Putin Invades Ukraine II

stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
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: 2062
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: 1365
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: 2062
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: 1365
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
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 149
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
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 149
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: 9423
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: 9423
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: 9423
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 4290 times
2.JPG
2.JPG (189.87 KiB) Viewed 4290 times
3.JPG
3.JPG (185.72 KiB) Viewed 4290 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: 9423
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: 9423
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: 9423
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
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 149
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: 1365
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: 1365
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: 9423
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: 9423
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."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Wed Nov 23, 2022 2:40 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 1:30 pm



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.


I don't accept the view that the mainstream media is so powerful. Yes, pre-internet and when we had only three major TV networks.

But for all of us we have access to multiple sources of information, covering every side of the political spectrum.

CNN is always cited as having this major influence yet all they have is about 500,000 viewers.
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."
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by stuper1 » Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:00 pm

vnatale wrote:
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.
Whoever wrote your book needs to learn some common sense. The reason Chamberlain made so many concessions to Hitler at Munich and leading up to Munich was because he knew Germany had been mistreated in the Versailles Treaty so he was trying to make up for it after the fact, but by then it was too late, the damage was done and Germany was already led by a madman.

As they say, those who won't learn from the past are destined to repeat it. If Biden and Zelensky lead us into an unneeded WW3 with Russia/China/India, maybe more people will wake up to what is going on. I don't think that is likely to happen, but all it takes is a random flock of birds being misidentified by radar and missiles can be flying. It's really not smart to ratchet up tensions when both sides have nuclear weapons at the ready. Reports are that Ukraine had all but agreed to a peace deal with Russia in March, and the US vetoed it and told them to fight on -- the obvious motives being to try to weaken Russia and of course to make more money for the military contractors, not to mention everybody else who gets a little cut on the action.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Wed Nov 23, 2022 5:55 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:00 pm

vnatale wrote:
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.


Whoever wrote your book needs to learn some common sense. The reason Chamberlain made so many concessions to Hitler at Munich and leading up to Munich was because he knew Germany had been mistreated in the Versailles Treaty so he was trying to make up for it after the fact, but by then it was too late, the damage was done and Germany was already led by a madman.

As they say, those who won't learn from the past are destined to repeat it. If Biden and Zelensky lead us into an unneeded WW3 with Russia/China/India, maybe more people will wake up to what is going on. I don't think that is likely to happen, but all it takes is a random flock of birds being misidentified by radar and missiles can be flying. It's really not smart to ratchet up tensions when both sides have nuclear weapons at the ready. Reports are that Ukraine had all but agreed to a peace deal with Russia in March, and the US vetoed it and told them to fight on -- the obvious motives being to try to weaken Russia and of course to make more money for the military contractors, not to mention everybody else who gets a little cut on the action.


What is your support / documentation for what you assert in your first paragraph?

Where can one find these reports about a peace deal in March?

Finally, as for the book author needing common sense I'm putting here just the beginning of a lengthy review of the book:

"5.0 out of 5 stars Extraordinary. The Most Educational Book on WW2 I Have Read
Reviewed in the United States on December 30, 2010
Verified Purchase
There are more books on WW2 than on any other historical subject. This is the most complete and insightful account of this global conflagration that I know of. As he states in the Introduction, Gerhard Weinberg focuses more on the "why" than the "how" of the events he covers. There are countless books on the gritty hour-by-hour course of various battles, many not particularly good. Weinberg narrates the events of the war, but he is most interested in the broader, global perspective, as his title makes clear. Weinberg has studied this subject for the last 60+ years, and his understanding of WW2 is profound. It is a delight to read his thoughtful prose. Though the book may seem lengthy at 900 pages, on every page are the often original insights that make this treatise exceptionally rewarding and devoid of monotony.
By considering this "World War" as the global phenomenon that is clearly is, Weinberg is able show how all the events hang together in a unified whole, even in theaters separated by thousands of miles and marked cultural differences. I will give some examples that I found fascinating.
As a prelude to WW2, Weinberg makes clear that the perception of post-WW1 Germany as ruined by the reparations required in the Versailles treaty and thus spoiling for revenge against France, Great Britain, and the USA, is largely a myth. Germany was largely untouched by the fighting in WW1, unlike France and Belgium, and had secured adequate (often American) loans with which to arrange a manageable schedule of reparations payments to the Western Allies. Germany rebounded more quickly than either France or Britain from the post-WW1 malaise brought about by the tremendous costs of fighting the war borne by the major European combatants. While the incomprehensible inflation suffered by Weimar Germany was very real, some of it was brought about intentionally by the Germans as a way to sabotage their payment of reparations.
As Germany under Hitler gained a jump on rearmament over Britain and France, Hitler was determined to start the fighting of the succession of wars he planned in his strategy of world-conquest. Hitler did not want to fight on more than one front at a time (after the disaster of Germany's multi-front experience in WW1), so he wished to pick and choose the timing of the series of wars he deemed necessary for the attainment of ultimate German victory. In this way, Weinberg argues that Hitler sought to start his wars in 1938, and that Neville Chamberlain's Munich compromise, in which Czechoslovakia ceded the Sudetenland to Germany, actually thwarted Hitler's timing and made him all the more determined not to be "cheated" out of war in 1939, leading to Germany's September 1st invasion of Poland."
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: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:24 pm

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 31911.html

Vladimir Putin ‘living in fear for his life as army retreats’, Zelensky aide says
‘There is no forgiveness for tsars who lose wars,’ the military aide said

Russian president Vladimir Putin is “living in fear for his life” as his army retreats, a senior Ukrainian military aide said.

Earlier this month, Russia announced it was withdrawing from the Kherson region, marking one of the most embarrassing defeats for Mr Putin and a potential turning point in the war which has reached its ninth month.

The loss of Kherson, the only regional capital Russia had captured in the conflict, dealt a heavy blow to plans to establish a land corridor to Crimea and secure a water supply to the Russian-controlled peninsula.

“[Putin] is very afraid because there is no forgiveness in Russia for tsars who lose wars,” Oleksiy Arestovich, an adviser to the Ukrainian president’s chief of staff, told The Times.

“He is fighting for his life now. If he loses the war, at least in the minds of the Russians, it means the end. The end of him as a political figure. And possibly in the physical sense.”
Ukraine’s victory over Kherson came after a series of humiliating retreats by Kremlin forces in the Kharkiv and Donbas regions.

“This has forced even people who are very loyal to Putin to doubt that they can win this war,” Mr Arestovich said.

He said Kherson’s liberation had triggered renewed Russian strikes on the country’s infrastructure and plans for a fresh offensive from Belarus, a Russian ally to the north of Ukraine. Mr Putin’s troops advanced on Kyiv from Belarus during the early stages of the war, but were forced to retreat after stiff resistance.
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: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by vnatale » Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:28 pm

https://raheemkassam.substack.com/p/rus ... e-to-peace


Raheem Kassam's Substack.

Russia and Ukraine Came to Peace Terms in April... Then Boris Johnson Intervened.
Of all people, it was Fiona Hill who revealed the details.

Raheem Kassam
Aug 31
Fiona Hill – the shrill, Trump impeachment witness, alongside World Economic Forum grandee Angela Stent – gave something rather inconvenient away in their latest article for Foreign Affairs magazine. I have archived it here, for the non-subscribers like me.
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
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by I Shrugged » Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:40 am

vnatale wrote:
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?
I watched the trial.
SilentMajority
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:10 am

Re: Putin Invades Ukraine II

Post by SilentMajority » Thu Nov 24, 2022 1:38 pm

vnatale wrote:
Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:24 pm
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 31911.html

Vladimir Putin ‘living in fear for his life as army retreats’, Zelensky aide says
‘There is no forgiveness for tsars who lose wars,’ the military aide said

Russian president Vladimir Putin is “living in fear for his life” as his army retreats, a senior Ukrainian military aide said.
Hahahahahah

A "Zelinsky aide" says something about Putin and the independent reports it as news??? Bwahahahah

This is a new low even for that online rag. This is like saying "Soviet premier Stalin is "living in fear for his life" Hitler aide says.

Truly pitiful.
Post Reply