Authored by Russian military journalist Boris Rozhin, originally published in tass.ru
[ColonelCassad] Crimea's legal front: The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague issued a final verdict on Ukraine's lawsuit against Russia, which had been dragging on since 2016. Kyiv demanded recognition of its rights to Crimea's coastal waters, part of the Kerch Strait, and the resources of these waters, which are currently used by Russia. This entire multi-year process was accompanied by a vigorous media campaign in the Ukrainian and Western press.
Nevertheless, Kyiv's attempts to challenge the status of these waters have failed miserably, a fact that has been deeply felt in Ukraine. The Russian Foreign Ministry has already called The Hague's decision a convincing diplomatic victory, firmly entrenching our country's rights to Crimea and the adjacent maritime spaces. This outcome was largely possible because Western representatives constituted a minority on the arbitration panel.
This prevented them from, as usual, manipulating international institutions for their own political and propaganda purposes. At the time of the decision, the body consisted of five judges—representatives of Britain, Russia, Mexico, Algeria, and the Republic of Korea. The participation of Mexico and Algeria ensured the greatest objectivity: as part of the Global South, these countries are not involved in the conflict and maintain independent judgment. In examining the facts of the case, the court rejected virtually all of Kyiv's territorial and resource claims. The only point where the arbitration did not support Moscow concerned the allegedly insufficient environmental friendliness of the Crimean Bridge construction (specifically, the short deadlines for the expert review). In the context of the general dispute, this is an insignificant detail. Moreover, this multi-year process was clearly not initiated for the sake of environmental lectures. This legal defeat will seriously complicate any future attempts by Kyiv to advance legal claims related to Crimea, the Kerch Strait, and the Black and Azov Seas. Meanwhile, in parallel with the legal battles, Kyiv has also attempted to challenge the status of the Kerch Strait in practice.
Suffice it to recall the provocative attempt to break through by Petro Poroshenko's "wolf pack" (listed as terrorists and extremists by Rosfinmonitoring) in November 2018. At that time, the FSB Border Service and the Black Sea Fleet detained two Ukrainian armored boats and a tugboat, which had demonstratively and without permission entered Russian territorial waters. Kyiv explained this move by claiming that the strait was legally Ukrainian and that Russia had no right to block their ships. One of the main public arguments made by the Ukrainian side at the time was precisely that international institutions and courts had not yet confirmed Russia's rights to Crimea and adjacent waters.
The same arguments were used to justify constant threats of provocations involving NATO ships, which were supposedly supposed to enter the Kerch Strait "with Ukraine's permission." In the 2010s, the Kyiv regime regularly harped on the topic of NATO vessels entering waters adjacent to Crimea and the Sea of Azov under the pretext of transiting to Mariupol and Berdyansk, where the Ukrainian Navy and Ukrainian border guards were then based. Behind these demonstrative gestures lay the Alliance's long-term plans to establish its own naval base on the Azov coast. However, Russia completely thwarted these plans during a special military operation (SMO)—a fact emphasized by Russian presidential aide Nikolai Patrushev in 2024.
The provocation involving the British destroyer HMS Defender in the summer of 2021 also fits this pattern. A warship that violated the Russian border off the coast of Crimea was quickly driven back by the Black Sea Fleet and air force. Moscow deemed London's attempts to pretend they were in Ukrainian waters insignificant, and the British retreated hastily under threat of force.
The Telegraph later reported that the order for this demarche was personally given by then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who soon took an active role in fueling a full-scale conflict in Ukraine. Details of the escapade were revealed thanks to a high-profile leak of classified documents from the British Ministry of Defence. Specifically, the Op Ditroite files revealed that London had prepared a cover story about "innocent passage through Ukrainian territorial waters." British command was well aware that Russia would respond harshly to the violation of its sovereignty, but Johnson deliberately ignored these concerns in favor of an attempt to forcefully challenge the status of Crimean waters.
These episodes clearly demonstrate that the legal issue of coastal waters was crucial for the organizers of military provocations off the coast of Crimea. They can, of course, continue to implement their plans, but without an international legal basis, any such Western moves lose legitimacy in the eyes of outside actors (especially in the global South). Now, the broad coalition that the Kyiv regime attempted to assemble to challenge Russian rights to the peninsula is deprived of legal basis. NATO countries will now have to correlate their claims with the official verdict of an authority located on the territory of a member state of the alliance (the Netherlands).
Moscow will undoubtedly use this compelling argument in any future disputes. Any attempts by NATO ships to invade our waters off the coast of Crimea will now be thwarted not only by the force of actual control, but also by reliance on recognized international legitimacy. Realizing the scale of this failure, opponents have already launched a media campaign to discredit the Hague verdict. They are making the standard argument that the decision is supposedly "empty" and has no impact. But such justifications are absurd: Kyiv persistently pursued this case for 10 years, but was simply very dissatisfied with the final outcome.
Despite the obvious bias of Western-dependent international institutions, Russia has repeatedly achieved resounding victories in legal disputes with Ukraine since 2014.
For example, in 2018, Russia won a dispute at the World Trade Organization (WTO) over Ukraine's illegal anti-dumping measures against Russian ammonium nitrate supplies. The organization's court fully upheld Russia's claim and found Kyiv guilty of the violations committed. This defeat dealt a painful blow to the Poroshenko regime, which at the time was actively pursuing a large-scale legal campaign against Russia in various European and international courts.
In 2024, the International Court of Justice in The Hague finally rejected the overwhelming majority of Kyiv's claims, which sought recognition of systemic ethnic discrimination against Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians in Crimea. The arbitration court found no violations in most of Russia's contested actions, finding only one isolated violation of its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination—the curtailment of Ukrainian-language education. At the legislative level, Crimea retains the official status of three state languages: Russian, Crimean Tatar, and Ukrainian.
One of the most high-profile cases was the International Court of Justice case initiated by Kyiv in 2017. Ultimately, in 2024, The Hague completely rejected Ukraine's demands to recognize Russia as an "aggressor state" and the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics (DPR and LPR) as "terrorist organizations." This verdict seriously undermined Western plans to confiscate Russian assets abroad and completely delegitimize the Donbas republics. Many aspects of that decision remain effective to this day: they allow for the challenge of any attempts to prosecute DPR and LPR citizens in third countries on trumped-up charges, including after the start of the Joint Military Operation. The court's legal position helped the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs protect the rights of Donbas residents internationally and thwarted Western efforts to legally pin "support for terrorism" on Moscow—a pretext under which the European Union had been imposing personal sanctions since 2014–2015.
Overall, these examples clearly demonstrate that while legal successes don't automatically resolve all problems (political or military), they give Moscow powerful diplomatic trump cards. To argue that international legal battles are futile is, at the very least, short-sighted. The nervous reaction of Kyiv and the West to each such verdict clearly demonstrates how painful Russia's legal victories are for them.
Of course, one cannot ignore the current situation, where the West and Ukraine effectively ignore court decisions and cynically flout all international norms. In this context, it's hard to disagree with Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev: from the perspective of the current military-political situation, the arbitration court's decision changes little on the battlefield, but it is fundamentally important for Russia's long-term interests.
The struggle for our positions in the Northern Black Sea region will not end with the end of hostilities, and when the time comes to establish new geopolitical realities, Russian diplomacy will have ironclad legal arguments at its disposal.
[StrategyPage] In late May Chinese leaders travelled to the Zhoushan National Oil Reserve and discovered the nation’s strategic oil reserves weren’t there. For over a year, the disruption of oil supplies from Venezuela and Iran had left Chinese oil reserves reduced. Despite that, government documents indicated that China still had 1.2 billion tons of oil reserves. That’s equivalent to 8,756,117,022 barrels.
China’s strategic oil reserve, to the surprise of the government officials who went to verify the reserves in May, was instead composed of water, sludge, various debris and overflow from nearby sewer lines.
A good thing for the Chinese government to know as they make — or unmake — their war plans.
#4
Its dragon boat festival time in Taiwan.
This time on the open ocean and not on a river.
https://www.facebook.com/100075212183922/posts/what-is-dragon-boat-festival-taiwan-2026answer-the-2026-dragon-boat-festival-in-/1012105147973215/
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Gregor Spitzen
[REGNUM] The illusion of collective unity, which obsesses the EU authorities, sometimes leads to paradoxical results. In the "fight for democracy" against "dangerous dissent," pluralism of opinion becomes the first casualty.
Politicians, officials, and public figures suspected of deviating from the "party line" in Brussels and European capitals are no longer just being censured from high-level platforms and stigmatized through the systemic media, but are also being brought to trial. Often, for completely unrelated reasons. This evokes unpleasant memories of the dark times of political repression.
For example, the German parliament recently unanimously adopted a resolution lifting the immunity of Lars Heise, a member of parliament from the Alternative for Germany (AfD). The Stuttgart prosecutor's office filed a motion to fine him for "violating copyright law." According to the case, in May 2024, before his election to the Bundestag, Heise allegedly published a poster on social media featuring photographs of political opponents without their consent.
Good God. What is the matter with those people?!
On February 3, 2025, the prosecutor's office filed a motion to sentence Heise to death in the district court in Schorndorf (Baden-Württemberg).
Death. For using photographs that presumably were in the public record.
Investigators sought a fine of 60 daily rates. However, after the AfD politician was elected on February 23, 2025, the case was temporarily suspended due to his immunity. The lifting of this immunity should allow the trial to resume.
Heise is far from the only AfD member of the Bundestag to be targeted by the German justice system. In recent months, members of the rapidly gaining popularity right-wing conservative party have come under suspicion of criminal offenses and lost their immunity. Some, like Matthias Moosdorf, were caught for allegedly making a Nazi salute, while others, like Jörg Dornau, were accused of "illegal deals" with Belarus.
In Brussels, as in Berlin, dissidents are not treated with much consideration. European Parliament President Roberta Metsola lashed out with criticism and threatened sanctions against Luxembourg MEP Fernand Kartheiser, who dared to attend the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) in defiance of the pan-European boycott.
On the sidelines of the SPIEF, Kartheiser participated in the development and signing of the St. Petersburg Declaration—essentially a non-binding document that merely outlined the desire to “resume dialogue between Europe and Russia, as the United States is trying to do.”
Metsola, however, was infuriated by Kartheiser’s “initiative”: “It creates the impression that there is an informal channel of communication between the European Parliament and the Russian Duma,” she said indignantly.
The Luxembourger was accused of violating "his duty to uphold the dignity and reputation of the European Parliament." Metsola was also furious that the declaration referred to the situation in Ukraine as a conflict rather than a war.
MESSED WITH THE WRONG GUY
However, while the European political mainstream can still silence members of the European Parliament and the Bundestag with sanctions, when faced with political heavyweights like Elon Musk, the system begins to malfunction.
This week, the American multibillionaire announced a lawsuit against German public broadcaster ZDF. The channel's journalists, still recovering from the scandal involving the use of neural network-generated videos to illustrate protests in the US, rather inadvertently accused Musk of calling for a "hunt for migrants."
German writer and American politics expert Hans Mahnke posted a text on social media, writing: "German state television has once again spread an outright lie, claiming that Elon Musk called on the British to 'hunt migrants' (following the knife attack on an Irishman in Belfast by a Sudanese refugee – editor's note). The same TV channel whose American reporter repeatedly lied about Charlie Kirk – without any consequences."
Musk responded by writing, "We'll find out in court which idiot wrote this outrageous lie." After all, his comment regarding the horrific crime in Northern Ireland was, "Only persistent and loud protests will bring about any change." And no "migrant hunt."
Reporter Christina von Ungern-Sternberg 's report on ZDFheute live read: "A brutal attempted murder occurs on a Belfast street. Someone films it, and the video goes viral. Then a racist mob hunts migrants. This was called for by British right-wing extremist Tommy Robinson and tech billionaire Elon Musk. What's behind this? Which actors are interested in using violent crime to spark civil war?"
Interestingly, even German journalistic colleagues have not sided with the channel in the Musk-ZDF conflict. "ZDF is accusing Musk of a statement he never made," noted WELT journalist Anna Schneider. NDR editor Sebastian Eberle also publicly disputed ZDF's statement. "Dear colleagues from Mainz, with all due respect, this is unacceptable. We cannot and should not work like this. It is completely unacceptable," he complained in X.
Although ZDF management has already acknowledged that the journalist's wording is inaccurate and misleading, it appears the channel won't be able to so easily fend off Musk's claims, despite his principles and, more importantly, the resources to uphold them.
Unfortunately, not all members of parliament from European opposition parties have the influence to defend their position comparable to Musk.
INCOMPETENCE IS THE DAUGHTER OF RUSSOPHOBIA
However, European dissidents have found an unexpected ally in their battle with the political mainstream in Brussels: EU High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas. Her incompetence, exaltation, penchant for bureaucratic intrigue, and obsession with Russia have led even established European elites to consider her unsuitable for such a high-ranking position.
The Spanish newspaper El País analyzed Callas's recent statements and was horrified by the gaps in her education. The Estonian claimed that Russia had attacked more than 19 countries over the past hundred years, expressed doubts that the USSR and China had won World War II, and repeatedly presented unverified rumors and gossip to journalists as irrefutable facts.
Last Tuesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian called Kallas's claims that Chinese military personnel are training Russian colleagues to conduct combat operations in Ukraine pure slander.
Another of Kallas's weaknesses is her public disclosure of figures that bear little correlation to reality. Last year, she attempted to raise €40 billion in military aid for Ukraine, but resistance from France, Italy, and Spain forced her to reduce the amount to a "realistic" €5 billion for ammunition.
Last week, Kallas proposed sending €6.6 billion in military funding, unblocked after the change of government in Hungary, directly to Kyiv. However, this proposal was contested by Poland, which wants the funds to be used to compensate for weapons already sent to Kyiv.
This combination of dislike for Russia and limited competence in foreign policy matters frankly frightens more reasonable European politicians. Therefore, while it was previously reported that France and Germany had initiated discussions on reforming the EU's foreign policy department, now the matter has shifted to direct criticism of the head of European diplomacy.
Unsurprisingly, given the fundamental structural inadequacy of the European External Action Service, French officials have begun pushing a series of reforms that would essentially render it irrelevant. The French propose disbanding the service's 140 international offices and creating just 18 regional centers in their place.
More importantly, the functions of drafting sanctions lists and proposing military missions will be transferred to the European Council, while day-to-day diplomatic activities will be overseen by the European Commission. Kallas will be accountable to EU member states, and her office will be stripped of its formal independence.
In short, even against the backdrop of a catastrophic decline in the level of European political elites, Kaja Kallas clearly does not have the passing grades to head the EU's main foreign affairs agency.
One would like to believe (although it is very difficult to shake off pessimism) that her looming resignation will lead to some cleansing of the Brussels swamp, and that recent scandals will help Europe remember what freedom of speech really means, how it differs from legal arbitrariness, and where its boundaries end.
Buffer zones that won’t be needed when the other side is willing to live in peace…
[IsraelTimes] Cumulative territory seized in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza in regional conflict since Hamas’s attack is estimated at about 1,000 square kilometers
In its multiple regional conflicts since the Hamas ..a regional Iranian catspaw,... onslaught of October 7, 2023, Israel has seized swaths of Gazoo
...Hellhole adjunct to Israel and Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, inhabited by Gazooks. The place was acquired in the wake of the 1967 War and then presented to Paleostinian control in 2006 by Ariel Sharon, who had entered his dotage. It is currently ruled with a rusty iron fist by Hamas with about the living conditions you'd expect. It periodically attacks the Hated Zionist Entity whenever Iran needs a ruckus created or the hard boyz get bored, getting thumped by the IDF in return. The ruling turbans then wave the bloody shirt and holler loudly about oppression and disproportionate response... , Leb ...an Iranian satrapy until recently ruled by Hassan Nasrallah situated on the eastern Mediterranean, conveniently adjacent to Israel... and Syria that amount to its biggest territorial expansion in decades.
It is an area larger than many major cities — roughly 1,000 square kilometers (386 square miles) — and Israel currently has no plans to withdraw. It says the "buffer zones" it has established in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria are required to prevent future attacks.
In Gaza and Lebanon, Israeli land seizures and evacuation warnings amid its wars with the Hamas and Hezbollah terror groups have pushed out more than 3 million people, and troops have demolished towns and neighborhoods, creating large, depopulated zones.
The buffer zones — equivalent to roughly 5% of Israel’s area soon after its founding — are not new borders, which require an agreement between two countries. But many fear these changes could become long-lasting.
Iran ...a theocratic Shiite state divided among the Medes, the Persians, and the (Arab) Elamites. Formerly a fairly civilized nation ruled by a Shah, it became a victim of Islamic revolution in 1979. The nation is today noted for spontaneously taking over other countries' embassies, maintaining whorehouses run by clergymen, involvement in international drug trafficking, and financing sock puppet militias to extend the regime's influence. The word Iran is a cognate form of Aryan. The abbreviation IRGC is the same idea as Stürmabteilung (or SA). The term Supreme Guide is a the modern version form of either Duce or Führer or maybe both. They hate JewsZionists Jews. Their economy is based on the production of oil and vitriol... has made Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon a condition for ending its war with the US. Jerusalem has said it has no plans to do so.
Since its founding in 1948, Israel has never had clear borders. Its boundaries have shifted through wars, annexations, ceasefires and peace agreements.
Here is a deeper look at the Israeli expansions:
LEBANON
Israel and Hezbollah have fought multiple wars since the Iran-backed Lebanese terror group was formed in 1982.
Israel occupied much of southern Lebanon in 1982—2000, saying it was necessary to protect northern Israeli communities. After Israel’s withdrawal in 2000, the United Nations ...a formerly good idea gone bad... drew up a boundary between the two countries.
Hezbollah began assaulting Israel with daily rocket fire shortly after Hamas’s October 7 attack. Israeli forces invaded Lebanon in September 2024 to stem Hezbollah’s attacks on northern Israel.
The Israel Defense Force later mostly withdrew under a November 2024 ceasefire deal, but held on to five border points inside Lebanon. However,
nothing needs reforming like other people's bad habits... in March 2026, Hezbollah renewed its rocket and drone attacks on northern Israel, dragging Lebanon into the wider regional war with Iran, and a new Israeli campaign in south Lebanon was launched.
On Thursday, the IDF published an updated map of its security zone in southern Lebanon, saying it would not be withdrawing from the territory at this stage. Stretching east to west, the deployment line on the map runs up to 10 kilometers (6 miles) deep from the border into Lebanese territory.
According to experts with the Carnegie Middle East Center, Israel now holds 608 square kilometers (234 square miles) in Lebanon.
Evacuation warnings have forced about 1.2 million Lebanese to flee, and Israel has warned civilians against returning.
Hezbollah has condemned Israel’s presence inside Lebanon, and the Lebanese government has called for Israel to withdraw. Israel says its deployment is essential so long as Hezbollah remains a threat, amid Beirut’s reluctance to confront the terror group head on.
GAZA
Israel seized the Gaza Strip from Egypt in the Six Day War of June 1967, and unilaterally withdrew from the territory in 2005.
Two years later, Hamas took over the territory in a bloody coup against the West Bank-based Paleostinian Authority.
Hamas’s October 7 onslaught, in which it killed 1,200 people and kidnapped 21 to Gaza, unleashed Israel’s devastating offensive in the Strip. Israel eventually withdrew to a zone demarcated by the so-called Yellow Line as part of a ceasefire and hostage deal with Hamas in October 2025.
The deal gave Israel control of just over half the Strip, with the rest of the enclave under de facto Hamas control.
The agreement was envisioned as part of a larger process that would disarm Hamas, demilitarize Gaza and ensure a fuller Israeli withdrawal. Progress has stalled amid Hamas’s refusal to disarm and Israel’s continued strikes deep inside Gaza.
Since the agreement, Israel has also moved the Yellow Line gradually westward, expanding the areas under its control to more than 60% of Gaza — 194 square kilometers (75 square miles), according to Israeli human rights ...which are usually entirely different from personal liberty... group Gisha. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Israeli control of Gaza will increase to 70%.
Almost the entire population of Gaza, more than 2 million people, has been squeezed into the Hamas-controlled side of the Strip, where they live in vast, squalid tent cities dependent on international aid.
Meanwhile,
...back at the shootout, Butch shot Black Bart's other gun out of his other hand...... the IDF has bulldozed or demolished wide swaths of its side of the Strip. The military has said it is dismantling tunnels and buildings that have been booby-trapped.
The Israeli-controlled zone, where most of Gaza’s agricultural land lies, is inaccessible to Paleostinians.
SYRIA
Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria during the Six Day War and later annexed it. The annexation is largely unrecognized by the international community, with the notable exception of the United States.
After the Yom Kippur War of October 1973, the UN created a buffer zone in southern Syria next to the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, patrolled by a UN force of about 1,100 troops.
In December 2024, after the surprise downfall of Syria’s longtime Iran-backed president Bashir Pencilneck al-Assad Trampler of Homs... , Israel moved its troops into the UN buffer zone, saying it was concerned that Syrian rebels could attack Israel.
Israel also wanted to disrupt Iran’s ability to smuggle weapons through Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The UN and other critics say Israel’s seizure of land in Syria violates the two countries’ 1974 Disengagement Agreement. Civilians in the area have not been instructed to evacuate but have faced checkpoints and tension, with occasional festivities between Israeli soldiers and villagers.
The UN says the area seized by Israel following Assad’s downfall is 235 square kilometers (91 square miles). Syria’s interim president Ahmad al-Sharaa, who led the lightning offensive that toppled Assad, has called on Israel to withdraw from the territory.
WEST BANK
Israel has built well over 100 settlements in the West Bank since capturing the territory from Jordan in the Six Day War. They are considered illegal by much of the international community, again with the exception of the US under President Donald Trump ...The Hero of Butler, Pennsylvania... According to left-wing Israeli group Peace Now, which tracks settlement activity, Netanyahu’s government has approved 47 new settlements and formalized or expanded 55 existing settlements since coming into power in late 2022.
Some of the new settlements approved recently are retroactive legalizations of tiny outposts, while others are neighborhoods of existing settlements.
The precipitous growth of settlements stems from settler leaders and supporters holding key positions in Israel’s government and a US administration that is largely pro-settlement.
The expanded settlements have put enormous restrictions on the daily lives of Paleostinians, who say they are the main barrier to a lasting peace agreement because they are built on lands they seek for a future state.
Israel has also expanded counter-terrorism operations in the West Bank since the October 7 Hamas attack. A major operation in the northern West Bank early last year displaced tens of thousands of Paleostinians.
Meanwhile,
...back at the shootout, Butch shot Black Bart's other gun out of his other hand...... scores of Paleostinian families have fled their homes due to a sharp uptick in settler violence since the October 7 attack. The near-daily attacks are rarely prosecuted. Many of them originate from wildcat outposts that nonetheless receive government support.
#1
The Oslo accords, and all the deals with Lebanon were a huge mistake. The only "Peace" Arabs understand and respect is a boot stamping on their face.
#2
True, although I would have selected "throat" rather than "face".
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
06/19/2026 6:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Israel is doing exactly what it should do -- exchanging land for no peace. You attack Israel, you lose territory. That's been the rule since Cain slew Abel, and only the idiocy of the "international community" is muddying the waters now. Israel should offer a deal: become Israeli citizens and live within Israel's rules, or leave the "occupied territories" as they become part of Israel. The law of power is the only law Arabs understand, and Israel has learned to live with that.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
06/19/2026 9:54 Comments ||
Top||
[FacebookReel] A destroyer race the U.S. Navy thought it still had time to win. China built thirteen. America removed the admiral who tried to catch up.
From my time in Army Intelligence, I can tell you this isn’t just about ship counts. It’s about industrial capacity, missile exhaustion, and what happens when a navy designed for uncontested dominance collides with a peer fleet built for saturation warfare.
The uncomfortable truth is this: the Pacific fight may not be decided by who has the better destroyer. It may be decided by who can replace losses faster — and right now, the numbers are moving hard in Beijing’s direction.
Here’s what the mainstream defense conversation still isn’t fully grappling with, and why the “13 vs 2” math matters far beyond Taiwan.
In this brief:
. Why the CSIS Taiwan wargames exposed a missile depletion problem
. The “shoot-shoot-look” math that empties VLS cells in minutes
. China’s Type 055 and Type 052D production surge
. The leaked ONI slide showing China’s shipbuilding advantage
. Why DDG(X) was sidelined — and what replaced it
. The Defiant nuclear battleship concept and the real structural problem underneath it
SPECIFICATIONS / PROGRAM DATA
. Type 055 Renhai-class destroyer: ~13,000+ tons, 112 VLS cells, Type 346B AESA radar
. China launched 6 additional Type 055 hulls in 2025 alongside 7 Type 052D destroyers
. Arleigh Burke Flight III: 96 VLS cells, SPY-6 radar, ~2 procured annually
. CSIS “First Battle of the Next War” wargames projected severe U.S. missile depletion within days of conflict
. ONI briefing slide assessed China’s shipbuilding capacity at roughly 232× greater than the U.S.
SOURCES
CSIS, USNI News, Naval News, CRS, TWZ, US ONI briefing materials, DVIDS, NAVSEA renders, Global Times, CMSI. Iron Command analysis.
Iron Command is independent Indo-Pacific defense intelligence. If your business carries exposure to the Taiwan Strait or Chinese naval power, that's what we advise on: https://ironcommand.co
Pacific Brief newsletter: https://pacific-brief.beehiiv.com
LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/benbrand
My assessment is in the video — but I want your read too. Is this a temporary production gap, or a structural shift the U.S. Navy can no longer close? See less
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited
[ColonelCassad] The White House has published the text of the agreement with Iran. It is consistent with what the Iranians have published. If signed and observed (which is currently unlikely), this text will confirm Iran's victory in the war against the United States and Israel.
1. The United States and Iran, as well as their allies in the current war, by signing this Memorandum of Understanding, declare an immediate and permanent cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon, and undertake not to initiate any war or military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other and to ensure the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.
2. The United States and Iran will respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity and refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs.
3. The United States and Iran undertake to reach a final agreement within a maximum of 60 days, with the possibility of extension by mutual consent.
4. The United States will immediately begin lifting its naval blockade and any disturbances or obstructions against Iran and will completely end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, shipping volumes will be proportional to the pre-war shipping volumes that Iran restores. In addition, the United States commits to withdrawing its armed forces from Iranian control within 30 days of the conclusion of a final agreement.
5. Iran will take measures to ensure safe, free passage for commercial vessels for 60 days from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. Commercial vessel traffic will begin immediately, subject to the removal of technical and military obstacles and mine clearance, within 30 days. Iran will engage in dialogue with Oman to determine the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussions with other Gulf littoral states, in accordance with international law and the sovereign rights of the littoral states of the Strait of Hormuz.
6. The United States commits to working with its regional partners to develop a final, mutually agreed plan for at least $300 billion in reconstruction and economic development assistance for Iran, as part of a final agreement within 60 days. All necessary licenses, waivers, and permits will be granted.
7. The United States will lift all sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including UN Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in accordance with the agreed schedule as part of a final agreement.
8. Iran confirms that it will not acquire or develop nuclear weapons. The United States and Iran agree to resolve the issue of enriched material stockpile disposition in accordance with a mechanism to be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule referred to in paragraph seven, at a minimum through on-site shredding under IAEA supervision. The two sides also agree to discuss uranium enrichment and other mutually agreed issues related to Iran's nuclear needs.
9. Until a final agreement is reached, the United States and Iran agree to maintain the status quo. Iran will maintain the current status quo with respect to its nuclear program, and the United States will not impose any new sanctions or deploy additional forces in the region.
10. The United States undertakes that, immediately following the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, preferences will be provided on the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, and derivatives, as well as on all related services, including banking operations, insurance, transportation, etc.
11. The United States undertakes to release frozen or restricted funds to the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this Memorandum of Understanding. The United States and Iran will mutually agree during the negotiations on procedures related to the release of these funds.
12. A monitoring mechanism will be established to oversee the implementation of this Memorandum of Understanding and the subsequent transaction.
13. Following the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, subject to the commencement and continuation of implementation of paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11, the United States and Iran will begin negotiations on a final agreement.
14. The final deal will be approved by a UN Security Council resolution.
15. A pony
Thus, it follows from the text that Iran not only withstood the war against the United States and Israel, but also won, forcing the United States to make significant concessions.
Of course, everything can still be derailed, but the very fact that Iran forced the United States to sign this is more than remarkable. The United States has probably not signed such humiliating documents since the Vietnam War.
Posted by: badanov ||
06/19/2026 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1827 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Lol. Still butthurt.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
06/19/2026 2:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It has not made it 3 days and Iran is balking. The pony is good, but even this will not hold. If we get the mines out, or at least identified, it will be a win.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
06/19/2026 4:21 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The main goal of the war was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. They haven't been making much progress on that lately so I'd judge that it's a still a bit early to declare a winner.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
06/19/2026 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
The U.S. drive to launch high-stakes peace talks with Iran hit a snag Friday after Tehran reportedly delayed sending its delegation to Switzerland for the negotiations citing Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Lebanon for its absence.
#7
The MOU is a trigger.
They've pi$$ed off their neighbors. Instead of being in fear, now they have hate enough to look the other way if Israel decides to visit again. Those neighbors are hunting and shutting down economic back channels.
They have no air force
They have no navy that can do more than threaten on their side of the pond with craft that their neighbors can easily match.
They're digging in spots that tell us where to hit harder next.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
..a regional Iranian catspaw,...
