That's where you go wrong - you see the nuclear bombing of Japan as an isolated event. Place it into the context of several hundred thousand people dying every month as it was at the time, and it will look different.
- 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.
Which option do you prefer?
There's an argument that Japan was ready to surrender. When? In a month? Two? Three?
>> I don't think you have to listen to Russian government propaganda to understand the NATO threat if you have any cognitive empathy whatsoever.
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?
Funny that you accuse him of "not studying Duma policies". Unlike in the west, Russian parliament has as much power as Reichstag had in Nazi Germany. It yields no actual power. They are button-pushers who do as they are told, or get replaced.
>> Crimea voted overwhelmingly to join Russia. ~98% Nearly a decade ago now. This is ancient history. Crimea is not in the Ukraine.
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.
>> Regarding the Stinger Missile Defense System the US provided Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger, it is capable of carrying nuclear warheads that could hit Moscow in single digit minutes from the Ukrainian border.
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?
>> Yes, it does. You are confusing 'Russian' and 'Soviet'.
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.
Doesn't make any practical difference. Soviet "republics" were as independent as Reichskommissariat Niederlande. Internal borders were freely redrawn and native populations resettled to satisfy Soviet colonial policies. If you want to start settling old scores and reversing "historical injustices", you can demonstrate good faith by giving Estonia back the 5% of its territory that is still occupied by Russia. Not to mention China's grievances about "humiliations" and "injustices" regarding the Russian Far East.
That's undoable if the population supports the government, as it is currently in Russia - and doable without much violence when government and its institutions lose legitimacy in the eyes of its population. The USSR was vastly more powerful than Russia, yet it crumbled in a very short time when people simply stopped recognizing its government as legitimate. Town governments declared self-governance and stopped following orders from the central government, and local police, KGB and army chiefs stood by and ignored orders that come from Moscow, until new legitimate leaders emerged from the people and they quietly switched sides. Why aren't we seeing anything like this in Russia? Because 3/4 still support Putin and the war. To most Russians, it's a legitimate government doing the right thing. And hence comes the responsibility.
>> Really, people polled around the world outside the NATO bubble blame NATO and USA. For years, since 2003 at least. Every year. It’s just not reported here.
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...
>> You spend some time whitewashing the US aggression and trying to explain how it’s better or different
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 (except at the very end, when Latvians immediately voted for candidates who would dissolve it). 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" 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.
>> About proxy war: yes it does, because the strawman is that Ukraine as a whole has to be a proxy for another country, for that to be a proxy war, but that’s not how proxy wars work.
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.