chrysler
- Option 1: Drop nuclear bombs on Japan, kill 200 000 people, end the war right there.
- Option 2: Continue as is and let 400 000 people die every month.
There's an argument that Japan was ready to surrender. When? In a month? Two? Three?
NATO is not a threat to Russia by any objective measure. Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, NATO countries in Europe were unilaterally diarming themselves. Just compare the size and composition of UK, French or (West-)German military in 1980s and 2010s - reduction in everything by a factor of 5-10x with a continuing downward trend. This is why NATO is struggling to support Ukraine, former powerhouses like Germany have very little left to share. Over the past two years, Russia has lost 20 TIMES more (visually confirmed) tanks than the whole German army fields. And yet we're somehow supposed to believe that such tiny force could pose a credible threat against Russia.
A person with "cognitive empathy" might actually feel that the truth is exactly the opposite: NATO became so weak over time that Russia stopped fearing it, and became increasingly brazen in pursuing its imperialist goals.
We have by far the most destructive war in Europe since the WWII, whole cities wiped from the earth, civilians executed in mass graves, daily terror attacks on cities where millions live - and to this day NATO's response is what exactly? Sending obsolete tanks and wasting months discussing whether Ukraine deserves modern air defense systems to stop terror raids against civilians? Is this the power you consider an existential threat to Russia? Who's the victim of propaganda here, really?
Crimea is Ukraine. Nobody recognizes the sham referendum held under foreign military occupation. With 100 votes against 11, the General Assembly of the United Nations declared it illegitimate.
I see from your link that Stinger is a light shoulder-fired weapon that has a warhead of 3 kg and range of 8 km. How should that carry a nuclear warhead to Moscow?
There is no practical difference between the two. All Soviet "republics" were run by Politburo in Moscow, the same way all orders in Nazi Germany came from Berlin, bypassing whatever formal structures existed. Both loved to micromanage. Whenever a local puppet didn't dance as Moscow expected, he was replaced. Leaders of "republics" couldn't even select deputies (second secretaries); they were assigned directly from Moscow to keep a close eye on formal heads of "republics".
If you want to play games, then sure, we can also say that Nazi Germany had nothing to do with Germans either. It was run by an Austrian painter who illegitimately seized power, and in its heyday, most people in the vast Nazi empire were not even ethnic Germans, so Germans had nothing to do with it all, naturally.
>> That was funny. You are confusing with your colonial past.
I have no colonial past.
>> It's not about that. Russia was fine with the Crimea belonging to the Ukraine while it didn't matter much for Russia and for Crimeans themselves. That was until the nationalists took power in 2014 with the help of American 'midwifing' (quoting Obama here).
Indeed, all was fine and dandy until Putin needed justifications for the invasion. Then it was suddenly discovered that a Soviet leader illegitimately "gifted" Crimea away. What's next, some error in the sale of Alaska too maybe? Can we please have it back, our emperor was too fond of America when he signed it?
>> USSR demonstrated good faith when it greenlighted reunification of Germany and got assurances that NATO won't expand to the east.
It's once again one of those things that was suddenly "discovered" to justify the invasion - but never brought up when Eastern Europe actually joined NATO two decades ago. On top of that, Gorbachev and Shevardnadze have explicitly denied this hoax, the only one claiming this was a street thug in St Petersburg at the time.
This talking point is irrelevant anyway, as NATO did not place any permanent ground forces in Eastern Europe until the invasion of Ukraine. And whatever was left in Western Europe after the Cold War saw a reduction by an order of a magnitude, skewing the balance of military power in Europe heavily in favor of Russia.
Genocide won't spare anyone.
Gallup: "Counter to some impressions, the U.S. and its allies aren’t the only ones who care about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Gallup surveys in 137 countries show Russia’s image has suffered worldwide since it began its war in Ukraine. For the first time in Gallup’s history of tracking ratings of world leaders, the majority of the world disapproves of Russia’s leadership." https://news.gallup.com/poll/474596/russia-suffers-global-re...
I have said no such thing, quite the opposite - I found it worse for native hawaiians, since the occupation has lasted much longer.
>> I care about health and safety of the actual people
No, you don't - you say that countries like Latvia should pursue similar neutrality as they did in 1930s, which will put them at high risk of another Russian invasion. Or better yet, that they should voluntarily join Russian "federation" so that they could be systematically wiped out in what you call peace and stability. And blacks should go back to plantations too, I suppose?
>> Russia is weaker and more isolated (largely because it DIDNT pursue a systematic policy of expansion around the world since USSR fell apart)
It did pursue that. The policy is known as Karaganov doctrine and it declared Latvia as "near abroad", that is, not a real country, but some breakaway colony on Russian border that Russians believe they have a right to enslave. Latvia has been on the receiving end of that doctrine since the early 1990s. Russia has done everything they could to undermine Latvia's independence, economic relations with other countries and cooperation with international organizations. Latvian State Security Service publishes excellent annual reports that chronicle Russian activities against them. https://vdd.gov.lv/en/useful/annual-reports
The linked article says the opposite. I knew I was in for a treat when I saw the title: "Rights Groups Demand Israel Stop Arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine". Representatives of Ukraine's air force met with Israeli military electronics company Elbit to talk about upgrading Ukrainian air defense systems. Some nutjob used that as an example in his petition to argue that "Israel arms Nazis". Amusing.
>> 2) The rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk, made up of local militias. They wished Donetsk and Luhansk regions to be absorbed by Russia early on, but Russia refused and told them to deal with Kyiv. The Minsk II agreements had as their aim guaranteeing a degree of autonomy WITHIN Ukraine, and that's what Russia wanted. Strelkov reports being disappointed by that.
Russian invasion of Crimea took Ukraine by surprise and allowed Russia to make fast progress. Russia failed to repeat the same trick in Donbas, because Ukraine recovered from surprise, put up fierce resistance, Russian progress stalled, and it became a frozen conflict until Russia invaded with a much larger force in 2022. They miscalculated again, but nevertheless continued with the official annexation of Luhansk and Donetsk into Russia despite never controlling the full extent of the territory they annexed (eg Zaporizhzhia). The purpose of this step was to declare those territories as "Russia proper" and make nuclear threats prior to Ukraine's 2022 summer offensive. Russian surprise retreat from Kherson (also annexed) undermined those threats and showed how hollow they were.
As to "rebels", there is no reason to speak them of as of an independent entity. The European Court of Human Rights has determined that this was merely a Russian invasion force without proper insignia.
>> In short, non-state actors formed paramilitary groups, one side received support from Russia and the other side received support from US, UK and other NATO members. Do you understand what I'm talking about?
Yes, I understand why you are calling this a proxy war. In your view, this war has two sides, "rebels" (supported by Russia) and "Ukrainian Nazis" (supported by the US). The trouble is that neither is true.
>> By that standard, the Kingdom of Hawaii never joined the USA in the first place
"By that standard" is how all international organizations treat Latvia. After Latvia restored independence, it resumed relations with other countries and organizations from where they were halted by Russians in 1940.
Regarding Hawaii, I am not well enough read to comment on anything really, but as far as I know, the US government has recognized the fact that Hawaii was illegally occupied and annexed into the US. Russia refuses to admit the illegal occupation of Latvia. From what I've read, native hawaiians can freely work on restoring their independence and no-one is locking them up in labor camps for promoting the idea. Latvians did not have this luxury. The US government is far more open to Hawaiian independence than the USSR ever was to Latvian independence.
The main obstacles to Hawaiian independence seem internal. Latvia had a government in exile holding up state continuity. There was never any doubt who represented the legitimate government of Latvia. Latvia also had clearly defined citizens (all people who held citizenship at the start of occupation in 1940 + their direct descendants), whereas native hawaiians are having hard time agreeing who belongs to native hawaiians and who doesn't.
This highlights why Russians tried to murder every single member of every pre-war Latvian government (few were lucky enough to escape to exile in time), and why they brought in colonists to replace Latvian population, so there would be no Latvian government and no people for them to represent. In Latvia, the process ran for 50 years and was barely reversed. In Hawaii, the process has run for more than twice as long, and it remains to be seen if the situation is salvageable.
>> What makes a government fake? History is written by the winners, but if a government allows people to elect their representatives, then it has some legitimacy.
Elections are indeed a good indicator. Latvian SSR never had free elections. Throughout its 50 year history, only a single party was allowed, the Communist Party of Latvia, a satellite branch of the Communist Party of the USSR. Elections saw 100% participation and the sole party "won" every single election with 100% of votes. They didn't even bother to make it look convincing.
>> So yes, I understand the wish to be politically sovereign, but the majority of civilians have other priorities and frankly I think being part of the same federation, (USA, USSR, etc.) is far better and more stable and peaceful for them, than all this endless fighting and war.
The Soviet occupation of Latvia was not stable, peaceful nor prosperous. It began to crumble as soon as the USSR stopped shipping dissenters to labor camps, and the well-being of Latvians has skyrocketed since then. By far the largest threat to Latvian culture and the well-being of Latvians is another Russian invasion. Given their history with Russian "security concerns" and how appeasement in 1939-1940 led to 50-year occupation of Latvia and countless crimes against humanity, they have no reason to take seriously your recommendations to repeat the same mistake twice.
The war in Ukraine does not fit the definition of proxy war that you provided. Ukrainian army is against Russian army, and both are at war because they want (Russia) or need (Ukraine) to, and not because some third party forces them to and uses them as pawns. It is a traditional war between two countries. The fact that Australia has given armored cars to Ukraine and Iran has given drones to Russia doesn't make this a shadow war between Australia and Iran.
>> I am glad that Latvia got its independence without any shots fired.
Shots were fired and people died. Russians murdered peaceful Latvians, and to this day deny that it ever happened, and shelter people who ordered and commited those crimes. And not only that. Russians have recycled one of those criminals in Ukraine and installed him as an official in occupied Donbas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Antyufeyev
>> You won’t see much support for invasions or occupations from me, but it is a fact that Latvia was an SSR.
Republic of Latvia declared independence in 1918, was occupied by the USSR in 1940, and restored its independence when its government returned from exile in 1991. Latvian SSR was a fake government set up in 1940 by the USSR and it ceased to exist in 1991 along with the USSR itself. Latvian SSR has nothing to do with the Republic of Latvia, nor its independence, nor Latvian people. It was an illegitimate totalitarian regime run from Moscow, similar to Nazi General Government in Poland. You said that Latvia signed an seccession agreement. That is just plain false. Latvia never joined the USSR in the first place. Might as well say that the Poles joined Nazi Germany in 1939 and then in 1945 Nazis "allowed" them to secede when Wehrmacht retreated from Poland. Utter nonsense.
In fact, USSR created fake governments for every country they intended to enslave. One of the best examples is Finnish Democratic Republic, led by Otto Wille Kuusinen. But since the Soviet invasion of Finland failed, they had to abandon the project after a few months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Democratic_Republic
The same handwriting has more recently continued in Abkhazia (fake government created in Georgia), Transnistria (Moldova), and now in Ukraine too. Russian forces invaded Ukraine, established fake governments in Luhansk and Donetsk regions. Those fake governments "asked" to join Russia and Russia gladly accepted them. Except no-one was fooled by the charade and no-one in the world recognized them as legitimate governments, and everything they have done is legally void.
That does not address anything I've said.
>> Well, if you are the native population, what do you have to say about USA's actions since its founding until now, towards your people?
Nothing. The US has not committed any "actions" against my people.
>> The vast majority just want to go to work and they don't particularly care about this, despite any "fuck yous" you may throw their way.
You are totally out of your depth again. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have a combined population of about 6 million. In 1989, they organized a protest against Soviet occupation, the largest protest in the history of the world, with 2 million people taking part in it - a third of the whole population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way
In Estonia in particular, about two thirds of all Estonians came together on the same day and participated in the protest, precisely to send a fuck you to people like you who kept making excuses for the occupation.
>> When it came to the USSR, they did in fact become a member
No they didn't.
While in alliance with Germany, USSR made increasing demands to Latvia in 1939-1940, culminating with demanding establishment of Soviet military bases on Latvian soil due to "security concerns" (sounds familiar?). Latvian government kept making one concession after another to appease the USSR and avoid war, but once the bases were established, USSR used them to overthrow Latvian government, staged mock elections where only collaborants were allowed to set up their candidacy (and got all the votes), then those collaborants "asked" to join the USSR literally at gunpoint (armed Soviet military personnel were in the parliament), and then in the finale, NKVD and the Red army murdered members of legitimate Latvian government and other officials, and murdered or deported tens of thousands of people, and gave their home to Russian colonists, and then continued to exploit Latvia economically and suppressing Latvian language and culture and bringing in further colonists for 50 years.
All international organizations, from the European Court of Human Rights and European Council to the United Nations recognize the Soviet occupation of Latvia as illegal.
From a 2006 decision of the European Court of Human Rights: "Latvia, together with the other Baltic States, lost its independence in 1940 in the aftermath of the partition of Europe between Germany and the USSR agreed by Adolf Hitler's Germany and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union by way of the secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, an agreement contrary to the generally recognised principles of international law. The ensuing annexation of Latvia by the Soviet Union was orchestrated and conducted under the authority of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), the Communist Party of Latvia (CPL) being a satellite branch of the CPSU."
In another case, related to Estonia (shared the same fate), the Court found: "The Court notes, first, that Estonia lost its independence as a result of the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (also known as "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact"), concluded on 23 August 1939, and the secret additional protocols to it. Following an ultimatum to set up Soviet military bases in Estonia in 1939, a large-scale entry of the Soviet army into Estonia took place in June 1940. The lawful government of the country was overthrown and Soviet rule was imposed by force. The totalitarian communist regime of the Soviet Union conducted large-scale and systematic actions against the Estonian population, including, for example, the deportation of about 10,000 persons on 14 June 1941 and of more than 20,000 on 25 March 1949. After the Second World War, tens of thousands of persons went into hiding in the forests to avoid repression by the Soviet authorities; part of those in hiding actively resisted the occupation regime. According to the data of the security organs, about 1,500 persons were killed and almost 10,000 arrested in the course of the resistance movement of 1944–1953. Interrupted by the German occupation in 1941–1944, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until its restoration of independence in 1991. Accordingly, Estonia as a state was temporarily prevented from fulfilling its international commitments."
Even your own liked article says: "The Soviet occupation of the Baltic states from 1939–40 and 1944–1991 is widely considered illegal by the international community and human rights organisations."
Latvia never joined the USSR and any notion of seccession is utter nonsense. Latvia was an occupied territory, and once the USSR collapsed, Latvian government returned from exile, restored its institutions, and continued serving its people after a 50-year pause violently forced upon them.
>> As far as "allowed", I quote In 1989, the USSR also condemned the 1939 secret protocol between Nazi Germany and herself that had led to the invasion and occupation of the three Baltic countries, including Latvia.
Soviet authorities denied for 50 years that the secret protocol existed, calling it a forgery, and condemned it in 1989 only because an Estonian physicist managed to get his hands on a copy authenticated by the Library of Congress, and brought the copy to USSR. After that, there was simply no other option than to condemn the alliance with Hitler as it was, clearly written down in black and white.
While it was an important moral victory to Latvian independence movement, it did very little to end the Soviet occupation of Latvia in practical terms. Soviet authorities continued to suppress the independence movement until the very end, until the USSR fell apart several years later. Military forces that enforced the occupation didn't leave until mid-1990s. To this day, Russia denies the illegal occupation, has not paid any reparations nor extradited war criminals, continues hostile rhetoric towards Latvia, and makes excuses for crimes against humanity commited by them in Latvia.
Calling the war in Ukraine a "proxy war" doesn't even match the provided definition on Wikipedia. Ukraine is not fighting at the instigation or on behalf of others. Ukraine is fighting for itself.
>> What you call “the USSR crumbling” is in fact what I described — a federation whose constitution allowed for its members to get together (originally in a secret meeting in Beloverzhakaya Puscha, much like the creation of the Fed on Jekyll island) and sign an agreement to secede.
Latvia did not sign any seccesion agreements.
>> How do you always manage to ignore everything about genociding the native population, ethnic cleansing, conquest of huge swaths of territory from a neighboring country — when your own country does it
My country has never done it. I am the native population. Perhaps you should assume less about other people.
Latvia wasn't "allowed to secede", but was occupied by force in 1940 and restored its independence in 1991 when the USSR crumbled. Soviet forces tried to prevent it using violent means until the very end: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Barricades In Riga, Nevzorov recorded a famous video with Spetsnaz instructor preparing soldiers to go on a rampage on civilians. In neighbouring Lithuania, Soviet forces drove tanks over civilians: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a7/eb/15/a7eb15202e9b6655af25... "Allowed to secede", you say? Fuck you. People fought for their freedom and won, it wasn't handed to them.
As to colonization, Latvia is literally an example in Wikipedia article on Colonization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization#Baltic_states
Over the three Baltic countries, 630 000 people were murdered or deported and their homes were given to Russian colonists. Due to oppressive policies and constant flow of colonizers, the share of Latvians in Latvia steadily decreased until they were about to become a minority in their country by the late 1980s. Latvia was mercilessly exploited by Russians, and those colonists who are now left there are former plantation owners, bitter that they have no special status and no slaves anymore, and have to learn the language of slaves and drive a cab to survive.
>> my point about a symmetric proxy war
"Proxy war" is nothing but a hollow Russian talking point, because Russians see Ukrainians as inferior and cannot bring themselves to admit that they are losing to "subhumans". So they are desperate to depict this as a grand war against the whole NATO. It's not. Russian invasion of Donbas was a Russian military action from the earliest days, carried out by its special forces and regular army. According to top Russian commander of the invading forces, they had next to no local support. In contrast, Ukrainian defense against Russian invasion is fought by Ukrainians under Ukrainian command, with military aid from the whole world - such as tanks from Morocco, artillery guns from Sweden, shells from Pakistan and APCs from Australia -, and not from anyone in particular.
Governments cannot provide aid beyond what a reasonable investor would do. The current European Commissioner for Competition (incumbent since 2014) has had particularly strong focus on that. Several flag carriers that got unreasonable subsidies went bankrupt after they were forced to pay back subsidies.
Beyond the European Commission, competitors can challenge approved aid, and they have done so, and they have sometimes won: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/eu-court-...
Russian colonists are hardly objective observers. They are a brainwashed fifth column that Russia has tried throughout decades to pit against Latvia to weaken it and gain influence over Latvia and enslave it again. That's the main reason why Latvia is in NATO.
>> So no, “little green men” has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Russia having “boots on the ground” in Donbas. Russia didn’t invade Donbas in 2015.
European Court of Human Rights has decided otherwise: "the Court found that areas in eastern Ukraine in separatist hands were, from 11 May 2014 and up to at least 26 January 2022, under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. It referred to the presence in eastern Ukraine of Russian military personnel from April 2014 and the large-scale deployment of Russian troops from August 2014 at the latest. It further found that the respondent State had a significant influence on the separatists’ military strategy; that it had provided weapons and other military equipment to separatists on a significant scale from the earliest days of the “DPR” and the “LPR” and over the following months and years; that it had carried out artillery attacks upon requests from the separatists; and that it had provided political and economic support to the separatists."
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-222889
>> Outside NATO countries, outside the bubble, people largely think what I am saying.
Most people in the world disapprove what Russia is doing. Disapproval skyrocketed in 2022, largest change towards disapproval was in Southern America. https://www.voanews.com/a/global-public-perception-of-russia...
The poll conducted last month asked if respondents agreed with "under no circumstances should Ukraine give up any of its territories, even if the war lasts longer and will threaten the preservation of independence".
Results:
- West 86%
- Center 84%
- South 86%
- East 75%
- Overall 84%
Results:
- West 9%,
- Center 12%
- South 8%
- East 12%
- Overall 10%
He said that it was not the US, France, or Germany that put an end to any peace talks. Rather, it was Russia slaughtering hundreds of civilians. "The Bucha massacre, once that happened, I said: 'It's over,'" Bennett recalled.
If you want to argue over timelines, then I'm sure he'll appreciate your input.
Bucha was uncovered in early April 2022 and external pressure on Ukraine to make peace with Russia dissipated quickly after that. There was no way to keep making such demands to Ukraine while they were excavating mass graves. There was no option to give up and leave people on occupied territories to that fate.
Overall, your entire premise how the US is forcing Ukraine into war against their will is deeply flawed. Fighting off Russian invaders has near-universal support in Ukraine. This is not something they have to be coerced into.
This is a misrepresentation of events. The Israeli PM has clarified that his comments were taken out of context: https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bennett-walks-back-cl...
When the war started, the West was pressuring Ukraine into a peace deal with Russia at any cost. When the Bucha massacre was uncovered, the pressure stopped.
Russian propaganda has tried to paint this change as "the West forcing Ukraine into war", which is blatantly false.
Nobody has placed, or intented to place, nuclear weapons anywhere near Russia. The only country that has nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe is Russia with missiles in Kaliningrad targeting Europe. Map: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1...
Now they have placed nuclear weapons in Belarus too, right on Poland's doorstep while spewing highly aggressive rhetoric and constantly threatening to bomb everyone.
All your grievances are made up nonsense.
Thankfully he clarifies that by saying "the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact was beyond our realm of comprehension".
The USSR was hosting elite divisions and nuclear weapons in Poland at the time and didn't expect anything to change, what was there to discuss or negotiate?
The main question that came up was whether Americans would roll their tanks up to Polish border after German reunification, THAT is the "eastward expansion" they discussed.
"Verbal statements" and "in the general direction" is an unconvincing attempt to turn history on its head.
Many things were said as the USSR was falling apart, but no-one from the Soviet side has ever elevated them to the level of an agreement that countries should abide by. Hence why Russia didn't protest when former Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO.
The narrative appeared 17 years later when Putin started looking for ways to isolate Georgia prior to invasion.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Was the eastward expansion of NATO ever discussed in the inner circles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1990?
>> Shevardnadze: The question never came up.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Nevertheless, the eastward expansion happened a few years later. Did you feel, at the time, that the German diplomats deceived you?
>> Shevardnadze: No. When I was the minister of foreign affairs in the Soviet Union, NATO's expansion beyond the German borders never came up for negotiation. To this day I don't see anything terrible in NATO's expansion.
Couldn't be more clear.
There's not a single Soviet representative who has said that yes, we had an agreement, and that it was violated. No paper trail of any kind either (discussion papers, meeting notes, personal diaries). It's a made up story.