War Invasion of Ukraine News Megathread - Thread is only for articles and discussion of articles, general discussion thread is still in Happenings.

President Joe Biden on Tuesday said that the United States will impose sanctions “far beyond” the ones that the United States imposed in 2014 following the annexation of the Crimean peninsula.

“This is the beginning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine,” Biden said in a White House speech, signaling a shift in his administration’s position. “We will continue to escalate sanctions if Russia escalates,” he added.

Russian elites and their family members will also soon face sanctions, Biden said, adding that “Russia will pay an even steeper price” if Moscow decides to push forward into Ukraine. Two Russian banks and Russian sovereign debt will also be sanctioned, he said.

Also in his speech, Biden said he would send more U.S. troops to the Baltic states as a defensive measure to strengthen NATO’s position in the area.

Russia shares a border with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

A day earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops to go into the separatist Donetsk and Lugansk regions in eastern Ukraine after a lengthy speech in which he recognized the two regions’ independence.

Western powers decried the move and began to slap sanctions on certain Russian individuals, while Germany announced it would halt plans to go ahead with the Russia-to-Germany Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

At home, Biden is facing bipartisan pressure to take more extensive actions against Russia following Putin’s decision. However, a recent poll showed that a majority of Americans believe that sending troops to Ukraine is a “bad idea,” and a slim minority believes it’s a good one.

All 27 European Union countries unanimously agreed on an initial list of sanctions targeting Russian authorities, said French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, and EU foreign affairs head Josep Borell claimed the package “will hurt Russia … a lot.”

Earlier Tuesday, Borell asserted that Russian troops have already entered the Donbas region, which comprises Donetsk and Lugansk, which are under the control of pro-Russia groups since 2014.

And on Tuesday, the Russian Parliament approved a Putin-back plan to use military force outside of Russia’s borders as Putin further said that Russia confirmed it would recognize the expanded borders of Lugansk and Donetsk.

“We recognized the states,” the Russian president said. “That means we recognized all of their fundamental documents, including the constitution, where it is written that their [borders] are the territories at the time the two regions were part of Ukraine.”

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Putin said that Ukraine is “not interested in peaceful solutions” and that “every day, they are amassing troops in the Donbas.”

Meanwhile, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday morning again downplayed the prospect of a Russian invasion and proclaimed: “There will be no war.”

“There will not be an all-out war against Ukraine, and there will not be a broad escalation from Russia. If there is, then we will put Ukraine on a war footing,” he said in a televised address.

The White House began to signal that they would shift their own position on whether it’s the start of an invasion.

“We think this is, yes, the beginning of an invasion, Russia’s latest invasion into Ukraine,” said Jon Finer, the White House deputy national security adviser in public remarks. “An invasion is an invasion and that is what is underway.”

For weeks, Western governments have been claiming Moscow would invade its neighbor after Russia gathered some 150,000 troops along the countries’ borders. They alleged that the Kremlin would attempt to come up with a pretext to attack, while some officials on Monday said Putin’s speech recognizing the two regions was just that.

But Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters Tuesday that Russia’s “latest invasion” of Ukraine is threatening stability in the region, but he asserted that Putin can “still avoid a full blown, tragic war of choice.”

Article

 

[Rezza]

Russia’s ‘warning’ of Ukraine’s biological weapons sounds just like Syria (archive)

Analysis: Putin used the same false justification for brutal bombings in Syria, in the glare of western media

When a Russian spokesperson took to a podium in Moscow on Wednesday and warned of a “biological weapons programme” in Ukraine, fighters on another battlefield – Syria – understood what she meant.

The anti-Assad opposition groups that still held northern Syria had heard it all before. From 2015, when Russia took a prominent stake in the conflict, and throughout the gruesome years that followed, claims that they, instead of the Assad regime, had used chemical weapons were a ready-made slur that put them on notice of an imminent assault. The allegations were made by Moscow, whenever ground forces it was supporting wanted to clear a town or city. Brutal, indiscriminate bombardment followed. So did impunity.

Even in its infancy, the Russian war in Ukraine has many parallels with the conflict in Syria: barely restrained savagery, the mass flight of terrified civilians, and wanton destruction. Now the use of foreboding pretexts can be added to a growing list, which was born amid the ruins of Grozny, Crimea and Donbas and fine-tuned on the civilian population of Syria’s beleaguered north.

The Pentagon and Ukraine’s leadership both disdainfully denied the Russian claim, which had been accompanied by a call for answers, and there seemed little likelihood of it cutting through an international discourse that has run heavily against the Kremlin and its disinformation programmes.

It was a very different story in Syria, where each claim of chemical weapons use by rebels was received with credulity in parts of the UK and Europe and there was little interest in exposing Moscow’s lies. Winning the war of misinformation was a Russian success in Syria, in a theatre that wasn’t short of wins for a military with no one apart from outgunned rebels and jihadists willing to stand in its way.

“Ukraine today is part of a much longer continuum than Syria,” a former senior Nato officer told the Guardian. “It goes back further than Chechnya – politically, in terms of foreign policy, in terms of Russia’s internal dynamics and in terms of the tactics of the Russian war machine. The only surprise over the past fortnight is quite how useless the Russian armed forces have been – thankfully. They have been utterly dire in every respect, which is very good news all round.

“We are all victims of our experience, and Putin’s experience is of being able to get away with almost anything he wants in every dimension of warfare. The blatant fostering of frozen conflicts in high-profile nations such as Georgia and Ukraine, the widespread and hardly concealed undermining of governance through hybrid warfare, the use of the most brutal tactics, crushing of whole towns and cities along with their populations.

“His experience is that you can grind out a win using heavy explosives in the full glare of western media attention. And with an extremely effective control of his own [patriotic] population, he has little to fear at home.”

Compared with the quagmire it has found in Ukraine and the blistering international reaction to its invasion, Syria was a relatively low-cost intervention for Moscow. Its pilots ran bombing runs without serious fear of being shot from the skies, its heavy weaponry had the run of towns and cities and its disinformation machine won at a canter.

“The scope of the Ukraine war is different,” said Charles Lister, the director of the Syria and counter-terrorism programme at the Middle East Institute. “But some of the tactics were definitely learned and deployed in Syria.

“The broad assumption of impunity unquestionably drove this forward and put Putin in a psychological position where he believed something like this was feasible. He learned to pay no regard to international red lines. The sustained and overwhelming use of heavy bombardment aimed at undermining public confidence and as a tool of intimidation now being seen in Mariupol was honed in Syria, where Russia barely used precision-guided munitions.

“The vast majority have been dumb bombs. To use these, they need to fly at a lower level. And that’s why we are seeing Russian planes shot down, by Stingers and other ground-to-air missiles that were not supplied to the rebels in Syria.”

Another parallel has emerged in recent days – an often cynical use of human corridors as tools of coercion. “It is the shock and awe effect on the population, and one that leads to a greater number of war crimes.

“We saw this in Aleppo and now we are seeing it in places like Mariupol. It is clearly a tactic of intimidation and subjugation. … In both cases, it’s shell to hell, surround and besiege, then shell to hell again and offer concessions.”

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

Why the hell is Putin even bothering? Zelensky made it clear that Ukraine won't join NATO, and they'll even recognize the independence of the eastern breakaway regions. The war should be over by now; Putin can just save face, declare victory, and go home.

Unless of course, he really buys his own bullshit about how Ukraine is a made-up nation that needs to be re-incorporated into Russia because it's really Russian territory. This despite the fact that Kiev has existed as a sovereign power for over 1000 years.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Ukraine war: Russia confirms it has used thermobaric weapons, says UK's Ministry of Defence​

Thermobaric weapons suck in oxygen from the surrounding air to generate a high-temperature explosion, typically producing a blast wave of a significantly longer duration than that of a conventional explosive.

Russia has confirmed it has used thermobaric weapons in Ukraine, according to the UK's Ministry of Defence.
The UK MoD said its Russian counterpart said the TOS-1A weapon system had been deployed.

The system uses thermobaric rockets, creating incendiary and blast effects, the MoD added.

Thermobaric weapons suck in oxygen from the surrounding air to generate a high-temperature explosion, typically producing a blast wave of a significantly longer duration than that of a conventional explosive.

They are capable of vaporising human bodies.

Last week, a Russian-language account on the Telegram messaging app identified what open-source analysts said appeared to be a Russian TOS-1A thermobaric multiple launch rocket system on a road between Kyiv and the town of Sumy.

A US defence official said his country could not confirm the use of thermobaric weapons by Russia in Ukraine.
He told reporters at a briefing: "We know that they have the launching systems available to them in Ukraine that could be used for rockets that have a thermobaric warhead on them. But we cannot confirm that those weapons are in Ukraine and we cannot confirm any examples of use."

It comes as Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has announced the UK government will send more weapons to Ukraine, including fresh supplies of anti-tank missiles.
He told MPs the UK has delivered 3,615 anti-tank (NLAW) weapons and will soon be supplying a "small consignment" of Javelin anti-tank missiles.
He said the Russians are "changing their tactics and so the Ukrainians need to too", to help Ukraine forces tackle President Putin's air force.

Mr Wallace also said the UK will soon be supplying a "small consignment" of Javelin anti-tank missiles and exploring the possibility of donating Starstreak anti-aircraft missiles to Ukraine.
Supplies of rations, medical equipment and other non-lethal military aid will also be increased, the defence secretary said.

https://archive.ph/SImPR

 

[Useful_Mistake]

 

[Rezza]

Interesting that Russia is beginning to confirm some claims and accusations by the West, like the conscript and thermobaric weapons. I think its a sign of something, but I genuinely don't know what it

 

[usoland]

Thermobaric weapons aren't war crimes, and Ukraine has more egregious conscripting atm.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

Thermobaric weapons aren't war crimes, and Ukraine has more egregious conscripting atm.

The United States uses thermobaric so this is just fodder for the cable news boomer dolts.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

The United States uses thermobaric so this is just fodder for the cable news boomer dolts.

They used those bombs against Al-Quaeda fighters and Taliban forces. Not against civilian targets where the Russians know there are no soldiers.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

They used those bombs against Al-Quaeda fighters and Taliban forces. Not against civilian targets where the Russians know there are no soldiers.

Oh yes, of course, the US never killed any civilians ever, silly me.

That's just the Afghan War, I'm not including Iraq.

 

[FAQnews Correspondent]

Oh yes, of course, the US never killed any civilians ever, silly me.

That's just the Afghan War, I'm not including Iraq.

Oh no no no, it's okay to kill civilians as long as you don't use thermobaric weapons to do it.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Oh yes, of course, the US never killed any civilians ever, silly me.

That's just the Afghan War, I'm not including Iraq.

Again, the difference is that the U.S. kills civilians accidentally, as collateral damage, and they avoid using their heaviest weaponry in major urban areas to avoid such. The Russians are attacking urban areas exclusively, with the specific purpose of killing and demoralizing the civilian population, and are using thermobaric weapons and cluster munitions to do it. Using those weapons isn't a war crime; using them to target civilians on purpose is.

 

[Snekposter]

Hence, my personal analysis is the British conduct in area bombing Germany in WW2 was a war crime,

Minor nitpick, but the British area bombing was a direct result of bombing in general being highly inaccurate. They had tried precision strikes at the onset of the war, however between navigational issues and poor aiming capabilities inherent to the available technologies of the time, they were lucky to even hit the city, never mind a specific industrial district! Once navigation and aiming technologies improved, then the British were able to target specific areas, and began to do so.

Of course, the British weren't really concerned with switching targets with any real haste...

Thermobaric weapons aren't war crimes, and Ukraine has more egregious conscripting atm.

Yeah, I can't imagine why they'd be on a full war footing, considering they've got about a third of Russia's population and far less industrial might, and are currently defending their own soil against such a foreign aggressor.

Oh yes, of course, the US never killed any civilians ever, silly me.

That's just the Afghan War, I'm not including Iraq.

There's a big difference between accidental collateral damage and the deliberate targeting of civilian areas, especially with such indiscriminate weapons as thermobarics. And according to your own link...

According to The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), the majority of civilian casualties were attributed to the Taliban and other anti-government elements each year, with the figure ranging from 61% to 80% depending on the year.

Like, wow, if not even the United Nations can say the USA is responsible for piles upon piles of dead civvies, you know something's up.

The Afghanistan Rights Monitor, a Kabul-based rights watchdog, estimated that in 2008 about 3,917 civilians were killed, over 6,800 were wounded, and around 120,000 were forced out of their homes. ARM estimated that insurgents killed over 2,300 civilians, including 930 in suicide bombings, and that U.S.-led military forces killed over 1,620 civilians, with 1,100 civilians killed by U.S.-led NATO and coalition forces and 520 civilians killed by Afghan military forces. Out of these, 680 Afghan civilians killed in air strikes by the US-led forces, with U.S. combat aircraft conducting at least 15,000 close air support missions over the year. Another 2,800 civilians were injured and 80,000 displaced from their homes by the U.S.-led NATO and coalition military operations.

Like, hold up. At least 15,000 CAS airstrikes, and we killed 680 civilians. That's an average of 0.045333~ civilians per air strike. That's less than one civilian death for every 2 air strikes. God damn, talk about precision bombing.

 

[East_Clintwood]

and they avoid using their heaviest weaponry in major urban areas to avoid such.

It's not just that they try to avoid using heavier ordnance in civlian areas, they're literally developing specialsed weapons for it to minimise the risk as far as is practicable:

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

 

[Feline Supremacist]

Minor nitpick, but the British area bombing was a direct result of bombing in general being highly inaccurate. They had tried precision strikes at the onset of the war, however between navigational issues and poor aiming capabilities inherent to the available technologies of the time, they were lucky to even hit the city, never mind a specific industrial district! Once navigation and aiming technologies improved, then the British were able to target specific areas, and began to do so.

Of course, the British weren't really concerned with switching targets with any real haste...

Yeah, I can't imagine why they'd be on a full war footing, considering they've got about a third of Russia's population and far less industrial might, and are currently defending their own soil against such a foreign aggressor.

There's a big difference between accidental collateral damage and the deliberate targeting of civilian areas, especially with such indiscriminate weapons as thermobarics. And according to your own link...

Like, wow, if not even the United Nations can say the USA is responsible for piles upon piles of dead civvies, you know something's up.

Like, hold up. At least 15,000 CAS airstrikes, and we killed 680 civilians. That's an average of 0.045333~ civilians per air strike. That's less than one civilian death for every 2 air strikes. God damn, talk about precision bombing.

Fair point but this conflict is so new no one can say they know for a fact what the Russians are doing either. Or the Ukrainians, for that matter.

 

[дядя Боря]

and Ukraine has more egregious conscripting atm.

how so? I know a good number of guys who are serving in regular or ter-defense right now, there are actually more people wanting to serve than they can put in service. There are reports of guys coming back from Poland and other places who are reservists, and they are coming back, and I have no reason to doubt those reports based on my coms with people who are in territorial defense. The international volunteers, I've posted the instructions, unless you have LEO or .mil background, they won't even reply, otherwise you may get an interview and you sign a contract like a regular army to serve. Even the gun distribution was done by passport and you are assigned into group that's coordinated. The notion that people peddle that it's free for all give away is simply wrong.

On the other side, from one POW from the DNR/LNR, dude was literally picked up from a grocery store by patrol and shipped out West (those are the guys typically in WWII era helmets and half civ uniforms) That chimes with other reports from those areas of patrols going door to door mobilizing any able bodied males.


I don't remember the timeline, but at one point Ukraine had a volunteer army, without conscription. Russia never abandoned the practice since the Soviet times.

 

[Snekposter]

I don't remember the timeline, but at one point Ukraine had a volunteer army, without conscription. Russia never abandoned the practice since the Soviet times.

I mean, God, imagine trying to find enough people willing to die for Mother Russia in this day and age...

 

[LaxerBRO]

Things are starting to get desperate. The Ukrainian Ambassador to the US has resorted to taping printed out images from the war on the background behind her in news interviews to garner more support.

 

[RVNX]

Things are starting to get desperate. The Ukrainian Ambassador to the US has resorted to taping printed out images from the war on the background behind her in news interviews to garner more support.

I think it's less about support, more about getting those images into Russia's heavily censored media.

In other news, Russian Commission Backs Nationalization of Exited Western Businesses

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

Again, the difference is that the U.S. kills civilians accidentally, as collateral damage, and they avoid using their heaviest weaponry in major urban areas to avoid such. The Russians are attacking urban areas exclusively, with the specific purpose of killing and demoralizing the civilian population, and are using thermobaric weapons and cluster munitions to do it. Using those weapons isn't a war crime; using them to target civilians on purpose is.

That whole argument of "hurr durr, America killed civilians too!" is a rather stupid one to bring up in the context of this war. America killed civilians by mistake, because A) the technologies we're using aren't necessarily 100% accurate, and B) we were fighting enemies that loved to blend in among crowds and used hit-and-run strikes against us.

Russia is targeting civilians by design, with the obvious intent of weakening the morale of the defenders by killing helpless innocents on purpose. In fact, they've been doing that ever since this war started, but every time it's brought up, the Russia simps are like, "AMERICA KILLED KIDS TOO!" just to offset criticism of their dearly beloved Mother Russia.

Isn't this the same shit the left does? Whenever the right-wingers would speak about how bad the terrorists are, or how bad America's enemies are, the left would spit back that Americans kill innocents too. Lionizing those who fought Uncle Sam used to be a sport of the Left, be it glorifying the Viet Cong, making t-shirts out of Che Guevara's face, or making apologies for Islamic culture when right-wingers bash it.

Now, Russia's Wu Mao would just do the same thing whenever people RIGHTFULLY point out Russia's obvious choice to terrorize civilians by targeting them because they lost the conventional war and couldn't take over a capital city RIGHT NEXT TO FRIENDLY BORDERS. It's like, these wannabe traditionalists who simp for Putin because he fights against the "globo-homo" regime have so blinded themselves in defense of their husbando, that they've taken up the very same tactics of those they fought; by removing focus from real war crimes being committed now by saying that "AMERICA DID IT TOO!"

Yes, America committed similar war crimes-by accident, not by design, whereas from day 1 of this war, Russian forces have been shelling civilian homes, and they've only been more deliberate about it as time went on.

Some people really need to grow up and study the importance of CONTEXT in any given conflict.

 

[Snekposter]

and couldn't take over a capital city RIGHT NEXT TO FRIENDLY BORDERS

What's really sad is when you look at the T-72's capabilities, when they mount external gas drums on the rear they have an operational range three times that needed to cross the distance between the Belarussian border and Kiev. And yet they're stuck there, out of gas.