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 only reason the commies accomplished ANYTHING in WWII was because the US was providing everything they required including the design of the t-34 family which the Soviets were allowed to build so it would look like they weren't completely useless. It was the fuckton of Studebaker trucks that beat back the nazis.
Ivan the Bear in his natural habitat: a Studebaker.
At this point we'll start calling Russian Dressing "Freedom Dressing"
The Freedom Tea Room.
 
One thing I'm pretty sure, that Russia didn't have 6200 nukes like they told. This is absurdally huge number and no one will belive that all of them are ready to launch.
I would trust the number, different question entirely than if they are ready to be deployed or if they are in working order. My 2¢ is that only a small proportion are, as the deterrent capacity of the fear of deployment is more important than actually being able to use them.

Plus, ordering someone to invade a country or face shame and imprisonment is different than firing nukes. You know doing so is ending your life and the life of everyone you know. The firing process has multiple people in it, and it would likely breakdown if used offensively. Someone would refuse.

In the past a false positive on Russian launch detection systems resulted in someone refusing the press the button. Were all alive as a result!
 
Ukraine is admitting they'll commit the war crime of shooting people that are trying to kill them.
2022-03-02 (3).png


FM3Uf5lXwAI9Rwo.png

FM3Ug9AWYAo1Ayk.png

Guy complaining in the tweet is a senior editorial producer for Fox News and also appears to be a believer in Coach Red Pill.
2022-03-02 (4).png
 
Last edited:
Number or quality of Russian nuclear arsenal isn't the most import. Most important is: if NATO has real options to neutralize them before invasion on Russia starts?

One thing I'm pretty sure, that Russia didn't have 6200 nukes like they told. This is absurdally huge number and no one will belive that all of them are ready to launch.



Point is that common Russians before death will kill their leaders. For food.
A more credible count is Russia has about 1500 warheads in a deployable state. And somewhere over 4000 that exist, warehoused or stored, mostly obscolete, and not in an immediate useable state. Assuming they are even capable of still working.

The US aresenal is in a similar state with 1200 deployable and around 3500 in mothballs.
 
I would trust the number, different question entirely than if they are ready to be deployed or if they are in working order.
Most of them are probably unassembled but could be done within a matter of weeks, similar to the US nuclear arsenal. We have tons of warheads ready to be assembled.
Here are the actual numbers of nukes ready to go from START Treaty reporting:
1646252275419.png


Still plenty of nukes to cover the entire US and most of Europe.
 
Ivan the Bear in his natural habitat: a Studebaker.
Yep. The favorite launch platform for "Stalin's Organ" was the back of a Studebaker truck. The Russians loved the Jeep so much GAZ made a post-war copy.
A more credible count is Russia has about 1500 warheads in a deployable state. And somewhere over 4000 that exist, warehoused or stored, mostly obscolete, and not in an immediate useable state. Assuming they are even capable of still working.

The US aresenal is in a similar state with 1200 deployable and around 3500 in mothballs.
Difference is those stored warheads are almost certain easily reactivatable, unlike Russia's which are probably poorly stored and missing parts.
 
Ukraine is admitting they'll commit the war crime of shooting people that are trying to kill them.
View attachment 3035416

View attachment 3035418
View attachment 3035422
Guy complaining in the tweet is a senior editorial producer for Fox News and also appears to be a believer in Coach Red Pill.
View attachment 3035438
I get that shooting someone who was previously trying to kill you or has killed someone you know isn't shocking, but outright saying you're going to kill those surrendering is a bit of bad optics at the very least.
 
Ukraine is admitting they'll commit the war crime of shooting people that are trying to kill them.
View attachment 3035416

View attachment 3035418
View attachment 3035422
Guy complaining in the tweet is a senior editorial producer for Fox News and also appears to be a believer in Coach Red Pill.
View attachment 3035438
Honestly? If true that Russian artillery is shelling cities with complete disregard for civilian population, fuck em, they legitimately deserve it. There is a point past which "I was following orders" is not a valid defense.
 
I get that shooting someone who was previously trying to kill you or has killed someone you know isn't shocking, but outright saying you're going to kill those surrendering is a bit of bad optics at the very least.
What kind of man would invade a country and actively participate in killing civilians and then expect to be taken prisoner in the first place? That's actively indicating your life is somehow more valuable than theirs. Soldiers killing soldiers is one thing, soldiers who kill civilians should be fully at peace with their own death should the be captured. No different than some dindu playing the good tea and skittles wielding Christian when they murder someone over their wallet. I'm sure spineless people crippled by unyielding moral codes will get outraged by this but anyone with a brain should have seen it as a foregone conclusion. At least theyre getting warning ahead of time. Its a surprising courtesy, like pirates of old flying a blood flag.
 
Globohomo bros?

1646247280782m.jpg
Eh the world is dividing, east will hide behind Iron Curtain 2.0 while west will hide behind Silk Rainbow Curtain.

Though IMO the reality is, Russia just sucks ass in general and has fucking nothing to offer to anyone beyond it's resources, it's a corrupt shithole with zero positive PR. Nothing was ever stopping Russia from trying to actually be a "Good Neighbor" if only for show like the west does it (and if not for show then run a scam like chinese belt and road initiative to fuck everyone it helps over long term for it's benefit) to help make populations of other countries want to be a part of it and it's NATO knockoff, as little as the west cares for the opinion of the common pleb the east cares far less, it's no secret so whoever could flocked to the west while the east could only bitch and moan impotently about "Color Revolutions" which sure, are orchestrated by the west but it's the easts own fucking fault they are successful.

Now if the East ceases to matter in any way us westerners are going to live their lives as our elites become ever worse then theirs but I think that's inevitable at this point.
 
I get that shooting someone who was previously trying to kill you or has killed someone you know isn't shocking, but outright saying you're going to kill those surrendering is a bit of bad optics at the very least.
Not in european optic. In second world war ALL european participants was killing some sorts of POV on daily basis. And after second world war this was also in progress - in last intervention in Mali France was killing just anyone, who was looking like terrorist.

That isn't wondering you, why most of POV's in ukrainian hands are very young or pretty high ranked? Most of others was killed before taking a photo of them.

European fairytails are bloody. Thats it.

Most of them are probably unassembled but could be done within a matter of weeks, similar to the US nuclear arsenal. We have tons of warheads ready to be assembled.
Here are the actual numbers of nukes ready to go from START Treaty reporting:
View attachment 3035433

Still plenty of nukes to cover the entire US and most of Europe.
Thats interesting.

I think about MAD doctrine - if the logical conclusion of it isn't something like if we have possibility to destroy enemy in preemptive attack without getting nuked due to prior neutralizing his nuclear pottential, we should make such nuclear offensive? You know, to use time window opened by we have that option now, but they can be able to override us in future?

I just looking for reason why EU is in this day more agressive than eight years ago.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Rezza and KiwiFuzz
I get that shooting someone who was previously trying to kill you or has killed someone you know isn't shocking, but outright saying you're going to kill those surrendering is a bit of bad optics at the very least.
Main people that’d really get offended over killing those trying to kill civilians will probably be Russia fanboys that think Ukrainians should just accept being conquered. It’d be hard to convince regular people that Ukrainians aren’t being nice enough to the invaders or that they aren’t playing by the rules.
 
Reminds me of when Soul Calibur IV removed samurai character Mitsurugi from the Korean version of the game because of some historical problems the Koreans had with samurai. Never mind that there are Korean characters in the game, and if you hate the samurai, you can have the Korean characters beat the samurai up in the game.


Basically, yes. But the problem is, Putin and his rich buddies will have enough food to weather the bad days, while the common people starve first.
IV? I remember Arthur all the way back in Soul Calibur.
I think about MAD doctrine - if the logical conclusion of it isn't something like if we have possibility to destroy enemy in preemptive attack without getting nuked due to prior neutralizing his nuclear pottential, we should make such nuclear offensive? You know, to use time window opened by we have that option now, but they can be able to override us in future?

I just looking for reason why EU is in this day more agressive than eight years ago.

They have their own cannon fodder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghostse
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back