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 have no idea what you're trying to prove by linking that.

Anyway, here's some news. It looks like the UN has released a Human Rights report on Ukraine. Haven't finished reading it yet.
Funny how Amnesty International report about Ukraine misconduct was shutdown swiftly.
 
Isn't that still a huge red flag anyways?
Why are there so many American military bases in those countries?
How would you feel if China and Russia had dozens of military bases in the US?
Does feel right at all.
The US has vacated any country that requested a withdrawal of military forces, such as France, Kyrgyzstan, Thailand, The Philippines as well as return land requested by the host nation, such as the shutdown of the Shibuya Barracks and Tachikawa Airbase in Japan or Yongsan in South Korea. US Forces in several countries allow the host nation to offset their domestic defense budget shortcomings where they cannot afford to maintain large military endeavors such as Air Forces or Naval assets. Meanwhile the Russians used armed force to prevent countries from removing themselves from Russian influence such as Hungary, Poland, Romania, oh and Ukraine when they wanted a withdrawal of the Russian Black Sea fleet from Crimea. There is a reason the Warsaw Pact did not survive post USSR collapse as it was parasitic in nature where nations such as East Germany had to provide the USSR with discounted goods and most nations were forced to purchase licenses for military products while NATO nations settled for domestic production with ammunition and fuel commonality and several non American defense companies sold products across NATO to even the US with the FN MAG 58, Minmi and Hawker AV-8 Harrier being examples.
US wouldn't be planting military bases around the globe if they weren't belligerent warmongers.
How many foreign military bases in the US? ;v)
If the US was planning to start an invasion from US Forces Japan and US Forces Europe they'd have a lot more shit in place than the current order of battle. The reason they are in Japan is to deter Chinese agresson and Russian agression. If Europe and East Asia were truly thalls to the Evil Empire they would have jumped on Trump's rhetoric for Troop withdrawal in 2016, rather than respond negatively.
 
Last edited:
Isn't that still a huge red flag anyways?
Why are there so many American military bases in those countries?
How would you feel if China and Russia had dozens of military bases in the US?
Doesn't feels right at all.

They are, at any point, free to ask us to leave. Well, most of them.

Granted, Germany and Japan are to some extent special cases because (to answer your question of why) the original reason we had bases there was because of the post-WW2 realities. But that was then and this is now.

Flip the script - if Japan or Germany wanted to have a military base here, that would be fine. The Germany air force has a permanent presence in Texas and new Mexico, for example. Not a military base, but still an example of allied countries hosting military of another nation.
 
The US has vacated any country that requested a withdrawal of military forces, such as France, Kyrgyzstan, Thailand, The Philippines as well as return land requested by the host nation, such as the shutdown of the Shibuya Barracks and Tachikawa Airbase in Japan or Yongsan in South Korea. US Forces in several countries allow the host nation to offset their domestic defense budget shortcomings where they cannot afford to maintain large military endeavors such as Air Forces or Naval assets. Meanwhile the Russians used armed force to prevent countries from removing themselves from Russian influence such as Hungary, Poland, Romania, oh and Ukraine when they wanted a withdrawal of the Russian Black Sea fleet from Crimea. There is a reason the Warsaw Pact did not survive post USSR collapse as it was parasitic in nature where nations such as East Germany had to provide the USSR with discounted goods and most nations were forced to purchase licenses for military products while NATO nations settled for domestic production with ammunition and fuel commonality and several non American defense companies sold products across NATO to even the US with the FN MAG 58, Minmi Miami Hawker AV-8 Harrier being examples.
I'm not arrogant enough to claim to know about the US ambitions regarding their military plans for some of the countries you listed. But I know very well that the US had the intentions to turn France into a vassal state like they did with Germany. They wanted to cast aside Charles De Gaulles because he was a French nationalist.
Stop pretending like the US hasn't been actively waging wars of influence in foreign countries, through the most illicit means, be it mafia, drug trading, terrorism etc.
 
Have I not already mentioned the 2014 coup a few times in this arguement? I'm not going to spoon feed you. If you don't already understand the beef the left has had with Russia for over a decade and numerous (sadly successful) attempts to sabotage Trump's diplomacy with Russia then sorry your opinion isn't worth much to me.

The reason why nobody is fooled by the concern trolling about the 'coup' is that vatniggers cheer for things like the recent sham referenda and Putin's handling of his own opposition. Putin also supports the repression of opposition forces in allied states like Belarus, Syria and Iran. The 'coup' in 2014, if I'm not mistaken, was partly a result of Russian glowie ops in support of their puppet. I have an e-celeb vatnigger acquaintance, and when this war started he told me "Russia is going to remove Zelensky and hold free elections, which will result in a pro-Russian government, as they always have." It's inconceivable to vatniggers that Ukraine could freely elect a government that wasn't completely subservient to Russia.

At the same time, the 'neutral observers' who are so deeply concerned about the 2014 'coup' have been silent about the referenda and these other issues.
 
Funny how Amnesty International report about Ukraine misconduct was shutdown swiftly.

If you're too much of a useful idiot to understand the flaw in that report just from the little two-line blerb, I can't help you.
 
Isn't that still a huge red flag anyways?
Why are there so many American military bases in those countries?
How would you feel if China and Russia had dozens of military bases in the US?
Doesn't feels right at all.
Because those countries chose to have US army forces in their nation's borders? Because they want an American guard dog so they can sleep well at night?

It's not like we threatened ALL OF THEM and forced them to host our troops.
 
Maybe he knows something you don't?

Please recall he has all of their satellite communications.



Sure it does. You are ignorant of modern war I guess? Russia's artillery heavy, that's what they do. All sorts of news about it for decades.



That's neat. But anyway, according to USA intel and Ukraine estimates in freely available articles printed all over, Russia has 60-70% of it's modern tank forces left (and much more of Air Forces, etc.).



Indeed. Claiming you know something that no one else involved knows, some sort of insight into this war, is what stupid does.

I was being polite, I'm sorry. Your claims are stupid, and you are stupid to have made them. They are not based on objective, observable reality.
You drunk Soviet are no match for the billion year

Nato Reich​

 
  • Winner
Reactions: LORD IMPERATOR
Because those countries chose to have US army forces in their nation's borders? Because they want an American guard dog so they can sleep well at night?

It's not like we threatened ALL OF THEM and forced them to host our troops.
There's also the non argument of "why no foreigner bases in USA?". There are tons of non US Forces stationed in the Continental US. NORAD is full of Canuks and the service academies host foreigners from NATO and Asia.
 
I'm a bit surprised to see the "fence-sitters" pulling out Ukraine's requirement that military-age males remain in-country as some great evil (despite it being SOP for a country facing an existential war), while conveniently ignoring that Glorious ChadBro Putin has done the same thing to keep throwing bodies into his special-military-operation-of-choice.
 
There's also the non argument of "why no foreigner bases in USA?". There are tons of non US Forces stationed in the Continental US. NORAD is full of Canuks and the service academies host foreigners from NATO and Asia.
Which goes to show this isn't anything new. Hell, I've seen foreign troops teach US soldiers a thing or two about certain fighting styles.

I'm a bit surprised to see the "fence-sitters" pulling out Ukraine's requirement that military-age males remain in-country as some great evil (despite it being SOP for a country facing an existential war), while conveniently ignoring that Glorious ChadBro Putin has done the same thing to keep throwing bodies into his special-military-operation-of-choice.
Because in their eyes Putin can't do anything wrong outside of not bombing Ukraine hard enough. If they were in charge of Russia, the Russians would've launched tactical nukes against Ukraine by now, which would have triggered mutually-assured destruction. They also have no sense of awareness or shame. So while they pillory Ukraine for wanting to hang on to fighting-age males, they'll willingly ignore Russia sending men to die in droves, because they're simps.
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit surprised to see the "fence-sitters" pulling out Ukraine's requirement that military-age males remain in-country as some great evil (despite it being SOP for a country facing an existential war), while conveniently ignoring that Glorious ChadBro Putin has done the same thing to keep throwing bodies into his special-military-operation-of-choice.

For the same reason than Ukraine fighting to repel an invasion is an unnecessary evil, but Russia fighting a war of aggression to annex another sovereign country is apparently everyone's fault but Russia's.
 
So no actual news out of Ukraine? Just pages and pages of nonstop extra special autism?

The fronts have largely been static for now. There has been talk of Russia trying to coax civilians to leave the Kherson region for glorious Siberia and Wagner continues beating their skulls against Bakhmut but no huge advances. The UN has also been sperging out about Iran sending drones and other weapons to Russia but it's the UN and they can't really do fuck all about anything. I'd wager that Ukraine is fortifying their gains and making sure to weed out any pockets of Russian forces that might remain, they seem to be determined to keep the offensive going at least until winter really kicks in.
 
In that moment he acted solely in the interest of power, not the livelihood of his people. This is repugnant no matter the justification.
Woah dude, I really like this take on Putin's mobilization! Oh wait...
The US is the most belligerent state in the world.
With less wars than the extremely-peaceful russian nation.
Isn't that still a huge red flag anyways?
Why are there so many American military bases in those countries?
How would you feel if China and Russia had dozens of military bases in the US?
Doesn't feels right at all.
What do the words "NATO" and "Major Non-Nato Ally" mean to you?
 
So no actual news out of Ukraine? Just pages and pages of nonstop extra special autism?
Only thing special that seems to have changed is that Russia is doing drones now so there's more pressure to come up with (or manufacture) anti-drone weapons to send off to Ukraine.

Makes it look like Russia is less interested in really capturing things and more like they just want to be terrorizing people until Ukraine suddenly gives up, which doesn't seem realistic.

 

With GOP skeptics of Ukraine aid poised to gain seats in Congress, lawmakers look to lock in a huge military assistance package​

(article)
One bipartisan idea would use a funding bill during the lame-duck session to secure a much higher level of military and other assistance.

Amid concerns that a new Congress could take a more skeptical view of aid to Ukraine, lawmakers from both parties are looking to lock in billions of dollars in military assistance to Kyiv before newly elected members are sworn in in January, according to a lawmaker and congressional staffers.

House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, who is poised to take over as speaker if the GOP wins a majority in the House in the November midterm elections, warned this week that his fellow party members are “not going to write a blank check to Ukraine.”

With that threat to Ukraine aid looming, the bipartisan idea under consideration would use a government funding bill during the lame-duck session after the midterms to secure a much higher level of military and other assistance than prior aid packages for Ukraine, according to the lawmaker and the aides.

Congress last month approved $12 billion in military and economic aid to Ukraine, but the package being contemplated would be dramatically larger, the sources said.

The amount would be enough “to make sure [Ukraine] can get through the year,” a Republican senator with knowledge of the matter told NBC News. “It’ll make the $12 billion look like pocket change.”

The new aid package, which most likely would be part of an omnibus spending bill, could be within the range of roughly $50 billion, congressional aides and a source close to the Ukraine government said. The Biden administration has not yet made a formal request for new funding.

Congress has allocated a total of $65 billion in funding to Ukraine since Russia attacked the country in February.

‘Put your own oxygen mask on’

Many Republican candidates endorsed by former President Donald Trump have questioned the amount of U.S. aid delivered to Ukraine to help it fend off Russian forces, which invaded the country in February. They argue that the U.S. has more pressing domestic problems, that Ukraine’s fate is not tied to U.S. national interests and that European allies should be delivering a larger share of the weapons and other assistance to Kyiv.

House conservatives argue America needs to shore up its southern border and address the illegal immigration before worrying about Ukraine’s border with Russia.

“My constituents are saying, ‘Why are we more worried about Ukraine’s borders than we are about America’s borders?’ My constituents are not sitting there going, ‘Gosh, we have to save Ukraine’s borders,’” Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, a member of the conservative Trump-aligned Freedom Caucus, said in an interview.

Like Davidson, conservative Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., said her heart breaks for the Ukrainian people, but she has not voted for recent Ukraine aid packages and isn’t inclined to do so next year if Republicans take control of the House, as most polls predict.

“I liken it to the airline videos they do before you take off: You need to put your own oxygen mask on before helping others,” Cammack, a member of the Homeland Security Committee, told NBC News. “And I just don’t think as a legislator that I could, in good conscience, support billions and billions of funding going overseas when we have such dire needs here.”

But some other Republicans in and outside of Congress disagree, reflecting deep divisions in the party over Ukraine and foreign policy more generally.

Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., a member of the powerful Appropriations Committee that controls spending, said providing weapons and other assistance to Ukraine is crucial to halting Russia’s unprovoked invasion.

“I voted for the first funding bill, and I would be open to discussing more funding,” Fleischmann said. “If we do not take the necessary steps for Ukraine to protect its nation and sovereignty against Russia, I think the ripple effects will end up costing not only the United States but the world a lot more.”

Former Vice President Mike Pence, speaking at a Heritage Foundation event on Wednesday, castigated Republicans who opposed backing Ukraine as “apologists” for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“As Russia continues its unconscionable war of aggression to Ukraine, I believe that conservatives must make it clear that Putin must stop and Putin will pay,” Pence said. “There can be no room in the conservative movement for apologists to Putin. There is only room in this movement for champions of freedom.”

The Republican House leadership has “every incentive” to see a large aid package passed now while Democrats hold the majority, so that they do not have to face a divisive, internal debate over the issue if the GOP wins back control of the House, according to Daniel Vajdich, an adviser to the Ukrainian government and president of Yorktown Solutions, a Washington lobbying firm.

“They don’t want to deal with it next year,” said Vajdich, a former Republican congressional staffer.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a staunch supporter of military aid to Ukraine, said last month that he had discussed the issue with McCarthy and that he agreed other countries need to do more to assist Ukraine. But he predicted Ukraine would continue to receive the support it needed.

“I think you can expect Republicans to ask others to do more,” Graham said, referring to America’s NATO partners. “In the House majority, which I think is likely, I am confident that the speaker and most members of the conference in the House on the Republican side understand that the outcome in Ukraine directly impacts our national security.”

But Ukraine, Eastern European governments and Kyiv’s supporters in Congress on both sides of the aisle are worried that a larger contingent of pro-Trump, isolationist-minded lawmakers in Congress could jeopardize the flow of weapons, ammunition and economic aid that has enabled Ukraine to gain ground against Russian troops in recent months.

“We are incredibly concerned that the MAGA wing of the party is planning to block life-saving aid to Ukraine if Republicans take over the House,” said one Democratic congressional aide.

“We are going to have to get creative in the coming months to front load as much aid to Ukraine as possible, given that we may again find ourselves in the calamitous position where Putin’s interests are once again aligned with that of Trump and his followers.”

Ukraine relies heavily on outside funding and arms deliveries to keep up its war effort against Russia. If U.S. aid were to dry up, Ukraine could eventually see a shortage of artillery ammunition, as it burns through thousands of artillery rounds a day, according to defense officials and military analysts. With Russian stepping up drone attacks on its electricity grid and other targets, Ukraine also is depleting its supply of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles and other air defense systems as it tries to counter the aerial assault.

Asked about concerns that congressional support for aid to Ukraine could be at risk, State Department deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel said President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken “have been very clear that our commitment to our Ukrainian partners is not just unwavering, but it is ironclad. And we’re going to continue to take steps to do what we can to ensure that Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself, to defend its territorial integrity and to put it in the best position possible at a potential negotiating table whenever that might be.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back