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
 
No. If anybody seriously believes that the EU or NATO are actually going to start a war with russia because some piece of paper has a clause that says they have to they're delusional. Both will simply say 'no' and tell ukraine they are on their own

Nobody will ever attack russia over ukraine, nobody will ever deliberately start ww3, which would inevitably become a nuclear exchange, for ukraine or because some article clause says so. The UK guarantee to poland said they had to declare on the soviet union when they invaded poland with the germans, and the british weren't stupid enough to honor such an agreement then either.
A few weeks ago I would have agreed, but everyone has now gotten to see just how bad Russia's military really is. So the idea of a war with Russia while still frightening, doesn't seem AS scary a thought as it once was. Russia has turned out to be weak enough that they're even giving up on the idea of getting rid of the current Ukrainian government and may end up driven out of the country just by the west getting supplies to Ukraine.

So what would it end up looking like if the US instead was fighting directly with all its toys?
 
Some madlad in Moscow Oblast burned down voenkomat (conscription office or whatever the fuck you people call these), specifically targeting conscript personal files archive (which aren't digitized, apparently), saying that he doesn't want his peers to die in Ukraine for Putin, and that the real enemy is in Kremlin.
Gotta love how that first molotov bounced off

 
I haven't the patience to argue the finer details of US military history, but US specifically attacks Civilian targets for shock value as well. They did so during WW2, they gunned down and gassed civilians during Iraq war, etc. US cares no more for civilian life than any other nation that frequents war. Obviously, fuck the Russians for doing this, but war crimes are nothing new for US.
In WW2, the US bomber doctrine was inspired by Billy Mitchell, with his idea of the "industrial web". I.E. you take out the critical infrastructure for enemy war industry in order to damage their ability to fight. That's how the US bombed Germany, while the UK did area bombing at night - this was based on "Bomber" Harris' belief in a developed version of Dohuet the original air power theorist from WW1. He believed that you could bomb a civilian population into ending a war early - this was a conclusion he drew from the fact all major combatants in WW1 collapsed for internal, not military reasons. Anyway, Dohuet was wrong.

The place this differed for the US was in Japan. Due to its topography, and how it's industry was dispersed, it was impossible to use their more accurate bombing which they used in Europe. In short, at a safe height to fly the winds would carry bombs off of target, if they flew lower then they would be shot down. Industry was primarily dispersed amongst civilian areas, in Europe there were more easily targeted industrial districts. With no other way to strike the Japanese, they resorted to fire bombing their cities which were made of wood and paper.

However, short of invading Japan - which would have failed and potentially led to more deaths - how would the allies have ended the war? Noting especially the continuing and horrific violence against the Chinese, Japan needed to be stopped and as gruesome as it might sound due to the circumstances the bombings were probably the only way to do that. Hence, my personal analysis is the British conduct in area bombing Germany in WW2 was a war crime, whereas the American area bombing of Japan wasn't.

I'm from the UK, so this isn't me special pleading with regards to the US.
 
I'm sure napoleon said something like that and OKW definitely said something pretty similar when they looked at how much of a shitshow the invasion of finland went. Remember how that ended? Do not fuck with russians. Thats a matter of historical truth. I'll say it again - russia cannot lose a war. Not to the EU, nor anybody else. There is not a country on earth with the physical capability to win a war with russia. As for the EU, they don't have the manpower, logistics or resources to wage any kind of war against anybody, let alone even attempt to do anything involving invading russia

I'll say it again: nobody is going to go to war with russia over ukraine for any reason, no matter what any article clauses say
Russia's already losing this war. Also, Russia can't lose? Remember the Mongols? The main reason why Moscow even gained importance was because they were the Mongols' top patsy in Russia. They were only able to overthrow the Mongols after the Black Death weakened their empire. Also, WW1. Russia lost that war. Hence why the Commies got their support from people who were tired of it because Germany kept whooping their asses on the Eastern Front in WW1. Also, Hitler would've won against the Soviets had he not been bogged down in a two-front war with the West AND the Soviets. The Soviets would have collapsed without American supplies, war materiel, and food.

Considering that fact that a large portion of drone strikes never seem to kill any terrorists maybe they aren't as prevalent as claimed. It's almost like they are used to justify violence against a population.
I already posted evidence that only 1 out of 10 of their targets were civilians. Which meant they did mostly fine 9 out of 10 times when it comes to killing terrorists.

I haven't the patience to argue the finer details of US military history, but US specifically attacks Civilian targets for shock value as well. They did so during WW2, they gunned down and gassed civilians during Iraq war, etc. US cares no more for civilian life than any other nation that frequents war. Obviously, fuck the Russians for doing this, but war crimes are nothing new for US.
That's different, and you should know it. America and the Allied powers attacked civilian targets in WW2 to remove industrial capabilities, not shock value. As for the more recent wars, most of their civilian deaths are due to friendly-fire incidents or lack of control. They weren't targeting civilians on purpose, especially with their own media critical of the president and his war efforts in Iraq. This isn't the same as Russia purposefully targeting civilians to break morale.

Also, Russia's war crimes were even worse in WW2. Aside from what they did to Poland, the largest mass-rape in modern war happened as the Red Army was moving westward in the later years of the war.
 
I'm really fucking tired of all this whataboutism. What the fuck does Ukraine have to do with it?
Muh *insert islamic shithole* and/or *US/NATO*
Shove it.
When people claim somehow the US is morally right in murdering civilians because the US deems they are 'terrorists' yet Russia the most evil country ever for bombing similar targets. We still don't know if it was a deliberate attack on the hospital. We do know for a fact the US routinely targeted large groups of civilians to kill a single 'terrorist.'

Before you go screaming your head off about the evil Russians remember that some of us watched in real time as the US waged a terror campaign on Iraq and Afghanistan. I remember the images of blood soaked streets. So far there has been none of that in Ukraine.
 
lmao


Tchaikovsky from programme in light of Russian invasion of Ukraine​

The orchestra had an all-Tchaikovsky concert scheduled for next week, but has decided to change the programme having deemed it to be 'inappropriate' at this time

The Cardiff Philharmonic Orchestra has removed Tchaikovsky from its programme of its upcoming concert ‘in light of the recent Russian invasion’.

Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture
was due to be included in the orchestra’s upcoming all-Tchaikovsky concert at St David’s Hall on 18 March, but it was considered by the orchestra ‘to be inappropriate at this time’.

The orchestra will instead present a programme centred around Dvořák’s Symphony No. 8, with John Williams‘s The Cowboys Overture opening the concert, and a performance of Elgar‘s Enigma Variations in the second half.

This is just the latest in a series of concert and festival cancellations due to the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Conductor Valery Gergiev has been at the centre of the news lately, having refused to condemn the Russian regime and the rule of his friend Vladimir Putin. He has been dropped by management, festivals and concert series, and has lost roles at the Munich Philharmonic the Edinburgh International Festival.

Conductors such as Vasily Petrenko and Thomas Sanderling have distanced themselves from the Russian regime, stepping away from their posts at the helm of Russian orchestras.

Russian pianist Alexander Malofeev yesterday spoke out against the harmful impact these such cancellations and pressure on Russian musicians to reject their nationality.
 
No. If anybody seriously believes that the EU or NATO are actually going to start a war with russia because some piece of paper has a clause that says they have to they're delusional. Both will simply say 'no' and tell ukraine they are on their own

Nobody will ever attack russia over ukraine, nobody will ever deliberately start ww3, which would inevitably become a nuclear exchange, for ukraine or because some article clause says so. The UK guarantee to poland said they had to declare on the soviet union when they invaded poland with the germans, and the british weren't stupid enough to honor such an agreement then either.

If it's so, then why is Russia so frightened that NATO creeps up their borders? If what you say is true, and that NATO wouldn't come to help it's members, essentially rendering it totally pointless, and if this would be clear to everyone, then why does Putin care so much about it?
 
If it's so, then why is Russia so frightened that NATO creeps up their borders? If what you say is true, and that NATO wouldn't come to help it's members, essentially rendering it totally pointless, and if this would be clear to everyone, then why does Putin care so much about it?
NATO is a defensive alliance, Article 5 can only be invoked when a member of NATO is attacked. If Poland decide to attack Russia, they couldn't then activate article 5 if Russia retaliated in a proportionate manner.

For instance, the US didn't invoke it when Iran fired missiles back at them after killing their general in a drone strike.

Most NATO countries are not very keen on fighting wars, let alone pointless aggressive wars against a nuclear power.
 

In nod to Russia, Ukraine says no longer insisting on NATO membership​


President Volodymyr Zelensky said he is no longer pressing for NATO membership for Ukraine, a delicate issue that was one of Russia's stated reasons for invading its pro-Western neighbor.
Dropping the NATO request at this point makes sense because
a)It appears that it'a always gonna be one of Putin's hard lines in any negotiations
b)it's kinda unecessary now as we've already proven we'll support the shit out of them, memebership or not. While I'm sure they'd have like the formal membership and the benefits it would have provided (like the no-fly zones he's been asking for), they're doing well enough without it

Does Russia even have a Far East Fleet?
Nominally the Russian Pacific fleet consists of one Slava class cruiser, 4 Udaloy I ASW destroyers, a Sovremenny AA/anti surface destroyer and a bunch of corvettes. The problem is the Cruiser (which is the fleets flagship) and one the Udaloys are actually currently in the fucking Med, the Sovremenny appears to be stuck in refit hell and has been for several years, and Corvettes are meme ships that would be functionally worthless in an actual war.

The JMSDF meanwhile has 36 Destroyers (8 of which are actually more comparable in size/armament to the Russian cruiser), 5 Frigates, 2 helicopter carriers that are being converted to light aircraft carriers, and 2 actual helicopter carriers.

Needless to say the JMSDF shits on the Pacific fleet (and likely the entire Russian navy at this point), because it's ships are generally newer, bigger, more sophisticated and probably not riddled with issues like the Russian fleet almost certainly is at this point. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts the Russian surface fleet is largely still comprised of Soviet era ships that have had some refitting as and when they could. The thing is the Soviet surface fleet was always a joke, because
a)they had no real modern naval experience
b)it was always the least prioritised of the Russian Forces (unsurpisingly the Red Army was their top priority since they always focuesed on a European land war, followed by the Air force which would both support the army, and be it's primary anti shipping platform)

So combine a bunch of badly designed, badly outdated ships along with the kinds of maintenance training issues their armies are suffering and a modern Japan vs Russia battle would be even more lopsided than Tsushima was (and that's sying something).

Tsushima.jpg
 
Just like this ISIS kids asked for it.
I mean a car is a lot easier to confuse from the viewpoint of remote surveillance than a fucking hospital.

Some more footage of the place:

Walking through the maternity ward:


A panoramic view:


People being evacuated:


One of the craters left behind:
1646855645156.png
 
How many hospitals did he bomb? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? What were the contexts of those bombings? Were terrorists using them as forts?
Biden murdered seven children at the tail end of the Afghan retreat.

The context was the retreat had been an absolute humiliation for his administration, he wanted to be seen to do something, so he ordered a drone strike at something he hoped he could play off as a strike against terrorists or the taliban or whatever.

Along with the seven dead kids, he also murdered three adults.

He wanted to look good so he murdered some people and they turned out to be children.

Not a single person on the left gave a shit.
 
Biden murdered seven children at the tail end of the Afghan retreat.

The context was the retreat had been an absolute humiliation for his administration, he wanted to be seen to do something, so he ordered a drone strike at something he hoped he could play off as a strike against terrorists or the taliban or whatever.

Along with the seven dead kids, he also murdered three adults.

He wanted to look good so he murdered some people and they turned out to be children.

Not a single person on the left gave a shit.
The US military really should take more blame here than Biden. They're the ones that are supposed to be better about verifying the targets rather than just guessing something is right or not. Where Biden fucked up with Afghanistan is not bothering to stick to the withdrawal schedule for whatever random reason (maybe he wanted to pull out on 9/11, maybe he was just spiteful about Trump). The result being that the military didn't bother pulling anything out and instead did a mad scramble that even resulted in a fuck ton of unvetted migrants coming over to the US and wherever else.
 
Have anyone here found videos of this Buhanka vehicle used by the Ruskies as beyond 4chan memes, I can't find any video of it from raw feeds or footage of convoys.

1646853038228.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Exterminatus
When people claim somehow the US is morally right in murdering civilians because the US deems they are 'terrorists' yet Russia the most evil country ever for bombing similar targets. We still don't know if it was a deliberate attack on the hospital. We do know for a fact the US routinely targeted large groups of civilians to kill a single 'terrorist.'

Before you go screaming your head off about the evil Russians remember that some of us watched in real time as the US waged a terror campaign on Iraq and Afghanistan. I remember the images of blood soaked streets. So far there has been none of that in Ukraine.
Except again, America's civilian casualties are a result of mistakes on their part, whereas the Russians are openly attacking civilian targets as part of their strategy to break Ukrainian morale.
 
Have anyone here found videos of this Buhanka vehicle used by the Ruskies as beyond 4chan memes, I can't find any video of it from raw feeds or footage of convoys.

View attachment 3058822
I don't doubt that this one is legit, but I don't remember seeing a video with it. It could just be a photo originally.
That said, there's a whole bunch of junk for you to sift through on this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsi...ppears_the_invading_russian_force_in_ukraine/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back