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
 
join a group to protect itself from being invaded
WW1 did happen and everyone had deals with everyone else to protect each other from being invaded.
Russia will go as far as nuclear to keep its warm water port and NATO out of Ukraine.
I think of Ukrainians as Victims caught in the proxy war, on one side the US, Israel and NATO on the other Russia.

With your view the only option left is war.
The most likely outcome is Ukraine looses because the US, Israel and NATO don't want nuclear war they want to damage Russia not die themselves.
Russia is somehow defeated by Ukraine, very unlikely.
Last but not least you got Nuclear Armageddon.
There's still peanuts in my shit, Newfag. Why haven't you eaten them all yet?
So you are a scat fetishist you should get in contact with the Gunt and talk to him about your hobby, boy.
But calm down with your low information nigger rambling.
 
Can't believe I missed this before...

"I again recommend you start reading some https://antiwar.com/ it is a consistent antiwar outlet that has a great track record, it's by autistic libertarians"

" and not some agenda driven propaganda rag."

Uh-huh.



Russia in WWII was Ukraine today - militarily being supplied by outside powers. Left on it's own, it would not have fared so well.
Pretty much sums up why ukraine isn't gonna lose, no matter the material losses, the west can pump more weapons and train ukrainian soldiers until the russians get pushed back

1. I don't believe Ukrainian claims on casualties (or Russian). Unverifiable.
2. I don't think Russia has lost a "major chunk" of their modernized forces. I don't think they expected this level of warfare, and will gather everything available for their next offensive in spring. If you are right, they'll likely be defeated by then.



We've been told the same thing (they're out of missiles! They're out of ammo! etc) since the first summer. I don't think they're running out of anything, I don't believe the claims and have seen no evidence to back them up.
Neither side is running out of ammo, people have been saying that both russia ukraine and the west were gonna run out for months now, but they all got plenty
 
WW1 did happen and everyone had deals with everyone else to protect each other from being invaded.
Russia will go as far as nuclear to keep its warm water port and NATO out of Ukraine.
They had Crimea. They didn't invade to take Crimea or protect it, they already had it. It was irrelevant to the start of this conflict.

Ukraine was also unlikely to be joining NATO before the invasion as people were afraid of antagonizing Russia. It's only due to Russia's poor showing that people in the West are becoming more comfortable with telling Russia to go fuck itself as just doing lend-lease and general arming efforts for Ukraine appears to be enough to let it fight back.

With your view the only option left is war.
The most likely outcome is Ukraine looses because the US, Israel and NATO don't want nuclear war they want to damage Russia not die themselves.
Russia is somehow defeated by Ukraine, very unlikely.
Last but not least you got Nuclear Armageddon.
This would make sense if Russia could escalate to the nuclear level without having anyone retaliate. But this is one scenario that had been part of many American generals' wet dreams, as many of them desperately want some serious conflict with Russia and would love an excuse to be involved.

This is a strange sort of optimism on your part to be imagining the US government has both an insane hatred of Russia that makes it want to weaken it through a proxy war, but also is willing to throw in the towel rather than go balls deep if Russia wants to escalate. The US is probably engaging in a variety of operations in Ukraine right now, completely unafraid of a Russian response. Why are you imagining these people are afraid of Russia going nuclear?
 
Russia will go as far as nuclear to keep its warm water port and NATO out of Ukraine.
All Putin had to do was hold onto the Donbass and Crimea and not start shit with an open invasion. You know, the thing he had managed to successfully do since 2014, yet decided to quit doing for no reason none of us have been able to discern given his own changing rhetoric and justifications.
This is a strange sort of optimism on your part to be imagining the US government has both an insane hatred of Russia that makes it want to weaken it through a proxy war, but also is willing to throw in the towel rather than go balls deep if Russia wants to escalate. The US is probably engaging in a variety of operations in Ukraine right now, completely unafraid of a Russian response. Why are you imagining these people are afraid of Russia going nuclear?
We absolutely are employing special forces operators. Shit goes wild in war. They were in Ukraine before the war training Ukrainian special forces and I haven't heard a damn thing about them leaving, have you? Naturally neither side wants to risk any sort of escalation by admitting it. That sort of thing is legally a causus belli, so Putin would be forced into war if he admitted it. War not just against Ukraine but all NATO. And then the Poles start yelling Krew dla boga krwi as they build skull thrones out of every Russian from the border to Moscow.

And no. I have no idea how the fuck you pronounce that. They are truly the chosen of the Chaos Gods, down to their very language. Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz and his name that incites confusion and rage in all sane peoples is evidence enough.
 
Last edited:
We absolutely are employing special forces operators. Shit goes wild in war. They were in Ukraine before the war training Ukrainian special forces and I haven't heard a damn thing about them leaving, have you? Naturally neither side wants to risk any sort of escalation by admitting it. That sort of thing is legally a causus belli, so Putin would be forced into war if he admitted it. War not just against Ukraine but all NATO. And then the Poles start yelling Krew dla boga krwi as they build skull thrones out of every Russian from the border to Moscow.
Yeah it is kinda worth keeping in mind that both sides want to keep the fiction alive about how small the conflict is since both sides want to avoid things escalating. I feel like Russia is acting less restricted now, but that is likely colored by my own biases.

Still both sides have an incentive to downplay things.
 
This would make sense if Russia could escalate to the nuclear level without having anyone retaliate.
Without Crimea Russia is destined to be over and Russia knows it.
With NATO in Ukraine Russia is also severely pressured by the US.
This is an existential conflict from the view of Russia.
If you think they couldn't become desperate enough if they are in the process of loosing nuclear strike capability while NATO still has it to do a first strike you are very optimistic.

This is a strange sort of optimism on your part to be imagining the US government has both an insane hatred of Russia that makes it want to weaken it through a proxy war, but also is willing to throw in the towel rather than go balls deep if Russia wants to escalate.
Because the real world isn't a computer game. In the real world the most used way of war is propaganda combined with sanctions.
It's mostly gay faggity shit without glory or awesome battles. Think about Syria all the US does there is have a base with a no-fly zone around it basically being a protection under which Moderate Rebels aka ISIS can hide themselves from the Syrian Army.

Balls deep means nuclear war and that is why you get proxy wars.
 
Because the real world isn't a computer game. In the real world the most used way of war is propaganda combined with sanctions.
It's mostly gay faggity shit without glory or awesome battles. Think about Syria all the US does there is have a base with a no-fly zone around it basically being a protection under which Moderate Rebels aka ISIS can hide themselves from the Syrian Army
What does the US fucking around in Syria have to do with sanctions?
 
What does the US fucking around in Syria have to do with sanctions?
I explained to you that there is no balls deep it's clandestine, through deception and fought via proxy forces. The most common direct acts of war are sanctions. Despite what movies and the bravado of some politicians and generals makes you think they are all not willing to die for the cause, that is why they send the children of other people into war.

This is all basically the same strategy as it was since the beginning of the cold war, trying to encircle and cut off Russia from the rest of the world.
 
"war bad" is code for "war bad," retard. If you interpret "war bad" as an affront to your stance then maybe you don't have a good stance.
"war bad" implies "ending war good", but that brings the question of how to end the war.

You seem to take "war bad" and then say "west is bad for continuing the bad war", "ukraine is bad for not accepting proposed diplomatic solution to end the bad war" and "west and ukraine should just agree to russian terms to end war"

Trouble is, you can flip these arguments to the other side: "russia is bad for continuing the bad war", "russia is bad for not proposing acceptable diplomatic solution to end the bad war" and "russia should just agree to western and ukrainian terms to end war"

We all seem to agree "war bad" and "ending war good", we just dont agree on how it should end and right now everyone's solution seems to be "keep our guys going until the other guys agree with our terms" - the usual conduct of armed conflict since the dawn of time. So you seem to argue that right now, agreeing to russian terms is reasonable; more reasonable than continuing to fight. I dispute that.

If the result of just swapping "Russia" and "CSTO" with "Ukraine" and "NATO" on terms the russians proposed or would agree to is something more absolutely mad and ridiculous than the second-most rabid russophobe here would dare propose, what does that say about how you might expect ukraine to view the proposed russian terms? Is it really more reasonable to accept those terms than continuing to fight?

You might bring up situations in history where a nation agreed to unreasonable terms to end a war. But in almost all those cases, the nation was beaten so thoroughly that its leaders felt it was more reasonable to accept the unreasonable terms than to continue fighting. Ukraine is not in that position.
 
"war bad" implies "ending war good"
True.
We all seem to agree "war bad" and "ending war good"
Not convinced by that, there seem to be people with an allergic reaction to https://antiwar.com/ here.
If the result of just swapping "Russia" and "CSTO" with "Ukraine" and "NATO" on terms the russians proposed or would agree to is something more absolutely mad and ridiculous than the second-most rabid russophobe here would dare propose, what does that say about how you might expect ukraine to view the proposed russian terms? Is it really more reasonable to accept those terms than continuing to fight?
This tells me you really need to visit https://antiwar.com/ and read some articles
 
Their offensive was a cluster fuck, anybody who repeats that "Kyiv feint" line should be shot.

Putin has all the disadvantages that come with his kind of leadership style (for example, being surrounded by sycophants)... but this also comes with advantages, like it's much easier for a dictator to "clean house".

The game is over, it is do or die for them. They will fight like their lives depend on it, and I would wager the motor pool is on top of tire maintenance now. I could be wrong, I have absolutely zero inside information, and this comes from a firm belief that those in power are survivors and they'll do their best to stay alive.



They should have THOUSANDS of more modern tanks left according to all sources (with 60 to 70% of their modern equipment remaining). They aren't running out of anything? I mean, they don't have a flagship, so, yeah. I'm not saying they haven't been severely bloodied, but don't count them out. Countries have come back to win the war after bigger losses.

Are they also getting rid of a lot of surplus crap? Hell yes, it's Russia! There's probably a squad of dip shits riding around on ponies waving cutlasses around, too. It's a big country.

It couldn't be that the corruption in Russia, especially the military, is so bad and their people so incompetent that over the years they got lazy, fucked up their numbers, and had lazy and corrupt depo commanders who sold shit off and never bothered to update the actual numbers of usable equipment they had in storage, could it? For fucksake, they are sending rusted out T-62s to the front lines that are only "modernized" in so much as they worked on them enough that they'll roll out under their own power with nothing else done to them. They're doing that because all their other modern armor either had their turrets popped in a geyser of flames, or were abandoned after they broke down and were captured by the Ukrainians. Yeah, they might have some more modern tanks that they're holding back in Russia out of paranoia that NATO mounts an invasion, but that just goes to prove what a bad state Russia is in. And Russia cannot afford to just crank up production of newer tanks like the Soviets did in WWII, and even if they could they don't have the production capabilities or skilled laborers to do it. In a best case scenario where Russia ends the invasion and goes home to work hard on improving their reputation with the rest of the world, it would take them over a decade of full scale production to even come close to recovering the materiel losses they've suffered. And that's not even touching on the losses of skilled personnel they're facing. Countless skilled tank crews from their most experienced and decorated units are now ashes lining the bottom of rusting, scorched hulks that were once modern main battle tanks. They've had more troops killed in less than a year than the Soviets did in the ten years they occupied Afghanistan. Russia is now a pariah on the world stage, and if Putin keeps on acting like Hitler in the last stages of WWII then they'll be lucky to build back up to their pre-Ukraine numbers by 2100, and that's if the rest of the world decides to play nice and start selling them the computer chips and other high tech stuff they need to build modern war weapons and can't build themselves.
 
I explained to you that there is no balls deep it's clandestine, through deception and fought via proxy forces. The most common direct acts of war are sanctions. Despite what movies and the bravado of some politicians and generals makes you think they are all not willing to die for the cause, that is why they send the children of other people into war.

This is all basically the same strategy as it was since the beginning of the cold war, trying to encircle and cut off Russia from the rest of the world.
Sanctions are war? What the fuck are you on about?
 
True.

Not convinced by that, there seem to be people with an allergic reaction to https://antiwar.com/ here.
I'm sure a proposed "peace" by entailing this (but unironically), or better yet, declaring all of Russia from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok to be Greater Ukraine would satisfy them. Or, declaring all of Ukraine from the Donbas to Odessa to be Greater Russia. Depends which side theyre on.

At the same time, while I am semi-willing to check it out, I have to say it's pretty narrow-minded to say anyone who disagrees with antiwar.com is pro-war. It does have quite the libertarian agenda to it and maybe that's what we don't like..?
Sniff, sniff, smells like hay...
This tells me you really need to visit https://antiwar.com/ and read some articles
"blah blah blah, by the way bro you wanna check out antiwar dot com? its really based bro like bro seriously its really good like no bro everything else is propaganda and shit bro"

Alright, so I actually read the following article: https://original.antiwar.com/Patric...to-cut-zelensky-and-ing-wen-from-the-us-dole/
TLDR: foreign wars are expensive, this will hurt the taxpayer, who is being neglected, it's better that Ukraine (and Taiwan) be abandoned. Also the war is actually NATO's fault because it kept expanding. Also "Republicans like Taylor-Greene, Gaetz, and Hawley understand the cost of empire: endless warfare, a decaying home front, and a beclowned international reputation"

I can agree that the american taxpayer does not currently benefit from aid sent to Ukraine, they'd rather have it spent on road repairs or not be taxed to begin with. The problem with the article, I feel, is that it counts on Russia to finish its business with Ukraine, pack up and say "Alright we're good. No more territorial expansion." The last time a nation was allowed to do that would've been Germany from 1936 to 1939. Then they took Poland and everyone told them to stop. That did not end well. What I'm saying is that the current aid to Ukraine might be worth it if it prevents a full-scale war between NATO and Russia. In fact, I might argue the US stepped in too late: if they reacted with great vigor back in 2014 when Russia took Crimea, that mightve been the end of it.

And don't get me started on "international reputation". The US would look like a clown if it supported Ukraine but it lost anyway; but it would look like an unreliable ally if it never stepped in to begin with. "Alright, then why not cut the number of allies to begin with?" Because someone else will offer to be allies with them, and that will not necessarily end well.

PostScript:
TLDR: foreign wars are expensive, this will hurt the taxpayer, who is being neglected, it's better that Ukraine (and Taiwan) be abandoned. Also the war is actually NATO's fault because it kept expanding. Also "Republicans like Taylor-Greene, Gaetz, and Hawley understand the cost of empire: endless warfare, a decaying home front, and a beclowned international reputation"
This can also be mirrored onto Russia: the Russian Conscript/taxpayer does not benefit from the war, and is being hurt by their government's choice to continue it. It's better to leave Ukraine alone. And the cost of all this? A long war; people who obviously don't like what the government is doing and are being hurt by it; the sanctions and the fact they look like clowns for being unable to conquer Ukraine, or at least secure their stated objectives.

Russia should totally pull out.
 
Last edited:
I would argue the best proof of them losing a lot of their men is the fact they’ve been forced to do a “partial mobilization” for their “special military operation.” It’s not politically expedient to do “a partial mobilization” so they’d only do it, if they had no other option. They have no option because the war is dragging on longer than planned and the attrition rate is higher than expected. If they weren’t suffering material and human losses, a “partial mobilization” and sending out T-64s wouldn’t be necessary.
More on "partial" mobilization, albeit I might've already explained it before. It's partial in the name only, Putin's decree doesn't set any limitations, so in actuality anyone who's listed as a reservist, which means any adult male even if they didn't serve, is a fair game. In essence, he made it okay for the Russian army to draft men across Russia as they deem fit for the foreseeable future until the decree is rescinded.
There are legal ways to avoid it, but even just simply coming to voenkomat with necessary documents that provide you legal exception from mobilization is a risk, because they only care about the headcount.
Certain professions and skills are prioritized, and military experience is desirable, but neither is necessary to become cannon fodder.
Now that conscription season for mandatory service is starting, young men who'd usually go home after their year in the army would instead become prime targets for mobilization, and the same fate awaits their replacement. So there might be a temporary pause in conscription for civilians.

They struggle to implement mobilization even with the current volume of conscripts, there's not enough people and places to train them all. And even then it would be at best the useless bog-standard shit that won't prepare them for what's to come.
The supposed partiality of this mobilization is expressed in both lack of resources and organization to implement it, as well as risk of rocking the boat too much and upsetting the populace to the point of mass protests that would either put an end to these efforts or end this regime altogether. Government knows it's an unpopular measure, while Putin and his military command likely realized that it's the only way to sustain this war from their side, they're on thin ice right now.

It is a desperate measure, last ditch attempt to achieve success in Ukraine, whatever that might be.

Also, fun piece of news. Yesterday Duma held voting on the bill that provides fathers of multiple children (starting with 3), fathers of disabled children and fathers of only child with exception from mobilization. Putin's party who's responsible for putting Russia into this hole called "United Russia" decided not to participate in the process, despite being present. Only 6 out of 323 members even bothered to vote, while the rest didn't, fully knowing the implications but not wanting to put their name on it. 110 members of Duma from other parties that proposed the bill voted for it, but obviously it didn't pass. It was likely just lip service, but might've also been an attempt to expose "United Russia" as twats that they are and capitalize on it.
It was supposed to be televised as you'd expect, but they cut it.
 
Sanctions are war? What the fuck are you on about?
Man, this guy.

Sanctions? Basically an act of war.
Defamation? Propaganda? Act of war.
Defending your territory? Act of war.
Selling weapons, you guessed it, act of war.
But rolling in tanks and annexing territory... uhhh... let's have a vote about that! We wouldn't want to escalate to sanctions, after all!
 
... enough slapfighting from me for now, time for some news!

"Could it be that people don't like getting themselves, their husbands, brothers and sons drafted? NO, it's a Ukrainian psyop!"

A musician was shot for refusing to participate in a concert Russia organized :(

Russians displacing civvies from Kherson (Is this war crimes? Potentially.)

Another billionaire suggesting Ukraine shouldn't join NATO in another proposed peace agreement, this time less batshit than Musk's. He still recognizes Crimea as Russian though.

lockheed-builds-more-himars. Apparently they're expanding their factories and training more people, and Estonia and Poland want more Himars. If I'm not wrong so does the US army
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back