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
 
Eastern Europe largely remembers being either part of or basically being part of the USSR, very few (55+ year olds) are nostalgic for it and it's mostly because they can't even comprehend the world around them, it changed so much. Younger people know full well that once Russian boot got off their neck their living standards went WAY up whether they speak Russian and write Cyrillic or not.

Russia is butthurt because people in what used to be it's satellite states are starting to have better lives than an average Russian, which an average Russian can see, do the 2+2=4 math of "Russia huge, has gas, has oil, has nukes, why they do better than Boris?", Russia, the way it works, absolutely requires being surrounded by failed slave states like Belarus where Russians can go and fuck hookers for a ruble pittance or else the "Russian Power Fantasy Dream" falls apart and it's leaders find themselves in bulletproof glass cages like Putin at his stadium speech.
Lots of people DO feel nostalgic about it, there's even a word to describe this nostalgia, it's called Ostalgia.
 
It's been a really interesting war from the perspective of military history. Seeing Russia's initial ambitious, highly mobile, plan fail and their change of tactics to a much slower war is interesting as it shows how the nature of modern warfare has changed. While mechanized infantry is still going to be a thing in modern armies, it really shows that you cant just blitzkrieg a well armed and motivated opponent.

Russia really needs to invest more resources in infantry patrols to clear and secure its areas of operation. This war also shows that an army cant just ignore pockets of resistance behind it's lines. The pockets resistance to the east of Kiev, behind the Russian advance, seem to really be causing major issues to Russian supply lines. At this point Russia would be better off retreating to defensible positions and trying a slower much more careful offensive when their units are reorganized and resupplied.

What we've actually seen is an army still applying tactics which were considered outdated in the 60s to a conflict in the 21st century. Unlike the West, Russia has seemingly learned nothing from the Chechen War despite it being a humiliating defeat in the first go round and an utter slog resulting in Grozny being basically wiped off the map in the second.

Mechanized infantry is still the core backbone of any army to secure territory and advance, what has changed is the focus on irregular warfare after that initial run. To the point the UK is establishing its own irregular warfare group to counter it/fight that way. The US is surely following/has followed and we've actually bothered to learn from Iraq and Afghanistan.

On paper, the Russians aim was clearly very obvious. Return of the Russian Empire with its new Tsar in the form of Vladimir I of All Russians. Do this by occupying their traditional breadbasket region which they'd been slowly eating away at over time anyway.

What we have now is an utter shitshow, we're seeing unsupported tanks on the move, unsupported supply columns, civillian vehicles pressed into service to cover shorfalls etc.

Now after two months of advances, occupations, shelling etc we're seeing the Russians shoved back in key theatres, namely around Kyiv (Where they've performed better due to short supply lines) and down near Kherson, where the aim seemed to be cutting off Ukranian access to the Black Sea.

Historically its very interesting. In that fuck knows how it will end, and quite how the Russians even managed to get this fucking far considering the stupidity surrounding a lot of things we've seen.

The best question is, if/when they do lose (as I suspect they will) will anyone learn a fucking thing again? Cause right now it sure as shit seems like they haven't from Chechnya.
 
"They are mostly ethnic Russian" - it's interesting how they set up a fallacy that's supposed to make it look as if Russian forces would care and definitely won't harm them. Prior shelling that reduced city to rubble, killed, maimed and displaced thousands of civilians, speaks to the contrary.


The rest is asinine bullshit, of course. They're there on their own accord, because it was supposed to be safe.
Ukraine accused Russia of not allowing people to leave the city and not allowing humanitarian convoys in, effectively starving them out. Russia, as usual, went "muh Azov", which is how they justify pretty much all their atrocities in this conflict.
 
"They are mostly ethnic Russian" - it's interesting how they set up a fallacy that's supposed to make it look as if Russian forces would care and definitely won't harm them. Prior shelling that reduced city to rubble, killed, maimed and displaced thousands of civilians, speaks to the contrary.


The rest is asinine bullshit, of course. They're there on their own accord, because it was supposed to be safe.
Ukraine accused Russia of not allowing people to leave the city and not allowing humanitarian convoys in, effectively starving them out. Russia, as usual, went "muh Azov", which is how they justify pretty much all their atrocities in this conflict.
You're responding to a no-name screencap.
 
Russia has seemingly learned nothing from the Chechen War
I think you are completely wrong.
Russia is willingly taking avoidable losses because Russia does not want to cause massive "civilian" casualties. Whether that's out of genuine concern or just for optics is irrelevant; what matters is that Russia absolutely has the capacity to pound cities flat with missiles, artillery and aircraft, and has chosen not to do so.
 
I think you are completely wrong.
Russia is willingly taking avoidable losses because Russia does not want to cause massive "civilian" casualties. Whether that's out of genuine concern or just for optics is irrelevant; what matters is that Russia absolutely has the capacity to pound cities flat with missiles, artillery and aircraft, and has chosen not to do so.
Uh...Mariupol says hi.
 
I think you are completely wrong.
Russia is willingly taking avoidable losses because Russia does not want to cause massive "civilian" casualties. Whether that's out of genuine concern or just for optics is irrelevant; what matters is that Russia absolutely has the capacity to pound cities flat with missiles, artillery and aircraft, and has chosen not to do so.
You are really a dumb nigger right?


Btw. thanks to everyone in this thread who actually posts news & links. The other thread is just a insufferable shithole of shilling and meme language instead of actual happening.
 
Video supposedly of Donetsk conscripts being sent off to fight for Russia plus a twitter guy's translation.


FO-Wpr-WYAULXg- (1).png
 
I think you are completely wrong.
Russia is willingly taking avoidable losses because Russia does not want to cause massive "civilian" casualties. Whether that's out of genuine concern or just for optics is irrelevant; what matters is that Russia absolutely has the capacity to pound cities flat with missiles, artillery and aircraft, and has chosen not to do so.
If it's deliberate, then explain why Putin is replacing his staff, including the head of FSB who was responsible for monitoring Ukraine forces and their level of preparation, and where did the minister of defense Shoigu disappear mid-invasion.

Claiming that this is deliberate and part of some 5D chess game by Putin just shows how much of a brainlet you are
In this war Russia already lost more than whatever they hoped to gain by taking Ukraine, both in material and international relationships.
Even Lavrov admitted they didn't expect sanctions against Russia on this scale, showing their lack of foresight and poor intelligence.

Meanwhile Ukraine was preparing for this and modernizing since 2014. Russia shat the bed, assuming they could just roll in and Ukrainians would bend over upon seeing their "overwhelming might".
You people are pitiful.
 
I'm reserving that for the actual Zombie Apocalypse

I was going to comment on the FT article about the new development of the Russian terms, but @Mr E. Grifter have pointed out what I felt wrong about it. It's just simply too good to be true, and I think both Kyiv and the West recognize that as well. And as mentioned, Zelenskiy did the smart thing by proclaiming that they will only accept treaty through referendum, it basically means a total withdrawal from the Russian first (or total Ceasefire) and the treaty would have to be something that heavily favors the Ukrainian

The problem now is how the sanctions on Russia be lifted. Sleepy Joe fucked up everything by going off script and calls for regime change in Russia. That will emboldens both Kremlin and the Pro-Putin populace, and torpedoes the unity of the West since none of them wanted that to happen. I can see now Europe probably going to lift their sanctions first before the Us once this war is over, but the damage to Russian trade will
I agree with Rezza. Biden comments were dumb as it just makes Putin's paranoia feel more real for him and will convince him not to give up because if he does his enemies will assassinate him.
Basically, yes. The fact that right-wingers support a guy who basically rules Russia as an absolute dictator means that all their talk about keeping America from sliding into tyranny is bunk. Whatever party gets the majority, rules with an iron fist, and whatever party is the minority, advocates for freedom, individualism, free speech, until they take over and start banning everything that isn't kosher to their side.


Basically, yes. That seems to be why they're very much OK with sympathizing for Russian leaders who have a boner for the old USSR, so long as they piss off the Left.


Exactly. People whine about Zelensky having million-dollar mansions, but that's chump change compared to what Putin gives himself.


He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.

Here are some videos on the war that are rather educational:



I think some right wingers were pushed to favoring a dictatorship after seeing what happen in 2020.
 
I think you are completely wrong.
Russia is willingly taking avoidable losses because Russia does not want to cause massive "civilian" casualties. Whether that's out of genuine concern or just for optics is irrelevant; what matters is that Russia absolutely has the capacity to pound cities flat with missiles, artillery and aircraft, and has chosen not to do so.
This is wrong.

Ukrianian air defenses are causing RuAF high attrition rates so achieving this through airpower is at the very least questionable.

Their artillery is having a hard time due to UAV reconnaissance and artillery counter-fire.

The reality is that Russia thought this was another Georgia or Grozny, but it's not. It's a completely different enemy with capabilities closer to parity with Russia.
 
Those Russian "assault pickups" remind me of one of the rare inventions to come out of Africa - aka the Somalian "technical" that US forces encountered while on a mission to that diseased country back in 1993:

View attachment 3118808

Technicals evoke Command and Conqueror Generals for me and games over lan with brothers for me.

Given the notable sluggishness of Russian forces, I don't see them gaining much from them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back