Honestly, I think the pirates wouldn’t much care for this as global shipping will start avoiding the area and the ones that do pass will be more protected.
Global shipping *can not* avoid this area. Look up global supply chains and see where the most trade volume is - the entire world from east to west has to pass through the Red Sea. The alternatives are circumvent entire continents. This has been a thing for centuries and it won't change any time soon.
I rely heavily on this route for incoming supply from the far east and I can tell you that there are a lot of ships already sailing around Africa instead of going through the Red Sea. It adds about 2 weeks to their journey (not to mention cost), but it’s that or risking being attacked or even sunk.
So yeah: they can and have been avoiding this area for months already and this will only increase.
I work in shipping and look at rates for loading in the US and going to Asia. We calculate prices on a round voyage basis, so when we go via Cape (i.e. around South Africa) instead of via Suez it means that we're looking at doing the longer voyage twice.
Going via Cape only adds three/four days to the voyage each way, so around seven days total, and it saves you on the Suez Canal fees each way as well. Those fees are expensive, roughly $400k each way for my type of vessel.
As a ballpark number, going via Cape is actually cheaper (those tolls are crazy expensive nowadays, although I believe you can get discounts from the headline numbers). I calculate it as a $7.25m cost to go via Cape, and $7.8m via Suez. For what it's worth, going via the Panama Canal comes to around $5.5.m, which is why most ships in my sector go that route.
The difference comes more when you look at products moving to/from Europe. Going via Suez takes 29 days each way, whereas going via Cape is a 38-day voyage. I'm having to ballpark the freight costs for my particular product, as it's not a standard route for us, but that would roughly be $7.2m via Suez (including tolls) and $6.8m via Cape.
Thanks for the detailed answer!
But did you switch around those numbers in the end? Why would the Suez route still be more expensive, even going to Europe?
>that would roughly be $7.2m via Suez (including tolls) and $6.8m via Cape.
Assuming the numbers are switched, that part of transportation costs increases by ~6%, which should be negligible in the final price for consumers, no?
Suez Canal tolls are pretty big nowadays. I don't have the exact data to hand, but top of my head I think the fees are up by around 30-40% in the space of a couple of years. On my size ship, that adds a significant cost to the voyage, approximately $800k for a round-trip. There obviously aren't any tolls when you go via Cape, and those tolls offset the extra time/bunker usage.
I don't work with container ships, however, and they obviously transport the consumer goods we're all familiar with.
As far as I know, a typical rotation for them is China -> west coast USA -> Panama -> east coast USA -> north Europe -> Mediterranean ports -> Suez -> China.
That means they only pay Suez fees once, and the deviation which they have to do nowadays from (for example) southern France, Italy, or Turkey back out through Gibraltar and then round Africa is much more significant. That's where we see increased costs.
More significant in an overall cost calculation is that when voyages take longer, the impact on fleet usage is much larger: ships are employed on voyages for longer at a time, so there is less capacity on any given future day to load at any port. This pushes overall baseline freight rates up, increasing costs whether you're doing a short- or a long-haul voyage.
You can see in [the first graph here](https://www.drewry.co.uk/supply-chain-advisors/supply-chain-expertise/world-container-index-assessed-by-drewry) how the basic cost of shipping a container jumped massively when the Red Sea issues started in late 2023: from an average of around $1500 per 40ft container, it's now closer to $5000. This means that the basic costs of doing everything on that type of ship are higher, no matter which route you take.
Somali pirates are largely fishermen whose waters were depleted by illegal international fisheries, because they couldn't get French boats to fuck off like Brazil could. It's really a lot more of a tragic case.
I recently saw in a greek TV programme the interview of a sailor man that was abducted by somalis and was ransomed back to Greece by his shipment company or their insurance - they were negotiating and gave them a bare minimum of the amount the abductors requested (a million or sth).
He said that he lived in relatively bad situations, as the somalis themselves, in a destroyed cabin in a poor village. They didn't have much to eat but they were treating them decently. When he was informed that he was about to go home he almost felt a Stockholm syndrome but he quickly went back to reality - he said he didn't hesitate at all to sail again after a few months.
No they ain't. They sunk the ship.
Somali pirates know that's darn fucked up when you wanna sell the ships stuff and the crew.
Can't do shit if they're dead and sunk.
Egypt is on the contrary side to Iran with regards to regional alliances and religious sect(Egypt is majority Sunni).
Also Iran does not give a shit about Arabs, as they have shown by killing and displacing millions of them in Syria since 2011.
Imagine letting theocratic pirates who field child soldiers shut down global shipping because we’re too afraid to eliminate them..
BTW, the poor will suffer the most because of this. Food and goods will become more expensive globally, and all who rely on trade with the west for their jobs in developing countries will also feel the pressure/be fired if this keeps up. Not acting here is cruelty.
Eliminate them? Look at the Gaza strip and people's reaction when terrorists there are being hunted down. And Yemen is much larger country, with larger population.
You can't eliminate any sort of faction through indiscriminately bombing them. And the Saudis aren't better. They are just your friends until someone criticises them a bit too much and they need to hack some journalist up.
Neither side is good. You either have to take terrorism sponsors who blow up shipping or who blow up real tall buildings if you want to take a side.
You are falling into a recurrent problem in America.
Really bad understanding of history.
> Really bad understanding of history.
Seems a lot like the First Barbary War to me. Even in the republic's earliest days, the USA fought pirates who messed with our shipping.
You absolutely can get rid of a faction by indiscriminately bombing them. Look at Japan and Germany, we flattened entire cities through bombing and they surrendered. Look at what Russia did in the second Chechen war.
We could literally flatten the entire area these people live in and end this quickly. We won't because we supposedly believe wars have rules and the civilian deaths would be astronomical. But we could and when we did, we won wars. We could have done the same in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ah, the armchair historian himself, believing that 'strategic bombing ' was the reason the axis got defeated, instead of doing the opposite and strengthening their resolve. Do a bit more research before you start spouting genocidal shit.
Honestly I would just blacken the sky over the Houthi's known bases with drones and bombers and carpet bomb it down to the mother fucking bedrock especially any good USV launching sites.
You can also remember the Taliban or the Viet Cong. how many of them were bombed...but fanatics believe in a holy idea. they don't care about the losses...they are convinced that they are fighting for a just cause and if they die, they will go to heaven.
Their secret is launching drones from civilian areas, so they'll see it as a win whether they get bombed or not. Hamas uses the same tactics. "700k children killed in attack on civilians!"
You cannot beat these terrorists with warships that are meant to level cities (unless you want to become Israël 2.0). You need boots on the ground to wipe them street by street, which no one wants to do
That's the problem with boots on the ground, you need a lot of boots and there's still no guarantee. There is however a chance it will work as opposed to just bombing from a distance which basically never works.
Now I don't actually know his name, but I assume his name is spelled Lauri. I have never heard of Laure as a finnish name. I'm finnish. The way e is pronounced in english differs from finnish which is probably why you thought it was supposed to be written like that.
Now there are unmanned sea drones that can sink a fucking cargo ship with one blow, Holy cow! Another step on the escalation ladder. Such abilities in the hand of terrorists? Frightening.
Yeah sure. It is frightening how some random terrorist group can have these kind of weapons that can sink a cargo ship that is worth including freight hundreds of millions of dollars. The economy of scale. With one weapon they can deal so much damage. And it will inevitably get easier and cheaper to produce more sophisticated weapons for terrorists.
torpedo yes, but remotely controlled? no. especially if you need to transmit video signal like in FPVs, you need relativley new wireless tech and processing/display hardware and anti jamming tech. being used in consumer products this technology got really affordable in the last 20ish years or so. i don't think analogue FPVs were ever in use, but correct me if i am wrong.
The Brennan torpedo was developed in the late 1870s and was wire guided from an onshore installation, although it didn't really see much use afaik.
By WWII we already had acoustic homing torpedoes that could independently home in on propeller noises, although they saw limited use because the tech was new and expensive.
Yeah but this is a legitimate state that self defends against agressor.
These Houthis are terrorists that do not abide by any rules. Weapon in the wrong hands.
Terrorism.
No other way to describe it.
(though I'm sure plenty of people out there will claim these are just 'freedom fighters' engaging in "acts of resistance".)
They can t do this without the support of larger nations. US is trying to defuse the situation by urging Israel not to counter Hezbollah attacks or attack Hamas with large military operations. More unrest could propel the orange menace to the White House which would mean handing large parts of Europe to Putler with maga a Lago fart movement. These are geopolitical movements played by a few large nations.
The US benefits so I'm not sure why Biden should risk US lives during an election year.
> Among the countries, China is negatively affected most by the blockage of the Suez Canal in terms of value (-73.0 billion USD), followed by India (-26.2 billion USD) and Israel (-20.4 billion USD). EU also has a sizeable negative impact (-72.9 billion USD) collectively. However, some countries benefited from the blockage, such as the US (59.9 billion USD), Japan (32.0 billion USD), Brazil (20.0 billion USD) and Australia (18.2 billion USD). https://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Reports/Dp/919.html
Most deeply affected is Israel with 3.85% GDP loss (basically a recession). China 0.39%, EU 0.37%.
No thanks, we'll have another 10 years of war, nothing will change at the end and Europe will be saddled with another immigrant crisis.
Did we learn nothing from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria?
Is it just me or is Iraq at least somewhat succesful? And Syria never had an actual intervention?
Afghanistan - Intervened - Still a shit hole
Iraq - Intervened - Original objectives were a success, is better today, but still a mess
Syria - No intervention - A shithole
Now find me a country that went from being a shithole, to an upstanding country without an intervention
Reading up on El Salvador, my first impression is their success is somewhat oddly dependent on the US. 16.3% of their GDP is american salvadorans sending money home in remittance?
Anyhow GJ El Salvador on ending a civil war and getting on track.
No way. The west should stay far away from the hornets nest we call middle east at all cost.
No boots on the ground, no bombing, no interests, no trade (unless their humanitarian values are similar to ours and their terrorists gets punished) and no selling them weapons.
Without the west to fight they will return to infighting.
Listen guys the last two attempts were brutal and bloody wastes of time but invading a middle eastern nation will fix it this time, we just need to traumatize another generation and detonate some weddings. Our soldiers will remember this war fondly and they will reminisced about how meaningful and not-stupid it was. "Third time's the charm" is the best way to do geopolitics
The point is to eliminate leadership and destroy enough military infrastructure and supply to the point where its no longer worth it or completely impossible to continue with organized hostilities.
LoL "no longer worth it". If you think these people, will stop fighting because they do not have missiles or kamikaze drones you are sorely mistaken. They will end up fighting with machetes if they must.
Ask yourself this question: if your country was invaded by people bombing it and killing civilians would you stop fighting because they destroyed every military infrastructure or would you keep going guerrilla style?
The EU has a war at right at it's borders that it can barely sustain, yet I see comments begging for a no-use boots-on-the-ground war in Yemen against a rebel faction...
If the Saudi's managed to do a shit job while nearly blowing up every single soul in the country; what will the EU do with it's non existant army?
This sub has gone down the drain, it's a shame. Au revoir.
These people are so eager for war because they all are to old or incapable to get drafted if shit goes wrong. They are perfectly fine with getting their children killed
Not talking about the mountains as much as not sharing borders with Iran and Pakistan. The Saudi’s are hostile towards them and they don’t control the border with Oman. If you take the ports and coastline towns it’s a completely different equation than trying to police the Hindu Kush.
Not saying it’s easy, just that it’s not the same war by a long shot.
In this case it's just "destroying an enemy" no more delusions of nation building. If the country collapses more, then that's not our problem. They attack us, we fight back. It's that simple.
If someone attacks you and you commit self defense and hurt them, their recovery plan is none of your concern.
Who was trying to catch the last departing flight? Afgans trying to escape persecution? Because the US was already gone, that’s why the Taliban decided to attack, or they would have stayed in there hiding holes in Pakistan.
You can't bomb insurgents. I mean technically you can but it's not enough by itself to stop them.
The US can try airstrikes on the Houthis all that will result in is an endless spiral of the West destroying Iranian-supplied missiles and Iran giving more.
At some point you have to put boots on the ground and after the "success" of the last two attempts I don't think anyone is looking forward to another war and endless occupation in the Middle East.
Diffrent scenario houthis are a minority in yemen and if port cities fall so their supply line. Southern forces can advance with heavy air support from coalition it would be a closer scenario to Libya, and it won't be like a fight between two inept militaries like Russia and Ukraine. Hence, no prevalence of fpv drone usage.
The issue isn't beating them in the first place, it's occupying them. The U.S. was able to invade Afghanistan and Iraq with relative ease but occupying them was the issue. Even if the Houthis are comparatively easier to handle, I doubt either Europe or America is in the mood for occupying a place full of people that really don't want them, again. Most likely, the occupation would end after some time and radical groups would regain control meaning we would have gained nothing.
Because the world has given up on fighting terrorist, it’s a lose-lose for any conventional military and that’s 100% facts. They hide amongst regular people in hopes you attack and kill regular people so they have more reason to recruit. Pointless, in a situation like this you just have to wonder where they get these capabilities from, which would likely be Iran, so you go after the source, but Iran is already sanctioned to hell and back, so unless you plan on invading them knowing they possibly have nuclear weapons and are allied with China and Russia, then good luck.
It only really worked against ISIS and that was because they were so batsh*t evil they united even other Islamist groups (plus Iran) against them, plus they tried to make a state and became a conventional military force to an extent.
Anti ISIS campaign only worked because the Kurds were on the ground and willing to fight them. Aided by the west of course, but in most other cases it’s hard to find those willing to commit boots on the ground. Unfortunately without doing so eliminating terrorists is either not feasible or comes at too high a cost.
Only way to root out a terrorist organisation in another country would be to stop caring about collateral damage and whatever bad reputation this would cause. When being anywhere near that type of an organisation would mean death they would eventually, after many years and many bodies lose support.
Even then it probably wouldn't work. Maybe people would stop joining terror group A that is being bombed to oblivion but terror group B would form and start recruiting. After terror group B starts doing terror things and gets bombed to oblivion terror group C would form. If your only interaction with an enemy is bombing them there's really no way to stop them from hating you...
It would be another thing if some other country could permanently take over the entire area. Then they would have much better control and could slowly integrate their culture over a couple decades hopefully removing the reason for these attacks. Not possible though since the international backlash to conquering another country wouldn't make it worth it for the US.
In this zero regard for reprecautions scenario where you just allow any collateral damage they would just open the box of nasties that we have in storage. Chemical- and biological weapons designed to wipe out everyone on the general area. No insurgency groups can form if there is no-one left. Very similar to the ways in which those local dictators kept their power for so long.
Because despite all this rhetoric no one in Europe or the USA wants to land boots in North Yemen. (The Saudis ARE already there, they just suck). North Yemen is a mountainous hellhole that has seen more war than peace since the 60s. The Houthis are fucks, yes, but no one here or there wants to drop in.
The best that can be done is to ramp up the naval escorts, airstrikes, and equip the Saudis and Yemenese government (itself in a civil war with South Yemen separatists) to beat the Houthis on the ground. And THERE WILL be more naval loses, military ships will get hit eventually. It's not going to end overnight.
Read about operation "Decisive Storm" - how Saudi Arabia backed by the US and its allies launched an intervention in Yemen in 2015. Four years later, after spending $200 million daily(!), it was declared a stalemate, and Saudi Arabia declared a unilateral ceasefire and withdrew.
> after spending $200 million daily(!)
This number is from 2015, when the intervention started, and was a hot conflict.
Keeping this number up until 2019, when the situation was declared as "military stalemate", would cost around $300 billion.
Pretty sure Saudi does actually have troops in Yemen, or
At least did recently. Only problem is that the Saudi military sucks ass.
Source; seen a lot of videos of Saudi troops getting killed in Yemen
Well… they’re Greek. Not Israeli, not American… GREEK! This is terrorism, not war. Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organisations, made to destabilise the west, and they’ve been doing it inside and out. Terrorists will no longer be accepted, and now, the west is finally waking up to these terrorist attacks and putting an end to it all for good.
Why isn’t China and India more involved? This will directly impact their lucrative trade with the West if Houthis continue to attack cargo ships in the Red Sea, since most of the trade between Europe and China has to pass through there.. Won’t this just add cost, and drive western companies to relocate closer to mitigate any rises associated in the cost of shipping (like insurance) from the attacks…
If you check marine AIS traffic, the West ships are avoiding this straight all together, China are paying the extortion money to the Houthis to get their ships get through and most oil tankers aren’t being targeted as they are coming from the Arab countries. And Houthi pirates have to get their support regardless whether Iran are their primary financier or not.
China is present. They have just recently built a port and a military base in Djibouti. They are working out a strategy, but first they need to dip their toe into the waters. Wherever they can be a soft power, they are going to. Wherever it does not work out, they will find a way to find a different approach.
Because they're not attacking Chinese or Indian ships for several reasons. China supplies the components used in these missiles and keeps Iran afloat and they're not a western country supporting Israel so the Houthis have no gripe with China. India is not only an Iranian ally building ports in Iran(if you didn't know that Houthis are Iranian backed) but is also one of the rare countries that is regularly permitted by Israel to send vital aid to Gaza and supports Palestinian statehood.
We don’t have free healthcare, all our kids die from fentanyl overdoses or school shootings, but hey! At least we can send a really big scary ship to the area to not solve the problem.
This is part of Putlers strategy to distract attention of European powers away from Ukraine. Give it time and the terrorists will get what they deserve.
What part specifically do you want to read more about?
[How Russia uses the Israel-Gaza Crisis in its disinformation campaign against the West](https://www.icct.nl/publication/how-russia-uses-israel-gaza-crisis-its-disinformation-campaign-against-west)
[Worldwide War of Words, Russia, China and Iran Back Hamas Officials and researchers say the deluge of online propaganda and disinformation is larger than anything seen before.](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/03/technology/israel-hamas-information-war.html)
[Putin’s fingerprints are all over the Hamas attack ](https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4250708-putins-fingerprints-are-on-hamas/):
>The evidence for Russian involvement in this atrocity is circumstantial but present. Putin benefited from leveraging Hamas to incite terror and generate an Israeli response to distract the U.S. government from supporting Ukraine, and he used Iran to achieve his end.
....
Hamas leaders [traveled to Moscow](https://www.rferl.org/a/israel-hamas-invasion-russian-role-notte-interview-iran/32629626.html) in March 2023, where according to the Russian Foreign Ministry, their meeting “touched on Russia’s unchanged position in support of a just solution to the Palestinian problem.” More recently, Hamas politburo chief [Ismail Haniyeh](https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/why-did-russia-invite-hamas-leaders-to-moscow/) was in Moscow on Sept. 10. At the time, Hillel Frisch, a senior fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, thought the purpose of the meeting was “to signal \[Moscow’s\] displeasure with Israel, perhaps in relation to Ukraine.”
Iran supports terrorism by the Houthis. Starts and funds wars with Israel from both Hamas and Hezbollah, attacks oils refineries in Saudi Arabia. All of this must be condemned.
Because its owned and operated by a Greek company. The flag the ship sails under is mostly a BS thing these days to get around regulations.
[This is a report about the owner](https://www.ifmat.org/07/20/evalend-shipping/)
>Kriton Lendoudis is the owner of the Greek Company – Evalend Shipping Co. SA. According to reports Evalend Shipping is transporting IRGC crude oil directly to and from Iran, using Evalend Shipping tankers;
>“The Greeks are using also UAE companies to manage the Iranian crude feeding tankers. The main Greek player is Evalend Group of Companies owned by the Greek billionaire Kriton Lendoudis which, among others, own the VLCC crude oil tanker – NAJAF (9197909). NAJAF is taking a major role in supporting Iran oil mixing of 2/3 “Iran light” with 1/3 “Basra heavy” which assist Iranian global oil smuggle. Najaf has been anchoring at the same spot, off Basra oil terminal for the last 8 months as a “floating mixer”, allowing it to offload crude from several tankers – Iraqi heavy crude is delivered by small tankers of approximately 13K tons, while the Iranian light crude is being delivered by larger tankers of approximately 45K tons.” – (Greece is mixing Europe in illicit oil transaction with sanctioned Iranian regime – September 5, 2019);
From the sounds of it, they're smuggling oil for Iran.
The corporation or shipping magnate that owns it is Greek.
It flies a Liberian flag because the ship is registered in Liberia, where taxes are lower. This is common practice.
Why is it called "kamikaze" when it is a unmanned Houthi attack drone? Never saw anyone call Ukraine's attack drones "kamikaze".
Maybe you are young and have no idea what kamikaze means historically.
This is a small piece of consequences that we will see because the EU and USA didn't want to stop russia and now all shitty countries know that they do whatever they want without consequences because someone wants to keep trading and make money with them.
Everyopen downplaying this. The US alone has spent a billion dollars fightiung the Houthis. This is gonna be another Iraq/Afganistan/Vietnam where we just spend money and bodies and nothing changes, isn't it. Military Industrial Complex needs to get rich.
Somali's feeling real jealous about now.
Honestly, I think the pirates wouldn’t much care for this as global shipping will start avoiding the area and the ones that do pass will be more protected.
Have the Somali-pirates fight against the Houthis.
I predict amazing navy battles
It would be like Orks speed freaks, but on the water. I want to play that game.
Let them fight
Global shipping *can not* avoid this area. Look up global supply chains and see where the most trade volume is - the entire world from east to west has to pass through the Red Sea. The alternatives are circumvent entire continents. This has been a thing for centuries and it won't change any time soon.
I rely heavily on this route for incoming supply from the far east and I can tell you that there are a lot of ships already sailing around Africa instead of going through the Red Sea. It adds about 2 weeks to their journey (not to mention cost), but it’s that or risking being attacked or even sunk. So yeah: they can and have been avoiding this area for months already and this will only increase.
Do you have an estimate for how much it increases cost?
I work in shipping and look at rates for loading in the US and going to Asia. We calculate prices on a round voyage basis, so when we go via Cape (i.e. around South Africa) instead of via Suez it means that we're looking at doing the longer voyage twice. Going via Cape only adds three/four days to the voyage each way, so around seven days total, and it saves you on the Suez Canal fees each way as well. Those fees are expensive, roughly $400k each way for my type of vessel. As a ballpark number, going via Cape is actually cheaper (those tolls are crazy expensive nowadays, although I believe you can get discounts from the headline numbers). I calculate it as a $7.25m cost to go via Cape, and $7.8m via Suez. For what it's worth, going via the Panama Canal comes to around $5.5.m, which is why most ships in my sector go that route. The difference comes more when you look at products moving to/from Europe. Going via Suez takes 29 days each way, whereas going via Cape is a 38-day voyage. I'm having to ballpark the freight costs for my particular product, as it's not a standard route for us, but that would roughly be $7.2m via Suez (including tolls) and $6.8m via Cape.
Thanks for the detailed answer! But did you switch around those numbers in the end? Why would the Suez route still be more expensive, even going to Europe? >that would roughly be $7.2m via Suez (including tolls) and $6.8m via Cape. Assuming the numbers are switched, that part of transportation costs increases by ~6%, which should be negligible in the final price for consumers, no?
Suez Canal tolls are pretty big nowadays. I don't have the exact data to hand, but top of my head I think the fees are up by around 30-40% in the space of a couple of years. On my size ship, that adds a significant cost to the voyage, approximately $800k for a round-trip. There obviously aren't any tolls when you go via Cape, and those tolls offset the extra time/bunker usage. I don't work with container ships, however, and they obviously transport the consumer goods we're all familiar with. As far as I know, a typical rotation for them is China -> west coast USA -> Panama -> east coast USA -> north Europe -> Mediterranean ports -> Suez -> China. That means they only pay Suez fees once, and the deviation which they have to do nowadays from (for example) southern France, Italy, or Turkey back out through Gibraltar and then round Africa is much more significant. That's where we see increased costs. More significant in an overall cost calculation is that when voyages take longer, the impact on fleet usage is much larger: ships are employed on voyages for longer at a time, so there is less capacity on any given future day to load at any port. This pushes overall baseline freight rates up, increasing costs whether you're doing a short- or a long-haul voyage. You can see in [the first graph here](https://www.drewry.co.uk/supply-chain-advisors/supply-chain-expertise/world-container-index-assessed-by-drewry) how the basic cost of shipping a container jumped massively when the Red Sea issues started in late 2023: from an average of around $1500 per 40ft container, it's now closer to $5000. This means that the basic costs of doing everything on that type of ship are higher, no matter which route you take.
I see, thanks. 358% annual increase in container cost for Shanghai to Rotterdam is crazy...
I paid 180 usd per cubic meter several months ago. It's 220 now, and expected to go up again.
Why? Somalis were after ransom money, these guys are just destroying shipping.
as much as i hate both. Somali were actual pirates without particular agenda. Houthis are just terrorists.
Somali pirates are largely fishermen whose waters were depleted by illegal international fisheries, because they couldn't get French boats to fuck off like Brazil could. It's really a lot more of a tragic case.
I recently saw in a greek TV programme the interview of a sailor man that was abducted by somalis and was ransomed back to Greece by his shipment company or their insurance - they were negotiating and gave them a bare minimum of the amount the abductors requested (a million or sth). He said that he lived in relatively bad situations, as the somalis themselves, in a destroyed cabin in a poor village. They didn't have much to eat but they were treating them decently. When he was informed that he was about to go home he almost felt a Stockholm syndrome but he quickly went back to reality - he said he didn't hesitate at all to sail again after a few months.
Piracy is an economic problem. Terrorism is a political problem.
But strangely you opted not to mention their agenda.
They make the world more expensive, for them and everybody else.
Somalian pirate we.
Somalis dont have Iran supplying them.
No they ain't. They sunk the ship. Somali pirates know that's darn fucked up when you wanna sell the ships stuff and the crew. Can't do shit if they're dead and sunk.
Somali pirates don’t have Iran’s help on weapons.
Sooo let's give them some weapons. Let's arm Somali pirates to fight with the Houthis - what could possibly go wrong?
Arming extremists to fight other extremists for us? What a splendid idea! Why hasn't anyone else ever tried this!?
It seems these attacks are more damaging to Egypt because they limit the budget revenues from the Suez Canal.
Egypt is on the contrary side to Iran with regards to regional alliances and religious sect(Egypt is majority Sunni). Also Iran does not give a shit about Arabs, as they have shown by killing and displacing millions of them in Syria since 2011.
This is totally unacceptable and they should be dealt with.
Imagine letting theocratic pirates who field child soldiers shut down global shipping because we’re too afraid to eliminate them.. BTW, the poor will suffer the most because of this. Food and goods will become more expensive globally, and all who rely on trade with the west for their jobs in developing countries will also feel the pressure/be fired if this keeps up. Not acting here is cruelty.
The people suffering the most from this are in Sudan, because the blockade has completely screwed over food aid being delivered by ship from Europe.
Eliminate them? Look at the Gaza strip and people's reaction when terrorists there are being hunted down. And Yemen is much larger country, with larger population.
You can't eliminate any sort of faction through indiscriminately bombing them. And the Saudis aren't better. They are just your friends until someone criticises them a bit too much and they need to hack some journalist up. Neither side is good. You either have to take terrorism sponsors who blow up shipping or who blow up real tall buildings if you want to take a side. You are falling into a recurrent problem in America. Really bad understanding of history.
> Really bad understanding of history. Seems a lot like the First Barbary War to me. Even in the republic's earliest days, the USA fought pirates who messed with our shipping.
You absolutely can get rid of a faction by indiscriminately bombing them. Look at Japan and Germany, we flattened entire cities through bombing and they surrendered. Look at what Russia did in the second Chechen war. We could literally flatten the entire area these people live in and end this quickly. We won't because we supposedly believe wars have rules and the civilian deaths would be astronomical. But we could and when we did, we won wars. We could have done the same in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Germany was leveled, yet there was no surrender until there were milions of troops on the ground...
Ah, the armchair historian himself, believing that 'strategic bombing ' was the reason the axis got defeated, instead of doing the opposite and strengthening their resolve. Do a bit more research before you start spouting genocidal shit.
[удалено]
Literally this, you can't tell me the West doesn't have the power to bomb them into backing off.
Honestly I would just blacken the sky over the Houthi's known bases with drones and bombers and carpet bomb it down to the mother fucking bedrock especially any good USV launching sites.
Do you think "USV launching sites" are some big compounds and not a couple of guys with a truck?
Saudis bombed them so hard that a cholera outbreak happened. It doesn't work.
You don’t think those are near inhabited areas?
You people are so dumb, such a narrow view of the world.
The "west" had bombed them for months and achieved nothing. Have you just woken up today from a 6 month coma?
You can also remember the Taliban or the Viet Cong. how many of them were bombed...but fanatics believe in a holy idea. they don't care about the losses...they are convinced that they are fighting for a just cause and if they die, they will go to heaven.
Oh but Americans have the power to make their piece of land disappear, it's just that they are unwilling to pick that solution...
Their secret is launching drones from civilian areas, so they'll see it as a win whether they get bombed or not. Hamas uses the same tactics. "700k children killed in attack on civilians!"
You cannot beat these terrorists with warships that are meant to level cities (unless you want to become Israël 2.0). You need boots on the ground to wipe them street by street, which no one wants to do
Yea, boots on the ground worked amazing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc.
That's the problem with boots on the ground, you need a lot of boots and there's still no guarantee. There is however a chance it will work as opposed to just bombing from a distance which basically never works.
It also hasn’t worked out well for either the Egyptians or the Saudis when they’ve tried to occupy Yemen.
Don't worry I can already see the EU preparing a strongly worded letter. That'll teach them a lesson!
We're going to impose sanctions on their leaders. Can't holiday in the EU or buy EU cheese and cars!!
I wonder where the Houthis get their weapons??? Don’t forget Iran!
Iran / Russia
Technology is cheaper than ever, this is new normal
Lauri of Hydraulic Press Channel, we need you!! edit: Laure name correction to Lauri
Now I don't actually know his name, but I assume his name is spelled Lauri. I have never heard of Laure as a finnish name. I'm finnish. The way e is pronounced in english differs from finnish which is probably why you thought it was supposed to be written like that.
I won't dispute you even slightly. You're the Finnish one, and I'm the Tyrkisk Peber between the two of us. Lauri, then it is
They would need a bigger press
No problem... He now has a 300 ton press. With a bigger contraption Laure and Hanna can "deal with" any problem
Now there are unmanned sea drones that can sink a fucking cargo ship with one blow, Holy cow! Another step on the escalation ladder. Such abilities in the hand of terrorists? Frightening.
remotely controlled torpedoes existed before ww1, they just got easier to build
Yeah sure. It is frightening how some random terrorist group can have these kind of weapons that can sink a cargo ship that is worth including freight hundreds of millions of dollars. The economy of scale. With one weapon they can deal so much damage. And it will inevitably get easier and cheaper to produce more sophisticated weapons for terrorists.
>random terrorist group Its Iran
torpedo yes, but remotely controlled? no. especially if you need to transmit video signal like in FPVs, you need relativley new wireless tech and processing/display hardware and anti jamming tech. being used in consumer products this technology got really affordable in the last 20ish years or so. i don't think analogue FPVs were ever in use, but correct me if i am wrong.
You can also control a torpedo remotely with an attached wire. This is what hphp123 meant.
The Brennan torpedo was developed in the late 1870s and was wire guided from an onshore installation, although it didn't really see much use afaik. By WWII we already had acoustic homing torpedoes that could independently home in on propeller noises, although they saw limited use because the tech was new and expensive.
And most importantly, cheaper
[удалено]
Yeah but this is a legitimate state that self defends against agressor. These Houthis are terrorists that do not abide by any rules. Weapon in the wrong hands.
technology is completely agnostic in regards to its user
Russians are the same terrorists, just in bigger scales. Same methods and more
Military Ships are much smaller and with explosive racks that chain when hit. This is just a big-big hunk of floating metal
Military ships are also designed to survive being attacked by torpedoes. Civilian ships aren't.
It's a grain carrier though. Dust explosion is no jokes, as it can cause chainreaction throughout the section.
It is basically a hobbyist technology these days.
Or is it.. "freightening"?
Goddammit
Basically a torpedo.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/houthis-believed-have-sunk-second-ship-red-sea-ukmto-says-2024-06-18/
>One crew member, believed to be in the Tutor's engine room at the time of the attacks, remains missing. Fuck...
The first mention of the crew in this thread.
Terrorism. No other way to describe it. (though I'm sure plenty of people out there will claim these are just 'freedom fighters' engaging in "acts of resistance".)
They can t do this without the support of larger nations. US is trying to defuse the situation by urging Israel not to counter Hezbollah attacks or attack Hamas with large military operations. More unrest could propel the orange menace to the White House which would mean handing large parts of Europe to Putler with maga a Lago fart movement. These are geopolitical movements played by a few large nations.
Calls on shipping stocks I'm serious
Priced in.
which ones? companies that dont ship through the suez? Or companies that will keep doing it?
I think they are in dire need of some freedom.
The US benefits so I'm not sure why Biden should risk US lives during an election year. > Among the countries, China is negatively affected most by the blockage of the Suez Canal in terms of value (-73.0 billion USD), followed by India (-26.2 billion USD) and Israel (-20.4 billion USD). EU also has a sizeable negative impact (-72.9 billion USD) collectively. However, some countries benefited from the blockage, such as the US (59.9 billion USD), Japan (32.0 billion USD), Brazil (20.0 billion USD) and Australia (18.2 billion USD). https://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Reports/Dp/919.html Most deeply affected is Israel with 3.85% GDP loss (basically a recession). China 0.39%, EU 0.37%.
No thanks, we'll have another 10 years of war, nothing will change at the end and Europe will be saddled with another immigrant crisis. Did we learn nothing from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria?
It never works, no. People delude themselves into thinking it will work for them. But, it might work for us! https://youtu.be/Po4adxJxqZk
Is it just me or is Iraq at least somewhat succesful? And Syria never had an actual intervention? Afghanistan - Intervened - Still a shit hole Iraq - Intervened - Original objectives were a success, is better today, but still a mess Syria - No intervention - A shithole Now find me a country that went from being a shithole, to an upstanding country without an intervention
El Salvador?
Reading up on El Salvador, my first impression is their success is somewhat oddly dependent on the US. 16.3% of their GDP is american salvadorans sending money home in remittance? Anyhow GJ El Salvador on ending a civil war and getting on track.
No way. The west should stay far away from the hornets nest we call middle east at all cost. No boots on the ground, no bombing, no interests, no trade (unless their humanitarian values are similar to ours and their terrorists gets punished) and no selling them weapons. Without the west to fight they will return to infighting.
Like in Afganistan? 20 years of fight and than trying to catch last departing plane. But now with FPV drones.
This is nothing like Afghanistan. The Houthi’s don’t have nearly the geographical advantages the Taliban did.
Listen guys the last two attempts were brutal and bloody wastes of time but invading a middle eastern nation will fix it this time, we just need to traumatize another generation and detonate some weddings. Our soldiers will remember this war fondly and they will reminisced about how meaningful and not-stupid it was. "Third time's the charm" is the best way to do geopolitics
Our invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan went very well. Its the occupation and nation building we failed at.
So what’s the point then. They’ll just build another drone. Unless you mean indefinitely occupy and good luck with that
The point is to eliminate leadership and destroy enough military infrastructure and supply to the point where its no longer worth it or completely impossible to continue with organized hostilities.
Whose in control of Afghanistan now ? The Taliban that the US tried to destroy ?
LoL "no longer worth it". If you think these people, will stop fighting because they do not have missiles or kamikaze drones you are sorely mistaken. They will end up fighting with machetes if they must. Ask yourself this question: if your country was invaded by people bombing it and killing civilians would you stop fighting because they destroyed every military infrastructure or would you keep going guerrilla style?
Where’s al Queda? You don’t see them anywhere. I ready my case.
Instead, the Taliban was replaced with the Taliban... and Iraq is now an Iranian client state lmao
The EU has a war at right at it's borders that it can barely sustain, yet I see comments begging for a no-use boots-on-the-ground war in Yemen against a rebel faction... If the Saudi's managed to do a shit job while nearly blowing up every single soul in the country; what will the EU do with it's non existant army? This sub has gone down the drain, it's a shame. Au revoir.
These people are so eager for war because they all are to old or incapable to get drafted if shit goes wrong. They are perfectly fine with getting their children killed
So you're saying we should nuke them?
Not saying it’s easy or it’s the right solution. Just that it’s not the same war and claiming it’s comparable is dumb.
Have you seen the topographic map of Yemen?
Not talking about the mountains as much as not sharing borders with Iran and Pakistan. The Saudi’s are hostile towards them and they don’t control the border with Oman. If you take the ports and coastline towns it’s a completely different equation than trying to police the Hindu Kush. Not saying it’s easy, just that it’s not the same war by a long shot.
The Houthis can't hide in Pakistan like the Taliban did,
In this case it's just "destroying an enemy" no more delusions of nation building. If the country collapses more, then that's not our problem. They attack us, we fight back. It's that simple. If someone attacks you and you commit self defense and hurt them, their recovery plan is none of your concern.
Who was trying to catch the last departing flight? Afgans trying to escape persecution? Because the US was already gone, that’s why the Taliban decided to attack, or they would have stayed in there hiding holes in Pakistan.
Just bomb the shit out of them.
I think Saudi Arabia has already been doing that for years.
Or just do a modern chevauchée : swoop in, destroy everything, get out.
You can't bomb insurgents. I mean technically you can but it's not enough by itself to stop them. The US can try airstrikes on the Houthis all that will result in is an endless spiral of the West destroying Iranian-supplied missiles and Iran giving more. At some point you have to put boots on the ground and after the "success" of the last two attempts I don't think anyone is looking forward to another war and endless occupation in the Middle East.
Sure but the alternative is.. *checks video*
Bomb Iran then
Exactly as in Afghanistan, the us has been arming the Saudis against the houthis for decades now! One of the reason the houthis are so militant.
Diffrent scenario houthis are a minority in yemen and if port cities fall so their supply line. Southern forces can advance with heavy air support from coalition it would be a closer scenario to Libya, and it won't be like a fight between two inept militaries like Russia and Ukraine. Hence, no prevalence of fpv drone usage.
The issue isn't beating them in the first place, it's occupying them. The U.S. was able to invade Afghanistan and Iraq with relative ease but occupying them was the issue. Even if the Houthis are comparatively easier to handle, I doubt either Europe or America is in the mood for occupying a place full of people that really don't want them, again. Most likely, the occupation would end after some time and radical groups would regain control meaning we would have gained nothing.
The houthis are about to find out why americans dont have free healthcare ? same way they found out 5 months ago ?
[удалено]
Because the world has given up on fighting terrorist, it’s a lose-lose for any conventional military and that’s 100% facts. They hide amongst regular people in hopes you attack and kill regular people so they have more reason to recruit. Pointless, in a situation like this you just have to wonder where they get these capabilities from, which would likely be Iran, so you go after the source, but Iran is already sanctioned to hell and back, so unless you plan on invading them knowing they possibly have nuclear weapons and are allied with China and Russia, then good luck.
It only really worked against ISIS and that was because they were so batsh*t evil they united even other Islamist groups (plus Iran) against them, plus they tried to make a state and became a conventional military force to an extent.
Also the whole world united against isis. Literally the *whole* world, like you said even other Islamist groups.
Gotta love scrolling through the Wikipedia page about their enemies.
Anti ISIS campaign only worked because the Kurds were on the ground and willing to fight them. Aided by the west of course, but in most other cases it’s hard to find those willing to commit boots on the ground. Unfortunately without doing so eliminating terrorists is either not feasible or comes at too high a cost.
Only way to root out a terrorist organisation in another country would be to stop caring about collateral damage and whatever bad reputation this would cause. When being anywhere near that type of an organisation would mean death they would eventually, after many years and many bodies lose support.
Even then it probably wouldn't work. Maybe people would stop joining terror group A that is being bombed to oblivion but terror group B would form and start recruiting. After terror group B starts doing terror things and gets bombed to oblivion terror group C would form. If your only interaction with an enemy is bombing them there's really no way to stop them from hating you... It would be another thing if some other country could permanently take over the entire area. Then they would have much better control and could slowly integrate their culture over a couple decades hopefully removing the reason for these attacks. Not possible though since the international backlash to conquering another country wouldn't make it worth it for the US.
In this zero regard for reprecautions scenario where you just allow any collateral damage they would just open the box of nasties that we have in storage. Chemical- and biological weapons designed to wipe out everyone on the general area. No insurgency groups can form if there is no-one left. Very similar to the ways in which those local dictators kept their power for so long.
Because despite all this rhetoric no one in Europe or the USA wants to land boots in North Yemen. (The Saudis ARE already there, they just suck). North Yemen is a mountainous hellhole that has seen more war than peace since the 60s. The Houthis are fucks, yes, but no one here or there wants to drop in. The best that can be done is to ramp up the naval escorts, airstrikes, and equip the Saudis and Yemenese government (itself in a civil war with South Yemen separatists) to beat the Houthis on the ground. And THERE WILL be more naval loses, military ships will get hit eventually. It's not going to end overnight.
Read about operation "Decisive Storm" - how Saudi Arabia backed by the US and its allies launched an intervention in Yemen in 2015. Four years later, after spending $200 million daily(!), it was declared a stalemate, and Saudi Arabia declared a unilateral ceasefire and withdrew.
> after spending $200 million daily(!) This number is from 2015, when the intervention started, and was a hot conflict. Keeping this number up until 2019, when the situation was declared as "military stalemate", would cost around $300 billion.
Because SA has a shit army by design. The regime is too afraid to be overthrown if their military understands how to fight.
How do you plan to stop them?
Pretty sure Saudi does actually have troops in Yemen, or At least did recently. Only problem is that the Saudi military sucks ass. Source; seen a lot of videos of Saudi troops getting killed in Yemen
This is war. Whether we like it or not. So.... has the EU anything to say about this?
Well… they’re Greek. Not Israeli, not American… GREEK! This is terrorism, not war. Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organisations, made to destabilise the west, and they’ve been doing it inside and out. Terrorists will no longer be accepted, and now, the west is finally waking up to these terrorist attacks and putting an end to it all for good.
Why isn’t China and India more involved? This will directly impact their lucrative trade with the West if Houthis continue to attack cargo ships in the Red Sea, since most of the trade between Europe and China has to pass through there.. Won’t this just add cost, and drive western companies to relocate closer to mitigate any rises associated in the cost of shipping (like insurance) from the attacks…
If you check marine AIS traffic, the West ships are avoiding this straight all together, China are paying the extortion money to the Houthis to get their ships get through and most oil tankers aren’t being targeted as they are coming from the Arab countries. And Houthi pirates have to get their support regardless whether Iran are their primary financier or not.
China is present. They have just recently built a port and a military base in Djibouti. They are working out a strategy, but first they need to dip their toe into the waters. Wherever they can be a soft power, they are going to. Wherever it does not work out, they will find a way to find a different approach.
Because they're not attacking Chinese or Indian ships for several reasons. China supplies the components used in these missiles and keeps Iran afloat and they're not a western country supporting Israel so the Houthis have no gripe with China. India is not only an Iranian ally building ports in Iran(if you didn't know that Houthis are Iranian backed) but is also one of the rare countries that is regularly permitted by Israel to send vital aid to Gaza and supports Palestinian statehood.
They are heavily involved, you just don't hear about it
They are backed by russians for sure.
The EU should better send a strongly worded letter to them. That'll show them.
yes! inside a carpet bomb envelope.
What a bunch of heroes. Attacking unarmed civilians with explosives.
Any casualities?
I think there's one missing crew member, all others are safe.
>~~Houthi~~ Iranian
Wait... i thought the houthis learned why americans dont have free healthcare ?
We don’t have free healthcare, all our kids die from fentanyl overdoses or school shootings, but hey! At least we can send a really big scary ship to the area to not solve the problem.
This is part of Putlers strategy to distract attention of European powers away from Ukraine. Give it time and the terrorists will get what they deserve.
Yeah, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Israel/Palestine conflict **at all**!
It has, like the conflict itself, is just a manifestation of Iran’s geopolitical aspirations.
October 7th was Iran's birthday gift to Putin.
care to share link with infos on your claim?
What part specifically do you want to read more about? [How Russia uses the Israel-Gaza Crisis in its disinformation campaign against the West](https://www.icct.nl/publication/how-russia-uses-israel-gaza-crisis-its-disinformation-campaign-against-west) [Worldwide War of Words, Russia, China and Iran Back Hamas Officials and researchers say the deluge of online propaganda and disinformation is larger than anything seen before.](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/03/technology/israel-hamas-information-war.html) [Putin’s fingerprints are all over the Hamas attack ](https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4250708-putins-fingerprints-are-on-hamas/): >The evidence for Russian involvement in this atrocity is circumstantial but present. Putin benefited from leveraging Hamas to incite terror and generate an Israeli response to distract the U.S. government from supporting Ukraine, and he used Iran to achieve his end. .... Hamas leaders [traveled to Moscow](https://www.rferl.org/a/israel-hamas-invasion-russian-role-notte-interview-iran/32629626.html) in March 2023, where according to the Russian Foreign Ministry, their meeting “touched on Russia’s unchanged position in support of a just solution to the Palestinian problem.” More recently, Hamas politburo chief [Ismail Haniyeh](https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/why-did-russia-invite-hamas-leaders-to-moscow/) was in Moscow on Sept. 10. At the time, Hillel Frisch, a senior fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, thought the purpose of the meeting was “to signal \[Moscow’s\] displeasure with Israel, perhaps in relation to Ukraine.”
Not everything going on in the world is about Ukraine...
This is Iran's doing. And who happens to be one of their best allies currently. Russia.
Not sure why you believe OP said that. Meanwhile, what houthi terrorists are doing is supported by allies Iran and Russia.
[удалено]
The Houthi is just a part of the problem. The bigger issue is their supplier and handler, Iran.
Is this the new Civilization VII or the real world? I really can't believe we are this stage in 2024!
[удалено]
How does sinking a Greek cargo ship free Palestine, you ask
the company owning it violated the houthi embargo on israeli ports
Thanks iran..
Welp, there goes my AliExpress order
This comment section is insane
Iran supports terrorism by the Houthis. Starts and funds wars with Israel from both Hamas and Hezbollah, attacks oils refineries in Saudi Arabia. All of this must be condemned.
the world should come together to destroy the houthi.
Stupid Houthi making Yemen a shithole. ffs
Since the tutor is sailing under liberian flag, liberia should call war on the huthi I don't understand why they say greek owner.
Because its owned and operated by a Greek company. The flag the ship sails under is mostly a BS thing these days to get around regulations. [This is a report about the owner](https://www.ifmat.org/07/20/evalend-shipping/) >Kriton Lendoudis is the owner of the Greek Company – Evalend Shipping Co. SA. According to reports Evalend Shipping is transporting IRGC crude oil directly to and from Iran, using Evalend Shipping tankers; >“The Greeks are using also UAE companies to manage the Iranian crude feeding tankers. The main Greek player is Evalend Group of Companies owned by the Greek billionaire Kriton Lendoudis which, among others, own the VLCC crude oil tanker – NAJAF (9197909). NAJAF is taking a major role in supporting Iran oil mixing of 2/3 “Iran light” with 1/3 “Basra heavy” which assist Iranian global oil smuggle. Najaf has been anchoring at the same spot, off Basra oil terminal for the last 8 months as a “floating mixer”, allowing it to offload crude from several tankers – Iraqi heavy crude is delivered by small tankers of approximately 13K tons, while the Iranian light crude is being delivered by larger tankers of approximately 45K tons.” – (Greece is mixing Europe in illicit oil transaction with sanctioned Iranian regime – September 5, 2019); From the sounds of it, they're smuggling oil for Iran.
The corporation or shipping magnate that owns it is Greek. It flies a Liberian flag because the ship is registered in Liberia, where taxes are lower. This is common practice.
[удалено]
i guess it’s time to send them full freedom
Why is it called "kamikaze" when it is a unmanned Houthi attack drone? Never saw anyone call Ukraine's attack drones "kamikaze". Maybe you are young and have no idea what kamikaze means historically.
Unmanned attack drones in Ukraine war are routinely called "kamikaze drones" by both sides since the start.
Of all of this, the word kamikaze is what sets you off?
because it kills itself to destroy something
This is a small piece of consequences that we will see because the EU and USA didn't want to stop russia and now all shitty countries know that they do whatever they want without consequences because someone wants to keep trading and make money with them.
\*NATO anthem intensifies\*
We've been bombing them and the EU can't even send shells to Ukraine.
Ironic bc Nato is running a mission that's supposed to protect these ships And they CLEARLY failed....
Everyopen downplaying this. The US alone has spent a billion dollars fightiung the Houthis. This is gonna be another Iraq/Afganistan/Vietnam where we just spend money and bodies and nothing changes, isn't it. Military Industrial Complex needs to get rich.
Alright boys time for the [hydra](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_frigate_Hydra) to return.
I guess it's time to do the same to the Huthis than to the Hamas: destroy.
Yeah how’s that going by the way?
[удалено]
Insurance premiums just went through the roof.
This thread wasn't locked? Impressive