How does our foreign-policy towards Russia justify them invading a sovereign country? It’s more like Billy having words with you and then punching the kid down the street in the face. The kid down the street doesn’t deserve it.
Not if you’ve got the kid down the street throwing rocks at Billy. Ukraine is America’s chosen platform for weakening Russia. We know that Washington has aimed to splinter and divide Russia for years. And Biden, Blinken and Austin said the quiet part out loud early in the conflict.
I am no fan of Putin and view him as the ruthless dictator that he is. That said, the reflexive comparisons to Hitler are not accurate and the reflexive comparisons with how world leaders reacted diplomatically with Hitler are not analogous. In fact, as dictators go, the two couldn't be more unalike. The reflexive analogies are a result of western propaganda and somewhat ironic given Ukraine's inclusion of neo-Nazi battalions in their military. I point this out not to make Putin look good, but because I believe it's extremely important for the United States to view the situation in an intellectually honest, non-emotional manner. Chamberlain was well familiar with Mein Kampf and anyone familiar with Mein Kampf knew what Hitler wanted to do, years in advance. Chamberlain deluded himself into believing he and Hitler could be cohabitants and stand as pillars against Communism in Europe. The British public was also still hung over from the first World War and going to war again was seen as an absolute very last resort and even then, they'd have to be dragged kicking and screaming back to the front lines. Britain also had financial concerns, their military was overstretched and could not afford rearmament. So that is the reason Hitler was "appeased" up until Poland. Such factors do not exist today for the U.S. and NATO and therefore appeasement carries less risk. Not to mention Russia does not have the Wehrmacht. They would be no match for NATO forces which already surround them to the west. As for Putin v. Hitler, we don't have a Mein Kampf from Putin which details (years in advance) a plan for lebensraum, revenge against France, extermination of the Jews and destruction of the Communists. Nothing in his history indicates he has any thirst for conquest in Europe. In power for over 23 years now and 70 years old, this is his first move westward and it's in a place that happened to be part of Russia for over 300 years. Putin has made it clear for at least two decades that Ukraine is his red line in terms of what he sees as an acceptable buffer between Russia and the West. The unfortunate part is a lot of what Putin is claiming is completely true. There was a handshake agreement between NATO and Russia in the 1990s that NATO would not expand eastward from East Germany. The West did foment a coup in 2014 in Kyiv. The West did renege on the Minsk II accords. Merkel admitted they were just a ruse to give Ukraine more time to build up their military. None of this makes Putin a good guy or makes what Putin is doing "okay." But it does shine a light on why all of this is happening.
Ever hear of a country called Georgia (2008) or a region called Crimea (2014)? This wasn't Putin's first move westward. Just his largest move westward. He's been testing the waters. I think the comparison between Hitler and Putin is valid, on a very basic level: invading neighbors to conquer and subjugate other countries, killing and torturing civilians, war crimes, etc.
I was not comparing Putin to Hitler. I was responding to Dugger’s comments that perhaps FDR and Churchill could have brokered peace with Hitler. I don’t think that could have happened. Would you let Putin have Ukraine?
I think FDR and Churchill could have brokered a peace with Hitler. But it would only have lasted a few months at the most. Hitler could have used the time off to further modernize his military and produce more of his wonder weapons, including jet fighters and rockets. By the end of the war, U.S. technology was rapidly advancing (especially for aircraft), while Germany was more concerned with production of weapons vs. improvement of them.
Wagner hires Gurkha mercenaries from India to fight for them. People from Nepal and are so desperately poor that they will sign up to fight (and probably die) in a losing cause, on the off chance that they might survive for a year and become Russian citizens. All for $380 a month ($4500 a year). India tightened its rules about allowing Nepalese to join India's armed forces. Seems like it wouldn't be that difficult to convince India to provide some alternate employment for them that pays more than $4500 a year. Russia’s Wagner mercenaries hire Gurkha soldiers spurned by India
U.S. to buy back Hawk missiles from Taiwan to provide them to Ukraine. Taiwan is retiring them from service. Taiwan's Retired Hawk SAMs Headed To Ukraine: Report
US didn't have a jet that saw actual combat in WWII. Germany, on the other hand: World War II German Jets
I don't think Putin wants to annex all of Ukraine. It would cost Russia too much. He wants to keep Ukraine out of NATO. If that's what you meant, I don't have a huge issue with Ukraine not being in NATO. We were doing just fine without them in NATO. Just added two powers in Finland and Sweden to NATO. Finland and Sweden are a helluva lot more trustworthy than Ukraine. I'm not losing any sleep if Ukraine is kept out of NATO.
It was Putin’s fault for putting his country so close to all of our bases. Notice you’re ankle-biting today.
And Chamberlain was celebrated as a hero for brokering that peace. But history has demonstrated what a catastrophic failure appeasement turned out to be.
It is mind-boggling how frequently he omits this small,minor detail. Today, the revisionist excuse is NATO based. In Feb 2022, it a need to rid the country of Nazis. The next excuse was they just wanted to protect Russian speakers, which didn’t hold weight since they bombed the entire Ukrainian country, East to west, north to south, indiscriminately. It’s almost like they just create the excuse after the fact and hope it sticks.
