Philip Greenspun’s Weblog

“Ukraine says it has sunk another warship, disabling a third of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet” (CNN):

Ukraine claims it has now disabled a third of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet after its military intelligence said it sank another Russian warship in a sea drone attack off the coast of Crimea on Wednesday.

Russia’s landing ship Caesar Kunikov was attacked with “MAGURA” V5 drones that punctured “critical holes” on its left side before sinking, the Ukrainian military intelligence agency said on Telegram.

After the attack on the Ivanovets, CNN interviewed Ukraine’s secretive sea drone unit behind the strike at a location near the Ukrainian coastal city of Odesa. One of the drone pilots behind the attack told CNN that 10 “MAGURA” drones were used in the attack, six of which hit and ultimately sunk the Russian warship.

“MAGURA” drones are only a few meters long and powered by jet skis, a pilot from a special unit in Ukraine’s defense intelligence agency told CNN earlier this year.

But they have a large range of around 800 kilometers (nearly 500 miles), so military units can launch drones from across large swathes of Ukraine’s coastline for missions against Crimean targets.

Of course, the U.S. Navy is a more capable force than the Russian Navy, but the future will bring more capable drones than what Ukraine has built and deployed. An adversary with 1/100th of our resources can still build a massive sea drone fleet. Is it safe to bet that drone technology will advance faster than ship technology? If so, why do we want to fund an enormous Navy that could be just as vulnerable to a sophisticated adversary as the Russian Navy has been to Ukraine’s drone tech?

How is the drone below readily distinguished from some of the fast skiffs that Houthis are using and that the U.S. Navy interacts with at close range?

Related:

• USS Cole bombing (“a small fiberglass boat carrying C4 explosives and two suicide bombers approached the port side of the destroyer and exploded … Speakers in the Yemeni parliament ‘calling for jihad against America’ were broadcast on local television each night.”)

A Ukrainian friend shared “Russia has recruited as many as 15,000 Nepalis to fight its war. Many returned traumatized. Some never came back” (CNN):

He is one of as many as 15,000 Nepali men to have joined the Russian military, multiple sources have told CNN, after the Russian government last year announced a lucrative package for foreign fighters to join the country’s military.

The package included at least $2,000 salary a month and a fast-tracked process to obtain a Russian passport. Nepal’s passport is ranked one of the worst in the world for global mobility, below North Korea, according to an index created by global citizenship and residence advisory firm Henley & Partners, and the Himalayan nation is among the world’s poorest, with a per capita GDP of $1,336 for 2022, according to World Bank data.

Israelis have gotten a huge amount of bad press for fighting against the Islamic Resistance Movement (“Hamas”), UNRWA, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other armed groups within Gaza. Critics say that Israeli soldiers have killed too high a ratio of civilians to soldiers (how anyone can know this is beyond me, given that the Hamas-run health authorities in Gaza do not distinguish between civilian and combatant “martyrs”).

What if the noble Palestinians weren’t being attacked by the evil First World Israeli soldiers (most of whom are Jews, though some of whom are Arabs/Muslims)? Suppose that it was a “brown people” v. “brown people” fight. Wouldn’t white progressives who support Hamas have a lot more difficulty criticizing the non-Hamas side?

The Israelis could easily afford to outbid the Russians, paying $4,000 per month, for example, and the noble Gazans do not seem to be as fearsome opponents as the Ukrainians so it would be a safer job.