All Things Russia & Ukraine

[Typical Lax Dad]

If the "reason" for Putin's actions are that they want a "buffer" from NATO.....in what world does taking over Ukraine "fix" that problem.

As I keep trying to point out, Crimea & the Sea of Azov are the key. If Putin controls them, the Black Sea remains a Russian lake.
If Ukraine controls them & joins NATO, the Black Sea becomes a NATO lake. The Sea of Azov is a choke point because it controls the inland sea lane to the Caspian Sea, which allows movement of warships to & from Russia's formidable Caspian Sea Fleet (launch vehicles for several cruise missile strikes on Syria & Ukraine), as well as commercial shipping in/out of the Caspian Sea.

That's great, but if violates one of Putin's claims...that he wants a buffer between Russia and NATO. Crimea is now "vulnerable" to an attack from Turkey. And if that sounds stupid...that's because it IS stupid, and Putin could give a sh(t about a (snicker) NATO invasion. He's not THAT stupid.

He's full of Sh9t. There's no logical explanation for his acts. Russian ships...including warships..... went in and out of the Black Sea with no trouble whatsoever. And as we discussed before, Russia has leases to Ukrainian ports....not to mention military contracts with Turkey.

Turkey is a member of NATO. CLEARLY Turkey holds the keys to the Black Sea. And yet.......that's supposedly fine with Putin?

Putin's full of sh(t. Period. You can't use logic to explain this. What Putin is doing is illogical.

The post-2014 status quo would likely have held had Ukraine not threatened joining NATO, after cutting off the flow of fresh water to Crimea by closing the canal to the Dniper river & restricting road access from Russia to Crimea via the coastal roads through the land bridge territory that Russia has taken & still holds.

Bringing the ethnic Russians in the Donbas home to Mother Russia is how Putin justifies his war for Crimea on the homefront, now that he failed to topple Zelensky & install a puppet who'd give him Crimea & what he needs to sustain it.

I get all that. It's all invented, BS reasoning. It's desperately trying to inject logic...where there is none.

If Putin were logical? He would have JUMPED at the chance to be US's number one trading partner when Hillary offered it.....the Russian people would be MILES ahead by now. Instead? The Russian economy is a sh(tshow....when just a year ago, they had the EU economy paying top dollar for Russian energy. No one wants to do business in Russia, because who wants to risk that capital? Putin is an idiot who wants something he can't get.....like a five year old child with parents that can't afford to buy the biggest toy.



And again: I'm 100% for doing nothing but sitting on sanctions. Let Putin take Crimea. Let Putin take Ukraine. Let China "take" Taiwan.

Let them drown in their own stupidity. Sit back, and LET our supposed enemy make these stupid mistakes. Levy sanctions, and let Putin sell his oil to 3rd rate bidders for bargain prices. Let China kill the golden goose, and set off a brain drain.

Putin coulda been a contender. He's F'ed himself and the Russian people for at least a generation. And with each passing day, he digs that hole more deeply.

Since 2014, we've been giving Ukraine warships suited for the Black Sea. Coast Guard cutters which can be up-armed with missiles.
We offered them our new Littoral Combat Ships, which we are retiring because we can't keep 'em at sea for extended periods, but they'd be perfect for Ukraine. They would not be at sea as much & their engineering flaws have finally been fixed. We're sacrificing them because of budget constraints so we can keep more destroyers at sea.

If Ukraine goes NATO, Crimea would become a major NATO naval base, hosting visits to a stream of as many NATO warships as the Montreux Convention allows.

[a fan]

Since 2014, we've been giving Ukraine warships suited for the Black Sea. Coast Guard cutters which can be up-armed with missiles.
We offered them our new Littoral Combat Ships, which we are retiring because we can't keep 'em at sea for extended periods, but they'd be perfect for Ukraine. They would not be at sea as much & their engineering flaws have finally been fixed. We're sacrificing them because of budget constraints so we can keep more destroyers at sea.

If Ukraine goes NATO, Crimea would become a major NATO naval base, hosting visits to a stream of as many NATO warships as the Montreux Convention allows.

And if Putin had accepted Hillary's admittedly stupid button? He'd render NATO irrelevant. Who the F cars about NATO if you're best buds with the US?

Again, this line of thinking is 100% dependent on the desire to return to the Soviet era. Let go of that desire? Naval bases are pointless.

And again: what's keeping NATO member Turkey from shutting down Black Sea access if NATO is a nefarious actor? If Turkey shuts it down....that's it man, no more in and out of the Black Sea.

[old salt]

Since 2014, we've been giving Ukraine warships suited for the Black Sea. Coast Guard cutters which can be up-armed with missiles.
We offered them our new Littoral Combat Ships, which we are retiring because we can't keep 'em at sea for extended periods, but they'd be perfect for Ukraine. They would not be at sea as much & their engineering flaws have finally been fixed. We're sacrificing them because of budget constraints so we can keep more destroyers at sea. We offered Ukraine 4 retiring LCS's but (so far) they've turned them down.
https://news.usni.org/2022/06/14/house- ... missioning

If Ukraine goes NATO, Crimea would become a major NATO naval base, hosting visits to a stream of as many NATO warships as the Montreux Convention allows.

And if Putin had accepted Hillary's admittedly stupid button? He'd render NATO irrelevant. Who the F cars about NATO if you're best buds with the US?

Again, this line of thinking is 100% dependent on the desire to return to the Soviet era. Let go of that desire? Naval bases are pointless.

And again: what's keeping NATO member Turkey from shutting down Black Sea access if NATO is a nefarious actor? If Turkey shuts it down....that's it man, no more in and out of the Black Sea.

Turkey can't stop Ukraine from building their naval fleet (with retiring USN ships we give them).

The Montreux Convention allows NATO to move several visiting warships in & out of the Black Sea.
Sufficient to keep a rotational standing NATO task force in the Black Sea.
obtw -- we're increasing the number of USN destroyers homeported in Spain from 4 to 6, so we can increase our presence in the E Med.
https://news.usni.org/2022/06/28/biden- ... rota-spain
Several weeks before the invasion, the U.S. sortied four East Coast-based destroyers to Europe, USNI News previously reported. Officials at the time were careful not to link the surge to Russia’s massing of troops on its border with Ukraine, but sending the additional destroyers to U.S. 6th Fleet amounted to the largest naval presence in Europe since 2018, according to the USNI News carrier deployment database.

After Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, the U.S. Navy’s Rota-based destroyers would regularly operate in the Black Sea for deterrence missions. But no U.S. warships have entered the Black Sea since Russia invaded Ukraine in February.

The Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group has been operating in the Mediterranean since December and has gone under NATO command twice. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in December ordered the CSG to remain in the Mediterranean as Russia massed troops on its border with Ukraine. In March, Austin extended the Truman CSG’s deployment, which could go until August, USNI News previously reported.

You're right that Turkey is critical, but Turkey needs NATO as much as NATO needs Turkey.
If you think Naval Bases are pointless, there's no point in continuing the discussion with you. You'll never get it.

[a fan]

If you think Naval Bases are pointless, there's no point in continuing the discussion with you. You'll never get it.

What I'm telling you is that if Russia attacks NATO, or vice versa.....

What's the first thing Turkey will do?

So then tell me: what good is that Russian Naval base if Russia is in open hostilities with NATO?

Think it through in a linear fashion.


It'd be like having a Russian Naval base in St. Louis. A bunch of trapped ships in a fish bowl. A useless station with ships that can't deploy to oceans.

Putin would be better off with "attack river boats" on the Volga.

[MDlaxfan76]

As to the technical aspect of your post, "listening as well as looking", that the same thing...if you ain't specifically seeking to detect a particular capability, at the right time, you're very likely not to pick it up...regardless of detection methodology. We simply don't see, hear, detect everything, all the time, everywhere.

In several critical areas (hint, hint), we listen & record continuously for real time acoustic data, for tracking, classification & post-analysis, when needed.

yes, if one is 'looking' (which in some instances we may very well be, given known possibilities)... though not perfect; But yes, when something is 'heard' and recorded, it can enable forensic analysis. However, identification of a particular sound as a specific, let's say, 'vehicle' can only potentially be dispositive as to the vehicle, not who is controlling it. For instance, in a throwback example, in Red October the identification of the Russian sub type is possible, but not who is in control and what the intentions are. Technologies are more sophisticated, but we still have the difficulty of determining who the humans actually are and what their intentions may be.

Again, a smart 'spook' would not make this easy by using the vehicle type exclusively available to a particular country, indeed, the smart spook would use a vehicle identifiable as more likely to be their adversary's. But no guarantee either way.

You can classify the source. You can plot positions & movements at specific times. The acoustic data is retained.
Using your smart spook theory. Even if the acoustics indicate western equipment, you would claim smart Rooskie spooks stole it & employed it.
The ez way for the Russians to do it would be to use a bomb in a pig. Damage pattern on the pipeline should determine internal or external explosion.
Lack of definitive proof that the Russians did it focuses logical suspicion on which nations have the capability & the strongest incentive.

Exactly that hypothetical smart Russian spooks intent, right?

"easiest" defeats that intent.

But when you say "strongest incentive", that's Russian disinformation campaign parroting.

No, we DID NOT have a strong incentive. Quite the opposite.

[Typical Lax Dad]

As to the technical aspect of your post, "listening as well as looking", that the same thing...if you ain't specifically seeking to detect a particular capability, at the right time, you're very likely not to pick it up...regardless of detection methodology. We simply don't see, hear, detect everything, all the time, everywhere.

In several critical areas (hint, hint), we listen & record continuously for real time acoustic data, for tracking, classification & post-analysis, when needed.

yes, if one is 'looking' (which in some instances we may very well be, given known possibilities)... though not perfect; But yes, when something is 'heard' and recorded, it can enable forensic analysis. However, identification of a particular sound as a specific, let's say, 'vehicle' can only potentially be dispositive as to the vehicle, not who is controlling it. For instance, in a throwback example, in Red October the identification of the Russian sub type is possible, but not who is in control and what the intentions are. Technologies are more sophisticated, but we still have the difficulty of determining who the humans actually are and what their intentions may be.

Again, a smart 'spook' would not make this easy by using the vehicle type exclusively available to a particular country, indeed, the smart spook would use a vehicle identifiable as more likely to be their adversary's. But no guarantee either way.

You can classify the source. You can plot positions & movements at specific times. The acoustic data is retained.
Using your smart spook theory. Even if the acoustics indicate western equipment, you would claim smart Rooskie spooks stole it & employed it.
The ez way for the Russians to do it would be to use a bomb in a pig. Damage pattern on the pipeline should determine internal or external explosion.
Lack of definitive proof that the Russians did it focuses logical suspicion on which nations have the capability & the strongest incentive.

Exactly that hypothetical smart Russian spooks intent, right?

"easiest" defeats that intent.

But when you say "strongest incentive", that's Russian disinformation campaign parroting.

No, we DID NOT have a strong incentive. Quite the opposite.

This is what Russian sympathizing looks like. It will be couched in “I am just explaining it”…. but the “just explaining it” is always one direction. Old and exposed.

[old salt]

If you think Naval Bases are pointless, there's no point in continuing the discussion with you. You'll never get it.

What I'm telling you is that if Russia attacks NATO, or vice versa.....

What's the first thing Turkey will do?

So then tell me: what good is that Russian Naval base if Russia is in open hostilities with NATO?

Think it through in a linear fashion.


It'd be like having a Russian Naval base in St. Louis. A bunch of trapped ships in a fish bowl. A useless station with ships that can't deploy to oceans.

Putin would be better off with "attack river boats" on the Volga.

Because as significant number of cruise missiles fired into Ukraine (& Syria) have been from warships in the Black Sea Fleet & Caspian Flotilla.
Those missiles can also strike E NATO countries. They can also shoot down aircraft over Ukraine. Read the link I posted up the page. It details how the Russians can transfer warships between homeports via their inland water system. The Russian corvettes & patrol boats in the Black Sea & Caspian Sea bristle with cruise missiles & could operate from a base in St Louis or any of our Great Lakes, with their shallow draft & narrow beam.

[old salt]

As to the technical aspect of your post, "listening as well as looking", that the same thing...if you ain't specifically seeking to detect a particular capability, at the right time, you're very likely not to pick it up...regardless of detection methodology. We simply don't see, hear, detect everything, all the time, everywhere.

In several critical areas (hint, hint), we listen & record continuously for real time acoustic data, for tracking, classification & post-analysis, when needed.

yes, if one is 'looking' (which in some instances we may very well be, given known possibilities)... though not perfect; But yes, when something is 'heard' and recorded, it can enable forensic analysis. However, identification of a particular sound as a specific, let's say, 'vehicle' can only potentially be dispositive as to the vehicle, not who is controlling it. For instance, in a throwback example, in Red October the identification of the Russian sub type is possible, but not who is in control and what the intentions are. Technologies are more sophisticated, but we still have the difficulty of determining who the humans actually are and what their intentions may be.

Again, a smart 'spook' would not make this easy by using the vehicle type exclusively available to a particular country, indeed, the smart spook would use a vehicle identifiable as more likely to be their adversary's. But no guarantee either way.

You can classify the source. You can plot positions & movements at specific times. The acoustic data is retained.
Using your smart spook theory. Even if the acoustics indicate western equipment, you would claim smart Rooskie spooks stole it & employed it.
The ez way for the Russians to do it would be to use a bomb in a pig. Damage pattern on the pipeline should determine internal or external explosion.
Lack of definitive proof that the Russians did it focuses logical suspicion on which nations have the capability & the strongest incentive.

Exactly that hypothetical smart Russian spooks intent, right?

"easiest" defeats that intent.

But when you say "strongest incentive", that's Russian disinformation campaign parroting.

No, we DID NOT have a strong incentive. Quite the opposite.

This is what Russian sympathizing looks like. It will be couched in “I am just explaining it”…. but the “just explaining it” is always one direction. Old and exposed.

You just refuse to acknowledge what does not fit your agenda.

[MDlaxfan76]

As to the technical aspect of your post, "listening as well as looking", that the same thing...if you ain't specifically seeking to detect a particular capability, at the right time, you're very likely not to pick it up...regardless of detection methodology. We simply don't see, hear, detect everything, all the time, everywhere.

In several critical areas (hint, hint), we listen & record continuously for real time acoustic data, for tracking, classification & post-analysis, when needed.

yes, if one is 'looking' (which in some instances we may very well be, given known possibilities)... though not perfect; But yes, when something is 'heard' and recorded, it can enable forensic analysis. However, identification of a particular sound as a specific, let's say, 'vehicle' can only potentially be dispositive as to the vehicle, not who is controlling it. For instance, in a throwback example, in Red October the identification of the Russian sub type is possible, but not who is in control and what the intentions are. Technologies are more sophisticated, but we still have the difficulty of determining who the humans actually are and what their intentions may be.

Again, a smart 'spook' would not make this easy by using the vehicle type exclusively available to a particular country, indeed, the smart spook would use a vehicle identifiable as more likely to be their adversary's. But no guarantee either way.

You can classify the source. You can plot positions & movements at specific times. The acoustic data is retained.
Using your smart spook theory. Even if the acoustics indicate western equipment, you would claim smart Rooskie spooks stole it & employed it.
The ez way for the Russians to do it would be to use a bomb in a pig. Damage pattern on the pipeline should determine internal or external explosion.
Lack of definitive proof that the Russians did it focuses logical suspicion on which nations have the capability & the strongest incentive.

Exactly that hypothetical smart Russian spooks intent, right?

"easiest" defeats that intent.

But when you say "strongest incentive", that's Russian disinformation campaign parroting.

No, we DID NOT have a strong incentive. Quite the opposite.

This is what Russian sympathizing looks like. It will be couched in “I am just explaining it”…. but the “just explaining it” is always one direction. Old and exposed.

You just refuse to acknowledge what does not fit your agenda.

That's the kettle...

[MDlaxfan76]

If you think Naval Bases are pointless, there's no point in continuing the discussion with you. You'll never get it.

What I'm telling you is that if Russia attacks NATO, or vice versa.....

What's the first thing Turkey will do?

So then tell me: what good is that Russian Naval base if Russia is in open hostilities with NATO?

Think it through in a linear fashion.


It'd be like having a Russian Naval base in St. Louis. A bunch of trapped ships in a fish bowl. A useless station with ships that can't deploy to oceans.

Putin would be better off with "attack river boats" on the Volga.

Because as significant number of cruise missiles fired into Ukraine (& Syria) have been from warships in the Black Sea Fleet & Caspian Flotilla.
Those missiles can also strike E NATO countries. They can also shoot down aircraft over Ukraine. Read the link I posted up the page. It details how the Russians can transfer warships between homeports via their inland water system. The Russian corvettes & patrol boats in the Black Sea & Caspian Sea bristle with cruise missiles & could operate from a base in St Louis or any of our Great Lakes, with their shallow draft & narrow beam.

So, really good for attacking Ukraine, but not so good if opponent is actually NATO.

Seriously, how fast would they be utterly destroyed, much less bottled up?

But good for bully boy tactics...

[a fan]

Because as significant number of cruise missiles fired into Ukraine (& Syria) have been from warships in the Black Sea Fleet & Caspian Flotilla.
Those missiles can also strike E NATO countries. Read the link I posted up the page. It details how the Russians can transfer warships between homeports via their inland water system. The Russian corvettes & patrol boats in the Black Sea & Caspian Sea bristle with cruise missiles & could operate from a base in St Louis or any of our Great Lakes.

If they can "transfer warships between homeports via their inland water system"?

That means the Ukranian port is just another of many ports.

The key feature of that Ukrainian port is that it's the last pit stop before exiting the Black Sea to the ocean.

If Turkey cuts that access off....the Ukrainian port is irrelevant, and the closest and easiest place for NATO to attack. Putins first move would be to get all ships the firetruck away from that port AND the Black Sea.....or it's target practice time for NATO.

Circular reasoning. That port is useless during NATO hostilities.

[Typical Lax Dad]

As to the technical aspect of your post, "listening as well as looking", that the same thing...if you ain't specifically seeking to detect a particular capability, at the right time, you're very likely not to pick it up...regardless of detection methodology. We simply don't see, hear, detect everything, all the time, everywhere.

In several critical areas (hint, hint), we listen & record continuously for real time acoustic data, for tracking, classification & post-analysis, when needed.

yes, if one is 'looking' (which in some instances we may very well be, given known possibilities)... though not perfect; But yes, when something is 'heard' and recorded, it can enable forensic analysis. However, identification of a particular sound as a specific, let's say, 'vehicle' can only potentially be dispositive as to the vehicle, not who is controlling it. For instance, in a throwback example, in Red October the identification of the Russian sub type is possible, but not who is in control and what the intentions are. Technologies are more sophisticated, but we still have the difficulty of determining who the humans actually are and what their intentions may be.

Again, a smart 'spook' would not make this easy by using the vehicle type exclusively available to a particular country, indeed, the smart spook would use a vehicle identifiable as more likely to be their adversary's. But no guarantee either way.

You can classify the source. You can plot positions & movements at specific times. The acoustic data is retained.
Using your smart spook theory. Even if the acoustics indicate western equipment, you would claim smart Rooskie spooks stole it & employed it.
The ez way for the Russians to do it would be to use a bomb in a pig. Damage pattern on the pipeline should determine internal or external explosion.
Lack of definitive proof that the Russians did it focuses logical suspicion on which nations have the capability & the strongest incentive.

Exactly that hypothetical smart Russian spooks intent, right?

"easiest" defeats that intent.

But when you say "strongest incentive", that's Russian disinformation campaign parroting.

No, we DID NOT have a strong incentive. Quite the opposite.

This is what Russian sympathizing looks like. It will be couched in “I am just explaining it”…. but the “just explaining it” is always one direction. Old and exposed.

You just refuse to acknowledge what does not fit your agenda.

I don’t have an “agenda”….you do. You are vested. I am not. You are a sympathizer.

[old salt]

If you think Naval Bases are pointless, there's no point in continuing the discussion with you. You'll never get it.

What I'm telling you is that if Russia attacks NATO, or vice versa.....

What's the first thing Turkey will do?

So then tell me: what good is that Russian Naval base if Russia is in open hostilities with NATO?

Think it through in a linear fashion.


It'd be like having a Russian Naval base in St. Louis. A bunch of trapped ships in a fish bowl. A useless station with ships that can't deploy to oceans.

Putin would be better off with "attack river boats" on the Volga.

Because as significant number of cruise missiles fired into Ukraine (& Syria) have been from warships in the Black Sea Fleet & Caspian Flotilla.
Those missiles can also strike E NATO countries. They can also shoot down aircraft over Ukraine. Read the link I posted up the page. It details how the Russians can transfer warships between homeports via their inland water system. The Russian corvettes & patrol boats in the Black Sea & Caspian Sea bristle with cruise missiles & could operate from a base in St Louis or any of our Great Lakes, with their shallow draft & narrow beam.

So, really good for attacking Ukraine, but not so good if opponent is actually NATO.

Seriously, how fast would they be utterly destroyed, much less bottled up?

But good for bully boy tactics...

Their cruise missiles pose a threat to E NATO nations.
They'd just be a few of multiple targets that are mobile & not ez to detect in all conditions.
They could fire their missiles before they were destroyed & if they got their missiles off, they're no longer worth targeting.
Think of them as you would a HIMARS or any land mobile missile launcher that can shoot & scoot.

[old salt]

Because as significant number of cruise missiles fired into Ukraine (& Syria) have been from warships in the Black Sea Fleet & Caspian Flotilla.
Those missiles can also strike E NATO countries. Read the link I posted up the page. It details how the Russians can transfer warships between homeports via their inland water system. The Russian corvettes & patrol boats in the Black Sea & Caspian Sea bristle with cruise missiles & could operate from a base in St Louis or any of our Great Lakes.

If they can "transfer warships between homeports via their inland water system"?

That means the Ukranian port is just another of many ports.

The key feature of that Ukrainian port is that it's the last pit stop before exiting the Black Sea to the ocean.

If Turkey cuts that access off....the Ukrainian port is irrelevant, and the closest and easiest place for NATO to attack. Putins first move would be to get all ships the firetruck away from that port AND the Black Sea.....or it's target practice time for NATO.

Circular reasoning. That port is useless during NATO hostilities.

Who's going to attack Russian warships in the Black Sea ? It would have to be strike aircraft launched from NATO countries that would have to penetrate the S-400 air defense system in Crimea & it's shipboard equivalent. Within short range of Russian Air Force interceptors. Have you noticed how many Ukrainian Mig's & SU's have been shot down ? Have you noticed that we're not anxious to donate F-16's ? Why do you think Turkey bought the S-400 when it disqualified the F-35 program when they were going to be a production partner & early user ?

[old salt]

As to the technical aspect of your post, "listening as well as looking", that the same thing...if you ain't specifically seeking to detect a particular capability, at the right time, you're very likely not to pick it up...regardless of detection methodology. We simply don't see, hear, detect everything, all the time, everywhere.

In several critical areas (hint, hint), we listen & record continuously for real time acoustic data, for tracking, classification & post-analysis, when needed.

yes, if one is 'looking' (which in some instances we may very well be, given known possibilities)... though not perfect; But yes, when something is 'heard' and recorded, it can enable forensic analysis. However, identification of a particular sound as a specific, let's say, 'vehicle' can only potentially be dispositive as to the vehicle, not who is controlling it. For instance, in a throwback example, in Red October the identification of the Russian sub type is possible, but not who is in control and what the intentions are. Technologies are more sophisticated, but we still have the difficulty of determining who the humans actually are and what their intentions may be.

Again, a smart 'spook' would not make this easy by using the vehicle type exclusively available to a particular country, indeed, the smart spook would use a vehicle identifiable as more likely to be their adversary's. But no guarantee either way.

You can classify the source. You can plot positions & movements at specific times. The acoustic data is retained.
Using your smart spook theory. Even if the acoustics indicate western equipment, you would claim smart Rooskie spooks stole it & employed it.
The ez way for the Russians to do it would be to use a bomb in a pig. Damage pattern on the pipeline should determine internal or external explosion.
Lack of definitive proof that the Russians did it focuses logical suspicion on which nations have the capability & the strongest incentive.

Exactly that hypothetical smart Russian spooks intent, right?

"easiest" defeats that intent.

But when you say "strongest incentive", that's Russian disinformation campaign parroting.

No, we DID NOT have a strong incentive. Quite the opposite.

This is what Russian sympathizing looks like. It will be couched in “I am just explaining it”…. but the “just explaining it” is always one direction. Old and exposed.

You just refuse to acknowledge what does not fit your agenda.

I don’t have an “agenda”….you do. You are vested. I am not. You are a sympathizer.

I have sympathy for all the needless deaths on both sides of this stupid war.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/n ... towmfuVNdU

[a fan]

Who's going to attack Russian warships in the Black Sea ?

No one. They're invulnerable. And I'm sure you'll tell me the air defense systems on the port can't be hit, either.

So we're back to my assertion that Putin doesn't really think NATO is an actual threat, what with Russian's invulnerable defenses, and all.

Putin must've read your assessments.

[Typical Lax Dad]

As to the technical aspect of your post, "listening as well as looking", that the same thing...if you ain't specifically seeking to detect a particular capability, at the right time, you're very likely not to pick it up...regardless of detection methodology. We simply don't see, hear, detect everything, all the time, everywhere.

In several critical areas (hint, hint), we listen & record continuously for real time acoustic data, for tracking, classification & post-analysis, when needed.

yes, if one is 'looking' (which in some instances we may very well be, given known possibilities)... though not perfect; But yes, when something is 'heard' and recorded, it can enable forensic analysis. However, identification of a particular sound as a specific, let's say, 'vehicle' can only potentially be dispositive as to the vehicle, not who is controlling it. For instance, in a throwback example, in Red October the identification of the Russian sub type is possible, but not who is in control and what the intentions are. Technologies are more sophisticated, but we still have the difficulty of determining who the humans actually are and what their intentions may be.

Again, a smart 'spook' would not make this easy by using the vehicle type exclusively available to a particular country, indeed, the smart spook would use a vehicle identifiable as more likely to be their adversary's. But no guarantee either way.

You can classify the source. You can plot positions & movements at specific times. The acoustic data is retained.
Using your smart spook theory. Even if the acoustics indicate western equipment, you would claim smart Rooskie spooks stole it & employed it.
The ez way for the Russians to do it would be to use a bomb in a pig. Damage pattern on the pipeline should determine internal or external explosion.
Lack of definitive proof that the Russians did it focuses logical suspicion on which nations have the capability & the strongest incentive.

Exactly that hypothetical smart Russian spooks intent, right?

"easiest" defeats that intent.

But when you say "strongest incentive", that's Russian disinformation campaign parroting.

No, we DID NOT have a strong incentive. Quite the opposite.

This is what Russian sympathizing looks like. It will be couched in “I am just explaining it”…. but the “just explaining it” is always one direction. Old and exposed.

You just refuse to acknowledge what does not fit your agenda.

I don’t have an “agenda”….you do. You are vested. I am not. You are a sympathizer.

I have sympathy for all the needless deaths on both sides of this stupid war.

Un huh. You are consistently one sided in your argument. Just as you were with Trump. You were sympathetic to Trump and his administration and you are sympathetic to Putin and Russia. If AI ran an analysis, it would likely prove it out. In the meantime I have to rely on what I have read from you over the years. Your records says who and what you are. You don’t have to hide it like your hat at home.

Key Difference – Reason vs Excuse
A reason simply refers to a cause or explanation. It explains why someone did something or why something happened. An excuse, on the other hand, is also a type of reason that specifically justifies or defends a fault.

[old salt]

Who's going to attack Russian warships in the Black Sea ?

No one. They're invulnerable. And I'm sure you'll tell me the air defense systems on the port can't be hit, either.

So we're back to my assertion that Putin doesn't really think NATO is an actual threat, what with Russian's invulnerable defenses, and all.

Putin must've read your assessments.

We'd try to take out the air defense system on the first day of an all out war. It would not be ez & would come with costs. Success could not be guaranteed. The Black Sea is Russia's back yard. We don't have bases in our Black Sea allies that we could count on, other than IncirlIK in Turkey, which is unreliable & a long flight from Crimea.

[old salt]

This is what Russian sympathizing looks like. It will be couched in “I am just explaining it”…. but the “just explaining it” is always one direction. Old and exposed.

You just refuse to acknowledge what does not fit your agenda.

I don’t have an “agenda”….you do. You are vested. I am not. You are a sympathizer.

I have sympathy for all the needless deaths on both sides of this stupid war.

Un huh. You are consistently one sided in your argument. Just as you were with Trump. You were sympathetic to Trump and his administration and you are sympathetic to Putin and Russia. If AI ran an analysis, it would likely prove it out. In the meantime I have to rely on what I have read from you over the years. Your records says who and what you are. You don’t have to hide it like your hat at home.

Key Difference – Reason vs Excuse
A reason simply refers to a cause or explanation. It explains why someone did something or why something happened. An excuse, on the other hand, is also a type of reason that specifically justifies or defends a fault.

I have been consistent. I spent the prime part of my life facing down the Russians, prepared to go to combat with them that day -- because they posed a credible threat to our survival. I don't want to do so again unless it is a matter of our survival. I've opposed our encroachment on Russia since the end of the Cold War. I have been vocal about it here & on LP since 2014. I saw this conflict coming & have warned about it since we began debating our Russia policy in 2014.

I am not sympathetic to the Russians. I try to understand what motivates them & anticipate what they will do.
We can't control everything, all over the world. I have consistently maintained that we have no strategic interest in Ukraine, or any of the other former Soviet Republics which were historically integral parts of Russia. I've warned that we are prolonging a catastrophic war within formerly Russian territory that can easily spin out of control & suck us in. Look at the casualties. This is not like the post 9-11 forever wars, or any other war in which we've been involved. This has the real potential to devolve into the type of all out war which we spent the Cold War trying to avoid. In my sincere opinion, politics aside -- it is not worth the risk we are taking in prolonging our proxy war on Russia & I do not apologize for it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

This is what Russian sympathizing looks like. It will be couched in “I am just explaining it”…. but the “just explaining it” is always one direction. Old and exposed.

You just refuse to acknowledge what does not fit your agenda.

I don’t have an “agenda”….you do. You are vested. I am not. You are a sympathizer.

I have sympathy for all the needless deaths on both sides of this stupid war.

Un huh. You are consistently one sided in your argument. Just as you were with Trump. You were sympathetic to Trump and his administration and you are sympathetic to Putin and Russia. If AI ran an analysis, it would likely prove it out. In the meantime I have to rely on what I have read from you over the years. Your records says who and what you are. You don’t have to hide it like your hat at home.

Key Difference – Reason vs Excuse
A reason simply refers to a cause or explanation. It explains why someone did something or why something happened. An excuse, on the other hand, is also a type of reason that specifically justifies or defends a fault.

I have been consistent. I spent the prime part of my life facing down the Russians, prepared to go to combat with them that day -- because they posed a credible threat to our survival. I don't want to do so again unless it is a matter of our survival. I've opposed our encroachment on Russia since the end of the Cold War. I have been vocal about it here & on LP since 2014. I saw this conflict coming & have warned about it since we began debating our Russia policy in 2014.

I am not sympathetic to the Russians. I try to understand what motivates them & anticipate what they will do.
We can't control everything, all over the world. I have consistently maintained that we have no strategic interest in Ukraine, or any of the other former Soviet Republics which were historically integral parts of Russia. I've warned that we are prolonging a catastrophic war within formerly Russian territory that can easily spin out of control & suck us in. Look at the casualties. This is not like the post 9-11 forever wars, or any other war in which we've been involved. This has the real potential to devolve into the type of all out war which we spent the Cold War trying to avoid. In my sincere opinion, politics aside -- it is not worth the risk we are taking in prolonging our proxy war on Russia & I do not apologize for it.

You have been consistent. That’s how I drew the conclusion. You are sympathetic to Putin and Russia just was you were to Trump and his administration. Basically the exact same pattern. I don’t care what you did along time ago. It was, as you said, a long time ago.