-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Russia begins Invasion of Ukraine
- Thread starter AfricanKing
- Start date
- News NSFW
MidGenRefresh
*Refreshes biennially
GymWolf
Member
It looks like something exploding.
Last edited:
M1chl
Currently Gif and Meme Champion
Some Chinese state media reporting about war, I guess it's probably the highest launch of the turret, I've seen. If the timestamp work.
Also:
Calling it like it is
Last edited:
MidGenRefresh
*Refreshes biennially
I'm thinking about buying a ticket to Prague to have some quality coffee in Můj šálek kávy. It's been too long.
M1chl
Currently Gif and Meme Champion
Well you from around Warsaw, right? I believe that train is quite cheap and fast option.
NoLootBoxDev
Member
It looks like Putler stopped giving fucks about what people think about him(before at least trying to dissimulate)
Fuck Putin!!!
Fuck Putin!!!
Im no expert but Ukraine really shouldn't have retreated from the city at the beginning of the war. Its position along the river and the main entrance just being a single bridge should have made it easy to defend. Now I just don't see a way for them to retake it without suffering significant casualties and/or turning the city into rubble like what Russia did with Mariupol.
Last edited:
Nikodemos
Member
IIRC there were rumors that the Russian advance into Kherson was greatly helped by some traitorous local officials.
Forsete
Gold Member
Ops, already posted.
Apparently that is 50% of a battle group.
Absolute slaughter.
Apparently that is 50% of a battle group.
Absolute slaughter.
Last edited:
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
Apparently the orcs are fortifying Kozacha Lopan in an attempt to hold it. The question is what will they do?
We know they have 19 BTGs (about 13k orcs if the BTGs are at full strength) in Belgorod ready to go to the front, the question is whether they'll let go of Kharkiv and send them to the main front. On one hand the main front is a meatgrinder and in desperately need of fresh orcs. On the other hand losing the Kharkiv operating theater in its entirety means the Ukranians are in a perfect place to start messing up the logistics and infrastructure that feeds the Izum front - if they succesfully disrupt the Izum front the main front is in danger of collapsing - but then again, the main front is needs those troops.
I fully believe the fact the Ukrainians are able to put the Russians in that situation of chosing one of two bad options means the orcs are starting to reach the deep end of their supplies: they're occupying vast tracts of land while fighting a war of attrition that has lasted over 2 months against a highly skilled and motivated enemy that has superior weaponry and tactics.
We know they have 19 BTGs (about 13k orcs if the BTGs are at full strength) in Belgorod ready to go to the front, the question is whether they'll let go of Kharkiv and send them to the main front. On one hand the main front is a meatgrinder and in desperately need of fresh orcs. On the other hand losing the Kharkiv operating theater in its entirety means the Ukranians are in a perfect place to start messing up the logistics and infrastructure that feeds the Izum front - if they succesfully disrupt the Izum front the main front is in danger of collapsing - but then again, the main front is needs those troops.
I fully believe the fact the Ukrainians are able to put the Russians in that situation of chosing one of two bad options means the orcs are starting to reach the deep end of their supplies: they're occupying vast tracts of land while fighting a war of attrition that has lasted over 2 months against a highly skilled and motivated enemy that has superior weaponry and tactics.
akimbo009
Gold Member
Ukraine has guided munitions, and an ever increasing supply of them. They don't need to drop it to rubble to make progress.
An illegal referendum isn't going to yield the same results here as it did Crimea - which is basically an island. Rivers are an obstacle, but new bridges can be built - especially since Ukraine will control the line with weaponry that exceeds Russia's ranges.
FatallyYours
Member
Can anyone from the US let me know if that $33b passed all of the various things it's needs to go through before getting signed off
I'm being lazy slightly, but also UK news is mostly rubbish and is more interested in which politician had a beer years ago in a house (no joke)
Just wondering if the weapons had started appearing yet in Ukraine or if it was still getting discussed
I'm being lazy slightly, but also UK news is mostly rubbish and is more interested in which politician had a beer years ago in a house (no joke)
Just wondering if the weapons had started appearing yet in Ukraine or if it was still getting discussed
NoLootBoxDev
Member
I do not feel pity for this guy, he should do the right thing and leave/escape, instead of going forward with this madness
All I can see for him is
All I can see for him is
akimbo009
Gold Member
Yes, and it's $40B with humanitarian aid added.
FatallyYours
Member
$40b, even better
Cheers for the info. I never know where to look for "unbiased" US news, or if i should even bother looking when this thread does a pretty decent job of keeping me informed on the Ukrainian side of stuff
HoodWinked
Member
Remember how they crashed the ruble. Well its not only recovered but is now the best performing currency this year. War is good for business.
akimbo009
Gold Member
Remember how they crashed the ruble. Well its not only recovered but is now the best performing currency this year. War is good for business.
No it's not. It's being propped up by Russia through a bunch of monetary controls. It's not good for business, it's horrible since their citizens can't actually do foreign exchange and their businesses can't wire money across currencies. It's a mess - and what you see is actually a real reflection what what's happening.
Romulus
Member
Even IF the ruble was in good standing, that's only a fraction of their concerns in terms of the financial market.
Chittagong
Gold Member
I hope there is a clip of the Finnish president today. The delivery was ice fucking cold:
“Finland joining NATO. You caused this. Look into the mirror.”
It’s pretty much the presidential version of the “Stop it. Get help.” gif. I didn’t expect Niinisto to be so savage.
“Finland joining NATO. You caused this. Look into the mirror.”
It’s pretty much the presidential version of the “Stop it. Get help.” gif. I didn’t expect Niinisto to be so savage.
Last edited:
Thaedolus
Member
Looks like a bot account
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
More context:Remember how they crashed the ruble. Well its not only recovered but is now the best performing currency this year. War is good for business.
FunkMiller
Member
Good grief.
Chittagong
Gold Member
It is pretty incredible that after all the fear mongering about Brexit, after all the clowning of Boris, on the eve of Finland’s historical, risky Nato announcement the only head of state to make their way to Finland with a concrete declaration of military support is…. Boris fucking Johnson.
Please remind me again why EU, Germany and France are so great and UK bad.
Please remind me again why EU, Germany and France are so great and UK bad.
Talonz
Member
akimbo009
Gold Member
This ain't the only measuring stick...
But let's also get back on topic instead of a UK v EU debate
Tams
Member
I mean, you're not going to get the specifics.
And British media are still reporting on Ukraine. They reported Biden signing the Lend-Lease Act and I just watched a BBC journalist who was on the frontline in Kharkiv.
FunkMiller
Member
If there is a coherent argument for Brexit, it’s that it removes the UK from what is clearly a vastly over-bureaucratic and slow moving institution. YNMV as to whether you feel that is worth the negatives of leaving. I’m certainly pretty horrified at the way the EU as a whole has responded to this war, with the ridiculous appeasement of Hungary being the latest insanity.
Last edited:
akimbo009
Gold Member
You can. It's going to the Senate for final voting, and we will exactly what's in it at this point - no media required.
Just like lend-lease which was signed https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3522
These things are transparent - there's a bunch of other votes happening in support of Ukraine that's also not well published that you can scan through in the roll call.
Tams
Member
The point is that if you care, the information is readily available, other than what might seriously compromise security.
Alx
Member
Well EU already has a support clause in its status, Sweden and Finland being members of the Union. Johnson had to make that statement because he removed that support through Brexit, he’s not one step ahead but catching up from the back steps made in the last years.
Dr.D00p
Member
Complete and utter horseshit.
No where in any EU agreement is a commitment to sending military assets, including ground troops, to the defence of a fellow member.
Seriously, you EU loving fanatics lie through your teeth at just about every turn to try and defend it.
Utterly pathetic.
MidGenRefresh
*Refreshes biennially
Alx
Member
Last edited:
M1chl
Currently Gif and Meme Champion
Yeah sure, but it still isn't military union, clearly shows that they should send help, etc. But nothing like "they have to fight as if it would be your country". It sucks, should be like NATO, but it isn't.
But there aren't two words about it, EU dropped ball hard in this conflict. And by EU I mean France, Germany. Due to the fact, that they are absolutely infested by Russian influence and filthy tankies.
FunkMiller
Member
Sadly, this doesn’t really state what you want it to. There is no EU treaty that demands a military response to an attack on an EU member. See what happened with France invoking 42.7 after the Bataclan attack.
NATO article 5 is where you have to look for that kind of guarantee.
Last edited:
Dr.D00p
Member
..In other words, a military response remains in the hands of NATO, not the EU, and seeing as neither Sweden or Finland are currently members of NATO, a military response is non binding on members of the EU.
The UK has pledged to come to the aid of Sweden or Finland, regardless of NATO membership.
Alx
Member
NATO Article 5 basically says the same thing, it doesn't force a military response but opens to the possibility of it. Just like the EU when it states "by all the means in their power". (Actually the EU article could imply that if you can use military force, then you should, while NATO lets the members evaluate the appropriate response).
Article 5
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
It's the other way around : EU articles comes on top of NATO. By default NATO provides the standard military alliance, but EU also covers its members that aren't part of it, like Sweden and Finland.
Wildebeest
Member
When you are looking for friends in an end of the world type situation, the last people you want to turn to are the ones who seem smug and complacent. Are they smug and complacent because they know something you don't or just because they are idiots?
MidGenRefresh
*Refreshes biennially
Tams
Member
Mutual/collective EU military defence is completely untested and I would veer towards it not even being worth the paper it's printed on. There's a reason so many countries are still in Nato.
UK military support is never offered lightly. It's a very serious offer.
It's politics, but I think your comment needs to be addressed. I hate Johnson, but he's right here (and Ukraine is the only thing he's handled not only properly, but very well). I think your hatred for him and/or love for the EU is clouding your judgement.
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Member
Yeah, no. They don’t say the same things at all. A great deal of deliberate wiggle room in 42.7. None in 5.
The EU is not based upon, or driven by military protection. It is a political union born of a trading bloc. It does many things for its member states. Offering any concrete protection against physical assault is not one of them.
The thrust of your argument is to denigrate Johnson - something that has much merit in other arenas - but you’ve chosen the wrong hill to stand upon in this case.
Last edited:
Alx
Member
I may reverse those comments, considering I have no hatred towards Johnson (actually don't care much about him especially now that Brexit is done). As a matter of fact I reacted to a message that was a criticism towards EU ("how come people complain against Brexit when UK is the first to offer military support !"), as I was pointing out that all members of EU already had a de-facto defense agreement, and that the new agreement from UK was just reinstating the one that was cancelled by Brexit.
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Member
NoLootBoxDev
Member
Russia Threatened Finland As It Moves Closer to NATO Membership
businessinsider.com/russia...
Sweden plans to send NATO application next week: Report
english.alarabiya.net/News/w...
Today: Finland joining NATO is a threat to Russia, says the Kremlin
cnn.com/europe...
It seems Finland goes tomorrow 13th. Prepare for the biggest:
