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

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

Millions? That's chump change at this point, when most things of any real value cost over a billion.

 

[Fougaro]

Does that make Ukrainians elves?

No. It just makes them (even more) cringe.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

"This account provided useful information and analysis about the war in Ukraine that provided an additional perspective. They were very careful about not posting images of severe violence. It seems however that non-government/non-corporate sources are being censored."

https://archive.ph/7n3ce

"JUST IN: EU sanctions against Russia *require* search engines and social media companies to suppress and/or disappear Russian news outlets."

https://archive.ph/jTZky

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Toxic issue at heart of EU laid bare by Ukraine war - Poland hit with major sanction​

THE EUROPEAN UNION has been criticised after MEPs voted to sanction Poland and Hungary where more than one million refugees have found sanctuary from the war in Ukraine.​

More than two million people have fled Ukraine after Russia's invasion, with 1.4 million welcomed by Poland and 214,000 by Hungary up to March 9, according to the United Nations. But that did not stop 478 MEPs voting on Thursday in favour of punishing both countries.

A total of 155 MEPs voted against adopting an EU resolution calling on the European Commission to take action against both countries. There were 29 abstentions, according to the European Parliament.

Claire Fox, who was elected to serve in the European Parliament in 2019, described the vote as "grotesque" in a tweet.

Austin Williams, director of the Future Cities Project, tweeted: "One for the Remainers: The European Commission said: 'EU law has primacy over national law, including constitutional provisions.'

"EU fines Poland for refusing to accept it. Did Poland ask for permission to take in all those refugees? How dare they."

It comes after the EU's top court dismissed in February a Polish and Hungarian challenge to a new law which would allow the bloc to cut funds to member countries found to have violated democratic rights and freedoms.

In its final ruling, the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) dismissal marked a milestone in the EU's feud with Poland and Hungary's populist rulers over the undermining of the rule of law.

Hungary and Poland have been criticised for curbing the rights of women, LGBTQ+ people and migrants as well as stifling the freedom of courts, media, academics and NGOs.

The ECJ's February ruling sealed approval for the bloc's strongest tool yet to prevent shared spending from benefiting those found bending liberal democratic laws.

The so-called "conditionality mechanism" could affect any part of the EU budget, which amounts to 1.8 trillion euros over 2021-27.

Thursday's resolution demands the European Commission take urgent action and immediately trigger the mechanism by notifying Poland and Hungary in writing.

A statement on the European Parliament's website says: "Parliament stresses that it is 'high time' for the Commission to fulfil its duties as the guardian of the EU Treaties and react to the ongoing violations of the principles of the rule of law in some EU member states, which pose a danger to the European Union’s financial interests."

It adds that the resolution text states: "Inaction towards oligarchic structures weakens the entire European Union... taxpayers’ money needs to be protected against those who undermine the EU’s values."

The statement continues: "MEPs consider the Commission’s response to the ECJ rulings of February 16, 2022 'inadequate' and underline that the Commission has a duty to implement EU legislation 'regardless of electoral timetables in the member states'."

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban faces a tight election on April 3. His Fidesz party has been campaigning on a platform of anti-immigrant nationalism and economic populism. It polled just two points ahead of the opposition in January.

Hungary's track record on democratic rights has already cost it access to seven billion euros in EU pandemic funds - about five percent of GDP.

Overall, it is eligible for at least 22.5 billion euros from the EU by 2027, while Poland is eligible for 75 billion euros.

The conditionality mechanism came into force on January 1, 2021, but the Commission has not applied it yet.

Poland and Hungary challenged the measure in the ECJ on March 11 last year but the Court dismissed both appeals on February 16.

Today's resolution comes as eastern Europe braces for a surge of refugees from shelled towns and cities in Ukraine as fighting intensifies.

Authorities and NGOs in Poland have voiced concerns that vulnerable refugees could fall victim to crime, including passport theft, attempts to force them into begging, stealing or prostitution.

Meanwhile, a top Polish court ruled on Thursday that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) could not question the appointment of Polish judges in a verdict which could further strain Warsaw's relations with the EU.

Poland's conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party is now calling for European solidarity and EU funds to help deal with the influx of refugees.

The country's Constitutional Tribunal said the Strasbourg-based ECHR had no right to question the appointment of Polish judges.

Judge Mariusz Muszynski, who was considered illegally appointed by the ECHR, said: "The ECHR does not have the right to modify the authentic text according to the judges' own vision."

https://archive.ph/a3XqP

 

[Useful_Mistake]

EXCLUSIVE WHO says it advised Ukraine to destroy pathogens in health labs to prevent disease spread​

The World Health Organization advised Ukraine to destroy high-threat pathogens housed in the country's public health laboratories to prevent "any potential spills" that would spread disease among the population, the agency told Reuters on Thursday.

Biosecurity experts say Russia's movement of troops into Ukraine and bombardment of its cities have raised the risk of an escape of disease-causing pathogens, should any of those facilities be damaged.

Like many other countries, Ukraine has public health laboratories researching how to mitigate the threats of dangerous diseases affecting both animals and humans including, most recently, COVID-19. Its labs have received support from the United States, the European Union and the WHO.

In response to questions from Reuters about its work with Ukraine ahead of and during Russia's invasion, the WHO said in an email that it has collaborated with Ukrainian public health labs for several years to promote security practices that help prevent "accidental or deliberate release of pathogens."

"As part of this work, WHO has strongly recommended to the Ministry of Health in Ukraine and other responsible bodies to destroy high-threat pathogens to prevent any potential spills," the WHO, a United Nations agency, said.

The WHO would not say when it had made the recommendation nor did it provide specifics about the kinds of pathogens or toxins housed in Ukraine's laboratories. The agency also did not answer questions about whether its recommendations were followed.

Ukrainian officials in Kyiv and at their embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment.

Ukraine's laboratory capabilities are at the center of a growing information war since Russia began moving troops into Ukraine two weeks ago.

On Wednesday, Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova repeated a longstanding claim that the United States operates a biowarfare lab in Ukraine, an accusation that has been repeatedly denied by Washington and Kyiv.

Zakharova said that documents unearthed by Russian forces in Ukraine showed "an emergency attempt to erase evidence of military biological programmes" by destroying lab samples.

Reuters was unable to independently confirm her information. read more
In response, a Ukrainian presidential spokesperson said: "Ukraine strictly denies any such allegation." U.S. government spokespeople also strongly denied Zakharova's accusations, saying that Russia may use its claims as a pretext to deploy its own chemical or biological weapons.

The WHO statement made no reference to biowarfare. The agency said it encourages all parties to cooperate in "the safe and secure disposal of any pathogens they come across, and to reach out for technical assistance as needed." It offered to help wherever possible with technical guidance and coordination.

The United Nations Security Council will convene on Friday at Russia's request, diplomats said, to discuss Moscow's claims, presented without evidence, of U.S. biological activities in Ukraine.

https://archive.ph/aTH96

 

[Useful_Mistake]

The United Nations Security Council will convene on Friday at Russia's request, diplomats said, to discuss Moscow's claims, presented without evidence, of U.S. biological activities in Ukraine.

They really are gaslighting us, huh?

 

[Rezza]

They really are gaslighting us, huh?

Please elaborate, because at this point I have no idea gaslighting actually mean since so many people keep using it for different meanings

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Please elaborate, because at this point I have no idea gaslighting actually mean since so many people keep using it for different meanings

>"no evidence of biolabs in US"
>US debartments testify to congress that they have those labs, and are afraid the russians will take them
>The article is about WHO recognising that the labs exist
>US embassy in Ukraine says they are real

US media is lying and pretending they don't exist

 

[Uranus Pink]

Meanwhile, ukies get fed both sat and AWACs data on all russian movements, so the only thing they need to do is point their Osas at the right direction and turn on the radar for as long as it takes to acquire a target.

If this is the case it says quite a lot about Russia's SEAD assets or lack there of.

 

[biscuitscilia]

>"no evidence of biolabs in US"
>US debartments testify to congress that they have those labs, and are afraid the russians will take them
>The article is about WHO recognising that the labs exist
>US embassy in Ukraine says they are real

US media is lying and pretending they don't exist

Are there any sources for that?
EDIT:
I found this from Opindia, but they're apparently not a trust worthy site.

https://www.opindia.com/2022/03/usa-admits-biolabs-in-ukraine-says-biological-attack-russias-fault/

According to the language used, it seems like they're referring to research facilities not for the purpose of weapon manufacturing but for study.
The fear seems to be over the potential of pathogens being unleashed in case of bombing. That doesn't sound unusual, we were freaking out over the nuclear power plants being attacked after all, I think it's along that same line. And so far the sources are pointing me to Chinese and Russian sites that claim it's for use as weapons so I'm not sure about the reliability of it. If I were to guess, it's taking advantage of ambiguity around the "research" designation to mean it's for weapon manufacturing. I won't close my mind off to it but if that were true, then wouldn't the Ukrainians use them by now?

 

[derpherp2]

Video of Ukrainian troops attempting to clear village of Russian occupants
You can hear instances of Ukrainians referring to Russians as "orcs". Does that make Ukrainians elves?

Guess that makes America Melkor? And China... uhhh.. Voldemort?
idfk. I haven't read this shit since I was in highschool, and highschool it will stay.

 

[SnusBurns]

Usually one makes the claim of WMD in another country BEFORE they invade on the initiative to remove said WMD. The justification for this war is that Ukraine as a state does not exist. The country is made up, as if all countries are not made up, and it's a Nazi state run by a President who is a Nazi. Raiding nuclear power sites in Ukraine after the start of the war for the purpose of finding or creating plots of WMDs is sign of desperation for Russia. They could have easily gone after power lines, but no they go after the nuclear plants and decide to shoot up the place to create who knows what evidence.

 

[Snekposter]

US literally used Napalm, and other incendiary and chemical weapons in Iraq

The big difference is again, intentional targeting of civilian areas.

As to WP, and from your own link...

White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for "Military purposes... not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm".

Literally any incendiary weapon can fall under that heading since burning (aka combustion) is a chemical action, and indeed even "safe" smoke is incredibly unpleasant to be in and can cause long-lasting contact and inhalation symptoms.

But hey, pay no attention to the fact the USA have very, very carefully rules-lawyered themselves into being technically compliant with all international law regarding its use of restricted weapons. As far as I am concerned the only thing the US did wrong with its use of WP and napalm was lie about using them.

It probably does not need to be said, but Ukraine is clearly not as reliant on their armour for combat power visa vi the Russians. Their infantry, and irregular forces, are equipped with launchers specifically designed to counter Russian armour. Therefore if we look at this purely from the stand point of attritional warfare - Ukraine is winning. If we base this purely on mathematics, I do not think the Russians can outlast the Ukrainians, or at least this initial invasion force can't. Big question mark as to what kind of reserve Russia can bring up, especially in regards to equipment quality and training.

One big thing people here (not you necessarily) tend to forget is that armor is an absolute necessity for offensive operations, whereas infantry are perfectly capable of protecting themselves on defense through fortifications, camouflage, and making use of available terrain and cover. This fact was demonstrated over and over in World War 1, with brutal losses on the Western Front for every single small gain of land as a result of the demonstrated vulnerability of infantry on anything resembling open terrain. Not to say that tanks are a bad thing to have on the defense (quite the contrary), but the bread and butter of any defensive operation will be dug-in infantry. And considering the initial size advantage of Russian forces, a 10% loss on both sides is a much greater reduction in combat power for the Russians, since as said, its been largely among their armored and aviation assets, and without those they'll be forced to call off offensive operations, whereas the Ukrainian armored forces that have managed to recover more tanks from Russia than the Russians have destroyed will be quite able to go on the counter-offensive.

 

[Rezza]

One big thing people here (not you necessarily) tend to forget is that armor is an absolute necessity for offensive operations, whereas infantry are perfectly capable of protecting themselves on defense through fortifications, camouflage, and making use of available terrain and cover. This fact was demonstrated over and over in World War 1, with brutal losses on the Western Front for every single small gain of land as a result of the demonstrated vulnerability of infantry on anything resembling open terrain. Not to say that tanks are a bad thing to have on the defense (quite the contrary), but the bread and butter of any defensive operation will be dug-in infantry. And considering the initial size advantage of Russian forces, a 10% loss on both sides is a much greater reduction in combat power for the Russians, since as said, its been largely among their armored and aviation assets, and without those they'll be forced to call off offensive operations, whereas the Ukrainian armored forces that have managed to recover more tanks from Russia than the Russians have destroyed will be quite able to go on the counter-offensive.

Yeah, this is what people tend to forget. Any equipment and vehicles loss cost more than people thought because its going to cost more in time and money to replace, considering the economic situation in Russia. And even if could replace it with their reserves, how many vehicles they have left that are in battle-ready condition?

And that's not counting the troop loss as well. Sure they only lost about 5% of the troops they gathered at the border, but that's 5% out of how many? They only have 200k-250k soldiers before the war began, and they're fighting against an enemy that could easily triple or quadruple the number simply on the virtues of population number and the nature of defensive war. And that's not counting the morale as well. Their losses is so bad Russia is forced to admit they're using conscript to their people

The rules of war strategy dictates that you're going to need a force triple or quadruple the size of the enemy to successfully attack and won. And judging from the number of troops they have, it really shows Russia was hoping for a lightning quick war. And yet they failed in that regard

 

[Echo_Ender]

Austin Williams, director of the Future Cities Project, tweeted: "One for the Remainers: The European Commission said: 'EU law has primacy over national law, including constitutional provisions.'

"The Commission has a duty to implement EU legislation 'regardless of electoral timetables in the member states'."

This is some fucking dystopian shit here and I don't know how the Eurocucks see this as anything other than terrifying.

People in completely different countries literally telling you that the rules they make up and can change on a whim override all constitutional rights you have in your home country.

Britbongs might have their issues, bit leaving the EU was the best thing they've done in decades.

 

[Dread First]

This is some fucking dystopian shit here and I don't know how the Eurocucks see this as anything other than terrifying.

People in completely different countries literally telling you that the rules they make up and can change on a whim override all constitutional rights you have in your home country.

Britbongs might have their issues, bit leaving the EU was the best thing they've done in decades.

Yeah... meanwhile, Poland has been operating as a semi-independent actor since the first refugee crisis. They're now literally NATO's largest standing army in Europe outside of the USA. The most that the EU will do to a non-compliant nation is give it a several million euro fine (to my knowledge). If the EU government (or whatever the equivalent is) wants to "punish" Poland, it would be against their own interests because Poland is literally carrying the defense of NATO when the USA is not there.

 

[Mr E. Grifter]

"This account provided useful information and analysis about the war in Ukraine that provided an additional perspective. They were very careful about not posting images of severe violence. It seems however that non-government/non-corporate sources are being censored."

That account was retarded and pushed completely whacky nonsense.

I don't agree with Twitter's policy on free expression, but crying about being banned on Twitter is just pathetic at this point. Like come on, it's known they do this if people post things they don't like.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

What's the range for those Starstreak? We know the Russian are being forced to fly low because they're resorting to dumb bomb for whatever reason, but I have a feeling they will use smart bombs for key battles like the upcoming one in Kyiv

4+ miles. Minute its pretty much in range its fairly fucked.

However the US is calculating troop losses is obviously a guesstimate at best.

I will say this though, when they talk about lost assets - are they specifically talking about vehicles, or assets of all types?

There were about what, 190k Russians in the invasion force? So if you add in those captured and injured, the 5-6k Russia troops killed is probably ontop of 12k Russians that are completely combat-noneffective so close to 18k in total. Ukraine losing 2-4k troops could be anything from 6-12k out of the fight. Ukraine, if we consider their active regular and reserve army had about 200k troops, 80k Ukrainians have returned to the country to fight, another 20k foreign fighters, god knows how many irregular soldiers or people who have signed up for the draft. You could easily say anything from 500k-1 million Ukrainians are under arms in some form or another. (Just a guess, but fair to say this could probably bottom out at 400k). Those losses in terms of troop numbers do not equate to 10% lost for Ukraine.

It probably does not need to be said, but Ukraine is clearly not as reliant on their armour for combat power visa vi the Russians. Their infantry, and irregular forces, are equipped with launchers specifically designed to counter Russian armour. Therefore if we look at this purely from the stand point of attritional warfare - Ukraine is winning. If we base this purely on mathematics, I do not think the Russians can outlast the Ukrainians, or at least this initial invasion force can't. Big question mark as to what kind of reserve Russia can bring up, especially in regards to equipment quality and training.

With that said, Russia can potentially still win the conventional war through besieging cities. People talk about how long Kyiv or say Kharkiv can hold out - but the question can be asked as to whether the Russian forces are going to be able to sustain themselves effectively going forward since they have struggled with this from the get go and Ukraine is taking advantage of their poor logistics by concentrating a lot on raiding their backline. Something even their militias are having success at (well, they clearly succeeding in attacking their APCs from the 50s too...)

Russia should currently be using their "A level" units, their conventional army that is generally in use. These guys are equipped with T-80s, T-90s and upgraded T-72s and all the other "front line" equipment such as the TOR air defence system etc. All will be between the ages of 18-20 when not a professional officer. This seems to tie in with most kit we've seen and spotted so far. Nearly every BTR, BMP and other tracked vehicle have seemingly been later marks/developments of those vehicles as well as other captured equipment such as the trucks and other stuff who's Chinesium tires dry rotted off.

B and C tier will be older aged men, and equipped with non upgraded T-72 units, BMP-2s, the older "SHILKA" air defence unit for closer in air defence. D and E... well, its when the barrel gets scraped and you can expect to see those guys rocking up in the really early T72s, T64s and T-55s.

One thing to note is that while the Russian invasion force is 200k+ strong (with Donbass, Luhansk and Belarusian support) that does not mean that there are 200k confused russians all screaming "Uraahh" and charging about with AK74s. Rule of thumb: For every man holding a gun or driving a tank you have anything up to ten doing logistics work. Now with a modern army you can probably be generous and cut it down to about 5 but it means the Russian invasion force is a lot smaller than anyone observing really realises.

The fact that Russian Logistics have been collapsing as often as they have been seen to kind of hints that the Russians either thought the war would be a lot quicker (and thus cut logistics accordingly) or became desperate within the first few days and began hollowing out their logistics units, shoving rifles in their hands and sending them out. Which might explain the garbage morale. They're sending desk jockeys out. 12k losses are pretty damn bad in a situation where normally only every 6th-10th man is supposed to be holding a rifle in the first place.

The Ukranians have the same rough problem, but with more of an all professional body (they made this transition back in 2015) their supply lines are short, they're on the defensive so logistics have more "fixed" positions to deliver to which makes things very simple. Ontop of that higher trained police units have been seen arming up and going off to fight as well as the citizen militia which has formed in all sorts of places.

On the one hand, citizen militias can be seen as a desperation tactic as usually when they're formed the barrel was scraped long, long ago and you're now using whatever idiot agrees to hold a gun. In this case though it really seems like the sheer fanatasicism of Ukranie not wanting to lose their independance again has really pushed the Ukranians over the edge and people will quite happily take up arms to get the Russians to fuck off. Morale still seems to be sky high as the paper bear of Russia seems to have been mulched fairly heavily.

 

[Astro Galactic Megalul]

>"no evidence of biolabs in US"
>US debartments testify to congress that they have those labs, and are afraid the russians will take them
>The article is about WHO recognising that the labs exist
>US embassy in Ukraine says they are real

US media is lying and pretending they don't exist

The accusation is specifically that they're developing bioweapons. Considering how Russian forces approached nuclear power plants, it makes sense to worry how their actions might affect these labs, even if research is purely for pharmacological purposes.
On top of that, it might be a desinfo campaign in preparation for deployment of chemical weapons.

Either way, it's not the first time they shifted their narrative to justify the invasion.

That account was retarded and pushed completely whacky nonsense.

I don't agree with Twitter's policy on free expression, but crying about being banned on Twitter is just pathetic at this point. Like come on, it's known they do this if people post things they don't like.

Just noticed, it's the account Gynn kept referring to, I wasn't impressed by the quality of their reporting.

@Ponderous Pillock, your analysis seems spot on. This whole operation would only make sense if it was quick and decisive (I call it "Blyatzkrieg"), to put a lid on it before international community has time to properly react.
But it ended up at the top of newsfeed 24/7 for weeks, exposing their actions for the whole world to see, driving unprecedented sanctions Russia wasn't prepared for.
It's likely the result of Putin being surrounded by yes-men who fed him bad intel, telling him what he wanted to hear as opposed to reality, and he's probably high on his own propaganda as well.
Corruption that he allowed and benefited from ended up biting him in the ass too, if cheap Chinese tires and expired MRE's are anything to judge by.
I don't think his regime will survive this, this war backfired big time.

Ukrainians are highly motivated, convinced they're fighting for the survival of their nation, as well as revenge for all the unnecessary deaths and destruction.
Meanwhile, Russian soldiers fight either because they were forced to or for money, those who believe in Putin's cause are likely in minority. With how everything went, I can't imagine them having good morale.

 

[Rezza]

Putin says volunteers welcome to help fight against Ukrainian forces (archive)

LONDON, March 11 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin gave the green light on Friday for up to 16,000 volunteers from the Middle East to be deployed alongside Russian-backed rebels to fight in Ukraine, doubling down an invasion that the West says has been losing momentum.

The move, just over two weeks since Putin ordered the invasion, allows Russia to deploy battle-hardened mercenaries from conflicts such as Syria without risking additional Russian military casualties. read more

At a meeting of Russia's Security Council, Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said there were 16,000 volunteers in the Middle East who were ready to come to fight alongside Russian-backed forces in the breakaway Donbass region of eastern Ukraine.

"If you see that there are these people who want of their own accord, not for money, to come to help the people living in Donbass, then we need to give them what they want and help them get to the conflict zone," Putin said from the Kremlin.

Shoigu also proposed that Western-made Javelin and Stinger missiles that were captured by the Russian army in Ukraine should be handed over to Donbass forces, along other weaponry such as man-portable air-defense systems, known as MANPADS, and anti-tank rocket complexes.

"As to the delivery of arms, especially Western-made ones which have fallen into the hands of the Russian army - of course I support the possibility of giving these to the military units of the Lugansk and Donetsk people's republics," Putin said.

"Please do this," he told Shoigu. The exchange was shown on Russian state television.

Putin says the "special military operation" in Ukraine is essential to ensure Russia's security after the United States expanded NATO up to its borders and supported pro-Western leaders in Kyiv.

Ukraine says it is fighting for its existence while the United States, and its European and Asian allies have condemned the Russian invasion. China has called for calm.

Shoigu said the operation was all going to plan before requesting Putin's approal for the use of fighters from the Middle East.

U.S. intelligence chiefs told lawmakers on Thursday that Russia had been surprised by the strength of Ukrainian resistance, which had deprived the Kremlin of a quick victory it thought would have prevented the United States and NATO from providing meaningful military aid.

That was causing concern in Beijing, Central Intelligence Agency Director William Burns said.

"I do believe that the Chinese leadership, President Xi (Jinping) in particular, is unsettled," Burns said. "By what he's seen, partly because his own intelligence doesn't appear to have told him what was going to happen."

Shoigu said Western arms were flowing into Ukraine in an "absolutely uncontrolled" way and that the Russian military planned to strengthen its Western border after what he said was a build up of Western military units on Russia's border.

"The general staff is working on, and has almost finished, a plan to strengthen our Western borders, including, naturally, with new modern complexes," Shoigu said.

Putin said the question of how to react to moves by NATO countries need a separate discussion.