RSS
The reason that attacks on Russia have been so famous, such as Napoleon’s in 1812 and Hitler’s in 1941, is because they have been rare exceptions to the general tendency that, militarily, Muscovy has been the who and their neighbors the whom.
From Richard Pipes in 1984:
… the Russian General Staff carried out a comprehensive study of Russian warfare since the foundations of the state. In the summary volume, the editor told his readers that they could take pride in their country’s military record and face the future with confidence — between 1700 and 1870, Russia had spent 106 years fighting 38 military campaigns, of which 36 had been “offensive” …
This 36 out of 38 fraction seems a little exaggerated. Here is General William Odom’s footnote from his The Collapse of the Soviet Military:
N. N. Sukhotin, Voina v istorii russkogo mira (St. Petersburg, 1898), 113-14, providing a report to the tsar from the Imperial General Staff, observed that between 1700 and 1870, Russia was at war 106 years. I am indebted to Richard Pipes for pointing out this source to me. He quotes it in his Survival Is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and America’s Future (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1984), 36, 286. Its special importance is that it shows that Russian military elites themselves certainly did not believe that Russia was the victim of frequent foreign invasions. In fact, the only serious invasions of Russian territory since the Swedish campaigns against Peter the Great were Napoleon’s campaign in 1812, the Crimean War in 1854-55, and Hitler’s invasion in 1941. Toward the end of World War I, of course, German forces pressed into Russian territory against no Bolshevik resistance, but the war began in 1914 with a large Russian offensive into East Prussia. Notwithstanding the actual record of Russia’s habit of frequently invading its neighbors, the popular image remains strong in Russia that it has always and frequently been the victim, not the perpetrator of wars.
These counts leave out some border skirmishes, such as with Japan in the late 1930s and with China in the late 1960s, which saw heavy fighting as a test of strength on an island in the Amur River not allocated by treaty.
In summary, though, you don’t get to be as vast as Russia without starting some wars.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
And winning them.
“In summary, though, you don’t get to be as vast as Russia without starting some wars.”
And you don’t get to be as vast as the United States of America without starting some wars/conflicts, right? Our Native American friends would definitely agree to this proposition. I think Spanish-speaking friends in Texas and Mexico would also agree as well.
Impossible.
Pipes? Like the quarter of Russians who don’t have an inside toilet, we need something better to go on.
The Russian Origins of the First World War Sean McMeekin
And you don’t get to be as vast as the United States of America without starting some wars/conflicts, right? Our Native American friends would definitely agree to this proposition. I think Spanish-speaking friends in Texas and Mexico would also agree as well.Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Matt Buckalew, @Odin
The deed of gift was many deeds of war.
BY ROBERT FROSTThe land was ours before we were the land’s.
She was our land more than a hundred years
Before we were her people. She was ours
In Massachusetts, in Virginia,
But we were England’s, still colonials,
Possessing what we still were unpossessed by,
Possessed by what we now no more possessed.
Something we were withholding made us weak
Until we found out that it was ourselves
We were withholding from our land of living,
And forthwith found salvation in surrender.
Such as we were we gave ourselves outright
(The deed of gift was many deeds of war)
To the land vaguely realizing westward,
But still unstoried, artless, unenhanced,
Such as she was, such as she would become.Replies: @stillCARealist
I think Steve’s a bit peeved by all this Russia Ukraine development because his genteel nature can’t afford anything on the level of aggressive invasions/violations of sovereignty…gotta talk it out, be diplomatic instead – no need to fight in the war room now, gentleman!
That’s respectable.
OTOH, could it maybe be instead that his theater going side is peeved that Russia doesn’t allow anything related to Ru Paul in its media? “Deep down I love the costume design”…well, I won’t put words in your mouth. Sorry.
Who knows. Russia will win this one pretty soon, so don’t worry about it too much. Ukraine will fall and people will move on, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkJ8Zb9axi8
Lawmakers Fist Fight During Ukrainian Parliamentary MeetingReplies: @aandrews
The Gift Outright
BY ROBERT FROST
The land was ours before we were the land’s.
She was our land more than a hundred years
Before we were her people. She was ours
In Massachusetts, in Virginia,
But we were England’s, still colonials,
Possessing what we still were unpossessed by,
Possessed by what we now no more possessed.
Something we were withholding made us weak
Until we found out that it was ourselves
We were withholding from our land of living,
And forthwith found salvation in surrender.
Such as we were we gave ourselves outright
(The deed of gift was many deeds of war)
To the land vaguely realizing westward,
But still unstoried, artless, unenhanced,
Such as she was, such as she would become.
My guess: America wasn't America until the descendants of the Pilgrims and revolutionaries made it so.Replies: @Pierre de Craon
Were the wars offensive though? A campaign is offensive but the underlying war might not be. The word choice was slippery. Arguably the Russians were being offensive during phases of the Napoleonic Wars but the war was clearly about Napoleon’s France.
Are we also counting the wars in the Caucasus and Central Asia?
Was Britain ever not conquering? Many of the wars were aggressive but the campaigns defensive in those wars of Empire. It’s more than semantics. Germany only fought a couple of offensive campaigns in ww2. The war was mostly their aggressive expansionism though.
Dismissing Germany’s advances in 1914-18 seems peculiar. They had advanced a good way into the Russian Empire by the end of 1915.
More to the point, I fail to how any of this justifies us deliberately baiting Putin so as to start a war simply to distract our electorate from our own catastrophic and rapidly worsening domestic situation. I compare it to going into a field and poking the bull there in the eye with a stick. Whatever criticisms there are to be made of the bull’s response, you can hardly argue that you didn’t intend to bring it about.
He wasn't baited. He's extensively mobilized to meet policy objectives. The problem here is his objectives.
“In summary, though, you don’t get to be as vast as Russia without starting some wars.”
Mexican War, War to annex FL, HI, CA, Trail of Tears, Original 13 colonies, how did Americans get all that land following Benjamin Franklin’s advice about plenty of land west. etc. Oh, I get it now. Yeah yeah. Rule applies to any nation seeking to become bigger can start wars of aggression, so it doesn’t just apply to Russia. Let me try again.
“In summary, though, you don’t get to be as vast as Russia without starting some wars.”
Technically, the Mongols weren’t defeated by Russia more than half a millennia ago. As their mighty empire was crumbling, they decided to retreat back to Central Asia and left close to 40-50% of what is now modern Russia behind them. Finders keepers.
Funny how all these anti-Russian narratives are suddenly popping up over the last week or so. Is everyone really supposed to care about the plight of Kiev, capital of a nation that the US has no historical connection to at all? At least let everyone get over caring about the recent twenty yr involvement with Kabul, Afghanistan, etc. The Afghan refugees are still pouring in, at least let the dust clear and settle before we have to suddenly start caring for another underdog nation in the middle of nowhere that we have no direct connection to.
What, seriously?
But we fight over there so we don't have to fight here is not totally untrue.Replies: @J.Ross
https://twitter.com/hispaniccosmist/status/1498871925115740161
That last sentence is wrong, though. European Russia survived (as opposed to expanded) because the Mongol Yoke taught it toughness towards Europeans (and sometimes Turks). Russia’s mostly empty vastness, on the other hand, had nothing to do with its wars. There was simply nothing in the East after the collapse of the Khanate, and not even the Khanate in the very far East, to stop Yermak from exploring and Russian mapmakers from claiming all that land. You could even argue that, were Siberia as densely and thoroughly built up as Western Europe, it would never be Russian.
“between 1700 and 1870, Russia had spent 106 years fighting 38 military campaigns, of which 36 had been “offensive”
Regarding offensive campaigns, wonder if the US could match that track record, say starting from 1840-2022. Probably could.
One battle of the Seven Years War had more troops and casualties than our entire Indian campaign.
Sweden was very big user of this businnes model, in pay of Richelieu. Then Russia was beefed up by Dutch and English to take out Sweden, and it then Russias turn selling her armies to France or Austria or whatever.
This explains the large numbers of wars it used to wage back then. Before Napoleonic Wars that wiped the old structure and formed Nations, everyone in Europe was doing more or less same. Prussia etc.
Old Pipes was a russophobic scum, just as his son is an islamophobic scum ("dhimmi no more"). So he counts things out of context , referring to Pipes is like , next best thing to citing Elders of Zion as a source.
Is Steve trying to imply that Russia conquered Polish land?
What a bunch of pikers those Russians are. They like to stay at home and eat borscht. There really is no comparison whatsoever.
“The United States has been engaged in what the great historian Charles A. Beard called perpetual war for perpetual peace. The Federation of American Scientists has cataloged nearly 200 military incursions since 1945 in which the United States has been the aggressor.”
That is just since 1945. A thousand or more if you start with the colonials or 1776.
Since that’s what used to be called a “Communist front organization,” I’d take some salt along with that number. Their entire purpose was to spread lies.
You’re referring to the Putin who stole the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine back in 2014, and South Ossetia form Georgia in 2008? That Vladimir Putin, right?
1. Crimea only became Ukrainian in 1954 and in 2014 the little green men were greeted as liberators there.
2. South Ossetia was de facto independent of Georgia since 1992. Georgians tried but failed to change that in 2008.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-mosque/putin-opens-moscows-largest-mosque-warns-against-extremists-idUSKCN0RN1UD20150923
It helps relations with his Chechen mercenaries that he uses to torture Orthodox Christians. Or at least, he planned to, before their column got (allegedly) incinerated.Replies: @Father Coughlin
The Russian Origins of the First World War Sean McMeekinReplies: @neutral
Is there supposed to be a correlation between wars and inside toilets?
The drones can't get you inside. Also the greatest intel the West got on the Soviet Army was from going though their trash which included the official sometimes secret documents they used as a replacement for rationed toilet paper, and didn't flush because communist plumbing couldn't handle it. Russian soldiers didn't wear socks until a few years ago.Replies: @Yngvar, @John Johnson
Are we also counting the wars in the Caucasus and Central Asia?
Was Britain ever not conquering? Many of the wars were aggressive but the campaigns defensive in those wars of Empire. It’s more than semantics. Germany only fought a couple of offensive campaigns in ww2. The war was mostly their aggressive expansionism though.Replies: @Fluesterwitz, @Colin Wright
The view was that the Russian general staff had of their campaigns, not about some sort of morality or other. I rather doubt anybody ever decided on waging war without having convinced himself on the righteousness of his decision.
That would probably depend on whether you counted every (red) Indian tribe as a separate nation as well as whether you’d include police actions, democratization by air and the like.
It's interesting that they start counting from 1700 onwards. Most likely because that's around the time when Russia finally emerged as a first rate military power. Before that time, particularly during the Middle Ages, Russia was a simply duchy with nowhere near the amount of land it has now. Also, for many centuries it was a conquered people (the Mongols), and didn't always win many wars in those days.
Slightly OT
A crisis serves to stress test (or reveal) many a pundit’s opinions. I used to follow this Portuguese former junior minister who has tried to establish himself as the expert on Eurasia. I even skimmed a book he wrote. Then he started to signal evidence of flakiness.
Now he shows himself to be an idiot:
(He is referring that that Mearsheimer video that suggests teasing the Russian bear with NATO membership for Ukraine will end in disaster.)
And winning them.Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
Hola, Jack! Good to see you round again. Missed you from the old purple days.
Wonder where Panel-beater Bird has wandered off to…..
It was in self defence. Besides they were Nazis and Fascist. And this was rightful Russian land. And… look, don’t ask those stupid questions because it might turn out that you are a Nazi.
The drones can’t get you inside. Also the greatest intel the West got on the Soviet Army was from going though their trash which included the official sometimes secret documents they used as a replacement for rationed toilet paper, and didn’t flush because communist plumbing couldn’t handle it. Russian soldiers didn’t wear socks until a few years ago.
https://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2016/04/norwegian-soldiers_finnmark.jpg
Knowing how to wrap a foot is a useful skill.
The Tsars were very expansionist; however they went by land rather than by sea. This is what happens when your coasts are on “lakes” shared with other nations (Baltic and Black Seas), icebound much of the year (Arctic), or at least very remote and very cold (Pacific.)
Similarly, in about that same time frame, Germany/-ies, which has a reputation for invading, experienced a much more frequent reality of being invaded.
A large part of the Napoleonic Wars was on land of the various Germanies. And the Seven Years War, 30 Years War, etc. The Russians went into East Prussia in August 1914. How many Americans know about the Battle of Tannenberg?
The French tried to take back Alsace-Lorraine in 1914. The French declared war in 1870.
“European Russia survived (as opposed to expanded) because the Mongol Yoke taught it toughness towards Europeans (and sometimes Turks). “
Alexander Blok wrote this between the wars, appealing for the West to co-operate with Russia rather than always seeing her as the enemy (which under Communism was not surprising, to be honest). I find it a lot easier to understand than Frost’s poem.
When the UK (Chamberlain) sent low-grade people to UK-Soviet talks, Stalin decided they weren’t serious about co-operation and so hastened to sign a pact with Hitler. The flesh of white people, including Russians, was indeed roasted all over Europe.
Paestum is an ancient ruined Greek city.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paestum
Messina, Lisbon—these, you thought, were pages
In some strange book of legendary lore.
refers to the destruction of both cities by earthquake in 1755 and 1783 respectively. He's saying "don't think sudden death and the destruction of great cities are just stories from old books - they can come to you".
The Molotov Cocktail is well known because it can be very effective. The Soviets were “victorious” over the Hungarians in ’56 because of massively greater numbers, utter ruthlessness, and the refusal of the West to step in. Tanks are not totally invincible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail
Used by the Finns against Soviet tanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956
Not widely known: The Soviets had to invade twice to win, after an initial setback, and large elements of the Hungarian (Communist) army went over to the rebels.
But nuclear weapons are. Welcome to 2022.
"In summary, though, you don’t get to be as vast as Russia without starting some wars."Technically, the Mongols weren't defeated by Russia more than half a millennia ago. As their mighty empire was crumbling, they decided to retreat back to Central Asia and left close to 40-50% of what is now modern Russia behind them. Finders keepers.Funny how all these anti-Russian narratives are suddenly popping up over the last week or so. Is everyone really supposed to care about the plight of Kiev, capital of a nation that the US has no historical connection to at all? At least let everyone get over caring about the recent twenty yr involvement with Kabul, Afghanistan, etc. The Afghan refugees are still pouring in, at least let the dust clear and settle before we have to suddenly start caring for another underdog nation in the middle of nowhere that we have no direct connection to.What, seriously?Replies: @bomag
I see what you are saying.
But we fight over there so we don’t have to fight here is not totally untrue.
you don’t get to be as vast as Russia without starting some wars
Until Pearl Harbour all America’s wars were wars of US aggression. Whereas since PH only the majority have been.
Crimea following Nuland’s criminal operation in Ukraine, yes? And Georgia following a criminal and stupid NATO and Israeli operation, yes? Or do you really honestly think that Putin is just randomly striking out at countries for no reason?
Might want to consider the relative size of the efforts.
One battle of the Seven Years War had more troops and casualties than our entire Indian campaign.
One of the reasons why Tocqueville predicted that Russia and the United States would eventually be at each other’s throats was because both tended towards expansionism, albeit for different reasons and via different means (per Tocqueville America “the plough”, Russia “the sword”). Nevertheless, Russia WAS invaded (and let us not forget the invasion/occupation by the Mongol “Golden Horde” in the 13th century), and within a span of 130 years Russia took on the chin twice c/o The Little Corsican and The Bohemian Corporal. They tend to remember these things.
Spring will provide mother nature with an opportunity to open up a second eastern front in Russia. A friend of mine recently e-mailed me this information:
The record for getting into wars is held by the French, despite their reputation as a bunch of snail-eating surrender monkeys. They have fought in a vast quantity of wars I’ve never even heard of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_France
I bet Pipes counted Crimean War as offensive on Russia’s part.
Was 1870 before or after Emmett Till?
Modern tanks are very resistant to molotovs. And beer bottle size molotovs are worthless. A molotov would have to be the size of a gatorade cooler to have even a hope of working against a modern tank.
BY ROBERT FROSTThe land was ours before we were the land’s.
She was our land more than a hundred years
Before we were her people. She was ours
In Massachusetts, in Virginia,
But we were England’s, still colonials,
Possessing what we still were unpossessed by,
Possessed by what we now no more possessed.
Something we were withholding made us weak
Until we found out that it was ourselves
We were withholding from our land of living,
And forthwith found salvation in surrender.
Such as we were we gave ourselves outright
(The deed of gift was many deeds of war)
To the land vaguely realizing westward,
But still unstoried, artless, unenhanced,
Such as she was, such as she would become.Replies: @stillCARealist
That’s an interesting poem, but I’m not sure I understand what he’s really getting at. Do you have some spiritual insight, disregarding what the internet might have to say about it?
My guess: America wasn’t America until the descendants of the Pilgrims and revolutionaries made it so.
He would probably argue that he stole it back from Ukraine, after Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine in the 50s.
Offensive and Defensive are generally neutral categories. Which is good. The other terms might be Aggression v Victimization. Napoleon III was aggressive in his war but the Prussian artillery ensured he fought only defensive campaigns once he found out. He wasn’t a victim though.
FYI:
1. Crimea only became Ukrainian in 1954 and in 2014 the little green men were greeted as liberators there.
2. South Ossetia was de facto independent of Georgia since 1992. Georgians tried but failed to change that in 2008.
There were people living in Siberia, but they were about as able to stop the Russians moving east as the Indians could the movement of Americans west.
I’ve often found that many non-Americans have a hard time understanding just how big the US is until they visit the country, and what that means in terms of difficulty in practical administration. Russians, predictably, don’t.
(It’s one of my favorite things about America, TBH-whenever I’m in a densely populated place abroad, I’m reminded of why I can’t really be anything else. I occasionally wonder if Russians feel anything similar thinking about their wilderness and outback.)
>You could even argue that, were Siberia as densely and thoroughly built up as Western Europe, it would never be Russian.
One of the weird legacies of Siberia’s (and Central Asia’s) usage as a dumping ground for criminals, political or otherwise, was a surprising amount of nationalities that could be found there by the late Tsarist or early Communist years. You got everything from Siberian Poles thanks to the various failed uprisings against the Tsars to Koreans deported by Stalin to places like Uzbekistan.
Slezkine of Jewish Century infamy wrote a great history of Siberia. It includes a description of how Siberians with incompatibly different languages traded,* as well as an explanation with quotes of how the Russians "conquered" the Siberians, in a manner much more humane than Spain or the USA handled the Siberians' bridge-crossing cousins: 1) have a party, 2) make sure vodka is present, 3) explain how many furs must be dispatched to Petersburg every so often, 4) if they resist, "beat them up a little," 5) remember the vodka.
-------
*Party A piles their goods, then retreats to a spot where they can see everything and be seen or inferred. Party B does the same. One at a time, each inspects the others' wares. They bargain by creating smaller piles, keeping not yet purchased items separate. They haggle or dispute by returning items to the big piles. At no time is anyone close enough to anyone else to successfully attack. They traded for generations like this.
Is your point that Russia historically is more war-mongering than the other Great Powers, Britain, US, France, Germany, China and Japan? If so this not the most compelling data:
1. Russia in all four World Wars, Seven Years War*, Napoleonic Wars, World War I and II was on the same side of Britain. What does that say about the war-mongering nature of the Anglo-Saxons?
2. Unlike Britain, Japan and US, Russia has no natural barrier as defensive barrier, not even a Rhein.
3. Historical invasions against Russia have been especially devastating, other commenters have noted so I won’t repeat. On the scale unfathomable for Americans.
*As the Red Army had encircled Berlin in May 1945 and with death of FDR, Hitler had hopes for a repeat of Miracle of the House of Brandenburg (1762), when Russia switched sides to ally with Britain, saving Prussia and Frederick from defeat.
such as with Japan in the late 1930s and with China in the late 1960s
It’s true that Russia had a large hand in 20th CE East Asian conflicts. But to be fair:
– Japan, China along with all the Entente Powers intervened in the Russia Civil War on Russian soil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_intervention)
– Nomonhan Incident was instigated by rogue IJA officer Tsuji Masanobu in an act of gekokujō.
– Sino-Soviet Conflict of 1929 was instigated by Chinese militarist Zhang Xueliang
– Sino-Soviet Conflict of 1969 was probably instigated by PRC
It's said over here that if you go EastNorthEast from West Bromwich Albion's soccer ground (551 feet above sea level), you find no higher ground before the Ural Mountains.
This is true. As Russia's histories with Tartars, Poles, Swedes, and Germans all demonstrate, it was largely kill or be killed.
I would say that Russia pursued a clearly aggressive policy towards Persia, Ottoman Turkey, and the Siberian and Central Asian states; none could reasonably be called a threat to Russia proper. However, most of the rest were a matter of Russia winning rather than her foes.Replies: @Thelma Ringbaum
The best exiled exoticism is probably the Decembrists being allowed to implememt their program, so long as it was in Siberia. So Tsarist Russia, specifically one town deep in the pines, is the first country by far in Europe or Asia to have universal literacy and women’s suffrage.
Slezkine of Jewish Century infamy wrote a great history of Siberia. It includes a description of how Siberians with incompatibly different languages traded,* as well as an explanation with quotes of how the Russians “conquered” the Siberians, in a manner much more humane than Spain or the USA handled the Siberians’ bridge-crossing cousins: 1) have a party, 2) make sure vodka is present, 3) explain how many furs must be dispatched to Petersburg every so often, 4) if they resist, “beat them up a little,” 5) remember the vodka.
——-
*Party A piles their goods, then retreats to a spot where they can see everything and be seen or inferred. Party B does the same. One at a time, each inspects the others’ wares. They bargain by creating smaller piles, keeping not yet purchased items separate. They haggle or dispute by returning items to the big piles. At no time is anyone close enough to anyone else to successfully attack. They traded for generations like this.
That's respectable.
OTOH, could it maybe be instead that his theater going side is peeved that Russia doesn't allow anything related to Ru Paul in its media? "Deep down I love the costume design"...well, I won't put words in your mouth. Sorry.
Who knows. Russia will win this one pretty soon, so don't worry about it too much. Ukraine will fall and people will move on, etc.Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
This is always good for a laugh:
Lawmakers Fist Fight During Ukrainian Parliamentary Meeting
More to the point, I fail to how any of this justifies us deliberately baiting Putin so as to start a war simply to distract our electorate from our own catastrophic and rapidly worsening domestic situation. I compare it to going into a field and poking the bull there in the eye with a stick. Whatever criticisms there are to be made of the bull's response, you can hardly argue that you didn't intend to bring it about.Replies: @nebulafox, @Art Deco
The reason the Germans didn’t advance further in 1915 wasn’t because they couldn’t. It was because the CoC at the time, von Falkenhayn, thought that outright German total victory was already impossible by 1915. He felt the only way out was to get one of the Entente powers to cut a separate deal, and thought that the Russians were the likeliest to do so if they weren’t overly humiliated. That this didn’t happen was only the beginning of what would mostly be an incredibly crappy year for him in 1916.
Hindenberg and Ludendorff were different: they wanted to annex vast parts of the Tsarist Empire and exploit the local resources to break the stalemate in the West. They also had far more control over the German government in 1917 than Falkenhayn did two years earlier. Obviously, Germany had to withdraw from its new territories after 1918, but the damage was done. These territories carried a disproportionate population and industrial level before the war, and the Soviet government was determined to rectify the “wrongs” of the postwar order, if through their own revolutionary prism.
(Some people say that this was a direct prelude to Hitler’s plans for European Russia, and I’m sure Putin’s among them. While I wouldn’t go nearly that far-there was never an equivalent to the outright genocidal plans the Third Reich had for the locals or a desire to wipe out Russia in totem, among other differences-it’s still not hard to see the connection. Hitler could think of a German Eastern imperium providing endlessly expoloitable resources that can make Germany invulnerable to Anglo-American pressure… because it was a concrete, if unreal, reality in 1918.)
1. Russia in all four World Wars, Seven Years War*, Napoleonic Wars, World War I and II was on the same side of Britain. What does that say about the war-mongering nature of the Anglo-Saxons?
2. Unlike Britain, Japan and US, Russia has no natural barrier as defensive barrier, not even a Rhein.
3. Historical invasions against Russia have been especially devastating, other commenters have noted so I won't repeat. On the scale unfathomable for Americans.
*As the Red Army had encircled Berlin in May 1945 and with death of FDR, Hitler had hopes for a repeat of Miracle of the House of Brandenburg (1762), when Russia switched sides to ally with Britain, saving Prussia and Frederick from defeat.
such as with Japan in the late 1930s and with China in the late 1960s
It's true that Russia had a large hand in 20th CE East Asian conflicts. But to be fair:
- Japan, China along with all the Entente Powers intervened in the Russia Civil War on Russian soil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_intervention)
- Nomonhan Incident was instigated by rogue IJA officer Tsuji Masanobu in an act of gekokujō.
- Sino-Soviet Conflict of 1929 was instigated by Chinese militarist Zhang Xueliang
- Sino-Soviet Conflict of 1969 was probably instigated by PRCReplies: @nebulafox, @YetAnotherAnon, @Colin Wright
I don’t think the Russians were more “aggressive” in wartime or ill-behaved in colonial territories than other political entities in the pre-20th Century era. Not less, of course. But also not more. The big difference around 1900 with other European powers was that Russia was dealing with a vast internal left-wing terrorist movement, and had an anachronistic style of government that was not adapting to modernity well.
In the early 20th Century… well, when you constantly try to overthrow the governments of the world while they try to establish relations with you in the name of your ideology, you really shouldn’t be that shocked when they treat you like a pariah state. Stalin’s paranoia was a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more they acted out, the more the siege mentality entrenched itself. I’m honestly surprised that people worked with the USSR as much as they did in the 1920s and 1930s.
And anything post-WWII is too different from the pre-WWII world-nukes-that it isn’t really worth discussing alongside this.
> Tsuji Masanobu
Wait, I know that name. Is that the same guy who helped the Viet Minh? If so, irony knows no boundaries.
Meh. Read up on their behavior in Circassia, the Crimea, Bulgaria. Russians as colonizers aren't very nice guys. What was the exception with others was more the rule for them.
An outrageously based character, on top of instigating Nomonhan, Invasion of Singapore, Sook Ching Massacre, Bataan Death March, planning cold weather operations for Chiang Kai-shek, he was revealed to be a CIA asset during the Cold War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masanobu_Tsuji#Information_later_disclosed_in_CIA_files
More to the point, I fail to how any of this justifies us deliberately baiting Putin so as to start a war simply to distract our electorate from our own catastrophic and rapidly worsening domestic situation. I compare it to going into a field and poking the bull there in the eye with a stick. Whatever criticisms there are to be made of the bull's response, you can hardly argue that you didn't intend to bring it about.Replies: @nebulafox, @Art Deco
More to the point, I fail to how any of this justifies us deliberately baiting Putin so as to start a war
He wasn’t baited. He’s extensively mobilized to meet policy objectives. The problem here is his objectives.
1. Russia in all four World Wars, Seven Years War*, Napoleonic Wars, World War I and II was on the same side of Britain. What does that say about the war-mongering nature of the Anglo-Saxons?
2. Unlike Britain, Japan and US, Russia has no natural barrier as defensive barrier, not even a Rhein.
3. Historical invasions against Russia have been especially devastating, other commenters have noted so I won't repeat. On the scale unfathomable for Americans.
*As the Red Army had encircled Berlin in May 1945 and with death of FDR, Hitler had hopes for a repeat of Miracle of the House of Brandenburg (1762), when Russia switched sides to ally with Britain, saving Prussia and Frederick from defeat.
such as with Japan in the late 1930s and with China in the late 1960s
It's true that Russia had a large hand in 20th CE East Asian conflicts. But to be fair:
- Japan, China along with all the Entente Powers intervened in the Russia Civil War on Russian soil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_intervention)
- Nomonhan Incident was instigated by rogue IJA officer Tsuji Masanobu in an act of gekokujō.
- Sino-Soviet Conflict of 1929 was instigated by Chinese militarist Zhang Xueliang
- Sino-Soviet Conflict of 1969 was probably instigated by PRCReplies: @nebulafox, @YetAnotherAnon, @Colin Wright
“Unlike Britain, Japan and US, Russia has no natural barrier as defensive barrier, not even a Rhein.”
It’s said over here that if you go EastNorthEast from West Bromwich Albion’s soccer ground (551 feet above sea level), you find no higher ground before the Ural Mountains.
I don’t have much, if any, sympathy for the ones trying to commit suicide by Russian. I realize Ukrainians might have legitimate reasons to oppose being a vassal state of Russia, but at the moment they’re functioning as a mercenary force for the US government which is my sworn enemy. A bloody, long insurgency will only get more people killed. Russia will destroy the world before it lets Ukraine become part of NATO, which would mean the end of any sort of meaningful Russian sovereignty.
Ukrainians should be fighting their government demanding a surrender.
You should emigrate. You don't belong here.Replies: @anon, @J.Ross
Also, the Vladimir Putin who proudly builds giant mosques in Moscow.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-mosque/putin-opens-moscows-largest-mosque-warns-against-extremists-idUSKCN0RN1UD20150923
It helps relations with his Chechen mercenaries that he uses to torture Orthodox Christians. Or at least, he planned to, before their column got (allegedly) incinerated.
Exactly. Catching on. Have to count everything, especially counting each tribe as a distinct and separate ethnic. After all, the Tatars, Cossaks, etc are counted separately, so have to be consistent in the counting.
It’s interesting that they start counting from 1700 onwards. Most likely because that’s around the time when Russia finally emerged as a first rate military power. Before that time, particularly during the Middle Ages, Russia was a simply duchy with nowhere near the amount of land it has now. Also, for many centuries it was a conquered people (the Mongols), and didn’t always win many wars in those days.
But we fight over there so we don't have to fight here is not totally untrue.Replies: @J.Ross
Give it a minute, The Big Guy will start a global war over there and a civil war here.
Just like all the newly minted Afghan citizens. Invade, and then invite.
Just like that.
‘…I don’t think the Russians were more “aggressive” in wartime or ill-behaved in colonial territories than other political entities in the pre-20th Century era. Not less, of course. But also not more…’
Meh. Read up on their behavior in Circassia, the Crimea, Bulgaria. Russians as colonizers aren’t very nice guys. What was the exception with others was more the rule for them.
You’ve got it totally wrong never happened. Check the dates
The Non-Agression principle, at least when it comes to territories and peoples, doesnt work. Countries will take territory preventively because they see a conflict arising and need a buffer. They’ll take territory, preferring to fight on someone else’s turf rather than their own for a conflict they see as inevitable. Many countries see these as existential decisions, and you’re not gonna whip them off with a libertarian sermon.
Lawyers do this in law all the time. They file a declaratory judgment action when threatened with litigation by the other side. That way it’s their pleading that gets ruled on and they get to take discovery first.
The key is to have Christians as heads of government so that disputes are mediated in a manner that has the best interest of both sides in mind. So when you have Jewish heads of government it’s always “what’s best for the Jews here?”*. And when it’s liberals it’s “whats best to spread Globohomo”?.
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/is-it-good-for-the-jews/
I remember years ago when the US first developed the small nuke, and people worried the Russians could simply have a diplomat enter the US with an attaché-case nuclear bomb. Some wag replied: Don’t worry – – the Russians will never figure-out how to make – – an attaché case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zBhtFFkUDI
Gee, what a shock Pipes is hawkish. I remember seeing him pushing for the invasion of Iraq on Bill Maher’s old Politically Incorrect. I know people probably have generally negative opinions on Alec Baldwin here (as do I) but he really humiated Pipes. At one point, just to twist the dagger, asked him, “Are you really a college professor?” Or something like that. It was hard to watch and back then I was stupid enough to be pro-invasion, even though I was plenty old enough to have known better.
I recall reading a book (American author) about WW II which said about the US Army moving into German territory in October 1944: ” German armies have always devastated other countries. Now war will finally be on German soil.”
A large part of the Napoleonic Wars was on land of the various Germanies. And the Seven Years War, 30 Years War, etc. The Russians went into East Prussia in August 1914. How many Americans know about the Battle of Tannenberg?
The French tried to take back Alsace-Lorraine in 1914. The French declared war in 1870.
Are we also counting the wars in the Caucasus and Central Asia?
Was Britain ever not conquering? Many of the wars were aggressive but the campaigns defensive in those wars of Empire. It’s more than semantics. Germany only fought a couple of offensive campaigns in ww2. The war was mostly their aggressive expansionism though.Replies: @Fluesterwitz, @Colin Wright
‘It’s more than semantics. Germany only fought a couple of offensive campaigns in ww2. The war was mostly their aggressive expansionism though.’
? I count seven such campaigns, more or less: Poland, Denmark and Norway, France and the Low Countries, the Balkans, North Africa (depending on how you look at it), Barbarossa, and Fall Blau. You could also add the Battle of the Atlantic: after all, Britain would have been quite happy to see the Atlantic left undisturbed. Even if you pull out all the semantic stops, that count can’t be reduced to fewer than five.
1. Russia in all four World Wars, Seven Years War*, Napoleonic Wars, World War I and II was on the same side of Britain. What does that say about the war-mongering nature of the Anglo-Saxons?
2. Unlike Britain, Japan and US, Russia has no natural barrier as defensive barrier, not even a Rhein.
3. Historical invasions against Russia have been especially devastating, other commenters have noted so I won't repeat. On the scale unfathomable for Americans.
*As the Red Army had encircled Berlin in May 1945 and with death of FDR, Hitler had hopes for a repeat of Miracle of the House of Brandenburg (1762), when Russia switched sides to ally with Britain, saving Prussia and Frederick from defeat.
such as with Japan in the late 1930s and with China in the late 1960s
It's true that Russia had a large hand in 20th CE East Asian conflicts. But to be fair:
- Japan, China along with all the Entente Powers intervened in the Russia Civil War on Russian soil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_intervention)
- Nomonhan Incident was instigated by rogue IJA officer Tsuji Masanobu in an act of gekokujō.
- Sino-Soviet Conflict of 1929 was instigated by Chinese militarist Zhang Xueliang
- Sino-Soviet Conflict of 1969 was probably instigated by PRCReplies: @nebulafox, @YetAnotherAnon, @Colin Wright
‘Unlike Britain, Japan and US, Russia has no natural barrier as defensive barrier, not even a Rhein.’
This is true. As Russia’s histories with Tartars, Poles, Swedes, and Germans all demonstrate, it was largely kill or be killed.
I would say that Russia pursued a clearly aggressive policy towards Persia, Ottoman Turkey, and the Siberian and Central Asian states; none could reasonably be called a threat to Russia proper. However, most of the rest were a matter of Russia winning rather than her foes.
I forgot to say
Messina, Lisbon—these, you thought, were pages
In some strange book of legendary lore.
refers to the destruction of both cities by earthquake in 1755 and 1783 respectively. He’s saying “don’t think sudden death and the destruction of great cities are just stories from old books – they can come to you“.
I realize Ukrainians might have legitimate reasons to oppose being a vassal state of Russia, but at the moment they’re functioning as a mercenary force for the US government which is my sworn enemy.
You should emigrate. You don’t belong here.
The very name says it all:
Continuation War
The Finns say they’ve lost 40+ wars with Russia. Anybody have details? Lagertha?
Public education’s, communist offensive against taxpayers has been relentless. Its most recent, notable tactical victory has been getting itself on the receiving end of \$100B worth of federal bailout (scamdemic) funds.
Your stimulus checks were designated as a tax credit. That is, for many of you, the money was merely a refund of what you had already paid (or to partially offset what you still owed). The politicians took credit, and the (of course drunken) reporters bestowed praise upon them, for having given you your own money (back).
School districts, meanwhile, do NOT pay taxes. The politicians didn’t issue refunds to the schools. They gave them MORE of your money.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-mosque/putin-opens-moscows-largest-mosque-warns-against-extremists-idUSKCN0RN1UD20150923
It helps relations with his Chechen mercenaries that he uses to torture Orthodox Christians. Or at least, he planned to, before their column got (allegedly) incinerated.Replies: @Father Coughlin
Make perfect the enemy of the good, if you want.
Until Pearl Harbour all America's wars were wars of US aggression. Whereas since PH only the majority have been.Replies: @kaganovitch
1812?
Russkies could hire some Chetchens and walk them over the border like your normal South-of-the-Border invader with a rucksack full of drugs.
And in the meantime, he’ll then invite them from over there to immigrate to here, thus making a new bunch of citizens, just like that.
Just like all the newly minted Afghan citizens. Invade, and then invite.
Just like that.
“Tanks are not totally invincible.”
But nuclear weapons are. Welcome to 2022.
And you don’t get to be as vast as the United States of America without starting some wars/conflicts, right? Our Native American friends would definitely agree to this proposition. I think Spanish-speaking friends in Texas and Mexico would also agree as well.Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Matt Buckalew, @Odin
Pretend Americans not reveal their Ellis Island roots challenge.
Impossible.
between 1700 and 1870, Russia had spent 106 years fighting 38 military campaigns, of which 36 had been “offensive”
Many if not most of the campaigns had been fought against the Ottoman Empire and its ally, the Crimean Khanate. Those campaigns were part of a much longer struggle that began in the 15th century and ended in the 19th. The Ottoman Turks were on the offensive for the first three centuries and on the defensive for the last two.
By a happy coincidence, for Richard Pipes, the year 1700 roughly separates those two periods.
Let’s take a look at the first period:
1521: The combined forces of Crimean Khan Mehmed Giray and his Kazan allies attacked Moscow and captured thousands of slaves.
1599: Tatar forces invaded, invading Lwów and Tarnopol, but were beaten back by Cossack forces.
1500-1550: Russian chronicles record about 40 raids of Kazan Khans on the Russian territories in the first half of the 16th century. Muscovy was also being invaded by the Nogai Horde and Crimean Khanate.
1550-1600: About 30 major Tatar raids were recorded into Muscovite territories between 1558 and 1596
1600-1700 (approx): The Russian population of the southern borderlands suffered annual Tatar invasions and tens of thousands of soldiers were required to protect the southern boundaries.
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Mongol_and_Tatar_attacks_in_Europe
There are reasons for Russia’s “paranoia.” The country is not surrounded by sea, like Britain, or by ocean, like the United States and Canada. It has consequently had to fend off one catastrophic invasion after another, the last one being the hecatomb of 1941-1945. After 1945, entire cities had to be rebuilt. This is something we in North America know nothing about.
Gorbachev was hardly a paranoid Russian nationalist, and yet even he was opposed to the eastward expansion of NATO.
Again, it's turning stupidity into a virtue. And a naive virtue at that.
Russia has been a slow starter when it comes to either offensive or defensive wars. The Russians in the Russo-Japanese War didn’t seem to have their hearts in a war a continent away from St. Petersburg. It was fought to a draw, but has always been scored as a Japanese victory. The 1914 attack on Prussia was a disaster from the start. Coordination between the Army groups was nonexistent and the Germans drove the Russians back to Russia minus General Samsonov, who shot himself. They could have stayed in for the big win since, Germany couldn’t keep up with the Allies in men and machines, but the Reds pulled out. The Russo-Finnish War right before WWII was very similar to the present unpleasantness. The Red Army thought it could rout the Finns in short order, but it turned turned into a frozen quagmire. A lot of Russian casualties and more than a few executions led eventuallyto a Pyrrhic victory. Operation Barbarossa caught the Russians somewhat flat footed, but they turned the Germans around and won with an endless supply of personnel prodded forward by commissars and Barrier Troops making sure they kept heading west. In short Russia has always been a second half team, if they don’t mind losing thousands of team members.
The Russo-Finnish loss was from the great purge. Stalin executed their experienced officers.
The 1914 disaster is a largely unknown battle and what helped the revolution. The soldiers were demoralized from the loss and Communism was a way out. You see Comrade all the wars are fascist anyways!
Lenin & company were actually cheering a Russian loss. They wanted a destitute and demoralized people.
In short Russia has always been a second half team, if they don’t mind losing thousands of team members.
Indeed and it seems to be the Russian way to toss men out at the enemy to see what happens or test the resolve of the enemy. As if the first wave of men doesn't count.
As far as I can tell they basically put 18 year old conscripts in older tanks and sent them in the direction of Kiev. They are most likely using them to draw out the anti-tank missiles before the high end tanks come in.
You should emigrate. You don't belong here.Replies: @anon, @J.Ross
Here’s this ‘Art Deco’ character again who has appointed himself the UNZ volunteer security guard, trying to upbraid various commenters for offending him. He’s going to dictate the standards for everyone else. What a worthless bore.
"The United States has been engaged in what the great historian Charles A. Beard called perpetual war for perpetual peace. The Federation of American Scientists has cataloged nearly 200 military incursions since 1945 in which the United States has been the aggressor."
That is just since 1945. A thousand or more if you start with the colonials or 1776.Replies: @Peterike
“ The Federation of American Scientists has cataloged nearly 200 military incursions since 1945 in which the United States has been the aggressor.”
Since that’s what used to be called a “Communist front organization,” I’d take some salt along with that number. Their entire purpose was to spread lies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkJ8Zb9axi8
Lawmakers Fist Fight During Ukrainian Parliamentary MeetingReplies: @aandrews
Gentlemen, you can’t fight here! This is the War Room!
The 1700s was a pre-modern time when it was customary for various local Potentates to take parts in European wars (for Empire or for France or for England etc.) for monetary subsidies. I.e., raise an army and go to war for or against whatever thing Louis Nth just stirred up.
Sweden was very big user of this businnes model, in pay of Richelieu. Then Russia was beefed up by Dutch and English to take out Sweden, and it then Russias turn selling her armies to France or Austria or whatever.
This explains the large numbers of wars it used to wage back then. Before Napoleonic Wars that wiped the old structure and formed Nations, everyone in Europe was doing more or less same. Prussia etc.
Old Pipes was a russophobic scum, just as his son is an islamophobic scum (“dhimmi no more”). So he counts things out of context , referring to Pipes is like , next best thing to citing Elders of Zion as a source.
My guess: America wasn't America until the descendants of the Pilgrims and revolutionaries made it so.Replies: @Pierre de Craon
You don’t need to guess.
Frost recited this poem from memory on January 20, 1961, at the JFK inauguration. I was one of the millions who saw him. He had written, in some haste, a new poem for the occasion, but in the glare of the sun and a very stiff wind, he couldn’t read the new poem from the page he held in his hand. Thus, he recited “The Gift Outright” from memory as a substitute. If you locate the poem that Frost wrote for the occasion, you’ll see that the country as a whole, lovers of good verse especially, had much to thank the sun and the weather for.
Perhaps you have difficulty seeing what the poet was getting at because his understanding of the USA—an understanding that in 1961 was accepted by about 99.7 percent of white Gentile Americans, then roughly 90 percent of the population—is now identified with what knaves and liars of several Tribes call white racism and supremacism. Put plainly, the poet assumes that the USA belongs to Americans, and he understands Americans to be—first, foremost, and definitively—the lineal descendants of the land’s European settlers: people from the entirety of the British Isles, as well as the French, the Spanish, the Germans, the Dutch, the Swedes, and the other northern European Christians who arrived here before the Revolution and constituted the first Americans in a strictly national sense. Yet as the poet pointedly notes, it took these Americans (or rather, their descendants) a good while to realize that American is (1) what they had become and (2) what they wanted to be. It was only with their “surrender” to that realization, however, that it then became possible for them to create a nation with a national past and a national mythos. In other words, without the conscious unity associated with the sense of shared nationhood, the “unstoried, artless, unenhanced” land and people would never acquire or develop what every authentic people has always desired as something of surpassing value to deed to their posterity: a rich, complex, and artful narrative complement to mere history.
Thanks to Jacob Javits, Emmanuel Celler, the ADL, and forty years of tireless anti-white, anti-Christian activism prior to its passage, the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965 put a bullet in the brain of Robert Frost’s America—indeed, of Americans’ America. Curiously, it took the corpse roughly another forty years to realize that it was dead.
This is true. As Russia's histories with Tartars, Poles, Swedes, and Germans all demonstrate, it was largely kill or be killed.
I would say that Russia pursued a clearly aggressive policy towards Persia, Ottoman Turkey, and the Siberian and Central Asian states; none could reasonably be called a threat to Russia proper. However, most of the rest were a matter of Russia winning rather than her foes.Replies: @Thelma Ringbaum
Attacks on the listed non-Christian nations were seen as colonization or conquest back then. (Now they are not; historical perespective becomes more Equal : you dont say “The Spanish discovered Trinidad”, you describe “First Spanish-Chaguanas War” instead. ).
With the exception of Ottoman Empire which was a part of the European Concert, that is, subject to balance of power calculations in various European wars (France against Austria, Protestants vs Catholics etc.). In which wars Russia played a pawn.
Ukraine in its current borders is in large part former Turkish land, by the way. Russia’s historic claim to most of the “NewRussia” including Crimea is that it was aquired as series of Russian conquests from Turks and Crimean Tartars, and not really Ukraine proper.
“There are reasons for Russia’s ‘paranoia.’”
No doubt. But the reasons for Ukraine’s paranoia (or whatever one chooses to call it) are just as understandable, as a quick survey of Ukrainian history will reveal. And regardless of what Putin says about that, it’s a country with a UN seat, a border, a government, etc. Somehow, they’ve managed to peacefully shift that government from one party to an opposing one, even after Putin tells us it was taken over by a junta or whatever after the oust of Yanukovych. So in that sense at least, they’re far more legitimate than Russia with their president-for-however-long-he-feels-like.
All this to say, Ukraine gets to have a say, too, with regard to NATO. Even if it’s only going to be used as a bargaining chip for some future neutrality agreement (one that I’m really sure Putin is 100% going to respect this time, really, truly), they have a right to at least ask for that chip to strengthen their position.
For the rest of the world to say, wait a minute, we gotta ask Russia’s permission before we decide whether you’re a country, well, that’s not just Russia walking away from its guarantees of Ukrainian sovereignty. That’s us deciding to bail, too. THAT is the kind of backstabbing that also gets us in trouble, just as much as leading nations into airy-fairy democracy games involving revolutions and overthrows.
So, if Putin wants this or that out of Ukrainians, let him wheel and deal with the Ukrainians without rolling tanks in. Without pretending there’s some imaginary right to buffer states, the duty of which has to fall on Ukraine (or whatever bordering country is next in line once Ukraine is incorporated and he then demands a buffer states for that even larger hunk of Russia, and so on). If his promises are so empty that a basket of Nuland’s pastries are all that’s needed for them to tell him “no thanks”, he doesn’t need to blame the West. He needs to look within. She didn’t need to send in any tanks — is a former KGB really so inept that he can’t bribe/coerce/blackmail anyone in the same way she allegedly did? Ukraine is really that corruption-free? Really? And it’s too bad for him that Yanukovych didn’t work out, but he shouldn’t be such a baby about it. His turn will come up again — maybe next time, he can try and find someone who isn’t so inept. (That would have helped with regard to Trump, too — if he had managed to turn someone less incompetent, he might have had another four years without Nuland, and by then she might have retired or gone back to torturing small animals or whatever it is that she does in her off-time. But when she was fired by Trump, she chose to bide her time, and then, when Biden re-hired her, she just dusted herself off and started up again. THAT is how you play the long game. If Putin is the undisputed master of that, as his fans claim, he should take a tip from her.)
Membership in a military alliance is not a fundamental right. There are many countries that cannot join military alliances. Austria for one. Japan for another (although the Japanese are trying to get around that constitutional requirement). Neutrality can be imposed by outsiders, and this has been done repeatedly in history for the sake of world peace. What do you think the term "buffer state" means?
Anyway, there are no fundamental rights in international law. There are only realities. And one of them is that catastrophic wars happen when military alliances are allowed to spread without limit.Replies: @Art Deco, @HA
He did promulgate a far more authoritarian system once he attained supreme power, but 2008 Putin stepped down in accordance with the constitution. Most people think Putin is approved of by a majority of Russians. Even Gorbachev, although warning against war, and more or less openly saying he is no fan of Putin, admitted a few years ago that the Russian people are for Putin and want him to stay on.The weakening of Ukraine was its self inflicted alienation of areas with an overwhelmingly Russian speaking population, which decided after speaking coup against coup against a politician who appealed to Russian speaking area and the Ukrainian speaking West. Then after unsuccessfully trying to use full military force against the breakaway regions Ukraine agreed at Minsk 2 negotiations to autonomy for the breakaway regions in retun Russia agreed to stop interfering. Instead, Ukraine led by Poroshenko, went back on Minsk 2, and kept up the low level stalemate that it could cope with. Russian speaking non combatants were being killed. After Zelinsky defeated Poroshenko on an anti corruption manifesto but failed to deliver on his promised clean government Zelinsky became unpopular and not only ignored Minsk 2, he started becoming bellicose toward Russia and the breakaway regions. Ukraine was a Nato "partner" given a billion in weapons superior to any Russia had: Stingers Javelins and radar targeting for artillery from America and from Turkey German high tech drones.Outgunned in an interminable low intensity war against a country backed by Nato; how could such a correlation of forces conceivably have amounted to a winning strategy for Russia? Biographers say Putin is the opposite of foolhardy, but he had nothing to gain by delay.The planning for this invasion would probably have taken several months so I think it was the prospect of losing artillery duels that bought about the decision to strike. Putin's military advisors probably were for it.You lead with your strength, whether that be pastries, TV performing, or the audacity to order a 60 mile long column of obliteration to advance on the capital of those who underestimated you. No Russian leader would have acted differently.Replies: @HA
Art, Jack, Peter A, and IntelligentDasein post good information sometimes, and especially Art has a consistent, respectable logic, even when he’s wrong. They’re not like HA, who has paragraphs and paragraphs of nothing to say, flat out lies, and is concerned that the establishment’s message is not sufficiently propagated despite owning every “respectable” channel.
All this to say, Ukraine gets to have a say, too, with regard to NATO
Membership in a military alliance is not a fundamental right. There are many countries that cannot join military alliances. Austria for one. Japan for another (although the Japanese are trying to get around that constitutional requirement). Neutrality can be imposed by outsiders, and this has been done repeatedly in history for the sake of world peace. What do you think the term “buffer state” means?
Anyway, there are no fundamental rights in international law. There are only realities. And one of them is that catastrophic wars happen when military alliances are allowed to spread without limit.
And, again, NATO membership isn't the issue here.Replies: @Peter Frost
Here Steve is trying to build a straw man called the “Violent Psychopath Threat To Europe,” and along comes [Penn Jillette voice] this ^%#hole [/pjv] to retitle it “Normal Guy Who Lives Next Door To Muslims.” For some mysterious, astrological reason, everybody who lives next door to Muslims finds themselves transformed, werewolf-like, in that serious moonlight. Meanwhile, France caused enormous devastation repeatedly trying and failing to conquer Italy, after a war with Spain. Germans interpreted the Bible as a Telefon-style activation message to go forth and kill. The Austrians, when they were not shooting themselves, made map-redrawing a hobby. Russian violence in Europe has not been as bad as that of other countries — it normally is a corrective for those others — and it rarely resulted in conquest. The most humiliating thing about the Partitions of Poland was that they were not military conquests. Steve’s quip about how big Russia is depends on irrelevant, unconquered Siberia, not a Storm to the West. It’s almost like Russia’s not the bad guy.
A waste of time. Ha ha ha simply doesn’t get it. Making stupidity into a virtue and all that sort of thing. But, when one’s land is surrounded by two oceans (two very LARGE oceans at that), then one tends to think that most see the wold exactly as they do.
Again, it’s turning stupidity into a virtue. And a naive virtue at that.
So what? Between 1670 and 1810 France invaded Germany (German speaking lands) fourteen times. An average of once a decade. “very few countries in history have had as bad a neighbor as Germany had had in France”. Major-general J.F.C. Fuller – Decisive battles of world history.
Membership in a military alliance is not a fundamental right. There are many countries that cannot join military alliances. Austria for one. Japan for another (although the Japanese are trying to get around that constitutional requirement). Neutrality can be imposed by outsiders, and this has been done repeatedly in history for the sake of world peace. What do you think the term "buffer state" means?
Anyway, there are no fundamental rights in international law. There are only realities. And one of them is that catastrophic wars happen when military alliances are allowed to spread without limit.Replies: @Art Deco, @HA
Japan’s had a mutual security treaty with the U.S. for 70 years.
And, again, NATO membership isn’t the issue here.
It's called a security treaty because a military alliance would be forbidden by Japan's constitution:And, again, NATO membership isn’t the issue here.
The Russians say it is. In fact, they say it's the main issue. If you think they're lying, why not call their bluff and offer a guarantee that Ukraine will never belong to NATO? If they reject that offer, your position will gain in moral credibility. You will be the Good Guys, and they will be the Bad Guys.
Oh, I forget. You don't have to worry about that last point because you've got the megaphone. To quote Marshall McLuhan: "The medium is the message."
I used to be sympathetic to Ukrainian nationalism, just as I used to be sympathetic to Quebecois nationalism and Irish nationalism. I saw all of these movements as a resistance to globalism.
Now I realize I was wrong.
Most nationalists can't see the big picture, apparently because there is something unnationalistic in seeing the big picture. They thus become easily co-opted by organizations that are, fundamentally, anti-nationalist and globalist, like NATO and the European Union.Replies: @Art Deco
The drones can't get you inside. Also the greatest intel the West got on the Soviet Army was from going though their trash which included the official sometimes secret documents they used as a replacement for rationed toilet paper, and didn't flush because communist plumbing couldn't handle it. Russian soldiers didn't wear socks until a few years ago.Replies: @Yngvar, @John Johnson
They finally figured out how to mass-produce even during war time. My dad used footwraps during his service, his sons didn’t. Nowadays you inherit them, it looks like. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-11/norway-soldiers-used-underwear-army/100748800
Knowing how to wrap a foot is a useful skill.
You should emigrate. You don't belong here.Replies: @anon, @J.Ross
Art Deco is literally and technically wrong. My loyalty is to the Constitution, as is his, as should be yours, and as every one of those scumbags swore when they took office. The Constitition is not a climbing used car salesman who figured out how to receive bribes from overseas enemies without getting immediately caught.
Membership in a military alliance is not a fundamental right. There are many countries that cannot join military alliances. Austria for one. Japan for another (although the Japanese are trying to get around that constitutional requirement). Neutrality can be imposed by outsiders, and this has been done repeatedly in history for the sake of world peace. What do you think the term "buffer state" means?
Anyway, there are no fundamental rights in international law. There are only realities. And one of them is that catastrophic wars happen when military alliances are allowed to spread without limit.Replies: @Art Deco, @HA
“Membership in a military alliance is not a fundamental right.”
Neither is a buffer state. Poland, Germany, the Brits, the Austro-Hungarians, all lost their glorious empires. They’re not rolling tanks into Kiev.
Before Crimea, the voting percentage of Ukrainians (back when it included Russian-heavy areas of Crimea and Donbas) who wanted to be in NATO was in the low-30’s or less. The Ukrainians had no interest in NATO and Putin had his buffer state. Whatever magic white powder Nuland sprinkled onto those pastries wasn’t enough to change that. Even YATSENIUK, her pet candidate, didn’t want to join NATO. She rolled no tanks into Ukraine, and didn’t swipe an inch of their territory.
Putin had what he wanted, and if he had any staying power, he might well have found a Yanukovych clone that was competent enough to do what he wanted without getting himself tarred and feathered. He couldn’t be bothered and threw it all away. Ergo, his master-of-the-long-game persona is a sham.
The “primrose path” that Nuland supposedly led the Ukrainians on (or whatever Mearshimer is claiming) didn’t involve a promise to blow them apart, I’m guessing. For some strange reason, Ukrainians don’t seem to like that. Whereas the US signature on the Budapest Memorandum that Putin shredded did imply that we’d at least make an effort to respect Ukraine’s borders, even now when Putin can’t be bothered. THAT will be the broken promise and dashed expectation that people will remember, as opposed to whatever Mearshimer is claiming, if we continue to let Putin have what he wants, and he finds some other way to wreck things even further, whereupon the Greek chorus of his paid-off mourners will start wailing again.
One predominately Ukrainian speaking party was willing to to see power shift to another one, but they would not accept Yanukovych because his support was strong among Russian speakers . He was ousted extrajudicially. Twice.
As co figurehead of the Orange Revolution Yulia Tymoshenko used extra judicial methods to in 2005 reverse the outcome of an election that had made Viktor Yanukovych President. West Ukraine and especial Kiev simply would not accept that election and nullified it before Yanukovych took office.
The Soviet Union had subsidise the price of energy to Warsaw Pact countries. In 2005 Ukraine refused to accept aa hike in the price of gas, and stole gas from the pipelines crossing its territory and suppling Western Europe as well as Ukraine In early 2006, Russia cut off all gas supplies passing through Ukrainian territory, that entailed switching off gas supply to counties west of Ukraine too. In 2010 a Stockholm court of arbitration ruled Naftohaz of Ukraine must return 12.1 billion cubic metres of gas to RosUkrEnergo. It may be mentioned that Ukraine was not required to assume any of the USSR’s debt.
In 2010 Tymoshenko lost a presidential election to Yanukovych. Toilers of the country as a whole both Ukrainian speaking West and Russian speaking East again elected Yanukovych, who had been the one overthrown in the Orange Revolution six years before. (It is true that Yanukovych then had Tymoshenko jailed for corruption but in June 2020 Zelinsky had the person he had defeated for the presidency, Poroshenko, arraigned on twenty dubious charges so Yanukovych was no worse that Zelinsky is in that respect).
Although Yanukovych came back to win an indisputably fair election, he was overthrown while serving as President by street demonstrators who objected to him accepting a very sweet deal that Putin offered Ukraine to keep them from associating with the economic wing of Nato (EC). Now this is whatmany people might say is exectly what a leader is elected to do: hold out for a great deal so that the people are materially better off. Poroshenko and Kiev elites were not willing to accept anything but an orientation to the West, so they overthrew Yanukovych with street demonstrations a second time.
As opposed to the Ukrainian “we lost the election by=ut we will overthow you who wone it any time we feel like it”? In regards to Putin’s legitimacy, after being nominated by Yeltsin, Putin was elected in March 2000, and it is important to remember that this took place while there was an independent media in Russia.
He did promulgate a far more authoritarian system once he attained supreme power, but 2008 Putin stepped down in accordance with the constitution. Most people think Putin is approved of by a majority of Russians. Even Gorbachev, although warning against war, and more or less openly saying he is no fan of Putin, admitted a few years ago that the Russian people are for Putin and want him to stay on.
The weakening of Ukraine was its self inflicted alienation of areas with an overwhelmingly Russian speaking population, which decided after speaking coup against coup against a politician who appealed to Russian speaking area and the Ukrainian speaking West. Then after unsuccessfully trying to use full military force against the breakaway regions Ukraine agreed at Minsk 2 negotiations to autonomy for the breakaway regions in retun Russia agreed to stop interfering. Instead, Ukraine led by Poroshenko, went back on Minsk 2, and kept up the low level stalemate that it could cope with. Russian speaking non combatants were being killed. After Zelinsky defeated Poroshenko on an anti corruption manifesto but failed to deliver on his promised clean government Zelinsky became unpopular and not only ignored Minsk 2, he started becoming bellicose toward Russia and the breakaway regions. Ukraine was a Nato “partner” given a billion in weapons superior to any Russia had: Stingers Javelins and radar targeting for artillery from America and from Turkey German high tech drones.
Outgunned in an interminable low intensity war against a country backed by Nato; how could such a correlation of forces conceivably have amounted to a winning strategy for Russia? Biographers say Putin is the opposite of foolhardy, but he had nothing to gain by delay.
The planning for this invasion would probably have taken several months so I think it was the prospect of losing artillery duels that bought about the decision to strike. Putin’s military advisors probably were for it.
You lead with your strength, whether that be pastries, TV performing, or the audacity to order a 60 mile long column of obliteration to advance on the capital of those who underestimated you. No Russian leader would have acted differently.
And you don’t get to be as vast as the United States of America without starting some wars/conflicts, right? Our Native American friends would definitely agree to this proposition. I think Spanish-speaking friends in Texas and Mexico would also agree as well.Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Matt Buckalew, @Odin
Maybe time to rerun the old Mexico joke: “Not only did the U.S. conquer half our country…they took the half with all the paved roads.”
The drones can't get you inside. Also the greatest intel the West got on the Soviet Army was from going though their trash which included the official sometimes secret documents they used as a replacement for rationed toilet paper, and didn't flush because communist plumbing couldn't handle it. Russian soldiers didn't wear socks until a few years ago.Replies: @Yngvar, @John Johnson
Two toilets in the same stall……very strange.
I wonder if women would like that at a restaurant though since they go in pairs.
The 1914 attack on Prussia was a disaster from the start. Coordination between the Army groups was nonexistent and the Germans drove the Russians back to Russia minus General Samsonov, who shot himself. They could have stayed in for the big win since, Germany couldn’t keep up with the Allies in men and machines, but the Reds pulled out. The Russo-Finnish War right before WWII was very similar to the present unpleasantness.
The Russo-Finnish loss was from the great purge. Stalin executed their experienced officers.
The 1914 disaster is a largely unknown battle and what helped the revolution. The soldiers were demoralized from the loss and Communism was a way out. You see Comrade all the wars are fascist anyways!
Lenin & company were actually cheering a Russian loss. They wanted a destitute and demoralized people.
In short Russia has always been a second half team, if they don’t mind losing thousands of team members.
Indeed and it seems to be the Russian way to toss men out at the enemy to see what happens or test the resolve of the enemy. As if the first wave of men doesn’t count.
As far as I can tell they basically put 18 year old conscripts in older tanks and sent them in the direction of Kiev. They are most likely using them to draw out the anti-tank missiles before the high end tanks come in.
So what? Between 1670 and 1810 France invaded Germany (German speaking lands) fourteen times. An average of once a decade. “very few countries in history have had as bad a neighbor as Germany had had in France”. Major-general J.F.C. Fuller – Decisive battles of world history.
And Germany made the mistake of letting them walk.
Should have made them a German colony in 1871.
No reason to risk them having another Napolean.
The Germans tried to be gentlemen about it and they ended up facing France again in 1914.
“HA, who… is concerned that the establishment’s message is not sufficiently propagated”
No, if you’re going to comment about me at least pay attention. I’ve been saying since the Crimea grab that if Putin can get the same deal he got in Belorussia with his pet monkey Lukashenko , I’d be fine with that. You think the establishment would be pleased? You think Nuland would consider that a win?
But if Putin wants that, he’s got to show some persistence, not give up like a bratty kid after one failed attempt (that actually came pretty close to succeeding). Do it the way Nuland did. Trump booted her out, but she bided her time and knew her number might well turn up again (which it did). She actually played that long game that Putin is supposedly so good at. And she did all that without a single tank or 40 mile long convoy. I didn’t vote for her, and I don’t like her, but I’m not going to lie and pretend she didn’t play Putin for a fool. Trying to deflect from that is what you want to do, apparently, but don’t get salty with me just because you’re so bad at it.
He did promulgate a far more authoritarian system once he attained supreme power, but 2008 Putin stepped down in accordance with the constitution. Most people think Putin is approved of by a majority of Russians. Even Gorbachev, although warning against war, and more or less openly saying he is no fan of Putin, admitted a few years ago that the Russian people are for Putin and want him to stay on.The weakening of Ukraine was its self inflicted alienation of areas with an overwhelmingly Russian speaking population, which decided after speaking coup against coup against a politician who appealed to Russian speaking area and the Ukrainian speaking West. Then after unsuccessfully trying to use full military force against the breakaway regions Ukraine agreed at Minsk 2 negotiations to autonomy for the breakaway regions in retun Russia agreed to stop interfering. Instead, Ukraine led by Poroshenko, went back on Minsk 2, and kept up the low level stalemate that it could cope with. Russian speaking non combatants were being killed. After Zelinsky defeated Poroshenko on an anti corruption manifesto but failed to deliver on his promised clean government Zelinsky became unpopular and not only ignored Minsk 2, he started becoming bellicose toward Russia and the breakaway regions. Ukraine was a Nato "partner" given a billion in weapons superior to any Russia had: Stingers Javelins and radar targeting for artillery from America and from Turkey German high tech drones.Outgunned in an interminable low intensity war against a country backed by Nato; how could such a correlation of forces conceivably have amounted to a winning strategy for Russia? Biographers say Putin is the opposite of foolhardy, but he had nothing to gain by delay.The planning for this invasion would probably have taken several months so I think it was the prospect of losing artillery duels that bought about the decision to strike. Putin's military advisors probably were for it.You lead with your strength, whether that be pastries, TV performing, or the audacity to order a 60 mile long column of obliteration to advance on the capital of those who underestimated you. No Russian leader would have acted differently.Replies: @HA
“One predominately Ukrainian speaking party was willing to to see power shift to another one,…”
Including Zelensky, who doesn’t know Ukrainian all that well, apparently. And is an ethnic Jew, or something close to it. That’s still not enough of a concession for you?
And how many peaceful shifts of power to opposing parties did Russia see during this same time period? And yet, you still want to pretend it’s Ukraine that is falling short?
There again, Sean, in spite of yourself, you managed to stumble upon the truth, at least implicitly. Sure, you tried to bury it in another big squirt of ink, like the scared squid you are, but I managed to help you out. You’re welcome.
The Ukraine started in the post-Soviet era with the same standard of living as Poland, but now has only a third. The Kiev elite wanted Ukraine to join the EU to get supported like Poland did. The EU is the carrot for countries to join the Nato alliance. no one in Nato not even the US wanted Ukraine in the EU after the announcement Georgia and Ukraine would be joining encouraged a charismatic young media savvy Georgian leader to annoy the bear, which was floowed by a Russian invasion of Georgia.
The fact is in 2014 the elected president of Ukraine was offered a very good economic deal by Putin and took it, whereupon he was overthrown by street demonstrations (for the second time). Putin then annexed Crimea and interfered in Donbass. But the people in Donbass saw the so called “Revolution of Dignity” as a sign Ukraine was anti Russian, anti them. You never talk about the Russian speakers of East Ukraine, but they have been fighting and dying or being killed as noncombatants since 2014. In 2015 Russia merely stopped the Ukrainian army offensive and then negotiated the Minsk 1^2, which was agreed to by all parties.
Before the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances when Putin was head of admin for the Mayor of St Petersburg, Mearsheimer predicted that without nuclear weapons of its own Ukraine was going to be invaded by Russia. See, it isn’t anything to do with Putin. America may have a quite different system to Russia but when El Salvador had a revolution and allied with the Soviet block, America attacked with a proxy mercenary force called the Contras. America was acting just as Russia is even though the US was liberal democracy.
Zelensky was elected as an anti corruption candidate and tried to jail his predecessor Petro Poroshenko,m but Zelisky’s own people were accused of corruption, so he quickly altered focus and began aping Poroshenko patriotic style and continuing not enacting Minsk 2. In fact Zelinsky went much further than Poroshenko ever had :-
Zelenskiy knew just the fellow to emulate when dealling with Russia.
Zelinsky thought Saakashvili had gone about things the right way with Russia, although Saakashvili provoked an invasion by Russia and devastation of Georgia.
I have my moments.
And there we have it again. Sean reluctantly stumbles onto a nugget of truth amidst all his misdirection and deflection. Zelensky, after realizing his people were being accused of corruption, decided to quickly alter focus. How responsive has your boy in Moscow been to cries of corruption? (I don't mean the polonium, or the posoned umbrellas or whatever is currently being done to Navalny.)
I'll leave it at that.Replies: @Sean
And, again, NATO membership isn't the issue here.Replies: @Peter Frost
Japan’s had a mutual security treaty with the U.S. for 70 years.
It’s called a security treaty because a military alliance would be forbidden by Japan’s constitution:
And, again, NATO membership isn’t the issue here.
The Russians say it is. In fact, they say it’s the main issue. If you think they’re lying, why not call their bluff and offer a guarantee that Ukraine will never belong to NATO? If they reject that offer, your position will gain in moral credibility. You will be the Good Guys, and they will be the Bad Guys.
Oh, I forget. You don’t have to worry about that last point because you’ve got the megaphone. To quote Marshall McLuhan: “The medium is the message.”
I used to be sympathetic to Ukrainian nationalism, just as I used to be sympathetic to Quebecois nationalism and Irish nationalism. I saw all of these movements as a resistance to globalism.
Now I realize I was wrong.
Most nationalists can’t see the big picture, apparently because there is something unnationalistic in seeing the big picture. They thus become easily co-opted by organizations that are, fundamentally, anti-nationalist and globalist, like NATO and the European Union.
Wouldn't matter. Here's a model of our predicament: Russia objects to NATO not because it is a threat, but because it is an impediment to what they want, which is to subjugate a mass of states in Eastern Europe. Go ahead, tell them Ukraine will not be a member of NATO. The reply has already been given you by the Russian foreign minister: 10 other countries must be expelled from NATO. Mother Russia gotta have it's full complement of territory. We've been getting a look at an aspect of Putin which has been carefully concealed for 20 years.
“Zelensky was elected as an anti corruption candidate and tried to jail his predecessor Petro Poroshenko,m but Zelisky’s own people were accused of corruption, so he quickly altered focus…”
And there we have it again. Sean reluctantly stumbles onto a nugget of truth amidst all his misdirection and deflection. Zelensky, after realizing his people were being accused of corruption, decided to quickly alter focus. How responsive has your boy in Moscow been to cries of corruption? (I don’t mean the polonium, or the posoned umbrellas or whatever is currently being done to Navalny.)
I’ll leave it at that.
It's called a security treaty because a military alliance would be forbidden by Japan's constitution:And, again, NATO membership isn’t the issue here.
The Russians say it is. In fact, they say it's the main issue. If you think they're lying, why not call their bluff and offer a guarantee that Ukraine will never belong to NATO? If they reject that offer, your position will gain in moral credibility. You will be the Good Guys, and they will be the Bad Guys.
Oh, I forget. You don't have to worry about that last point because you've got the megaphone. To quote Marshall McLuhan: "The medium is the message."
I used to be sympathetic to Ukrainian nationalism, just as I used to be sympathetic to Quebecois nationalism and Irish nationalism. I saw all of these movements as a resistance to globalism.
Now I realize I was wrong.
Most nationalists can't see the big picture, apparently because there is something unnationalistic in seeing the big picture. They thus become easily co-opted by organizations that are, fundamentally, anti-nationalist and globalist, like NATO and the European Union.Replies: @Art Deco
The Russians say it is. In fact, they say it’s the main issue. If you think they’re lying, why not call their bluff and offer a guarantee that Ukraine will never belong to NATO? I
Wouldn’t matter. Here’s a model of our predicament: Russia objects to NATO not because it is a threat, but because it is an impediment to what they want, which is to subjugate a mass of states in Eastern Europe. Go ahead, tell them Ukraine will not be a member of NATO. The reply has already been given you by the Russian foreign minister: 10 other countries must be expelled from NATO. Mother Russia gotta have it’s full complement of territory. We’ve been getting a look at an aspect of Putin which has been carefully concealed for 20 years.
when El Salvador had a revolution and allied with the Soviet block, America attacked with a proxy mercenary force called the Contras.
El Salvador had no such revolution. Nicaragua was insistent upon allying itself with the Soviet bloc, and that included supplying insurgencies in other Latin American countries and being escalatingly brutal with their own population. The Ukraine has done nothing analogous to that. (Nicaragua had other options in 1979-81, which it spurned, btw).
While we’re at it, the Contras were largely recruited from disaffected Sandinistas and unaffiliated peasants.
And there we have it again. Sean reluctantly stumbles onto a nugget of truth amidst all his misdirection and deflection. Zelensky, after realizing his people were being accused of corruption, decided to quickly alter focus. How responsive has your boy in Moscow been to cries of corruption? (I don't mean the polonium, or the posoned umbrellas or whatever is currently being done to Navalny.)
I'll leave it at that.Replies: @Sean
The point is that Zelinsky was elected on a landslide to combat corruption, and though seemingly genuine when he started after he took office he became completely different.
Saakashvili as a model of how to deal with Russia; what is Ukrainian for foolhardy? As a young adult Zelinsky spent much of his time in Moscow and once in supreme power in Ukraine seems to have been channeling Putin. Zelinsky banned opposition Russian language media that opposed him, tried to jail his own political opponent the former President Poroshenko on dubious charges. Zelinsky juiced up the Ukrainian military military at such a rate it was becoming a match for Russian in the low intensity conflict ongoing and of course he did not seek peace through enacting the Minsk 2 agreement , which even US diplomats thought was advisable.
Your friend should ease off whatever drugs he’s on. Russophobia is repugnant.
The long game mythos is a sham. Who gives a damn if the next guy gets the credit? Putin wants his *now*, not pass the baton to some random stranger who may not even have been born at the present time. If Alexander had been patient, his ruling house might have lasted hundreds of years. But he wanted his moment of glory when he wanted it, so went venturing forth to the point his accumulated battle wounds might have killed him. To ensure that his heirs got what was due to them, he might have slowed down a little, and consolidated his gains. But he did not, and got all of them killed. He achieved a kind of immortality through his exploits, but his legitimate line was butchered in its entirety.
For many of these people, their motto might be summarized as “screw long game – I’m getting mine *now*”. And that was with actual ruling houses linked by father-son blood ties, generation upon generation. Unless Putin has sons to whom he can hand his throne, the long game is simply him giving some random stranger the opportunity for personal glory. Screw that. Putin wants to be Vladimir the Greater, and that isn’t happening without demonstrable territorial gains. And at 69, the time left on his clock is probably a decade, give or take a few years. Time’s a wasting.
Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua was not brutal by comparison with the US-backed El Salvador, or Guatemala. The Sandinista government were kind and caring by comparison with Roberto D’Aubuisson or Ríos Montt. The Contras were based in Honduras and unable to maintain themselves in Nicaragua, unlike a genuine insurgency of a disaffected population.
Anyway, Sandinista Nicaragua was attacked because it allied with the Soviet Union, just like Cuba and Grenada were attacked for that same reason. Reagan himself said so “Using Nicaragua as a base, the Soviets and Cubans can become the dominant power in the crucial corridor between North and South America.”
Geopolitical security is what motivates any country, be it Russia or America, to attack another country.
Anyway, Sandinista Nicaragua was attacked because it allied with the Soviet Union, just like Cuba and Grenada were attacked for that same reason. This is an irrelevant observation.Actually, Grenada was attacked because American officials there concluded there was a serious risk that foreign residents would be taken hostage. Grenada was left alone for 4 years and rebuffed every attempt by the U.S. government to cut a deal. Cuba has been left alone since 1962 and was never invaded in spite of their troublesome activities in Latin America (recall Che Guevara was killed in Bolivia). Nicaragua elected to be hostile, and that included acting as a conduit to insurgencies in other countries. Geopolitical security is what motivates any country, be it Russia or America, to attack another country.Define 'geopolitical'. Define security. Quit spewing recycled Hans Morgenthau and ask yourself what is it that induces a country to define its interests in a particular way and why it considers itself insecure and what makes it more secure. You haven't done that. Paint-by-numbers 'realists' on political science faculties think doing that is vulgar.Replies: @Sean
>Tsuji
An outrageously based character, on top of instigating Nomonhan, Invasion of Singapore, Sook Ching Massacre, Bataan Death March, planning cold weather operations for Chiang Kai-shek, he was revealed to be a CIA asset during the Cold War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masanobu_Tsuji#Information_later_disclosed_in_CIA_files
Peter the Great had his son tortured to death. His daughter Catharine invaded Crimea to stop the Tartars raiding north (for white sex slaves) and thereby enabled the land to be settled. That land is the Donbass. Anyway the grandson of Genghis Khan who conquered the Crimea left a legacy that took several hundred tears to eradicate.
Young men like Zelinsky are oft times in more of a hurry that old ones like Putin. i think Zelisky is most like Ivan Mazepa the nobleman who the Cossacks made Hetman and who was very familiar with Russia, even at one point an advisor to Peter the Great, before leading a revolt. Zelinsky spent much of his time in Moscow when he was an up and coming comedian. What Mazepa and Zelinsky have in common is failure to appreciate how militarily weak they were when it came down to it. Most of the Cossacks stood aside. Most Ukrainians will too.
Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua was not brutal by comparison with the US-backed El Salvador, or Guatemala.
El Salvador and Guatemala were facing an insurgency in 1980, one financed and equipped by Nicaragua and Cuba. There is going to be more state violence in such a situation than there would be otherwise. The Sandinistas managed to alienate every other political force in the country that they could not suborn, because they fancied they should control Nicaragua permanently. Which is why you had an ample supply of recruits.
Anyway, Sandinista Nicaragua was attacked because it allied with the Soviet Union, just like Cuba and Grenada were attacked for that same reason.
This is an irrelevant observation.
Actually, Grenada was attacked because American officials there concluded there was a serious risk that foreign residents would be taken hostage. Grenada was left alone for 4 years and rebuffed every attempt by the U.S. government to cut a deal. Cuba has been left alone since 1962 and was never invaded in spite of their troublesome activities in Latin America (recall Che Guevara was killed in Bolivia). Nicaragua elected to be hostile, and that included acting as a conduit to insurgencies in other countries.
Geopolitical security is what motivates any country, be it Russia or America, to attack another country.
Define ‘geopolitical’. Define security. Quit spewing recycled Hans Morgenthau and ask yourself what is it that induces a country to define its interests in a particular way and why it considers itself insecure and what makes it more secure. You haven’t done that. Paint-by-numbers ‘realists’ on political science faculties think doing that is vulgar.
Anyway, Sandinista Nicaragua was attacked because it allied with the Soviet Union, just like Cuba and Grenada were attacked for that same reason. This is an irrelevant observation.Actually, Grenada was attacked because American officials there concluded there was a serious risk that foreign residents would be taken hostage. Grenada was left alone for 4 years and rebuffed every attempt by the U.S. government to cut a deal. Cuba has been left alone since 1962 and was never invaded in spite of their troublesome activities in Latin America (recall Che Guevara was killed in Bolivia). Nicaragua elected to be hostile, and that included acting as a conduit to insurgencies in other countries. Geopolitical security is what motivates any country, be it Russia or America, to attack another country.Define 'geopolitical'. Define security. Quit spewing recycled Hans Morgenthau and ask yourself what is it that induces a country to define its interests in a particular way and why it considers itself insecure and what makes it more secure. You haven't done that. Paint-by-numbers 'realists' on political science faculties think doing that is vulgar.Replies: @Sean
El Salvador and Guatemala were fighting guerillas living inside those countries. The Contra’s were a raiding force that could not maintain itself inside El Salvador, which is why they lived in Honduras. So the population of Nicaragua was less disaffected that that of El Salvador or Guatemala. When Archbishop Romero publicly asked the US to stop support for the government, which was behind the death squad killings Roberto D’Aubuisson had him shot dead during a mass. One of the Guatemalan generals explains his policy to journalist s: “We provide development to a third , we force a third to flee, and we kill a third (of the general population in areas with guerrillas). The Sandinista had to go not because of them being evil, (other governments in the region were far worse) but because under them Nicaragua violated the Monroe Doctrine.
Location, location, location
The ultimate aim of America and every every 0ther country is to be totally secure. But because America is unable to to conquer the whole globe because it is separated from the World Island by large bodies of water. But the US has hegemony in its own backyard and this total regional dominance is as much as security the US can achieved. America’s objective is to prevent any other country attaining hegemony in their own region. Great powers like Russia and China if secure in their homelands areas would be free to cause trouble in the Americas. As Professor John Mearsheimer puts it “Most Americans don’t think about this, but the reason that the United States is wandering all over God’s little green acre, sticking its nose in everybody’s business, is because we are free to roam. We have no threats in the Western Hemisphere that pin us down”. The rules of the game were not made by the USA, they existed from the time of ancient Greece and was clear in the Melian Dialogue of Thucydides.
It is necessary to ceaselessly expand the Western alliances into the region of rival great powers and up to their border (as with the American missile base in Poland that Putin was complaining in his speech on Monday) that would be able to hit Moscow on four minutes on launch) to prevent them achieving regional hegemony. John V. Walsh has cited proof that this is exactly the way American strategist’s think in an article on this site where he gives the “Wolfowitz Doctrine”:-
In 2007, it the US was supposed to be about to build ABM bases in Poland, supposedly to defend against Iranian nuclear ICBM’s they still do not have two decades later. In 2008, Nato announced that Georgia and Ukraine would become members, which contrasted greatly with the runaround Russia got the when they tried to join. By 2008 Putin understood that Nato which both he and his patron/ predecessor Yeltsin had actually tried to join, is dedicated to making Russia insecure. It is an anti Nato alliance In 2016 an ABM missile base of America became operational in Romania. The Polish base is going to become operational later this year. See https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/16/world/europe/poland-missile-base-russia-ukraine.html That is what has brought matter to a head, Putin noted the 300 seconds hypersonic flight time of the base from Moscow of the Polish base.
The paint-by-numbers ‘realists’ on political science faculties ought to read The Code Of the Steets.
You're wrong, and your point would be irrelevant even if you were not.
So the population of Nicaragua was less disaffected that that of El Salvador or Guatemala.
You measured that just how?
When Archbishop Romero publicly asked the US to stop support for the government, which was behind the death squad killings Roberto D’Aubuisson had him shot dead during a mass. One of the Guatemalan generals explains his policy to journalist s: “We provide development to a third , we force a third to flee, and we kill a third (of the general population in areas with guerrillas). The Sandinista had to go not because of them being evil, (other governments in the region were far worse) but because under them Nicaragua violated the Monroe Doctrine.
So what?
Location, location, location
That's not the definition. Let's see you do it.
The ultimate aim of America and every every 0ther country is to be totally secure.
No, it is not. Stop pretending you know anything.
Professor John Mearsheimer puts it “Most Americans don’t think about this, but the reason that the United States is wandering all over God’s little green acre, sticking its nose in everybody’s business, is because we are free to roam. We have no threats in the Western Hemisphere that pin us down”. The rules of the game were not made by the USA, they existed from the time of ancient Greece and was clear in the Melian Dialogue of Thucydides.
Well, we know the guru you've been recycling. I have news for you. John Mearsheimer's not going to tell you about the weak points in his model of international relations. Nor is he going to stop using rhetorical exercises in lieu of making actual assessments and arguments. (Thucydides is a common feature of introductory classes in international relations). And is John Mearsheimer really trying to sell you the idea that China is 'pinned down' by Japan or that Russia is 'pinned down' by any proximate country?
And I know you think it's cute when Sailer says, "Invade the world, Invite the World", but we did not do that. We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. And, yes, it was our business what was up there.
In 2008, Nato announced that Georgia and Ukraine would become members
Chuckles. What's happened since?
It is necessary to ceaselessly expand the Western alliances into the region of rival great powers and up to their border
We didn't.
El Salvador and Guatemala were fighting guerillas living inside those countries. The Contra’s were a raiding force that could not maintain itself inside El Salvador, which is why they lived in Honduras.
You’re wrong, and your point would be irrelevant even if you were not.
So the population of Nicaragua was less disaffected that that of El Salvador or Guatemala.
You measured that just how?
When Archbishop Romero publicly asked the US to stop support for the government, which was behind the death squad killings Roberto D’Aubuisson had him shot dead during a mass. One of the Guatemalan generals explains his policy to journalist s: “We provide development to a third , we force a third to flee, and we kill a third (of the general population in areas with guerrillas). The Sandinista had to go not because of them being evil, (other governments in the region were far worse) but because under them Nicaragua violated the Monroe Doctrine.
So what?
Location, location, location
That’s not the definition. Let’s see you do it.
The ultimate aim of America and every every 0ther country is to be totally secure.
No, it is not. Stop pretending you know anything.
Professor John Mearsheimer puts it “Most Americans don’t think about this, but the reason that the United States is wandering all over God’s little green acre, sticking its nose in everybody’s business, is because we are free to roam. We have no threats in the Western Hemisphere that pin us down”. The rules of the game were not made by the USA, they existed from the time of ancient Greece and was clear in the Melian Dialogue of Thucydides.
Well, we know the guru you’ve been recycling. I have news for you. John Mearsheimer’s not going to tell you about the weak points in his model of international relations. Nor is he going to stop using rhetorical exercises in lieu of making actual assessments and arguments. (Thucydides is a common feature of introductory classes in international relations). And is John Mearsheimer really trying to sell you the idea that China is ‘pinned down’ by Japan or that Russia is ‘pinned down’ by any proximate country?
And I know you think it’s cute when Sailer says, “Invade the world, Invite the World”, but we did not do that. We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. And, yes, it was our business what was up there.
In 2008, Nato announced that Georgia and Ukraine would become members
Chuckles. What’s happened since?
It is necessary to ceaselessly expand the Western alliances into the region of rival great powers and up to their border
We didn’t.
Graham Allison and Henry Kissinger proposed a Finlandish alignment as the model for Ukraine. John Mearsheimer proposed two decades ago that Ukraine ought to have nuclear weapons. Mearsheimer)more of less predicted in 1993 that Russian was going to bully Ukraine if it lacked a nuclear deterrent Any alignment with the West’s anti Russia (Nato refused to let Russia join it) military alliance was going to end badly for Ukraine. And you didn’t have to be a Sherlock’s or your smarter brother to know Ukraine was going to be invaded, Larry Holmes could’ve worked that out. See the following
On August 8, 2008, Russian forces invaded Georgia. This might seem off the wall but could that have something to do with Georgia not joining Nato, eh? In 2010 Ukraine elected the Russia friendly Viktor Yanukovych president (the 2004 Orange Revolution alleging fraud had prevented Yanukovych taking office as President of Ukraine after he won the election) . Yet Yanukovych was again elected President in 2010 in an election that is acknowledged by all to have been fair, so it is likely that he won both elections fairly. Anyway, he was allowed to rule and Ukraine under him got quite good deals from Russia until November 2013, when he got a fantastic economic deal from Putin to reject an EU association (with countries like Greece, becoming an EU member has been the carrot for countries agreeing to join Nato). The Euromaidan protests began and the democratically elected Yanukovych was overthrown by street demonstrations for the second time in February 2014. Russia promptly annexed Crimea, and a Civil War erupted in the Donbass where Russian speakers decided that coup-happy Kiev forcing out a properly elected leader for not rejecting Russia was the last straw. So by 2014 Russia had suffered a series of catastrophic geopolitical defeats when relying on democracy and carrots to Ukrainians. Unfortunately for Russia, Saudi Arabia was trying to put the frackers out of business in 2014, by dumping oil on the market in such profusion the oil price would tank, and Russia was too financially embarrassed for an instant invasion of Ukraine.
2015 Ukraine used main forcecombined arms to attacked the breakaway regions, but fully formed up Russian army units with air defences crossed the border and inflict severe losses on Ukrainian trying to recapture the breakaway regions. The heavy fighting ended with a huge lossed for Ukraine, which then agreed to the with Minsk 1 & 2 treaties. The upshot was Ukraine would give the breakaway region autonomy, and Russia would stop interfering in Ukraine. But Ukraine now being led by Poroshenko decided that the deal had been forced on them while they were weak and they refused to give the Russian speaking breakaway region autonomy. Zelensky was elected as an anti corruption candidate targeting Poroshenko, but he altered focus and began aping Poroshenko’s patriotic style and continuing not enacting Minsk 2. In fact Zelinsky went much further than Poroshenko ever had by endorsing the statecraft of Mikheil Saakashvili, the erstwhile president of Georgia, and a veritable Timothy Treadwell of ursine diplomacy. Ukraine got \$2.5 billion in arms, many key ones (hand hald anti tank rockets, anti aircraft missiles and artillery radar)were very superior to anything Russia has. Zelinsky seems to in accord with Carl Schmitt as interpreted by Graham Harman in which “Human life is about struggling for the essence of who you are, and this happens most vividly in the famous ‘state of exception’, when the sovereign proclaims an existential struggle with the enemy” because he never stopped asking to get full Nato member status (Ukraine was already a ‘partner’) and seemed to be talk about Ukraine going on the offensive. like, er, Saakashvili had.
Which was a missed opportunity. the basic logic of offensive realism , as Professor Mearsheimer writes in his The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics, is that “it is difficult for a state to increase its own chances of survival without threatening the survival of other states”. One country’s geopolitical security being others’ geopolitical insecurity makes a defensive orientation, ceteris paribus, maladaptive. Of course, a good country knows its limitations when dealing with a much larger one. States do not brook having their security eroded.
Well, that's not acceptable to the Russian government. The position Putin has taken is that the Ukraine is a fake country which has been captured by Nazis.
Perhaps the U.S. elite knows all that, in which case what we are seeing now is something they hoped for. Perhaps they don’t just want hegemony, they want war. Or, more precisely, perhaps they don’t just want military hegemony, they want ideological hegemony, which can only be achieved by weakening illiberal regimes. I have watched another lecture by Mearsheimer where he claims that everything the U.S. has been doing militarily is an attempt to push the liberal order worldwide.
Graham Allison and Henry Kissinger proposed a Finlandish alignment as the model for Ukraine.
Well, that’s not acceptable to the Russian government. The position Putin has taken is that the Ukraine is a fake country which has been captured by Nazis.