You call a 20 million casualty count owing to an invasion from the West being not a, if not the most, significant event in Russian history.Predictably leading to it becoming a paranoid traumatised liability let alone that combined with its errant Communist ideology.
As I said the strategy of stand well back while holding a big nuke stick while making lots of soothing diplomatic noises was working.To the point of it handing over its hard won captured buffers and perceived safety barrier.
So remind me what did NATO do then ?.
Your bonkers strategy is no different to if JFK had dealt with Kruschev and the Cuban missile crisis by marching the BAOR into East Germany and then Poland in an attempt to âliberateâ them.
Russia had an invasion from â â â â Germany, not the whole of the West. They did suffer horribly.
Stalin was ideologically opposed to the West, but we were growing closer in the 70âs 80âs and especially the 90âs. Putin has reversed that.
His own power needs to unite Russia against a common enemy, rather than let democracy remove him.
Have two world wars led to âa paranoid traumatised liabilityâ between Germany and France?
Your predictions are nonsensical.
You are ignoring the peace and goodwill between the ordinary Russians and Ukrainians that existed for decades.
This is a Putin land grab. This is a dictator wielding power.
It is not a defensive move, it is not a move for the benefit of the masses of ordinary Russians.
1 Like
From History of the United Nations - Wikipedia
The 1942 âDeclaration of The United Nationsâ was drafted by Roosevelt, Churchill, and Roosevelt aide Harry Hopkins, while meeting at the White House on 29 December 1941. It incorporated Soviet suggestions, but left no role for France. The first official use of the term âUnited Nationsâ was on 1â2 January 1942 when 26 Governments signed the Declaration. One major change from the Atlantic Charter was the addition of a provision for religious freedom, which Stalin approved after Roosevelt insisted. With the text finalized by the Big Three, the Chinese were invited to sign, and then the other Allies. By early 1945 it had been signed by 21 more states.
The USSR was, if nothing, inclusive, the countries bordering The West were no less a part of it than the countries further from that edge, so I would dispute this notion of it being a âsafety barrierâ
Thatâs worthy of CF or Winseer, I see no relevance to the issue of Russia being a supposed underdog that requires sympathy.
Iâm anything but sympathetic towards Russia.
However we canât change history the time to sort that aggressive lot out was 1914 but France and us decided it would be a better idea to support Russia against Germany instead.
That ship sailed with the events of 1941 and when Russia became a peer nuke armed adversary.
This is not a place we want or need to mess with if we can possibly avoid it.Luckily JFK knew it.
Germany declared war on France in 1914.
France and GB didnât âdecide to support Russiaâ.
So, just let a bully invade a country a long way away?
Will Putin stop there or take the next one? Then the next?
Taking land means taking more resources to advance further.
The appeasement you suggest is morally repugnant, and a short-sighted strategy for our own economic well-being, and survival.
Apart from the defence of a sovereign nation, helping the Ukraine stop Putin early stops further risk to our NATO allies and ourselves later.
Russian President Vladimir Putin scoffed at the possibility of his country launching an attack on a NATO member, calling it âsheer nonsense,â but warned that any Western air base hosting U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets that are slated for deployment in Ukraine would be a âlegitimate targetâ for the Kremlinâs forces.
âTheir statements about our alleged intention to attack Europe after Ukraine is sheer nonsense,â Putin said late Wednesday, referring to warnings in the U.S. and Western Europe that Russia could turn its sights on other countries unless itâs stopped.
He noted that the U.S. defense budget is more than 10 times higher than Russiaâs.
âIn view of that, are we going to wage a war against NATO? Itâs ravings,â he told military pilots during a visit to an air base.
The F-16s require a high standard of runways and reinforced hangars to protect them from bombing attacks when they are on the ground. Itâs not clear how many Ukrainian air bases can meet those requirements, and Russia would be certain to quickly target a few that could accommodate them once the jets
Putin warned Ukraineâs Western allies against providing air bases in their countries from where the F-16s could launch sorties against the Kremlinâs forces. Those bases would become a âlegitimate target,â he said.
âF-16s are capable of carrying nuclear weapons, and we will also need to take that into account while organizing our combat operations,â Putin added.
Military analysts have said the arrival of F-16s wonât be a game-changer in view of Russiaâs massive air force and sophisticated air defense systems, though Ukrainian officials have welcomed them as an opportunity to hit back at Russiaâs air dominance.
Pass the salt please⌠I need a big pinch.
So he maintains that any base from where a nuclear strike could be launched is a legitimate target?
Russia has many such bases, so they must equally be legitimate targets for western forces, mustnât they?
Hmmm. Ukraine has mostly resisted launching strikes into Russia. But when they have ,they have succeeded.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-strikes-may-have-hit-15-russian-refinery-capacity-nato-official-2024-04-04/
Thatâs good news. 
Oh, hang on a minuteâŚ
January 2022 âRussia will not invade Ukraineâ
Itâ s deja vu all over again!
Just like the Crimea:
No they arenât Russian troops. They are young sports fans, in identical tracksuits going for a weekend away.
The chances of Russia taking over Ukraine or for that matter wining the war is zero
Not because it canât, why would they its not the objective
Keep nato out, keep Ukraine from joining eu,
The objective is to keep a foot in the country so no other countries will dare get directly involved
The only person who ever had the mad sense to try invade Russia was hilter
Itâs a no brainer even the usa would never even think about getting involved directly
And certainly the eu is nothing to be afraid off after ww2, (just letâs all give up)
Jesus the Americans are hopeless at war, they never learned any lesson after their failure in multi wars, they are specifically good at showing a presence and money but not at anything else, they have no idea how the world works outside the usa, hence why they are a failure in most places they have been as a tourist and thatâs all they were tourists because they absolutely changed nothing
Putinâs invasion of Ukraine has precipitated both Sweden and Finland joining NATO after decades of non-alignment.
If he does not successfully occupy Ukraine will Ukraine say âletâs just sit here and do nowtâ?
Or will Ukraine say âWe need an Allyâ?
Him and Napoleon.
But if invading Russia is so mad, why is Putin so worried? Why does he want to occupy other countries?
Russia is paranoid because the last invasion cost them 20 million lives to repel.
Although ironically it was their own fault for kicking off WW1 which brought Hitler to power and then being on the wrong side in 1939-41.
But itâs not worth taking out the civilised free world over East Euro squabbles and arguments.
The idea that France and us didnât support Russia in 1914 is a laughable attempt to re write history.Franceâs position was all about its alliance with Russia and payback for 1878 and supposedly Russia threatened our interests in Afghanistan.Germany had no choice.It had to defend itself.
Itâs all there in docudrama 37 days maybe you should watch it for some education.
Chucking Ukraine under the bus to avoid WW3 isnât appeasement itâs common sense.Just as JFK making a deal and not instead choosing to go to war against Russia in East Germany in 1963 was common sense.Or even handing over a large part of Italy to Titoâs Communist thugs before that.
There can be no such word as appeasement when itâs just a question of where do we set the bar for Mutually Assured Destruction.With our destruction being far more assured in that exchange than Russiaâs.
Those two and⌠Charles XII of Sweden, as I mentioned recently.
It wasnât Russia nor any of itâs allies who assassinated Archduke Ferdinand, thatâs what kicked off WW1, all Russia did was support itâs ally Serbia by warning the Austro-Hungarians not to attack them. The Russians mobilized as a deterrent to those wanting to attack Serbia, Serbia was invaded regardless, but Russia didnât become properly involved until Germany declared war on Russia
Stalin wanted a pact with Britain and France, France was keen but Britain less so. Stalin essentially only entered into a pact with Germany because he was getting nowhere with us, so Russia wouldnât have âbeen on the wrong sideâ if weâd been more amenable to them.
So Russia supported itâs ally Serbia by âmobilisingâ against Austria and Germany and France and UK backed Russia under the Franco Russian treaty and the triple entente.
You think that was all Germanyâs fault.
That all ended well.
You also think the Ribbentrop Molotov Pact and invasion of Poland was just an act of spite because Stalin really wanted to go to war against Germany with us and France in support of Poland.
Now France wants to go to war against Russia in support of Ukraine.
Sounds like a logical plan to anyone who believes all that bovine excrement.
In a future where âInfrastructureâ decides who wins WWIII or not - Ukraine has more strategic value than military.
It is of little value âall busted upâ however, so âScorched Earthâ policy - clearly wonât be appropriate.
Not so for the Azovs so-called âDefendingâ Ukraine though.
They just want to trash all those bits that are not 100% loyal to THEM, which was what the original civil war going on there - was all about.
Putinâs Russia would have been likely to stop at the river, but further ongoing attacks against Eastern civilian targets - put paid to THAT.
Why would Putin occupy a place like Donestk, and then shell his own occupying troops trying to berth down there?
The damage we get shown on our TV screens - is more about incoming Azov fire too, with repeated same footage then used to say Putin has attacked civilian targets in other places.
Youâll notice that the targets shown on our TV screens are kinda âgenericâ that could actually be anywhere, and we should always question "Is this really a residential estate in Kiev rather than a barracks district in Kharkiv or even an occupied section of Dombas?