Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

All things considered, we're witnessing quite the information warfare aren't we?

 
Wonder at what stage in history powerful states felt obliged to provide a pretext for launching a war, or present the action as essentially defensive?
 
2cents said:
Wonder at what stage in history powerful states felt obliged to provide a pretext for launching a war, or present the action as essentially defensive?
Click to expand...
A long time ago

Putin is pretty much repeating Hitler's lines of defending ethnic Germans

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland

. The invasion was referred to by Germany as the 1939 Defensive War (Verteidigungskrieg) since Hitler proclaimed that Poland had attacked Germany and that "Germans in Poland are persecuted with a bloody terror and are driven from their homes. The series of border violations, which are unbearable to a great power, prove that the Poles no longer are willing to respect the German frontier."[26]
Click to expand...
 
2cents said:
Wonder at what stage in history powerful states felt obliged to provide a pretext for launching a war, or present the action as essentially defensive?
Click to expand...

My guess is when they realized that we reached a point where conventional weapons have a frightening range and potency So the mass bombings during WWII and then the various tests and improvements of intercontinental missiles?
We live in world where a single submarine launching several intercontinental missiles within minutes.
 
2cents said:
Wonder at what stage in history powerful states felt obliged to provide a pretext for launching a war, or present the action as essentially defensive?
Click to expand...
I know of customs that go back to the Roman Republic; I don’t know whether it is a thing they inherited from the Greeks directly or not.
 



I think the US are playing this well myself. Publicly staying in front of it at all times.

Having said that I don't think Putin gives a shit how obvious it is that the 'false flag' event is bogus.
 
2cents said:
Wonder at what stage in history powerful states felt obliged to provide a pretext for launching a war, or present the action as essentially defensive?
Click to expand...

Organic Potatoes said:
I know of customs that go back to the Roman Republic; I don’t know whether it is a thing they inherited from the Greeks directly or not.
Click to expand...

Certainly the concept was prevalent in Greek times. Thucydides not only describes it, but philosophises on it. If you google 'just war theory' you should find more.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
I know of customs that go back to the Roman Republic; I don’t know whether it is a thing they inherited from the Greeks directly or not.
Click to expand...
nimic said:
Almost literally forever.
Click to expand...
owlo said:
Certainly the concept was prevalent in Greek times. Thucydides not only describes it, but philosophises on it. If you google 'just war theory' you should find more.
Click to expand...

Sure, I understand the concept has always existed. But what I’m wondering is, at what stage did states feel they had to justify an offensive war in this way. Because it’s surely not that long since empires and states were launching wars for the explicit purpose of the “glory of god/nation” etc., whereas such a thing seems unthinkable now.
 
2cents said:
Sure, I understand the concept has always existed. But what I’m wondering is, at what stage did states feel they had to justify an offensive war in this way. Because it’s surely not that long since empires and states were launching wars for the explicit purpose of the “glory of god/nation” etc., whereas such a thing seems unthinkable now.
Click to expand...

Probably in most situations where public opinion and perception were of interest to the aggressors, which has been amplified to new levels in recent years with the web and social media.
 
2cents said:
Sure, I understand the concept has always existed. But what I’m wondering is, at what stage did states feel they had to justify an offensive war in this way. Because it’s surely not that long since empires and states were launching wars for the explicit purpose of the “glory of god/nation” etc., whereas such a thing seems unthinkable now.
Click to expand...

Honestly, it goes back quite a long way. It's the classic casus belli. It's surely more common these days, with mass (and now social) media, but it was already very much a thing in the 1500s, and a common one at least as far back as the Romans. You could make up some pretty flimsy reasons, but you almost always had to have a reason.

You mention "glory of God" as a reason, and an interesting example there are the Crusades. They were obviously about a whole host of things, but a stated goal was to stop perceived (and mostly false) persecution of Christians in the Holy Land:

The five versions of the speech differ widely from one another in regard to particulars, but all versions except that in the Gesta Francorum agree that Urban talked about the violence of European society and the necessity of maintaining the Peace of God; about helping the Greeks, who had asked for assistance; about the crimes being committed against Christians in the east; and about a new kind of war, an armed pilgrimage, and of rewards in heaven, where remission of sins was offered to any who might die in the undertaking.[29]
 
Russia deploys army on their borders. Russia is aggressive.
Usa deploys army and weapons on Russia borders (10000 km from Usa) and they are good guys in this?
Media propaganda is amazing in this West-Russia conflict.

Who will (only) have benefits from potential conflict? Usa. EU will need to trade more with USA, USA will cripple economy of their biggest rival and increase their military number on Russia borders.

But yeah; Russia is evil. USA will save us Europeans from evil bear.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
Russia deploys army on their borders. Russia is aggressive.
Usa deploys army and weapons on Russia borders (10000 km from Usa) and they are good guys in this?
Media propaganda is amazing in this West-Russia conflict.

Who will (only) have benefits from potential conflict? Usa. EU will need to trade more with USA, USA will cripple economy of their biggest rival and increase their military number on Russia borders.

But yeah; Russia is evil. USA will save us Europeans from evil bear.
Click to expand...
Where are the NATO troops in Ukraine?
 
2cents said:
Wonder at what stage in history powerful states felt obliged to provide a pretext for launching a war, or present the action as essentially defensive?
Click to expand...

Bologna declared war to Moena because the later stole a bucket from a well
 
2cents said:
Sure, I understand the concept has always existed. But what I’m wondering is, at what stage did states feel they had to justify an offensive war in this way. Because it’s surely not that long since empires and states were launching wars for the explicit purpose of the “glory of god/nation” etc., whereas such a thing seems unthinkable now.
Click to expand...
Oh, if I’m reading what you’re saying more correctly then my mind goes to post-Napoleonic era Europe. Amplified more and more by an increased literacy rate and the efficiency of communication/prevalence of the press to the public (like was touched upon above) as we steam-rolled into the 20th century with the Spanish-American War, Great War, etc.

The former especially comes to mind, with the role public opinion played in that (which I probably don’t need to tell you as you’re more well versed in history than I).
 
4bars said:
Bologna declared war to Moena because the later stole a bucket from a well
Click to expand...

Vladi is checking inventories of the troops stationed at the border. Hopefully nothing is missing.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
Oh, if I’m reading what you’re saying more correctly then my mind goes to post-Napoleonic era Europe. Amplified more and more by an increased literacy rate and the efficiency of communication/prevalence of the press to the public (like was touched upon above) as we steam-rolled into the 20th century with the Spanish-American War, Great War, etc.

The former especially comes to mind, with the role public opinion played in that (which I probably don’t need to tell you as you’re more well versed in history than I).
Click to expand...

Yes, perhaps post-Treaty of Vienna? Although obviously didn’t apply to non-European powers at that point.

So to rephrase my question - when was the last time a state/empire (discounting the likes of ISIS) basically said “feck it, we’re doing this because we’re in the business of warfare and territorial expansion and we’re fecking awesome and you’re just gonna have to deal with it” ?
 
Andycoleno9 said:
Russia deploys army on their borders. Russia is aggressive.
Usa deploys army and weapons on Russia borders (10000 km from Usa) and they are good guys in this?
Media propaganda is amazing in this West-Russia conflict.

Who will (only) have benefits from potential conflict? Usa. EU will need to trade more with USA, USA will cripple economy of their biggest rival and increase their military number on Russia borders.

But yeah; Russia is evil. USA will save us Europeans from evil bear.
Click to expand...
So Europe would have been under Russian control without the US, right up to the Channel, that should not be forgotten in the historical context and concerning american troops in central/western Europe. How well the countries were doing under Russian control was easy to observe in Czechoslovakia, East Germany, etc. So yes, for me personally, the US still has a head start in terms of trust.
 
2cents said:
Yes, perhaps post-Treaty of Vienna? Although obviously didn’t apply to non-European powers at that point.

So to rephrase my question - when was the last time a state/empire (discounting the likes of ISIS) basically said “feck it, we’re doing this because we’re in the business of warfare and territorial expansion and we’re fecking awesome and you’re just gonna have to deal with it” ?
Click to expand...
Did Azerbaijan use pretext for Karabakh 2020? Seems like they went all in without too much fuss.
 
VorZakone said:
Did Azerbaijan use pretext for Karabakh 2020? Seems like they went all in without too much fuss.
Click to expand...

Regaining their own (internationally-recognized) territory.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
Russia deploys army on their borders. Russia is aggressive.
Usa deploys army and weapons on Russia borders (10000 km from Usa) and they are good guys in this?
Media propaganda is amazing in this West-Russia conflict.

Who will (only) have benefits from potential conflict? Usa. EU will need to trade more with USA, USA will cripple economy of their biggest rival and increase their military number on Russia borders.

But yeah; Russia is evil. USA will save us Europeans from evil bear.
Click to expand...
Thats right there is after all no difference between a small number of troops in a defensive posture, invited into a country as part of a defensive alliance, and an intimidatory force of 100k troops massing on a border ready to invade. I mean, did you even give your post 5 seconds of thought?
 
Andycoleno9 said:
Thry are on Russia borders in other countries. Ukraine is unfortunately a victim of NATO-Russia conflict. Geopolitics is a bitch
Click to expand...
There is no NATO Russia conflict. The countries invaded and intimidated by Russia have not been members of NATO. If this was a Russia NATO conflict you would see a far more aggressive mobilization from NATO than the largely symbolic stuff so far.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Economic sanctions are an extension of one's military capacity. In fact, the sanction derives, conceptually, from the siege. Now, is a state of siege a state of war? You are playing with semantics and somehow pretending it's the inverse.
Click to expand...
Playing with semantics is when you try to conflate the meaning of two separate things in order to pretend they are the same which is exactly what you are doing. War is a violent, specific, terrible thing. It does not mean the same thing as a sanction or look the same or necessarily have the same objectives.
 
Last edited:
nickm said:
Playing with semantics is when you try to conflate the meaning of two separate things in order to pretend they are the same which is exactly what you are doing. War is a violent, specific thing. It does not mean the same thing as a sanction or look the same or necessarily have the same objectives.
Click to expand...

500,000 dead Iraqi children were unavailable for comment, but I'm sure America's commitment to non-violence would've been foremost in their thoughts.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
500,000 dead Iraqi children were unavailable for comment, but I'm sure America's commitment to non-violence would've been foremost in their thoughts.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the US actually went to war with Iraq, occupied it and massively destabilised the place but perhaps you missed that whole bit.
 
I was re-reading some article and I found this to be a funny paragraph. But I don't necessarily disagree. The EU has to think hard about what it wants to be in a multi-polar world with the US, Russia and China. And potentially India.

There’s little evidence that without the United States, European powers can deter Moscow or lead their way out of a major crisis.

The European Union is nonexistent in the conversation, begging for relevance.
Click to expand...
 
nickm said:
Pretty sure the US actually went to war with Iraq and massively destabilised the place but perhaps you missed that whole bit.
Click to expand...

No shit? I didn't miss it for i'm not arguing that war is non-violent am I? On the contrary I'm stressing to you that sanctions can and do have violent consequences for those suffering under them. Goodman is right, in many circumstances they operate as the modern day equivalent of a siege. You're arguing for semantic purity and I'm saying that your semantic purity doesn't really matter to the dead.
 
By the way, the issue does seem to be bigger than just NATO membership or potential NATO missiles in Ukraine.

Russia has a problem with the fact that Ukraine is fundamentally drifting away from them.

 
The Firestarter said:
Ukraine is a victim of its dare to leave the Russian orbit of influence.
Click to expand...
That is how geopolitics work. UK, China, USA...all big guns have their sphere of influence. Is that morale? Is that ok? Of course not. But it is how world is run unfortunately. You think USA, EU, Uk care for people in Ukraine? Yeah, right.
 
VorZakone said:
I was re-reading some article and I found this to be a funny paragraph. But I don't necessarily disagree. The EU has to think hard about what it wants to be in a multi-polar world with the US, Russia and China. And potentially India.
Click to expand...

Its true. Most EU states are NATO states and while the EU have been pretending to run a parallel defense policy via the CSDP over the years, it is completely feckless against an aggressive Russia, which is why European countries are still in NATO, where they can rely on Uncle Sam's military and economic might to back them up (and vice versa). This is why collective security is important and also why Putin absolutely hates it - because its standing directly in path of his plans to conquer other countries.
 
nickm said:
Pretty sure the US actually went to war with Iraq, occupied it and massively destabilised the place but perhaps you missed that whole bit.
Click to expand...
there have been sanctions against iraq going back to the early 90s. the estimated death count due to them is somewhere close to 500k.
 
ColoRed said:
So Europe would have been under Russian control without the US, right up to the Channel, that should not be forgotten in the historical context and concerning american troops in central/western Europe. How well the countries were doing under Russian control was easy to observe in Czechoslovakia, East Germany, etc. So yes, for me personally, the US still has a head start in terms of trust.
Click to expand...
Europe would be under Russia? How? How the feck?
About bolded part; yeah, same how Iraq and Afghanistan are doing well after USA brought democracy there.
 
nickm said:
There is no NATO Russia conflict. The countries invaded and intimidated by Russia have not been members of NATO. If this was a Russia NATO conflict you would see a far more aggressive mobilization from NATO than the largely symbolic stuff so far.
Click to expand...
Russia and Nato consider each other as rivals and as a no1 threat. So yes, this is all another NATO-Russia conflict where Ukraine is paying the price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.