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
 
I mean with the number of classified leaks the developers are handed on a regular basis, they very well might be accurate simulations.
some mod Devs for Arma clearly have detailed knowledge on the stuff they are modding. Its alot like other sims with good modding potential.
some of those autists have setups at home that would make most pilot schools jelly...

Lula vetoes sending ammunition from Brazil to tanks in Ukraine
Well done CIA, you done goffed again...

Yemeni rebels living in caves don't seem to have a whole lot of trouble disabling and destroying Saudi purchased Abrams so I won't hold my breath. 100 abrams isn't an "lol this will win the war" thing like this line of bullshit we're being fed. A mobility kill on an Abrams is just as good as Ukraine has very minimal ability to retrieve damaged abrams or any damaged vehicle off the battlefield.
Ukraine now has enough armored vehicles for a massive push. but that push will never happen because ukraine lacks good officers and soldiers to pull off anything but static war.
 
Yemeni rebels living in caves don't seem to have a whole lot of trouble disabling and destroying Saudi purchased Abrams so I won't hold my breath. 100 abrams isn't an "lol this will win the war" thing like this line of bullshit we're being fed. A mobility kill on an Abrams is just as good as Ukraine has very minimal ability to retrieve damaged abrams or any damaged vehicle off the battlefield.

Drop in the bucket.

In Iraq with a downed American vehicle immense resources would be expended to retrieve it. The Ukrainian army simply cannot afford such a luxury.
Well, I never claimed that quantities they're receiving are going to make much of a difference, it looks more like a token political move to show that the West is doing something.
Might actually be a mistake deploying them in limited quantities, just letting Russians learn on how to deal with them, instead of a large offensive after proper training using element of surprise.
Tank can only do so much on its own, and it's mostly an artillery war anyway.
 
Might actually be a mistake deploying them in limited quantities, just letting Russians learn on how to deal with them, instead of a large offensive after proper training using element of surprise.
You cant train slavs to work Tanks peroperly. Ukraine would need a giant tank edge to win a tank war and the west doesnt have enough tanks to supply to ukraine to do that, even if the west send all their tanks.

a Small Tank force with well trained soldiers and good officers would be a game changer. but the west itself is in very short supply of those and nobody wants to go fighting for ukraine.
Sure they can get decently trained polish crews, but poles have even bigger officer problems, you just cant turn a 90 iq slav into a good officer...

Tank can only do so much on its own, and it's mostly an artillery war anyway.
Tanks are designed to break the artillery stalemate with quick movements.

Soldiers and officers win wars, not better weapons...
 
Yemeni rebels living in caves don't seem to have a whole lot of trouble disabling and destroying Saudi purchased Abrams so I won't hold my breath. 100 abrams isn't an "lol this will win the war" thing like this line of bullshit we're being fed. A mobility kill on an Abrams is just as good as Ukraine has very minimal ability to retrieve damaged abrams or any damaged vehicle off the battlefield.

Drop in the bucket.

In Iraq with a downed American vehicle immense resources would be expended to retrieve it. The Ukrainian army simply cannot afford such a luxury.

Any tank is vulnerable without proper infantry support, and the Saudis are notorious shit at fighting. Houthis are also getting modern weapons via Iran.
No one ITT is saying the Abrams is a war-winning invulnerable wunderwaffen, so don't act like we're parroting the lugenpresse's delusions that a couple dozen Abrams will route the Russians from Crimea.

Also don't forget that close-in tank battles are a Youtube rarity. Most battles are taking place over 1000m+. Once night falls you can send in your recovery vehicles; often you don't even need to wait that long if the action has shifted. You don't see a lot of tanks sitting out, except pringles canned T-72s (because they are write-offs)
In Iraq, you saw the huge resource expendature because the tanks were usually in cities/towns they were trying to win hearts & minds in, so you can't just hook it up and tow it away, you had to gingerly pull it out. additionally, there was a lot of...they had the time and space to recover it gently and not break anything else, so might as well.
The Abrams if you have sufficient spare parts is highly repairable and quick to get back into action due to modularity.

You are right that 100 Abrams won't win the war. I saw everyone seeming to agree a increase of ~300 MBTs would be needed to fuel a spring offensive, let alone deal a war-ending blow.

You cant train slavs to work Tanks peroperly. Ukraine would need a giant tank edge to win a tank war and the west doesnt have enough tanks to supply to ukraine to do that, even if the west send all their tanks.

You forget the Russian crews are also slavs.
Ukraine doesn't need a giant tank edge, just parity.
 
Last edited:
Ukraine reports it's improving airfields for F-16s, Rafael, etc.

  1. The War Zone

Ukraine Situation Report: Kyiv Improving Airfields Anticipating Western Fighters​

Ukraine’s Air Force spokesman says work is underway to upgrade airfields for Western fighter jets even though none have been promised yet.
BYHOWARD ALTMAN|PUBLISHED JAN 27, 2023 10:35 PM
THE WAR ZONE
Ukraine Situation Report: Kyiv Improving Airfields Anticipating Western Fighters

Ukraine MoD
SHARE
HOWARD ALTMANView Howard Altman's Articles

Unlike the recent influx of promises for western tanks, Ukraine has yet to receive any solid offers of modern fighter jets from allies like the U.S., France, the Netherlands, Denmark and others. But it’s preparing airfields across the country in anticipation of deliveries of multi-role jets like U.S.-made F-16 Fighting Falcons or French Mirage or Rafale fighters.
To integrate jets like those into the Ukrainian Air Force would not only require training for pilots and maintainers, but it would also require making sure more modern jets have safe places to operate from.



“We have to prepare the airfield infrastructure so that pilots could land safely on the airstrips,” Ukrainian Air Force spokesman Col. Yuri Ignat told reporters Friday at a press briefing in Ukraine. “The works are in progress in different regions of Ukraine with the support of the Ministry of Infrastructure, the Ministry of Defense and other government agencies to support us in the creation of this airfield network.”

1280px-Nizhyn_Nezhin_UKRN_AN1712096.jpg

A Ukrainian Air Force Base. (Oleg V. Belyakov/wikicommons)
With the country under continuing sporadic missile and drone barrages, like the one yesterday, Ignat acknowledged that the work to create the airfield network for new fighters cannot be done “as well as it could have been done in peacetime.”
Ignat did not offer any details about where or how many airfields are in the pipeline, or what kind of work needed to be done.

But any improvements likely involve upgrading the quality of operating areas and possibly lengthening runways. Ukraine's Soviet-designed tactical jets were built to operate in conditions that can be considered positively austere when compared to their Western counterparts. The bases they operate from reflect this flexibility. too. As for the aircraft, they have sturdier landing gear, mud guards on their nose wheels, in some cases even intake doors that protect the aircraft from ingesting damaging debris during taxiing. Most Western designs are made to operate from much more pristine surfaces that are meticulously cleared of even small pieces of debris. So if Ukraine wants Western fighters, it needs infrastructure that meets their operational needs.


Ignat’s comments are part of an ongoing effort to secure F-16s or other modern jets as the nearly year-old full-on war drags on.
Ignat on Friday repeated the call for F-16s, saying they could serve multiple roles ranging from close air support to air defense, including helping to take out cruise missiles and drones.

“The F -16 is one of the most popular models throughout the world and would be the best candidate for the Air Force to become the basic fixed-wing multipurpose aircraft,” Ignat stated.
GettyImages-1228962666-scaled.jpg

Ukraine has long been eyeing the U.S.-made F-16 to boost its air power. (Photo by Jon Hobley/MI News/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Earlier this year, Ukrainian pilots visited the U.S. to lobby lawmakers to provide the more modern fighters, Ignat said Friday.
“They were communicating with the senators and congressmen,” he said. “They were looking at them right in their eyes, expressing their need for those fighter jets which would help a lot on our way to our victory for liberation of the occupation of our homeland.”
Ignat also mentioned a “proposal from France … about Rafale multipurpose jets,” but noted that “we have to work through that issue.” Ignat also said that negotiations with France had been “in progress for a pretty extended period,” although it’s not clear if he was referring specifically to talks about supplying fighter jets.

The longstanding push for fighters has previously involved both Ukrainian officials and members of the Ukrainian Air Force, supported by some U.S. lawmakers. However, most proposals have focused on the U.S.-made F-16 fighter jet, primarily on account of it being assumed it would be easier to train pilots, source the jets, and bring them into service in a rapid and efficient manner. Also sustaining them in the long run will be easier than other types.
The list of pilots chosen to train on F-16s, should they be provided, has been prepared for a while, said Ignat. At a media briefing last week, Ignat said that $100 million had already been earmarked for pilot training, though he did not say who was picking up the tab. He also said the type of aircraft Ukraine would likely receive has already been determined, without stating what kind.
Ukraine-F-16-Su-27.jpg

A Ukrainian SU-27 aircraft takes off from Mirgorod Air Base, Ukraine, July 20, 2011, while two Air National Guard F-16C Fighting Falcon aircraft rest in the foreground during Safe Skies 2011. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Charles Vaughn/Released)
There is currently one Ukrainian student in the U.S. Air Force Aviation Leadership Program, which provides pilot training in the T-6A, not geared ultimately for any one specific combat aircraft, Air Force Capt. Rachel Salpietra, an Air Force Secretary spokesperson told The War Zone Friday afternoon.
“Ukraine has been participating in the program with us for the last 12 years,” she added. “Ukrainian maintainers and engineers have not participated in any training with the U.S. Air Force for the past several years.”

This week, the long logjam over providing tanks to Ukraine was broken, with the U.S. and allies finally agreeing to send 31 M1A2 Abrams and scores of German-made Leopard 2 tanks.
4360267-scaled.jpg

Earlier this week, the U.S. agreed to send Ukraine 31 M1A2 Abrams tanks. Are fighter jets next? (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Andrew McNeil / 22nd Mobile Public Affairs Detachment)

As with the tanks, there has been reluctance among the U.S. and allies to send advanced fighter jets to Ukraine over concerns about training, maintenance and sustainment, as well as the possibility that doing so could widen the conflict.
Now that tanks are being checked off, could jets be next?

White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby did not seem to indicate it was imminent during a press briefing on Friday.
“It's not surprising that the Ukrainians have asked for the F-16 in particularly, but fighter aircraft generally,” he told reporters, including from The War Zone. “This is not a new request by them. And you could hardly blame them. They obviously want as much capability as possible.”
“All I will say is that we are in constant discussion and conversation with the Ukrainians almost every day about their capability needs and that conversation is iterative and we do things in as a collaborative fashion as we can. But I don't have anything to announce with respect to lethal capabilities, let alone fighter planes.”
 
Any tank is vulnerable without proper infantry support
Well if you want to call mechanised brigades infantry. the Lynx is over 40 tons and can use the same 120mm cannon as a mbt.

The Saudis just dont understand how tanks work and are using ww2 british tactic. the idea of Moving Bunkers never worked and is a terrible idea in the age of RPGs and drones.

You are right that 100 Abrams won't win the war. I saw everyone seeming to agree a increase of ~300 MBTs would be needed to fuel a spring offensive, let alone deal a war-ending blow.
100 modern BMTs with enough Mechanised support are more than enough to break the line and cut off the Russian frontline. the Donbas is pretty flat and lack natural defenses.

The Tanks they got from Germany alone and about 50 Leopards are pretty much an 80s armored spearhead and were designed to cut the Soviet forces into pieces in east germany for a mad rush to cut of the Gap. They would be a bit light on MBTs, but those are not that important because the russians dont have any tanks that can match the leopard 2.


You forget the Russian crews are also slavs.
Ukraine doesn't need a giant tank edge, just parity.
the west doesnt have tanks to even come close to parity.
 
Scrolling through the news while waiting for my groceries this morning and I see a brand new angle that I haven't seen, not fucking once since this war started.
Angles I've seen.
- Wheat, Ukraine is all about feeding the world, we must defend it otherwise the world will starve.
- Freedom, Ukraine represents the freedom of the world, we much defend it otherwise we'll lose our freedom to Russia.
- Prevent the Holocaust 2, if Russia gets their way they'll Holocaust everyone for some reason.
- Stop Russian aggression, Russia won't stop until they've taken over the UK and Europe.

Today, is the straightest angle I've ever seen. It almost feels like the truth. Almost. I mean if you haven't been paying attention to anything Ukraine related for the last year, this is is 100% swallow-able.

The Battle For Ukraine's Titanium
https://archive.ph/wip/uBH4S , still processing so hold on if it's gives an error.
Me neither, but I think that's a big underlying reason for this war on both sides. A NATO-aligned Ukraine provides the alliance with control over key strategic resources in a readily accessible location, same as a Ukraine that has been brought under Russian control for the benefit of their own allies. I definitely think agriculture is another piece of the motivation, whoever controls key agricultural commodities has that much more influence on the countries that purchase them.

Practically speaking though I have no doubt NATO would have gotten involved even if Ukraine had no strategic significance. Not really any different from the support the Soviets and Chinese provided to Vietnam...bogging down your opponents in a costly war is always going to benefit you.

Plus, Ukraine itself is also in a very strategically useful position on the Black Sea similar to Turkey. Both sides benefit from having it within their sphere.
 
I definitely think agriculture is another piece of the motivation, whoever controls key agricultural commodities has that much more influence on the countries that purchase them.
The west doesnt need the Agriculture, but controll over it is important to cuck china.
The West can produce more than enough food for itself, same for Russia, but there is one major power that cant produce enough food, and thats china. NAto can cut supplys from Africa to china without any problems and most asian producers will be on Natos side because they hate China. the Ukrainian food would have been pretty safe to import.


Plus, Ukraine itself is also in a very strategically useful position on the Black Sea similar to Turkey. Both sides benefit from having it within their sphere.
The Black sea loses alot of strategic importance with Ukraine as part of the western block, its the fat belly of the black sea with a bunch of good landing spots.
 
You keep saying this. You mean western Europe, right? Because including the US in "the west" makes this statement supremely delusional.
The only country with alot of Tanks is the US, but those are last gen tanks and we have no clear numbers about how many have been fixed or could be fixed in the next year.
the t72s russia has are rusty, but their basis is rock solid, the US tank in storage are need alot more work, they need large parts of their engine replaced and some even need a "modern" gun.
Europe sold alot of old tanks so those cold war stockpiles are pretty much gone. thats why europe is hard pressed to find 100 leopard 2s out of 3500 produced.

also the numbers Russia can find are still bigger, there are more T72 than western tanks of that era combined and most are still in russia.
Ukraine made it clear that they dont want last gen tanks from europe, so a massive amount of tanks that can match the t72 are out of question.
 
The only country with alot of Tanks is the US, but those are last gen tanks and we have no clear numbers about how many have been fixed or could be fixed in the next year.
the t72s russia has are rusty, but their basis is rock solid, the US tank in storage are need alot more work, they need large parts of their engine replaced and some even need a "modern" gun.
Europe sold alot of old tanks so those cold war stockpiles are pretty much gone. thats why europe is hard pressed to find 100 leopard 2s out of 3500 produced.

also the numbers Russia can find are still bigger, there are more T72 than western tanks of that era combined and most are still in russia.
Ukraine made it clear that they dont want last gen tanks from europe, so a massive amount of tanks that can match the t72 are out of question.

Oh, I get it, you're fucking with people. You got me, you were only pretending to be retarded, and you can stop now.
 
Oh, I get it, you're fucking with people. You got me, you were only pretending to be retarded, and you can stop now.
im not fucking with people or retarded... the west produced 15k last gen cold war tanks, the us produced 10k and germany 3.5k, the rest is from other countries and rounding.
The SU produced 25k t72 and russia kept most of them. they also produced 13ish k of t64. those tanks are way worse than western tanks, but that doesnt matters much when it comes to 2 bad armies clashing, only numbers make the difference, and the west just doesnt have enough tanks to supply ukraine.

50.000 well trained western soldiers with 500 tanks could crush russia without a problem, even with a stalemate in the air, but you just cant train slawes to that level so only pure numbers would make a difference.
 
The M1A2 is comparable to the T-90 or the chally 2. Implying it's outdated is being more than a little obtuse, given how upgraded the design is compared to the original M1.
Yes its like the t90 in many ways. its an upgraded last gen tank. the issue with the m1 is that it was badly desgined and needs alot of upgrades to be modern.
the Leopard 2 on the other hand is a current gen design and the upgrades are much smallert and more modern.
the M1 cant handle the newest western cannon because it was designed for 105mm and a redesign would have been much to expensive. the Us fixed that issue with toxic rounds, but even those are outperforemd by modern rounds shot from a longer and better gun.
also the engine of the m1 is shit and it needs alot of fixing to be useful. its easyer to upgun a leopard 1 or to produce light tanks with the light 120mmm cannon.
 
The M1A2 is comparable to the T-90 or the chally 2. Implying it's outdated is being more than a little obtuse, given how upgraded the design is compared to the original M1.

Yeah. I mean if we're using "Performance of the tank when crewed and maintained by dune coons" yardstick on the Abrams, I have some fun Desert Storm numbers to bring up for the T-72...
 
No it isn't. Its underlying design is the same age as the M1. It went through a similar series of upgrades around the same time as the M1.
both tanks were twins at some point, but than the US side decided to go with an old gun and a retarded engine. they also didnt design the tank for upgrades, thats why the m1 struggles with the old 120mm cannon while the leo 2 has a bigger gun and there are desgin studies with bigger guns that dont hinder the movement or break the tank.

Yeah. I mean if we're using "Performance of the tank when crewed and maintained by dune coons" yardstick on the Abrams, I have some fun Desert Storm numbers to bring up for the T-72...
yeah, those saudi tanks are totaly not serviced by americans,,, the Saudis are strange, they havent gone full merc because their fear the merc turning on them,...
 
both tanks were twins at some point, but than the US side decided to go with an old gun and a retarded engine. they also didnt design the tank for upgrades, thats why the m1 struggles with the old 120mm cannon while the leo 2 has a bigger gun and there are desgin studies with bigger guns that dont hinder the movement or break the tank.


yeah, those saudi tanks are totaly not serviced by americans,,, the Saudis are strange, they havent gone full merc because their fear the merc turning on them,...

You just don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you?
 
They both have 120mm guns. They've both had 120mm guns since the 80s. Are you being wrong on purpose now?
the difference is that the leo2 was designed for a 120mm cannon while the m1 was desgined for a 105mm last gen cannon.
thats a major desgin flaw and the m1 cant handle the more modern and longer 120mm cannon the leo2 now uses.
The Us had to compensate with toxic round, bt even those are not good enough. the leopard 2 can still be upgraded and can keep up with much bigger guns..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back