NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On August 14 2023 01:24 Magic Powers wrote: Putin would no doubt invade Finland if he could. He chose Ukraine not only because he preferred Ukraine, but moreso because he thought they would roll over. A bully senses weakness and pounces.
Then why attack Ukraine instead of Finland, when the former
-has more population and a bigger army, -is much more poor, so there's less washing machines and Nutella to plunder -is culturally closer to Russia, so the war would be less popular?
It's simple. Finnish military is way better trained and prepared for a Russian invasion than the Ukrainian military was. The whole point of the Finnish army is to make sure that taking Finland would be way too costly to even consider for Russia.
With all due respect, I think it is no match to the army of Ukraine. One key difference would be - an average Finn has much more to lose, compared to Ukrainians - who's army core consisted of ultranationalists
Now things might be different because the Ukrainian military has actual combat experience for a while now. Before this invasion though, Finnish advantages were superior training compared to Ukraine, second largest artillery in Europe, and a higher chance of Western support. With Ukraine it wasn't clear beforehand how much the West would support them, if at all. If Russia had invaded Finland instead, the level of support would've been higher i think.
On August 14 2023 01:24 Magic Powers wrote: Putin would no doubt invade Finland if he could. He chose Ukraine not only because he preferred Ukraine, but moreso because he thought they would roll over. A bully senses weakness and pounces.
Then why attack Ukraine instead of Finland, when the former
-has more population and a bigger army, -is much more poor, so there's less washing machines and Nutella to plunder -is culturally closer to Russia, so the war would be less popular?
It's simple. Finnish military is way better trained and prepared for a Russian invasion than the Ukrainian military was. The whole point of the Finnish army is to make sure that taking Finland would be way too costly to even consider for Russia.
With all due respect, I think it is no match to the army of Ukraine. One key difference would be - an average Finn has much more to lose, compared to Ukrainians - who's army core consisted of ultranationalists
Now things might be different because the Ukrainian military has actual combat experience for a while now. Before this invasion though, Finnish advantages were superior training compared to Ukraine, second largest artillery in Europe, and a higher chance of Western support. With Ukraine it wasn't clear beforehand how much the West would support them, if at all. If Russia had invaded Finland instead, the level of support would've been higher i think.
The entire EU, plus the Brits, would have gone to Finland's defence by whatever means they were able. Baltic and Black Sea fleets sunk overnight, Poles in St. Petersburg. Invading an EU member is 100% a red line, there would have been no diplomacy possible on that one. Just killing the Russians.
On August 14 2023 01:24 Magic Powers wrote: Putin would no doubt invade Finland if he could. He chose Ukraine not only because he preferred Ukraine, but moreso because he thought they would roll over. A bully senses weakness and pounces.
Then why attack Ukraine instead of Finland, when the former
-has more population and a bigger army, -is much more poor, so there's less washing machines and Nutella to plunder -is culturally closer to Russia, so the war would be less popular?
It's simple. Finnish military is way better trained and prepared for a Russian invasion than the Ukrainian military was. The whole point of the Finnish army is to make sure that taking Finland would be way too costly to even consider for Russia.
With all due respect, I think it is no match to the army of Ukraine. One key difference would be - an average Finn has much more to lose, compared to Ukrainians - who's army core consisted of ultranationalists
Now things might be different because the Ukrainian military has actual combat experience for a while now. Before this invasion though, Finnish advantages were superior training compared to Ukraine, second largest artillery in Europe, and a higher chance of Western support. With Ukraine it wasn't clear beforehand how much the West would support them, if at all. If Russia had invaded Finland instead, the level of support would've been higher i think.
On August 14 2023 01:24 Magic Powers wrote: Putin would no doubt invade Finland if he could. He chose Ukraine not only because he preferred Ukraine, but moreso because he thought they would roll over. A bully senses weakness and pounces.
Then why attack Ukraine instead of Finland, when the former
-has more population and a bigger army, -is much more poor, so there's less washing machines and Nutella to plunder -is culturally closer to Russia, so the war would be less popular?
On August 14 2023 01:24 Magic Powers wrote: With Chechnya it's similar. They could've functioned as a separate state, but Putin didn't like that. He thinks the downfall of the Soviet Union is a huge blemish on Russia's record and he's been trying to "correct" that.
I think they could have their own peaceful state in a perfect world, in which there is no warmongers on the both sides of the ocean, who's life motto is "divide and conquer".
Finland is a close ally to NATO and covered by the EU mutual defence treaty long before the Ukraine invasion.
Putin might have gotten away with little to no Western response if the 3 day operation had actually lasted 3 days. There was no reality in which he was getting away with an invasion of Finland without a full response from the EU and by association NATO.
-yeah, and Ukraine is reliably protected by the Budapest Memorandum.
An agreement that Russia signed, yes. But they didn't give a shit now did they?
The Budapest Memorandum is a vague agreement to not attack a handful of countries. NATO and EU are/have defence treaties that, in the case of an invasion, makes everyone immediately involved. The two are not remotely comparable. Attacking Finland would have been an attack on all of EU.
The whole point of invading Ukraine was that A: They stood more or less alone, and B: They were expected to be weak enough that the invasion would just roll over Kyiv in the matter of days, long before NATO could remotely get involved. Finland regularly exercises and plans with the rest of EU, who has an active force on standby; they would have been there within hours to help defend them.
You know this, why are you trying to argue in bad faith?
So now we're arguing that Russia could totally have invaded Finland successfully, even though most analysts would've rejected that idea back in 2022? And also most analysts were in agreement that Ukraine was actually going to fall within weeks, but somehow Ukraine is supposedly the more difficult target?
On August 14 2023 01:24 Magic Powers wrote: Putin would no doubt invade Finland if he could. He chose Ukraine not only because he preferred Ukraine, but moreso because he thought they would roll over. A bully senses weakness and pounces.
Then why attack Ukraine instead of Finland, when the former
-has more population and a bigger army, -is much more poor, so there's less washing machines and Nutella to plunder -is culturally closer to Russia, so the war would be less popular?
It's simple. Finnish military is way better trained and prepared for a Russian invasion than the Ukrainian military was. The whole point of the Finnish army is to make sure that taking Finland would be way too costly to even consider for Russia.
With all due respect, I think it is no match to the army of Ukraine. One key difference would be - an average Finn has much more to lose, compared to Ukrainians - who's army core consisted of ultranationalists
Now things might be different because the Ukrainian military has actual combat experience for a while now. Before this invasion though, Finnish advantages were superior training compared to Ukraine, second largest artillery in Europe, and a higher chance of Western support. With Ukraine it wasn't clear beforehand how much the West would support them, if at all. If Russia had invaded Finland instead, the level of support would've been higher i think.
-their army had mass combat experience since 2014
Yes, but all past interactions with Ukraine looked like if Russians rolled up, the Ukrainians would roll over. Ukrainians had been mired in Donbas for years, and when Russia took Crimea, Ukraine couldn't do anything about it. The march on Kiev had all the markers that planners thought they could pull a Crimea 2.0, only super sized. Paratroopers into Kiev and either capture or force the government to flee. Seize the capital and call an election. Surprise, surprise when elections are held in Russian occupied territory, suddenly everyone wants to be Russian. Easy.
Didn't turn out that simple, but you if you were underestimating Ukrainian preparation and resolve and overestimating Russian preparation, there was really no reason to think that Ukraine was far easier to gobble up compared to Finland. They already had their successful Sudentenland annexation, why not a full Anschluss?
On August 14 2023 04:55 Magic Powers wrote: So now we're arguing that Russia could totally have invaded Finland successfully, even though most analysts would've rejected that idea back in 2022? And also most analysts were in agreement that Ukraine was actually going to fall within weeks, but somehow Ukraine is supposedly the more difficult target?
What fantasy land is this?
-let's just agree to disagree; I didn't bring Finland argument very seriously in the first place, and this subjunctive discussion would not do any good
American and British training and intelligence support shouldn't be ignored. Their help was really important in making Ukraine ready to face the invasion.
On August 14 2023 05:42 Sent. wrote: American and British training and intelligence support shouldn't be ignored. Their help was really important in making Ukraine ready to face the invasion.
Absolutely, 100% instrumental. Ukraine (like most of the world) didn't believe Russia would attack, and thought US' initial statement was an attempt to weaken their economy. US had to fly people down and show them the evidence first hand before they believed it, and started taking action. The defence of the Antonov airport could not have happened like it did if they hadn't made preparations for it. It is incredibly likely Russia's plan would have worked if Ukraine hadn't been both told of the attack, and how it would happen.
Tactics ans strategies are nice, but intelligence and logistics is how wars are won.
I've tried a few times, but each time you either didn't respond or you dismissed the claims with no further argumentation.
I provided quotes for Putin's rejection of Ukraine's statehood. If you address these honestly without straight up dismissing them as "misinterpretation of Putin's words" then I'll consider discussing other things with you. You have to take Putin by his exact words, and by all of his words.
Also, I'm not sure if you're aware that fascism is not just nazism. Nazism is only a variant of fascism, as it includes biological racism, which Mussolini's fascism did not. Germany's fascism was of the Nazi variant.
The reason why I'm explaining this is because you said the following:
"-if I'd believe the part on the fascists to be true, I'd be long gone from Russia, as my family has places to live in Israel and Germany, and its not hard for a math PhD to get a well-paid job there. All the other is a "you have more nazis - no you have more nazis" thing. I don't know, how to do the comparisons; at least our nazis do not kill city mayors"
Fascists aren't necessarily anti-semitic. Putin's Russia has its own brand of fascism. Like all other brands, it's a nationalist autocracy that is overwhelmingly authoritarian and even to a large degree totalitarian. These are all key characteristics of fascism. Putin's Russia is indeed extremely fascist. He rules the Russian state with complete impunity. He treats other states as subordinates. He threatens the world with nuclear annihilation. He treats Russian citizens as mere cogs in the system with no regard to their individual autonomy. His citizens are an extension of his rule as they silence one another.
>>Modern Ukraine was entirely and fully created by Russia, more specifically the Bolshevik, communist Russia," Putin said. "This process began practically immediately after the 1917 revolution, and moreover Lenin and his associates did it..."[...] >>"Ukraine never had a tradition of genuine statehood."
-why does these surprise you so much? His point is that Ukrainian state obtained its independence differently from many others. While usually nations and states are formed in a historical process of self-identification, Ukraine has skipped several parts of it. For example, it never had its own currency, separate from the rest of Russia. It was presented all priveledges of a full-fledged state by Lenin. Perhaps the statement has some negative connotation, but this is a historical fact. You wouldn't argue with, for example, the point that the Jewish state has been formed by Stalin, Churchill and others.
>>"As a result of Bolshevik policy, Soviet Ukraine arose, which even today can with good reason be called 'Vladimir Ilyich Lenin's Ukraine'. He is its author and architect. This is fully confirmed by archive documents ... And now grateful descendants have demolished monuments to Lenin in Ukraine. This is what they call decommunisation. Do you want decommunisation? Well, that suits us just fine. But it is unnecessary, as they say, to stop halfway. We are ready to show you what real decommunisation means for Ukraine."
-yes, Ukraine pursues the policy of de-Sovietization, and the war "helps" it to lose parts of its Soviet-built infrastructure; this is just a positive (opposing to normative) fact, and a typical Putin for you.
>>"Russia assumed obligations to repay the entire Soviet debt in return for the newly independent states giving up part of their foreign assets. In 1994, such agreements were reached with Ukraine, but they were not ratified by Ukraine...
-a simple historical fact that can easily be checked
>>"(Ukraine) preferred to act in such a way that in relations with Russia they had all the rights and advantages, but did not bear any obligations... >>"From the very first steps they began to build their statehood on the denial of everything that unites us. They tried to distort the consciousness, the historical memory of millions of people, entire generations living in Ukraine."
-the idea is, a country leader, cannot simply say to an army "go fight those guys", - and they do it. In order for the army to fight efficiently, you need to make them see the enemy as something alien. And in the case of Russia and Ukraine, when the differences are so small, and there is so much common, - one have to go to the lengths, and create artificial memory for that. Here the guys like Snyder come handy. I was born in a town in the Volga region of Russia, where we had as kids a notion of "starving Volga people", which was used to mock someone, who eats a lot. It apparently originated from Soviet newspapers covering 1922 and 1930's famines, when ~10 million people died in my region alone. Thats why I was very confused when I first encountered with the idea of Holodomor as intentional genocide of Ukrainians. This was around 2004, when a mother of my Ukrainian friend came to visit him (we lived together in a dormitory), and I had a fight with her over some minor issue. The phrase was used as something that automatically makes me guilty in everything, irrespectively of who was wrong in our fight in the first place. Like, why I was to blame for some 70 years-ago famine, when it had been even worse in my region?
I'm no historian, but this case has interested me to the point that I even studied recordings of conference meetings on the matter. This was long before the war, and I could not understand, why do Ukrainian historians stuggle so hard on this, when all what I saw were some emotional arguments, with zero rationality.
With this war all pieces came together.
You may turn these words on me, of course, - and say that this speech is Putin dehumanizing Ukrainians. But since you so much interested in fascist propaganda, I'll post this here - a "fresh" one from today's Ukrainian biggest media channel. Discretion is advised https://ibb.co/FBvBkjt
On August 14 2023 07:01 sertas wrote: Russia would get steamrolled by finland, most prepared country in the world to defend itself, approximately 100x harder to attack then ukraine
On August 14 2023 06:44 Excludos wrote: Ukraine (like most of the world) didn't believe Russia would attack
-and Excludos cannot read.
Can't read what?
At least back your nonsensical oneliners up with actual content instead of further shitting up this thread? We've been trying for 50 fucking pages to get this thread back on track. Could you for one god damn second grow the fuck up and stop derailing it with nonsense?
On August 14 2023 06:44 Excludos wrote: Ukraine (like most of the world) didn't believe Russia would attack
-and Excludos cannot read.
Can't read what?
At least back your nonsensical oneliners up with actual content instead of further shitting up this thread? We've been trying for 50 fucking pages to get this thread back on track. Could you for one god damn second grow the fuck up and stop detailing it with nonsense?
Zelensky've said that he knew that Russia would attack; Washigton Post interviewer put his words on a paper; thousands of journalists reposted this everywhere; I posted the link and a quote on that several pages ago - and you still unaware of this. The only possible explanation is...
On August 14 2023 06:44 Excludos wrote: Ukraine (like most of the world) didn't believe Russia would attack
-and Excludos cannot read.
Can't read what?
At least back your nonsensical oneliners up with actual content instead of further shitting up this thread? We've been trying for 50 fucking pages to get this thread back on track. Could you for one god damn second grow the fuck up and stop detailing it with nonsense?
Zelensky've said that he knew that Russia would attack; Washigton Post interviewer put his words on a paper; thousands of journalists reposted this everywhere; I posted the link and a quote on that several pages ago - and you still unaware of this. The only possible explanation is...
It would have been A LOT easier for you to say that, than just just huff and snort out "you can't read!". The issue at handing isn't about reading comprehension, but about what you've read.
You are half right. I did have my timeline a bit twisted. Zelenskyy did know earlier than he let out about the attack, and the retort to the US was calculated, not based on naivety. However, the information about the attack did come from the US in the first place.
Wow. A constructive debate, where we learned something! See what we can achieve when you use yours words to put togheter sentences instead of just spewing shit all over the place? Let's try more of that going forward, ey?
P.S: Don't expect everyone to have read every post in this 500 page thread. I certainly skim through most of it, as I suspect most everyone else does as well. There's just not enough hours in the day to get through the entire wall of text from everyone. Just because you said something "several pages ago" does not mean everyone saw it. Not everything is a conspiracy theory. This is a mindset that would be very healthy for you to get out of
On August 14 2023 06:53 a_ch wrote: This was long before the war, and I could not understand, why do Ukrainian historians stuggle so hard on this, even all what I saw were some emotional arguments, with zero rationality.
With this war all pieces came together.
You're so close to getting it but you just can't seem to cross the finish line.
You can't understand their emotional visceral fear of Russia, of a Russian invasion, of cultural genocide at the hands of Russians. It doesn't make sense to you why they would feel this way.
Then Russia invades them again and it all makes sense to you. But not in the obvious way, that they were right to fear you. No, in a twisted Russian victim complex way where you had to start bombing maternity hospitals because they hate Russia.
How do you not now see that your Ukrainian friend was right? The people who taught them to hate and fear Russians were Russians over the last four centuries. The way you get them to stop is by recognizing their fears as legitimate and managing to go a few generations without doing any ethnic cleansing.
On August 14 2023 06:44 Excludos wrote: Ukraine (like most of the world) didn't believe Russia would attack
-and Excludos cannot read.
Can't read what?
At least back your nonsensical oneliners up with actual content instead of further shitting up this thread? We've been trying for 50 fucking pages to get this thread back on track. Could you for one god damn second grow the fuck up and stop detailing it with nonsense?
Zelensky've said that he knew that Russia would attack; Washigton Post interviewer put his words on a paper; thousands of journalists reposted this everywhere; I posted the link and a quote on that several pages ago - and you still unaware of this. The only possible explanation is...
It would have been A LOT easier for you to say that, than just just huff and snort out "you can't read!". The issue at handing isn't about reading comprehension, but about what you've read.
You are half right. I did have my timeline a bit twisted. Zelenskyy did know earlier than he let out about the attack, and the retort to the US was calculated, not based on naivety. However, the information about the attack did come from the US in the first place.
Wow. A constructive debate, where we learned something! See what we can achieve when you use yours words to put togheter sentences instead of just spewing shit all over the place? Let's try more of that going forward, ey?
P.S: Don't expect everyone to have read every post in this 500 page thread. I certainly skim through most of it, as I suspect most everyone else does as well. There's just not enough hours in the day to get through the entire wall of text from everyone
Please don't take it too close, - it's just me having a little fun after some wall of text. I actually am quite afraid that these are partly unintelligible, because I write in English much worse than read.
So, us people on the internet can say things, we have our own points of view about stuff, but what are the guys, 40 thousand of whom have died since the "counter offensive" have to say about the current state of things, ie, charging into defensive lines across the Donbas, territories and peoples that *voted* to join the Russian Federation, because they didn't want anything to do with the US backed Maiden coup in 2014?
> "NATO is sending us here to DIE" Ukrainian commanders admit they are cannon fodder for NATO
EPT
