Russian invasion of Ukraine

[zorkuus]

Something, something 1919/ treaty of Versailles.

So your reason for not wanting to punish a criminal is that they'd do even worse crimes in the future if you punish them?

- - - Updated - - -

Some people can't really learn from History.

What we've learned is that ruZZia/USSR didn't get punished for what they did in the past and that lead us here.
The germans and japanese did get punished and now they're normal functioning peaceful states.

[Saradain]

*Some*...my sweet summer child 2.5 million is a *bit* more than some.

Also russia is building a railroad to Crimea so that needs to be destroyed as well.

A kingdom for an online indication of sarcasm, my friend. I'll put quotation marks next time

[Kralljin]

What we've learned is that ruZZia/USSR didn't get punished for what they did in the past and that lead us here.

And when did the West miss that opportunity?

The germans and japanese did get punished and now they're normal functioning peaceful states.

...after they started the most devastating conflict in human history.
...and militarily occupying them afterwards.

Get serious, we can all argue about the imperialistic nature of Russian geopolitics but this is crazy talk.

[Azadina]

And when did the West miss that opportunity?

1945, should have listened to Patton as much as an arrogant loony he was. He was right about ruZZki and the need to defeat them too.

[Kralljin]

1945, should have listened to Patton as much as an arrogant loony he was. He was right about ruZZki and the need to defeat them too.

So after 6 years of conflict, you want to add how many years to it?
Because that either involved a land invasion of Russia (oh boy) or nuking the soviets into submission, with million of civilian casualties.

And that completely disregards that probably any politician arguing in favour of that would have been thrown out on the next election.

[Wilian]

We shall see how US will continue struggling with the pro-Putin elements that has delayed their part of the aid packages. European nations however have pledged and found some (talking about hundreds of thousands) artillery shells and other nice toys recently. And Ukraine is really determined to destroy that bridge by this summer, and should they succeed, the land route to Crimea is gone for Russia. We shall see.

Pretty sure both the West and Russia are sure that the war will take several more years, so no side is thinking either will suddenly crumble any time soon.

There is blame to be put on Biden as well. Not only they are telling its not ok to hit oil refineries that are used to fuel the war effort but now after Stoltenberg suggested NATO could create 100 billion dollar joint fund to arm Ukraine, White House came out saying they are against such measures, as in being directly in the way of help.

US are proving to be fickle, weak allies.

[Azadina]

So after 6 years of conflict, you want to add how many years to it?
Because that either involved a land invasion of Russia (oh boy) or nuking the soviets into submission, with million of civilian casualties.

And that completely disregards that probably any politician arguing in favour of that would have been thrown out on the next election.

Yep. If I remember correctly, soviets didn't get nukes until 49. That would have ment 4 years of time to demolish them, and guide them to humanity.

It wasn't done, and the results are massive nuclear terrorist state. Danger to the whole world decade after another. Are you seriously arguing that THIS is indeed the best outcome?

[Jessicka]

Yep. If I remember correctly, soviets didn't get nukes until 49. That would have ment 4 years of time to demolish them, and guide them to humanity.

It wasn't done, and the results are massive nuclear terrorist state. Danger to the whole world decade after another. Are you seriously arguing that THIS is indeed the best outcome?

Russia had just beaten the Germans on the Eastern front by throwing men at them and committing atrocities along the way. The Allies were in no position to continue into that sort of war. We didn't even have nukes until '45, the Germans were beaten a full year before Japan.

[Azadina]

Russia had just beaten the Germans on the Eastern front by throwing men at them and committing atrocities along the way. The Allies were in no position to continue into that sort of war. We didn't even have nukes until '45, the Germans were beaten a full year before Japan.

I mean...if 3 months constitutes a full year, then sure I guess.

[Kralljin]

Yep. If I remember correctly, soviets didn't get nukes until 49. That would have ment 4 years of time to demolish them, and guide them to humanity.

It wasn't done, and the results are massive nuclear terrorist state. Danger to the whole world decade after another. Are you seriously arguing that THIS is indeed the best outcome?

First off, let's not overlook the millions of casualties that this callously disregards..
Let's not mince words here and say that in this instance the US would have been the aggressor.

Second, with that line of logic, the US would have had to effectively conquer the world to stop anyone from gaining access to nuclear weapons.

Thirdly, "guide them to humanity", how do you think the russian people have been receptive to them if the Allies would effectively betray them after the defeat of Nazi Germany and then nuke major population centers or literally do what the Nazis tried to pull 4 years earlier?

Live in reality and not in alternative history where you skew the books in your favour.

[Azadina]

First off, let's not overlook the millions of casualties that this callously disregards..
Let's not mince words here and say that in this instance the US would have been the aggressor.

Second, with that line of logic, the US would have had to effectively conquer the world to stop anyone from gaining access to nuclear weapons.

Thirdly, "guide them to humanity", how do you think the russian people have been receptive if the Allies would effectively betray them after the defeat of Nazi Germany and then nuke major population centers or literally do what the Nazis tried to pull 4 years earlier?

Live in reality and not in alternative history where you skew the books in your favour.

As opposed to the millions of lives lost due to things turning out as they did. Ones you've already written off.

How were they receptive in celebrating the shared victory? Did Soviets become best buddies with US? Allies for life?

Remind me, why did the cold war start soon after WW2? Because RuZZki was all along friendly and eternally greatful for the other allies assistance?

[Jessicka]

I mean...if 3 months constitutes a full year, then sure I guess.

My bad, but hey at the time the war against Japan was projected to last several more years, such was the argument to nuke them.

With that in mind, just trying to roll on into Russia would have been a terrible idea, with or without nukes. Resources were needed in that theatre regardless.

- - - Updated - - -

As opposed to the millions of lives lost due to things turning out as they did. Ones you've already written off.

How were they receptive in celebrating the shared victory? Did Soviets become best buddies with US? Allies for life?

Remind me, why did the cold war start soon after WW2? Because RuZZki was all along friendly and eternally greatful for the other allies assistance?

Why did the Cold War start soon after WW2? Because it’d essentially already started in 1917, one of the reasons Hitler was allowed to expand militarily and take parts of Czechoslovakia in contravention of Versailles was to have a strongman in Europe to stand against Soviet Russia.

Capitalist and Imperial western nations were fucking terrified that a functional Communism in which workers saw genuine benefit would make them look bad. They needn’t have worried because that never shook out from the revolution.

[Kralljin]

As opposed to the millions of lives lost due to things turning out as they did. Ones you've already written off.

And you've come to the conclusion that it works in your favour how?

We're talking about a hot war here, one with potentially nuclear weapons.
And that doesn't even account for occupation (Eastern Europe is a lot bigger than Japan and (West) Germany) or even its effect domestically.

This is frankly such a silly idea to entertain "Sure, they should have invaded Eastern Europe, we *know* it works out much better for us in the long run".

Remind me, why did the cold war start soon after WW2? Because RuZZki was all along friendly and eternally greatful for the other allies assistance?

There's an argument among Historians that the Cold war started even before WW2 because a lot of nations didn't recognize the Soviets at all.
And there's the small fact that both US and British had a failed excursion into Russia during their civil war, which obviously didn't make the soviets very friendly towards them.

You're opening the box of "who started the Cold War", which is a very contentious debate because Communists and Capitalists naturally do not get along very well.

[Specialka]

So your reason for not wanting to punish a criminal is that they'd do even worse crimes in the future if you punish them?

- - - Updated - - -


What we've learned is that ruZZia/USSR didn't get punished for what they did in the past and that lead us here.
The germans and japanese did get punished and now they're normal functioning peaceful states.

They did after they were militarily conquered which is unlikely to happen here.

[Jessicka]

They did after they were militarily conquered which is unlikely to happen here.

Even when the Soviet Union was economically ended, we should have done better than to intentionally undermine Russia's fledging democracy and statehood by looking to get rich off them.

[Azadina]

And you've come to the conclusion that it works in your favour how?

We're talking about a hot war here, one with potentially nuclear weapons.
And that doesn't even account for occupation (Eastern Europe is a lot bigger than Japan and (West) Germany) or even its effect domestically.

This is frankly such a silly idea to entertain "Sure, they should have invaded Eastern Europe, we *know* it works out much better for us in the long run".

You mean apart from listing the millions of casualties that RuZZia the terrorist state has inflicted past 1945 as it was allowed to exist without hindrance? You want to speak of how that same nuclear terrorist state has been world ending threat ever since? How it still is? How it still may result in hundreds of millions of deaths? Which part do you find unreasonable, that I'd prevent that from coming to be with any means necessary, if it was up to me?

I didn't say that. I said we KNOW the outcome of how things went. It's the worst possible result. Any and all action to prevent that, would certainly be preferable to how it came out.

[Specialka]

Even when the Soviet Union was economically ended, we should have done better than to intentionally undermine Russia's fledging democracy and statehood by looking to get rich off them.

Clearly, the western countries should have conquered the world and spread Managed Democracy ! Sounds familiar ?

[Kralljin]

You mean apart from listing the millions of casualties that RuZZia the terrorist state has inflicted past 1945 as it was allowed to exist without hindrance? You want to speak of how that same nuclear terrorist state has been world ending threat ever since? How it still is? How it still may result in hundreds of millions of deaths? Which part do you find unreasonable, that I'd prevent that from coming to be with any means necessary, if it was up to me?

Again, if it nukes you are worried about, then the US would have to literally conquer every nation to prevent them from building a nuclear weapon.

I didn't say that. I said we KNOW the outcome of how things went. It's the worst possible result. Any and all action to prevent that, would certainly be preferable to how it came out.

You seriously believe the current situation is the worst possible outcome, really?
How can you even claim that if you don't even know every possible alternative?

[Azadina]

Again, if it nukes you are worried about, then the US would have to literally conquer every nation to prevent them from building a nuclear weapon.

You seriously believe the current situation is the worst possible outcome, really?
How can you even claim that if you don't even know every possible alternative?

It's number of nukes and whether or not the nation is hostile terrorist nation. Not just random few nukes anywhere. There's one country that fits the bill. I'm sure you can guess which one it is.

And yes, unless another alternative is more than one nuclear terrorist states. Not sure how that would happen by destroying the only one before it came that way, but hey, I can't say for sure.

[Iphie]

A kingdom for an online indication of sarcasm, my friend. I'll put quotation marks next time

Fair enough..I've been frayed today though, 6 hrs in fossil record formation lectures will do that. So I would have likely missed those anyway. XD