Russia-Ukrainian War

[bizaro86]

42 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

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.

 

He wasn't saying Ukraine is run by Azov.

 

He was saying that the Russian propaganda machine also uses the Nazis as a bogeyman, with their press claiming that Kiev is run by the Azov battalion.

[Spekulatius]

35 minutes ago, bizaro86 said:

 

He wasn't saying Ukraine is run by Azov.

 

He was saying that the Russian propaganda machine also uses the Nazis as a bogeyman, with their press claiming that Kiev is run by the Azov battalion.

You are probably correct - i can't find even the post any more. the Nazi's analogies can be taken too far of course, but the Nazi can also helpful in terms of how to deal with a ruthless autocrat that is hell bend on expansion of the sphere. There are similarities in thinking between Hitler and Putin - both think very much in territorial terms for example and there are also the idea of revanchism (Hitler WW1, Putin to restore the Russian empire). If you are neighbor of Russia, it's legit to be frightened, imo.

 

In that terms, I think its likely that the Ukraine eventually joins Sweden and Finland into the NATO although there is a lot of pushback in the short term. But a decade from now, I think this is going to be likely trajectory.

[John Hjorth]

Actually, it has always amazed me during now many years, how you have approached these kind of discussions, based on my knowledge about your origin, @Spekulatius.

 

And that's here meant as a sincere compliment.

[shhughes1116]

On 4/23/2023 at 10:27 AM, Spekulatius said:

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.

 

Main thrust towards Polohy.  Bridgehead over the Dnipro around Kherson keeps Russian troops fixed on the river, and keeps Ukrainian options open for a quick thunder run to the Crimean isthmus if Russian troops along the river head east towards Melitpol. 
 

I actually think Ukraine has not made the decision on the location of the counteroffensive.  I think an attack through Polohy is Ukraine’s Plan A.  And I think a blitz through Bahkmut is Plan B if things look more promising in the East.  With short interior supply lines, they can easily make a game time decision and have mechanized units at the contact line in a few hours.  

[Xerxes]

20 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

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.

dude. You misread the post on Azov.  
Thanks @bizaro86

 

Also it is not so much about Ukraine vs Sudan. It is about acknowledging that while nuclear deterrence reduce conflicts in Europe, that “geopolitical energy” between the two titans had to be discharged in the rest of the world through proxy wars, coup d’états, constant interference in other affairs. On and on and on. How many millions died in Korea, East Asia, Middle East in the wars that came. I couldn’t care less if it was Washington or Moscow. They both let it rip. 

[Xerxes]

On 4/24/2023 at 4:28 PM, RichardGibbons said:

 

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....

 

 

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:

 

 

 

Richard, thanks for your thoughts. 
 

agree with the first paragraph … but …
you say “expansionary wars” I agree but I would add countries that are constantly in interfering in other affairs + that.
 

Economical wars and economic subjugation is the same as expansionary wars (to me). Just because Kremlin annexes and the modern West doesn’t and chooses to kill babies silently through economic choking, it does not mean one’ foreign interference is intellectually superior or better.  
 

If I had to chose a modern analogy, events leading to WW1 is a better fit than WW2. The world was largely isolated leading to WW2. Whereas now just like right before WW1 we were coming off a multi decade globalization where parties were big trading partners. 

 

Talking to Russians does not mean appeasement. It means talking. Think of it this way. Is West militant’ dominance equivalent to then-West military in the 1930s ?  
 

Lastly, you say chamberlain era is the most relevant because it was the most expansionary. I am sorry but we are taking about Europeans governments of 1930s and 40s that ran vast colonial empires. You cannot take a snapshot AFTER West established its “baseline” and call any deviation from it as “expansionary” by others. 
 

I like and agree with your last two paragraphs

[formthirteen]

Unpopular take: I'm happy to suffer through a nuclear strike or two for my type of freedom instead of the Putin or Xi type of freedom

 

Hopefully, humans and animals that can handle living in an autocracy a cleptocracy leave before the strike so that they can live happily ever after. They can even leave during the nuclear bluffing phase if they prefer.

 

In other words, Putin's nuclear threats don't scare me.

 

Yours sincerely,

Armchair General

Edited April 25, 2023 by formthirteen

[Spekulatius]

Relevant interview from Kasparov. He has followed Putin closer than almost anyone.

Memorable phrase : Dictators tend to lie about the past, but they always tell you what they are going to do.

[John Hjorth]

Reuters [May 5^th 2023] : Russian mercenaries vow to quit Bakhmut, Ukraine says they are piling in.

 

Let's see what appears to happen 5 days from now.

[Spekulatius]

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

Reuters [May 5^th 2023] : Russian mercenaries vow to quit Bakhmut, Ukraine says they are piling in.

 

Let's see what appears to happen 5 days from now.

A lot of them will be dead.

[Ulti]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pollution-reveals-what-russian-statistics-obscure-industrial-decline-cdd7103e?st=gneo3alxk1699hm&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Dont know if its been posted but interesting view

[Spekulatius]

Victory day parade with T-34:

 

[formthirteen]

Breaking: Shots fired between Russian Duma and Family Guy

 

[Spekulatius]

First one of many I think:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-attorney-general-oks-transfer-forfeited-funds-russia-oligarch-use-ukraine-2023-05-10/

[John Hjorth]

Reuters [May 11^th 2023] : Britain moves first to supply Ukraine with long-range cruise missiles.

 

Someone is about to get beaten up while being well into own territory.

Edited May 12, 2023 by John Hjorth

[Castanza]

5 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

Reuters [May 11^th 2023] : Britain moves first to supply Ukraine with long-range cruise missiles.

 

Someone is about to get beaten up while being well into own territory.

 

Honestly this seems like another mistake imo. This further escalates tensions that initially caused this whole conflict to begin with. 

 

NATO expansion in the 90's was unchecked because for the first time the US was the lone Superpower. Much like a government needs internal checks and balances, so to do governments at the geopolitical level. It has led to 750 military bases in 80+ counties. Wars that had no justification. See Wesley Clark interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Knt3rKTqCk ). Our last 5 Presidents are war criminals going by their own standards of foreign leaders. Imagine if the War on Drugs was fought in the same way Obama and Bush took out targets in the Middle East. Example: The meth dealer who is a suspected killer is located in this house. Let us send in a drone strike and blow up the whole block killing a few dozen innocent individuals. But hey! One less dealer!

There were MANY smart people in the government who disagreed with the expansion of NATO. Three defense secretaries: Robert McNamara, Robert Gates (under Bush & Obama), William Perry (under Clinton) were all vehemently opposed to NATO Expansion. Even George Kennon the guy who invented the Containment Strategy and won the Cold War said NATO expansion post-Cold War was a massive mistake. Here is a 1998 interview he did where hey lays out exactly what would happen with Russia and NATO expansion: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html

 

NOBODY wanted to listen to the smart people in the room. And the World/Ukraine is paying for it now. NATO expansion and the potential negative effects of it were being discussed many times. If you look up "Nyet means Nyet" you can read a leaked document between Burns and Condoleezza Rice. Three months later Georgia and Russia go to war after NATO includes them against their own warnings.

There are people in the business of making war; and making war is what they do. NATO has been anything but a defensive alliance since the 90's. It's been led by countries which have started 7 wars and decimated multiple countries caused millions of deaths all in 30 years.

 

Look at Libya. Removing Ghaddafi has led to open air slave markets there today. You think those people are better off now? Can anyone point me to a good example of the US or the "West" removing leadership in a foreign country which then lead to better leadership? Yeah, WWII with Hitler but that was a different type of event (contrary to what some on here might say). Ultimately Hitler, Lenin and Stalin were all products of regime changes from WWI. Look at the countless countries int he Middle East and South America we have fucked with. Take out Putin and there is NO guarantee that a worse leader does not take his place. Then what? Do we want a country like Russia turning into a Libya? Where it’s run by the strongest war lord? Sounds like a recipe for Russian Terrorism which I guarantee you will be far worse than Al Qaeda. America screwed up when it decided to adopt the idea that world leaders need to meet our expectations of acceptable governance. Putin is a shitbag but he is also not the worst there has been in Russia.

Americans are so far removed from war I don’t think most people can think about it in terms that make it feel real. The West is desensitized to it. They just go out, buy their latte, go to the ball game, continue to book their yearly vacations thinking nothing bad will ever happen to the US.

 

It's mind boggling to me that Americans have their own heads so far up their own asses that they think nothing bad will or could ever happen to us. They go on vacations to Rome, Egypt, Peru and see these once great empires and it never dawns on them that one day people could be going on vacation and looking at the former White House and Monuments in D.C.  in all their glory. America has become a nation of decadence and laziness over the last 40 years. There is something that prevents people from viewing the time they live in against that of history. It’s a mental block that most people have and I think it leads to poor decision making.

 

It is ironic that the majority of people against the war in Ukraine are the ones who actually went and fought in a mostly useless war. They have seen the futility and outcome of these crusades. We've been the benefactor of having the best military and technology to maintain that superpower position. But we are playing with fire right now in this Ukrainian conflict. If this war is so important to Americas long term strategic situation/freedom then why are we not on the ground? Because it isn't and because that would push the needle of nuclear war a little too far into the red. But hey, lets see how far we can push that needle without putting boots on the ground.

 

Ukrainians are pawns in an unnecessary proxy was that was avoidable. We don't give a shit about them.

[cubsfan]

10 minutes ago, Castanza said:

 

Honestly this seems like another mistake imo. This further escalates tensions that initially caused this whole conflict to begin with. 

 

NATO expansion in the 90's was unchecked because for the first time the US was the lone Superpower. Much like a government needs internal checks and balances, so to do governments at the geopolitical level. It has led to 750 military bases in 80+ counties. Wars that had no justification. See Wesley Clark interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Knt3rKTqCk ). Our last 5 Presidents are war criminals going by their own standards of foreign leaders. Imagine if the War on Drugs was fought in the same way Obama and Bush took out targets in the Middle East. Example: The meth dealer who is a suspected killer is located in this house. Let us send in a drone strike and blow up the whole block killing a few dozen innocent individuals. But hey! One less dealer!

There were MANY smart people in the government who disagreed with the expansion of NATO. Three defense secretaries: Robert McNamara, Robert Gates (under Bush & Obama), William Perry (under Clinton) were all vehemently opposed to NATO Expansion. Even George Kennon the guy who invented the Containment Strategy and won the Cold War said NATO expansion post-Cold War was a massive mistake. Here is a 1998 interview he did where hey lays out exactly what would happen with Russia and NATO expansion: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html

 

NOBODY wanted to listen to the smart people in the room. And the World/Ukraine is paying for it now. NATO expansion and the potential negative effects of it were being discussed many times. If you look up "Nyet means Nyet" you can read a leaked document between Burns and Condoleezza Rice. Three months later Georgia and Russia go to war after NATO includes them against their own warnings.

There are people in the business of making war; and making war is what they do. NATO has been anything but a defensive alliance since the 90's. It's been led by countries which have started 7 wars and decimated multiple countries caused millions of deaths all in 30 years.

 

Look at Libya. Removing Ghaddafi has led to open air slave markets there today. You think those people are better off now? Can anyone point me to a good example of the US or the "West" removing leadership in a foreign country which then lead to better leadership? Yeah, WWII with Hitler but that was a different type of event (contrary to what some on here might say). Ultimately Hitler, Lenin and Stalin were all products of regime changes from WWI. Look at the countless countries int he Middle East and South America we have fucked with. Take out Putin and there is NO guarantee that a worse leader does not take his place. Then what? Do we want a country like Russia turning into a Libya? Where it’s run by the strongest war lord? Sounds like a recipe for Russian Terrorism which I guarantee you will be far worse than Al Qaeda. America screwed up when it decided to adopt the idea that world leaders need to meet our expectations of acceptable governance. Putin is a shitbag but he is also not the worst there has been in Russia.

Americans are so far removed from war I don’t think most people can think about it in terms that make it feel real. The West is desensitized to it. They just go out, buy their latte, go to the ball game, continue to book their yearly vacations thinking nothing bad will ever happen to the US.

 

It's mind boggling to me that Americans have their own heads so far up their own asses that they think nothing bad will or could ever happen to us. They go on vacations to Rome, Egypt, Peru and see these once great empires and it never dawns on them that one day people could be going on vacation and looking at the former White House and Monuments in D.C.  in all their glory. America has become a nation of decadence and laziness over the last 40 years. There is something that prevents people from viewing the time they live in against that of history. It’s a mental block that most people have and I think it leads to poor decision making.

 

It is ironic that the majority of people against the war in Ukraine are the ones who actually went and fought in a mostly useless war. They have seen the futility and outcome of these crusades. We've been the benefactor of having the best military and technology to maintain that superpower position. But we are playing with fire right now in this Ukrainian conflict. If this war is so important to Americas long term strategic situation/freedom then why are we not on the ground? Because it isn't and because that would push the needle of nuclear war a little too far into the red. But hey, lets see how far we can push that needle without putting boots on the ground.

 

Ukrainians are pawns in an unnecessary proxy was that was avoidable. We don't give a shit about them.

Nice rant - but your whole premise is based on the notion that the NATO alliance has been a failure.

 

And of course, that is where you are wrong. At what point in the history of Europe has there been a 70 year stretch of virtually no European wars?

 

As imperfect as NATO is - it’s been a remarkable defensive alliance against the Soviets.

 

There is a very simple reason that other countries wish to join NATO. The alliance works.

[Castanza]

23 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

Nice rant - but your whole premise is based on the notion that the NATO alliance has been a failure.

 

And of course, that is where you are wrong. At what point in the history of Europe has there been a 70 year stretch of virtually no European wars?

 

As imperfect as NATO is - it’s been a remarkable defensive alliance against the Soviets.

 

There is a very simple reason that other countries wish to join NATO. The alliance works.

 

Yet NATO has lead to this exact conflict.....probably the greatest threat of nuclear war the world has come to. 

 

70 years is not a long time in the context of history to judge something as a success or failure. But the fact remains that people have been shouting about this exact outcome since the end of the Cold War and here we are, right on schedule. 

 

What exactly do you consider a success? Plenty of conflicts in Europe. Many of the worse ones are directly related to NATO expansion. Too many people cannot think about conflicts with an unbiased opinion. Park some long range missiles backed by Russia in Vancouver pointed at Seattle, Portland, and Denver and what would the US response be? We would turn Vancouver to glass in 24hrs. 

 

 

• 1944–1956 Guerrilla war in the Baltic states
• 1945–1949 Greek Civil War
• 1946–1948 Corfu Channel incident
• 1947–1962 Romanian anti-communist resistance movement
• 1953 Uprising in East Germany
• 1955-1959 Cyprus Emergency
• 1956 Uprising in Poznań
• 1956 Hungarian Revolution
• 1956–1962 Operation Harvest
• 1958 First Cod War
• 1959–2011 Basque conflict
• 1967 Greek coup d'état
• 1968 Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia
• 1968–1998 The Troubles
• 1970–1984 Unrest in Italy
• 1972–1973 Second Cod War
• 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus
• 1974 Carnation Revolution
• 1975 Coup of 25 November 1975
• 1975–1976 Third Cod War
• 1976–2016 Corsican conflict
• 1981 Spanish coup d'état attempt
• 1986 Evros River incident
• 1988-1994 First Nagorno-Karabakh War
• 1989 Romanian Revolution
• 1990–1991 Soviet attacks on Lithuanian border posts
• 1990 Transnistria conflict
  • 1990–1992 Transnistria War
• 1991 January Events
• 1991 The Barricades
• 1990 Log Revolution
• 1991–2001 Yugoslav Wars
  • 1991 Ten-Day War
  • 1991–1995 Croatian War of Independence
  • 1992–1995 Bosnian War
    • 1992–1994 Croat–Bosniak War
  • 1998–1999 Kosovo War
  • 1999–2001 Insurgency in the Preševo Valley
  • 2001 2001 insurgency in Macedonia
• 1991–1992 Georgian war against Russo-Ossetian alliance
• 1991–1993 Georgian Civil War
• 1992 East Prigorodny Conflict
• 1992–1993 War in Abkhazia
• 1993 1993 Cherbourg incident
• 1993 1993 Russian constitutional crisis
• 1995–1996 Imia/Kardak military crisis
• 1997–1998 Cyprus Missile Crisis
• 1997 Albanian civil war of 1997
• 1997–present Dissident Irish Republican campaign
• 1998 Six-Day War of Abkhazia
• 2001 Georgia, Kodori crisis
• 2001 Insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia
• 2004–2013 Unrest in Kosovo
  • 2004 2004 unrest in Kosovo
  • 2008 2008 unrest in Kosovo
  • 2011–2013 North Kosovo crisis
• 2004 Georgia, Adjara crisis
• 2004 Georgia, South Ossetia clashes
• 2006 Georgia, Kodori crisis
• 2008 Russo-Georgian war
• 2014–present Russo-Ukrainian War (outline)
  • 2014 Pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine
  • 2014–present Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation
  • 2014–present Russo-Ukrainian War
  • 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis
  • 2022–present Russian invasion of Ukraine
• 2020 Second Nagorno-Karabakh war

Edited May 12, 2023 by Castanza

[cubsfan]

^^^^ When you have to resort to 55 hyperlinks to debate the merits, I rest my case.

And in the history of a warring Europe for centuries on end - NATO accomplished something remarkable.

 

But just for fun - specifically tell me how many NATO members have been attacked by the Soviets since the formation of NATO?

[John Hjorth]

4 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

^^^^ When you have to resort to 55 hyperlinks to debate the merits, I rest my case ...

 

This made me chuckle, Mike [ @cubsfan ],

 

However, The seriousness of the matter still stands. I'll here publicly admit, that I am a citizen of a North European state, that did not carry out sufficient due diligence on the matter at hand in the first place.

 

Today, I personally cringe about it, being unaware of what has been going on and building up for years. 

 

To me personally, it's actually and indeed very embarrassing.

[Castanza]

26 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

^^^^ When you have to resort to 55 hyperlinks to debate the merits, I rest my case.

And in the history of a warring Europe for centuries on end - NATO accomplished something remarkable.

 

But just for fun - specifically tell me how many NATO members have been attacked by the Soviets since the formation of NATO?

 

Mike, 

 

You said NATO has brought peace to Europe for 70 years. I just listed dozens of conflicts many of which involved NATO countries. Rest your case from what? Tell me how NATO has brought peace to Europe.... You're the one claiming it has been a raging success when the evidence points to the contrary. Your claim is dismantled by a 2 second internet search. 

 

Ukraine is being attacked. They are a proxy NATO country. The US has been supporting them since the mid 2000's with both trainings and defense. They are everything NATO except in title. I don't think there has been a more telegraphed conflict in the history of humanity than this Ukrainian crisis. American and Western hubris brought this on.  Every credible Cold War expert said NATO expansion was a bad idea. from the 90's on NATO went from being primarily defensive to offensive. That is the problem. 

[cubsfan]

2 minutes ago, Castanza said:

 

Mike, 

 

You said NATO has brought peace to Europe for 70 years. I just listed dozens of conflicts many of which involved NATO countries. Rest your case from what? Tell me how NATO has brought peace to Europe.... You're the one claiming it has been a raging success when the evidence points to the contrary. Your claim is dismantled by a 2 second internet search. 

 

Ukraine is being attacked. They are a proxy NATO country. The US has been supporting them since the mid 2000's with both trainings and defense. They are everything NATO except in title. I don't think there has been a more telegraphed conflict in the history of humanity than this Ukrainian crisis. American and Western hubris brought this on.  Every credible Cold War expert said NATO expansion was a bad idea. from the 90's on NATO went from being primarily defensive to offensive. That is the problem. 

Try and weasel out all you like.

 

The foundation issue is how many NATO countries have been attacked by the Soviets?

 

If you continue to dodge the question, you’ll be unable to understand the truth: NATO has been a remarkable success.

 

it’s not personal, it’s about what is true.

[Castanza]

2 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

Try and weasel out all you like.

 

The foundation issue is how many NATO countries have been attacked by the Soviets?

 

If you continue to dodge the question, you’ll be unable to understand the truth: NATO has been a remarkable success.

 

it’s not personal, it’s about what is true.

 

Georgia was attacked immediately upon trying to join NATO. Russia literally said that. Ukraine was attacked in 2014 by being NATO is everything but name. Russia also said that. 

Edited May 12, 2023 by Castanza

[cubsfan]

^^^ Oh so it’s really zero.
 

Appreciate your honesty. Looks like quite an admirable record.

Edited May 12, 2023 by cubsfan

[John Hjorth]

3 minutes ago, Castanza said:

...  Every credible Cold War expert said NATO expansion was a bad idea. from the 90's on NATO went from being primarily defensive to offensive. That is the problem. ...

 

@Castanza,

 

I seldom participate in these discussions in this topic. I would just say here : You - as a US citizen - should not even have an opinion on that particular matter. It's simply none of your business, if you believe in true democracy.