Russia-Ukrainian War

[ValueArb]

On 3/12/2024 at 5:18 AM, Dinar said:

You do not seem to know your history.  During WWII, first German soldiers committed unspeakable atrocities in the former USSR, and then Soviet soldiers avenged this with mass rapes in Germany.  

 

The problem is that Soviet soldiers weren't raping the German soldiers guilty of war crimes, avenging atrocities with more atrocities doesn't solve any problem.

 

The Japanese military committed unspeakable atrocities against civilians and soldiers, chinese and allied, but the smartest thing MacArthur ever did was to keep his troops under strict discipline, treat the conquered japanese with dignity, and limit the response to war crimes a few show trials.

 

That helped break the cycle of vengeance. Even if there were thousands of Japanese officers and leaders who got off scot free for their war crimes it helped bind the US and Japan as allies and friends despite the horrific actions both sides committed against each other during the war (fire bombings, nuclear bombs).

 

The next time we see a Russian leader behave with such intelligence, foresight, and compassion will be the first time a Russian leader has ever done so. Here's hoping that when the Ukrainian military recaptures their lost territories they channel MacArthur, not Stalin, in how they treat their defeated foes and maybe it leads to a much longer period of peace in the future.

[ValueArb]

On 3/11/2024 at 2:50 PM, Luca said:

Yadda yadda yadda, he is a MEMBER of an organization of which the owner is a russian. Massive mental stretch and a disgrace to Kujat to throw out these allegations.

 

He was on the board of an organization funded by an inner member of Putin's kleptocracy. Clearly he was well compensated for it, whether he was influenced by that relationship is a legitimate question. Do you think its absurd to question whether the Clintons were influenced by the Saudi giving hundreds of millions to their charitable foundation, or Trump by Saudi giving billions to fund his son in laws investment fund? 

 

This is a question I always have for Germans. How many of your political leaders do you think have been compromised by the FSB or the old Stasi? How many have long hidden ties to the USSR/Russia, both financial and philosophical, that lead them to be favorable to Putins agenda?

 

Its a legitimate question in the US for right wing Republicans that parrot Putin's talking points, are they are getting funded or supported by FSB agents? Maria Butina is just one example of an infiltrator who targeted key republican operatives and influencers, and who only got caught because she was so obvious. Its reasonable to ask how many more are out there.

 

So how is it a "disgrace" to ponder how deep FSB links penetrate German leadership and how many more Gerhard Schroeders are still in power? 

 

 

On 3/11/2024 at 2:50 PM, Luca said:

Never was and never has been, also not 10-15 years ago and before. The russian empire thesis is massively stretched and unjustifiable. The bigger problem for germany russia relations is the US and not russia itself.

 

 

I am not a military expert: The austrian army uploaded this 2 months ago, comparing to what it sometimes sounds like in the media, ukraine is in a stalemate. 

 

You will have to summarize it for me, I don't weigh the opinions of military organizations that haven't fought a war in 80 years (and lost every one over the last 150 years) very highly. And given the tiny amount of military funding in Germany and Austria, their militaries are closer to amateurs than professionals at this stage. 

 

On 3/11/2024 at 2:50 PM, Luca said:

 

You are arguing for even more deadly far range weapons, UK and france is already helping with geodata and has personal in ukraine to help them operating devices...how nuts can it get? 

 

How nuts is it that Russia fires hundreds of large warhead stand-off weapons into Ukraine at both civilian and military targets from Russia proper every single day, and you don't think that deserves any response? You just expect Ukraine to endure this endless genocidal assault, that's nuts.

 

On 3/11/2024 at 2:50 PM, Luca said:

 

You are saying russia is a threat for germany and you want us to get even more involved with directly damaging that country...how does that make sense? Yes, if we help ukraine beating russias ass and are directly involved in this war, russia will be a threat obviously...our chancelor already said that taurus is off the table due to the range etc...majority of germans against taurus too. 

 

Russia is a threat whether you fight them or not. Appeasement never works.

 

On 3/11/2024 at 2:50 PM, Luca said:

 

Pretty good summary of HOW MUCH your country is involved in that war haha! If you want to escalate further welcome to world war 3! 

 

World war 2 started in a large part because Neville Chamberlin signed a "peace" agreement instead of meeting uncontained aggression with steel. His mistake in not being willing to accept some losses early led to the deaths of nearly 100M people. 

 

On 3/11/2024 at 2:50 PM, Luca said:

 

I assume you wont get drafted and will sit at the sidelines shorting european stocks? 

 

This is a logical fallacy called an attacking the motive. I don't trade european stocks and it wouldn't matter if I did. What matters is whether a cowardly course of appeasement and abandonment of Ukraine is going to lead to better outcomes than ensuring it survives and wins, and sends a message to dictators everywhere that free countries will put aside their differences to defeat them if they invade any of them. Appeasement sends a message that they can can flip countries like dominos, one after the other, without any significant response until they are too powerful to stop. 

 

On 3/11/2024 at 2:50 PM, Luca said:

 

Do you see how negotiating, armistice and diplomacy is non existent in what you write? You are coming from an opinion standpoint that negotiation is lost and russia has to be fought actively against with a whole bunch of other countries, sizeable amount and getting close to WW2/WW1 involvment.  At the same time putin repeatedly said publicly they are willing to negotiate.

 

Japan repeatedly said they'd negotiate in 1945, but only if they were allowed to keep raping China, keep the Emperor as their supreme leader, their military and the right wing political dictatorship intact. How would that have worked out had the Allies agreed?

 

Putin has made his terms clear. He gets to keep all the territory he's stolen, rebuild his forces now far closer to Kyiv and Ukraines remaining cities, and we just have to pray he doesn't break his promise to not attack again in five years when his military is fully rebuilt. How could anyone agree to any peace that involves any of those components, its essentially surrendering the rest of Ukraine at some time in the future?

 

Why don't you outline a peace agreement that has any chance of Putins agreement that isn't simply setting up Ukraine to be fully subsumed within Russia within the decade?

Edited March 13 by ValueArb

[ValueArb]

On 3/11/2024 at 3:06 PM, Luca said:

Putins billion dollar palace is a couple hundred kilometers away from crimea...who would think he would give that piece back to ukraine so the US can build a military basis on it to bomb him away at some point...xD

 

Its amusing to me that you think the US can't strike Putin's palace any time it wants whether Ukraine controls Crimea or not. We could hit it with 100 tomahawks today if Biden gave the order. 

 

Seriously, you are justfying a genocidal war because the genocider in chief "deserves to feel more comfortable" in his klepto palace built from the sweat of Russian serfs. 

[Dinar]

@ValueArb, I am not saying that the Soviet Army should have done what it did in Germany in 1945, I am just stating a fact.  In terms of atrocities begatting more atrocities, it depends - look at what Turks did to Armenians in 1915 or Nazis did to the Jews or Ukrainians to Jews and Poles in World War II.  (I feel that this should be obvious, but I will state it anyway - I do not support mass murder,  I am just stating historical facts.)  Oh, and for the record, I for instance do not support vengeance against Germans for what their ancestors did in WWII or against Ukrainians for what ancestors of some of their compatriots did in WWII.  

[Luke]

2 hours ago, ValueArb said:

So how is it a "disgrace" to ponder how deep FSB links penetrate German leadership and how many more Gerhard Schroeders are still in power? 

Because these are accusations without any basis and they are used to gag criticism. Kujat is a highly respected general and does not deserve conspiracy theories. 

2 hours ago, ValueArb said:

You will have to summarize it for me, I don't weigh the opinions of military organizations that haven't fought a war in 80 years (and lost every one over the last 150 years) very highly. And given the tiny amount of military funding in Germany and Austria, their militaries are closer to amateurs than professionals at this stage. 

They basically show that ukraine is in a pat situation and not winning this "war". Ukrainian General Zaluzhny said that publicly (he also got lots of criticism for doing that by selensky. selensky of course needs to maintain the image that they are progressing to get further funding) :

 

https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/11/01/ukraines-commander-in-chief-on-the-breakthrough-he-needs-to-beat-russia

 

1. Ukraine drafted 500000 man because they are losing way more soldiers than Russia: 

https://www.ft.com/content/d7e95021-df99-4e99-8105-5a8c3eb8d4ef

2. They can not break through the barriers Russia set up with the current gear, that's why they are desperate for even stronger weapons (Taurus)

3. In order to break through the line Russia set they need proportionally 3x+ more soldiers because so many die in the front fire, it just so hard to break through and they don't have the personal nor the weaponery. 

4. Russia mass produces drones that kill the tanks they got too easily.

2 hours ago, ValueArb said:

How nuts is it that Russia fires hundreds of large warhead stand-off weapons into Ukraine at both civilian and military targets from Russia proper every single day, and you don't think that deserves any response? You just expect Ukraine to endure this endless genocidal assault, that's nuts.

I never said it's not nuts what russia is doing to ukranians. 

 

I do think it's nuts to keep fighting when losing is inevitable. They could save ten thousands, hundred thousand lives when they get back to negotiating.

 

Right now they are running into their deaths, which doesn't make sense.

2 hours ago, ValueArb said:

Russia is a threat whether you fight them or not. Appeasement never works.

You have, in my opinion, a completely wrong assessment of the leadership in Russia. We have to agree to disagree on that. Putin IS willing to negotiate and negotiations were even quite successful before Ukraine was deterred by foreign forces that have significant investments in this war, as you already summarized. 

2 hours ago, ValueArb said:

World war 2 started in a large part because Neville Chamberlin signed a "peace" agreement instead of meeting uncontained aggression with steel. His mistake in not being willing to accept some losses early led to the deaths of nearly 100M people. 

This is a misplaced analogy, and we are not in WW2 times anymore. Russia has nuclear weapons, the game changed.

2 hours ago, ValueArb said:

This is a logical fallacy called an attacking the motive. I don't trade european stocks and it wouldn't matter if I did. What matters is whether a cowardly course of appeasement and abandonment of Ukraine is going to lead to better outcomes than ensuring it survives and wins, and sends a message to dictators everywhere that free countries will put aside their differences to defeat them if they invade any of them. Appeasement sends a message that they can can flip countries like dominos, one after the other, without any significant response until they are too powerful to stop. 

It is not a logical fallacy, it is an observation. You sit in your american basement and propose that other countries fight a war that could get them in significant danger while facing 0 of the consequences. What is "cowardly" about accepting that losing is inevitable and saving ones life? Absolutely nothing.

 

Putin didnt want this to happen but the developments happening in Ukraine posed significant danger to russias security, hence the invasion. 

 

And again, you dont simply "significantly respond" to a country with nuclear weapons. 

2 hours ago, ValueArb said:

Japan repeatedly said they'd negotiate in 1945, but only if they were allowed to keep raping China, keep the Emperor as their supreme leader, their military and the right wing political dictatorship intact. How would that have worked out had the Allies agreed?

So you are actively using WW2 analogies to this war in ukraine, that shows your motive and assesment of the size of this conflict and the willingness of how far you would go here. I fundamentally disagree with your assesment of the motives of the russian government, this is not japan in 1945. Negotiations about ukraines neutrality, armistice and resolution are realistic and possible. 

2 hours ago, ValueArb said:

Putin has made his terms clear. He gets to keep all the territory he's stolen, rebuild his forces now far closer to Kyiv and Ukraines remaining cities, and we just have to pray he doesn't break his promise to not attack again in five years when his military is fully rebuilt. How could anyone agree to any peace that involves any of those components, its essentially surrendering the rest of Ukraine at some time in the future?

 

Why don't you outline a peace agreement that has any chance of Putins agreement that isn't simply setting up Ukraine to be fully subsumed within Russia within the decade?

Do you know with how many soldiers putin came into ukraine? It was 200000 vs 400000 active ukranian soldiers with western weapons. 

 

How do you infer here, that his goal was "taking the whole of ukraine". 

Edited March 13 by Luca

[Luke]

And regarding your proposal of sending ukraine Taurus KEPD 350 cruise missiles. 

 

1. In order to correctly program these weapons you need highly qualified personal which ukraine lacks. That means that german personal need to take these weapons into one of our bases, program it before use and then give it back to ukraine. 

2. Our constitution is different from UK, France and US which is why programing these weapons here would mean actually entering this war within our own legal system, which we obviously dont want and our chancellor also doesnt want. 

3. The taurus missiles can fly up to 500km and can enter into deep concrete layers. It is highly likely that IF ukraine uses these that they will fly deep into the russian territory to destroy important bases and more. Russia will significantly escalate the situation if that happens and also escalate the situation with the country who programmed these weapons. Id would be the start of a new phase were we really get involved. 

4. Its highly likely that russia escalates the war with tactical nuclear weapons to protect them in that case, something nobody wants. 

 

Its time to deescalate, get back to the negotiating tables and stop sending more and more deadly weapons that do nothing. 

 

Our politicians are voted for so they protect our safety and freedom, sending taurus to ukraine actively interfers here and IMO politicians who further deescalate should be banned from being in politics and go to prison for treason. 

[Luke]

If the US wants to fight an active war against russia, they can decide to do that but i hope for our own lives that germany wont join the madman move. 

 

 

[Luke]

2 hours ago, ValueArb said:

Its amusing to me that you think the US can't strike Putin's palace any time it wants whether Ukraine controls Crimea or not. We could hit it with 100 tomahawks today if Biden gave the order. 

Hope you enjoy your amusement! It's amusing to me that you think Russia won't notice that and will immediately retaliate that move. 

2 hours ago, ValueArb said:

Seriously, you are justfying a genocidal war because the genocider in chief "deserves to feel more comfortable" in his klepto palace built from the sweat of Russian serfs. 

If the us decides to push their military bases further and further to russia, i understand that they are doing something about it. 

 

What do you think will happen if china builds military bases at the border to mexico? Do you think the US will "negotiate"

[ValueArb]

1 hour ago, Dinar said:

@ValueArb, I am not saying that the Soviet Army should have done what it did in Germany in 1945, I am just stating a fact.  In terms of atrocities begatting more atrocities, it depends - look at what Turks did to Armenians in 1915 or Nazis did to the Jews or Ukrainians to Jews and Poles in World War II.  (I feel that this should be obvious, but I will state it anyway - I do not support mass murder,  I am just stating historical facts.)  Oh, and for the record, I for instance do not support vengeance against Germans for what their ancestors did in WWII or against Ukrainians for what ancestors of some of their compatriots did in WWII.  

 

We aren't disagreeing at all, I'm just pointing out that the way to end these endless rounds of atrocities is for the victors to be gracious in victory. 

 

I will say I doubt that if the Nazi armies had committed zero atrocities in the Soviet Union whether it would have changed much in how the Soviet Armies behaved in victory. These armies were led by the same men who ordered the unprovoked Katyn massacres, ordered the brutal meat-grinder tactics that won the war at huge casualties, they weren't going to hold back their surviving peasant infantry from doing as they pleased.

[ValueArb]

12 minutes ago, Luca said:

Hope you enjoy your amusement! It's amusing to me that you think Russia won't notice that and will immediately retaliate that move. 

 

You claimed that his palace would only be endangered if Crimea fell, I showed you thats not true, so you reply with a whataboutism. 

 

12 minutes ago, Luca said:

If the us decides to push their military bases further and further to russia, i understand that they are doing something about it. 

 

What do you think will happen if china builds military bases at the border to mexico? Do you think the US will "negotiate"

 

Another whataboutism. The US (or NATO) has never had military bases in Crimea, or Ukraine. AFAIK its never even been seriously proposed. So it's not a justification for invading Ukraine. 

[ValueArb]

23 minutes ago, Luca said:

And regarding your proposal of sending ukraine Taurus KEPD 350 cruise missiles. 

 

1. In order to correctly program these weapons you need highly qualified personal which ukraine lacks. That means that german personal need to take these weapons into one of our bases, program it before use and then give it back to ukraine. 

2. Our constitution is different from UK, France and US which is why programing these weapons here would mean actually entering this war within our own legal system, which we obviously dont want and our chancellor also doesnt want. 

3. The taurus missiles can fly up to 500km and can enter into deep concrete layers. It is highly likely that IF ukraine uses these that they will fly deep into the russian territory to destroy important bases and more. Russia will significantly escalate the situation if that happens and also escalate the situation with the country who programmed these weapons. Id would be the start of a new phase were we really get involved. 

4. Its highly likely that russia escalates the war with tactical nuclear weapons to protect them in that case, something nobody wants. 

 

Its time to deescalate, get back to the negotiating tables and stop sending more and more deadly weapons that do nothing. 

 

Our politicians are voted for so they protect our safety and freedom, sending taurus to ukraine actively interfers here and IMO politicians who further deescalate should be banned from being in politics and go to prison for treason. 

 

Taurus missiles have GPS control systems that allow Germany to lock them from striking anywhere they regard as off-limits. Germany can literally send them locked with these limitations. And Ukrainian engineers have mastered every piece of Western technology given them in record time, the "highly qualified personnel" excuse is just another excuse. 

[Luke]

18 minutes ago, ValueArb said:

You claimed that his palace would only be endangered if Crimea fell, I showed you thats not true, so you reply with a whataboutism. 

All i said is that he doesnt like the idea of military bases croaching closer and closer to where he spend his time. Is that not a valid argument? The US clearly doesnt like that either.

18 minutes ago, ValueArb said:

Another whataboutism. The US (or NATO) has never had military bases in Crimea, or Ukraine. AFAIK its never even been seriously proposed. So it's not a justification for invading Ukraine. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

13 minutes ago, ValueArb said:

Taurus missiles have GPS control systems that allow Germany to lock them from striking anywhere they regard as off-limits. Germany can literally send them locked with these limitations. And Ukrainian engineers have mastered every piece of Western technology given them in record time, the "highly qualified personnel" excuse is just another excuse. 

To my information they have 3 coordination systems of one has to be programmed in a way Ukrainian soldiers can not do (Harald Kujat as a general should probably know). Especially if they want to circumvoid russian air control, one system that uses local geographic information points is especially important, apparently. 

Directly from our state media: 

 

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/scholz-taurus-ukraine-102.html

 

France and UK can program these without having problems with their own constitution. We cant do it. 

[ValueArb]

36 minutes ago, Luca said:

Because these are accusations without any basis and they are used to gag criticism. Kujat is a highly respected general and does not deserve conspiracy theories. 

 

If Kujat is highly respected then you have a very low bar for respect.

 

36 minutes ago, Luca said:

They basically show that ukraine is in a pat situation and not winning this "war". Ukrainian General Zaluzhny said that publicly (he also got lots of criticism for doing that by selensky. selensky of course needs to maintain the image that they are progressing to get further funding) :

 

https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/11/01/ukraines-commander-in-chief-on-the-breakthrough-he-needs-to-beat-russia

 

1. Ukraine drafted 500000 man because they are losing way more soldiers than Russia: 

https://www.ft.com/content/d7e95021-df99-4e99-8105-5a8c3eb8d4ef

 

No credible source thinks Ukraine has lost more men than Russia. Of course Ukraine needs to keep recruiting, they are about one fifth the size of Russia and Russia is using meat-grinder tactics to trade mass amounts of their own troops to make minor advances, even a 4-1 kill ratio is to Russia's advantage.

 

36 minutes ago, Luca said:

 

I do think it's nuts to keep fighting when losing is inevitable. They could save ten thousands, hundred thousand lives when they get back to negotiating.

 

Right now they are running into their deaths, which doesn't make sense.

You have, in my opinion, a completely wrong assessment of the leadership in Russia. We have to agree to disagree on that. Putin IS willing to negotiate and negotiations were even quite successful before Ukraine was deterred by foreign forces that have significant investments in this war, as you already summarized. 

 

"Successful"? Negotiations that would have ended up surrendering most of Ukraine and rendering it easily conquered were successful? The only reason those "negotiations" occurred was that Zelensky didn't know if the west would give them enough support to hold on, which is why those terms were so terrible.

 

36 minutes ago, Luca said:

This is a misplaced analogy, and we are not in WW2 times anymore. Russia has nuclear weapons, the game changed.

It is not a logical fallacy, it is an observation. You sit in your american basement and propose that other countries fight a war that could get them in significant danger while facing 0 of the consequences. What is "cowardly" about accepting that losing is inevitable and saving ones life? Absolutely nothing.

 

Putin didnt want this to happen but the developments happening in Ukraine posed significant danger to russias security, hence the invasion. 

 

You are directly repeating Putin misinformation just  like Kujat does. If a free democracy in Ukraine is a "significant danger" to Putins security what does that tell you about Putin?

 

36 minutes ago, Luca said:

 

And again, you dont simply "significantly respond" to a country with nuclear weapons. 

So you are actively using WW2 analogies to this war in ukraine, that shows your motive and assesment of the size of this conflict and the willingness of how far you would go here. I fundamentally disagree with your assesment of the motives of the russian government, this is not japan in 1945. Negotiations about ukraines neutrality, armistice and resolution are realistic and possible. 

 

You give up when you say there is no response to a country with nuclear weapons. When Germany falls it will be without a shot, a simple Putin threat will do it. 

 

36 minutes ago, Luca said:

Do you know with how many soldiers putin came into ukraine? It was 200000 vs 400000 active ukranian soldiers with western weapons. 

 

Stop it. A surprise attack by a techologically superior Russian military against a Ukrainian military that was mostly unmobilized and still operating almost entirely inherited and obsolete Soviet equipment a generation older than what the Russian military used. 

 

Compare the Airforces, Ukraine started the war with obsolete SU-27s/Mig-29s and a smattering of SU-24Ms/Su-25s. Russia has been flying MIG-31s, MIG-35s, SU-34s and SU-35s. Not to mention the SU-57;)

 

Ukrainian tank corp at the start of the war was almost entirely (1,300) T-64s, even though some were upgraded the T-64 was introduced in early 1960s.  Their T72s were all in storage, ad they only had 100 T-80s. Russia started with thousands of  T-72s,  T-80s and T-90s and even has the Armata (the worlds greatest tank ;).

 

36 minutes ago, Luca said:

 

How do you infer here, that his goal was "taking the whole of ukraine". 

 

He's constantly spoken about how Ukraine is a false creation by the Poles, German Empire, Austrio-Hungary, Bolsheviks, etc. That Ukraine and Russia are "one people" that need to be "brought closer together".  Its all clearly coded to justify conquering all of Ukraine. Then we'll start hearing about how the Poles or Georgians are naturally descended from the Rus, etc, etc rinse and repeat.

 

https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/ukraine-history-fact-checking-putin-513812/

 

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

[ValueArb]

11 minutes ago, Luca said:

All i said is that he doesnt like the idea of military bases croaching closer and closer to where he spend his time. Is that not a valid argument? The US clearly doesnt like that either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

 

You are the king of whataboutisms, the Soviets put nuclear missiles in Cuba. We didn't have a single base let alone nukes in Ukraine when Putin invaded.

 

11 minutes ago, Luca said:

To my information they have 3 coordination systems of one has to be programmed in a way Ukrainian soldiers can not do (Harald Kujat as a general should probably know). Especially if they want to circumvoid russian air control, one system that uses local geographic information points is especially important, apparently. 

Directly from our state media: 

 

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/scholz-taurus-ukraine-102.html

 

France and UK can program these without having problems with their own constitution. We cant do it. 

 

No one believes Scholz, just excuses because he doesn't want to do it. And why is germany even in NATO if it can't ever fight to defend anyone, anywhere?

[changegonnacome]

11 hours ago, ValueArb said:

World war 2 started in a large part because Neville Chamberlin signed a "peace" agreement instead of meeting uncontained aggression with steel. His mistake in not being willing to accept some losses early led to the deaths of nearly 100M people. 

 

I dunno @ValueArb - I get some of your points and they aren't without validity in spots but there's a central problem with your broad framework for this whole Russian-Ukraine conflict.

 

You keep applying the WWII Hitler policy of appeasement blunder to the Russian-Ukraine war...the whole Putin as an imperialist thesis....ya know first he takes Kyiv and then he marches West to take Warsaw idea..........but at the same time and in your own words you a few times said something to effect that "Russia is a third world country", its military hardware is junk and 40yrs out of date.

 

So you simultaneously inflate the Russian threat (Imperialists hell bent on expansionary USSR recreating wars) and then (correctly) identify their totally limited military/economic capabilities. So you're wrong on the former (Putin the Imperialist) and correct on the latter (Russia the militarily weak opponent)....but you can't hold those same ideas at the same time I think. I mean look at the evidence - unlike Hitler - Putin hasn't spent the last half decade building up his military ground forces to allow for a land invasion & recapture of Ukraine/Poland/Georgia/Lithunia.

 

So ya know Russia is not Germany in 1945.........and its question of motive and means......Putin may have imperialist desires deep in his heart but he most certainly doesn't have the means to carry out that (isnt this Ukraine conflict an example of how limited his capabilities are?!?) and in fact he has shown almost zero preparation over the last decade to carry out anything that looks like imperialism....imperialism requires a build up of ground capabilities....and Russia's military has atrophied and stagnanted this last decade. 

 

The mistake of comparing this situation to some kind of appeasement policy of WWII as mechanism by which you argue that NO deal ever should be done with Russia on Ukraine cause it would only serve to embolden Putin to march forward later.....forgets the MOST important element here......and its the capabilities or means piece......Russia is a third world country as compared to us in the West from a military standpoint....in conventional warfare (not nuclear) Russia hasnt a chance against even a half baked NATO response.

 

The mistake of appeasement in the 40's was not necessarily getting Hitler's intent and motives wrong.......the mistake Chamberlain and other leaders made....was the hubris to think one could even know someone's true intentions.....so you look past feeble judgments of intent and instead focus on capability.....Winston Churchill might have guessed Hitler's intent correctly but putting aside Hitler's intent Churchhill knew that Nazi Germany most definitely had the MEANS (GDP/population/industrial base/artillery/equipment and standing & reserve military) to carry out an imperialist campaign.....and given those set of facts.......appeasement was the MOST dangerous response to Hitler's early aggression.

 

Coming back to Ukraine - and to use your own words again......Russia is militarily a third world country.......the Ukraine-Russia situation therefore is almost by capability alone a regional conflict and will remain so.....if Russia's capabilities or means change over time I reserve the right to change my mind but even today I dont see that.....in fact perpetuating this conflict with Ukraine, when a sensible end to the conflict might exist, only encourages Russia to build out its ground capabilities......at the moment however that is not the case......a negotiated imperfect peace that includes some 'appeasement' to Russia on Eastern Ukraine territories could and should be pursued for the literal good of the millions of people who live in Ukraine and the millions more who are now refugees all over Europe. Enabling Zelensky indefinitely with money/arms to live out his own personal Churchill fantasies while putting his own people through the meat grinder in the East is not an optimal or smart outcome. Some territories are lost forever and Zelensky and the West should draw some redlines around an economically viable future Ukraine....and do whatever it takes to fight and reclaim that pragmatic map and once achieved fly to Istanbul again and tell Putin what happens next if he doesn't stand down and sign a peace agreement. 

 

 

Edited March 14 by changegonnacome

[Parsad]

13 hours ago, Luca said:

If the US wants to fight an active war against russia, they can decide to do that but i hope for our own lives that germany wont join the madman move. 

 

 

 

I hope that Germany doesn't join either, but that includes having some faith in a man who imprisons, poisons and kills those that stand in his way. 

 

Now hopefully you and ValueArb can stop arguing and let people return to reporting the news on the war and any constructive criticism of it.  Cheers!

[Xerxes]

14 hours ago, Luca said:

Hope you enjoy your amusement! It's amusing to me that you think Russia won't notice that and will immediately retaliate that move. 

If the us decides to push their military bases further and further to russia, i understand that they are doing something about it. 

 

What do you think will happen if china builds military bases at the border to mexico? Do you think the US will "negotiate"

 

The “dead hand” would be the deterrence as the system is built to retaliate in case of a pre-emptive decapitation strike. 

 

I have read David Hoffman’ book on it. It was built by a very nervous Soviet leadership before the fall. They saw threats everywhere. 
 

They were so paranoid that they did not even disclose the “dead hand” existence. Usually you need to disclose your deterrence capabilities, so that the other side is “deterred”. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand

https://www.amazon.ca/Dead-Hand-Untold-Dangerous-Legacy/dp/0307387844?nodl=1&dplnkId=3ecd89c2-6c4e-4fd3-aeb6-b8edf7903764

 

[Xerxes]

16 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

I dunno @ValueArb - I get some of your points and they aren't without validity in spots but there's a central problem with your broad framework for this whole Russian-Ukraine conflict.

 

You keep applying the WWII Hitler policy of appeasement blunder to the Russian-Ukraine war...the whole Putin as an imperialist thesis....ya know first he takes Kyiv and then he marches West to take Warsaw idea..........but at the same time and in your own words you a few times said something to effect that "Russia is a third world country", its military hardware is junk and 40yrs out of date.

 

So you simultaneously inflate the Russian threat (Imperialists hell bent on expansionary USSR recreating wars) and then (correctly) identify their totally limited military/economic capabilities. So you're wrong on the former (Putin the Imperialist) and correct on the latter (Russia the militarily weak opponent)....but you can't hold those same ideas at the same time I think. I mean look at the evidence - unlike Hitler - Putin hasn't spent the last half decade building up his military ground forces to allow for a land invasion & recapture of Ukraine/Poland/Georgia/Lithunia.

 

So ya know Russia is not Germany in 1945.........and its question of motive and means......Putin may have imperialist desires deep in his heart but he most certainly doesn't have the means to carry out that (isnt this Ukraine conflict an example of how limited his capabilities are?!?) and in fact he has shown almost zero preparation over the last decade to carry out anything that looks like imperialism....imperialism requires a build up of ground capabilities....and Russia's military has atrophied and stagnanted this last decade. 

 

The mistake of comparing this situation to some kind of appeasement policy of WWII as mechanism by which you argue that NO deal ever should be done with Russia on Ukraine cause it would only serve to embolden Putin to march forward later.....forgets the MOST important element here......and its the capabilities or means piece......Russia is a third world country as compared to us in the West from a military standpoint....in conventional warfare (not nuclear) Russia hasnt a chance against even a half baked NATO response.

 

The mistake of appeasement in the 40's was not necessarily getting Hitler's intent and motives wrong.......the mistake Chamberlain and other leaders made....was the hubris to think one could even know someone's true intentions.....so you look past feeble judgments of intent and instead focus on capability.....Winston Churchill might have guessed Hitler's intent correctly but putting aside Hitler's intent Churchhill knew that Nazi Germany most definitely had the MEANS (GDP/population/industrial base/artillery/equipment and standing & reserve military) to carry out an imperialist campaign.....and given those set of facts.......appeasement was the MOST dangerous response to Hitler's early aggression.

 

Coming back to Ukraine - and to use your own words again......Russia is militarily a third world country.......the Ukraine-Russia situation therefore is almost by capability alone a regional conflict and will remain so.....if Russia's capabilities or means change over time I reserve the right to change my mind but even today I dont see that.....in fact perpetuating this conflict with Ukraine, when a sensible end to the conflict might exist, only encourages Russia to build out its ground capabilities......at the moment however that is not the case......a negotiated imperfect peace that includes some 'appeasement' to Russia on Eastern Ukraine territories could and should be pursued for the literal good of the millions of people who live in Ukraine and the millions more who are now refugees all over Europe. Enabling Zelensky indefinitely with money/arms to live out his own personal Churchill fantasies while putting his own people through the meat grinder in the East is not an optimal or smart outcome. Some territories are lost forever and Zelensky and the West should draw some redlines around an economically viable future Ukraine....and do whatever it takes to fight and reclaim that pragmatic map and once achieved fly to Istanbul again and tell Putin what happens next if he doesn't stand down and sign a peace agreement. 

 

 

 

I think sometimes Westerners forget (or don’t know) that the entire Western colonial empires were built via taking a bite, appeasing and then backstabbing and taking another bite. Rinse and repeat. All year long. 
 

The issue with Chamberlain, Munich and now overused infamous appeasement is that it involved Germany. A rival continental superpower.
 

If the roles were reversed, you would not have a myth built around it as cautionary tale. Only Britain is allowed to pull that. Not Germany. 

 

PS: Hitler just followed empire building blueprint pioneered by the British*. His mistake was to use it in Europe against fellow white people. Blasphemy!!!!  

*yes I am quite familiar with the commercial nature of British empire. But the way they creeped and felled the Mughuls and others slowly biting, being appeased by the victims, biting another limb off. Slowly but surely felling one civilization after another. 

 

 

Edited March 14 by Xerxes

[ValueArb]

20 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

I dunno @ValueArb - I get some of your points and they aren't without validity in spots but there's a central problem with your broad framework for this whole Russian-Ukraine conflict.

 

You keep applying the WWII Hitler policy of appeasement blunder to the Russian-Ukraine war...the whole Putin as an imperialist thesis....ya know first he takes Kyiv and then he marches West to take Warsaw idea..........but at the same time and in your own words you a few times said something to effect that "Russia is a third world country", its military hardware is junk and 40yrs out of date.

 

Russian military hardware is out of date because it was built by the Soviets, and wasn't so junky 40 years ago. I'm not arguing that europe or Poland is in imminent danger, just that Russia + Ukraine + Georgia + etc gives Putin a lot more resources and GDP to build better weapons with and a lot more cannon fodder for the next conflict. 

 

 

20 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

So you simultaneously inflate the Russian threat (Imperialists hell bent on expansionary USSR recreating wars) and then (correctly) identify their totally limited military/economic capabilities. So you're wrong on the former (Putin the Imperialist) and correct on the latter (Russia the militarily weak opponent)....but you can't hold those same ideas at the same time I think. I mean look at the evidence - unlike Hitler - Putin hasn't spent the last half decade building up his military ground forces to allow for a land invasion & recapture of Ukraine/Poland/Georgia/Lithunia.

 

Putin has prepared his forces for invasion of Ukraine first, what comes next will be opportunistic. His long (historically inaccurate) screeds on how Ukraine has always been part of Russia lays the ground work for the first part and is absolutely the act of an imperialist. 

 

20 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

So ya know Russia is not Germany in 1945.........and its question of motive and means......Putin may have imperialist desires deep in his heart but he most certainly doesn't have the means to carry out that (isnt this Ukraine conflict an example of how limited his capabilities are?!?) and in fact he has shown almost zero preparation over the last decade to carry out anything that looks like imperialism....imperialism requires a build up of ground capabilities....and Russia's military has atrophied and stagnanted this last decade. 

 

The fact that Putin miscalculated so far doesn't mean he's miscalculated entirely. He vastly over-estimated the capabilities of his klepto-weakened military at the start of the war, and he vastly under-estimated world response and support for Ukraine (or he assumed the war would be over in days, well before anyone could do anything).

 

But he has pivoted to meat-grinder tactics and lower tech weaponry (such as glide bombs) that can still bring him victory in Ukraine over time if Western support for Ukraine lags. 

 

20 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

The mistake of comparing this situation to some kind of appeasement policy of WWII as mechanism by which you argue that NO deal ever should be done with Russia on Ukraine cause it would only serve to embolden Putin to march forward later.....forgets the MOST important element here......and its the capabilities or means piece......Russia is a third world country as compared to us in the West from a military standpoint....in conventional warfare (not nuclear) Russia hasnt a chance against even a half baked NATO response.

 

What NATO response? Germany won't even send Ukraine useful weapons. Putin would happily take a few years as a breather to rebuild, tamp down on domestic dissent, and then when Ukraine is left alone again try another lightning raid with all the lessons learned to break Ukrainian lines and overwhelm Kyiv and dash to the sea. He's if anything a patient man. 

 

20 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

The mistake of appeasement in the 40's was not necessarily getting Hitler's intent and motives wrong.......the mistake Chamberlain and other leaders made....was the hubris to think one could even know someone's true intentions.....so you look past feeble judgments of intent and instead focus on capability.....Winston Churchill might have guessed Hitler's intent correctly but putting aside Hitler's intent Churchhill knew that Nazi Germany most definitely had the MEANS (GDP/population/industrial base/artillery/equipment and standing & reserve military) to carry out an imperialist campaign.....and given those set of facts.......appeasement was the MOST dangerous response to Hitler's early aggression.

 

Ironically the german army was mostly shite early in the war. Their tanks sucked, most of their planes were mediocre, etc. But they were able to pick on one smaller opponent after another, and when they finally had to take on equal weight opponents in France and the UK they had battle hardened troops ready to exploit a single strategic mis-step against a france that really wasn't ready to fight.

 

Once blooded, the Brits kicked Germany's behind in the battle of britain, and exposed most of the German airforce as inadequate. But by that point almost all of europe had been lost.

 

 

20 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

Coming back to Ukraine - and to use your own words again......Russia is militarily a third world country.......the Ukraine-Russia situation therefore is almost by capability alone a regional conflict and will remain so.....if Russia's capabilities or means change over time I reserve the right to change my mind but even today I dont see that.....in fact perpetuating this conflict with Ukraine, when a sensible end to the conflict might exist, only encourages Russia to build out its ground capabilities......at the moment however that is not the case......a negotiated imperfect peace that includes some 'appeasement' to Russia on Eastern Ukraine territories could and should be pursued for the literal good of the millions of people who live in Ukraine and the millions more who are now refugees all over Europe. Enabling Zelensky indefinitely with money/arms to live out his own personal Churchill fantasies while putting his own people through the meat grinder in the East is not an optimal or smart outcome. Some territories are lost forever and Zelensky and the West should draw some redlines around an economically viable future Ukraine....and do whatever it takes to fight and reclaim that pragmatic map and once achieved fly to Istanbul again and tell Putin what happens next if he doesn't stand down and sign a peace agreement. 

 

 

 

I'd agree with all of this if it was likely that the peace would last for a long time. I'm just arguing that it won't last long, and there is little reason to believe it will given Putin's track record of lies. And then you've got far more Ukrainian refugees, casualties, torture and rape victims as Ukraine collapses quickly in the next assault.

 

If we want to sign a peace treaty that leaves the border where it is now, it has to include Ukraine membership in NATO and the EU. That's the only possible way to be confident of Ukraine's survival and doesn't just defer even more death, torture and rape a few years. It wouldn't be just, or right, but it would give us confidence the death will stop for a long while.

[ValueArb]

7 hours ago, Xerxes said:

 

The “dead hand” would be the deterrence as the system is built to retaliate in case of a pre-emptive decapitation strike. 

 

I have read David Hoffman’ book on it. It was built by a very nervous Soviet leadership before the fall. They saw threats everywhere. 
 

They were so paranoid that they did not even disclose the “dead hand” existence. Usually you need to disclose your deterrence capabilities, so that the other side is “deterred”. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand

https://www.amazon.ca/Dead-Hand-Untold-Dangerous-Legacy/dp/0307387844?nodl=1&dplnkId=3ecd89c2-6c4e-4fd3-aeb6-b8edf7903764

 

 

 

My favorite documentary on how the "dead hand" works.

 

 

[changegonnacome]

5 hours ago, Xerxes said:

The issue with Chamberlain, Munich and now overused infamous appeasement is that it involved Germany. A rival continental superpower.

 

Exactly my point - motive/intent in international security assessments matter very little and in some sense are unknowable..it requires truly knowing whats inside the mind of a countries leader (or leadership)........it's ALWAYS a question IMO of means when assessing an appropriate response....to this day military means remain highly knowable.......even an under resourced intelligence agency can figure out an opponent's capability - number of fighter jets, ground forces, reservatists, population of men aged 20 -35, artillery capability, tanks, aircraft carriers, submarines.....Germany had the means to become imperialists in 1945 across every vector....coming to a decision of action based on what Hitler said in a meeting and then hoping for the best was a huge blunder when attempting to formulate a response strategy to Hitler's early acts of aggression.......Russia in the year 2024......I mean give me a break.....Biden loses or anybody else loses all credibility trying to frame this version of Russia as some kind of entity capable of true expansionary imperialism.......regional mischief making......sure.....expansionary edge outs from Russia itself, most definitely....but recreating the USSR and all that would entail economically & militarily......eh I dont think so.....China however.......appease them in Taiwan at your peril.

 

I say all this only to highlight that an off ramp exists IMO for the United States, Russia and Ukraine....because Russia's capabilities as they stand today are so limited. Sufficient pain can be inflicted, at not much cost to the West, to create a mutually hurting stalemate which would trigger some imperfect peace in the region and would allow the United States to get back to the real emerging threat akin to a Germany in the 1930's.....a rising China.

[changegonnacome]

1 hour ago, ValueArb said:

I'm not arguing that europe or Poland is in imminent danger, just that Russia + Ukraine + Georgia + etc gives Putin a lot more resources and GDP to build better weapons with and a lot more cannon fodder for the next conflict. 

 

You don't need to worry - he never had nor does he have the capability to take Ukraine & Georgia in its totality...........never mind a quick invasion/conquering of those places...which again he failed at (although I don't believe that was ever the plan - a quick Zelensky coup/shock and awe was the plan).......the resources required to occupy a hostile territory & hostile population are basically 5x those required to invade it - it would be mind boggling large resource hog.

 

Occupying Ukraine & Georgia would not be additive to core Russia IMO.....it would effectively bankrupt the country.

Edited March 14 by changegonnacome

[cubsfan]

Eventually, this probably needs to end as a stalemate, with a new DMZ, partitioning Ukraine.

 

For Putin to save face and declare victory to the Russian people - he keeps Donbas, and of course, Crimea, and no NATO membership.  Zelensky says he saved the rest of Ukraine, which he did. 

 

I can't see anything other than a negotiated settlement. Europe doesn't want to throw troops at this. Ukraine doesn't have the troops. Russia does. Europe and the Ukrainian will have enough commitment staffing a fortified border. Ukraine can not sustain these type of losses.

 

No one completely happy, but each can declare victory.

[Xerxes]

1 hour ago, ValueArb said:

 

 

My favorite documentary on how the "dead hand" works.

 

 

man. Those trailers were so long back in the day. 

[Gamecock-YT]

8 hours ago, ValueArb said:

 

 

My favorite documentary on how the "dead hand" works.

 

 

 

also teaches the dangers of fluoridation