Russian Invasion of Ukraine Megathread - Episode III - Revenge of the Ruski (now unlocked with new skins and gameplay modes!!!)

[Spicey McHaggis]

The US has never been a neutral country. Neutral to some conflicts, yes, but never truly neutral. We've been involved in foreign wars since fairly early on in our history.

 

[Snekposter]

We "somehow" didn't get dragged into any European Great Power wars until the 20th century, largely because we didn't break blockades to send ships full of arms to whichever side our current President liked the most. We chose neutrality throughout the 19th century and didn't fight in any of those wars. We started picking sides in the 20th, and we've been at war ever since.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War

The Quasi-War (French: Quasi-guerre) was an undeclared naval war fought from 1798 to 1800 between the United States and the French First Republic, primarily in the Caribbean and off the East Coast of the United States. The ability of Congress to authorize military action without a formal declaration of war was later confirmed by the Supreme Court and formed the basis of many similar actions since, including American participation in the Vietnam War and the 1991 Gulf War.

In 1793, Congress suspended repayments of French loans incurred during the American Revolutionary War. The dispute escalated further due to different interpretations of the 1778 treaties of Alliance and Commerce between the two countries. France, then engaged in the 1792–1797 War of the First Coalition, which included Great Britain, viewed the 1794 Jay Treaty between the United States and Britain as incompatible with those treaties, and retaliated by seizing American ships trading with Britain.

Diplomatic negotiations failed to resolve these differences, and in October 1796 French privateers began attacking merchant ships sailing in American waters, regardless of nationality. The dissolution of Federal military forces following independence left the US unable to mount an effective response and by October 1797, over 316 American ships had been captured. In March 1798, Congress reassembled the United States Navy and in July authorized the use of military force against France.

In addition to a number of individual ship actions, by 1799 American losses had been significantly reduced through informal cooperation with the Royal Navy, whereby merchant ships from both nations were allowed to join each other's convoys. Diplomatic negotiations between the US and France continued, the establishment of the French Consulate in November 1799 led to the Convention of 1800, which ended the war.

Technically not a war (since it was never declared as one by either side), but Continental war and politics dragged us into a shooting conflict with the French, and to the point of the British quietly giving the US Navy the cannons necessary to get its first true warships launched and our merchants traveling in English convoys for safety.

That is of course not mentioning the French and Indian War that was fought between the British and French colonies in North America as an extension of the worldwide Seven Years' War that would be the first of many global-scale European grudge matches, nor the fact the French and Spanish were active participants on our side in the Revolutionary War.

The only reason we didn't get dragged into any more Great Power wars until the 20th Century was because the only ones that might have involved us had the French and English teaming up to beat up the Russians, which was beyond irrelevant to any of our interests save what we could sell the French and English, and the Franco-Prussian War that was over in six months and saw the government of Napoleon III toppled in two months leaving no legitimate government to support on the French side.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

The US has never been a neutral country. Neutral to some conflicts, yes, but never truly neutral. We've been involved in foreign wars since fairly early on in our history.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should get involved in every foreign conflict or just for the sake of intervening.

I'm just saying its a false dichotomy to assume that sending weapons to Ukraine (a country that actually wants to fight) is mutually exclusive to fixing economic issues at home (most or all of which are caused by other policies).

 

[Rezza]

Please remind me again, but doesn't Ukraine sit on a rich gas field, particularly in the eastern part of the country? Considering the non-zero possibility Russia is going to have the sequel to Soviet's collapse when Ukraine won, I can see Kyiv supplying the west with the gas they need while Russia crashed and burn again

 

[RodgerDodger]

Not even close to true.

View attachment 4142358

We "somehow" didn't get dragged into any European Great Power wars until the 20th century, largely because we didn't break blockades to send ships full of arms to whichever side our current President liked the most. We chose neutrality throughout the 19th century and didn't fight in any of those wars. We started picking sides in the 20th, and we've been at war ever since.

We did kind of heavily fund Napoleon... in exchange for a few acres of mostly worthless land. We did that a few times. Including with the Tsar's.

 

[ArthuriusMartyrius]

"If you spend 2.5 trillion dollars on a 20 year war and flee, you actually win militarily." is amerilard cope no one else buys. The whole world can recognize Afghanistan for what it was, when will America?

The money was spent on babysitting Afghanistan. The actual military part of it was won in a few months. Even the most virulently anti-American organizations recognize this, which is why nobody is poking fun at America's military might but how it is misused by dumb politicians except for those huffing weapons-grade copium like you.

I feel bad for the Ukrainians fighting on the frontline, knowing your life depends on people who support public displays of homosexual sex and kids watching drag shows sending you weapons and money. Ukraine is a more conservative country than even Russia. It must be how Muslims and Afghanis feel that jihadists needed the backing of the USA and CIA to fight off the godless Soviets in Afghanistan. I can't help but feel like the Ukraine war will lead to something much worse than the current war right now in the long term. Did people in the 80s think the Islamic world would embrace and love the west? Are Americans expecting Ukrainians to fully adopt American values and culture?
View attachment 4142052
View attachment 4142055
View attachment 4142076
View attachment 4142094

"Muh gays"

10 months and this is still the best you can do?

Wouldn't that just speed up the process of turning the rest of Europe into Russian provinces? Imagine millions of Russian and Central Asian pro-Putin immigrants flooding weakened European nations, infiltrating European politics and forming a fifth column loyal to Putin there? One referendum later and Russia has a bunch of new provinces. Kinda based tbh.


...Too bad Erdogan already did it first.

Erdogan didn't do anything there otherwise EU countries wouldn't have such a massive hateboner for Turkey. Same will and does go for Russia.

 

[Blewberry Nausea]

Reminder to Ukraincucks that their women are all whores.

Japanese Justice Minister Warns Ukranian Refugees That They Are Not Permitted to Work in Adult Entertainment

There are 1055 Ukranian refugees in Japan, some in my neighborhood. Enough of them are working as “hostesses” that the Justice Minister has to thot patrol them. The article is from May, but the Ministry was just on tv warning the Japanese people that they can face criminal charges for employing Ukranian whores.

Imagine being a Ukraincuck fighting for the American Democratic Party money-laundering and warmongering scheme and for (((international arms dealers))) and other assorted (((criminals))).

Imagine that your (((leader))) is being feted by the people who pushed you into a war, and is being wined and dined and fundraised by the puppet government of your (((true masters))). Not that you’ll ever see any of that money or those weapons—all of that seems to disappear as soon as it leaves American hands, leaving you cold, under-equipped, and in the dark.

Your women have all fled, and are essentially on vacation husband-hunting in countries that were far superior to your shithole even before it was invaded. Many are simply whoring themselves out.

Why would they whore themselves out? It’s not a grim necessity forced on them to feed their children. They are getting a full ride from the Japanese government. They aren’t being forced or trafficked into it—they are seeking these places out to apply.

So why are they doing it?

That’s easy. It’s because they are whores.

Imagine being a Ukraincuck in the trenches, about to die for all of the above. Just fucking imagine it. It must be fucking intolerable.

We will DIVERSIFY Japan either through white blood or other blood their choice but they will never be pure again.

 

[KonradCruise]

The arguing in this thread reminds me of WWI, where both sides' high command were convinced that one more major push would collapse the enemy and end the war, years before it actually did, and sent an entire generation of young men to charge into No Man's Land to get mowed down by artillery and machine guns without a care in the world.

And in the end, instead of the war ending because of a grand offensive from the minds of geniuses, it only ended because one side ran out of blood before the other did, despite the fact the victors suffered millions more deaths and maimed than the losers.

We have several thousand pages of backlog in hohol and vatnik corpse photos respectively to show for it but it seems that the resident retards are still taking issue with your statement.
I guess All Quiet on the Western Front should return to the curriculum of all involved.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Please remind me again, but doesn't Ukraine sit on a rich gas field, particularly in the eastern part of the country? Considering the non-zero possibility Russia is going to have the sequel to Soviet's collapse when Ukraine won, I can see Kyiv supplying the west with the gas they need while Russia crashed and burn again

It does, and off the south coast as well. It's oddly convenient that all the territory targeted by Russia just happens to be full of gas and oil.

 

[pwnest injun]

Why? The goatfuckers are sitting on oil, which is why their wars matter to us. What's so important about Ukraine?



How is arming a foreign government to fight a war with a country that poses no threat to us more useful than keeping Americans from going bankrupt?

The only thing that I can think of is how Ukraine produces lots of food. Currently China is dependent on the USA for food imports the same way that the USA is dependent on China for basic goods. Upsetting that balance could be a problem.

 

[Battlefield2142EU]

Muh gays"

10 months and this is still the best you can do?

Yes, cry out Putin, shill for pointing out other cultures are different and may not be compatible with American culture. Nice strawman argument. Just like being skeptical of Ronald Reagan sending weapons to the Contras and the Taliban didn't blow up on the western face. Questioning backing the Contras and the Taliban make you a communist. Yes, because Ukrainian social alienation and the history of anti-LGBT movements won't backfire upon the west. Let's pretend the west promoting LGBT political movements in cultures that are not favorable to homosexuality, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, South America, isn't backfiring. Let's ignore the vast majority of the world that hate homosexuality and transgenderism, aka the majority of the non-white world. Let's pretend Ukrainian culture is 100% the same as American culture. This won't backfire one day hilariously like the United States paying for women's study degrees in Afghanistan while most Americans struggle with student loan debt. Only white countries treat LGBT as a civil rights issue. Demanding all cultures accept LGBT as a civil rights issue is white supremacy and culture imperialism.

 

[Astro Galactic Megalul]

It does, and off the south coast as well. It's oddly convenient that all the territory targeted by Russia just happens to be full of gas and oil.

That's one of my working theories as for the actual reasons for starting this war. Europe-aligned Ukraine could threaten Russia's hegemony on the market, and considering that Russia is a glorified gas station, it wouldn't be a positive development for Kremlin. Europe was willing to pay market price, meanwhile China and Pajeetistan get Russian fuel for cheap in exchange for asspats, which, considering sheer volumes and that it's not an unlimited resource, is a fucking waste, squandering of Russia's riches.
Fuck actually diversifying, developing relevant industries and production, of course.

Universe where Ukraine supplies Europe with natural gas is one where Germany doesn't have to suck Putin's dick, yet I have a feeling they would anyway.

 

[Retink Retunk]

Might be a dumb question, but Russia has always been a paper tiger in a sense and with this proxy war dragging on as long as it has, with as much supply as is coming from the West, what does this say about Western powers? I can't imagine this being a good omen for things if this retard war has essentially drained multiple nations of resources just to fend off what's essentially a horde of slightly more advanced vodka zombies.

 

[namvata]

Yes, cry out Putin, shill for pointing out other cultures are different and may not be compatible with American culture. Nice strawman argument. Just like being skeptical of Ronald Reagan sending weapons to the Contras and the Taliban didn't blow up on the western face. Questioning backing the Contras and the Taliban make you a communist. Yes, because Ukrainian social alienation and the history of anti-LGBT movements won't backfire upon the west.

My enlightened schizoid theory is that, just like Osama supposedly doing 9/11, these attacks will be sponsored and/or allowed to happen by our own government as a way to stoke fears of a white nationalist/far right terror threat (google "strategy of tension"). They will use some satanic o9a affiliated cell (which they are controlling/bankrolling as was proven in the tempel ov blood/matinet press saga) to carry out the attacks and use it to persecute dissidents as terrorists and treasonists. It's not the first time this has happened, GLADIO and COINTELPRO were half a century ago. CIA would build cells in european nations to attack the government so they could blame it on socialists and give a pretext for a crackdown. The only difference now is, ideologically, the tables have flipped and now it's the "far right" being COINTELPRO'd up the ass because leftist ideology has become easy to hijack.

we are sending billions of dollars worth of weapons to a country known to be 1) extremely corrupt, 2) one of the biggest global producers of child porn, and 3) one of the biggest global black market arms dealers throughout the 90s and 2000s with little to no financial oversight on where the money/weapons/equipment are going. Really gets that noggin joggin, god knows where those weapons are gonna turn up and what they will be used for.

 

[Overly Serious]

An interesting article.

Putin’s Last Stand

The promise and peril of Russian defeat.

www.foreignaffairs.com

Putin’s Last Stand: The Promise and Peril of Russian Defeat

archived 20 Dec 2022 11:51:22 UTC

archive.vn

That's a terrible article, no offence. Has Foreign Affairs always been this bad or am I just more informed these days? My impression of them was much better than this. Without quoting large chunks of it, I take issue with many parts of it. There's the unqualified "Good Guy" viewpoint it has of Western globalists when it says Russian defeat provides an opportunity "for the West to finish ordering Europe in its image" and the frankly laughable line: "It would reinforce the principle that an attack on another country cannot go unpunished". Unless you are Western, naturally. I don't think I've seen a clearer expression of how "rules based international order" directly means selectively enforced Western globalist rules. I can't get into its passages on how Russia has meddled in other countries without laughter - genuinely, they made me laugh. That somebody could type this with his bare face hanging out.

But ethics and double-standards aside, this article raises my hackles just on an analytical and factual basis. First is the time-honoured strawman. The article begins by asserting what Russia's goals are. Sorry - "Putin", because the article follows the usual pattern in Western media of casting Russia's actions as Putin's actions, which facilitates the regime change narrative Western globalists keep pushing. But that aside, it begins by asserting that Russia's goals are complete annexation of Ukraine and to reconstruct a Russian empire. Never mind the triumvirate of counters to this which are: that Russia has not expressed any desire to annex the whole of Ukraine neither in political statements nor through propagandizing to the population that they should; that Russian military action has not acted in a manner consistent with trying to annex the whole of Ukraine; that it is not in Russia's interests to annex the whole of the Ukraine and Russia must know that.

Also, I object to the constant sprinkling of message pushing like "Putin's war of choice". The article is continually making little assertions to counter popular and reasonable viewpoints that exist outside US sphere of interest which is that Russia regards NATO advancement and the massive build up of weapons and forward defensive positions on its border as an existential threat. This article has to keep banging on-message that it's a "war of choice". There can be no allowance that the West has a hand in causing this conflict with its coups and its military encroachment or the examples of past NATO belligerence the rest of the world can point at (Libya being my personal preferred example). No, it has to sprinkle terms for its readers to assimilate like "war of choice". Russia just chose to do this out of greed and "empire building". The hypocrisy in this article cannot be charted. It even has the gall to bring up Syria's situation when Syria's economic plight is directly attributable to US sanctions, funding of terrorists and finally direct occupation and theft of its oil.

Anyway, I've strayed back into the ethical aspects of this article. Returning to the practical it asserts that Russia "appears headed for defeat". Does it? Big from a Western Globalist viewpoint there, imo. Way too early to say and without accurate casualty figures which we don't have, I don't think we can really gauge how the war is going. All that people do is assert that Russia's goals are complete annexation and then declare that Russia has failed. Strawman. We need casualty figures and we don't have them. But this article confidently predicts Russian defeat. And by deciding for themselves what Russia's goals are, the journal can I suppose, always ensure that they are right. Perhaps three years from now they'll be declaring Russian defeat because it's failed to achieve its goal of seizing Paris. In any case, it's unrealistic in even what it outlines. It list three scenarios for Russian defeat. The first is Russia accepting Ukranian terms. So that would be hand the Crimea and Eastern provinces to Zelensky faction control, fall back to its borders and accept Ukraine gets filled with NATO troops and missiles targeted at Moscow. And in this scenario Putin the "hardliner" is pushed aside. Putin isn't a hardliner. There are people behind him and in the population pushing for more hardline stance and think his softly softly approach to military action is too gentle. A replacement to Putin is likely to be more adversarial and aggressive, not less. And why should the people of The Crimea and the Eastern Regions be forced to live under an undemocratic regime that hates them? Oh right - "international rules based order". It was never a Ukranian civial war, it's always "Putin's war of choice".

The second scenario for Russian defeat it gives is Russia refusing to give in, escalating to terror attacks in the West (hasn't that escalation already taken place against Russia with car-bombings and pipeline destruction?) leading to direct NATO involvement and there's no other way to interpret this. This article is saying if Russia is defeated but 'doesn't notice that it's defeated' and is still fighting, NATO comes in. This article is stating that the USA must win at any cost and that includes starting a war between the West and Russia. That's it, that's on the cards - the authors of this piece think war in Europe against a nuclear power is an acceptable price to pay to ensure that Eastern Ukranians continue to live under the Western-backed Zelensky regime. This is horrifying and insane.

Their third and final scenario for Russian defeat, lists the Russian people rising up and overthrowing "Putin". They say "no matter how it comes about" (narrator's voice: They mean a US-backed colour revolution), such an outcome would be welcomed. No it would not. Putin is a rational actor, he can be negotiated with, he will make trade-offs for Russia's advantage. A collapsed nuclear state is a terrible thing.

And that's it - the limits of their vision for "Russian defeat". That an existentially threatened Russia might go nuclear on Western countries that are openly seeking to destroy it as an independent country is not listed. Can't happen.

Why not? Because this is a propaganda piece. It's every bit as much a propaganda piece as articles focused on "war crimes" and photos of Ukranian schools (which hide the ammo stores just out of shot). But it's the propaganda aimed at us, people who debate politics and military advances and retreats. That's why throughout, this article refers to things like "freeing Ukraine" and never once acknowledges that this has been a civil war in Ukraine for eight years and many Ukranians are on Russia's side. This article is simplistic in the worst possible way - simplistic with many words to appear sophisticated. It's a call for / PR preparation for: direct NATO intervention and thus open war between Western countries and Russia taking place in Europe; and for sponsoring colour revolution and terrorist actions in Russia.

I will give the article this though. It has utility in being an excellent insight into the Atlantic mindset. This is the sort of article from which some of the pro-Ukraine posters here inherit their arguments and viewpoints. For all the flawed reasoning and skewed morality in this article, it does an excellent job of explaining how some people here think.

 

[KiwiFuzz]

I know there's some fog of war and propaganda and that the real history won't be determined for a long time, if ever, maybe you could even say there's no real history, just the accepted narrative...

This being said:

Russia's intentions towards Ukraine are not benevolent. They're flattening the place and killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians. It's shocking to look at towns that had normal houses and apartments a year ago that now have ruins.

Russia's military is weaksauce compared with the US but most of where we have seen Russian bombs fall is on civilians. The video the other day where a tank was shooting at an apartment, that was someone's home last year.

I watched every word of Zelensky's speech to congress the other day and it occurred to me that this is a man who by all rights should be dead. I genuinely expected him to be dead 8 months ago. A red smear on a concrete wall dead.

Ukraine didn't start this, they didn't ask for this to happen. Yeah, there's dirty laundry there, but whatever dirty laundry they have didn't start this.

Fuck Russia and fuck Putin.

 

[East_Clintwood]

Might be a dumb question, but Russia has always been a paper tiger in a sense and with this proxy war dragging on as long as it has, with as much supply as is coming from the West, what does this say about Western powers? I can't imagine this being a good omen for things if this retard war has essentially drained multiple nations of resources just to fend off what's essentially a horde of slightly more advanced vodka zombies.

It's been an open secret for a long time that Western production rates/stockpiling were woefully inadequate for anything other than limited strike campaigns ala the Libyan/Syrian interventions etc. However it's not quite as bad as it seems. While this is definitely a retarded war, it's also basically the only place for a land war on this scale that still exists (well at least one NATO would intervene in). The only other potential flashpoint for a huge war is China/Taiwan which will be an almost exclusively naval/air campaign.

There's also some other potential positives
1)Russia's ground forces are basically fucked after this. Their training and morale are clearly dogshit. NATO systems, even in the hands of conscripts and soldiers given only minimal training in their use, have shown to be more than sufficient to counter them. Russia almost certainly can't afford to fully replace their current losses, let alone upgrade them to the more capable systems they clearly need.
Probably the biggest issue for them is their air defenses are not nearly as good as they've always claimed. Basically the only thing potentially stopping NATO's air power from bending Russia over on day 1 of any war, like we did to Saddam, was the potential threat of Russia's massive air defenses. However given their performance in Ukraine, and the fact they still haven't neutralized the Ukrainians it's pretty clear they wouldn't stand a hope of stopping a concerted NATO air campaign.

 

[Sneed's Feed And Seed]

We're arming Ukraine for the same reason we gave the Mujahideen Singers to fight the Soviets in the 80s

 

[Foltest]

Might be a dumb question, but Russia has always been a paper tiger in a sense and with this proxy war dragging on as long as it has, with as much supply as is coming from the West, what does this say about Western powers? I can't imagine this being a good omen for things if this retard war has essentially drained multiple nations of resources just to fend off what's essentially a horde of slightly more advanced vodka zombies.

Russia is weaker then expected but weak =/= harmless.
It is also a good wakeup call for the goverment in the west that Status Que has ended. That we need to spend more money on our defense and not just relied on USA. Macron is an asshole at times (he is French after all) but he is right that EU and its member can't expected USA to come in and help us all the time.

 

[🇷🇺Fuck Ukraine🇷🇺]

They were political losses, which everybody admits you autistic dumbass. What they weren't is military losses because the US was kicking so much ass that the Vietnamese gave up trying to do conventional warfare while the Taliban literally just hid in caves until the US got bored and left. This is very much different to Russia struggling militarily in Ukraine, which people on here will perform mental acrobatics in order to pretend isn't actually the case.

No, US has won pretty much every single military engagement of that time period. Where they struggled was with babysitting afterwards. Call me when the US ends up in the same situation as Russia with Chechnya, having to literally pay off local warlords to backstab their brethren in order to not lose.

It is the best military in the world. The fact that it's the best military in the world even WITH troons, demented presidents and retards in charge is honestly hilarious and massively embarrassing for everyone else. Guess Russia and China posturing with "manly" ads didn't translate to actual combat competency.

Yes, a Jewish neo-Nazi that has people on this thread crying crocodile tears over closing down a few churches with proven connections to FSB and making shit up about dissolving courts and murdering POWs.

See, another example of a noodle headed fuckwit living in denial of their own stupidity.

You literally have to be the product of generational incest to be as stupid as this fucking moron.