When leadership treats their own soldiers like dirt, imagine how they treat the countries they invade.
It’s hard to NOT see the similarities in Hitlers invasion of Poland and its intended affects. It’s a major history lesson to understand how nation wide grievances about lost territory and nationalistic prestige fuels these horrible wars and the atrocities that follow. Nobody has said that Putin is Hitler (well except our friends who are from Kyiv have told us that) There are important historical similarities and they’ll both be on the Mount Rushmore of evil but Putin is his own man and much different from a personality perspective than Hitler. But every day that Putin again does something like bombing hospitals or buildings that are marked as having children in them, the more appropriate it is to move him further down the line towards the Michael Jordan of evil. He’s a pretty freaking bad dude either way. However it does piss me off when every freaking thing people don’t like such as wearing masks gets compared to the Holocaust. We should not trivialize so nonchalantly. Talking about the German invasion of Poland though isn’t doing that IMO. It’s a very important historical reference.
I find it very interesting people try so hard to ignore the parallels and pretend Russia is no worse than the US.
There's always a 'fog of war' but in this situation there is a lot of other corroborating reports that Putin isn't getting accurate assessments. Also given the nature of the an autocracy and the former Soviet culture of secrecy and compartmentalization of information this seems very likely.
Since '45, making a comparison to Hitler and Nazi Germany has generally been brush aside as unintelligent rhetoric not to be taken seriously. For example, the bombing of Dresden killed ~23,000 people and the fire bombing of Tokyo killed ~100,000. So sure, as @dobro1229 put it, perhaps Putin should be up there on the Mount Rushmore of evil along with Roosevelt. I dont see it that way, but if we are going to compare apples to apples, civilian deaths are civilian deaths. When Putin starts rounding up millions of people into concentration camps and starts genocide, then we can make the Hitler comparisons. If one is to start comparing Putin to Hitler, then I can only assume their are either not having a serious conversation or they are completely delusional about history. This is not an endorsement of Putin or Russias actions but a rebuke for those who have some twisted dark fantasy to relive the events of the 30's and 40's. If you want to relive those events, then petition your Congressman to support a full on war with Russia. Otherwise, we can sit back in our luxury suites and wave our cutesy pompoms and root for the underdog who insists on being independent while antagonizing their biggest threat. I get it. Nobody cares about Team Yemen. Team Ukraine is the new bae.
Space Ghost you ignore so much in your narrow view. Putin is like Hitler in that he is a dictator who is invading other sovereign territories in an act of war. Putin is like Hitler in that he is controlling the information his countryman get back home to keep them ignorant and under the lying narrative he has created. Putin is like Hitler in putting political dissidence in prison with trumped up charges. So you can't go, well, he isn't EXACTY like Hitler because he isn't killing jews.....that is just silly...there are a lot of similarities..... And when you compare Dresden, and Tokyo etc, you keep leaving out that both of those instances were in RESPONSE to being attacked - if you start the war, you have no reason to b**** when the other guys come in harder than you to end it. DD
This is an excellent analysis that tries to pierce through the fog of war. I'll put some snippets here but it's worth reading the whole article at the link. Piercing the Fog of War: What Is Really Happening in Ukraine? March 24, 2022 We are skeptical about what we are reading, hearing, and seeing from reporters and commentators talking as if they found a way to pierce the fog, unmask the protagonists, and discover what is actually happening in Ukraine. by Graham Allison Follow @GrahamTAllison on Twitter L Amos Yadlin As images flash across our screens incessantly, and we search for signals in the blizzard of words about what is happening in Ukraine, we remind ourselves that we are members of the audience in a theater of war (and we hope before not too long, peace). On the battlefield, there can be no question about the fact that real bombs and bullets are destroying buildings and killing human beings. (So, we are sure this is not just a sequel to Wag the Dog.) But as the protagonists fight on the battleground and in economic and financial markets, they are at the same time engaged in an intense information war. Each actor attempts to shape the narratives, find images that reinforce its messages, and craft words that stir emotions to sustain the morale of its warriors and citizens. Each is also working to impact the views and actions of governments and publics in the wider world. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s career as a comedian pretending to be president prepared him brilliantly for his current role as a wartime president whose actions and words have made him a true global statesman. As analysts, we also note that he has taken information warfare to the next level. If, as it is often said, Vietnam was the first war to be fought on television, Russia’s war against Ukraine is the first major war to be fought on social media. As Winston Churchill did in the darkest days of Britain’s defiance of the Nazi Blitz, Zelenskyy is courageously rallying his citizens and soldiers to fight the invaders. He is also showing the world what leadership looks like—persuading nations around the globe to provide both material and moral support. Taking a page from Churchill’s defiance of Adolf Hitler’s onslaught, Zelenskyy intends to hang on for as long as possible—hoping against hope for a miracle on the battlefield or that somehow the United States will come to save his country. Our hearts go out to the brave Ukrainian fighters and citizens, and we are praying that Vladimir Putin’s invasion fails. Nonetheless, as professional analysts trying to make sense of what we are seeing, we begin by reciting what we most confidently know: namely, the fundamental truths about war that have been learned over centuries of experience. The “fog of war” is dense and thickened by disinformation and propaganda; “truth is the first casualty of war” (since, as Churchill said, combatants must wrap their campaigns in a bodyguard of lies); a Clausewitzian “friction” frustrates perfect plans when they have to be translated into operations; “first reports are always wrong”; and “wars are much easier to start than to end.” These have become clichés because each captures a basic truth about war. Since these truths have been reflected in every war that we have observed and studied (and that one of us has fought in), we start our analysis each morning by reciting them to ensure we have our feet on a solid foundation as we try to interpret the latest reports. This leaves us with a degree of skepticism about what we are reading, hearing, and seeing from reporters and commentators talking as if they found a way to pierce the fog, unmask the protagonists, and discover what is actually happening. But then we ask ourselves—and each other—ten key questions—and force ourselves to write down our best guesses about the answers. 1. How is the military war going on the battlefield? We find it more difficult to make confident judgments than most commentators. In essence, we agree with the “senior [Department of Defense] official” quoted in The New York Times this week, who when pressed to give his assessment of the war would only say: “a very dynamic and active battlefield.” While it is clear that Russian ground and air forces have significantly underperformed, and that the defiance of Ukrainian fighters and the population exceeded all expectations, we do not agree with those who have concluded that Russia has “lost” or even that it is “losing” as claimed by a number of prominent American observers. Ukraine’s military deserves high marks for slowing the Russian advance, destroying hundreds of tanks and dozens of airplanes. Nonetheless, when comparing the map of Ukraine at the start of Russia’s invasion on February 24 with today, it is clear that the line of control and the line of conflict have steadily moved west. One-quarter of the Ukrainian population has fled from their homes. Russia now controls twice as much Ukrainian territory as it did when the war began. In our assessment, Russia is currently regrouping and adjusting its strategy for the next phase of the war in which it will rely on more destructive artillery and rocket bombing of cities as it continues to try to grind down Ukrainian opposition. Some around Putin appear to have been as delusional about a quick, easy victory as U.S. secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld was in 2003 when he imagined that U.S. forces would be greeted as “liberators” in Iraq and American troops would be home for Thanksgiving. In contrast to observers who expected a short war, we did not. The Nazi blitzkrieg did not capture Paris until the thirty-ninth day. In Afghanistan, the timelines of war for Americans in 2001 and Russians in 1979 stretch out to thousands of days. One key variable is the number of Russian combat deaths, which appear to be approaching the number of Americans lost in the eight years of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Nonetheless, history suggests that Russia knows how to absorb losses, contain failures, recover, and find a more effective strategy to achieve the goals it sets for itself. So before joining in the celebrations of Russia’s failure, we remind ourselves that on day forty-two of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, President George W. Bush stood under a banner declaring “mission accomplished” and announced the end of major combat operations. In fact, combat continued for another 3,153 days during which more than 150,000 people died. 2. Will Russia transition to an aggressive total war? ... If Russian losses mount and the stalemate continues for weeks, we consider it likely that Russia will inflict Grozny-type destruction on select Ukrainian cities—starting with Mariupol. 3. When will negotiations end the military campaign? ... Thus, until the price of war is perceived as heavier than the price of concessions, it does not seem likely that we will see a cease-fire or concrete negotiations. 4. What about Zelenskyy and the future of Ukraine? ... If Kyiv falls to the Russians, one possible future would be the establishment of a pro-Russian government in the eastern part of Ukraine, while the Zelenskyy government withdraws to Lviv and governs the west of the country. We cannot imagine Zelenskyy or any other Ukrainian successor of a rump state formally accepting Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territory. Nonetheless, they might agree to an end of active fighting along a line of control across from which a Russian puppet government rules in the East. We cannot imagine Zelenskyy or any other Ukrainian successor of a rump state formally accepting Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territory. Nonetheless, they might agree to an end of active fighting along a line of control across from which a Russian puppet government rules in the East. 5. If Russia installs a puppet government or annexes part of Ukraine, will a popular resistance develop? ... Given the development of Ukrainian national identity in recent years and its success in rising up to defy Putin’s aggression in the past month of combat, it is unlikely that such a puppet regime could gain enough support of the Ukrainian people to suppress an insurgency. Russian forces would thus likely remain in Ukraine. 6. What are the prospects of the war in Ukraine leading to war between NATO and Russia? ... We judge that Putin will not conduct operations against NATO allies in the Baltics in the short or medium terms. After the slow slog in Ukraine, so many Russian casualties, and such a united Western response, we think that Putin is unlikely to pursue ambitions beyond Ukraine in the near future. 7. How is Russia employing its cyber capabilities? ... Whether Russia is withholding this weapon for use against the United States or Europe at a later stage of the war, or whether this is vivid example should lead us to discount prior claims about what cyber can do remains a puzzle for us.
conti... 8. How effective are the economic sanctions imposed on Russia? ... The scale of the economic assault that the United States and European Union have mobilized and the extent of the damage to the Russian economy and elite have been the biggest surprises for Putin and his team. The effectiveness of sanctions, embargoes, and other instruments of economic warfare are reflected in the fall of the ruble, the collapse of trade in anything but commodities, and the departure of international companies. There is also the long-term geopolitical effect of sanctions that may lead Europeans to reduce their dependence on Russian energy resources and weaken Russian leverage, though in reality, that transition would take many years. Thus, it is difficult to judge how economic pain will influence Putin’s choices. The key question is whether Putin will conclude that the costs of continuing the war so far exceed its benefits such that he will turn to a diplomatic path and accept less than he had demanded. At this point, we think that is unlikely to happen soon. 9. What are the implications for China and Taiwan? ... Thus, at this point, we have seen no concrete evidence to suggest that China is seeking to constrain Russia’s war. Watching the performance of what Putin had advertised as a new modern army with the capacity to “fight and win,” the repeated breakdowns and malfunctions of Russia’s most modern military equipment and logistics, and the ferocity of the U.S.-led Western response, we suspect Beijing is pausing to review its plans for military action against Taiwan. 10. Will Putin go nuclear? ... If, however, Putin’s only alternative was humiliating defeat, we fear that this could become a live option. After seven decades in which no nuclear weapon has been used in war, many today assume that a “nuclear taboo” makes any deliberate use of nuclear weapons unthinkable. We suggest they think again. A person who did not hesitate to bomb one of his nation’s own cities into rubble could certainly contemplate using low-yield nuclear weapons to destroy a Ukrainian city. Exploring that path, he might even take a page from the U.S. playbook in ending World War II. Putin could consider delivering a low-yield nuclear weapon to destroy one of Ukraine’s small cities, call on Zelenskyy to surrender—and threaten that if he did not, invite him to watch what a Ukrainian Nagasaki looks like. In conclusion, to return to the fundamental truths about war with which we began, our answers to these core questions remind us of two more truths. Once begun, wars take on a life and momentum of their own. And finally: war is hell.
Generally agree with this analysis. The one area that I don’t quite agree with is that the situation now and the end of WWII os fundamentally different that it isn’t just one country that has nuclear weapons. Putin might feel desperate enough to try a Hiroshima situation but unlike with Japan that caries the risk of retaliation from other nuclear states for breaking the taboo on use of nukes.
Unfortunately it's probably behind the paywall but some good analysis and visual breakdown of why the Russians have failed to capture Kyiv. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/02/world/europe/kyiv-invasion-disaster.html
Not millions in concentration camps, but not just normal civilian deaths ala Baghdad/Bush. This is brutality that definitely puts Putin in a class that should be treated at the very least as a modern day tyrant murderer. Where Hitler is invoked though ,as I said multiple times that you glazed over, is the parallels in the invasion of Poland in response to grievances of WW1 to Putin’s grievances of the Cold War fallout. There’s alot to learn about what can happen when a populist uses violent rhetoric politically and then acts on it. If Mexico was a powerful nuclear nation and the US was just a developing democracy with no relevant military im sure there would at some point be a populist that’d come up during a tough time promising to take back Texas, blaming the US for all their problems. THIS is the lesson here and why Hitler is a point of reference in regards to Putin and it should stop at 1939 because yes… millions in concentration camps…. Not the same as Putin’s war crimes…BUT Putin’s war crimes are NOT the same as civilians dying because George W bombed a building with Al Qaeda leaders supposedly living in it using them as human shields. W is still a war criminal but not equivalent to Putin and Putin is not equivalent to Hitler. So stop the “Oh everyone is bad so stop being mean to Putin BS.”
That definitely plays into the calculation. The important point is don't make the mistake of assuming it's off-limit. "As the United States and its partners contemplate the road ahead, we urge them to remember the lesson that President John F. Kennedy offered successors as the main takeaway from the Cuban Missile Crisis. In his words: “Above all, while defending our vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.”"
