Bizarre stuff. It must have felt good for him at the moment though tweeting that.
Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
Bizarre stuff. It must have felt good for him at the moment though tweeting that.
Wasn't corruption a pretty big thing?
Are we genuinely sharing Hitler propaganda?
Yes but within the Nazi party not organized crime, although I'm not sure there's a difference?
There is none, they were the crime organizers.
Even so, I think we are always more likely in for a lot of trouble when a country's army is led by a man who both has zero understanding/sympathy towards a soldier's experience at war. The man has been having it fairly easy since his KGB service compared to many of his compatriots during those years and after. I can say about the same if Trump was still POTUS today.
Yeah agreed.
Things are getting weirder by the day.
Thinking about it, I'm pretty sure that the Nazi party and Hitler himself had issues with paying their taxes or respecting many laws. I seem to remember that he was into tax evasion.
I was watching a program about the Luftwaffe last night and there was mention of a fair bit of corruption among the party members involved there with some suggestion that it was rife among Nazis.
The world is so depressing.
Part of the initial dissolution of the USSR was that Nato wouldn't expand because of the threat that it would appear to be in Moscow.
I know we pick sides in war and while it's obvious who is the aggressor and villain here (and its been obvious for decades), it doesn't undo the wrongs of all of his opponents.
Laziness and/or misunderstanding I think. 'I don't like that post and want to dismiss it as stupid without engaging with its stupidity. Hey look, there's a comparison. See, it's stupid whataboutism!' Something like that.
And possibly for some also a genuine (mistaken) feeling that things should be understood purely individually, and that everything else detracts from that - or more simplistically that it detracts from the suffering of Ukrainians or evil of Russia in this particular case.
The thing is mosey that most of those former Soviet republics that ended up in NATO had brief periods of independence after the Russian Empire , only to be swallowed up by the nouveaux version of the Russian Empire after WWII. They knew what future awaited them if they remained outside of NATO and we are seeing that come true today in Ukraine.
Even the former Warsaw pact countries know what's up because Russia barged into them as well to ensure they had control.
Yeah but they've opened cinemas now and they let women drive now. Don't gang up on a liberal beacon.
Absolutely, 'our' tolerance on the Putin regime played it's part in that. As long as he didn't venture too far west we played ball.
Post Soviet Russia has been a shitshow that we've had a hand in, right from the initial aggressive privitisation.
Edit - Soviet Russia wasn't great in lots of aspects either to be fair.
And the dissolution was many years ago,
Since then Crimea has been illegally annexed, Bosnia war happened, Syria happened.
Who's the threat here? Who is claiming the threat isn't them? NATO expansion isn't provocative to anyone other than Russia, does an alliance bow down to a country not interested in the alliance?
He forgot Germans can be commies, jazz lovers and homosexuals.
Besides the Holocaust itself, I also learnt something new today about Nazis using chemical weapons during fighting:
The Nazis did use chemical weapons in combat on several occasions along the Black Sea, notably in Sevastopol, where they used toxic smoke to force Russian resistance fighters out of caverns below the city, in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol.[78] The Nazis also used asphyxiating gas in the catacombs of Odessa in November 1941, following their capture of the city, and in late May 1942 during the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula in eastern Crimea.[78] Victor Israelyan, a Soviet ambassador, reported that the latter incident was perpetrated by the Wehrmacht's Chemical Forces and organized by a special detail of SS troops with the help of a field engineer battalion. Chemical Forces General Ochsner reported to German command in June 1942 that a chemical unit had taken part in the battle.[79] After the battle in mid-May 1942, roughly 3,000 Red Army soldiers and Soviet civilians not evacuated by sea were besieged in a series of caves and tunnels in the nearby Adzhimushkay quarry. After holding out for approximately three months, "poison gas was released into the tunnels, killing all but a few score of the Soviet defenders."[80] Thousands of those killed around Adzhimushkay were documented to have been killed by asphyxiation from gas.[79]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_chemical_warfare
The Nazis did use chemical weapons in combat on several occasions along the Black Sea, notably in Sevastopol, where they used toxic smoke to force Russian resistance fighters out of caverns below the city, in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol.[78] The Nazis also used asphyxiating gas in the catacombs of Odessa in November 1941, following their capture of the city, and in late May 1942 during the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula in eastern Crimea.[78] Victor Israelyan, a Soviet ambassador, reported that the latter incident was perpetrated by the Wehrmacht's Chemical Forces and organized by a special detail of SS troops with the help of a field engineer battalion. Chemical Forces General Ochsner reported to German command in June 1942 that a chemical unit had taken part in the battle.[79] After the battle in mid-May 1942, roughly 3,000 Red Army soldiers and Soviet civilians not evacuated by sea were besieged in a series of caves and tunnels in the nearby Adzhimushkay quarry. After holding out for approximately three months, "poison gas was released into the tunnels, killing all but a few score of the Soviet defenders."[80] Thousands of those killed around Adzhimushkay were documented to have been killed by asphyxiation from gas.[79]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_chemical_warfare
this stuff is amazing
I think comparing Hitler to Putin really trivializes who Hitler was and what he did. You could only make that comparison if you knew nothing about Hitler apart from the fact that he invaded other countries.
As you said in a later post powerful nations do as they will. If the Americans could deem it necessary to destroy countries on the other side of the world in the name of national security, then it would seem reasonable to pay more heed to the national security concerns of such nations. Particularly those on your border.
Of course the average reasonable person would argue this is wrong and should not happen and indeed it is but there is a reason why 5 countries have permanent seats on the UN Security Council and have veto powers. It is a recognition of their status in the world order. Russia has been stating clearly for the last 20 years that NATO expansion was seen as a hostile act and something that could trigger a conflict. Why would anyone assume that you could just keep ignoring a great power and expanding and that nothing would happen?
So yeah a free country can do whatever it wants but actions have consequences. Does nato expansion justify a Russian invasion? No it doesn’t but it did cause it to happen. Today my country and others in the region are embroiled in territorial disputes with china. We are technically free to decide whatever we want but that decision has to be tempered by the reality that our adversary is significantly more powerful than all of us combined and fully capable of wrecking our countries and economies.
And of course we have the Americans turning up from time to time trying to lure us into anti China alliances, as if turning territorial disputes into direct conflicts with your super power neighbour is a smart thing to do. And because we don’t live in a fantasy world where rule of law works perfectly, neutrality is the best option.
It doesn't justify it, nor did it cause it. Your concept of "neutrality" apparently seeks to justify 45 million Ukrainians giving up their freedom to become a subjugated vassal state because a deranged, insecure psychpath with nukes is throwing a tantrum. That's just not going to happen, nor should it.
I think it’s a better alternative than war. I’m not going to sit here and scream freedom when it’s not my children who are being bombed. Besides, being neutral doesn’t make you a vassal state. Vietnam is neutral and it’s nobody’s vassal state because everyone knows you will get whipped if you invade.
He doesn't even consider Ukraine to be a country, so you can see how simply proclaiming neutrality would be a non-starter since its simply a precursor for Ukraine to give up collective security and in the process allow him to slowly corrupt it from within to where it eventually becomes undemocratic, and in the process, prevents democracy from reaching Russia.
What collective security is there now? If the objective was to prevent a Russian invasion then it isn’t working. A strong neutral state would have been a more workable and peaceful alternative. In fact having seen how poorly the Russian military has performed its still the best option now. Why do you need nato when your gypsies are capable of stealing enemy tanks?
The same collective security that's always been a part of NATO membership. Putin knows that he can't control Ukraine if it falls under Article 5, which is yet another reason he is attempting to claim Ukraine as his own. However inpet and incompetent the Russian military has been, it is still a corrupt, authoritarian state with an unstable leader sitting atop the world's biggest stockpile of nukes. That alone is more than enough for Ukraine to seek NATO membership, especially after Russia reneged on the Budapest agreement that stipulated Russia would never attack Ukraine if it gave up its nukes in the 90s.
Last edited:
It wasn't that many years ago in the terms of statehood and the development of nascent nations.
You won't find me defending Russia, in fact, quite the opposite, but also world politics is a bit more self-interest, complicated, and proactive than a simple good v bad narrative.
My first post on this thread.
I was all into whataboutery until very recently until a sudden switch brought me to realise you can write millions of words on nations and individuals' wrongdoings on many fronts. Mostly upset with the West causing untold misery in the ME, silence on the plight of the Palestinians and Afghanistan. However, the very fact that other nations or individuals have done something unjust is no justification for supporting (Russian aggression) other wrongs or acting in a similar way.
I was all into whataboutery until very recently until a sudden switch brought me to realise you can write millions of words on nations and individuals' wrongdoings on many fronts. Mostly upset with the West causing untold misery in the ME, silence on the plight of the Palestinians and Afghanistan. However, the very fact that other nations or individuals have done something unjust is no justification for supporting (Russian aggression) other wrongs or acting in a similar way.
I find it hard to grasp a logic that uses the fact that Russia actually invaded Ukraine, reportedly put its government on a hit list and showed absolutely no hesitation to bomb and terrorize civilians as proof that some idea of peaceful coexistence with Russia would have been a better option, or really one at all.
Similarly the idea of asking "why do you need NATO" while Russia is doing what they are doing in Ukraine.
It's one thing to say that NATO letting Eastern European countries join angered Russia and in that context we can always ask whether more could have been done for Ukraine before this all started, but I really don't see how someone can pretend that NATO itself is the problem and all would somehow be flowers and sunshine with Putin if it wasn't around.
Why would it be bad for Russia if Ukraine was to join NATO? Would it be because Ukraine would have Western arms in the country and Russia would be scared of their use? Is this more of a risk to Russia as a nation, or to Putin as a leader?
Why is facing up to the West the best option for Russia? Russia is suffering now, and that suffering will continue. Even if they take Ukraine their actions are likely to solidify Europe and increase the number of countries wanting to join the EU and NATO. Not mentioning the short and long term economic damage to an already weak economy. Is this a better alternative than letting Ukraine join NATO? (even though in reality they weren’t going to). Is the direction Russia is heading towards the optimal one for Russian prosperity? You talk about neutrality as an option for Ukraine, but surely this applies to Russia too? Surely their best option is neutrality towards China and the West, rather than positioning themselves as hostile to the West? You may make the distinction because you consider Russia a superpower, but they are not one any longer. They have nukes, and they have a reputation but little else. They won’t win against NATO, and unilaterally rely on China so by your logic neutrality and subservience are their best options right?
It's clearly not the best course for Russia, they're screwed.
There's a big difference between immediate threat and strategic threat, Ukraine joining NATO was only ever a strategic threat.
The bigger issue is political/cultural and as you say that's an issue for Putin and in turn they'll see that as a national security issue with it being destabilising.
Russia is the actor here that's made the biggest mistakes. They've miscalculated the risk and their ability to counter it. They're left in ruins.
That said Ukraine have been misdirected in putting total trust in the Americans and NATO in general. They'd have been better playing neutral (if possible) whilst resolving issues blocking NATO membership. Whether that was ever an option is difficult to say.
Slowly breaking the shameful silence.
The double standards are utterly shameful. Bringing a Palestine flag can get you banned while the premier league logo gets imprinted with the Ukraine colors. Spineless cnuts.