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

Status
Not open for further replies.
President Joe Biden on Tuesday said that the United States will impose sanctions “far beyond” the ones that the United States imposed in 2014 following the annexation of the Crimean peninsula.

“This is the beginning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine,” Biden said in a White House speech, signaling a shift in his administration’s position. “We will continue to escalate sanctions if Russia escalates,” he added.

Russian elites and their family members will also soon face sanctions, Biden said, adding that “Russia will pay an even steeper price” if Moscow decides to push forward into Ukraine. Two Russian banks and Russian sovereign debt will also be sanctioned, he said.

Also in his speech, Biden said he would send more U.S. troops to the Baltic states as a defensive measure to strengthen NATO’s position in the area.

Russia shares a border with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

A day earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops to go into the separatist Donetsk and Lugansk regions in eastern Ukraine after a lengthy speech in which he recognized the two regions’ independence.

Western powers decried the move and began to slap sanctions on certain Russian individuals, while Germany announced it would halt plans to go ahead with the Russia-to-Germany Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

At home, Biden is facing bipartisan pressure to take more extensive actions against Russia following Putin’s decision. However, a recent poll showed that a majority of Americans believe that sending troops to Ukraine is a “bad idea,” and a slim minority believes it’s a good one.

All 27 European Union countries unanimously agreed on an initial list of sanctions targeting Russian authorities, said French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, and EU foreign affairs head Josep Borell claimed the package “will hurt Russia … a lot.”

Earlier Tuesday, Borell asserted that Russian troops have already entered the Donbas region, which comprises Donetsk and Lugansk, which are under the control of pro-Russia groups since 2014.

And on Tuesday, the Russian Parliament approved a Putin-back plan to use military force outside of Russia’s borders as Putin further said that Russia confirmed it would recognize the expanded borders of Lugansk and Donetsk.

“We recognized the states,” the Russian president said. “That means we recognized all of their fundamental documents, including the constitution, where it is written that their [borders] are the territories at the time the two regions were part of Ukraine.”

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Putin said that Ukraine is “not interested in peaceful solutions” and that “every day, they are amassing troops in the Donbas.”

Meanwhile, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday morning again downplayed the prospect of a Russian invasion and proclaimed: “There will be no war.”

“There will not be an all-out war against Ukraine, and there will not be a broad escalation from Russia. If there is, then we will put Ukraine on a war footing,” he said in a televised address.

The White House began to signal that they would shift their own position on whether it’s the start of an invasion.

“We think this is, yes, the beginning of an invasion, Russia’s latest invasion into Ukraine,” said Jon Finer, the White House deputy national security adviser in public remarks. “An invasion is an invasion and that is what is underway.”

For weeks, Western governments have been claiming Moscow would invade its neighbor after Russia gathered some 150,000 troops along the countries’ borders. They alleged that the Kremlin would attempt to come up with a pretext to attack, while some officials on Monday said Putin’s speech recognizing the two regions was just that.

But Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters Tuesday that Russia’s “latest invasion” of Ukraine is threatening stability in the region, but he asserted that Putin can “still avoid a full blown, tragic war of choice.”

Article
 
The Right offers nothing but whining about tradition, which at this point, isn't even good enough to attract votes. At least the Left is willing to give the average prole some bread and circuses.
Exactly. Right screeches about MUH TRICKLE DOWN, while Left goes "right, here's some money, go nuts". It's totally possible to have centre-right welfare state and some countries in Europe do but for the most vocal of rightists, this is basically being a commie. Imagine wanting to have a safety net for your citizenry, right?
 
Exactly. Right screeches about MUH TRICKLE DOWN, while Left goes "right, here's some money, go nuts". It's totally possible to have centre-right welfare state and some countries in Europe do but for the most vocal of rightists, this is basically being a commie. Imagine wanting to have a safety net for your citizenry, right?
And that's the problem with the Right, and why I hate libertarians. They're so dogmatic about not helping the poor, which in the end, causes the Right to lose votes among the proles who don't care about politics, but want material support from the government that taxes them regardless.
 
I hate to break it to you but they were always this way. There’s an uncomfortable amount of the left and right like these wastes of DNA.

Think so. A good portion of the actual Nazis switched directly from KPD and federates to NSDAP. Their core ideology is the radicalism of the oddball. The proletariat and white race are lesser compared to belonging. Anyone who can identity this type can save themselves a deal of bother.
 
And that's the problem with the Right, and why I hate libertarians. They're so dogmatic about not helping the poor, which in the end, causes the Right to lose votes among the proles who don't care about politics, but want material support from the government that taxes them regardless.
It's ironic, the kulturkampf is possible as long as the policies have a leftist tinge because proles' bellies are full and they actually care about more ephemeral things.

The moment truly right government takes hold, then proles start sympathizing with left more because the left actually claims that they want to feed them.
 
Well, since it's already derailed at this point...
After all these years I finally understand what Sargon meant when he called those far-right tards "white niggers", we have the example of it in this very thread. "Globohomo" is their "systemic racism", and I'm not sure whether it's more amusing than it's cringe.
I have no love for elites, and I certainly don't like trannies and all the woke shit, but don't you fellas think that you're taking it a bit too far? Have you tried introspection at any point? Not everything is globohomo's fault, just sayin'.
 
Last edited:
It's ironic, the kulturkampf is possible as long as the policies have a leftist tinge because proles' bellies are full and they actually care about more ephemeral things.

The moment truly right government takes hold, then proles start sympathizing with left more because the left actually claims that they want to feed them.
This is why the Left eventually wins. Right-wingers at most have a few dashes of victory here and there, but the Left eventually wins because people are hungry, and the Left throws welfare money at them in exchange for votes.

With Russia's recent actions, combined with how many in the Right are simping for Russia, there's another reason why we have more decades of leftist rule to look forward to. No one would want to sit in the same table as Russia-loving nutcases, especially since more and more Ukrainian refugees flood the west because of Putin-Senpai's little temper-tantrum.

And it's as I told the other buffoon; Russia's actions strengthened the Left. Now they can add "Putin-supporter" to the list of derogatory names they use on right-wingers, and use that as an excuse to shut them up.
 
China doesn't intend to pay Russia a fair market price, India receives Russian oil at a huge decrease in price and Central Asia is irrelevant.


They care about kulturkampf even less. Most people do not understand your obsession with branding everything as "globohomo", just like they don't understand the tranny story hour. Except left promises social policies to uplift the poor, what you derisively call "gibs".

What does the Right offer?
I have never typed the word “globohomo” on this website, I just checked. You’re the people who are obsessed with it.

I’m not a fan of the liberal right, but it offers people a more compelling and hopeful vision for the future than doom and gloom whining about racism and climate change. Hell, I’m pretty sure if GWB was president right now he’d be immensely popular and viewed as a unifying force. “Gibs” come out of the pockets of middle class people who make up the bulk of highly engaged voters, taxes are consistently an issue that people care about a lot more than Putin being a meanie.
 
1) absolutely did not achieve any of this, in any way whatsoever

2) dropping a regional ally actively fighting the terrorist organisation you purport to want rid of, that you've been allied to for decades, and making yourself out to be unreliable to your other allies isn't a good look.

Nah Trump was fucking retarded, not always and in every facet of what he did - but in a large amount of it.
1) It did. Iran hurled a few missiles which were nowhere near hitting any crucial US infrastructure in Iraq and shot down a Ukrainian airliner with dozens of Iranian citizens onboard as a temper tantrum that achieved fuck all. Meanwhile one of their top commanders and proxy leaders got fucked by a drone strike.

2) Everyone was fighting ISIS from Netherlands to Al-Qaeda. Fuck, YPG basically sold out to anyone who can give them weapons and guard their asses against repercussions including Russia so they weren't any different from any other proxy, except the US picked this one up when fucking over Iraq in 2003.

I'm not even a Trumptard but dude was anything but retarded. He was probably smarter than many other government officials running the country.
 
China is falling apart by the seams, India is preparing for a war with China, and Central Asia is barely even a matter.

As it stands right now, most people in the West vote for the Left to get free welfare shit. That's why Western Europe is openly leftist. The same left that throws weapons at Ukraine is giving them free shit. It's usually the right that votes against welfare, ensuring that most of the Third Estate will never side with them.


Care to point me to the relevant post? I don't have all the time in the world. Also, Vietnam happened because the Communist North threatened to overtake the non-Communist South, and we intervened.


Mercs. Hence why I said that we should let Ukraine hire more western mercs. Give them money to hire western merc bands, and pay experienced military volunteers to join said merc bands.

Hey, if it worked for the Wagner Group, it should work for us, too.
As far as I'm aware, proper term for these Americans fighting in Ukraine is volunteers. They weren't hired but came of their own accord.
That said, from what I remember, Ukraine is offering lucrative contracts now, but not everyone is taking it, some decided to remain on their own dime... I suppose they consider opportunity to kill Russians in itself a sufficient compensation for their work.
Those that take up contracts are by definition mercs, then.

You have to keep in mind that Wagner Group comes with their own infrastructure, support and hardware, or rather that of Russian army.
These Americans don't have that luxury, sadly, and that changes things. As badass as US marines are, for example, they're trained to operate under certain conditions, and I doubt they're prepared for what awaits them in Ukraine. Not to diminish their abilities, it would require adaptation.
If you brought an entire US military base along, that would've been a different story.

Regarding welfare safety net for citizens, IMO it only works when immigration is under control, not like it is in US and Europe in the past decade or so. Otherwise said net would collapse due to excessive stress.
Taxpayers can only feed and clothe so many. And of course citizens should be a priority.
 
Well, since it's already derailed at this point...
After all these years I finally understand what Sargon meant when he called those far-right tards "white niggers", we have the example of it in this very thread. "Globohomo" is their "systemic racism", and I'm not sure whether it's more amusing than it's cringe.
I have no love with elites, and I certainly don't like trannies and all the woke shit, but don't you fellas think that you're taking it a bit too far? Have you tried introspection at any point? Not everything is globohomo's fault, just sayin'.
The right's obsession with trannies is legitimately creepy. Don't get me wrong, I hate those freaks too, but don't they think it's a little weird to point to them for every societal woe even though they make up less than 0.01% of the western population?

I mean ffs I live in one of those fuckoff blue/dem megacities and I've only met a single tranny in my life and even this person was severely mentally ill

Their little rants about globohomo don't make any sense either since by every metric you could possibly look at globalization and trade have been a net positive for the world. That is until you remember "globalism" doesn't mean anything to them beyond open borders and they're too pussy to call themselves racists
 
So basically, they're parasites that are causing Russia even more grief.


The Right offers nothing but whining about tradition, which at this point, isn't even good enough to attract votes. At least the Left is willing to give the average prole some bread and circuses.
Are you impervious to new information entering your head?

The centre-right has dominated politics since the 1970s economic crisis which was blamed on the left.

France is run by a deregulationist whose main opposition is the far right. America’s left has been hollowed out since the 90s when it became apparent that economic leftism was an electoral cancer. Germany’s been run by pro-business conservative centrists for a very long time, and the SPD are basically a centre-right party at this point, with The Left being a borderline irrelevant party. The UK’s left dropped economic leftism under Blair.

The main story of western politics in terms of economic platforms has been a shift towards the right for decades now. I don’t understand why people say shit when they legit have no clue what they’re talking about.
 
This is why the Left eventually wins. Right-wingers at most have a few dashes of victory here and there, but the Left eventually wins because people are hungry, and the Left throws welfare money at them in exchange for votes.

With Russia's recent actions, combined with how many in the Right are simping for Russia, there's another reason why we have more decades of leftist rule to look forward to. No one would want to sit in the same table as Russia-loving nutcases, especially since more and more Ukrainian refugees flood the west because of Putin-Senpai's little temper-tantrum.

And it's as I told the other buffoon; Russia's actions strengthened the Left. Now they can add "Putin-supporter" to the list of derogatory names they use on right-wingers, and use that as an excuse to shut them up.
Few issues with that concept:

1. Many right wingers DO NOT support Russia. I'm a person who LOVES to brow beat the right for being cowards to the left or their many other faults, but this claim "the right loves Russia" is benign .It almost sounds like you saw one post from one right winger and ran with it. I've read on many sites and have not seen this Russian support, I have seen many right wing sites with Ukrainian support, including posts from very viewable political spheres such as Daily Wire. (No, this is not the only exception or 1 case) What I do see is people not wanting involved which is not the same thing as supporting Russia. conflating that is why the left wins, and why their propaganda (Guilt by association) works.

2.The left wins because they manipulate feelings and use the idiots who don't get how society functions to do it. Look at their case on socialism, anti-grooming bills and more. That welfare money destroys the middle class makes more people poor. It's not helping the poor by any stretch more than providing a block for a damn that's about to burst just those without any sight can't realize it until it's too late. You can't help poor people by throwing money at them, the black community is ample proof of this.

We have more "leftist rule" because of the propaganda they have reinforced in societies mind which is obvious. Do I dislike the right? Sure. For many specific reasons, with how you sound the right was undermined by false flag opinions or a minority base within its group, by that logic the left would win either way in the same concept.

The left will use any cause to shut right wingers up, if they shut up do to insults, they are literally befitting the coward label that I criticize them for, or are playing the optics game, which the left is superior at. Again reference your own post with what I said above.

And the few "right" leaners I see supporting Putin, literally have no political knowledge, and are basically self-proclaimed Christians who don't read their bible or go to church. In other words, they really aren't.
 
1. Many right wingers DO NOT support Russia. I'm a person who LOVES to brow beat the right for being cowards to the left or their many other faults, but this claim "the right loves Russia" is benign .It almost sounds like you saw one post from one right winger and ran with it.
If I were to guess, I'd say it's the constant torrent of putin simping and russaboo posting in this thread (and in the habbenings thread, or in A&H generally) that set him off. It's a classic example the loud minority appearing to represent the whole.
 
Few issues with that concept:

1. Many right wingers DO NOT support Russia. I'm a person who LOVES to brow beat the right for being cowards to the left or their many other faults, but this claim "the right loves Russia" is benign .It almost sounds like you saw one post from one right winger and ran with it. I've read on many sites and have not seen this Russian support, I have seen many right wing sites with Ukrainian support, including posts from very viewable political spheres such as Daily Wire. (No, this is not the only exception or 1 case) What I do see is people not wanting involved which is not the same thing as supporting Russia. conflating that is why the left wins, and why their propaganda (Guilt by association) works.
This is pretty much the heart of it, people just think we have bigger and more pressing problems at home then getting involved in another foreign conflict. I suppose you could argue that directly combating Russia in Europe is slightly different and more relevant to US hegemony than doming towelheads in the Middle-East but it's still gonna ring a bit hollow and more like "quick, get their attention on something else" gaslighting.
 
Care to point me to the relevant post? I don't have all the time in the world. Also, Vietnam happened because the Communist North threatened to overtake the non-Communist South, and we intervened.
I'm pretty sure America intervened because France bitched about losing their colony. It's actually kinda similar to how France dragged NATO into Libya.
 
If I were to guess, I'd say it's the constant torrent of putin simping and russaboo posting in this thread (and in the habbenings thread, or in A&H generally) that set him off. It's a classic example the loud minority appearing to represent the whole.
It's rather annoying when they come to derail the thread with their non sequiturs about da joos and globohomo.
It's the same fucking thing all over again.
 
If I were to guess, I'd say it's the constant torrent of putin simping and russaboo posting in this thread (and in the habbenings thread, or in A&H generally) that set him off. It's a classic example the loud minority appearing to represent the whole.
Yeah, but if you search ANY sites that are actually majority right wing it's just not the case, and shows a bad lack of judgement on how politics really works. (Note: I'm not saying this to be insulting but to make a case point) Also too many pro-Ukrainains on this site can't seem to make a distinction between not wanting to being involved with being pro-Putin. I've seen this countless times and conflations not only within this topic but from users on this site. At first I was willing to consider it merely a mistake, at this point it's operation in bad faith and obvious.

When addressed of this point, they ignore it or do the same thing and start another topic claiming this exact line. It's why many people are taking the Pro-Russian stance just to piss said users off, and if they don't learn from it, it really goes to show the levels of autism going on in the "pro-Ukraine camp" (That which I am also a part of mind you)

The right's obsession with trannies is legitimately creepy. Don't get me wrong, I hate those freaks too, but don't they think it's a little weird to point to them for every societal woe even though they make up less than 0.01% of the western population?

I mean ffs I live in one of those fuckoff blue/dem megacities and I've only met a single tranny in my life and even this person was severely mentally ill

Their little rants about globohomo don't make any sense either since by every metric you could possibly look at globalization and trade have been a net positive for the world. That is until you remember "globalism" doesn't mean anything to them beyond open borders and they're too pussy to call themselves racists
When you get over representation of rapes from a group that's what? 0.8% of the population and are being protected and basically forced on people at every corner (including gaming) that's a direct result.

Sure, it's a net positive if you ignore the negatives, or the negatives all appear as positives to you. You think open borders has anything to do with race, that it couldn't undermine a countries politics, culture or anything else? ... Are you serious? Increasing poor, higher taxes, pushing of legislation to undermine the hosts citizens? Even if you ignore the open borers, the constant wars, the constant importing of unassimalating people, Requiring a country to become more dependent on others which is a liability? Sure if you narrow view your argument makes 100% sense, in reality... It doesn't.
 
This is some delusional shit. Biden is more unpopular than Trump was, Macron is on the verge of losing to fucking Le Pen, and the NATO countries in general face massive domestic problems that will cripple their ability to keep the pressure up on Russia(people are already losing interest).

America can’t get anybody but its core allies to do shit to Russia, the reaction to the war and america begging for sanctions was an indifferent shrug from most countries outside of the west.

Cope, amerimutt.
Macron won't lose and the contrast of 'hard core' Russian allies who don't just abstain at the UN, barely more than Belarus, Syria and Eritrea, against the vast coalition created by the monke war, is startling.

PRC is the yellow Jew opportunist who loves near free gas and the colonial frontier over the border, which was originally Chinese ruled to some extent anyhow. Azerbaijan is no ally of Russia and while the Kazakh dictator was saved by Putin, a large Russian population, an old Tsarist and Soviet originated proletariat, means problems. Eaten bread is soon forgotten. The stan dictators are de facto hereditary kings who moved from SSR Gen Secs to Presidents by caring only about their direct interests. Saving tottering Putinism is not one of them.
 
Last edited:
When you get over representation of rapes from a group that's what? 0.8% of the population and are being protected and basically forced on people at every corner (including gaming) that's a direct result.
"Muh wokeness in video games"
Holy FUCK stop with the gamergate shit. It got old five years ago

Sure, it's a net positive if you ignore the negatives, or the negatives all appear as positives to you. You think open borders has anything to do with race, that it couldn't undermine a countries politics, culture or anything else? ... Are you serious? Increasing poor, higher taxes, pushing of legislation to undermine the hosts citizens? Even if you ignore the open borers, the constant wars, the constant importing of unassimalating people, Requiring a country to become more dependent on others which is a liability? Sure if you narrow view your argument makes 100% sense, in reality... It doesn't.
The world's poverty/starvation rate has gone down significantly in the last fifty years, along with literacy, life expectancy, and basic education. We have (or had) a complex supply network that spanned continents and connected millions of different people to different markets that secured food and other commodities to people around the world. If it weren't for "globalization" then the device you're using to type your nonsense on would have cost you ten times more

RUSSIA went through massive periods of growth under Putin by relying on this global system. This little spastic fit of a war does nothing for your case and if anything it just shows the dangers of going isolationist/nationalist in today's ever complex world

But by all means please tell me how globalization is bad since you have to listen to Spanish speakers in your Walmart. Dipshit.
If you're an American I guarantee your ancestors were immigrants themselves and were probably discriminated against at one point
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back