Attack On Europe: Documenting Russian Equipment Losses During The 2022 Russian Invasion Of Ukraine (2 year anniversary)

“...it is also possible that the US president doesn’t like the price cap because it benefits US competitors like China and India, Ziemba [think tank sanctions expert] said. (they get cheaper oil from Russia, than the rest of the world is paying)

She also said there is little point in the G7 lowering the price cap if its members do not widen sanctions against the shadow fleet.”

I just returned from a trip on the DelMarVa Peninsula, traveling through Virginia and Maryland, as I had done also a month ago. Previous month the Regular gas price at typically low cost Royal Farms was $3.09/9. This trip it was $2.99/9. Last month price at the bargain place I normally use was around $2.96/9. this month was $2.86/9. I question whether US gas prices will lower much more, as I have already seen info that producers in the more expensive US oil/gas production areas have been shutting down, or not doing more exploration in those expensive areas. Many are not aware that the very low prices under 45 caused many producers in high cost areas like N. Dakota to stop pumping and completely shut down. In fact there was so much oil pumped then that for a very brief time, there were NO MORE places to store it, and companies were even paying people to accept their surplus oil proction. Trump as 47 will have to deal
with big oil companies if he tries to force US oil to unprofitable sale prices. Drill, drill, drill has a nice ring, but must face economic realities.

We are fortunate that we do not face Russian bank charges of 21% and higher for bank loans. However my HELOC (home equity loan) has held steady at 8.6% for several months, so I have held off making some major home repairs. And this rate is with a score over 700 on my part. Our banks and the Fed will no doubt continue to be cautious as our economy continues to be affected by repidly changing rules on areas like tariffs.

Organizations like the G7 and countries in Europe will no doubt be concerned by recent efforts of a small Baltic states (Estonia or Latvia?) to control a probably Russian oil transporting ship to control that ship. There was an immediate Russian response by their hostile air craft. The motive for stopping the ship included suspicion they had accidentally or deliberately damaged undersea communication cables by dragging their anchor. Continued Russian defense of their oil distribution is now being met by strong efforts of the small Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) and Poland to fortify their borders with Russia, and Russia controlled Belarus and land and seaport Kaliningrad. Serious defensive installations like “dragon’s teeth” and others along perhaps a thousand miles of borders by the 4 Baltic countries are in process of installation, planned, or contemplated. No one who has ever been under Russian control wants to repeat that nightmare, as Ukraine defense has so amply demonstrated. Meanwhile, President Trump will continue his strategy of continuing to drive Putin crazy.

Note, my recent long comment was in response to your long comment #16,462.

Location where SBU planted underwater explosive device on one of the pillars of the Crimean bridge. (45.3079385, 36.5067476)

https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1929868629996093828

45.3079385, 36.5067476 on Google Maps

HIMARS strike on the Russian Zoopark-1M counter-battery radar system, by the 'Black Forest' Brigade.

https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1930186884665184270

Pete Hegseth isn't goingto UDCG.

Ukraine is big mad and now calling Pete a drunk

What gives?

Additional footage of Magyar’s unit downing dozens of Russian fixed wing drones.

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1929624205923909657

Ukrainian Air Force F-16AM Fighting Falcon on a combat air patrol, armed with a pair of AIM-9L Sidewinders and AIM-120C AMRAAMs.

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1929970122397208783

Aim-9s...effective against shahed drones.

Aim-120s...effective against cruise missiles.

🇺🇦 🐝 Ukrainian drone on fiber optics tracked the movement of a Russian tank near Vovchansk, Kharkiv region.

🫡 The work of drone operators of the unmanned systems battalion of 57th separate motorized infantry brigade.

https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1930200581622132798

Amazing video.

Regarding comment #16,479. “If they (UK) buy the F-35A they will likely seek to either acquire some B-61 weapons from the USA or, as they have done in the past, build a UK weapon that uses a US design, probably with US help. The US probably already has nuclear weapons for our oun F-35A fighters stationed at RAF Lakenheath. But the UK, having their own (limited) nuclear deterrent, is not a party to NATO’s Nuclear Sharing Agreement (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey), so allowing them to use US owned weapons would require a new agreement. Of course, Russia’s placement of nuclear weapons in Belarus opened that door a bit. UK eliminated its air and land based nuclear weapons in the 1990s, and their current sea based deterrence is wholly insufficient.”

So much for the “peace dividend” of the 1990s, and so much for one of Alexandr Dugin’s key goals set in his 1997 book on how to enable Russia to conquer western Europe, and control the world. Dugin, who is also called “Putin’s Brain” said separating UK from the rest of Europe was an important goal. Brexit did that, but now UK is no longer constrained by some of the NATO limits on use of nuclear weapons. I guess Dugin’s brain was not expecting that little problem. Read the 20+ bullet points in the link below to see his points on damaging the Euro-America alliance to weaken European defenses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

Then go to the last two bullet points to see his plans for US, Canada and the rest of the Americas. The statement on the US and Canada explains a lot of the nastiness that has been happening in the US for the decades since 1997. Read it and reevaluate your opinions regarding causes of US racial relations, protest and violence during these recent years.

A BETTER LOOK: @bayraktar_1love provides this video of the explosion under the Kerch bridge. Note the vertical displacement of green water-- indicating an explosion at depth, and the shattered concrete in the water column. This indicates damage to the under water pilings.

https://x.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/1929921877494960580

🇷🇺 In an apparent attempt to conceal losses, Russia has begun replacing destroyed aircraft at the "Belaya" airbase.
A damaged Tu-95MS, confirmed as destroyed, was swapped with an intact one.
Burn marks remain visible.

https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1930234219709501726

The SLCM-N push calls for billions of taxpayer dollars amid already runaway military budgets, where the DoD, already proposing a whopping $1 trillion defense budget for next year, also intends on spending almost a trillion more on other nuclear weapons in the years to come.

“Last year Congress authorized $322 million for SLCM-N. The continuing resolution added at least $150 million to the program, and the new ‘reconciliation’ bill currently in front of Congress would add $2 billion to the program over the next four years,” Wilson explained. “That is a lot of money for a weapon the Navy said it didn't want consistently over the last two administrations.”

“This has all the makings of a ‘Washington warhead’ that will do little to improve U.S. deterrence or international strategic stability,” Wilson concluded. “I sincerely hope that Congress will change course and exercise some actual oversight into [the] strategic rationale behind the program.”

Reporting | Military Industrial Complex

Top photo credit:June 2, 2025, Seoul, Korea: At Yeouido Park in front of the National Assembly, Democratic Party presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung held his final election rally. Tomorrow, on June 3, the presidential election will take place. (Credit Image: © Suh Jeen Moon/ZUMA Press Wire/ZUMA Wire)

Coup and impeachment boost liberal in South Korea election

Asia-Pacific

UPDATE 6/3 8:50a.m. EST: Polls have closed in South Korea, with exit polling indicating that liberal Lee Jae-mying will win by a wide margin.

South Koreans will be heading to voting stations on Tuesday to elect their next president in the wake of Yoon Suk-yeol’s impeachment and removal from office in April.

According to the public opinion trends over the past weeks, Lee Jae-myung, the candidate from the liberal Minjoo Party, is heavily favored to win. In South Korea’s polarized two-party structure, both mainstream liberal and conservative parties have managed to build highly committed support bases that would allow each party to secure at least 30% in most elections. Consequently, the decisions of the remaining swing voters have become decisive for electoral success.

On that note, recent polls have shown the moderate-nonpartisan base’s clear preference for Lee Jae-myung over his main rival Kim Moon-soo of the conservative People Power Party. This trend is reminiscent of last year’s parliamentary election in which the swing voters tilted strongly toward the Minjoo Party, eventually handing them a landslide victory.

In shaping the favorable momentum for Lee Jae-myung and the Minjoo Party, the South Korean public’s widespread desire to punish Yoon for his December coup attempt has been seemingly decisive. Many swing voters likely find it hard to support the People Power Party, which remained supportive of Yoon throughout the impeachment saga.

However, the people’s choice of Lee and the Minjoo Party in this election would not mean continued support for them. After the election, although there would be more demand for investigations into the martial law plot and punishments for those involved, many citizens will begin to shift their attention to other important domestic and foreign policy issues.

As a government that also holds a supermajority in the parliament, the new government would face high public expectations for problem-solving.

Indeed, the South Korean public is preoccupied with an array of challenges. Among them, how the new government can manage potential differences and disagreements in the U.S.-South Korea alliance and maintain strong, mutually beneficial ties with Washington.

South Koreans are deeply worried about the Trump administration’s sweeping tariff increases and the ripple negative impacts it would have on their economy. A heavily export-dependent economy, South Korea is vulnerable to external pressures and has indeed felt the ramifications of U.S. tariffs targeting its key industries, including automobiles. Given this situation, whether the new government can successfully negotiate a smart deal with Washington will be considered extremely important.

The issue of alliance cost-sharing for U.S. Forces Korea is another big concern for South Koreans. During his first term, President Trump threatened to withdraw from South Korea if Seoul did not increase its cost-sharing contribution dramatically. While Washington and Seoul then managed to agree on a reasonable deal, Trump had indicated on multiple occasions that getting South Korea to pay a lot more remains his goal.

Last year, as a presidential candidate, Trump vowed to demand $10 billion from South Korea for stationing U.S. forces there — about nine times what the Biden administration and Seoul agreed in October 2024. Many South Koreans would presumably support paying more to maintain the current conditions, as over 90% of them believe the U.S. alliance is necessary for their security. But they would not find $10 billion or anywhere near it acceptable, and would hope the new government would find a middle ground with Washington.

When it comes to security cooperation, whether Seoul and Washington can align their objectives and priorities regarding North Korea and China is the elephant in the room. Most South Koreans perceive North Korea as the biggest security challenge and would want the U.S.-South Korea alliance’s military and diplomatic focus to remain on North Korea.

Nevertheless, it is uncertain if the Trump administration feels the same way. Several key Trump officials, including the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, have signaled they would seek a restructuring of U.S. forces in Asia, including those in South Korea, to focus more on deterring China, particularly with a Taiwan contingency in mind.

This issue of “strategic flexibility” — allowing U.S. forces in South Korea to operate beyond the Korean Peninsula — could emerge as a source of tension in the alliance, as Seoul would be predominantly worried about dealing with North Korea and would also want to avoid a hostile relationship with Beijing.

From trade to regional security, there are difficult and sensitive issues for Seoul and Washington to address and to seek compromise, at least a mutual understanding to agree to disagree. It remains to be seen how Lee Jae-myung intends to approach these complex alliance questions. But no doubt, he will be given a very tough assignment starting day 1.

keep readingShow less

Top photo credit: NORFOLK, Va. (Apr. 15, 2008) Navy Capt. Patricia Cole, director of the Tailored Maritime Operations Center (T-MOC) at the Naval Network Warfare Command, inspects fellow officers during a command-wide bi-annual uniform inspection. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Corey Lewis File# 080415-N-2147L-001

Cutting commands is just the start for broken military system

Military Industrial Complex

On April 30, new Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Stuart Scheller, a former Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel, announced his intent to push for military reform, echoing the frustrations that led to his 2021 court-martial for publicly criticizing the Afghanistan withdrawal.

His call for accountability resonates with my decades-long work as an advocate for transforming the broken U.S. military personnel and leadership systems and addressing the deep-rooted issues in military culture. These would include bloated bureaucracies, careerism, a lack of ethical leadership, and fossilized military doctrine — all which Scheller’s remarks brought into sharp focus.

I see Scheller’s appointment as a unique opportunity for change, but there is a lot of work to do.

WASHINGTON — America’s nuclear arsenal will cost $946 billion over the next decade, an estimated total that rose by 25 percent over the last two years, according to a new report [PDF] from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The total, covering operations, sustainment and modernization for the years 2025-2034, comes out to an average of $95 billion per year, according to the CBO’s biannual report, which was released Thursday.

The 25 percent cost increase from the previous edition, released in 2023, amounts to $190 billion. That change stems largely from CBO estimating an increased cost on projects, including from the Sentinel ICBM effort, which Pentagon officials have said is 81 percent above its baseline cost estimate; however, some increase costs are the result of a shift of two years in the time period covered, as the previous report covered 2023-2032.

American nuclear weapons are funded through two different pots of money: the Department of Defense, which funds the delivery systems such as bombers or submarines, as well as the support systems like nuclear command and control, and the Department of Energy, which funds (largely through the semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA) the management and upgrade of nuclear warheads.

The CBO total breaks down like this:

$357 billion to “operate and sustain current and future nuclear forces and other supporting Activities”
$309 billion to “modernize strategic and tactical nuclear delivery systems and the weapons they carry”
$72 billion to “modernize facilities and equipment for the nuclear weapons laboratory complex”
$79 billion to “modernize command, control, communications, and early-warning systems”
$129 billion to “cover potential additional costs in excess of projected budgeted amounts estimated using historical cost growth.” While the other costs listed here are laid out in plans from DoD and DoE, this post of money is effectively CBO’s best guess at what cost overruns will likely look like.

For comparison, CBO noted that costs for nuclear acquisition programs would average out to 11.8 percent of DoD’s total acquisition costs laid out in the FY25 budget request (what those totals would look like under the FY26 request, the first of the Trump administration, remains to be seen, as that budget has not been released).

The highest annual costs will hit just after the turn of the decade: Those percentages would rise “from 10.1 percent in 2025 to 13.2 percent in 2031 before steadily declining to 10.7 percent by 2034,” per the report.

In terms of actual systems, the CBO breaks it down into four key buckets.

First are “Strategic nuclear delivery systems and weapons,” at $454 billion. That includes development of the submarines, bombers and ICBMs which can deliver nuclear weapons, as well as DoE funding for the warheads needed. “About half” of the costs here are for ballistic missile submarines, according to the report.

Second is “Tactical nuclear delivery systems and weapons,” at $15 billion. These are the smaller weapons and associated delivery systems, such as “tactical aircraft” (think fighters like the F-35) and the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile, SLCM-N. “Costs in this category are larger than those in CBO’s 2023 estimate primarily because they include funding for the SLCM-N and the warhead it would carry, as mandated by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024,” CBO notes.

Third is DoE “nuclear weapons laboratories and supporting activities” as $193 billion. This covers “activities at nuclear weapons laboratories and production facilities that are not directly attributable to a specific type of warhead but that are related to maintaining current and future stockpiles of nuclear weapons.”

Finally, DoD’s “command, control, communications, and early-warning systems,” at $154 billion. This covers “funding for operating, sustaining, and modernizing the systems” that make up the nuclear command and control (NC3) networks needed to actually control the nuclear arsenal.

Correction 4/25/25 at 2L57 pm ET: This story has been updated with the correct percentage of cost overruns on the Sentinel program.

The Ukrainian group Ziferblat that will go to Eurovision this year. pic.twitter.com/wZaC1ud0sh— Olga Bazova (@OlgaBazova) May 6, 2025

while paling around with literally all of our enemies

Russia and the Russian people aren't my enemy, they have shown no ill will toward American citizens. You war pigs OTOH, along with the EU Globohomos and our domestic Democrats hate me, Trump and the American taxpayer.