Headlines compared: Polish newspapers from 1939 and news websites from 2022(sewerynszwarocki.pl)
sewerynszwarocki.pl
Headlines compared: Polish newspapers from 1939 and news websites from 2022
https://www.sewerynszwarocki.pl/those-who-cannot-learn-from-history-are-doomed-to-repeat-it/
105 comments
The southern front isn't going well for Ukraine at all, and I do not see what could change the outcome there, short of NATO forces joining the fight. If the southern front is done the invasion could resume on the other fronts, as well as continue in the south. Not hearing enough about this reminds me of the overly cheerful propaganda, the same sort as mentioned in these headlines.
>Not hearing enough about this reminds me of the overly cheerful propaganda
Ukrainian TV regularly describes the situation there - Kherson is lost, Berdyansk is lost, Mariupol is like Stalingrad when the defenders were pushed right to the Volga, Nikolaev - still not, and there is fighting around with various small villages and towns changing hands. Odessa - preparing for invasion, Russian Navy assault group is there and the smaller ships are hanging on the horizon periodically shelling the city. Some radars, etc. taken out by the bombing. I wonder what would you have to add/correct here.
Granted, Odessa falling will be huge in all respects. It would make the situation worse tremendously for Ukraine. It will also be a pretty tall order for Russian propaganda as for example i couldn't say which city is more dear to Russians - Kiev or Odessa. And Odessa will be fighting. It will be at least order of magnitude bigger/longer battle than Mariupol (especially given that Russian forces haven't yet encircled Odessa which is hard without taking Nikolaev, and attempting to take Odessa just by an assault from sea onto the mined beaches would be very risky). So, it isn't exactly a given that Russia can sustain such a fight given the Russian losses that have already happened and are going to happen - Russia is already starting to bring in military college cadets as well as calling reservists. Russia also wants Belarussian forces to join, yet given the Belarussian society feelings Lukashenko is afraid that the Belarussian army will desert to Ukrainians and would potentially turn against him while hoping that staying off may allow him to not go down with Putin/Russia.
Russia has also significantly decreased close air support for ground forces because of heavy losses of planes and helicopters. Thus they mostly bomb the cities from distance using unguided artillery and unguided MRLS like Grad/Smerch as well as unguided air bombing from higher altitudes. That mostly hits civilian population and civilian buildings/infrastructure while having much smaller effect against military targets. And thus even after such massive multi-days bombings the Russian ground forces still can't move ahead much.
Ukrainian TV regularly describes the situation there - Kherson is lost, Berdyansk is lost, Mariupol is like Stalingrad when the defenders were pushed right to the Volga, Nikolaev - still not, and there is fighting around with various small villages and towns changing hands. Odessa - preparing for invasion, Russian Navy assault group is there and the smaller ships are hanging on the horizon periodically shelling the city. Some radars, etc. taken out by the bombing. I wonder what would you have to add/correct here.
Granted, Odessa falling will be huge in all respects. It would make the situation worse tremendously for Ukraine. It will also be a pretty tall order for Russian propaganda as for example i couldn't say which city is more dear to Russians - Kiev or Odessa. And Odessa will be fighting. It will be at least order of magnitude bigger/longer battle than Mariupol (especially given that Russian forces haven't yet encircled Odessa which is hard without taking Nikolaev, and attempting to take Odessa just by an assault from sea onto the mined beaches would be very risky). So, it isn't exactly a given that Russia can sustain such a fight given the Russian losses that have already happened and are going to happen - Russia is already starting to bring in military college cadets as well as calling reservists. Russia also wants Belarussian forces to join, yet given the Belarussian society feelings Lukashenko is afraid that the Belarussian army will desert to Ukrainians and would potentially turn against him while hoping that staying off may allow him to not go down with Putin/Russia.
Russia has also significantly decreased close air support for ground forces because of heavy losses of planes and helicopters. Thus they mostly bomb the cities from distance using unguided artillery and unguided MRLS like Grad/Smerch as well as unguided air bombing from higher altitudes. That mostly hits civilian population and civilian buildings/infrastructure while having much smaller effect against military targets. And thus even after such massive multi-days bombings the Russian ground forces still can't move ahead much.
The southern front is the only one where Russians are making any progress, and near Kiyv there’s already been successful counterattacks.
I guess the question is what happens if Russia wins in the south and can retask those resources to help near Kyiv or other hold outs. Especially if/when rumored groups of soldiers from Syria & Belarus enter the conflict.
I also don't see Russia backing down without some type of agreement that cedes territory or other significant concessions to them, which sets up a sort of moral hazzard. Then, a few years from now Russia does this sort of thing again. It would feel like the sort of appeasement policy used with Germany leading up to WWII.
I don't see a good way around that possibility that doesn't risk a huge escalation. Actually I may see one very imperfect option: Cede Crimea and maybe other concessions to Russia in exchange for and agreement of neutrality backed by allowing a very large build up if Ukrainian military power, and a guarantee of support from the West, to significantly deter Russia from doing this again. At the same time that specific and severe sanctions beyond what we've seen already will be rapidly implemented if Russia tries this with any other country.
Even this is problematic, and probably unrealistic that Russia would agree to it. And so it just comes down to how long Ukraine can hold out, or how strong of an insurgency they can mount for the long term & what price Russia is willing to pay (eventually they cut their losses in Afghanistan). But Russia probably decides that if they can't have Ukraine then then they'll destroy every city and as much infrastructure as possible on their way out (hints of that already)
It is truly hard for me to see any positive outcome here that is as likely as any of the many bad possible outcomes. Maybe if Putin's purges of political leadership cause then to launch a coup in self defense? Waging war among that chaos would be hard, and the West could negotiate with new leadership about getting out of Ukraine in exchange for lifting some of the sanctions.
I also don't see Russia backing down without some type of agreement that cedes territory or other significant concessions to them, which sets up a sort of moral hazzard. Then, a few years from now Russia does this sort of thing again. It would feel like the sort of appeasement policy used with Germany leading up to WWII.
I don't see a good way around that possibility that doesn't risk a huge escalation. Actually I may see one very imperfect option: Cede Crimea and maybe other concessions to Russia in exchange for and agreement of neutrality backed by allowing a very large build up if Ukrainian military power, and a guarantee of support from the West, to significantly deter Russia from doing this again. At the same time that specific and severe sanctions beyond what we've seen already will be rapidly implemented if Russia tries this with any other country.
Even this is problematic, and probably unrealistic that Russia would agree to it. And so it just comes down to how long Ukraine can hold out, or how strong of an insurgency they can mount for the long term & what price Russia is willing to pay (eventually they cut their losses in Afghanistan). But Russia probably decides that if they can't have Ukraine then then they'll destroy every city and as much infrastructure as possible on their way out (hints of that already)
It is truly hard for me to see any positive outcome here that is as likely as any of the many bad possible outcomes. Maybe if Putin's purges of political leadership cause then to launch a coup in self defense? Waging war among that chaos would be hard, and the West could negotiate with new leadership about getting out of Ukraine in exchange for lifting some of the sanctions.
Again, Russia can’t win this militarily - they are stalled in the south and already losing (being slowly forced to retreat) in the north. Also their economy is in shambles.
You are right they won’t back off easily. That’s why we should considering all the possible ways to hurt Russia; at this point literally anything is a lesser evil.
You are right they won’t back off easily. That’s why we should considering all the possible ways to hurt Russia; at this point literally anything is a lesser evil.
>I don't see a good way around that possibility that doesn't risk a huge escalation. Actually I may see one very imperfect option: Cede Crimea and maybe other concessions to Russia in exchange for and agreement of neutrality backed by allowing a very large build up if Ukrainian military power, and a guarantee of support from the West, to significantly deter Russia from doing this again.
Yes, I've thought from the start that this is the likely best case for Ukraine; acknowledging de jure the de facto loss of Crimea and Donbass since 2014, in exchange for
* an end to the war
* Austrian-style neutrality
* specific US/UK/other Western powers' guarantee (not NATO) of territorial integrity for rump Ukraine if Russia attacks it again
This would give Putin a way out by giving him a "win" for the domestic audience, cause no/minimal loss of additional territory for Ukraine, and give it as much security as it can hope for (since NATO membership isn't happening).
Maybe I'm wrong, the incessant reports of poor Russian morale and logistics really are completely true as opposed to having been massively spun by Ukraine's PR department, and we really will see that (as claimed just today by Ukraine) Russian troops will run out of supplies in three days. But I wouldn't bet money on it.
Yes, I've thought from the start that this is the likely best case for Ukraine; acknowledging de jure the de facto loss of Crimea and Donbass since 2014, in exchange for
* an end to the war
* Austrian-style neutrality
* specific US/UK/other Western powers' guarantee (not NATO) of territorial integrity for rump Ukraine if Russia attacks it again
This would give Putin a way out by giving him a "win" for the domestic audience, cause no/minimal loss of additional territory for Ukraine, and give it as much security as it can hope for (since NATO membership isn't happening).
Maybe I'm wrong, the incessant reports of poor Russian morale and logistics really are completely true as opposed to having been massively spun by Ukraine's PR department, and we really will see that (as claimed just today by Ukraine) Russian troops will run out of supplies in three days. But I wouldn't bet money on it.
Exactly.
>Not hearing enough about this reminds me of the overly cheerful propaganda, the same sort as mentioned in these headlines.
I am cautiously optimistic for Ukraine based on reports over the past month. But I am also aware of the history of war propaganda.
The front pages of US and UK newspapers during the Battle of France, for example, were filled with headlines talking about French successes in repelling the Hun. Anyone paying attention to the details, however, could see that the successes were constantly occurring closer and closer to Paris.
If Russia wins, there is going to be a lot of cognitive dissonance among those whose worldviews are entirely shaped by Reddit headlines and Twitter takes. I'd hope that having their worldviews shattered so abruptly and violently would cause such people to reexamine all of their preconceptions, but given how previous such cases (notably Brexit and Trump's election, both in 2016) mostly caused them to double down rather than seriously self reflect, I am not hopeful.
I am cautiously optimistic for Ukraine based on reports over the past month. But I am also aware of the history of war propaganda.
The front pages of US and UK newspapers during the Battle of France, for example, were filled with headlines talking about French successes in repelling the Hun. Anyone paying attention to the details, however, could see that the successes were constantly occurring closer and closer to Paris.
If Russia wins, there is going to be a lot of cognitive dissonance among those whose worldviews are entirely shaped by Reddit headlines and Twitter takes. I'd hope that having their worldviews shattered so abruptly and violently would cause such people to reexamine all of their preconceptions, but given how previous such cases (notably Brexit and Trump's election, both in 2016) mostly caused them to double down rather than seriously self reflect, I am not hopeful.
Here is another sad similarity:
“After the attacks […] Another 100,000 Poles became refugees in Romania and were received with sympathy by the Romanian public.”
https://hi-storylessons.eu/events/the-polish-government-trea...
https://hi-storylessons.eu/events/the-polish-government-trea...
Headlines from a more recent war:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/the-ira...
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/the-ira...
It pains me to say that I got swept up in that zeal for war. Rereading some of these bloodthirsty headlines is tough.
I occasionally revisit Jon Stewart's 2015 interview of Judith Miller for some light catharsis: https://www.cc.com/video/o05yhi/the-daily-show-with-jon-stew...
I occasionally revisit Jon Stewart's 2015 interview of Judith Miller for some light catharsis: https://www.cc.com/video/o05yhi/the-daily-show-with-jon-stew...
This is not only about current headlines, it is the very same list of hybrid war tactics shared by two figures.
https://texty.org.ua/articles/105990/putler_en/
Originally published: 21 December 2018. Translated into English: March 2022.
It looks like history have taught us almost nothing.
https://texty.org.ua/articles/105990/putler_en/
Originally published: 21 December 2018. Translated into English: March 2022.
It looks like history have taught us almost nothing.
I would like to see a similar comparison between the Russian state media and the treatment of the Iraq war by US media in the first years.
Almost all Russian propaganda staples have direct correspondents:
- Denazification and demilitarization -> ending Saddam's support for terrorism and Al Qaeda
- Biological and nuclear dirty weapons -> Weapons of mass destruction
- Saving the people of Donbas -> Human rights abuses by the Saddam Regime, Iraqi freedom
- Special operation -> Military action (but in very short order, US media started calling it an invasion)
I'm not saying the situations are similar, they are clearly not, but the strong similarity speaks volumes about the constraints under which wartime propaganda operates. The US media, retaining its freedom, eventually recovered on the issue of WMDs and other biased points of view, the Russians will probably not.
Almost all Russian propaganda staples have direct correspondents:
- Denazification and demilitarization -> ending Saddam's support for terrorism and Al Qaeda
- Biological and nuclear dirty weapons -> Weapons of mass destruction
- Saving the people of Donbas -> Human rights abuses by the Saddam Regime, Iraqi freedom
- Special operation -> Military action (but in very short order, US media started calling it an invasion)
I'm not saying the situations are similar, they are clearly not, but the strong similarity speaks volumes about the constraints under which wartime propaganda operates. The US media, retaining its freedom, eventually recovered on the issue of WMDs and other biased points of view, the Russians will probably not.
Number one difference is that US forces didn’t focus on killing random civilians instead of military.
This is just revisionism. The US had better optics and narratives, but they sure did not shy of destroying urban areas to save their soldiers. Just look at fallujah.
Again - the difference is that Russians are doing this instead of fighting the Ukrainian army, as opposed to a collateral damage. What US has done was a crime, but Russian actions are even worse.
And most of all: what has happened, it happened. What matters is what’s happening right now, because we can still change it.
And most of all: what has happened, it happened. What matters is what’s happening right now, because we can still change it.
The ukrainian army is in the cities too though, it's collateral damage. If their objective was just to terrorize or genocide the ukrainians they would not restrict themselves to bombing cities that are currently part of the front.
I agree to some extent on the last part, right now is more important but it does not mean we have to whitewash the past. I didn't bring up the US, but even the current events do not justify historical revisionism. You can denounce what's happening now without saying it's worse than what our side did before.
I agree to some extent on the last part, right now is more important but it does not mean we have to whitewash the past. I didn't bring up the US, but even the current events do not justify historical revisionism. You can denounce what's happening now without saying it's worse than what our side did before.
Russians _are_ bombing cities that are not part of the front. That's the point: they are fighting civilians instead of army, not in addition to.
That's a nonsense claim. If Russians would see human and civil destruction as a military goal, we wouldn't have thousands of victims, but hundreds of thousands. We would have bombing campaigns like the second world war, a single bomb dropped on a communist apartment block would kill hundreds.
There is intense research and analysis by credible western sources that the Russian impasse is caused by exactly the fact they ran out of smart and precision weaponry, while the Ukrainian have took positions in the cities. This forces the Russians to an all out, total war of annihilation that is bad for them from a propaganda standpoint, both externally, pushing their allies away, and internally, since most Russians consider the Ukrainians as a brethren people.
There is intense research and analysis by credible western sources that the Russian impasse is caused by exactly the fact they ran out of smart and precision weaponry, while the Ukrainian have took positions in the cities. This forces the Russians to an all out, total war of annihilation that is bad for them from a propaganda standpoint, both externally, pushing their allies away, and internally, since most Russians consider the Ukrainians as a brethren people.
It's absurd to claim that the Russians are "focusing" on killing civilians. They seem strongly aware of the propaganda potential of civilian deaths, and they are frustrated to be drawn into urban warfare instead of the easy victory they envisioned out in the agricultural fields.
To put it in perspective, the civilian deaths resulting from the Iraq war are in the hundreds of thousands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
To put it in perspective, the civilian deaths resulting from the Iraq war are in the hundreds of thousands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
Don't try to stick to facts here! The "intellectual curiosity" driven discussion on HN demands complete surrender to the current submission mood, which is "Russia bad". I'm surprised that your comment isn't flagged yet.
Well, Russia is bad, there is no denying that. I might go as far as to say "US good", in a black and white picture of the world suitable for 6 year olds. But the world is not black and white, it's all shades of browns.
It’s not “Russia bad”, it’s “Russia invaded a country for political reasons and is committing multiple war crimes on purpose”.
Russians don’t care about propaganda potential - their army is a joke, so they are targeting civilians as a terror tactics.
But hey, I appreciate that you created an account just to whitewash Rashists.
But hey, I appreciate that you created an account just to whitewash Rashists.
We have found our deep thicker and geopolitical strategist.
Amazingly, they conjure their deep insights without any factual information, using only their extraordinary prowess for bellybutton scratching.
Amazingly, they conjure their deep insights without any factual information, using only their extraordinary prowess for bellybutton scratching.
...said pro-russian shill account created 30 days ago :-D
That's rich. Here is an idea: if you are looking for a face to hate, for example that of a dumb Russian who is fed only propaganda, has no ability to separate truth from manipulation, no ability to see nuances and that would make excelent cannon fodder in Putin's personal war, than you should look in a freaking mirror. Don't worry, your Putin will come to you.
what do you know about it, either the war in iraq or the war in ukraine?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre
oh, doea that not count because they were contractors?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-a...
surely these are isolated incidents.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre
oh, doea that not count because they were contractors?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-a...
surely these are isolated incidents.
Try searching for some objectives data, e.g.:
* Estimated Iraqi civilian fatalities: from 3k to 7k in 1 month, 1 week and 4 days [1]
* Estimated Ukrainian civilian fatalities: from 1k (according to UN) to 4k (according to Ukraine) in 1 month [2]
In short, Western news are unsurprisingly biased towards the Western perspective.
Edit: note also that Ukraine has a larger populations than Iraq, so I'd expect more civilian casualties in Ukraine than in Iraq, but actually there are less.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai...
* Estimated Iraqi civilian fatalities: from 3k to 7k in 1 month, 1 week and 4 days [1]
* Estimated Ukrainian civilian fatalities: from 1k (according to UN) to 4k (according to Ukraine) in 1 month [2]
In short, Western news are unsurprisingly biased towards the Western perspective.
Edit: note also that Ukraine has a larger populations than Iraq, so I'd expect more civilian casualties in Ukraine than in Iraq, but actually there are less.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai...
Remember the last missile sent in anger in Kabul, August 2021?
Random civilians there, as many other American attacks were (are).
Random civilians there, as many other American attacks were (are).
Shouldn't nuclear weapons enter the calculation somewhere?
Maybe it's wishful thinking, but that seems unlikely. A tactical nuke to level a city would best be deployed to reduce morale, induce terror to get major concessions at the negotiating table. (It couldn't really be used to reduce Ukraine military, they aren't concentrated enough for that.
But a tactic like this could make Ukrainians even angrier, not demoralized. Could go either way. Regardless, any nuclear launch would have the effect of galvanizing support far beyond the current level. It would probably also strip them of Chinese support because extreme sanctions would fall on anyone providing the least bit of support to Russia, and a massive economic blow to China hurts them more than it would hurt most other countries (though it would still hurt).
If course the above is predicated upon a rational weighing of consequences, and I shouldn't assume rationality by Putin. But enough people in power may still be rational enough to stage a coup if he truly approaches nuclear war.
Or so I hope. A few months from now I might remember this comment and how naive it was.
But a tactic like this could make Ukrainians even angrier, not demoralized. Could go either way. Regardless, any nuclear launch would have the effect of galvanizing support far beyond the current level. It would probably also strip them of Chinese support because extreme sanctions would fall on anyone providing the least bit of support to Russia, and a massive economic blow to China hurts them more than it would hurt most other countries (though it would still hurt).
If course the above is predicated upon a rational weighing of consequences, and I shouldn't assume rationality by Putin. But enough people in power may still be rational enough to stage a coup if he truly approaches nuclear war.
Or so I hope. A few months from now I might remember this comment and how naive it was.
While definitions can be fuzzy, in Russian doctrine a "tactical nuke" would refer to something you fire "in battle", from artillery range, and does not carry enough payload to level a city.
It also makes sense on the abstract level. Leveling a city is not a tactic, it is a strategy-level move.
It also makes sense on the abstract level. Leveling a city is not a tactic, it is a strategy-level move.
[deleted]
From Russia's perspective, they are pre-emptively preventing the further expansion of NATO towards their borders. For Russia, NATO expansion to the East looks like the build up to an invasion. Hey, I don't say they're right, but they have experienced two major invasions from the West before. (Three if you count the Swedish one).
It's pretty clear that they meant it seriously in 2007 in Munich that they would not tolerate it. Perhaps, just perhaps, the West has not acted wisely.
It's pretty clear that they meant it seriously in 2007 in Munich that they would not tolerate it. Perhaps, just perhaps, the West has not acted wisely.
> From Russia's perspective, they are pre-emptively preventing the further expansion of NATO towards their borders
That's one piece of the Russian propaganda excuse, the one most engineered to fit with a Western audience, but it's not particularly plausible.
That's one piece of the Russian propaganda excuse, the one most engineered to fit with a Western audience, but it's not particularly plausible.
Let me repeat: Ukraine is a sovereign country. It can look West, East, or neither. Furthermore, countries apply to join NATO rather than are being incorporated by force. It is neocolonialist to think that Ukraine is just a pawn between NATO and Russia.
Justifying the Russian attack goes the same way as "because her skirt was too short... oh, no, no - it wasn't her fault but of society, which lets women dress like that". It's always the aggressor's fault, full stop. For a comparison, NATO didn't perform a land invasion on Belarus when it became a Russian vassal state.
Justifying the Russian attack goes the same way as "because her skirt was too short... oh, no, no - it wasn't her fault but of society, which lets women dress like that". It's always the aggressor's fault, full stop. For a comparison, NATO didn't perform a land invasion on Belarus when it became a Russian vassal state.
It's not a valid comparison. Russia isn't "raping" Ukraine because her skirt was too short. It's defending itself (from Russia's point of view) because Ukraine is (or was) making itself a NATO attack platform. The number one motivation of (rational) states is survival.
And no, NATO is not a defensive alliance. They attacked Serbia and Libya.
And no, NATO is not a defensive alliance. They attacked Serbia and Libya.
Ironic that actions meant to pre-emptively prevent further expansion of NATO will likely result not only in further expansion of NATO but of strengthening of militaries in countries already part of NATO.
Of all of the reasons put forth by various sources over why this is happening, the simplest is often the correct one (not always, but often), which is that Putin just wanted Ukraine back in his (i.e. Russia's) embrace. And nobody says no to Putin.
Of all of the reasons put forth by various sources over why this is happening, the simplest is often the correct one (not always, but often), which is that Putin just wanted Ukraine back in his (i.e. Russia's) embrace. And nobody says no to Putin.
Where is NATO going to expand to after Russia wins in Ukraine? This war changes everything. The most likely outcome is a massive, resource-rich Eurasian bloc with China as its center of gravity, with increasing influence in the (also resource-rich) developing world against a fading, culturally decadent, resource-poor West. This bs situation is terrible for the West. America will be different, but can survive. Europe will be absolutely fucked.
Very on point. It's bizarre some fail to draw these clear historic parallels.
To put it simply - Putin will never stop until he is stopped.
Also note his recent speech - it's basically Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer.
To put it simply - Putin will never stop until he is stopped.
Also note his recent speech - it's basically Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer.
Do you have to the recent speech with subs? Finding it harder and harder to find unabridged and uneditorialized versions.
I'd rather not link such toxic waste. Those who need it for historic research can find it.
So you are asking us to note the recent speech but not to watch it...?
I spent a short time searching for his recent speeches recently but came up short. The best I found was short clips with newscast voiceovers.
I do think it's dangerous to just rely on second- or third-hand summaries, no matter how terrible the message.
I spent a short time searching for his recent speeches recently but came up short. The best I found was short clips with newscast voiceovers.
I do think it's dangerous to just rely on second- or third-hand summaries, no matter how terrible the message.
In Sep 1939, after their pact, both Germany and USSR invaded Poland. One early USSR action (denied by the USSR until 1990) was
"a series of mass executions of nearly 22,000 Polish military officers and intelligentsia carried out by the Soviet Union, specifically the NKVD.... which was approved by the Soviet Politburo led by Stalin"
known as the Katyn massacre. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre]
The Nazis pointed it out in 1943, the USSR blamed it on the Nazis. The (non-Russian) Allies played down the fact at the time. (Churchill is quoted as writing 'we should none of us ever speak a word about it.')
It seems hard to believe that with modern tech everywhere, such an act could happen again. Not so hard to believe that the same is true of a cover-up.
"a series of mass executions of nearly 22,000 Polish military officers and intelligentsia carried out by the Soviet Union, specifically the NKVD.... which was approved by the Soviet Politburo led by Stalin"
known as the Katyn massacre. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre]
The Nazis pointed it out in 1943, the USSR blamed it on the Nazis. The (non-Russian) Allies played down the fact at the time. (Churchill is quoted as writing 'we should none of us ever speak a word about it.')
It seems hard to believe that with modern tech everywhere, such an act could happen again. Not so hard to believe that the same is true of a cover-up.
There have been numerous articles suggesting Putin miscalculated, had bad intel, and was surrounded by “yes-men.” The crux being Putin can’t stop now even if he wanted because it would make him look weak.
They are all dancing around one of the most prolific war-time headline phrases, almost like the media is purposely holding off on using it until it’s been sufficiently built up before dropping it. I predict we will begin to see very shortly and hear endlessly on the 24/7 news cycle:
Ukraine is an intractable quagmire for Putin.
The media has used the phrase intractable quagmire to describe Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Its like a right of passage for every new generation of media covering a conflict.
They are all dancing around one of the most prolific war-time headline phrases, almost like the media is purposely holding off on using it until it’s been sufficiently built up before dropping it. I predict we will begin to see very shortly and hear endlessly on the 24/7 news cycle:
Ukraine is an intractable quagmire for Putin.
The media has used the phrase intractable quagmire to describe Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Its like a right of passage for every new generation of media covering a conflict.
All of those putin stories are coming from either shady tweets or outright ukrainian propaganda. And I doubt ukrainian state media has access to putin's personal feelings.
Now don't get me wrong, it's necessary propaganda and it's war. But it's incredible to me that people actually what amount to fan fiction. Like seriously, no ukrainian I've talked with believes those far fetched but very convenient story. They know it's a war and propaganda is part of the war effort but they don't actually believe it themselves. I've only seen westerners eat those stories and craft their own lore around it. I guess we forgot about the supposed military coup to overthrow putin, him hiding in the Ural in fear of his life, the military units that were about to defect... 2 weeks ago.
At the end of the day, it does not matter even if it was true. We need to focus on helping ukraine and actually stay tethered to the reality on the ground and concrete actions we can do. There is a war on the ground, and for all intents and purposes there is absolutely 0 way for us to know about the inner dynamics of the Kremlin that wouldn't be completely tainted by propaganda.
Now don't get me wrong, it's necessary propaganda and it's war. But it's incredible to me that people actually what amount to fan fiction. Like seriously, no ukrainian I've talked with believes those far fetched but very convenient story. They know it's a war and propaganda is part of the war effort but they don't actually believe it themselves. I've only seen westerners eat those stories and craft their own lore around it. I guess we forgot about the supposed military coup to overthrow putin, him hiding in the Ural in fear of his life, the military units that were about to defect... 2 weeks ago.
At the end of the day, it does not matter even if it was true. We need to focus on helping ukraine and actually stay tethered to the reality on the ground and concrete actions we can do. There is a war on the ground, and for all intents and purposes there is absolutely 0 way for us to know about the inner dynamics of the Kremlin that wouldn't be completely tainted by propaganda.
As for a coup, political purges and arresting top officials-- which does seem credible intel-- will certainly make the remaining leadership a little uneasy. Maybe not enough for a coup, but in chaotic situations the outcome can hinge on small things.
> All of those putin stories are coming from either shady tweets or outright ukrainian propaganda.
These “stories” as you call them are coming from nearly all western media.
> there is absolutely 0 way for us to know about the inner dynamics of the Kremlin that wouldn't be completely tainted by propaganda.
We don’t need to know the inner workings of the Kremlin to know that 8 years ago Putin illegally invaded Ukraine annexing Crimea, and based on the lack of response that he would be emboldened to eventually continue his use of force.
It’s great to champion support for Ukraine now, but most of that is just virtue signaling, where was the support for the last 8 years as Russia occupied entire parts of Ukraine?
Crimea was both geographically strategic put also a chance for Putin to gage response of the internationally community. It’s not exactly propaganda that he would have thought this armed conflict would have unfolded similarly his use of force and annexation of Ukrainian territory 8 years ago.
These “stories” as you call them are coming from nearly all western media.
> there is absolutely 0 way for us to know about the inner dynamics of the Kremlin that wouldn't be completely tainted by propaganda.
We don’t need to know the inner workings of the Kremlin to know that 8 years ago Putin illegally invaded Ukraine annexing Crimea, and based on the lack of response that he would be emboldened to eventually continue his use of force.
It’s great to champion support for Ukraine now, but most of that is just virtue signaling, where was the support for the last 8 years as Russia occupied entire parts of Ukraine?
Crimea was both geographically strategic put also a chance for Putin to gage response of the internationally community. It’s not exactly propaganda that he would have thought this armed conflict would have unfolded similarly his use of force and annexation of Ukrainian territory 8 years ago.
On the other hand, the unexpectedly unified response of the EU here may give him some pause should he decide to take the next step toward the Baltics.
I think the comparison with Poland is not apt (despite the stunning similarities in the headlines - which make this a fantastic read), because Hitler's invasion of Poland triggered a declaration of war by the Allies, which Hitler was prepared for, and whom he invaded directly afterwards. This step by Putin is more similar to the invasion of Czechoslovakia, which met little enough resistance that he was emboldened to go after Poland. The Allies did help to arm Poland in the months after Czechoslovakia fell, as we're arming and moving troops to Latvia now, but England and France continued to pursue appeasement with Hitler. And in any case, Hitler had good reason to believe he could win a war in the West without American involvement, and given his pact with Stalin. Putin's pact with China looks a lot shakier; the West's reaction to a non-alliance country's invasion is much more united; the signals don't point to the idea that Putin could win any territory against NATO. If Germany were still debating the nordstream pipeline, if Orban had gotten on his side, if the sanctions had not been as extreme, he might take that as a signal that we were able to be picked off. So I think some differences apply.
It's true that our reaction to Crimea was akin to the West's reaction to Hitler's initial occupation of the Sudetenland, so he probably assumed this would go as well as Czechoslovakia... but thankfully it looks like he's a step behind.
I think the comparison with Poland is not apt (despite the stunning similarities in the headlines - which make this a fantastic read), because Hitler's invasion of Poland triggered a declaration of war by the Allies, which Hitler was prepared for, and whom he invaded directly afterwards. This step by Putin is more similar to the invasion of Czechoslovakia, which met little enough resistance that he was emboldened to go after Poland. The Allies did help to arm Poland in the months after Czechoslovakia fell, as we're arming and moving troops to Latvia now, but England and France continued to pursue appeasement with Hitler. And in any case, Hitler had good reason to believe he could win a war in the West without American involvement, and given his pact with Stalin. Putin's pact with China looks a lot shakier; the West's reaction to a non-alliance country's invasion is much more united; the signals don't point to the idea that Putin could win any territory against NATO. If Germany were still debating the nordstream pipeline, if Orban had gotten on his side, if the sanctions had not been as extreme, he might take that as a signal that we were able to be picked off. So I think some differences apply.
It's true that our reaction to Crimea was akin to the West's reaction to Hitler's initial occupation of the Sudetenland, so he probably assumed this would go as well as Czechoslovakia... but thankfully it looks like he's a step behind.
> Its like a right of passage for every new generation of media covering a conflict.
More like a rite of passage for every occupying force.
More like a rite of passage for every occupying force.
Maybe, but in the 8 years of Russia occupying Crimea the media never called Ukraine an intractable quagmire for Russia, they mostly ignored it.
To be honest, this conflict resembles some similarity with the Afghan invasion, just the Soviet one
And Afghanistan was an intractable quagmire for Russia long before it was for the US. You'd think these lessons would be learned better.
It's shocking how much delusion around the world there was about Poland being able to defend itself against Hitler's invasion. Are we similarly deluding ourselves about Ukraine?
Poland was completely conquered in 5 weeks (35 days), after having been attacked from two sides (by Germany and the Soviet Union). We are currently 26 days into this war, and Ukraine is holding up much better.
This map shows how far the Germans got in two weeks, and it's much more than what the Russians have done so far in Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poland2.jpg
This map shows how far the Germans got in two weeks, and it's much more than what the Russians have done so far in Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poland2.jpg
Keep in mind that while the popular conception of WWII is as a mechanized war, everyone (especially the fuel-starved Germans) was still incredibly reliant on foot and horse-based movement. I don't believe the German army even had experimental APCs at the start of the war.
The commonly cited number for how fast a traditional army can march is 20 miles per day, unopposed. The BTR-80 is rated for 50 miles per hour. Obviously APCs have to deal with refueling and maintenance and the like, but surely a modern mechanized army shouldn't moving slower than a comparable unmechanized one from 80 years ago.
The commonly cited number for how fast a traditional army can march is 20 miles per day, unopposed. The BTR-80 is rated for 50 miles per hour. Obviously APCs have to deal with refueling and maintenance and the like, but surely a modern mechanized army shouldn't moving slower than a comparable unmechanized one from 80 years ago.
It's extremely misleading, that sort of map view of a war like liveuamap tries to create. There is going to be no attempt to defend farmland, little towns or villages etc.
The fact is that the administrative and economic centres of Ukraine are Ukraine. Once they are under Russian control, there is very little anyone can do.
The sort-of map view of a war is too flawed. It was more relevant in a time when the majority of a country's economy was located in the countryside - where people physically grew food, produced goods on a small scale etc. - and it lends itself nicely to video games (which, let's face it, are most people's only experience of grand strategy and warfare). It's just not how warfare works, and the victory condition for the Russian army is maybe a month and a half away at current pace, by my estimation.
The information in the map that you linked is meaningful for sure, but it neglects the details that actually determine any side's performance in the war - you cannot extract the war's velocity from it.
The sort-of map view of a war is too flawed. It was more relevant in a time when the majority of a country's economy was located in the countryside - where people physically grew food, produced goods on a small scale etc. - and it lends itself nicely to video games (which, let's face it, are most people's only experience of grand strategy and warfare). It's just not how warfare works, and the victory condition for the Russian army is maybe a month and a half away at current pace, by my estimation.
The information in the map that you linked is meaningful for sure, but it neglects the details that actually determine any side's performance in the war - you cannot extract the war's velocity from it.
“ It was more relevant in a time when the majority of a country's economy was located in the countryside - where people physically grew food, produced goods on a small scale etc.”
This seems to describe Ukraine after Russia destroyed the city center…
This seems to describe Ukraine after Russia destroyed the city center…
The invasion of Poland was much bloodier than is often recalled. The Germans and Soviets invaded with 2 million soldiers and incurred 59 thousand casualties. The Russians are conducting direct combat operations with every major Ukrainian city except for Lviv and Odessa. The center of Ukraine is largely farmland and small villages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland
[deleted]
How can you compare two wars 80 years apart given the advancements in nearly every area. Polish soldiers couldn't watch German soldiers moving around from the safety of a bunker via a phone screen. The available, basic intelligence alone could keep a war like this going for months.
It's why I don't understand how it's happened. Wars like this - between modern countries - just should not exist as a matter of common sense (e.g. Mutual destruction theory).
It's why I don't understand how it's happened. Wars like this - between modern countries - just should not exist as a matter of common sense (e.g. Mutual destruction theory).
German invasion involved a much larger army. Germans invaded with 1.5M infantry soldiers alone. Russia barely has 15k, 100 times less, right now in Ukraine, most are mechanized. The scale of the war is immensely different.
edit: I know there's a higher estimated Russian count but it's not infantry.
edit: I know there's a higher estimated Russian count but it's not infantry.
The number would be closer to 100 000 russian soldiers according to the pentagon, with 70-80% of it engaged inside ukraine already. But yes that's still just a fraction of the total russian army, and the ukrainian army had very similar numbers on the ground at the start of the war. So it's not equivalent to ww2 at all.
But yes, the current situation is actually very different to WW2 with even the few similarities being at most superficial. But every war is compared to WW2 since it's a nice way to push for escalation under the pretext of stopping the next hitler. Yet WW1 is almost always a more appropriate example, but a pretty inconvenient one since it does not fit into war mongering narratives. Because I'm just not sure that saving serbia back in 1914 was really worth the lives of 10 million people in hindsight.
But yes, the current situation is actually very different to WW2 with even the few similarities being at most superficial. But every war is compared to WW2 since it's a nice way to push for escalation under the pretext of stopping the next hitler. Yet WW1 is almost always a more appropriate example, but a pretty inconvenient one since it does not fit into war mongering narratives. Because I'm just not sure that saving serbia back in 1914 was really worth the lives of 10 million people in hindsight.
Russia has at least 150k troops in Ukraine and the estimate doesn't include those from Syria and Chechnya.
And of those a small part is infantry as I said, mostly those are mechanized units.
Thanks for the clarification - do you have a link to detailed stats about the invading army? Cant find a detailed breakdown.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Wars just don't happen as quick as they used to?
It was 168 days from invasion to "First post-Saddam government" in 2003.
It was 168 days from invasion to "First post-Saddam government" in 2003.
Actually, Poland was defeated in 26 days. The invasion started on Sept 1 and concluded on Sept 27.
Based on what I'm seeing in mainstream Western press and especially memes that people share, yes.
For starters, Russia lost ~10% of its forces so far - but so did Ukraine (side note: if seriously believe the figures that Ukrainian Ministry of Defense publishes for Russian casualties, I have a bridge to sell you). The difference is that Ukraine is already fully engaged - it's not like had a choice! - while Russia has used only a part of its forces for the invasion. Now it's true that the forces that spearheaded the invasion were supposed to be the best trained and equipped ones, and other units that they'd have to bring would have more conscripts and be otherwise less effective. But a conscript is still better than no soldier at all!
Then there's the "missing" Russian Air Force. And it's not just strategic bombing, but also ground support. The notion that they're incapable of any of this is just plain ridiculous, given what we've seen before in Syria. Now, Ukrainians do have much better AA than Syrian rebels, so Russian losses in the air would be high - but if they go all-in, it won't matter.
So, the people who are dying defending Ukraine right now are basically buying time for the West to get over its fears and hesitations and truly help them. But, ironically, the ferocity of the defense led to the popular misconception that Ukraine can basically do it through grit alone. So I hope they do get help before it's too late, but I'm also pessimistic about it.
For starters, Russia lost ~10% of its forces so far - but so did Ukraine (side note: if seriously believe the figures that Ukrainian Ministry of Defense publishes for Russian casualties, I have a bridge to sell you). The difference is that Ukraine is already fully engaged - it's not like had a choice! - while Russia has used only a part of its forces for the invasion. Now it's true that the forces that spearheaded the invasion were supposed to be the best trained and equipped ones, and other units that they'd have to bring would have more conscripts and be otherwise less effective. But a conscript is still better than no soldier at all!
Then there's the "missing" Russian Air Force. And it's not just strategic bombing, but also ground support. The notion that they're incapable of any of this is just plain ridiculous, given what we've seen before in Syria. Now, Ukrainians do have much better AA than Syrian rebels, so Russian losses in the air would be high - but if they go all-in, it won't matter.
So, the people who are dying defending Ukraine right now are basically buying time for the West to get over its fears and hesitations and truly help them. But, ironically, the ferocity of the defense led to the popular misconception that Ukraine can basically do it through grit alone. So I hope they do get help before it's too late, but I'm also pessimistic about it.
They won't get help in the form of military intervention. The US wants the war to drag on because it's bad for Russia, but there is no way they will risk their own skin in a nuclear war. Ukrainians are discovering what Kurds, Afghans, Georgians and South Vietnamese learned: It is more dangerous to be buddies with the US, than to be their enemies.
> They won't get help in the form of military intervention.
I wouldn't count on that; a big part of the political calculus in the response is managing risk while assuring NATO’s Eastern flank countries of NATO’s (and particularly, the major North American and Western European powers) commitment to their security needs.
3 of those Eastern Flank countries have called for military intervention by NATO already (Estonia and Lithuania for enforcing a No Fly Zone, Poland for a peacekeeping force on the ground.)
I wouldn't count on that; a big part of the political calculus in the response is managing risk while assuring NATO’s Eastern flank countries of NATO’s (and particularly, the major North American and Western European powers) commitment to their security needs.
3 of those Eastern Flank countries have called for military intervention by NATO already (Estonia and Lithuania for enforcing a No Fly Zone, Poland for a peacekeeping force on the ground.)
That's exactly why I'm pessimistic.
The real problem is that once nuclear threats work, it's unclear why Russia should stop using them. For example, they now have a major security problem with Kaliningrad being an exclave - it's completely surrounded by unfriendly countries, and now even air cannot be reliably used to supply it; only shipping via the Baltic, which is itself a route that's easy to threaten.
So suppose they demand that Lithuania gives them a land corridor from Belarus to Kaliningrad, or else? Lithuania is a NATO member, and would, of course, invoke Article 5 - but would Americans be willing to risk their own skin in a nuclear war for the sake of Lithuania anymore so than they did for the sake of Ukraine, regardless of NATO membership?
OTOH it's also unclear why Russia should respond with nukes to a conventional intervention in Ukraine. Worst case, they lose Ukraine; is that worth a nuclear war in which they lose Russia itself?
Mind you, this is assuming that Putin is rational, which is itself questionable. But if he's truly insane, then only he knows if and when he's going to press that button, and all these attempts to guess what not to do to prevent him from doing so are very likely to be futile in the long run.
The real problem is that once nuclear threats work, it's unclear why Russia should stop using them. For example, they now have a major security problem with Kaliningrad being an exclave - it's completely surrounded by unfriendly countries, and now even air cannot be reliably used to supply it; only shipping via the Baltic, which is itself a route that's easy to threaten.
So suppose they demand that Lithuania gives them a land corridor from Belarus to Kaliningrad, or else? Lithuania is a NATO member, and would, of course, invoke Article 5 - but would Americans be willing to risk their own skin in a nuclear war for the sake of Lithuania anymore so than they did for the sake of Ukraine, regardless of NATO membership?
OTOH it's also unclear why Russia should respond with nukes to a conventional intervention in Ukraine. Worst case, they lose Ukraine; is that worth a nuclear war in which they lose Russia itself?
Mind you, this is assuming that Putin is rational, which is itself questionable. But if he's truly insane, then only he knows if and when he's going to press that button, and all these attempts to guess what not to do to prevent him from doing so are very likely to be futile in the long run.
1. We do not want war.
2. The other side is solely responsible for the war.
3. The enemy has the face of the devil.
4. It is a noble cause that we defend and not particular interests.
5. The enemy commits atrocities knowingly; if we make unfortunate mistakes, it is involuntary.
6. The enemy uses unauthorised weapons.
7. We suffer very few losses, while the losses of the enemy are enormous.
8. Artists and intellectuals support our cause.
9. Our cause has a sacred nature.
10. Those who question our statements are traitors.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Basic_Principles_of_War_...
Don't kid yourself that is not happening now, as it did in 1914, 1939, 2003 and countless other times. Noticing its existence is not support for anything at all. Whatever our feelings about it all we should be asking "How is this different to our feelings about how we thought the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would play out and how they actually did?" The stakes are really quite high.
2. The other side is solely responsible for the war.
3. The enemy has the face of the devil.
4. It is a noble cause that we defend and not particular interests.
5. The enemy commits atrocities knowingly; if we make unfortunate mistakes, it is involuntary.
6. The enemy uses unauthorised weapons.
7. We suffer very few losses, while the losses of the enemy are enormous.
8. Artists and intellectuals support our cause.
9. Our cause has a sacred nature.
10. Those who question our statements are traitors.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Basic_Principles_of_War_...
Don't kid yourself that is not happening now, as it did in 1914, 1939, 2003 and countless other times. Noticing its existence is not support for anything at all. Whatever our feelings about it all we should be asking "How is this different to our feelings about how we thought the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would play out and how they actually did?" The stakes are really quite high.
> 1. We do not want war.
In 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine, the world did nothing of consequence which emboldened the aggressor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_relatio...
> 2. The other side is solely responsible for the war.
Aside from good countries and people turning a blind eye and doing nothing; yes. Russia is clearly responsible for the aggression and (presumed guilty in the court of media coverage) warcrimes (yet to be tried and found guilty anywhere; but the gears of law are slow and this official designation will likely happen after the war).
> 3. The enemy has the face of the devil.
No comment, but I don't think anyone believes the average soldier on either side is this.
> 4. It is a noble cause that we defend and not particular interests.
As if anyone could ever drop 'particular interests' in any action that could border on the next world war or the deployment of weapons of mass destruction (Russia's nukes).
> 5. The enemy commits atrocities knowingly; if we make unfortunate mistakes, it is involuntary.
Some occasional error? Maybe mistakes. Repeated attacks on civilian targets? Not mistakes.
> 6. The enemy uses unauthorised weapons.
We hope not, thus far the really bad ones haven't been covered, at least just yet.
> 7. We suffer very few losses, while the losses of the enemy are enormous.
We, the general West, have so far not been involved in the fighting. Those who are involved seem to both be taking unfortunate losses.
> 8. Artists and intellectuals support our cause.
> 9. Our cause has a sacred nature.
To make the world a better place with more freedoms and personal liberties, quality and safety of life, and less war-mongering dictators?
> 10. Those who question our statements are traitors.
Which statements are in question? You and others are all free to do so in the society I live in. While I have heard that laws in Russia have 'consequences' for the dissemination of facts and opinions the government disagrees with. Some of the cases have been light. Many protestors have been arrested though.
In 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine, the world did nothing of consequence which emboldened the aggressor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_relatio...
> 2. The other side is solely responsible for the war.
Aside from good countries and people turning a blind eye and doing nothing; yes. Russia is clearly responsible for the aggression and (presumed guilty in the court of media coverage) warcrimes (yet to be tried and found guilty anywhere; but the gears of law are slow and this official designation will likely happen after the war).
> 3. The enemy has the face of the devil.
No comment, but I don't think anyone believes the average soldier on either side is this.
> 4. It is a noble cause that we defend and not particular interests.
As if anyone could ever drop 'particular interests' in any action that could border on the next world war or the deployment of weapons of mass destruction (Russia's nukes).
> 5. The enemy commits atrocities knowingly; if we make unfortunate mistakes, it is involuntary.
Some occasional error? Maybe mistakes. Repeated attacks on civilian targets? Not mistakes.
> 6. The enemy uses unauthorised weapons.
We hope not, thus far the really bad ones haven't been covered, at least just yet.
> 7. We suffer very few losses, while the losses of the enemy are enormous.
We, the general West, have so far not been involved in the fighting. Those who are involved seem to both be taking unfortunate losses.
> 8. Artists and intellectuals support our cause.
> 9. Our cause has a sacred nature.
To make the world a better place with more freedoms and personal liberties, quality and safety of life, and less war-mongering dictators?
> 10. Those who question our statements are traitors.
Which statements are in question? You and others are all free to do so in the society I live in. While I have heard that laws in Russia have 'consequences' for the dissemination of facts and opinions the government disagrees with. Some of the cases have been light. Many protestors have been arrested though.
I don't have the interest or time to go through all of these, (and I many of your comments I don't disagree with) but this one stuck out:
> 7. We suffer very few losses, while the losses of the enemy are enormous.
Everything I've seen in the media (I live in the USA) has been about how the Ukrainian forces have been absolutely kicking the Russian's asses in this war. The "West" supports Ukraine, so their forces could be consider "our forces".
It might be true, might not be, but it would fall in line with these 'Principles of War Propaganda"
> 7. We suffer very few losses, while the losses of the enemy are enormous.
Everything I've seen in the media (I live in the USA) has been about how the Ukrainian forces have been absolutely kicking the Russian's asses in this war. The "West" supports Ukraine, so their forces could be consider "our forces".
It might be true, might not be, but it would fall in line with these 'Principles of War Propaganda"
Yes, my "answer" to that question was a specific dodge, which also let me cast the losses on the actively fighting sides in a light I view as morally correct.
__all__ of those people fighting in Ukraine right now are unfortunate. Ukrainians for a greedy invasion directed by the elite in a far away land, and the soldiers of that same land who, surely, are getting the worst feed of propaganda of all. None who are injured or dieing have any real say in the outcome. They are all unfortunate people.
__all__ of those people fighting in Ukraine right now are unfortunate. Ukrainians for a greedy invasion directed by the elite in a far away land, and the soldiers of that same land who, surely, are getting the worst feed of propaganda of all. None who are injured or dieing have any real say in the outcome. They are all unfortunate people.
I'm not sure if this was your intent, but you describe very well what Russia is telling its own people.
I'm sure the people of Iraq and Afghanistan would argue there was an equal amount at stake.
1914 is especially relevant. The world pushed itself into world War for the same reason some people are now advocating for military action against Russia; we have to save the underdog european country of Serbia/Ukraine or else the Austrians/Russians will gain a hegemony over the rest of the Balkans/Eastern europe, plus they wouldn't dare actually going to war against us and they are just bluffing.
It's a bit maddening that a NFZ has even been proposed by actually serious people and repeatedly normalized as a harsh but possible choice by journalists and the media. To me, that's so much more dangerous than any "dangerous misinformation" or call for violence that we were so obsessed about suppressing in the past 2 years.
The normalization is working, because that there's even a discussion on enforcing a no fly zone over the military of a nuclear power would've been unthinkable even in the depths of the cold war. And the comparisons to ww2/hitler are not helping at all.
It's a bit maddening that a NFZ has even been proposed by actually serious people and repeatedly normalized as a harsh but possible choice by journalists and the media. To me, that's so much more dangerous than any "dangerous misinformation" or call for violence that we were so obsessed about suppressing in the past 2 years.
The normalization is working, because that there's even a discussion on enforcing a no fly zone over the military of a nuclear power would've been unthinkable even in the depths of the cold war. And the comparisons to ww2/hitler are not helping at all.
Well, what do you think will happen if Russia takes Ukraine? Do you think they will settle back in into a peaceful stance, uninterested in further conflict? That Ukraine is truly the final step in whatever geopolitical strategy they're enacting?
> we have to save the underdog european country of Serbia/Ukraine or else the Austrians/Russians will gain a hegemony over the rest of the Balkans/Eastern europe
The West isn't actually scared of the threat of Russian hegemony over Ukraine. It's more just that it would be a tragedy for Ukrainians who have been trying since the early 2000's to shake free of them. It's also about solidifying the idea that you don't take over neighbors for imperial reasons. The appeals to "you could be next" aren't really a motivator in all this for any NATO country, but there is a lot of sympathy from liberal democracies for a country trying to become one being invaded by a relic from the past.
The West isn't actually scared of the threat of Russian hegemony over Ukraine. It's more just that it would be a tragedy for Ukrainians who have been trying since the early 2000's to shake free of them. It's also about solidifying the idea that you don't take over neighbors for imperial reasons. The appeals to "you could be next" aren't really a motivator in all this for any NATO country, but there is a lot of sympathy from liberal democracies for a country trying to become one being invaded by a relic from the past.
I know that our military and state leadership are not really worried about further russian expansion... but amongst the public it's an extremely common argument. There are a few examples of that even in this thread.
[deleted]
Good and important post but why oh why so many blogs insist on typefaces that are barely visible/legible?
It's scaled up to 1.6rem. The problem is user agents that don't support accessible font scaling.
The problem is contrast, not scale.
[deleted]
[deleted]
While interesting, this ignores the differences between the current situation and WWII. It’s clearly trying to lead the reader to a specific conclusion. For example, when Poland was invaded, Britain and France immediately declared war on Germany. Where is this parallel?
I think the point here is to draw parallels between what may be Russia's longer term intentions. Clearly the current scope of conflict is not the same, and an isomorphic 1-to-1 mapping of the details of those times to this situation isn't intended.
Biden saying the US will defend every square inch of NATO territory?
Do you think Russia has invaded a NATO nation?
Which Ukraine isn't. So what's the parallel again?
Your statement makes Ukraine parallel to Czechoslovakia, not Poland.
Your statement makes Ukraine parallel to Czechoslovakia, not Poland.
[deleted]
I think this comparison is a worthwhile effort, but it also should be kept in mind that any kind of aggression, large or small, personal or political, evokes reactions and emotions from a relatively small pool, and the words to describe these emotions are also from a relatively small pool - which means headline similarities may not be any kind of portent of doom.
The underlying point, however, and the initial quote of the article, remain pertinent: "Those Who Cannot Learn From History Are Doomed To Repeat It"
The underlying point, however, and the initial quote of the article, remain pertinent: "Those Who Cannot Learn From History Are Doomed To Repeat It"
[deleted](1)