War in Ukraine

Oh, okay. So, nobody invaded reach other in Western Europe... guess the Soviets crushing Hungary and Czechoslovakia don't count.

And not even gonna mention the countless wars and conflicts the European nations were involved in during and after the Cold War outside of their borders.

Don't pretend Europe was all peaceful after WWII.
Western Europe typically stops at Germany. Especially after Germany itself was divided into East and West.

and considering any number of non-World War wars the Russians crussing the Czechs and Hungary were small fry events. The Greeks and Turks, Italians and Turks, Bulgaria vs every neighbor, all had larger death tolls, and most Americans couldn't have told you about those events. heck most couldn't tell you anything about what happened to the Czechs or the Hungarians.

that's a far cry from the level of wars that Europe hosted previously. Even in Yugoslavia, the post 1991 wars were really just continuations of previous wars, and not some event that only could have happened because of NATO.

Ukraine is the first war to get to the level of a Franco-Prussian war, Crimean War, or any number of other wars that happened at least once a decade. Since NATO we are down to once a century for that type of war. I would definitely consider that far more peaceful.

There is a reason most NATO nations weren't meeting their spending requirements, it wasn't needed, because of all the peace.
 
I was referring to more recent times.

But the talks in 2008 was in reaction to the Georgia invasion by Russia. Who was also talking about joining NATO.

Seems like Russia was drawing a line.
what more recent talks of Ukraine joining NATO have their been? actual talks that got to at least the 2008 levels?

Russia isn't drawing a line, it is actively seeking expansion in the few areas it still can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volkyries
except that is not what Putin has said on multiple occasions. He has directly expressed interests in reclaiming any previously held Russian territory. Even bringing up Alaska, and talking about old grudges with France. Granted the French thing was after their president ran his mouth. He has also expressed support for the expansionist goals of China, and North Korea.

Russia was in no worse shape in 2014 than they were in 1999. if anything they were far stronger in 2014, so trying to claim they were backed into a corner just ignores how Russian foreign policy has changed, and their new alliances.

If you think I'm here to defend Russia or Putin, you're barking up the wrong tree. What I am saying is we have no business getting involved any more than we have already. And we have no business even suggesting we're going to plant another NATO flag on Russia's border without risking future conflict.

And frankly, if the EU wants to do something about it, that's their problem. But I'm tired of seeing our tax dollars going to a country that won't make it a national effort to repel the invasion or that can't account for the money we've sent already.

We've done enough and have our own problems without being the bully and cornering another nation because someone else is scared. It's time for Ukraine to help Ukraine and we take care of our problems.
 
Western Europe typically stops at Germany. Especially after Germany itself was divided into East and West.

and considering any number of non-World War wars the Russians crussing the Czechs and Hungary were small fry events. The Greeks and Turks, Italians and Turks, Bulgaria vs every neighbor, all had larger death tolls, and most Americans couldn't have told you about those events. heck most couldn't tell you anything about what happened to the Czechs or the Hungarians.

that's a far cry from the level of wars that Europe hosted previously. Even in Yugoslavia, the post 1991 wars were really just continuations of previous wars, and not some event that only could have happened because of NATO.

Ukraine is the first war to get to the level of a Franco-Prussian war, Crimean War, or any number of other wars that happened at least once a decade. Since NATO we are down to once a century for that type of war. I would definitely consider that far more peaceful.

There is a reason most NATO nations weren't meeting their spending requirements, it wasn't needed, because of all the peace.

As I stated, the nations in Europe weren't quite as "peaceful" as the poster let on. Forgetting Europeans died in far away places as they desperately tried to hold onto colonial claims or got involved in third party conflicts. And that's Western and Eastern Bloc countries alike.

Yeah, nobody in Europe was at war with each other, but it's not like the post WWII era was peaceful. The conflicts involving those nations just took them elsewhere.
 
what more recent talks of Ukraine joining NATO have their been? actual talks that got to at least the 2008 levels?

Russia isn't drawing a line, it is actively seeking expansion in the few areas it still can.

September 2020. Zelensky charted the national course for membership.
 

"Imperialist Russia isn’t content to live within its internationally recognized 1991 borders. If it were, the West would happily discuss Russia’s legitimate national security interests in ensuring the security of those borders. But Moscow has made clear that it isn’t. At the same time, Russia has chosen not to attack an alliance member militarily because doing so would bring it directly into a war with NATO. Ukrainian membership in NATO thus provides the basis for a more stable relationship with Russia rather than living with continued uncertainty. Without NATO membership for Ukraine, the Russian threat against the country will continue, as will the need for the West to respond to Moscow’s aggression. The only way to take care of that threat over the long term is to bring Ukraine into NATO and deter a future Russian invasion."

Why NATO Should Accept Ukraine

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
 
They wont answer because it is FAR more than the Western Death Cult has propagandized to the lemmings.


Publicizing Ukrainian losses only benefits Putler. There's no doubt Ukrainian troops have suffered greatly due to Russia's imperialist invasion, but they're fighting for their very survival. In contrast, Putler's gambit is purely a 'war of choice' much like W's invasion of Iraq.

Our apparent strategy of bleeding Russia to death by a thousand cuts is working, however. When and if the US ever decides it wants Ukraine to actually win the war, it will happen. If nothing else, the Russian war engine has proven itself overestimated and largely incompetent.
 
If you think I'm here to defend Russia or Putin, you're barking up the wrong tree. What I am saying is we have no business getting involved any more than we have already. And we have no business even suggesting we're going to plant another NATO flag on Russia's border without risking future conflict.

And frankly, if the EU wants to do something about it, that's their problem. But I'm tired of seeing our tax dollars going to a country that won't make it a national effort to repel the invasion or that can't account for the money we've sent already.

We've done enough and have our own problems without being the bully and cornering another nation because someone else is scared. It's time for Ukraine to help Ukraine and we take care of our problems.
I am saying the same thing. But I am not making up excuses for Putin trying to claim we forced him to invade Ukraine and backed him into some sort of corner. That's just a bad argument. pre 2014 Russia was probably in the best international place it has been in a really long time.

Putin is the one who painted himself into a corner. NATO has not been a threat to Russia ever, its why he hasn't said crap about Finland, Estonia, or Latvia; yet alone Turkey, Romania, and any other Black Sea or Baltic nations. Putin is the one who created and pushed the NATO is an existential threat who is out to take away Russia's well being. he needs an outside threat to maintain his hold on power, see the Chechen bombings.
 
As I stated, the nations in Europe weren't quite as "peaceful" as the poster let on. Forgetting Europeans died in far away places as they desperately tried to hold onto colonial claims or got involved in third party conflicts. And that's Western and Eastern Bloc countries alike.

Yeah, nobody in Europe was at war with each other, but it's not like the post WWII era was peaceful. The conflicts involving those nations just took them elsewhere.
they were colonizing long before NATO. and even those have largely died down. Really only the French have any real type of over seas colonies they are having to maintain with violence. Even the proxy wars, and various "occupations" aren't new. Afghanistan and Iraq have nothing on the Boxer Rebellions or pre 1900 occupations in Japan and other asian places.
 
Western Europe typically stops at Germany. Especially after Germany itself was divided into East and West.

and considering any number of non-World War wars the Russians crussing the Czechs and Hungary were small fry events. The Greeks and Turks, Italians and Turks, Bulgaria vs every neighbor, all had larger death tolls, and most Americans couldn't have told you about those events. heck most couldn't tell you anything about what happened to the Czechs or the Hungarians.

that's a far cry from the level of wars that Europe hosted previously. Even in Yugoslavia, the post 1991 wars were really just continuations of previous wars, and not some event that only could have happened because of NATO.

Ukraine is the first war to get to the level of a Franco-Prussian war, Crimean War, or any number of other wars that happened at least once a decade. Since NATO we are down to once a century for that type of war. I would definitely consider that far more peaceful.

There is a reason most NATO nations weren't meeting their spending requirements, it wasn't needed, because of all the peace.

Western Europe came synonymous with NATO in the 1950s and beyond. Before then, Western Europe would traditionally be France, Benelux, Iberia, and British Isles. Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, and Czechia would have been Central Europe (basically the HRE lands if you go back in time). Eastern Europe is traditionally associated with Poland-Lithuania, Hungary, Balkans, and Russia. Scandinavia was kind of its own thing (maybe Northern Europe) or would be tied to Central/Western Europe.

Ukraine is the biggest war in Europe since World War 2. It isn't close. I would say the Bosnian Conflict would be 2nd.

Now prior to World War 2 era, the Ukraine war would be a "minor" war in scale/scope. As you stated, Europe has had some massive wars. Then again, the entire world has had these type of wars.

You can find a list of wars here: List of wars by death toll - Wikipedia

Some wars were large in scope but lighter in casualties (Seven Years War for example which is arguably a true World War as well, and often called World War 0).

I think in order of deaths, the top 5 are:


1. World War II - 80 Million dead
2. Mongol Conquests - 40 Million dead
3. World War I - 20 Million Dead
4. Taiping Revolt - Unknown but around 15 Million dead (could be higher than WW1)
5. Chinese Civil War - 12 Million dead


There are several other Chinese conflicts that could have more on the list like the Dungan Revolt, War of Three Kingdoms, etc. However, these are more a series of conflicts and the casualties are estimates. China had a lot of internal wars that were very bloody (partly due to the large population in the region). In fact, Chinese internal Civil Wars actually have more total deaths than all the Europe conflicts (minus WW2) combine.

World War II is BY FAR, the bloodiest conflict in human history. Nothing comes close to the scale of that war.

In the ancient Mediterranean, the Punic Wars were HUGE conflicts that saw far massive casualties than any previous war. Part of the reason was the heavy use of naval fleets in the first Punic War and the mass sinking of large fleets due to storms that saw thousands of deaths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
he also didn't say they wouldn't join while at war.

They have been treating Ukraine special this whole time. and with some of the vocal support out there, mostly Macron, its not like there isn't some special attention on Ukraine.
Make no mistake, Macron has his own agenda and interests in all of this
 
I am saying the same thing. But I am not making up excuses for Putin trying to claim we forced him to invade Ukraine and backed him into some sort of corner. That's just a bad argument. pre 2014 Russia was probably in the best international place it has been in a really long time.

Putin is the one who painted himself into a corner. NATO has not been a threat to Russia ever, its why he hasn't said crap about Finland, Estonia, or Latvia; yet alone Turkey, Romania, and any other Black Sea or Baltic nations. Putin is the one who created and pushed the NATO is an existential threat who is out to take away Russia's well being. he needs an outside threat to maintain his hold on power, see the Chechen bombings.

How is that a bad argument? Russians have always been suspicious of their neighbors going back centuries.

Prior to 2014, Russia didn't have territorial ambitions of regaining the Soviet empire. But what they did want, and history is their guide, was buffer zones of friendly states on their borders. Because it's not like they haven't been invaded quite frequently over the past.

So, yes, NATO has backed them into a corner by continuing to put new members right on the Russian border with the Baltic Republics. And then, they start talking about putting another one within spitting distance of Moscow?

How did we think they were going to react? It's like three of your neighbors pointing loaded guns at your house. You complain about it and in response, they load another gun and point it at you from another neighbors house.

Yes, NATO has backed them into a corner. Whether or not it's been "peaceful" is not at the heart of the matter here. Russia has always been and will always be suspicious of foreign powers on their border that aren't "friendly" to them.
 
he also didn't say they wouldn't join while at war.

They have been treating Ukraine special this whole time. and with some of the vocal support out there, mostly Macron, its not like there isn't some special attention on Ukraine.

He didn't have to, because NATO membership requirements preclude doing so.
 
How is that a bad argument? Russians have always been suspicious of their neighbors going back centuries.

Prior to 2014, Russia didn't have territorial ambitions of regaining the Soviet empire. But what they did want, and history is their guide, was buffer zones of friendly states on their borders. Because it's not like they haven't been invaded quite frequently over the past.

So, yes, NATO has backed them into a corner by continuing to put new members right on the Russian border with the Baltic Republics. And then, they start talking about putting another one within spitting distance of Moscow?

How did we think they were going to react? It's like three of your neighbors pointing loaded guns at your house. You complain about it and in response, they load another gun and point it at you from another neighbors house.

Yes, NATO has backed them into a corner. Whether or not it's been "peaceful" is not at the heart of the matter here. Russia has always been and will always be suspicious of foreign powers on their border that aren't "friendly" to them.

While I don't think it is worth US effort to "save" Ukraine; I just don't believe the propaganda of Russia that this is about NATO and not about trying to puppet/control Ukraine. To explain further, anything prior to Putin don't count as this is Putin's regime that is directing the war so erase the Yeltsin era. Since Putin has been in power, Ukraine has had a Pro-Russian puppet as their leader until the 2014 elections. I don't believe there was a Coup like some say in this thread, I think Ukrainians wanted to go in a different direction and get closer to Western Europe. Putin didn't like having a pro-western regime so close to home so acted. I think it is really about a Pro-Western government created pro-Democratic support into Russia that could threaten Putin's hold on power. So he wants to act, not just to control Ukraine's resources but also to prevent having a sister nation of Russia spreading its democratic successes into Russia.

Russia just needs to work with Europe. This is where Putin has failed. Russian leaders that worked with the West (notably Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, and to even a degree, Stalin) saw HUGE success while isolationist Russian leaders have seen their state decline.

I have always thought that Russia could do better if they were in the EU and NATO and played the game from the inside. This is what the Russian Empire of old would be doing. They were a member of the concert of Europe in the 1800s and not some outside nation that didn't have any influence. Putin has turned all of Europe against him. You can debate the morality of it but it is very stupid from his perspective as a leader.

I also think it is stupid of Putin to put so much faith into China who could turn on Russia on a dime. Russia just doesn't have the power to go against all of Europe. They would be better serve finding allies. Ironically, France was a solid ally with Russia back in the day. If I am Russia, I would start with France and stop trying to antagonize France. Germany would be another potential ally.
 
They wont answer because it is FAR more than the Western Death Cult has propagandized to the lemmings.


Why would sending aid be contingent on knowing the number of dead for Ukraine?

You send it to help Ukraine or you don't.
 
Really only the French have any real type of over seas colonies they are having to maintain with violence.

Ummm...

Belgium in Congo
Spain in West Africa
Portugal in Angola, East Timor and Mozambique
France all over the place as you mentioned
The UK all over the place as well...


As well as the Eastern Bloc support in a variety of areas in Africa and Asia fighting pro-westen insurgency or regimes.

Actually, the most passive countries post WWII were West Germany (East Germany was involved in the above statements) and Italy.
 
While I don't think it is worth US effort to "save" Ukraine; I just don't believe the propaganda of Russia that this is about NATO and not about trying to puppet/control Ukraine. To explain further, anything prior to Putin don't count as this is Putin's regime that is directing the war so erase the Yeltsin era. Since Putin has been in power, Ukraine has had a Pro-Russian puppet as their leader until the 2014 elections. I don't believe there was a Coup like some say in this thread, I think Ukrainians wanted to go in a different direction and get closer to Western Europe. Putin didn't like having a pro-western regime so close to home so acted. I think it is really about a Pro-Western government created pro-Democratic support into Russia that could threaten Putin's hold on power. So he wants to act, not just to control Ukraine's resources but also to prevent having a sister nation of Russia spreading its democratic successes into Russia.

Russia just needs to work with Europe. This is where Putin has failed. Russian leaders that worked with the West (notably Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, and to even a degree, Stalin) saw HUGE success while isolationist Russian leaders have seen their state decline.

I have always thought that Russia could do better if they were in the EU and NATO and played the game from the inside. This is what the Russian Empire of old would be doing. They were a member of the concert of Europe in the 1800s and not some outside nation that didn't have any influence. Putin has turned all of Europe against him. You can debate the morality of it but it is very stupid from his perspective as a leader.

I also think it is stupid of Putin to put so much faith into China who could turn on Russia on a dime. Russia just doesn't have the power to go against all of Europe. They would be better serve finding allies. Ironically, France was a solid ally with Russia back in the day. If I am Russia, I would start with France and stop trying to antagonize France. Germany would be another potential ally.

I don't think Germans and Russians will ever be friendly lol. Way too much bad blood there going back a long time.

But to the point of the rest of your post. I don't think we'd see half the trouble we're seeing today if we'd stop expanding NATO right to Putin's doorstep. As I stated before, they accepted the Baltic Republics, grumbled about it, but couldn't do anything at the time.

But why did Ukraine have to become part of NATO? They could have been perfectly fine as a member of the EU. I even think Russia would have been fine with it. But when you start taking about a military alliance right on the border of Russia, way larger than before, they're going to get suspicious, even paranoid.

So, ask yourself this. What's the ulterior motive here expanding that far? Everyone knew it was provocative. They know it's highly provocative to admit Ukraine.

That's the real question. Why is the US pushing for this and what possible outcome could come from it?
 
I don't think Germans and Russians will ever be friendly lol. Way too much bad blood there going back a long time.

But to the point of the rest of your post. I don't think we'd see half the trouble we're seeing today if we'd stop expanding NATO right to Putin's doorstep. As I stated before, they accepted the Baltic Republics, grumbled about it, but couldn't do anything at the time.

But why did Ukraine have to become part of NATO? They could have been perfectly fine as a member of the EU. I even think Russia would have been fine with it. But when you start taking about a military alliance right on the border of Russia, way larger than before, they're going to get suspicious, even paranoid.

So, ask yourself this. What's the ulterior motive here expanding that far? Everyone knew it was provocative. They know it's highly provocative to admit Ukraine.

That's the real question. Why is the US pushing for this and what possible outcome could come from it?
There has been plenty of information posted here showing that closer Ukrainian ties to the EU was a bridge too far for Putin. That influence shift was the basis for Ukraine kicking Yanukovych to the curb. He campaigned on strengthening western ties and did a last minute pivot back to Putin and got his azz throw out of office by the Ukrainian parliament. And that was the catalyst that got us to where we are today. Putin will never accept Ukraine higher than a subservient vassal state to Russia.
 
I don't think Germans and Russians will ever be friendly lol. Way too much bad blood there going back a long time.

But to the point of the rest of your post. I don't think we'd see half the trouble we're seeing today if we'd stop expanding NATO right to Putin's doorstep. As I stated before, they accepted the Baltic Republics, grumbled about it, but couldn't do anything at the time.

But why did Ukraine have to become part of NATO? They could have been perfectly fine as a member of the EU. I even think Russia would have been fine with it. But when you start taking about a military alliance right on the border of Russia, way larger than before, they're going to get suspicious, even paranoid.

So, ask yourself this. What's the ulterior motive here expanding that far? Everyone knew it was provocative. They know it's highly provocative to admit Ukraine.

That's the real question. Why is the US pushing for this and what possible outcome could come from it?

People thought the same about UK and France at one point. Germany and Russia were allies throughout most of the 1800s. Time (and strategic interests) bring nations together.

China and Russia have a lot of bad blood but act like buddies. Iran and Russia have bad blood historically but are working together.
 
There has been plenty of information posted here showing that closer Ukrainian ties to the EU was a bridge too far for Putin. That influence shift was the basis for Ukraine kicking Yanukovych to the curb. He campaigned on strengthening western ties and did a last minute pivot back to Putin and got his azz throw out of office by the Ukrainian parliament. And that was the catalyst that got us to where we are today. Putin will never accept Ukraine higher than a subservient vassal state to Russia.

Maybe, maybe not. Won't know for certain at this point.

Still not a concern of ours. Or NATO's for that matter.
 
How is that a bad argument? Russians have always been suspicious of their neighbors going back centuries.

Prior to 2014, Russia didn't have territorial ambitions of regaining the Soviet empire. But what they did want, and history is their guide, was buffer zones of friendly states on their borders. Because it's not like they haven't been invaded quite frequently over the past.

So, yes, NATO has backed them into a corner by continuing to put new members right on the Russian border with the Baltic Republics. And then, they start talking about putting another one within spitting distance of Moscow?

How did we think they were going to react? It's like three of your neighbors pointing loaded guns at your house. You complain about it and in response, they load another gun and point it at you from another neighbors house.

Yes, NATO has backed them into a corner. Whether or not it's been "peaceful" is not at the heart of the matter here. Russia has always been and will always be suspicious of foreign powers on their border that aren't "friendly" to them.
except NATO has never attacked Russia. The individual NATO nations are responsible for pretty much all of the attacks on Russia, but since joining NATO they have been peaceful to Russia. the NATO period is the single longest time Russia has NOT been invaded by one of the constituent members of NATO. and this is despite NATO being the strongest "anti-Russian" alliance ever, and Russia being at its all time weakest in 1999.

the neighbors are building walls, not loading guns. Russia is "threatened" only because they can't beat up the same nerds they are used to.

Russia certainly did express expansionist goals before 2014. the previously mentioned various Georgia, Armenian wars, their involvement in the ME particularly Syria, they had expanded back into central America, their involvement back into the African conflicts. Transnistria, Kaliningrad are both regions that should have been lost after the Soviet collapse but they made sure to keep those.

Except for the extreme north of Ukraine, they are not closer than Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia. And if they are worried about the distance to Moscow one would assume they would have attacked and taken that extreme north of Ukraine, rather than its South East. The closest they got is Kharkiv, which is a longer distance than Estonia or Latvia. thats ignoring the aforementioned Kaliningrad with Russia's only other warm water port in their west.

as far as mainland Russia is concerned the NATO threat is completely manufactured. especially considering how little of NATO actually met their defense spending requirements.
 

VN Store



Back
Top