Was that addressed to Russia or Ukraine? Russia doesn't appear very powerful at the moment.
So the West is corrupt but Putin is not? His Russia is built on corruption and that is one reason his military is doing so poorly.
Zone1 WHUUUUUT??!$!#! corrupt mr Zelensky wants to take back crimea?
- Thread starter peacefan
- Start date
- Apr 11, 2023
- 45,290
- 21,870
- 2,488
peacefan believes in the Russian doctrine of utilitarian war.
peacefan
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #23
i don't even know what 'utilitarian war' *is*..
i do believe that you shouldn't take on a population size that outnumbers you 3:1 (that's the entire (Middle-)Eastern Alliance of Iran, China, North Korea and Russia and their allies combined, vs the West and their allies),
not when they have reasonable demands.
Last edited:
skye
Diamond Member
- Oct 19, 2012
- 67,199
- 72,201
- 3,635
peacefan
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #25
Ukraine. and you know what they say about the Russian bear : don't provoke it.
there's internal domestic corruption, which every government system on Earth is guilty of,
and international corruption that involves warmongering and actual wars getting fought.
in *my* opinion, the West is far more guilty of international corruption and territorial greed than the (Middle-)Eastern Alliance has been so far.
Last edited:
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 50,434
- 12,289
- 2,180
He wants back a part of his country that was taken by force in 2014?
I mean, SHOCKING....
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 50,434
- 12,289
- 2,180
How ironic your post is.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 50,434
- 12,289
- 2,180
Says who?
Putin would have invaded unless Putin had his own puppet in place.
So, we just appease Putin like Chamberlain did Hitler? Just for "peace"?
- Apr 11, 2023
- 45,290
- 21,870
- 2,488
Their demands are not reasonable and their power is not adequate to their demands.
Pellinore
Platinum Member
- May 30, 2018
- 2,073
- 1,188
- 940
Russia has always been aware that it has no natural western border, so its usual way of preventing columns of tanks from streaming into Moscow is to constantly expand. Obviously, this sometimes works better than others, but this has been their general outlook since Ivan the Terrible at least. Buffer states work well; they have Belarus in the north now, but their attempts to swoon a Russian-controlled Ukrainian government did not work so well, so they went for something more hands-on. The standard excuse of expansionist dictators is "We were protecting our ethnic brethren," which is what they used.
It appears as if the invasion is going against Russia at the moment, though, so I imagine they'd be happy to negotiate peace right now if it meant they could keep Crimea and the eastern Ukrainian lands they already control. Peace is the last thing that Ukraine should want right now, because they'd lose a bunch of their own land; they only need to look at Finland during the Winter War, who still haven't gotten back the 10% or so of their area that they lost to a similar treaty, for justification.
Also, blowing up infrastructure is something that retreating armies do. It's called "scorched earth tactics" for a reason; no one floods or irradiates their own land and people.
The other massive limiting factor preventing Russia from being the world power that it really, really wants to be is its lack of a warm-weather port. It has had modest shipbuilding capabilities on the Black Sea for a while, but Sevastapol allows it to build more warships more quickly, which they have been doing since 2014. Control of all of Ukraine would give them even one more, at Odessa.
As for long-term goals, we have to consider the Bosporus, the narrow strait between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Without it, any Russian navy might as well be stranded on a really big lake. International treaty has given Turkey (a NATO member) control of the Bosporus since 1936, and they are happy to let through Russian trade vessels but only a limited number of Russian warships. With control of it (attempts at which date back to the Viking age), Russia could deploy a new, modern, large navy into the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, which Putin would absolutely love to leave as his legacy.
It appears as if the invasion is going against Russia at the moment, though, so I imagine they'd be happy to negotiate peace right now if it meant they could keep Crimea and the eastern Ukrainian lands they already control. Peace is the last thing that Ukraine should want right now, because they'd lose a bunch of their own land; they only need to look at Finland during the Winter War, who still haven't gotten back the 10% or so of their area that they lost to a similar treaty, for justification.
Also, blowing up infrastructure is something that retreating armies do. It's called "scorched earth tactics" for a reason; no one floods or irradiates their own land and people.
The other massive limiting factor preventing Russia from being the world power that it really, really wants to be is its lack of a warm-weather port. It has had modest shipbuilding capabilities on the Black Sea for a while, but Sevastapol allows it to build more warships more quickly, which they have been doing since 2014. Control of all of Ukraine would give them even one more, at Odessa.
As for long-term goals, we have to consider the Bosporus, the narrow strait between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Without it, any Russian navy might as well be stranded on a really big lake. International treaty has given Turkey (a NATO member) control of the Bosporus since 1936, and they are happy to let through Russian trade vessels but only a limited number of Russian warships. With control of it (attempts at which date back to the Viking age), Russia could deploy a new, modern, large navy into the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, which Putin would absolutely love to leave as his legacy.
Who is they? Did Poland provoke it or did Russia make a secret pact with Hitler to divide the country between them? Did the Finns provoke them or did they beat them to a draw when the Russians invaded them? Did Hungry provoke them in the 50's by wanting their freedom?
You are welcome to your opinion of the West's territorial greed, there is plenty of evidence to support it, but I think that went out of fashion after WWII. The West didn't install puppet regimes and build walls to keep people in, Russia did. Is that the kind of government you'd prefer? The people who experienced Russian domination were overjoyed when it ended. That is what is know as reality.
peacefan
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #36
Putin has no real plans for conquest, and like i said, and you acknowledge, Ukraine was taken from him by NATO by political wrangling that spanned decades.
so handing parts of Ukraine back to him that are vital to defense by Russia of the Black Sea and Sea of Azov, is not appeasement. it's simply "giving him the space he deserves".
and please note : i'm no commie / socialist. i'm a centralist conservative. a Dutch-US style conservative.
but i do support the Basic Income movement, which is something most merocrats/conservatives wouldn't do (i think).
Last edited:
peacefan
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #39
i gotta wonder if that is a bit of a myth that's been projected by western governments as part of their expansionistic efforts into far-eastern Europe,
rather than 'reality'.
i once met a man from Lithuania here in Amsterdam for a conversation, and when talking about his home country he said he liked the Russians (i basically asked him if he did).
Similar threads
