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
 
A couple of years ago, Wagner had a run-in with a US F.O.B. and got their shit pushed in.
IIRC that would be the Battle of Kasham.
U.S. version

According to the U.S. military's official statement, around 10 p.m. local time on the night of 7 February 2018, a force of 500 pro-government fighters consisting of local militiamen, Syrian Army regulars, Iranian-trained Afghan Shia fighters, and reportedly Russian contractors launched an assault on a Syrian Democratic Forces headquarters near the town of Khasham, located on the Euphrates River in Syria.[13][18] Supported by T-72 and T-55 tanks, the pro-government troops first shelled the SDF base with artillery, mortars, and rockets in what U.S. military officials described as a "coordinated attack." Around 20–30 shells landed within 500 meters of the headquarters. According to the U.S. military, the presence of U.S. special operations personnel in the targeted base elicited a response by coalition aircraft, including AC-130 gunships, F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets, unmanned aerial vehicles (MQ-9), AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, B-52s, and F-22s.[4][10][5] Nearby U.S artillery batteries, including a High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, shelled Syrian forces as well.[10] According to sources in the Russian private military company—Wagner Group, cited by news media as well as the Pentagon—U.S. forces were in constant contact with the official Russian liaison officer posted in Deir ez-Zor throughout the engagement and only opened fire after they had received assurances that no regular Russian troops were in action or at risk.[34]

The clashes lasted four hours and saw more than 100 Syrian pro-government fighters killed, with one SDF fighter injured, according to the coalition. No U.S. troops were reported killed or wounded.[10]

According to two unnamed U.S. defense officials cited by CNN on 8 February, the U.S. military had assessed that Russian contractors had been involved, with one saying some of the contractors had been killed in the airstrikes.[10] A Kurdish militia commander and an ex-Russian officer also claimed Russian private military contractors (PMCs) were present and suffered casualties during the strikes.[35] During the two weeks following the incident, U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and other U.S. military officials repeatedly stated that U.S. military commanders were in contact with their official Russian counterparts prior to, during, and after the clash and the U.S military were told by their Russian counterparts that there were no Russians in the paramilitary formation.[36][37]

Unofficial Russian sources version​

Shortly after the strikes, various Russian unofficial sources began to publicize information that a number of Russian "volunteers" (PMCs) had been killed in the strikes, with some posts on Russian social media making claims of over 200 Russian PMCs being killed, although the veracity of this information was questioned and could not be confirmed. A known critic of the company that hired the contractors, Yevgeny Shabayev, also claimed 218 PMCs were killed and that the families were still waiting for their remains. Additionally, a Russian military doctor, a leader of a PMC-linked paramilitary Cossack organization and a source with ties to Wagner claimed 80–100 PMCs were killed and 200 wounded.

Contrary to the claims of hundreds of deaths among the PMCs, a Russian investigative group, the Conflict Intelligence Team (CIT), confirmed 10 contractor deaths and estimated a total of between 20 and 30 had died. A Russian journalist also believed between 20 and 25 PMCs died in the strikes. On 17 February, a Wagner leader, Andrey Troshev, was quoted as saying 14 "volunteers" died in the battle. Three other Wagner commanders also stated the claim of 200 dead was an exaggeration and that 15 PMCs were killed at the most.

A Russian newspaper, citing Russian military and contractor sources, reported pro-government forces were attempting to capture the Conoco (locally called Al Tabiyeh) gas field from the SDF.

Ukrainian cannon-cockers talk about their M777.
 

Honey traps for the Chechens.

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.

Sort of. Japan had been given a choice due to economic sanctions when they'd moved from just occupying Manchuria and moved up to invading China:
Stop invading china, or secure access to those resources by force.

Japan's previous experiences had been against the Chinese, who were not even a 2nd rate military. And Japan's military planners figured - not incorrectly - that the western powers Asian forces were second rate and far from resupply/reinforcement, and would be easy pickings for the Imperial War Machine. They also did some uniquely Japanese shit like the cult of the Empire/Dietifcation of the Japanese Soul that lead to them teaching their soldiery that anyone who wasn't Japanese was subhuman.

Only the most rabid Japanese officers believed they could actually win against the US long term. The military planners had hoped to launch a lightning strike to kick out the Dutch and force the US and UK from beyond naval striking range of the home islands, and thus force them to the bargaining table to get their chinese conquest legitimatized. The most Japan realistically expected was occupying Hawaii (which was not a US state at the time) and pressuring Australia such that the Brits would be forced into an unequal peace.
This did not work as they hoped. Japanese deficiencies in technology, logistics, and command had already been eroding their efficacy. The Japanese defeat at Midway simply cemented the building reality; sort of like Lee at Gettysberg, even if they'd won the battle they were already losing the war.

The japanese focus on offense was less an adherence to a school of military thought and more of a reflection on reality. Japan was deficient in nearly every strategic resource needed for a modern war machine. They lacked the resources to produce large ammounts of reinforced concrete, and what they did produce they lacked the ability to transport to forward positions. In China, there was no need for defensive works because they lacked heavy weapons, in the islands they counted on the water as a defensive barrier. Per my earlier posts on the Zero, Japan opted for speed instead of armor on their fighters because speed was less costly to maintain. Armored planes are heavy and take a lot of fuel.

The resource-poor Japanese islands needed resources from their expanding empire to keep fueling that expansion. You stop, and it implodes. This is why the Japanese were effectively destined to lose - they lacked the raw population to take any significant prize like India or Australia. Hell, they hadn't even taken over all of china. The only thing that would have allowed Japanese victory would have been the US/UK deciding shit was too costly and capitulating, which is why they trying to for a massive, blitzkreig type offensive to secure a defensive umbrella around the home islands, unnerve their opponents and then initiate peace talks and get the economic taps turned back on.

Really the Japanese miscalculated two things:
First, they seriously underestimated the lengths especially the US would go to maintain its Pacific presence. Even before WWII, the US was working to spin the Phillipines off as a wholly independent country. Hawaii was still just a territory. They expected the US to treat those like the British treated their non-India/Non-Australia pacific holdings, and put up a defense but ultimately melt under a determined adversary.

Second, they understood the industrial might of the US but due to the way their own society worked failed to grasp the speed and degree to which that industrial might could be brought to bear and shoved all the way up their ass. They also didn't grasp just how deviously ingenious the western devil was when it came to solving problems.

A couple of years ago, Wagner had a run-in with a US F.O.B. and got their shit pushed in.

The survivor payment was cheaper than the plane ticket home + contract completion bonus.
 
Last edited:
really the Japanese miscalculated two things:
First, they seriously underestimated the lengths the US would go to maintain its Pacific presence. Even before WWII, the US was working to spin the Phillipines off as a wholely independent country. Hawaii was still just a territory. They expected the US to treat those like the British treated their non-India/Non-Australia pacific holdings.
Funnily enough, we actually did spin off the Philippines into their own country right on schedule even with the interruptions of the war. Realistically, we were never going to be able to maintain any sort of long-term control over it, anyways. Even without all of the fuckups by MacArthur its doubtful we'd have been able to reinforce and resupply in time thanks to Japanese control of the waters around it, never mind what had happened at Pearl. Its vulnerability as an outpost due to the size of the Pacific had been recognized as far back as the days of Mahan who explicitly warned against its occupation due to distance from US shores.

As to the goats, they're a combination of pet and emergency rations. Certainly better-tasting than dog.
 
Yep, I also know that those who witnessed it and lived to tell the tale were very humbled as a result.
They were apparently pissed at the official Russian military channels, because US intel basically realized there were Russians present and contacted the Russian military like "hey just so you know, we have US forces at this base and will fire in defense and you better get your guys out!" and the official Russians were pulling the whole "little green men" gayops schtick and basically replied "they aren't ours :smug: " because Wagner wasn't technically part of the Russian military, ergo "plausible deniability".

Well they also failed to inform the Wagner guys that they were about to assault a position manned with US troops and not just Kurdhead rebels, so they go in expecting a few rockets & mortars and instead get coordinated artillery and air strikes.
 
1669776597288.png
1669776666822.png

And some actual news now...
https://twitter.com/georgian_legion/status/1596557557342294016
We can confirm. Regular mobiks are so mad at officers/kadyrovites who are staying far from action, that they are selling either coordinates of command centres or confirmation whether our hits have been successful.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-moscow-fa5db922708b22b212f546b2f84a7cfb

Noted Russian nationalist says army has too few doctors​


https://archive.ph/CUr7V

Russian Soldiers Are Freezing To Death In Eastern Ukraine​


https://www.reuters.com/world/india...-russia-parts-key-sectors-sources-2022-11-29/

Exclusive: India asked by sanctions-hit Russia for parts for key sectors​


https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1597667645637074945
US to provide Ukraine with $53 million to support energy system. The new aid package will include distribution transformers, circuit breakers, surge arresters, disconnectors, vehicles, and other electricity grid equipment, U.S. State Secretary Antony Blinken said on Nov. 29.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Euan_MacDonald/status/1597335542588669952
Looks like they've finally managed to get those 1980's T-62's out of mothballs and into action.

1669777422224.png
 

Tapping X on this one.
The ground Ukraine has to take now doesn't lend itself to sweeping advances like we saw in September/October. This is russian sympathizer territory that has territorial militia who won't roll quite as easy as the russian cannonfodder. Russia is also getting a chance to regroup, and is giving its next wave of conscripts actual training (in Belarus) which is not going to turn from Russians to humans, but they will probably fight a little harder. And if the training doesn't work, the return of commissars will.
They also have a commander who is displaying basic competence by focusing on strategic matters over political ones by abandoning an untennable position in Kherson (and also now burdening Ukraine with the remaining population).
Additionally as the front moves closer and closer to the border with Russia, the logistics the Russians need to transport men & material to said front gets easier and eastier.

There's a possibility of the plains outside of Mariupol giving some rapid advances, but I think if Russia has learned any lessons the rest of the war is going to be step-by-step pushing back dueling artillery.

OTOH if there has been anything to learn from this war, it is to never underestimate the Russian inability to learn.
 
That's a win for them. As they are finally fielding a tank that is cheaper than the inexpensive Man Portable Missiles used to destroy them.
We talk a lot about Russian tank losses and most of them are probably credited to ATGMs. But how about Ukrainian losses? According to Oryx the UA lost visually confirmed 374 tanks so far what is significantly lower than the Russian losses but still a high number. This leads us to the question: what is the no.1 tank killer on the Russian side? Do they even have ATGMs? I would probably credit drone guided artillery as their prime choice against tanks.
 
According to Ukrainian and Lithuanian media, Head of European Commission says that Ukraine lost 100,000 military and 20,000 civilians.

Mention of 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers killed during war removed from address of Head of European Commission​

The statement that Ukraine has allegedly lost an estimated 100,000 military and 20,000 civilians in the war against Russia has been removed from the address of the head of the European Commission.


Source: European Pravda


On 30 November, Ursula von der Leyen, the Head of the European Commission, dedicated her address to the plan of confiscation of frozen Russian assets and the creation of a special tribunal to punish Russia for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. The text and video of the address has been published on the website of the European Commission and on von der Leyen’s social media accounts.


At the beginning of her address, von der Leyen said that Russia's invasion of Ukraine brought death, devastation and untold suffering, and that it was estimated that "over 20,000 civilians and 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died in Ukraine to date."
c23dee4-51c6ce8-12.jpg

However, later the text of von der Leyen's statement on the European Commission's website has been edited and published without data on casualties – neither among civilians nor among the military.


The official Twitter account of Ursula von der Leyen removed the previous video version of the appeal and published an edited one, also without mentioning the losses. The European Commission has not provided any explanation for this move.

At the request of Ukrainska Pravda to comment on the assessment voiced by von der Leyen in the first version of her appeal, Bohdan Senyk, the head of the Public Relations Department of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, noted that the General Staff could not confirm this figure, and the losses of the Ukrainian army are official information and fall under the restriction of disclosure.


He also emphasised on the irreversibility of punishment for the aggressor country for the death and injury of Ukrainian citizens.


Von der Leyen has also said that the EU suggests establishing a specialised court with the support of the UN to investigate and prosecute the crimes of Russian aggression.

Article

Translated from Lithuanian:

Von der Leyen, who described the Ukrainian losses as "cosmic", deletes post

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who identified the deaths of 100 000 Ukrainian soldiers in this year's war with Russia, has removed the video from her Twitter account.

Shortly afterwards, a new video appeared on her account, which contains the same ideas about Russia's responsibility for the catastrophic damage to Ukraine, but with the cut points where von der Leyen refers to the loss of Ukrainian troops and Ukrainian civilians.

The Ukrainian casualty figures have also been removed from the official European Commission website.

So far, the EC President or her representatives have not formally explained the change in their statements. The Ukrainian news portal UNIAN called the Ukrainian losses presented by Ms von der Leyen "out of the realm of fiction". According to official information from the Ukrainian army at the end of the summer, the country has lost around 9 000 soldiers in the war with Russia.

Serhiy Nikiforov, spokesman for the President of Ukraine, commented on the EC President's statements, saying that "information on casualties is sensitive" and "should only be identified by the Commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army or the Minister of Defence".

The General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces also commented on the EC President's statements: "We cannot confirm this figure, and we stress that the Ukrainian Armed Forces' casualties are service information and are classified as restricted information. At the same time, if the statements made by the Head of the European Commission would lead to the prosecution of the aggressor country, we can only support actions that would lead to the legal punishment of those who have organised the genocide of the Ukrainian people".

Earlier, the US military leadership announced that 200 000 soldiers had died in Russia's war against Ukraine - 100 000 on both sides.

Article

Haven't seen any other media report this
 
Last edited:
We talk a lot about Russian tank losses and most of them are probably credited to ATGMs. But how about Ukrainian losses? According to Oryx the UA lost visually confirmed 374 tanks so far what is significantly lower than the Russian losses but still a high number. This leads us to the question: what is the no.1 tank killer on the Russian side? Do they even have ATGMs? I would probably credit drone guided artillery as their prime choice against tanks.
I feel like we wont get an answer to this for 5 years cuz unless we have a video of a missile crashing into the tank (or the tank running over a landmine, etc) we wont have a definitive answer as to what killed the tank. And as Perun mentioned, just relying on number of videos of each weapons system destroying a tank isn't reliable as some will be filmed more than others.

If you wanna nitpick some more (eg. Was the missile fired from a land vehicle or a helicopter? What spotted the tank, a guy or a drone?) it's only gonna get worse...

And then theres the question of Mission Kills, recovery and such. If a tank runs over a landmine and is disabled, then recovered, then catastrophically destroyed by a missile the next day, does it count towards landmine kills? You might not even know it was the same tank, you might assume the landmine kill was catastrophic...
 
According to Ukrainian and Lithuanian media, Head of European Commission says that Ukraine lost 100,000 military and 20,000 civilians.

Mention of 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers killed during war removed from address of Head of European Commission​

The statement that Ukraine has allegedly lost an estimated 100,000 military and 20,000 civilians in the war against Russia has been removed from the address of the head of the European Commission.


Source: European Pravda


On 30 November, Ursula von der Leyen, the Head of the European Commission, dedicated her address to the plan of confiscation of frozen Russian assets and the creation of a special tribunal to punish Russia for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. The text and video of the address has been published on the website of the European Commission and on von der Leyen’s social media accounts.


At the beginning of her address, von der Leyen said that Russia's invasion of Ukraine brought death, devastation and untold suffering, and that it was estimated that "over 20,000 civilians and 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died in Ukraine to date."
View attachment 3968412

However, later the text of von der Leyen's statement on the European Commission's website has been edited and published without data on casualties – neither among civilians nor among the military.


The official Twitter account of Ursula von der Leyen removed the previous video version of the appeal and published an edited one, also without mentioning the losses. The European Commission has not provided any explanation for this move.

At the request of Ukrainska Pravda to comment on the assessment voiced by von der Leyen in the first version of her appeal, Bohdan Senyk, the head of the Public Relations Department of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, noted that the General Staff could not confirm this figure, and the losses of the Ukrainian army are official information and fall under the restriction of disclosure.


He also emphasised on the irreversibility of punishment for the aggressor country for the death and injury of Ukrainian citizens.


Von der Leyen has also said that the EU suggests establishing a specialised court with the support of the UN to investigate and prosecute the crimes of Russian aggression.

Article

Translated from Lithuanian:

Von der Leyen, who described the Ukrainian losses as "cosmic", deletes post

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who identified the deaths of 100 000 Ukrainian soldiers in this year's war with Russia, has removed the video from her Twitter account.

Shortly afterwards, a new video appeared on her account, which contains the same ideas about Russia's responsibility for the catastrophic damage to Ukraine, but with the cut points where von der Leyen refers to the loss of Ukrainian troops and Ukrainian civilians.

The Ukrainian casualty figures have also been removed from the official European Commission website.

So far, the EC President or her representatives have not formally explained the change in their statements. The Ukrainian news portal UNIAN called the Ukrainian losses presented by Ms von der Leyen "out of the realm of fiction". According to official information from the Ukrainian army at the end of the summer, the country has lost around 9 000 soldiers in the war with Russia.

Serhiy Nikiforov, spokesman for the President of Ukraine, commented on the EC President's statements, saying that "information on casualties is sensitive" and "should only be identified by the Commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army or the Minister of Defence".

The General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces also commented on the EC President's statements: "We cannot confirm this figure, and we stress that the Ukrainian Armed Forces' casualties are service information and are classified as restricted information. At the same time, if the statements made by the Head of the European Commission would lead to the prosecution of the aggressor country, we can only support actions that would lead to the legal punishment of those who have organised the genocide of the Ukrainian people".

Earlier, the US military leadership announced that 200 000 soldiers had died in Russia's war against Ukraine - 100 000 on both sides.

Article

Haven't seen any other media report this
I saved the original video in case anyone is interested.



Ursula von der Leyen is a dumb bitch who used to be Germany's Minister of Defense and she managed to fuck up the one thing that should be her expertise. She can't even get the fucking terminology right. If 100K *officers* have died, then one should expect 5 to 10 times that number of dead soldiers. 'Losses' also don't mean deaths, and generally, there are more wounded than killed. Not even the Russians claim that the losses are that high. A recent Russian estimate was 60K killed and 50K wounded Ukrainians.


It looks like the vatniggers got a W for once, even though it's imaginary. At least this will make the next meltdowns much funnier. I have already seen them discuss how this speech proves that at least 500K Ukrainians have died while Russia has lost less than 10K. Just two more days to Kyiv.


 
We talk a lot about Russian tank losses and most of them are probably credited to ATGMs. But how about Ukrainian losses? According to Oryx the UA lost visually confirmed 374 tanks so far what is significantly lower than the Russian losses but still a high number. This leads us to the question: what is the no.1 tank killer on the Russian side? Do they even have ATGMs? I would probably credit drone guided artillery as their prime choice against tanks.
Yes, Russia has a lot of ATGMs. Both in number and variety.
Russian-made 9M133 Kornet missiles were used in Iraq to knock out US Abrams tanks and in Lebanon to knock out Israeli Merkava's, so Russia certainly has some capable systems. Of course, unfortunately Ukraine operates mostly post-Soviet shittanks so it's not like they'd need something capable of stopping a modern Western tank anyways.
 
Russian woman asks her nephew/soldier for more loot:
We talk a lot about Russian tank losses and most of them are probably credited to ATGMs. But how about Ukrainian losses? According to Oryx the UA lost visually confirmed 374 tanks so far what is significantly lower than the Russian losses but still a high number. This leads us to the question: what is the no.1 tank killer on the Russian side? Do they even have ATGMs? I would probably credit drone guided artillery as their prime choice against tanks.
Artillery, RPGs, mines, and other tanks.
Like this:

Meanwhile their remaining options for killing tanks, both rotary & fixed-wing, have been largely neutered.
Yes, Russia has a lot of ATGMs. Both in number and variety.
Russian-made 9M133 Kornet missiles were used in Iraq to knock out US Abrams tanks and in Lebanon to knock out Israeli Merkava's, so Russia certainly has some capable systems.
Which is why their relative absence is rather surprising.

Or maybe not, considering how many ATGMs the Russians have been shipping to their pet regimes & militias. It's quite possible (or even likely) that those ATGMs disappeared from Russian stockpiles & they went to war without realizing how many had gone missing; or those systems were actually sent on the books but never replaced, since those rubles ended up in the pockets of Col. Corruptivich and/or his oligarch patrons; or.....
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back