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
 
Trusting mainstream Western sources about Ukraine is like me trusting mainstream sources in Russia.

View attachment 3333565
Except the difference is, mainstream sources in the west aren't controlled by the state the way it is in Russia.

I remember when the New York Post got suspended from Twitter for reporting the Hunter Biden leaks. Maybe the Westerners like a softer touch.
And yet the New York Post was also posting about Russian losses. When both sides of the aisle say the same thing it's gone far from just party propaganda:


 
Russia will either become Eastern Ukraine or Northern China. And they have Putin to thank for that.



A stalemate, followed by a push by the Ukrainians as they regain territory. That's the likely result, in my opinion.
I think you greatly overestimate the Ukrainian position. Even with resupply from allied countries, Ukraine still has nowhere near the amount of armor, artillery, and aircraft that Russia is fielding.

The Ukrainian manpower advantage is impressive, and Russia abandoning the Kyiv/Kharkiv fronts proves that they are absolutely on the back foot and scaling down their war goals, but I do think Russia is absolutely capable of forcing some kind of limited victory where they retain some eastern territory or declare them as "independent" from Ukraine. After giving up so much ground, Russia will be able to concentrate its forces on making small, specific gains and Ukraine will need much better fire support if they want to go on the offensive imo.
 
I think you greatly overestimate the Ukrainian position. Even with resupply from allied countries, Ukraine still has nowhere near the amount of armor, artillery, and aircraft that Russia is fielding.
Most of which Russia is fielding is either ineffective or outdated. The most damage they can do is with artillery. The fact that they're scraping the bottom of the barrel with manpower and tanks goes to show that they have blown their load and spent their best, and now they're sending in the rest.

The Ukrainian manpower advantage is impressive, and Russia abandoning the Kyiv/Kharkiv fronts proves that they are absolutely on the back front and scaling down their war goals, but I do think Russia is absolutely capable of forcing some kind of limited victory where they retain some eastern territory or declare them as "independent" from Ukraine. After giving up so much ground, Russia will be able to concentrate its forces on making small, specific gains and Ukraine will need much better fire support if they want to go on the offensive imo.
What forces? Their best have been defanged. The most they can do now is send cannon fodder up the ass until the Ukrainians run out of bullets gunning down gopniks, but at the rate the West is sending them arms, that won't come about until way later. To be able to force a limited victory, one needs to have the bite to force the enemy back. And in most cases, the Russians can't do it; the best they can do is seize a few places here and stalemate the Ukrainians, but they're running out of time, armor, and men, which is something that is exacerbated with the West pumping Ukraine with guns and cash. One side has a cheat code, the other side is working with a handicap. That is not the kind of scenario where the latter can force a limited victory on the former.
 
Most of which Russia is fielding is either ineffective or outdated. The most damage they can do is with artillery. The fact that they're scraping the bottom of the barrel with manpower and tanks goes to show that they have blown their load and spent their best, and now they're sending in the rest.


What forces? Their best have been defanged. The most they can do now is send cannon fodder up the ass until the Ukrainians run out of bullets gunning down gopniks, but at the rate the West is sending them arms, that won't come about until way later. To be able to force a limited victory, one needs to have the bite to force the enemy back. And in most cases, the Russians can't do it; the best they can do is seize a few places here and stalemate the Ukrainians, but they're running out of time, armor, and men, which is something that is exacerbated with the West pumping Ukraine with guns and cash. One side has a cheat code, the other side is working with a handicap. That is not the kind of scenario where the latter can force a limited victory on the former.

Most of Ukraine's equipment is just as old or older, and they have less of it. The numbers of western heavy equipment that have arrived are not yet more than a trickle. Russia still has a massive advantage in artillery and close air support, which is huge since the war has slowed down to a more attritional conflict.

I don't get how you can claim Russian equipment is outdated or ineffective. If Russia uses some modernized T-72s or even T-64s, so what? Ukraine is using plenty of those, too, and they don't have the more modern equipment like T-90s that Russia has. You say Russia is out of all their most modern equipment, but I see no evidence to support that claim. Calling up old mothballed equipment doesn't mean that all or even most of the modern stuff has been taken out, it just means they're calling up more.

Keep in mind, I'm very much anti-Russia, I'm just trying to keep a level head here.
 
Most of Ukraine's equipment is just as old or older, and they have less of it. The numbers of western heavy equipment that have arrived are not yet more than a trickle. Russia still has a massive advantage in artillery and close air support, which is huge since the war has slowed down to a more attritional conflict.
And yet the Ukrainians have been annihilating entire Russian tank columns and aircraft no problem. So it seems that whatever Russia is using, their best wasn't enough, and with the VDV and Spetsnaz having been beaten, the only thing Russia can send is more cannon fodder to die. Russian air power and tank units have proven to be more of a burden than a boon to the Russian forces, and the fact that they're sending in older tanks while their aircraft keep getting shot down means that they are in no place to dominate in either side.

I don't get how you can claim Russian equipment is outdated or ineffective. If Russia uses some modernized T-72s or even T-64s, so what? Ukraine is using plenty of those, too, and they don't have the more modern equipment like T-90s that Russia has. You say Russia is out of all their most modern equipment, but I see no evidence to support that claim. Calling up old mothballed equipment doesn't mean that all or even most of the modern stuff has been taken out, it just means they're calling up more.
Yes it does. It proves that they're running out of the newer stuff. You have to understand that the yearly income of Russia doesn't even surpass that of New York State or California, so they don't have large numbers of the more modern tanks and aircraft; and we have seen those more modern models get blown to hell by Ukrainians with Javelins. So they're going to reinforce that with older tank models? How can those things succeed when their modernized, improved cousins have failed?

Keep in mind, I'm very much anti-Russia, I'm just trying to keep a level head here.
There's a difference between anti-Russia, and judging things by the facts. I was pro-Russia just several years ago, and I only turned against them because of their actions in the Ukraine and because of their insane amount of corruption.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: No. 7 cat
And yet the Ukrainians have been annihilating entire Russian tank columns and aircraft no problem. So it seems that whatever Russia is using, their best wasn't enough, and with the VDV and Spetsnaz having been beaten, the only thing Russia can send is more cannon fodder to die. Russian air power and tank units have proven to be more of a burden than a boon to the Russian forces, and the fact that they're sending in older tanks while their aircraft keep getting shot down means that they are in no place to dominate in either side.


Yes it does. It proves that they're running out of the newer stuff. You have to understand that the yearly income of Russia doesn't even surpass that of New York State or California, so they don't have large numbers of the more modern tanks and aircraft; and we have seen those more modern models get blown to hell by Ukrainians with Javelins. So they're going to reinforce that with older tank models? How can those things succeed when their modernized, improved cousins have failed?


There's a difference between anti-Russia, and judging things by the facts. I was pro-Russia just several years ago, and I only turned against them because of their actions in the Ukraine and because of their insane amount of corruption.

Basically the point I'm making is that your claims are very strong, and not very nuanced. Let's wait and see, using the ongoing Severodonetsk and Kherson offensives. Russia is trying to finally accomplish an encirclement in the East, and while all their forces are concentrated in the East, Ukraine is attempting to retake territory in the south.

If Russian forces are as weakened as you say, would you agree that we should see the encirclement of Severodonetsk fail, and Ukrainian forces successfully capture Kherson?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Aidan
I think you greatly overestimate the Ukrainian position. Even with resupply from allied countries, Ukraine still has nowhere near the amount of armor, artillery, and aircraft that Russia is fielding.

The Ukrainian manpower advantage is impressive, and Russia abandoning the Kyiv/Kharkiv fronts proves that they are absolutely on the back foot and scaling down their war goals, but I do think Russia is absolutely capable of forcing some kind of limited victory where they retain some eastern territory or declare them as "independent" from Ukraine. After giving up so much ground, Russia will be able to concentrate its forces on making small, specific gains and Ukraine will need much better fire support if they want to go on the offensive imo.
That's a pretty fair assessment. Russia still has a substantial materiel advantage. Ukrainian strategy is to destroy so much of it that it makes the war not "worth it" as Russia really doesn't have the capability to replace that gear at the loss rate we have seen. However, that isn't enough to "win". Just not lose.

Winning would likely require a bunch of western gear and retraining and we haven't seen that yet. The donated 250 Polish T-72s are nice but it pales into comparison to what the US could drop on them. The US could equip them to win with shit we have just lying around in storage. We haven't seen that kind of commitment yet. It has been a slow process for reasons that are hard to fully understand. Why not send Stryker MGS and the USMC M1A1s and the remaining M198s? We aren't going to use them.
 
Screenshot 2022-05-30 07.57.08.png
Screenshot 2022-05-30 07.56.58.png
Screenshot 2022-05-30 07.56.22.png




Screenshot 2022-05-30 07.55.20.png
Screenshot 2022-05-30 07.54.57.png
 
Basically the point I'm making is that your claims are very strong, and not very nuanced. Let's wait and see, using the ongoing Severodonetsk and Kherson offensives. Russia is trying to finally accomplish an encirclement in the East, and while all their forces are concentrated in the East, Ukraine is attempting to retake territory in the south.
Except it's backed up by data and by actual evidence, not assumptions of Russian strength. If you actually look at the reports of Russia's losses, you'd know. This isn't a very nuanced conflict; it's basically the Russian boomer class pissing away their society's youth and military power to relive long-lost glories, and they're losing, to the point where they have to raise the combat age and take out mothballed tanks to combat. If the Russians were as strong as they were said to be, Kiev would have fallen by now.

If Russian forces are as weakened as you say, would you agree that we should see the encirclement of Severodonetsk fail, and Ukrainian forces successfully capture Kherson?
It depends, because the Ukrainians are more focused on defending, but we may see that sometime in the future.
 
That's a pretty fair assessment. Russia still has a substantial materiel advantage. Ukrainian strategy is to destroy so much of it that it makes the war not "worth it" as Russia really doesn't have the capability to replace that gear at the loss rate we have seen. However, that isn't enough to "win". Just not lose.

Winning would likely require a bunch of western gear and retraining and we haven't seen that yet. The donated 250 Polish T-72s are nice but it pales into comparison to what the US could drop on them. The US could equip them to win with shit we have just lying around in storage. We haven't seen that kind of commitment yet. It has been a slow process for reasons that are hard to fully understand. Why not send Stryker MGS and the USMC M1A1s and the remaining M198s? We aren't going to use them.
The biggest reasons to not flood them with the marine Abrams at the moment is simple: training time and parts compatibility. I bet there’s recruits and others right now learning how to run western style tanks in Poland, but it can take about six to nine months to get crews, mechanics, and such lined up and ready to go.
 
I remember when the New York Post got suspended from Twitter for reporting the Hunter Biden leaks. Maybe the Westerners like a softer touch.
One of things on your script. You probably have that Vaush meme ready too. This is useful as an example. The Biden Aministration didn't respond by poisoning the journalist ( Putin loves poisoning critics like a bitch), sending staff to grim prisons near St Petersburg for violating his 'fake news' law, nor get a friendly oligarch like Jeff Bezos to take it over.
 
The biggest reasons to not flood them with the marine Abrams at the moment is simple: training time and parts compatibility. I bet there’s recruits and others right now learning how to run western style tanks in Poland, but it can take about six to nine months to get crews, mechanics, and such lined up and ready to go.
Yeah that makes sense, I guess. It certainly did two months ago. But since the Euros are shipping all these other systems over there in onsesies and twosies I don't think they give a shit about logistics challenges at this point. It certainly doesn't make sense going forward for advanced war-winning systems. Don't try to fix it in the field. Ship it back to European depots for repair there is a problem.

The biggest hurdle is training on operation and daily maintenance duties. Stuff you can train 19 year olds to do quickly and not a 6-9 month thing. It made sense to just use the old stuff when they were plugging holes early on. It doesn't make sense now or going forward
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Rezza and No. 7 cat
Having two large Air Forces that excel at all angles allows you the luxury of not needing MANPADs or even SPAAGs
The proliferation of drones and loitering munitions has made even the US Army reconsider that position. That said, nobody wants new build FIM-92s. Everyone is waiting for the new hotness to replace old and busted, but as far as I know, no one is currently working on a replacement system. Everyone is probably hoping for a juicy development contract.
Why not send Stryker MGS
Would not wish that piece of shit on my enemies. Can't pen the frontal arc of anything that matters and the gun beats the chassis like a redheaded step-child. 30mm bushmaster does the same job with less headaches and more ammo.
 
Would not wish that piece of shit on my enemies. Can't pen the frontal arc of anything that matters and the gun beats the chassis like a redheaded step-child. 30mm bushmaster does the same job with less headaches and more ammo.
Eh? It gets the Stryker chassis into their supply system. Give it to the TDF units in the rear. It frees up more capable gear or upgrades the stuff they got. They are using Fiat pickups with salvaged coaxial MGs as technicals, ffs. MGS would be welcomed by those guys. Despite how much you hate it it is more than a match for Not-a-real-sistria.
 
  • Like
Reactions: No. 7 cat
The Biden Aministration didn't respond by poisoning the journalist ( Putin loves poisoning critics like a bitch), sending staff to grim prisons near St Petersburg for violating his 'fake news' law, nor get a friendly oligarch like Jeff Bezos to take it over.

The Biden admin? Probably not, but we have the odd deaths of Seth Rich and others. The suspicious circumstances surrounding the "storming" of the captial and the suspects detainment. the effective state control of the Major tech outlets, reddit, Twitter, Instagram, and the like. The suppression of news stories. We aren't at fascism yet, but we are trying hard to catch up with Russia and China.
 
The proliferation of drones and loitering munitions has made even the US Army reconsider that position. That said, nobody wants new build FIM-92s. Everyone is waiting for the new hotness to replace old and busted, but as far as I know, no one is currently working on a replacement system. Everyone is probably hoping for a juicy development contract.
Would be interesting to see the return of the M163 VADS or something like it. From what I understand all the measures the US military is looking at for counter UAVs are junk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: No. 7 cat
The Biden admin? Probably not, but we have the odd deaths of Seth Rich and others. The suspicious circumstances surrounding the "storming" of the captial and the suspects detainment. the effective state control of the Major tech outlets, reddit, Twitter, Instagram, and the like. The suppression of news stories. We aren't at fascism yet, but we are trying hard to catch up with Russia and China.
The distance between a semi recent past of Clinton (or Clinton style) suicides or accidents, glowie gay ops, some big tech behemoths doing the usual (a bit like how Catherine Graham et al used the WaPo to destroy Pres Nixon) for the Democrats and the naked despotism seen in Russia and PRC is still a very long one.
 

It’s likely that Ukrainian partisan activity has affected the morale of Russian soldiers, close to 200 of whom have been victims of fatal knifings and shootings. Some Russians appear to think that learning a few words of Ukrainian may enable them to survive nighttime attacks. It’s also likely that several assassinations of pro-Russian Ukrainian civilians have dampened the spirits of actual and potential collaborators.
 
View attachment 3331092

More bad news for the invasion force. I'm going to go on a limb and say they frontloaded the training and delivery before the announcement.
Don't go too far out on that limb.

Biden rejects Ukraine long-range rocket request as Russia advances

The United States will not provide Ukraine with advanced missile systems that can hit targets inside Russia, President Biden revealed Monday – once again rejecting a request from the Kyiv government for vital military aid.
“We are not going to send to Ukraine rocket systems that can strike into Russia,” the president said after arriving back at the White House from Delaware.
Reports last week indicated the administration was preparing to send long-range systems to Ukraine as the eastern European nation continues to suffer from Russia’s brutal invasion that began on Feb. 24.
Top Ukrainian officials – including President Volodymyr Zelensky – have requested the US and its allies provide Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS) as well as High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS).
While other foreign leaders – such as British Prime Minister Boris Johnson – have spoken in support of providing the rocket systems, US officials have expressed concern about whether Russia would see the weapons delivery as an unacceptable provocation by the West.

1653923787600.png
Reports last week indicated the Biden administration was preparing to send long-range systems to Ukraine.
1653923868700.png
Top Ukrainian officials have requested the US and its allies provide Multiple Launch Rocket Systems and High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems.



The decision not to send the rocket systems mirrors a similar move note taken earlier this year, when Biden decided against providing Soviet-made MiG-29 fighter jets that would have been transferred to Ukraine from Poland – despite repeated urges from Zelensky and US lawmakers from both parties.
At the time, Biden wanted that such a move could cause “World War III.
Prior to Monday, the administration avoided confirming whether the US would send the long-range systems, with Pentagon spokesman John Kirby telling reporters Friday : “We are still working through what the next package is going to look like.”


1653923975400.png
President Biden previously decided against providing Soviet-made MiG-29 fighter jets that would have been transferred to Ukraine from Poland.

“I won’t get ahead of decisions that haven’t been made yet, but we are in constant communication with them,” he added. “And our goal from the very beginning has been to try to help them in the fight that they’re in today.”

After an initial Russian offensive failed to gain control of Kyiv, Moscow has turned its attention to seizing the industrial Donbas region in Ukraine’s east. On Monday, the mayor of the crucial city of Sievierodonetsk, northwest of Luhansk, told the Associated Press that Russian forces had entered, power and communications had been cut and “the city has been completely ruined.”
 
  • Informative
Reactions: IAmNotAlpharius
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back