That's absurd, what is anybody's source on this claim? America can end this war in a month by just strong arming Ukraine to surrender Crimea. And best of all, if the conspiracy theory is true, we will know immediately, because Russia will have already gotten what they say they want.
this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
Europe
8488 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
My neighbour keeps trying to steal my property. Maybe if I just give him some he'll stop.
Brilliant.
You left out that your neighbor is more than capable of taking it by force, and you making him do so will cause millions of deaths. The answer to this question depends entirely on America's ego. If we do our usual thing, we will save face and cause millions of deaths. If we instead choose to wage peace, we look slightly weaker, and prevent a world war. It's unlikely America is capable of advanced reasoning such as this, but I really hope we are.
If we instead choose to wage peace, we look slightly weaker, and prevent a world war.
Man, you really need an history book and to study what happened before WWII.
Let me explain a couple of things.
Before WWII, in March 1938 Hitler annexed Austria on March the 12th with referendum on April the 10th (where the ballot were not secret and the vote were manipulate). After that, Europe did nothing because, like you, they thought that if they concede to this Hitler demand, he will not ask for anything else. Look for Anschluß Österreichs
Then look for Munich Agreement (October 1938) which granted Hitler part of the Czechoslovakia as last request for territorial expansion, signed just because doing this way they would have kept peace.
Then on March 15th 1939, Hitler bullied the Czechoslovakia president to sign the independence of Slovak (with the threat of invasion). The Slovak state then became Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia on March the 16th. Europe still does nothing, just because Hitler assured this will be his last request.
We all know what happened next, on September 1939....
It’s unlikely America is capable of advanced reasoning such as this, but I really hope we are.
Problem is: it was exactly this "advanced reasoning" that was the cause for WWII. Hitler did what he wanted because he noted that Europe did nothing at every step he tried.
Putin invaded Ukraine because he noted that the world did nothing when he annexed Crimea (and, btw, breached an agreement Russia signed with Ukraine).
Do you see the parallel ?
I don't see the parallel, because so far, Russia and Germany have literally one thing in common. You're extrapolating that several highly unlikely events will just so happen to occur the same way they did the first time. Your entire argument could just as easily be applied to america in like 4 different decades between WW2 and now, yet not once did America start a world war as a result. The situation in Russia is wildly different from 1930s Germany, and trying to declare them to be the same is far too reductive to be useful analysis.
Also, Putin invaded more of Ukraine because it is literally on the way to Crimea, and owning just the peninsula is weird. The entirety of the invasion consists of the coast of a single large bay. There is no logical reason to think that Putin is the next Hitler. He literally just wants a region that has historically been highly important to Russia/USSR. It's like if America were currently invading Texas, because we lost it to Mexico for 20 years and want it back.
So, if I understand you correctly, Russia should also invade Latvia and Lithuania? By your logic it would be highly important to Russia since they would get a land bridge to Kaliningrad and they were historically part of the USSR.
The analogy to Anschluss Österreichs and Crimea is quite apt. The votings were manipulated - just look at the soldiers outside of voting stations on Crimea, who in their right mind wouldn't want to vote for selfpreservation?
The second analogy would be Sudetenland and Donetsk and Luhansk is as apt with the only distinction that there is a war now going on. The two republics that are only recognized by Russia and their "Motherland". While Hitler didn't have a Sudeten-Republik he wanted to get them back into the fold. So it is also quite apt.
Does Russia have parallels to Germany 1930s? Yes. And no. Why not? Time moved on, tactics evolved (just look at the two republics). Why yes? Some tactics stayed the same. And greed.
How exactly do soldiers outside polling places imply a rigged election? Self preservation is irrelevant, the question is whether Russia or Ukraine controls the region. Voting in alignment with the more powerful state is literally the only means of self preservation possible, as it best avoids a war.
I don't think they should invade those places, no. And if they wanted that much more land, it would be a completely different story. Having control of the northern black sea is obviously important.
Russia is obviously not invading anywhere else in the foreseeable future, let's move past that.
It's a tactic of fear. Invoke fear in civilians and you can get them to do what you need them to do. If there are soldiers with weapons in front of a voting place who quite clearly belongs to a specific party without so much as openly stating it, then people are going to vote for that party out of fear. That is what I called selfpreservation. They don't want to die.
If by any chance you wouldn't be swayed by such blatant show of force then I admire you. The majority of people are swayed. Especially when there are literally truckloads of soldiers all about the coutryside. And as you said: voting with the more powerful state. At that moment the Russians had their force in Crimea and the people chose selfpreservation. Was it the right choice? For Ukraine? No. For Russia? Yes, of course. That's why they showed force.
I don’t think they should invade those places, no.
Then why do you follow that logic with Crimea but not the baltics?
Having control of the northern black sea is obviously important.
Ah, now I understand. "We need a harbour that's ice free the whole year around." There are some holes in that logic:
a) Russia had/has a lease on the Sevastopol Navy Yard. That's where the Black Sea Fleet was/is anchored.
b) Russia has Novorossiysk, a harbour that is ice free all year around and is one of their biggest - if not the biggest - trade harbours. They even have a Navy Yard there.
So why do they need Crimea? To get their stuff from Rostov at Don all the way to the Dardanelles? They already could do that since they had the other half of the strait of Kertch.
And the other question: Why do they need the control of the northern black sea?
Russia is obviously not invading anywhere else in the foreseeable future, let’s move past that.
Why would you think that? Spokespersons of the Kremlin are rattling their sabres for Svalsbard and they are painting themselves as an oppressed minority. Does that sound familiar? Yes, since Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk were the same.
Svalbard is protected by a treaty, but Ukraine also had a treaty with Russia about territorial integrity.
Abkhazia and South Ossetia are regions that were carved out of Georgia, an independent nation.
Transnistria is a region of Moldova, also an independent nation. Transnistria has requested the annexation into Russia. So the question is, do you recognize Transnistria as a sovereign state or is it a part of Moldova? If it is a part of Moldova it would be an invasion of Russia. Although since they already have troops there it is an ongoing occupation.
Since Russia is still engaged in occupation and invasion and is still rattling their sabres, can we really move past the threat of invasion?
The thing is, we don't know what they are planning. We don't know what they are aiming for. But we see that there are tactics in play they use quite often. For instance the tactic of propping up people that want their own state (see Luhansk, Donetsk). Then going in to help them.
Then there is the tactic of subtle influencing. The problem with this is that there are just clues but no real evidence. So it is really difficult to prove that Russia is behind such things like the Brexit for instance. But there is meddling with the elections of the United States.
But so much text for just saying that Russia might as well already have started the Third World War and all machinations are going to culminate in it. Does Putin want to do that? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows except him and perhaps a handfull of his confidants. So we as ordinary people will never truly know. The parallels to Hitler and the Second World War are there, some tactics stayed the same (fear, forceful annexation), tactics changed (propping up partisan governments). It's all a question of time, but I'm not confident enough to say that Russia won't be annexing anything else or will stop once Luhansk, Crimea, and Donetzk are independent and can be integrated into Russia. There are too many clues to the contrary.
I really don't know enough about black sea geography to say what is actually necessary, but needing control of crimea for various shipping reasons rings very true to me. I live near Seattle/Tacoma, and we have 2 ports even though you have to literally go past Seattle's port to get to Tacoma's (by sea, obv). More ports is better in all ways. They need control of the northern black sea so they can control the northern black sea. It's a very important sea.
Personally, I would actually prefer if there were soldiers stationed at polling places, mostly to convince MAGA people that the election really was legitimate. There is also a non-zero potential for violence or even terrorism at them, and I obviously don't trust US cops to prevent violence.
It's not as if the 2nd world war breaking out was a big surprise to an ordinary person in 1939. If Putin had further plans, we would know it. If he starts targeting more places, and ones that aren't obviously critical to their economy, then we can worry. I mean, at their current pace of "global domination", Putin will have died of old age before they even get to Munich.
France used a similar tactic as Russia in the 1770s, and in the long run it worked out tremendously for both France and USA (Less so for the french king at the time, Louis XVI. It was a big part of why he got guillotined). It's a great tactic, I'm certainly not going to criticize them for using it.
I really don’t know enough about black sea geography to say what is actually necessary, but needing control of crimea for various shipping reasons rings very true to me. I live near Seattle/Tacoma, and we have 2 ports even though you have to literally go past Seattle’s port to get to Tacoma’s (by sea, obv). More ports is better in all ways. They need control of the northern black sea so they can control the northern black sea. It’s a very important sea.
Geographycally the black sea is just a giant lake. It is a closed sea and you need to pass through Instanbul to exit from it and enter in another "closed" sea, the Sea of Marmara.
Moreover, if Russia just wanted to have access to the Black Sea ports (and Sea of Marmara and then the Mediterranean Sea) they could just have done like the Chinese that just bought the ports they want.
Personally, I would actually prefer if there were soldiers stationed at polling places, mostly to convince MAGA people that the election really was legitimate. There is also a non-zero potential for violence or even terrorism at them, and I obviously don’t trust US cops to prevent violence.
Listen, if there are soldiers of your own country at the polling places it is somewhat obvious, even in Italy we have soldiers (usually just a couple) outside to ensure law and order (not that it will happen something), the problem is when you are voting to accept the annexion to another country and the soldiers from said country are at the polling station.
It’s not as if the 2nd world war breaking out was a big surprise to an ordinary person in 1939.
WWII broke out exactly because Europe wanted to keep peace at any cost, failing to understand that Hitler never had the intention to stop. What happened in WWI were still a vivid memory here back at the time and I understand that people would have done anything to avoid all the horrors. True, the real reasons date back to the Treaty of Versailles and the 1929 Great Depression which set up the stage for someone like Hitler to raise.
If Putin had further plans, we would know it. If he starts targeting more places, and ones that aren’t obviously critical to their economy, then we can worry. I mean, at their current pace of “global domination”, Putin will have died of old age before they even get to Munich.
Putin want the Great Russia back. But it is no more and he cannot accept it. And he can play the card of an outside enemy to hide the problems he has inside.
The black sea is vastly important strategically and economically. Which means it is entirely believable that Russia primarily wants control of it. I'm sure Putin believes the former USSR was all better off before dissolution, I can't blame him for trying to reunify. If Russia spends the next 30 years doing so, is that really a problem? It's certainly not anything close to Hitler or WW2.
Saying Russia can't have Crimea is, to me, trying to say they can't be a competitor for the position of Top Dog. Its delusional, they obviously are one, but America is trying too hard to neuter them so they have to deny it. America needs to let them be as powerful as they are, and stop trying to cheat rather than compete.
The black sea is vastly important strategically and economically.
Economically sure, strategically maybe, it depends on a lot of other things.
The Black Sea has a single point of access which leads to a even smaller sea (Marmara, which is 1/5 the size of Lake Michigan). And the access is controlled by a NATO country (Turkey), pass through the city of Istanbul and is within the reach of Bulgaria, another NATO member. Even assuming Russia can somehow seize it, there is then the Dardanelli, which is within the reach of Greece (a NATO member). From here there is the Aegean Sea, which is under the reach of Greece. Not to mention that to even arrive to (or leave from) the Aegean Sea, a fleet neet to go through Gibraltar, go south of Italy and once out he need to sail in the Atlantic (NATO members on both sides) and then north, along a long list of NATO members.
Honestly, in a war if a fleet try to enter the Black Sea, it will just be a sitting duck, even assuming it even succeeds in doing so. Even the oil and gas are usefull only to be moved by road, there is no way that a ship could even exit the Black Sea. Nah, if Russia goes to war with NATO, the Black Sea is strategically useless.
Which means it is entirely believable that Russia primarily wants control of it.
Maybe, but it would be much more smart to do it economically.
I’m sure Putin believes the former USSR was all better off before dissolution, I can’t blame him for trying to reunify. If Russia spends the next 30 years doing so, is that really a problem? It’s certainly not anything close to Hitler or WW2.
Well, I'd agree if Russia tried to do it economically (like China is trying to do) but it is not that they can just invade every country they like to have.
Saying Russia can’t have Crimea is, to me, trying to say they can’t be a competitor for the position of Top Dog. Its delusional, they obviously are one, but America is trying too hard to neuter them so they have to deny it. America needs to let them be as powerful as they are, and stop trying to cheat rather than compete.
So Russia can have Alaska ?
Nobody say that Russia cannot be a competitor for a position of Top Dog, it is the method they used that it not acceptable today.
So why is it acceptable for America to stage coups, rig elections, and assassinate leaders covertly, but not okay for Russia to try to take control of an area openly? America declared their puppet the president of Venezuela (in spite of Maduro winning a legitimate election) like 5 years ago. You might say "but less blood shed!", but Pinochet sure as hell shed a lot of blood when the CIA installed him. And venezuala was economically ruined by the CIA in the 70s. So if we're looking at means, if I'm a civilian in Ukraine, I'd rather have our army fight Russias army openly, than have America take power via subterfuge and destroy us from the inside. The Russia style doesn't directly attack civilians, unlike the US method.
Control of the black sea is universally useful. Imagine if Russia could threaten a sea invasion of Israel if they keep up the genocide. Or be supplying Gaza with the food Israel keeps out. Militarily, it's not about getting out of the black sea, it's about exerting your strength on the adjacent land.
Alaska was never meaningfully Russian, the natives and the cities built there have nothing to do with russia. Not so for Crimea.
So why is it acceptable for America to stage coups, rig elections, and assassinate leaders covertly
It is not, but this is not the topic of our discussion. It is Russia and what they are doing. That the USA have their own problems is true, but not the topic.
The Russia style doesn’t directly attack civilians, unlike the US method.
I think you missed most of the news regarding the war in Ukraine. The Russian Army is targeting the infrastructure and civilians. So many rockets hit civilian houses in Kyiv and other cities. Schools, hospitals, you name it. Everything is fair game for the russian Artillery. Some observer even muse about that the Russian Army is targeting civilians deliberately as a tactic of terror to instill a war weariness and a longing for peace out of self preservation.
Control of the black sea is universally useful. Imagine if Russia could threaten a sea invasion of Israel if they keep up the genocide.
If they had control over the Black Sea they still couldn't threaten a sea invasion of Israel. You would have to have control over the Mediterranian.
But let's assume they had control over the Black Sea. Why would they try to stop Israel? At the moment the war in the Gaza Strip is not something they would like to be involved in since it is a distraction for the world and it is a good way to siphon off military goods from the USA.
Alaska was never meaningfully Russian, the natives and the cities built there have nothing to do with russia. Not so for Crimea.
Alaska would be a perfect starting point for conquering Canada and the USA, control of the Bering Sea, and the ressources hidden beneath the surface. But that's besides the point.
Crimea hadn't been part of the Soviet Union since 1954. Since then it's been part of Ukraine. So the question would be more along the lines: how long would it take for you to something not be a part of another country?
To illustrate my argument: Europe is a continent filled with a history of big empires that rose and fall. So if you go about 150 years into the past, middle europe was dominated by Germany (the Kaiserreich). Would you say that Germany has any claim to the now polish provinces that were german 80 years ago (Danzig, Pommern, Königsberg et. al.)? If we go further into the past, we have Sweden for most of the Baltic Sea. France would also be a strong contender looking at what Napoleon subjugated.
And so on and so on. You can't just go into the past and pick a date. The ramifications are too complex.
Crimea was in the USSR, no? So it's been 30 years since the area which is now Russia had control of Crimea. I have no idea how long ago is too long, but probably a human lifespan maximum is reasonable. Part of the calculus I'm using is literally just "can the country win a war for the area?". Which is why Alaska is not debatable. Like, Russia really wants Crimea, they will most likely win the war eventually, why not let them have it if it means ending the war? If they were to then try to take more land, that's when we put our foot down. Sure it's a bad precedent, but who says we have to follow precedent? It's really just America that cares about Russia not getting stronger, the rest of the world should want all of Russia, China, and America to be roughly equal.
If Alaska is a great starting point for invasion, then we definitely should not let them take Alaska.
Crimea was in the USSR, no?
Yes, you're right. I thought Ukraine was kinda independent since they had a seat in the UN, but I was wrong. So it's been roughly 30 years, yes.
Like, Russia really wants Crimea, they will most likely win the war eventually, why not let them have it if it means ending the war?
And that is exactly what Gian and I are refering to. In the 1930s it was "If Germany gets Austria, it would be peace in our time." "If Germany gets Sudetenland, it would be peace in our time." But Hitler was never satisfied.
If they were to then try to take more land, that’s when we put our foot down.
And here lies the problem. De facto they already had Crimea. There is no way around that they occupied it and no one lifted a finger. Now they want the Donbass Region with all the iron and coal. Luhansk and Donetsk.
So "If Russia gets Crimea, there will be peace in our time." doesn't ring quite so good now. "If Russia gets Donbass, there will be peace in our time" is the exact same mistake that was made 90 years ago. And those mistakes cost many lives.
It’s really just America that cares about Russia not getting stronger, the rest of the world should want all of Russia, China, and America to be roughly equal.
No. The European Union also cares about Russia getting stronger. Well I for myself don't want an authoritarian governmant to just invade neighbours because they feel like it. The European Union tried to integrate Russia by trading with them, but we see that that didn't quite get the result that was hoped for.
I do get, what you're trying to say that China, Russia and the USA should be roughly equal, but the EU is missing and to be honest, two Superpowers being authoritarian is more frightening than anything else.
I don't really see a distinction between Crimea and Donbass/Donetsk. To me it's the same placeAnd supposedly the people of those regions voted to leave Ukraine, right? So that essentially makes Russia equivalent to France in the American revolution.
It'd be great if no one ever invaded anywhere else, but it won't happen. Best we can do is resolve it as peacefully as possible. I see democracy as the same as simulated war: one side has 20,000 men, one has 15,000, let's just assume the bigger army will win and skip the war altogether. Russia has a bigger army, we should just call the war and be done with it. There's no reason global politics have to adhere to precedent.
And supposedly the people of those regions voted to leave Ukraine, right?
Supposedly. One side says it were fair elections the other doubts that. So, who is right? The side that had soldiers at the voting booths, oppresses the people there, deports and kills the people living there, or the one to which the regions belong that wants to live in peace?
Best we can do is resolve it as peacefully as possible. I see democracy as the same as simulated war: one side has 20,000 men, one has 15,000, let’s just assume the bigger army will win and skip the war altogether.
- The war shouldn't have broken out. Why? Budapest Memorandum. Russia was supposed to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. So Russia doesn't need to adhere to treaties because they have more soldiers?
- If we're talking about active soldiers, how about North Korea annexes just about everyone? They have about 7 million soldiers (soldiers, reservists and paramilitaries). So they can just say that everyone should bow to their will? So they can just say "We take the United States"? [1]
Since I made these points over and over again that the votings for independence are not fair and equal, that Russia is violating international law, and they are attacking an independent country, I will stop here since we're going round in circles.
Let's go back to the days of redrawing borders by force. That definitely won't encourage more wars.
Brilliant.
Of course! If we end the war, we will have more wars. It's so obvious!
We shouldn't have fighted Hitler, because wars are bad.
You never know - Putin attacked Georgia and Syria.
True, Putin could be plotting global domination as we speak. Hell, he might be planning domination of the entire galaxy as we speak! But we have zero reason to believe he wants to do so, even if he were capable of it, which he's not. Y'know, I bet his incapability of it has a lot to do with why he doesn't want to try.
Putin is a totally trustworthy open-minded guy caring for people. Letting him do what he wants will lead to safety, democracy and peace. He is just like Hitler. We should have never gone to war against Hitler.
That would be a 180 even someone as dumb as Trump wouldn't do.
What, ending a war? Actually trump would do that. He did it in Afghanistan.
Trump wouldn't have started a war with Hitler. We all should vote for Trump. He's a stable genius.
The problem with that, beyond the moral one, is that if that happens, it basically establishes a world order where the only guarantee to any kind of territorial sovereignty are nuclear weapons and the will to use them.
The deal with Ukraine was that they agreed to give away their nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees to its territorial integrity. Russia went back on that promise, if the US would follow suit, that means a global arms race for nukes.
The deal with Ukraine was that they agreed to give away their nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees to its territorial integrity. Russia went back on that promise
Ukraine and Russia had an agreement and Russia leased Sevastopol from them. Then after the Euromaiden protests / ouster of the Russia friendly regime they wanted to join Nato. So they'd either lose Sevastopol, their Fleet HQ for Russia in the Black Sea, or have it surrounded by Nato weapons. What use is a naval HQ if it's surrounded by the enemy?
Here is a pretty good article why this war started: https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
And no, I don't like Putin at all or make any excuses for Russia, but the invasion wasn't quite willy nilly or makes him Hitler.
People arguing for russia at this point are russian trolls. Just like it is impossible tonchange a russian trolls mind it is impossible tonchange mine on this. What else does Putin have to do? Send nukes? Probably still a reasonable man in those trolls eyes.
The best way to tell that someone thinks you're actually right is when they break out the "everybody else is a bot" argument. It's massively cringe at this point, cause you're intentionally believing something absurd rather than face valid criticism.
By the way i do not believe putin is about to start ww3. Thats something you probably assumed.
So are you are you a russian troll because i did not at any point mention bots but actual human beings paid by russia?
Oh, of course, that sure is a meaningful difference. My mistake though, please re-read my comment but replace the word bot with troll.
It still is nktnright but if it helps you feel to be in the right (spoiler alert, everybody does) there is not much i can do. Many people, me included, are tired of discussing the same moot points over and over. That russia pays shills to spread their bullshit "arguments" that try to defend this hideous unjustified war is prooven but i guess then you would want me to not believe the "propaganda" from the west but instead the "news" out of russia. Do you see the issue?