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 meant to post this with my Solzhenitsyn quote, but got distracted; please don't threadban me Mr. (and/or Mrs.) jannyman:

Would've Solzhenitsyn approved of Putin's war?
Robin Ashenden

Would Solzhenitsyn have supported Putin’s war?​

  • 27 November 2022, 7:30am
A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s first novel, appeared 60 years ago this month. Vividly portraying a normal day in the life of a Gulag prisoner, it was followed by Solzhenitsyn’s two great anti-Stalinist novels, The First Circle and Cancer Ward (both 1968), which helped establish the Soviet dissident-in-excelsis as a modern-day Tolstoy and a darling of the Cold War West.
Soon after that, in 1975, came the third and final part of The Gulag Archipelago, his mighty takedown of the Soviet system. In the words of French philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy, it caused ‘a worldwide earthquake’, dissolving the ‘Communist dream…in the furnace of a book.’
Solzhenitsyn’s reputation as one of the most famous writers in the world was confirmed. Yet it is arguably what happened to Solzhenitsyn afterwards, in the three and a half decades before his death in 2008, that has a greater bearing on events in Russia and Ukraine this year. For it’s clear that Solzhenitsyn was at odds with the idea of a democratic and westwards-leaning Ukraine on several counts.
Solzhenitsyn’s caveat may come as decidedly cold comfort to the Ukrainians
First off, despite his anti-Soviet stance, Solzhenitsyn was clearly never an unconditional friend to the West. Emigrating to America after ejection from the USSR in 1974, he surprised his hosts by fulminating against Western values, which he frequently saw as pernicious and corrosive.
In his famous 1978 Harvard address, he lambasted the West for its loss of ‘civic courage’ and its ‘destructive and irresponsible freedom (and) human decadence’. Another speech saw him denouncing the Western ‘freedom’ ‘to spit in the eyes and souls of passers-by with advertisements… to poison the younger generations with corrupting filth.’
For Solzhenitsyn, Russia was and should be its own specific entity, with Western liberalism firmly off the table. His sentiments were echoed by Putin’s statement at the 2013 Valdai summit that the West was ‘denying moral principles and all traditional identities’ or his tame Patriarch Kirill’s chatter this year that the ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine was a ‘metaphysical’ struggle against an outside world of ‘excess consumption’ and ‘gay parade(s)’.
Though an undoubted Russian nationalist – more fervent, it seems, by the year – Solzhenitsyn, in his defence, was certainly no imperialist. In his Rebuilding Russia (1990), written just before the demise of the Soviet Union, he urged that republics like those in the Baltics or Central Asia be let go as soon as possible, to avoid further sapping of Russian strength and allow the huge country to ‘straighten its back’. A country, he said, did not show its greatness by its territory, ‘nor should we be attempting to impose ourselves on the lives of others.’

But Ukraine for Solzhenitsyn was a slightly different matter. In The Gulag Archipelago, he was generous, writing that in the matter of Ukraine – an ‘extremely painful problem’ for Russia – their independence or otherwise should be left to the Ukrainians themselves:

‘Let them live their own lives, let them see how it works’

Yet from the 1990s onwards, Solzhenitsyn sang another, more nationalistic tune. In Rebuilding Russia (1990), he urged the Ukrainians that ‘we all sprang from precious Kiev’, and that the ideal future for the two countries was to join Belarus and part of Kazakhstan in a ‘Russian Union.’ That this never happened seemed to lay the groundwork for a lasting pique in Solzhenitsyn’s later life.
Ukraine’s Colour Revolutions, he said in 2006, were backed up by Nato’s ‘open material and ideological support’ and were a sign of Nato’s plan to encircle Russia, while Ukraine itself was going all out for ‘greedy Nato membership’. The ‘Leninist borders’ the country accepted in their 1991 independence were also something he challenged vociferously (as did Putin in his eve of war defence of his ‘special military operation in February this year). But when Solzhenitsyn recommended plebiscites in the largely Russian-speaking areas of Crimea and Donbass, did he really envisage the grotesque farce of the forced ‘referenda’ in Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in late September this year, which recorded votes in favour of rejoining Russia as high as 99 per cent?

The issue of voting leads us onto the next statement that can be safely made about Solzhenitsyn: he was no believer in democracy. ‘The truth,’ he once declared, ‘cannot be determined by voting, since the majority does not necessarily have any deeper insight into the truth.’ The idea of ‘universal and equal suffrage’, he wrote in Rebuilding Russia, clashed with ‘the tremendous inequality among individuals in terms of their talents, their contribution to society, their ages, their life experience’.

The more citizens got directly involved in politics, he said, ‘the greater…the loss to spiritual life’. This insistence that Russians be exonerated where possible from politics harked back, as critic David G. Rowley pointed out, to the 19th century and Slavophile idea that the Tsar should bear the burden of political decision-making. An advocate of ‘a strong presidency’, Solzhenitsyn praised Putin for his ‘resurrection of Russia’ and his ‘sensible foreign policy’. At a 2007 meeting in the writer’s home after awarding him a State Prize (the highest possible honour) Putin, meanwhile, told him how much his political plans for Russia were ‘largely in tune with what Solzhenitsyn has written.’

Given the huge contribution Solzhenitsyn made to history and literature, even to the international image of the Christianity he returned to when, in the camps, his faith in Marxism shattered, it may seem unnecessary to point out that, these issues taken individually, he is not automatically wrong on any of them. He is merely a pronounced Russian patriot and conservative seeing things from a Russocentric of view. Nor is it any reason to stop reading him – particular those titanic early books of his, not only timely in their savage attacks on Kremlin abuses of power but also a kind of Mount Rushmore of late 20th century Russian Literature.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: AgendaPoster
Europe can fight their own battles. I'm over them acting all superior because lol Americas healthcare system and all that other shit while they fail to invest in their own defense. They can fight their own fucking wars and see how their socialist systems look then.



lel



Newsflash - Globalism bad and here's reason #1437. Yes, shipping off all manufacturing to an enemy nation may not work out well, who could have possibly guessed? Here's a solution - build your own shit. Nations should keep their own manufacturing jobs for their own people instead of building up China's middle class while destroying themselves. Of course that will end badly. We're here
Europe could fight it's own battles if it weren't for the fact Russia has spent billions funding faggots like the Greens to cripple their infrastructure. Hey, wait a second aren't you faggots always whining that aid given to Ukraine is inching us closer to nuclear Armageddon? Please tell me how exactly Russia fighting with western Europe isn't going to lead to nukes flying just because the US isn't involved? Or are you under the retarded assumption that western Europe will greet the Russian invaders with bread and flowers?

Literally go read Stalins letters dumbfuck, he knew he was going to start a war by splitting Poland. His whole plan was to get Germany fucked by the west so he could invade all of Europe after they expended a bunch of men and materiel.

Semiconductor factories take decades and trillions of dollars to build. So if you're fine with China playing Skynet for a decade and don't think they'll use that ability to completely cripple everyone else then I don't know what to say. Maybe my estimation of you having 2 brain cells might have been too generous.

Please inform me how Russia is based and anti-globohomo when it keeps coming out over and over that everyone kneecapping Trump was being paid by Putins cronies? I don't think faggots who helped get Biden into office are particularly based and nationalismpilled.


In terms of articles/news I keep seeing articles stating Russia is going on a new offensive later this month. My question is, with what men? Are they just going to be re-allocating soldiers from other fronts, or are these going to be fresh faces? If I remember right the rumors of a second mobilization in Russia turned out to be bunk didn't it?
For example. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64528580
 
From some Turkish newspaper literally no one has ever heard of and doesn't even have a wiki entry:

Allegation: Ukraine and Russia casualties according to Mossad

As the first anniversary of the Russian-Ukrainian war approaches, the war casualties allegedly revealed by Israeli intelligence reveal the horrific dimensions of the war.


According to the claim, the field data for January 14, 2023, based on Israeli intelligence, are listed as follows:

RUSSIA:

418,000 troops (plus 3,500,000 reservists) and a growing number of Wagner mercenaries:

23 Aircraft

56 Helicopter

200 (S)UAV

889 Tanks and armored vehicles

427 Howitzer (Artillery systems)

12 Air defense systems

18,480 Dead

44,500 Injured

323 Captive

UKRAINE:

With 734,000 troops (plus 100,000 reservists) and NATO officers, soldiers and mercenaries on the ground, Ukraine's losses are as follows:

302 airplanes

212 Helicopters

2,750 (S)UAV

6,320 Tanks and armored vehicles

7,360 Howitzer (Artillery systems)

497 Air defense system

157,000 dead

234,000 wounded

17.230 Captives

234 Dead - NATO military trainers (US and UK)

2.458 Dead - NATO soldiers (Germany, Poland, Lithuania, ...)

5.360 dead - Mercenaries

(Agencies)

 
From some Turkish newspaper literally no one has ever heard of and doesn't even have a wiki entry:

Allegation: Ukraine and Russia casualties according to Mossad

As the first anniversary of the Russian-Ukrainian war approaches, the war casualties allegedly revealed by Israeli intelligence reveal the horrific dimensions of the war.


According to the claim, the field data for January 14, 2023, based on Israeli intelligence, are listed as follows:

RUSSIA:

418,000 troops (plus 3,500,000 reservists) and a growing number of Wagner mercenaries:

23 Aircraft

56 Helicopter

200 (S)UAV

889 Tanks and armored vehicles

427 Howitzer (Artillery systems)

12 Air defense systems

18,480 Dead

44,500 Injured

323 Captive

UKRAINE:

With 734,000 troops (plus 100,000 reservists) and NATO officers, soldiers and mercenaries on the ground, Ukraine's losses are as follows:

302 airplanes

212 Helicopters

2,750 (S)UAV

6,320 Tanks and armored vehicles

7,360 Howitzer (Artillery systems)

497 Air defense system

157,000 dead

234,000 wounded

17.230 Captives

234 Dead - NATO military trainers (US and UK)

2.458 Dead - NATO soldiers (Germany, Poland, Lithuania, ...)

5.360 dead - Mercenaries

(Agencies)

I'm not sure why you even bothered posting this, it makes no fucking sense.
 
From some Turkish newspaper literally no one has ever heard of and doesn't even have a wiki entry:

Allegation: Ukraine and Russia casualties according to Mossad

As the first anniversary of the Russian-Ukrainian war approaches, the war casualties allegedly revealed by Israeli intelligence reveal the horrific dimensions of the war.


According to the claim, the field data for January 14, 2023, based on Israeli intelligence, are listed as follows:

RUSSIA:

418,000 troops (plus 3,500,000 reservists) and a growing number of Wagner mercenaries:

23 Aircraft

56 Helicopter

200 (S)UAV

889 Tanks and armored vehicles

427 Howitzer (Artillery systems)

12 Air defense systems

18,480 Dead

44,500 Injured

323 Captive

UKRAINE:

With 734,000 troops (plus 100,000 reservists) and NATO officers, soldiers and mercenaries on the ground, Ukraine's losses are as follows:

302 airplanes

212 Helicopters

2,750 (S)UAV

6,320 Tanks and armored vehicles

7,360 Howitzer (Artillery systems)

497 Air defense system

157,000 dead

234,000 wounded

17.230 Captives

234 Dead - NATO military trainers (US and UK)

2.458 Dead - NATO soldiers (Germany, Poland, Lithuania, ...)

5.360 dead - Mercenaries

(Agencies)

I am going to press “doubt” on these claims.
This sounds like shit that would comes from telegram.
 
From some Turkish newspaper literally no one has ever heard of and doesn't even have a wiki entry:

Allegation: Ukraine and Russia casualties according to Mossad

As the first anniversary of the Russian-Ukrainian war approaches, the war casualties allegedly revealed by Israeli intelligence reveal the horrific dimensions of the war.


According to the claim, the field data for January 14, 2023, based on Israeli intelligence, are listed as follows:

RUSSIA:

418,000 troops (plus 3,500,000 reservists) and a growing number of Wagner mercenaries:

23 Aircraft

56 Helicopter

200 (S)UAV

889 Tanks and armored vehicles

427 Howitzer (Artillery systems)

12 Air defense systems

18,480 Dead

44,500 Injured

323 Captive

UKRAINE:

With 734,000 troops (plus 100,000 reservists) and NATO officers, soldiers and mercenaries on the ground, Ukraine's losses are as follows:

302 airplanes

212 Helicopters

2,750 (S)UAV

6,320 Tanks and armored vehicles

7,360 Howitzer (Artillery systems)

497 Air defense system

157,000 dead

234,000 wounded

17.230 Captives

234 Dead - NATO military trainers (US and UK)

2.458 Dead - NATO soldiers (Germany, Poland, Lithuania, ...)

5.360 dead - Mercenaries

(Agencies)

How'd some Turkroach get info from Mossad exactly? Not sure I buy it if not just because I wouldn't trust anything coming from the Turks or the Israelis.
 
Because I found it interesting.

You mean to tell me that a newspaper that no one knows about getting some top secret Jewish docs isn't believable?
We could speculate why someone would put this out. To poison the well? It's obviously skewed toward Russia, I think it's reasonable that losses would be on a comparable level at least, not with a gap the size of necrotizing stinkditch as they claim.
 

Ukraine not to attack Russia with new US long-range projectiles Defence Minister​

Ukraine will not use long-range weapons promised by the USA to launch attacks on the territory of Russia.

Source: Oleksii Reznikov, the Minister of Defence of Ukraine, at a press conference on Sunday, 5 February, as reported by European Pravda, with reference toReuters agency

"We always make an official statement for our partners that we will not use the weapons provided by our foreign partners to launch attacks on Russian territory. We only launch attacks on the Russian units deployed in the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine," Reznikov assured the society.

The USA included long-range shells with a 150-km range into a $2.175-billion-worth of military aid package for Ukraine. Yet, the ATACMS missiles capable of shooting ground targets within the range of 300 kilometres were not included in the new package.

Reportedly, the HIMARS multiple launch missile systems, currently used by the Ukrainian military, are able to hit targets at a distance of about 80 km.

Ukraine has been asking the USA for long-range projectiles, specifically, for ATACMS, for a while now, explaining that the armament Ukraine has in service at the moment is not able to reach and destroy logistic centres of the Russian occupying forces on the Ukrainian territory.
Article Archive
 
We could speculate why someone would put this out. To poison the well? It's obviously skewed toward Russia, I think it's reasonable that losses would be on a comparable level at least, not with a gap the size of necrotizing stinkditch as they claim.
General Islamic shenanigans I guess? Casualty estimates are always going to be at the very least manipulated during and even after a war since everyone involved has an incentive to lie.

Don't get why the Ukrainians are forced to fight with one hand behind their back and not attack areas within Russia. They already have struck Belgorod and there was that drone bombing a while back. Putin may be a retard but I doubt he's retarded enough to start hurling nukes because some trains and military bases start blowing up.
 
New Perun video on military aid to Ukraine:
This should be mandatory watching, considering the amount of bitching about which country is doing how much.
We could speculate why someone would put this out.
That's the simplest question: It's for clicks. If I put out a news piece saying 30000 Ukrainians died today I'm sure somebody will click on it.
 
General Islamic shenanigans I guess? Casualty estimates are always going to be at the very least manipulated during and even after a war since everyone involved has an incentive to lie.

Don't get why the Ukrainians are forced to fight with one hand behind their back and not attack areas within Russia. They already have struck Belgorod and there was that drone bombing a while back. Putin may be a retard but I doubt he's retarded enough to start hurling nukes because some trains and military bases start blowing up.
I'd say staging ground in Belarus should be fair game too. Belarus brought this upon themselves by allowing Russia to strike from their territory, they're directly involved, they have no right to be outraged if Russian shit starts blowing up on their bases.

I'm of the opinion that this MUST happen. Allowing Russian forces to safely gather just beyond the border to reinforce the frontline from their side as they lob long-range missiles at Ukraine might very well be the reason Ukraine eventually exhausts its capabilities and loses. They should've been given long-range missiles to strike these targets from the start.
That's my layman perspective, anyway.
 
I'd say staging ground in Belarus should be fair game too. Belarus brought this upon themselves by allowing Russia to strike from their territory, they're directly involved, they have no right to be outraged if Russian shit starts blowing up on their bases.

I'm of the opinion that this MUST happen. Allowing Russian forces to safely gather just beyond the border to reinforce the frontline from their side as they lob long-range missiles at Ukraine might very well be the reason Ukraine eventually exhausts its capabilities and loses. They should've been given long-range missiles to strike these targets from the start.
That's my layman perspective, anyway.
I suspect the lack of strikes on Belarus is so they don't get directly involved and send more bodies. It's safer to just let Luka play his fence sitting game than it is to force his hand into direct involvement. Now if he were to send his army into Ukraine I would put money on several missile strikes into Belarus within a matter of hours.
 
I suspect the lack of strikes on Belarus is so they don't get directly involved and send more bodies. It's safer to just let Luka play his fence sitting game than it is to force his hand into direct involvement. Now if he were to send his army into Ukraine I would put money on several missile strikes into Belarus within a matter of hours.
"We bombed Russian shit, why are you upset?"

Article tax?
Moscow and Tehran are making progress in implementing plans to build a plant for the production of Iranian drones in Russia. It is planned to manufacture at least 6,000 drones for the war in Ukraine.

This is reported by RBC-Ukraine with reference to The Wall Street Journal.

As part of the evolving military alliance, a high-level Iranian delegation flew to Russia in early January to visit the planned site for the plant and discuss details for the project's launch.

In the city of Yelabuga, located in the Republic of Tatarstan, delegations from the Kremlin and Tehran inspected an empty site where the construction of a factory is planned, which will be able to produce thousands of drones in the coming years.

According to American officials, both countries are striving to create a faster drone that could create new problems for Ukrainian air defenses.
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone sane wanted Russia to invade Ukraine. But from the comments of members of the EU Council and Nuland, it seems clear to me the plan was always to topple Putin. The invasion was just a good excuse. We've all seen the NATO line move East towards Russia. Something was bound to happen at some point. And I'm sure the Think Tanks sent the papers to all the politicians saying this was going to be the case. They all knew what they were doing. The Russian Invasion didn't just fall out of the sky.
I doubt Putin will ever be toppled by anything the West does. If he does get taken out it will be from inside Russia, and he will just get replaced by someone just like him or worse.

Russia can never be a Western style democracy.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back