| That a Ukraine loss is seen as the end of a free Europe (because Russia wouldn't stop at least until at least DDR Germany borders), is why the other European nations are collectively increasing military spending. For a sense of scale (only scale, money is definitely not the most important criteria), the EU currently spends twice as much on their military as Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest... So if (when) American support disappears, I expect Russia to continue to not go anywhere fast while wasting a lot of lives in the process. I also expect this to surprise Putin, as he thinks Russia is a Great Power and therefore can only be stalling if Ukraine is supported by another Great Power and doesn't recognise that (1) Russia isn't, and (2) the EU kinda is, sort of, when it feels like acting with unity rather than as 27 different nations. |
| |
| ▲ | fnordian_slip a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The sole reason Germany annexed Czechoslovakia was was that there were atrocities being committed against the Sudeten[0]. He even made a speech at the Sportpalast in Berlin in which he stated that the Sudetenland was "the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe". So all's fine, and we don't have to worry about Germany. 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_Munich | | |
| ▲ | berdario a day ago | parent | next [-] | | One big difference, is that the opposition to nazi Germany was relatively weak before the start of WW2: After Reginald Drax's mission to Moscow failed, the Soviet Union ended up signing its famous non-aggression pact. Italy was allied, Spain was neutral/aligned. Turkiye was neutral. Poland could only count on UK and France[0]. Compare to now, where the NATO military bloc is massive. No one would dare risking a military confrontation in these circumstances. If anything, when there are any tensions between two non-NATO countries, it makes it more urgent for one to oppose the other joining NATO (attacking before they'd join NATO would stave off them joining, attacking after they'd join NATO would lead to an unwinnable fight). 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance | | | |
| ▲ | jskelly 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The article you cite says nothing about the /alleged/ [by Hitler as a pretext for annexation] atrocities against Sudeten Germans. The expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia _after_ World War II was an ugly chapter, but really -- there were no 'atrocities' being committed against that population /before/ the war. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudeten_German_uprising |
| |
| ▲ | shafyy a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It also made "no sense" for Russia to attack Ukraine. This is not about rational thinking. | | |
| ▲ | 4gotunameagain a day ago | parent [-] | | If we are to be completely rational, what made no sense was Ukraine thinking it could be a part of NATO, or independent. It is the sad reality of existing next to a superpower. You cannot be independent. It would either be heavily influenced by Russia, or the option B they chose: in rubble. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Russia stopped being a superpower with the fall of the USSR. And before anyone says so, "has a permanent seat on UN security council" doesn't count, the UK and France also have that status and even combined were no longer superpowers by the time of the Suez crisis. Likewise "has nukes" is not sufficient. The EU is closer to being one than Russia is today, and even then the EU is only kinda a bit of one in some measures but not all. | | |
| ▲ | SirMaster a day ago | parent [-] | | Why does every source I can find list Russia as a superpower? | | |
| ▲ | ben_w a day ago | parent [-] | | To hazard a guess: because Google et al think you're the kind of person who clicks that kind of source. When I search for list of superpowers, I get superheroes — obviously nobody on Marvel or DC is going to be listed as having "Russia" as their superpower, but this does illustrate what it is that search engines do these days, and it's not objective truth. | | |
| ▲ | SirMaster a day ago | parent [-] | | When you search for a list of superpowers? I mean did you not simply include the word countries? Do you have a good authoritative source that lists the superpower countries that does not include Russia? | | |
| ▲ | ben_w a day ago | parent [-] | | > When you search for a list of superpowers? I mean did you not simply include the word countries? Sure, but also in writing this reply, "cia superpower list" to see if they had anything "authoritative" got me CIA's paranormal research: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00792r000... > Do you have a good authoritative source that lists the superpower countries that does not include Russia? In most cases, the statement I see is that the USA is "the", singular, superpower. So none of my sources are lists. What counts as a "good authoritative source", for you? And when? Samuel P. Huntington was highly rated in his day, but "The Lonely Superpower" was 1999: https://web.archive.org/web/20060427150630/http://www-stage.... RAND I think still are, and this was 2019, "Russia Is a Rogue, Not a Peer; China Is a Peer, Not a Rogue": https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE310.html Is nationalinterest.org "authoritative"? "What Happens When America Is No Longer the Undisputed Super Power?", 2020: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/what-happens-when-ameri... I could link to Wikipedia, which says of Russia "potential" superpower (along with the EU, China, and India), not currently an extant superpower. But that's not what I'd call "authoritative". And this is the point where I got that link to the CIA's paranormal research. The CIA's World Factbook doesn't even describe the USA as a "superpower", at least not at the time of writing: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/united-stat... | | |
| ▲ | SirMaster 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | You are proving my point… If you can’t find an authoritative source of who is a superpower then how can you confidently claim who isn’t? |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | inigoalonso a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What of those two options did Finland choose? In reality Russia shares a land border with 14 countries, 6 of which are already NATO members (of the others the second largest border is with China). And the countries they have only a maritime border with are Japan and the USA. | |
| ▲ | Marazan a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Latvia and Estonia are members. Finland is a member. Lithuania is a member. The sad reality is that your logic is just a twisted pretzel to support the position you wish to take which is you support Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. | | |
| ▲ | dataflow a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Finland? Didn't Finland apply to join NATO in 2022, after the start of the war? | | | |
| ▲ | 4gotunameagain a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I do not support any invasion. This is why I do not support the US policy that caused this invasion. And countless others. The US military industrial complex is a huge beast that needs an enemy to exist. There is so much money in the game. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Which US policy do you think caused Russia to invade Ukraine? Was it the one where the USA, along with the UK and Russia, all jointly signed an agreement to respect Ukraine's (and several other post-USSR nations') independence and sovereignty in their existing borders (as of 5 December 1994), including an obligation to seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used", so that Ukraine would give up the nuclear weapons it had accidentally inherited from the USSR? Put it another way: given your stance on the US mil-ind complex, do you think this war would stop if the USA completely vanished from the international scene? Because the EU is right next door and also doesn't want Russia thinking it can do stuff like this. | |
| ▲ | Marazan a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | If Russia attacked Ukraine because it considered applying for NATO membership that would be years of not decades away why did Russia not attack any other country that actually started the process of joining NATO and did actually join. The USA did not make Russia attack Ukraine. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | mopsi a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | This line of reasoning is exactly why everyone bordering Russia is preparing for an invasion, and why no one deludes themselves with "Mr. Hitler will surely stop at Poland." It's not about NATO, ethnic Russians, or any other common excuse, but a fundamental collision between an imperialistic view of the world (represented by Putin's dictatorship) and a cooperative one (represented by the EU). Nations are naturally drawn to the EU, which does not force them to live under someone's boot, and Putin tries to stop that through raw violence. |
|
| |
| ▲ | triceratops a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The sole reason Russia invaded Ukraine was that it was flirting too much with NATO. I don't understand, are you trying to make Russia sound like an incel? It's not a flattering look. | |
| ▲ | ben_w a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In addition to the other responses: > The sole reason Russia invaded Ukraine was that it was flirting too much with NATO. Which was only a problem for Putin because Putin's world view is that Great Powers (such as Russia, in his mind) should have a sphere of influence, whereas most everyone else thinks Ukraine is a sovereign nation who has the right to decide for itself which treaties it does or doesn't belong to. Even then, more like begging than flirting; the invasion made it much more likely. Likewise EU membership. | |
| ▲ | pjc50 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | .. which has had the effect of forcing formerly neutral Finland, which shares a border with Russia, to join NATO. The claim that Russia has a right to dictate the alliances of other countries simply because they border it is ludicrous and violates international law. (Simo Häyhä had something to say about last time Russia invaded Finland) | | |
| ▲ | 4gotunameagain a day ago | parent [-] | | The same way the US has left all the countries around it alone ? Are you joking ? The list of US backed military coups in the Americas does not fit on an A4 page with a font size small enough to be unreadable. | | |
| ▲ | pjc50 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Easy response: those were also wrong. As was the invasion of Iraq, which arguably ended up being used as a justification in the opposite direction. | |
| ▲ | ben_w a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Another easy response to go with pjc50's: why do you think Cuba was so eager to get some Soviet nuclear missiles? |
|
| |
| ▲ | BlueTemplar 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Putin (et al.) has already proven to be stupid : the invasion of Ukraine was going quite well for him since 2014, he could have continued salami slicing it while the EU was still mostly asleep (and not willing to make a fuss as a Russian hydrocarbons importer). But no, he went for a 'quick' victory instead, and ended up bogged in a much higher intensity war, made the Russian military a laughing stock, and kicked the EU/Nato bees nest so hard that another 2 countries immediately joined NATO. |
|
