Navigating the Tensions in Ukraine: A Scientific Perspective

[phinds]

The Warsaw Pact was maintained by force.

Our democracies are far from perfect

And the confluence of those two statements is shown perfectly by what happened in Hungary, 1956. The following is not a historical account but an emotional one.
https://sandefur.typepad.com/freespace/2009/06/thanksgiving-1956-by-ee-cummings.html

 

[artis]

Now today, most of the former Soviet republics in Eastern Europe have joined NATO. This includes Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Romania.

The highlighted country (bold by me) does no longer exist, it is now two separate sovereign countries namely,
The Czech republic and Slovakia, both beautiful places,lovely architecture and nature, I have been in both.

The original reason (as we are taught here in the US) that Joseph Stalin annexed the afore mentioned countries, and forced the others to join the Warsaw Pact and the USSR was because Russia suffered heavy losses from Nazi Germany's invasion during WWII. With two world wars on the continent in the span of 30 years, Stalin was preparing a defense if a third war broke out, and was going to use these countries as a buffer to his own.

This was also a form of "The winner takes it all" as has been the case in history countless times before.
The Soviet Red army fought Germans and as Germans retreated and ran towards the end of their war effort Red army troops closed in from all countries to the east of Germany (Poland, Czech republic, the Baltics etc.)
While allied forces like US, UK, closed from west, the Red army and west met near Torgau along the Elbe river, a historical moment in the war as Germany was at that point effectively cut in two and for all practical purposes defeated. It was just that after the war ended unlike the Americans the Soviets did not leave but stayed in the parts that they had previously fought Germans, after all this was the original plan between Hitler and Stalin known famously as "Molotov - Ribbentrop pact" in a bit changed way. This pact is notorious for it's secret protocol that basically divided Europe between Stalin and Hitler, just that Hitler made mistakes tried to grab too much and got killed so in the end Stalin got more of his part.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Day

The first contact between American and Soviet patrols occurred near Strehla, after First Lieutenant Albert Kotzebue, an American soldier, crossed the River Elbe in a boat with three men of an intelligence and reconnaissance platoon. On the east bank they met forward elements of a Soviet Guards rifle regiment of the First Ukrainian Front, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Gordeyev

The First Ukrainian front by the way was a battalion assembled from the people from what was back then "The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist republic" and

During 1943–1944, the Red Army recruited, more than 3 million people or 10% of the total population of Ukraine (in the Volyn region, this figure was 16%). In the troops of 1–4 Ukrainian fronts (mainly in infantry units and other formations), Ukrainians accounted for 60–80% of Soviet Red Army soldiers

Given we here know this history well, it is ever more so sad to see the very people who once fought side by side, and now their grandsons are fighting one another for no practical benefit, unlike back then.

Don't get me wrong, people here in the US are worried about the situation too because this could easily escalate into WWIII

Currently I would say this is almost exclusively dependent on the actions of NATO and Putin and no one else, if either steps too far or makes a bad mistake we could wake up to a totally different reality, so as bad as it sounds in a sense it's safer that the US current administration is sort of slow on doing anything about this. At least I feel safer that way, because just in case Putin has lost his mind in the way in which @fresh_42 here has said multiple times then making him lose it completely might be bad for all of us.
Us Latvians sent a load of US stingers to Ukraine just as this war began now few days ago, so there let me be proud for a second of our decisive and brave actions for a second here just as I am proud of Ukrainians exceeding all expectation and their president even though a comic by profession showing bravery orders of magnitude larger than most EU current leaders have.

The President of the United States at the time, Ronald Regan, watched that movie. Afterwards, he commented that the generals in the Pentagon were insane if they think we could win a nuclear war with Russia.

No worries, Russians have had their fair share of idiocy too. Khruschev liked alcohol quite well, and it seems world fate in terms of WW3 has been somewhat influenced by what happened at a bar
https://apnews.com/article/66d356ded2c3906342c6892532772463
https://warontherocks.com/2014/10/the-bartender-who-accidentally-saved-the-world/

I suggest a good read not that long, just goes to show that sometimes world history changing events get built upon little random details that slip in and out here and there.

 

[Frabjous]

No, NATO is fine, that was not my point, besides why would I ever offer any Russian control of the country for which my grandfather fought and almost died for and got deported to Siberia?

After this Russia and NATO and Ukraine signs a document that says that from now on Ukraine will be independent and sovereign and without Russian meddling and also without NATO but with the option of joining EU.

Kaliningrad is under a Russian-perceived threat. What privileges the Baltic States to possesses the self-determination that you would deny Ukraine?

 

[snorkack]

The original reason (as we are taught here in the US) that Joseph Stalin annexed the afore mentioned countries, and forced the others to join the Warsaw Pact and the USSR was because Russia suffered heavy losses from Nazi Germany's invasion during WWII. With two world wars on the continent in the span of 30 years, Stalin was preparing a defense if a third war broke out, and was going to use these countries as a buffer to his own.

That part is unlikely. He wanted to grab what was available. I don´t think Stalin planned for Cold War and West doubling down at Yalta and Potsdam, or for Iron Curtain through the middle of Europe. Stalin would have welcomed local communists taking over in Italy and France, as seemed possible in 1945-1946... and if they had, they would have had the alignment but lack of tight political control like the local communists in Yugoslavia or China.

 

[pinball1970]

In the meantime
The same stuff what went in Aleppo few years ago

I did not say it was a good situation, just better than escalation.

First of all, I'm in the United States. I will admit that I do not understand the current political climate in Russia. However, I have done research into the motivations of President Vladimir Putin's military campaign against the Ukraine.

• Failsafe (1964)
• The Day After (1983)
• Threads (1984)

When The Day After came out in 1983, I was 10 years old. That movie scared the hell out of me. The President of the United States at the time, Ronald Regan, watched that movie. Afterwards, he commented that the generals in the Pentagon were insane if they think we could win a nuclear war with Russia.

I only saw Threads a few years ago, horrific. I refused to watch it at the time.

Some better news today from our PM

"In a speech after the press conference on Tuesday, Mr Johnson said the UK had set aside £220m in humanitarian and emergency aid, and placed 1,000 British troops on standby to help with the humanitarian response in Europe.
He said the government was making it easier for Ukrainians in the UK to "bring their relatives our country", adding this could end up being more than 200,000 people."

 

[ergospherical]

Why do you , as well as others, here have to make this personal? I would not deny anything nor am I in a position to deny anyone anything. I only speak from a historical as well as strategical/political perspective I can understand some might dislike that but that has nothing to do with me.

I think what's irritating some members (myself included) is that it's quite exasperating to read these argumentative posts by non-experts like yourself - with slightly above-average googling skills - "debating" a brutal, real-world & unfolding invasion which they cannot comment on with any authority. Can you stop it, please.

 

[Rive]

This 'war' is rather strange. As it seems so far, from the 'red army' no air support, minimal logistics, all time low morale, no recon, no patrols, no occupation/territory keeping. Only (!) numbers thrown in.

This should be taken with a pinch bucket of salt, but still: fits.

 

[DennisN]

I read an interesting opinion piece in The Guardian by historian Yuval Noah Harari:

Why Vladimir Putin has already lost this war (by Yuval Noah Harari in The Guardian)

The article reflects pretty much how I feel and think about it, but I haven't expressed it in this thread yet as I have been more focused on what's going on currently.

In short: Yes, a country can be invaded and conquered. But can it be held?

I do currently not see Putin being able to obtain his objectives (I mean long term objectives).
And I think it's pretty clear that Putin has underestimated Ukraine (both the fighting spirit and sentiment) and also underestimated the response of the rest of the world.

 

[Astronuc]

Russia pummels Ukraine’s No. 2 city (Kharkiv) and convoy nears Kyiv​

https://apnews.com/article/russia-u...iness-europe-abc3e297725e57e6052529d844b5ee2f

Ukraine says its pilots are in Poland picking up donated MiG-29 fighter jets. Poland isn't commenting.​

https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-says-pilots-poland-picking-054947409.html

Fiona Hill says Putin tried to tell Trump that in a conflict 'the nuclear option would be on the table' but she didn't think the former president understood the warning​

https://www.businessinsider.com/fiona-hill-trump-missed-putin-warning-nuclear-option-possible-2022-2
So, it shouldn't come as a total shock that Putin put his nuclear forces on alert and made a threat to the rest or the world, namely US, UK and EU. Was the warning passed on to the current administration?I think Putin method is coercion, intimidation and ultimately aggression with those who don't comply with his wishes/demands.

 

[Mike S.]

I hope this forum will welcome pro-Russian perspectives also. I've read Putin's speech transcript and some of RT.com's offerings ... I just haven't been convinced. But you can't refute, or exclude, a point of view without hearing it! A mistake that some of the over-the-top European censorship efforts of late has been failing to recognize.

The argument that Ukraine in NATO was just too much pressure is not unreasonable. The question for the pro-Russians is why Putin couldn't settle that question in a gentlemanly fashion. Agree to withdraw his Russian passport holders and leave all of the eastern provinces to Ukraine, while keeping the area of Crimea that was transferred to Stalin without plebiscite, and guaranteeing free navigation in the Sea of Azov, and in exchange Ukraine promises never to join NATO, and NATO signs off on that, but they can still join EU. Or something similar. Wasn't two eastern provinces enough leverage? Couldn't pressure have been applied as simply as some mild ceasefire violations by proxies? I'd think one goal should have been to have free commerce into Ukraine from both sides, and in so doing, protect Russia from any potential sanctions regime.

People on the pro-Ukraine side need to be cautious about getting carried away. Think of how quickly all the goodwill toward the U.S. after 9/11 was forfeited by ham-fisted military moves! Yes, at first sanctions and defense looked like they would be a washout. Then we get into crazy games where every sports league throws out the Russians (but wasn't sports supposed to be a peace gesture?), and their second-largest bank, but not their first- or third-largest, gets thrown out of Swift. The British went from encouraging people to go sign up for the Ukraine military to threatening them with being prosecuted as terrorists, and instead of the usual two years to do that, it only took them two days! Nobody fights for a good cause without getting sent to prison, everybody knows that. But why?

The whole economy of the world is in danger, not just Russia, and it's not part of a well-coordinated strategy, but a whole slew of emergency moves being made most likely with the same sort of ulterior motives as the average COVID precaution that says that wearing a certain badge and being tracked by the right non-health authority makes you less likely to spread the disease. The goal here STILL needs to be to "land this thing", not just go on with the crowd not knowing where it's marching off of. I understand the urge to stop Putin, but if people aren't going to give Zelensky the main things he actually asks for (EU membership... before he's pressured to give up trying?), random substitutes may be less than useless.

 

[fresh_42]

I hope this forum will welcome pro-Russian perspectives also.

I do not think so. You can explain the perspective since it belongs to the settings, such as the fact that Putin at home is still backed by the majority of Russians, mainly due to a year-long bombardment by propaganda and factually forbidding any media that oppose his positions.

However, you can not welcome someone's position who started an unprovoked war, uses banned weapons (thermobaric, cluster), and kills innocent children and civilians.

​

 

[Mike S.]

However, you can not welcome someone's position who started an unprovoked war, uses banned weapons (thermobaric, cluster), and kills innocent children and civilians.

We have to be careful about being too self-righteous. The U.S. has not been very good about cluster bombs or mines -- or attacking peaceful countries -- either. (To be sure, I would like to think that if the Panamanians or the Libyans had rallied behind their leaders with the pluck of the Ukrainians, it might have batted us across the nose hard enough to make us a better country) More importantly, we forget just how many older Russians died under perestroika and the economic collapse of the Soviet Union, while Americans patted themselves on the back. Now the sanctions are destroying the ruble and the Russian markets and where is the sympathy for the people who will be affected?

This has to end with a peace. And that means trying to show some understanding for the other side.

 

[fresh_42]

We have to be careful about being too self-righteous.

No. Not if one party kills children. There is no excuse.

The U.S. has not been very good about cluster bombs or mines -- or attacking peaceful countries -- either.

This isn't the topic and is irrelevant. One evil can never be used to justify another evil.

 

[Mike S.]

This isn't the topic and is irrelevant. One evil can never be used to justify another evil.

So you're against crashing the Russian economy then?

 

[Rive]

Now the sanctions are destroying the ruble and the Russian markets and where is the sympathy for the people who will be affected?

From another angle, those sanctions now shows how deeply Russia were treated as a partner previously.
So, question: why should anybody keep a partner who defines the other side as enemy instead?

 

[fresh_42]

So you're against crashing the Russian economy then?

Not at all. This is an effect and not a cause. Everything that is happening now is only and merely a consequence of Putin's war.

 

[Mike S.]

Everything that is happening now is only and merely a consequence of Putin's war

None of it is the effect of the U.S. setting an example of violence? I would have thought everything can be called the effect of something.

I'm not saying don't fight, but you should only be fighting if you honestly believe it is the best available path to a good outcome. "Russia is bad so we want to hurt them" is not a sensible argument. If you think you can get Putin overthrown in a couple of weeks and that will bring about a better life for Russians and Ukrainians and Americans, that would be a good cause. Very much Bhagavad-Gita territory here.

 

[snorkack]

I do not think so. You can explain the perspective since it belongs to the settings, such as the fact that Putin at home is still backed by the majority of Russians, mainly due to a year-long bombardment by propaganda and factually forbidding any media that oppose his positions.

It is not "the fact" that he is "still backed" by "majority" of Russians. It also is not "solely" due to the bombardment by propaganda.
Putin´s propaganda addresses preexisting beliefs and concerns. Denying and diminishing these preexisting beliefs and concerns is not the only way to address the results - whether these preexisting concerns were real or already false.

 

[fresh_42]

It is not "the fact" that he is "still backed" by "majority" of Russians. It also is not "solely" due to the bombardment by propaganda.
Putin´s propaganda addresses preexisting beliefs and concerns. Denying and diminishing these preexisting beliefs and concerns is not the only way to address the results - whether these preexisting concerns were real or already false.

Maybe, but this wasn't my message. I said that there is a difference between an explanation and an agreement. An important distinction. So substitute my example with an example that pleases you.

Edit: I haven't found a poll. I was repeating what a journalist in Moscow said yesterday.

 

[artis]

I think what's irritating some members (myself included) is that it's quite exasperating to read these argumentative posts by non-experts like yourself - with slightly above-average googling skills - "debating" a brutal, real-world & unfolding invasion which they cannot comment on with any authority. Can you stop it, please.

Yes that is what I thought given the silence from others is not random.
As for your assessment , well , thank you at least for " slightly above average" skills,I'll take that as my "participation trophy" as they call them in US and go home. But definitely I don't know more than the average westerner here... It's not like I have been born here, lived my life here interacted with people here and learned history as an additional subject in University,
But fine since my comments are not necessary and maybe your right, anyone can google basic stuff and make their own conclusions.

Wishing all a great further chat.

 

[Astronuc]

A top Russian official appeared to threaten France with 'real war' after the French finance minister said Western sanctions would 'cause the collapse of the Russian economy'
https://www.businessinsider.com/rus...war-economic-collapse-medvedev-lemaire-2022-3

I don't know the context of what was said, I hope the rhetoric cools down. We do not need an escalation of the conflict.

Update/edit to above: Apparently, a French minister declared economic 'war' on Russia, and then beat a retreat
https://news.yahoo.com/france-declares-economic-war-against-135622654.html

we forget just how many older Russians died under perestroika and the economic collapse of the Soviet Union,

That whole situation could have been and should have been handled differently. However, I would expect many folks in the west don't know history or follow foreign policy, but leave it to the 'experts' or politicians and business persons. Yeltsin was a mistake, but that is history (1990s). Putin came to power as a result.

Putin was born in Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg) and studied law at Leningrad State University, graduating in 1975. He worked as a KGB foreign intelligence officer for 16 years, rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel, before resigning in 1991 to begin a political career in Saint Petersburg. He moved to Moscow in 1996 to join the administration of president Boris Yeltsin. He briefly served as director of the Federal Security Service (FSB) and secretary of the Security Council, before being appointed as prime minister in August 1999. After the resignation of Yeltsin, Putin became acting president, and less than four months later was elected outright to his first term as president and was reelected in 2004.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Yeltsin

On a different topic:
References to vacuum bombs mean 'thermobaric bomb'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon

 

[fresh_42]

I don't know the context of what was said, I hope the rhetoric cools down. We do not need an escalation of the conflict.

The problem is, that a Russian defeat could well mean the end of the regime (quote: Vladimir Kaminer, Berlin, today). And that makes the whole situation so dangerous: Freedom [of decision] is just another word for nothing left to lose (Janis Joplin).

 

[Astronuc]

The problem is, that a Russian defeat could well mean the end of the regime (quote: Vladimir Kaminer, Berlin, today). And that makes the whole situation so dangerous:

The situation is precarious and grave.

However, what is a reasonable resolution for a 'home invasion' by a neighbor? Allow the invader to harm or expel rightful occupants and give over the home?

Will the invader pack up and leave peacefully after ransacking the home? Then what?

Lessons from 102 years ago and Versailles?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Conference_(1919–1920)

 

[russ_watters]

I hope this forum will welcome pro-Russian perspectives also. I've read Putin's speech transcript and some of RT.com's offerings ... I just haven't been convinced. But you can't refute, or exclude, a point of view without hearing it! A mistake that some of the over-the-top European censorship efforts of late has been failing to recognize.

We welcome perspectives based in facts and logic, but not lies and misinformation and we will not apologize for censoring them.

The argument that Ukraine in NATO was just too much pressure is not unreasonable.

I've seen this claim several times, but always skipping the actual argument. What is it? Pre-emptive response: yes, it is unreasonable.

We have to be careful about being too self-righteous. The U.S. has not been very good about cluster bombs or mines -- or attacking peaceful countries -- either.

Somebody else did a bad thing once is never a valid justification for doing a bad thing now. Nor are the people in this discussion leaders of their respective countries, bearing any personal responsibility for those bad things.

 

[Rive]

Russian defeat could well mean the end of the regime

Up to the definition of 'regime'. The Russian political leadership is a very complex mixture of various factors, and is unlikely to fundamentally change anytime soon, even in case they losing fail in this war.
Putin might be replaced, so 'spice wealth must flow'.

 

[fresh_42]

Then what?

I have no idea. I think Putin already lost this war. An occupation of such a large country without peoples' agreement can hardly be sold as a victory. My hope is that the sanctions will lead to Putin's replacement and end the war that way.

 

[fresh_42]

Up to the definition of 'regime'. The Russian political leadership is a very complex mixture of various factors, and is unlikely to fundamentally change anytime soon, even in case they losing fail in this war.
Putin might be replaced, so 'spice wealth must flow'.

Maybe, but Kaminer knows definitely better than you and me.

 

[snorkack]

I do not believe that most Russians, either common or mid-level, deliberately lie. They express positions which they have been persuaded of, much of which are incorrect. There are some people who do lie to others - addressing things which the targets of the lies find credible but which the liar knows to be false.

I saw an argument of someone who described the description of Russians and Ukrainians as "brother people" as "believing Putin´s propaganda". With a lot of good examples appealing to the experience of people in Soviet Union... but all of this suits a different interpretation.

The story was the experience of international collective in Soviet Union - the army. And similar attitudes in towns full of migrants from various places.
The Baltic people were picked on for being "fascists" - but respected as educated westerners compared to Russians.
The Central Asians were looked down on as savages.
And the Ukrainians were looked on as... better than Central Asians but not quite equal to Russians. As something like uneducated/bumpkin, defective Russians.

This attitude... Well, I do not know how this was in 19th century. In late 17th, early 18th century, Russians did look at some Ukrainians as educated compared to them, coming from the West in Poland, in first half of 18th century most Russian upper clergy was Ukrainian, but since Catherine II, no more.

Russian folklore has the popular figure of Stupid Ivan. A younger brother who is regarded as disabled by his elder brothers, economically abused - and eventually it is Stupid Ivan who performs the feat that his elder brethren do not.

The problem for Ukrainians for over 200 years of living in one country with Russia was that they could not really get over that Stupid Ivan status. Brother people? An Ukrainian poetess in 2014 after Maidan wrote a Russian poem addressed to Russians, which got popular saying that "We can never be brothers". One interpretation. And yet another interpretation is that Ukrainians have problems of being treated as Stupid Ivans - not just little brothers to be protected and cared for, but also little in the sense of being belittled and bullied - for 200+ years.

What happened to these attitudes after 1991?
I have not followed the public opinion that closely. But it seems that, precisely because Baltics were expected to be higher status (like Finland and Poland who left Russia in 1917-1918), there was less pressure. And the success of Baltics in terms of economic prosperity and political internal stability confirmed the positive prejudices and expectations, and denied Russia internal leverage to interfere.
In Central Asia, the prejudice of lower status of these people were also confirmed by the status of countries after 1991. They were not Russia´s puppets! Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan had rulers who were their own men balancing between Russia, West and China, and not threat to Russia. So Russia did not feel threatened. A poor outsider going his own way did not trigger cycle of resentment.

Ukraine... Kuchma and Janukovych tried to be their own men balancing between Russia and West.

But the problem is that problems inside Ukraine brought them down. Little Ivan gradually, with relaxations, reconciliations and new crises started to kick back against bullying. Because the perceived status was close, but disputed by Ukraine, the disagreements on status escalated out of control. So it is understandable to interpret it "We were never brothers" - but you can deny that slogan while giving alternative reason for Ukraine´s hostility.

 

[artis]

The story was the experience of international collective in Soviet Union - the army. And similar attitudes in towns full of migrants from various places.
The Baltic people were picked on for being "fascists" - but respected as educated westerners compared to Russians.
The Central Asians were looked down on as savages.
And the Ukrainians were looked on as... better than Central Asians but not quite equal to Russians. As something like uneducated/bumpkin, defective Russians.

I tried to stay out of this discussion but once I read your post I couldn't resist. I am positively shocked by your commentary, it is very on point, my own father who served in the Red army couldn't have made a better 4 sentence summary of his personal experience. Mind I ask you what is your background in terms of where you live?

Your also right on Baltics, our economic and cultural difference + our pre WW2 independence are strong arguments against Russian meddling here.
Estonians some years ago took down a controversial Soviet monument there was much backlash , but it was short lived and it ended with nothing, so we do have historically more leverage.

 

[artis]

I've seen this claim several times, but always skipping the actual argument. What is it? Pre-emptive response: yes, it is unreasonable.

I suppose you did not read the argument I gave here multiple times? or maybe you skipped it thinking it's a low quality one

 

[Rive]

Maybe, but Kaminer knows definitely better than you and me.

I don't know about that, but as long as he can't provide the sufficient amount of equations for a Q.E.D. we are still free to discuss it

 

[artis]

 

[DennisN]

I have personally not commented on history (at least as far back as World War II).
Not because I don't think it's interesting, but because I think there are important differences between the world then and today which must be taken into account.

Just to mention some big differences:

* The European Union (EU) did not exist
* NATO did not exist
* Nuclear weapons did not exist

Also, remember that countries themselves are very different today (comparing to 1939), e.g.

• Russia is a different country today, and the Soviet Union does not exist
• Germany is a different country today, it is a member of the European Union (EU) and NATO (and previously less inclined to build up their military forces)
• Sweden, my country, is different today. We are a member of the European Union (EU) and we have had close collaborations with the West and NATO. We are not, and will not be neutral with respect to Ukraine. We will support democracy, oppose authoritharian regimes and oppose violations of human rights. Thus we are supporting Ukraine. It's not surprising to me at all, as in some respects we are not that different from Ukraine; we are both much smaller countries than Russia and neither country is a NATO member. Though one difference is that we are members of the European Union (EU) and Ukraine is not.

In short: The world is very different than it was in 1939.
We are not living in 1939. We are living in 2022.

 

[Maelstorm]

The highlighted country (bold by me) does no longer exist, it is now two separate sovereign countries namely,
The Czech republic and Slovakia, both beautiful places,lovely architecture and nature, I have been in both.

I realize that by looking at the map. But in 1991, it was still Czechoslovakia.

This was also a form of "The winner takes it all" as has been the case in history countless times before.
The Soviet Red army fought Germans and as Germans retreated and ran towards the end of their war effort Red army troops closed in from all countries to the east of Germany (Poland, Czech republic, the Baltics etc.)
While allied forces like US, UK, closed from west, the Red army and west met near Torgau along the Elbe river, a historical moment in the war as Germany was at that point effectively cut in two and for all practical purposes defeated. It was just that after the war ended unlike the Americans the Soviets did not leave but stayed in the parts that they had previously fought Germans, after all this was the original plan between Hitler and Stalin known famously as "Molotov - Ribbentrop pact" in a bit changed way. This pact is notorious for it's secret protocol that basically divided Europe between Stalin and Hitler, just that Hitler made mistakes tried to grab too much and got killed so in the end Stalin got more of his part.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Day

I do remember this. Stalin's actions against Germany was due to Hitler invading Russia. But yes, Stalin didn't leave and kept his gains while the US stepped back and gave the countries back to their people.

The First Ukrainian front by the way was a battalion assembled from the people from what was back then "The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist republic" and

Given we here know this history well, it is ever more so sad to see the very people who once fought side by side, and now their grandsons are fighting one another for no practical benefit, unlike back then.

Being in the United States, history tends to focus on major issues in the western hemisphere and US interventions abroad. I have very little knowledge about the history in that region of the world. That is interesting though. I can't remember if it was WWI or WWII, but I remember from social studies class back in the 1980s that something like 1 in 4 Russians had a weapon, and they weren't sure if the bullets they had would fit the gun.

Currently I would say this is almost exclusively dependent on the actions of NATO and Putin and no one else, if either steps too far or makes a bad mistake we could wake up to a totally different reality, so as bad as it sounds in a sense it's safer that the US current administration is sort of slow on doing anything about this. At least I feel safer that way, because just in case Putin has lost his mind in the way in which @fresh_42 here has said multiple times then making him lose it completely might be bad for all of us.

People are claiming that Putin is unhinged. It has been said that he is deathly afraid of COVID, so he's probably kept himself isolated for the past 2 years. We have all seen reports of people going nuts due to extended isolation, even committing suicide in some cases. So this is not beyond the realm of possibility. Hopefully, someone with with enough courage to say no to orders to launch ICBMs will be manning the station if that order should come.

Us Latvians sent a load of US stingers to Ukraine just as this war began now few days ago, so there let me be proud for a second of our decisive and brave actions for a second here just as I am proud of Ukrainians exceeding all expectation and their president even though a comic by profession showing bravery orders of magnitude larger than most EU current leaders have.

Ask the Russians about those stinger missiles when they invaded Afghanistan in the 1980s. You may be in for a fist fight.

No worries, Russians have had their fair share of idiocy too. Khruschev liked alcohol quite well, and it seems world fate in terms of WW3 has been somewhat influenced by what happened at a bar
https://apnews.com/article/66d356ded2c3906342c6892532772463
https://warontherocks.com/2014/10/the-bartender-who-accidentally-saved-the-world/

That is actually scary. I do remember watching a documentary about NATO exercises in 1982-1983 when we came close. The Russians thought that the exercises were a cover to launch a sneak attack on the USSR. When Regan got wind of it, he called in the USSR ambassador and told them what was going on.

At the time, you had two superpowers who did not trust each other. One mistake, one miscalculation and the world would be destroyed. I would really hate to see it come back to that.

I suggest a good read not that long, just goes to show that sometimes world history changing events get built upon little random details that slip in and out here and there.

I don't know a lot about the history in that area. I do remember reading that Hitler and Stalin were going to secretly divide Poland.

 

[DennisN]

I don't know a lot about the history in that area. I do remember reading that Hitler and Stalin were going to secretly divide Poland.

Correct. That was the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

 

[Maelstorm]

That part is unlikely. He wanted to grab what was available. I don´t think Stalin planned for Cold War and West doubling down at Yalta and Potsdam, or for Iron Curtain through the middle of Europe. Stalin would have welcomed local communists taking over in Italy and France, as seemed possible in 1945-1946... and if they had, they would have had the alignment but lack of tight political control like the local communists in Yugoslavia or China.

I don't think he planned for the Cold War either. But I think you are right though. The reason given is usually only part of the truth. He gives the buffer as a reason, but there's more to it. However, Stalin was paranoid which is why the purge in the 1930s happened. So after two world wars within 30 years and getting invaded, I can see how his paranoia might have gotten the better of him.

 

[Maelstorm]

I only saw Threads a few years ago, horrific. I refused to watch it at the time.

The person who directed the sound of that movie did a very good job of capturing the moment. Then the silence when the warhead hit. It was unnerving to say the least. The thing about horror movies is that you know they are not real. With movies like these, what's really frightening is that the movie can become reality in short order.

Some better news today from our PM

"In a speech after the press conference on Tuesday, Mr Johnson said the UK had set aside £220m in humanitarian and emergency aid, and placed 1,000 British troops on standby to help with the humanitarian response in Europe.
He said the government was making it easier for Ukrainians in the UK to "bring their relatives our country", adding this could end up being more than 200,000 people."

Can you guys across the pond take in that many people? That's a lot to absorb. I think if push came to shove, my country would help take in a few of those too, or at the very least send aid to help those who do take in refuges.

 

[artis]

Being in the United States, history tends to focus on major issues in the western hemisphere and US interventions abroad. I have very little knowledge about the history in that region of the world. That is interesting though. I can't remember if it was WWI or WWII, but I remember from social studies class back in the 1980s that something like 1 in 4 Russians had a weapon, and they weren't sure if the bullets they had would fit the gun.

The Russian weapon thing is a bit exaggerated but they had less weaponry and not as good supplies as Germans that is true, at the beginning of the war they were also short on tanks for which they made up towards the second half since the Russian T34 is a very simple and robust machine which they mass produced.
All in all the Russian weapons were simpler and they had less of them but they were more robust, Germans had better weapons and were better prepared from the start but facing the harsh Russian winter and hellish ground conditions (Russian swamps , dirt, sand, cold) their weapons often malfunctioned and the nature back then sort of did some favors for the Soviets.

I have very little knowledge about the history in that region of the world.

Well I know other Americans that are friends of mine who say the same, so naturally I thought I would write some history here but I was told politely that I'm a fool and wasting my time so sorry I guess I'm going to leave those parts out.

 

[snorkack]

People are claiming that Putin is unhinged. It has been said that he is deathly afraid of COVID, so he's probably kept himself isolated for the past 2 years. We have all seen reports of people going nuts due to extended isolation, even committing suicide in some cases. So this is not beyond the realm of possibility. Hopefully, someone with with enough courage to say no to orders to launch ICBMs will be manning the station if that order should come.

Which is one reason why the hate campaign against Russians or wide range of people inside Russia is counterproductive.
Ordinary Russians are shocked by the war. Men fighting in Russia are shocked by the war. They say they expected that the civilians would welcome them - that is, they thought Zelensky government was supported by a narrow and hated minority, and are surprised to find otherwise. Duh - wouldn´t it have been an easy job for Russian intelligence to find realistic estimates of Ukrainian public opinion and inform the soldiers who were going to meet the civilians? By contrast, the German soldiers in 1914 in France, or 1939 in Poland, 1940 in Norway, France, 1941 in Russia expected the civilians to be resentful and hostile. They were pleasantly surprised in Baltics where locals were welcoming, because Soviets had been worse, but their motivation to fight was not conditional on the welcome of local civilians.

 

[Maelstorm]

@Maelstorm missing from your analysis is that the ex-Soviet bloc countries such as Poland had and have a LOT more to fear from Russia than Russia has to fear from them.

As I mentioned before, I don't have a lot of knowledge about that part of the world, the internal politics behind the iron curtain, etc... Back during the days of the USSR, compliance was brought about by force of arms, bullying the people. What is it like today?

 

[artis]

Ordinary Russians are shocked by the war. Men fighting in Russia are shocked by the war. They say they expected that the civilians would welcome them - that is, they thought Zelensky government was supported by a narrow and hated minority, and are surprised to find otherwise

Nah it's worse yet, from what I'm reading in Russian dissident twitter accounts the military drills that happened at Ukraine border just before the invasion a week ago, were full of obligatory recruits, all of them young, they were given live ammo, and their phones were confiscated. Then when the drills ended they were simply sent into Ukraine and most were given very little info on why.

Russians knew that Russian lads won't be excited about killing their own kind so they simply lied to them and pushed them, you won't most likely see this on CNN but given the situation and details I have a high confidence this is true. The countless amateur videos from Ukrainian fighters also confirm this

 

[fresh_42]

Can you guys across the pond take in that many people?

Germany has had 890,000 immigrants in 2015 alone, all non-European, which made integration harder.
No problem to have some fellow Europeans more.

 

[DennisN]

By the way, recently I came to think of another interesting part of history which, if I remember correctly, is an example of US pilots (in UN) actually engaging Russian pilots (during the Korean War, one of the hot spots during the Cold War):

"MiG Alley" was the name given by United Nations (UN) pilots during the Korean War to the northwestern portion of North Korea, where the Yalu River empties into the Yellow Sea. It was the site of numerous dogfights between UN fighter pilots and their opponents from North Korea (including some unofficially crewed by Soviet airmen) and the People's Republic of China. Soviet-built Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 were the aircraft used during most of the conflict, and the area's nickname was derived from them. It was the site of the first large-scale jet-vs-jet air battles, with the North American F-86 Sabre."

Source: MiG Alley (Wikipedia), see also MiG Alley - Soviet role.

 

[Maelstorm]

Which is one reason why the hate campaign against Russians or wide range of people inside Russia is counterproductive.
Ordinary Russians are shocked by the war. Men fighting in Russia are shocked by the war. They say they expected that the civilians would welcome them - that is, they thought Zelensky government was supported by a narrow and hated minority, and are surprised to find otherwise. Duh - wouldn´t it have been an easy job for Russian intelligence to find realistic estimates of Ukrainian public opinion and inform the soldiers who were going to meet the civilians?

Those reports have been broadcast here in the US as well. There are protests happening in Russia. Some very prominent Russians have been speaking out against it. In fact, yesterday, two Russian oligarchs publicly denounced the war, and rumors are circulating that quite a few more are privately telling Putin to stop it. Our news also reported that Putin's generals advised against this. It has also been reported here several times that the soldiers don't really know why they are there, where they are going, or what they are doing. That might have changed within the last couple of days though. However, the soldiers don't like this either.

I can see a scenario where the military rebels against Putin and we have a coup d'etat on our hands.

After doing some research, I found that it seems that Russia has had the same form of government for the past 400-500 years. Land of the Tsars indeed.

 

[Maelstorm]

Nah it's worse yet, from what I'm reading in Russian dissident twitter accounts the military drills that happened at Ukraine border just before the invasion a week ago, were full of obligatory recruits, all of them young, they were given live ammo, and their phones were confiscated. Then when the drills ended they were simply sent into Ukraine and most were given very little info on why.

Russians knew that Russian lads won't be excited about killing their own kind so they simply lied to them and pushed them, you won't most likely see this on CNN but given the situation and details I have a high confidence this is true. The countless amateur videos from Ukrainian fighters also confirm this

Actually, it has been mentioned once or twice.

 

[fresh_42]

Please avoid discussing American history here. It is not doable. And Stalin-Ribbentrop is very borderline, too.

 

[Maelstorm]

Well I know other Americans that are friends of mine who say the same, so naturally I thought I would write some history here but I was told politely that I'm a fool and wasting my time so sorry I guess I'm going to leave those parts out.

I remember about the cold halting the German advance. But those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. As it turns out for some people, they repeat it anyways.

 

[fresh_42]

 

[artis]

And Stalin-Ribbentrop is very borderline, too

And Putin's health is also borderline (as you said)... and Ukraine doesn't have a borderline now. So many borderlines I'm confused

 

[fresh_42]

And Putin's health is also borderline (as you said)... and Ukraine doesn't have a borderline now. So many borderlines I'm confused

The crucial point is that many people use comparisons to
a) justify what otherwise cannot be justified
b) distract from the - for them unpleasant - discussion
c) diminish someone's guilt by relativization

None of these rhetorical methods is appropriate.

I am well aware of the Russian citizens in the Baltic States. Again: Justifications for the murderer of children are not welcome.