Liz Truss started with one sovereign ruling and quitted with another sovereign holding the crown.

That usually would mean that Truss would have been a prime minister for a long time. :smirk:

Yet this thread won't be long now. Perhaps we go to the Boris Johnson thread again? :snicker:

Nah.

NATO's a threat to Putin's ambitions, a threat to free Kremlin movements/actions, to Putin's Russia bulging. Should be clear to anyone. NATO isn't an existential threat to Russia, cultural or otherwise. Well, except (ironically perhaps) Putin's moves have put Russians in danger. (Nov 6, 2014; May 19, 2021; Feb 14, 2022; Feb 22, 2022.)

Russia's a direct and present, tangible threat to Ukraine (and perhaps some neighbors). Including cultural: Jul 12, 2021; Mar 17, 2022; Mar 18, 2022; Mar 22, 2022; Mar 25, 2022; Apr 5, 2022; Apr 12, 2022; May 6, 2022; Sep 6, 2022; Sep 9, 2022; Sep 13, 2022; Sep 14, 2022; Oct 17, 2022. No wonder the Ukrainians sought NATO protection.

Keep up. (Long thread.)

But, granted, NATO might a factor somewhere. — jorndoe

I think in this case making the most obvious and clear case doesn't matter to some members here.

None of this lends like slightest evidence to the accusations of imperialism. — Mikie

This is simply trolling.

Good bye.

So finally Putin declare martial law... to the territories his army has taken over and are now fought over.

As if those territories wouldn't otherwise be treated as in wartime.

What else would it or could it be:

Trump predicted Durham would uncover “the crime of the century” inside the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies that investigated his campaign’s links to Russia. But so far, no one charged by the special counsel has gone to prison, and only one government employee has pleaded guilty to a criminal offense. In both trials this year, Durham argued that people deceived FBI agents, not that investigators corruptly targeted Trump.

Yet for the Trumpsters, this doesn't matter.

There's no evidence for Russian imperialism, actually. It's a false narrative. — Mikie

Oh false narrative? You must be trolling.



What is annexing more territories from Ukraine into Russia other than pure classical imperialism?

What is Novorossiya anything than imperialism? Or in Putin the Great's words (from the last annexation):

As you know, referendums took place in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. Their results have been summed up, the results are known. People made their choice, a clear choice.

And this, of course, is their right, their inalienable right, which is enshrined in the first article of the UN Charter, which directly speaks of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.

Today we are signing agreements on the admission of the Donetsk People’s Republic, the Luhansk People’s Republic, the Zaporizhia Region and the Kherson Region to Russia. I am sure that the Federal Assembly will support the constitutional laws on the adoption and formation in Russia of four new regions, four new subjects of the Russian Federation, because this is the will of millions of people.

I repeat: this is an inalienable right of people, it is based on historical unity, in the name of which the generations of our ancestors won, those who from the origins of Ancient Russia for centuries created and defended Russia. Here, in Novorossia, Rumyantsev, Suvorov and Ushakov fought, Catherine II and Potemkin founded new cities. Here our grandfathers and great-grandfathers stood to death during the Great Patriotic War.

That above is one big imperialist speaking.

Those statements and warnings were repeatedly ignored. — Mikie

On the contrary. Ukraine and Georgia aren't in NATO. Putin was heard, but as I've said now many times, NATO cannot give a veto to Russia on the matters. But you don't have to go to Russia's friends like Turkey or Hungary, even Germany was saying it won't happen.

You simply cannot deny that. :lol:

Will the war have the effect of cementing Putin's control over Russia? Or loosen it?

The problem with saying Russia was threatened, so we should have seen this coming, is that no one saw it coming. Biden was ridiculed across the globe for warning that Putin was about to invade. Nobody believed it even in Russia and Ukraine. — frank

Or several people here on this forum, who thought it all was American propaganda.

It's hard to know what will happen to Putin and his hold on to power. Dictators can suffer humiliating defeats and then still carry on... just like Saddam Hussein did after Desert Storm. Czar Nicholai the II did face political turmoil after the Russo-Japanese war, but it took World War I to finally sweep him out of power.

And let's face it: if Putin would get an armstice or a frozen conflict on these frontlines at present, he could say the war has had been a great success.

No. The US and NATO had been pushing for membership for years, as I’ve demonstrated. — Mikie

NATO pushing? NATO is made of sovereign states, hence it's like the idea of EU pushing something.

No one is denying what Russia did was wrong. I’m not just focused on the US. I’m talking about the very real threat Russia faced prior to 2022 and prior to 2014, which so far you have dismissed, ignored, or minimized. That’s not an unbiased picture either. — Mikie

Earlier Yugoslavia/Serbia, later Iraq, Libya and Syria faced a threat from NATO. Not Russia. Russia has a nuclear deterrence, hence NATO will not attack it.

It's delirious to think NATO would be a threat to Russia as the organization attacking it. It's a threat to Russia's aspirations to regain back it's Empire that it lost when Soviet Union collapsed, that's for sure. And that's why countries are joining or wanting to join NATO: for a reason that we have now seen is real, not only something hypothetical.

NATO is an existential threat to Russian imperialism. That's the true reason for Putin to be against NATO.

Five years later, in 2013, the United States proved its willingness to follow through on its 2008 promises, when it supported regime change in Ukraine during the Maidan protests. — Tzeentch

I would agree the way you describe it: US supporting a regime change. Yet notice that a lot of Ukrainian administrations have gone since then as there have been elections.

Yet NATO membership isn't just what the US wants. (Which can be seen from the situation of Finland and Sweden). Hence NATO membership was off: something NATO or the US wouldn't publicly admit, but just as de facto thing like Turkey is not going to get EU membership.

From that point onward, the threat of US-backed regime change in Ukraine was a fact. That's what Russia reacted to in March of 2014, and the subsequent 2022 invasion of Ukraine was an unavoidable consequence. — Tzeentch

More like unavoidable consequence of the annexation in 2014 going so well and the territorial objectives that Russia has.

I'm guessing they don't have much patience left for those saying that NATO is an existential threat to Russia and calling it a day. — jorndoe

I'm guessing that is not only confined to Ukraine.

Can anyone see parallels between this Ukraine conflict and the Spanish Civil War 1936-9?
Then as now, via proxy, the various world powers probed each others military capabilities, weapons, and tactics in preparation for the main show to follow. — yebiga

Spanish civil war was truly a civil war: no other country had territorial ambitions on Spain. The Syrian civil war would be more similar.

Better example would be the Korean war. There actually China, the Soviet Union and the US and Western allies were engaged in combat and not just sending arms. (Soviet Air Force was fighting with the USAF in "Mig Alley", which both side kept a secret)

It’s true that Ukraine wasn’t admitted, but for a reason: Russia objected strongly to it. — Xtrix

Not only that would have guaranteed that Ukraine wouldn't have become a NATO member, Ukraine was neutral and there was large support for Ukraine being and staying neutral... until Russia made it's land grab and started this long war. If you take away from the view what Russia has done and just focus on the US, you simply paint a biased picture which isn't truthful.

The threat was very real — and it’s the threat we’re talking about and which you're minimizing. The “assurances” you refer to are just false— you’re overlooking events from 2008 onward. — Xtrix

If you don't take into account the hostility and aggression of Russia, the territorial annexations and talk of Ukraine being an artificial country etc. then you are simply denying that Russia's actions here do matter. It's hostility is the only cause why NATO is enlarging now on it's borders with Finland and Sweden.

Perhaps you don't understand political discourse. NATO has a charter, it cannot go against it's charter and formally give Russia a veto on just how applies for it. But it's members can surely de facto give that to Russia and had given that to Russia when it came to Ukraine. But this fact seems to evade you.

This story that Putin was given “every assurance” is just false. — Xtrix

Ukraine wasn't let into NATO. Not for two decades. That is a fact. And extremely likely that would have continued because Russia could easily pressure this. Far more easily than making an all-out invasion on Ukraine.

You do understand that attacking Ukraine on February 24th changed a lot?

Finland and Sweden wouldn't have applied for NATO membership if 2/24 hadn't happened. That is just the reality.

Now that NATO membership of Ukraine might really be in the works.

I’m not clinging to that idea — I think the evidence points in the direction that it’s the main factor, yes. — Xtrix

How can territorial annexations be less important?

I’m biased towards emphasizing the role of the US because it’s where I live. — Xtrix

You should not be biased. The reasons should be the same where ever you look at it. Understanding that people look differently at things doesn't mean that there cannot be objectivity.

Isaac, I have been pretty consistent about this.

I haven't denied that NATO is one reason. What I have said again and again is that it isn't the most important reason, and it would have been taken care of without attacking Ukraine. Hence the NATO argument simply doesn't cut it as an explanation for Putin's actions. Just like "spreading democracy" was a reason for Bush to invade Iraq. But "spreading democracy" simply isn't the most important reason for the war in Iraq and to emphasize this reason simply makes an inaccurate answer for the reasons for the invasion.

The NATO summit of 2008, for those that remember, made it very clear indeed: — Xtrix

Did it? Really, look at that text you quoted.

But Putin has had notable success in blocking NATO membership for its former Soviet neighbors — Ukraine and Georgia.

And then that was in 2008. That it was said over fourteen years ago and again just proves my point. And Scholz made that statement THIS YEAR. Yet no matter how much assurances Putin got about Ukraine not going to join NATO, Putin didn't care a shit about it when he launched the attack. It was never was about NATO membership in the first place. NATO enlargement was a point like for Bush "spreading democracy" when he invaded Iraq. Yeah, it's important for the US. The simple undeniable fact is that Putin could have prevented Ukraine's NATO membership with far less than attacking Ukraine. Hence it's bizarre to cling on to this idea that "NATO made Putin do it".

Perhaps you believe also that Turkey's on the cusp to become a member of the EU too? EU and Turkey have had discussions about membership for ages. :snicker:

Bravo. :cheer:

Have to put this quote to this thread:

(March 1941) “ … What are we doing supplying all these arms to the British? Don’t misunderstand me, no one is a bigger admirer of the British than I am. So brave, the way they fight on, in spite of everything.

But isn’t this lend-lease deal simply prolonging the inevitable? It’s not the cost to the taxpayer I’m concerned about – although my God it does add up, doesn’t it? No, I’m talking about the cost in British lives.

It’s easy for these armchair generals to talk about the need to stand up to Mr. Hitler but I don’t see any of them enlisting. I have to ask: How long can this war go on? Do we keep sending Britain arms forever? I mean, what’s our exit strategy?...”

Well, you'll see it in 2027-2030 when you buy a BigMac.

If it's still 5 dollars, I was wrong.

Before.

Did you notice me talking about the dam breaking?

Before the dam breaks, everything is just fine and dry. Then when it breaks, things get wet.

This is an example of things being for long one way until they aren't.

That's not even a counterargument. :roll:

If Russia are useless at invading places they cannot at the same time be a serious threat to any great number of such places. One cannot be both a global threat, and impotent. With what power would such a threat be realised? — Isaac

Agreeing with @neomac.() If Ukraine wouldn't get the huge Western assistance, Russia would likely win this war. Ukraine itself simply wouldn't have had the arms to defend against Russia.

This isn’t true. NATO membership was being contemplated long before Crimea. — Xtrix

It is true.

Bush ago something years ago. Even if he would be a President for life in the US, it's not his decision. It is totally another thing for Ukraine to get into NATO.

And several countries said quite openly that Ukraine shouldn't be in NATO. Starting with Germany:

(Feb 15th, 2022) Olaf Scholz has appeared to rule out any prospect of Nato membership for Ukraine after talks with Vladimir Putin.

“The fact is that all involved know that Nato membership for Ukraine is not on the agenda,” the German chancellor said, in the clearest comments yet by a Western leader on the question.

“Everyone must step back a bit here and be clear that we can’t have a military conflict over a question that is not on the agenda."

So Putin had his assurances that Ukraine would not be in NATO prior attacking Ukraine.

Hence the "NATO made Putin do it" is quite a horseload...

If you're talking about the stimulus payments, I don't think that was enough to generate the inflation we're seeing. — frank

The real reason is the fiscal and monetary policy implemented for decades. I think the basically all the Corona policies implemented just broke the dam.

The Fed is going to increase rates again this fall, but that isn't expected to stop inflation. We'll just have a recession with inflation. :grimace: — frank

I agree. It won't increase it to really take inflation down as the effects of positive real interest rates would be too horrible. Hence inflation continues. Not perhaps as high, but it does. And in a few years time, you will notice that prices have increased dramatically.

If Big Mac costs 5 dollars (?) in the US, few years from now it will be 10 dollars. And likely will be a bit smaller.



This is the future. It sucks. :yikes:

I'm interrogating that claim. You were the one who brought it up, that it is ridiculous to think Ukraine could invade Russia and win. — Isaac

In a way it's just like Finland in 1940. It didn't win Russia. It survived and wasn't annexed as the Baltic States. Finns don't refer to winning the war, but sure are proud about it.

Nothing. It's a perfectly understandable position. It's you who keep popping up every time someone presents any alternative to this narrative to claim their view is ridiculous. — Isaac

More historicist crap.

There is a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, there again an example from history how these can end. — Isaac

What is historicist crap?

There isn't a peace deal with North and South Korea. That is a fact. It's one possibility here. If people are so fixated that Putin cannot back down and find an agreement, then this is one possibility.

Peace agreement with Egypt and Israel, as peace agreements in general in the Arab-Israeli conflict, can also happen. (Usually with the peacemakers actually been killed afterwards)

You have given absolutely no reasons why historical examples cannot show us what the possibilities of the future outcome in this war is.

The economic position of the average American has declined. Even as wages increase, they're in worse shape. You see this as attributable to Biden? — frank

I would say that the combination of Trump's and Biden's policies especially with the Corona pandemic did long term damage, because finally it got the inflation running when the pumped up financial markets would be in for deflation, assuming the market mechanism would be let to operate. Handing out cash to people finally could do it, and the two Presidents are guilty of this.

Just like the debacle in Afghanistan: only possible with both Trump and Biden.

But naturally this view is unacceptable for those with partisan views. :roll:

I didn't ask about attacking, I asked about winning - defeating Russia in a land invasion. You seemed to be saying that Ukraine are not a threat to Russia because they could never successfully invade Russia. — Isaac

I don't know what your obsession here is for "winning" the war. And what is your argument that Russia cannot be stopped? I think Ukraine has made a good effort in stopping Russia.

So what is so difficult for you to understand with this scenario:

1) Russia attacks Ukraine
2) Russia fails to reach it's objectives.
3) Either there is a proper armistice or then Russia continues this like a frozen conflict.

There is no peace-agreement between North Korea and the US/South Korea. Just an armistice. So there again an example from history how these can end.

Correct. Nevertheless, Afghanistan was nowhere near the level of importance to the USSR as Ukraine is now. Nor was it for the United States.

Russia has been mentioning Ukraine as a red line for decades. The West didn't listen. — Manuel

No. Actually the West did. Ukraine wasn't going to go into NATO. Period. But then Russia started to annex territories of Ukraine. It's not about regime change when you have already tried to annex one-fifth of the state. Likely the objective was one forth of the territories and a puppet regime in rest of Ukraine, or something like that. NATO expansion is an convenient excuse and a propaganda argument (like Russia isn't fighting Ukraine, but the West).

According to most military experts, any use of nuclear weapons, even tactical ones, would almost inevitably lead to a full-scale war. — Manuel

It's already a full-scale war. Russia has thrown everything in plus the kitchen sink. The mobilization, which Putin promised wouldn't happen, is a clear indicator of this.

The thing is, this argument takes a massive, massive gamble, that Putin will just bow out of Ukraine and just handle getting embarrassed - this is after all these sanctions, poor military results and so on. I don't see Putin as the type of person who would just not react. One must measure how likely that gamble is to succeed and it's extremely risky, in my view. — Manuel

Let's have a thought experiment: Assume that during the Gulf War in 1991 the Iraqi armed forces would have had high fighting moral and similar combat capabilities as Israeli Defence Forces has and the US lead coalition would have suffered similar defeats as Russia has now. What do you think would have happened? Would it have been better then for the US to make the bluff of using nukes? How much weight to you give this embarrasment issue? Didn't the US just have an enormous embarrasment of losing a war in Afghanistan? How much did that shake Biden's administration? Hell, IT'S BEEN FORGOTTEN! Who is whining about it? Nobody. The longest war in US history...and basically nothing said about it.

Fact: if you are defeated on the battlefield, then you are defeated on the battlefield. If you don't call it quits and try to prolong the defeat, good luck with that.

Putin can stop this war and then just face the consequences and continue. It is actually THAT EASY. Saddam Hussein had two disastrous wars and he was not toppled by Iraqis. That took a full invasion from the US army. Hence Putin can a) have this war end (or be stopped) as an embarrasment and b) continue on ruling Russia until he dies. That is totally a possibility, which I wonder is so difficult to understand.

There's a simple answer to this war: as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight, the West should continue to send aid to Ukraine.

So you admit that Ukraine could not possibly successfully invade Russia? — Isaac

When have I said anything like that? Or when has anybody here said that? There is absolutely 0% chance of Ukraine or the West attacking Russia. I think the examples of Napoleon and Hitler tell how that will end.

Do notice that Ukrainian troops have stopped their advance to their borders and are quite limited in their attacks to Russia proper.

It boils down to the fantasy, which is what it is, that you think Ukraine will be able to defeat a NUCLEAR armed country. It won't. The fact that you can't get this through your head, is more a signal of your own inabilities to understand how fucked up this situation is, than any alleged shortcomings I may have. — Manuel

This is simply nonsense.

1) Nuclear armed countries have lost many wars. Afghans have now gotten victory over to two nuclear armed Superpowers. Nuclear weapons aren't some miracle weapon system, just like chemical warfare.

2) For Ukraine this war is successful when it has repulsed the Russian attack.For a smaller defender to succeed in defense is the objective, not overtaking the aggressors Capital and totally destroying all of it's army. Ukraine won't have it's tanks on the Red Square, hence that kind of victory is a silly argument.

3) Russia has it's limits. Sending the now mobilized troops immediately to the front tells how bad the situation is for Russia. The idea that "Russia cannot lose" is quite naive. This can very well be one of those wars that end up as a huge embarrasment for Russia. It's totally possible.

Reminds me that the Untergang des Abendlandes (The Decline of the West) was written by Oswald Spengler in 1918. And I presume it was not the first of it's kind.

Of course Western culture has been hopelessly stupid for a long time... we just pick the best part later to define what our culture stands for. Those people who we later put up to a pedestal (to define what Western culture is) were actually a minority in their time.

That is why military humiliation on the battlefield (including the killing of generals) combined with Putin’s disposition to put all the blame on and replace military leaders for military failures, is the right recipe for military defection or conspiracy from the military subordinates and high ranks. — neomac

Let's remember that Russia has a long history of liberalization of the system after disastrous lost wars.

The Crimean war - > Afterwards the end of serfdom in Russia.

The Russo-Japanese war - > Afterwards political reforms, the Duma is created.

The war in Afghanistan - > Perestroika and Glasnost

So a really humiliating defeat in the war can be very beneficial to Russia. If it humiliates all those jingoist imperialists that now promote this recapture of the Empire, that would be beneficial. They should be a laughing stock that sane people avoid. The British do understand their Empire isn't coming back. The Austrians understand that their Empire isn't coming back. And so do the Spanish. The Russians should really understand that it's over, really over. Now there's not even the possibility for Russia to hang on to their Empire / colonial territories like the French do, subtly and out of sight accepting the limits of the present.

Americans use superlatives often.

And as the key part of US foreign policy is to talk about (and create) these threats, because Americans don't understand that a lot of their prosperity and position comes from their stance in the Global arena, then the term something being "an existential threat" to US is used frequently. Hence US Foreign Policy is marketed mainly by threats and dangers.

The US is such a large country with so many cities, that in fact a Russian nuclear attack might not be so existential (as likely the targets are military bases and any attacker will leave a nuclear weapons reserve). Assuming we really stick to the definition of existential.

Actually now Putin is a burden for Russia. Like Slobodan Milosevic was for Serbia.

Starting a conventional all-out war with Ukraine, which basically needed all of the Russian Army (and even that wasn't enough) has been a disaster for Russia. Defeat on the battlefield is a real possible option (even if it's not guaranteed). And just what would be the gains? Crimea wasn't some resource rich oilfield like Kuwait was for Iraq. Russia is now a pariah state, it has lost it's valuable trading partners. It has lost it's status compared to China. He has gone back on his promises that there wouldn't be no mobilization and he cannot hide the coffins as he could earlier.

The question is how much truly does the Russian accept the inconveniences of the war for the imperial gain of Novorossiya? How much do they support the war? The Crimean annexation did genuinely excite Russians. It was bloodless and there was support for it in the Crimean population (if not a majority, but anyway). The annexation of these new territories was a Stalinist theatre, especially when Putin is losing ground in them.

The fact is, that if there would be general excitement about the war, the Western media couldn't hide it. There would have been too many Russians on the streets celebrating and chanting "Russia, Russia!". There would be ex-pats coming to Russia to join the fight. There would be Russians stopping Western media crews and telling how justified the cause they are fighting is. Above all, this would be seen in the social media. What we basically have seen from the populace is support for the troops. Supporting yours troops in war is something people do, but that doesn't mean they are enthusiastic for the war (as War on Terror showed with Americans).

Putin first created stability after the Yeltsin years and punched way above his weight class for a long time in the World arena, but now that has been exposed in his latest gamble and he is losing badly. Now he is a real problem for Russia.

Here's the difference.. If Ukraine didn't ally NATO and NATO in turn brutally attacked Ukraine, that would be wrong. But they didn't. Russia did. — schopenhauer1

Well, Putin basically started the civil war that in Yugoslavia happened immediately (thanks to Super-Serb Slobodan Milosevic) now happens decades later from the actual collapse of the Soviet Union. This is the real tragedy here: Perhaps Gorbachev and Yeltsin didn't manage many things well when the Soviet Union collapsed, but they managed to do it peacefully with only few skirmishes and little wars erupting (Georgia, Moldova and Nagorno-Karabakh). Those who have been born after this collapse are already adults and the Soviet Empire is really for many only in the history books. But Putin wants to reconquer at least part of that greatness and this is the end result. Yet in the end Putin will be like Milosevic for Serbia, an absolute disaster.

And now we have a huge conventional war in Europe, a war that is in it's eight year. Hopefully this will end in Russians rethinking just how smart holding to those imperial aspirations is.

Ok. Here's my position: I want the war to end, and I want to find out how best to help that happen. — Xtrix

I think now most important is for the war not to get bigger. So I hope that Belarus can stay out of this: it is a balancing act, but I think that their own dictator can do this balancing act.

Conventional wars like this end with one side losing or being incapable of continuing. Or then simply both sides being understanding that they cannot win and the war is costly for both. If you look at for example the short wars Israel fought, the victory on the battlefield was very clear in the end. Or the Armenian-Azeri war of 2020. Once a conventional war starts, it doesn't stop because of diplomats, diplomats arrange peace-talks only if the situation on the battlefield calls for it.

Both sides here are willing to fight. For Ukraine taking Kherson might be a possibility, but what then is likely to be difficult is to cross the Dniepr. The troops now mobilized by Russia will simply take months to organize. The fact is that the West can keep up the level of military aid it has given to Ukraine, while Russia is losing that material as modern Russia is no Soviet Union.

For Russia to continue this war will likely mean that when the fighting is finally over, I think you will see political turmoil in the country if not earlier. But the outcome isn't obvious. My personal belief is Putin simply has to go. He has started now too many wars, starting from the Second Chechen war onwards. But as this is Russia, that may also happen when he dies of old age many years from now.

From a military perspective, Crimea went rather well for Russia. — Manuel

Best military operations are those, when you accomplish your objectives without any shots fired. When it's something else than a war. Believe me, modern generals are really triumphant about these operations whereas the larger public doesn't notice them as no war occurred.

The most scary thought is that if Putin would have stopped there, he might have gotten away with it. It might have taken a decade, but the likelyhood of the West accepting de facto the annexation of Crimea would have been likely. But a gambler doesn't know when to stop. He had to have that land bridge to Crimea and Novorossiya.

Heck, even without this protracted war, after about a month, maybe two, this dream of his of negotiating with the rest as a great power seems to me to have vanished, because in reality, he can't make it happen. — Manuel

Russia has a habit of having these epic fails in wars where some in their own hubris write off the whole country. They shouldn't do that. The bear can lick it's wounds and sometimes get smarter.

Let’s look at what’s been done, what’s been claimed, and compare to the historical record. Some still claim that the invasion of Iraq was “good” and right, morally. That no WMDs were found is a fact either way. — Xtrix

In a way, the war in Ukraine has given the chance for the West to avoid the really important debate about the War on Terror and especially the war in Afghanistan.

What’s more striking is that one cannot question further without either being labeled a Putin supporter or US jingoist. — Xtrix

Well, let's try. You aren't a Putin supporter and I'm not an American jingoist. (Not even a Finnish jingoist, even if I think of myself as being patriotic.)

You really think he will conquer Finland and Sweden and Germany? But how could he realistically do that and to what end? — Manuel

You are talking to a Finn, you know that?

And I do know what Finlandization is in reality. You see, the Putin's ideologist (that was tried to be killed by Ukrainian intelligence services) said it quite clearly what Russia's intentions ought to be for FInland. To have similar relations as during the Cold War.

You see, if NATO would collapse (like SEATO and CENTO) and EU would become disorganized, Russia could approach every European country on a bilateral basis. And on a one-on-one basis Russia is strong and quite dominant towards every West European country. And that is the objective. It is the objective of an imperialist great power: it won't attack everybody, but sure wants to dominate all the relationships. It's not going to invade every country it can, hence it's not the Mongol Horde you are talking about. So the idea that Russia would try to invade all of Europe is quite naive. Yet without an EU and Atlanticism, Russia is the top dog in Europe.

So, the underlying premise seems to be "If a large country views its neighbor as its dependent client state, it is its right to control the government of that country". — schopenhauer1

Imperialists see the World as zones of control. Other states can actually believe in the sovereignty of nations.

If NATO isn't FORCING their will on Ukraine, and Ukraine vote in majority (democratically) to align more with NATO countries, then how is this wrong? Russia can also freely give to Ukraine as well.. But it seems that it rather align with NATO than Russia. That doesn't mean, ergo Russia gets to invade Ukraine because it didn't get what it wanted. — schopenhauer1

If Russia would be a prosperous, functioning country that has lucrative markets for Ukraine's economy to export, it might be well that we would be talking about CIS as we talk about the EU. Yes, the Ukrainians had their Holodomor, but Russians also suffered during the Soviet Union, hence the attitude could something like modern Germany looks at the Third Reich today. (Not like Putin's Russia looks at Stalin today).

And this question comes even more close to home for me: Why did Finland and Sweden choose to join NATO and not stay out of the military alliance. Well, it's kind of obvious, actually. You really have to be quite clueless not to understand why.

The Russians have been saying that the matter of Ukraine is an existential threat to them since at least 2008, and it has been a hot topic way before. — Tzeentch

Catherine the Great said:

I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.

Russia can portray itself as the victim defending itself, but in fact it is an imperialist entity which basically only during the Soviet Union had one shared common identity. Then the various people in the Empire were Soviets, not Russians. Russia has never been just Russians. It is basically a multicultural state build on a Medieval Empire which outlasted other similar Empires thanks to a revolution that created the Soviet Union. Russia hasn't been able to be as successful in it's Russification as France, Germany or even Italy has been in creating a nation state in the 19th Century (or earlier). And now with Putin, Russia is trying to claw back what it had lost. Hope it will fail and then learn that it has lost it's Empire.



And furthermore, every aggressor will portray itself at least as a defender of something. Someone truly believing the bullshit lie that NATO made Putin to attack Ukraine, that it was the only option left for Putin, likely isn't capable of understanding that he or she is believing a similar enormous lie like Saddam Hussein had ties with Al Qaeda and hence Iraq should be invaded.

After all, I remember those idiots that came even to this forum (or technically the earlier site) to defend the US attack on Iraq and later defended President Bush as "just having got bad intel". Now those believing the Russian line are quite similar to those idiots.

We can't be responsible for your lack of imagination. That you think resistance is either war or nothing is your problem, don't project it on to others. — Isaac

If you think that Adolf Hitler was a peaceful guy and would have satisfied after gaining Danzig and the corridor to East Prussia and hence no WW2, you simply lack a lot.

But then again, according to you the UK surrendering to Nazi Germany during WW2 "might have well have saved thousands of lives on both sides". (Who cares what would have happened to the British Jewish community, which then numbered more than the total UK casualties of WW2, and to those that would have opposed the new regime.)

It's a bit ironic that Vladimir Putin was earlier the most popular politician in Ukraine. If he hadn't annexed Crimea, the World would be really, really different. Putin would be sitting in the G8 and the West would continue to dismantle it's armed forces. And Ukraine and Russia? Talk about a relationship between two peoples that has been broken.

If Russia continues in the path it has taken, Russia will likely also alienate the Belarusians also.

Richard Muller, physics professor emeritus at UC Berkeley, states that energy is the most difficult concept to understand in the basic physics curriculum. It will be interesting to see what people say. — jgill

I think the closest thing that people can understand is BHP, break horse power (with motors) or simply horse power. They can imagine a horse pulling a cart. And that's it.



Very few remember the definition of energy or what joule stands for. Or that 1 watt is 1 joule per second. Those that have to ponder about electric devices or pay the electricity bill might be more aware of the underlying terms. And engineers are different in this case also. Yet even economics, social sciences or in business energy naturally pops up. Just like it does in physics. Yet Richard Muller might be right, just as it's hard for an economist to fathom just what gross domestic product actually is.

Why is it the US being castigated for Putin acting aggressively. This is the same rhetoric against Hitlers trying to take over neighbors and other nations trying not to provoke him. Im pretty sure almost no one agrees with someone like Neville Chamberlain in hindsight. Why would a country be at fault for helping an ally defend against an aggressor? — schopenhauer1

Yes. It's like the ludicrously idiotic idea that if Poland would have accepted Germany's demands (Danzig and the corridor to East Prussia), WW2 would have been prevented and Hitler would have announced that "Germany is satisfied with it's territories" and Hitler's Germany and the World would peacefully coexisted until the present. As if Hitler would be that kind of guy, who builds up a mighty army and never uses it (and forgets everything he has promised to do in his book).

Of course it doesn't make sense. But the US has to be the bad guy. Always.

What I have gathered from this thread is that some people do not want to accept this, because it would justify US and West European actions and put especially the US in a positive light, giving help to a country that has been attacked. For them it is more important to be critical about the US and it's previous actions and meddling around the World. Somehow it's too much to stomach for them that the culprit for this war isn't the US. And then they can take the line of Noam Chomsky that only Russians themselves ought to be critical about their country, Russia, and we ought to stick to being critical of only our own country / alliance. Yet when you are just critical about about one country and stay silent about the ill doings of another, there is an obvious bias.

And that's what I find so irritating in this World: you cannot be both critical in certain occasions and also give support for other actions when they are justified. As if objectivity is impossible. There's a lot that should be discussed about the ill-fated trainwreck that was the war in Afghanistan and basically how the West trampled it's own values in the "War on Terror". However when it comes to the war in Ukraine, Russia's aggression and imperial objectives are so evident, so clear, that is hilarious to uphold the "NATO enlargement made Putin do it" -card.

Fortunately there is sanity in this thread, like @RogueAI shows:

NATO flirting with Ukraine is what started all of this. — Tzeentch

No, it isn't. Putin tried for the easy land grab and it's blown up in his face. — RogueAI