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

 

[Vince McMahon]

https://archive.ph/6PZFv

Missiles strike Lviv, bodies in streets of Mariupol​

• Major Ukrainian cities hit by explosions
• Luhansk governor urges people to evacuate
• Ukrainian fighters holding out in parts of Mariupol

LVIV/KYIV, April 18 (Reuters) - Ukrainian authorities said missiles struck the western city of Lviv on Monday, killing six, and explosions rocked other cities as Russian forces kept up their bombardments after claiming near full control of the southern port of Mariupol.

Driven back by Ukrainian resistance in the north, the Russian military has refocused its ground offensive in the two eastern provinces known as the Donbas, while launching long-distance strikes at other targets, including the capital, Kyiv.

Capturing Mariupol would be a huge strategic prize for Russia, linking territory held by pro-Russian separatists in the east with the Crimea region Moscow annexed in 2014.
Lviv regional governor Maksym Kozystkiy said missiles struck military facilities and a car tire service point.
The city's mayor, Andriy Sadoviy, said in addition to the six killed, eleven were wounded and the blast had shattered the windows of a hotel housing Ukrainians evacuated from elsewhere in the country.

In Kyiv, a Reuters reporter heard a series of blasts near the Dnipro river, while media outlet Suspilne said two people were wounded in attacks in the southern region of Dnipropetrovsk.
Russia denies targeting civilians and has rejected what Ukraine says is evidence of atrocities as staged to undermine peace talks.
It calls its action, launched almost two months ago, a special military operation to demilitarise Ukraine and eradicate what it calls dangerous nationalists.

The West and Kyiv accuse Russian President Vladimir Putin of unprovoked aggression.
On Monday, Russia's defence ministry said it had destroyed four arms and military equipment depots in Ukraine overnight and hit 315 Ukrainian targets, the TASS news agency reported.
BATTLE FOR MARIUPOL
Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said troops in the pulverised port of Mariupol were still fighting on Sunday, despite a Russian demand to surrender.
"The city still has not fallen," he told ABC's "This Week" programme, adding that Ukrainian soldiers continued to control some parts of the southeastern city.
On Saturday, Russia said it had control of urban areas, though some Ukrainian fighters remained in the Azovstal steelworks, one of Europe's biggest metallurgical plants, which sprawl more than 11 sq km (4.25 sq miles) and overlook the Sea of Azov.

On the eve of the war, Mariupol was the biggest city still held by Ukrainian authorities in the Donbas, which Moscow has demanded that Ukraine cede to pro-Russian separatists.
It would unite Russian forces on two of the main axes of the invasion, and free them up to join an expected new offensive against the main Ukrainian force in the east.
On the streets of Mariupol, small groups of bodies were lined up under colourful blankets, surrounded by shredded trees and scorched buildings.
Residents, some pushing bicycles, picked their way around destroyed tanks and civilian vehicles while Russian soldiers checked the documents of motorists.
One resident, Irina, was evacuating with a niece wounded in the shelling.
"I hope they will re-build (Mariupol). The most important thing is utility systems. Summer will pass fast and in winter it will be hard," she said.
Serhiy Gaidai, the governor of the Luhansk region, said street fighting had begun between Ukrainian and Russian troops and repeated a plea for people to evacuate.
Russians had advanced overnight and taken Kreminna, he said in a television speech, adding that authorities could no longer take people out of the town.
"The next week will be difficult," he said in an earlier post on his Facebook page. "It may be the last time we have a chance to save you."
About four million Ukrainians have fled the country, cities have been shattered and thousands have died since the start of the invasion on Feb. 24.
The economic damage is significant. Shmyhal said Ukraine's budget deficit was about $5 billion a month and urged Western governments for more financial aid.
On Twitter, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said he had discussed ensuring his country's financial stability and preparations for post-war reconstruction with International Monetary Fund Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva.
He quoted her as having said support was essential to lay the foundations for rebuilding. read more
Ukraine pressed on with efforts to swiftly join the European Union, as officials completed a questionnaire that is a starting point for the EU to decide on membership.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

People literally speculated it for months leading up to the invasion... It was on mainstream news, it was in normal news articles. It wasn't considered crazy at all to speculate about it.
I'll admit that I didn't actually expect it to happen, I thought the MSM and current US administration were using it to deflect from domestic issues. Honestly, this tells me you didn't tune in until after Russia formally invaded, they've been doing a soft invasion for a long time.

And the media is now speculating about Russia using nukes. The same way they once speculated about Russia invading Ukraine. Which again, follows a similar pattern.

Media/Intelligence agencies say that Russia will do something crazy.
People on the internet say that Russia will never do it because it sounds crazy.
Russia does it anyway.

Again this is just useless fanfic in the News Megathread. I know it's devolved and is just a containment zone now but I check it for news even though I'm better off just finding it myself nowadays.
Take it to the Happenings thread if you want to speculate on "what ifs." I saw it mentioned here and there but asked in here curious if there was news about it, as if Russia made a threat or something. Turns out it's not even "rumor mill" material.

Except it's not just fanfiction when actual news sites are speculating about it. Again, you not wanting to read sources that contradict your armchair opinion is proof that you don't want to see the truth. At this point, you're the one running on pure speculation:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/foreign-minister-putin-nuclear-weapons-existential-threat

https://nypost.com/2022/03/23/russia-could-use-nuclear-weapons-if-putin-suspects-existential-threat/

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/14/us/politics/putin-nuclear-weapons.html

https://nypost.com/2022/04/17/zelensky-prepare-for-putin-to-unleash-nuclear-attack/

 

[Vince McMahon]

Bucha's mayor claims that a male guard for a children's camp in Vorzel was raped and died as a result of his injuries.

 

[Aidan]

And the media is now speculating about Russia using nukes. The same way they once speculated about Russia invading Ukraine. Which again, follows a similar pattern.

Not tactical nukes.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

Not tactical nukes.

And how do you know that? Do you have a direct line to Putin? We all thought he'd never use military force on Ukraine, yet here we are.

 

[SBG]

I imagine it's similar logic to their invasion of Georgia and maybe Chechnya as well on a larger scale. No one seemed to question those.
It's not like this came out of nowhere and it's not like Russia didn't anticipate sanctions, they were already one of the most sanctioned countries in the world leading up to this. The Donbas has been volatile for nearly a decade now and Russia was directly involved there, too.

Russia seemed completely blindsided by the level of sanctions that occurred and how many nations joined in. Likely because Europe typically didn't give a shit about joining in on sanctions like this in the past. It was often viewed by places like Germany as the US and Russia doing their usual slapfights because of being scared of commies. That even European nations joined in shows how different this situation is from prior conflicts like Georgia. Normally Europe would be doing its best to undermine any sanctions done which would make the US's sanctions often come across as a non-threat.

As far as Donbass, it sounds like the main reason it was volatile was because Russia was trying to make it volatile in the hopes of creating a Georgia 2.0. That didn't happen, Putin and his friends' calculations were all wrong about what Ukraine would be like, so now the question is what would make Putin stop the conflict.

The idea of him simply surrendering and leaving seems far fetched, so a lot of people assume this means Putin will only stop the violence when he feels he can claim victory somehow. Since he can't do it with his military fighting as they have been with all their riot police, orchestra, or neat orderly single file processions of tanks, it does make it seem like there's a chance he'll go full retard and do something outlandish to pretend he's accomplished some goal they decided was the REAL goal all along 5 minutes ago.

 

[No. 7 cat]

Yes, because such an attitude has done such wonders in predicting what would happen.

Like back then when we all thought that only a retard would take Putin's massing of his army near Ukraine seriously. And then look what happened.

Again, you're operating from the position that the Russians are sensible enough to not do something self-destructive, when this whole war has been spitting in the face of that assertion.

Indeed. If Putin had been reasonable the most that might have happened was another little green men effort in the Donbass, altho the Ukrainians are wise to that. If he had been very reasonable, he would have invested effort into the Minsk Accords, which would've given him a veto over Ukraine. Allied to that, the pro Russian opposition could've been revived with discreet funding. Instead all that is lost to him. Putin is certainly not too reasonable. Hence the present.

Given what is known of the the state of Russian equipment or munitions in storage, I have to doubt Putin could or would order the use of a tactical nuke. It would be utterly insane, but the 'special operation' is itself insane. It won't happen, but recent events have introduced slight doubts.

 

[Frisk]

Oh, then why Russia started boots on the ground invasion that led to massive sanctions (& loss of prestige of it's military capabilities, if current trajectory holds) without proper preparation via air - and missile strikes?

Their initial assumptions have turned out to be BS (and so did mine; I expected Ukraine to fold in about 4 days) which led them to waste lots of manpower to that totally "feint" towards Kiev. Russians like to look tough and their rhetoric keeps mentioning nukes which keeps those as remote possibility.

Frankly they're more likely to resort mass use of thermobarics and other more conventional munitions, but small change is still a change.

The basic assumption itself wasn't stupid. Most military analysts had the same foregone conclusion -- namely that Ukraine's army will collapse within days. What was stupid was Putin, his sycophantic yes-men and the strategies involved which created a disturbing domino effect. I won't bother Redditing it but here's the bulk of Russia's missteps:

• Delaying the invasion over Winter Olympics to appease China: They sacrificed a key month without the infamous rasputitsa for the sake of political posturing.
• Insufficient manpower: They invaded a country the size of Texas with only 200.000 men (and gradually as well: some 80.000 of them only joined about a week into the fray, many of whom weren't even trained for combat purposes.) On four fronts simultaneously. All because they genuinely thought that Ukraine would just magically roll over and die while nothing would go wrong.
• Insufficient amount of time allocated for invasion preparations: They spent very few months on it. Logistics and the quality of military equipment were neglected because of the ass-tastic idea that this war would last for a month at best. There were no solid contingencies in place.
• Putin's sociopathy: Vlad genuinely thought he could invade Ukraine for a third time in the span of a decade and be welcomed as their liberator. Edit: All the while proclaiming that Ukraine doesn't have the right to exist. He really didn't have a good grasp on the mood of the Ukrainians (or Russians for that matter, considering that most were neither expecting nor enthusiastic about a war with their own neighbours to begin with.) I won't even dwell on westerners and their economic sanctions because Vlad almost certainly thought that it would just be another 2014.
• Putin's yes-mens' ass kissing: Nobody dared challenge the KGB on his Bane-posting "special military operation" Master Plan(TM.) Not even from the fucking military, which deserves its own honorary exposition.
• Shit chain of command structure: Russia's military expects junior officers to just do as they are told and aren't trained to think independently. So even if many on the ground realised hours into the invasion that something wasn't going right they wouldn't know how to react and if they did, they would be ignored or reprimanded by their superiors.
• Shittier superiors: Many of the top Russian generals are corrupt Putin's cronies, largely devoid of merit and the necessary military experience or savvy to conduct such a high-risk high-reward mission successfully.
• Shittiest use of their own military doctrine: "Deep Battle"; the idea of outmaneuvering and pocketing entire enemy forces, just doesn't work when your army is marred in problems including (but not limited to) excessive corruption, kleptocracy, misallocation of resources, sub-par maintenances, lack of regard for human life and manpower shortages (Kremlin's cab-driver-in-chief can't deploy mass mobilisation because it would be a political suicide and a tacit admission that the "special military operation" had failed spectacularly.)

TL;DR: Kremlin's incompetence was a greater boon for Ukraine than all of NATO's military aid combined. Many are attributing Ukraine's successes to NATO's intelligence sharing but that's largely bogus because Russia conducted itself so haphazardly that it almost looked like their lot was asking for it.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Normally Europe would be doing its best to undermine any sanctions done which would make the US's sanctions often come across as a non-threat.

In most cases, the game is largely abstract to Europe, with US sanctions being against poor brown countries on the other side of the world. It's not a direct issue. Meanwhile, those prior Russian were territorial nibbles, with specific, limited goals, in countries that were already shot to pieces by years of all-encompassing civil war. Crap for the people involved, but not a threat for anyone outside the immediate area. There might even be a stability gain, which could be beneficial to Europe as it would encourage a greater normalisation in their relationship with Russia. That level of normalisation has been a specific German goal, and hence an EU goal, for the last 20 or more years.

The difference this time (apart from the immense personal investment American, an dother politicians have in Ukraine) was scale and direction. Putin didn't just try a nibble; he didn't just try to more firmly establish the break-away republics in the east, which would have been a logical next step to establish a safe land connection with Stevastopol. He launched a decapitation strike against the Ukrainian government, accompanied by rhetoric that indicated he wanted to conquer the entire country, or at least bring it under Russian control. To European countries, that's an existential threat, because once an empire builder starts expanding at that level, there's little reason for them to stop, and a lot of reasons to keep going.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

@LORD IMPERATOR and @Aidan Can you guys just hate fuck already and be done? Your lovers tiff back and forth gets boring and clogs up the thread.

 

[CaesarCzech]

Russia seemed completely blindsided by the level of sanctions that occurred and how many nations joined in. Likely because Europe typically didn't give a shit about joining in on sanctions like this in the past. It was often viewed by places like Germany as the US and Russia doing their usual slapfights because of being scared of commies. That even European nations joined in shows how different this situation is from prior conflicts like Georgia. Normally Europe would be doing its best to undermine any sanctions done which would make the US's sanctions often come across as a non-threat.

As far as Donbass, it sounds like the main reason it was volatile was because Russia was trying to make it volatile in the hopes of creating a Georgia 2.0. That didn't happen, Putin and his friends' calculations were all wrong about what Ukraine would be like, so now the question is what would make Putin stop the conflict.

The idea of him simply surrendering and leaving seems far fetched, so a lot of people assume this means Putin will only stop the violence when he feels he can claim victory somehow. Since he can't do it with his military fighting as they have been with all their riot police, orchestra, or neat orderly single file processions of tanks, it does make it seem like there's a chance he'll go full retard and do something outlandish to pretend he's accomplished some goal they decided was the REAL goal all along 5 minutes ago.

Strings were pulled in background to make sure Europe would follow on sanctions, will be interesting to see if it backfires and becomes Ragnarok of sorts.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

Indeed. If Putin had been reasonable the most that might have happened was another little green men effort in the Donbass, altho the Ukrainians are wise to that. If he had been very reasonable, he would have invested effort into the Minsk Accords, which would've given him a veto over Ukraine. Allied to that, the pro Russian opposition could've been revived with discreet funding. Instead all that is lost to him. Putin is certainly not too reasonable. Hence the present.

Given what is known of the state of Russian equipment or munitions in storage, I have to doubt Putin could or would order the use of a tactical nuke. It would be utterly insane, but the 'special operation' is itself insane. It won't happen, but recent events have introduced slight doubts.

And that's the point. The whole idea of "Putin will never order a nuclear strike" is not only contradicted by several news sources that speculate that he MIGHT, but the idea that he will never do it is itself resting on the notion that "Russia won't do it because it sounds insane." Which would, in regular times, make sense, but Russia's whole invasion IS insanity, and the fact that Putin keeps it up despite mounting losses and an economic freefall shows that sensibility has left Russia's leadership as a whole. So nukes are obviously an option Putin would consider. I pray to God that I am dead wrong about that, no sane person wants nuclear bombs being used, but this is the world we live in today, where such a thing IS a possibility.

@LORD IMPERATOR and @Aidan Can you guys just hate fuck already and be done? Your lovers tiff back and forth gets boring and clogs up the thread.

Hey, don't look at me. I actually brought news articles to support my side of the story, in this NEWS thread.

 

[Aidan]

And how do you know that? Do you have a direct line to Putin? We all thought he'd never use military force on Ukraine, yet here we are.

Do you even read what you link? Probably not because you don't read the posts you reply to.

This is the last reply you get from me and it's so others see this nonsense.

• NY Post Article 1 - https://nypost.com/2022/03/23/russia-could-use-nuclear-weapons-if-putin-suspects-existential-threat/
  • No mention of tactical nukes
• NY Post Article 2 - https://nypost.com/2022/04/17/zelensky-prepare-for-putin-to-unleash-nuclear-attack/
  • CNN asked Zelensky about chemical weapons and tactical nukes (they prompted him)
    • He characteristically replied saying anything is possible.
    • Spoiler: Quote

      [*]In an interview with CNN that aired Sunday, Zelensky was asked whether Putin would deploy chemical or nuclear tactical weapons to further his military goals in Ukraine.
      
      
      “Not only me – all of the world, all of the countries have to be worried because it can be not real information, but it can be truth,” Zelensky told host Jake Tapper in an interview from his presidential office in Kyiv.
      
      
      Note - Not sure why the translation is so bad but it's like that throughout
      [*]
  • Then to reinforce their prompting of Zelensky, they quoted CIA director, William Burns. (He comes up again)
    • Spoiler: Quote

      “Given the potential desperation of President Putin and the Russian leadership, given the setbacks that they’ve faced so far, militarily, none of us can take lightly the threat posed by a potential resort to tactical nuclear weapons or low-yield nuclear weapons,” Burns said during a speech last Thursday at Georgia Tech University.
• NYT Article - https://archive.ph/MrIIS
  • Same reference to CIA DirectorWilliam Burns' quote
    • Spoiler: Quotes

      [*]

      

      
      [*]...he quickly cautioned that so far, despite Mr. Putin’s frequent invocation of nuclear threats, he had seen no “practical evidence” of the kinds of military deployments or movement of weapons that would suggest such a move was imminent.
      
      
      [*]“Given the potential desperation of President Putin and the Russian leadership, given the setbacks that they’ve faced so far, militarily, none of us can take lightly the threat posed by a potential resort to tactical nuclear weapons or low-yield nuclear weapons,” Mr. Burns said during a question-and-answer session following a speech he delivered at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
      He spoke in response to a question from former Senator Sam Nunn, of Georgia, who helped create the program that brought nuclear weapons out of Ukraine and other former Soviet states 30 years ago.
      
      
      Note - Notice how he only said this in reply to a question proposed by a former senator. Anyone who has briefed or done important presentations to people before can attest that you never say "no" in a briefing if an important person asks a dumb question, you try to give them the answer they want which explains a lot of dumb Congress moments. The tactical nuke bit wasn't even part of his presentation.
      
      Worth acknowledging the article also has choice quotes that don't paint the picture of how Russia is losing as much as you've implied in recent posts.
      [*]
• Fox - https://www.foxnews.com/world/foreign-minister-putin-nuclear-weapons-existential-threat
  • Quotes former Russian foreign minister Andrei Kozyrev saying nukes are reserved for existential threats
    • Spoiler: Quote

      [*]Russian President Vladimir Putin would only consider nuclear weapons in the event he feels an "existential threat" to his country or regime, according to foreign policy experts.
      
      "They could be used, but in very, very specific situations," former Russian foreign minister Andrei Kozyrev told Fox News Digital. "If Russia or one of those countries really threatened in their hearts – existentially, that is … if NATO troops come to Moscow, then probably they will resort to nuclear weapons."
      
      "But there is no existential threat to Russia under the present circumstances," Kozyrev said.
      [*]
  • Quotes Heritage Foundation fellow Brent Sadler who said Russia might use them, countered by Kozyrev's words after
    • Spoiler: Quote

      [*]Note - Through tor and archive.ph I couldn't get it to show Sadler's full Heritage bio, but checking the html for the web page shows the rest and he has no Russian background. He was with Pacific Command for a few years with a focus on SEA which lines up with his education and background.
      
      
      [*]"That might be the case where a tactical nuclear weapon might be considered to demonstrate resolve and basically reverse any trends going on in the Russian military," Sadler said. "I don’t see them using city killers, because that would definitely usher in World War III, and the assumption is if he does that he’s attacking NATO."
      
      Note- This is the only bit of speculation from a guy with no Russian background and no evidence. I'll grant this is speculation from a literal who on the issue, but it's the only case of it in the 4 articles linked and instantly dismissed by someone more relevant.
      
      
      [*]But Kozyrev, author of "The Firebird: The Elusive Fate of Russian Democracy," said that it is "absolutely" a case of "barking" with "no way to bite" from the Russian leader.
      
      "The responsible military commanders will do everything to avoid such a scenario and to prevent the use of nuclear weapons unless they believe there is an existential threat to their motherland," he stressed.
      
      
      
      [*]Note - It should be pointed out that Kozyrev is likely exclusively referring to ICBMs and other strategic nuclear weapons and Fox News is probably applying the quote to intentionally frame things a certain way in association with Sadler's quote.

Summary - No one is seriously considering Russia's use of tactical nukes, not even Zelensky.

Russia seemed completely blindsided by the level of sanctions that occurred and how many nations joined in. Likely because Europe typically didn't give a shit about joining in on sanctions like this in the past. It was often viewed by places like Germany as the US and Russia doing their usual slapfights because of being scared of commies. That even European nations joined in shows how different this situation is from prior conflicts like Georgia. Normally Europe would be doing its best to undermine any sanctions done which would make the US's sanctions often come across as a non-threat.

Agreed, in that I think they didn't anticipate this level of sanctions, I don't think they were "completely blindsided" though.

As far as Donbass, it sounds like the main reason it was volatile was because Russia was trying to make it volatile in the hopes of creating a Georgia 2.0. That didn't happen, Putin and his friends' calculations were all wrong about what Ukraine would be like, so now the question is what would make Putin stop the conflict.

I agree Russia has been stirring the Donbas nest (so to speak) to do a Georgia 2.0 but disagree the calculations on Ukraine were all wrong. Though I do think Putin (perhaps unintentionally) misled Russia and the troops on their reception in Ukraine.
I'm even sceptical of some of the footage Russia has put out showing Ukrainians waving at the troops as they go by. I think they'd wave at either side just to get them to keep driving and think there's no reason to stop.

The idea of him simply surrendering and leaving seems far fetched, so a lot of people assume this means Putin will only stop the violence when he feels he can claim victory somehow. Since he can't do it with his military fighting as they have been with all their riot police, orchestra, or neat orderly single file processions of tanks, it does make it seem like there's a chance he'll go full retard and do something outlandish to pretend he's accomplished some goal they decided was the REAL goal all along 5 minutes ago.

"A lot of people" are people with no actual sources leading to whimsical speculation about things as video-gamey as tactical nukes. I see it mentioned in the news thread so ask for a source since that's news to me and it ends up being nothing.
There's a lot of that going on and I don't care for it. It's as productive as speculating theUS resuming strategic B-52 flights to keep Russia on edge. Could they technically do that? Sure. Is there any indication? No.

Frankly I disagree with a lot of the consensus in this thread but it's not worth discussing because discussion in here is generally one-sided and if it isn't, it's hostile.

@LORD IMPERATOR and @Aidan Can you guys just hate fuck already and be done? Your lovers tiff back and forth gets boring and clogs up the thread.

Yeah dw I'm done replying to him 5evr itt I understand

edit: @LORD IMPERATOR Learn to read, I never said nukes weren't a possibility, I even kept my previous reply down to 3 words "Not tactical nukes" and you still appear to have read that as "No nukes."
sneed

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

So again, no absolute statement saying that there will be no nukes. Just the possibility that there might be nuclear weapons used.

And again, the whole idea of Russia not using nukes rests on the idea that "Russia won't do it because it sounds insane." When this whole war has been one act of hyper-retarded insanity. So at this point, yes, tactical nukes are on the table. The only thing that they're likely to fully avoid is a full-on nuclear exchange, but Putin's side hasn't impressed me with their intellect thus far, and so, that might also be on the table, considering Putin's nuclear threats and his vague definition of "escalation".

The basic assumption itself wasn't stupid. Most military analysts had the same foregone conclusion -- namely that Ukraine's army will collapse within days. What was stupid was Putin, his sycophantic yes-men and the strategies involved which created a disturbing domino effect. I won't bother Redditing it but here's the bulk of Russia's missteps:

• Delaying the invasion over Winter Olympics to appease China: They sacrificed a key month without the infamous rasputitsa for the sake of political posturing.
• Insufficient manpower: They invaded a country the size of Texas with only 200.000 men (and gradually as well: some 80.000 of them only joined about a week into the fray, many of whom weren't even trained for combat purposes.) On four fronts simultaneously. All because they genuinely thought that Ukraine would just magically roll over and die while nothing would go wrong.
• Insufficient amount of time allocated for invasion preparations: They spent very few months on it. Logistics and the quality of military equipment were neglected because of the ass-tastic idea that this war would last for a month at best. There were no solid contingencies in place.
• Putin's sociopathy: Vlad genuinely thought he could invade Ukraine for a third time in the span of a decade and be welcomed as their liberator. Edit: All the while proclaiming that Ukraine doesn't have the right to exist. He really didn't have a good grasp on the mood of the Ukrainians (or Russians for that matter, considering that most were neither expecting nor enthusiastic about a war with their own neighbours to begin with.) I won't even dwell on westerners and their economic sanctions because Vlad almost certainly thought that it would just be another 2014.
• Putin's yes-mens' ass kissing: Nobody dared challenge the KGB on his Bane-posting "special military operation" Master Plan(TM.) Not even from the fucking military, which deserves its own honorary exposition.
• Shit chain of command structure: Russia's military expects junior officers to just do as they are told and aren't trained to think independently. So even if many on the ground realised hours into the invasion that something wasn't going right they would know how to react and if they did, they would be ignored or reprimanded by their superiors.
• Shittier superiors: Many of the top Russian generals are corrupt Putin's cronies, largely devoid of merit and the necessary military experience or savvy to conduct such a high-risk high-reward mission successfully.
• Shittiest use of their own military doctrine: "Deep Battle"; the idea of outmaneuvering and pocketing entire enemy forces, just doesn't work when your army is marred in problems including (but not limited to) excessive corruption, kleptocracy, misallocation of resources, sub-par maintenances, lack of regard for human life and manpower shortages (Kremlin's cab-driver-in-chief can't deploy mass mobilisation because it would be a political suicide and a tacit admission that the "special military operation" had failed spectacularly.)

TL;DR: Kremlin's incompetence was a greater boon for Ukraine than all of NATO's military aid combined. Many are attributing Ukraine's successes to NATO's intelligence sharing but that's largely bogus because Russia conducted itself so haphazardly that it almost looked like their lot was asking for it.
View attachment 3190949

The biggest boon to the Ukrainian/Western side seems to be the lack of functional NCOs for the Russian army.

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/russia-noncomissioned-officers-us-military/

“They don’t organize their military the way we do,” a senior U.S. defense official told reporters this week, in reference to Russia’s military. “They don’t have an equivalent to a noncommissioned officer corps, for instance, and their junior officers don’t have the same wherewithal, flexibility. … You’ve all covered our wars for the last 20 years, you know that we put a lot into an E-4 and an E-5 and an E-6 to make decisions literally in the moment on the battlefield. They don’t have that kind of a tradition, they don’t have that structure.”

"That conscription system is partly responsible for how their military is structured. An article published by the Army University’s NCO Journal explained that the Soviet military had 'inherited' a 'strong NCO corps … from the Tsarist Army (the Imperial Russian Army, 1721-1917).' But the conscription system that the Soviets leaned on began degrading that corps.

The conscription model 'had no real career path' for troops, the article by Maj. Charles Bartles says, so NCOs 'either left the service or became commissioned officers.

This meant that any hardwon knowledge left the Russian military when their more experienced enlisted soldiers finished their period of service. The system broke down even further in the 60s and 70s, Bartles wrote, because while the Soviet Armed Forces attempted to modernize, there was not enough time to train the conscripts on the more advanced equipment in their military’s arsenal. In turn, officers 'performed duties that would normally be performed by NCOs in Western armies.' That responsibility has remained. Lieutenants in the Russian military today, for example, fill the roles of both a platoon leader and platoon sergeant in the U.S. military, Bartle’s article says."

 

[SBG]

Reply bug but eh,

"A lot of people" are people with no actual sources leading to whimsical speculation about things as video-gamey as tactical nukes. I see it mentioned in the news thread so ask for a source since that's news to me and it ends up being nothing.
There's a lot of that going on and I don't care for it. It's as productive as speculating theUS resuming strategic B-52 flights to keep Russia on edge. Could they technically do that? Sure. Is there any indication? No.

The speculation is wild on both ends of this since Putin has proven himself to not be a rational actor as he's taken actions that would cause immense harm to his own country and ability to stay in power (like how many people that were enjoying bribes from foreign companies are going to miss out now?).

Personally I think Putin, if at all sane, would want to cut his losses and say Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are independent or Russian then call it a day. But he's gone far enough to spook the hell out of the West that he caused the West to start pouring in weapons into Ukraine so that they can push Russia out of as much of the country as possible. Now Putin can't simply design a win condition on his own, but has to deal with the West that has their own idea of what a win condition is, since the west, or at least the US, won't stop sending support until they feel Ukraine has 'won'.

I suppose part of the problem though is that people are effectively speculating on what would be a lose condition for Ukraine or the west without coming out and saying so.

 

[Vince McMahon]

Medvedchuk is asking to be exchanged for defenders of Mariupol and civvies. Video published by the Security Service of Ukraine.

 

[Aidan]

Reply bug but eh,

The speculation is wild on both ends of this since Putin has proven himself to not be a rational actor as he's taken actions that would cause immense harm to his own country and ability to stay in power (like how many people that were enjoying bribes from foreign companies are going to miss out now?).

Disagree on why the speculation is wild.
The speculation is wild because of the usual fog of war and especially lies that go around, which I attribute largely to the Ukrainian government. It has to be said that obviously Russia lies too (lol Moskva) but no one takes their lies seriously, at least as far as I can tell, so it's not as pertinent.

Personally I think Putin, if at all sane, would want to cut his losses and say Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are independent or Russian then call it a day. But he's gone far enough to spook the hell out of the West that he caused the West to start pouring in weapons into Ukraine so that they can push Russia out of as much of the country as possible. Now Putin can't simply design a win condition on his own, but has to deal with the West that has their own idea of what a win condition is, since the west, or at least the US, won't stop sending support until they feel Ukraine has 'won'.

What? Zelensky and his cabinet are the ones saying they won't recognize Crimea or any territory as non-Ukrainian. I do agree the win conditions are not the same but I also don't think Putin really cares what the West or US have for win conditions. Unlike many in this thread I don't think he intends to take all of Ukraine, at least not with this particular "special military operation" and I don't think he ever did.
Putin's win is probably what he said initially regarding the "independence" of the Donbas and a recognition of Crimea as Russian territory, among the legal matters regarding Ukraine's relationship.

I think the West, and mostly the US, sees this as an opportunity to spill Russian blood and gain modern intelligence on Russian capabilities at the cost of some money, gear, and Ukrainian blood, things they see as inconsequential. At the current rate I anticipate Russia will declare victory and scale down while keeping forces around to fight "guerillas" and "terrorists" backed by the US.
Probably very wrong it's just my current guess.

I suppose part of the problem though is that people are effectively speculating on what would be a lose condition for Ukraine or the west without coming out and saying so.

Perhaps

 

[Rezza]

Bucha's mayor claims that a male guard for a children's camp in Vorzel was raped and died as a result of his injuries.

Oh, right, there was a children's summer camp near the town that was used as a base while the Russian are occupying the place right?

 

[nosemouth]

And that's the point. The whole idea of "Putin will never order a nuclear strike" is not only contradicted by several news sources that speculate that he MIGHT,

Why would a bunch of liars lying contradict reality?

 

[CaesarCzech]

Oh, right, there was a children's summer camp near the town that was used as a base while the Russian are occupying the place right?

I really doubt anyone intended it to come off as Ukrainian children rape Russian Soldier to death but that description is unclear as fuck.