Russian Ukraine Invasion

[Syne]

We (NATO/EU/U.S.), not Ukraine, need to sit down with China and Russia and solve this in a diplomatic way.

Said Neville Chamberlain.

[Secular Sanity]

We (NATO/EU/U.S.), not Ukraine, need to sit down with China and Russia and solve this in a diplomatic way.

Said Neville Chamberlain.

I wouldn’t go as far as comparing Putin to Hitler. Putin is using Clinton’s doctrine.

You know the ole saying, "as you sow, so shall you reap."

[Kornee]

In #250 a link was repeated. The second (or maybe first) one should have been: https://hofs.online/lies-of-the-libyan-war/

[Syne]

We (NATO/EU/U.S.), not Ukraine, need to sit down with China and Russia and solve this in a diplomatic way.

Said Neville Chamberlain.

I wouldn’t go as far as comparing Putin to Hitler. Putin is using Clinton’s doctrine.

You know the ole saying, "as you sow, so shall you reap."

The allusion was to appeasement, not Hitler.

[stryder]

I wouldn’t go as far as comparing Putin to Hitler. Putin is using Clinton’s doctrine.

You know the ole saying, "as you sow, so shall you reap."

Putin I assume thinks of himself like the foster father of the Russian people. (I mean in the sense that he thinks he's playing dad by telling people what to believe, what they can see, what they should do, but he doesn't really give a shit about any of his foster kids because they aren't his real kids.)

His current war in the Ukraine is supposedly his incensed hatred of whom he see's as traitors to the Russian people. (He keeps spouting how the Ukrainians are actually Russians, so his merciless attacks are how many other Russian dictators would deal with those they saw as traitors). That's why the level of destruction and the targetting of hospitals and shelters with children. It's clearly eugenics to wipe out the Ukrainians and their families.

That is as Hitler as you can get.

[C C]

Nothing new under the sun, as the tired platitude goes. Similar broad frameworks of circumstances (reasons, excuses for war) always replaying, realized by different specific content.

Prior to WWII: sanctions, grudge demands and punitive policies, desires for reacquisition of lost territories, etc. But after the dust of that political ambiguity clears, even many moral relativists and Americaphobe crypto-Marxist academicians still usually view Hitler and Japan as receiving the ultimate blame ('cause, you know, hate of fascists is supposedly so endemic to their tribe).

CAUSES OF WWII

https://www.reference.com/history/did-ja...253174bef7

After the Japanese invasion of China in 1937 and French Indochina in 1940, the United States began to restrict trade with Japan. In 1940, it ceased exporting airplanes, airplane parts, aviation fuel and machine tools to Japan, and in 1941, it stopped the export of oil. This intensified the Japanese need for rubber from Malaya and oil from the Dutch East Indies. Since President Franklin Roosevelt warned Japan against attacking any other Southeast Asian countries, and negotiations with the United States had been unsuccessful, Japan saw no alternative to destroying the main threat to their plans for expanding the war.

https://www.history.com/news/why-did-jap...arl-harbor

In light of such atrocities, the United States began passing economic sanctions against Japan, including trade embargoes on aircraft exports, oil and scrap metal, among other key goods, and gave economic support to Guomindang forces. In September 1940, Japan signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy, the two fascist regimes then at war with the Allies.

Tokyo and Washington negotiated for months leading up to the Pearl Harbor attack, without success. While the United States hoped embargoes on oil and other key goods would lead Japan to halt its expansionism, the sanctions and other penalties actually convinced Japan to stand its ground, and stirred up the anger of its people against continued Western interference in Asian affairs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_...ate_causes

French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau worked to gain French security via the Treaty of Versailles, and French security demands, such as reparations, coal payments, and a demilitarised Rhineland, took precedence at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919–1920,[2] which designed the treaty. The war "must be someone's fault – and that's a very natural human reaction", analysed the historian Margaret MacMillan. Germany was charged with the sole responsibility of starting World War I, and the War Guilt Clause was the first step to satisfying revenge for the victor countries, especially France, against Germany. Roy H. Ginsberg argued, "France was greatly weakened and, in its weakness and fear of a resurgent Germany, sought to isolate and punish Germany.... French revenge would come back to haunt France during the Nazi invasion and occupation twenty years later

The two main provisions of the French security agenda were war reparations from Germany in the form of money and coal and a detached German Rhineland. The French government printed excess currency, which created inflation, to compensate for the lack of funds, and it borrowed money from the United States. Reparations from Germany were needed to stabilise the French economy. France also demanded for Germany to give France its coal supply from the Ruhr to compensate for the destruction of French coal mines during the war. The French demanded an amount of coal that was a "technical impossibility" for the Germans to pay. France also insisted on the demilitarisation of the German Rhineland in the hope of hindering any possibility of a future German attack and giving France a physical security barrier between itself and Germany. The inordinate amount of reparations, coal payments and the principle of a demilitarised Rhineland were largely viewed by the Germans as insulting and unreasonable.

The resulting Treaty of Versailles brought a formal end to the war but was judged by governments on all sides of the conflict. It was neither lenient enough to appease Germany nor harsh enough to prevent it from becoming a dominant continental power again. The German people largely viewed the treaty as placing the blame, or "war guilt", on Germany and Austria-Hungary and as punishing them for their "responsibility", rather than working out an agreement that would assure long-term peace. The treaty imposed harsh monetary reparations and requirements for demilitarisation and territorial dismemberment, caused mass ethnic resettlement and separated millions of ethnic Germans into neighbouring countries.

[...] The Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations had sought to stifle expansionist and militarist policies by all actors, but the conditions imposed by their creators imposed on the world's new geopolitical situation and the technological circumstances of the era only emboldened the re-emergence of those ideologies during the Interwar Period. By the early 1930s, a militaristic and aggressive national ideology prevailed in Germany, Japan and Italy. The attitude fuelled advancements in military technology, subversive propaganda and ultimately territorial expansion. It has been observed that the leaders of countries that have been suddenly militarised often feel a need to prove that their armies are formidable, which was often a contributing factor in the start of conflicts such as the Second Italo-Ethiopian War and the Second Sino-Japanese War.

In Italy, Benito Mussolini sought to create a New Roman Empire, based around the Mediterranean. Italy invaded Ethiopia as early as 1935, Albania in early 1938, and later Greece. The invasion of Ethiopia provoked angry words and a failed oil embargo from the League of Nations.

Under the Nazi regime, Germany began its own program of expansion that sought to restore its "rightful" boundaries...

And if jumping forward to the West's useless/futile engagement in the Vietnam War, you had the lefty anti-establishment of that era protesting against the war, blaming the US and feeling sympathetic to the commie DRV.

With respect to today's mirror complement of that, part of the Trumper anti-establishment and evangelist crowd blames NATO/US for Ukraine invasion and pines over Putin as if he's some kind of "still politically active" surrogate replacement for Trump, in terms of loyalty projection. 

Over the ensuing decades, also had the cultural leftist and other self-interests/factions academicians retrospectively wringing their hands about the nuclear bombings of Japan being immoral:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_ove...war_crimes

And with respect to later generations, an enlarging segment of even the American public wallowing around in angst about it, as the self-righteous, never-experienced-WWII, "holier than our forebears" Wokeness of millennials and Zoomers replace the population:  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_ove...e_bombings

[confused2]

I wouldn’t go as far as comparing Putin to Hitler. Putin is using Clinton’s doctrine.

You know the ole saying, "as you sow, so shall you reap."

Putin I assume thinks of himself like the foster father of the Russian people.  (I mean in the sense that he thinks he's playing dad by telling people what to believe, what they can see, what they should do, but he doesn't really give a shit about any of his foster kids because they aren't his real kids.)

His current war in the Ukraine is supposedly his incensed hatred of whom he see's as traitors to the Russian people.  (He keeps spouting how the Ukrainians are actually Russians, so his merciless attacks are how many other Russian dictators would deal with those they saw as traitors).  That's why the level of destruction and the targetting of hospitals and shelters with children.  It's clearly eugenics to wipe out the Ukrainians and their families.

That is as Hitler as you can get.

Same thing but I'm going to spin it another way.

The Ukrainians have been very naughty children [wanting to join NATO] and they are being horribly punished for it. The lesson is intended to be: "Stay neutral or get punished.".
An unintended and humiliating lesson (for Putin) is that anti-tank missiles work better against tanks than tanks do against anti-tank missiles. What was probably intended as a show of strength with very few Russian casualties and maybe many thousands of Ukranian casualties hasn't worked out as planned. Putin is just doing what everyone else has done under the circumstances - neither worse nor better.

Compare Hungarian revolution (1956)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungaria...on_of_1956

repression of the Hungarian Uprising killed 2,500 Hungarians and 700 Soviet Army soldiers, and compelled 200,000 Hungarians to seek political refuge abroad.

Hungary is now in the EU and NATO.

"Shock and Awe" is (I think) a US term.

Looking at what went on in Iraq..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe

Continuous bombing began on March 19, 2003 as United States forces unsuccessfully attempted to kill Saddam Hussein with decapitation strikes. Attacks continued against a small number of targets until March 21, 2003, when, at 1700 UTC, the main bombing campaign of the US and their allies began. Its forces launched approximately 1,700 air sorties (504 using cruise missiles).[16] Coalition ground forces had begun a "running start" offensive towards Baghdad on the previous day. Coalition ground forces seized Baghdad on April 5, and the United States declared victory on April 15. The term "shock and awe" is typically used to describe only the very beginning of the invasion of Iraq, not the larger war, nor the ensuing insurgency.

"Desert Storm"
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline...s/b52.html

In Operation Desert Storm, B-52s were used to conduct round-the-clock carpet bombing attacks against Iraqi troop concentrations and defenses. In addition to high-explosive bombs, the B-52s saturated Iraqi positions with anti-personnel and anti-armor bombs.

In fairness nobody liked the Iraqi troops much (except maybe wives, mothers, children etc.) so how they were killed wasn't a moral issue.

Dresden WWII:
https://www.history.com/news/dresden-bom...wii-allies

The punishing, three-day Allied bombing attack on Dresden from February 13 to 15 in the final months of World War II became among the most controversial Allied actions of the war. The 800-bomber raid dropped some 2,700 tons of explosives and incendiaries and decimated the German city.
...
In an effort to force a surrender, the Dresden bombing was intended to terrorize the civilian population locally and nationwide. It certainly had that effect.

[Secular Sanity]

The allusion was to appeasement, not Hitler.

As Kornee pointed out, fighting carried out or assisted by NATO in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and Syria disregarded Russia’s position and concerns. They were perceived as a demand for democracy. Most were doomed for failure and the justifications for intervention were unsubstantiated, e.g., our failure to find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Let’s not forget that Russia was our ally in WWII and Finland fought with Germany because they wanted to regain their territory lost to the Soviets in 1939. Finland saw in Hitler a possible ally in gaining back its lost territory.

Germany’s breach of neutrality with the invasion of Norway included all major ports, which prevented allies from landing. By occupy Norway, Germany had obtained naval and airbases putting Britain within striking distance. That's why I suggested shoring up the Baltic Seas in post #202 and #228.

…Looking out long-term, I've always felt that Russia runs a serious risk of being eventually reduced to a client state of the would-be world's Middle Kingdom. If the Russians could just be convinced of the danger that China represents to them (how long do they propose to continue owning Siberia and its resources?), it would make more sense for them to enter into a more equal and mutually advantageous alliance with the US and Europe who could support it against powerful next-door China.

…And it all works in the interest of China.

I agree with Yazata, in that it serves China’s interest, but it was us that pushed them in the wrong direction. We are the old-style Cold War warriors. We have thought of Russia as a natural enemy, not the other way around.

Hillary Clinton described Russia’s attempts at economic integration as "a move to re-Sovietize the region." Putin said that there was no talk of re-forming the U.S.S.R. He said that it would be naïve to restore what they had abandoned in the past. Russia remained an outsider with no safeguards. 

"China is a friendly nation. It has not declared us an enemy, as the United States has done."—Vladimir Putin

[confused2]

You can share a Crimea annexation day celebration (courtesy Putin+BBC) here:
[I suggest only view if you really want to - it is a bit depressing]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60793319

[Syne]

The allusion was to appeasement, not Hitler.

As Kornee pointed out, fighting carried out or assisted by NATO in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and Syria disregarded Russia’s position and concerns. They were perceived as a demand for democracy. Most were doomed for failure and the justifications for intervention were unsubstantiated, e.g., our failure to find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Well, since Russia had no authority over any of those, maybe you should rethink agreeing with an antisemitic conspiracy theorist. Using countries independent of Russia as an excuse for Russia to invade a sovereign neighbor is intellectually dishonest. The US/NATO never had designs on permanent annexation/occupation. So this whataboutism is a straw man.