Putin Invades Ukraine II

stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by stuper1 » Wed Nov 23, 2022 9:51 am

Thanks for your posts, Silent Majority. I agree with everything you said, including about liking Grigor Dimitrov. He's one of the most likable on the ATP and maybe one of the most talented. Sometimes I think he's too nice to maximize his talent. I got to see him play live in San Diego last year. His talent is off the charts. Seeing what he could do on return of serve compared to most other players was like watching a man among boys. Sometimes I think it's hard to be a nice person and be a champion at a sport like tennis.

I also like what you said that we ought to be able to disagree on these things without calling each other names like Russia bot or Putin lover. I've never been to Russia and have no Russian heritage. I simply figure they are human beings like everybody else, motivated by pretty much the same things, and probably just like everyone else most of them are fairly decent people.

I'm a bit puzzled by several people pointing out the Cuban missile crisis. Of course, that's the answer to my question. So, if it was ok for the US to do that over Cuba, then why isn't it ok for Russia to do this over Ukraine? The answer of course is that it's not ok actually to invade another country, but it wouldn't have happened if NATO hadn't try to push up to Russia's border. So the NATO push was a very unwise idea and shouldn't have happened, just like Germany shouldn't have been pushed in a corner after WW1 leading to the rise of Hitler. This is what you call realism versus idealism.
SilentMajority
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:10 am

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by SilentMajority » Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:05 am

stuper1 wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 9:51 am
Thanks for your posts, Silent Majority. I agree with everything you said, including about liking Grigor Dimitrov. He's one of the most likable on the ATP and maybe one of the most talented. Sometimes I think he's too nice to maximize his talent. I got to see him play live in San Diego last year.
I think he had a fling with Serena and then dumped her for Sharapova or something. I can't remember where I heard it but I heard that Serena referenced him in her book and called him "Blackheart". So when he's up to play I tell my wife Blackheart is playing. She's not a tennis player but enjoys the drama, especially if the players have beef.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7916
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:06 am

stuper1 wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 9:51 am

Thanks for your posts, Silent Majority. I agree with everything you said, including about liking Grigor Dimitrov. He's one of the most likable on the ATP and maybe one of the most talented. Sometimes I think he's too nice to maximize his talent. I got to see him play live in San Diego last year. His talent is off the charts. Seeing what he could do on return of serve compared to most other players was like watching a man among boys. Sometimes I think it's hard to be a nice person and be a champion at a sport like tennis.

I also like what you said that we ought to be able to disagree on these things without calling each other names like Russia bot or Putin lover. I've never been to Russia and have no Russian heritage. I simply figure they are human beings like everybody else, motivated by pretty much the same things, and probably just like everyone else most of them are fairly decent people.

I'm a bit puzzled by several people pointing out the Cuban missile crisis. Of course, that's the answer to my question. So, if it was ok for the US to do that over Cuba, then why isn't it ok for Russia to do this over Ukraine? The answer of course is that it's not ok actually to invade another country, but it wouldn't have happened if NATO hadn't try to push up to Russia's border. So the NATO push was a very unwise idea and shouldn't have happened, just like Germany shouldn't have been pushed in a corner after WW1 leading to the rise of Hitler. This is what you call realism versus idealism.


The difference with the Cuban Missile Crisis and what Russia has done is that while Kennedy had a ton of advisers (including almost all the military) who wanted to initial military action against Cuba .... Kennedy wisely and successfully resolved it via the diplomatic route. Putin chose military.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2757
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by Kbg » Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:15 am

stuper1 wrote:
Tue Nov 22, 2022 10:33 pm
Kbg wrote:
Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:44 pm
Not going to do Covid 2 on this thread. Appreciate Krieg’s writing. The S men are factually incorrect, lying and/or totally deluded.

All we’re doing here now is providing a platform for Russian or hard right American propaganda. I’m out.

#NAFOfella
I'm an American, not Russian, and not even close to being hard right, unless being a non-voting Libertarian is considered hard right these days. Just answer one question: if Russia was pushing a defensive alliance up to our Canadian or Mexican border, would we take it lying down or would we push back? Especially if Russia had promised 33 years ago not to do such a thing, which was what the US did when the Soviet Union broke up in 1989.
My really last post on this thread. :D ::)

This a standard Russian propaganda line and has been around since Putin began his "Journey to Restore Russian Greatness."

Question 1: Why did every country up to Russia's border want to be in NATO? Answer: Because they have a historically imperialist power on their borders that has offensively attacked them going back three centuries with the latest being in current memory. Not to mention what Russians did to their people and culture during 40+ years of absolute tyranny. If you're a libertarian...I'm calling you out here, period. You do not act intelligently or faithfully on your core beliefs.

And now I'd like to pose a question to the thread's Russian propaganda peddlers which I expect an answer to.

Why has Canada and Mexico not sought "defensive" treaties against the US? In the 1700 and early 1800s we attacked both of them and peeled off a good chunk of Mexico in fact. Other than typical squabbles, after the Canadian US border was settled it has been defenseless on both sides for OVER 100 YEARS. Anyone who knows some US/Mexican history knows it's a pretty ugly one from a US actions perspective. And yet, the US/Mexican border is largely the same as the Canadian one.

Finally, did Russia keep it's agreement? Also, is Ukraine and Belorussia in Ukraine?

But thanks for the hypothetical...Lenin and Trotsky would be proud.

Personally, for most things of western and eastern orientation, I don't think much matters prior to WW2. Post WW2 set up the modern world as we know it...and I'll match the US and NATOs record against the Russian/Warsaw Pact one any day.

One of the most trying times, philosophically and morally, which yielded some very serious internal policy and operational debates in the US military and intelligence establishments was how in the world do you deal with and fight an enemy that is utterly without morality?

I like to think God granted the U.S. a gift in George Frost Kennan who suggested a way that did not involve WWW3...hold the line, skirmish when forced to and eventually the system will implode on itself. Here's to hoping Ukraine wins, Russia loses and the remnants of communist Russia are finally expunged from the world we live in. While I'm hardcore anti-Russian government as one could probably get, I do hope the Russian people will one day get the government they've wanted for 100+ years.

I was a very young pup in the biz during the collapse of the FSU and I know personally what was felt and thought at the time.

Yep, some high fiving self-congratulations was happening. We had won the Cold War.

There was nothing but hope that Russia would join the world community of nations and it really looked like it would be joining the family of democratic nations there for a bit. But unfortunately, like our post-WW2 predecessors, we learned another communist/dictator had taken over the place. Or was it Michael Corleone, hard to tell.
Last edited by Kbg on Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by stuper1 » Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:29 am

Kbg wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:15 am
Question 1: Why did every country up to Russia's border want to be in NATO? Answer: Because they have a historically imperialist power on their borders that has offensively attacked them going back three centuries with the latest being in current memory. Not to mention what Russians did to their people and culture during 40+ years of absolute tyranny. If you're a libertarian...I'm calling you out here, period. You do not act intelligently or faithfully on your core beliefs.

And now I'd like to pose a question to the thread's Russian propaganda peddlers which I expect an answer to.

Why has Canada and Mexico not sought "defensive" treaties against the US? In the 1700 and early 1800s we attacked both of them and peeled off a good chunk of Mexico in fact. Other than typical squabbles, after the Canadian US border was settled it has been defenseless on both sides for OVER 100 YEARS. Anyone who knows some US/Mexican history knows it's a pretty ugly one from a US actions perspective. And yet, the US/Mexican border is largely the same as the Canadian one.

Personally, for most things of western and eastern orientation, I don't think much matters prior to WW2. Post WW2 set up the modern world as we know it...and I'll match the US and NATOs record against the Russian/Warsaw Pact one any day.

One of the most trying times, philosophically and morally, which yielded some very serious internal policy and operational debates in the US military and intelligence establishments was how in the world do you deal with and fight an enemy that is utterly without morality?

I like to think God granted the U.S. a gift in George Frost Kennan who suggested a way that did not involve WWW3...hold the line, skirmish when forced to and eventually the system will implode on itself. Here's to hoping Ukraine wins, Russia loses and the remnants of communist Russia are finally expunged from the world we live in. While I'm hardcore anti-Russian government as one could probably get, I do hope the Russian people will one day get the government they've wanted for 100+ years.
I'm theoretically a libertarian, although I haven't voted in 38 years, but that doesn't mean I expect Russia to be governed by libertarians. I mean it would be nice, but very unlikely to happen. I can understand every country up to Russia's border wanting to be in NATO. If I was them, I might want to be in NATO also. That doesn't mean that the US should have allowed them to join NATO. That is called unwise provocation. Your man George Kennan said so many times and he was completely against it after the Cold War ended. He said that if NATO expanded it would lead to problems with Russia, and he has been shown to be a prophet.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 13133
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by dualstow » Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:39 am

SilentMajority wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 8:18 am
A terrible tragedy is unfolding. If peace can't be achieved very very soon, the winter is going to be horrible for Ukraine and miserable for lots of Europe. The Ukrainian demands of Russian surrendering all the contested territory with Russian populations will never be acceptable, so I'm afraid it will continue and get worse until the West pulls the rug out from under the Kiev regime.

Of course any US politician or prominent figure that suggests this is denounced as a Russian-bot, Putin-lover on the spot by the media and Ukraine flag people, and threated by the US government with investigations and harassment.
Already very cold there, and likely to get worse, yep. On that we agree.
Let 2022 be the year of GOLD
Building dream churches with silver spires /And our rogue children are playing loaded dice
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1979
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by I Shrugged » Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:21 am

And on the other other hand, given the neocon track record on conducting or supporting wars to remove bad guys from power and see them replaced with lovely pro-western leaders, why will this be any different?

Image
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by stuper1 » Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:24 am

vnatale wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:06 am
stuper1 wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 9:51 am
Thanks for your posts, Silent Majority. I agree with everything you said, including about liking Grigor Dimitrov. He's one of the most likable on the ATP and maybe one of the most talented. Sometimes I think he's too nice to maximize his talent. I got to see him play live in San Diego last year. His talent is off the charts. Seeing what he could do on return of serve compared to most other players was like watching a man among boys. Sometimes I think it's hard to be a nice person and be a champion at a sport like tennis.

I also like what you said that we ought to be able to disagree on these things without calling each other names like Russia bot or Putin lover. I've never been to Russia and have no Russian heritage. I simply figure they are human beings like everybody else, motivated by pretty much the same things, and probably just like everyone else most of them are fairly decent people.

I'm a bit puzzled by several people pointing out the Cuban missile crisis. Of course, that's the answer to my question. So, if it was ok for the US to do that over Cuba, then why isn't it ok for Russia to do this over Ukraine? The answer of course is that it's not ok actually to invade another country, but it wouldn't have happened if NATO hadn't try to push up to Russia's border. So the NATO push was a very unwise idea and shouldn't have happened, just like Germany shouldn't have been pushed in a corner after WW1 leading to the rise of Hitler. This is what you call realism versus idealism.
The difference with the Cuban Missile Crisis and what Russia has done is that while Kennedy had a ton of advisers (including almost all the military) who wanted to initial military action against Cuba .... Kennedy wisely and successfully resolved it via the diplomatic route. Putin chose military.
And this is where you are so wrong. It takes two to tango. Kennedy was able to negotiate, because Kruschev was willing to negotiate. Putin tried to solve this thing diplomatically so many times and guess who wouldn't talk with him and just kept pushing NATO expansion more aggressively?
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1979
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by I Shrugged » Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:31 am

Bring on the alternative viewpoints. We don’t need an echo chamber.
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by stuper1 » Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:35 am

vnatale wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 8:12 am
stuper1 wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:15 am
The situation after the end of the Cold War and break up of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of the time after WW1 when the allies forced a terrible treaty onto Germany. If the allies had been more gracious in their victory and not forced brutal reparations onto Germany, who was by no means the only party at fault for starting WW1, then Hitler probably never would have been able to come to power and WW2 would never have happened.

Similarly, if the US had been more gracious after the end of the Cold War and hadn't pushed a narrative that Russia is to be feared and hadn't pushed NATO up to the doorstep of Russia, then Russian may not have felt the need to attack Ukraine (setting aside for the moment the issue of attacks on Russian parts of Ukraine by the Ukrainian government in recent years). Sure, there was no written treaty saying that NATO couldn't expand to Russia's doorstep, but that doesn't make it wise to push NATO that far, just as it wasn't wise to push Germany so far after WW1, leading to Hitler's rise. Several wise foreign policy experts, people like George Kennan, have been saying this very thing for the past 30 years, but the military-industrial complex won't listen because there is a lot of money to be made by expanding NATO.
1) I know that the popular opinion is that the treaty from World War I led to Hitler and World War II. But I've recently read from a few sources that this now falls into myth territory.

2) How should the United States been more gracious after the end of the Cold War? What was pushed was that we would now have no more wars and that we be reaping the benefits of peace dividends.
I'm not sure which opinion is more popular, and it doesn't really matter. You can certainly find historians arguing either side. What matters is what makes sense. Just think for yourself. Who was at fault for WW1? Do a little research on that. You'll find out there was plenty of blame to go around on all sides. After WW1 ended, who was made to carry all of the blame and pay all of the costs of reparations, which literally created starvation conditions in their country? The Germans of course. Are the Germans as a people tragically flawed? No, of course not, they are just regular people like French, English, Russian, Chinese, Arabian, Nigerian, etc. However, they put their support behind a raving lunatic madman in Hitler. Is that normal? No, of course not, that's only the type of thing that happens when your back is pushed up against the wall by people who are blaming you for stuff that is not your fault.

WW1 is such a tragedy. It needn't have happened. Britain should have just stayed out of it, and then America would have stayed out also. It would have ended up basically being Germany against France. Fine, let them fight it out and then go home. The same thing happened in 1870, and it was no big deal. So, what was the difference in 1914 from 1870. Can anyone say arms dealers who saw a chance to make money, a lot of it?
Last edited by stuper1 on Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1979
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by I Shrugged » Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:38 am

stuper1 wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:24 am


And this is where you are so wrong. It takes two to tango. Kennedy was able to negotiate, because Kruschev was willing to negotiate. Putin tried to solve this thing diplomatically so many times and guess who wouldn't talk with him and just kept pushing NATO expansion more aggressively?
Interesting if true.
A relevant side note is that Trump Impeachment One was not because he wanted the Ukes to investigate Biden. It was because he was not hawkish enough on Ukraine. I conclude our military and state department wanted this war. There isn’t much evidence to the contrary. Is there?
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by stuper1 » Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:45 am

The media have been pounding it down our throats since 2016 that Russia is the big bad guy that we have to fight. It's always something. Once they saw that the war on terror was winding down they had to find another bogeyman to keep everyone scared and keep the money flowing to the military industrial complex.

I'm sure we've all noticed more frequent stories about UFOs being seen and even acknowledged by the military. So they have space aliens in their back pocket just in case they run out of bogeymen on earth to use to keep us scared.
SilentMajority
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:10 am

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by SilentMajority » Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:49 am

KBG I don't know how to do all the quote cut-ups to make responses to questions/points easier to read. To spare everyone, I'll leave off your post and just respond in bullets for easier consumption.
  • Pre-WW1 and for hundreds of years the Russian empire bordered on the German and Austro-Hungarian empires and Romania. It even included all of Finland. Asking why the governments and/or people would want to be part of an alliance against their giant and powerful former ruler has to be rhetorical, it's so self-explanatory.
  • Canada and Mexico wouldn't gain anything from a defensive alliance against the US. Who would be their partner and what would the purpose be? The US would not permit it even being discussed let alone implemented so this seems like not a serious question.
  • Which Russian agreement are you referring to?
  • You asked, is "Ukraine and Belorussia in Ukraine"? I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Is it rhetorical?
  • You'll match NATO's record against the Warsaw Pact's any day? Ok, how about the US vs. Russia/Soviet Union? I don't know how many military actions the USA has initiated against other countries since WW2 but it might be in the hundreds with some estimates putting it at 20-30M dead as a result. I don't know the body count for Russia but I'm pretty sure their biggest engagement was Afghanistan with maybe 2M dead. The problem for your position here is that Brzezinski has admitted what the Russians claimed was happening was true. The CIA was funneling billions of dollars of "aid" into the radical Muslims and Mujahedeen to put them in power in Kabul and replace the Pro-Soviet government. Kinda sounds like the same Ukraine playbook huh? How'd that all turn out???? Do you think this one will turn out better???? - Rhetorical
  • The export of heroin out of Afghanistan, much to the USA was a just a bonus we got from that very moral and justified "intervention"
Anyway, all of this is just a diversion from the current situation. The US government is funding continuation of a conflict that is destroying real lives. Some people support that funding but no US soldiers. Some support full blown war. Some support ending all US involvement it and letting it play out without us, some support Russia (morally) in their operation. At the end of the day the US government is going to do what it's going to do and based on the track record, it will likely not be for the benefit of the Americans or humanity.

There's enough out there for everyone to decide where they fall in terms of who is right or wrong or what they support. It might be more interesting to discuss what we think will happen, whether we like it or not.
SilentMajority
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:10 am

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by SilentMajority » Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:00 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:31 am
Bring on the alternative viewpoints. We don’t need an echo chamber.
Calling for alternative viewpoints is an ancient Russian propaganda tactic. Goes all the way back to Ivan the Great inviting the Mongols onto his social media platform in 1547.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7916
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:01 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:21 am

And on the other other hand, given the neocon track record on conducting or supporting wars to remove bad guys from power and see them replaced with lovely pro-western leaders, why will this be any different?

Image


Historically that has been U.S. policy. Fealty to the United States trumps type of government or quality of leader. That is why the United States has been behind removal of democratically elected leaders, e.g., 1954 Iran, so as to put in power dictators more aligned with our interests.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7916
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:04 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:24 am

vnatale wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:06 am

stuper1 wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 9:51 am

Thanks for your posts, Silent Majority. I agree with everything you said, including about liking Grigor Dimitrov. He's one of the most likable on the ATP and maybe one of the most talented. Sometimes I think he's too nice to maximize his talent. I got to see him play live in San Diego last year. His talent is off the charts. Seeing what he could do on return of serve compared to most other players was like watching a man among boys. Sometimes I think it's hard to be a nice person and be a champion at a sport like tennis.

I also like what you said that we ought to be able to disagree on these things without calling each other names like Russia bot or Putin lover. I've never been to Russia and have no Russian heritage. I simply figure they are human beings like everybody else, motivated by pretty much the same things, and probably just like everyone else most of them are fairly decent people.

I'm a bit puzzled by several people pointing out the Cuban missile crisis. Of course, that's the answer to my question. So, if it was ok for the US to do that over Cuba, then why isn't it ok for Russia to do this over Ukraine? The answer of course is that it's not ok actually to invade another country, but it wouldn't have happened if NATO hadn't try to push up to Russia's border. So the NATO push was a very unwise idea and shouldn't have happened, just like Germany shouldn't have been pushed in a corner after WW1 leading to the rise of Hitler. This is what you call realism versus idealism.


The difference with the Cuban Missile Crisis and what Russia has done is that while Kennedy had a ton of advisers (including almost all the military) who wanted to initial military action against Cuba .... Kennedy wisely and successfully resolved it via the diplomatic route. Putin chose military.


And this is where you are so wrong. It takes two to tango. Kennedy was able to negotiate, because Kruschev was willing to negotiate. Putin tried to solve this thing diplomatically so many times and guess who wouldn't talk with him and just kept pushing NATO expansion more aggressively?


We do have do know what Khrushchev communicated to us. Where is the same documented communications of Putin to who?

Also, when has NATO attacked? From its formation it's been set up to be a defensive consortium of countries.

Putin's guilty of gross over response.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7916
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:17 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:35 am

vnatale wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 8:12 am

stuper1 wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:15 am

The situation after the end of the Cold War and break up of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of the time after WW1 when the allies forced a terrible treaty onto Germany. If the allies had been more gracious in their victory and not forced brutal reparations onto Germany, who was by no means the only party at fault for starting WW1, then Hitler probably never would have been able to come to power and WW2 would never have happened.

Similarly, if the US had been more gracious after the end of the Cold War and hadn't pushed a narrative that Russia is to be feared and hadn't pushed NATO up to the doorstep of Russia, then Russian may not have felt the need to attack Ukraine (setting aside for the moment the issue of attacks on Russian parts of Ukraine by the Ukrainian government in recent years). Sure, there was no written treaty saying that NATO couldn't expand to Russia's doorstep, but that doesn't make it wise to push NATO that far, just as it wasn't wise to push Germany so far after WW1, leading to Hitler's rise. Several wise foreign policy experts, people like George Kennan, have been saying this very thing for the past 30 years, but the military-industrial complex won't listen because there is a lot of money to be made by expanding NATO.


1) I know that the popular opinion is that the treaty from World War I led to Hitler and World War II. But I've recently read from a few sources that this now falls into myth territory.

2) How should the United States been more gracious after the end of the Cold War? What was pushed was that we would now have no more wars and that we be reaping the benefits of peace dividends.


I'm not sure which opinion is more popular, and it doesn't really matter. You can certainly find historians arguing either side. What matters is what makes sense. Just think for yourself. Who was at fault for WW1? Do a little research on that. You'll find out there was plenty of blame to go around on all sides. After WW1 ended, who was made to carry all of the blame and pay all of the costs of reparations, which literally created starvation conditions in their country? The Germans of course. Are the Germans as a people tragically flawed? No, of course not, they are just regular people like French, English, Russian, Chinese, Arabian, Nigerian, etc. However, they put their support behind a raving lunatic madman in Hitler. Is that normal? No, of course not, that's only the type of thing that happens when your back is pushed up against the wall by people who are blaming you for stuff that is not your fault.

WW1 is such a tragedy. It needn't have happened. Britain should have just stayed out of it, and then America would have stayed out also. It would have ended up basically being Germany against France. Fine, let them fight it out and then go home. The same thing happened in 1870, and it was no big deal. So, what was the difference in 1914 from 1870. Can anyone say arms dealers who saw a chance to make money, a lot of it?


We were not discussing what caused World War I but what caused World War II with you positing that it was the the treaty forced upon Russia.

I've done my research on the treaty and present it to you below.

Agreed that World War I should have never happened and that was with Kennedy was trying to do during the Cuban Missile Crisis -- stop a set of events that could spiral out of control into yet another World War.

By the way, are you aware how tenuous the start of World War I was? We all know that it started because of the assassination of the Arch Duke. However how many here know that his driver had taken a wrong turn, which put the vehicle in a place where it could not easily exit. And, right in front of a student who shot him, having being given this happenstance opportunity. This was no Lee Harvey Oswald planned out assassination wherein the route had been published and the assassin made his concomitant plans. Instead, this was pure happenstance. Driver makes a wrong turn and student assassin seizes upon this unexpected opportunity to kill the hated ArchDuke.

1.JPG
1.JPG (178.96 KiB) Viewed 121 times
2.JPG
2.JPG (189.87 KiB) Viewed 121 times
3.JPG
3.JPG (185.72 KiB) Viewed 121 times
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7916
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:20 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:38 am

stuper1 wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:24 am



And this is where you are so wrong. It takes two to tango. Kennedy was able to negotiate, because Kruschev was willing to negotiate. Putin tried to solve this thing diplomatically so many times and guess who wouldn't talk with him and just kept pushing NATO expansion more aggressively?


Interesting if true.
A relevant side note is that Trump Impeachment One was not because he wanted the Ukes to investigate Biden. It was because he was not hawkish enough on Ukraine. I conclude our military and state department wanted this war. There isn’t much evidence to the contrary. Is there?


What you say is completely contrary to all available evidence. What available evidence do you have to support your assertions? His famous "perfect phone call" supports which opinion?
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7916
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:21 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:45 am

The media have been pounding it down our throats since 2016 that Russia is the big bad guy that we have to fight. It's always something. Once they saw that the war on terror was winding down they had to find another bogeyman to keep everyone scared and keep the money flowing to the military industrial complex.

I'm sure we've all noticed more frequent stories about UFOs being seen and even acknowledged by the military. So they have space aliens in their back pocket just in case they run out of bogeymen on earth to use to keep us scared.


If since 2016 how had the money been flowing prior to the invasion of Ukraine earlier this year?
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7916
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:24 pm

SilentMajority wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:49 am

KBG I don't know how to do all the quote cut-ups to make responses to questions/points easier to read. To spare everyone, I'll leave off your post and just respond in bullets for easier consumption.

  • Pre-WW1 and for hundreds of years the Russian empire bordered on the German and Austro-Hungarian empires and Romania. It even included all of Finland. Asking why the governments and/or people would want to be part of an alliance against their giant and powerful former ruler has to be rhetorical, it's so self-explanatory.

  • Canada and Mexico wouldn't gain anything from a defensive alliance against the US. Who would be their partner and what would the purpose be? The US would not permit it even being discussed let alone implemented so this seems like not a serious question.

  • Which Russian agreement are you referring to?

  • You asked, is "Ukraine and Belorussia in Ukraine"? I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Is it rhetorical?

  • You'll match NATO's record against the Warsaw Pact's any day? Ok, how about the US vs. Russia/Soviet Union? I don't know how many military actions the USA has initiated against other countries since WW2 but it might be in the hundreds with some estimates putting it at 20-30M dead as a result. I don't know the body count for Russia but I'm pretty sure their biggest engagement was Afghanistan with maybe 2M dead. The problem for your position here is that Brzezinski has admitted what the Russians claimed was happening was true. The CIA was funneling billions of dollars of "aid" into the radical Muslims and Mujahedeen to put them in power in Kabul and replace the Pro-Soviet government. Kinda sounds like the same Ukraine playbook huh? How'd that all turn out???? Do you think this one will turn out better???? - Rhetorical

  • The export of heroin out of Afghanistan, much to the USA was a just a bonus we got from that very moral and justified "intervention"


Anyway, all of this is just a diversion from the current situation. The US government is funding continuation of a conflict that is destroying real lives. Some people support that funding but no US soldiers. Some support full blown war. Some support ending all US involvement it and letting it play out without us, some support Russia (morally) in their operation. At the end of the day the US government is going to do what it's going to do and based on the track record, it will likely not be for the benefit of the Americans or humanity.

There's enough out there for everyone to decide where they fall in terms of who is right or wrong or what they support. It might be more interesting to discuss what we think will happen, whether we like it or not.


Not going to fully respond here other than to say that you have many elements of the truth here. But don't think that it at all justifies Putin's / Russia's actions towards Ukraine. That the United States has not always acted honorably is no justification for Russia behaving similarly (or worse).
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
SilentMajority
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:10 am

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by SilentMajority » Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:56 pm

vnatale wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:24 pm
Not going to fully respond here other than to say that you have many elements of the truth here. But don't think that it at all justifies Putin's / Russia's actions towards Ukraine. That the United States has not always acted honorably is no justification for Russia behaving similarly (or worse).
Fair point Vnatale. I'm not trying to justify the invasion, but just pointing out that the dominate Western government and media explanation that Putin is bad and Russians are bad is not a good explanation for what's happened. I think a lot of people, maybe a lot on this forum even haven't looked at it from the other side or heard what they've said. I'd bet 80% of people wearing Ukraine flag pins or with Ukraine flags in their bios don't even have a clue and that's by design.

Regardless of what we think, it'll play out how's it going to play out. Any thoughts on what you think will unfold in the next few months?
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by stuper1 » Wed Nov 23, 2022 1:24 pm

vnatale wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:17 pm
stuper1 wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:35 am
vnatale wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 8:12 am
stuper1 wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:15 am
The situation after the end of the Cold War and break up of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of the time after WW1 when the allies forced a terrible treaty onto Germany. If the allies had been more gracious in their victory and not forced brutal reparations onto Germany, who was by no means the only party at fault for starting WW1, then Hitler probably never would have been able to come to power and WW2 would never have happened.

Similarly, if the US had been more gracious after the end of the Cold War and hadn't pushed a narrative that Russia is to be feared and hadn't pushed NATO up to the doorstep of Russia, then Russian may not have felt the need to attack Ukraine (setting aside for the moment the issue of attacks on Russian parts of Ukraine by the Ukrainian government in recent years). Sure, there was no written treaty saying that NATO couldn't expand to Russia's doorstep, but that doesn't make it wise to push NATO that far, just as it wasn't wise to push Germany so far after WW1, leading to Hitler's rise. Several wise foreign policy experts, people like George Kennan, have been saying this very thing for the past 30 years, but the military-industrial complex won't listen because there is a lot of money to be made by expanding NATO.
1) I know that the popular opinion is that the treaty from World War I led to Hitler and World War II. But I've recently read from a few sources that this now falls into myth territory.

2) How should the United States been more gracious after the end of the Cold War? What was pushed was that we would now have no more wars and that we be reaping the benefits of peace dividends.
I'm not sure which opinion is more popular, and it doesn't really matter. You can certainly find historians arguing either side. What matters is what makes sense. Just think for yourself. Who was at fault for WW1? Do a little research on that. You'll find out there was plenty of blame to go around on all sides. After WW1 ended, who was made to carry all of the blame and pay all of the costs of reparations, which literally created starvation conditions in their country? The Germans of course. Are the Germans as a people tragically flawed? No, of course not, they are just regular people like French, English, Russian, Chinese, Arabian, Nigerian, etc. However, they put their support behind a raving lunatic madman in Hitler. Is that normal? No, of course not, that's only the type of thing that happens when your back is pushed up against the wall by people who are blaming you for stuff that is not your fault.

WW1 is such a tragedy. It needn't have happened. Britain should have just stayed out of it, and then America would have stayed out also. It would have ended up basically being Germany against France. Fine, let them fight it out and then go home. The same thing happened in 1870, and it was no big deal. So, what was the difference in 1914 from 1870. Can anyone say arms dealers who saw a chance to make money, a lot of it?
We were not discussing what caused World War I but what caused World War II with you positing that it was the the treaty forced upon Russia.
So, you think the German people would turn to a raving lunatic madman and let him kill millions of Jews and others if those German people hadn't been made the unjustified scapegoats of WW1? It seems unlikely to me. If the peace treaty at the end of WW1 had been a bit more gracious, those German people wouldn't have been hardened by literal starvation, etc., and wouldn't have turned to a madman. But who knows, I could be wrong.
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by stuper1 » Wed Nov 23, 2022 1:30 pm

vnatale wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:04 pm
stuper1 wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:24 am
vnatale wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:06 am
stuper1 wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 9:51 am
Thanks for your posts, Silent Majority. I agree with everything you said, including about liking Grigor Dimitrov. He's one of the most likable on the ATP and maybe one of the most talented. Sometimes I think he's too nice to maximize his talent. I got to see him play live in San Diego last year. His talent is off the charts. Seeing what he could do on return of serve compared to most other players was like watching a man among boys. Sometimes I think it's hard to be a nice person and be a champion at a sport like tennis.

I also like what you said that we ought to be able to disagree on these things without calling each other names like Russia bot or Putin lover. I've never been to Russia and have no Russian heritage. I simply figure they are human beings like everybody else, motivated by pretty much the same things, and probably just like everyone else most of them are fairly decent people.

I'm a bit puzzled by several people pointing out the Cuban missile crisis. Of course, that's the answer to my question. So, if it was ok for the US to do that over Cuba, then why isn't it ok for Russia to do this over Ukraine? The answer of course is that it's not ok actually to invade another country, but it wouldn't have happened if NATO hadn't try to push up to Russia's border. So the NATO push was a very unwise idea and shouldn't have happened, just like Germany shouldn't have been pushed in a corner after WW1 leading to the rise of Hitler. This is what you call realism versus idealism.
The difference with the Cuban Missile Crisis and what Russia has done is that while Kennedy had a ton of advisers (including almost all the military) who wanted to initial military action against Cuba .... Kennedy wisely and successfully resolved it via the diplomatic route. Putin chose military.
And this is where you are so wrong. It takes two to tango. Kennedy was able to negotiate, because Kruschev was willing to negotiate. Putin tried to solve this thing diplomatically so many times and guess who wouldn't talk with him and just kept pushing NATO expansion more aggressively?
We do have do know what Khrushchev communicated to us. Where is the same documented communications of Putin to who?

Also, when has NATO attacked? From its formation it's been set up to be a defensive consortium of countries.

Putin's guilty of gross over response.
The people of Serbia, Iraq, Libya and probably others that I haven't thought of might want to have a word with you on whether NATO has ever been used offensively.

Putin made numerous public statements over the past decade or so saying that NATO involvement in Ukraine was a red line for Russia. I'm not exactly privy to private communications between the two countries, but if I find any documented communications, I'll be sure to post them. It's not like you can find balanced coverage from the mainstream media on these topics. Everything is slanted toward one side, because they know who butters their bread.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7916
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Wed Nov 23, 2022 2:30 pm

SilentMajority wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:56 pm

vnatale wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:24 pm

Not going to fully respond here other than to say that you have many elements of the truth here. But don't think that it at all justifies Putin's / Russia's actions towards Ukraine. That the United States has not always acted honorably is no justification for Russia behaving similarly (or worse).


Fair point Vnatale. I'm not trying to justify the invasion, but just pointing out that the dominate Western government and media explanation that Putin is bad and Russians are bad is not a good explanation for what's happened. I think a lot of people, maybe a lot on this forum even haven't looked at it from the other side or heard what they've said. I'd bet 80% of people wearing Ukraine flag pins or with Ukraine flags in their bios don't even have a clue and that's by design.

Regardless of what we think, it'll play out how's it going to play out. Any thoughts on what you think will unfold in the next few months?


Regarding your last question? I have to fall back on my standard answer to when anyone asks me for my sports prediction. I say I never predict; I can only tell you what I hope to happen. I laugh at all the sports people in the media who so smugly make their predictions which are almost always wrong.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7916
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Wed Nov 23, 2022 2:37 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 1:24 pm


So, you think the German people would turn to a raving lunatic madman and let him kill millions of Jews and others if those German people hadn't been made the unjustified scapegoats of WW1? It seems unlikely to me. If the peace treaty at the end of WW1 had been a bit more gracious, those German people wouldn't have been hardened by literal starvation, etc., and wouldn't have turned to a madman. But who knows, I could be wrong.


You are making that statement from the benefit of hindsight.

First of all Hitler became the country's dictator by trickery. The German people did not vote for him to be dictator.

Second of all, in spite of him being a dictator, I recently read that around 1938, if he'd stopped there, he'd have been viewed as one of the greatest men in history for what he accomplished for the country of Germany. It was not until post 1938 that he fully transformed into what you describe above. Therefore at the time the Nazi Party was voted in (and I believe without even a majority vote) the German people were not voting for the Hitler as we all now know him.

Did you read the book excerpts I had above? It points out that the treaty was justified in the way it treated Germany and, perhaps, was not stringent enough. It also addresses how the German people liked to blame it all on that treaty while accepting none of the responsibility for their country's conditions.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Post Reply