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
 
I like the shifting between moral outrage over muh genocidal Nazi regime to complete 'everything is bad and nothing matters' nihilism. I now feel very demoralized, and I will stop caring about Russia's war of aggression and instead adopt a pro-peace position that allows Russia to obtain everything it desires.
I understand your position, it is nothing new.

It always amazes me to see how easy midwits get their false dichotomy implanted by propaganda.
 
Indeed, the Beatniks and later Counter Culture of the 60s did originate on a KGB desk as a draft in some desk drawer. Only recently has the sixties generation mostly departed the public forum, but their damage is still with us.
Agreed. But it is often forgotten that although he was a reckless junkie & raging pederast, at least the "grandfather" of the beat movement wasn't a pinko communist.

If anything, William S. Burroughs was a pure social anarchist with an upper-class conservative Midwestern background; who still foresaw the future CIA/DEA-directed heroin/oxy epidemics being used as instruments of social control, and was also one of the first to describe words & images as being something like thought-viruses (i.e. memes). Burroughs' addictions drove him into the cities, rather than ideology or poverty (he had a wealthy family/trust funds); leaving little room for communism, which he also realised had no tolerance or use for his sort.

It was that other feckless Marxist pedophile & rampant Jew, Allen Ginsberg, along with his acolytes who used Burroughs' work as tools to shoehorn their filth into our society first, as Naked Lunch would've never been sent to any publisher in the first place.

The book was mostly a collection of drug-addled, junk & sex-fueled letters, which Ginsberg collated & then tried to foist upon rightly disgusted publishers; as he was a denizen of Columbia University during those years (first as a student & later with tenure), Ginsberg knew the book was illegal through obscenity laws, but worked with his connections to push the case up to SCOTUS.... and won.

The real kicker, though? Ginsberg's father was Russian & a rabid Marxist Jew. 🤔
 
What I really want to know is what should be done about him?
That's a great question!

First of all, a leader's duty is to their people, not to other countries. Secondly, we should make it pertinent to the war.

Therefore I propose we have the Russian people vote on Putin's fate. Specifically, those who are in the military, especially those who have had no say because they were conscripted. For those who have died, their family will decide instead.
 
What I really want to know is what should be done about him?

Frankly I don't care so long as he goes away. Whether he gets torn apart limb from limb by his own people rioting, eats a poison potato courtesy of someone in his circle, dies of morbid penile tumescence while fucking a Russian whore, gets imprisoned for the rest of his life for war crimes, or goes off to live in hiding in Venezuela or something,

I really don't care. Just so long as he's gone, and he is no longer in a position to enact his fever dream of being the next leader of the USSR, or be a tinpot dictator and the schoolyard bully of the world... You know, the big oaf of a kid, comes to school in ripped hand-me-down clothes and doesn't do well in classes, that everyone would feel sorry for because they know he comes from a bad home, except he thinks he's hot shit because he watches WWF matches and likes to pick on smaller kids.
 
Out of curiosity what do you even envision as the false dichotomy here?

Because I can't tell if this is just an absurd non-sequitur from you or what.
Then you should seriously ask yourself why you can't see it.

If you think that being against war means you are pro Russia, you are trapped in the false dichotomy that makes you believe the only options you have is support the "NATO, US, Israel, EU block" or Russia.

If a complex geopolitical situation has only two possible postilions in your mind, then you are being controlled by propaganda.

Most people in hindsight realize that being against the invasion of Iraq didn't actually mean you were pro Terrorism.
People at the time right after 9/11 did not take kindly to antiwar voices.
And if you know a little about recent middle eastern history it's even more absurd since Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were Reagan's freedom fighters.

The former Terrorists are now the moderate rebels in Syria.

Frankly I don't care so long as he goes away.

I really don't care. Just so long as he's gone
Saddam must go (turned out to be a disaster)
Gaddafi must go (turned out to be a bigger disaster, bringing back slavery to Afrika)
Assad must go (if this ever happens, it will be an even bigger disaster)
People hold and held these positions because they got their opinions from mainstream US propaganda.

"Putin must go" (this one, is totally gonna be great)

Please indulge me, what are your main sources of information on the subject of Ukraine?
 
Then you should seriously ask yourself why you can't see it.

If you think that being against war means you are pro Russia, you are trapped in the false dichotomy that makes you believe the only options you have is support the "NATO, US, Israel, EU block" or Russia.

If a complex geopolitical situation has only two possible postilions in your mind, then you are being controlled by propaganda.

Most people in hindsight realize that being against the invasion of Iraq didn't actually mean you were pro Terrorism.
People at the time right after 9/11 did not take kindly to antiwar voices.
And if you know a little about recent middle eastern history it's even more absurd since Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were Reagan's freedom fighters.

The former Terrorists are now the moderate rebels in Syria.
I'd prefer you actually explain what you think the false dichotomy is rather than go back to early 00's memes about Iraq.
 
I'd prefer you actually explain what you think the false dichotomy is rather than go back to early 00's memes about Iraq.
do you honestly believe the only two positions you can hold are you are either with the "NATO, US, Israel, EU block" or with Putin?
If you believe these are your only options than of course you think this is a legit dichotomy.

How about not sending more weapons and mercenaries to Ukraine and have diplomatic talks with Ukraine and Russia?
I think I already know what you are thinking "Russia wouldn't talk so there is no reason to even consider it."

How about negotiating a cease fire?
"Russia wouldn't hold it up, so there is no point in even considering it"

If this is how you think you are trapped in a propaganda induced false dichotomy.
 
do you honestly believe the only two positions you can hold are you are either with the "NATO, US, Israel, EU block" or with Putin?
If you believe these are your only options than of course you think this is a legit dichotomy.

How about not sending more weapons and mercenaries to Ukraine and have diplomatic talks with Ukraine and Russia?
I think I already know what you are thinking "Russia wouldn't talk so there is no reason to even consider it."

How about negotiating a cease fire?
"Russia wouldn't hold it up, so there is no point in even considering it"

If this is how you think you are trapped in a propaganda induced false dichotomy.
Why should Ukrainians not be allowed to defend themselves? Do you feel it's more peaceful if they're killed? If you think that's not the peaceful option and that Ukrainians should be allowed to protect themselves then what?

Is there something wrong with Ukraine being allowed to fight back?
 
Agreed. But it is often forgotten that although he was a reckless junkie & raging pederast, at least the "grandfather" of the beat movement wasn't a pinko communist.

If anything, William S. Burroughs was a pure social anarchist with an upper-class conservative Midwestern background; who still foresaw the future CIA/DEA-directed heroin/oxy epidemics being used as instruments of social control, and was also one of the first to describe words & images as being something like thought-viruses (i.e. memes). Burroughs' addictions drove him into the cities, rather than ideology or poverty (he had a wealthy family/trust funds); leaving little room for communism, which he also realised had no tolerance or use for his sort.

It was that other feckless Marxist pedophile & rampant Jew, Allen Ginsberg, along with his acolytes who used Burroughs' work as tools to shoehorn their filth into our society first, as Naked Lunch would've never been sent to any publisher in the first place.

The book was mostly a collection of drug-addled, junk & sex-fueled letters, which Ginsberg collated & then tried to foist upon rightly disgusted publishers; as he was a denizen of Columbia University during those years (first as a student & later with tenure), Ginsberg knew the book was illegal through obscenity laws, but worked with his connections to push the case up to SCOTUS.... and won.

The real kicker, though? Ginsberg's father was Russian & a rabid Marxist Jew. 🤔
Thanks. My point was overly simple but the KGB and the Fifth Column of Fellow Travellers did certainly work in support of whatever undermined a hitherto strong culture of social respectability, a social Christianity of sorts, and patriotism, which altho it so often satirized by Hollyweird was utterly preferable to present drag queen and groomer horrors.
 
The entire Kiev offensive/feint(lmao)'s existence at the beginning of the SMO kinda invalidates that assertion
Honestly the idea that the Kiev offensive was just a feint is even dumber than the idea that it was an actual decapitation strike.
A failed offensive is just a failed offensive. It means that all the bad shit that happened WASN'T part of the plan. It means the fucking VDV getting wasted in Hostomel wasn't supposed to happen, it means the 40km convoy getting cut to pieces wasn't intentional. That they were all setbacks towards a potentially war-winning goal.
Yet, if you assert that the whole Kiev operation WAS just a feint, it basically means that all that shit was either part of the plan, or that Russia had all that dumb shit happen to draw the Ukrainian Army away temporarily, just to then fight those same units in the south again within the month.

Cope, Seethe and Dilate, peacenik.

You lot are the kind of faggots who worship an abstract concept to the point of ignoring any and all repercussions. Now with the average apolitcal 3rd party or true moderate, I can understand wanting to *keep the peace*, but in situations where peace is already long gone and one side has to make a fucking stand its retarded for dipshits like you to come along and act like "oh gee I just want to scawy fighting to go away, even if it means one side gets utterly fucked over!"
You fucking peaceniks are the caliber of spineless faggots who would sell half of your daughters into slavery as long as it didn't make anyone do a big, bad violence and worst of all you have the gall to act morally superior because of it.

What I really want to know is what should be done about him?
Who cares about what "should be done about him".
Its about driving the Russian Army back to their side of the border.
 
What...? No essay full of retard rhetoric and your obsession with pederasts as a reply....



That's an entertaining way of saying you're completely misinformed.
05BE2D850000044D-0-Vladimir_Putin_caused_a_stir_when_he_kissed_a_young_Russian_tour-m-4_145347...jpg

I dunno man. I just don't like what the Brits call nonces. Maybe you do. I suggest you find a better idol.
 
TSaddam must go (turned out to be a disaster)
Gaddafi must go (turned out to be a bigger disaster, bringing back slavery to Afrika)
Assad must go (if this ever happens, it will be an even bigger disaster)
People hold and held these positions because they got their opinions from mainstream US propaganda.

"Putin must go" (this one, is totally gonna be great)

And other times it works.

Please indulge me, what are your main sources of information on the subject of Ukraine?

I'm not talking about Ukraine. I'm talking about Russia. I've held that position before now.

That said, to answer your question, whoever wants to say something on the subject that doesn't seem completely unreliable, I'll hear out and evaluate. For the most part. I don't give major news outlets the time of day, not worth my time except for broad strokes coverage of world events. There is certainly no in depth analysis of the issue, from either side.
 
A thread on Russian forces in Belarus and why an invasion from there isn't realistic:
View attachment 3746775
It's partly distraction put partly soldiers sent for training since Russian training grounds are overloaded.

Meanwhile, Russia continues to destroy civilian utilities in time for winter:
View attachment 3746791
Both Russia and Iran are denying that Iranian drones are being used even though everyone knows they are.

There is significant unrest in Iran right now but it's hard to believe it will change the government.
Now Khamenei could've fled while I type, but it's highly unlikely (unless in the form of a mini coup against the Supreme Leader, which is unlikely or maybe the President which might happen), but relevantly it might force Iran to retrench in regard to its middle eastern and other overseas projects, meaning less drones and missiles. Beating up little girls and the rest of the protestors requires concentration.
 
Last edited:
Why should Ukrainians not be allowed to defend themselves? Do you feel it's more peaceful if they're killed? If you think that's not the peaceful option and that Ukrainians should be allowed to protect themselves then what?

Is there something wrong with Ukraine being allowed to fight back?
Your statement implies that negotiations and diplomacy is loosing
ergo
With your current mindset the only option is a complete loss or victory

It will be a complete loss for the Ukrainian regime because that is the plan the US had from the very beginning and the US finances the Ukrainian military.
The plan is to make Ukraine a new Afghanistan for Russia.

The only way to resolve this remotely positive for Ukraine is via diplomatic means.

You lot are the kind of faggots who worship an abstract concept to the point of ignoring any and all repercussions.
You are such a big strong man, cheering for other people to fight a war behind a computer screen.
You are a soft little weakling, this is why you feel the need to go along with the prevailing narrative while trying to present yourself as a warrior.

You are a pathetic low information Nigger.

And other times it works.
No, it never worked.

whoever wants to say something on the subject that doesn't seem completely unreliable,
Can you give me some names, websites, books or channels?
 
Your statement implies that negotiations and diplomacy is loosing
ergo
With your current mindset the only option is a complete loss or victory

It will be a complete loss for the Ukrainian regime because that is the plan the US had from the very beginning and the US finances the Ukrainian military.
The plan is to make Ukraine a new Afghanistan for Russia.

The only way to resolve this remotely positive for Ukraine is via diplomatic means.
My statement about whether you think its wrong for Ukraine to defend itself is me wanting to know whether you think its wrong for Ukraine to defend itself. Why you have decided it means diplomacy is wrong is a deranged hallucination of yours.

Why do you think diplomacy is only an option if the victim can't defend itself at all?
 
If a complex geopolitical situation has only two possible postilions in your mind, then you are being controlled by propaganda.

You're trying to apply macro-scale geopolitics to an actual hot war. That doesn't really work.

I forget the exact quote, but it's something like "A sheep can only co-exist with a wolf from inside it's stomach".

In other words, one side here was the active aggressor and invaded a sovereign country and is attempting to annex either part of it or all of it, depending on who you believe.

There is no compromise position here. Either Russia is allowed to do it, or Russia is stopped from doing it, either by military or diplomatic means. And Putin has shown less than no sign of being amendable to diplomatic means. His only so-called overtures to a diplomatic solution start with the core demand of "I get everything I want and you get nothing you want."

And no, this is not like 9/11. This is not a case of a war based on mistaken or fraudulent information. Russia is invading a sovereign nation. That's not "propaganda". It's objective fact

No, it never worked.

Not to go there of all places, but Hitler.

Can you give me some names, websites, books or channels?

I probably could, but why should I? You aren't legitimately interested.
 
Why do you think diplomacy is only an option if the victim can't defend itself at all?
The US, Israel, NATO and the EU don't care about the Ukrainian people.
The US and Israel want Ukraine to be a new Afghanistan for Russia.
This means the goal of this conflict is to traumatize Ukraine as much as possible and have Russia occupy it and then clandestinely support insurgency and terrorisms.
My guess is this is mainly in Israel's interest to keep Russia occupied so that they have to drop support for Syria.

The only way to not end up fucked over would be for Ukraine to strike a deal with Russia or for Russia to be defeated (which I doubt Ukraine can accomplish by itself, especially when it's biggest supporter want them to be occupied by Russia)

Is it wrong for a country to defend itself militarily on principal? My answer is no, a country should be allowed to defend it's sovereignty from an invader. This is why I am pro Hamas and I would love to see more military actions from Palestinians against it's illegal occupiers.

But is it always the right choice practically? Do you think Lichtenstein could militarily stop Switzerland from annexing it?
Their only realistic option is diplomacy.
I probably could, but why should I? You aren't legitimately interested.
I really am, or I wouldn't have asked for it multiple times.

Not to go there of all places, but Hitler.
WW2 the good War, right?

What about the German Civilians though?
What about the occupations and expansion of the USSR?

And Putin has shown less than no sign of being amendable to diplomatic means.
Who gave you that idea?
 
The US, Israel, NATO and the EU don't care about the Ukrainian people.
The US and Israel want Ukraine to be a new Afghanistan for Russia.
This means the goal of this conflict is to traumatize Ukraine as much as possible and have Russia occupy it and then clandestinely support insurgency and terrorisms.
My guess is this is mainly in Israel's interest to keep Russia occupied so that they have to drop support for Syria.

The only way to not end up fucked over would be for Ukraine to strike a deal with Russia or for Russia to be defeated (which I doubt Ukraine can accomplish by itself, especially when it's biggest supporter want them to be occupied by Russia)

Is it wrong for a country to defend itself militarily on principal? My answer is no, a country should be allowed to defend it's sovereignty from an invader. This is why I am pro Hamas and I would love to see more military actions from Palestinians against it's illegal occupiers.

But is it always the right choice practically? Do you think Lichtenstein could militarily stop Switzerland from annexing it?
Their only realistic option is diplomacy.

I really am, or I wouldn't have asked for it multiple times.


WW2 the good War, right?

What about the German Civilians though?
What about the occupations and expansion of the USSR?


Who gave you that idea?
Why is diplomacy not an option for Russia?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back