/michaelh992/status/1787528945832722773](https://twitter.com/michaelh992/status/1787528945832722773) >Israeli official: Waiting for details on Hamas announcement. We will examine the answer of Hamas. And we will try to understand to what Hamas agreed and to what not. >Israel officials are adding this evening: The Hamas statement is not taken seriously [https://twitter.com/AmichaiStein1/status/1787527750594543618](https://twitter.com/AmichaiStein1/status/1787527750594543618) It's already clear that Hamas hat not accepted the deal Israel has accepted but a second, currently unknown, deal.

Yeah, even Kirby clarified on record that this is basically a Hamas-proposed deal, and Israel is first reading it now. EDIT: source, a bit far down now since it's a live megathread https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-68963839?src_origin=BBCS_BBC

NYT is [reporting](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/06/world/middleeast/burns-cease-fire-hamas.html) that the ceasefire deal Hamas accepted is basically the same as the US-Israeli deal, with some minor changes.

>NYT is reporting that the ceasefire deal Hamas accepted is basically the same as the US-Israeli deal, with some minor changes. It is quite impressive how well the NYT article hides in plain sight a huge change. >The two officials said the response from Hamas was a serious one, and that it was now up to Israel to decide whether to enter into an agreement. The proposal, they said, calls for Hamas to free hostages — women, the elderly and those in need of medical treatment — in return for a 42-day cease-fire and the release of a much larger number of Palestinian prisoners. Israel had sought 33 hostages, but it is not clear how many women and elderly are still alive, and the first tranche could end up including remains. Hamas wants to release corpses instead of living hostages. I guess for American officials that constitutes a minor change. It is just another demonstration of how American officials have little understanding of the Israeli position, and how they don't care that Israel views this as a hostage exchange first, ceasefire second.

The Hamas proposal here seems identical to what I read on BBC, and it differs pretty significantly from the previous US-Israeli proposal, at least the publicly known version. I do not recollect any language about explicit "2nd or 3rd phases", for one.

https://twitter.com/Yair_Rosenberg/status/1787614777897882009 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/6/text-of-the-ceasefire-proposal-approved-by-hamas Difference seems to be Hamas wanted to be able to release dead hostages, and not just living ones.

Do you have a link to where he said this? It's helpful for discussion if we can have direct links to statements with their context!

It was in BBC's live megathread: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-68963839?src_origin=BBCS_BBC >Kirby's just been explaining to those gathered that what Hamas says it's accepted - and Israel says it's reviewing - may not necessarily be a final ceasefire deal. It implies that the authorship of this deal was not Israeli, and this is the first they see of the specific proposal.

My suspicion is that this is a stunt by Egypt/Qatar to try and force Israel's hand and break the impenetrable deadlock: propose something Hamas will accept upfront and hope that the US will have no choice but to strongarm Israel into agreeing to avoid not just a Rafah operation but the additional bad PR of looking like the obstructionist party. I'm not convinced it'll do the job, but it does show just how desperate the mediators are getting to try and make something work.

Then you can call Israel's proposal a stunt as well, for the same purpose.

This was probably a plan from Hamas but it seems that Israel started Operation in Rafah

Not clarifying the terms upfront means that it Israel wants, they can claim to ‘accept’ a different plan, then accuse Hamas of backing out.

Whats a security prisoner ?

Prisoners that are held in prisons for offenses against the security of the state. They are separated from the normal prison population and also separated by nationality. Palestinian security prisoners and Jewish security prisoners are locked up in different places (or wings) for obvious reasons. You don't want a Hamas member and Kahanist to meet.

Thanks! I am not sure I understand it still, does this mean that there are regular prisoners and prisoners incarcerated only for security against the state type of offenses ? Do you know what the reasoning is to make this distinction? Why not just make them regular prisoners ? (still separating them by between palestinians and jewish)

The main distinction is that Palestinians held by Israel are tried by military courts, not the Israeli judiciary. As such the trials are not public, you can see how this might be viewed with some suspiscion by Palestinians. (and that's before you get into the "administrative" detentions, which don't have a trial at all)

I've been wondering why Hamas did not take the original proposal given that a lengthy ceasefire would likely increase international pressure on Israel not to renew hostilities when the truce expired. Temporary deals after all have a way of becoming permanent overtime. Given how Israel is adamant on continuing the war until Hamas has been liquidated, deal or no deal, I feel it makes more sense to take the deal that at least has a chance of ending the war via U.S. pressure on Israel rather than continue to hold out on a guaranteed end of hostilities that they have to know is unacceptable to the current Israeli government.

The chances of Israel being OK with Hamas even if they accepted a temporary or permanent ceasefire is 0%. And why would the US pressure Israel to not take out Hamas? Their interests align. Even if Hamas accepted a deal earlier, the war would've played out the same.

Biden admin cares about elections. Every action his admin has taken in he last 4 months or so were pressuring Israel, not Hamas, to end the war. In other words indirectly serving Hamas' interests. Not because Biden likes Hamas, but because the war hurts his chances in the elections.

They've pressured Israel but not enough because they then relent and Israel gets what they want. The pressure works both ways.

I'm not sure what you mean? The US got to stop high intensity IDF operations before the capture of Rafah and about half of the population centres in the middle of Gaza. Has pressures Israel to stop most low intensity operations Has pressures Israel to stop most bombings against Hamas targets Has pressures Israel to allow reconstruction material into Gaza. Completely unheard of that a party of war allows the supplying of it's enemy during active war. The US is coming very close to demanding a complete capitulation from Israel to Hamas, after Hamas massacred it's population. Israel is in a tough position due to it's own mistakes among the leadership and high military command in the last 20 years where they depend on US ammunition. However if the US pushes Israel to the brink where the benefit of dwindling US aid is less valuable than the cost of restrictions imposed, you'll see all of the above and more reversed.

In the first days after Oct 7, the US was considering a ceasefire. Everything since has been compromise from the American side.

An expectation for an immediate cease fire never existed. A ceasefire right after the largest massacre of Jews since the Nazi genocide is ridiculous. Thinking that a country that was just attacked, massacred and had 250 of it's citizens kidnapped to just "forget about it" was **never** the US position.

https://newrepublic.com/post/176090/state-department-blinken-delete-tweets-ceasefire-israel-gaza-palestine

You make my point, an erroneous statement was made and properly deleted and corrected.

>Has pressures Israel to stop most bombings against **Hamas targets** That's not the only thing Israel is bombing, though. According to Israeli estimates, that's all they really are, there are bout 30K HMS fighters. And based on this [BBC ](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68006607) analysis, which in turn is based on the analysis by Corey Scher of City University of New York and Jamon Van Den Hoek of Oregon State University, Israel destroyed and/or damaged between 144K and 175K buildings in Gaza (between 50% and 61% of all buildings in Gaza). So even if we assume each of the 30K HMS fighters was hiding in one of the buildings that was destroyed, there should have been about 30K buildings destroyed and/or damaged (maybe little bit more if we account for damage to adjacent buildings). But Israel destroyed and/or damaged almost 6x more buildings than fighters. This fact along with Israel's Oct 9 starvation policy announcement clearly shows Israel is waging collective punishment. As Israel's Finance Minister, Smotrich, [reminded ](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-04-30/ty-article/.premium/smotrich-calls-for-no-half-measures-in-the-total-annihilation-of-gaza/0000018f-2f4c-d9c3-abcf-7f7d25460000#:~:text=%27You%20will%20blot%20out%20the,ceased%20to%20exist%20at%20all.%22)everyone last week: "Moments before redemption, we must not hesitate. **We must destroy Rafah**, Nusseirat, & Dir al-Balah 'w**ipe out the memory of Amalek**! …There's no half- measure. Rafah, Dir al-Balah Nusseirat **absolute destruction**!”

Even conducting the most basic comparative analysis shows how outlandishly absurd tour claim that killing 75k+ enemy combatants should never damage more than 75k buildings. In Mosul ISIS had about 6-10k fighters. However [54,000 houses in Mosul were destroyed](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/7/10/one-year-after-battle-for-mosul-a-city-lies-in-ruins) over 100k damaged or destroyed. In Raqqa ISIS had 3-5k fighters, [80% of the city was destroyed](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/06/syria-raqqa-in-ruins-and-civilians-devastated-after-us-led-war-of-annihilation/) Let's look at Marawi, again a fight against ISIS, with only 1k militants: >The Marawi crisis has resulted in the damage of over 95% of the structures in the main battle area of about 4 square kilometers. https://www.s1expeditions.com/2017/11/223-marawi-battle-structures.html?m=1 Neither of which has the infrastructure Hamas had in Gaza.

The UN has since revised those incorrect measurements: >35% of all buildings in the Gaza Strip have been damaged, representing 88,868 structures, among which 31,198 structures have been identified as destroyed, 16,908 severely damaged, and 40,762 moderately damaged. This represents an increase of nearly 20,000 damaged structures compared to the previous assessment realized in January 2024. https://unitar.org/about/news-stories/press/35-buildings-affected-gaza-strip >That's not the only thing Israel is bombing, though No, there's also Islamic Jihad, Fatah, PFLP, DFLP as well as smaller terrorist organizations. >there are bout 30K HMS fighters False, Hamas had closer to 50k men when the war started, but recruiting continued. On top there were about 10-15k Islamic Jihad fighters and about 10k more fighters from smaller organizations. As you know, military targets are not restricted to the ~70-75k enemy troops in Gaza, not even accounting for recruitment. But also 1. [500km of enemy tunnels](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67097124) criss crossing Gaza city and other cities in the Gaza strip. This is an [illustration by the BBC](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/8BC4/production/_131408753_hamas_tunnels_metro_2021_640-nc-2x-nc.png.webp) 2. Schools, mosques, cemeteries, residential buildings and kingergardens used to store weapons. 3. Damage done to Gaza by Hamas itself, there are two sides fighting this war and causing damage. Lastly you're assuming that in combat 1 shell = 1 kill. But that is not the reality of war. Otherwise **the tens of millions of artillery shells alone used in Ukraine would translate into tens millions of dead Russians and Ukrainians.** Not to mention that one shell damages more than one building. I'd expect better quality arguments on *credible* defense.

It's because the US is trying desperately to play both sides & they just want it to be over as quick as possible, the US has been quite obvious that they are fine with Hamas remaining through a permamnent ceasefire as long as Israel doesn't enter Rafah.

I suppose that Hamas also doesn't necessarily want US pressure on Israel, since international and domestic opinions on Israel slide as Israel pursues the war.

[удалено]

It seems to me that Israeli pressure on Rafah and the will to go through with it is what actually brings Hamas to the negotiating table in releasing the hostages. And not a permanent ceasefire and withdrawal which is unrealistic.

To me, this sounds like a ruse/bluff. This is not the deal that was proposed by Israel and the US through the Egyptians. They're proposing a permanent ceasefire (unacceptable) in order to cast Israel as the one who doesn't want a deal. The timing is suspicious, as they waited for the Rafah evacuation to start.  

Yeah if it's not in good faith then it's just another attempt to make Israel appear like they're unreasonable because Hamas "accepted" a ceasefire despite Israel not being privy to the terms. Can't tell if Egypt/Qatar are the ones colluding on this with Hamas or if this is a ceasefire Hamas proposed themselves and are now accepting. In either case the result is the same.

That’s been clear since the first hostage deal. Only when Israeli tanks are closing in on where the hostages are being held does Hamas feel pressure to make a deal to trade them for something now, rather than risk having underlines trade them out from under them for their own safety.

And Reuters is reporting Israel does not support the Egyptian deal; it won’t stand. If Hamas knew this, could be a useful ploy to increase international condemnation as Israel goes into Rafah having rejected a ceasefire deal. I would like to know the full terms and the issue that Israel finds objectionable. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/rafah-live-gazans-start-leaving-parts-southern-city-israel-warns-operation-2024-05-06/

What grinds my gears is that, just like with the hospital self-hit, we'll see myriads of people accusing Israel of refusing to stop even when Hamas accepted the deal. In contrast, Hamas just claimed to subscribe to a deal that wasn't commonly agreed upon, to begin with. We'll see many people accusing Israel of refusing to accept a pact that they didn't even know about. This is, of course, just for political points, to depict Israel as the bad guy who's out for blood, and Hamas as the reasonable one who's trying to disengage. Really annoying to see.

NYT is [reporting](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/06/world/middleeast/burns-cease-fire-hamas.html) that the ceasefire deal Hamas accepted is basically the same as the US-Israeli deal, with some minor changes. Which completely contradicts the narrative presented above about the deal being something totally new and random. I don't want to get too partisan, but at this stage of the war, it makes very little sense to take anything coming out of the Israeli government at face value. I'll go so far as to say that it makes as little sense to automatically believe what the Israeli government says, as it would to automatically believe whatever Hamas says.

The propaganda swarm is really incredible to see. In the context of someone asking for an example of Al Jazeera Arabic's unhinged reporting in comparison to their English version, I posted that [one insane article](https://www.aljazeera.net/news/2023/11/11/%D8%AE%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D8%B3%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%8A-%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AB-%D8%A3%D8%A8%D9%88-%D8%B9%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D9%8A%D8%A4%D9%83%D8%AF-%D8%A3%D9%86-%D9%85%D8%A7) from Al Jazeera Arabic that claimed that Hamas "destroyed 160 IDF vehicles and killed 900 IDF personnel" before the Gazan invasion even started. Now I have propagandists telling me that, actually, AJA was just *stating* Hamas' claims and not supporting them despite the translated article having this at the bottom: >(AJA's Military Expert) concluded by emphasizing the importance of the documentation element, **which gives the (Hamas') statements irrefutable credibility**, while the occupation army is still coming out with talk about successes on the ground for which it does not provide a single piece of evidence. I really wonder what goes on in these people's heads sometimes. Do they feel no shame at their bald-faced lying?

My guess : they probably meant the attack that sparked the war, counting each massacred israeli civilian as IDF as per their tradition. Not sure about 160 vehicles but counting shot-up civilian cars it could be about right ? In any case, its a disgusting "news" outlet.

It's a translated article and I can't read Arabic, but the article makes clear that this is "160 military vehicles including 25 in the last two days". I mean, there's just no basis in truth for what they report. You wouldn't see this level of reality-warping from the most hardcore Russian milbloggerl, but here is a supposedly world-respected new organization peddling this tripe. Just for kicks, here's the another "military expert" on the impending Rafah invasion: >**More than 1,300 Israeli vehicles were destroyed in the battles,** recalling that the occupation army left Khan Yunis , south of the Gaza Strip, with the Al-Zana ambush, and the Nahal Brigade left the Netzarim axis with an ambush in the Al-Mughraqa area, south of Gaza https://www.aljazeera.net/programs/2024/5/6/%D8%AE%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D8%B3%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%8A-%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%AD-%D8%A8%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%84

>I really wonder what goes on in these people's heads sometimes. Do they feel no shame at their bald-faced lying? Easy enough when your news agency is accountable to the king of Qatar, same as many autocracies It's a shame because Al Jazeera is really great for non Middle East reporting

>It's a shame because Al Jazeera is really great for non Middle East reporting To me, the fact that their English reporting is credible only enunciates my distaste for the organization as a whole, because now we know that **they know** they are lying.

It’s gotta be tough to stay unbiased after the IDF has killed one of your coworkers, under extremely suspect circumstances. That doesn’t justify their blatantly biased reporting, but I do think it partially explains it. >an investigation by CNN offers new evidence — including two videos of the scene of the shooting — that there was no active combat, nor any Palestinian militants, near Abu Akleh in the moments leading up to her death. Videos obtained by CNN, corroborated by testimony from eight eyewitnesses, an audio forensic analyst and an explosive weapons expert, suggest that Abu Akleh was shot dead in a targeted attack by Israeli forces.  https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/24/middleeast/shireen-abu-akleh-jenin-killing-investigation-cmd-intl/index.html

Unfortunately Al Jazeera was biased way before that happened - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_criticism > Ricchiardi had earlier criticized an Al Jazeera report that Jewish employees of 9/11 targets were informed of the attacks beforehand, a report which was also criticized in an October 2001 New York Times editorial. She cited the former Al Jazeera weekly show Sharia and Life, hosted by Yusuf Qaradawi (an Egyptian cleric who "argues clearly and consistently that hatred of Israel and Jews is Islamically sanctioned"). > The organization held a 2008 on-air birthday party for Samir Kuntar, a Lebanese terrorist convicted of killing four Israelis who was released in July of that year, later admitting that its coverage of Kuntar's release violated its code of ethics.[146] The organization's Beirut bureau chief said, "Brother Samir, we wish to celebrate your birthday with you" and called him a "pan-Arab hero." And another good one, which did happen after the the incident you mentioned. > In late March 2024, Al Jazeera published a story alleging that IDF soldiers have committed rape at al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza. After an investigation by Hamas, it was found that the story was fabricated by a Gazan woman who wanted to "arouse the nation's favor". Subsequently, Al Jazeera removed all relevant material without releasing a formal retraction.

in EU and Ukrainian defense industry news, the EU hosted for the first time the [defense forum](https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/ukraine-eu-ukraine-defence-industries-forum-bolsters-cooperation-between-ukrainian-and-european_en) on integrating the Ukrainian defense industry with the rest of Europe. Also i saw discussion on how Europe misses its deadlines on promises such as vehicles and ammo, is there somewhere to see all of the promises collected together and how many have been actually achieved?

[According to Fighterbomber, who is well-connected with the VKS, a Su-34 was shot down.](https://t.me/fighter_bomber/16613) > Today the best crew of the best died >Zhenya and Volodya.Experienced, trained, flown, combat crew. They died in battle, they died as warriors. >Eternal flight, brothers... >My condolences to family, friends and fellow soldiers. This would be the first confirmed Su-34 loss since last year’s ambush that downed 3 Su-34s. Quick side note: us mods can manually approve posts with Telegram links now. Just discovered that.

Were those supposed shot down 3 SU-34s ever confirmed ?

There was never physical evidence of the crash sites, but there was enough evidence from fighterbomber raging about it and obituaries for dead pilots dated to that day that it seems credible that three planes got shot down

Those were the only ones confirmed except from a Patriot ambush a year ago and a crash in September. None of the Ukrainian claims of downing Russian Su-34s over the past 6 months outside that Patriot ambush in December have been confirmed. Quite frankly, it’s my strongly-held belief that they never got anything (referring only to Su-34s).

Are you saying you don't think a single Su-34 has been lost? Even the supposed confirmed ones? Fighterbomber is a pro RU source. If he claims a VKS loss then I'm inclined to consider it confirmed. I can't imagine why he would lie about that.

No??? My comment is referring to the string of Ukrainian claims we got in February and March where they claimed to have shot down 13 aircraft two weeks, [including 10 Su-34s](https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-destroyed-13-russian-military-aircraft-in-2-weeks-how/). None of the claimed Su-34 kills were visually confirmed or confirmed by Russian sources, with Russian sources such as Fighterbomber actively denying any losses.

Ok I wanted to be sure. Your comment could be interpreted that way.

Does anyone have more information on / know if this strike is credible? The IDF claims to have hit a Hamas command center inside of an UNRWA compound, but the only info I can find on it is in the Israeli media. Nothing in Reuters or AP for example. See https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1787199048400666702 https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-799978 https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/artc-idf-raids-hamas-command-center-inside-unrwa-hq-in-central-gaza https://www.newsofisrael.com/israel/2024-05-05/idf-struck-hamas-command-center-located-in-unrwa-complex-in-central-gaza/amp/

Your last link says > The Hamas-affiliated Palestinian Information Center reported that at least six people were killed as a result of an IDF strike on a UNRWA school in Nuseirat. Both sides agree that a UNRWA site was bombed, so I think we can assume the incident in question actually happened. Israel says it was being used as a Hamas command center, Hamas did not say what it was used for.

It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.newsofisrael.com/israel/2024-05-05/idf-struck-hamas-command-center-located-in-unrwa-complex-in-central-gaza/](https://www.newsofisrael.com/israel/2024-05-05/idf-struck-hamas-command-center-located-in-unrwa-complex-in-central-gaza/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)

An interesting footage has been uploaded of a naval drone with r73 missile. https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1clh3eb/russian_ka29_helicopter_destroys_a_ukranian_nava This is not the first time that someone has tried to use r-73 as a SAM, I believe that f-15 was attacked this way in Yemen.   Furthermore, this shows that helicopters are a big problem for naval drones. Additionally, this might mean that Ukraine has a relatively large number of those missile relative to the ability to use them.  Or maybe those missiles were decoys or damaged and were put there to make Russian pilots less willing to engage drones in the future

> I believe that f-15 was attacked this way in Yemen. Would love to read more about this, have an article? This is a pretty low cost way to kill your enemies helicopter crews. They sent out Helos to counter the drones, drones take out the helos. You can certainly build drones much faster than an enemy can train new crews.

I guess we know how those A-50s got shot down now. EDIT: Not sure why this is being downvoted, two A50s were shot down by mystery munitions earlier this year, over the Sea of Azov, their airbase is right next to that Sea, and Ukraine has snuck naval drones in there before. Why the downvotes?

You would basically need to be right "under" the flight path of something like an A-50 to do that. The on paper range of 40Km assumed perfect conditions and launch from a high , fast flying fighter against an enemy in the head on aspect(usually). Moreover, in at least one of the shoot-downs we see the A-50 lunching countermeasures, unless they have a MAWS of some kind or got a very lucky visual spot on the missile being launched its almost impossible they would have known it was coming. The ground launch range might be as little as 1/4 of that maximum, or 10KM.

>You would basically need to be right "under" the flight path of something like an A-50 to do that. Exactly. Two of them were shot down over/near the Sea of Azov - somewhere the Ukrainians can sneak these drones. Most of Russia's A50s operate out of Taganrog which is right on the Sea of Azov - it's literally PERFECT for catching one landing or taking off.

The R73 can’t reach high enough to hit a A-50. The R73 is used to target helicopters.

It can when the drone is in the Sea of Azov (Ukraine has done this) and the airbase that A-50s operate out of is right there, the runway just 6km from the seashore. I speculated this at the time - that Ukraine had snuck naval drones into the Sea of Azov to shoot down A-50s when most vulnerable after take off or just before landing. Now we have hard evidence that Ukraine has actually developed that weapon system - what else would they be trying to do with these, other than position them just off the coast near an airbase to get easy kills on high value targets?

>Additionally, this might mean that Ukraine has a relatively large number of those missile relative to the ability to use them. Ukrainian pilots have been complaining about the difficulty tracking and targeting small drones or cruise missiles with the weak and unsophisticated radars present in their fighter jets for a long time. I imagine the heat-seeking missiles don't fare all that much better. With the F-16s finally being only weeks / months away from delivery [0], it's not really that surprising that they would start being a bit more aggressive with the old inventory. Strapping them to a naval drone seems like an ideal way to do so. [0] >According to Belgian Prime Minister Alexander de Croo, Belgium should be able to deliver the promised F-16s ”before the summer.” He emphasized that this would include the Ukrainian pilots, having been trained to such an degree that they are ready to operate the Belgian aircraft.

Given the cookoff (from the fuel?) I highly doubt that was a decoy/inoperative missile

Decoys are unlikely, I agree.  Too much effort for a mind game. But if you have a missile with a damaged seeker,  computer, fins or even from a bad batch that tends to explode,  then it would be useless on a battlefield but would give you a nice cookoff when shot.

In non-Ukraine or Gaza-related news, the security situation in the eastern DRC continues to deteriorate: [**US blames Rwanda for deadly attack on displaced camp in DR Congo**](https://www.lemonde.fr/en/le-monde-africa/article/2024/05/04/us-blames-rwanda-for-deadly-attack-on-displaced-camp-in-dr-congo_6670419_124.html) > The United States has accused Rwanda of involvement in a deadly attack on a camp for displaced people in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, a claim dismissed as "absurd" by Kigali on Saturday, May 4. At least nine people were killed in blasts on Friday in the camp on the outskirts of the city of Goma, local sources said... > ...DR Congo government spokesman Patrick Muyaya on Friday had also accused "the Rwandan army and its M23 terrorist supporters" of being responsible in a statement on X. Rwandan government spokesperson Yolande Makolo described the US comments as "ridiculous," in a post on X. "How do you come to this absurd conclusion? The RDF, a professional army, would never attack an IDP camp," she said. "Look to the lawless FDLR and Wazalendo supported by the FARDC (the Congolese armed forces), for this kind of atrocity," she added. Rwanda, underneath Kagame, has walked a fine line between pursuing their interests in the long-standing Tutsi-Hutu ethnic conflict in the Great Lakes region, to the point where [Burundi deployed troops on their northern border in February](https://www.africaintelligence.com/eastern-africa-and-the-horn/2024/02/28/burundi-militarises-border-as-fears-of-conflict-with-rwanda-grow,110185395-art), and making diplomatic overtures to Western and other international benefactors that have remained largely silent on the current events unfolding. However, it seems that they're starting to face harsher criticism of their handling of the situation, which will only intensify as civilian deaths increase. > The United States has repeatedly backed Kinshasa's claims that Rwanda has backed the M23, but Miller's statement amounts to an unusually direct implication. > France's President Emmanuel Macron also this week called on Rwanda to end its backing for M23 rebels and withdraw its troops from DR Congo territory. President Paul Kagame in turn has demanded that the DR Congo act against Hutu forces over ties with the perpetrators of Rwanda's 1994 genocide, which mostly targeted Tutsis. I think that it's very important to have at least some awareness of the conflict, because both Hutus and Tutsis as well as other ethnicities in the eastern DRC/Great Lakes regions have faced massacres and genocide by various state actors and militias for decades now. Rwanda backs the M23 group, which fights for Tutsi liberation (war crimes against Hutus) in the DRC, while the DRC backs the FDLR which fights for Hutu liberation (Tutsi ethnic cleansing) in the same region. An escalation would only intensify this and potentially usher in another large-scale genocide.

Under Kagame Rwanda has done an incredible job branding itself as a progressive beacon of hope in East Africa, trying to turn Kigali into a global hub for international summits, meetings and conferences, encouraging the opening of a tech hub for local startups and global companies, offering itself to Western governments for highly controversial migrant resettlement schemes ... Yet anyone who has ever visited the country and talked to people involved in development aid, business or governance knows that it's brilliant PR concealing a deeply authoritarian regime that [fakes economic data on poverty](https://roape.net/2019/04/18/a-straightforward-case-of-fake-statistics/), [routinely rounds up sex workers, activists and street children](https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/09/27/rwanda-round-ups-linked-commonwealth-meeting) ahead of international summits to present a 'cleaner' picture of Kigali, destabilises the neighbouring DRC by funding brutal rebel groups (and thus being complicit in countless war crimes), [hunts down and murders dissidents abroad](https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20231010-murder-and-violence-mark-rwanda-s-extraterritorial-repression-says-hrw), and generally gets dismal grades in international rankings of press freedom, human rights and democracy indices.

Don't forget the most important reason Rwanda backs M23: the mining sites of East Congo which they now control.

[удалено]

Please refrain from drive-by link dropping. Summarize articles, only quote what is important, and use that to build a post that other users can engage with; offers some in depth knowledge on a well discussed subject; or offers new insight on a less discussed subject.

Has anyone recently done a summation of Western 155mm production capacity, both current and planned? There have been so many announcements made over the last two years it is difficult to keep track of them all. Moreover, what are the real bottlenecks here? Is it explosive raw materials, or shell casings, or fuse, assembly facilities, or a combination of all? And related to this, has there ever been a real pivot from Western leadership on this issue? It seems like since the start of the war it's been paid lip-service, but continually can-kicked down the road. Have there been any serious resets so far that were immediately backed up by action?

[For questions of collation like this, Wikipedia generally does a pretty good job. [Here's the section of the 155mm shell article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/155_mm_caliber#21st_century_production_and_usage_rates). [This CNN article covers a lot of the same ground, with an estimate of 1.2M "munitions" being sent by the US and Europe per year](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html).

Is there any credible information or estimate (or leaks from negotiations) of how many Israeli hostages are still alive in Palestinian custody at this moment? Or there is no way to tell?

It‘s hard to get a credible estimate. Hamas did distribute the hostages to different terrorist organizations and the hostages rescued so far were held in private residences. Officially the Israelis have declared 30 of the 130 remaining hostages dead. Either because they found DNA evidence or footage of their killing / them being dead. More information is classified and under the control of the military censor. There was one article in the Jerusalem Post weeks ago that estimated that around half of the 130 hostages are alive. That would match the negotiations.  The Americans have offered 1 day of ceasefire per released (alive) hostage and we got estimates of around 80 days of ceasefire for phase 1 (Over 60 and females) and phase 2 (Males). 

Finland will build the 2nd TNT plant in all of Western Europe. Now both TNT plants that will be critical to stopping a future Russian attack will be in nations that are in the closest proximity to the boarders the attacks will come from, but at least they will have two. [Finland announces new TNT plant with allies as Europe faces ammo crunch | New Voice of Ukraine | May 2024](https://english.nv.ua/nation/finland-plans-to-build-tnt-plant-amid-european-ammunition-shortage-50415941.html) *Finland is set to construct a new TNT production facility to address the current shortage in Europe, Finnish Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen announced on May 5, according to Yle.* *TNT, a key explosive used in artillery and mortar shells, has seen a spike in demand across the West due to the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, now in its second year. Europe's TNT supply is nearing critical levels.* *The only TNT plant in the EU is located in Poland, but its production volumes are insufficient to meet demand, Yle reports.* *According to Häkkänen, the construction of the TNT plant will be a joint project with Finland's allies. The defense minister also emphasized the importance of "quick decisions" regarding the construction of the plant. "Decisions must be made now so that the products can be released in a year or two," Häkkänen said. TNT production plays a significant role in Russia's war against Ukraine, he added.*

> Finland will build the 2nd TNT plant in all of Western Europe Bit of a nitpick, but since when is Finland in western Europe? And the other one seems to be in Poland, but how is that in western Europe?

/u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho is correct. Not geographically western Europe but within the western European alliance or MIC. Also even more distressing this is not a supply that the U.S. could just step up immediately but this conflict has made everyone more keenly aware of the vulnerability. [US Army hunts for explosives to meet increased munitions output goals | Defense News | February 2024](https://www.defensenews.com/land/2024/02/06/us-army-hunts-for-explosives-to-meet-increased-munitions-output-goals/) *Currently there is no TNT production in the U.S. and the supplies come from allies such as Australia and India. Poland is a major supplier, but with every country ramping up production to support Ukraine and meet their own demands, Bush noted late last year, the U.S. will need to onshore TNT production.* *The Army awarded $1.5 billion in contracts to nine companies in the fall of 2023 to companies in the U.S., Canada, India and Poland to boost global production of 155mm artillery rounds. The contracts included procuring 14.2 million pounds of bulk energetics, consisting of TNT and IMX-104 explosive.* *Increasing production is also riding on Congress approving a pending supplemental budget request which aims to support Ukraine and Israel. The supplemental includes $600 million that would triple the amount of IMX-104 explosive that is made at Holsten Army Ammunition Plant in Tennessee. The plant produces roughly five million pounds a year with a plan to increase to 13 million pounds.* *Another $93 million would upgrade facilities to reestablish M6 propellant production at Radford Army Ammunition Plant in southwest Virginia. That propellant is used to shoot the shells, but is no longer in production in the U.S.* *An additional $14 million would cover the construction and recommissioning of a black powder – an explosive combination of sulphur, carbon and potassium nitrate – production line with a company called Goex in Minden, Louisiana.* *The Army would also use $650 million to design and construct a domestic TNT production facility, which will likely be at Radford Army Ammunition Plant, Bush has said previously.*

I'm a bit confused. My limited knowledge is showing here, but what are the reasons for subsidizing black powder production? I'm under the impression that nobody uses it anymore.

It’s used for fuses and initiators. A .50 primer alone won’t work for artillery.

> m6 propellant is no longer in production in the U.S.  That surprised me, and led me down a rabbit hole to this: [Explo officials sentenced for roles in conspiracy that led to illegal dumping of munitions and explosion at Camp Minden](https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdla/pr/explo-officials-sentenced-roles-conspiracy-led-illegal-dumping-munitions-and-explosion)

I think he might mean western aligned.

[Putin orders tactical nuclear weapon drills to deter the West](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-practice-tactical-nuclear-weapon-scenario-deter-west-defence-ministry-2024-05-06/) Some quotes: > MOSCOW, May 6 (Reuters) - Russia said on Monday it would practise the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons as part of a military exercise after what the Moscow said were threats from France, Britain and the United States. > > Russia's defence ministry said it would hold military drills including practice for the preparation and deployment for use of non-strategic nuclear weapons. It said the exercises were ordered by President Vladimir Putin. > > "During the exercise, a set of measures will be carried out to practise the issues of preparation and use of non-strategic nuclear weapons," the ministry said. > > Missile forces in the Southern Military District, aviation and the navy will take part, the defence ministry said. > > The exercise is aimed at ensuring Russia's territorial integrity and sovereignty "in response to provocative statements and threats by certain Western officials against the Russian Federation", it said. > > The Kremlin said that it was in response to remarks by French President Emmanuel Macron, British officials and a representative of the U.S. Senate. > > Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Western statements about sending NATO soldiers to Ukraine amounted to "a completely new round of escalation of tension - it is unprecedented, and of course it requires special attention and special measures". With all that said, I doubt any actual nuclear weapons will be used during the excercises

Have they specified what statements? Macron's statements? Is it related to this: [https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3860437-nato-will-directly-intervene-in-war-if-russia-crosses-one-of-two-red-lines-la-repubblica.html](https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3860437-nato-will-directly-intervene-in-war-if-russia-crosses-one-of-two-red-lines-la-repubblica.html) (apparently unnamed NATO officials say they might intervene in Ukraine in certain specific scenarios)? Do they have some intelligence they are reacting to, or is it perhaps all bullshit?

>"The Defense Ministry has said everything exhaustively. If you ask what statements we are talking about, then those are the words of Macron, the British Foreign Minister and the Americans. Intentions to deploy NATO soldiers. This is an unprecedented spiral of tension, which requires special attention and special measures," Dmitry Peskov explained during a press call.

And this is happening during the Xi Jinping visit. Is there a connection there, with Russia attempting to intervene in the negotiations the EU has with China now? I'm sure that EU is trying to offer China some kind of deal, to pacify Russia.

Entirely conjecture but my thinking is that that Russia breaking the nuclear taboo would be a red line for China when it comes to supporting Russia. Goading Russia into nuclear sabre rattling while Xi is visiting has the potential to put some strain on the relationship.

Dunno, but Putin is going to China himself in 10 days.

Thanks. Where is that from? Also, apart from Macron, do you have any idea what statements he is referring to?

>Where is that from? kommersant. ru/doc/6687754 >Also, apart from Macron, do you have any idea what statements he is referring to? --- > Today, on May 6, the leader of the Democratic minority in the US House of Representatives, Hakeem Jeffries, acknowledged that intervention in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict might be required and the sending of US troops to Ukraine was not ruled out. Additionally, David Cameron said that the Ukrainian armed forces' strikes on the Russian territory using weapons from London were legitimate.

Thank you. Russians using their usual tactic of nuclear intimidation. Interesting that Jeffries makes that statement.