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
 
More news from the war:

Kremlin politicians demand withdrawal of troops:

Russia has problems convincing Belarusians to fight Ukraine:

Russian economic sanctions leads to default in debt:

Which would make spreading supply in smaller limits easier.

Even with one hour in between, in a closed off rail due to, you know, a world war, that still leaves a shit ton of space to work with. To send word and get supplies from one destination to another could take a few days, maybe even a week at most. You can still move it back and forth pretty fucking easy.

Yeah. That's why it's a good idea to spread out supply lol

In war on two fronts? The fuck it is.

You somehow assume that Germans had some kind of insane if not infinite amount of supplies to send everywhere and that those timetables you mentioned are always perfect, everything works on time and logistics only needs to work one way.
I mean, you seem to know your minute history about this shit, definitelly better thann I do, but about this logistics stuff, you're talking nonsense.

You don't though. Even if a train has to go through multiple station to get to a far away station, it still needs to get passed said stations, which means they have to slow down, which also means, if word is out that the train will need to go elsewhere, it only takes a phone call and a handful of railway workers to flash some light by the station rail to get the message to the driver.
The Nazi Luftwaffe were already air-raiding Moscow by July of 1941. Now imagine all the air raids they sent against London were redirected towards Moscow instead. You'd have a flattened city with its production output destroyed as countless civilians would be dead. The same could easily happen to other western Russia cities that were centers of manufacturing. Now count in the fact that the Nazi army would be larger due to all the forces that would have been sent west fighting in Russia instead, as well as the fact that the Russians wouldn't have American Lend-Lease to rely on. Also count in the fact that the resources they would have spent fighting in the west would instead be spent extending their supply lines in the east, as well as the fact that yes, many people in Eastern Europe would be happy to help them due to Stalin's mistreatment of Ukrainians.

The Soviets barely won, despite having Lend-Lease on their side, as well as having to fight only one portion of the German army as the other half was tied down in Western Europe fighting the Allies. So against the full might of the Nazi regime, they would have lost, or at least be forced to sign an unequal peace that would allow the Nazis to get what they want from the Soviets, ie. lebensraum and resources.
 
Last edited:
I mean, you seem to know your minute history about this shit, definitelly better thann I do, but about this logistics stuff, you're talking nonsense.
The German logistics woes in the East are very well known. They had completely outstripped their logistics capability to an embarrassing degree by late 1941. It was so bad that that units fought each other and hijacked their own trains to supply themselves. They faced critical shortages of everything across the entire front until the end of the war. Not because the items didn't exist, they did in quantity, but because they lacked the capacity to ship it east.

If it could have been solved by just adding more trains and sending them down the existing lines they absolutely would have done it. The soldiers at the front were literally starving and out of ammunition and fuel that existed back home in depots but could not reach them. The problem was that the Germans lacked the ability to do it despite putting every effort towards fixing it. They created literal slave armies of POW rail workers to build and repair rail lines, depots, and sidings to try to fix the network. It was never enough.

The complete and total failure of German logistics on the eastern front is not "nonsense". It is well established historical fact. It doesn't matter what your armchair train conducting bullshit opinion is. Their best people couldn't fucking send enough shit to the east through the network to win despite doing everything they possibly could.
 
Screenshot_20220528-201509_YouTube.jpg


UA National Guardsman seems content. I read someone on Twitter remarking that the new US equipment won't be as much of a game changer as many think given the fairly comprehensive range of Soviet and Soviet derived rocket launchers Ukraine possesses. I'll edit in the ref when I get home. Basically it's grinding and a matter of who finds it unbearable first. Given RU equipment and manpower losses it's looking like RU have the worst of it. Taking a bit more of the now dirt poor but once prosperous Donbas will hardly be accepted by Ukraine.

update.png


oryx update

usmlrsnotimportsaysrubot.png


source

A little bit of looking (in particular his Vampire 6 Telegram) where he calls the orc horde the 'Allies') shows his act to be appear impartial on Twitter, atho the replies give him away. It becomes absolutely clear on Telegram, as mentioned where he calls the Russian invaders 'Allies' and in one thread he attacks Oryx. Just another propagandist shithead. Perun the Aussie Defence Analyst is a real example of someone who tries to avoid bias and wish fulfillment.

usmlrsnotimportsaysrubot.png



Denys Davydov is a patriotic Ukrainian, but doesn't avoid bad news.
 
Last edited:
West isn't interested in listening to anyone not already proclaiming Ukrainian victory (plenty of "experts" getting 'cancelled' for suggesting Russia is winning).
Because its obvious Russia isn't really winning. At best, its a stalemate. But even saying its a stalemate ignores the massive losses Russia has suffered and the large amount of ground they have lost since the war started. Anyone saying "Russia is winning" should be dismissed out of hand.

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.
The Western media is clearly biased against Russia, that much is true, but, as of now, don't have a direct dog in this fight and aren't owned by one of the two belligerents, giving leeway for them to report on things like Ukrainian deserters, and the times where Ukrainians are pushed back. In other words, while they may not be objective, they have the OPTION to be objective, while Russian propaganda can never offer anything that isn't fully voiced support for the gopnik government of Putin.
 
The Nazi Luftwaffe were already air-raiding Moscow by July of 1941. Now imagine all the air raids they sent against London were redirected towards Moscow instead. You'd have a flattened city with its production output destroyed as countless civilians would be dead. The same could easily happen to other western Russia cities that were centers of manufacturing. Now count in the fact that the Nazi army would be larger due to all the forces that would have been sent west fighting in Russia instead, as well as the fact that the Russians wouldn't have American Lend-Lease to rely on. Also count in the fact that the resources they would have spent fighting in the west would instead be spent extending their supply lines in the east, as well as the fact that yes, many people in Eastern Europe would be happy to help them due to Stalin's mistreatment of Ukrainians.

The Soviets barely won, despite having Lend-Lease on their side, as well as having to fight only one portion of the German army as the other half was tied down in Western Europe fighting the Allies. So against the full might of the Nazi regime, they would have lost, or at least be forced to sign an unequal peace that would allow the Nazis to get what they want from the Soviets, ie. lebensraum and resources.
If we’re talking Germany 1v1 versus USSR then it’s not really as clear-cut as you think. The German economy was in a precarious situation under the Nazis, the only way they could sustain their military spending was through their wars of conquest. Without them, they wouldn't nearly be in the position to challenge anybody for a long sustained war. They gained a lot through those early campaigns, the obvious material ones industries, cash, trucks, tanks, etc, but also experience and knowledge that impacted how they organized and deployed leading up to their invasion of the SU.

And in this hypothetical, are we talking Germany vs. USSR or all the Axis powers vs. USSR? The Germans' allies did more to help them during Barbarossa than the Soviets' allies (who didn't really begin helping until lend lease during '43). On top of various military roles (millions of soldiers were Romanian, Italian, etc), their allies provided them with fuel (which was in extremely short supply) as well as allowed for an easy path into the South of the USSR.

Without Hungary and Romania, the USSR could have focused more troops on the German border - the Soviet-Axis border would be much shorter. Without the threat from Japan, larger amounts of experienced troops could be moved from the Far East.
 
Last edited:
Here's your problem. You assume you can send tonnage down a rail line at an infinite rate. You can't. There is a limit. You can only send, say, a train every hour. If you send more it will cause a traffic jam as all the sidings and depots fill up. This is all governed by strict timetables.

The Germans were already sending the maximum amount of trains down those lines they could. Having more supplies to send doesn't help. Having more trains to send doesn't help.

Choo-choo full. Timetable full. To send more you need to build another parallel rail line. It's full.

The Brtish, French and Americans invested enormous amounts of resources into ensuring military railways functioned.

Indeed, you can read about how the entire British segment of the front in WW1 (some 110 miles in 1917) was effectively served by a single heavy railway line, the Hazebrock-Ypres line. That's a quarter of the entire Western Front front served by a single double tracked standard gauge railway line. Train frequency was utterly insane during WW1 and WW2. This was done by incredibly ruthless signalling and quadruple tracking where they could and when resources allowed. This allowed train frequencies of incredible amounts.

The russians themselves got around this by very early electrification across huge swathes of track under Stalin (which then had to be rebuilt post WW2) which also allowed rapid and more frequent trains precisely because the eye watering distances involved, especially with the Trans-Siberian meant that quadrupling those lines was wildly expensive.
 
The German logistics woes in the East are very well known. They had completely outstripped their logistics capability to an embarrassing degree by late 1941. It was so bad that that units fought each other and hijacked their own trains to supply themselves. They faced critical shortages of everything across the entire front until the end of the war. Not because the items didn't exist, they did in quantity, but because they lacked the capacity to ship it east.

If it could have been solved by just adding more trains and sending them down the existing lines they absolutely would have done it. The soldiers at the front were literally starving and out of ammunition and fuel that existed back home in depots but could not reach them. The problem was that the Germans lacked the ability to do it despite putting every effort towards fixing it. They created literal slave armies of POW rail workers to build and repair rail lines, depots, and sidings to try to fix the network. It was never enough.

The complete and total failure of German logistics on the eastern front is not "nonsense". It is well established historical fact. It doesn't matter what your armchair train conducting bullshit opinion is. Their best people couldn't fucking send enough shit to the east through the network to win despite doing everything they possibly could.
Bro, I legitimately lost the plot.
You say things that agree with us, but then you say that you don't agree.
 
But then you said:
I don't get that.
The capacity to move equipment, supplies, and men at the theater level is more important than stockpiles of equipment, supplies, men.
  • tactics wins firefights
  • strategy wins battles
  • logistics wins wars
In war on two fronts? The fuck it is.
Trains are not like road vehicles, you can't just follow the train in front of you. Safe following distance is well outside visual range. If a train engineer sees something on their track, they are probably going to hit it. For reasons I don't remember, the Germans didn't have functional rail signals on large chunks of their track. The only way to have a high throughput of trains on a track without rail signals or radios is paper timetables.

@ColtWalker1847 has the patience of a saint.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ColtWalker1847
The capacity to move equipment, supplies, and men at the theatre level is more important than stockpiles of equipment, supplies, men.
  • tactics wins firefights
  • strategy wins battles
  • logistics wins wars
Okay, this shit it way beyond ridiculous.
What the fuck is even the point here?
Trains are not like road vehicles, you can't just follow the train in front of you. Safe following distance is well outside visual range. If a train engineer sees something on their track, they are probably going to hit it. For reasons I don't remember, the Germans didn't have functional rail signals on large chunks of their track. The only way to have a high throughput of trains on a track without rail signals or radios is paper timetables.
Still doesn't make a train some kind of inturnable motion machine that can literally be sent back from where it was sent to before.
@ColtWalker1847 has the patience of a saint.
And the sense of an ostrich, though it could be me too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: дядя Боря
The capacity to move equipment, supplies, and men at the theatre level is more important than stockpiles of equipment, supplies, men.
  • tactics wins firefights
  • strategy wins battles
  • logistics wins wars
And the Soviets sucked at all three. America helped them pick up their slack on logistics, and they suffered enormous losses because many of their generals were yes-men whom Stalin used to replace the generals he purged from the upper ranks of the Soviet military, meaning that they had bad tactics and strategies during the first half of the war with the Nazis. What allowed later Soviet generals to learn how to fight against the Nazis effectively was the fact that the Nazis were fighting them with one arm tied behind their back (due to the aforementioned two-front war) and the fact that America kept sending war materiel and supplies to strengthen the Soviets' war effort, which gave the Soviet generals time to learn how to fight the Nazis the right way. This is something that both Stalin and Khrushchev admitted, when they openly stated that without Lend-Lease, they'd have lost to the Germans.

Trains are not like road vehicles, you can't just follow the train in front of you. Safe following distance is well outside visual range. If a train engineer sees something on their track, they are probably going to hit it. For reasons I don't remember, the Germans didn't have functional rail signals on large chunks of their track. The only way to have a high throughput of trains on a track without rail signals or radios is paper timetables.

@ColtWalker1847 has the patience of a saint.
And? If the Germans weren't stretched by a two-front war, they could probably find a way around that problem. Again, they were already bombing Moscow with air raids as early as July of 1941; if you brought all the soldiers and resources which they wasted fighting against the western allies to bear upon the eastern front, they'd have won that battle.

Geez, it's like you people think that the Nazis spent nothing on fighting against the West. They spent tons of war materiel, manpower, and resources trying to get Britian to kneel.

If we’re talking Germany 1v1 versus USSR then it’s not really as clear-cut as you think. The German economy was in a precarious situation under the Nazis, the only way they could sustain their military spending was through their wars of conquest. Without them, they wouldn't nearly be in the position to challenge anybody for a long sustained war. They gained a lot through those early campaigns, the obvious material ones industries, cash, trucks, tanks, etc, but also experience and knowledge that impacted how they organized and deployed leading up to their invasion of the SU.

And in this hypothetical, are we talking Germany vs. USSR or all the Axis powers vs. USSR? The Germans' allies did more to help them during Barbarossa than the Soviets' allies (who didn't really begin helping until lend lease during '43). On top of various military roles (millions of soldiers were Romanian, Italian, etc), their allies provided them with fuel (which was in extremely short supply) as well as allowed for an easy path into the South of the USSR.

Without Hungary and Romania, the USSR could have focused more troops on the German border - the Soviet-Axis border would be much shorter. Without the threat from Japan, larger amounts of experienced troops could be moved from the Far East.
Axis powers vs. the USSR. Not just the Germans. We are talking about WW2 here, and the fact that Russiaboos keep downplaying the importance of Allied assistance.
 
Bro, I legitimately lost the plot.
I can tell.
Okay, this shit it way beyond ridiculous.
What the fuck is even the point here?
Imagine trying to run while breathing through a straw. You are surrounded by breathable air, but you go into hypoxia. The warehouse of stuff you need is the air and the straw is the complex supply line between you and it. Welcome to military logistics.
If the Germans weren't stretched by a two-front war, they could probably find a way around that problem.
I'll agree without the British and Americans bombing the shit out rail infrastructure in Germany, they would have been in a much better position to build rail infrastructure headed east. Still, the point being made, putting twice as much men and material at the end of a supply line that couldn't keep up already is not a recipe for success.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ColtWalker1847
Ukraine isn't a real country. It has much less legitimacy than Israel. It is a frankenstein made up of russians larping as vikings, russians, poles, huns and romanians.

Also quoting msn and ukranian webpages. Sam Hydenko is currently beating up Putin, trust me I read it on Gawker and Reddiyt/Ukraiyne.
Hungary isn’t a real country, it has much less legitimacy than Israel. It’s a Frankenstein made up of a bunch of Slavs and Germans larping as descendants of Huns, Magyars, and other horse archers
 
I can tell.
Can you? Because I think you guys are right there in the woods with me lol
Imagine trying to run while breathing through a straw. You are surrounded by breathable air, but you go into hypoxia. The warehouse of stuff you need is the air and the straw is the complex supply line between you and it. Welcome to military logistics.
Is this shit supposed to make things clearer or do you just like poetry lol
 
I'll agree without the British and Americans bombing the shit out rail infrastructure in Germany, they would have been in a much better position to build rail infrastructure headed east. Still, the point being made, putting twice as much men and material at the end of a supply line that couldn't keep up already is not a recipe for success.
The Germans could have easily fixed such problems if they weren't busy fighting the Western Powers at the same time as the USSR. Again, all the supply woes you read about comes in the context of Germany being stretched to the breaking point by a two-front war. If it wasn't for said two-front war, they would have time to solve such supply problems.
 
Bro, I legitimately lost the plot.
You say things that agree with us, but then you say that you don't agree.
I don't agree because the germans couldn't supply the forces they already had in theater. Adding more forces makes those acute shortages even worse. It does not increase their ability to fight the war. It hampers it.

To fix it the major structural transportation issues the rail system would have needed to have been reformed and reorganized with a specific purpose in mind decades before the war began. The way the Reich Ministry of Transport and Deutsche Reichsbahn were constructed and organized was fundamentally flawed and structurally incapable of providing the services you are proposing. They tried to correct it during the war but it fell hopelessly short.
Again, they were already bombing Moscow with air raids as early as July of 1941; if you brought all the soldiers and resources which they wasted fighting against the western allies to bear upon the eastern front, they'd have won that battle.
But they couldn't do that. Here's how bad it was. The Luftwaffe had to send armed guards with every train it sent east because the Wehrmacht stealing their supplies was so commonplace. That's how strained the supply situation was. Robbing from each other to keep their troops fed and fueled and armed. Not having a western front doesn't magically make this rail capacity appear in the east to relieve this problem.
 
I don't understand what's so fucking hard about 'had Germany not needed to fight a two front war their freed up resources could have been spent expanding and solidifying their logistics ability toward Russia"

Which is such a brain dead retarded thing to argue I don't know why autists are slapfighting in here.

Back on topic: Russians crowdfunding medical supplies for the front.

 
Trains are not like road vehicles, you can't just follow the train in front of you. Safe following distance is well outside visual range. If a train engineer sees something on their track, they are probably going to hit it. For reasons I don't remember, the Germans didn't have functional rail signals on large chunks of their track. The only way to have a high throughput of trains on a track without rail signals or radios is paper timetables.

Only if you're American and your trains are a mile long and several thousand tonnes.

European trains, even in the modern era, tip out at around the 1700-2000 tonne mark for goods. In previous eras train frequencies in the UK especially were as quick if not quicker than they are today. Clapham Junction deals with a train every 30 seconds, and thats in an era in which there's no goods appearing every so often to slow things down and those guys had plenty of places to be pushed aside to let passenger trains through. Thing is, train numbers and departures are about the same as they were... before WW1. In many areas of the wider UK network they were more frequent, and faster, than they are today.

There's a reason distance signals and such have been a thing for a very long time as it allows you to show what the next signal is and thus slow down or hold line speed on.

So yeah, you can do plenty of train frequency and paper timetables are for simpletons who still think going above 30 MPH will obliterate the flesh from the body or suffocate people as some early armchair commentators thought about railways.
 
But they couldn't do that. Here's how bad it was. The Luftwaffe had to send armed guards with every train it sent east because the Wehrmacht stealing their supplies was so commonplace. That's how strained the supply situation was. Robbing from each other to keep their troops fed and fueled and armed. Not having a western front doesn't magically make this rail capacity appear in the east to relieve this problem.
That was the Germany which was exhausted fighting a two-front war. Take all the supplies and resources that they wasted fighting Britain and the other Western powers, and give it to the Germans to find a solution for it. Again, the Wehrmacht was stealing from the Luftwaffe because their resources were stretched thin due to the two-front war.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back