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
 
If you listened to his speech about declaring war on Ukraine, the country only exists because of weakness of past Russian leaders and talks like he is the man to right historical wrongs.
So yes, he may actually demand a strike and invasion of Finland to right another historical wrong. Also Putin recently gave Sweden and Finland ultimatums on their potential NATO membership and security of the Baltic sea.
And of course, Putin’s goons at the Kremlin won’t tell him opening two fronts is a stupid idea because with how tightly he’s trying to grip his country’s control they’re all playing Yes-Men so they don’t disappear too.
 
The US shares part of the blame for Russia being so ridiculously corrupt.
Flooded Russia with cash through their now oligarchs to have Yeltsin as president and many of those same ones helped Putin rise to power, practically with the consent of the US.
No it doesn't. Yeltsin tried to create a state after the fall of the Soviet Union. It was the oligarchs who sucked the country dry and made it a worthless mafia state, and all these oligarchs came from old USSR party elites who used their government contacts to secure control of the new Russian economy. The old USSR Communist Party elites took control of the new capitalist economy in Russia and turned it into monopolies enforced by crime, then later, by Putin's state. Don't blame that on America; these same people already enslaved the Russians before the USSR fell, all they did when the USSR fell was increase their power through monopolies, crime families, and Putin's state.

Ukraine shouldn't be a US problem and funding a massive insurgency will most likely have severe consequences in the future, just like with every other foreign intervention the US has done since WWII.
It is. Like it or not, we're already caught funding them now, pulling out would just damage our reputation further. Also, not all of the US' foreign interventions ended in failure; many of its Latin American client states performed just as needed and smothered Commies like Che Guevara.

Sounds like a European problem, not an American one.
They said the same thing about Poland in 1939. Guess how that ended?
 
No it doesn't. Yeltsin tried to create a state after the fall of the Soviet Union. It was the oligarchs who sucked the country dry and made it a worthless mafia state, and all these oligarchs came from old USSR party elites who used their government contacts to secure control of the new Russian economy. The old USSR Communist Party elites took control of the new capitalist economy in Russia and turned it into monopolies enforced by crime, then later, by Putin's state. Don't blame that on America; these same people already enslaved the Russians before the USSR fell, all they did when the USSR fell was increase their power through monopolies, crime families, and Putin's state.


It is. Like it or not, we're already caught funding them now, pulling out would just damage our reputation further. Also, not all of the US' foreign interventions ended in failure; many of its Latin American client states performed just as needed and smothered Commies like Che Guevara.


They said the same thing about Poland in 1939. Guess how that ended?
Some of those oligarch families wouldn't have such a strong grip if it wasn't for the US using them to launder hundereds of millions of dollars to support Yeltsin, we openly subverted a fledgling democracy and sure it was bad there but our intervention made things far fucking worse. Its a delusion to think the US has absolutely no hand in creating the current state of Russia.
Next you're going to tell me the US has no responsibility for creating the conditions that caused the Iranian Revolution.
 
Some of those oligarch families wouldn't have such a strong grip if it wasn't for the US using them to launder hundereds of millions of dollars to support Yeltsin, we openly subverted a fledgling democracy and sure it was bad there but our intervention made things far fucking worse. Its a delusion to think the US has absolutely no hand in creating the current state of Russia.
Next you're going to tell me the US has no responsibility for creating the conditions that caused the Iranian Revolution.
Dont bother. Lots of 18-25 year olds in here offering their sage advice and wisdom.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Some of those oligarch families wouldn't have such a strong grip if it wasn't for the US using them to launder hundereds of millions of dollars to support Yeltsin, we openly subverted a fledgling democracy and sure it was bad there but our intervention made things far fucking worse. Its a delusion to think the US has absolutely no hand in creating the current state of Russia.
Next you're going to tell me the US has no responsibility for creating the conditions that caused the Iranian Revolution.
Er, no. These oligarch families got their power from being old Communist Party members, and they used their ties with the Russian government to take control of industries. We gave money to support Yeltsin as he was trying to make a working state; the old Communist Party members who transitioned into capitalist oligarchs ruined things for him.

The Iranian Revolution's main actor was the Ayatollah. Him whining about the poor and how they were ignored by the US-backed Shah, only for him to ignore the very same poor and spend his nation's wealth nursing a grudge against Israel. We didn't cause the revolution, we even backed the opponents of said revolution. Blaming America for the Iranian Revolution is like blaming the Hessians for the American Revolution, when their only involvement was supporting the British.

Dont bother. Lots of 18-25 year olds in here offering their sage advice and wisdom.
Says the guy who ignores historical patterns while acting like Neville Chamberlain. Sure, the Russian leaders who have an open grudge against America for causing the downfall of their beloved Soviet Union will just play nice with America if we give them Ukraine. Yeah. That's like what if the British in 1939 said that giving up Poland will calm Hitler down.

It remained a European problem. USA only got involved over Philippines and Japan (i.e. Not Poland)
We were already involved before that due to Lend-Lease AND the fact that Japan was Germany's ally in the east. The moment the bombs dropped on Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the USA.

It's like some people here forget that Germany and Japan were allies or something. That there was this thing called the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis.
 
Er, no. These oligarch families got their power from being old Communist Party members, and they used their ties with the Russian government to take control of industries. We gave money to support Yeltsin as he was trying to make a working state; the old Communist Party members who transitioned into capitalist oligarchs ruined things for him.

The Iranian Revolution's main actor was the Ayatollah. Him whining about the poor and how they were ignored by the US-backed Shah, only for him to ignore the very same poor and spend his nation's wealth nursing a grudge against Israel. We didn't cause the revolution, we even backed the opponents of said revolution. Blaming America for the Iranian Revolution is like blaming the Hessians for the American Revolution, when their only involvement was supporting the British.


Says the guy who ignores historical patterns while acting like Neville Chamberlain. Sure, the Russian leaders who have an open grudge against America for causing the downfall of their beloved Soviet Union will just play nice with America if we give them Ukraine. Yeah. That's like what if the British say that giving Germany Poland will calm Hitler down.


We were already involved before that due to Lend-Lease AND the fact that Japan was Germany's ally in the east. The moment the bombs dropped on Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the USA.

It's like some people here forget that Germany and Japan were allies or something. That there was this thing called the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis.
Yes because the conditions now are exactly the same as they were in WWII. Call me when Russia invades a NATO member.
 
So war with Russia will avoid this?
Stopping Russia at Ukraine will avoid this. The moment they share a border with NATO, WW3 will start. Because Putin sure as fuck won't stay on his side of the border, and neither will NATO, after seeing what they did to Ukraine. If the NATO countries don't start the war, Putin will, and once that happens, nukes fly.
 
Stopping Russia at Ukraine will avoid this. The moment they share a border with NATO, WW3 will start. Because Putin sure as fuck won't stay on his side of the border, and neither will NATO, after seeing what they did to Ukraine. If the NATO countries don't start the war, Putin will, and once that happens, nukes fly.
I dont know how to break this to you, but Russia already borders quite a few NATO countries. Maybe look at a map?
 
Russia is taking the same path Nazi Germany took. Except now their leader has nukes, and old enough to not see the consequences of his war.
Exactly. Which means continuing to support Ukraine with supplies and guns is the best way to stop WW3. Because I don't trust either the NATO nations or Putin's Russia to stay on their side of the border once the two share a border.

I dont know how to break this to you, but Russia already borders quite a few NATO countries. Maybe look at a map?
If they take Ukraine, they'll border Poland. Poland hates the Russians and will likely not sit idly by as the Russians mass for another assault. Either they'll launch their own assault, or Putin will, once his forces recover and finish gathering supplies. Which would lead to the nukes flying and WW3.
 
The Ukrainian's bagged a Russian General.
HOME MILITARY & DEFENSE

A Russian general has been killed in the fighting in Ukraine

Abbie Shull

Mar 4, 2022, 1:54 PM



A Russian armored personnel carrier burns amid damaged and abandoned light utility vehicles after fighting in Kharkiv, Ukraine, Sunday, Feb. 27, 2022. AP Photo/Marienko AndrewA Russian general has been killed in the fighting in Ukraine.He is the most senior Russian military official to be killed in the conflict in Ukraine so far.Russia says nearly 500 soldiers have died in the fighting in Ukraine, but US officials say Russia's casualty figures should be viewed with skepticism.


A Russian general was killed in fighting in Ukraine earlier this week, according to a report from the Associated Press.

Maj. Gen. Andrei Sukhovetsky, 47, was the commanding general of Russia's 7th Airborne Division and deputy commander of the 41st Combined Arms Army. His death was confirmed Thursday by a local officers' organization in southern Russia, but the circumstances of his death remain unclear, according to the AP.

Sukhovetsky is the most senior Russian military official to have died in the conflict in Ukraine thus far.

Russia's Communist Party-controlled newspaper Pravda said Sukhovetsky started as a platoon commander before rising to through the ranks in a series of leadership positions. He was reportedly decorated for his roles in Russia's military campaign in Syria and the annexation of Crimea, according to The Independent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly. Which means continuing to support Ukraine with supplies and guns is the best way to stop WW3. Because I don't trust either the NATO nations or Putin's Russia to stay on their side of the border once the two share a border.


If they take Ukraine, they'll border Poland. Poland hates the Russians and will likely not sit idly by as the Russians mass for another assault. Either they'll launch their own assault, or Putin will, once his forces recover and finish gathering supplies. Which would lead to the nukes flying and WW3.
Belarus already borders Poland and is basically a Soviet client state, and Putin used Belarus to attack Ukraine. So why wouldnt he just attack from there?
 
The Iranian Revolution's main actor was the Ayatollah. Him whining about the poor and how they were ignored by the US-backed Shah, only for him to ignore the very same poor and spend his nation's wealth nursing a grudge against Israel. We didn't cause the revolution, we even backed the opponents of said revolution. Blaming America for the Iranian Revolution is like blaming the Hessians for the American Revolution, when their only involvement was supporting the British.
Like I said, we created the conditions for the Iranian revolution to happen.
We overthrew an Iranian democracy partly because of the horseshit accusation from the UK government that they would side with the Soviets, putting the Iranian king firmly in power.
And with that power and help from the CIA he conducted brutal crackdowns on dissidents which included Islamists who became the face of the resistance against the king. They were a fucking joke before the coup.

I don't know why you're coping so hard about the figurative blood the US has on its hands for its part in creating the fucked up state of the modern geopolitical map because of extremely shortsighted thinking from the intelligence bureaucracy.
 
NATO membership for Ukraine means WWIII and many of the NATO countries are already nearly crossing the line into co-combatants by flooding the country with weapons and supplies.
This move I agree with, NATO can’t be letting every country in under some knee jerk “no bully” clause. Capitalize on Russia’s rapid miscalculations right now, not go making them ourselves. I’m currently satisfied with the results of arming and embargo’s.
 
Belarus already borders Poland and is basically a Soviet client state, and Putin used Belarus to attack Ukraine. So why wouldnt he just attack from there?
Because most of his army is pouring into Ukraine as of now. Once he's done cleaning the clock with Kyiv and masses troops on the border with Poland, that's when WW3 starts.

Like I said, we created the conditions for the Iranian revolution to happen.
We overthrew an Iranian democracy partly because of the horseshit accusation from the UK government that they would side with the Soviets, putting the Iranian king firmly in power.
And with that power and help from the CIA he conducted brutal crackdowns on dissidents which included Islamists who became the face of the resistance against the king. They were a fucking joke before the coup.

I don't know why you're coping so hard about the figurative blood the US has on its hands for its part in creating the fucked up state of the modern geopolitical map because of extremely shortsighted thinking from the intelligence bureaucracy.
No we did not. The Iranian democracy would have been overthrown by the Ayatollah anyways.

The US has blood on its hands, but there's a time and place for assigning blame. The shit you blame on the US would have happened with or without US help. The Ayatollah wouldn't like a western-style democracy in Iran just as he wouldn't like a western-backed monarch in Iran. And if you knew the Shah's agenda (trying to modernize Iran so that it can become a more modern secular nation) his goals weren't so bad.

Likewise, if the US didn't help accelerate the collapse of the USSR, the people who would have become capitalist oligarchs under the Russian Federation would have kept control of the Communist Party in Russia and would have kept sucking the lifeblood out of the Russian economy and people.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. At least "killing" the USSR gave the USA a much-needed morale boost.

This move I agree with, NATO can’t be letting every country in under some knee jerk “no bully” clause. Capitalize on Russia’s rapid miscalculations right now, not go making them ourselves. I’m currently satisfied with the results of arming and embargo’s.
I am, as well. Our support is enough to stall Russia and force a change.
 
Because most of his army is pouring into Ukraine as of now. Once he's done cleaning the clock with Kyiv and masses troops on the border with Poland, that's when WW3 starts.
Why would he do that? Can you read his mind? So far he has not attacked any countries under NATOs protection. The Poles would be retarded to conduct a first strike and give him reason to retaliate.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back