Ukrainian naval drones sink a Russian missile corvette

Ukraine has sunk another Russian warship in the Black Sea using drones. The Ivanovets, a $70 million missile corvette, went down on January 31. Video shows multiple Ukrainian boat drones dodging bullets before hitting the stern of the warship, disabling it in the water and then causing it to sink. According to the Ukrainians, a search and rescue operation found no survivors. Kyiv said the mission was carried out by shadowy ‘Group 13’ of the Main Intelligence Directorate, Ukraine’s spy agency, along with the Digital Ministry. It is at least the fifth warship that Putin has lost from his once-feared Black Sea Fleet, which is being beaten by a country with no functioning navy. British Intelligence estimated Ukraine had destroyed a fifth of the fleet even before the Ivanovets was sunk, helping Ukraine keep its ports open.

(YouTube video description from the Daily Mail)

Comment: This is an instructive video. It should send a chill up the spine of every serving naval officer throughout the world. We have already seen what the massive use of drones is doing to the conduct of land warfare. This attack was carried out with a swarm, albeit a small swarm, of a drone designed and built under the stress of an ongoing war. It wasn’t a surprise attack. The Russian corvette was underway and returning fire. The drones evaded that fire. The strike to the stern of the corvette was an immobilizing hit. The double strike to the midships destroyed it. The drones were likely controlled from Odesa, maybe with a seaborne or airborne relay. Or it could have been controlled from a small craft from a closer distance.

Now imaging a larger swarm of even more capable drones, or FPV long range torpedoes. How about deploying and controlling such drones from a submarine? The navies of this world are in for some serious rethinking and refitting.


This entry was posted in The Military Art, TTG, Ukraine Crisis. Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to Ukrainian naval drones sink a Russian missile corvette

  1. Fred says:

    How about controlling them from Yemen’s sunny Red Sea beaches? Nothing like a nice hot qahwah and Bint al-sahn to go with the joy of sinking a …

    • Stefan says:

      Its gonna take a lot more than we are doing to stop the Houthis. Half of the trade going up the Red Sea has been stopped. I also dont get why the USG has been telegraphing and outright saying who we are going to be attacking in the Middle East?

      One would think they actually WANT the people and groups in question to move, disperse and harden assets.

      • Fred says:

        Europe may be screwed, but the US is not. Maybe the EU can ask the UK to talk to the Houthis, Yemen used to be their colony and we should stop being their bully boys when they want their foreign policy enforced. They can ask Egypt for help as the transit through the canal is a big part of their revenue. Then remind everyone that they lived with higher costs and longer transit times when the canal was closed for 8 years in the ’60s and 70s.

  2. SRW says:

    sort of makes the naval base at Sevastopol useless; maybe the whole Crimea peninsula?

  3. babelthuap says:

    FYI Russia has already destroyed all of Ukraine ships. It was always going to be a battle of attrition. One side has a lot more bodies and weapons than the other side.

    It can only end one way. If you think this is not reality then fine. Live in your Jerry Lewis fake buck teeth land singing la la la laalaalaa. Concentrated insanity. Have fun with your gags and props. It’s not funny. Stop this nonsense. Ukraine is being wiped out.

    • ked says:

      any idea how many more Russian ships will be sunk before Ukraine surrenders?

      • Fred says:

        Any idea how many more months of Ukrainian offensive until Russia is defeated?

        • ked says:

          that offensive has been abandoned for some time. unlike Putin’s Russia, w/ the incessant Meat Wave assaults, Ukraine seems to know the the meaning of insanity.

    • F&L says:

      Did anyone watch Mearsheimer’s latest (last night) with Judge Napolitano where he says that the Russian AF is now flying freely at will in Ukraine and hitting things as it wishes? He snuck it in very briefly. I haven’t heard that anywhere else.

  4. leith says:

    Daily Mail is understating when it says the Ivanovets is “the fifth warship that Putin has lost from his once-feared Black Sea Fleet”.

    By my count hey had three ships sunk (Saratov, Moscka, Ivanovets) and four destroyed (Minsk, Rostov-on-Don, Askold, Novocherkassk). And what happened to the four that sustained damage (Csezar Kunikov, Ivan Golubets, Olenegorsky Gornyak, Velikiy Ustyug), have they returned to service or are they still in the yards awaiting parts? To say nothing of the six patrol boats, one hi-speed assault boat, one small landing craft and a naval tug that were sunk, destroyed or damaged. The Black Sea Fleet headquarters in Sevastopol (and its Logistics and Technical Support Base) was destroyed and is being reconstituted in Novorossisk in Russia’s Krasnodar territory.

    But it is nothing to gloat about, because as Babelthuap mentions the Ukrainian Navy lost all her ships in the first month or two of the war. And the BSF has at least three guided missile frigates and four attack subs still capable. And Putin keeps shipping stolen Ukrainian grain.

    Amazing that the Ukrainians keep fighting back.

  5. d74 says:

    A naval loss is always painful for both parties. A ship destroyed and sunk can be a very strong negative symbol in the imagination for a country that relies on its navy.

    This is not the case for the Russians.
    This is a land and air war, 90% continental. The Russians don’t even need surface ships to launch their missiles.

    This war has shown that an overprotected but isolated 60-65 tonne armoured vehicle is an easy target for destruction by much cheaper flying machines.
    The same goes for ships.

  6. James says:

    It’s no wonder that governments everywhere are in a tizzy about AI. Once you can show your swarm a photograph of a specific warship, and give the swarm the warship’s approximate GPS coordinates …

  7. English Outsider says:

    What with drones and fancy missiles, don’t think I’ll choose the Navy as a career. Not so sure about the Army either. Was it 202o I read a hotshot American General remarking cheerfully that in the first hour of high intensity combat he expected to lose half his men and equipment? It’d be just my luck not to make the cut. The Air Force might do. At least they provide parachutes. But thinking it over, roll on the era of fighting robots.

    But TTG – these naval drones came from Odessa? We, that is the Brits, have been operating out of Odessa and nearby places for a while now. Somehow I don’t think the Russians are going to wear that any longer than they have to. At the end of the day they’re either going to insist on it being a neutral port with full rights of inspection, or it’ll become Russian. The latter probably less fuss and would suit the Russians better.

    • TTG says:


      The Russians have been trying to take Odesa or destroy her military and economic usefulness for two years. They’ve only gotten further away from that goal. Just like Sevastopol was to remain the impregnable bastion of the Black Sea Fleet.

      Your musings are one of the principal reasons I stayed light infantry back in 1976. While at Fort Benning, now Fort Moore, an NCO on one of the ranges told of his seeing the effects of Sagger, TOW and Dragon shaped charges on the interior of armored vehicles. He said it’s going to nothing but oatmeal and ketchup smeared all over the walls. No mech infantry for me.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        Ha. Ten years later I made the decision to pass up an armor slot for the same reason.

        I find these drones to be a terrifying modern-day battlefield reality, whether naval, armor or infantry. I just can’t imagine being an infantryman in what would have been the relative safety of a fighting hole 20 years ago, now having to scan the skies as well as the terrain in front of me. It’s literally adding a whole lethal dimension to combat. As for the Navy, it’s like being constantly under threat of attack from 100% fearless Kamikazes, but with much better aim than the WW2 version. Horrible.

        Navies will still be necessary for delivering troops, supplies and ordnance/weapons to distant war zones. Airlift just can’t get the job done on a scale that is needed for anything like a major war. The supply ships will still need escorts for protection. Either fire control systems and/or jamming systems are developed that can consistently stop the drones, or, just maybe, the era of imperial war and humanitarian interventions in hostile zones is coming to an end.

        • James says:

          Eric Newhill,

          If I might be permitted to harp on a bit about AI – once the necessary models are trained up then the defender can jam the drone all he likes and it won’t do him a lick of good … because good luck jamming its camera(s).

          • Eric Newhill says:

            So the drone continues to attack because its camera has locked on? I don’t really understand electronic gizmos.What of something that fries their circuits than something that confuses or blocks their GPS?

          • James says:

            Eric Newhill,

            If something fries its circuits then it is kaput – but short of that, with actual artificial intelligence … the drone will be able to see the target and impact with it. It won’t need GPS once it has located the target.

            This does not exist yet (as far as I know) but teams are working on it. Heron systems is making great headway in the flighter-to-fighter equivalent of this:

            I am confident that the hardware we have is up to the task. Its just a matter of creating the software – in other words, training the AI models.

    • Barbara Ann says:


      “Somehow I don’t think the Russians are going to wear that any longer than they have to”

      I agree, but of course they do have to and a major reason they have to is that the greatest achievement of the Potemkin Fleet in the Black Sea is in providing homes for reef-dwelling fish. Russia will “wear it” for a while yet.

      • English Outsider says:

        Barbara Ann – I reckon they will. Back in 2022 I used to compare the Russian approach to that of a man backing away from a mad dog. No sudden movements that might upset the brute. Just edge away until you’re clear.

        I hear a lot of how the American armed forces are nothing much these days and pose little danger. Not so. They are inferior technologically and don’t have enough troops in the right place for any sort of expeditionary force that’d do any good. But they still pack one hell of a punch.

        And mad? Well, listen to such as Lindsey Graham. Or to the President himself. He’d quite cheerfully pull some macho stuff in Ukraine if he thought it would improve his poll ratings.

        The Western politicians are mad and dangerous. Backing off carefully is what we’ve been watching the Russians do for the past two years. If they have any sense that’s what they’ll keep doing until they’re clear.

        Not so sure about the European part of the West though. When the Ukraine business is over the Russians just might get fed up with the Stoltenbergs and the Scholz’s prancing around with their make believe Generalplan Ost. If the Russians do get fed up with all that nonsense they might just stop their rations. I don’t see any European politicians worrying about that.

        That’s not because those European politicians are brave though. It’s because they’re dumb.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          I’m noticing a lot of mainstream media headlines alluding to various western countries preparing for war against Russia in Ukraine. I don’t know how prevalent on your side of the pond, but it’s all over in American online MSM.

          Now I don’t necessarily give the reports much credence at face value. However, I have noted an increasing pattern of MSM floating ideas and warming the populace to whatever is being planned by the powers that be. The info ops get people to accept coming events as normal, necessary, etc. when, really, they are anything but. The public response can be assessed by AI, then message refined as needed to be more effective.

          I’ve been expressing concern since day 1 of the Russian invasion that the US and UK will eventually come into direct conflict with Russia because Ukraine cannot win the long war and our elites cannot admit to defeat. Of course, the “experts” tell me I’m crazy and it will never happen. I don’t know. I’m liking my prediction track record much better than the experts’; not 100% by any means, but better than the online pundits. The MSM stories and opinion pieces have me worried that I might be right about this one too.

          On a tangent, it’s interesting to me that many of those who think we can defeat Russia, at the same time insist that Israel and the US cannot defeat Hamas and similar groups because too many dead civilians. Well how many civilians have been killed by Ukraine? How many would die in a US/NATO v Russia conflict? Acceptable collateral damage, I suppose. That is another source of my conclusion of antisemitism at work in the case of Israel v Hamas. Dead Palestinians are a horrible crime. God knows how many dead Europeans (and maybe Americans) are just a grim price that must be paid for a worthy cause.

          • TTG says:

            Eric Newhill,

            Are you hearing about countries preparing to join the war in Ukraine or preparing to fight an eventual Russian invasion of their countries. I hear the later and a European push to pick up the slack in supporting Ukraine with the US sidelined politically.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            A Russian invasion of their countries? I thought Russia was in bad shape and struggling to defeat Ukraine. How on earth could it take on even more with an attack of NATO countries?

          • TTG says:

            Eric Newhill,

            Russia is in bad shape, yet she still has capability to attack NATO countries and has not ceased making threats to undertake such attacks.

          • English Outsider says:

            Eric – I could be living in dreamland but I don’t take any of that seriously. Andrei Martyanov recently looked at just that issue and I put together what I reckon on it:-

            I thought Yavoriv had put paid to the notion of any Western expeditionary force coming in in formed units. Apart from that, no European army by itself or in concert with others would be able to cope. It’d have to be done in concert with US forces.

            But I hold to what I believe was Colonel Lang’s dictum. The Russians and the Americans will not fight each other openly. And though President Biden’s interpretation of “boots on the ground” is elastic, he stated at the start of the SMO that the US would not put boots on the ground in Ukraine.

            I’m not sure what a hypothetical expeditionary force would use to fight with in any case. We’re all of us in the West light on weaponry and personnel at present.

            Reasons for the current warlike statements coming out from Europe:-

            1. Blame game. After the defeat each country will be blaming someone else. We Europeans will blame the Americans for not holding to “as long as it takes”. The Americans will blame the Ukrainians for not following their tactical advice. The Ukrainians, if there are any left, will blame the West for leading them down the garden path. I think Arestovitch is rehearsing that line at present but it’s increasingly the mood in Kiev too.

            So the warlike noises coming out of Europe are merely a way for each country to show that they were prepared to go all the way but the other Western countries let them down.

            2. Preparation for Cold War II. Remilitarising Europe is going to be expensive and possibly unpopular. Unless one has shares in Rheinmetall. The transition from the proxy war fever that swept Europe in 2022 to the Cold War fever that’ll be needed in 2024 will be eased by much warlike talk in the interim.

            3. We still hope to be able to promote partisan activity in Ukraine after the formal defeat. That can only be done if the proxy war fever mentioned above is maintained.

            That last hope is impracticable. Now they’ve had to go this far the Russians will neutralise remnant Ukraine and have done. We shall not see partisan activity on any scale after the defeat. But I think the Western politicians have not yet grasped that.

            I believe those are the reasons for the warlike noises coming out of Europe at present. They do not presage any attempt at direct and overt military intervention on the part of the Western countries.

            If I’m wrong on all that, Eric, I’m wrong. But if I’m wrong it’s mushroom clouds.

            On the Palestinian issue, which I know you feel strongly about, I find it very difficult to get my bearings. I really don’t like what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians. I have no time for Hamas and the methods they use. And it’s not that long back that the Israelis and Hamas were on the same side in Syria. Difficult to forget that.

            What I do know is that just as our actions in Ukraine have wrecked Western diplomatic credibility in the eyes of the world, our actions in the ME have put the finishing touch to that wreckage.

            And I’m fed up with seeing American military and financial power leveraged for their own ends by seemingly every man and his dog. That goes for the Israelis and for my own country too. Also for those toothless poodles over in the EU.

            Toothless, yes. Poodles, undoubtedly. But I’ve come across no American commentator or analyst who recognises that the poodles weren’t just following on passively behind the big dog.
            They were using the big dog to get at the prey they wanted to get at themselves.

            re was American backing behind i

          • Eric Newhill says:

            You’re probably right. I never have a good feel for what the poodles are doing. They are an enigma to me. I just don’t like the big talk. I know what it leads to in the US.

            As for Israel v Palestinians, look at this way. Ansar Islam (Houtis) have been shooting up their own cities for several years. Something like 250,000 civilians have died in the crossfire. A massive famine caused by the war is killing off many more. Welcome to life in the Muslim world, but where is the international outrage? The carnage is order of magnitude less than what Israel is inflicting on Gaza in a defensive action. Where was Colonel Lang’s ire?

          • TTG says:

            Eric Newhill,

            Colonel Lang had great admiration for the Houthis in their long fight against the Saudis and others. His disdain for the Saudis is something I share.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            Meant to say the carnage being inflicted by Houtis/Ansar Allah on Yemenis is orders of magnitude MORE than what Israel is inflicting on Gaza.

            Yet there is no international outrage.

            This has nothing to do with what Col Lang thought about Houtis’ fighting ability, nor the short comings of the Saudis. It is a question of principles. If it is wrong for Israel to use force and hunger to accomplish defense of the country and to hold territory, then it must surely be wrong for Ansar Islam to do the same, on an even larger scale.

            Moral and justice considerations apparently only become a matter of personal hand wringing and international concern when Israel can be singled out and painted as a perpetrator.

        • Fred says:


          So Boris, saboteur of peace settlement, and now returnees to the cabinet David Cameron, along with Sunak, are all mad dogs? Well they are fora bilateral treaty with Ukraine. They’re even conning the Germans into one. Before they get voted out of power.

          • English Outsider says:

            But no Macron? Say what you like about the French, and I do because they stole our damned fish, they’re big on the savoir faire.

            As for the two Europoodles in the photos, what else can they do but double down?

    • Fred says:


      You have managed to scrap most of your own navy, haven’t carriers combat ready, nor officers qualified to lead what is left of your submarine fleet. Your army is half the size it was just a few years ago and your air force is busy DEIng itself into incompetence.

      Now we hear that you won’t sign up. Not to worry, the conscription for war op is already running.

  8. walrus says:

    Two can play that game. What none of us has seen yet are the “drone destroyer drones” that must be under development for land air and sea. These will also be powered by large chunks of AI.

    The problem with FPV drones of all sorts is maximum speed because this is a function of human reaction times and we are too slow.

    I imagine a platoon or section drone that can protect the airspace above from FPV drones.

    There is already at least one AI enabled marine lookout system commercially available (Sea AI, I think it’s called).

    I am also waiting fo robot tanks. It shouldn’t be too hard to put a Tesla autopilot into a Leopard add some fire control and the result could be an inhumanly fast attack vehicle.

    Sci Fi authors postulated such machinery at least 60 years ago. It isn’t that hard……

    • Barbara Ann says:

      walrus, All

      Drones which use autonomous targeting via ‘AI’ (fancy image recognition software) are surely the future – Eric Schmidt certainly thinks so (see linked article on his work in Ukraine). As James above says, such autonomous ‘hunting’ drones are immune to GPS/radio signal jamming*.

      *Some while back I read a study (by Google I think) on how it may be possible to spoof traffic signs so that autonomous vehicles ‘sees’ something that isn’t there. I’m sure countermeasures for autonomous targeting cameras must be possible. Paging John Connor.

    • cobo says:

      When we reach the point that AI drones, robots, etc. do all the fighting, what will be the use of expending material for war? If people aren’t dying, it just becomes a video game.

      It will make more sense to move in the direction of the Star Trek ‘the original series’ episode where two civilizations had been at war for hundreds of years, but they only “played” war, based on what would have/could have been missile strikes.

      The statistically declared dead just headed for their local neighborhood extermination chamber. It saved on all the mess and was certainly more sustainable from a resource perspective.

      So, we’re on that path, and the next step for us here and now is missile war. No need to get muddy, just trade missile strikes. That is all that is currently needed until we progress to the extermination chambers.

    • Fred says:


      USS Cole. The men onboard were better than Tesla AI. Got into a lot of trouble with the squadron commander by explaining how I could sink a bunch of his ships in port back in the 80’s the same way a couple years before hand. Apparently he never watched (or read) The African Queen. It wouldn’t be that hard and we just let in a couple million people who just love America and wouldn’t dream of doing anything illegal….

  9. aleksandar says:

    Again ukraine is expending massive ressources and time targeting a 35 years old BLS surface ship that as zero impact to the war and has been a sitting duck in a lake for almost 2 years without any participation in operations.

    • TTG says:


      Sitting in a lake? Are the Ukrainian drones amphibious? Or are you referring to the Black Sea as a lake?

      • aleksandar says:

        Lake Donuzlav.
        Even if technically it is no longer a lake.
        There is a small base here and Ivanovets was patrolling the lake since 2022 to prevent infiltrations.

        • TTG says:


          The Ivanovets was attacked in the open Black Sea outside Lake Donuzlav as were two other even smaller ships/boats.

          • aleksandar says:

            Sorry but,
            “The enemy vessel was on the roadstead of Lake Donuzlav.”
            There’s no roadstead outside the lake here.

            Note that Ivanovets was used last year to sink Ukr vessel Ternopil already captured be BSF.
            PR Ops and childish revenge.

        • Fred says:


          So the Russian navy in the Baltic is already effectively destroyed. Tell that to the admirals. Better yet tell ours as I’m sure we have even less defenses in our naval bases from similar attacks which none of the millions of illegals would ever launch as they all love love love America.

      • leith says:

        Lake Donuslav AKA Donuslav Bay.

    • leith says:

      Aleksandar –

      Ivanovets suffered a catastrophic explosion…likely the anti-ship cruise missiles in the launch tubes. Whether they were P-270 or the newer K-35, both had the range to hit Odessa. Both had large warheads. Both are notoriously inaccurate against land targets. So sinking her probably saved a lot of civilian death and injury.

      So you might be correct that it would have had little impact on the war. But it was definitely worth it to the people of Odessa.

      • aleksandar says:

        It was just a PR Ops for westerners.
        Nothing to do with saving a lot of civilian death and injury.

        • leith says:

          Aleksandar –

          The release of the video was PR – for the West sure, but even more so for the Ukrainian people.

          But the actual attack on a cruise missile carrier is not PR, it’s called self defense. To suggest otherwise sounds like Kremlin cope.

          • aleksandar says:

            “Kremlin cope” = No question, no opinion allowed.
            Marxism, fully.

            P-270 is an anti-ship missile.
            Nothing to do with civilians in Odessa.

            A PR Ops, expensive, useless.

          • leith says:

            Aleksandar –

            Ships of the Black Sea Fleet have been using anti-ship missiles against Ukrainian land for a long time now. Those missiles are grossly inaccurate against ground targets as their radar homing guidance tend to lock on to the biggest radar cross section in the target area – and typically that is an apartment building full of civilians.

  10. aleksandar says:

    The Black Sea fleet in 2021 is +/- 43 units.
    I don’t count patrol boats, hi-speed assault boat, small landing craft and so.
    That’s “expendable”.
    No proof naval tug that were sunk.

    4 sunk

    Only Moskva is a significant loss.
    Orsk and Novocherkass were landing ships.
    Ivanovets useless.

    7 damaged
    Askold – condition unknown
    Kunikov – condition unknown
    Golubets – condition unknown
    Gornyak – dry docked, under repair.
    Minsk – towed to Novosibiirsk, dry docked, under repair.
    Rostov on Don – dry docked, under repair, hole in hull closed.
    Saratov – repaired

    Most destroyed at dockside or in dry dock, so unmanned or crewed on call.
    Reduced loss of sailors
    BSF missiles lauch capability remains around 87 %.

    Submarines can close Grain Corridor anytime.
    No need as infrastructure were destroyed.

    • TTG says:


      Ukrainian grain shipments through the Black Sea have continued to increase. The port infrastructure is working and the ships are sailing to and from those ports. If Russian can shut down the shipping, Ukraine can do the same to Russia’s grain and oil shipments. I doubt Russia wants to risk that.

    • ked says:

      a famous battle flashed before my eyes:

  11. babelthuap says:

    Neat video. I would post one of the hundreds I watched of Ukraine getting rocked but I do not get into this petty nonsense. The Ukraine people are suffering. I suspect not many on here know what that level of suffering feels like. If the draft starts and you start losing some kin folks maybe you will get it when you visit them in the hospital with brain damage or their funeral. It needs to stop. Nothing good is going to come out of this for either side. NATO has broken all their articles. Especially the first one. A bunch of psychopath clowns.

    • TTG says:


      Those psychopathic clowns could end this by quitting their invasion and going home.

      • Fred says:

        When they quit and go home do we expand NATO to include Ukraine and stop funding Ukraine and the war effort?

        • Barbara Ann says:


          If Russia quits and goes home now she will be destroyed. This is not just Kremlin propaganda because it is absolutely clear that the transatlantic neocons (the real psychopathic clowns) are all in on the project to destroy/dismember Russia. Ukraine is just the latest in a long line of battlegrounds chosen for this purpose. If Russia survives this they will just open another front elsewhere.

          Political difficulties in the US means the project is being ‘Europeanized’ as fast as possible (sounds familiar?). This has the added benefit that the failure of the project can be hung round the necks of clueless European leaders if necessary – and boy are they clueless. Russia may be at war in Ukraine, but the war is with NATO. Only one of the two will be left standing when it is all over – and that’s if we are lucky.

          • TTG says:

            Barbara Ann,

            How will leaving Ukrainian territory destroy Russia. Ukraine or even all of European NATO are incapable of successfully invading Russia, much less militarily defeating her. Will the US and/or NATO push for the removal of Lukashenko in Belarus? Quite possibly. Even if successful or if the Belarusians manage to throw off the Kremlin yoke themselves, Russia is still intact. How about the Yakuts or other eastern peoples? Well, that’s up to them.

          • Barbara Ann says:


            Whatever we think of the annexations Russians consider they are fighting on Russian territory. This was a deliberate act to make retreat impossible as the Russian constitutions forbids the ceding Russian territory.

            If you think the attacks on Russia would stop with a withdrawal I don’t know what to tell you. This is an existential war, the status quo ante is not a possible outcome. Nuland and co. will only be happy with complete capitulation.

            Yes Putin could be overthrown and a Gorbachev-like figure could appear to surrender Russia to the West. The cost of ‘peace’ would be crippling war reparations, wholesale neoliberal pillaging and the enforced breakup of the RF. 1990’s Russia on steroids, Weimar Germany and Yugoslavia all rolled into one. Some Russian liberals would be happy with that outcome. Every other Russian commentator I read sees it this way and most are unhappy Putin is not prosecuting the war more aggressively.

            As for the dear Belorussians under the “Russian yoke”, I expect their view of what emancipation would look like is colored by looking to their south.

          • Fred says:

            Barbara Ann,

            Mine was a rhetorical question.


            What about the American people? What’s up with them. Are they all on board with open borders and amnesty? Or is that just Fox Fake News?

  12. walrus says:

    TTG, you seem to me to be deliberately missing the point that Russia has continuously made since at least 2020 and probably much earlier; that is Russia will NOT tolerate Ukraine being a member of NATO or any other grouping that permits the stationing of nuclear armed weapons in close proximity to the Russian border. That is their red line. It is also Americas red line as we demonstrated in the Cuban missile crisis.

    The reason is that the time of flight of missiles from forward positions in Ukraine to Moscow is too short to allow Russia to react proportionately or otherwise, to a nuclear attack. Lavrov has repeatedly explained this.

    This is not some trivial matter that can be brushed off by some fast talking think tankers as Russian paranoia. It is as real to Russia as the Cuban missile crisis was to us.

    Want to play games ? Nukes in Poland? Latvia? Sweden? We are asking for trouble because the Russians aren’t joking.

    • TTG says:


      Maybe Russia shouldn’t have made enemies across Eastern Europe and stoked the fears of invasion and threats of unstoppable attack by invincible hypersonic missiles. She doubled her border with NATO by her irrational actions and placed Saint Petersburg dangerously close to that NATO border. Either an attack on Finland and the Baltics is inevitable or Russia’s talk of security is empty rhetoric designed to hide her quest for the grander borders of yesteryear.

      • Fred says:

        Russia acting bad, thus doubling America’s foreign obligations. When did we hold a vote to obligate the US to defend Eastern Europe? When are the next NATO elections going to be held?

        • TTG says:


          Our membership in NATO was ratified by Congress in 1949. Subsequent requests for admission to NATO must be unanimously approved by existing member states, all of which are led by democratically elected governments. Our membership in NATO doesn’t obligate us to defend other member states from invasion. It obligates us to confer on whether to undertake a collective defense of the invaded member, although such a collective defensive response is the most likely outcome to an outright invasion.

          • walrus says:

            TTG, you and I both know that Diplomacy involves ensuring that requests that won’t be accommodated are never formally made. Eastern Europe wouldn’t have applied for NATO Membership unless they had been encouraged – seduced even, and guaranteed an affirmative answer.

          • TTG says:


            Lithuania expressed her desire for NATO membership back in 1990 even before she was recognized as an independent state. She didn’t obtain that membership until 2004. Same with many other Eastern European countries. Even Poland began her quest for NATO membership back in 1992 and did not gain her full membership until 1997. The road to NATO was long for these countries, but they undertook the journey with enthusiasm. They expressed fears of the Kremlin’s new leaders as far back as 1991. Yes, diplomacy is as you explained, but those Eastern European countries had a lot of hoops to jump through before NATO said yes.

      • walrus says:

        TTG, thank you for your answer. However, the complaints of eastern Europe about the Russians are the complaints of all buffer states throughout history.

        Eastern Europe has had a choice since the breaking up of the Soviet union ; you either play your role as a buffer state under treaties that guarantee your sovereignty in exchange for neutrality or you become a player and like Ukraine, suffer the consequences.

        As for NATO, well, there is that joke: “How dare you put your country so close to our military bases!”.

        Furthermore, using your logic, there is no rational argument that would prevent Cuba, Venezuela and other countries from inviting Russia to station its nuclear weapons in the western hemisphere because they “feel threatened”.

        This confrontation with Russia is all our own doing, not Russias in my opinion. The Russians offered us any number of “off ramps ‘” but we, under the leadership of creeps like Nuland, ignored all of them.

  13. Keith Harbaugh says:

    Given this:
    do the Ukraine-lovers really want to send another $68G to Ukraine?
    And will that end what some will want to send Ukraine’s way?

    At some point, one would hope, this God-awful conflict will end.
    And then you can be sure the Ukraine-lovers will want to send hundreds of billions more to Ukraine to pay for rebuilding its infrastructure.

    I hate what these people are doing.
    They are putting a huge financial burden on future generations of Americans,
    to make their vision of what Eastern Europe’s polity should be come true.

    And harming American national security to boot,
    by pushing Russia and North Korea into an unholy alliance,
    where Russia transfers its latest technology to NoKo in exchange for its support.
    A bad outcome for America.

Comments are closed.