Putin Invades Ukraine II

[SilentMajority]

Glennds and vantale, I hereby invoke Godwin's law.

When people on the internewebs start channeling Hitler, the purpose is to end discussion.

[Mountaineer]

Glennds.....find a map of Europe with longitudinal lines and run due south of Moscow and see what countries you hit. I'm pretty sure Ukraine runs east of it.

You don't need to be Eisenhower to see how vastly different and more threatening NATO armies in Ukraine are to Russia vs in Latvia or Estonia. This should be obvious at a glance even for people with little military or historical understanding.

Regarding Russian security being more important than the Ukraine's....I don't think anyone here said that yet but i think it's an important concept.

The Ukraine is a small and poor country. Unless the big boys use it as a proxy battleground (as NATO is now), it's security doesn't threaten stability and safety of the entire planet. Russia is much larger, more powerful, with powerful close allies who are also constant targets of NATO and the Western governments. Russia's insecurity does threaten the world. If Russia is secure, the threat of global or nuclear war drops massively and trade, especially in energy and strategic metals can flourish.

No one has yet answered this question I've asked several times here. I will see if you will answer it.

Even Hitler before he invaded Poland on September 1, 1939 believed he needed a precipitating event to invade another country. The night before he set up a fake attack by Poland on Germany so Germany would have grounds to respond in kind.

What was Russia's precipitating event on February 24, 2022 so that its last recourse was to invade another country? What had happened the day before to cause this drastic measure?

A mean tweet. You have been answered.

[SilentMajority]

Glennds.....find a map of Europe with longitudinal lines and run due south of Moscow and see what countries you hit. I'm pretty sure Ukraine runs east of it.

You don't need to be Eisenhower to see how vastly different and more threatening NATO armies in Ukraine are to Russia vs in Latvia or Estonia. This should be obvious at a glance even for people with little military or historical understanding.

Regarding Russian security being more important than the Ukraine's....I don't think anyone here said that yet but i think it's an important concept.

The Ukraine is a small and poor country. Unless the big boys use it as a proxy battleground (as NATO is now), it's security doesn't threaten stability and safety of the entire planet. Russia is much larger, more powerful, with powerful close allies who are also constant targets of NATO and the Western governments. Russia's insecurity does threaten the world. If Russia is secure, the threat of global or nuclear war drops massively and trade, especially in energy and strategic metals can flourish.

No one has yet answered this question I've asked several times here. I will see if you will answer it.

Even Hitler before he invaded Poland on September 1, 1939 believed he needed a precipitating event to invade another country. The night before he set up a fake attack by Poland on Germany so Germany would have grounds to respond in kind.

What was Russia's precipitating event on February 24, 2022 so that its last recourse was to invade another country? What had happened the day before to cause this drastic measure?

A mean tweet. You have been answered.

Mean tweets are so mean.

[glennds]

What was Russia's precipitating event on February 24, 2022 so that its last recourse was to invade another country? What had happened the day before to cause this drastic measure?

Vinny,
I don't believe there was a single precipitating event as such i.e Russia retaliating after being attacked by Ukraine, or something like that.
Well after Russia's military buildup began, they put forth an 8 point list of demands in December 2021. Some of those demands were actually quite reasonable. But the last few were non-starters.
The non-starters were (I paraphrase):
1. A freeze on NATO membership i.e. NO new members, not just Ukraine
2. A ban on any members conducting "military activity... on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, South Caucuses, and in Central Asia..."

Depending on how specifically you define Eastern Europe, South Caucuses and Central Asia, basically Russia's demand was to dismantle NATO with respect to these expansive areas.

NATO is primarily a security, military and defense alliance.
NATO consists of 30 countries at present.
What Russia proposed was effectively removing 15 of those countries from NATO.

[glennds]

Glennds and vantale, I hereby invoke Godwin's law.

If you're really being serious, Godwin's law is mostly aimed at the use of Hitler comparisons in the context of the Holocaust which you know is not the case here.

Godwin's law itself can be applied mistakenly or abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, when fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate.[11] Godwin himself has also criticized the overapplication of the law, claiming that it does not articulate a fallacy, but rather is intended to reduce the frequency of inappropriate and hyperbolic comparisons.

The list of similarities is extensive

[vnatale]

What was Russia's precipitating event on February 24, 2022 so that its last recourse was to invade another country? What had happened the day before to cause this drastic measure?

Vinny,
I don't believe there was a single precipitating event as such i.e Russia retaliating after being attacked by Ukraine, or something like that.
Well after Russia's military buildup began, they put forth an 8 point list of demands in December 2021. Some of those demands were actually quite reasonable. But the last few were non-starters.
The non-starters were (I paraphrase):
1. A freeze on NATO membership i.e. NO new members, not just Ukraine
2. A ban on any members conducting "military activity... on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, South Caucuses, and in Central Asia..."

Depending on how specifically you define Eastern Europe, South Caucuses and Central Asia, basically Russia's demand was to dismantle NATO with respect to these expansive areas.

NATO is primarily a security, military and defense alliance.
NATO consists of 30 countries at present.
What Russia proposed was effectively removing 15 of those countries from NATO.

Until now I was not aware of that list. But did it end with ... "and if these demands are not met we will invade Ukraine? With our purpose in Ukraine to do [what?].

I believe in our wrongly conceived war with Iraq we did have debate in our Congress regarding going to war and there were several demands made on Iraq with the clear consequences that if these demands were not met then we were invading

Was there any such clarity in any way regarding this for Russia / Ukraine?

Did the Russian people and their representatives involve themselves in any open debate regarding going to war with Ukraine? Were there any clear demands with clear consequences made by Russia?

[SilentMajority]

What was Russia's precipitating event on February 24, 2022 so that its last recourse was to invade another country? What had happened the day before to cause this drastic measure?

Vinny,
I don't believe there was a single precipitating event as such i.e Russia retaliating after being attacked by Ukraine, or something like that.
Well after Russia's military buildup began, they put forth an 8 point list of demands in December 2021. Some of those demands were actually quite reasonable. But the last few were non-starters.
The non-starters were (I paraphrase):
1. A freeze on NATO membership i.e. NO new members, not just Ukraine
2. A ban on any members conducting "military activity... on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, South Caucuses, and in Central Asia..."

Depending on how specifically you define Eastern Europe, South Caucuses and Central Asia, basically Russia's demand was to dismantle NATO with respect to these expansive areas.

NATO is primarily a security, military and defense alliance.
NATO consists of 30 countries at present.
What Russia proposed was effectively removing 15 of those countries from NATO.

Why are those non-starters? How frequently do countries that are staging an invasion claim they are simply running military drills? Can you understand why Russian would not want a hostile military alliance running "drills" on or near its border? Can you see how such drills would threaten Russia and/or peace? Why does NATO need members on the Russian border? How does that benefit the current members other than to risk war? Can you see the benefit of having neutral buffer states between belligerents?

[SilentMajority]

Glennds and vantale, I hereby invoke Godwin's law.

If you're really being serious, Godwin's law is mostly aimed at the use of Hitler comparisons in the context of the Holocaust which you know is not the case here.

Godwin's law itself can be applied mistakenly or abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, when fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate.[11] Godwin himself has also criticized the overapplication of the law, claiming that it does not articulate a fallacy, but rather is intended to reduce the frequency of inappropriate and hyperbolic comparisons.

The list of similarities is extensive

I think it was quite an appropriate reference to Godwin. Surely we can have a discussion about Russia/Ukraine that doesn't involve comparing Putin to Hitler or Russia to Nazi Germany. The irony being that Ukraine has literal Nazi military units.

[SilentMajority]

Godwin's law, also known as Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies, is a statement maintaining that if any online discussion continues long enough, someone will almost certainly compare someone else to Hitler. Typically, the comment likens someone to Hitler or calls that person a Nazi, and the individual described in that way is often a participant in the discussion. The law is thought to apply to conversations about any conceivable topic.

Mike Godwin, an American lawyer and author, formulated the law in reference to Usenet newsgroup discussions but it is now widely considered applicable to any online channel and particularly to social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, where large groups of loosely-connected individuals frequently engage in extended and contentious arguments about all sorts of things.

Godwin originally developed the idea in 1990 as “a natural law of Usenet," expressed in the following statement: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1." (A probability of 1 is a certainty.) A corollary to Godwin's law states that once Hitler is mentioned, that discussion is ended. The implication is that the level of discourse has devolved to the degree that further communication is pointless. According to Usenet tradition, whoever mentioned Hitler is deemed to have lost the argument.

[Xan]

Glennds and vantale, I hereby invoke Godwin's law.

If you're really being serious, Godwin's law is mostly aimed at the use of Hitler comparisons in the context of the Holocaust which you know is not the case here.

Godwin's law itself can be applied mistakenly or abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, when fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate.[11] Godwin himself has also criticized the overapplication of the law, claiming that it does not articulate a fallacy, but rather is intended to reduce the frequency of inappropriate and hyperbolic comparisons.

The list of similarities is extensive

I think it was quite an appropriate reference to Godwin. Surely we can have a discussion about Russia/Ukraine that doesn't involve comparing Putin to Hitler or Russia to Nazi Germany. The irony being that Ukraine has literal Nazi military units.

Normally, Hitler comparisons are hyperbolic. In this case it's the most apt comparison. Feel free to describe how the analogy fails if you like, but I don't think it's fair to shut down the discussion just because the comparison is being made.

[glennds]

I still think the Germany 1939 similarities are the most striking, but if Hitler is conveniently off the table, there are more than a few similarities with Napoleon. At least in terms of invading other countries for the alleged purpose of one's own security.
Not to mention a ruler, in this case self-declared Emperor, whose authority was singular and unilateral.

Is there a Godwin's law that cuts off a Napoleonic comparison?
The longer the Ukraine conflict goes on, the more I have wondered if it could ironically end for Putin the way Napoleon's invasion of Russia ended for him. Talk about irony.

I remember that right up until the point the USSR was spent into collapse, they were seemingly unstoppable. Us average joes have no way of knowing Russia's staying power. Especially if China, with its problems, is no longer a Wall to lean on.

[SilentMajority]

Glennds and vantale, I hereby invoke Godwin's law.

If you're really being serious, Godwin's law is mostly aimed at the use of Hitler comparisons in the context of the Holocaust which you know is not the case here.

Godwin's law itself can be applied mistakenly or abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, when fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate.[11] Godwin himself has also criticized the overapplication of the law, claiming that it does not articulate a fallacy, but rather is intended to reduce the frequency of inappropriate and hyperbolic comparisons.

The list of similarities is extensive

I think it was quite an appropriate reference to Godwin. Surely we can have a discussion about Russia/Ukraine that doesn't involve comparing Putin to Hitler or Russia to Nazi Germany. The irony being that Ukraine has literal Nazi military units.

Normally, Hitler comparisons are hyperbolic. In this case it's the most apt comparison. Feel free to describe how the analogy fails if you like, but I don't think it's fair to shut down the discussion just because the comparison is being made.

Xan......I described why Russia's security was more important to the world than the Ukraine's in a thoughtful if brief manner in direct response to the other posters question. Rather than address anything I wrote the response was muh Hitler.

1. This is intellectually lazy
2. This is meant to end discussion since it means I'm now defending Hitler with my previous statements.

Surely the side that supports the Ukraine or whatever can do better than "muh Hitler, tell me why Putin isn't Hitler"

As a non-mod I can't shut down discussion, I can just choose to move on when people start doing the Hitler thing. I mean does it EVER get old???

[glennds]

Another comparison!

How about this one - Stalin's 1939 invasion of Finland? Here's an interesting article on it, worth a read - https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... d-00008519

As the article says, lots of similarities, but several differences too. What I liked was the similarity of Stalin underestimating Finnish resolve, as Putin has done in underestimating Ukrainian resolve. Both Stalin and Putin appear to have believed that the Finns and Ukranians would rise up and join their righteous cause. It speaks to what Kbg mentioned in a post about how asymmetrically tough it is to successfully invade another's country. Napoleon found this out in Russia, Stalin in Finland in the sense that his poor performance there inspired Hitler to invade Russia. And let's not forget how in recent history, the US learned the lesson in Vietnam.
I'll leave it to you to decide whether Saddam Hussein and Kuwait in 1990 applies, but fair to say it didn't work out the way he wanted.

Putin supporters are hoping he will beat the odds, but history points to an uphill battle.

And if Politico is leftist garbage, then if you're willing to do the work, you can take the article references as a jumping off point to do your own research on the history.

[Dieter]

Glennds and vantale, I hereby invoke Godwin's law.

If you're really being serious, Godwin's law is mostly aimed at the use of Hitler comparisons in the context of the Holocaust which you know is not the case here.

Godwin's law itself can be applied mistakenly or abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, when fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate.[11] Godwin himself has also criticized the overapplication of the law, claiming that it does not articulate a fallacy, but rather is intended to reduce the frequency of inappropriate and hyperbolic comparisons.

The list of similarities is extensive

I think it was quite an appropriate reference to Godwin. Surely we can have a discussion about Russia/Ukraine that doesn't involve comparing Putin to Hitler or Russia to Nazi Germany. The irony being that Ukraine has literal Nazi military units.

Bringing up Ukrainian Nazis again?

Russia has the Wagner group and is quite the Fascist state

[SilentMajority]

Another comparison!

How about this one - Stalin's 1939 invasion of Finland? Here's an interesting article on it, worth a read - https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... d-00008519

As the article says, lots of similarities, but several differences too. What I liked was the similarity of Stalin underestimating Finnish resolve, as Putin has done in underestimating Ukrainian resolve. Both Stalin and Putin appear to have believed that the Finns and Ukranians would rise up and join their righteous cause. It speaks to what Kbg mentioned in a post about how asymmetrically tough it is to successfully invade another's country. Napoleon found this out in Russia, Stalin in Finland in the sense that his poor performance there inspired Hitler to invade Russia. And let's not forget how in recent history, the US learned the lesson in Vietnam.
I'll leave it to you to decide whether Saddam Hussein and Kuwait in 1991 applies, but fair to say it didn't work out the way he wanted.

Putin supporters are hoping he will beat the odds, but history points to an uphill battle.

And if Politico is leftist garbage, then if you're willing to do the work, you can take the article references as a jumping off point to do your own research on the history.

I think we've discussed the Finnish comparison on a previous thread and it's instructive.

The Finns lost both the Winter war and continuation war and lost more territory as a result. They would have net gained territory by accepting Moscow's proposals in '39. Soviet Russia under Stalin also did not move onto Helsinki in some attempt to absorb Finland as people are claiming Putin wants to do with Kiev and the Ukraine.

I think comparisons are much closer here than Nazi Germany vis a vis Poland with the exception that the Germans claimed Germans were being treated badly under Polish rule and we know that Kiev was waging war and killing thousands of Russians in the Donbass.

[SilentMajority]

Glennds and vantale, I hereby invoke Godwin's law.

If you're really being serious, Godwin's law is mostly aimed at the use of Hitler comparisons in the context of the Holocaust which you know is not the case here.

Godwin's law itself can be applied mistakenly or abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, when fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate.[11] Godwin himself has also criticized the overapplication of the law, claiming that it does not articulate a fallacy, but rather is intended to reduce the frequency of inappropriate and hyperbolic comparisons.

The list of similarities is extensive

I think it was quite an appropriate reference to Godwin. Surely we can have a discussion about Russia/Ukraine that doesn't involve comparing Putin to Hitler or Russia to Nazi Germany. The irony being that Ukraine has literal Nazi military units.

Bringing up Ukrainian Nazis again?

Russia has the Wagner group and is quite the Fascist state

Putin = Hitler. Got it. Great point.

Also, igaf if the entire Ukrainian army was Nazis. I'm remarking on the irony of people saying muh Hitler and Putin is Hitler while the ukis have Nazi units. You see the irony right?

[Dieter]

What was Russia's precipitating event on February 24, 2022 so that its last recourse was to invade another country? What had happened the day before to cause this drastic measure?

Vinny,
I don't believe there was a single precipitating event as such i.e Russia retaliating after being attacked by Ukraine, or something like that.
Well after Russia's military buildup began, they put forth an 8 point list of demands in December 2021. Some of those demands were actually quite reasonable. But the last few were non-starters.
The non-starters were (I paraphrase):
1. A freeze on NATO membership i.e. NO new members, not just Ukraine
2. A ban on any members conducting "military activity... on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, South Caucuses, and in Central Asia..."

Depending on how specifically you define Eastern Europe, South Caucuses and Central Asia, basically Russia's demand was to dismantle NATO with respect to these expansive areas.

NATO is primarily a security, military and defense alliance.
NATO consists of 30 countries at present.
What Russia proposed was effectively removing 15 of those countries from NATO.

Why are those non-starters? How frequently do countries that are staging an invasion claim they are simply running military drills? Can you understand why Russian would not want a hostile military alliance running "drills" on or near its border? Can you see how such drills would threaten Russia and/or peace? Why does NATO need members on the Russian border? How does that benefit the current members other than to risk war? Can you see the benefit of having neutral buffer states between belligerents?

How the heck do you guarantee those buffer states stay neutral? The goodwill of ones big neighbor?

“Russia” does not have a history of goodwill towards its smaller neighbors

And how the heck is “neutral” defined? Could they join EU? Trade agreements with western countries? ??

Per Russia, the starting point (minimums for negotiation) are overthrowing the existing government (“de-Nazification”), being helpless (de-armed, no outside treaties), and giving up ~30% of their territory

Under those terms, likely to be at best puppet of Russia, until / unless Russia takes over the rest of Ukraine. I’d fully expect them to take Odessa and a land bridge to Moldova

There was an agreement to keep Ukraine independent on its 1991(?) border

IIRC, Ukraine wasn’t close to NATO admission back in 2014. I read somewhere that Ukrainian support for joining NATO was less than 30% back then.

Although that changed

Due to Russias invasion

IMO, to keep the border states “neutral”, one would need a third Nuclear armed alliance. Otherwise, those countries are just at the whims of Russia

[vnatale]

What was Russia's precipitating event on February 24, 2022 so that its last recourse was to invade another country? What had happened the day before to cause this drastic measure?

Vinny,
I don't believe there was a single precipitating event as such i.e Russia retaliating after being attacked by Ukraine, or something like that.
Well after Russia's military buildup began, they put forth an 8 point list of demands in December 2021. Some of those demands were actually quite reasonable. But the last few were non-starters.
The non-starters were (I paraphrase):
1. A freeze on NATO membership i.e. NO new members, not just Ukraine
2. A ban on any members conducting "military activity... on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, South Caucuses, and in Central Asia..."

Depending on how specifically you define Eastern Europe, South Caucuses and Central Asia, basically Russia's demand was to dismantle NATO with respect to these expansive areas.

NATO is primarily a security, military and defense alliance.
NATO consists of 30 countries at present.
What Russia proposed was effectively removing 15 of those countries from NATO.

Why are those non-starters? How frequently do countries that are staging an invasion claim they are simply running military drills? Can you understand why Russian would not want a hostile military alliance running "drills" on or near its border? Can you see how such drills would threaten Russia and/or peace? Why does NATO need members on the Russian border? How does that benefit the current members other than to risk war? Can you see the benefit of having neutral buffer states between belligerents?

Where is there any demonstrated history of NATO members invading another country and keeping any of that country's geography for its own? Yes, we invaded Iraq but then we left completely. Seems like Russia's is projecting it own aggressiveness onto others?

[SilentMajority]

What was Russia's precipitating event on February 24, 2022 so that its last recourse was to invade another country? What had happened the day before to cause this drastic measure?

Vinny,
I don't believe there was a single precipitating event as such i.e Russia retaliating after being attacked by Ukraine, or something like that.
Well after Russia's military buildup began, they put forth an 8 point list of demands in December 2021. Some of those demands were actually quite reasonable. But the last few were non-starters.
The non-starters were (I paraphrase):
1. A freeze on NATO membership i.e. NO new members, not just Ukraine
2. A ban on any members conducting "military activity... on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, South Caucuses, and in Central Asia..."

Depending on how specifically you define Eastern Europe, South Caucuses and Central Asia, basically Russia's demand was to dismantle NATO with respect to these expansive areas.

NATO is primarily a security, military and defense alliance.
NATO consists of 30 countries at present.
What Russia proposed was effectively removing 15 of those countries from NATO.

Why are those non-starters? How frequently do countries that are staging an invasion claim they are simply running military drills? Can you understand why Russian would not want a hostile military alliance running "drills" on or near its border? Can you see how such drills would threaten Russia and/or peace? Why does NATO need members on the Russian border? How does that benefit the current members other than to risk war? Can you see the benefit of having neutral buffer states between belligerents?

How the heck do you guarantee those buffer states stay neutral? The goodwill of ones big neighbor?

Why would you care if the neutral countries join an alliance with Russia? Are you saying that this actually matters? The irony is thick.

You raise a legitimate concern though. How could Russia guarantee the neutrality of it's neighbors in the face of cia and western destabilizion efforts and outright coups like the US in Kiev I'm 2014 while Russian was hosting the winter Olympics.

How about Russia joins NATO? I think they've requested membership a few times.

[SilentMajority]

Sorry dieter, I answered your questions with questions. I'll try to legitimately answer them later if I have time. Apologies. Obv others should join in.

[Dieter]

Well, how are you definitions neutral?

I assumed it was not to be part of either NATO or CSTO

[Dieter]

More from Perun —

Ammunition Shortages in Ukraine

https://youtu.be/deK98IeTjfY

I haven’t made it to the end yet, but, looks like no one is projected to completely run out

But don’t have as much as want, and likely less sometime in 2023, but won’t have to put bayonets on the ends of Howitzers

[dualstow]

Well-known traitor to America, Tulsi Gabbard, speaks on the Ukraine conflict:

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status ... 48?lang=en

https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/fo ... 86aa924733

Unless she's getting paid off by Putin directly, … what possible ulterior motive does she have to make statements like the ones in the links above? …

Maybe there’s no ulterior motive. Maybe she’s just wrong. I like Tulsi Gabbard. But, I do think she’s wrong on this.

[SilentMajority]

Well-known traitor to America, Tulsi Gabbard, speaks on the Ukraine conflict:

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status ... 48?lang=en

https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/fo ... 86aa924733

Unless she's getting paid off by Putin directly, … what possible ulterior motive does she have to make statements like the ones in the links above? …

Maybe there’s no ulterior motive. Maybe she’s just wrong. I like Tulsi Gabbard. But, I do think she’s wrong on this.

I almost completely disdain gabbard, but maybe she's 100% right here. I'll read past the headlines. Based on those she's at least 99% correct.

[dualstow]

Anything’s possible.In any event, I think she believes what she says and says what she believes.