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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
Thing is, if Russia didn't have nuclear /chemical weapons I wouldn't be against a No Fly Zone. I wouldn't be against some limited strikes against Russia military targets either - akin to what the US, France and the UK did in response to Assad's use of nuclear weapons. Primarily against their air force/ logistics.

However they do have nuclear weapons, and for that reason any escalatory actions taken against Russia have to be considered very carefully, and I just do not think that it's worth the risk at this point. Especially given how ineffective their airforce has been thus far, and the fact they seemingly are resorting to dropping unguided munitions at night to avoid MANPADs confirms this. It's killing lots of civilians, damaging lots of civilian infrastructure, but ultimately there is no evidence this sort of bombardment is effective at defeating a military force in the field. Given the fact most of their arms are being supplied out of country and not by their own factories, this wont even damage the Ukrainian war economy that effectively.
While that’s all true, what I find significant here is where the Overton window is on the conflict where anything less than outright shooting Russians out of the sky appears viewed by Dems and their media counterparts as constituting not going to war with Russia.
 
Bill Maher have an other moment when a broken clock is right twice a day about Ukraine.

HBO Host Bill Maher Says, It Is ‘Worth Asking’ Why Putin Invaded Ukraine Under Biden And Not Trump​

Even the people who have disliked former President Donald Trump, and those who supported President Joe Biden, are starting to ask tough questions as reality begins to enter their minds.

Why, if the former president was the Russian puppet that the Democrats and many in the media claimed he was, did Russia not invade Ukraine when he was president?

It was this week when HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher said it was worth asking why Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine after Biden became president and not before.

He criticized Democrats and Republicans for using the war to promote the idea that “everything we already believed and everything goes back to what we already hate.”

He also swiped at the president for “dragging January 6th into this,” and quoting him when he said, “Look, how would you feel if you saw crowds storm and break down the doors of the British Parliament, kill five cops, injure 145? Or the German Bundestag? Or the Italian Parliament? I think you’d wonder.”

“OK, but if Putin thought Trump was really that supportive of him, why didn’t he invade when Trump was in office?” the host said. “It’s at least worth asking that question if you’re not locked into one intransigent thought.”
 
While that’s all true, what I find significant here is where the Overton window is on the conflict where anything less than outright shooting Russians out of the sky appears viewed by Dems and their media counterparts as constituting not going to war with Russia.
I'm now going to pretend I have read On War by Clausewitz for a moment...

Clausewitz conceives war as an extension of politics, achieved by other means, in essence it is a means by which to influence others to do what you want. In this conception, we - well the West - is already at war with Russia. In fact, arguably, due to Russian use of the "Grey Zone" - aggressive military operations below the threshold of what you would consider warfare - we have been at war with Russia for years.

The question Western governments have therefore is how much help can be provided to Ukraine without provoking escalation from Russia that could cause the conflict to spread. The No Fly Zone, while on the surface seems like a fairly defensive manoeuvre, would require NATO airpower to be willing to shoot down Russia jets. It would require aggression on a tactical level, paradoxically we would be the aggressor.

Support to Ukraine through the provision of "defensive" weapons does not require Western military forces to engage Russian ones, this means that the onus would be on Russia to be the aggressor in this instance. I doubt they would want to be drawn into a wider conflict with NATO countries, especially given the current state of the war in the Ukraine. It is the same reason we are flying RJs and AWACs just outside the theatre - and probably supplying information direct to the Ukrainians. It would require an aggressive move by Russia against NATO to take these platforms out, and yet they don't.

This escalation aspect was given for why the Polish Jet deal had fallen through, which demonstrates that respective Western governments are thinking... However, as an aside I do not believe this makes sense as an explanation. Much more likely, the Poles saw and opportunity for a way to get the F16s they wanted early and on the cheap, while the US deemed that the benefit these Fulcrums would give to the UaAF was fairly minimal due to GBAD coverage. 27 F16s isn't cheap for marginal benefit to Ukraine, but that does not sell as well as avoiding escalation (Whilst also saying the Poles are free to donate the jets if they wish...).
 
Another interesting site that is worth following, it documents all (publicized) equipment losses from both sides.

1647126608500.png
 
Another interesting site that is worth following, it documents all (publicized) equipment losses from both sides.

View attachment 3067125
one intersting thing is that Russia is using a lot of very old equipment- you'd think they'd go in with the latest t-90s, t-72, BMP and BMD versions, but they even use the very old T-72A that is decades old at this point, MBP-1s toghether with BMP-3s. I've also seen pics suggesting they were using tanks that have untill recently been moothballed in some long term storage, but dunno if those were true. And most of the trucks seem to be the old Urals and Kamaz trucks, while in Syria they were utilizing the new, armored Typhoon trucks (altho one such truck has been destroyed in Ukraine too)
 
View attachment 3060905


I'm sorry, but after the shit they did in afganistan and iraq, or hell, even vietnam, It's hard to believe. If we also factor in the huge amount of US-backed Military coups (sucessful or not) and CIA's human experimentation of military personel, pow's, and civilians, and I don't know, man, maybe I am just to cynical about this shit. Despite all that, I do like US more, and I hope if conflict comes (I hope it does not) to US, I hope US wins.
We'll have seventies level inflation soon (like 20%) but with shit music.
 
one intersting thing is that Russia is using a lot of very old equipment- you'd think they'd go in with the latest t-90s, t-72, BMP and BMD versions, but they even use the very old T-72A that is decades old at this point, MBP-1s toghether with BMP-3s. I've also seen pics suggesting they were using tanks that have untill recently been moothballed in some long term storage, but dunno if those were true. And most of the trucks seem to be the old Urals and Kamaz trucks, while in Syria they were utilizing the new, armored Typhoon trucks (altho one such truck has been destroyed in Ukraine too)
Again, that's because they make less money per year than New York state. A country several times the size of the USA, blessed by God with natural resources beyond reckoning, and they can't develop an economy for shit because oligarchs, monopolies, and corruption rule the day. Russian military technicians can design the best tanks and airplanes money can buy, but with the state making less than California or New York per year, they can't afford these new toys in effective numbers, which means that they'll have to hang on to the older toys left over from the Soviet era. Speaking of them, well......

Russia currently has in active service a staggering:
  • 2200 or so T-72s
  • 500 T-80s
  • 369 T-90s
  • 100 T-55s
  • 2,750 BMP varients
  • 1,500 BTR varients
We're going to be here a while if they're just clearing out the inventory.
That's what they have.......on paper.

In practice, God knows how many of those vehicles are in poor condition or are missing parts due to someone in the bureaucracy wanting to make extra money on the side.
 
Bill Maher have an other moment when a broken clock is right twice a day about Ukraine.
“There was this focus group – and it’s qualitative, not quantitative – where swing voters, Trump-Biden voters, seem to buy the idea that Putin wouldn’t have done this in Trump was president,” he said to Democratic strategist Xochitl Hinojosa, a former DNC spokeswoman. “How does the Democratic Party answer for that?”


“I don’t buy that,” the host stressed. “I don’t think that matches logic, but voters do. That’s a perception issue.”
Maher continued on by saying he didn't believe Trump had an effect, so basically just him being bewildered people believe Trump did.

Much the same as the majority of the media, Maher will never admit that his perception of Trump may have been wrong.
 
Even more shit movies.
Remakes drive the point home that someone is shitting and pissing on us. The remake of the utterly peerless Wicker Man is in my head as a notable crime, but there's more recent and probably worse than that Nicholas Cage Crime Against Humanity.
 
Last edited:
100%, only losers commit war crimes, victors decide the right and the wrong, the pretexts for 'crimes against humanity.'
Just like "just following orders" is a perfect defense when the one using it, is the one with the gun. On the flipside "just following orders" is a terrible defense when unarmed, on their knees, chained and with the gun pointed at the back of their head.
 
Last edited:
one intersting thing is that Russia is using a lot of very old equipment- you'd think they'd go in with the latest t-90s, t-72, BMP and BMD versions, but they even use the very old T-72A that is decades old at this point, MBP-1s toghether with BMP-3s. I've also seen pics suggesting they were using tanks that have untill recently been moothballed in some long term storage, but dunno if those were true. And most of the trucks seem to be the old Urals and Kamaz trucks, while in Syria they were utilizing the new, armored Typhoon trucks (altho one such truck has been destroyed in Ukraine too)
To go with what @LORD IMPERATOR said, they probably can't afford to operate those newer vehicles. If they were available, logic dictates they be deployed in response to the escalating losses, and yet... the Russians are deploying outdated crap. That's never a sign things are going well, and always that they're going badly.

And, frankly, Syria is just safer for those modern vehicles than a combat environment where a Javelin or NLAW is lurking behind every blade of grass. Russian top-end equipment tends to be rather irreplaceable due to various reasons, both economic and just limited industrial output at the very top end, so every single wrecked T-90 or BMP-4M is a T-90 or BMP-4M the Russians will not be able to replace. If I were Putin, I'd be holding what I could in reserve just in case Ukraine tries to go on a serious counterattack.

https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1502719026522431492

More serious than Ukraine breaking the siege of Mariupol, that is.
 
Putin did not show willingness to end Ukraine war during call, French official says (archive)

German chancellor Olaf Scholz and French president Emmanuel Macron called for an immediate ceasefire on call

Vladimir Putin did not show a willingness to end the war with Ukraine during a call on Saturday with French president Emmanuel Macron and German chancellor Olaf Scholz, a French presidency official said.

Scholz and Macron called for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine during the 75-minute phone call with Russian president Vladimir Putin, a German government spokesman added.

Their demand echoed a statement made by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, earlier on Saturday, who said negotiations must begin with a suspension of hostilities.

The Kremlin readout of the call said Putin briefed Macron and Scholz about the state of play in negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv and responded to their concerns about the humanitarian situation in Ukraine. It did not mention a ceasefire and accused Ukraine of using civilians as human shields.

The participants agreed to say nothing further about the substance of the phone call, according to the German spokesperson, who added: “The conversation is part of ongoing international efforts to end the war in Ukraine.”

Crisis talks between Moscow and Kyiv, which had been conducted in person in Belarus, have continued via a video link, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Saturday, according to the RIA news agency.

Speaking at a news briefing, Zelenskiy said Ukrainian and Russian negotiating teams had started discussing concrete topics rather than exchanging ultimatums.

Stating that about 1,300 Ukrainian troops had been killed since the invasion began, he claimed the conflict meant some small Ukrainian towns now no longer existed.

Zelenskiy said Ukraine could not stop fighting but was upholding a ceasefire around an agreed “humanitarian corridor” out of the besieged southern port of Mariupol and called on Russia to do the same.

He further suggested negotiations between Ukraine and Russia to end the war could be held in Jerusalem.

He said he hoped the Israeli prime minister, Naftali Bennett, would have a “positive influence” on peace talks.

Bennett visited Moscow on 5 March, spending three hours with Putin before travelling on to Berlin to brief Scholz. He has spoken to Zelenskiy on multiple occasions since.

Shaky footage in Ukraine shows this is a tale of two ways of waging war: stealth versus brute force (archive)

Ukrainian troops with anti-tank weapons set ambushes, while their enemy slowly encircles cities to besiege them

In the snow-dusted woods outside Kyiv a column of Ukrainian troops moves, identifiable by the soldiers’ yellow armbands.

In the rare footage, captured by Maryan Kushnir, a journalist with the Ukrainian service of Radio Free Europe, one of the soldiers says they are going to clear an unidentified village of “orcs”– slang for the Russian troops now rapidly encircling the Ukrainian capital – who have occupied it with armoured vehicles. A commander warns that two tanks are coming, and as the men appear to fall back to a better position, there is an exchange of heavy fire. The video’s ending is as sudden as it is inconclusive.

Other videos to have emerged in recent days show similar scenes. Soldiers in urban settings crunch through debris, or traverse the darkened countryside for a planned ambush that is viewed through night-vision goggles, their friendly-force beacons flashing ghostly green on their helmets.

The images are of a piece with many others circulating on social media and elsewhere, and important for what they depict.

They show Ukrainian troops in combat, usually on foot, exploiting tangled woods or streets to set their ambushes, armed inevitably with anti-tank weapons, including British-supplied NLAWS and German Panzerfausts.

And with Russian forces significantly tightening their siege of key Ukrainian cities in recent days, including concentrating about 21-22 battalion tactical groups around the capital Kyiv, it is footage that demonstrates how the conflict has rapidly become a tale of two very different ways of waging warfare.

On the Ukrainian side – in tactics reminiscent of the Finnish resistance during the Winter War of 1939, when the Soviet forces were fought to a standstill by largely outnumbered Finnish troops – Kyiv’s successes have relied on highly mobile hit-and-run attacks on the slow-moving and congested Russian military columns.

And as more anti-tank weapons have poured in from the west for Ukraine’s defence, Russia’s tactics have switched to a slow and brutal kind of siege warfare in response, designed to encircle and break Ukraine’s cities and to force Ukraine’s military into a more static defensive positions where they can more easily be overwhelmed.

In a warning of what Russia’s new military tactics might mean for Ukraine’s defenders, Andrzej Wilk and Piotr Żochowski of the Warsaw-based thinktank, the Centre for Eastern Studies, noted the emerging challenge to Ukraine’s defenders in their most recent daily update on the war. “In most directions, Russian offensive operations have turned into positional combat, in which the aggressor attempts to encircle Ukrainian forces in the main urban centres and displace them from the smaller towns.

“[The Russians] will strive to fully close the encirclements of towns and cities where this has not yet happened, and to push the Ukrainian troops all the way into the built-up areas, regardless of how many losses they [Russians] suffer.”

Whether that succeeds – and how Ukrainian forces adapt – may well be defining.

One already grimly familiar model of what the coming phase of the war predicted by Wilk and Żochowski will look like has already been provided by the almost two-week-long Russian siege of the southern port city of Mariupol where at least 1,500 people have died in a constant bombardment that has trapped defenders and civilians in basements. On Saturday, as Ukrainian officials reported that Russia had shelled a mosque where 80 people were sheltering, the UN humanitarian office offered its latest update on the status of the city. “There are reports of looting and violent confrontations among civilians over what little basic supplies remain in the city,” the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said. “Medicines for life-threatening illnesses are running out, hospitals are only partially functioning, and food and water are in short supply.”

As the UK’s Ministry of Defence warned on Friday that Russian forces could target Kyiv in a few days, evidence of the feared coming storm saw artillery pound the city’s northwestern outskirts on Saturday. as two columns of smoke – one black and one white – rose in the town of Vaslkyiv after a strike on an ammunition depot.

New commercial satellite images also appeared to capture artillery firing on residential areas that stood between the Russians and the capital. The images from Maxar Technologies showed muzzle flashes and smoke from big guns, as well as impact craters and burning homes in the town of Moschun, 20 miles from Kyiv, the company said.

The inequalities of the fight have also been underlined in different ways with American defence officials saying Russian pilots – despite well-documented losses – are averaging 200 sorties a day, compared with five to 10 for Ukrainian forces.

And there is growing evidence that the scope of the war is widening. Until recently, Russia’s troops had made their biggest advances on cities in the east and south, while struggling in the north an Kyiv. Last week, however, Russian forces also started targeting areas in western Ukraine, where large numbers of refugees have fled, with Russia saying on Friday it used high-precision long-range weapons to put military airfields in the western cities of Lutsk and Ivano-Frankivsk “out of action.”

Russian airstrikes also targeted Dnipro, a major industrial hub in the east and Ukraine’s fourth-largest city, with about one million inhabitants. One person was killed, Ukrainian officials said.

Facing the challenges of the new Russian reliance on siege warfare, some analysts believe Ukraine’s defenders will have to adapt again to confront the new threat that poses, amid grim warnings that an already terrible conflict could yet turn darker.

“It’s ugly already, but it’s going to get worse,” said Nick Reynolds, a warfare analyst at Royal United Services Institute.
 
Last edited:
Holyshit, they can stage an counter-offensive now? That's big news
Well, we were all predicting this would happen eventually given their steadily-mounting losses, and if even OSINT can find out that the Russians are sending in 40-year old T-72 models that would lose to the M60A3, I think now is probably the best time for Ukraine to start pushing back. They've managed to contain and blunt the spear, and they maintain freedom of mobility given Russia's sieges of the big cities. Waiting gives Russia a chance to start deploying replacements, and this is the crucial join between "losses" and "replacements" for a counter-strike.
 
one intersting thing is that Russia is using a lot of very old equipment- you'd think they'd go in with the latest t-90s, t-72, BMP and BMD versions, but they even use the very old T-72A that is decades old at this point, MBP-1s toghether with BMP-3s. I've also seen pics suggesting they were using tanks that have untill recently been moothballed in some long term storage, but dunno if those were true. And most of the trucks seem to be the old Urals and Kamaz trucks, while in Syria they were utilizing the new, armored Typhoon trucks (altho one such truck has been destroyed in Ukraine too)
This is incorrect, much of what the Russians have lost has been the best they can put on the battlefield, T-72B3 obr. 2016, T-80UB and T-80UBM along with T-90As. Artillery we have seen Msta S, Iskander being employed along side systems, same for IFVs and Aircraft, they have lost signignact numbers of BMP-3s, BMD-3&4s BTR-82s etc. Theur aircraft losses included a painfully large number of KA-52 Alligators, several SU-34 Fullbacks along with plenty of Hinds, Hips, Flankers and Frogfoots. Not to mention the large numbers if modern MRAPs they have lost to light anti tank weapons.
 
one intersting thing is that Russia is using a lot of very old equipment- you'd think they'd go in with the latest t-90s, t-72, BMP and BMD versions, but they even use the very old T-72A that is decades old at this point, MBP-1s toghether with BMP-3s. I've also seen pics suggesting they were using tanks that have untill recently been moothballed in some long term storage, but dunno if those were true. And most of the trucks seem to be the old Urals and Kamaz trucks, while in Syria they were utilizing the new, armored Typhoon trucks (altho one such truck has been destroyed in Ukraine too)

To go with what @LORD IMPERATOR said, they probably can't afford to operate those newer vehicles. If they were available, logic dictates they be deployed in response to the escalating losses, and yet... the Russians are deploying outdated crap. That's never a sign things are going well, and always that they're going badly.

And, frankly, Syria is just safer for those modern vehicles than a combat environment where a Javelin or NLAW is lurking behind every blade of grass. Russian top-end equipment tends to be rather irreplaceable due to various reasons, both economic and just limited industrial output at the very top end, so every single wrecked T-90 or BMP-4M is a T-90 or BMP-4M the Russians will not be able to replace. If I were Putin, I'd be holding what I could in reserve just in case Ukraine tries to go on a serious counterattack.

https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1502719026522431492

More serious than Ukraine breaking the siege of Mariupol, that is.
No, they're definitely sending the better stuff the have to offer within the European side of Russia.

Do remember, Russia has a staggering 35,900 miles of border to defend. A lot of decent kit will have been held for those areas as well. Hence why we're seeing the smaller numbers of the more advaned tanks.

The Russians moved away from developing stuff like the Arata and T-90s in favour of upgrade programs to the literal acres worth of T-72 they already had because it's cheaper and simply more sensible. Much like the Centurion of the 60s which lasted to the 90s, you should be able to continue to make the T-72 a lethal battlefield agent for years to come.

However, this is russia and a lot of corruption's clearly been going on as we've seen from the hilarity of egg box filled protective sections.

Compare this to the Ukranians who're relying on the (on paper) even more ancient T-64 and its why a lot of "on paper" fighting says this should be a curb stomp for the Russians.

However, the T-64BV and BM models are actual upgraded vehicles remarkably without the hilarious corruption seemingly plaguing the Russians and more modern kit has been slapped on or otherwise shoehorned in to increase the platforms reliability. It has a better balistics computer, proper fire supression systems and while the BM has an autoloader, its been shown a fair few times that a good crew often outstrips such systems so the BV's back to good old fashioned very fucking angry Stepan who uses all his rage directed at the Russians to load shells as quickly as humanly fucking possible. Couple those up with MANPAD weidling Yarslavs and Fedors and really the Russians are a wee bit buggered as seen.
 
Echoing Zelenskiy’s earlier fears that Russia is trying to create new “pseudo-republics” in Ukraine to break the country apart, the Russian military has reportedly installed a new mayor in the occupied south-eastern Ukrainian city Melitopol following the alleged abduction of elected mayor Ivan Fedorov on Friday afternoon.

Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, earlier said Fedorov had been kidnapped and detained by a group of 10 armed men from the Russian forces. The Ukrainian foreign ministry called Fedorov’s detention an “abduction” and a “war crime.”

Melitopol’s newly installed mayor is believed to be Galina Danilchenko, a former member of the city council, according to a statement on the Zaporozhye regional administration website, as reported by Ukrainian media, CNN and the BBC.

Danilchenko was reportedly introduced as the acting mayor on local TV where she made a televised statement saying her “main task is to take all necessary steps to get the city back to normal.”

She claimed there were people still in Melitopol who would try to destabilise “the situation and provoke a reaction of bad behaviour.”

“I ask you to keep your wits about you and not to give in to these provocations,” Danilchenko said. “I appeal to the deputies, elected by the people, on all levels. Since you were elected by the people, it is your duty to care about the well-being of your citizens.”

“This committee will be tasked with administrative responsibilities on the territory of Melitopol and the Melitopol region,” she added.
Link (archive)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back