Combat footage by SPEAR Group B of the 118th Territorial Defense Brigade. At least 4 ATVs and an ammo depot were destroyed.
https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1928073560989253801
Posted on 02/24/2024 5:59:01 AM PST by SpeedyInTexas
This list only includes destroyed vehicles and equipment of which photo or videographic evidence is available. Therefore, the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here. Loitering munitions, drones used as unmanned bait, civilian vehicles and derelict equipment are not included in this list. All possible effort has gone into avoiding duplicate entries and discerning the status of equipment between captured or abandoned. Many of the entries listed as 'abandoned' will likely end up captured or destroyed. Similarly, some of the captured equipment might be destroyed if it can't be recovered. When a vehicle is captured and then lost in service with its new owners, it is only added as a loss of the original operator to avoid double listings. When the origin of a piece of equipment can't be established, it's not included in the list. The Soviet flag is used when the equipment in question was produced prior to 1991. This list is constantly updated as additional footage becomes available.
(Excerpt) Read more at oryxspioenkop.com ...
Combat footage by SPEAR Group B of the 118th Territorial Defense Brigade. At least 4 ATVs and an ammo depot were destroyed.
https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1928073560989253801
https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1928087484275343426
As President Trump rolls toward Peace, the voices of war and discontent become more hysterical, with fuzzy math, political hyperbole and now, the open call for assassination. Trust me, I won’t let you walk past this one.
As President Trump rolls toward Peace, the voices of war and discontent become more hysterical.”
I guess you are talking about, what President Trump called, Putin’s “absolutely crazy” mass drone attack against civilians recently.
That is why Putin is not only a legitimate Military target under the laws of war, but also an increasingly urgent one, as his bloodlust reaches an insane crescendo of illegal attacks on civilians, and a million Russian casualties.
A million.
What kind of a monster does that? To his own people.
Nikolay Bobrikov, the Russian Governor-General of Finland, assassinated by Eugen Schauman on June 16, 1904, in Helsinki.[5] The author of the drawing is unknown. 
Mugshot of Lee Harvey Oswald, who was deemed responsible for the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Oswald was assassinated two days later by Jack Ruby, the first such event to occur during live television coverage. Assassin comes from the Italian and French Assissini, believed to derive from the word hashshashin (Arabic: حشّاشين, romanized: ḥaššāšīyīn),[6] and shares its etymological roots with hashish (/hæˈʃiːʃ/ ⓘ or /ˈhæʃiːʃ/ ⓘ; from حشيش ḥašīš).[7][8] It referred to a group of Nizari Ismailis known as the Order of Assassins who worked against various political targets.[9]
Founded by Hassan-i Sabbah, the Assassins were active in the Near East from the 11th to the 13th centuries. The group killed members of the Abbasid, Seljuk, Fatimid, and Christian Crusader elite for political and religious reasons.[9]
Although it is commonly believed that members of the Order of Assassins were under the influence of hashish during their killings or during their indoctrination, there is debate as to whether these claims have merit, with many Eastern writers and an increasing number of Western academics coming to believe that drug-taking was not the key feature behind the name.[10]
The term "assassinare" (assassin) was used in Medieval Latin from the mid 13th century.[7]
The earliest known use of the verb "to assassinate" in printed English was by Matthew Sutcliffe in A Briefe Replie to a Certaine Odious and Slanderous Libel, Lately Published by a Seditious Jesuite, a pamphlet printed in 1600, five years before it was used in Macbeth by William Shakespeare (1605).[11][12]
Assassination is one of the oldest tools of power politics. It dates back at least as far as recorded history.[13]
The Egyptian pharaoh Teti, of the Old Kingdom Sixth Dynasty (23rd century BCE), is thought to be the earliest known victim of assassination, though written records are scant and thus evidence is circumstantial. Two further ancient Egyptian monarchs are more explicitly recorded to have been assassinated; Amenemhat I of the Middle Kingdom Twelfth Dynasty (20th century BCE) is recorded to have been assassinated in his bed by his palace guards for reasons unknown (as related in the Instructions of Amenemhat); meanwhile contemporary judicial records relate the assassination of New Kingdom Twentieth Dynasty monarch Ramesses III in 1155 BCE as part of a failed coup attempt. Between 550 BC and 330 BC, seven Persian kings of Achaemenid Dynasty were murdered. The Art of War, a 5th-century BC Chinese military treatise mentions tactics of Assassination and its merits.[14]
In the Old Testament, King Joash of Judah was assassinated by his own servants;[15] Joab assassinated Absalom, King David's son;[16] King Sennacherib of Assyria was assassinated by his own sons;[17] and Jael assassinated Sisera.[18]
Chanakya (c. 350–283 BC) wrote about assassinations in detail in his political treatise Arthashastra. His student Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Maurya Empire, later made use of assassinations against some of his enemies.[19]
Some famous assassination victims are Philip II of Macedon (336 BC), the father of Alexander the Great, and Roman dictator Julius Caesar (44 BC).[20] Emperors of Rome often met their end in this way, as did many of the Muslim Shia Imams hundreds of years later. Three successive Rashidun caliphs (Umar, Uthman Ibn Affan, and Ali ibn Abi Talib) were assassinated in early civil conflicts between Muslims. The practice was also well known in ancient China, as in Jing Ke's failed assassination of Qin king Ying Zheng in 227 BC. Whilst many assassinations were performed by individuals or small groups, there were also specialized units who used a collective group of people to perform more than one assassination. The earliest were the sicarii in 6 AD, who predated the Middle Eastern Assassins and Japanese shinobis by centuries.[21][22]
In the Middle Ages, regicide was rare in Western Europe, but it was a recurring theme in the Eastern Roman Empire. Strangling in the bathtub was the most commonly used method. With the Renaissance, tyrannicide—or assassination for personal or political reasons—became more common again in Western Europe.[23]
18th-century depiction of the assassination of William the Silent by Balthasar Gérard on 10 July 1584 During the 16th and 17th centuries, international lawyers began to voice condemnation of assassinations of leaders. Balthazar Ayala has been described as "the first prominent jurist to condemn the use of assassination in foreign policy".[24] Alberico Gentili condemned assassinations in a 1598 publication where he appealed to the self-interest of leaders: (i) assassinations had adverse short-term consequences by arousing the ire of the assassinated leader's successor, and (ii) assassinations had the adverse long-term consequences of causing disorder and chaos.[24] Hugo Grotius's works on the law of war strictly forbade assassinations, arguing that killing was only permissible on the battlefield.[24] In the modern world, the killing of important people began to become more than a tool in power struggles between rulers themselves and was also used for political symbolism, such as in the propaganda of the deed.[25]
In Japan, a group of assassins called the Four Hitokiri of the Bakumatsu killed a number of people, including Ii Naosuke who was the head of administration for the Tokugawa shogunate, during the Boshin War.[26] Most of the assassinations in Japan were committed with bladed weaponry, a trait that was carried on into modern history. A video-record exists of the assassination of Inejiro Asanuma, using a sword.[27]
In 1895, a group of Japanese assassins killed the Korean queen (and posthumously empress) Myeongseong.[28]
In the United States, from 1865 to 1963, four presidents—Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy—died at the hands of assassins. There have been at least 20 known attempts on U.S. presidents' lives.[29]
A group of Thuggees strangling a traveller on a highway in India in the early 19th century
In Austria, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg was carried out in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, by Gavrilo Princip, a Serbian nationalist. He is blamed for igniting World War I. Reinhard Heydrich died after an attack by British-trained Czechoslovak soldiers on behalf of the Czechoslovak government in exile in Operation Anthropoid,[30] and knowledge from decoded transmissions allowed the United States to carry out a targeted attack, killing Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto while he was travelling by plane.[31]
During the 1930s and 1940s, Joseph Stalin's NKVD carried out numerous assassinations outside of the Soviet Union, such as the killings of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists leader Yevhen Konovalets, Ignace Poretsky, Fourth International secretary Rudolf Klement, Leon Trotsky, and the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM) leadership in Catalonia.[32] India's "Father of the Nation", Mahatma Gandhi, was shot to death on January 30, 1948, by Nathuram Godse.[33]
The African-American civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968, at the Lorraine Motel (now the National Civil Rights Museum) in Memphis, Tennessee. Three years prior, another African-American civil rights activist, Malcolm X, was assassinated at the Audubon Ballroom on February 21, 1965.[34]
Indira Gandhi's blood-stained sari and belongings at the time of her assassination. She was the Prime Minister of India. Most major powers repudiated Cold War assassination tactics, but many allege that was merely a smokescreen for political benefit and that covert and illegal training of assassins continues today, with Russia, Israel, the U.S., Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, and other nations accused of engaging in such operations.[35] After the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the new Islamic government of Iran began an international campaign of assassination that lasted into the 1990s. At least 162 killings in 19 countries have been linked to the senior leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran.[36] The campaign came to an end after the Mykonos restaurant assassinations because a German court publicly implicated senior members of the government and issued arrest warrants for Ali Fallahian, the head of Iranian intelligence.[37] Evidence indicates that Fallahian's personal involvement and individual responsibility for the murders were far more pervasive than his current indictment record represents.[38]
In India, Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi (neither of whom was related to Mahatma Gandhi, who had himself been assassinated in 1948), were assassinated in 1984 and 1991 in what were linked to separatist movements in Punjab and northern Sri Lanka, respectively.[39]
In 1994, the assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira during the Rwandan Civil War sparked the Rwandan genocide.[40][41]
In Israel, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated on November 4, 1995, by Yigal Amir, who opposed the Oslo Accords.[42][43] In Lebanon, the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on February 14, 2005, prompted an investigation by the United Nations. The suggestion in the resulting Mehlis report that there was involvement by Syria prompted the Cedar Revolution, which drove Syrian troops out of Lebanon.[citation needed]
On 2 September 2022, a 35 year old Brazilian national attempted to assassinate the then vice-president of Argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. However, the attempt was unsuccessful because the assassin's gun jammed.[44]
In 2012, The New York Times revealed that the Obama administration maintained a "kill list" containing terrorism suspects.[45] The list is sometimes referred to as a "disposition matrix", and President Obama made a final decision on whether anyone listed would be killed, without court oversight and without trial.[46] In September 2011, American citizens Anwar Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were assassinated in Yemen by the United States government via drone strikes. Two weeks later, Awlaki's 16-year-old son, also an American citizen, was killed in a strike targeting Ibrahim al-Banna, a senior operative in Al-Qaeda.[47][48] Al-Banna was not killed in the strike.[47]
The functions of the ninja included espionage, sabotage and assassination. Assassination for military purposes has long been espoused: Sun Tzu, writing around 500 BC, argued in favor of using assassination in his book The Art of War. Over 2000 years later, in his book The Prince, Machiavelli also advises rulers to assassinate enemies whenever possible to prevent them from posing a threat.[49] An army and even a nation might be based upon and around a particularly strong, canny, or charismatic leader, whose loss could paralyze the ability of both to make war.
For similar and additional reasons, assassination has also sometimes been used in the conduct of foreign policy. The costs and benefits of such actions are difficult to compute. It may not be clear whether the assassinated leader gets replaced with a more or less competent successor, whether the assassination provokes ire in the state in question, whether the assassination leads to souring domestic public opinion, and whether the assassination provokes condemnation from third-parties.[50][24] One study found that perceptual biases held by leaders often negatively affect decision making in that area, and decisions to go forward with assassinations often reflect the vague hope that any successor might be better.[50]
In both military and foreign policy assassinations, there is the risk that the target could be replaced by an even more competent leader, or that such a killing (or a failed attempt) will prompt the masses to contemn the killers and support the leader's cause more strongly. Faced with particularly brilliant leaders, that possibility has in various instances been risked, such as in the attempts to kill the Athenian Alcibiades during the Peloponnesian War. A number of additional examples from World War II show how assassination was used as a tool:
Use of assassination has continued in more recent conflicts:
Insurgent groups have often employed assassination as a tool to further their causes. Assassinations provide several functions for such groups: the removal of specific enemies and as propaganda tools to focus the attention of media and politics on their cause.[citation needed]
The Irish Republican Army guerrillas in 1919 to 1921 killed many Royal Irish Constabulary Police intelligence officers during the Irish War of Independence. Michael Collins set up a special unit, the Squad, for that purpose, which had the effect of intimidating many policemen into resigning from the force. The Squad's activities peaked with the killing of 14 British agents in Dublin on Bloody Sunday in 1920.[citation needed]
The tactic was used again by the Provisional IRA during the Troubles in Northern Ireland (1969–1998). Assassination of unionist politicians and activists was one of a number of methods used in the Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997. The IRA also attempted to assassinate British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher by bombing the Conservative Party Conference in a Brighton hotel.[57] Loyalist paramilitaries retaliated by killing Catholics at random and assassinating Irish nationalist politicians.[58]
Basque separatists ETA in Spain assassinated many security and political figures since the late 1960s, notably the president of the Francoist government of Spain, Luis Carrero Blanco, 1st Duke of Carrero-Blanco Grandee of Spain, in 1973. In the early 1990s, it also began to target academics, journalists and local politicians who publicly disagreed with it.[59]
The Red Brigades in Italy carried out assassinations of political figures and, to a lesser extent, so did the Red Army Faction in Germany in the 1970s and the 1980s.[60]
In the Vietnam War, communist insurgents routinely assassinated government officials and individual civilians deemed to offend or rival the revolutionary movement. Such attacks, along with widespread military activity by insurgent bands, almost brought the Ngo Dinh Diem regime to collapse before the US intervened.[61]
A major study about assassination attempts in the US in the second half of the 20th century came to the conclusion that most prospective assassins spend copious amounts of time planning and preparing for their attempts. Assassinations are thus rarely "impulsive" actions.[62]
However, about 25% of the actual attackers were found to be delusional, a figure that rose to 60% with "near-lethal approachers" (people apprehended before reaching their targets). That shows that while mental instability plays a role in many modern assassinations, the more delusional attackers are less likely to succeed in their attempts. The report also found that around two-thirds of attackers had previously been arrested, not necessarily for related offenses; 44% had a history of serious depression, and 39% had a history of substance abuse.[62]
With the advent of effective ranged weaponry and later firearms, the position of an assassination target was more precarious. Bodyguards were no longer enough to deter determined killers, who no longer needed to engage directly or even to subvert the guard to kill the leader in question. Moreover, the engagement of targets at greater distances dramatically increased the chances for assassins to survive since they could quickly flee the scene. The first heads of government to be assassinated with a firearm were James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray, the regent of Scotland, in 1570, and William the Silent, the Prince of Orange of the Netherlands, in 1584. Gunpowder and other explosives also allowed the use of bombs or even greater concentrations of explosives for deeds requiring a larger touch.[citation needed]
Explosives, especially the car bomb, become far more common in modern history, with grenades and remote-triggered land mines also used, especially in the Middle East and the Balkans; the initial attempt on Archduke Franz Ferdinand's life was with a grenade. With heavy weapons, the rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) has become a useful tool given the popularity of armored cars (discussed below), and Israeli forces have pioneered the use of aircraft-mounted missiles,[63] as well as the innovative use of explosive devices.[citation needed]
Carcano Model 38 of Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President John F. Kennedy 
Derringer of John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of President Abraham Lincoln
A sniper with a precision rifle is often used in fictional assassinations; however, certain pragmatic difficulties attend long-range shooting, including finding a hidden shooting position with a clear line of sight, detailed advance knowledge of the intended victim's travel plans, the ability to identify the target at long range, and the ability to score a first-round lethal hit at long range, which is usually measured in hundreds of meters. A dedicated sniper rifle is also expensive, often costing thousands of dollars because of the high level of precision machining and handfinishing required to achieve extreme accuracy.[64]
Despite their comparative disadvantages, handguns are more easily concealable and so are much more commonly used than rifles. Of the 74 principal incidents evaluated in a major study about assassination attempts in the US in the second half of the 20th century, 51% were undertaken by a handgun, 30% with a rifle or shotgun, 15% used knives, and 8% explosives (the use of multiple weapons/methods was reported in 16% of all cases).[62]
In the case of state-sponsored assassination, poisoning can be more easily denied. Georgi Markov, a dissident from Bulgaria, was assassinated by ricin poisoning. A tiny pellet containing the poison was injected into his leg through a specially designed umbrella. Widespread allegations involving the Bulgarian government and the KGB have not led to any legal results. However, after the fall of the Soviet Union, it was learned that the KGB had developed an umbrella that could inject ricin pellets into a victim, and two former KGB agents who defected stated that the agency assisted in the murder.[65] The CIA made several attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro; many of the schemes involving poisoning his cigars. In the late 1950s, the KGB assassin Bohdan Stashynsky killed Ukrainian nationalist leaders Lev Rebet and Stepan Bandera with a spray gun that fired a jet of poison gas from a crushed cyanide ampule, making their deaths look like heart attacks.[66] A 2006 case in the UK concerned the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko who was given a lethal dose of radioactive polonium-210, possibly passed to him in aerosol form sprayed directly onto his food.[67]
Predator combat drone; sometimes used in targeted killings Targeted killing is the intentional killing by a government or its agents of a civilian or "unlawful combatant" who is not in the government's custody. The target is a person asserted to be taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism, by bearing arms or otherwise, who has thereby lost the immunity from being targeted that he would otherwise have under the Third Geneva Convention.[68] It is a different term and concept from that of "targeted violence", as used by specialists who study violence.[citation needed]
On the other hand, Gary D. Solis, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, in his 2010 book The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War,[69] wrote, "Assassinations and targeted killings are very different acts."[68] The use of the term "assassination" is opposed, as it denotes murder (unlawful killing), but the terrorists are targeted in self-defense, which is thus viewed as a killing but not a crime (justifiable homicide).[70] Abraham D. Sofaer, former federal judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, wrote on the subject: .mw-parser-output .templatequote{overflow:hidden;margin:1em 0;padding:0 32px}.mw-parser-output .templatequotecite{line-height:1.5em;text-align:left;margin-top:0}@media(min-width:500px){.mw-parser-output .templatequotecite{padding-left:1.6em}}
When people call a targeted killing an "assassination", they are attempting to preclude debate on the merits of the action. Assassination is widely defined as murder, and is for that reason prohibited in the United States ... U.S. officials may not kill people merely because their policies are seen as detrimental to our interests ... But killings in self-defense are no more "assassinations" in international affairs than they are murders when undertaken by our police forces against domestic killers. Targeted killings in self-defense have been authoritatively determined by the federal government to fall outside the assassination prohibition.[71]
Author and former U.S. Army Captain Matthew J. Morgan argued that "there is a major difference between assassination and targeted killing ... targeted killing [is] not synonymous with assassination. Assassination ... constitutes an illegal killing."[72] Similarly, Amos Guiora, a professor of law at the University of Utah, wrote, "Targeted killing is ... not an assassination."[73] Steve David, professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University, wrote, "There are strong reasons to believe that the Israeli policy of targeted killing is not the same as assassination." Syracuse Law William Banks and GW Law Peter Raven-Hansen wrote, "Targeted killing of terrorists is ... not unlawful and would not constitute assassination."[74] Rory Miller writes: "Targeted killing ... is not 'assassination.'"[75] Eric Patterson and Teresa Casale wrote, "Perhaps most important is the legal distinction between targeted killing and assassination."[76]
On the other hand, the American Civil Liberties Union also states on its website, "A program of targeted killing far from any battlefield, without charge or trial, violates the constitutional guarantee of due process. It also violates international law, under which lethal force may be used outside armed conflict zones only as a last resort to prevent imminent threats, when non-lethal means are not available. Targeting people who are suspected of terrorism for execution, far from any war zone, turns the whole world into a battlefield."[77]
Yael Stein, the research director of B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, also stated in her article "By Any Name Illegal and Immoral: Response to 'Israel's Policy of Targeted Killing'":[78]
The argument that this policy affords the public a sense of revenge and retribution could serve to justify acts both illegal and immoral. Clearly, lawbreakers ought to be punished. Yet, no matter how horrific their deeds, as the targeting of Israeli civilians indeed is, they should be punished according to the law. David's arguments could, in principle, justify the abolition of formal legal systems altogether.
Targeted killing has become a frequent tactic of the United States and Israel in their fights against terrorism.[68][79] The tactic can raise complex questions and lead to contentious disputes as to the legal basis for its application, who qualifies as an appropriate "hit list" target, and what circumstances must exist before the tactic may be used.[68] Opinions range from people considering it a legal form of self-defense that decreases terrorism to people calling it an extrajudicial killing that lacks due process and leads to further violence.[68][71][80][81] Methods used have included firing Hellfire missiles from Predator or Reaper drones (unmanned, remote-controlled planes), detonating a cell phone bomb, and long-range sniper shooting. Countries such as the US (in Pakistan and Yemen) and Israel (in the West Bank and Gaza) have used targeted killing to eliminate members of groups such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas.[68] In early 2010, with President Obama's approval, Anwar al-Awlaki became the first US citizen to be publicly approved for targeted killing by the Central Intelligence Agency. Awlaki was killed in a drone strike in September 2011.[82][83]
United Nations investigator Ben Emmerson said that US drone strikes may have violated international humanitarian law.[84][85] The Intercept reported, "Between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes [in northeastern Afghanistan] killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets."[86]
A bodyguard who was killed by an IED during Sheik Abdul Sattar Abu Risha's assassination in 2007. One of the earliest forms of defense against assassins was employing bodyguards, who act as a shield for the potential target; keep a lookout for potential attackers, sometimes in advance, such as on a parade route; and putting themselves in harm's way, both by simple presence, showing that physical force is available to protect the target,[62][87] and by shielding the target if any attack occurs. To neutralize an attacker, bodyguards are typically armed as much as legal and practical concerns permit.[citation needed]
Notable examples of bodyguards include the Roman Praetorian Guard or the Ottoman Janissaries, but in both cases, the protectors sometimes became assassins themselves, exploiting their power to make the head of state a virtual hostage or killing the very leaders whom they were supposed to protect. The loyalty of individual bodyguards is an important question as well, especially for leaders who oversee states with strong ethnic or religious divisions. Failure to realize such divided loyalties allowed the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who was assassinated by two Sikh bodyguards in 1984.[citation needed][88]
The bodyguard function was often executed by the leader's most loyal warriors, and it was extremely effective throughout most of early human history, which led assassins to attempt stealthy means, such as poison, whose risk was reduced by having another person taste the leader's food first.[citation needed]
Assassination attempt on President Ronald ReaganWith the advent of gunpowder, ranged assassination via bombs or firearms became possible. One of the first reactions was simply to increase the guard, creating what at times might seem a small army trailing every leader. Another was to begin clearing large areas whenever a leader was present to the point that entire sections of a city might be shut down.[citation needed]
As the 20th century dawned, the prevalence and capability of assassins grew quickly, as did measures to protect against them. For the first time, armored cars or limousines were put into service for safer transport, with modern versions virtually invulnerable to small arms fire, smaller bombs and mines.[89] Bulletproof vests also began to be used, but since they were of limited utility, restricting movement and leaving the head unprotected, they tended to be worn only during high-profile public events, if at all.[citation needed]
Access to famous people also became more and more restricted;[90] potential visitors would be forced through numerous different checks before being granted access to the official in question, and as communication became better and information technology more prevalent, it has become all but impossible for a would-be killer to get close enough to the personage at work or in private life to effect an attempt on their life, especially with the common use of metal and bomb detectors.
Most modern assassinations have been committed either during a public performance or during transport, both because of weaker security and security lapses, such as with U.S. President John F. Kennedy and former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, or as part of a coup d'état in which security is either overwhelmed or completely removed, such as with Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba.[citation needed]
Pope Benedict XVI in a modified Mercedes-Benz M-Class Popemobile in São Paulo, Brazil
The methods used for protection by famous people have sometimes evoked negative reactions by the public, with some resenting the separation from their officials or major figures. One example might be traveling in a car protected by a bubble of clear bulletproof glass, such as the MRAP-like Popemobile of Pope John Paul II, built following an attempt at his life. Politicians often resent the need for separation and sometimes send their bodyguards away from them for personal or publicity reasons. US President William McKinley did so at the public reception in which he was assassinated.[90]
Other potential targets go into seclusion and are rarely heard from or seen in public, such as writer Salman Rushdie. A related form of protection is the use of body doubles, people with similar builds to those they are expected to impersonate. These people are then made up and, in some cases, undergo plastic surgery to look like the target, with the body double then taking the place of the person in high-risk situations. According to Joe R. Reeder, Under Secretary of the Army from 1993 to 1997, Fidel Castro used body doubles.[91]
US Secret Service protective agents receive training in the psychology of assassins.[92]
Steve Rosenberg, BBC: First, a statue of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin appears in the Moscow Metro. Then a Kremlin adviser says that “from a legal standpoint the USSR still exists.” In Russia the past hangs over the present. My report from Moscow.
https://x.com/BBCSteveR/status/1927996352631349281
5 min video
However from 2011: The Simpsons - USSR Returns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z77JFw2D6f8
Your daily posts urging that Putin be assassinated is not only putting the ownership of this Forum in jeopardy but also is an insight into who you are. Haven't we had enough Ukraine-inspired attempted assassins?
Experts at the Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting (CMASF) warn that while a full-blown crisis has not yet materialized, several warning signs point to a high likelihood of one happening. In its latest analysis, CMASF describes the current situation as a “resonance” of negative economic signals:
rising bad debts, early indications of depositor flight and mounting pressure on both businesses and consumers from high interest rates.
A systemic banking crisis, as defined by CMASF, would involve at least one of three conditions: non-performing loans exceeding 10% of total banking assets, a significant withdrawal of funds by depositors, or large-scale bank recapitalizations exceeding 2% of the country's GDP.
None of those conditions have been met so far, but the underlying risks are steadily growing, the report says. In March and early April, Russian banks restructured 2.3 trillion rubles (about $25 billion) worth of loans, though the pace has since slowed significantly. Although the Central Bank maintains that the situation remains manageable, the numbers tell a more complicated story. As of the end of April, problem loans totaled 5.2 trillion rubles ($66.2 billion) — 3.2 trillion in corporate debt and 2 trillion in retail — representing less than 5% of total banking assets.
Some of Russia's largest corporations are already feeling the pressure. The Central Bank reports that 13 of the country's 78 largest firms now earn less in profits than they owe in interest — an unsustainable dynamic if high rates persist. Still, the regulator argues that most industries, with the exception of coal, are adapting to the new monetary environment. It emphasizes that banks are well-capitalized, with reserve buffers covering more than 70% of risky loans. Retail lending alone had a buffer of 1.3 trillion rubles ($16.5 billion) as of March.
32 pp.
http://www.forecast.ru/_ARCHIVE/Analitics/SOI/SOI_may_2025.pdf
Putin remains a legitimate Military target, under Internationally accepted Laws of War, to which Russia is a signatory.
Fact.
It's not a declared war by either side. This is the third day in a row you are focused on assassination. Either get help, or find another venue to spout your insanity.
The 🐛 keeps turning ...
Western insider reporting about Kremlin demands to end the war in Ukraine continues to align with repeated public statements from Kremlin officials outlining Russia's demands, indicating that Russia's goal of Ukrainian capitulation and destruction of NATO remains unchanged.
Reuters reported on May 28 that three Russian sources familiar with the peace negotiations stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin wants Western states to submit a "written" pledge stipulating that NATO will not expand eastward; Ukrainian neutrality; sanctions relief; the unfreezing of Russian assets in the West; and unspecified protections for Russian speakers in Ukraine.[1] Kremlin officials have repeatedly used allegations that the Ukrainian government is discriminating against Russian-speakers in Ukraine to justify Russia's calls for Ukrainian regime change and the installation of a pro-Kremlin puppet regime.[2] Russia's demands for a ban on NATO expansion, Ukrainian neutrality, and regime change are the same demands that Russia issued before the war in 2021 and when Putin launched his full-scale invasion in February 2022.[3]
Kremlin officials have consistently and publicly called for the demands that Reuters insider sources outlined. Russia has demanded since the outbreak of the full-scale invasion that Ukraine commit to a neutral, non-aligned status, which would require Ukraine to change its constitution and NATO to change its "open-door" policy.[4] Russian officials have also repeatedly claimed that any future peace settlement must eliminate the "root causes" of the war, which Russian officials have previously defined as NATO's alleged violation of unofficial commitments not to expand into eastern Europe and along Russia's borders in the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s, and the Ukrainian government's alleged discrimination against Russians and Russian language, media, and culture in Ukraine.[5] Kremlin officials explicitly highlighted the "root causes" of the war and Russia's demands for Ukrainian neutrality again on May 28.[6] ISW continues to assess that these demands are part of the Kremlin's efforts to force the West into surrendering Ukraine and breaking the NATO security alliance.[7]
Putin reportedly maintains his demand that Ukraine cede all of the four oblasts that Russia has illegally annexed but not fully occupied, even as Kremlin officials have signaled that Russia has territorial ambitions beyond these four oblasts. A Reuters source reportedly stated that Putin is less inclined now to make territorial compromises and continues to demand the entirety of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts — including the areas that Russian forces do not currently occupy.[8] The source stated that "Putin has toughened his position" about territory. Putin first demanded in June 2024 that Ukraine cede all of the four oblasts, and Russian officials have often reiterated this demand since.[9] The Washington Post reported on May 27 that Ukrainian military intelligence assesses that the Russian military command has deployed 125,000 personnel to the borders of Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts — two oblasts that Russia has not illegally annexed.[10] Russian forces have been conducting offensive operations aimed at creating a buffer zone in Kharkiv Oblast since May 2024.[11] Russian forces also recently launched attacks to create a buffer zone in northern Sumy Oblast, with Russian officials calling for Russia to seize Sumy City, likely to set conditions for Russia to annex the oblast.[12] Russia will likely struggle to seize the entirety of the four illegally annexed oblasts, especially as the seizure of the heavily fortified fortress belt in Donetsk Oblast and the forcing of the Dnipro River in Kherson Oblast will require significantly larger force groupings than the forces currently deployed in eastern and southern Ukraine. The Russian military command would have solely concentrated its efforts on seizing all of the four oblasts if the Kremlin's territorial ambitions were truly limited to the four oblasts, but the deployment of significant forces to attack in Kharkiv and Sumy oblasts suggests that Russia intends to increase its territorial demands. ISW continues to assess that the Kremlin maintains significant territorial ambitions in southern and eastern Ukraine, and Russian officials within Putin's innermost circle have even called for Russia to take control of most of the country.[13]
Putin continues to demonstrate his willingness to achieve his war aims militarily through a prolonged war in Ukraine during which Russian forces would continue to only make gradual, creeping advances. One of Reuters' sources reportedly stated that Putin will try to use military victories to show Ukraine and Europe that "peace tomorrow will be even more painful" if Putin is unable to secure his desired terms in a peace deal.[14] The source stated that Putin would take advantage of any tactical battlefield opportunities to advance further into Ukraine and that Putin believes that Russia can fight for years in the face of any sanctions or other economic measures the West might place on Russia in the future. ISW has long assessed that Putin holds a theory of victory that assumes that Russian forces will be able to continue gradual, creeping advances indefinitely and to outlast and overcome Western military aid to Ukraine and Ukraine's own efforts to mobilize.[15]
Russia will likely be able to continue its current tactics that are resulting in gradual, creeping advances as long as Russia is able to replenish its losses on the frontline. Russian Security Council Deputy Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev claimed on May 28 that almost 175,000 people have arrived at military units and that more than 14,000 people have joined volunteer units since the start of 2025, for a total of roughly 1,285 people per day.[16] Medvedev also reiterated Putin's May 13 claim that 50,000 to 60,000 people voluntarily join the Russian military per month.[17] Putin's claimed recruitment rate is notably higher than Medvedev's, and ISW cannot independently verify these claims. Reports from the Ukrainian General Staff about Russia's daily losses indicate that Russian suffered a daily loss rate of 1,550 per day in January 2025; 1,261 in February 2025; 1,312 in March 2025; 1,219 in April 2025; and 1,140 between May 1 and May 28.[18] Medvedev's May 28 claim that 175,000 soldiers have joined Russian military units since January 2025 indicates that Russia is replenishing its units at about a one-for-one ratio to its loss rate. ISW continues to assess that Ukrainian forces, supported by Western aid, can inflict higher personnel loss rates on the battlefield that could push Putin to make difficult decisions and force Putin to engage in good-faith negotiations to end the war.[19]
The Kremlin continues to promote its long-standing false narratives that the threat of NATO expansion forced Russia to invade Ukraine in 2022, and that NATO continues to threaten Russia's security. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed that Russia is alarmed by the accumulation of NATO troops along Russia's border and that NATO's eastern expansion and discussions to bring Ukraine into the alliance triggered Russia into launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.[20] Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov claimed that NATO has deployed 34,200 troops on its "eastern flank" — which runs from Finland to Turkey — since February 2022.[21] Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed in June 2024 that Russia had deployed over 700,000 Russian soldiers to Ukraine, in contrast.[22] NATO had not significantly progressed Ukraine's path to membership in the years since the 2008 Bucharest Declaration, in which NATO promised Ukraine and Georgia paths to membership but took no formal steps toward Ukrainian membership in late 2021 and 2022.[23] Putin explicitly admitted in December 2024 that former US President Joseph Biden offered in 2021 to postpone consideration of Ukraine's membership to NATO for 10 to 15 years — demonstrating that Ukraine's NATO membership was not an immediate prospect and undermining the Kremlin's attempts to blame NATO for Russia's 2022 invasion.[24] ISW continues to assess that Putin did not invade Ukraine in 2022 because he feared NATO but because he believed that NATO was weak and aimed to destroy the alliance.[25]
The Kremlin continues to promote Russian President Vladimir Putin's envisioned Eurasian security architecture — a Russian-led bloc aimed at countering the West and NATO. Putin gave a video address at the 13th International Meeting of High Representatives Responsible for Security Issues on May 28 and advocated for the creation of his desired Eurasian security architecture based on Russia-dominated international organizations, including the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).[26] Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) Head Sergei Naryshkin claimed at the meeting that Russia cannot be "weak" and that Eurasian and global security are dependent on Russia's strength — placing Russia at the center of this security architecture.[27] Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov attended a CSTO defense ministers meeting on May 28 where he criticized NATO's defensive posture in Central and Eastern Europe and claimed that the West does not just threaten Russia but all CSTO member states in an effort to unify CSTO members around Russia's anti-NATO sentiments.[28]
Russia and Belarus reduced the scope of the September 2025 Zapad-2025 joint Russian-Belarussian military exercise and relocated the main maneuver away from Belarus's western borders, likely to promote a veneer of cooperation and distract from Russia's limited military capacity outside of the Ukraine theater. Belarusian Defense Minister Lieutenant General Viktor Khrenin announced in an English-language social media post on May 28 that Belarusian officials decided to reduce the scope of the Zapad-2025 joint military exercise and relocate the main maneuver away from the western border of Belarus towards central Belarus.[29] Khrenin claimed that Belarusian authorities made this decision to demonstrate Belarus' readiness for de-escalation, dialogue, and peace. Belarussian authorities would not have been able to make this decision independently without Russia. Russia and Belarus are attempting to posture themselves as unthreatening, reasonable, and cooperative to the West. Belarusian officials previously claimed that at least 13,000 personnel would participate in the Zapad-2025 exercise, and Russia and Belarus likely had to downsize the joint exercise as most of its forces are fighting in Ukraine.[30] ISW observed elements of the Russian 1st Guards Tank Army (Moscow Military District [MMD]), 20th Combined Arms Army (CAA, MMD), and 6th CAA (Leningrad Military District [LMD]), as well as roughly 4,000 Airborne (VDV) personnel, including from the 7th, 76th, 98th, and 106th VDV divisions participated in the Zapad-2021 joint exercise.[31] Significant elements of these formations are currently fighting in the war in Ukraine.[32] Russian officials unexpectedly canceled the Zapad-2023 exercise, very likely due to Russia's equipment and manpower requirements for the war in Ukraine.[33]
Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to forward an unofficial Russian ideology formulated on Russian nationalism and to try to unify Russian society in support of Russia's war in Ukraine. The Kremlin published a video message from Putin on May 28 for Border Guards Day, addressing Russian border guards.[34] Putin claimed that Russian border guards have developed their "legendary traditions" throughout Russia's "1,000-year history" since the times of Ancient Rus' (Kyivan Rus), a medieval state based in Kyiv. Putin's reference to Ancient Rus' is part of the Kremlin's years long attempts to claim that the modern Russian state is directly tied to Kyivan Rus and to claim that Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are one people who descended from Kyivan Rus.[35] Putin similarly referred to Russia's 1,000-year history on May 22, and Putin's continued promotion of Russian nationalism is a notable departure from his usual rhetoric promoting a civic Russian identity and nationalism based on ethnic and religious diversity.[36]
Putin also attempted to use his May 28 speech in honor of border guards to justify the use of Russian conscripts to defend Kursk Oblast. Putin used the mythos of the Second World War to glorify the role of border guards to "defend the interests of the Fatherland" and claimed that border guards have "repeatedly demonstrated themselves" in the war in Ukraine.[37] Putin claimed that he is confident that border guards will continue to repel threats to Russia and attempts to cross the state border. Putin and other Russian officials have repeatedly promised the Russian population that conscripts, whose military service is mandated by Russian law, will not be deployed to fight in Ukraine.[38] Conscripts made up a significant part of the forces that initially met the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk Oblast, however, leading to discontent among the Russian population.[39] The Kremlin has historically responded to issues surrounding the deployment of conscripts in combat zones with great concern, and Putin is likely attempting to use narratives about Kyivan Rus and the "Fatherland" to justify Russia's use of conscripts in Kursk Oblast.[40]
“Russia at Rising Risk of Systemic Banking Crisis”
Maybe the play is to delay with Diplomatic activity until the Russian economy breaks on its own, rather than doing something to precipitate it.
That way we avoid the appearance of being to blame for it. Russians are going to be sore when things start collapsing.
1991
Russian officials continue to dictate the terms and timing of peace negotiations with Ukraine and are attempting to obfuscate the current state of negotiations. Russian officials are setting conditions to falsely accuse Ukraine of delaying negotiations. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed on May 28 that Russia is prepared to present its memorandum on terms for peace negotiations during the next bilateral meeting with Ukraine and suggested that Russian and Ukrainian representatives should meet in Istanbul on June 2.[1] Lavrov claimed that Russia's memorandum proposes how to “reliably” overcome the Russia's perceived “root causes” of the war in Ukraine. Lavrov has previously defined the root causes of the war in Ukraine as NATO's eastward expansion following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s and the Ukrainian government's alleged discrimination against Russian speakers and Russian culture.[2] Russian Presidential Aide Vladimir Medinsky, who led the last Russian delegation in Istanbul, claimed on May 28 that he spoke with Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov and proposed a date for Russia and Ukraine to exchange their memoranda.[3] Umerov responded to the Russian proposal on May 28 and stated that Ukraine is ready for a ceasefire and further negotiations and that Ukraine has already presented its memorandum to Russia.[4] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov claimed on May 29 that Russia has not received a copy of Ukraine's memorandum and that Ukraine has not responded to Lavrov’s proposal, however.[5]
Western reporting indicates that the People's Republic of China (PRC) is increasing drone deliveries to Russia while reducing sales to Ukrainian and Western buyers, further demonstrating China's increasingly overt support for Russia's war effort in Ukraine. Bloomberg reported on May 29 that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently stated that the PRC stopped selling DJI Mavic quadcopter drones, which Russian and Ukrainian forces have used for surveillance and strike missions, to Ukraine and other European countries while continuing to sell the quadcopters to Russia.[15] Zelensky stated that Russia has domestic DJI Mavic production lines, and that “Chinese representatives” are present at these production facilities. An unnamed European official told Bloomberg that Zelensky’s statements are consistent with European assessments and stated that the PRC appears to have reduced deliveries of some drone components to Western buyers while simultaneously increasing deliveries to Russia. ISW has observed recent reporting that Russian forces are fielding Chinese-made equipment, that the PRC is likely aware of and choosing not to stop Russian military recruitment efforts of PRC citizens, and that Russia has established joint production lines with PRC manufacturers for Shahed-like long range strike drones, underscoring the extent of the PRC's support for Russia's war effort.[16]
more + maps https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-29-2025
Reporting From Ukraine:
https://www.youtube.com/@RFU/videos
The complete transcript.
—
[ Massive Russian Columns Attack 2 New Regions! ]
Today [ May 27 ], there are a lot of interesting updates from Ukraine. Here, as peace talks collapse and diplomacy fades, Russia is making its move. With fresh troops, heavy weapons, and political timing on their side, Moscow has begun what appears to be the opening phase of its long-anticipated summer offensive.
Recently, Trump’s proposal for peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in the Vatican by the end of May, was rejected by Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov. Lavrov said that the Vatican is an unrealistic option for negotiating, under the excuse that it is inelegant for 2 Orthodox countries to discuss negotiations on a Catholic platform. Trump told the European leaders that Putin does not plan to end the war, as the Russians believe they are winning.
Meanwhile, Putin stated that Russia needs to expand its buffer zone along the Ukrainian border for security and wants this to be addressed in future negotiations. Furthermore, during the peace talks in Istanbul, Russian diplomats even threatened to seize two more regions of Ukraine, implying Kharkiv and Sumy.
The Russian army is expected to conduct a new offensive in the Kharkiv and Sumy regions, where the summer offensive is underway. Andrii Pomahaibus, the chief of staff of the Ukrainian 13th National Guards Brigade, confirmed that Russians are preparing a large offensive beyond their initial buffer zone goal in Kharkiv and Sumy. Ukrainian commanders also confirmed that the Russians are preparing up to 50,000 additional troops for this upcoming offensive, with 4 months of favorable weather left to conduct it.
As Russian offensive preparations became evident, Ukrainian forces began targeting concentrations of enemy troops along the Kharkiv-Sumy border. Geolocated footage from the Kharkiv direction confirmed the Russian deployment of TOS-1 thermobaric artillery systems, which are rarely used except in major operations, as the blast wave of these explosions can easily penetrate through walls and fortified bunkers.
Ukrainians rapidly detected one of these powerful systems and immediately directed FPV drones to strike and destroy the target, preventing it from being used to target Ukrainian positions. In a separate precision attack, Ukrainian forces struck a key Russian command post in the rear, located in the town of Rylsk, eliminating the deputy commander of the 40th Marine Brigade, Alexander Danilov. Such decapitation strikes undermine Russian planning by disrupting command structures and delaying the coordination of upcoming assaults.
Additionally, Russians conducted a company-sized mechanized assault on the town of Lyptsi, to test for weak points in the Ukrainian defenses. This was the largest assault in Kharkiv direction seen in months, with Russians deploying tanks, BMPs, quad bikes, and motorbikes to assault Ukrainian positions. However, the attack, which relied heavily on surprise, was anticipated by the Ukrainians, who had already tracked Russian redeployments and prepared their forces.
Within minutes, Russian units were decimated by coordinated artillery fire and drone strikes, destroying 9 BMPs, 8 motorbikes and quads, and 1 tank, before the Russian assault could even cross the border. Along with the vehicles, Russians lost up to 100 soldiers killed and wounded in the attack, of which only a few could escape alive.
Until now, Russian attacks in this area had involved small, pure-infantry assaults in harassing-style attacks only, making this sudden escalation a strong indicator that Russia may indeed be preparing for a broader offensive. However, Ukrainians do not stand alone, as Europe is waking up and is massively increasing its defense production output.
As you might remember from previous reports, the EU has already provided over 2/3rds of their promised 2,000,000 artillery shells to Ukraine, Germany is massively increasing its development and production of AI-guided HX-2 drones, and both France and the UK are sending 100s of self-propelled artillery systems to Ukraine as well. These developments, among many others, are massively increasing Ukraine’s arsenal and capabilities, putting it in a much stronger position to repel the Russian summer offensive.
Overall, the Russians are escalating their probing attacks and increasing their military buildup in preparation for a summer offensive in Ukraine, following their rejection of any ceasefire offer. The rising military aid from the European Union to Ukraine will allow them to counter significant Russian assaults with a correspondingly greater density of fire from EU-supplied artillery, drones, ammunition, air defenses, and heavy equipment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MrXvHy3TxY
Reporting From Ukraine:
https://www.youtube.com/@RFU/videos
The complete transcript.
—
[ Moscow panics as Ukraine targets Putin’s Escort! ]
Today [ May 28 ], there are a lot of interesting updates from the Russian Federation. Here, in the aftermath of Russia’s largest missile strike of the war, Ukraine launched a thunderous response that sent shockwaves through the Russian homeland. As drones swarmed strategic targets and panic gripped the skies over Moscow, even Vladimir Putin found himself uncomfortably close to the line of fire.
Even while the 1,000 for 1,000 prisoner-of-war exchange process was taking place as agreed upon in Istanbul, the Russians launched a massive drone and missile strike campaign targeting Ukrainian civilians and critical infrastructure. The Russian strike consisted of almost 300 drones and 69 guided missiles, making it the largest strike launched in a single day, with the campaign lasting over 3 days using nearly 1,000 drones in total.
The Ukrainians responded with a massive drone strike of their own, targeting critical Russian military and economic infrastructure used for the launch of drones and missiles, as well as their production. The intensity of the Ukrainian strike caused chaos to the point a dozen Russian government planes, presumably with Russian government officials, flew from Moscow towards the eastern cities of Samara and Kazan likely to evade being killed in precision strikes.
At the time of the strike, Russian President Putin was in a helicopter, likely to avoid becoming a victim of the massive Ukrainian strikes on the ground. However, the commander of Russian air defense forces, Yuri Dashkin, confirmed that Putin was almost killed, as his helicopter ended up in the middle of the Russian effort to repulse Ukrainian drones.
Such close calls and sheer incompetence are a common occurrence, as they previously targeted and shot down not just their own fighter jets, but several civilian airliners in the past as well.
Another video from Moscow shows a Russian civilian jet being caught amidst the ground fire of Russian air defenses, narrowly avoiding being hit after being mistaken for a very large Ukrainian drone. Such chaos as well as Ukrainian strikes targeting military airfields in the area, forced the Russian government to close all airports in the Moscow area and other major cities in Russia, during the day. For the past week, the Ukrainians launched intense strikes that forced the Russian airports to keep all their civilian flights grounded.
If Ukrainians consistently force Russian civilian aviation to stay grounded, it will prevent the travel of civilian populace on top of denying flow and export of goods across the country. This is why the Ukrainians were intensively conducting drone strikes to force the grounding of civilian aviation at major airports of Moscow and Kaluga regions.
The Ukrainian drone strikes properly struck key economic and military infrastructure, including a battery factory in the city of Yelets, as confirmed by satellite footage. The batteries produced at this plant are used for application in the Russian military industry, including guided missiles, which could indirectly delay future Russian strikes.
Furthermore, two chemical plants in the cities of Kineshma and Tula were struck by Ukrainian drones, with footage confirming the direct impact on the plants. These chemical plants are directly tied to Russian military industry, as they produce nitric acid, ammonium nitrate, TNT, and RDX which are used to produce missiles, artillery shells, and landmines.
Strikes against these plants significantly disrupt Russian production of weapon systems and ammunition. These strikes are no coincidence, as causing any disruption alleviates the pressure off of frontline Ukrainian infantrymen, as Russia prepares to go all in on the attack this summer. On top of that, the Ukrainians struck the Skaut tractor factory in Tula, after Ukrainian Military Intelligence discovered that the factory was covertly being used to produce parts for artillery systems and logistics trucks for the Russian army.
Overall, the largest Russian missile strike against Ukraine did not pass without an even more devastating Ukrainian retribution, which resulted in successful strikes against critical Russian military industries and the cancellation of air traffic. Continuation of these strikes by the Ukrainians could lead to devastating blows to the Russian war time industry, which could consequently weaken the Russian capability to conduct intense assaults during their planned summer offensive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcKlX9x0YCs
Reporting From Ukraine:
https://www.youtube.com/@RFU/videos
The complete transcript.
—
[ Poland just had Enough! Russians Pushed Their Luck Too Far! ]
Today [ May 29 ], there are interesting updates from the Baltic Sea. Here, a Russian ship was caught almost red-handed near an underwater power cable between Poland and Sweden. The Polish government decided to act immediately and chased the suspicious ship away, but Russia took a step further and decided to provoke a direct confrontation with NATO.
Following the European Union’s recent tightening of sanctions against Russia’s shadow fleet, Poland has emerged as one of the most assertive NATO members in enforcing compliance. These measures, aimed at disrupting Russia’s covert maritime oil exports, have coincided with a noticeable uptick in Russian sabotage attempts from the same fleet across the Baltic Sea.
The most recent incident came when Polish intelligence detected a sanctioned Russian-linked vessel, identified as the Sun, sailing under the Antiguan flag, performing suspicious maneuvers near the critical Poland-Sweden power cable. This 600-megawatt undersea line is essential for energy exchange between the two nations, and Polish prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed that the Polish military intervened.
A patrol flight forced the vessel to alter course, and the Polish Navy’s reconnaissance ship, ORP Heweliusz, was dispatched to the site. Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz emphasized the seriousness of the situation, stating that since Sweden and Finland joined NATO, the Baltic Sea has become a key marine area, where the largest number of incidents related to cable breaks and sabotage occur. Poland has made it clear that any threat to Baltic infrastructure will be met with a firm response.
This latest episode follows a string of Russian sabotage efforts in the region. Russia has been linked to numerous incidents of undersea tampering with 11 known undersea cables taken out since 2023 as stated by a deputy commander of the Finnish coast guard.
The most recent confirmed damage occurred end of 2024, involving the Estlink 2 power cable between Finland and Estonia. Investigations revealed a huge anchor drag mark on the seafloor, attributed to the Russian-linked oil tanker Eagle S. These acts are widely seen as components of Russia’s hybrid warfare strategy: destabilizing European states without overt military confrontation.
However, according to Finnish Defense Minister Antti Haekkaenen, Russia has begun militarily escorting its shadow fleet tankers through the narrow and sensitive waters of the Gulf of Finland. While Russian naval presence in the Baltic is not new, deploying warships to directly shield shadow oil tankers is a significant escalation.
Tankers, like the Jaguar, which Estonia unsuccessfully attempted to escort to one of its ports for identification, which has since changed name to Blint and was re-registered in Comoros, travel now with direct military protection. This reduces the risk of boarding or interception by European states, especially in areas like the Gulf of Finland.
This militarization raises the stakes significantly. By placing its armed forces directly alongside illicit shipping, Russia is attempting to deter NATO intervention, not by warning, but by baiting. If a European navy enforces sanctions or tries to halt undersea sabotage, it must now face Russian military escorts. Any interception could lead to confrontation.
The strategic intent is clear: provoke a reaction, ideally forcing NATO to fire the first shot. This would allow the Kremlin to portray the alliance as the aggressor, both to its domestic audience and to sympathetic foreign observers. It’s an asymmetric gambit, a military shield for a commercial operation, daring NATO to test the limits of escalation.
At the same time, with the Russian economy heavily reliant on oil revenues, the Kremlin views the shadow fleet as a vital artery. Russian analysts have acknowledged the importance of these military escorts, but raised doubts about the Russian Baltic Fleet’s ability to sustain such missions. Given the aging condition of Russian naval vessels and ongoing shipbuilding issues, NATO’s Baltic Sea fleet outmatches the Russian both in modern capability and collective tonnage, with superior surveillance, submarine-hunting, and rapid-response assets from multiple member states on duty.
Overall, as tensions in the Baltic intensify week by week, Poland’s role as a front-line enforcer of EU sanctions becomes ever more crucial with its readiness to act. Meanwhile, Russia continues to use the shadow fleet to provoke, probe, and project strength - all while trying to control the narrative that it is under siege. What began as covert sabotage and evasive tanker operations is fast becoming a military flashpoint, and the next Baltic incident could determine whether the fragile balance holds or breaks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhzFAqB—Ps
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.