‘Putin will spark a third world war if Russia claims victory in Ukraine’: Ukrainian steel magnate Yuriy Ryzhenkov warns of global fallout from the Kremlin’s war

Cross-posted from: feddit.de/post/9202260

Vladimir Putin will spark a third world war if the Russian president is allowed to declare victory in Ukraine, according to the boss of the country’s biggest private employer.

Yuriy Ryzhenkov, chief executive of Metinvest, which ran the sprawling Azovstal steelworks that became the site of a relentless Russian assault at the start of the 2022 invasion, warned of the consequences of a Kremlin victory.

“I don’t believe that if Ukraine fails, Putin will stop,” he said in an interview ahead of the two year anniversary of the war in Ukraine. “The Baltic states, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia are the next targets.”

Obonga,

People arguing for russia at this point are russian trolls. Just like it is impossible tonchange a russian trolls mind it is impossible tonchange mine on this. What else does Putin have to do? Send nukes? Probably still a reasonable man in those trolls eyes.

Thief_of_Crows,

The best way to tell that someone thinks you’re actually right is when they break out the “everybody else is a bot” argument. It’s massively cringe at this point, cause you’re intentionally believing something absurd rather than face valid criticism.

Obonga,

So are you are you a russian troll because i did not at any point mention bots but actual human beings paid by russia?

Thief_of_Crows,

Oh, of course, that sure is a meaningful difference. My mistake though, please re-read my comment but replace the word bot with troll.

Obonga,

It still is nktnright but if it helps you feel to be in the right (spoiler alert, everybody does) there is not much i can do. Many people, me included, are tired of discussing the same moot points over and over. That russia pays shills to spread their bullshit “arguments” that try to defend this hideous unjustified war is prooven but i guess then you would want me to not believe the “propaganda” from the west but instead the “news” out of russia. Do you see the issue?

Thief_of_Crows,

I see what you’re saying, but it’s still a lie to claim most people who support Russia online are shills. The number of people who call me a shill, on a wide variety of topics, has shown me that it’s an argument only used by idiots and the intellectually dishonest. Literally every topic where the American position is wrong, people call you a shill for disagreeing with America. To be clear, both America and Russia are bad countries, and the question of which is worse is pretty close. So suggesting that someone is a shill simply because they think that in one particular area, America is worse than Russia, is intellectually dishonest. Like, right now America is clearly worse, because of the genocide. 2 years ago Russia was clearly worse, because of Ukraine. The war certainly isn’t good, but it’s not as bad or as unjustifiable as people say.

You should not believe western corporate media, and even moreso western media about russia, unless it’s independent. I’m sure Russian media is as bad as American media, I just never see it due to not speaking Russian. The opposite of propaganda is not different propaganda.

Obonga,

By the way i do not believe putin is about to start ww3. Thats something you probably assumed.

Badeendje,
@Badeendje@lemmy.world avatar

He does not have to wait for victory in Ukraine. All he has to do if spark tensions and commit to taking some insignificant piece of a NATO country.

A place that is not important enough to throw nukes over.

And then see if NATO dares to respond.

The politicians will then debate if this is really good enough reason to go to war… Causing a fracture to be visible in the NATO all for one doctrine.

Once that is proven false… NATO will start to crumble.

blazeknave,

Mf is a raptor at the electric fence. First Georgia… then Crimea. Dude… I remember feeling like I was in another world. Obama just watched and did nothing and the world went on, and I’m sitting there thinking, this is fucking precedent forever and it will continue. This headline is outdated by over 15 years.

Ooops,
Ooops avatar

Putin can actually claim whatever he wants and does so regularly. No one actually cares. And no claim or "being allowed to claim something" will actually change reality.

force,

Yeah, if he took over Kazakhstan tomorrow the US would leave it at writing a strongly worded letter…

uis,

Didn’t already claim that “all goals are met”?

Dasus,

People care.

It’s just that the people who care are mostly non-Russian, and even the Russians who do care and realise they have aa psychopathic neo-Hitler as a leader have little to no recourse on the matter.

And what are western news gonna do, just completely ignore his lies and not print anything about him, as all he says is lies?

He doesn’t need to change the reality for his words to matter. He only needs to keep convincing the Russian orcs of his bullshit, so they keep going to war for him.

My wish is that there’d be someone near Putin who would see the light and Putin would “accidentally fall out of a window” or “suddenly and unexpectedly” die of a heartattack after having his afternoon tea. I don’t have faith in that happening, but man do I wish it did.

I think the next leader would reconsider this “special military operation”, even if they were a right-wing conservative.

But I don’t have much hope… I heard about how Russia is trying to entice American conservatives to Russia. I thought it was something a bit exaggerated. But then I saw the bit on Jon Stewart where he showed Tucker Carlson visiting Russia. What. The. Fuck.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM2h3KnWAWY

lemmyvore,

I think he meant “declare” as in actually win the war, not in the Michael Scott sense.

Nudding,

America bombing the middle east isn’t gonna start ww3?

0x815, (edited )

<a href="">@Nudding</a>

?

Nudding,

Fair enough. I just think that the country with military bases in almost every country, that’s been at war for all but ~20 years of its entire history, is actively aiding in a genocide, while also attacking targets in the middle east, is gonna be the country to start ww3. Call me crazy I guess.

WhiteHawk,

Who would they be fighting in that hypothetical war? Iran? It’s not really a world war if no great power is involved.

Nudding,

I dunno, I’ve heard people argue that we’re already in WW3, and that Putin started it years ago. I guess it all depends on what the history books of the future consider the smallest dominoes. Time will tell.

WhiteHawk,

It’s still a proxy war for now (even if only one side is using a proxy), I wouldn’t call that a world war

Badeendje,
@Badeendje@lemmy.world avatar

So where Vietnam and Afghanistan. Both great powers got their teeth kicked in and withdrew because the wars where no longer politically expedient.

I imagine this is a bit more existential for Putin, but it is also more costly by an order of magnitude.

WhiteHawk,

Yes, but neither were a world war, which was my point

Badeendje,
@Badeendje@lemmy.world avatar

I read it as you where implying it could escalate to worldwar and I tried to add 2 examples where this did not happen in previous occasions. Was not trying to start a fight :)

Nudding,

Could lead to escalations, which would in hindsight be a clear path to world war. Interesting discussion to be had for sure.

WhiteHawk,

Certainly possible, but in that case the US’s activities in the middle east couldn’t really be blamed

Nudding,

How so?

WhiteHawk,

Because they did not cause the Ukraine war?

Nudding,

Oh sorry, I thought you meant you can’t blame them for their actions, not the world war thing. I gotchu now.

blazeknave,

I love you. Can you please monitor the entire Internet for us? (not /s)

Ignacio,
Ignacio avatar

United States, not America.

force, (edited )

You’ll have to convince at minimum ~300 million people of that… probably more like a billion

Ignacio,
Ignacio avatar

Only me?

force,

I am quite honestly confused about what that the content of that link is supposed to pertain to at all

Mrkawfee,

America and it’s proxies bombing and committing genocide doesn’t count.

Snowpix,
@Snowpix@lemmy.ca avatar

Whatabout, Whatabout, Whatabout. Two wrongs don’t make a right, genocide and bombing civilians is bad no matter who does it.

AllNewTypeFace,
@AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space avatar

They already have Hungary

illi,

Slovakia is also falling to Russian stooges nd disinformation. It looks to me like if they’d invade about half the people (current government included) woud welcome them (at least at first)

Thief_of_Crows,

That’s absurd, what is anybody’s source on this claim? America can end this war in a month by just strong arming Ukraine to surrender Crimea. And best of all, if the conspiracy theory is true, we will know immediately, because Russia will have already gotten what they say they want.

flappy,

That would be a 180 even someone as dumb as Trump wouldn’t do.

Thief_of_Crows,

What, ending a war? Actually trump would do that. He did it in Afghanistan.

enieffak, (edited )

Trump wouldn’t have started a war with Hitler. We all should vote for Trump. He’s a stable genius.

Thief_of_Crows,

Good thing America has literally never been criticized for being too uninvolved in other peoples busoness. I promise you, if Hitler 2 comes around, not even a president can prevent America joining the war.

khannie,
@khannie@lemmy.world avatar

My neighbour keeps trying to steal my property. Maybe if I just give him some he’ll stop.

Brilliant.

Thief_of_Crows,

You left out that your neighbor is more than capable of taking it by force, and you making him do so will cause millions of deaths. The answer to this question depends entirely on America’s ego. If we do our usual thing, we will save face and cause millions of deaths. If we instead choose to wage peace, we look slightly weaker, and prevent a world war. It’s unlikely America is capable of advanced reasoning such as this, but I really hope we are.

khannie, (edited )
@khannie@lemmy.world avatar

Let’s go back to the days of redrawing borders by force. That definitely won’t encourage more wars.

Brilliant.

Thief_of_Crows,

Of course! If we end the war, we will have more wars. It’s so obvious!

enieffak,

We shouldn’t have fighted Hitler, because wars are bad.

gian,

If we instead choose to wage peace, we look slightly weaker, and prevent a world war.

Man, you really need an history book and to study what happened before WWII.

Let me explain a couple of things.

Before WWII, in March 1938 Hitler annexed Austria on March the 12th with referendum on April the 10th (where the ballot were not secret and the vote were manipulate). After that, Europe did nothing because, like you, they thought that if they concede to this Hitler demand, he will not ask for anything else. Look for Anschluß Österreichs

Then look for Munich Agreement (October 1938) which granted Hitler part of the Czechoslovakia as last request for territorial expansion, signed just because doing this way they would have kept peace.

Then on March 15th 1939, Hitler bullied the Czechoslovakia president to sign the independence of Slovak (with the threat of invasion). The Slovak state then became Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia on March the 16th. Europe still does nothing, just because Hitler assured this will be his last request.

We all know what happened next, on September 1939…

It’s unlikely America is capable of advanced reasoning such as this, but I really hope we are.

Problem is: it was exactly this “advanced reasoning” that was the cause for WWII. Hitler did what he wanted because he noted that Europe did nothing at every step he tried.

Putin invaded Ukraine because he noted that the world did nothing when he annexed Crimea (and, btw, breached an agreement Russia signed with Ukraine).

Do you see the parallel ?

Vikthor,

The Slovak state then became Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia

Just a small correction: Slovak state became nominally independent and the Czech part became the Protectorate.

gian,

Thanks.

Thief_of_Crows, (edited )

I don’t see the parallel, because so far, Russia and Germany have literally one thing in common. You’re extrapolating that several highly unlikely events will just so happen to occur the same way they did the first time. Your entire argument could just as easily be applied to america in like 4 different decades between WW2 and now, yet not once did America start a world war as a result. The situation in Russia is wildly different from 1930s Germany, and trying to declare them to be the same is far too reductive to be useful analysis.

Also, Putin invaded more of Ukraine because it is literally on the way to Crimea, and owning just the peninsula is weird. The entirety of the invasion consists of the coast of a single large bay. There is no logical reason to think that Putin is the next Hitler. He literally just wants a region that has historically been highly important to Russia/USSR. It’s like if America were currently invading Texas, because we lost it to Mexico for 20 years and want it back.

gian,

I don’t see the parallel, because so far, Russia and Germany have literally one thing in common.

Two in fact: that they illegally annexed part of other countries and that they breach treaties they signed.

You’re extrapolating that several highly unlikely events will just so happen to occur the same way they did the first time.

No, I am only pointing out that what you suggest was already tried and failed exactly because at the time they wanted to preserve peace, whatever the cost.

It was already tried to concede to the small demands in exchange of quiet living, we know how it ended.

Your entire argument could just as easily be applied to america in like 4 different decades between WW2 and now, yet not once did America start a world war as a result.

Ok, I documented what I say, care to do the same ?

The situation in Russia is wildly different from 1930s Germany, and trying to declare them to be the same is far too reductive to be useful analysis.

Different yes, but the end result is the same.

Also, Putin invaded more of Ukraine because it is literally on the way to Crimea, and owning just the peninsula is weird. The entirety of the invasion consists of the coast of a single large bay.

So, what part of your country are you willing to give up to your neighbour ?

There is no logical reason to think that Putin is the next Hitler.

Except that he is doing exactly the same, at the moment.

He literally just wants a region that has historically been highly important to Russia/USSR. It’s like if America were currently invading Texas, because we lost it to Mexico for 20 years and want it back.

Man, I am from Italy. Following your reasoning big part of Europe, all the Mediterranean sea and a good part of the Middle East would be Italian since all these territories were part of the Roman Empire.

Thief_of_Crows,

One peninsula is entirely different than all of Europe. 1000 years ago is also entirely different than 30 years ago. Crucially to the argument, Russia is actually capable of taking it by force. Just like America could take Texas back. If Russia had made any move on another place, I wouldn’t be saying this. Like, consider how many different places you’ve brought up that Germany had its eyes on invading around that time. Compare it to the fact that you can’t name a 2nd place Russia is trying to to take. They’re not trying to take all of Ukraine. They’re not even trying to take 1/5 of Ukraine.

Comparing them to Germany is utterly absurd, figure out a better analogy or move on.

The west got too aggressive in their attempts to influence Ukraine, and now Russia is fighting back. Now we need to back off and rethink our diplomacy.

The 4 decades I was thinking of were the Korean war, Vietnam war, and 2000 - 2020. All of them featured America invading a place (for far more dubious reasons than Russia has now, BTW), followed by them categorically NOT deciding to take over the world. Though you could probably say it about literally every stretch of 10 years dating back to 1945.

gian,

One peninsula is entirely different than all of Europe. 1000 years ago is also entirely different than 30 years ago. Crucially to the argument, Russia is actually capable of taking it by force. Just like America could take Texas back. If Russia had made any move on another place, I wouldn’t be saying this. Like, consider how many different places you’ve brought up that Germany had its eyes on invading around that time. Compare it to the fact that you can’t name a 2nd place Russia is trying to to take.

Wrong. Alaska. Russia passed a law recently to that declare illegal the sale to the US. Not that they will ever try to get it back by force anyway.

But it seems that you are not understanding the point.
Hitler, while annexing all the places before WWII, said exactly what you are saying now: “this is my last request/annexation”. And while of course we could like to think that Putin will do not do the same think, what he is doing is the same thing: in 2014 they take Crimea and said “we will stop here”, then in 2022 they invanded the rest of Ukraine.

And you know what ? In all al this, I have the proof of what Putin did and I can infer what maybe could happen while you have no proof that Putin will not try to pull the same trick another time somewhere else. (Belarus of any of the old Baltic state for example)

You don’t stop a bully thinking “this is the last time he bullied me”, you stop a bully beating him so bad that he don’t want to bully you, or anyone else, anymore.

They’re not trying to take all of Ukraine. They’re not even trying to take 1/5 of Ukraine.

So I suppose you are ready to give up 1/5 of your country, am I correct ? Yes or no. (funny how nobody will ever directly answer this question…)

Comparing them to Germany is utterly absurd, figure out a better analogy or move on.

Is you say so…

The west got too aggressive in their attempts to influence Ukraine, and now Russia is fighting back. Now we need to back off and rethink our diplomacy.

I don’t understand what the hell are you thinking. Ukraine is a sovereign state that decide to ask for some things to Europe, it is none of Russia business. To enter into EU and NATO a state should ask, and Ukraine is free to do so. Maybe if Russia was better…

The 4 decades I was thinking of were the Korean war, Vietnam war, and 2000 - 2020. All of them featured America invading a place (for far more dubious reasons than Russia has now, BTW), followed by them categorically NOT deciding to take over the world. Though you could probably say it about literally every stretch of 10 years dating back to 1945.

Aside the Second Gulf War (and the supposed WOMD never found) US don’t started any of them. Not to say that they have not done their share of despicable things of course.

But I suppose that you agree that the fact that someone once did something is not a justification for other to do something now.

Thief_of_Crows,

Of course I can’t prove that he won’t do it in the future, did you think that was possible? Hitler did not do it once, he did it many times. I am choosing to believe Putin that the first one is the only one, because it makes a ton of sense for Russia to want to control that territory.

Wait, you think the US hasn’t started literally every war they’ve been in since 1945? Then why are they on enemy soil literally every time? The only one that it’s defensible for you to be wrong about is the Iraq war, because most people don’t know about all the war crimes we were doing over there in the 90s. How exactly did the Vietnamese provoke us from all the way across an ocean though? Or Afghanistan from even farther?

Obviously I wouldbt give up 1/5 of my country. Is that supposed to be a gotcha? I was saying the fact that they’re not even trying to take 20% of one country makes it pretty outlandish to claim they’re on the path to world domination.

gian,

Of course I can’t prove that he won’t do it in the future, did you think that was possible? Hitler did not do it once, he did it many times. I am choosing to believe Putin that the first one is the only one,

Also Putin is doing more than once.

because it makes a ton of sense for Russia to want to control that territory.

Maybe, but it is not their territory. And the fact that it make sense does not make it right. But I somewhat see your logic: you are stronger so you can get what you want. Gotcha.

Obviously I wouldbt give up 1/5 of my country. Is that supposed to be a gotcha?

That phrase alone make me lose all the residual respect I could have for you.

I was saying the fact that they’re not even trying to take 20% of one country makes it pretty outlandish to claim they’re on the path to world domination.

It. Don’t. Matter. How. Much. They. Take.

It is the concept. Too hard to understand ?

rbos,
@rbos@lemmy.ca avatar

I agree that we should have come down like the wrath of God when Russia illegally annexed Crimea. Good point!

Thief_of_Crows,

This doesn’t make any sense.

gian,

Why not ? He fucked around then he found out. In your terms it would be “stop the steamroller before it start”

nuscheltier,

So, if I understand you correctly, Russia should also invade Latvia and Lithuania? By your logic it would be highly important to Russia since they would get a land bridge to Kaliningrad and they were historically part of the USSR.

The analogy to Anschluss Österreichs and Crimea is quite apt. The votings were manipulated - just look at the soldiers outside of voting stations on Crimea, who in their right mind wouldn’t want to vote for selfpreservation?
The second analogy would be Sudetenland and Donetsk and Luhansk is as apt with the only distinction that there is a war now going on. The two republics that are only recognized by Russia and their “Motherland”. While Hitler didn’t have a Sudeten-Republik he wanted to get them back into the fold. So it is also quite apt.

Does Russia have parallels to Germany 1930s? Yes. And no. Why not? Time moved on, tactics evolved (just look at the two republics). Why yes? Some tactics stayed the same. And greed.

Thief_of_Crows,

How exactly do soldiers outside polling places imply a rigged election? Self preservation is irrelevant, the question is whether Russia or Ukraine controls the region. Voting in alignment with the more powerful state is literally the only means of self preservation possible, as it best avoids a war.

I don’t think they should invade those places, no. And if they wanted that much more land, it would be a completely different story. Having control of the northern black sea is obviously important.

Russia is obviously not invading anywhere else in the foreseeable future, let’s move past that.

nuscheltier,

It’s a tactic of fear. Invoke fear in civilians and you can get them to do what you need them to do. If there are soldiers with weapons in front of a voting place who quite clearly belongs to a specific party without so much as openly stating it, then people are going to vote for that party out of fear. That is what I called selfpreservation. They don’t want to die.
If by any chance you wouldn’t be swayed by such blatant show of force then I admire you. The majority of people are swayed. Especially when there are literally truckloads of soldiers all about the coutryside. And as you said: voting with the more powerful state. At that moment the Russians had their force in Crimea and the people chose selfpreservation. Was it the right choice? For Ukraine? No. For Russia? Yes, of course. That’s why they showed force.

I don’t think they should invade those places, no.

Then why do you follow that logic with Crimea but not the baltics?

Having control of the northern black sea is obviously important.

Ah, now I understand. “We need a harbour that’s ice free the whole year around.” There are some holes in that logic:
a) Russia had/has a lease on the Sevastopol Navy Yard. That’s where the Black Sea Fleet was/is anchored. b) Russia has Novorossiysk, a harbour that is ice free all year around and is one of their biggest - if not the biggest - trade harbours. They even have a Navy Yard there.
So why do they need Crimea? To get their stuff from Rostov at Don all the way to the Dardanelles? They already could do that since they had the other half of the strait of Kertch.
And the other question: Why do they need the control of the northern black sea?

Russia is obviously not invading anywhere else in the foreseeable future, let’s move past that.

Why would you think that? Spokespersons of the Kremlin are rattling their sabres for Svalsbard and they are painting themselves as an oppressed minority. Does that sound familiar? Yes, since Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk were the same.
Svalbard is protected by a treaty, but Ukraine also had a treaty with Russia about territorial integrity.
Abkhazia and South Ossetia are regions that were carved out of Georgia, an independent nation.
Transnistria is a region of Moldova, also an independent nation. Transnistria has requested the annexation into Russia. So the question is, do you recognize Transnistria as a sovereign state or is it a part of Moldova? If it is a part of Moldova it would be an invasion of Russia. Although since they already have troops there it is an ongoing occupation.

Since Russia is still engaged in occupation and invasion and is still rattling their sabres, can we really move past the threat of invasion?
The thing is, we don’t know what they are planning. We don’t know what they are aiming for. But we see that there are tactics in play they use quite often. For instance the tactic of propping up people that want their own state (see Luhansk, Donetsk). Then going in to help them.
Then there is the tactic of subtle influencing. The problem with this is that there are just clues but no real evidence. So it is really difficult to prove that Russia is behind such things like the Brexit for instance. But there is meddling with the elections of the United States.

But so much text for just saying that Russia might as well already have started the Third World War and all machinations are going to culminate in it. Does Putin want to do that? I don’t know. I don’t think anyone knows except him and perhaps a handfull of his confidants. So we as ordinary people will never truly know. The parallels to Hitler and the Second World War are there, some tactics stayed the same (fear, forceful annexation), tactics changed (propping up partisan governments). It’s all a question of time, but I’m not confident enough to say that Russia won’t be annexing anything else or will stop once Luhansk, Crimea, and Donetzk are independent and can be integrated into Russia. There are too many clues to the contrary.

Thief_of_Crows,

I really don’t know enough about black sea geography to say what is actually necessary, but needing control of crimea for various shipping reasons rings very true to me. I live near Seattle/Tacoma, and we have 2 ports even though you have to literally go past Seattle’s port to get to Tacoma’s (by sea, obv). More ports is better in all ways. They need control of the northern black sea so they can control the northern black sea. It’s a very important sea.

Personally, I would actually prefer if there were soldiers stationed at polling places, mostly to convince MAGA people that the election really was legitimate. There is also a non-zero potential for violence or even terrorism at them, and I obviously don’t trust US cops to prevent violence.

It’s not as if the 2nd world war breaking out was a big surprise to an ordinary person in 1939. If Putin had further plans, we would know it. If he starts targeting more places, and ones that aren’t obviously critical to their economy, then we can worry. I mean, at their current pace of “global domination”, Putin will have died of old age before they even get to Munich.

France used a similar tactic as Russia in the 1770s, and in the long run it worked out tremendously for both France and USA (Less so for the french king at the time, Louis XVI. It was a big part of why he got guillotined). It’s a great tactic, I’m certainly not going to criticize them for using it.

gian,

I really don’t know enough about black sea geography to say what is actually necessary, but needing control of crimea for various shipping reasons rings very true to me. I live near Seattle/Tacoma, and we have 2 ports even though you have to literally go past Seattle’s port to get to Tacoma’s (by sea, obv). More ports is better in all ways. They need control of the northern black sea so they can control the northern black sea. It’s a very important sea.

Geographycally the black sea is just a giant lake. It is a closed sea and you need to pass through Instanbul to exit from it and enter in another “closed” sea, the Sea of Marmara.

Moreover, if Russia just wanted to have access to the Black Sea ports (and Sea of Marmara and then the Mediterranean Sea) they could just have done like the Chinese that just bought the ports they want.

Personally, I would actually prefer if there were soldiers stationed at polling places, mostly to convince MAGA people that the election really was legitimate. There is also a non-zero potential for violence or even terrorism at them, and I obviously don’t trust US cops to prevent violence.

Listen, if there are soldiers of your own country at the polling places it is somewhat obvious, even in Italy we have soldiers (usually just a couple) outside to ensure law and order (not that it will happen something), the problem is when you are voting to accept the annexion to another country and the soldiers from said country are at the polling station.

It’s not as if the 2nd world war breaking out was a big surprise to an ordinary person in 1939.

WWII broke out exactly because Europe wanted to keep peace at any cost, failing to understand that Hitler never had the intention to stop. What happened in WWI were still a vivid memory here back at the time and I understand that people would have done anything to avoid all the horrors. True, the real reasons date back to the Treaty of Versailles and the 1929 Great Depression which set up the stage for someone like Hitler to raise.

If Putin had further plans, we would know it. If he starts targeting more places, and ones that aren’t obviously critical to their economy, then we can worry. I mean, at their current pace of “global domination”, Putin will have died of old age before they even get to Munich.

Putin want the Great Russia back. But it is no more and he cannot accept it. And he can play the card of an outside enemy to hide the problems he has inside.

Thief_of_Crows,

The black sea is vastly important strategically and economically. Which means it is entirely believable that Russia primarily wants control of it. I’m sure Putin believes the former USSR was all better off before dissolution, I can’t blame him for trying to reunify. If Russia spends the next 30 years doing so, is that really a problem? It’s certainly not anything close to Hitler or WW2.

Saying Russia can’t have Crimea is, to me, trying to say they can’t be a competitor for the position of Top Dog. Its delusional, they obviously are one, but America is trying too hard to neuter them so they have to deny it. America needs to let them be as powerful as they are, and stop trying to cheat rather than compete.

gian,

The black sea is vastly important strategically and economically.

Economically sure, strategically maybe, it depends on a lot of other things.

The Black Sea has a single point of access which leads to a even smaller sea (Marmara, which is 1/5 the size of Lake Michigan). And the access is controlled by a NATO country (Turkey), pass through the city of Istanbul and is within the reach of Bulgaria, another NATO member. Even assuming Russia can somehow seize it, there is then the Dardanelli, which is within the reach of Greece (a NATO member). From here there is the Aegean Sea, which is under the reach of Greece. Not to mention that to even arrive to (or leave from) the Aegean Sea, a fleet neet to go through Gibraltar, go south of Italy and once out he need to sail in the Atlantic (NATO members on both sides) and then north, along a long list of NATO members.

Honestly, in a war if a fleet try to enter the Black Sea, it will just be a sitting duck, even assuming it even succeeds in doing so. Even the oil and gas are usefull only to be moved by road, there is no way that a ship could even exit the Black Sea. Nah, if Russia goes to war with NATO, the Black Sea is strategically useless.

Which means it is entirely believable that Russia primarily wants control of it.

Maybe, but it would be much more smart to do it economically.

I’m sure Putin believes the former USSR was all better off before dissolution, I can’t blame him for trying to reunify. If Russia spends the next 30 years doing so, is that really a problem? It’s certainly not anything close to Hitler or WW2.

Well, I’d agree if Russia tried to do it economically (like China is trying to do) but it is not that they can just invade every country they like to have.

Saying Russia can’t have Crimea is, to me, trying to say they can’t be a competitor for the position of Top Dog. Its delusional, they obviously are one, but America is trying too hard to neuter them so they have to deny it. America needs to let them be as powerful as they are, and stop trying to cheat rather than compete.

So Russia can have Alaska ?
Nobody say that Russia cannot be a competitor for a position of Top Dog, it is the method they used that it not acceptable today.

Thief_of_Crows,

So why is it acceptable for America to stage coups, rig elections, and assassinate leaders covertly, but not okay for Russia to try to take control of an area openly? America declared their puppet the president of Venezuela (in spite of Maduro winning a legitimate election) like 5 years ago. You might say “but less blood shed!”, but Pinochet sure as hell shed a lot of blood when the CIA installed him. And venezuala was economically ruined by the CIA in the 70s. So if we’re looking at means, if I’m a civilian in Ukraine, I’d rather have our army fight Russias army openly, than have America take power via subterfuge and destroy us from the inside. The Russia style doesn’t directly attack civilians, unlike the US method.

Control of the black sea is universally useful. Imagine if Russia could threaten a sea invasion of Israel if they keep up the genocide. Or be supplying Gaza with the food Israel keeps out. Militarily, it’s not about getting out of the black sea, it’s about exerting your strength on the adjacent land.

Alaska was never meaningfully Russian, the natives and the cities built there have nothing to do with russia. Not so for Crimea.

nuscheltier,

So why is it acceptable for America to stage coups, rig elections, and assassinate leaders covertly

It is not, but this is not the topic of our discussion. It is Russia and what they are doing. That the USA have their own problems is true, but not the topic.

The Russia style doesn’t directly attack civilians, unlike the US method.

I think you missed most of the news regarding the war in Ukraine. The Russian Army is targeting the infrastructure and civilians. So many rockets hit civilian houses in Kyiv and other cities. Schools, hospitals, you name it. Everything is fair game for the russian Artillery. Some observer even muse about that the Russian Army is targeting civilians deliberately as a tactic of terror to instill a war weariness and a longing for peace out of self preservation.

Control of the black sea is universally useful. Imagine if Russia could threaten a sea invasion of Israel if they keep up the genocide.

If they had control over the Black Sea they still couldn’t threaten a sea invasion of Israel. You would have to have control over the Mediterranian.
But let’s assume they had control over the Black Sea. Why would they try to stop Israel? At the moment the war in the Gaza Strip is not something they would like to be involved in since it is a distraction for the world and it is a good way to siphon off military goods from the USA.

Alaska was never meaningfully Russian, the natives and the cities built there have nothing to do with russia. Not so for Crimea.

Alaska would be a perfect starting point for conquering Canada and the USA, control of the Bering Sea, and the ressources hidden beneath the surface. But that’s besides the point.
Crimea hadn’t been part of the Soviet Union since 1954. Since then it’s been part of Ukraine. So the question would be more along the lines: how long would it take for you to something not be a part of another country?
To illustrate my argument: Europe is a continent filled with a history of big empires that rose and fall. So if you go about 150 years into the past, middle europe was dominated by Germany (the Kaiserreich). Would you say that Germany has any claim to the now polish provinces that were german 80 years ago (Danzig, Pommern, Königsberg et. al.)? If we go further into the past, we have Sweden for most of the Baltic Sea. France would also be a strong contender looking at what Napoleon subjugated.
And so on and so on. You can’t just go into the past and pick a date. The ramifications are too complex.

Thief_of_Crows,

Crimea was in the USSR, no? So it’s been 30 years since the area which is now Russia had control of Crimea. I have no idea how long ago is too long, but probably a human lifespan maximum is reasonable. Part of the calculus I’m using is literally just “can the country win a war for the area?”. Which is why Alaska is not debatable. Like, Russia really wants Crimea, they will most likely win the war eventually, why not let them have it if it means ending the war? If they were to then try to take more land, that’s when we put our foot down. Sure it’s a bad precedent, but who says we have to follow precedent? It’s really just America that cares about Russia not getting stronger, the rest of the world should want all of Russia, China, and America to be roughly equal.

If Alaska is a great starting point for invasion, then we definitely should not let them take Alaska.

gian,

If Alaska is a great starting point for invasion, then we definitely should not let them take Alaska.

If the Black Sea is a great starting point for invasione, then we definitely should not let them take the Black Sea.

Thief_of_Crows,

It’s not though. It’s strategic importance is purely defensive. It is useful for influencing places that border the black sea. It’s completely irrelevant to an attack on anywhere else

gian,

Do you realize that “influencing places that border the Black Sea” means “influencing 3 NATO members and Ukraine” which basically are the 90% of the coast of the Black Sea. Invading one of the only two non NATO members facing the Black Sear does not seems a particular intellingent way to try to influence the others…

Thief_of_Crows,

By influence, I meant militarily.

gian,

Then it is even dumber doing it this way.

nuscheltier,

Crimea was in the USSR, no?

Yes, you’re right. I thought Ukraine was kinda independent since they had a seat in the UN, but I was wrong. So it’s been roughly 30 years, yes.

Like, Russia really wants Crimea, they will most likely win the war eventually, why not let them have it if it means ending the war?

And that is exactly what Gian and I are refering to. In the 1930s it was “If Germany gets Austria, it would be peace in our time.” “If Germany gets Sudetenland, it would be peace in our time.” But Hitler was never satisfied.

If they were to then try to take more land, that’s when we put our foot down.

And here lies the problem. De facto they already had Crimea. There is no way around that they occupied it and no one lifted a finger. Now they want the Donbass Region with all the iron and coal. Luhansk and Donetsk.
So “If Russia gets Crimea, there will be peace in our time.” doesn’t ring quite so good now. “If Russia gets Donbass, there will be peace in our time” is the exact same mistake that was made 90 years ago. And those mistakes cost many lives.

It’s really just America that cares about Russia not getting stronger, the rest of the world should want all of Russia, China, and America to be roughly equal.

No. The European Union also cares about Russia getting stronger. Well I for myself don’t want an authoritarian governmant to just invade neighbours because they feel like it. The European Union tried to integrate Russia by trading with them, but we see that that didn’t quite get the result that was hoped for.
I do get, what you’re trying to say that China, Russia and the USA should be roughly equal, but the EU is missing and to be honest, two Superpowers being authoritarian is more frightening than anything else.

Thief_of_Crows,

I don’t really see a distinction between Crimea and Donbass/Donetsk. To me it’s the same placeAnd supposedly the people of those regions voted to leave Ukraine, right? So that essentially makes Russia equivalent to France in the American revolution.

It’d be great if no one ever invaded anywhere else, but it won’t happen. Best we can do is resolve it as peacefully as possible. I see democracy as the same as simulated war: one side has 20,000 men, one has 15,000, let’s just assume the bigger army will win and skip the war altogether. Russia has a bigger army, we should just call the war and be done with it. There’s no reason global politics have to adhere to precedent.

nuscheltier,

And supposedly the people of those regions voted to leave Ukraine, right?

Supposedly. One side says it were fair elections the other doubts that. So, who is right? The side that had soldiers at the voting booths, oppresses the people there, deports and kills the people living there, or the one to which the regions belong that wants to live in peace?

Best we can do is resolve it as peacefully as possible. I see democracy as the same as simulated war: one side has 20,000 men, one has 15,000, let’s just assume the bigger army will win and skip the war altogether.

  1. The war shouldn’t have broken out. Why? Budapest Memorandum. Russia was supposed to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. So Russia doesn’t need to adhere to treaties because they have more soldiers?
  2. If we’re talking about active soldiers, how about North Korea annexes just about everyone? They have about 7 million soldiers (soldiers, reservists and paramilitaries). So they can just say that everyone should bow to their will? So they can just say “We take the United States”? [1]

Since I made these points over and over again that the votings for independence are not fair and equal, that Russia is violating international law, and they are attacking an independent country, I will stop here since we’re going round in circles.

Thief_of_Crows,

I mean, I believe the side not allied with a country known to rig elections and openly spread propaganda about their victims. Recently the US president claimed to have personally seen videos of Hamas beheading babies, which never existed. Russia spreads propaganda internally too, but historically only about internal affairs, not shit like claiming Venezuelas election was rigged in order to install a puppet.

Obviously using larger army as a metric doesn’t make sense in the long term. It only works in spots where you’ve already committed to a war.

Saying it wasn’t a legit election because Russian soldiers were there is stupid. That can just as easily be used as proof that it was legitimate. I’m sure Britain looked like the peaceful side during the US revolution as well, does that make France the bad guys in that war?

gian,

Recently the US president claimed to have personally seen videos of Hamas beheading babies, which never existed.

Given that other people had seen them and people are now starting to speak about the horrors they witnessed (or have been subjected to), I would doubt it. But still, not the point.

Saying it wasn’t a legit election because Russian soldiers were there is stupid. That can just as easily be used as proof that it was legitimate.

Sure. Already asked: then what do you think is a rigged election ?

Thief_of_Crows,

A rigged election is when you disregard the outcome of the votes. Such as venezualas in 2018 (attempted). All agreed that the votes said Maduro won, but America claimed it was rigged, and thus their puppet actually won. Or if the things trump supporters claimed were actually true, that’s a rigged election.

Nobody has ever disseminated the videos Biden claimed to have seen, or verified any of the IDFs claims. Other people claimed to have seen them, and people have claimed anything they can think of about Hamas. None of it has been verified. Believing anything the IDF says at this point is essentially malicious incompetence, nobody who has done research on the topic would actually believe the BS being spewed. Biden is either an idiot for believing it, or lying. I lean towards idiot in this case.

gian,

A rigged election is when you disregard the outcome of the votes. Such as venezualas in 2018 (attempted). All agreed that the votes said Maduro won, but America claimed it was rigged, and thus their puppet actually won. Or if the things trump supporters claimed were actually true, that’s a rigged election.

Ok, that is one way that you can have a rigged election. Don’t you really think this is the only way, right ? Or are the North Korea ones not rigged ?

Nobody has ever disseminated the videos Biden claimed to have seen, or verified any of the IDFs claims. Other people claimed to have seen them, and people have claimed anything they can think of about Hamas. None of it has been verified. Believing anything the IDF says at this point is essentially malicious incompetence, nobody who has done research on the topic would actually believe the BS being spewed. Biden is either an idiot for believing it, or lying. I lean towards idiot in this case.

Aside the fact that we have multiple journalists around the world that had seen the video.
Aside the fact that we have phone record of “eroic hamas warriors” telling his mom that “I killed 10 jews” and was played on the news. Aside the fact that we have photos of jews girl on the back of a van brutally beated (if not already dead) that were paraded, photos that were shown on the news.
Aside the fact that we have what the hostages said to have seen (or have suffered) what happened.

But hey, it is ok. After all if Hamas said that they don’t kill innocent people, who we are to doubt it ?

One last point.
I get what kind of person you are, it is useless to have a discussion with you. Let’s end here and now.

Thief_of_Crows,

I’m sure that one or two, or hell, maybe 1-200, of the 1000-1500 people Hamas has killed, were not IDF. However, literally every Israeli over the age of 15 is IDF, so that is itself pretty suspect. And maybe 1 or 2 were done so as horrifically as the IDF claims. All groups have horrible people in them in small numbers. But that has never been shown to be true. You’re simply taking people’s word for it. Basically nothing the IDF has ever said has been independently verified, while most of what Hamas has claimed has been. So yes, I believe the group that doesn’t lie, and not the one who does.

I don’t know how NK rigs elections. How do we even know for sure they do? I mean I obviously don’t believe American media about it. Does Chinese or Russian media say they do? Or Al Jazeera? But assuming they do actually do it, what was your point about rigged elections again?

gian,

I’m sure that one or two, or hell, maybe 1-200, of the 1000-1500 people Hamas has killed, were not IDF. However, literally every Israeli over the age of 15 is IDF, so that is itself pretty suspect. And maybe 1 or 2 were done so as horrifically as the IDF claims.

And even if this is true, what’s your point ? That it is right to kill them ?

All groups have horrible people in them in small numbers.

Yes. Unluckily I am old enough to remember all the supposed good people of Gaza celebrating on the streets the Twin Towers attack. And in these good people there were also woman and children. But ok, this is not on Google, so it does not happened.

But that has never been shown to be true. You’re simply taking people’s word for it. Basically nothing the IDF has ever said has been independently verified, while most of what Hamas has claimed has been.

True, like you are taking the word of Hamas for it.

So yes, I believe the group that doesn’t lie, and not the one who does.

They are pretty open about their strategy: “kill their civilians, hide behind out civilians so that when the IDF hit one we can cry to ask the world to made IDF to respect the Geneva convention, because most people are too stupid to even understand that we are sistematically violating what we ask the IDF to respect”.

So yes, they don’t lie. They only don’t say all the truth, omitting just the part that make them look bad.

I don’t know how NK rigs elections. How do we even know for sure they do? I mean I obviously don’t believe American media about it.

The description of the North Korea elections comes from a NK official, so I suppose we can entrust it. Of course the person could have lied.

Does Chinese or Russian media say they do? Or Al Jazeera? But assuming they do actually do it, what was your point about rigged elections again?

No nation would ever admit to rig the election, don’t you think ?

Thief_of_Crows,

No, I mean does Russia, China, or Al Jazeera say that NK rigs their own elections. Or any country/paper that doesn’t stand to gain from lying about NK in the same direction as the US media stands to gain.

Yes, it is good to kill IDF soldiers. They are committing genocide. Hamas isn’t hiding behind civilians, they ARE civilians, who have been radicalized by the genocide. Also it’s literally impossible to position an army base somewhere in Gaza that is not next to civilian housing.

But to be clear, even if Hamas IS using human shields, it is still a crime against humanity to target that shield. Source on them systemically violating it though? I’m mostly interested to see if your source is blatant propaganda. Presumably "100 Gazans got in the way of our missiles last week, but they were actually all Hamas anyway due to living within a mile of a hospital “Military base” ".

IDF is the bad guys here, not sure how much clearer they have to make it. Even if they didn’t have a history of never telling the truth, they wouldn’t be trustworthy.

gian,

No, I mean does Russia, China, or Al Jazeera say that NK rigs their own elections. Or any country/paper that doesn’t stand to gain from lying about NK in the same direction as the US media stands to gain.

Man, how the North Korea elections are done come from a North Korean Officier, not a West jounalist, and then every country that don’t rigs their own election said “well, maybe these elections are rigged, and if they are not rigged they are just a show” (then yes, the NK guy could have lied, but why ? )

Yes, it is good to kill IDF soldiers. They are committing genocide.

If IDF is committing a genocide, it is the worst carried out genocide in the history of humankind. The Gaza population grow from a little less that 1 million people in the 1950’s to the actual 5.5 millions.

Hamas isn’t hiding behind civilians, they ARE civilians, who have been radicalized by the genocide.

Then why they always refuse any kind of solution ? A two state solution was offered multiple times. Beside, Israel left Gaza in 2005, on October the 7th Gaza was free from any IDF occupation for 18 years.

But let me educate you a little more, before you will say what I know you will say: historically speaking is the Gaza population that need to be thankfull to be able to stay there, not the Jews. In fact the Jews where there way earlier is a way or another. The name Palestine were given to this area when the Roman Empire annexed the territory in 63 BCE and after the revolts of 66/70 CE. And the name was given as a dispregiative against the Jews.
End of today story lesson.

Also it’s literally impossible to position an army base somewhere in Gaza that is not next to civilian housing.

That is not a justification. Maybe it could be a reason to look for a peacefull solution, if only Hamas would care for their civilians.

But to be clear, even if Hamas IS using human shields, it is still a crime against humanity to target that shield.

True, but it is also a crime to use human shields. So, eventually, we are even. But wait, there is more. The Geneva convention clearly state that if you violate any of its articles then you loose any right to be tratead as dictated by the Geneva convention

Source on them systemically violating it though?

This war itself ? The fact that they don’t even try to evacuate the civilians ? The interview where the Hamas leader esplicitally said that they are using their civilians as cannon fodder to make the pressuse against Israel from the world to increase ?

I’m mostly interested to see if your source is blatant propaganda. Presumably "100 Gazans got in the way of our missiles last week, but they were actually all Hamas anyway due to living within a mile of a hospital “Military base” ".

Photos of missile systems on the roof of hospitals.

Thief_of_Crows,

Okay let’s get some facts down, because you are sorely lacking them.

  1. Britain stole what is now Israel from Palestine in 1948. Palestine is older. There’s a strong argument that all of Israel is still Palestine, seeing as Palestine never agreed to it.
  2. For 30 years prior to 10/7, Israel carried out a siege of Gaza, for all intents and purposes. Gazans could not leave to receive life saving medical care without permission, they could not build water pipes without the IDF bombing them, they could not bring in food from outside because Israel was rationing the number of calories they allowed in, and they could not build hospitals featuring any level of technology because Israel prevented all tech from coming in (not just weapons, all technology more complex than a flip phone).
  3. Genocide is an ongoing concept. The fact that Jews exist today is not evidence that the Holocaust didn’t happen. If a group sees 5 million births every year, it is still genocide to kill 2 million of them per year.

It is frankly absurd that you think you know more about this than I do, while getting all of these basic facts wrong. You obviously haven’t researched this at all, so why do you think you are some expert on it? I certainly didn’t know the 3 facts I laid out above before doing any research, nobody does. So why are you convinced you just happen to possess correct knowledge of a highly complex situation innately? Nobody has ever been right about anything worth thinking about before researching anything on the subject, I promise it’s not just you.

Thief_of_Crows,

Oh and just so you are aware, pretty much everything Israel has said in the last year has been found to be a lie, so you really can’t be taking anything they say as a fact. It’s probably more reliable to take it as a reverse fact, actually.

gian,

I don’t really see a distinction between Crimea and Donbass/Donetsk. To me it’s the same placeAnd supposedly the people of those regions voted to leave Ukraine, right? So that essentially makes Russia equivalent to France in the American revolution.

Man, study some of your country history, you will do yourself a favor.

What you are referring to is completely wrong. France intervened as US ally after the what will become US declared war against England. To compare to the actual situation, it would be that US are France, Ukraine is the rebel colonies and Russia is England.

It’d be great if no one ever invaded anywhere else, but it won’t happen. Best we can do is resolve it as peacefully as possible.

Which is the exact mentality that provoked WWII.
Sometimes I think that what US needs is to have a real war fought on their home land, only this way you will understand how wrong is what you are saying. Not that I hope so, but it would be a learning lesson.

I see democracy as the same as simulated war: one side has 20,000 men, one has 15,000, let’s just assume the bigger army will win and skip the war altogether. Russia has a bigger army, we should just call the war and be done with it. There’s no reason global politics have to adhere to precedent.

It don’t work this way, sorry. And your assumption is completely wrong. Or are you trying to say that if North Korea declare war against US then US will lose ?

Thief_of_Crows,

North Korea doesn’t have a larger army than USA.

The regions at war have declared independence from Ukraine. It’s the same situation as America was in, except that France wasn’t trying to make the colonies become french. But they certainly expected a high level of control over them.

Comparing it to WW2 is insane, it’s not remotely the same situation.

gian,

North Korea doesn’t have a larger army than USA.

Wikipedia begs to differ. According to the list from the “International Institute for Strategic Studies” North Korea has a total (active, reserve and paramilitary) of a little less than 7.8 million people. US a little more than 2 million.

But ok, let’s consider only the active military, so let’s switch North Korea with China.
China have bigger army, so they can take the US, since in the case of a war, it is supposed that China will win.

The regions at war have declared independence from Ukraine. It’s the same situation as America was in, except that France wasn’t trying to make the colonies become french. But they certainly expected a high level of control over them.

Comparing it to WW2 is insane, it’s not remotely the same situation

Aside it seems a lot like the years before WWII…

gian,

So why is it acceptable for America to stage coups, rig elections, and assassinate leaders covertly, but not okay for Russia to try to take control of an area openly? […]

Nobody said these are right, but we are not discussing that.

Control of the black sea is universally useful. Imagine if Russia could threaten a sea invasion of Israel if they keep up the genocide.

So you need even a geography book: between The Black sea and Israel there is Turkey. But still, in a war how do you plan to move a fleet out the black sea without loosing it ?

Or be supplying Gaza with the food Israel keeps out. Militarily, it’s not about getting out of the black sea, it’s about exerting your strength on the adjacent land.

Still Turkey on the way, which is the adjacent land. Man, open Google Maps for once.

Alaska was never meaningfully Russian, the natives and the cities built there have nothing to do with russia. Not so for Crimea.

Aside Russia sold Alaska to US in 1867 for 7.2 million dollars. You don’t even know your country history…

Thief_of_Crows,

Oh huh, I was sure Israel and Palestine were next to turkey, lol.

That’s my point though, you can’t plan to move a ship out of the black sea. It’s useful purely defensively.

I am aware Russia sold Alaska to us, but very few Russians ever lived there. It was never meaningfully russian.

My point about America doing coups, etc is that America is now acting like they’re the heros fighting Russian evil, when it’s literally just to have someone to sell weapons to. It’s just another way the oligarchs are stealing our money from us.

gian,

Oh huh, I was sure Israel and Palestine were next to turkey, lol.

Yes, and you were talking about the importance of the Black Sea for a sea invasion of Israel, so ? I only pointed out that to stage a sea invasion of Israel the Black Sea is useless.

That’s my point though, you can’t plan to move a ship out of the black sea. It’s useful purely defensively.

How exactly ? You cannot move anything out but your enemy can move everything in and out. How do you think you can use it to defend yourself when the entry point and half the coast is under NATO control ? I mean, Russia is losing ships to a country that don’t even had a Navy, what do you think will happen if NATO put a fleet in the Black Sea ? Or NATO decide that after all Sevastopol need to be leveled ?

My point about America doing coups, etc is that America is now acting like they’re the heros fighting Russian evil, when it’s literally just to have someone to sell weapons to. It’s just another way the oligarchs are stealing our money from us.

Nobody here think America is the hero, but that Russia is the villain. And still, we are discussing about what Russia is doing, not what US did.

Thief_of_Crows,

I was just using Israel as an example, I dont think Russia even would invade Israel right now if capable. Imagine if the eastern med was controlled by an enemy of Israel though. They could actually affect the genocide. That’s why sea power is so vital.

There is no chance an invading army/navy could get through Constantinople without control of the black sea. It’s the ultimate choke point. It forces any would be invader to come at Russia through turkey.

America is not the hero, and so the reason they are arming Ukraine is entirely out of self interest for their capitalists. America wants to prevent Russian southern stability, because if somebody is trying to come at Russia through Constantinople, it’ll be America (or a hired warlord, more likely). Russia having useful ports hinders America’s power to meaningfully sanction those they dislike. Cuba, for instance, can’t trade with anyone in Europe, due to American sanctions. If Russia could trade with them more effectively, that weakens the American stranglehold. Right now the world needs a check on America a lot more than it does preventing Putin taking control black sea ports.

gian,

I was just using Israel as an example, I dont think Russia even would invade Israel right now if capable. Imagine if the eastern med was controlled by an enemy of Israel though. They could actually affect the genocide. That’s why sea power is so vital.

I see your idea but it is absolutely irrealistic.

Even assuming you take control of the Black Sea and Turkey (without the infamous article 5 trigger), to be able to control the easter med you need to be able to project power, which you cannot. It is not that difficult to stop a fleet just outside/inside the Marmar Sea and out of Gibaltar.

There is no chance an invading army/navy could get through Constantinople without control of the black sea. It’s the ultimate choke point. It forces any would be invader to come at Russia through turkey.

It is the same to try to get out the Black Sea. But so far if someone want to invade Russia from the Black Sea it could, because the only way for Russia to have help (I mean ships, not infantry) is from Gibraltar which is even more easy to close to them while the invader could do whatever he want.

America is not the hero, and so the reason they are arming Ukraine is entirely out of self interest for their capitalists. America wants to prevent Russian southern stability, because if somebody is trying to come at Russia through Constantinople, it’ll be America (or a hired warlord, more likely). Russia having useful ports hinders America’s power to meaningfully sanction those they dislike. Cuba, for instance, can’t trade with anyone in Europe, due to American sanctions. If Russia could trade with them more effectively, that weakens the American stranglehold. Right now the world needs a check on America a lot more than it does preventing Putin taking control black sea ports.

Or maybe they understood, like Europe did even if too late, that Russia doing it this way is dangerous for everyone. I am not that naive to not understand that US do it for their own interest but on the other hand I’m not that stupid to not understand that if we let Russia (and a bunch of others) to continue to destabilize the situation it is bad for everyone.

gian,

How exactly do soldiers outside polling places imply a rigged election?

Are you serious ?

Self preservation is irrelevant, the question is whether Russia or Ukraine controls the region. Voting in alignment with the more powerful state is literally the only means of self preservation possible, as it best avoids a war.

Which is the definition of rigged election.

I don’t think they should invade those places, no. And if they wanted that much more land, it would be a completely different story. Having control of the northern black sea is obviously important.

Following your logic, they could also invade Turkey so they could access the Mediterranean Sea. Then they can also invade Alaska, after all having the control of the Bering sea is obviously important. Or US could invade Panama, for the Panama canal, or Spain can seize Gibraltar.

Russia is obviously not invading anywhere else in the foreseeable future, let’s move past that.

Yeah, like they said in 2014.

Thief_of_Crows,

Come up with an argument that is not obviously a fallacy, and get back to me. And LOL at voter self interest being described as the definition of a rigged election.

gian,

The current US electoral system maybe ?

But at this point I am curios to know what you think is a rigged election, since obviously voting with foreign soldiers outside the polling station seems normal to you.

gian,

It is interesting to see how people seems to think that if Ukraine (the victim) surrender everything will be ok while nobody think that Russia (the aggressor) could just stop.

I’ve seen somewhere else… let me think… oh yes, in the 1930’s, just before WWII…

That’s absurd, what is anybody’s source on this claim?

History maybe ?

Thief_of_Crows,

It’s not the same situation. Obviously. Russia wants one small region that they lost custody of in their divorce. Germany wanted all of Poland, Belgium, and Netherlands. And it’s certainly not as if the reason WW2 happened was that Poland surrendered eventually. The sum total of similarities between the two scenarios is: both countries tried to take land.

It’s actually a better argument to say that taking Poland and Belgium by force allowed Germany to accelerate their war machine dramatically compared to their future opponents, and had they been surrendered to, might not have been able to pull off the massively complicated military feats that were 100% required to be done in the first few months of the war if they wanted to even have a chance to win it.

If you’re trying to stop a steamroller, your best possible course of action is to not let it get started. And there is no steam roller required vs a surrender.

gian,

It’s not the same situation. Obviously. Russia wants one small region that they lost custody of in their divorce.

It is the exact same situation. That the region is small or big is irrelevant.

Germany wanted all of Poland, Belgium, and Netherlands. And it’s certainly not as if the reason WW2 happened was that Poland surrendered eventually. The sum total of similarities between the two scenarios is: both countries tried to take land.

It’s actually a better argument to say that taking Poland and Belgium by force allowed Germany to accelerate their war machine dramatically compared to their future opponents, and had they been surrendered to, might not have been able to pull off the massively complicated military feats that were 100% required to be done in the first few months of the war if they wanted to even have a chance to win it.

Germany took Poland and Belgium when the German’s army was ready while their opponents were not that ready exactly because this was the entire plan of Hitler.
Hitler always counted on the fact that the rest of Europe wanted peace and that they were willing to do anything to preserve it, even to believe to all the false promises Hitler did.

You really need to study some history.

If you’re trying to stop a steamroller, your best possible course of action is to not let it get started. And there is no steam roller required vs a surrender.

True. In this case it was when Putin invaded Crimea, now the steamroller is already going and it would not be a surrender to stop it.

illi,

Russia wants one small region that they lost custody of in their divorce.

This is how Czechoslovakia lost the Sudety region just before WW2. Germany also claimed that the German populace there is being mistreated and there is so much Germans living there that it should belong to Germany anyway.

Maybe this sounds a bit more familiar? Back then the West let them have it to maintain peace - funny how Russia and pro-Russians are calling for the same thing now…

Thief_of_Crows,

Man, all these different countries Germany wanted to invade, almost as if that was a completely different situation.

illi,

There are multiple countries Russia would like to invade too - but they were stopped (or at least slowed down - depends on how it will develop) in Ukraine.

Just because it’s not the exact same situation doesn’t mean there aren’t paralels.

Thief_of_Crows,

That claim is highly speculative at best. Russia hasn’t invaded anyone else in the last, what, 50 years?

force, (edited )

You forgot about Georgia, Moldova, and Afghanistan… all of which Russian troops fully invaded (Georgia & Afghanistan) or at the very least sent core military forces to fight against in a primarily Russian-backed war (Moldova), all in the past 1 to 4 decades. Although in Afghanistan’s case, it wasn’t to take land or annex it or anything, it was just to overthrow the government. Still a blatant invasion though.

They’ve also stripped Belarus of most of its autonomy via installing a puppet government a few years after it gained independence, and have now effectively incorporated in into Russia in all but name via the Union State.

Azerbaijan and Armenia would have both likely been candidates for absorption by Russia in the future for various reasons, but that is entirely speculative, and the only ones which constantly are currently facing extreme encroachment on territory or independence by Russia are currently Belarus, Ukraine, and Georgia.

When the dictator and military leaders of a larger country are all talking about how the lands of their former domain (located in significantly smaller countries) are rightfully historically theirs and stuff, you know exactly what their goals are… It doesn’t matter if it’s Hitler, Mussolini, Horthy, Putin, or anyone else, their intentions are clear.

Thief_of_Crows,

So they’ve invaded 4 places, all of which directly border them, in 40 years? That doesn’t seem very dictator-like or authoritarian to me. Why are we supposed to be inherently against former USSR abortion into Russia? Seems to me like it’d be a good thing for all involved

force, (edited )

Bro you have got to be a jester or something, a troll account surely… either that or you drank the entire world supply of stupid juice

You lost all hopes of othere taking you seriously as soon as you implied Putin is a democratic leader, let alone outright saying “yeah, Russia invaded 3 bordering countries part of its former empire that it has historical ideological/nationalistic goals to conquer, took a chunk of their land and put it in the hands of rebels, has been in the process of removing the soveirgnty of a 4th bordering country for 3 decades, and invaded a 5th bordering country to overthrow the government and make it a puppet state of the USSR – BUT this surely isn’t at all like when Germany did the same thing with Austria, Slovakia, Czechia, and Poland, or when Italy did the same thing to Albania, Greece, and Ethiopia”

Russia already had Crimea secured from their previous invasion of Ukraine many years prior (which happened after Ukraine deposed of their Russian puppet dictator in a revolution BTW), the outbreak of the more recent stage of the war had little to do with Crimea. They have used the Donbass as a nationalistic war goal towards Ukraine for a long time, to say that it belongs to Russia because there are a lot of ethnic Russians (which is how almost any border region with a much larger country goes), and now that they’ve started a war with that they’ve declared full intent to dissolve Ukraine as a soveirgn state and incorporate it into Russia. It is not about some strategically important areas, it is about continuing Russification and making Russia “what it once was” by absorbing neighbour states. After Belarus and Ukraine, Georgia is undoubtedly next – hell, the only reason Russia isn’t doing the same thing to Georgia is because they’re busy getting their ass handed to them by Ukraine.

Thief_of_Crows,

Putin gets democratically elected, what other definition of democratic is there?

Why are you just assuming that Russia acquiring Ukraine would even be a bad thing? Ukraine was certainly more powerful as the USSR. The only people who it would be bad for are the current Ukraine govt. But as for the people of Ukraine, why shouldn’t they be part of the USSR again?

But please, keep telling me how reunification of USSR is the same thing as fucking WW2.

KevonLooney,

This account is less than a day old. Just block and move on.

DerTobi_NerdsWire_de,

You never know - Putin attacked Georgia and Syria.

Thief_of_Crows,

True, Putin could be plotting global domination as we speak. Hell, he might be planning domination of the entire galaxy as we speak! But we have zero reason to believe he wants to do so, even if he were capable of it, which he’s not. Y’know, I bet his incapability of it has a lot to do with why he doesn’t want to try.

gian,

But we have zero reason to believe he wants to do so,

Well, the present events seem to refute what you are saying.

Thief_of_Crows,

Taking 10% of Ukraine in order to control a highly important sea refutes me?

gian,

What refutes you is the fact that Putin take territories that are not Russia. Plain and simple.

While we have proof that he is willing to take something, we have not proof that he will stop after this time (which is, btw, the second time he pull the trick)

enieffak, (edited )

Putin is a totally trustworthy open-minded guy caring for people. Letting him do what he wants will lead to safety, democracy and peace. He is just like Hitler. We should have never gone to war against Hitler.

maynarkh,

The problem with that, beyond the moral one, is that if that happens, it basically establishes a world order where the only guarantee to any kind of territorial sovereignty are nuclear weapons and the will to use them.

The deal with Ukraine was that they agreed to give away their nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees to its territorial integrity. Russia went back on that promise, if the US would follow suit, that means a global arms race for nukes.

Thief_of_Crows,

Nobody should want American nukes in Ukraine, any more than we should want Russian nukes in Cuba. So Russia went back on their word, that’s not actually relevant to anyone else. I can assure you that going forward, people will definitely continue to lie, especially concerning global politics/war

maynarkh,

Ukraine had Soviet nukes, not American ones.

If they knew the Russians were lying, they would have never given up their nuclear weapons. And it’s because Russia lies as a matter of course that nobody takes CSTO seriously as opposed to NATO.

Schmetterchen,

The deal with Ukraine was that they agreed to give away their nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees to its territorial integrity. Russia went back on that promise

Ukraine and Russia had an agreement and Russia leased Sevastopol from them. Then after the Euromaiden protests / ouster of the Russia friendly regime they wanted to join Nato. So they’d either lose Sevastopol, their Fleet HQ for Russia in the Black Sea, or have it surrounded by Nato weapons. What use is a naval HQ if it’s surrounded by the enemy?

Here is a pretty good article why this war started: jacobin.com/…/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-na…

And no, I don’t like Putin at all or make any excuses for Russia, but the invasion wasn’t quite willy nilly or makes him Hitler.

Badeendje, (edited )
@Badeendje@lemmy.world avatar

Now they no longer provide any support… how will that strong arming work? Give them less? (This is the thing that the isolationists overlook in the US, the US buys their influence).

Sure Ukraine has it difficult, but it has not even conscripted their youngest fittest men. It is silly to think either side currently has the power to beat the other. In the current stance this can last another decade.

Thief_of_Crows,

Oh, is America no longer supporting Ukraine? News to me. If that were true, that’d be great. If Ukraine can win their war without us, more power to them, seriously. I hope they win. As long as America is uninvolved, I’m happy. The east is more than welcome to settle border disputes on their own.

Badeendje,
@Badeendje@lemmy.world avatar

LOL, isolationism and no understanding of geopolitics.

The US is as rich and powerful because one of their key exports is safety for their allies.

Once that goes out the window many other things might change or fade away.

Trying to be top dog of a global trade empire and being an isolationist don’t go well together.

And if the US where to abandon Europe/Ukraine, why would anyone care to stop trade with China, once the inevitable clash between the US and China occurs.

The US needs their allies just as much as they need the US.

Thief_of_Crows,

Agreed, we need to stop being the top dog, and start coexisting with Russia and China as equals. There is zero reason we need anyone to not trade with China, or why we need to be the “world police”. It’s gotten us nothing but inequality and terrible life outcomes, we NEED to stop trying to make it happen.

gian,

Agreed, we need to stop being the top dog, and start coexisting with Russia and China as equals.

Fine, but do you understand that in this case everyone need to follow the same rules, right ? And I think that the ones we have in EU/US, for all their problems, are far better than the ones in Russia and China.

There is zero reason we need anyone to not trade with China,

It depends on what you think it is important.

or why we need to be the “world police”.

The other side seems a lot worse.

It’s gotten us nothing but inequality and terrible life outcomes, we NEED to stop trying to make it happen.

It does not work this way. You cannot stop (if you want to survive), you need to become better. If we stop, we will be gone because the other side will not stop and “invade” us.

Thief_of_Crows,

How is the other side worse? How many foreign leaders have they assassinated? How many elections have they rigged? How many authoritarian warlords have they armed in order to destabilize governments? All of those things have historically (back to 1950) been done by USA. I agree that everyone should follow the same rules, whenever America decides to start following them, they should let us know.

World politics is not Us or Them. Claiming that we have to do the bad things or else they’ll be done to us is literally the logic of abusers.

gian,

How is the other side worse? How many foreign leaders have they assassinated? How many elections have they rigged? How many authoritarian warlords have they armed in order to destabilize governments? All of those things have historically (back to 1950) been done by USA. I agree that everyone should follow the same rules, whenever America decides to start following them, they should let us know.

Still not the topic we are discussing here.

If we go arbitrarily back into the past, Italy has only to teach about all these things. And Europe as well in relatively recent times. What US are doing, to a European who know history, is just child play.

World politics is not Us or Them. Claiming that we have to do the bad things or else they’ll be done to us is literally the logic of abusers.

Maybe, but I prefer to live in Europe with US than in Russia and or China. Feel free to go to these countries, it is not my problem.

WhiteWolfLT, (edited )

Article may be exaggerating the possible escalation if ukraine fully looses the war. But your comment makes no sense. US is not at liberty to force the US into a decision by itself, for that europe would have accept that and it could very well brake NATO (Not even mentioning a partizan movement if Ukraine would lose). Not sure why would Russia want Ukraine to surrender a land that they were already occupying for what, eight years? This is less of a conspiracy and more of an actual possibility, no NATO country is at liberty to defy russia with their own soldiers without being attacked first. Any conflict between nuclear powers could easily escalate into nuclear war, any direct confrontation between NATO countries besides the US could still lead to that as a chain reaction.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • europe@feddit.de
  • cisconetworking
  • DreamBathrooms
  • mdbf
  • Durango
  • ngwrru68w68
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • InstantRegret
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • everett
  • kavyap
  • modclub
  • ethstaker
  • megavids
  • tacticalgear
  • GTA5RPClips
  • osvaldo12
  • khanakhh
  • rosin
  • Leos
  • normalnudes
  • anitta
  • cubers
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • JUstTest
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •