On the frontline of Europe’s forgotten war in Ukraine

  • Thread starter Thread starter Athanasiy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Until Russia either “pacifies” eastern Ukraine and incorporates it into Russia, or suffers too many casualties for the Russian people to bear, I don’t see this ending, cease-fires or no cease-fires. What the West needs to do is ensure Ukraine has enough lethal weaponry and financial support to achieve the latter result.

Russia really needs to see its imperial ambitions frustrated.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
Until Russia either “pacifies” eastern Ukraine and incorporates it into Russia, or suffers too many casualties for the Russian people to bear, I don’t see this ending, cease-fires or no cease-fires. What the West needs to do is ensure Ukraine has enough lethal weaponry and financial support to achieve the latter result.

Russia really needs to see its imperial ambitions frustrated.
Click to expand...
Exactly! This is my view. The West needs to make Russia pay, and pay dearly. Open warfare between the Western alliance and Russia is unimaginable, but economic warfare, while slower, will inevitably have the same result. And yes, Ukraine needs the support, in money, logistics and armaments, to make this de facto invasion of its territory as costly for the aggressor as possible in military terms.
 
niceatheist said:
The West needs to make Russia pay, and pay dearly.
Click to expand...
The world hates Russia and has hated Russia for a long time. Why does the world hate Russia, the Russian Orthodox people and the Russian Orthodox church? Here is a possible answer:
 
You guys prefer to defend Russia by living on the West. But try living in Russia, being in the shoes of a commoner. You come back to America, and’ll kiss the ground, honestly. Yes, Russia is paradise for moneybags , if you have a lot of money you can live in Russia. You can buy every one for the money there.
I talk about real moneybags, who go there to have a nice time because often people with business projects lost there not only the money but also life.
But the problem is that Russia is trying to get to live other nations in its image and likeness.
,
 
Last edited:
I am sorry, but some people on the west are in my opinion the last degree parasites. They cynically cut the branch on which sit and eat western bread for free, enjoying high cash disability benefits and pensions, and even manage to enjoy wives who desperately run to them not from good life, these wives are fleeing from poverty and social injustice that these Western husbands (marasmatical idiots) defending. I have it in my head just not embedded.
The FSB blew up multi-flats building-houses to begin the invasion of Chechnya. The same thing can happen with Ukraine after the presidential elections in Russia.
After the presidents elections, the FSB may make multiple terrorists attacks, to blame the Ukrainian nationalists for these attacks, and then to do a full invasion to Ukraine, as an excuse.
How can you not see the threat of Putin’s Russia for the civilized world?
I think it’s cynical selfishness, to defend Putin’s Russia, just because I have a Russian wife.( or because I am ethnic Russian, or because I am big fun of Russian vodka)
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
Why does the world hate Russia, the Russian Orthodox people and the Russian Orthodox church? Here is a possible answer:
Click to expand...
Watched a bit.
None of this explains border tensions. Georgia and Ukraine were Cristian and Orthodox long, long befroe there was a before there was a Russian Orthodox Church. Religious practice in Ukraine is far beyond that of Russia, where few who identify as Orthodox attend services regularly.

Maybe it is the threat that they pose to their neighbors?
 
I’m not sure the world has always hated Russia. In fact, it’s played a pretty important part in a number of critical alliances. But there is the simple fact that Russia has been the dominant geopolitical land-based power, and while it has allied itself with Britain and later the US at critical points (each in turn the dominant global naval powers), it’s to be noted that those alliances have often been after Russia tested the waters the other way.

Alexander I sided with Napoleon, until he out and out betrayed him and shifted over to the British-Prussian Alliance in the Napoleonic Wars. Nicholas I was aligned with the Western Allies, but his horrible mismanagement of the war effort lead to his downfall, and Russia bowing out. And of course, there’s the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, though in Stalin’s defense, he had actually tried to convince the Western Allies to do something about Hitler, and when rebuffed, the Pact was as much his own version of the Munich Agreement, with the partition of Poland included, of course.

This is where I love the notion of historical momentum. You can look at a country like Russia, which has effectively gone through three different kinds of government; Absolute Monarchy, Communist dictatorship, and now semi-democratic republic, and yet the weight of Russia’s longstanding ambitions and geopolitical role are such that regardless of whether it was the Romanovs, the Bolsheviks or now Putin, the conflicts with the Western powers remain much the same.

The problem is, like it or not, those ambitions run afoul of the West’s own ambitions, and the West simply has more resources at its disposal. Russia can win victories; like Crimea and South Ossetia, and certainly has its former Warsaw Pact allies sweating (I doubt anyone can blame the Baltic states for being pretty nervous considering Russia’s long history of asserting that it all but owned the territory). But in the end, while it can guarantee its own territorial integrity, and can certainly menace its neighbors, it simply does not have the economic strength to ever actually outcompete the Western Alliance. It can try to break that Alliance, and certainly I think that is what its attempt to undermine Britain via Brexit, the US via the Trump victory, and attempts to undermine Macron. Seeing as the US, Britain and France and the primary powers in the NATO alliance, finding ways to undermine them is critical to weakening the alliance. Whether Russia will succeed remains to be seen.
 
Pro-Russian priest even mentioned the strange hatred towards the Russian athletes.What is interesting is that as soon as began the monitoring the doping of athletes , the performance of the Russians are not so successful any more.
Even the wrestlers were unbeatable, but after doping scandals it became clear that in honest sports to win is not easy.
The Caucasus, Sakha, Tuva, are the contribution to the Russian sports, but the question is - why do these rich in natural depths nations have no right to be independent?
These people have been fighting for independence for many years. We never hear in the news about the liberation political movements, because they are brutally suppressed. But the time will come when these noble and freedom-loving peoples will obtain their freedom. Siberia and the Caucasus, in large measure, not so servile as other regions.
 
niceatheist said:
I’m not sure the world has always hated Russia
Click to expand...
Not intending to argue with anyone here, but I don’t think the world has hated Russia as Russia, ever. At times and in some places, Russia was feared because of its size and population. And during the Soviet era it was feared for the very good reason that it was imperialist and aggressive.

But I don’t think I ever knew a single person who hated Russia as a country, or Russians for that matter.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
Ridgerunner:
And during the Soviet era it was feared for the very good reason that it was imperialist and aggressive.
Click to expand...
And during the Czarist period.
Click to expand...
To be perfectly fair, Russia was hardly the only expansionist imperialist power during the czarist era. Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire, and in the latter days the German and Japanese Empires were all as bent on dominance and territorial acquisition. You might even lump the United States in, considering it’s hard to see the Mexican-American or Spanish-American Wars as anything other than imperialistic wars.
 
True. But it was a slower process and in feudal and semi-feudal periods for many it didn’t matter quite so much who one’s rulers were, especially if it was only a choice between one foreign ruler and another.

There is probably literature on the subject of the difference between being ruled by, say, the Tsars, by the Lithuanian/Polish kingdom or by Vienna.
 
niceatheist said:
To be perfectly fair, Russia was hardly the only expansionist imperialist power during the czarist era. Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire, and in the latter days the German and Japanese Empires were all as bent on dominance and territorial acquisition. You might even lump the United States in, considering it’s hard to see the Mexican-American or Spanish-American Wars as anything other than imperialistic wars.
Click to expand...
For sure.

However, I am inclined to think there is a difference between acquisition of fairly heavily-populated areas, as in eastern Europe, versus nearly uninhabited place like the upper part of the Spanish/Mexican territories and the Russian Far East.

To seize, say, Silesia, it took major armies and a major war, and the rewards were different from sending out a handful of Cossacks to seize millions of acres from the governance of disparate tribes barely out of the stone age.
 
Oh i would agree with that assessment, but by that definition, the admittedly slow annexation of India by Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries and the forcing upon China of the Treaty Ports by several Great Powers are also examples of seizure of populates regions.
 
niceatheist said:
Oh i would agree with that assessment, but by that definition, the admittedly slow annexation of India by Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries and the forcing upon China of the Treaty Ports by several Great Powers are also examples of seizure of populates regions
Click to expand...
I did not mean to imply that there was any connection between slow annexation and populations. I really only intended to say that there is a difference between the annexation of populous regions and virtually uninhabited regions. For one thing, the ability to impose immediate taxation is often involved in conquest of populous places, whereas it isn’t in conquest of wilderness. For another, annexations such as Russia’s in Siberia and the Far East and America’s in Upper Louisiana and the northern Spanish areas were intended as permanent additions to the country itself, whereas, say, German seizure of the Quantung Peninsula was not.

All the same, it appears there were “blended” acquisitions. It does appear France intended, at least for a time, to incorporate Algeria into France itself. But that pretty clearly didn’t work out. To my recollection, Mussolini did intend to remove the indigenous population of Libya in favor of ethnic Italians, but WWII intervened.
 
I personally don’t want Russia to submit and conquer the peoples in Russia’s image and likeness.
Societies needs to receive signals from more developed civilization systems and runtime on them.
I don’t want to believe in a special historical mission of Russia.( borderless Russia )
I am scared of this Empire, I am scared of the “stone age”, "stone age mentality " (authoritatian religion on the background of political authoritarianism will only adds to the backwardness and mental degradation of the state)I am scared of the quality of that human material.
The more this so-called civilization will confront the West and will win and assert itself the more will be disrespect for human unit, the greater will be dominated by the gravity of mass, more wars, devastations, economic criseses.
For me it’s always civilization that we should beware not to admire, and for this opinion there are many historical reasons.
 
Last edited:
You can argue for example about how the banner of communism transformed the world , but if to calculate by what cost, and with what result, it can be very hard to doubt the Messiahship of these people.
 
I believe in the mission of Germanic people, French, North Americans-these are the nations , man!
Democratic societies, but not a societies that only boast of its strength and believe that the truth is only in force
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top