Russia's Invasion of Ukraine (Official Thread)

BigMoneyGrip

I'm Lamont's pops
Supporter
Joined
Nov 20, 2016
Messages
80,864
Reputation
11,066
Daps
319,578
Reppin
Straight from Flatbush
Russia needs to be stopped. I hope we start giving even more money to Ukraine and start putting more money aside for Covid it's getting rough out here
The more money that goes to Ukraine the more it keeps Putin in check… NATO might as well give Ukraine membership…
 

Mister Terrific

It’s in the name
Bushed
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
5,265
Reputation
1,458
Daps
18,917
Reppin
Michigan
The Kargil conflict between India and Pakistan in 2000 is one obvious and recent one. Pakistan invaded the Indian-controlled region of Kashmir, Indian forces initially lost ground but then achieved battlefield dominance and beat them back to the previous line of control, but didn't keep going forward to liberate Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Pakistan continues to occupy that land until today and there is occasional bloodshed but far, far less than there would have been if war had continued.

But honestly it's not common because most leaders don't consider casualties to be a major factor in wartime, especially civilian casualties, unless they're losing. They operate on a power-based understanding, so if they have superiority they push that edge as far as they can regardless of other consequences. So one major factor that could potentially cause it to happen more often is never even considered.
[/QUOTE]
The only thing I know about this war is a movie I saw on Amazon of them fighting in the mountains, but Wikipedia states India recovered all of its territory


Regardless, I don’t think it’s a factor of leaders not caring about civilian casualties, I think it’s political suicide for most regimes to allow foreign occupiers into your territory with attempting to take it back and is widely supported by the citizenry. Look at the falklands a seemingly insignificant series of islands yet retain an important symbolic meaning to Argentinian’s and Brits. Or the various island disputes between China, Korea and Japan. Korea holds massive political reactionary rallies over.

Look at these dumbass rocks
Japan and Korea disputed the Dodko Islands for 300 years

If a Korean politician came a long and said he is going to let Japan have these rocks he would be skewered in a day.

Hell, look at Taiwan, does China frame the taking of Taiwan as a geopolitical necessity due to its importance as a open water port or semi-conductor manufacturer? No, it’s about national honor.

Without a major defeat there is no way Zelensky and his government would be able to survive giving up the Donbas and Crimea and the next politician elected to government would very likely be pro returning these lands to Ukraines rightful internationally recognized possession.


lol, damn near EVERY conflict ends in an uneasy armistice. That's why wars beget wars. Your WW1 example is horrible because Germany WAS beaten back to their own territory and in fact was viewed as being very seriously punished for their role in the conflict, just like you want Russia to be. And yet it STILL erupted again later.

You can name literally dozens of countries in the last century alone who "fully expelled" the invading force and still faced horrific violence in the following years. Past experience shows that war is a ridiculously poor path to take if you don't want violence to continue down the road.

What are you even trying to argue here, that Russia needs to be responded to even more aggressively than WW1 Germany? Exactly how what are you plotting there
The terms of the armistice that ended World War 1 and the treaty of Versailles virtually guaranteed a 2nd conflict.

The demands placed on the German people were harsh enough to create enmity within the population but not harsh enough to prevent future ability to make war. The primary cause of German militarism was the Junker class of the Prussian aristocracy which were never completely enamored with Hitler but were supportive because he enabled their militaristic culture.

The Allies at the end of the war left much of Germany’s social, political and military structure in tact. If you notice most of the high command of the Nazi’s had names like Von Manstein, Von Block, Von Kluge, Von Rundstedt, Von Kleist etc. Von is an aristocratic designation.

There is a reason the 2nd go around the Allies made no mistakes and abolished Prussia as a political entity and abolished the Junker class. This not Hitler was the source of German militarism.

To put it simply the allies did not go far enough in World War 1. A complete occupation and dismantling of German social and political structures largely geared towards making war (Prussia was one of the few states that existed to make war in history outside of maybe Sparta), and purging of the aristocracy would’ve prevented World War 2. Which is exactly what they did in 1945.

Now we can’t go into Russia and so the same, but what Ukraine can do is remove Russia from their territory and purge the Donbas and Crimea of the social and political structures that allowed themselves to be usurped by Russian militarism.

Half measures will only lead to more conflict down the road.

I'm not arguing for direct democracy, I was just responding to Orbital's bs assertion that the people of Ukraine get to decide what the Ukrainian military does. I think a country should be particularly considerate of the lives of its citizens, especially minorities, whether or not the majority cares.





Same way it discouraged Marcos, de Klerk, Churchill, and Taylor, for example. Even the USSR disintegrated in large part due to nonviolent resistance. There are numerous instances in history where tyrants have been unable to control populations who didn't want to be controlled, even if they expressed their lack of submission nonviolently, and where the tyrant's forces proved unwilling to fight against a populace that wasn't fighting back. Of course there are some casualties, as there are for every tyrant, but generally far, far fewer than if they had fought violently. For example, India suffered 7,000 lives lost during their nonviolent fight for independence against racist imperialists, but the Malagasy uprising at the same time cost 40,000 lives in a far smaller country. At least 21,000 people lost their lives during decades of political violence during South African apartheid (which was mostly, though not entirely, nonviolent), but that's about 1% of the 2,000,000 lives lost during the Indochinese wars against the French/Americans at the same time. Kwame Nkrumah was nonviolently leading his people to freedom in Ghana with hardly any bloodshed at the exact same time that the Mau Mau rebellion was costing tens of thousands of Kenyan lives without the freedom.

These are all examples of Empires on their way out. The British empire was on its death door and did not have the political, social or military will to administer its colonial possessions. The USA was pressuring Britain, France, Netherlands etc to renounce its colonial possessions and join the American led liberal order. The British had crushed numerous Indian rebellions previously, if Ghandi was born in 1860 he would’ve been dealt with like numerous other Indian, Irish, and African intellectuals. Hell when the US replaced the British in many of these countries assassinations of benign non-violent political leaders like Patrice Lumumba were common.

Similarly the Soviets were already collapsing internally when it’s territories broke away. The Hungarian and Polish workers tried similar non-violent resistance in the 50’s and 60’s and were crushed by tanks. The Tiananmen Square massacre was non-violent student protests that were destroyed with as much violence as possible because China was not a declining political power.

Non-violent resistance only works if the conditions are right for them. Usually an empire that is collapsing already.

Conversely Putin has stated he is outside of the liberal world order and his decisions will be counter to whatever hurts the US and it’s allies views on these things. There is absolutely no indication that Ukrainian territory would be won back by passive resistance as Putin is not acting out of economic necessity but a perceived spiritually and blood duty.

How long shall we allow Ukrainian territory to be Russian hands? 30 years? 50? 100?

Also, if Putin keeps his conquests what examples does that set for the rest of the world? You can just take territories with no long term political repercussions? Nuclear and arms proliferation on a massive scale?

Look, I understand that the things I'm saying are too uncomfortable for most of the people here to read. You've spent your entire life being conditioned by the ruling world governments to accept war and violence as the ultimate solutions. The cartoons you watched, the history you were taught in school, the blockbusters that were put out, the message the news media promote, the positions of the governments in power, they ALL push the violence narrative as the solution. That doesn't mean it's objectively true, any more than racist or imperialist ideologies were objectively true in the 1800s. But it's the only message in play for most people.

Objective reality suggests not only that there are other ways, but that on average those other ways are more effective by every measure:





I think we all understand the sentiment. Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr are taught in school. I think we don’t find your point of view realistic given what we have heard coming from the Russian side. When fascists start talking about blood and soil you aren’t going to Naruto talk them down.
 
Top