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
 
lol calm down
You're one to talk, but had to sperg briefly to get the point across, he's proven to be illiterate otherwise. I don't know how many times I have to clearly state I'm not pro-Russian yet his aspie brain just glosses right over it.
 
You're one to talk, but had to sperg briefly to get the point across, he's proven to be illiterate otherwise. I don't know how many times I have to clearly state I'm not pro-Russian yet his aspie brain just glosses right over it.
Calm down.

It's nobody's first day on the Internet and people can spot a troll like you, so don't be surprised when you are treated like one.
 
We're not even talking about the same things, read my edit in the post you're replying to.

"Putin-centric worldview" go fuck yourself retard. Nothing I've ever said has been Putin-centric. You're insane and I swear you live in this thread with an autistic enjoyment for arguing about things which is why you consistently and conveniently misinterpret things.

I ask a question about tactical nukes being used in the donbas and you sperg out over Russia's very generic threat of ICBMs which they did from day one or two. Only a retard wouldn't take those threats seriously and only a retard would think those threats implied nuking Ukraine.

Checking your articles, those are so obviously talking about if Russia itself feels threatened as a state and has nothing to do with "tactical nukes." Learn to read.
Yes, because such an attitude has done such wonders in predicting what would happen.

Like back then when we all thought that only a retard would take Putin's massing of his army near Ukraine seriously. And then look what happened.

Again, you're operating from the position that the Russians are sensible enough to not do something self-destructive, when this whole war has been spitting in the face of that assertion.
 
I only see it likely if Ukraine launches a massive counteroffensive that actually chomps off a fair bit of Russian soil. Which isn't impossible at this point. I doubt public opinion, either in Ukraine or the West, will let the Russians just slink away after leaving a good chunk of Ukraine in ruins.
But here lies the question. Would they concider action the LPDR or (however unlikely) an incursion into Cirimea as an invasion of sovereign territory?
 
You've used this logic before. "If multiple news agencies report it, it can't be wrong!"
I'm not reading them, I don't even think you actually read through them all but it's not important.
  • Putin almost certainly isn't kidding about using nukes
  • He means strategic missiles with nuclear warheads
    • These are not "tactical nukes" as indicated by the term "strategic missile"
    • ICBMs are not meant to be used right across the border
  • The threat is that if anyone escalates this, Russia is willing to go nuclear
    • This capability is real and only rivaled by the US
edit: I realized shortly after posting this that we're not even on the same page. My contention was in regards to tactical nukes in the donbas which I've seen going around the past 2 days and you're talking about nukes in general.
I mean it's not far fetched, Soviet Doctrine was based around limited nuclear strikes against non-nuclear states like Denmark and Italy, with one of the two nuclear strikes assigned to Denmark (Roskilde, population 50,000 and no military value) being to damage morale.
 
Yes, because such an attitude has done such wonders in predicting what would happen.

Like back then when we all thought that only a retard would take Putin's massing of his army near Ukraine seriously. And then look what happened.
You're a lost cause. I have to remember you think you could have easily fixed Russia's economy before they invaded.

Friendly reminder to everyone autistically pontificating and jacking off to le madman pootin employing a tactical nuke in Ukraine.
A tactical nuclear weapon has never been fielded in combat and Russia hasn't demonstrated an interest in that capability for decades.

I mean it's not far fetched, Soviet Doctrine was based around limited nuclear strikes against non-nuclear states like Denmark and Italy, with one of the two nuclear strikes assigned to Denmark (Roskilde, population 50,000 and no military value) being to damage morale.
Not relevant to tactical nukes in the Donbas or anywhere in the battlefield and I don't think I've ever implied Russia wouldn't nuke countries. I said it's a real threat in the post you replied to.
 
You're a lost cause. I have to remember you think you could have easily fixed Russia's economy before they invaded.

Friendly reminder to everyone autistically pontificating and jacking off to le madman pootin employing a tactical nuke in Ukraine.
A tactical nuclear weapon has never been fielded in combat and Russia hasn't demonstrated an interest in that capability for decades.
Fixing Russia's economy is not impossible. Especially if you have absolute power over the oligarchs and can throw them in prison at any time for "tax evasion". At that point, you can enact economic reforms to lay the groundwork for actual, free-market competition in Russia to incentivize smart people who want to start businesses to stay. If the oligarchs protest, just accuse them of tax fraud and gulag them. Or use the threat of state power to keep them quiet.

When it comes to things that haven't been done since WW2 such as nuking another country, the same could be said of Russia deploying its troops in Ukraine in the first place. The most they did was grab small pieces here and there in 2014, but no one ever thought that Russia would launch a full war to invade a sovereign European state, yet here we are.

And again, Russia's flagging fortunes in the war makes it all the more likely that they might use such weapons. Especially when they realize that scraping the bottom of the barrel for old people and old tech won't change their fortunes in this war. If you expect Putin to gracefully accept defeat, you're fooling yourself.
 
Last edited:
Fair but the things people speculate on regarding this conflict aren't any of those things.
Oh, then why Russia started boots on the ground invasion that led to massive sanctions (& loss of prestige of it's military capabilities, if current trajectory holds) without proper preparation via air - and missile strikes?

Their initial assumptions have turned out to be BS (and so did mine; I expected Ukraine to fold in about 4 days) which led them to waste lots of manpower to that totally "feint" towards Kiev. Russians like to look tough and their rhetoric keeps mentioning nukes which keeps those as remote possibility.

Frankly they're more likely to resort mass use of thermobarics and other more conventional munitions, but small change is still a change.
 
Oh, then why Russia started boots on the ground invasion that led to massive sanctions (& loss of prestige of it's military capabilities, if current trajectory holds) without proper preparation via air - and missile strikes?

Their initial assumptions have turned out to be BS (and so did mine; I expected Ukraine to fold in about 4 days) which led them to waste lots of manpower to that totally "feint" towards Kiev. Russians like to look tough and their rhetoric keeps mentioning nukes which keeps those as remote possibility.

Frankly they're more likely to resort mass use of thermobarics and other more conventional munitions, but small change is still a change.
That is my point. They keep mentioning nukes, which leaves it possible for them to use it, however remote.

And with them losing, and losing BADLY, might I add, the Russians are becoming more desperate. And everyone knows that desperate people are liable to do stupid things.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: KiwiFuzz
Oh, then why Russia started boots on the ground invasion that led to massive sanctions (& loss of prestige of it's military capabilities, if current trajectory holds) without proper preparation via air - and missile strikes?
I imagine it's similar logic to their invasion of Georgia and maybe Chechnya as well on a larger scale. No one seemed to question those.
It's not like this came out of nowhere and it's not like Russia didn't anticipate sanctions, they were already one of the most sanctioned countries in the world leading up to this. The Donbas has been volatile for nearly a decade now and Russia was directly involved there, too.

The military ineptitude of all things make sense, though I think that it's being played up significantly by media to humiliate Russia. People are used to seeing western forces do their thing, particularly US-led forces, and they are the exception to military competency not the rule. So Russia's blunders were going to happen and always have happened.
Russia didn't suddenly become this sloppy overnight after years of being in Syria to boot.

Their initial assumptions have turned out to be BS (and so did mine; I expected Ukraine to fold in about 4 days) which led them to waste lots of manpower to that totally "feint" towards Kiev. Russians like to look tough and their rhetoric keeps mentioning nukes which keeps those as remote possibility.
What assumptions? I agree mostly but my point is nobody in this thread actually knows what Russia planned for and didn't. There's been a lot of "Putin is thinking" and "They meant to ...." but it's been baseless gossip.

Frankly they're more likely to resort mass use of thermobarics and other more conventional munitions, but small change is still a change.
Agreed and this lines up with what they've done before.

Everything "makes sense" regarding this conflict. Beyond the initial shock of the invasion actually happening, you can trace everything to reason.
 
You're a lost cause. I have to remember you think you could have easily fixed Russia's economy before they invaded.

Friendly reminder to everyone autistically pontificating and jacking off to le madman pootin employing a tactical nuke in Ukraine.
A tactical nuclear weapon has never been fielded in combat and Russia hasn't demonstrated an interest in that capability for decades.


Not relevant to tactical nukes in the Donbas or anywhere in the battlefield and I don't think I've ever implied Russia wouldn't nuke countries. I said it's a real threat in the post you replied to.
Who said the tactical nuke has to be in Donbass?

They could just hit the mitary base near Bila Tserkva which is in Kiev Oblast with a tactical nuke to damage Ukrainian morale.
 
Western People who assume anything about russia are also assuming that russians are like the rest of us whites, that they can read our alphabet thus having similar access to information on the web, and live in comparable conditions.

They're not, they can't and they don't. They're far more foreign to us than most people assume.

Idk if anyone posted the video where russian babushkas are laughing at the concept of having toilets indoors "Who would have a toilet inside the house! Hahaha Ukrainians are backwards barbarians" that's the mental condition of russians in villages and tiny towns.

Who the fuck knows what's going on in Putin's head? For all we know he might literally think himself a god like the NK dynasty of kims at this point, he's throwing a toddler like temper tantrum because Ukraine told him no.
 
I'm saying a tactical nuke itself is ludicrous to speculate about. Completely baseless as far as I know, which is why I asked about it to begin with.
It was also completely ludicrous to speculate about Ukraine getting invaded by Russia a few years back, and now, here we are. People used to think that Putin would never do it, that him pushing troops to Ukraine's borders was just another calculated temper tantrum to scare the West. But it didn't work out that way, did it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: secret watcher
People are used to seeing western forces do their thing, particularly US-led forces, and they are the exception to military competency not the rule.
kind of yes, but also kind of no. many non american western forces (like napoleonic france, or prussia and imperial germany) and non western forces (like imperial japan) have historically displayed high levels of military competency that far exceed the clusterfuck of this current special military operation.
 
I'm saying a tactical nuke itself is ludicrous to speculate about. Completely baseless as far as I know, which is why I asked about it to begin with.
It's not out of the question though, at this point lets say Russia did use a nuclear device on Ukraine, then what would happen?

The Soviets thought NATO would be too pussy to nuke the USSR proper if they refrained from directly hitting France and the UK with nuclear weapons, and that was in the 1970s, look at Europe now
 
kind of yes, but also kind of no. many non american western forces (like napoleonic france, or prussia and imperial germany) and non western forces (like imperial japan) have historically displayed high levels of military competency that far exceed the clusterfuck of this current special military operation.
I'm referring to present day but yeah.
It was also completely ludicrous to speculate about Ukraine getting invaded by Russia a few years back, and now, here we are. People used to think that Putin would never do it, that him pushing troops to Ukraine's borders was just another calculated temper tantrum to scare the West. But it didn't work out that way, did it?
People literally speculated it for months leading up to the invasion... It was on mainstream news, it was in normal news articles. It wasn't considered crazy at all to speculate about it.
I'll admit that I didn't actually expect it to happen, I thought the MSM and current US administration were using it to deflect from domestic issues. Honestly, this tells me you didn't tune in until after Russia formally invaded, they've been doing a soft invasion for a long time.
It's not out of the question though, at this point lets say Russia did use a nuclear device on Ukraine, then what would happen?

The Soviets thought NATO would be too pussy to nuke the USSR proper if they refrained from directly hitting France and the UK with nuclear weapons, and that was in the 1970s, look at Europe now
Again this is just useless fanfic in the News Megathread. I know it's devolved and is just a containment zone now but I check it for news even though I'm better off just finding it myself nowadays.
Take it to the Happenings thread if you want to speculate on "what ifs." I saw it mentioned here and there but asked in here curious if there was news about it, as if Russia made a threat or something. Turns out it's not even "rumor mill" material.

and yeah I know no one is taking anything to the thread it belongs in. :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back