Why don't you stop accusing everyone of exaggerating what you say and learn to fucking read first.
Where did i say that?
Here?
Or maybye here?
Or here?
Russian-Ukrainian-Polish Eternal Friendship Thread
- Thread starter Husky_Khan
- Start date
Where did i say that?
Here?
History Learner
Well-known member
My argument has been consistent from the beginning, you are projecting. Case in point is how earlier you were attacking the idea of sending NATO troops to defend Ukraine....and then I need only check the last few pages to see you advocating for exactly that. Your argument has been entirely inconsistent precisely because of what I've pointed out in terms of it having no real substance, it's only Anti-Russian sentiments that morph as needed. You've further proven that repeatedly by how inconsistent you are being in terms of the question of cost which I raised from the onset. You used the fact Ukraine is not in NATO to scoff at the idea Russia defeating it would be a blow to the U.S. but then here are panicking about how the U.S. refusing to defend a Non-NATO nation by your own admission somehow will lead to the collapse of the alliance and the loss of U.S. influence. In other words, your argument remains as schizophrenic as I already pointed.
Either it is a Russian blow to the United States or its not and your panic mongering is baseless. It cannot logically be both.
If you feel the situations between Afghanistan and Chechnya are comparable at all, that tells me immediately you don't know the first thing about either. Real quick, tell me how much of the country rebels control and what's the population of Chechnya compared to Afghanistan. Once you do that, we're going to go through some more questions that will rapidly show you how inept this comparison is.
History Learner
Well-known member
Reminder: Zachowan is a self-declared member of military intelligence with all that entails with regards to his personal views on things like this.
As for your proposal, I agree:
Quote me... Like i asked. You can't quote me doing that, because i didn't do that, hence your whinging is invalid.
Yes, i did say that USA completely washing its hands from this mess and refusing to assist in the conflict at least in non-combat, non-direct ways would be a blow to US credibility with allies.
I also said that if "Russia defeats Ukraine" that's not a loss to USA because it didn't own it in any way beforehand.
Why do you cry inconsistency between these two statements?
Well, are you absolutely sure that these statements look binary and mutually exclusive to you?
If you read them properly, you will realize that there is only a loose connection between them. I even went so far as to describe several scenarios in which Russia can end up occupying Ukraine, yet it would be a strategic victory for NATO. But the aforementioned aid other than a direct military intervention would probably play a major role in that.
Do you finally get it or do i need to put it in simple English for ya?
Of course its very different, cool that you've actually read what i said. Call me when Russia stops funding the place and its government, like USA did with Afghanistan, we'll see how long they will control it.
For first few years NATO has controlled Afghanistan without much opposition, but then the enemy started to adapt, while the west grew less interested:
Meanwhile, "peaceful" Chechenya still has some notable low level insurgency.
List of clashes in the North Caucasus in 2018 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
List of clashes in the North Caucasus in 2019 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
sillygoose
Well-known member
Not exactly fair. France wasn't in a position to act unilaterally. She needed her full alliance system and Hitler had successfully peeled off Poland in 1934 while Britain was more interested in rehabilitating Germany and working her into the world system. Also it appears the British really did not like the Czech government and didn't consider the Czechoslovak state viable, so were willing to let them fall apart. France to some degree would have liked to act, but they were just too weak and unwilling to pay the price to be the main army fighting Germany. They saw what the casualty rates would be to attack in 1940 even in their limited Saar offensive and realized it wasn't a price they were willing to pay.
Most French leaders thought that they could have maintained the ToV order indefinitely except for Astride Briand; he realized it was a fool's errand and tried to create the EU to lock Germany into a more fair Europe wide system, but he couldn't find supporters in France or in Europe, so it fell apart especially once his German partner who agreed with him, Stresseman, died unexpectedly. So by the time they woke up to reality Hitler had risen to power and completely outplayed them on the foreign policy stage. It seems the PMs of France and Britain did actually want to do exactly what you're talking about above, but public pressure, the clique around Churchill, and FDR's behind the scenes influence forced Chamberlain to issue the guarantee to Poland or face a vote of no confidence and the rise of Churchill to power. According to the US ambassador, Joe Kennedy, in conversation with James Forrestal (in the unredacted version of the Forrestal Diaries) had some interesting things to say about how the Allies got pushed into war in 1939.
History Learner
Well-known member
Where did you ask before? Sure, I don't mind a bit though:
Zachowan was talking about American troops fighting the Russians, for context, and it didn't stop there as the quote chain shows.
Because they are binary and mutually exclusive as I've said several times now. You're attempting to conflate that by talking about some long scenario that is directly contradicted by your overall framing. It cannot all logically be true as you claim, as any thinking-in simple English or not-would show:
The U.S. wiping its hands off Ukraine would mean a loss of credibility and allies....but somehow this isn't a Russian victory despite you conceding the U.S. would lose credibility and allies. Your long range "NATO strategic victory" also falls apart when you open your thesis by saying the U.S. would lose allies, like NATO, but then say NATO-which you've essentially argued would fall apart-would would win despite no longer existing.
This is the definition of a schizophrenic argument.
Of course its very different, cool that you've actually read what i said. Call me when Russia stops funding the place and its government, like USA did with Afghanistan, we'll see how long they will control it.
For first few years NATO has controlled Afghanistan without much opposition, but then the enemy started to adapt, while the west grew less interested:
Meanwhile, "peaceful" Chechenya still has some notable low level insurgency.
List of clashes in the North Caucasus in 2018 - Wikipedia
List of clashes in the North Caucasus in 2019 - Wikipedia
It's very telling you didn't answer my questions, which really says all that needs to be said because we both know you don't have substance to stand on when it comes to this.
158 fallen Canadians, who died in vain for a corrupt regime that collapsed merely weeks after the withdrawal.Quote me... Like i asked. You can't quote me doing that, because i didn't do that, hence your whinging is invalid.
Yes, i did say that USA completely washing its hands from this mess and refusing to assist in the conflict at least in non-combat, non-direct ways would be a blow to US credibility with allies.
I also said that if "Russia defeats Ukraine" that's not a loss to USA because it didn't own it in any way beforehand.
Why do you cry inconsistency between these two statements?
Well, are you absolutely sure that these statements look binary and mutually exclusive to you?
If you read them properly, you will realize that there is only a loose connection between them. I even went so far as to describe several scenarios in which Russia can end up occupying Ukraine, yet it would be a strategic victory for NATO. But the aforementioned aid other than a direct military intervention would probably play a major role in that.
Do you finally get it or do i need to put it in simple English for ya?
Of course its very different, cool that you've actually read what i said. Call me when Russia stops funding the place and its government, like USA did with Afghanistan, we'll see how long they will control it.
For first few years NATO has controlled Afghanistan without much opposition, but then the enemy started to adapt, while the west grew less interested:
Meanwhile, "peaceful" Chechenya still has some notable low level insurgency.
List of clashes in the North Caucasus in 2018 - Wikipedia
List of clashes in the North Caucasus in 2019 - Wikipedia
@Zachowon, if you want to fight, then why not get discharged, call up your fellow warhawk ex-military buddies, form an American Volunteer Expeditionary Force and then join the Ukrainians as volunteers?
Instead of yapping your head off with uncultured fools like us, you could be manning a trench on the Donbass border!
I hear that the Ukrainians are offering citizenship and cash for experienced ex-military volunteers.
Brush up on your Ukrainian and you'll be able to score a hot, sexy Ukrainian girl during your R&R!
Don't forget to send us a postcard!
History Learner
Well-known member
158 fallen Canadians, who died in vain for a corrupt regime that collapsed merely weeks after the withdrawal.
@Zachowon, if you want to fight, then why not get discharged, call up your fellow warhawk ex-military buddies, form an American Volunteer Expeditionary Force and then join the Ukrainians as volunteers?
Instead of yapping your head off with uncultured fools like us, you could be manning a trench on the Donbass border!
I hear that the Ukrainians are offering citizenship and cash for experienced ex-military volunteers.
Brush up on your Ukrainian and you'll be able to score a hot, sexy Ukrainian girl during your R&R!
Don't forget to send us a postcard!
Because, all the macho aside, he's likely familiar with what NATO war games have been saying for years now:
Last month, Polish forces suffered a crushing defeat in a wargame called “Winter-20.” It sought answers to what could happen were Russia to throw all of the military might it has in its Western Military District against Poland.
Poland’s Ministry of Defense sought to see how its forces, including the yet-to-be-delivered F-35, Patriot air-defense system, and M142 HIMARS mobile rocket artillery systems, would fare in the event of an all-out Russian invasion with this exercise. Several thousand Polish military officers participated; the scale was unprecedented in the history of post-Cold War Poland.
The wargame serves as a reminder that NATO’s Eastern flank is weak and vulnerable to Russian aggression.
Russia has reinforced and modernized its Western Military District in recent years. A 2020 report to Congress noted that Russia’s Western Military District contains some of its most competent units. They include modern T-90 tanks, T-72B3M tanks, BTR-82 armored personnel carriers, BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles along with sophisticated anti-air defenses, such as the Tanguska, Pantsir S, and S-400. They would presently easily overwhelm Polish and Baltic NATO units unless the United States and other allies beef up their troop commitments.
In addition to Russia’s military buildup on its own territory, it has worked with neighboring Belarus to enhance its capability of denying access to NATO aircraft both over its territory and in Poland with S-400 batteries.
Russian troops have held numerous military exercises in nearby Russian territory and in neighboring Belarus, such as the massive “Slavic Brotherhood” exercise in September. Russia and Belarus are joined in the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), comprised of several former Soviet republics.
“Over and above the creeping normalization of Russian military activity in Belarus, which may morph into a semi-permanent presence, the clear message Russia is sending to NATO is that it can completely change the strategic position by delivering and inserting forces to those border regions with Belarus in a matter of hours,” Chatham House Russian defense expert Keir Giles told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in October.
Poland’s plains have made it susceptible to invasion throughout history, from the Mongols in the thirteenth century to the Nazi and Soviet invasion and partition of Poland in 1939.
By the fifth day of the mock conflict, Russian troops had reached the Polish defensive line along the Vistula River, while fighting to take Warsaw. Poland’s navy and air force faced complete obliteration and ceased to exist. Front-line Polish army units faced the loss of between 60 and 80 percent of their equipment. Russia obtained complete victory within five days.
In a wartime scenario, Russian and Belarusian forces could invade NATO territory along this border area and cut the alliance in two by severing logistical lines connecting Poland with Lithuania. Russia’s vow to use battlefield nuclear weapons to defend territory it conquers and controls is a clarion call to the alliance to have boots on the ground now.
A paper prepared by the Polish Defense Ministry in 2018 said having a permanent U.S. armored presence in Poland would “significantly reduce security vulnerabilities in the region, particularly in the Suwalki Gap [along the Polish-Lithuanian border].”
President Joe Biden has made reaffirming American NATO commitments a top priority, and permanently reinforcing the alliance’s eastern flank would send a strong message to Vladimir Putin. It will remind him that NATO’s resolve to resist any aggression akin to Russia’s invasions of Georgia in 2008 or Ukraine in 2014 remains unshaken. It also would bolster the confidence of our Polish allies that they will be protected in the event of Russian aggression.
Former President Donald Trump pledged to redeploy some of the 35,000 troops currently stationed in Germany to Poland last June. Polish President Andrzej Duda inked a deal in November to move 1,000 permanent troops to Poland. Biden should follow through with Trump’s pledge and go even further by considering deploying an armored division to Poland, just as the Polish defense ministry suggested in 2018.
NATO currently has the headquarters for its North-East Division based in Poland, which includes Croatian, Romanian, British, and American contingents.
President Biden and other NATO must assist Poland with replacing its aged Soviet-era military equipment with modern alliance-compatible hardware. NATO allies must rebuild the logistical supply lines that existed in Western Europe until the end of the Cold War. A military Schengen agreement is needed to allow for rapid deployment of reinforcements.
Poland will spend $49.8 billion under its 2026 Technical Modernization Plan. Among other things, it has resulted in the creation of a Territorial Defense Force, akin to the U.S. National Guard. It plans to spend 2.5 percent of its GDP on defense by 2032, making it among the highest in NATO. The foremost goal of the Polish Defense Ministry is being able to effectively conduct collective defense operations with NATO and not struggle for superiority over potential Russian invaders.
This means upgrading hundreds of aged Cold War-era T-72s and German-made Leopard 2 tanks, acquiring high-tech joint South Korean-Polish K2PL main battle tanks; acquiring anti-tank weapons such as the American Javelin and Israeli Spike; and F-35s. The Biden administration should also sell Poland the latest generation M1A2 SEPV3 Abrams main battle tank to bolster Poland’s modernization effort.
Above all, a serious conversation is needed about how best to secure Polish security from future Russian aggression. To secure peace is to prepare for war.
sillygoose
Well-known member
Poland has also been angling for US bases in their country instead of Germany, so there is a good chance this was set up as a propaganda effort to get the US to forward deploy in their country. Besides the security benefits the financial ones are quite large. So they have an incentive to show that they require US support ASAP.
History Learner
Well-known member
I think it was legit.
The results of the exercise got very little play in U.S. media (I did a double check from the time to make sure) and it wasn't a one off result either; RAND back in 2016 found the Russians could crush and occupy the Baltics in under 72 hours. Apparently they did a five year update on it last year and got the same result. It certainly matches up too with what we know about Russian force posture and developments, in that their modernization effort is approaching its end and back in 2017 with ZAPAD they showed they could quickly mobilize and deploy 100,000+ troops. They've only reinforced that and shown further improvements with their following war games; "Slavic Brotherhood" with Belarus last year was an eye opener, and the ones they hosted with China in Siberia likewise.
Last edited:
History Learner
Well-known member
What War With Russia Would Look Like, by Scott Ritter
What would a conflict between Russia and NATO look like? In short, not like anything NATO has prepared for. Time is the friend of NATO in any such conflict—time to let sanctions weaken the Russian economy, and time to allow NATO to build up sufficient military power to be able to match Russia’s conventional military strength.
Russia knows this, and as such, any Russian move will be designed to be both swift and decisive.
First and foremost, if it comes to it, when Russia decides to move on Ukraine, it will do so with a plan of action that has been well-thought out and which sufficient resources have been allocated for its successful completion. Russia will not get involved in a military misadventure in Ukraine that has the potential of dragging on and on, like the U.S. experience in Afghanistan and Iraq. Russia has studied an earlier U.S. military campaign—Operation Desert Storm, of Gulf War I—and has taken to heart the lessons of that conflict.
One does not need to occupy the territory of a foe in order to destroy it. A strategic air campaign designed to nullify specific aspects of a nations’ capability, whether it be economic, political, military, or all the above, coupled with a focused ground campaign designed to destroy an enemy’s army as opposed to occupy its territory, is the likely course of action.
Given the overwhelming supremacy Russia has both in terms of the ability to project air power backed by precision missile attacks, a strategic air campaign against Ukraine would accomplish in days what the U.S. took more than a month to do against Iraq in 1991.
On the ground, the destruction of Ukraine’s Army is all but guaranteed. Simply put, the Ukrainian military is neither equipped nor trained to engage in large-scale ground combat. It would be destroyed piecemeal, and the Russians would more than likely spend more time processing Ukrainian prisoners of war than killing Ukrainian defenders.
For any Russian military campaign against Ukraine to be effective in a larger conflict with NATO, however, two things must occur—Ukraine must cease to exist as a modern nation state, and the defeat of the Ukrainian military must be massively one-sided and quick. If Russia is able to accomplish these two objectives, then it is well positioned to move on to the next phase of its overall strategic posturing vis-à-vis NATO—intimidation.
While the U.S., NATO, the EU, and the G7 have all promised “unprecedented sanctions,” sanctions only matter if the other side cares. Russia, by rupturing relations with the West, no longer would care about sanctions. Moreover, it is a simple acknowledgement of reality that Russia can survive being blocked from SWIFT transactions longer than Europe can survive without Russian energy. Any rupturing of relations between Russia and the West will result in the complete embargoing of Russian gas and oil to European customers.
There is no European Plan B. Europe will suffer, and because Europe is composed of erstwhile democracies, politicians will pay the price. All those politicians who followed the U.S. blindly into a confrontation with Russia will now have to answer to their respective constituents why they committed economic suicide on behalf of a Nazi-worshipping, thoroughly corrupt nation (Ukraine) which has nothing in common with the rest of Europe. It will be a short conversation.
If the U.S. tries to build up NATO forces on Russia’s western frontiers in the aftermath of any Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia will then present Europe with a fait accompli in the form of what would now be known as the “Ukrainian model.” In short, Russia will guarantee that the Ukrainian treatment will be applied to the Baltics, Poland, and even Finland, should it be foolish enough to pursue NATO membership.
Russia won’t wait until the U.S. has had time to accumulate sufficient military power, either. Russia will simply destroy the offending party through the combination of an air campaign designed to degrade the economic function of the targeted nation, and a ground campaign designed to annihilate the ability to wage war. Russia does not need to occupy the territory of NATO for any lengthy period—just enough to destroy whatever military power has been accumulated by NATO near its borders.
And—here’s the kicker—short of employing nuclear weapons, there’s nothing NATO can do to prevent this outcome. Militarily, NATO is but a shadow of its former self. The once great armies of Europe have had to cannibalize their combat formations to assemble battalion-sized “combat groups” in the Baltics and Poland. Russia, on the other hand, has reconstituted two army-size formations—the 1st Guards Tank Army and the 20th Combined Arms Army—from the Cold War-era which specialize in deep offensive military action.
Even Vegas wouldn’t offer odds on this one.
Sherman will face off against Ryabkov in Geneva, with the fate of Europe in her hands. The sad thing is, she doesn’t see it that way. Thanks to Biden, Blinken and the host of Russophobes who populate the U.S. national security state today, Sherman thinks she is there to simply communicate the consequences of diplomatic failure to Russia. To threaten. With mere words.
What Sherman, Biden, Blinken, and the others have yet to comprehend is that Russia has already weighed the consequences and is apparently willing to accept them. And respond. With action.
One wonders if Sherman, Biden, Blinken, and the others have thought this through. Odds are, they have not, and the consequences for Europe will be dire.
No, I'd say just split it at the Dnieper.Reminder: Zachowan is a self-declared member of military intelligence with all that entails with regards to his personal views on things like this.
As for your proposal, I agree:
It's a natural boundary that already exists, and more accurately reflects the political situation. than most lines on a map from what I've seen.
Yes, he was. He is not me. Just because i don't think his idea of military intervention is not an optimal form of military intervention, doesn't mean that, say, i think military intervention is politically feasible, or that military intervention in general is the best idea ever. Is it that hard to follow?
Bingo, guess what, this is a long term scenario. However a Russia-Ukraine war ends, Russia will still be there, NATO will still be there, and the power games will go on, internal problems will play out, and the details from the past will come to haunt everyone.
If they are previously set to be rather unfavorable one to Russia, NATO can definitely benefit.
Are you annoying me by pretending to not understand that, or do you truly fail to understand something so simple?
USA cannot simultanously wash its hands off the conflict and provide aid other than military intervention to Ukraine. If it does the latter, allies cannot say USA didn't give a shit about a crisis in their region, even if in the end it doesn't give Ukraine victory.
Because your questions are an exercise in looking for hard to find data on the internet that i don't need, following your misunderstanding of my point, so that after several obtuse exchanges we can establish that yes, paying off the main militants and population secures more control over a rebellious region than merely paying off the population, and in turn paying off just the population still secures more control than ceasing the support in general and leaving. The last one being the current status of Afghanistan.
Close...
That's far from the main point. Have you seen the money figures and military shopping list at the end of the article? Yeah, its about that, they are there for a reason. How else are they supposed to argue that yes, they need all that expensive stuff, and then they are going to need even more expensive stuff that isn't even on the list yet because the modernization from Soviet era gear is not even halfway done yet?
History Learner
Well-known member
The Dnieper does not reflect the ethno-linguistic boundaries of Ukraine and such a border would leave half of Kiev inside the Pro-Russian buffer state:
National Interest has been in perpetual panic mode over Russia for years now. It's one of those Neo-Conservative Think Tanks that everyone loathes except for in certain topics, like this one where apparently they are in agreement with Scott Ritter in that NATO and Europe is helpless against the Russian military, unified or otherwise.
I will say I was genuinely surprised to see Scott Ritter's name come up again as an expert on these things considering he's been out of any sort of community or contacts for the past decade so I'd take any of his expertise as about the level of anyone else on the internet. I know he survived the first pedophilia case back when he was opposing the Iraq War and said that it was due to a "smear campaign" but I didn't realize he was now free after the second case of pedophilia that occurred a decade later when no one cared about him.
Huh, though Kiev was farther west and not on the river.The Dnieper does not reflect the ethno-linguistic boundaries of Ukraine and such a border would leave half of Kiev inside the Pro-Russian buffer state:
Do you have a map of the current conflict lines to over lay on that.
Also, where are the edges of the Chernobyl exclusion zone; need to factor administering that into any partition plan.
Maybe have the Dnieper be the border up to the where it starts heading west, then sent the border north from that.
Russia gets a buffer and landbridge to Crimea, Ukraine keeps access to the Black Sea.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Nice cherry-picking where the maps are concerned.Anti-war arguments based on cheap generic pacifist or isolationist ideas are so cringe. If you want to properly argue against a war, at least argue that there is a better way to achieve one's interests, counter the hostile country in question, argue that muh chemical weapon intel is not worth the paper its written on or doesn't matter anyway or so on.
Here, you can see both sides are doing silly basic politics.
Left: Call Russia ethno-nationalist to rile up their own.
Reality: Both countries in question are ethno-nationalist enough to trigger the average danger hair diversity studies graduate twice over.
>Greenwald being right wing
Hahaha no.
>NATO control
West hater or Russia simp detected, wtf is NATO control, NATO is not USSR with its "assuming direct control" moves.
If NATO had capital C control over countries, the first thing it would do would be to make Germany maintain 3% GDP military spending rather than less than half that, and make France triple its nuclear arsenal just for the hell of it.
Reminder that Russia still practices its "NATO paranoia excused imperialism" routine only because western commentators eat up this type of justification.
This is Tsar's Russia in 1600:
Long before NATO, nukes or USA existed, this is what central Europe looked like.
Note vast majority of modern Ukraine's territory not being Russia.
This is how far west Russia reached in slightly before USA was founded, around 1750. Which is not very far even by today's standard, but you can already notice that Russia's western regions grew larger for some reason. Why does it always have to be Russia who grows larger? There were no NATO nukes, NATO or American divisions in Europe, fear of which Russia could use to justify growing larger.
USA didn't even exist yet!
Europe in 1914:
Oh my, seems like Russia has expanded quite a lot to the west. But wait, its 1914, where are the NATO nukes, divisions and American bases? Oh, wait, there weren't any.
Europe in 1945:
Seems like Soviet Russia moved further to the west, and on top of that discovered the glory of satellite states! Reminder that nukes were only barely invented, and the NATO Russia is supposed to be so fearful of was not founded yet.
This is now, after NATO was founded and Soviet Russia collapsed:
As you can see, for once Russia is pushed back east. Almost back to the line of 1600's tsardom, with exception of Belarus and questionable status of Ukraine (lands it didn't have 4 centuries ago, most of them also 3 centuries ago, but did acquire over the last 2 centuries), and Kaliningrad enclave (something it didn't have even 100 years ago).
Overall, in territory that puts Russia on similar setup as it was around the time of USA's founding, with less Ukraine but more Belarus, and an enclave further in the west.
The big question is, when Russia is now crying when it being opposed in its ambition to expand its control to the west again, as it historically did, can you believe its excuses that it is just motivated by fear of being bullied by NATO stationing its powerful nuclear arsenals and divisions close to it in preparation for a surprise nuclear blitzkrieg (however unlikely that is), or perhaps there is a reasonable chance that it could be because of motivations similar to those Russia already had when it was expanding west over the last 4 centuries, when there were no NATO, US bases, nukes or ballistic missiles?
First of all, Russia is the successor state of what was once called KIEVAN RUS, because that principality was centered around, you guessed it, KIEV.In the Xth century.Lots and lots and lots of ground you are not covering.
Going through that whole bloody mess, including the Mongol conquests of Russia, various Western incursions, and the formation of the Cossacks will probably take a decent amount of time, but in the end the Duchy of Moskovy was the one that consolidated the scattered, yet linguistically, religiously and culturally connected principalities.
The Cossacks were basically escaped serfs that decided to live live a nomadic lifestyle reminiscent of that led by the various Asian tribes that had invaded the Russian lands over and over through the centuries, but they were still Russian culturally, with Orthodox Christianity being a requirement to join, at the end the did rejoin Russia proper and took up service with the Tsar, who used them as terror troops.
Russia has a legitimate historic claim to the territory of modern-day Ukraine, there was never a 'Ukraine' prior to the aftermath of WWI, and even then the Bolsheviks systematically expanded the Ukrainian SSR because they thought that there were too many rich kulaks and not nearly enough factory workers, hence the higher industrialization and Russian cultural ties and ethnically-Russian population there that wants nothing to do with the western Ukrainians, who still have this weird idea that the Stalin-era famines were supposed to target them, personally, as an ethnic group, which is not technically true, since people all over the USSR died because of moronic collectivization policies.
Crimea was actually an autonomous republic until Nikita Khruschev, an Ukrainian, decided to give it to he Ukrainian SSR as a gift.
Here is a more useful map that shows what happened with Russian territories over the years.
Some lost, then re-conquered.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Because we tried to take it first, and in the process destroyed any illusion of Ukraine being a sovereign nation. They're just a pawn now, in global game of Realpolitik, played by powers far greater than themselves; and quite frankly? They'd be no worse off with the Russians, then they have been with us; and probably better, in some ways.
Explain to me again why Russia should be allowed to take over Ukraine. Because what you said makes no sense.
History Learner
Well-known member
Oh, it's not hard to follow at all, which makes me feel qualified to say you're full of it on this. Nowhere in the exchange did you attack the concept of providing troops in general, you only disagreed on Zachowan's particular interpretation and even now it's notable you're not ruling it out directly. Your original statement, which you helpfully provided, was that no one was talking about deploying troops.....until I quoted you and Zachowan doing exactly that in an extended dialogue.
You lied, let's be honest here.
Bingo in that you realize how schizophrenic your argument remains? In that case, thank you; it's about time you realize it makes no sense to talk about a long term NATO victory when you're claiming there will be no NATO to win said victory. It's a contradictory scenario entirely.
No, you're just engaging in a pretty blatant changing of the goalposts because this has nothing to do whatsoever with what the original discussion was. If you recall, this all started because you elected to respond to a post I made in general about the United States should not doing anything at all and refrain from involvement in the FSU. You then responded to that and now we have got the point you're citing an argument I never made nor agree with even to change the fundamentals of this dialogue because you are losing in it.
That's a long winded way of saying you're not going to look it up because to become educated on it would invalidate entirely what you are claiming. In particular, there is no "we" to be had in agreement on anything because what you are trying to manufacture an agreement on I do not agree with. Your claims show to me, and anyone who has read on the subjects of both, that you do not what you are talking about; case in point being your belief the U.S. ever cut off the aid spigot to Afghanistan.
When you actually compare Chechnya to Afghanistan with "hard data" you can find on Google in less than a minute, the idea it's some simmering hot bed of resistance comparable at all completely disappears. There's 1.3 million Chechens, and the extent of Russian subsidies is ~$780 Million USD; automatically you see that, even if we taken as factual the only thing keeping a lid on resistance is aid payments, this is completely and utterly sustainable and nowhere close to what the U.S. was doing in Afghanistan. More importantly however, when you look at military metrics you see a more stark difference; in that 2018 year you cited as a sign of continued resistance, why did you leave out citing that literally only 10 people died for the entire year? If that's a mark of insurgency for you, then your own Poland must positively be a death trap.
Last edited: