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
 
Cheap dumb tanks that have the technology process of being droned to death. War changed bub, you can send out 30 dudes all backed up with tanks but then have it annihilated by some zoomer sitting fifty miles away on a computer.
drones and missiles alone don't win a war. they can cause attrition and disruption, but they can't take, hold or defend territory on their own. for that you need boots (and wheels) on the ground, and those forces will always remain vulnerable to conventional weapons like rifles, tanks and artillery, no matter how cheap and dumb the tech is.
 
drones and missiles alone don't win a war. they can cause attrition and disruption, but they can't take, hold or defend territory on their own. for that you need boots (and wheels) on the ground, and those forces will always remain vulnerable to conventional weapons like rifles, tanks and artillery, no matter how cheap and dumb the tech is.
I wonder how carefully the Russians considered the idea of using instructors to reinforce front line units. There are now a lot of dead instructors who would have been useful turning the mobniks into something more useful than a pitiable rabble. I would bet that when they were weighing the decision the factor that tipped the scale was Putin not wanting to look weak by mobilizing. That would be admitting that Ukraine has a real army (it's still not a real country, fuck you anglo saxons :mad:). Now for vanity they lack many critical personal needed to make this mobilization less of an embarrassing clusterfuck.
 
is it this gun?

they're probably not going to hit modern jets with it, but it's still good for shooting down helicopters
will shred light vehicles too if it can be pointed at the ground

I mentioned this before, but the precursor to the BMD1 and BMD2 was the air-droppable ASU-57, which mounted a 57mm - seems to be the same gun, with AP ammunition. The Russians can't be dumb enough to think this is an overmatch for Ukie armor in the field. As far as its actual suitability for AA work today, shy of having a network of FCR (and at that point why not use better guns or better still SAMs?), you are NOT going to take down a jet with one of those. You're just not. Inb4 someone says "Muh vietnam" - I doubt the Ukies will be flying politically restricted route packages and almost flat out annoucing what targets they're going to bomb, unlike Johnson (and Nixon, to be honest) prosecution of the air war over NVN.

As far as their effectiveness vs. soft ground targets - sure, I guess. I mean the US did put 106mm recoilless rifles and M66 LAW back in service during the GWOT, even had some OV10Ds doing their thing over Syria (god the USAF will do anything to replace the A10...but I digress).

If it's stupid, and it works, then it's not stupid. But I can imagine the squatnik waaaaagh deciding to use them as AT guns. Or try to. Then it becomes stupid.
 
If he did volunteer it then he is free to withdraw free usage anytime he wants, what will they do? Take him to court? "Give me that service back for free...." Good luck winning that.
Yesterday he realized how fucking wrong for his EV car toy company is siding with that shithole called Russia and starlink will stay.

And also someone get a talk with Musk about that little issue. And he was forced to realize that his new homeland is de facto in war with Russia, so he can just shut up and do his job.

Here's hoping, maybe drawbacks accumulate enough for them to realize that this whole thing is a terrible fucking idea.
They realized this months ago and still do what their do. Russia as a state has self-destruct mechanism on run, like in 1916. Or in the dawn of war with Japan.

All of russian elite is fucking sure that they are heading to a national tragedy. But they have no other options:

- if they will still try to conduct operations they will lose,
- if they suddenly surrender - they will also lose.

Their aren't thinking about winning this war (it is impossible on this moment) nor they thinking about making a peace on any fair terms (this is also impossible - NATO&Ukraine will not take anything less that full restoration of pre-2014 positions and at least some kind of demilitarization of Russia).

Just take it. Russia is in position of Japan in 1942 or Germany in 1917. Russian will end poorely, only open questio is how many russians will die before the end.

And if you are still in Russia you must be very sure that you will not be drawn to army.

those forces will always remain vulnerable to conventional weapons like rifles, tanks and artillery, no matter how cheap and dumb the tech is.
No.

Modern or semi-modern tank isn't vulnerable to T-62 or similar coffin for ruskies.
 
Modern or semi-modern tank isn't vulnerable to T-62 or similar coffin for ruskies.
a tank on tank engagement is kinda doomed in that situation, yeah, but i'm confident that the russians have infantry weapons that can kill modern tanks. maybe not as sophisticated and expensive as burger javelin, but good enough to do the job.
 

Looks like the Army is boots on the ground, because no one there is even close to gay enough to be in the Marines.

How embarassing it is to be losing the ground war to, well, that. Must mean the Russian forces are even bigger faggots.

I mentioned this before, but the precursor to the BMD1 and BMD2 was the air-droppable ASU-57, which mounted a 57mm - seems to be the same gun, with AP ammunition. The Russians can't be dumb enough to think this is an overmatch for Ukie armor in the field. As far as its actual suitability for AA work today, shy of having a network of FCR (and at that point why not use better guns or better still SAMs?), you are NOT going to take down a jet with one of those. You're just not. Inb4 someone says "Muh vietnam" - I doubt the Ukies will be flying politically restricted route packages and almost flat out annoucing what targets they're going to bomb, unlike Johnson (and Nixon, to be honest) prosecution of the air war over NVN.

As far as their effectiveness vs. soft ground targets - sure, I guess. I mean the US did put 106mm recoilless rifles and M66 LAW back in service during the GWOT, even had some OV10Ds doing their thing over Syria (god the USAF will do anything to replace the A10...but I digress).

If it's stupid, and it works, then it's not stupid. But I can imagine the squatnik waaaaagh deciding to use them as AT guns. Or try to. Then it becomes stupid.

I'm not overly familiar with the weapon system, but from what I read, they were built based on a Natzee design with primitive Fire Control Computers slaved to Radar, which means you can hook them up to a FCR with better FCC, which is why they are still active in the battle space - you just swap the radar for something better. They are shit against jets but good against Helos in quantity. Ukraine has been using them as light field artillery.


Modern or semi-modern tank isn't vulnerable to T-62 or similar coffin for ruskies.

Ukraine only has so many "modern tanks". T-62 would still be effective against infanty and IFVs.
T-62, T-72, T-92.... they all get taken out by one Javelin.
 
View attachment 3742935

Bonus footage of Ukes getting their favorite drone treatment

View attachment 3742945

Ukrainian volunteer detachment commander brags about “disappearing” those accused of filming AFU rockets: “We haven’t got time to put them in jail.”
View attachment 3742959

More hilarious hohol propaganda
View attachment 3742965

Ukraine officials continue being silent on heavy losses. “Look for the missing!” – a rally of relatives of the servicemen of the 24th brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine who went missing is taking place in Lviv.
View attachment 3742971
Guys we have a super badass recruitment video this makes up for a shity military technology
 
russians have infantry weapons that can kill modern tanks. maybe not as sophisticated and expensive as burger javelin, but good enough to do the job.
So way they still didn't using it?

Due to Oryx Ukraine has pretty small loses in Panzerwaffe.

Ukraine only has so many "modern tanks".
They received many tanks from post-soviet NATO countries. All of them was modernized and integrated with NATO standards or modernized as far it was possible.

T-62 against ex-Polish T-72 or PT-91 is like Zulu with gun against british soldiers in Rorke's Drift.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: IAmNotAlpharius
Hey guys. I haven't been active since early September when Keffals nuked the website. Did I miss
Kharkiv region was purged of Russian expeditionary forces, with hundreds of peices of modern weapons and ammo dumps captured intact, to include several dozen T-80 variants and the grand prize of at least 1 T-90M recovered in pristine condition, likely headed to the US along with several Aircraft wrecks with intact sensor pods and instruments that the Russians failed to scuttle or secure while the wrecks were in Russian controlled territory.

A few Russian Airbases were bombed, with several stike aircraft smashed on the parking ramps.

Some based Russian shot and killed a commissar at a recruiting center.

Oh and the hilarious situation of the release of several dozen Azov Regiment members captured at Mariupol, to include their leader that looks like a Finnish pewdiepie were released for Putin's daughter's godfather, as well as some POW American and British Volunteers and the crew of that BTR-4 that made kino videos of Donbabwians getting smoked with 30mm cannon fire.
 
T-62 against ex-Polish T-72 or PT-91 is like Zulu with gun against british soldiers in Rorke's Drift.
I'm sorry buddy but your analogy falls apart. "Zulu with gun" implies that they have the same equipment, just with different training and maintenance standards. So let me fix that for you:
Russian with T-72 against ex-Polish T-72 or PT-91 is like Zulu with gun against british soldiers in Rorke's Drift.
or,
T-62 against ex-Polish T-72 or PT-91 is like Zulu with spear against british soldiers (with guns) in Rorke's Drift.
I'm gonna say again that outdated equipment may still have quite some bite: As I've said before, T-34s might be a joke in 2022, but even still theyre better-armed and protected than a technical. Even in the analogy against the Zulus, The British took some losses
 
Last edited:
@MS Paint Gigachad

Well, I must agree ;)

Oh and the hilarious situation of the release of several dozen Azov Regiment members captured at Mariupol, to include their leader that looks like a Finnish pewdiepie were released for Putin's daughter's godfather, as well as some POW American and British Volunteers and the crew of that BTR-4 that made kino videos of Donbabwians getting smoked with 30mm cannon fire.
Don't forget about last shootings in ruskieland, where conscripts was shooting each other in the name of Allah.
 
Yesterday he realized how fucking wrong for his EV car toy company is siding with that shithole called Russia and starlink will stay.

And also someone get a talk with Musk about that little issue. And he was forced to realize that his new homeland is de facto in war with Russia, so he can just shut up and do his job.
Calling for a diplomatic solution to prevent further bloodshed is not siding with Russia unless Ukraine really is in it to start thermonuclear war, which the way some of you act wouldn't really surprise me. His proposition was completely reasonable unless you either aren't confident in UN oversight of the election (I wouldn't be) or you simply aren't confident that the masses in Ukraine would vote Russia out, which would actually be hilarious reading some of your reactions if they didn't.
 
Calling for a diplomatic solution
Musk didn't call for a diplomatic solution. Under current legal situation it is impossible to cede territory as a result of war. Their are no options for a UN certifed plebiscite on occupied territories (yes, including Crimea).

His plan was simply to accept illegal situation which is impossible to become legal without revoking whole Chart of UN and Helsinki Accords. Or he is just so stupid than he belives whole international law will be changed to execute his proposal.

Anyone who thinks that is possible to make a valid referendum in this case just didn't know shit about international law.

In other hand: nor russia, nor Ukraine are interested on status of Crimea. Ukrainian and West aim in this war is to fuck russia so hard that they will not be able to conductanother war in next years. Besides, russian aim is to kill all Ukrainians.

or you simply aren't confident that the masses in Ukraine would vote Russia out, which would actually be hilarious reading some of your reactions if they didn't.
Yes, probably after years of genocidal occupation it is nearly impossible to make a vote in occupied territory of Crimea. You know, most supporters of their own homeland was killed, arrested or was lucky to escape before the russian apes arrived.

You know, just like in some parts of Europe occupied by nazis (the real one from Germany, allies of ruskies).
 
He's not trying to take anything, to be clear. He's been doing it for free all along and it can't be cheap, which he made known prior to this debacle.
I can understand both sides of this. Elon's view on the situation is obviously naive, it's clear he's unfamiliar with the nuances and history of this conflict, and what it would mean to give Putin what he wants - he's tearing Russia apart trying to salvage his "special military operation" in Ukraine and is running out of political capital with increasingly unpopular decisions, ceasefire would just give Russia time to relieve societal pressure built up over the year, dig in on the occupied territory, learn and rebuild however they can for the next push. Any peace deal that doesn't involve Russia's complete withdrawal from Ukraine's internationally recognized borders is not going to last.
Time is on Ukraine's side, as long as the West keeps doing its part in supporting their efforts, which I don't see changing anytime soon. Putin's Russia is a major destabilizing factor that can't be ignored anymore. It would continue to be a problem until it's no more. Putin's ego will drive him into self-destruction as he demands more and more sacrifices from common Russians who's only seen war on TV, and now it came into their homes, invited by none other than Putin himself. I don't think whoever comes after is going to pick up his lost cause.

Elon probably has good intentions, but even smart people don't know everything, knowledge is not inherent, these things take time to learn, and I don't think he's got much of that on his hands these days. He also has a habit of just saying whatever is on his mind, he's capable of discussing these things with people who knows better and adjusting his views based on the information he receives, like any rational human being. Which is what pro-Ukrainian people should've done, instead of acting like goddamn children.
The ambassador's emotional reply and the overall kneejerk reaction from pro-Ukraine crowd was embarrassing in my eyes, it was very much typical Twitter. And while I don't expect much from your average Twitter user, experienced diplomat should know better, especially when it's not just optics at stake.
While I understand how unprofessional the remark was, I don't buy that Musk is that naive in geopolitics. He very purposely put himself out there as a powerful businessman with a service that can bypass state censorship of the internet and he can't do a 5 second google search for more recent election maps in Ukraine? He purposely used the 2012 map to push the notion that the vast majority of Ukraine wants to join Russia, which is completely false since between then and now, the pro-Russian party in most regions of Ukraine completely collapsed in 2019, just three years ago:
I find it very hard to accept the idea that Musk, who went out to find an electoral map to prove his point in the first place, was not able to find this or to check the most recent election map to see how wrong he was. His smugness and indignation towards being criticized for his comments and decisions he's made also make it more apparent that he's arrogant, not ignorant, of the situation here and I find it as embarrassing as the diplomat that screeched "Fuck you, we won't buy your Teslas now!"
Calling for a diplomatic solution to prevent further bloodshed is not siding with Russia unless Ukraine really is in it to start thermonuclear war, which the way some of you act wouldn't really surprise me. His proposition was completely reasonable unless you either aren't confident in UN oversight of the election (I wouldn't be) or you simply aren't confident that the masses in Ukraine would vote Russia out, which would actually be hilarious reading some of your reactions if they didn't.
The reason why a diplomatic solution is not going to work is because the Russians are, and will, demand the absolute extent of their goals. Which is recognition of occupied provinces into Russia, demilitarization and permanent "neutrality" which translates to: We can fuck with your domestic politics as much as we want while you turn the other cheek. All of which are insane demands to force on Ukraine, whose military has been capable of holding the Russians back and making gains on its own.
The Russians had already broken diplomatic agreements it made with Ukraine, such as its promise to respect its territorial integrity in exchange for surrendering its nukes and ceasefire agreements it made with Ukraine in the 2014 war that the Russians broke pretty much immediately. I have no doubt that Russia will come back for Ukraine if they brokered some ceasefire and try to take more from it. That's the reason why Musk's calls for a "diplomatic solution" are full of shit, Russia doesn't give a shit about diplomacy. It's a ploy to buy them time. Their idea of diplomacy is aggression until they get what they want.
Edit: ploy is a more appropriate word here.
 
Last edited:
So Russia has had to result to hunting down conscripts with armed recruiters and police to force them into service? Nice to see Stalin's "Not One Step Back" policy is still alive and well 80 years later. You know your military action is going well and has the confidence of the people when you have to conscript soldiers at literal gunpoint and hundreds of thousands of military-aged men are running like their hair is on fire and their ass is catching.

Fun thing about the T-62 antiques that Russia is being forced to pull out of storage: they're vulnerable to RPG-7 warheads, and not even the newer, fancier tandem shaped charge warheads designed to go against more modern armor. The Ukranians won't even need Javelins to pop the turrets off those.

I made a joke about the Rooskies pulling T-34s out of museums and parade duty once they start losing T-62s, but if they're having to pull WWII anti-aircraft guns to put into service then it might not actually be a joke.
 
Don't forget about last shootings in ruskieland, where conscripts was shooting each other in the name of Allah.
Russia has surpassed Europe in Islam-related terrorist killings. (The source is thereligionofpeace.com which probably overstates the European number, if anything)
1666010390474.png
They laugh at the US for Afghanistan. They laugh at the West for Diversity and Inclusion. Then they go to war against an Orthodox Christian nation and still get Allahu Ackbar'd, It's too fucking funny.
 
Musk didn't call for a diplomatic solution. Under current legal situation it is impossible to cede territory as a result of war. Their are no options for a UN certifed plebiscite on occupied territories (yes, including Crimea).

His plan was simply to accept illegal situation which is impossible to become legal without revoking whole Chart of UN and Helsinki Accords. Or he is just so stupid than he belives whole international law will be changed to execute his proposal.

Anyone who thinks that is possible to make a valid referendum in this case just didn't know shit about international law.
Clearly Russia does not see the situation as illegal as there is war, hence the need for diplomacy and negotiations. If both sides have their heels dug in and want to see it to the natural conclusion, then I can only hope that I will be far enough from the inevitable nuclear blasts.
In other hand: nor russia, nor Ukraine are interested on status of Crimea. Ukrainian and West aim in this war is to fuck russia so hard that they will not be able to conductanother war in next years. Besides, russian aim is to kill all Ukrainians.
If Russia's aim was to kill all Ukranians the first days would have been far bloodier on the civilian side. Everything about their tactics suggested they were avoiding civilian targets. If anything, they seemed too concerned about preventing casualties as opposed to what are now conventional (probably for the worse and is awful for humanity) shock and awe tactics.
Yes, probably after years of genocidal occupation it is nearly impossible to make a vote in occupied territory of Crimea. You know, most supporters of their own homeland was killed, arrested or was lucky to escape before the russian apes arrived.
First I have heard of this but I'll take it as true since it is logical that opposing supporters were brutalized. Oppressing dissent just seems to be the way in that part of the world. Ukraine has done it too since the beginning of this war. However even in US media the general vibe was that Crimea was more closely attached to their role with Russia and history in the Soviet Union than Ukraine in terms of support, and just obvious that Russia wouldn't give it up due to missile defenses being in the region.
You know, just like in some parts of Europe occupied by nazis (the real one from Germany, allies of ruskies).
Damn this thread is just full of people who fell asleep during their WWII history.
The reason why a diplomatic solution is not going to work is because the Russians are, and will, demand the absolute extent of their goals. Which is recognition of occupied provinces into Russia, demilitarization and permanent "neutrality" which translates to: We can fuck with your domestic politics as much as we want while you turn the other cheek. All of which are insane demands to force on Ukraine, whose military has been capable of holding the Russians back and making gains on its own.
The Russians had already broken diplomatic agreements it made with Ukraine, such as its promise to respect its territorial integrity in exchange for surrendering its nukes and ceasefire agreements it made with Ukraine in the 2014 war that the Russians broke pretty much immediately. I have no doubt that Russia will come back for Ukraine if they brokered some ceasefire and try to take more from it. That's the reason why Musk's calls for a "diplomatic solution" are full of shit, Russia doesn't give a shit about diplomacy. It's a ploy to buy them time. Their idea of diplomacy is aggression until they get what they want.
Edit: ploy is a more appropriate word here
So then what is the exit strategy? Just keep fighting Russia in a war of attrition that will end in the deaths of many more Ukranians and Russians? It doesn't appear to me like either side is interested in diplomacy. Ukraine has earned victories with their superior training coming from foreign special forces and generous donations of arms supplies with the Western countries who have a vested interest in their influence over Ukraine and beefing with Russia, but from the get go Ukraine is just a turf war in a power struggle between East and West. I don't see Ukraine as benefiting from allowing themselves to fight a many years long war with anyone. So you don't trust Russia, but at least with a proposal like Musk's you have them agreeing to stand by for a (hopefully) fair election that the world will be watching and with neutrality, Russia loses their excuse of NATO encroachment and Ukraine has *more* control over their own politics as they aren't playing pawn for Russia or any foreign organization.

And really, after all this who would expect a vote to go Russia's way? After Russia bombing their homeland, heavy doses of propaganda, and fucking murdering pro-Russia dissenters, I think even agreeing to accept such a thing would be a bitter pill for Russia to swallow, as I doubt even they think they would win a popularity contest in Ukraine at this point.
 
Last edited:
@Happy Fish
So then what is the exit strategy?

To outlast Putin's regime, as one of the possibilities. It's highly unlikely that war would continue with Putin out of the picture. Time is not on his side, I believe I have explained why previously.
Ukraine, on the other hand, has adapted to this war. So far everything indicates that they have the will to see this through, at the very least if international support doesn't falter and they have the material means to continue. Putin might be facing a revolution/coup if he keeps acting all retarded and making everyone's lives in Russia miserable, meanwhile Zelensky only seems to grow in popularity among his people, with Ukrainian national identity solidified by the external, existential threat. They've seen what "Russian world" is like and what awaits them if they let Russian horde have its way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back