Russia-Ukrainian War

[RichardGibbons]

8 hours ago, Castanza said:

It is still mind boggling to me that the West is not collectively pushing for peace negotiations. 

 

[Xerxes]

Ahhhh the bogeyman is being invoked again. The “veto” that ends all discussion. 

I hope you guys do realize that there had to be a Munich and a Chamberlain so that there could be a Churchill and with it a strategic shift. 
 

Prey tell what would have happened if Chamberlain had done the reverse at Munich. Two scenarios: 

 

- Hitler’ bluff would have been called. But war would have postponed, but only delayed to another catalyst. Possibly the very same 1939. But now Chamberlain would have been a much stronger political position in London. After all he resisted Hitler but war was inevitable. Leaving no venue for Churchill to be the anti-Chamberlain. 
 

- War would have started then (earlier) vs. then it did in 1939. But same as above Hitler would be facing a politically strong Chamberlain. The lion.  
 

We needed to have Chamberlain so that we could have Churchill, the anti-thesis. If not the powers be would have concluded perhaps confrontation with Hitler is not the right way. We tried that and it didn’t work. 
 

 

Edit: greetings from Tokyo

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2023 by Xerxes

[Xerxes]

To add further:

 

Despite all that is being said, West ever desire is the dismantling of the Slavic super-state. That temptation and urge comes and goes. But it is always there since the dawn of Peter the Great. 

[Castanza]

Why does everyone have such a hard-on for WWII comparisons or more accurately Hitler comparisons? It’s not even in the same league at this point. 
 

Ukraine is not Czechoslovakia and Putin is not Hitler. You’re comparing apples or oranges and a t-ball player to a Major Leaguer. I swear it’s like the pro war people want Putin to push that button. People here in the US are so sheltered from war. 
 

Let’s do a nationwide poll:

 

1. Do you support the war in Ukraine 

2. Do you support US troops in Ukraine? 
 

If you’ve answered YES to 1 but not 2, congratulations you just entered the draft. 
 

If you answered YES to 1 & 2 congratulations you ship out for basic training in two weeks. 

[John Hjorth]

@Castanza,

 

I seldom participate in this topic, because of all its political angles, which none of us can effectively separate from the calamity as such.

 

I understand, and respect, your personal position here, as expressed above. Reading what you posted actually makes some kind of sense for me as an European citizen in the now not so cold north [spring is here Denmark, with lots of sun today, outside we are at 14^o C - life is great!]. I'm here trying my best to express myself, putting myself in your shoes.

 

If NATO does not cooperate internally on this matter, it should be decommisioned. Period.

 

I know a lot countries being NATO members and not contributing suffiently financially according the agreements.. Mr. Trump was right on that. Denmark is actually one of them. To me, it's a disgrace, and soo embarassing. It will change relatively fast, gradually over the coming few years here. [Read : Higher income taxes for Danes - there is no other Danish method for tackling the issue at hand.] The Danish political sentiment is changing fast on that matter, also in the Danish population as such.

 

There is nothing worse than an invalid, in reality non-existing musceteer oath, that does not keep up and hold water. There is nothing in life as being scolded by someone, that you have considered being your fairly close friend and ally, and that you relied on. You will never forget the experinece, if happens to you. But right now we Danes are behind on keeping the right balance in the relationship, we will get there, eventually, to get order in our own house.

Edited April 23, 2023 by John Hjorth

[cubsfan]

^^ Respectfully, I think you omitted Option 3 - which is , support the war with massive aid, let the Europeans continue their defense of Europe with their people. Russia cannot win against an allied USA & Europe. Then this becomes a model for Europe- and the Russians have a powerful deterrent that they finally understand. 
 

The message also gets sent to China.

 

There is value in a lasting peace in Europe, such as we had since the end of WWII. It’s unfortunate that Obama and a weak Germany and France chose to let Putin go so far.

[Spekulatius]

I would also like to know how any outcome in the Ukraine war is going to negate the nuclear threat. If Putin, wins, gets a draw or loses the war - he still has his nuclear weapons and can make threats or pull the trigger any time he likes. If anything, if he wins or sees his threats going to have an impact on what the west is doing, it will lead to more threats.

 

On a more interesting note, there seems to be some significant  recon activity going on around Kherson where Ukrainian troops have established footholds eastern banks of the Dnipro river. Whether that means anything in terms of the expected spring offensive remains to be seen.

 

Edited April 23, 2023 by Spekulatius

[John Hjorth]

19 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

^^ Respectfully, I think you omitted Option 3 - which is , support the war with massive aid, let the Europeans continue their defense of Europe with their people. Russia cannot win against an allied USA & Europe. Then this becomes a model for Europe- and the Russians have a powerful deterrent that they finally understand. 
 

The message also gets sent to China.

 

There is value in a lasting peace in Europe, such as we had since the end of WWII. It’s unfortunate that Obama and a weak Germany and France chose to let Putin go so far.

 

Thanks, Mike [ @cubsfan ],

 

Agreed. And I would add : Naturally! I was - perhaps - lacking logic in the way my post turned out. Difficult to call your self a state, if you don't have order in own house! Grabbing for the legs in the trousers of USA and clinging onto them will naturally not work over time from here going forward.

[John Hjorth]

17 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

I would also like to know how any outcome in the Ukraine war is going to negate the nuclear threat. If Putin, wins, gets a draw or loses the war - he still has his nuclear weapons and can make threats or pull the trigger any time he likes. If anything, if he wins or sees his threats going to have an impact on what the west is doing, it will lead to more threats.

 

On a more interesting note, there seems to be some significant  recon activity going on around Kherson where Ukrainian troops have established footholds eastern banks of the Dnipro river. Whether that means anything in terms of the expected spring offensive remains to be seen.

 

 

I'm clinging on to, that someone will take intiative to remove him, from inside Russia. All wishfull thinking and hopes, no conviction as of now.

 

The madness has to stop - one way, or another.

Edited April 23, 2023 by John Hjorth

[cubsfan]

36 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

I would also like to know how any outcome in the Ukraine war is going to negate the nuclear threat. If Putin, wins, gets a draw or loses the war - he still has his nuclear weapons and can make threats or pull the trigger any time he likes. If anything, if he wins or sees his threats going to have an impact on what the west is doing, it will lead to more threats.

That’s exactly right. Putin only respects strength that is not backed by hollow red lines.

[John Hjorth]

54 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

I would also like to know how any outcome in the Ukraine war is going to negate the nuclear threat. If Putin, wins, gets a draw or loses the war - he still has his nuclear weapons and can make threats or pull the trigger any time he likes. If anything, if he wins or sees his threats going to have an impact on what the west is doing, it will lead to more threats.

 

On a more interesting note, there seems to be some significant  recon activity going on around Kherson where Ukrainian troops have established footholds eastern banks of the Dnipro river. Whether that means anything in terms of the expected spring offensive remains to be seen.

 

 

15 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

That’s exactly right. Putin only respects strength that is not backed by hollow red lines.

 

That is exactly why he needs to be removed. It's not that complicated.

[Spekulatius]

 

 

20 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

 

 

That is exactly why he needs to be removed. It's not that complicated.

To abuse an Andy Grove proverb, the paranoid are pretty good at surviving though.

[Castanza]

@John Hjorth thanks for sharing your perspective. I think what gets missed in the media is the lack of support or maybe better worded different mental framework (USA citizens vs EU citizens) that is being used to approach this conflict. I work with a lot of Europeans and the opinions they have are very different from my American colleagues. 
 

End of the day this isn’t an easy situation to deal with. I just think zooming out helps. If human intentions and mindsets don’t change in the nuclear age our luck will eventually run out. We’ve had substantial wars almost every 15-20 years since the “Enlightenment.” Interesting times. 
 

@Spekulatius I still think the best framework to view the war is what caused it? I’d say a high degree of NATO expansion pushed the limits of what is and is not acceptable. So I think root cause analysis will be important moving forward if negotiations are sought. 
 

NATO was good in the short term for members, but look at the alliances being formed over the last 2 years among non-members. It’s forcing global tribalism to a level that hasn’t been seen in a long time. It’s a whole new world out there and NATO has failed to keep the peace. NATO members have failed to play their part. 
 

Peace in Europe and Asia depends on the US. Over 100 adjacent countries to  conflict zones and the island 4K miles away is the one responsible for fixing issues it doesn’t understand culturally or historically? I think it’s an absurd endeavor to maintain. We can’t keep saying “we’ll adjust after this one.” 

[cubsfan]

A strong USA gives you the best opportunity for peace in the developing world. There has never been a military power like the United States. Paired up with Europe - and now you have a real chance to continue peace for a long, long time.

 

However, you cannot have pacifists running your most powerful allies. You must be willing to use force.

 

NATO or fear of a United Europe/America by the Soviets - kept Russia in check for 75 years.

NATO fucked up royally, so did the pacifist Obama.

 

But to say - tribalism is ruling, I think that's misguided. Strong military alliances take continued work, so your point is well taken that NATO fucked up. You just can't give up that easily - weak leadership just needs to be replaced.

Edited April 23, 2023 by cubsfan

[Xerxes]

It is one thing to debate the “what should we do” side of the discussion. These are legitimate discussion based on legitimate concerns. 
 

it is another matter, to always conclude (or use as leverage in an argument) that it is “Germany 1930s again. Don’t you see it”. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

BTW Russian state does that as well in its own propaganda. Kiev is ran by the Azov regiment. 

[Xerxes]

I don’t know all the details but there seem to be a lot of laissez-fair attitude from Western government in helping to get out their citizens out of Sudan, in this most recent upheaval. 
 

Contrast that with Ukraine in 2022. 

 

if you folks see me be critical in this thread, it is because there is a systematic bias depending on the colour of skin of the victims. It is almost as if the Westerners (people and government) got bored of watching Netflix in 2022 and decided that they need to know where Ukraine is on the map. We got legions of clueless people turned experts. Not a bad thing in of itself, but a bad thing when their heads go back straight in the sand, if the “geopolitical story” no longer fuel their Tolkien-like fantasies.
 

As far as the argument that this is important because it is Europe and Europe has not wars. BS. And what was the Balkans in the 1990s ?  
 

Europe has seen perhaps less destruction in the past sixty years (than the rest of the world) simply because of awesome deterrent power of the atomic bombs keeping the Reds at bay. Not because of perceived greatness of Western politicians or some sort of Anglo-European greatness. 
 

In fact the descent of Iron Curtain and the nuclear deterrence in Europe largely meant that “kinetic geopolitical energy” being capped in Europe had to discharge itself as proxy wars in East Asia, Middle East, South America, with millions being slayed and their lives uprooted because of Soviet Union and U.S. couldn’t go head to head directly.
 

Now think of the arrogance of Westerners who somehow see themselves and Europe as sacred, because apparently they’re no land war in Europe since the dawn of mankind. And therefore Ukraine is so special. 

[mcliu]

7 hours ago, cubsfan said:

A strong USA gives you the best opportunity for peace in the developing world. There has never been a military power like the United States. Paired up with Europe - and now you have a real chance to continue peace for a long, long time.

What peace? Since the end of WW2, the US has been continuously involved in multiple wars around the world.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#1945–1991:_The_Cold_War

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#1991–present:_Post-Cold_War

7 hours ago, cubsfan said:

NATO or fear of a United Europe/America by the Soviets - kept Russia in check for 75 years.

It is not fear of US or USSR that kept either side from war. It is fear of mutually assured destruction. In a war between superpowers, everyone dies. People seem to have forgotten this.

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, Xerxes said:

I don’t know all the details but there seem to be a lot of laissez-fair attitude from Western government in helping to get out their citizens out of Sudan, in this most recent upheaval. 
 

Contrast that with Ukraine in 2022. 

 

if you folks see me be critical in this thread, it is because there is a systematic bias depending on the colour of skin of the victims. It is almost as if the Westerners (people and government) got bored of watching Netflix in 2022 and decided that they need to know where Ukraine is on the map. We got legions of clueless people turned experts. Not a bad thing in of itself, but a bad thing when their heads go back straight in the sand, if the “geopolitical story” no longer fuel their Tolkien-like fantasies.
 

As far as the argument that this is important because it is Europe and Europe has not wars. BS. And what was the Balkans in the 1990s ?  
 

Europe has seen perhaps less destruction in the past sixty years (than the rest of the world) simply because of awesome deterrent power of the atomic bombs keeping the Reds at bay. Not because of perceived greatness of Western politicians or some sort of Anglo-European greatness. 
 

In fact the descent of Iron Curtain and the nuclear deterrence in Europe largely meant that “kinetic geopolitical energy” being capped in Europe had to discharge itself as proxy wars in East Asia, Middle East, South America, with millions being slayed and their lives uprooted because of Soviet Union and U.S. couldn’t go head to head directly.
 

Now think of the arrogance of Westerners who somehow see themselves and Europe as sacred, because apparently they’re no land war in Europe since the dawn of mankind. And therefore Ukraine is so special. 

 

Come on man - the Balkan war was a civil war in Yugoslavia - not a war of aggression against neighbors like Austria, Italy or Greece.

 

No one claims Westerners are sacred. Do you really have a problem with the developed world and the fact that peace lasted for 75 years in Europe???

This was an extraordinary accomplishment. And it should be replicated as much as possible.

 

Don't make this about some racial bullshit. That's really insulting.

Edited April 24, 2023 by cubsfan

[cubsfan]

48 minutes ago, mcliu said:

What peace? Since the end of WW2, the US has been continuously involved in multiple wars around the world.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#1945–1991:_The_Cold_War

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#1991–present:_Post-Cold_War

It is not fear of US or USSR that kept either side from war. It is fear of mutually assured destruction. In a war between superpowers, everyone dies. People seem to have forgotten this.

 

48 minutes ago, mcliu said:

What peace? Since the end of WW2, the US has been continuously involved in multiple wars around the world.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#1945–1991:_The_Cold_War

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#1991–present:_Post-Cold_War

It is not fear of US or USSR that kept either side from war. It is fear of mutually assured destruction. In a war between superpowers, everyone dies. People seem to have forgotten this.

 

Excuse me - I meant peace in the developed world. Specifically Europe. My bad.

 

 

[RichardGibbons]

8 hours ago, Xerxes said:

It is one thing to debate the “what should we do” side of the discussion. These are legitimate discussion based on legitimate concerns. 
 

it is another matter, to always conclude (or use as leverage in an argument) that it is “Germany 1930s again. Don’t you see it”. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

BTW Russian state does that as well in its own propaganda. Kiev is ran by the Azov regiment. 

 

So to summarize your position, learning from history is bad.

 

What worked and didn't work in the past when it comes to authoritarian leaders with proven expansionist tendencies is irrelevant when looking at authoritarian leaders with proven expansionist tendencies today. We know this because memes.

[Xerxes]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

 

Come on man - the Balkan war was a civil war in Yugoslavia - not a war of aggression against neighbors like Austria, Italy or Greece.

 

No one claims Westerners are sacred. Do you really have a problem with the developed world and the fact that peace lasted for 75 years in Europe???

This was an extraordinary accomplishment. And it should be replicated as much as possible.

 

Don't make this about some racial bullshit. That's really insulting.

 

Cubsfan 

apologies if sometimes my post seem aggressive. When I write passion takes over. Nothing against you. 
 

That being said my sandbox is the whole world (and not just North America and Western Europe). 
 

It is great that nuclear deterrence has prevented what we always had in Europe, that is recurring and continuous wars, but nothing is for free. The cost was the playground of the titans being expanded into proxy wars, shadow wars everywhere else.
 

So what is the lesson here. Nuclear proliferation is great for national security and maintaining the peace and not becoming part of titans playground. 
 

On Balkans, the federation of Yugoslavia had largely disintegrated in the early 80s, so while the 90s war can be viewed as civil war, the federation had largely gone by the time Serbia started to throw it weight around. But agreed nothing like 2022. 

 

edit: clarification. 
 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2023 by Xerxes

[Xerxes]

2 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

So to summarize your position, learning from history is bad.

 

What worked and didn't work in the past when it comes to authoritarian leaders with proven expansionist tendencies is irrelevant when looking at authoritarian leaders with proven expansionist tendencies today. We know this because memes.

dude

 

we have +3,000 years of human history worth of wars and conflict. Surely there are other analogies than the over-used Chamberlain/Munich. Or just assess the situation on its own merit.
 

When Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal in the 50s (or 60s) you know what the western capital said. =>>> Munich, Chamberlain. The same bogeyman has been used everytime West is trying to make a point. In reality what it does it takes away from the evil that the Nazi brought to this world and normalizes it.  

 

 

[cubsfan]

59 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

 

Cubsfan 

apologies if sometimes my post seem aggressive. When I write passion takes over. Nothing against you. 
 

That being said my sandbox is the whole world (and not just North America and Western Europe). 
 

It is great that nuclear deterrence has prevented what we always had in Europe, that is recurring and continuous wars, but nothing is for free. The cost was the playground of the titans being expanded into proxy wars, shadow wars everywhere else.
 

So what is the lesson here. Nuclear proliferation is great for national security and maintaining the peace and not becoming part of titans playground. 
 

On Balkans, the federation of Yugoslavia had largely disintegrated in the early 80s, so while the 90s war can be viewed as civil war, the federation had largely gone by the time Serbia started to throw it weight around. But agreed nothing like 2022. 

 

edit: clarification. 
 

 

 

None taken Xerxes. You said it yourself - continuous European wars came to an end largely after WW2.

These alliances take real work and aren’t perfect, nor easy to maintain. Weak leaders threaten them.

 

And, yeah, I don’t have an answer for proxy wars in far away lands. The USA has had plenty of disasters- and doesn’t seem to learn.

 

But containment of Russia & China from destroying/swallowing their neighbors is possible - and desirable.

 

that’s all I’m saying 

[RichardGibbons]

4 hours ago, Xerxes said:

 

we have +3,000 years of human history worth of wars and conflict. Surely there are other analogies than the over-used Chamberlain/Munich. Or just assess the situation on its own merit.

 

Well, truthfully, I assessed the situation on its own merit and concluded that appeasement was a terrible strategy. (IMO, the optimal strategy is for the world, or a benevolent group of nations, to make expansionist wars so incredibly costly to the instigator that there is a massive incentive not to instigate expansionist wars.)

With respect to Chamberlain, the most relevant example in history had a similar expansionistic dictator using similar rhetoric, with modernish weapons, similar technology, in the Europe. And that example completely refutes your point of view.

 

So, I understand why your position is that the most relevant situation in history ought to be excluded because it's over-used. It's very hard to justify your position if someone actually points out how your strategy worked in the past. And, I used it because when someone is saying something that doesn't make sense, it seems reasonable to bring up the counterexample that everyone knows, rather than bringing in much more obscure and less relevant examples from 2000 years ago.

 

Plus, the picture is concise, and I didn't really want to have a big discussion. Failed at that....

 

4 hours ago, Xerxes said:

When Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal in the 50s (or 60s) you know what the western capital said. =>>> Munich, Chamberlain. The same bogeyman has been used everytime West is trying to make a point. In reality what it does it takes away from the evil that the Nazi brought to this world and normalizes it.  

 

And that's the problem with throwing about Godwin's Law. In order to avoid the evil, we have to understand how it came about.

If you start passing laws so that blacks can't own businesses... well, you can't compare that to Nazism because it's just Godwin's law. Start passing laws to allow blacks to be arbitrarily arrested or beat up--well, Godwin's law says you can't compare that to Nazism because nobody's being gassed. Don't want to minimize the evil of the Nazis.

 

But you know, I think that the Nazis only got to the stage of putting Jews in gas chambers because they were first allowed to exclude Jews from owning businesses, and could arbitrarily arrest and beat up Jews.

And that's the problem with Godwin's law. It poo-poos the idea that smaller evils can--and did--lead to a huge evil, and in fact that the smaller evils are required to make it to the point of the huge evil.

 

Or, said another way, here's part of the discussion on the rise of Nazism from They Thought They Were Free:

 

Quote

 

"One doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty."

 

...

 

 

"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

 

"And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all.

 

 

[Spekulatius]

8 hours ago, cubsfan said:

None taken Xerxes. You said it yourself - continuous European wars came to an end largely after WW2.

These alliances take real work and aren’t perfect, nor easy to maintain. Weak leaders threaten them.

 

And, yeah, I don’t have an answer for proxy wars in far away lands. The USA has had plenty of disasters- and doesn’t seem to learn.

 

But containment of Russia & China from destroying/swallowing their neighbors is possible - and desirable.

 

that’s all I’m saying 

I think it's likely that without NATO, there would be more wars, not less.

 

@Xerxes claims many are biased here but then goes on to say that Kiev is run from Azov battalions, which is essentially the Nazi boogeyman, despite the fact that right wing parties got flogged during the last elections in Ukraine (check the electrion results) and the country is somehow run by a Jew.  This does not make any sense to me.

 

On European wars versus elsewhere - of course Europeans are more worried about a war in Europe than le's say the war in Sudan. it's simply because Ukraine is at the doorstep and Russia is a threat while Sudan isn't a direct threat (except being a harbor of terrorists of various sorts). Not sure what can be done in Sudan either. This has nothing to do with brown versus white either, it's just common sense.