History in the Making: Russian Invasion

Opti said:

02Pilot said:

In reply to Opti :

If one holds to the narrow definition of escalation, then the basic test to ask the question: "Does this action materially increase the risk of all-out existential conflict with another power?" I would argue that none of the US actions in Vietnam prior to 1972 would have provided an affirmative answer. To Ukraine, remember that the roles are reversed from Vietnam (US were the directly engaged power in Vietnam, the Russians are the directly engaged power in Ukraine), so US troops in combat in Ukraine would be the functional equivalent of Soviet or Chinese troops in combat in Vietnam, which would certainly have been escalatory.

Other Cold War crises are another issue entirely.

You can not talk about the Vietnam war and separate it from the Cold War. It in itself was an escalation of the Cold War. The equivalent would be if the US and Russia end up at war outside of Ukraine, saying the Ukraine invasion by Russia is another issue entirely.

At the beginning of the Vietnam war we had something like 5000 support troops and intelligence guys, after we used a false attack to justify a further incursion, we had at its peak 550,000 troops on the ground and like 2.7 million people serving in Vietnam over the course of the war. If you dont want to call that an "escalation," based on your narrow definition which is separate from how most people use the term, fine.

The Ukraine war is "accelerating." Which is a path to your definition of escalation.

Where did I separate Vietnam from the Cold War? I said that other Cold War crises are a different matter, which they are, because there are very few others that match the Ukraine situation as well (maybe Afghanistan comes close, but the scale is much smaller). But Vietnam was not an escalation of the Cold War, but rather a manifestation of it (remember Clausewitz: "War is policy by other means."). In other words, the US did not enter the fight in Vietnam with the intention of challenging the global strategic situation vis a vis the Soviet Union or China; arguably, in fact, it did so to prevent communism from spreading, thus maintaining the status quo of 1954 (thus remaining consistent with containment as laid out in Kennan's Long Telegram, the Truman Doctrine, and NSC-68) as well as to demonstrate resolve to its allies elsewhere in the world. Nothing the US did in Vietnam prior to 1972 was particularly escalatory in the context of the Cold War. Did it escalate its commitment to fight the Vietnamese communists? Sure, and significantly, but that's a different thing. The equivalent in Ukraine would be saying that Russia throwing more troops and tanks in somehow represented an existential threat the US and NATO, which it clearly does not.

In reply to Toebra :

Let's see, after 1946 Russia swept through Eastern Europe and installed police state dictatorships and imprisoned the populations behind an iron curtain. Who's the bad guys again?

VolvoHeretic said:

In reply to Toebra :

Let's see, after 1946 Russia swept through Eastern Europe and installed police state dictatorships and imprisoned the populations behind an iron curtain. Who's the bad guys again?

We are. 

Timely. 

Toebra said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

I guess that is one way to look at it, consider the stuff that has happened in the last year without looking back any farther.

 

This has been brewing since 1946.  I guess it hurts the feelings of my fellow Americans when I state the obvious, but will do so again.  The United States has not been an honest broker in its dealings with Russia.  We made many promises to Russia and Ukraine with respect to NATO and have broken pretty much every one.  The Russians are clearly not the good guys in this deal.  Not so clear is that the Americans are not the good guys in this deal either.  Really, there are not any good guys in this, just bad guys and victims. 

I guess everyone gets butthurt if I say we screwed over the Native Americans and most of Central and South America along the way too.  Maybe if you stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and shout "LA, LA, LA" at the top of your lungs it will go away.  That, or downvote opinions that make you uncomfortable so you don't have to be burdened with seeing anything contrary to your worldview.  Good luck with that, did not work out for Neville Chamberlain.

The US hasn't been an honest broker all over the world, especially in Central and South America.

But how does that justify just letting russia take over Ukraine, and murder the population?  And for the latter, there have been some very clear examples of that happening- between finding mass graves in areas that were takebn back over and russia targeting civilians constanlty over military targets- it sure appears to be a pretty obvoius conclusion to this war if russia is let to have Ukraine.

This is the same kind of reply I have for the "Ukraine corruption"- so what if it's 100% true- how does that justify a russian invasion?  Let alone the killing of Ukrainians?

Ukraine's borders were decided back in the 1920's and totally agreed upon from Russia as part of the USSR.  They have zero rights to take it, and there's zero justification "because russians live there" kind of BS.  Move back to mother russia if it's that important.

I also am confused by your Chamberlain reference- he let Germany roll over everyone up until Poland.  Just like people are suggesting we let vlad take Ukraine.  And what it really meant was that germany was able use their unused military to take Poland and then France (even though France should have been very much the equal to Germany).  Followed by the ivasion of russia.  ~60 million people died (2/3 were civilians) becaue Hitler was not contained when he could have.  Seems that we should contain vlad before it gets too late.

Chamberlain also made the "peace in our time" speech because he knew Britian was in no economic shape to deal with a war at the time. He basically made the speech knowing it was bullE36 M3 but hoping they'd take too long to devour Poland and slam against France for them to equip- except he didn't know nazi germany was litterally running on meth at the time. 

Hungary Bill (Forum Supporter) said:

GIRTHQUAKE said:

Seems like Russia is pretty scared of US and German armor being sent- perhaps the rattling about giving them F-16s, then the sudden change, is simply because they were unnecessary or tactically dubious? I still disagree, but their reactions (and propaganda) against even the German Leopards tells me they may be scared of those tanks far more than we realize. Makes sense considering all the T-72s failures in field, including how visible their IR is to even 90s-era anti-tank systems.

Toebra said:

Stupid Americans are going to keep poking the bear until it happens

Everyone claims we're "provoking" with donated weapons and equipment, but never claims otherwise when Russia is clearly pulling ammunition from North Korea or supplies and uniforms from China. Why does Russia get a monopoly on violence? Why do they get away with making nothing but escalating threats?

Because it's their biggest (and possibly only) deterrent when it comes to keeping Ukraine from getting more weapons.  If they can get us to say "aaaah!  Escalation!" every time Ukraine gets something, then it's possible that enough people will say "aaaaah! Escalation!" and weapons will stop getting to Ukraine.

It's already worked here in Hungary, and was a major political talking point to get Victor Orban re-elected. 

Oh I know- I'm pushing him to respond, because they keep repeating this Russian propaganda talking point that is finding its way into our news cycles, since they only go where the money is 

In reply to Toebra :

Wow. Remarkably weak post, filled with irrelevancies. "butthurt if I say we screwed over the Native Americans". Really? Can anyone with an IQ in triple digits and an ounce of intellectual integrity not condemn the treatment of Native Americans? You aren't dealing with a bunch of redneck no-nothings here. (OK, maybe redneck, but we actually read books in between wrenching sessions). We are painfully aware of the dumb sh-t that's been done in the name of the USA. 

My biggest concern isn't that the USA is engaging in a proxy war, or that we are enriching the next generation of oligarchs. It's the universal law of unintended consequences. It's absolutely certain that 5 or 10 years from now, we'll be going: "Man, we really should have given X more thought". 

I don't normally talk like this, but would really like to see you take your sanctimonious arse somewhere else.

Please note that Opti's post was not downvoted due to being opinions that people didn't agree with. It was downvoted for having a childish and confrontational tone that does nothing to contribute to the conversation. 

In reply to alfadriver :

There is far too much to reply to, I am not singling your comments out for commentary for any particular reason other than its relevancy...

France was in no shape to handle Germany's military in a symmetric battle.  Most of the men who would have fathered their military age men were buried in Belgian fields.   They had a big demographic hole.

Which brings us to Russia, and a probable internal sense of urgency if they wanted to take over Europe.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to alfadriver :

There is far too much to reply to, I am not singling your comments out for commentary for any particular reason other than its relevancy...

France was in no shape to handle Germany's military in a symmetric battle.  Most of the men who would have fathered their military age men were buried in Belgian fields.   They had a big demographic hole.

Which brings us to Russia, and a probable internal sense of urgency if they wanted to take over Europe.

I'm not sure that argument vis a vis France holds water, when one considers that Germany lost more men in the Great War, some ~3.8% of their population, versus ~4.3% for the French. French weakness was more to product of political dysfunction and a rigidly defensive strategic concept, IMO.

A well-stated piece from David Goldman at Hoover that asks the question: What is America's Strategic Interest in Ukraine? I think his conclusion may be a bit far from his argument and evidence, but the overall discussion is useful.

And one more from Hoover, this time from the always interesting and usually controversial Edward Luttwak: Our Twenty-First Century Eighteenth-Century War. Note that this was written in August, so some elements are dated, but the overall thesis remains valid.

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Toebra :

Wow. Remarkably weak post, filled with irrelevancies. "butthurt if I say we screwed over the Native Americans". Really? Can anyone with an IQ in triple digits and an ounce of intellectual integrity not condemn the treatment of Native Americans? You aren't dealing with a bunch of redneck no-nothings here. (OK, maybe redneck, but we actually read books in between wrenching sessions). We are painfully aware of the dumb sh-t that's been done in the name of the USA. 

My biggest concern isn't that the USA is engaging in a proxy war, or that we are enriching the next generation of oligarchs. It's the universal law of unintended consequences. It's absolutely certain that 5 or 10 years from now, we'll be going: "Man, we really should have given X more thought". 

I don't normally talk like this, but would really like to see you take your sanctimonious arse somewhere else.

They say if you want to see who we will be fighting in 10 or 15 years look at who we are funding now.

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

I keep seeing anyone who doesnt agree with the current mainstream narrative being accused of repeating Russian propaganda. 

Do you understand that probably 99% of what we hear is propaganda from one side or the other? Do you not think that Ukraine and the United States arent pushing propaganda like crazy? Just because someone doesnt agree with you doesnt mean they are falling for Russian propaganda, and just because someone agrees with the current mainstream narrative doesnt mean they arent susceptible to propaganda from the other side.

I havent seen anyone here agreeing with or supporting Russia. Its not useful to accuse anyone who doesnt agree with you as being Russian supporters, they arent (atleast here), and it isnt useful to the conversation. As someone mentioned Russia is obviously in the wrong here, it doesnt make the US the good guys. Just because some people think the West is "accelerating" the war, and that maybe we are sending too much aide, or that maybe negotiations should be open trying to find a resolution doesnt mean they support Russia.

Im reminded of when the New York times emailed Candace Owens asking her if she could provide context for her comments furthering Russian propaganda about corruption in Ukraine, and her sources where the New York times.

02Pilot said:

And one more from Hoover, this time from the always interesting and usually controversial Edward Luttwak: Our Twenty-First Century Eighteenth-Century War. Note that this was written in August, so some elements are dated, but the overall thesis remains valid.

I haven't followed much at all of the wider story of the war beyond TWZ's coverage and what I glance on here occasionally. Those are sobering reads.

Opti said:

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Toebra :

Wow. Remarkably weak post, filled with irrelevancies. "butthurt if I say we screwed over the Native Americans". Really? Can anyone with an IQ in triple digits and an ounce of intellectual integrity not condemn the treatment of Native Americans? You aren't dealing with a bunch of redneck no-nothings here. (OK, maybe redneck, but we actually read books in between wrenching sessions). We are painfully aware of the dumb sh-t that's been done in the name of the USA. 

My biggest concern isn't that the USA is engaging in a proxy war, or that we are enriching the next generation of oligarchs. It's the universal law of unintended consequences. It's absolutely certain that 5 or 10 years from now, we'll be going: "Man, we really should have given X more thought". 

I don't normally talk like this, but would really like to see you take your sanctimonious arse somewhere else.

They say if you want to see who we will be fighting in 10 or 15 years look at who we are funding now.

Well yes. Let's say that a year from now the Russians say "uncle" and pull out. Ukraine is left with a devastated country, and while the West is willing to help rebuild, they want something back -  equity, debt payments, favored partner status, et cetera. it's a big burden and maybe a sizable contingent in Ukraine are pretty pissed off that they did all the fighting and dying for us. Maybe the next phase starts to resemble Afghanistan after the Russians pulled out.  Unlikely in that Ukraine is far more evolved than Afghanistan, but you never know. Perhaps the next Putin isn't Russian, he's Ukrainian and those leftover weapons might be useful taking over Moldova and Bulgaria. This probably will not happen, but it could, as could a thousand other scenarios which we would not want to occur.

I'm sure somebody is wondering what happens if, on the full spectrum of this war's outcomes, Russia implodes politically/demographically.  A tsunami of immigrants from places ending "Stan" and the resultant change to what makes Russia, Russia, is simultaneously intriguing and terrifying...  

It always puzzled me, and I think it may be starting to crystalize a bit. I don't agree with a significant proportion of each parties platform on foreign policy. I am not a hawk nor a dove. I cannot understand how the same representative can be in favor of sending US troops to protect Kuwait but not in favor of sending weapons and training Ukrainians to fight back against Russia. I am not intending to open up that argument from thirty years ago, but I am seeing a pattern. I, and a few of us on here, some more vocal than others, are in favor of acting in a humanitarian way. I am not terribly interested in the academic scenarios which folks claim to be foregone conclusions regarding what might happen if we take said action, mostly because those predictions are always hilariously wrong. This isn't a game of Civilization, there are more than three or four ways to respond. Everything is nuanced and conversations are happening in the open and hidden between many people in both governments all the time. We can't know. In conclusion, since we cannot really know the ramifications, other than the obvious feedback loops, we simply have to act in the best way for the humans impacted by this event, and for the sovereignty of the nations.

P3PPY said:

02Pilot said:

And one more from Hoover, this time from the always interesting and usually controversial Edward Luttwak: Our Twenty-First Century Eighteenth-Century War. Note that this was written in August, so some elements are dated, but the overall thesis remains valid.

I haven't followed much at all of the wider story of the war beyond TWZ's coverage and what I glance on here occasionally. Those are sobering reads.

Indeed. Some may reject their premises and conclusions, but it is vital that the points they raise be considered and discussed if we are to understand the situation.

In reply to stroker :

Russia imploding is bad for everyone. It will probably result in a power vacuum and a bunch of people potentially worse than Putin fighting for power and ambiguous custody of 2500 nukes.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Numerically, Germany and France were a lot closer together than most people want to accept.  That battle should have lasted for a long, long time- but the French Generals really screwed the pooch.  The Maginot Line did exactly what it was supposed to do up in Belgium (yes, it extended all the way to the channel)- delaying the Germans long enough to react.  Which didn't happen.

But that early in the war, the French tanks were pretty equal to the Germans ones- it would take a few more years until the better ones showed up.  The French never accepted how to use them (well, other than de Gaulle) and that was that.

I've read some fiction books about the pre-war times, and some imply that the German propaganda to not have a war was effective in France.  Not being a historian, it's hard to know that, but it does have some resonance.

Opti said:

In reply to stroker :

Russia imploding is bad for everyone. It will probably result in a power vacuum and a bunch of people potentially worse than Putin fighting for power and ambiguous custody of 2500 nukes.

IMHO, that is a very different issue than allowing them to stay in Ukraine.  That's not a reason to not support Ukraine in getting their own country back.

But it's just as possible that the power vacuum results in a positive outcome, too.  

In reply to alfadriver :

I never said it was, this is what I talked about earlier. Just because I say Russia imploding is bad, isnt me saying its okay for Russia to invade Ukraine. I saw a people earlier in the thread talking about Russia imploding as a positive outcome, its not.

I think it is much less likely that Russia imploding will result in a positive outcome than a negative one.

In reply to Opti :

So in your statements, you've consistently suggested that we stop helping Ukraine.  For many reasons.  

The result of that will be to give russia Ukraine, and let them do what they want to do.

That's a rather curious suggestion if you are against the russian aggression.  You need to do a much better job explaining how stopping our support of Ukraine is the same as being against the russian invasion given the outcome of what you want to happen.

WRT NATO encroachment- yea, counties that border russia have asked to join and others have. 
 

But why blame NATO so much vs Russia?  The pattern for post eastern block counties is: note how east germany has fared after reunification; start trading with the EU because of that opportunity; get threatened by Russia when they can't offer any economic opportunity; ask to join NATO to secure the new economy. We are back to vlad letting the oligarchs to take and run things which hasn't helped their economy at all. The worse it got, the more the former blocs turned west for opportunity. 
 

Yes, NATO has expanded. And Russia is threatened. But it's not just NATOs fault.