Jump to content

New war in Europe, courtesy of Putin


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Cyber-Raga said:

In 1938 Hitler annexed Austria and the German speaking part of former Czechoslovakia. GB, USA, France allowed him to do so at a conference in Munich because they believed it would appease him. He kept on saying rhetorical bullshit, basically suggesting these countries / regions were part of the former German Empire and that 1919 (Peace treaty after WW1) was a mistake which needed to be corrected bc of German interests. 
Cut to a few month later when he invaded the non-German speaking part of Czechoslovakia after saying in Munich he wouldn’t.
This was the red line in the sand for the western nations, so they gave Poland the guarantee that they would declare war on Germany should Hitler also annex them. On September 1st 1939 the German army crossed the border to Poland after a bullshit propaganda dispute and thus WW2 began. 

Putin is annexing the pro Russian part of the Ukraine now. Political expert are predicting that he will not be satisfied until he has the whole Ukraine. If people don’t perceive this as a problem or threat, I do not know what is wrong with them. Just listen to his insane speech from the other day where he said that 1917 (the Russian Empire under a Zar) needed to be culturally restored and that even the Sowjet Union was wrong to allow these countries some sense of existence. 
 

Oh and Biden this, the West that … sorry but this has nothing to do with invading a sovereign country. Europe hasn’t seen this since the end of WW2. Even the Balkan wars were civil wars, which was bad enough. 

The causes and situations were opposite. Sorry but to use western mentality in this issue is precisely the main problem, To use this parallelism is what is called lazy journalism in the profession 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nessie said:

Of course it is wrong. As i said many posts earlier in this thread the decision of Putin to occupy the entire Ukraine country is insane and this would mean that he has lost his mind. In the matter of fact i posted this here just minutes before the confirmed reports of the invasion began coming in. What we are debating here is the reasons why he made that decision, which isn’t simply a land grab without a complex underlined background, many things happened before he made the decision to attack Ukraine.

Don’t waste your time. This discussion has turned into a reductive Twitter thread were all is labelling and jumping to conclusions. I guess it would have been less exhausting to write “pray for Ukraine “ and keep posting about Madonna’s hair in the Instagram thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CzarnaWisnia said:

You really think anyone here think's the invasion of Ukraine is a good thing?

I would certainly hope not. But some of the posts on here appeared to be rationalizing Putin's invasion. It read like approval and justification. Therefore, I wanted clarity about individual posters' thoughts re: the invasion without getting into the: well, US did this in the past... Putin is doing this because... I can understand it from X perspective. etc. 

The post was simply to clarify people's stances about the here and now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, sotos8 said:

 

 

1.jpg

 

 

I'm not trying to be snarky but coming from a place of genuine curiosity. So please bear any silly questions.. Here are my thoughts about Ukraine possibly joining Nato: 

 

1. Isn't it natural that a weaker, smaller country such as Ukraine would want a stronger umbrella of protection (NATO) against a mammoth, unfriendly neighbor such as Russia? (In the end, Nato membership is probably now protecting Lithuania, Estonia etc. from Russia) 

2. I can understand Russia's concern about more and more countries joining Nato, with military bases near its borders. However, what was Russia specifically concerned about? That NATO would invade it? Does NATO have a history of invading countries/annexing land etc? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest CzarnaWisnia
2 minutes ago, air1975 said:

I would certainly hope not. But some of the posts on here appeared to be rationalizing Putin's invasion. It read like approval and justification. Therefore, I wanted clarity about individual posters' thoughts re: the invasion without getting into the: well, US did this in the past... Putin is doing this because... I can understand it from X perspective. etc. 

The post was simply to clarify people's stances about the here and now. 

I'm relaying information I gathered from experts on the issue who have no vested interests in it. Experts don't look at what's going on and say "oh he's insane, there's no reason whatever why this is happening, it's happening like magic, there's no context at all, let's not examine this further at all, the solution is just to fight and kill everything, then all will be well". Things happen for reasons. Examining those reasons and trying to understand them does not mean one is excusing anything that happens. If I'm examining what lead to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, am I therefore saying "oh it's good they were bombed, I love it, yay nukes" ? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, karbatal said:

The causes and situations were opposite. Sorry but to use western mentality in this issue is precisely the main problem, To use this parallelism is what is called lazy journalism in the profession 

I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, air1975 said:

I'm not trying to be snarky but coming from a place of genuine curiosity. So please bear any silly questions.. Here are my thoughts about Ukraine possibly joining Nato: 

 

1. Isn't it natural that a weaker, smaller country such as Ukraine would want a stronger umbrella of protection (NATO) against a mammoth, unfriendly neighbor such as Russia? (In the end, Nato membership is probably now protecting Lithuania, Estonia etc. from Russia) 

2. I can understand Russia's concern about more and more countries joining Nato, with military bases near its borders. However, what was Russia specifically concerned about? That NATO would invade it? Does NATO have a history of invading countries/annexing land etc? 

Exactly. Any concerns of Putin would only make sense if russia planned any agression against another (NATO) country. And exactly, it's just logic that a democratic easter european country wanted security by NATO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, air1975 said:

I'm not trying to be snarky but coming from a place of genuine curiosity. So please bear any silly questions.. Here are my thoughts about Ukraine possibly joining Nato: 

 

1. Isn't it natural that a weaker, smaller country such as Ukraine would want a stronger umbrella of protection (NATO) against a mammoth, unfriendly neighbor such as Russia? (In the end, Nato membership is probably now protecting Lithuania, Estonia etc. from Russia) 

2. I can understand Russia's concern about more and more countries joining Nato, with military bases near its borders. However, what was Russia specifically concerned about? That NATO would invade it? Does NATO have a history of invading countries/annexing land etc? 

 

18 minutes ago, air1975 said:

I'm not trying to be snarky but coming from a place of genuine curiosity. So please bear any silly questions.. Here are my thoughts about Ukraine possibly joining Nato: 

 

1. Isn't it natural that a weaker, smaller country such as Ukraine would want a stronger umbrella of protection (NATO) against a mammoth, unfriendly neighbor such as Russia? (In the end, Nato membership is probably now protecting Lithuania, Estonia etc. from Russia) 

2. I can understand Russia's concern about more and more countries joining Nato, with military bases near its borders. However, what was Russia specifically concerned about? That NATO would invade it? Does NATO have a history of invading countries/annexing land etc? 

There are two answers to this. One of them is pre-military. I think the more important answer is that he wants to have a sphere of influence. He wants the belt of countries around Russia to be in the Russian domain and provide the security buffer, but also be a place for economic and political domination. And once a country joins NATO, that becomes impossible because he loses this military leverage of over that neighbor because now if he wants pressure Latvia or Estonia, he's actually going to fight himself at war with the United States

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, air1975 said:

Does NATO have a history of invading countries/annexing land etc? 

NATO is not just a defensive military alliance, in its history it has occasionally been offensive, as recently as in the 90s when it attacked and extinguished Yugoslavia in the very heart of Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dollhouse said:

So what countries Putin will test next?

well ,Belarus is already  under his sphere of influence ,Finland is neutral so in my humble opinion i think he will stop in Ukraine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest CzarnaWisnia
32 minutes ago, Cyber-Raga said:

So? All of that was contractually stipulated in the 90s between NATO and Russia. Invading a sovereign country does not justify any of this. False equivalency. 

NATO was not supposed to move further East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's not about equivalency ,do we need to sign a form or something that we do not approve Putin's imperealism and invade of Ukraine?

Some of us are just trying to understand what led to the war not justify it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sotos8 said:

it's not about equivalency ,do we need to sign a form or something that we do not approve Putin's imperealism and invade of Ukraine?

Some of us are just trying to understand what led to the war not justify it

It’s a lost battle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, sotos8 said:

it's not about equivalency ,do we need to sign a form or something that we do not approve Putin's imperealism and invade of Ukraine?

Some of us are just trying to understand what led to the war not justify it

Waging wars is Putin's solution and panacea to his diminishing and falling popularity. Same thing happened in February 2014. He invaded Crimeea, his popularity/ approval rate sky rocketed. Start a war and get back in the good graces of your nation, at least the part that is brainwashed by the public tv channels. 

Him and his kgb clique of yester years really have no tricks up their sleeves, except for scheming and strategizing attacks, making up imaginary enemies and spewing propaganda and spreading fear about the impending nazi threat in Ukraine and the god-given right or moral obligation to purge and cleanse the lands of people who are threatening the lives of russian-speaking populations  outside of Russia or limiting the status of the Russian language in those territories. 🤯

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Kilt said:

Waging wars is Putin's solution and panacea to his diminishing and falling popularity. Same thing happened in February 2014. He invaded Crimeea, his popularity/ approval rate sky rocketed. Start a war and get back in the good graces of your nation, at least the part that is brainwashed by the public tv channels. 

Him and his kgb clique of yester years really have no tricks up their sleeves, except for scheming and strategizing attacks, making up imaginary enemies and spewing propaganda and spreading fear about the impending nazi threat in Ukraine and the god-given right or moral obligation to purge and cleanse the lands of people who are threatening the lives of russian-speaking populations  outside of Russia or limiting the status of the Russian language in those territories. 🤯

So true. And Ukraine aggression would not be answered. If he remains in power, he will strike again. And I would not be surprised if its a NATO country, most probably the Baltics, where there are many Russians who suddenly may need "peacekeepers".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest CzarnaWisnia

Rep. Eric Swalwell on CNN: "Frankly, I think closing their embassy in the United States, kicking every Russian student out of the United States … should … be on the table"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, elijah said:

So true. And Ukraine aggression would not be answered. If he remains in power, he will strike again. And I would not be surprised if its a NATO country, most probably the Baltics, where there are many Russians who suddenly may need "peacekeepers".

I don't think he'll dare to attack a Baltic Nato country. His military advisers are fully aware that Nato's strikeback will hit hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Kilt said:

I don't think he'll dare to attack a Baltic Nato country. His military advisers are fully aware that Nato's strikeback will hit hard.

Hope you are right. Because 2 days ago no-one believed he would aggressively attack Ukraine from all sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, sotos8 said:

do we need to sign a form or something that we do not approve Putin's imperealism and invade of Ukraine?

Actually, yes - sort of. 

I get that you are trying to examine the complex underpinnings and history begin Putin's move. However, consider this scenario: 

Lets say the Holocaust is being discussed, and you say - "well Hitler had his reasons; Hitler made concentration camps because of this reason; this was why Hitler felt he had to choose this path"  And you do not condemn it - then it comes off as being an apologist, and it comes off as justifying and agreeing with his actions.

One can certainly examine Hitler's actions and reasons behind them - but it would be important to acknowledge that you disagree with them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CzarnaWisnia said:

I think we can all agree the following take is "nope"

FMb7f5SWUAI_Htx?format=jpg&name=medium

lol - yes I think even all of us can agree to a NO on this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, air1975 said:

 

Actually, yes - sort of. 

I get that you are trying to examine the complex underpinnings and history begin Putin's move. However, consider this scenario: 

Lets say the Holocaust is being discussed, and you say - "well Hitler had his reasons; Hitler made concentration camps because of this reason; this was why Hitler felt he had to choose this path"  And you do not condemn it - then it comes off as being an apologist, and it comes off as justifying and agreeing with his actions.

One can certainly examine Hitler's actions and reasons behind them - but it would be important to acknowledge that you disagree with them. 

you can't compare a holocaust to a war and to who it would be important?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The attempts to associate this Putin adventurism to Hitler blitz is everywhere in the western media, a farcry from the factual reality, ignoring that Ukraine itself has a whole battalion bearing nazi insigneas (Azov battalion) which yearly hosts a military parade of torch marchs in the center of Kiev to celebrate the memory of a very well know WW2 nazi colaborator.

 

F80EB3DF-B7B1-40D4-96A1-1B1D9FC429CE.jpeg

9675C821-539F-482A-AFF4-196FDFD3E5F6.jpeg

56D27E03-2B1F-4C6C-96C2-B5123285A3D6.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...