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
 
@Sphere Khrushchev had every reason to downplay Allied help, especially due to the Cold War. He still didn't, because he knew it was the truth. "Agenda" my ass.

Let's agree to disagree on that.

Also, without the Allies, the Nazis would have more men to send against the Soviets, since they also had plenty of troops fighting against the Western Allies. So Lend-Lease wasn't the only Allied support, it also entailed tying down Nazi troops in North Africa and Western Europe. Take all those men and put them on the Eastern Front instead, and remove half the supplies the Soviets had received from America. It would be a curbstomp for Nazi Germany, with them easily winning the war.

The USSR could replace men faster than Germany could, they had more resources, and their industrial base wasn't even close to being destroyed.

For instance, during Operation Barbarossa Germany desperately needed oil, which is why Hitler ordered Case Blue (their operation aimed at capturing the oil fields in the Caucasus), overextending their forces. If victory seemed unlikely before, by doing this they guaranteed their eventual defeat.


Also, Southfront is hardly a reliable source, when so many sources speak against it. At this point, Southfront is just Russian propaganda, when compared to many news outlets reporting on the open weaknesses of the Russian war effort.

They don't receive any Russian government funding, otherwise they wouldn't need to e-beg so much.

They also report on the few victories by the AFU:



And yes, it is a war, no matter how much the Russians say otherwise.

We finally agree on something.
 
@Sphere
If these railcars and trains were not sent the USSR would probably made do with the 20,000 locomotives and half a million freight cars she already had.
What locomotives? It was a war of attrition. You don't have nice things for long. Losses were huge.
After two years of war with Germany, much of the Soviet rail system was in ruins. At the time, much effort had been put into rebuilding the track; however, the hasty nature of the construction meant that it could not support locomotives with axle-loadings of more than 18 tonnes. Around 16,000 engines were destroyed by the various bombings, and the remaining intact engines were either too weak or too heavy. The factories did not have the equipment to produce locomotives, so it was decided to order more from America.
The imported decapods and USATC S160s were crucial in keeping Soviet rail system going. They were doing a substantial portion of the heavy lifting by the end of the war and in the post-war period.
 
Let's agree to disagree on that.
No. The obvious truth, as stated from the highest levels of Soviet authority at the time, was that, without Lend-Lease, the USSR would have fallen to the Nazis.

The USSR could replace men faster than Germany could, they had more resources, and their industrial base wasn't even close to being destroyed.

For instance, during Operation Barbarossa Germany desperately needed oil, which is why Hitler ordered Case Blue (their operation aimed at capturing the oil fields in the Caucasus), overextending their forces. If victory seemed unlikely before, by doing this they guaranteed their eventual defeat.
No. Because even with Lend-Lease, the USSR barely defeated the Nazis; they were outright losing the first half of the war, and only turned the Nazi army back with great losses on their own side. If the Nazis struck out against the Soviets with full power, the Soviets would have fallen faster, and with the USSR's military leaders comprised of Yes-Men who survived Stalin's purges, it would have been a laugh-riot of a war with the Nazis winning decisively in 1-2 years.

They don't receive any Russian government funding, otherwise they wouldn't need to e-beg so much.

They also report on the few victories by the AFU:

That still doesn't discount the fact that their reports of a Russian victory are greatly exaggerated. And again, you have nothing to prove that my sources are unreliable, whereas your source is dubious at best.

We finally agree on something.
Tell that to the Russians, and you'll be thrown in jail. Such measures would hardly be necessary if they were winning battles.
 
No. The obvious truth, as stated from the highest levels of Soviet authority at the time, was that, without Lend-Lease, the USSR would have fallen to the Nazis.
No. Because even with Lend-Lease, the USSR barely defeated the Nazis; they were outright losing the first half of the war, and only turned the Nazi army back with great losses on their own side. If the Nazis struck out against the Soviets with full power, the Soviets would have fallen faster, and with the USSR's military leaders comprised of Yes-Men who survived Stalin's purges, it would have been a laugh-riot of a war with the Nazis winning decisively in 1-2 years.

**sigh**

More repetition.

We've been through this.

You'll just have to re-read my posts. The arguments, numbers, and sources have already been provided.

That still doesn't discount the fact that their reports of a Russian victory are greatly exaggerated.

Well, it's true. Ukrainian leaders are losing their composure, lashing out at the West for not carrying them through the war. Some of them have started leaving Ukraine for greener pastures.

Is this how a winning side behaves?

And again, you have nothing to prove that my sources are unreliable, whereas your source is dubious at best.

What sources? Business insider? MSN? Yahoo?

They're Western propaganda. No need to prove anything.

Just like RT is Russian propaganda, which is why I don't cite it.

Tell that to the Russians, and you'll be thrown in jail. Such measures would hardly be necessary if they were winning battles.

What measures? Not calling it a war?

Russia and Ukraine have been at war since 2014, it's just that it escalated this year.

You can call it a war, "Special Military Operation", whatever. Doesn't change the fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tovarisz
If the Nazis struck out against the Soviets with full power, the Soviets would have fallen faster, and with the USSR's military leaders comprised of Yes-Men who survived Stalin's purges, it would have been a laugh-riot of a war with the Nazis winning decisively in 1-2 years.
Well I don't know about that. The Germans didn't have the economy or resources or manpower to take and hold the SU either. Don't go sucking their dick just because you hate commies. They were a complete embarrassment too. They were still using fucking horses for logistics for Christ's sake (insert Band of Brothers "you stupid kraut bastards. you have horses. what were you thinking!" clip). It was a complete mess and a minor miracle that they made it as far into the SU as they did. A total shitshow.

Eastern front would have just stalemated. Neither side able to conquer the other without outside Allied assistance.
 
**sigh**

More repetition.

We've been through this.

You'll just have to re-read my posts. The arguments, numbers, and sources have already been provided.
Most of which are quoted out-of-context. Again, the top guys in the Soviet Union, both Stalin AND Khrushchev, said that Allied Lend-Lease support was necessary for them to defeat the Soviet Union.

Well, it's true. Ukrainian leaders are losing their composure, lashing out at the West for not carrying them through the war. Some of them have started leaving Ukraine for greener pastures.

Is this how a winning side behaves?
Er, no. Ukrainians have been winning left and right, and the Russians are beginning to realize that the war has already been lost, especially with more of their elite troops being lost in this war:

It's gotten so bad, Putin's hold on power is beginning to slip:

And again, calling this whole thing a war gets you arrested. Is that how a winning side behaves? Arresting people for calling it a war, top officials realizing the war is lost, and complacent commanders getting elite soldiers killed by goddamn farmers?

What sources? Business insider? MSN? Yahoo?

They're Western propaganda. No need to prove anything.

Just like RT is Russian propaganda, which is why I don't cite it.
Again, they have more credibility than that ONE source of yours.

What measures? Not calling it a war?

Russia and Ukraine have been at war since 2014, it's just that it escalated this year.

You can call it a war, "Special Military Operation", whatever. Doesn't change the fact.
Indeed. But calling it a war gets you arrested in Russia. Which isn't something a winning side would do.

Well I don't know about that. The Germans didn't have the economy or resources or manpower to take and hold the SU either. Don't go sucking their dick just because you hate commies. They were a complete embarrassment too. They were still using fucking horses for logistics for Christ's sake (insert Band of Brothers "you stupid kraut bastards. you have horses. what were you thinking!" clip). It was a complete mess and a minor miracle that they made it as far into the SU as they did. A total shitshow.

Eastern front would have just stalemated. Neither side able to conquer the other without outside Allied assistance.
If it wasn't for their war with the Allies, the Germans would at least have enough manpower to destroy the major cities, most of which were on western Russia. They don't need to occupy shit outside of the resource-rich regions; all they needed would be to flatten Moscow, Petrograd/Leningrad, Stalingrad, and all the big cities and production facilities in western Russia, which could be accomplished by long-range artillery and bombing raids, like what the Allies did to Dresden. They can let Stalin hang on to middle and eastern Russia and live out the rest of his life in the Russian boonies while they suck the Ural mountains dry of resources after smashing the Soviet army and flattening all their important cities.

There's your stalemate: Stalin and the Soviet government get to officially live another day, after they got de-fanged by the Nazis and the Nazis took what they want like pirates.
 
If it wasn't for their war with the Allies, the Germans would at least have enough manpower to destroy the major cities, most of which were on western Russia. They don't need to occupy shit outside of the resource-rich regions; all they needed would be to flatten Moscow, Petrograd/Leningrad, Stalingrad, and all the big cities and production facilities in western Russia, which could be accomplished by long-range artillery and bombing raids, like what the Allies did to Dresden. They can let Stalin hang on to middle and eastern Russia and live out the rest of his life in the Russian boonies while they suck the Ural mountains dry of resources after smashing the Soviet army and flattening all their important cities.

There's your stalemate: Stalin and the Soviet government get to officially live another day, after they got de-fanged by the Nazis and the Nazis took what they want like pirates.
*cries in logistics*
Why does nobody understand me.

How hard is it to understand that you can't just throw your entire on-paper army at an enemy? The Soviets stopped the Germans fair and square. The Germans had reached the end of their logistics capabilities. They could not supply a force strong enough to defeat the Soviets beyond that point. The gates of Moscow was their limit. Likewise the SU did not have the ability to reach Berlin without help.

It's like what happened North Africa. The Germans could have sent more troops to Rommel and it would have looked better on paper but they had no way to reliably supply them so that they could be effective in combat and done nothing but add more mouths to feed thereby increasing their logistics woes in the theater.
 
Last edited:
*cries in logistics*
Why does nobody understand me.

How hard is it to understand that you can't just throw your entire on-paper army at an enemy? The Soviets stopped the Germans fair and square. The Germans had reached the end of their logistics capabilities. They could not supply a force strong enough to defeat the Soviets beyond that point. The gates of Moscow was their limit. Likewise the SU did not have the ability to reach Berlin without help.

It's like what happened North Africa. The Germans could have sent more troops to Rommel and it would have looked better on paper but they had no way to reliably supply them so that they could be effective in combat and done nothing but add more mouths to feed thereby increasing their logistics woes in the theater.
The Soviets stopped the Germans because A) the Germans were fighting a two-front war, B) the Soviets were able to weather the German onslaught with western supplies and aid, and C) the winter. All three factors combined led to the German defeat. Removing the Allies from the equation removes two out of three of those factors.

Again, you don't need the logistics of occupying Russia when destroying their western cities via focused bombing (just send those air raids that would have gone to London to Moscow and the western Soviet cities instead) would have been enough. They were already decimating Russian armies in the field, especially given how many of these armies were led by yes-men because the real generals got purged by Stalin. Without western supplies and aid, the Soviet army would basically rout, and with increased manpower and firepower focused against the Soviets due to the lack of a second front, the Nazis can do enough damage to the Soviets that they'll basically retreat eastward and let the Nazis take the Ural mountains and the resources they want.

Also, given the fact that Stalin horribly mistreated Ukraine prior to the war, the Germans can count on local support from the Ukrainians for assistance. There is a reason why the Azov battalion larps as Nazis; their forefathers were so fed up with Stalin that some worked with the Germans.
 
The Soviets stopped the Germans because A) the Germans were fighting a two-front war, B) the Soviets were able to weather the German onslaught with western supplies and aid, and C) the winter. All three factors combined led to the German defeat. Removing the Allies from the equation removes two out of three of those factors.
In 41 and 42 allied aid was minimal. It didn't start seriously effecting operations until 1943. It was sent to sweep the Germans from the country. Not stop them. That job was already done.
Again, you don't need the logistics of occupying Russia when destroying their western cities via focused bombing (just send those air raids that would have gone to London to Moscow and the western Soviet cities instead). They were already decimating Russian armies in the field, especially given how many of these armies were led by yes-men because the real generals got purged by Stalin. Without western supplies and aid, the Soviet army would basically rout, and with increased manpower and firepower focused against the Soviets due to the lack of a second front, the Nazis can do enough damage to the Soviets that they'll basically retreat eastward and let the Nazis take the Ural mountains and the resources they want.
And how, pray tell, are they going to supply those additional planes and artillery pieces to bring this pressure to bear? Rail capacity is taken. Road capacity is taken. How are they doing this? Hauling aerial bombs with ox carts overland to airfields near Moscow to strap to tactical bombers that don't have the range to reach the industrial zones in the Urals to begin with? There are limits to capability here. They reached it in 1941.

By 1942 the Germans couldn't have won alone. They planned on giving the SU a good kick and having it collapse. It didn't. Soviet resistance had stiffened by that point. The only way either side could have decisively won from that point on was if the Allies backed one over the other. They chose the Soviets. That is why vatniks poo-pooing Lend-Lease is so laughable. Aid was the decisive factor on that front. Particularly logistics aid. It literally trucked them to Berlin.
 
In 41 and 42 allied aid was minimal. It didn't start seriously effecting operations until 1943. It was sent to sweep the Germans from the country. Not stop them. That job was already done.
And would that have worked if the Germans had more troops and firepower and there was no Allied aid, military or material? No.

And how, pray tell, are they going to supply those additional planes and artillery pieces to bring this pressure to bear? Rail capacity is taken. Road capacity is taken. How are they doing this? Hauling aerial bombs with ox carts overland to airfields near Moscow to strap to tactical bombers that don't have the range to reach the industrial zones in the Urals to begin with? There are limits to capability here. They reached it in 1941.
They were able to send bombers to London, and they had sympathizers in Eastern Europe that could help extend their reach. They could also use the resources that they would have used in the war against the Allies. Again, Germany in the 40s was stretched due to the two-front war. If they didn't have that, or hell, if the Allies were neutral in the Soviet-German conflict and even gave the Germans a free hand, the Germans would have more resources to bear upon the Soviets.

By 1942 the Germans couldn't have won alone. They planned on giving the SU a good kick and having it collapse. It didn't. Soviet resistance had stiffened by that point. The only way either side could have decisively won from that point on was if the Allies backed one over the other. They chose the Soviets. That is why vatniks poo-pooing Lend-Lease is so laughable. Aid was the decisive factor on that front. Particularly logistics aid. It literally trucked them to Berlin.
It stiffened because the Germans couldn't bring everything to bear against them, and the Allied supplies and war aid was helping them. Without that aid, the Soviet war effort would have collapsed; and if it wasn't for Germany spending resources and manpower fighting the Allies, they'd have enough to fight the Soviets. Again, all they need to do is to bomb the cities on western Russia, like Moscow and Leningrad; they don't need to occupy shit. The Soviets BARELY won against a Germany that was stretched beyond its limits and fighting a two-front war, and that was WITH the Allied aid. Against a Germany that can focus its power on the Soviets, WITHOUT the Allies helping the latter, it would have ended with the Germans winning.

Granted, I do agree that the Germans couldn't fully destroy the Soviets. But they could defang them and impose an unfair peace that the Soviets would be forced to abide by, while the Germans sack the Ural mountains for resources.
 
Again, Germany in the 40s was stretched due to the two-front war.
That's our disagreement. This is the disconnect.

Imagine a hose that extends from Berlin to Moscow. Hitler turns a valve on. Stuff moves down the hose and ends up in Russia. Hitler then turns on a valve to a different hose going to Britain and one to Italy and one to North Africa. This is a dumb analogy but go with me here.

You are making the argument that because he turned those other valves on it somehow shrunk the size of that hose to Moscow. It didn't. That hose is the logistics capacity to push into Russia. It has little to do with what happens elsewhere. The tramp steamers hauling spare Bf-109 engines to Tunisia are not going to be helpful in the push towards Magnitogorsk if that North African front didn't exist. It doesn't translate. Whatever happens in the east is limited by the logistics network in the east. They would need to create a huge new logistics network to drive to the east much farther than they did. They didn't have the industrial capacity to do that.

Horses, dude. The transportation and logistics units in most German divisions were fuckin' horses.
 
That's our disagreement. This is the disconnect.

Imagine a hose that extends from Berlin to Moscow. Hitler turns a valve on. Stuff moves down the hose and ends up in Russia. Hitler then turns on a valve to a different hose going to Britain and one to Italy and one to North Africa. This is a dumb analogy but go with me here.

You are making the argument that because he turned those other valves on it somehow shrunk the size of that hose to Moscow. It didn't. That hose is the logistics capacity to push into Russia. It has little to do with what happens elsewhere. The tramp steamers hauling spare Bf-109 engines to Tunisia are not going to be helpful in the push towards Magnitogorsk if that North African front didn't exist. It doesn't translate. Whatever happens in the east is limited by the logistics network in the east. They would need to create a huge new logistics network to drive to the east much farther than they did. They didn't have the industrial capacity to do that.

Horses, dude. The transportation and logistics units in most German divisions were fuckin' horses.
You're dealing with the fact that the Germany you know had to spend resources fighting the West. Again, this scenario deals with a Germany that doesn't have that problem; meaning that all the manpower, resources, oil, and firepower that they wasted fighting the western democracies would now be set to bear upon the Soviets.

And again, the Russians barely defeated the Germans at great cost, and this was the Germany that was fighting a two-front war, while the Soviets got a blank check from the Americans in terms of war materiel and supplies. Remove those supplies and war material support, and add in more German forces. They were already flying air raids into Moscow during the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa; now imagine them going full-in on bombing the cities of western Russia and spending all the time, oil, and firepower that they spent attacking the West on fighting the Soviets instead, while the Soviets do not have the material support that, according to both Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev, were necessary for them to win the war against the Nazis.

Also, you need to factor in the fact that the initial military leaders in WW2 Russia were incompetent yes-men after Stalin purged the military. They eventually got better generals who learned from experience, but they got that because the Germans weren't able to focus all their might on the Eastern Front, and the Americans were supplying the Russian forces, which allowed the Russians to win battles and learn how to fight the Nazis. This wouldn't be the case if the Germans focused all their might against the Soviets while the Americans didn't provide material support. It would only end with that initial "kick in the door" knocking out the Russian forces for good and causing them to flee deep into the east while the main cities get devastated by the Germans.

Everyone used horses in Europe at the time. Only America was truly fully mechanized. The Europeans didn't have the massive, industrial machine of the United States. Again, context is important. People laugh at the Poles in WW2 using horses, but that was the norm. Everyone else used horses, or had to rely on America to pick up their slack on motorized power.
 
Last edited:
More news from the war:

A Russian official demanded that Putin put an end to the war; he gets escorted out of the meeting and branded a traitor:

Ukrainian forces push back against Russian troops:

Ukraine General Staff says that Russian troops suffered losses on border of Donetsk & Zaporizhzhia regions:

Putin tries to hide casualties as videos emerge of dead Russians:
 
What sources? Business insider? MSN? Yahoo?

They're Western propaganda. No need to prove anything.

Just like RT is Russian propaganda, which is why I don't cite it.
Idk if there are sources that aren't at this point, this war turned into pure red team v blue team and various world powers big and small are essentially placing 7-13 figure bets on how it's going to go.

Putin tries to hide casualties as videos emerge of dead Russians:
How the fuck is this news? russoldat.info has been a webpage since the very, very early days of the war.
 
Least we can do is go with sources that aren't OPENLY in the pocket of one of the belligerents.
Like? Videos and photos are about as raw as you can get, any text attached is potential fanfiction.

West isn't interested in listening to anyone not already proclaiming Ukrainian victory (plenty of "experts" getting 'cancelled' for suggesting Russia is winning).

Russia is living in it's own dimension, nobody will step out of line that is supporting putin unless they're safe in the west and then you HAVE TO question whether or not they're for real or for pay.

Nah, I'm no supporter of "Both sides are wrong", Russia is objectively invading a sovereign nation but both sides lie, I'm biased towards the western media MORE lately if only because I've started seeing news about Ukrainian soldiers going AWOL, complaining about feeling abandoned, used as cannon fodder and then arrested by UA security forces for talking to western media, which I'm sure is real as it pertains to conscripts in Luganks who had precisely zero time to be trained.

Russian media on the other hand... well, there is one fucko in this thread who basically translates all of the current narratives going on there (to a point where you might as well be talking to a russian propaganda bus), not a drop of negativity so not a drop of truth.

Western media is biased to shit though, I can't trust them with anything, I remember covid and all the experts talking and lately western media is testing how much support is there for the Kissinger option more and more. Fuck em all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back