Ukraine 9: Where does it go from here

[RhaenysBee]

13 minutes ago, 3CityApache said:

Well, it held half of Europe. Why does it matter exactly, that it wasn't whole of Europe? Does it mean it would never try to hold more? And even if it was content with just half again, would it make it ok? 

Oh come on, who said any of it was okay? The point is, why and how does it help us to spiral into these kinds of far fetched predictions that have virtually no basis beyond “it could happen”. Anything can happen. But how likely is it? 

[JGP]

8 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

Oh come on, who said any of it was okay? The point is, why and how does it help us to spiral into these kinds of far fetched predictions that have virtually no basis beyond “it could happen”. Anything can happen. But how likely is it? 

I think when weighting possibilities, at least in this context, historical positions et lack thereof should be also be considered.

I haven't seen [online] much push back on the sentiment that we [collectively] might not be precisely here if we'd stood firmer on Putin's transgressions in the past. So, walking that out, doing nothing results in more of the same right.   

[Larry of the Lawn]

17 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

I think when weighting possibilities, at least in this context, historical positions et lack thereof should be also be considered.

I haven't seen [online] much push back on the sentiment that we [collectively] might not be precisely here if we'd stood firmer on Putin's transgressions in the past. So, walking that out, doing nothing results in more of the same right.   

Also entirely possible that had NATO engaged more aggressively in the past that more violence could have ensued.  It's all speculation.  

[RhaenysBee]

20 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

I think when weighting possibilities, at least in this context, historical positions et lack thereof should be also be considered.

Absolutely. In a level headed and reasonable way to a level headed and reasonable extent. 

[JGP]

2 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Also entirely possible that had NATO engaged more aggressively in the past that more violence could have ensued.  It's all speculation.  

A conclusion already implied though, which moots the point not at all.

[Larry of the Lawn]

11 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

A conclusion already implied though, which moots the point not at all.

What conclusion already implied?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, RhaenysBee said:

Hmm I don’t know, did people in the US know where Ukraine even was a month ago? (I’m not claiming here that I know where Ohio is, I absolutely don’t, so zero judgment about that part). And now everybody cares. 

Probably not. Americans don't do very well when asked to identify foreign countries, but to be fair Google says Europeans aren't great at identifying countries outside of Europe either. But to the point you're making, we'll learn quickly what to hate. 

[JGP]

34 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

What conclusion already implied?

[sigh]

 

46 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

Absolutely. In a level headed and reasonable way to a level headed and reasonable extent. 

I've backspaced five uncharitable replies to both you and Larry in the last 10 - 15 minutes. It's a really charged topic for me, and clearly I'm not in the right headspace for it. I'm going to back out and try to find my zen.

 

[Clueless Northman]

So all of Europe should be afraid of Putin, yet the Western interwebs are full of jokes about how his army is being decimated, is incompetent, is losing tanks here and there, and Ukraine will surely win if it lasts a couple more weeks.

So which is it, because obviously it can't be both? Because seriously,Ukraine without NATO military intervention just couldn't stand against the 2nd coming of Hitler, so is it Mussolini instead?

Actually, if I analyze this cynically, I should hope for a swift end - even if it means some concessions from Ukraine -, because obviously Russia was ill-prepared and improvised, but the Russian army is learning and might adapt and get better at waging such a war, which is something we don't want to see. Just like Red Army learned some lessons from the humiliating Winter War, just like Peter the Great's army learned after getting spanked again and again by Charles XII's Sweden, just like Wellington and the British army learned land war after years fighting Napoleon's armies in the Peninsular War, helping to bring ultimate victory at Waterloo.

I've never feared that USSR would overrun all Europe and doom us, so I sure as hell don't fear Russian tanks doing it now, when they're less likely to succeed. The only terrible doom-inducing outcome I could see happening, now as well as back in the 80s, is somebody getting reckless and acting totally stupid and we all go up in nuclear flames or down in nuclear winter.

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, RhaenysBee said:

did people in the US know where Ukraine even was a month ago

That's a very fair question, which I myself asked / ask constantly, and knew the answer, particularly in loads of media, emphatically, "No!"  Yet suddenly all these jerkwaddies are telling us what is what, blahblahblah.  In many places we hang out, these people are called 'helicopter reporters,' and are laughed at, while also sighed at, because it causes so much damage.

Through no particular virtue of mine own, I did know where Ukraine was -- and Crimea -- and the Pontic-Caspian -- steppes -- Russian history -- because like so much history I keep trying to educate myself as to why things are this way rather than that way.  Such as what I know about late Antiquity - "Dark Ages" came out of the question I asked myself, "Why did France, taken over by German groups early in those so-called Dark Ages, come to speak French, not a German-derived language?"

Plus, you know, HORSES!  And LITERATURE -- Russian writers!

But mostly, yah.

The problem is that history of even 10 and 20 years ago just tends to go away in the popular mind generally, ever more so with the 24/7 media internez cycles of endless update and change, so few under the age of what? 70? even knew what NATO is, much less why we have it, how we got it, and why we need it.  ORangehairade media didn't help -- See: The Americans, television's most beloved family since Lucy and Desi, or Little House on the Prairie. (What was all the financing of The Americans do ya think?  We do talk so much of psyops engineered by Putin . . . ._

[SpaceChampion]

 

[grozeng]

4 hours ago, RhaenysBee said:

Hmm I don’t know, did people in the US know where Ukraine even was a month ago?

Isn't it the huge country that borders Ural, Afghanistan and the Middle East

(don't know how to post a picture - was trying to have the Risk game board)

 

[Zorral]

But wtf, Ukraine is slightly smaller than TEXAS USA YAY.  All we over here need to know, right?  AmaIRTE????? Jump  up and down, slightly smaller than Texas where women have no rights over their own bodies and anybody else don't either, unless really really really WHITE guys.

[Corvinus85]

Speaking of Americans not knowing European geography, a coworker told me last week that an American reporter was doing a piece on the refugees going to Romania. The reporter mentioned where a major refugee center was set up but instead of simply naming the city, the reporter referenced the distance to, ahem, Dracula's castle.  

[Kalbear]

7 hours ago, 3CityApache said:

Haven't we had enough examples in history, that "let them have the weakest, they'll leave the rest of us alone" approach never pays off? Sooner or later you pay the price you were trying to avoid, and more often than not it is even bigger than in the first place.

I mean, sure? Yes? I'm not advocating for NATO to do nothing in that case.

But I know a whole lot of people who would. Including the former POTUS. 

[Darzin]

One way to deal with the Tallin problem is to make it less of a choice. I do wish Biden woud've said prior to the war that should Russia invade a major base would be established in Estonia and even now 20,000 US troops there would preemptively call the bluff. 

But if Russia can't beat Ukriane they certnianly can't take on another country xI doubt they could even manage to invade Estonia alone while maintaning thier commitments in Ukraine. 

[Heartofice]

2 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Speaking of Americans not knowing European geography, a coworker told me last week that an American reporter was doing a piece on the refugees going to Romania. The reporter mentioned where a major refugee center was set up but instead of simply naming the city, the reporter referenced the distance to, ahem, Dracula's castle.  

To be fair to him, I’ve been to Romania, and I’ve been to Draculas castle. It’s quite underwhelming. 

[polishgenius]

5 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

because obviously it can't be both?

 

What a bizarre conclusion to come to. It quite clearly can be true that Russia's invasion of Ukraine right now is a ludicrously badly-planned mess and that Russia is a huge country with huge resources that can learn from mistakes and prepare better for next time they want to try to pull some shit, and that their leader has declared Russian loss of territory up to and including loss of control of East Germany an affront and illegitimate. I'm so fucking tired of seeing people tell us we shouldn't care because Putin's armies probably won't invade Paris or New York in May. Millions of people live in the Baltics, Poland, Moldova, Georgia, etc etc, and they'll still be living there in five, ten, fifty years time.


Anyone trying to get their heads around why people from former Soviet bloc countries are worried, want a response, still consider Russia a danger etc should consider that the invasion that started a month ago was a direct response to the fall of the Soviet Union thirty years ago and the second step of an action that started eight years ago in Crimea. Russia is quite capable of both holding grievances and planning to 'redress' them over a very long time.

[broken one]

Americans and Canadians tend to understand whats going on in Europe better than some Europeans. Anyway they are not bombarded by Russian propaganda, entangled with pipes nor corrupted by Russian business. 

[Derfel Cadarn]

46 minutes ago, broken one said:

Americans and Canadians tend to understand whats going on in Europe better than some Europeans. Anyway they are not bombarded by Russian propaganda, entangled with pipes nor corrupted by Russian business. 

Their last president has/had a lot of dodgy dealings with Russia, not to mention claims Russia has a compromising tape of Trump. A lot of Russian money went to the Trumps.

Not to mention Trump publicly took Putin’s side over US Intelligence, and then there was the cringe “Reek” meme event