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
 
The Belarusian Army would never listen to Russia. Lukashenko's hold over it is the only reason Belarus isn't going through its own "color revolution" right now.

Russia wouldn't take over Belarus (anymore than they already have) if they wanted Belarus to commit troops. They would just simply have to find a more pliable usurper in his innercircle and engineer his rise to power.

I find it very unlikely that Russia would choose to start fucking with Belarus. Luka is still playing ball, he's just not fully committing. That's the sort of shit you hash out later. Luka won't be in any danger unless he starts denying Russians access to Belarus.
 
Putin controls the weather.

Screenshot_20221128_103737_DuckDuckGo.jpg
 
Yeah, and then instead of fighting amongst themselves and leaving the rest of the world in peace, they went back to trying to conquer Europe same as their ancestors did even before the Romans ever crossed the Alps. The German unification and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
I suppose that's why both the Medieval Papacy and Cardinal Richelieu fought so hard to keep them divided. The moment Germany united under Prussia, they became a military camp that saw everyone outside them as free real estate. The European empires of France and Britain would've lasted longer had it not been for the Germans and the two world wars practically sapping their strength.

Thank God the Italians are content to bicker and fight with each other despite sharing a nation. The last time they truly had their shit together they conquered half the known world and left a legacy that lasts a thousand years after its destruction... at the hands of the Germans, funnily enough.
That's because it's usually Northern Italy doing all the work, while the South basically just lives on as a mafia state that's as broken as Russia. An Italian relative of mine said that if the South got its shit together and gave as much to the country as the North does, Italy could rival Germany as the top benefactor of the EU, instead of being relegated to a joke status.

Drone operators goombah stomping one another's drones has to be the funniest development of the war.
I'm surprised that no one has put Super Mario Brothers music over the footage. It'd fit like a glove.

More news from the front:

Putin's forces are on the brink of a major retreat:

WW1-style trench warfare is becoming more common:

Russia moving troops from Belarus to Ukraine:
 
I say the world came out ahead in that bargain. Fuck the British and the French.
Little Macron has spent the past few months trying to sell out or undermine Ukraine with an outcome of Thales selling selling tank electronics to both Ukraine and Russia. Unlike with BoJo, it isn't wholly clear what the pajeet billionaire wants to do, despite statements. BoJo's visits, rhetoric and an old Russian paranoia towards the Britbong intelligence services exaggerated his role. The Ukrainians made a croissant modelled on his artfully disordered hair.


Artur Rehi on RU T80 in winter camo.
 
WW1-style trench warfare is becoming more common:
As to your geopolitics stuff, yeeeep. Nobody wanted the army with a state attached to have even more of a state to lay claim to.

As to the trench warfare, we were already in this phase before HIMARS arrived and started crippling Russian artillery. The Ukrainians were forced to dig in to avoid getting insta-gibbed, but thankfully for them Russia was unable to target those positions with air strikes.

For those unaware, unguided Western artillery has a rough accuracy of about 150 meters. Not to get too autistic into artillery, but that means a shell will land anywhere up to 150m long or short of the target, the nature of long-range fire meaning the sigma is skewed towards shots being long or short of the target. So, that means you have a 300x50m box that's assigned to a battery of artillery for them to target. As you can probably imagine, its easy to dig in to avoid the worst of the fire, and surprisingly hard to hit even a single stationary target. For comparison on the target size, that's about as big as a Nimitz's flight deck.

Now, that's modern, Western artillery. Russian tubes are probably a lot more inaccurate, with a much rougher sigma, so dug-in targets are going to be safe since they can't be knocked out by anything but a direct hit. Which brings me to the air power part of the discussion. If you were to tell an aviator "We want your bombs to hit anywhere within these three football fields" they'd look at you with a blank stare because that's child's play even with unguided bombs, as demonstrated by all the warships in WW2 who got sunk by some jackhole pilot tossing a few hundred pounds of HE into them. Of course the blank stares of the pilots in the Russian Air Force are from severe vodka intoxication, but despite that they can get their bombs close enough to cause defenders problems... except they don't have the air superiority necessary to deliver those "precision" strikes thanks to both the Ukrainian air force and Ukrainian AA.
 
Putin controls the weather.

View attachment 3955278
He's accusing them of trying to freeze out the civilian population to force Ukraine to the bargaining table, not accusing them of having a COBRA-style "weather dominator" device.

Which tbf I can't fault Russia for, as they are largely playing to their strengths at the strategic level.

As to your geopolitics stuff, yeeeep. Nobody wanted the army with a state attached to have even more of a state to lay claim to.

As to the trench warfare, we were already in this phase before HIMARS arrived and started crippling Russian artillery. The Ukrainians were forced to dig in to avoid getting insta-gibbed, but thankfully for them Russia was unable to target those positions with air strikes.

For those unaware, unguided Western artillery has a rough accuracy of about 150 meters. Not to get too autistic into artillery, but that means a shell will land anywhere up to 150m long or short of the target, the nature of long-range fire meaning the sigma is skewed towards shots being long or short of the target. So, that means you have a 300x50m box that's assigned to a battery of artillery for them to target. As you can probably imagine, its easy to dig in to avoid the worst of the fire, and surprisingly hard to hit even a single stationary target. For comparison on the target size, that's about as big as a Nimitz's flight deck.

Now, that's modern, Western artillery. Russian tubes are probably a lot more inaccurate, with a much rougher sigma, so dug-in targets are going to be safe since they can't be knocked out by anything but a direct hit. Which brings me to the air power part of the discussion. If you were to tell an aviator "We want your bombs to hit anywhere within these three football fields" they'd look at you with a blank stare because that's child's play even with unguided bombs, as demonstrated by all the warships in WW2 who got sunk by some jackhole pilot tossing a few hundred pounds of HE into them. Of course the blank stares of the pilots in the Russian Air Force are from severe vodka intoxication, but despite that they can get their bombs close enough to cause defenders problems... except they don't have the air superiority necessary to deliver those "precision" strikes thanks to both the Ukrainian air force and Ukrainian AA.
Additionally, a "dug in" force will have an advantage over an attacking force as a lot of the concussion and shrapnel is dispersed horizontally.
Unlike Pocket Tanks where the shot consumes the entire circular blast radius of the ground, much of the explosion damage (except in the case of a direct hit) will pass over the heads of entrenched defenders; while those attacking across solid ground (be it open or wooded) will suffer much more from the 'splash damage' of the shot.
 
Unlike Pocket Tanks where the shot consumes the entire circular blast radius of the ground, much of the explosion damage (except in the case of a direct hit) will pass over the heads of entrenched defenders; while those attacking across solid ground (be it open or wooded) will suffer much more from the 'splash damage' of the shot.
Yep. And for any sort of large-scale area saturation like that, artillery can't be beat, while you'd be hard pressed to deliver the same volume of incoming ordnance with planes that you can easily deliver with artillery. Remember people, its not the explosion that gets you, its the shrapnel. Being anything taller than prone while under artillery fire is a great way to become a lot shorter.
 
For those unaware, unguided Western artillery has a rough accuracy of about 150 meters. Not to get too autistic into artillery, but that means a shell will land anywhere up to 150m long or short of the target, the nature of long-range fire meaning the sigma is skewed towards shots being long or short of the target. So, that means you have a 300x50m box that's assigned to a battery of artillery for them to target. As you can probably imagine, its easy to dig in to avoid the worst of the fire, and surprisingly hard to hit even a single stationary target. For comparison on the target size, that's about as big as a Nimitz's flight deck.
A lot of the precision from unguided artillery comes from accurate spotting, which once again has been provided in abundance by drones & battlefield radar (from air & ground-based sets), so that even without guided rounds, the Ukrainians can make 1-shot-1-kill happen more often than not. And as we've seen, if the first round doesn't hit the target, they're good at adjusting fire so the 2nd & 3rd shots do the job.

Then you have Ukrainian civilians & patrols providing pace-counts & accurate information about the disposition of Russian forces, then it becomes a cannon-cocker's wet dream.

And speaking of....


:woo:
 
The cunning tactics of General Surovikin came as an unexpected surprise to the West
November 21, 2022 15:57

Russian Army General Sergei Surovikin outwitted the West and the Kyiv regime, using the British approach to conducting a special military operation. This was stated by the Romanian military expert Valentin Vasilescu, according to the PolitRussia publication .

The Romanian analyst said that Sergei Surovikin turned out to be a much more far-sighted and cunning strategist than was thought in Ukraine, Europe and the United States. Surovikin is fighting in the tactics of "indirect approach". This tactic was developed by British military theorist Basil Henry Liddell Hart.

“The British captain supported the tactic of depriving the enemy forces of the resources needed to continue the war, while simultaneously destabilizing the psychological and physical balance of the enemy, as a prelude to his defeat,” the military analyst said.
For this reason, from November 10, Surovikin gave orders to destroy the energy infrastructure of Ukraine, the Romanian analyst believes. These bombings inflict not only a physical but also a moral defeat on the Kyiv regime. The effect of missile strikes on the energy points of Ukraine is growing every day, because winter is approaching. Therefore, Vasilescu believes, Russian missile strikes will not stop, but will even increase.

“General Surovikin is truly conducting a military campaign of the 21st century, in which the phase of the battle of soldiers is overcome and modern methods of PSYOPS are used - psychological operations. And Surovikin is now preparing the ground for a big victory over the Kiev regime, subjugating control over the thoughts of the enemy, ”the Romanian expert believes, adding that the general’s cunning tactics came as unexpected surprises for Western military leaders.
Valentin Vasilescu also added that NATO has been using psychological operations for a long time, ever since the bombing of Serbia in 1999, which caused a wave of protests against Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic and forced him to capitulate.
:stress:
Oh noes! Whatever will the hohols do now?

From Hart's page:
Liddell Hart's indirect approach has seven key themes.

~ The dislocation of the enemy's balance should be the prelude to defeat, not to utter destruction.
~ Negotiate an end to unprofitable wars.
~ The methods of the indirect approach are better suited to democracy.
~ Military power relies on economic endurance. Defeating an enemy by beating him economically incurs no risk.
~ Implicitly, war is an activity between states.
~ Liddell Hart's notion of "rational pacifism".
~ Victory often emerges as the result of an enemy defeating itself.
:thinking:

Additionally:
Following the Second World War Liddell Hart pointed out that the German Wehrmacht adopted theories developed from those of J. F. C. Fuller and from his own, and that it used them against the Allies in Blitzkrieg warfare.[51] Some scholars, such as the political scientist John Mearsheimer, have questioned the extent of the influence which the British officers, and in particular Liddell Hart, had in the development of the method of war practised by the Panzerwaffe in 1939–1941.
Shimon Naveh, the founder and former head of the Israel Defense Forces' Operational Theory Research Institute, stated that after World War II Liddell Hart "created" the idea of Blitzkrieg as a military doctrine: "It was the opposite of a doctrine. Blitzkrieg consisted of an avalanche of actions that were sorted out less by design and more by success."[53] Naveh stated that,
"By manipulation and contrivance, Liddell Hart distorted the actual circumstances of the Blitzkrieg formation and obscured its origins. Through his indoctrinated idealization of an ostentatious concept, he reinforced the myth of Blitzkrieg. By imposing, retrospectively, his own perceptions of mobile warfare upon the shallow concept of Blitzkrieg, he created a theoretical imbroglio that has taken 40 years to unravel."
:story:
 
An interesting article on the future of drone warfare, specifically AI & swarms.
A swarm would use artificial intelligence to allow individual drones to behave autonomously while also harnessing the wisdom of the collective. David Hambling, in his 2015 book, Swarm Troopers, reported that software engineers had already been able to simulate those great swarms in nature by programming drones with three simple instructions: separate, or keep a certain minimum distance from others; align, or stay on the same course as your neighbors; and cohere, or attempt to move toward the average position of your neighbor. So instructed, drone swarms would move in clouds that function as a single entity, perhaps widely dispersed at first, hiding them from radar, only to converge on a target at the last minute. The swarm would be capable of reacting to threats without human intervention—changing course, speed, or altitude, maneuvering around heavily protected air spaces—and could absorb huge losses without stopping. Machines do not get discouraged and turn back.
Once the technology is within reach, someone, somewhere will build it, and once built, it will follow the rule of Chekhov’s gun—if it appears, it will be used. AI weapons have already been deployed—the Israeli Harpy drone, for instance, which loiters in the air over a contested space and is programmed to acquire and destroy targets. And although the destructive power of the atom bomb has so far prevented its use in all-out war, a drone swarm will be used once developed, because it is not a cataclysmic weapon. It is, as Robinson notes, a useful one. Although the explosive punch of small, cheap drones is insignificant compared with that of conventional bombs and missiles, they can be much more accurate. One would be enough to kill a person. Precisely targeted, even a small number could destroy crucial parts of a modern warship’s defenses. The damage done to, say, an aircraft carrier by a drone swarm might not sink it, but could strip away its sensors and weapons, making it a fat target for larger munitions.
However...
By making nearly any target indefensible, Robinson imagines, such swarms—he calls them “pebble mobs”—would render war “impossible.” What he means is the kind of total war waged against entire civilizations.
We've heard that one before.

Edit:
For the more prurient interests:
Former convict claims Prigozhin was a "rooster" & knew him in prison.
Screenshot_20221128-151730.png
Screenshot_20221128-151747.png

Screenshot_20221128-151806.pngScreenshot_20221128-151821.pngScreenshot_20221128-151839.pngScreenshot_20221128-151854.png
 
Last edited:
We've heard that one before.
What rock has this guy been living under? Mutual Assured Destruction has been a thing for decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_offensive
The cult of the offensive refers to a strategic military dilemma in which leaders believe that offensive advantages are so great that a defending force would have no hope of repelling the attack and therefore choose to attack. It is most often used to explain the causes of World War I and the subsequent heavy losses that occurred year after year, on all sides, during the fighting on the Western Front.
Under the cult of offensive, military leaders believe that the attacker will be victorious (or at least cause more casualties than they receive) regardless of circumstance and so defense as a concept is almost completely discredited. This results in all strategies focusing on attacking, and the only valid defensive strategy being to counter-attack.
The idea that overwhelming force cannot be countered by any defensive measures is nothing new, and in fact has lead to massive, horrific bloodshed as people fear that if they do not strike first they will not be able to strike back at all.
A lot of the precision from unguided artillery comes from accurate spotting, which once again has been provided in abundance by drones & battlefield radar (from air & ground-based sets), so that even without guided rounds, the Ukrainians can make 1-shot-1-kill happen more often than not. And as we've seen, if the first round doesn't hit the target, they're good at adjusting fire so the 2nd & 3rd shots do the job.
Yeah, that's definitely true. A very well-coordinated spotter/artilleryman combo can put shells down with uncanny accuracy. However that requires a lot of work, pre-planning, and training on both ends to make happen, so its no surprise the Russians have been dogshit at that. On the other hand, in Italy during WW2 the USA was using massive 240mm siege howitzers as giant indirect fire AT rifles to take out dug in armor with how close to the target we could land shots.
 
I'm not gonna lie, this reeks of Tik-Tok Brigadery shooting at nothing for da views.
At least it appears to be a ZSU they are wasting off...

What rock has this guy been living under? Mutual Assured Destruction has been a thing for decades.
I might be off the mark here, but generally when I hear of "insert new hypothetical weapon here" ending war as we know it, its usually in reference to da poor a-rabs or tin pot socialist dictatorship nations suddenly being able to pwn the US and NATO.

Like "oh n00x are for BIG powers but with boat swarms IEDs drone swarms the LITTLE GUYS can finally fight back hard and force the big boys to respekt their authoritah!"

Again, I could be off the mark though.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_offensive


The idea that overwhelming force cannot be countered by any defensive measures is nothing new, and in fact has lead to massive, horrific bloodshed as people fear that if they do not strike first they will not be able to strike back at all.

Yeah, that's definitely true. A very well-coordinated spotter/artilleryman combo can put shells down with uncanny accuracy. However that requires a lot of work, pre-planning, and training on both ends to make happen, so its no surprise the Russians have been dogshit at that. On the other hand, in Italy during WW2 the USA was using massive 240mm siege howitzers as giant indirect fire AT rifles to take out dug in armor with how close to the target we could land shots.
The entirety of the WW2 war in the Pacific was waged in part because the Japanese Military, particularly the Navy were psychologically hardwired for offense. And gave little thought to defense until fairly late in the war. They went fully down the theory of offense falacy rabit hole.

The US was displaying extraordinary artillery accuracy in WW2 because unlike the Axis the US deployed huge amounts of porable radios on the battlefield, with trained capable artillery spotters. In the Pacific Kelly Turner put his Navy Gun officers ashore with the invading Marines to directly spot fire for his big old battleships.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back