Europe at War

[Todd]

I talking about why appeasement of Putin in case of Ukraine will would have an failure equivalent to that of Munich Agreement on account of a misunderstanding of Putin's actual objectives as of Hitler's.

Quadrupling down.  I should probably start a counter.

[Que]

I'm not convinced by this statement from the second of those articles: "Post-Russian states are instead likely to pursue nuclear disarmament — much like Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan after the Soviet demise."

I mean: giving up its inherited nuclear weapons didn't do much good for Ukraine, now did it?!

I think the lesson from the likes of Libya and Ukraine is: if you've got weapons of mass destruction, keep hold of them come what may. Especially if you border Russia (or are flying time away from NATO!)

Agreed!

[Todd]

More "liberal/neocon" analysis:

Almost half of global strategists think Russia could become a failed state within the next 10 years
(Another article on fortune.com, different author)

Almost half of global strategists think Russia could become a failed state within the next 10 years
(Another article on fortune.com, different author)


The benefits of Russia's coming disintegration
(Politico.eu)

The first article falls into the category of neocon analysis, but at the very outset its premises are flawed.  I have doubts that the Atlantic Council picked a highly diverse set of analytical opinions.  Also note that ten-year timelines are very useful since if the predictions fail to materialize, people who make such predictions can always claim that conditions changed.  Ten-year timelines are very popular for budget analyses for this reason.

The Politico piece goes beyond neocon analysis into the realm of fantasy.

Though the rhetorical question in the title has been at least temporarily answered, I suggest reading this slightly longer peace from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace from 2019 (even understanding that they are probably Russian stooges):

Thirty Years of U.S. Policy Toward Russia: Can the Vicious Circle Be Broken?

[drogulus]

     Russia wants its empire back. Putin doesn't need a provocation. He'll claim he's provoked, and knows his claim will be echoed.

     Poor Vladdy, NATO meanies are forcing him to do what he wants to do. Even worse, they're forcing the Ukes to defend themselves.

     From Carnegie:

Russia, with its disruptive and often rogue actions, bears a major share of the responsibility for the deterioration in the relationship. But U.S. policy toward Russia has largely ignored such crucial factors as Russia's history, culture, geography, and security requirements—as they are seen from Moscow.

     I agree with the last sentence. If we had taken into consideration the importance of imperial war for Russia as history, culture, geography and security from their own perspective has for the Russian leadership, NATO wouldn't have acted so fecklessly. We would have been better prepared. Instead, we ignored these lessons and pursued a fantasy of normalization.

     
     

     

     

[BasilValentine]

Tripling down in one morning.  How many times can you prove Godwin's Law in one day?

Nazi Germany and Putin's Russia are not equivalent.

Go!

You are using the term Godwin's Law as a mindless buzzword and have failed to grasp its meaning and significance. As Mike Godwin himself said:

"If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler..."

When the subject is appeasement of autocrats with imperialist ambitions, citing Hitler is perfectly apt. But snide buzzwords are easier than counterarguments.

[Todd]

You are using the term Godwin's Law as a mindless buzzword and have failed to grasp it's meaning and significance.

Incorrect.

[Madiel]

Incorrect.

And this is Todd's Law. Of Trolling.

[milk]

Why Russia was always going to, had to, invade the Ukraine now!
Why this is China's last decade!
I don't know. Of course I always laugh a bit when someone is so confident and I have to ask: is this guy as ridiculous as he seems? I'd like to believe some of the stuff he's saying but I just don't know about these topics. I know he's going to be highly suspicious if not downright dismissed by some because of his affiliation with Stratfor. Still, what's he wrong/right about and why? I almost started a geopolitics thread but, in the end, I don't want to be the guy. I say let everybody say whatever they want but I don't know what people want. Anyway, this is the wacky video and dude I'm talking about:

[Herman]

Like what? Cesar survived assassination? Anthony defeated Octavian Augustus? Rome failed to conquer Hispania?

Surely you're aware that historiography does not work that way. In that case you don't need Mommsen either. You could have done with Livius. Or Gibbon's D&F.
Every generation needs a fresh look at the data, apart from the fact that new data are still emerging.

[Florestan]

Surely you're aware that historiography does not work that way. In that case you don't need Mommsen either. You could have done with Livius. Or Gibbon's D&F.
Every generation needs a fresh look at the data, apart from the fact that new data are still emerging.

Sure, but you wrote this:

Mommsen was a venerable professor, author and classicist, but he's from the mid-nineteenth century! So much has happened in Roman history since then.

I hate to say it but nothing at all (could have) happened in Roman history since mid-nineteenth century because Roman history ended in 476 in the West and in 1453 in the East. 

[Madiel]

I hate to say it but nothing at all (could have) happened in Roman history since mid-nineteenth century because Roman history ended in 476 in the West and in 1453 in the East. 

Groan. You're being incredibly literal Andrei. "in Roman history" means "in the field of Roman history".

The other meaning is possible, too... although if we are in pedantic mode, is any event "in history" when it's happening?

[Florestan]

Groan. You're being incredibly literal Andrei. "in Roman history" means "in the field of Roman history".

The other meaning is possible, too...

Had Hermann written "Roman historiography" no confusion would have been possible.

although if we are in pedantic mode, is any event "in history" when it's happening?

Well, the last event in Western Roman history is the deposition of Romulus Augustulus, and the last event in Eastern Roman history is the Fall of Constantinople. Any other event later than that does not belong to Roman history anymore.

To get back on topic, is the Russian invasion of Ukraine "in history"? I'd say yes.

[Madiel]

And I'd say no. It's in the news. It'll be in history later.

[Florestan]

And I'd say no. It's in the news. It'll be in history later.

One could put it this way, too, sure. But then again, is not the news contemporary history?

I think we're getting too philosophical, though. 

[Fëanor]

...
    From Carnegie:

Russia, with its disruptive and often rogue actions, bears a major share of the responsibility for the deterioration in the relationship. But U.S. policy toward Russia has largely ignored such crucial factors as Russia's history, culture, geography, and security requirements—as they are seen from Moscow.

    I agree with the last sentence. If we had taken into consideration the importance of imperial war for Russia as history, culture, geography and security from their own perspective has for the Russian leadership, NATO wouldn't have acted so fecklessly. We would have been better prepared. Instead, we ignored these lessons and pursued a fantasy of normalization.

I recently view some lectures by former US National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster, (a short-term tenure under Trump).  He advocated the USA employ "strategic empathy".

McMaster, as I recall, attributed the term, strategic empathy, Zachary Shore, (The Diplomate item). What it boils down to is striving to see the circumstance from one's adversary's POV.  Certainly that does involving looking at that adversary's history & culture.  Our favourite (?) troll, @Todd, pretends to advocate for this.  The problem is he only goes halfway.

So Todd will say that Russians, (Putin plus Soviet nostalgists), see the Soviet empire as a good thing and NATO expansion as a threat -- all said, I suppose he's right so far.

OTOH he doesn't acknowledge the consequence of this which is Putin et al.'s desire to reconstitute the Soviet empire and the invasion and extinction of Ukraine as but one step in that direction. That Putin simply wants to protect Russian minorities and rid Ukraine or neo-Nazis is simply nonsense.

See 'Munich Agreement'.  Are Donbas and Crimea Sudetenland analogs?  Why yes, they are.  To the same extent that Sudetenland wasn't Hitler's "final demand", a few Ukraine provinces aren't Putin's final demand.

But NO, it doesn't matter what Putin's ambitions are;  it doesn't matter what the dreams of the Soviet nostalgists are.  We are entitled to resist them.  We may do so because they are evil.
 For that matter, as I have argued, they not even in the real & practical best interest of the Russia.  We may resist Putin with full righteousness.

[Todd]

So Todd will say that Russians, (Putin plus Soviet nostalgists), see the Soviet empire as a good thing and NATO expansion as a threat -- all said, I suppose he's right so far.

NATO was created as an alliance against the USSR.  It was designed to be a threat.  That is why it exists at all.  NATO expansion expands the threat.  (I will take it that you did not read the Carnegie piece.)

Whether Russians see the USSR and its empire as a good thing is irrelevant.

OTOH he doesn't acknowledge the consequence of this which is Putin et al.'s desire to reconstitute the Soviet empire and the invasion and extinction of Ukraine as but one step in that direction. That Putin simply wants to protect Russian minorities and rid Ukraine or neo-Nazis is simply nonsense.

This is jumbled to the point of uselessness. 

See 'Munich Agreement'.  Are Donbas and Crimea Sudetenland analogs?  Why yes, they are.

No, they are not at all analogous.  All analogies to WWII are false analogies.

Nazi Germany was the fastest growing developed economy in the mid- and late-30s, it had the most powerful and effectively led military in the world, it was the most scientifically advanced country in the world, and it had aggressive expansionist plans paired to explicit genocidal policy.  Russia today has none of these things.  If any country consistently displays the first three traits today, it is the US.  The US also happened to carry out one of the most thorough and comprehensive genocides in human history, one which inspired the Nazis.

I understand why people like the Nazi analogy.  It is simple.  Many folk like simple things.

[Todd]

From AP: Ukraine strike deaths hit 40; Russia seen preparing long war

The death toll from the recent strike has risen, which is to be expected.  The almost surreal aspect of the headline and the text is the reporting that Russia is "preparing for a drawn-out war".  It has been clear since no later than early summer of 2022 that this was the case, and it has been reported on extensively.  Russia and the US are dug in.  This proxy war is set to last. 

One potentially disquieting bit in the article is the reporting that "[t]he Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank, reported signs of the Kremlin taking steps to turn its Ukraine invasion into "a major conventional war" after months of embarrassing military reversals."

Again, this has been previously reported, so the reiteration appears to be corporate press propaganda geared toward drumming up support for the war and justifying ever increasing expenditure of American treasure.  Warmongers should like the article.

[drogulus]

    NATO was not designed to attack the USSR. It was designed to slow the Soviet advance until the US arrived in numbers.

    NATO is a threat to Russian expansion. It doesn't matter which Russian empire it defends against. It can be Soviet or post-Soviet. The geography, culture and history weren't wiped clean in 1991.

    Russia today lacks some of the advantages Germany had in the '30s. It hasn't deterred them from attacking a country they thought was easy pickings. It turned out that Putin was wrong about Ukrainian resolve. He was also disastrously wrong in assuming that the West wouldn't be scared straight by his actions.

[BasilValentine]

NATO was created as an alliance against the USSR.  It was designed to be a threat.  That is why it exists at all.  NATO expansion expands the threat.  (I will take it that you did not read the Carnegie piece.)

Whether Russians see the USSR and its empire as a good thing is irrelevant.


This is jumbled to the point of uselessness. 


No, they are not at all analogous.  All analogies to WWII are false analogies.

Nazi Germany was the fastest growing developed economy in the mid- and late-30s, it had the most powerful and effectively led military in the world, it was the most scientifically advanced country in the world, and it had aggressive expansionist plans paired to explicit genocidal policy.  Russia today has none of these things.  If any country consistently displays the first three traits today, it is the US.  The US also happened to carry out one of the most thorough and comprehensive genocides in human history, one which inspired the Nazis.

I understand why people like the Nazi analogy.  It is simple.  Many folk like simple things.

I note that you did not address a single one of the points Feanor made. You've just repeated your usual false equivalencies and dodged the other issues.

NATO is a defensive alliance. It doesn't threaten Russia's territorial integrity, only its expansionist ambitions. You draw a false equivalence between Russia's threat to and assault on (in the case of Ukraine) territorial integrity and the NATO alliance's mission to protect member nations' territorial integrity against said threat. Some people like simple things. Some apparently can't comprehend them.

Jumbled? No, Feanor's statement is perfectly clear. You chose not to address it.

"All analogies to WWII are false analogies." This is just stupid. In any case, Feanor tightly delineated the parallel he was drawing. None of what you wrote addresses or is at all relevant to the point he made.       

[Todd]

I note that you did not address a single one of the points Feanor made. You've just repeated your usual false equivalencies and dodged the other issues.

Incorrect.

NATO is a defensive alliance.

All alliances are alliances against something.  NATO was an alliance against the USSR.  The USSR disappeared in 1991.  NATO remained.  It degenerated into a needless alliance against Russia and then aggressively expanded.  If one looks at its reckless, aggressive expansion over the years, it mimics the aggressive expansion of empires throughout history.  Pick your preferred empire.  NATO is the vehicle of American imperialism in Europe.

Jumbled?

Yes.

"All analogies to WWII are false analogies." This is just stupid.

No, it is correct.  My explanation of Nazi Germany in the 1930s very clearly demonstrated why all analogies are false analogies.  No other power since has combined the same traits as Nazi Germany.  Analogies to Nazi Germany are all intellectually lazy and dishonest.  All WWII analogies are cheap rhetoric.