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
 
Maybe if you actually addressed the fact that the pro-Russian Ukraine government had the people protesting against it while they're fighting for the pro-American one, we can actually move on.

There were definitely some Ukrainians protesting against the government, but overthrowing them in a coup is not how democracies work. Especially when that coup is supported by the mortal enemies of your much bigger, stronger neighbor.

They voted that government into office, which makes them more legitimate than the proxy government that took over after the coup. In a democracy, you vote out the government if you don't like them. You don't overthrow them in a coup and rewrite your constitutions.

Imagine the January 6th protesters installing Trump because they didn't like Biden. You see that as legit? After all, they were protesting the government, which by your argument would make their coup attempt legit.
 
I forgot, can you remind me if shutting down your opponents is good or bad? I can't seem to keep track..

I can see some differences between closing a pro-russian newspaper in time of war with Russia and killing peaceful demonstration by illegal pro-russia "president".

Also situations in Europe are suggesting that in few months we will see or a massive expulsion of generic NPC Russians from EU, or few ol' good pogrom in Europe against Russians.

Putin started something, that wasn't see in Europe from many years.

. Also, if this was some totally grassroots Ukrainian democracy why did they rewrite the Constitution after they illegally overthrew the democratically elected government, only to put the US proxy puppet in power?
They rewrote their constitution in 2014. Try harder next time.

Or maybe the CIA really is the good guys, I dunno.
Compared to FSB and GRU jest, their are good guys. Well, if we have in one hand FSB/GRU and in other hand shit then the shit is a good guy.

Who didn't serve in SS?
Jews, Gypsies and Poles. At least they didn't have their own units in SS/Waffen-SS.
There were some reports from the First week that the Russian’s had about 20,000 - 30,000 infantry from the two breakaway regions. And by the end of the week they had about 2000 left. So the huge discrepancy between Russia’s numbers and Ukraine’s may be those poor fools that got used up as cannon fodder.
I have unconfirmed info about aims of separatists forces. Their tasks are similar:

- go into a truck
- drive a truck in direction of supposed ukrainian positions
- get killed

Profit: Russian army can spot where Ukrainians have their positions (somewhere close to dead bodies of separatists).

Also difference between ukrainian and russians reports about russians KIA is a normal thing: any of them are searching for MIA in this moment. Ukrainians also didn't care much of how many Russians is dead after a tank or truck is blow up by javelin: if it looks like that tank has full crew, their will count that number, not make a investigation how many Russians was in tank.
 
It seems that the Russians are nearing a breakthough. Still, it seems that all they'll be conquering will be a graveyard of rubble.

that' s basically what they want. They bought out and scrapped factories in Donbass, Mariupol is useless as a port city without industry. Azovsteel has hot blast furnaces that were stopped, i.e. you will need to completely rebuild them or lance out solidified steel (kozel), but that would take a whole shitload of money. So Mariupol is just a land bridge and its condition does not matter.

I wish I could say that it could become the second Stalingrad, but that's just too horrible to wish for.
 
They voted that government into office, which makes them more legitimate than the proxy government that took over after the coup. In a democracy, you vote out the government if you don't like them. You don't overthrow them in a coup and rewrite your constitutions.
Pssst, hey guy, in russian sphere of influence their aren't free elections. Of course, election is hold time to time, but often it results are given without counting votes.

Also maybye you didn't know, but since 2014 Ukraine has at least one free elections, and Zelensky isn't Poroshenko.
 
They rewrote their constitution in 2014. Try harder next time.
Yes. That is when the coup was. Immediately after the coup, the rewrote they Constitution. That's uh...not how democracies work.

So, they overthrew the democratically elected government in 2014. Then they rewrote the Constitution after that, to make NATO a priority. Putin then responded by invading Crimea, to make Ukraine entering NATO not possible. That was literally the reasoning for taking Crimea.

Were you not aware of the timeline?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
There were definitely some Ukrainians protesting against the government, but overthrowing them in a coup is not how democracies work. Especially when that coup is supported by the mortal enemies of your much bigger, stronger neighbor.

They voted that government into office, which makes them more legitimate than the proxy government that took over after the coup. In a democracy, you vote out the government if you don't like them. You don't overthrow them in a coup and rewrite your constitutions.

Imagine the January 6th protesters installing Trump because they didn't like Biden. You see that as legit? After all, they were protesting the government, which by your argument would make their coup attempt legit.

I don't know where you get your info, bro, but there was no "coup" protesters demanded from politicians to investigate shootings and force used and Yanuk straight up ran to Russia and called for Russian troops to intervene.

The rest was done in accordance with Ukrainian constitution and their had Jatzenyuk as prime minister acting before another pres was elected.



Yes. That is when the coup was. Immediately after the coup, the rewrote the Constitution. That's uh...not how democracies work.

So, they overthrew the democratically elected government in 2014. Then they rewrote the Constitution after that, to make NATO a priority. Putin then responded by invading Crimea, to make Ukraine entering NATO not possible. That was literally the reasoning for taking Crimea.

Were you not aware of the timeline?

No one overthrew nothing, Yanukovich (the guy who literally done time three times, and used to specialize in stealing people's hats) ran away at his own accord.

Crimea annexation took place in 2014.

The course for NATO was added in 2019 ... 5 years later, NOT in 2014!
 
Last edited:
Yes. That is when the coup was.
And, the problem is...?

Revolutions aren't going with the path given by odl regime. Maybye you should read about some of revolutions, e.g. American Revolutionary War? It was also illegal from King's perspective.

That was literally the reasoning for taking Crimea.
It will be better for Russia not to start that game - Russia had little power compared to EU and NATO, but EU and NATO have in Russia some special interests (e.g. securing gas fields and demilitarizing Kaliningrad). The only result of such play will be Russia turned into shithole controled by West (especially: Germans).
 
And, the problem is...?

Revolutions aren't going with the path given by odl regime. Maybye you should read about some of revolutions, e.g. American Revolutionary War? It was also illegal from King's perspective.

Oh I agree 100% that the American Revolution was illegal according to the King of England. I'm not making a value judgement at all based on legality, I'm saying people need to stop lying and pretending this was an unprovoked invasion by Russia. Just like when the Americans revolted and the British responded. Nobody sat there pretending it was unprovoked.

There has been plenty of provocation for years now, and much of it has been financed by the US. The question is, why would you expect Russia to not respond to their mortal enemy installing a pro-US regime on their border?

You think the US would sit by and let China finance a coup in Mexico, install a pro-Chinese government in Mexico City and not provoke a response from the US?


the-wire-clay-davis.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Justa Grata Honoria
The course for NATO was added in 2019 ... 5 years later, NOT in 2014!

No reason to lie here, we're all friends.

"Ukraine's parliament has voted to abandon the country's neutral "non-bloc" status and set a course for NATO membership, a move immediately denounced by Russia as "unfriendly." ~December 23, 2014


Unless you really didn't know. Now that you do, does that change your opinion?
 
Oh I agree 100% that the American Revolution was illegal according to the King of England. I'm not making a value judgement at all based on legality, I'm saying people need to stop lying and pretending this was an unprovoked invasion by Russia. Just like when the Americans revolted and the British responded. Nobody sat there pretending it was unprovoked.

There has been plenty of provocation for years now, and much of it has been financed by the US. The question is, why would you expect Russia to not respond to their mortal enemy installing a pro-US regime on their border?

You think the US would sit by and let China finance a coup in Mexico, install a pro-Chinese government in Mexico City and not provoke a response from the US?


View attachment 3095625
Nigga for the last time, there was no coup, the U.S. didn't invade Ukraine, the U.S. didn't mandate who the Ukrainians put in power! The Ukrainians themselves protested against the government because of its immense corruption and because their leader was a Russian puppet who was turning Ukraine into Russia's bitch. That same bitch nigga president ran to Russia of his own accord, stealing billions in cash and taking it with him, and he personally became a mouthpiece for the Russian government. The Ukrainian government, according to its own constitution, appointed a new government to replace the one that just collapsed. That's not even the government in charge now; they've had elections since then for the current government.

No reason to lie here, we're all friends.

"Ukraine's parliament has voted to abandon the country's neutral "non-bloc" status and set a course for NATO membership, a move immediately denounced by Russia as "unfriendly." ~December 23, 2014


Unless you really didn't know. Now that you do, does that change your opinion?
So what if the Ukraine wanted to join NATO? They are an independent country and that is their right as a sovereign nation. Ukraine had already been moving towards EU and NATO membership for years prior to Putin's little puppet taking power, who reversed course all by his lonesome. Seriously, why are you stuck on this? Do you believe the CIA are really so powerful that they direct the affairs of every pro-American government on Earth? That's "The Jews run the world" level of conspiracy shit.
 
The question is, why would you expect Russia to not respond to their mortal enemy installing a pro-US regime on their border?
Uhm, maybye because Ukraine is independent nation with no wish to have anything with Russia? Or maybye because russian governemnt can thnik about they own country and not start a war, with only possible result is Russia going into shit?

Before 2014 Ukraine has w strong pro-russian movement. After that ths movement was going into nothnig BECAUSE russian actions. In this moment the pro-russian option on proper Ukraine is dead - partially because war with Russia, partially because Russia is bombing into nothnign former prorussian regions and cities.

Also Russia can go and think about why many surronding nations are going hostile or wishing joining to NATO - maybye the Russia is their own problem, not the NATO?
 
The Ukrainians themselves protested against the government because of its immense corruption and because their leader was a Russian puppet who was turning Ukraine into Russia's bitch.
Trigger of fall of Yanuk was that he refused (very suddenly refused) to sign treaty with EU. Ukrainians was mad in that time because with one stupid move pro-russian puppets was trying to give away the best option to economic growth of Ukraine.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bum Driller
So what if the Ukraine wanted to join NATO?

Well, if you want to understand their perspective, realize that NATO is really just the International Branch of the US Armed Forces. Since Russia and the US are far from allies, that is considered a provocative move akin to Mexico joining up with China in some military pact. Do you honestly think the US would stand by and let that happen, even if the Mexican people wanted it? Be honest.

Nigga for the last time, there was no coup

It's funny that you think overthrowing the democratically elected government in 2014, installing the guy the US handpicked to lead the country, and then rewriting the Constitution to put NATO membership back on the table...isn't considered a coup by you.

It's the textbook definition of a coup. Just because you support it doesn't make it not a coup. And I'm not even saying all coups are bad. But it was most definitely a coup. There was nothing democratic about overthrowing the elected government. Democracies change governments at the ballot box, not through revolutions. Especially foreign financed ones.

the U.S. didn't mandate who the Ukrainians put in power

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 <---read the transcripts for yourself.
 
Well, if you want to understand their perspective, realize that NATO is really just the International Branch of the US Armed Forces. Since Russia and the US are far from allies, that is considered a provocative move akin to Mexico joining up with China in some military pact. Do you honestly think the US would stand by and let that happen, even if the Mexican people wanted it? Be honest
NATO is a military alliance that was created to ensure the defense of Europe from Soviet aggression. After the Soviet Union's fall, it evolved into more of general defensive alliance. Russia even tried to join at one point. NATO can do nothing if one of its members are not attacked first. It literally only matters if you want to intentionally go to war with a NATO country. Get it? China joining a military pact with Mexico would mean diddly squat because China cannot do anything militarily for Mexico. It would serve the strategic interest of neither country, which is why it will never happen.

It's funny that you think overthrowing the democratically elected government in 2014, installing the guy the US handpicked to lead the country, and then rewriting the Constitution to put NATO membership back on the table...isn't considered a coup by you.
A government collapsing because of its own corruption=/=a foreign nation overthrowing another nation's government. Also, you seem preoccupied with this whole "democratically elected" thing. Putin is technically "democratically elected" as well, despite the immense amounts of corruption in Russian politics and Putin literally jailing and silencing his opponents. A government being "democratically elected" means jack shit if said government is the puppet of a foreign power, outright undermining his country's interest, and is completely corrupt. Its what you keep overlooking here. The previous government was a certified Russian puppet, which you ignore to baselessly claim this one is a CIA one. Why?

Well, if you want to understand their perspective, realize that NATO is really just the International Branch of the US Armed Forces. Since Russia and the US are far from allies, that is considered a provocative move akin to Mexico joining up with China in some military pact. Do you honestly think the US would stand by and let that happen, even if the Mexican people wanted it? Be honest.



It's funny that you think overthrowing the democratically elected government in 2014, installing the guy the US handpicked to lead the country, and then rewriting the Constitution to put NATO membership back on the table...isn't considered a coup by you.

It's the textbook definition of a coup. Just because you support it doesn't make it not a coup. And I'm not even saying all coups are bad. But it was most definitely a coup. There was nothing democratic about overthrowing the elected government. Democracies change governments at the ballot box, not through revolutions. Especially foreign financed ones.



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 <---read the transcripts for yourself.
A single excerpt of a phone call, intercepted by the Russians mind you, already making it suspect, is supposed to indicate what exactly? That America was figuring out how to steer itself in an evolving situation and maintain influence with a potential new government, and were butting heads with the EU because both sides were not sure how to proceed with responding to the collapse of the Ukrainian government in real time? If anything, it shows how little control over the situation the U.S. and E.U. had, since they were literally at a loss for how to proceed and had fundamental disagreements over the situation.
 
Last edited:
@Mr E. Grifter Quote bug, so let me just drop this:
1647919908640.png

US has already seen the need and adopted a solution: a 30mm autocannon with VT fuses and some cheap guided missiles on wheels. Those missile pods are also modular, and can be swapped out for everything from Hellfires to Hydra rockets to Sidewinders.

As to the Russian Air Forces, not sure if we're agreeing or disagreeing on the eventual results of their combat losses, since my point was that while they're flying now, sooner rather than later a plane will fall from the sky due to mechanical failure as a result of them just doing the bare minimum to keep planes in the sky.
 
That's fair to compare the traumas I don't see a direct issue with comparing them to previous wars and conflicts in its own regard.

I don't think Ukraine should be nice by no means, that's what I meant by puffing their chests and standing up to Putin/Russia. It's more or less when you're in modern war times similar to online debates you're catering to an audience when you push out rhetoric and or speak. It's not using any advantage to win that's the issue, it's how you win in essence. It's what captures hearts and morale of people who otherwise may not support you in the long run. It sounds absurd in such a hectic situation but could be a life saver long term or draw the most support. The more mistakes or bad takes you do the more people will start to look at the situation on one side disfavor-ably changing it from favoring a group to seeing both as an issue. Generally you want to maintain positive optics ,early conflict it's understandable to make a lot of bad claims and mistaken comments because you're heavily pressurized and in a "out-of-your-control" scenario, but after a bit it should stabilize.

In essence, you can be on the right side, be fully in the right, and still be the wrong person on that "correct/right" side.
I can definitely see your point, and realpolitik is an essential tool in diplomacy. It reminds me of what Bismarck said, “Be polite; write diplomatically; even in a declaration of war one observes the rules of politeness.”
And I do feel Zelenskyy achieved a unity with the Ukrainians and Europeans, but only time will show how well the words he speaks age.
 
I can definitely see your point, and realpolitik is an essential tool in diplomacy. It reminds me of what Bismarck said, “Be polite; write diplomatically; even in a declaration of war one observes the rules of politeness.”
And I do feel Zelenskyy achieved a unity with the Ukrainians and Europeans, but only time will show how well the words he speaks age.
Oh no doubt I fully agree with you that he was able to unite or bring together the Ukrainians and Europeans (close allies especially over anti-Russian sentiment/Russian action) I do feel he's overzealous outside of that though.

In regards to the rule of politeness concept, generally I believe if your opposition in a war is "rude" or "belligerent" it's fine to wave such politeness and tidings, but this case I make an exception as the two hostilities are not exactly on equal grounds with military might and what not and merely due to risk of action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: biscuitscilia
There were definitely some Ukrainians protesting against the government, but overthrowing them in a coup is not how democracies work. Especially when that coup is supported by the mortal enemies of your much bigger, stronger neighbor.

They voted that government into office, which makes them more legitimate than the proxy government that took over after the coup. In a democracy, you vote out the government if you don't like them. You don't overthrow them in a coup and rewrite your constitutions.

Imagine the January 6th protesters installing Trump because they didn't like Biden. You see that as legit? After all, they were protesting the government, which by your argument would make their coup attempt legit.
Except again, most of the populace is supportive of the new government, whereas the old one had people protesting against it.

Again, all your nonsense falls apart when you see the people willing to fight and die for the pro-American government of Ukraine. Meanwhile, the pro-Russian Ukraine government was GUNNING DOWN PROTESTERS. It's quite obvious which side the Ukrainians chose.

This has nothing to do with Trump or Biden. Although some would argue that if Trump were still in charge, Putin would have left Ukraine alone, since Trump DID threaten to nuke Moscow if Putin made a move against Kiev. So yes, more than a few people would have wanted the January 6 protesters to succeed, believing that if Trump were in charge, Putin would have left Kiev alone. But for my money, I'm tired of having to choose between the left and the right in America. They're both colossal failures. Trump should have dispersed the CHAZ protest and sent the Jan. 6 protesters home.
 
Last edited:

Copy of deleted arcticle from russian state newspaper.

It is official: Russia had at least 9k KIA and 16k wounded. At least, because forces of so-called "separatist" republics aren't counted. Not sure if Kadyrov and other shits are in this number.
Interesting bit of info regarding "separatist republics". I've heard reports that Russian forces just grabbed people off the streets there and sent them toward Ukrainian positions to die. Thousands of people, often regular men, such as teachers, mechanics and whatnot.
 
From what I’ve read the doctor had an outburst during a press conference or whatever and made the castration comment, then apologized the next day. Bit different from giving orders.
There was a Russian pilot Ukrainian forces captured, they called his wife and told her they're going to cut off his balls (jokingly asking for the address to send them home) and that she should be looking for a new husband.
Then I've seen a video with the same pilot later giving a testimony on camera. His wounds were treated and he seemed fine. And that's after they vowed to kill artillerists and bombers on the spot.
These people are angry, but somehow still trying to be humane.

No reason to lie here, we're all friends.

"Ukraine's parliament has voted to abandon the country's neutral "non-bloc" status and set a course for NATO membership, a move immediately denounced by Russia as "unfriendly." ~December 23, 2014


Unless you really didn't know. Now that you do, does that change your opinion?
Nigger, if they didn't get rid of Yanukovych, Ukraine would've faced the same fate as Belarus. Just look at how last election went there, and how Putin dragged them into his retarded war with Ukraine, because Lukashenko is his bitch.
Stop huffing that RT juice, it's rotting your brain.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back