War Invasion of Ukraine News Megathread - Thread is only for articles and discussion of articles, general discussion thread is still in Happenings.

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

 

[Dread First]

Funny how this makes Brazil more neutral than the Switz

It’s not that funny to me. Seems rather logical to me if I had to be brutally honest. Brazil is a BRICS nation, and all of the other BRICS countries (Brazil, India, China, and South Africa) have remained neutral on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Granted… they all have their reasons for not taking a side. In India’s case, they were a cofounding member of the Non-Aligned Movement. In China’s case, they benefit from closer ties with Russia because they both have reasons to despise the West. In South Africa’s case, the economy is extremely shit and they’ve been dealing with social and political problems for years. Finally in Brazil’s case? Eh, I don’t know much about Brazilian politics but if the other BRICS countries are remaining neutral, why fall out of line?

 

[LaxerBRO]

It’s not that funny to me. Seems rather logical to me if I had to be brutally honest. Brazil is a BRICS nation, and all of the other BRICS countries (Brazil, India, China, and South Africa) have remained neutral on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Granted… they all have their reasons for not taking a side. In India’s case, they were a cofounding member of the Non-Aligned Movement. In China’s case, they benefit from closer ties with Russia because they both have reasons to despise the West. In South Africa’s case, the economy is extremely shit and they’ve been dealing with social and political problems for years. Finally in Brazil’s case? Eh, I don’t know much about Brazilian politics but if the other BRICS countries are remaining neutral, why fall out of line?

I thought it was related to the sale of the Russian S-400 surface to air missile system from Russia?

 

[Standardized Profile]

Got the glowie heads testifying in front of the house.

Public testimonies are just for show. They can lie with impunity then give the real facts to Congress in executive committee, or to the intelligence committees, or to the gang of eight. That doesn't mean they're always lying, which would make things easy because you could just assume the opposite of whatever they say. But they can lie.

 

[Rezza]

Funny how this makes Brazil more neutral than the Switz

One of the reason is because Bolsonaro is another strongman like Putin, and even much more crazier at that. He knows picking any side, even neutral ones, is bad. Siding with the West would cut him off from supports from countries like China and Russia should his situation back hom goes south, siding with Russia could led to even more animosity from the West or even direct actions like sanction. Being neutral is the least dangerous option. At least that way he can focus on Brazil's many domestic issue and his enemies, at least for now

 

[Dread First]

I thought it was related to the sale of the Russian S-400 surface to air missile system from Russia?

India benefits heavily from Russian arm sales, but they’ve been slowly trying to pivot away from Russian arms for years specifically because the Union government seeks closer ties with the West. The problem is that American arms don’t satisfy the needs of the Indian army. I’m not a military expert on Indian affairs but news broadcasts in India (ie AajTak, Headlines Today, Zee News, WION) often cite that Russian arms fill in the gaps where American ones fall short.

It must be noted that India often takes a stance of neutrality even when the administration in charge of the Union government is viscerally pissed off. The Indian response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is one such example. They chose to not get involved in the war, but they made it extremely clear to the Soviets that they were livid because Afghanistan was a nominal ally of India at the time and that the situation would deteriorate rapidly. Boy were they right…

 

[The Mass Shooter Ron Soye]

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/07/1085053999/stolichnaya-vodka-stoli-ukraine-russia

https://archive.ph/xLD1W

Stolichnaya Vodka rebrands as 'Stoli,' trying to distance itself from Putin​

Exiled Russian-born billionaire Yuri Shefler, who owns the company that produces the vodka, has been a vocal critic of President Vladimir Putin for decades.
---
As many people around the world move to boycott Russian products, one of the most iconic vodka brands will be officially changing its name.

The company that owns Stolichnaya vodka announced that it is officially adopting the drink's unofficial nickname, and will now brand the vodka as Stoli.

The Stoli Group said the rebranding effort is in "direct response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine."

"The three driving factors behind the decision are the founder's vehement position on the Putin regime; the Stoli employees determination to take action; and the desire to accurately represent Stoli's roots in Latvia," the company said in a statement.

Stolichnaya started out as a Russian brand in the former Soviet Union, though there is even some disagreement about when exactly it started. But in recent years, the vodka has been produced in Latvia by the Luxembourg-based Stoli Group. That company was founded by the exiled Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler, a vocal critic of President Vladimir Putin who fled Russia in 2002.

Meanwhile, the Russian government has continued making a state-owned version of the brand sold and marketed within the country. A key difference between the two, according to the Stoli Group, is that the label on the state-sponsored alcohol clearly says it is Russian made.

Stoli Group Global CEO Damian McKinney explained the company also has a presence in Ukraine.

"The safety and security of our Ukrainian team is our top priority," he said in a statement. "We are monitoring the situation closely and are already moving swiftly and decisively to provide support where needed, both to our people on the ground as well as partners."

This is not the first time the Stoli Group or Shefler have sought to distance the brand from perceptions of continued ties to the Russian government. After Putin enacted a number of draconian laws in 2013 cracking down on the country's gay community, the vodka makers publicly condemned Putin.

A growing number of Russian businesses are facing boycotts over their country's invasion of Ukraine. Russian vodka specifically has become a target for U.S. state leaders in recent weeks. Governors in Utah and New Hampshire ordered government-run liquor stores to pull Russian-made spirits from shelves, while Ohio's governor, Mike DeWine, moved to block the purchase and sale of Russian Standard vodka.

Last week, McKinney stressed that the renaming is not just about mitigating financial losses. "This is very personal to us," he said. "As a former Royal Marine Commando, I know all too well the horrors of war."

He added: "We have employees, partners and distributors in the region directly impacted. They are asking that we take a bold stand. This is one actionable, meaningful thing we can do to make it clear that we support Ukraine."

 

[Product Placement]

Stopping oil imports is basically the last punitive action the US and others have against Russia, its a big fucking gamble that can backfire domestically.
And if it doesn't stop Russia, what the fuck is left?

One of the most frustrating things is that the US isn't giving any room for Russia to save face, many countries including the US will keep sanctions even if Russia pulled out today.
The severity of these sanctions will most likely make Russia double down because they are already financially fucked anyway, why not bomb Ukraine and possibly the west into oblivion?

I don't think that is true if an agreement is made with Ukraine I see the sanctions starting to be dropped however I don't think Russia will see the business with the west they did before this invasion. However if Putin is made to go away, I could see Russia doing better than ever with the west.

But the goal of the sanctions is to defund as much as they can the Russian Warmachine, so Russia can't really double down on the war if they can't afford to fund it and what we have seen now with the shelling of civilians has more to do with the fight the Ukrainas are putting up rather than any sanctions. However, wouldn't be shocked if a secondary goal of the sanctions is to put pressure on those like the Russian oligarchs to get rid of Putin, but the question is does their greed outway their fear of Putin because if they make one wrong move they will be the ones who are made to go away.


But your first point really doesn't matter much if US drops Russian oil as they only import 7.9% of their oil from Russia however other counties especially EU ones would be a bigger blow for themselves as they are over-reliant on Russia for oil/gas and for Russia because they are some of their biggest customers.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-does-the-u-s-still-buy-russian-oil-11646151935

 

[дядя Боря]

One of the most frustrating things is that the US isn't giving any room for Russia to save face, many countries including the US will keep sanctions even if Russia pulled out today.
The severity of these sanctions will most likely make Russia double down because they are already financially fucked anyway, why not bomb Ukraine and possibly the west into oblivion?

There are some situations where saving face isn't plausible, like murder, even if hostages are taken, negotiator can not promise amnesty.

1. The financial fucking isn't immediate, most food stores in Russia still have stocks in warehouses and sanctions themselves will not kill economy in an instant. Unfortunately the bottoms in Russia don't have the full picture yet or can't think that far into the future.

2. There are plenty left. I posted yesterday, russia is trying every loophole there is. Israeli El Al still takes Russian MIR card to book air tickets. Russian oil and gas still flow.

Stopping oil imports is basically the last punitive action the US and others have against Russia, its a big fucking gamble that can backfire domestically.

To some degree it's a backpayment for inactivity and weakness prior, since many politicians, as usual, prefered to kick the can down the road. To some degree it's inevitability of impending crisis. Either way, not doing anything is not a guarantee that the world around you will not change.

 

[Rezza]

I don't think that is true if an agreement is made with Ukraine I see the sanctions starting to be dropped however I don't think Russia will see the business with the west they did before this invasion. However if Putin is made to go away, I could see Russia doing better than ever with the west.

But the goal of the sanctions is to defund as much as they can the Russian Warmachine, so Russia can't really double down on the war if they can't afford to fund it and what we have seen now with the shelling of civilians has more to do with the fight the Ukrainas are putting up rather than any sanctions. However, wouldn't be shocked if a secondary goal of the sanctions is to put pressure on those like the Russian oligarchs to get rid of Putin, but the question is does their greed outway their fear of Putin because if they make one wrong move they will be the ones who are made to go away.


But your first point really doesn't matter much if US drops Russian oil as they only import 7.9% of their oil from Russia however other counties especially EU ones would be a bigger blow for themselves as they are over-reliant on Russia for oil/gas and for Russia because they are some of their biggest customers.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-does-the-u-s-still-buy-russian-oil-11646151935

Doesn't matter how much US imported Russian oil, it was a move to force the EU to hurry up and dropped it as well. Even if EU still refused or haven't find immediate alternatives (yet), its still going to influence the global oil market since its the US we're speaking. And apparently the UK is going to do the same thing, just waiting for the announcement to be made

 

[Bum Driller]

If anything this war will punch up their demographics because people reproduce more often under poverty.

Russia has the average salary of 400 dollars /month. They are already living in poverty.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

It's still funny to see Russia's Wu Mao get pissy about NATO expanding eastward, as if such a thing breaks some kind of sacred oath that was sworn in with blood. First off, the agreement to not expand NATO eastward was made by the West........to the Soviets, not the Russian Federation. Second, it wasn't a treaty at all, but an informal verbal agreement. Third, it was them saying that they won't expand eastward into East Germany to start a war. But with the Soviets collapsing and many of their puppet governments and member states wanting to join NATO, that agreement no longer holds sway, because it was made to a political entity that NO LONGER EXISTED post-1991.

Do you really see the US caring that their former backyard of Latin America went from a hodge-podge of dictatorships that fought alongside them against Communism into a gaggle of socialist banana republics that hate Yankees? No. So why is it so important to keep Eastern Europe in Russia's sphere of influence? These nations want to join NATO for a reason. They fucking HATED the time when Russia basically treated them like vassal states during the Soviet era, and they don't want a repeat of that.

NATO existed in the first place because Europe learned after WW2 that they couldn't trust the Soviets. The Russians promised to let the nations of Eastern Europe go free after the Austrian Painter was brought to justice, they didn't. Instead, they established puppet communist governments that were solely under their control, which brought much misery and grief to the people of those nations. Hence why NATO was born, to keep Soviet expansion from going WESTWARD in the first place.

And surprise, surprise, the nations that were once held under the Warsaw Pact, or were once member states of the USSR, really didn't like being Moscow's bitches, so they tried to join NATO and the EU at the first chance they could get once the USSR collapsed. Most of these nations joining NATO, had their people SAYING they wanted NATO/EU membership. So if it's their desire to join NATO, then they should get what they want. They shouldn't be moored to the Russian system where it's basically just mafia politics from the top-down, where corruption and monopolies rule the day, and where the Russians just have an informal arrangement with them that basically makes them Russia's bitches.

The fact that the Russian leadership is so nostalgic for the old USSR days goes to show how out-of-touch they are with the political realities of Eastern Europe; that being the fact that most of those nations HATED being part of the USSR or the Warsaw Pact, while the Russian leaders viewed that as a golden age where they had their rightful place in the world. They bemoan the destruction of the Soviet Union as a great world tragedy, while most of Eastern Europe couldn't disagree more. To them, it was "DING-DONG, THE WITCH IS DEAD!" And with how corrupt Russia became after the fall of the Soviets, is it any wonder that many of those countries would choose western capitalism and prosperity over Russia's sphere of influence instead?

And it's not like these nations joining NATO even affects the average Russian. It doesn't. If Russia decides to turtle down and focus on creating a vibrant economy to provide for its people, NATO doesn't even factor in. It's just a symbolic gesture of nations wanting to be closer to the west, and the Russians could have done the same; even if they weren't let into NATO, they could have cooperated with it and remained in good terms with the West, which means more economic partnerships with the west, and more prosperity. Instead, they chose to not join the western-style world order and stand against it, while the Russian people languished under an economic system dominated by oligarchs, most of whom were spoiled brats who were once members of the Communist Party elite in Russia.

 

[notafederalagent]

NYT: Socialists’ Response to War in Ukraine Has Put Some Democrats on Edge

By Dana Rubinstein and Katie Glueck
March 8, 2022 Updated 10:45 a.m. ET

Not long after Russia invaded Ukraine, the Democratic Socialists of America released a statement that drew instant reproof.

The group condemned the invasion, but also urged the United States “to withdraw from NATO and to end the imperialist expansionism that set the stage for this conflict.”

The position — a watered-down version of a prior, even more pointed statement from the group’s international committee — drew rebukes from a White House spokesman and from a number of Democratic candidates and elected officials, from Long Island congressional contenders to officials in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. But in the New York City area, where the D.S.A.’s largest chapter wields substantial influence, it has also created a challenging dynamic for politicians aligned with the organization.

In the state’s 16th Congressional District, a refugee from Kosovo is making foreign policy central to his primary challenge of Representative Jamaal Bowman, a former middle school principal from Yonkers who rose to power with support from the Democratic Socialists of America.

In New York City, Democratic congressional candidates are debating America’s role in the world. And even before D.S.A.’s most recent statement, City Council members were clashing over the history of American and NATO intervention.

With a majority of Americans backing Ukraine as it struggles to repel a bloody, often live-streamed Russian invasion, the D.S.A.’s desire for a policy discussion about NATO appears to have sown unease in campaign circles: None of the nine New York City candidates the D.S.A. endorsed this year would consent to an interview on the topic, even as more centrist Democrats are now using the subject as a cudgel.

“We’re refugees from Kosovo, a country where me and my family had to flee because of ethnic cleansing and were saved, frankly, by U.S. and NATO intervention there,” Vedat Gashi, a Democrat challenging Mr. Bowman, said last week. “Blaming Ukraine and NATO for the escalation of this Russian invasion of Ukraine is to me, at the very best case, naïve and certainly wrong.”

The D.S.A. argues that NATO promotes a militarized response to conflict at the expense of diplomacy, and that economic sanctions too often victimize working people. In the case of Ukraine, many D.S.A. members say that the United States, by encouraging the expansion of NATO eastward, provoked Russia.

“There is a longstanding tradition with the U.S. left as well as in Europe that NATO has played a role, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, in emphasizing militarized solutions when diplomacy could lead to more long-term stability,” said Ashik Siddique, a member of the D.S.A.’s National Political Committee. “It feels a little bit absurd for people to be acting like it’s a political crime to criticize NATO.”

Mr. Gashi called on Mr. Bowman to fully disavow the D.S.A. stance.

Mr. Bowman has chosen a subtler tack, signaling distance from the D.S.A.’s position, without the sort of direct condemnation that might alienate a component of his base and play into his opponent’s hands. He declined to comment for this article, but in a prior statement, he said he supports NATO, “and will continue to do so during this crisis.”

Mr. Bowman’s district includes a sizable population of Ukrainian immigrants, and last week, he called more than a dozen who have written him letters, his office said. He has also joined the Congressional Ukraine Caucus and has put together a bipartisan letter asking President Biden to let at-risk Ukrainians enter the country without visas.

But Ukrainians are not the only constituents D.S.A.-aligned politicians need to consider amid the crisis, said Drisana Hughes, the former campaign manager for India Walton, the D.S.A.-backed candidate for mayor of Buffalo, and a campaign strategist at Stu Loeser and Co.

“I don’t think it’s just Ukrainian constituents; I think it’s Polish constituents, Finnish constituents,” Ms. Hughes said. “It’s a lot of countries that are sensitive to Russian aggression and anyone concerned about the future of Europe in particular.”

Certainly, whatever the balancing act for some Democrats, tensions are clearly evident for Republicans. Even as many express solidarity with Ukraine, former President Donald J. Trump has lavished praise on Russian President Vladimir V. Putin — just a few years after Mr. Trump’s first impeachment centered on issues including pressuring Ukraine for political favors. The only people to vote against a recent House resolution in support of Ukraine were three Republican members of Congress. And some right-wing media figures, like Fox News host Tucker Carlson, have until very recently sounded protective of Mr. Putin.

Still, in New York, the rifts around the Russian invasion have taken on more urgency on the Democratic side, including in the battle for New York’s 11th Congressional District, which was recently redrawn to take in both Staten Island to Park Slope, and where the two most prominent Democratic contenders are military veterans.

Brittany Ramos DeBarros, a member of D.S.A., has endorsed working “with international partners to supply and support civil-military defense tactics,” and said “no” when asked directly in an interview if the U.S. should withdraw from NATO. But in 2019, she was listed as a speaker at an anti-NATO event, and acknowledged that she “attended a meeting about that” in her days as an antiwar activist. Her campaign said that she does not support withdrawing from NATO “at this time.”

“‘Not at this time’ means that right now is the time to save lives, and to de-escalate the situation,” she said in an interview. “If people would like to have a broader conversation about understanding how we got here and diagnosing what we need to do in order to, you know, shape a different future, then that can come once we have removed ourselves from the brink.”

Her campaign has noted that her main Democratic primary opponent, former Representative Max Rose, initially voiced skepticism of the first impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump, citing concerns at the time about a partisan process.

Mr. Rose, seen by party strategists as the likely front-runner, did vote to impeach Mr. Trump and said he took the subject “very seriously. But I did not blink in the face of holding Donald Trump accountable for his egregious actions.”

He also condemned the D.S.A.’s position regarding NATO and called for building “an even stronger NATO alliance.”

“America’s unilateral withdrawal from NATO is perhaps the most harmful, stupidest thing, foreign policy decision, that we could be considering right now,” he said. “America has to double down on its alliances, particularly its trans-Atlantic ones.”

Some left-wing candidates also directly rejected the D.S.A. statement.

“I don’t agree with the D.S.A.’s stance on the U.S. exiting NATO,” said Rana Abdelhamid, a member of D.S.A. who is challenging Representative Carolyn Maloney in a New York City district that, under redistricting lines, has shed some left-wing neighborhoods. “NATO is one of the primary lines of defense that we have to address Russian aggression towards Ukraine.”

But many other New York City officials aligned with D.S.A. — some of whom have weighed in often on other national and international issues in the past — were far more circumspect.

“Thanks for reaching out, but our campaign has no comment on that,” emailed Stephen Wood, a spokesman for Brooklyn State Senate candidate David Alexis, on Wednesday.

Other elected officials who declined to comment or did not return requests for comment included Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; State senators Julia Salazar and Jabari Brisport; and Assembly members Zohran Kwame Mamdani, Marcela Mitaynes and Phara Souffrant Forrest. Nor did Assemblywoman Emily Gallagher, of Brooklyn, agree to comment.

“If you’d like to write about all electric buildings act, LLC disclosure legislation, or any of my other work as a legislator I’d be happy to talk,” Ms. Gallagher said.

Locally, the D.S.A.’s viewpoint has been most energetically advanced by Kristin Richardson Jordan, a councilwoman from Harlem and a democratic socialist, who was not backed by the organization in her campaign for office.

“In 2014, the U.S. helped overthrow Ukraine’s democratically elected leader in an illegal coup, helped install a fascist government and empowered a far right military all with the goal of destabilizing Russia,” Ms. Jordan said recently on Twitter, accusing the United States and European Union of “provoking Russia with NATO expansion” — comments that some said provided cover for Mr. Putin.
She did not respond to requests for comment. But during a recent radio appearance, Ms. Jordan was asked to justify her position. She repeated her prior claims, and drew open pushback from Council colleagues.

“I’m not sure it makes sense to dive into the details of international politics when I’m in local government,” she said on The Brian Lehrer Show.

In Yonkers, where Mr. Bowman and Mr. Gashi are running, Kiril Angelov, the pastor at St. Michael the Archangel Ukrainian Catholic Church, said he had seen both men at a recent service.

“I hope that every single politician is seeing the situation in Ukraine with open eyes and with open hearts,” he added.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

Archbishop Carlo Vigano triggered some Gretas and other Karens for telling his opinion about Ukraine.

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/archbishop-carlo-vigano-russia-ukraine-war-is-a-globalist-plot-to-establishment-the-tyranny-of-the-new-world-order/

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has published a lengthy op/ed for LifeSiteNews in which he explains his opinion that the Russia/Ukraine conflict is a globalist plot to “establish the tyranny of the new world order.”

“If we look at what is happening in Ukraine, without being misled by the gross falsifications of the mainstream media, we realize that respect for each other’s rights has been completely ignored; indeed, we have the impression that the Biden Administration, NATO and the European Union deliberately want to maintain a situation of obvious imbalance, precisely to make impossible any attempt at a peaceful resolution of the Ukrainian crisis, provoking the Russian Federation to trigger a conflict. Herein lies the seriousness of the problem. This is the trap set for both Russia and Ukraine, using both of them to enable the globalist elite to carry out its criminal plan,” Vigano wrote.

American Thinker posted a good rant about Archbishop Vigano that might be worth to check as well.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/03/leftist_jesuit_publication_dismisses_archbishop_vigans_latest_warning_as_conspiracy_theories.html

March 8, 2022

Leftist Jesuit publication dismisses Archbishop Viganò's latest warning as 'conspiracy theories'​

By Monica Showalter

The leftists running the Jesuit-linked publication America have got things all figured out for us.
They've ran an article from Religion News Service with this lovely headline:

Archbishop Viganò pushes conspiracy theories about Ukraine and Russia in 10,000-word letter

Way to go on the civility front, wokesters.
The Italian* archbishop, a former papal nuncio (or diplomat) has long been a target in leftist gunsights. He's the one who famously criticized Pope Francis for shielding pervy leftist (now ex-)Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, whose specialty was preying on young seminarians, from prosecutors. He has drawn a following from traditional Catholics for his fearless willingness to defend Western Civilization and its values. In general, he speaks the truth others don't want to speak.
Now they've got him down as a 'conspiracy theorist' despite his very well reasoned and carefully worded declaration warning of the dangers of the global cabal that seems to be intent on provoking Russia into war, and apparently has succeeded.
According to the Religion News Service piece:

...Viganò released a letter Monday (March 7) blaming “deep state” forces in the United States, the European Union and NATO for triggering the current war and demonizing Russia.
“The United States of America and the European States must not marginalize Russia but build an alliance with it, not only to restart trade for the prosperity of all, but in lieu of the reconstruction of a Christian Civilization, which will be the only one able to save the world from the transhuman and medical-technical globalist monster,” the archbishop wrote in his nearly 10,000 word letter.

Which sounds like Catholic doctrine to me. Catholics are supposed to pray for the conversion of sinners, not marginalize them, which is kind of like declaring that the devil should get a fresh one for Hell because the wokesters don't like him. Doesn't work that way in Catholicism, whose recent messaging from the Gospels at mass has been to pray for one's enemies.
The America guys apparently felt there were some exceptions to that Gospel stuff and hence, their headline proclaiming that Viganò was some kind of nut.
Let's not even get into the calumny issue of which Church teachings have plenty to say on that front, too.
Let's go back to the nutjob conspiracy theorist claims:

The archbishop said in his letter that Putin has been cornered by an aggressive NATO, backed by the United States, which is seeking to escalate the conflict for its own gains. “This is the trap for Russia just as much as Ukraine, using both to allow a globalist elite to bring its criminal plot to fruition,” Viganò wrote.

Which sounds like someone looking at this war from a cool, detached, perspective quite outside the cares of the world. Conspiracy theorists don't talk that way.
Here's the other thing: Conspiracy theorists are generally marginal unless something is really off kilter with the official reality. They're wackos. People ignore them. They are dismissed. Can America explain why this nastily headlined Religion News Service piece is number one in the the America publication's traffic right now? Check it out here. Correlation is not causation but this is not a typical pattern for an otherwise easily dismissable 'conspiracy theory' promoter.
Now let's go back to the issue of nutjobs, of which they have implicitly branded the Italian archbishop.
Anybody remember the last time America magazine found itself in the news? They ran this headline in 2019:

The Catholic Case for Communism

And they didn't back down when readers were disgusted or scandalized -- they doubled down:

Why we published an essay sympathetic to communism

But Viganò is the nutjob?
What's wrong with this picture?
It's perfectly possible to disagree with some of what the archbishop has to say without going bonkers. I disagree with his conclusion that Vladimir Putin is on some kind of holy mission to re-Christianize Europe or protect it from secularism given his record of corruption, utterly violent and destructive tactics, and involvement with Muslim extremists from the Russian south and Syria to get the job done. What this concerted effort to demonize Archbishop Viganò shows is that there is a deep state, just as he warns, there is a censorship movement going on in the supposedly free West, and there are malevolent characters well intent on thwarting and destroying Christianity in the West.
In other words, America mag validates all that he warned about. The whole declaration can be read here.
America magazine has once again beclowned itself as pillars in the world of wokester establishment narrative.

 

[дядя Боря]

https://www.facebook.com/ukroboronprom

Ukrainian state defense arms producer announced a program of rewards of 1mil USD for warplane in working condition, 0.5mil USD for heli in working condition, + citizenship. Not a bad deal considering that many pilots/navy switched sides before for no reward.

Russia has the average salary of 400 dollars /month. They are already living in poverty.

this varies wildly and cost of living varies wildly as well.

regular pensions were around 100, most of the time, salaries for teachers less than 400. Active military/ police could be slightly higher up 500 or more. Interestingly enough medical staff is not a very well occupation as it is in the West. A lot of pensioners work side jobs if they can. For a lot of Russian POWs, their pay was equivalent of 350USD/mo.

On the other side of the spectrum, at the top end in IT and international corps, you could make Western level salary and have living standards same as locals, similar how US contractor could be working in Mexico and still get paid the same rate as if he was in US. Those cases are few and far between.

In the country side, 100 USD could be pretty decent living for a pensioner, but in big population centers you'd be scraping by to survive.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

Again, no amount of "boo-hoo, globohomo world order is bad" will justify this war.

Russia launched a war without any real provocation, and it's a war that's killing their nation at breakneck speed. It's a war that's destroying their military prestige, their economy, and the lives of their sons, just to appease a bunch of old farts who thought the Soviet era was a Golden Age for Russia, when in fact, the last golden age Russia truly had was under Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, because those rulers actually thought "hey, wait, maybe we can use this 'absolute power' thing to make the lives of our people better!"

And Russia did all of this when there were a million better things to do. Like say, trying to stop their demographic decline by putting their foot down and banning abortion, and encouraging ethnic Russians to have more kids by offering economic incentives for families to have more children. Or, building up their economy by allowing free-market competition so that smart Russians won't flee west to start companies there because oligarchs have killed economic competition at home. Shit, if I were in charge of Russia, I'd be using my army instead to force the Turks to lay off the Christians in their lands and sell Constantinople back to the Greeks. We'd pay them good oil money to do so. That way, it'd be a victory for Orthodox Christianity writ large.

If anything, this war proved the "globohomo world order" was actually right about Russia all along. Can't believe I'd live to see the day where I agree wholesale with Biden and the Democrats, but here we are.

 

[Mooger Meng]

“There is a longstanding tradition with the U.S. left as well as in Europe that NATO has played a role, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, in emphasizing militarized solutions when diplomacy could lead to more long-term stability,” said Ashik Siddique, a member of the D.S.A.’s National Political Committee. “It feels a little bit absurd for people to be acting like it’s a political crime to criticize NATO.”

Yeah, it's not like these are the exact same people that went absolutely apeshit when Trump said we should pull out of NATO during his term.

 

[183 baras]

Likely, but there's so much happening that it's easy to miss. I would at least hope that all the mothers whose sons were captured by Ukrainians and got to call home, would cause a ruckus demanding authorities do something to ensure their safe return.
If anyone can get away with "rocking the boat", it's the mothers of soldiers. Due to entrusting lives of their sons to the government, they hold a special status that allows them to ask these sorts of questions.

Nothing will happen and nobody would care what those mothers tell or ask.

Saw Putin's speech today, he was telling how no draftee is going to that war, pinky promise you guise! After that the channel pushed more propaganda induced news. They still stick to that muh Donbas argument and how Ukraine is full of nazis. Knowing what a cesspool Odnoklassniki and WhatsApp are I'm not surprised most boomers trust the official narrative.

 

[Livecorpse]

WTF I love the DSA now!

In all seriousness, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Shame the second someone on the right agrees, they'll go right back to shrieking about fascism and xenophobia.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

Nothing will happen and nobody would care what those mothers tell or ask.

Saw Putin's speech today, he was telling how no draftee is going to that war, pinky promise you guise! After that the channel pushed more propaganda induced news. They still stick to that muh Donbas argument and how Ukraine is full of nazis. Knowing what a cesspool Odnoklassniki and WhatsApp are I'm not surprised most boomers trust the official narrative.

At this point, plenty of people will believe anything that agrees with their worldviews. If they think Putin is the good guy, then they will believe every word he says, while making apologies for every time he breaks his word. This war taught me how a lot of people whom I once thought were objective thinkers were just shills for their own anti-establishment causes.

 

[Oats12345]

The View's Whoopi talks as though it is an inevitability that the US will be sending troops onto the ground. While also arguing that Russia only didn't do anything under Trump because Trump would've given into Russia.
View attachment 3053592

Also had them speaking on why there's a need for a no-fly zone.
View attachment 3053598

So lib-women media is really hopping on the idea of doing a no fly zone and going straight into a war with Russia.

How the fuck does this even make sense? You supposedly have a puppet in power who will fold on command, and then you wait until that admin is ousted and replaced with hostile leadership before making your big move? Why?

The US army is pretty well diversified these days even getting Mexicans coming in to help train for when they go to work for the cartels. Whoopi is just repeating the common pitch among the Uniparty now which is being framed as a sort of light war against Russia since they don't make the automatic connection between no fly zones and it meaning war with Russia.

Which is why I think The View news is a bit newsworthy, it means these sales pitches are being made in quite a bit of lib media and that people will eat it up.

Honeslty Woopi is just retadred in nature. But I don't really understand the narrative of "Putin didn't invade Ukraine when Trump was in office because Trump was his puppet". It makes zero sense. Isn't it good to invade when you have a puppet in office since you probably won't have to worry about harsh sanctions. Instead of after your "puppet" leaves?