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
 
They have enough to throw into Ukraine..... the days they could have done the same to all of Western Europe? Again and again until they hit the Rhine? or the Pyrenees? Yes, I agree that's over. But they still have more than enough to dump into these "regional" conflicts that are their bread and butter for just that reason. I'm not saying this war is going to go on forever, just that the usual break point of "too many casualties" that gets small nations to stop a war for lack of manpower or non oligarchical ones to stop for actually being able to pressure the state to stop wasting lives? Those don't exist here. Russia doesn't give a fuck about losses from a humanitarian angle and still has more than enough to keep sending in for another year, at least, until everyone gets tired of watching the circus and isn't paying attention as Russia slinks away with a token chunk of territory, calls it a success, and the whole thing starts all over again in some other "contested" area.
Modern peer conflicts are not won or lost due to casualties alone. It's not world war one.

One way of viewing more modern war is that of materiel, and human capital. It is not the only way, but it is useful in this context.

Human capital, the knowledge and experience of people, on the battlefield and off, is difficult to cultivate and it is even harder to regenerate when lost in battle. On one level, you have your soldiers, sailors and airmen, all specialised in their own way. Beyond that, you have those who work in industry and develop and maintain hardware that is important for the war effort. If a nation of 150million lose 1,000 people it is a drop in the ocean - but if those people represent their entire community working on ballistic missiles then that is a huge loss.

Russia has sent in the vast majority of it's active, trained and experience ground forces and taken horrendous casualties. They are overstretch, unable to rotate their soldiers out and scrambling to find anything almost anywhere to throw them into the meat grinder. This means there is a problem when it comes to human capital for Russia - who the fuck is going to train their troops in a general mobilisation? Low quality, untrained, unmotivated and poorly equipped soldiers are worth less than nothing on an offensive in a modern battlefield. They are ineffective, they take up logistic capacity, they put further burden on the homefront, if they die it is a political problem and they represent a great propaganda victory if they are captured.

Now, because this war is localised to within the Ukraine, the effect on human capital on the wider Russian military and society will be primarily limited to the losses of their professional soldier cadre. Braindrain, Western people leaving and being cut off from the rest of the world will degrade this in Russia too. Their ability to design, and operate high end gear will be degraded because there will be less people that are both able and willing to operate it.

Whereas the knowledge of Ukrainians fighting Russians is going to make them more effective, and they have and are taking the time to train their reserve. When that enters the fight, they will outnumber the Russians massively - probably across the entire frontline. Their soldiers have rotated through the SFO for the last 8 years, they have been taught by the UK, the USA, Canada, Poland etc. There is every reason to think they have lower fatalities, and lower casualties - meaning better preservation of human capital. Also, Ukrainians are actively returning to help fight, and using their different skillsets in order to benefit the conflict - for instance, those drone factories developing small drones that drop AT Grenades with 3D printed fin stabilisers.

Materiel, is going to be more important in all of this. Russian stocks of weaponry are mothballed, their best frontline kit is basically in Ukraine, a quarter has been blown up, capture and even more is likely to be broken and awaiting spare parts to replace it which may never come. With less effective equipment, Russia will not stand a chance. As it stands, it would take them years if not a decade or more to replace enough equipment to bring themselves back in line with their strength at the end of February, sanctions will make this harder as the complex electronics they normally source from the west will need to find work arounds or need to be sourced from elsewhere. This might require redesigning equipment. Yet, the Ukrainians are receiving increasingly effective and complex weapons systems from the West, and if necessary the Western powers could outspent Russian defence spending just on weapons supplied to the Ukraine, probably by many factors and they could do so comfortably.

The Western imposition of sanctions whilst not entirely scuppering Russian defense production, has harmed it significantly - just look at those Orlan-10s - yet Russia has limited means, if any, to retaliate against Western defence production. At least in any meaningful way. They have shown their are unable to interdict the deployment of weapons to Ukraine too, all they have been able to do is damage the Ukrainian transport network, and while this will matter I doubt it will be a game changer.

My overall point is that in terms of human capital and materiel going forward Ukraine is in a much better place and these will be incredibly important moreso that just generating a few million boots on the ground. I would add that Russia did have a materiel advantage at the start of the war, it has now lost it and is rapidly going to find it is actually at a disadvantage compared to the Ukrainians.

The only real issue I see for Ukraine is that their economy is fucked, and as of yet we have not seen enough Western support for propping up their economy. However, I believe this will be in place when required.
 
Last edited:
1652702845031.png
Awww, what's the matter faggot? Found out half your nuclear arsenal was stripped for scrap metals years ago?
 
View attachment 3288059
Awww, what's the matter faggot? Found out half your nuclear arsenal was stripped for scrap metals years ago?
But muh NATO expansion is an existential threat to Russia something something nukes and bio weapons on Russian borders. As if it wasn't obvious enough that the real reason they invaded Ukraine was because they thought it was free real estate.
 
I think when it comes to conventional Russia forces this is certainly the case, might be slightly different when it comes to more strategic capabilities. Their hypersonic capabilities could cause some damage as it would be difficult to intercept them, and submarines would have the potential to cause a headache in the atlantic.

With that said, their kit isn't that bad - if updated, well maintained and used by appropriately trained personnel. I think the shock is less what materiel they have available, it will shock noone in the business that their huge fleets of mothball tanks are largely useless, but certainly the incompetence of their armed forces from the ground up is a shocker. Especially given we have seen Russia forces operate effectively, in Ukraine in 2014 and in Syria since their intervention.

And as we've seen from the Moskava the quality of their personnel even on their nuke boats isn't likely to be huge.

On top of that, most of the fleet's again a series of designs several decades out of date for whatever reason the Russians do these things. The Borei/Dolgorukiy is a design from the 80s currently being built, as is the Yasen/Severodvinsk, which started being drafted in 1977.

The Oscar II's are so noisy they've been hearing those damn things put to sea since the late 80s with underwater microphones in New York.

All bar four of the Akulas are out there as the whole lot are going through a massive modernisation refit and thus no use to dog nor man.

The Kilo and Improved Kilos are also likely Swedish or Finnish aircraft fodder as well.
 
It may make financial sense to pay up some amount of reparations, although I would imagine it would be political suicide for Putin, or perhaps even any potential successor.

Russia has two persistent cope-outs for failing of the .gov

1. Good tsar, bad boyars. This formula support the notion that Tsar/gensek/president is always right and good, but bad boyars/generals/advisers/"enemy of people"/saboteurs fuck shit up. So no matter what fails, you always support the top and be patriotic.

2. When shit is bad, blame the previous (dead) guy. Chruschev blamed Stalin, Brezhnev ridiculed Chruschev, Andropov bitched about stagnation of Brezhnev times. Change of power is perfect time to blame everything on the dead guy and try to start with a clean slate, however the problem of supporting shitty tsars always remains.

Low quality, untrained, unmotivated and poorly equipped soldiers are worth less than nothing on an offensive in a modern battlefield.

even well motivated and enthusiastic but untrained fighters are liability on a battlefield. They get people who can actually fight killed and soon enough buy a farm themselves.

But muh NATO expansion is an existential threat to Russia something something nukes and bio weapons on Russian borders. As if it wasn't obvious enough that the real reason they invaded Ukraine was because they thought it was free real estate.

With Sweden and Finland in NATO ... Russia's mutual border with NATO countries will ... DOUBLE! Great job Monke tsar, you just doubled the border with NATO countries at the cost of utter destruction of your most able troops and RF being the most sanctioned country EVER. No spy or any other evil doer could accomplish such a feat.
 
finland and sweden btfo by president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
Erdogan is likely hoping for aid, Turkey isn't doing so hot economically.

Really it's SOP with him, during the migrant crisis he managed to get millions of euros with similar rhetoric.

Same goes for Orban blocking sanctions who said he'll okay them if he gets a billion euros.

And really, they both kinda have to play the game this way considering one is having serious economic issues and the other is nearly 100% reliant on russian resources.
 
Erdogan is likely hoping for aid, Turkey isn't doing so hot economically.

Really it's SOP with him, during the migrant crisis he managed to get millions of euros with similar rhetoric.

Same goes for Orban blocking sanctions who said he'll okay them if he gets a billion euros.

And really, they both kinda have to play the game this way considering one is having serious economic issues and the other is nearly 100% reliant on russian resources.

Hungary also got cut off from EU funding as did Poland recently because European Union burecracy doesn't give a flying fuck about current situations and only gives a shit that they both refused to fall in line to the resettlement of the rapefugees. So Hungary will quite happily hold that over Brussels until Brussels breaks and falls in line.
 
Hungary also got cut off from EU funding as did Poland recently because European Union burecracy doesn't give a flying fuck about current situations and only gives a shit that they both refused to fall in line to the resettlement of the rapefugees. So Hungary will quite happily hold that over Brussels until Brussels breaks and falls in line.
While it's more complicated than just the migrant crisis, yeah, Hungary does have reasons to push a middle finger into the EU leadership's face and it's easy to understand their position.
 
Reading between the lines of the turkroaches gloating on reddit about their mighty and eternal victory over the West, it seems that Erdogan is in a very tight electoral spot right now and that he would be committing political suicide by letting Sweden and Finland into NATO. I'm not familiar with the local politics, but it strikes me as Erdogan cutting off his nose to spite his face to refuse allies to his own military alliance. Even the gloating pro-Putin Turks make it obvious that there is some payment that could be made to change their minds, although they frame it in rather extreme terms (e.g. extradite all the Gulenists to Turkey, stop all sanctions, cede southern Cyprus to us).
 
Last edited:
The exchange goes on for a few more minutes, and Skabeyeva insists that it's only the West against Russia. He replies: "You will agree that this is not a normal situation. As for India and China, which you spoke about, their support for our country is not so unconditional."

This guy goes on Russian TV and says that shit looks bad for Russia, the Ukrainians have much better morale, Russia should stop making nuclear threats, and that Russia is actually pretty isolated. Hard to discern what propaganda value this has aside from conditioning the populace for much less than the total victory they were assured.

Archive

Video:

 
1. Good tsar, bad boyars. This formula support the notion that Tsar/gensek/president is always right and good, but bad boyars/generals/advisers/"enemy of people"/saboteurs fuck shit up. So no matter what fails, you always support the top and be patriotic.
Another common thing is for them to say that the Tsar/President/Whover the fuck is in charge just doesn't know how bad things are. Apparently, it used to be so common that prisoners sent to gulags would often cry out that if only Stalin knew about what was happening none of it actually would be.
 
Last edited:
I think that unlikely unless we find ourselves in a post Fallout 3, NV, 4 world. Some of Putin's more insane propagandists are going on and on about nukes (Margarita Simonyan is quite stark raving mad). I see it a gradual with Han migrants gradually colonising as they do in Tibet and the Turkmen regions. Nordic countries and others might push for investment concessions. Anyhow, it would be a delicious irony to see PRC extorting extra jurisdictional powers from Russia as it did to China (along with others) in the 19th century.


View attachment 3230837

Pissed off lorry driver on the price of things.

View attachment 3230840


source for both in Galeev visuals on Telegram
Interesting thing I've noticed regarding planes. Used to see them fairly often flying overhead, or at least their traces. Now it's extremely rare to catch one, and I doubt it's just a coincidence.
 
Info on Turkey regarding Finland and Sweden NATO bid

This doesn't say anything new. TLDR is 'Sweden has links to the PKK and we won't let them in because of that'.

Another thing that has come out in the past few hours is that, apparently, the evacuation of the Azovstal wounded was facilitated in part by Turkey. One of the wives who has been lobbying to save the soldiers there was on video today thanking Erdogan by name. It probably would look bad if Turkey came out and gave a thumbs up to making the Baltic Sea a NATO sea while this operation is ongoing.
 
Nothing to worry about, just a 4-star general tweeting Arma 3 footage.

View attachment 3289568
Happens. That said, the Russians have lost a considerable amount of their newer attack choppers and attack aircraft over the course of the invasion. Pretty pathetic for a nation that supposedly destroyed the opposing air defense in the first hour and a half.
 
Reading between the lines of the turkroaches gloating on reddit about their mighty and eternal victory over the West, it seems that Erdogan is in a very tight electoral spot right now and that he would be committing political suicide by letting Sweden and Finland into NATO. I'm not familiar with the local politics, but it strikes me as Erdogan cutting off his nose to spite his face to refuse allies to his own military alliance. Even the gloating pro-Putin Turks make it obvious that there is some payment that could be made to change their minds, although they frame it in rather extreme terms (e.g. extradite all the Gulenists to Turkey, stop all sanctions, cede southern Cyprus to us).
If Erdodog just want's some Kurds, F-16s and a replacement for the S-400 I would say yes. If he want's stuff like Northern Cyprus or reperations for supporting the YPG I would say fuck him.

I mean does Finland actually need the NATO membership? I mean look at Russias current state and any attack in Finland would anyways escalate into WW3 due to the EU and the security pact with the UK.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back