You don’t say “checkmate” in tiddlywinks. It was primarily Russia that stopped Germany. Our mass extermination of German civilians, through carpet bombing, only hardened German resolve. On the other hand, WWII was existential for the Russians. At best, we managed to deliver half of Europe into the hands of worse-than-Hitler.
And the other half was set free. Better that than nothing. The only other way to handle it would be to let Germany take over Russia, and use even more U.S. troops to invade a better-defended Germany, likely resulting in a few million American troops killed, versus the 400,000 we actually lost. When you send aid to another country at war, there is usually no way to predict accurately how much that aid will help in the war effort. You can't calculate that 321,456 would be the correct number of jeeps and trucks to result in a long-term deadlock of German and Russian forces in the region. I would say it is good that you are willing, through your anti-American haze, to see that Stalin was a bad leader of Russia and a dangerous person for world peace. I find it surprising that you cannot see that Putin is trying to restore the situation that Stalin set up by keeping eastern European countries under Russian control. So, to summarize how things appear to be viewed in your mind: "Stalin bad-he kept neighbor countries after WWII instead of setting them free like the U.S. did with France, Belgium, and the Netherlands; Putin good--he invaded neighboring country to allegedly feel safer from an organization of countries that was barely willing to provide funding for their own defense". Try to accept your defeat in this argument with some minimal level of grace and dignity. I pretended that we were playing chess a moment ago so that you wouldn't collapse on the floor and start playing tiddlywinks like an infantile child, but that didn't work.
Never trust a dictator who came to power as an intelligence officer. Putin was lulling the west to sleep while he was formulating his grander plans. Part of intelligence work is convincing your enemies that you are their friend so you can stab them in the back later. I am fairly certain that Putin did not use the same speech (giving credit to the rest of "the team") when speaking exclusively to the Russian people. Furthermore, the way he gives credit to all of the other countries somewhat diminishes the contributions of the U.S.
LOL, Germany at the height of its strength lacked the wherewithal to cross the English Channel, let alone cross the Atlantic. Maybe the FDR and Churchill would have been better off not wanting the war of their dreams and brokering peace instead. But history does repeat itself.
Sometimes it’s necessary to remind people when they’re not paying attention … https://theweek.com/articles/445615/time-kill-word-troll
Dissenting is welcome, and necessary. Pushing bogus narratives based on bogus information with a bogus agenda? Not so welcome, in my opinion.
That’s just childish playground taunting. You don’t interface with my sources which are, by the way, almost all Western sources. They’re just not marinated in Bad Man Putin.
Why not a handful of Russian sources ? Are they not admissible ? Why rule them out when we know you’re just regurgitating Ukrainian sources ? Why should we assume Ukraine is telling the truth ?
Chamberlain brokered peace with Hitler, but that didn’t last very long. What would an FDR and Churchill brokered peace have looked like? Nazis get the keep Europe as long as they leave Britain and the US alone? Until they don’t.
I don’t get this love for Putin. I can understand if you’re not enamored with Ukraine, but Putin is someone who murders his political enemies. That’s not someone to hold in esteem.
How does according to Putin his reasons equate with love ? It’s hard to imagine a brokered peace between the two. Churchill may have been the primary belligerent, in both world wars … and FDR was smitten by Churchill. And setting aside Britain, for the moment, what would Germany not living the US alone have looked like ?
You are correct in that accepting Putin‘s reasons for invading Ukraine does not mean you love him. From other posts of yours regarding Putin, I did get that impression. If my impression is false, then I apologize. I don’t want it to read into your posts what is not there. But let me ask you this. Do you agree with and accept Putin‘s reasons for invading Ukraine? If so, why? Thank you.
I appreciate your charity. I am an American who despises my government’s foreign policy and that, based on its longstanding and hostile actions towards Russia, I regard Putin’s actions as understandable. Also, assuming that this does not escalate into WWIII, which I manifestly do not want, I’m intrigued to see the degree, if any, to which the world is reconfigured by this conflict. It’s like Mom might have said: “Well, how are you surprised that Billy punched you in the face when you’ve been throwing rocks at him ?” I do not see Washington being chastened in any way. Even if it loses another proxy war. And this would be its biggest defeat. But I do see a robust Eurasian counterbalance emerging. And perhaps America will become a better neighbor.
