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

  • 🔧 At about Midnight EST I am going to completely fuck up the site trying to fix something.
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
 
The electronically detonated warheads on any semi-modern torpedo or missile aren't going to go off because of damage, not even the Russians would be that technically incompetent. And like I said its doubtful any amount of aviation or rocket fuel would damage a ship to the point of a total loss, same with torpedo propellant.

The Ukrainians hitting the ship seems a given since they were saying it before the Russians were admitting to a problem. I'm waiting to hopefully see pictures of the ship because the Russians claim of the ammo cooking off but the cruise missiles being intact doesn't make any sense. Those missiles going off and engulfing the ship in rocket fuel is the only scenario I can see where deck mounted munition and gun magazines going off, most of it is forward mounted and the flight deck is at the very rear. More to the point I don't see how any of those were cooking off to the point of forcing an evacuation and not at least damaging those tubes.
What about the RBU ASW Mortars? If those went off, that could blow a nasty hole in the superstructure and potentially ignite the fuel on the P-500's.
 
As much as we attribute the crippling of a flagship of the Black Sea fleet to incompetence mocking the "dumb" Russians without introspection is dubious.

When one examines the Falklands War, the British could have been pushed back if the Argentinians had some better fuses for their bombs or have just two Exocet Anti-ship missiles that functioned properly.

I am not saying the Russians are competent but I just remember that dumb luck or a few dollars extra could be have been the turning point in many conflicts.
You're entirely right on the Falklands, but here's the thing; we learned from it. We changed our doctrines and evolved our teach so it wouldn't happen again. That way when we were tooling around offshore during the Gulf War, even though the Iraqis had no navy, and we were comprehensively fucking up the air and ground forces, we were still on the ball so when they launched missiles at the Missouri, we were able to shoot them down within 90 seconds of launch.

That's why we mock Russians as dumb, because they've had 30 fucking years to be learning from other people's very public mistakes, and instead they're making them themselves, except somehow worse.
 
The electronically detonated warheads on any semi-modern torpedo or missile aren't going to go off because of damage, not even the Russians would be that technically incompetent. And like I said its doubtful any amount of aviation or rocket fuel would damage a ship to the point of a total loss, same with torpedo propellant.

The Ukrainians hitting the ship seems a given since they were saying it before the Russians were admitting to a problem. I'm waiting to hopefully see pictures of the ship because the Russians claim of the ammo cooking off but the cruise missiles being intact doesn't make any sense. Those missiles going off and engulfing the ship in rocket fuel is the only scenario I can see where deck mounted munition and gun magazines going off, most of it is forward mounted and the flight deck is at the very rear. More to the point I don't see how any of those were cooking off to the point of forcing an evacuation and not at least damaging those tubes.
Except that's exactly what happens, and why so many of their subs have experienced catastrophic events, and their sub forces are relatively spoiled when it comes to spending.

The Kursk was a torpedo failure, shitty welds led to a hydrogen peroxide leak, reaction, and warhead detonation.
 
The electronically detonated warheads on any semi-modern torpedo or missile aren't going to go off because of damage, not even the Russians would be that technically incompetent. And like I said its doubtful any amount of aviation or rocket fuel would damage a ship to the point of a total loss, same with torpedo propellant.

Hmm I disagree here

What about the Kursk? It's torpedo's exploded due to heat and mishandling which sank the sub and killed its crew. Imagine those same torpedo's being hit by a 151kg HE warhead and the ensuing inferno.

While I won't say for sure but Russia's maintenance on its navy isn't a top priority and it seems both crew readiness and training are lacking big time even on it's big ships.

OOPS>>>LATE, just ignore this one
 
Last edited:
One of the things I haven't seen mentioned with regards to this ship:

Wasn't Soviet steel notoriously shitty?

I had a teacher tell me that when the Soviets turned iron into steel, then turned the steel into tractor parts, then turned the tractor parts into tractors, there was actually lost value at every step of the process, i.e. a hunk of raw iron was worth more than a finished Soviet tractor.

Something built in the Soviet Union in the 70s would seem to be right in the sweet spot to fall apart on its own in 2022.
 
One of the things I haven't seen mentioned with regards to this ship:

Wasn't Soviet steel notoriously shitty?

I had a teacher tell me that when the Soviets turned iron into steel, then turned the steel into tractor parts, then turned the tractor parts into tractors, there was actually lost value at every step of the process, i.e. a hunk of raw iron was worth more than a finished Soviet tractor.

Something built in the Soviet Union in the 70s would seem to be right in the sweet spot to fall apart on its own in 2022.
He'll, when the Soviet Union was on its way to collapsing some local farmers sent a tractor and implements to a farm in (I think) Ukraine and it was a major game changer for the farm. Soviet farm production was awful because the equipment was so garbage. Couldn't plant in straight lines, couldn't harvest half of what they did grow.

The end of the cold war showed that the Soviets were far further behind than anyone expected, we constantly overestimated them. They're not any better now. A lot of their engineering went into one aspect of something that they could show off. They stopped being able to keep up when the US saw how good the Mig-15 was and focused on advancement.

It wasn't brainpower imbalance, it was managerial incompetence and no money.
 
As much as we attribute the crippling of a flagship of the Black Sea fleet to incompetence mocking the "dumb" Russians without introspection is dubious.

When one examines the Falklands War, the British could have been pushed back if the Argentinians had some better fuses for their bombs or have just two Exocet Anti-ship missiles that functioned properly.

I am not saying the Russians are competent but I just remember that dumb luck or a few dollars extra could be have been the turning point in many conflicts.

The Argies weren't even expecting us to fucking turn up. Their airforce was woefully unprepared for any kind of long range attack pattern making or operations against anyone other than other tinpot dictatorships nearby. They had two refuelling aircraft across their entire navy and none of their fighter-bombers were equipped with air to air refueling. Of the squadrons available only one had done any training whatsoever bombing ships, and had the ships been positioned correctly they'd have been slaughtered. The Sheffield was placed too close to the land to be properly effective and as noted grimly by one of her senior officers "Sometimes a piece has to be sacrificed to ensure the game still goes on."

By the time we smacked the Belgrano off of the chess board it was already largely over. As much as Russia has now "taken that crown" the Belgrano, if it broke the screens, would've caused actual havoc. It's why she was pursued so heavily by the Royal Navy despite "running for port".

Had the Argentine Airforce actually proved remotely effective both the SAS and 2 Para had drafted in effect a suicide mission to utterly anihalate the Argentine Airforce within range with an agressive landing and "shoot everything" plan.

Argentine counter-intelligence was so shoddy as well most positions had been marked by the end of the first day of the British turning up, with one ship commander taking great pleasure in shelling the cardinal points of every argentine position he knew of to let them know he could take them out whenever he fancied.

The Argentines themselves wound up and demoralised themselves by talking about how the Gurkhas were all cannibals and would murder and cook them all if caught... something the british military would encourage by getting said RGR regiments to shout "Ayo Gurkhali" as often and loudly as possible, leading to terrified surrender to the nearest white british soldier so they wouldn't be eaten.

The Russians are about the same tier of competence, right now.
 
What about the RBU ASW Mortars? If those went off, that could blow a nasty hole in the superstructure and potentially ignite the fuel on the P-500's.

The Russians are claiming the missiles are intact, if that's the case the motors definitely didn't go off. I those went off every munition on the forward half of the ship would be fucked instantly along with most of the crew. That doesn't get around the fact that those mortars are electronically detonated like all the others, and they're single use so whatever propellant launches them wouldn't barely do anything unless the mount itself was hit by something else.

What I'm saying is the Ukrainian claims of hitting the ship with a missile are more believable than the Russian claims even ignoring the fact they were saying it had been hit before the Russians made any statement. We need photo evidence to determine if the Russian claims of the missiles being intact are true, that's the only confusing thing about this.

The Kursk was a torpedo failure, shitty welds led to a hydrogen peroxide leak, reaction, and warhead detonation.

I've never seen an explanation of how the warheads on the Kursk supposedly detonated or what they were composed of, we've had thermal safe high explosives for a long time and it just seems retarded for anything else to be used, especially on a sub.
 
1649966641937.png

She's gone.
 
The Russians are claiming the missiles are intact, if that's the case the motors definitely didn't go off. I those went off every munition on the forward half of the ship would be fucked instantly along with most of the crew. That doesn't get around the fact that those mortars are electronically detonated like all the others, and they're single use so whatever propellant launches them wouldn't barely do anything unless the mount itself was hit by something else.

What I'm saying is the Ukrainian claims of hitting the ship with a missile are more believable than the Russian claims even ignoring the fact they were saying it had been hit before the Russians made any statement. We need photo evidence to determine if the Russian claims of the missiles being intact are true, that's the only confusing thing about this.



I've never seen an explanation of how the warheads on the Kursk supposedly detonated or what they were composed of, we've had thermal safe high explosives for a long time and it just seems retarded for anything else to be used, especially on a sub.
We've been able to shield nuclear reactors in subs for a long time and the Russians were cooking off a crew every few years for a while, too, so expecting competence in military equipment from Russia is all 🌈 🌈.
 
Dude on the TV: "When you go to the Annapolis Naval Academy, one of the things they teach you in the first year is not to let your flagship get blown up."

Seth Moulton: "We thought the Russians were the second-best army in the world, but it turns out they're only the second-best army in Ukraine."

And breaking: The ship has sunk. NBC news official.
 

Well that settles it then, the Russian claims were horseshit from top to bottom and it was definitely a hit. There's was nothing on board that could take down a semi-modern ship in this time frame no matter how bad the fuck-up.

A bad sea state could also partially explain how its defense systems didn't work, but its still a horrible performance and bodes very badly for them if Ukraine can use these missiles and harpoons effectively.
 
"Sank in a storm" lol they're really banking on their own total incompetence being an easier sell than it being lost to attack.
They're going to deny deny deny deny it being sunk by enemy action. We might never know for sure, but no matter what happened, the Russian Federation Navy has proven itself a worthy inheritor to the traditions of the Imperial Russian Navy - losing a flag ship in one of the dumbest ways possible.
 
View attachment 3179388
This did not age well LMAO
Armchair Warlord by name, Armchair Warlord by nature...

Two versions of events are now.... Ukies scored a hell of a scalp again.

Or a mild storm in the Black Sea has taken out a ship designed for those rough seas.
 
They're going to deny deny deny deny it being sunk by enemy action. We might never know for sure, but no matter what happened, the Russian Federation Navy has proven itself a worthy inheritor to the traditions of the Imperial Russian Navy - losing a flag ship in one of the dumbest ways possible.
They need to tugboat the Admiral Kuznetsov there next. It should make it, the huge black clouds of inky smoke it creates under power will keep it disguised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back