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
 

Fall of Mariupol appears at hand; fighters leave steel plant

Speaking of Russian Expeditions...

462c77f93dbf87da002b3c2f8d9f8846_640x640.jpg
 
So you know how Russian Dash Cam videos are usually a bit wild? Well we're about to see even wilder ones!

Ukraine war sanctions force Russia to lower safety and environmental standards for new cars​

MAY 17, 2022 / 11:17 AM / AFP

Moscow — Russia has eased safety standards for cars produced on its territory, such as dropping the requirement for airbags, after Western sanctions over the war in Ukraine caused a shortage of electronic components and car parts. In a decree signed on May 12, the Russian government announced a list of reduced requirements to certify some types of new vehicles produced in the country.

It includes the production of cars without Anti-Lock Braking System (ABS) sensors, airbags or Emergency Locking Retractors (ELR) for seatbelts. The decree is in effect until February 1, 2023.

Russia Victory Day Mood


A car drives past a billboard with a portrait of Russian President Vladimir Putin that reads: "For Russia," in Grozny, Russia, May 7, 2022.MUSA SADULAYEV/AP
According to the same decree, Russia will also significantly reduce its environmental standards for cars, the Kommersant business daily said in its Monday edition, bringing them back to standards for vehicles produced in 1988.


After Moscow sent troops into Ukraine in late February, Western countries hit Russia with a barrage of sanctions, banning the export of car parts to the country, among other measures.


Numerous car makers have stopped sales of their cars or parts to Russia, including Audi, Honda, Jaguar and Porsche, while BMW, Ford, Hyundai, Mercedes, Volkswagen and Volvo halted Russian production.

Earlier this month, Russia allowed for hundreds of categories of goods, including major car brands and spare parts, to be imported without the agreement of the intellectual property owner in order to bypass restrictions imposed over the Ukraine conflict.

President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that Russia's economy has weathered the sanctions well, but economists believe that the worst economic impact is still to come.
 
The Bradley was designed to be resistant to 14.5mm fire from all angles as a simple matter of course because nobody wants a battle taxi that can get shredded by a HMG... except the Russians, who have a battle taxi that gets shredded by 7.62, meaning its of zero actual use on the battlefield. But hey, its got NBC protection, so all the Russians have to do is hope the Ukrainians launch poison gas at it.

I'll point out that the Bradley was almost immediately uparmored to withstand 30mm rounds as part of an early upgrade package as its obvious utility as a scout became apparent thanks to off-road mobility and weapons package.
The BMD makes much more sense when you consider it was supposed to be air dropped into the rear lines where guys with GMPG's with AP rounds would be less prevalent and also likely suffering chemical attacks. It's an OK scout vehicle in that it's light and can pack quite a punch, but using it outside of fire support against lightly armed resistance or to threaten flanks is dangerous
 
The BMD makes much more sense when you consider it was supposed to be air dropped into the rear lines where guys with GMPG's with AP rounds would be less prevalent and also likely suffering chemical attacks. It's an OK scout vehicle in that it's light and can pack quite a punch, but using it outside of fire support against lightly armed resistance or to threaten flanks is dangerous
Yes, but even in that role it would be merely adequate considering that .50's are fucking everywhere in the US Army and a couple in REMF's in MOPP would be able to put the hurt on any troops the Soviets deployed. The USA and NATO were also preparing for that sort of play, which is specifically why the P90, Five-seveN, and their shared ammo were all invented as defensive weapons for rear-area troops.

I wouldn't say it makes much more sense, but it also wouldn't have done a terrible job in that role. Had they traded the BMP's armament for a 20mm and some armor it would be a much better choice for the role of airborne transport and fire support since it would be able to give the people a chance against MG's. As it is 15mm of aluminum on the front of the tank and 10mm on the sides isn't going to stop jack, squat, and/or dick. You don't need AP rounds to punch through that.
 
The BMD makes much more sense when you consider it was supposed to be air dropped into the rear lines where guys with GMPG's with AP rounds would be less prevalent and also likely suffering chemical attacks. It's an OK scout vehicle in that it's light and can pack quite a punch, but using it outside of fire support against lightly armed resistance or to threaten flanks is dangerous
At that point just drop a uparmored humvee equivalent that's lighter and offers just as much protection.
 
So you know how Russian Dash Cam videos are usually a bit wild? Well we're about to see even wilder ones!

I doubt it, the dash cams won't be needed, as electronics in general will become scarce and the western concept of car insurance will fade back to Soviet level times.

Russians nationalized Renault factory (which never wanted to be there in the first place) in hopes of making Soviet Moskvich car again.

The real problem is that plant was "an assembly plant" which means all the shit/parts were shipped in and put together on site. The plant itself makes no stampings, no forgings, no machining. How the fuck they are going to make anything there is mystery, but at least most Russians don't realize that.



Moscow (AFP) – French automaker Renault has handed over its Russian assets to the Russian government, both parties announced Monday, marking the first major nationalisation since the onset of sanctions over Moscow's military campaign in Ukraine.

Renault controlled 68 percent of AvtoVAZ, the largest carmaker in Russia with the country's top brand Lada, but was under pressure to pull out of the country since Russia's military intervention in Ukraine.
Renault has funnelled billions of euros into the Soviet-era factory since the two automotive makers signed a strategic partnership agreement in 2008.
No financial details were provided but Russian Industry and Trade Minister Denis Manturov said in April that Renault planned to sell its Russian assets for "one symbolic ruble".
"Agreements were signed on the transfer of Russian assets of the Renault Group to the Russian Federation and the government of Moscow," the industry and trade ministry said in a statement on Monday.
Under the agreement Renault will retain a six-year option to buy back the stake in AvtoVAZ.
The deal also included Renault's Moscow plant, Avtoframos, which makes Renault and Nissan models.
"Today, we have taken a difficult but necessary decision; and we are making a responsible choice towards our 45,000 employees in Russia, while preserving the Group's performance and our ability to return to the country in the future, in a different context," Renault chief executive Luca de Meo said in a statement.
Contacted by AFP, Renault refused to confirm whether it had sold its Russian assets for one ruble.
Thanks to AvtoVAZ, Russia was Renault Group's second-largest market behind Europe last year, with around half a million vehicles sold.

'New page in history'​

Moscow mayor Sergei Sobyanin said production of passenger cars at the Renault plant would resume under the Soviet-era Moskvich brand after the French automaker decided to close it.
"This is its right, but we cannot allow thousands of workers to be left without work," Sobyanin said in a statement.
"In 2022, we will open a new page in the history of Moskvich," he added.
"We will try to keep most of the team directly working at the plant and with its subcontractors."
Since President Vladimir Putin sent troops into Ukraine in late February, Renault has had difficulty keeping its operations going due to a lack of components following the imposition of Western sanctions.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in March called on Renault and other French companies to quit Russia. Kyiv also urged a boycott of Renault vehicles until it pulls out of Russia.
On February 24, Putin ordered Russian troops to pour into pro-Western Ukraine, triggering unprecedented Western sanctions against Russia and sparking an exodus of foreign corporations including H&M, McDonald's and Ikea.
The authorities said they were ready to nationalise foreign assets, and some officials assured Russians that their favourite brands would have domestic alternatives.
Officials in Moscow have sought to downplay the gravity of the Western sanctions, promising that Russia will adapt and taking steps to stop the flight of foreign currency and capital.

© 2022 AFP
 
I doubt it, the dash cams won't be needed, as electronics in general will become scarce and the western concept of car insurance will fade back to Soviet level times.

Russians nationalized Renault factory (which never wanted to be there in the first place) in hopes of making Soviet Moskvich car again.

The real problem is that plant was "an assembly plant" which means all the shit/parts were shipped in and put together on site. The plant itself makes no stampings, no forgings, no machining. How the fuck they are going to make anything there is mystery, but at least most Russians don't realize that.


Little nuts how Russia has a less sophisticated economy than even Mexico.

Russian exports:
2022-05-17 (5).png

Mexico Exports:
2022-05-17 (4).png


 
The FIM-92 (as well as other MANPADS) can defeat fighter jets as well as other fixed wing aircraft in the right conditions. If I'm not mistaken a few frogfoots were destroyed by Stingers in Afghanistan and at least 1 A-10 was shot down by a Russian made MANPAD in Gulf I. The British Starstreak missile seems capable of engaging fighters although it is to a Stinger as a TOW missile is to a Javelin (longer set up time, needs a tripod assembly, heavier)

With all the books I have read about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the videos I have watched I completely forgot about the Su-25's getting shot down with stingers. But I was thinking more along the lines of the speed and altitude making them hard to hit with stingers. Su-25's are ground attack so they might fly lower more often and probably slower.


Phone posting, but basically this Aussie defense analyst and gamer says aid to Ukraine is not stripping the cupboard bare.

I didn't even have to click on the link because I knew who you were talking about. Perun has some of the best videos about the war I have watched. There are other good videos but they aren't on the same level as the ones from Perun.

He is right. The US is not in any danger of running out of weapons. The Stinger isn't even being produced anymore. Most of everything we are giving to Ukraine is old stock surplus stuff. Most of it was built during the war on terror and it's already been paid for. So, it's not costing anything other than shipping.

We have other weapon systems as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't even have to click on the link because I knew who you were talking about. Perun has some of the best videos about the war I have watched. There are other good videos but they aren't on the same level as the ones from Perun.

He is right. The US is not in any danger of running out of weapons. The Stinger isn't even being produced anymore. Most of everything we are giving to Ukraine is old stock surplus stuff. Most of it was built during the war on terror and it's already been paid for. So, it's not costing anything other than shipping.

We have other weapon systems as well.

I used to know some military spooks a few years ago and all of them separately confirmed that, if the US is giving/selling it away, or if you know about it and it seems to be really high tech, we have more gear behind closed doors and enough surplus of other stuff that would blow your mind, and I guess the dumping of all this stuff on Ukraine is just further proof.
 
I used to know some military spooks a few years ago and all of them separately confirmed that, if the US is giving/selling it away, or if you know about it and it seems to be really high tech, we have more gear behind closed doors and enough surplus of other stuff that would blow your mind, and I guess the dumping of all this stuff on Ukraine is just further proof.

The idea that the US could ever run out of weapons is ridiculous. You would have to be ignorant of how things work in the US or really gullible to believe it. Also, this idea that we are going to go broke giving weapons to Ukraine is just as idiotic. I could see if everything was being produced for Ukraine but it's not. It's weapon systems the US already has, and it's all been paid for years ago. Defense contractor doesn't make a bunch of weapons and then sell them to the government.
 
The BMD seems like shit. I'm getting a lot of satisfaction seeing it's subpar performance after years of seeing people shit on the Bradley and qoute that stupid fucking Pentagon wars movie claiming it carries too few and is unarmored while BMDs are getting torn apart from PKM fire with riders being turned to abstract art from gunfire and explosions.
In particular, I always thought that quote about the Bradley
>a troop transport that can't carry troops, a reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance, and a quasi-tank that has less armor than a snowblower, but has enough ammo to take out half of D.C.
Applied much more to the BMP-3/BMD-4. A glass cannon loaded down with so much redundant firepower and such thin armor it's a rolling bomb.

Somewhat related, the Ukrainians released a propaganda video from a captured Russian BMP commander's personal videos of his life before the invasion. When he finally gets into combat the autoloader jams up and the next thing you see his BMP is blown up and he's hiding from the Ukies in a shed.
 
I used to know some military spooks a few years ago and all of them separately confirmed that, if the US is giving/selling it away, or if you know about it and it seems to be really high tech, we have more gear behind closed doors and enough surplus of other stuff that would blow your mind, and I guess the dumping of all this stuff on Ukraine is just further proof.
It's not just even that really, Perun makes very good points that are obvious to anyone who has a passing interest in military capabilities.

The weapons shipments sent to Ukraine are not the entire stocks of these weapons, and these are all easy to use, easy to field weapons that are not something that requires a large amount of training or logistical footprint, we will start to evolve into more complex systems over time - the arrival of the M777s is a sign of this - but this does not mean that Ukraine is recieving anywhere close to the full stocks.

Plus, Ukraine is forced to fight Russian ground forces head on - this is not how NATO would fight them except in the initial stage, slowing down the initial assault. The way that NATO, and most NATO partners, would seek to defeat the Russians is by first eliminating their Ground Based Air Defence capabilities - Desert Storm in 1991 shows the model for doing this - and then airpower would be used to prevent Russian forces from being able to move. It would interdict supplies, cut off logistical routes - destroying roads, railways, preventing air resupply - it would annihilate convoys whilst they were on the roads. Meanwhile cruise missiles would strike at logistical infrastructure deep behind enemy lines. The troops at the front would not be able to effectively manoeuvre due the threat from the air, and the lack of fuel.

Just imagine the current mess Russians have when it comes to supplies and multiply that by 100. We wouldn't need all the javelins and NLAWs... not that they wouldn't be useful, just that the battlefield isn't where the battle would be won. Unfortunately, for the Ukrainians they do not have that option.
 
The Stinger isn't even being produced anymore.
Not only is the stinger not being produced anymore, the US Army wants nothing to do with it. Their Stryker-based air defense platform* had a design requirement that the turret system be capable of integrating a missile system that isn't stinger in the future. They want very badly to move all the Avengers back to NG units. They only remembered about the M6 Linebacker after a pants-shitting session watching the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.

*It's taking real effort to not long post about how the LAV-AD existed 20 years ago. And the Army expecting headpats for developing and fielding their version in only four years. And the Marines only building 17 LAV-ADs. And not building a similar ACV variant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back