Ukraine

Oh he was clear alright. You can invade and annex part of Ukraine (again). If it's only a small invasion we won't do much.

Reminds me A LOT of Chamberlain and Munich.

 

Um the Russians were already there and diplomatically, that type of invasion changes absolutely nothing. So your comparison is not very good.

 

If Ukraine doesn't feel like being oppressed they do have the military, human power and PR to induce enough pain on Putin's Russia to subvert his power in long term. The world (except axis of Evil) will come down on Russia with all they got, economically speaking. Hence Russia's leverage is not that great. Perhaps they get Crimea out of it, but Ukraine's neutrality? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

I don't mean to sound condescending, but have you ever heard of the Sudetenland? It's almost exactly the same scenario. Hitler's claim was he was "protecting the Germanic people of Czechoslovakia" when he demanded it. (similar to Putin's claim of protecting the russian people of Ukraine).

Western leaders (Chamberlain and Daladier) let him have it in exchange for Hitlers promise he had no more territorial demands. 6 months later, he took the rest of Czechoslovakia.

 

Dude, there is NATO all around Russia on its Western front. who cares about the small similarity you are pointing out. You sure sound smart but overall political structure of the world is way different, so you point is rather mute

Edit: and nuclear stuff makes a whole lot of difference too!

 

Small similarity? They are EXACTLY THE SAME SCENARIO. And the previous one led to WWII. Something for people to at least ponder.

Yes, overall political structure of the world might be different. Please do elaborate on how you think it is different, and how that impacts this situation, and why you think that makes the complete parallels totally moot. I am pretty sure Putin is well aware of the history here, and didn't find it moot at all, but rather more of a blueprint. This is now the SECOND time he has used it, fwiw. Not much at all happened to him the first time. What lesson did that tell him?

As for NATO being all around Russia on its western front, first you need to review geography of the area, because that is not true. Basically, the Baltic States are in between. Which are the very states that Putin similarly also wants to annex. Second, apart from the above, this is what is supposedly driving Putin's concern, and the above is why he doesn't want those countries joining NATO. Never mind that NATO is a purely defensive entity.

As for nukes being involved, lets not forget that Clinton made Ukraine give up its nukes 'to help with its security'. Not really sure that is helping now.

 

It's insignificant in big scheme of things - hence "small". Aggressors' excuses for war come from the same playbook. Are you saying because Biden said there are various levels of response to various levels if aggression, that now Russia is bolstered to take on the NATO? That is the original criticism that I was responding to. I am claiming that Biden's statement was coming out of realism and had nothing to do with looking strong/weak. And that the consequences of his statement were more positive than if he said something stronger worded

 

ok, but not really small when the two are exactly the same and one led to WWII (not out of the question here, although not saying its likely). It's also not small in the examination and comparison of the false pretexts, and how he is using them.

The question isn't really if Putin is geared up to take on NATO. The question (as it was then as well) is "is NATO geared up to take on Putin"? He thinks definitely not. Is he right? FWIW....same thing Hitler faced, and he (also correctly) decided that no, they weren't. What happens when aggressors aren't really opposed? They keep going. AT what point, exactly, would you decide this isn't a small similarity?

 

Um you call me obtuse and then edit your post to ask me to elaborate after having injected yourself into a conversation? Um. Nah. I'm good. I said enough and not liking your vibe to be engaging further

 

We shall see. I think Putin is betting that they won't turn off the gas. I'm not sure he's wrong. If he's right, why not take over the other Baltic States?

 

Not a fan of Putin by any means, but I wouldn't say he hasn't been savvy thus far. His goal is nefarious but his strategy to reach that goal hasn't been dumb. I do agree that trump should STFU and let biden do his thing.

 

So, in your scenario, Putin wins? ie, if the West has to give in some, due solely to his aggression, is that not telling him aggression wins? and what would Russia 'concede', from before this started. Because invading and then giving some of it back is NOT making a concession---it is solidifying your gains. If I invaded your house, and decided you could have half of it back if we got along...would you consider that a concession on my part?

 

Without humor. Can someone please tell me why Trump would logically make that comment about Putin. I don’t understand or get what is happening in this Country.

 

It could be this simple: Game recognizing game. Lawless thug recognizing lawless thug. I really think that's it.
Trump uses the flag of America to his advantage, but he probably couldn't really care less. He loves powerful personalities and respects clever grifts.

I've never been on the "Putin has something incriminating on Trump" bandwagon, even though that's possible. He just likes people who cultivate a larger-than-life powerful image. Could take spray tans, gold escalators, military parades, or shirtless photo-ops on a horse, but it just appeals to him somehow.

Also, praising Putin in the current case helps him run down Biden. Maybe it's a little part of his 2024 campaign work already.

 

Machismo where strong guys/opponents have mutual respect for each other?

Trump has gotten so much criticism on Russian meddling and his Putin golden shower connection that he just can't help but to pipe up about it to show his irreverent attitude toward the scorn he received on it from public.

The Florida based presidential debutante, Desantis making a comment also forced his had, so he doesn't appear irrelevant.

Don't forget that this is the guy who wanted to Nuke hurricanes/tornadoes..

 

It's pretty complicated from what I remember. And it spread two US Presidents, though it's way more than just the US. I just summarize it as Ukraine promised to give up nuke in 1991 and follow-through that in 1994 (or maybe 1993). They didn't have control of the nukes. They have no capability to maintain and control them. No intelligence system of early warning, processing of threat, and no political and military control over deployment,.... in short, they have the hardware but not the key or the know-how to use it. If they wanted to, it would take years to develop those capabilities and if they did that, they would be under tremendous pressure from then Russia (not the crazy Putin version) and the West.