The Washington Post As war enters bloody new phase, Ukraine again calls for more weapons

[Eatomus]

Lol. It's not. Chinese logistical aircraft have been traveling as far as Africa to deliver weapons. It's not new, nor does it indicate China intends to actually get involved in European conflicts.

They are involved.
China already arranged the date of the invasion of Ukraine with it's partner Russia
You are no less wrong the second time around being clueless to this fact.

"China asked Russia to delay Ukraine invasion until after Winter Olympics, say US officials"​

 

[maxparrish]

Yea, that's a ridiculous point of view. Why not just give them LATCMs then to rain down on Moscow? Why not give them F35's? Why not give them whatever they wanted?

The problem is that the more the West supplies weapons that can actually hurt *Russia* and impede their overall progress the more likely Russia will have to respond to those supply lines.

When asking "why nots" how about avoiding the fallacy of false choices? Since when is a Marder IFV, a field howitzer, HIMARs or a Mig -29 so "offensive" as to reach Moscow?

So there is only a "problem" in supplying weapons that work because then might attempt to cut those lines with interdiction?

Well yaaaaa... do you think the purpose of sending supplies to a war is provide a safe way to display one's virtue, or to feed the front with decisive weapons that work? Ya friend, supply is a part of war...just like in WW2 in supplying the UK and then Normandy entailed risk.

I think at this point you are out of coherent objections, which is not unlike the other NATO weasels that are allergic to winning.

 

[jgarden47]

MSN

Why won't dithering President Biden give Ukraine the offensive weapons they are begging for as women and children are being raped, butchered, bombed ?

1) There have been plenty of worse atrocities involving "women and children are being raped, butchered, bombed" in Africa and Asian - all but a few were allowed to "pass under the radar" with only a few protests of moral outrage!

2) Biden and NATO are attempting to balance between preserving the freedom of a young democracy and triggering a war with another nuclear power led by a ruthless DICTATOR who may be losing his grip on reality!

3) The real question remains as to what extremes is this Kremlin leader willing to go to guarantee a victory, unencumbered by checks and balances - chemical weapons, phosphorous bombs, biological weapons, carpet bombing of cities, mass executions, millions deported to Russian gulags .....

4) If by some miracle NATO's military forces were to intervene in Ukraine and that the conflict not escalate beyond a conventional war, the level of destruction would still be so great as to engulf the whole nation and decimate it's civilian population!

5) Just be glad that it's Biden, not his predecessor, who's currently in the White House - having an American President deliberately undermining faith in NATO must have surpassed Putin's "wildest dreams" - emboldening him in his visions of a Greater Russia!

6) Given that NATO's European partners were dumbfounded after having witnessed a US Commander-in-Chief taking the word of a Kremlin dictator over that of his own intelligence agencies - had Trump been elected to a 2nd term, there are no guarantees that once again he would have sided with Putin that Russia's military intrusion could be dismissed was just another domestic internal squabble, given that Ukraine was never considered a sovereign nation!

 

[maxparrish]

1) There have been plenty of worse atrocities involving "women and children are being raped, butchered, bombed" in Africa and Asian - all but a few were allowed to "pass under the radar" with only a few protests of moral outrage!

2) Biden and NATO are attempting to balance between preserving the freedom of a young democracy and triggering a war with another nuclear power led by a ruthless DICTATOR who may be losing his grip on reality!

3) The real question remains as to what extremes is this Kremlin leader willing to go to guarantee a victory, unencumbered by checks and balances - chemical weapons, phosphorous bombs, biological weapons, carpet bombing of cities, mass executions, millions deported to Russian gulags .....

4) If by some miracle NATO's military forces were to intervene in Ukraine and that the conflict not escalate beyond a conventional war, the level of destruction would still be so great as to engulf the whole nation and decimate it's civilian population!

5) Just be glad that it's Biden, not his predecessor, who's currently in the White House - having an American President deliberately undermining faith in NATO must have surpassed Putin's "wildest dreams" - emboldening him in his visions of a Greater Russia!

6) Given that NATO's European partners were dumbfounded after having witnessed a US Commander-in-Chief taking the word of a Kremlin dictator over that of his own intelligence agencies - had Trump been elected to a 2nd term, there are no guarantees that once again he would have sided with Putin that Russia's military intrusion could be dismissed was just another domestic internal squabble, given that Ukraine was never considered a sovereign nation!

However, all six of your points are irrelevant to what @Eatomus wrote, so the question remains unanswered, why won't Biden provide the weapons necessary for Ukraine to win?

Neither the administration nor any poster has provided a reason that is plausible or rational. Rather, like the administration, they attempt to dodge it. It doesn't matter what Trump would have done, what Trump didn't believe, or even what Biden and NATO are "attempting to do". The entire question is what should we have been doing since the war started and what should be doing at present?

I don't expect you to have that answer because even the administration cannot explain it in concrete terms. They either use a strawman (e.g. on the issue of the planes), handwave about 'what Ukraine actually need', invoke some strange characterizations of weapons being 'defensive' and 'offensive', etc., and never explain what the point is of this branding of typical conventional weapons as either 'holy' or 'profane' is - its very, very strange.

Look, I can come up with my own lists of preferred weapons, or weapons that may not be wise (e.g. those that violate international law), but what none of us can do is read the mind of leaders who seem to pull their self imposed limits out of their ass.

The press has been a miserable failure in demanding coherent policy statements...they have let leaders shuffle about with vagaries and excuses that don't hold up.

Many have come to the conclusion that the real answer is simple: Biden, Scholtz, Macon, and even Johnson don't want Ukraine to win...they'd rather see the country fall than let that happen. They don't care if a stalemate develops where the bloodshed continues to flow, of if Ukraine is eventually dismembered. They may have some sympathy for Ukraine's people but they have more regard for protecting Putin's position as an essential. And if Ukraine has to pay the price, so be it.

In other words, they are the wests own 5th column. Weak, cowardly, and deeply immoral. Working on behalf of Putin's interests.

Sad, but it is the only explanation.

 

[jgarden47]

Finnish - USSR War (1939) - 400,000 Russian casualties in less than 5 months, largely due to "over-confidence," combined with a failure to learn the "hard lesson" that to remain an effective fighting force during extreme temperatures, troops need to be properly trained and equipped!

Tanks, artillery, and aircraft they will need to go on the counter-offensive and take the occupied parts of their country back from Russia.

1) Given that Ukraine ranks as a military "lightweight" by world standards, to what extremes is Putin willing to go to "save face?"

2) The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has many parallels with the USSR's decision to invade Finland in the winter of 1939 - 5 months and 400,000 casualties later, the Finns taught the USSR the same lessons about winter warfare that the Russians would in turn use against the Germans at the doorsteps Moscow (1941-42) and Stalingrad (1942-43)!

3) The ineptitude of the USSR's military, after Stalin's purges, didn't pass unnoticed and 15 months later Hitler unleashed "Operation Barbarossa" in 1941 - the Germans, in turn, would also fall victim to their own arrogance by failing to recognize the other "hard lesson" the Russians learned in the winter of 1939, preparedness for conducting warfare at -40*!

4) Fast forward to 2022, just as with the Finnish debacle the incompetence of the Russian military is once again on full display for all to see on the world stage - her neighbors, particularly China, must already be re-calculating as to just how much pressure they can now exert on Putin to make concessions - given that both sides know that the abysmal performance of his conventional military forces poses no real threat!

 

[maxparrish]

View attachment 67385156

Finnish - USSR War (1939) - 400,000 Russian casualties in less than 5 months, largely due to "over-confidence," combined with a failure to learn the "hard lesson" that to remain an effective fighting force during extreme temperatures, troops need to be properly trained and equipped!



1) Given that Ukraine ranks as a military "lightweight" by world standards, to what extremes is Putin willing to go to "save face?"

2) The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has many parallels with the USSR's decision to invade Finland in the winter of 1939 - 5 months and 400,000 casualties later, the Finns taught the USSR the same lessons about winter warfare that the Russians would in turn use against the Germans at the doorsteps Moscow (1941-42) and Stalingrad (1942-43)!

3) The ineptitude of the USSR's military, after Stalin's purges, didn't pass unnoticed and 15 months later Hitler unleashed "Operation Barbarossa" in 1941 - the Germans, in turn, would also fall victim to their own arrogance by failing to recognize the other "hard lesson" the Russians learned in the winter of 1939, preparedness for conducting warfare at -40*!

4) Fast forward to 2022, just as with the Finnish debacle the incompetence of the Russian military is on display for all to see on the world stage - her neighbors, particularly China, must already be re-calculating as to just how much pressure they can now exert on Putin to make concessions - given that both sides know that the abysmal performance of his conventional military forces poses no real threat!

Sometimes I wonder why I am bothering to reply to a contrived analogy whose real relevance to Ukraine has gone a mile over your head. I guess I'm bored enough to educate you.

1. You do know it was a 4 month war and FINLAND LOST, right?

2. You are aware that like Ukraine, the Finns repeatedly asked for a ceasefire and negotiations and the Soviets refused, right?

3. And the Soviets learned from their initial debacle and relaunched their offensives, and by February the Finnish forces were depleted and exhausted, undermined by Sweden, and only given material supplies from by the west because the 50 to 100K Franco-British troops planned to assist couldn't reach them without Norway and Sweden's cooperation.

4. Finally:

On 5 March, the Red Army advanced 10 to 15 km (6.2 to 9.3 mi) past the Mannerheim Line and entered the suburbs of Viipuri. The same day, the Red Army established a beachhead on the Western Gulf of Viipuri. The Finns proposed an armistice on 6 March, but the Soviets, wanting to keep the pressure on the Finnish government, declined the offer. The Finnish peace delegation travelled to Moscow via Stockholm and arrived on 7 March. The Soviets had further demands, as their military position was strong and improving. On 9 March, the Finnish military situation on the Karelian Isthmus was dire, as troops were experiencing heavy casualties. Artillery ammunition was exhausted and weapons were wearing out. The Finnish government, realizing that the hoped-for Franco-British military expedition would not arrive in time, as Norway and Sweden had not given the Allies right of passage, had little choice but to accept the Soviet terms.[178] Finnish President Kyösti Kallio resisted the idea of giving up any territory to the Soviet Union, but was forced to agree to sign the Moscow Peace Treaty. When he signed the document, the tormented president uttered the well-known words:

Let the hand wither that signs this monstrous treaty![179]​

​

Winter War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The obvious lesson here is the heroism is no substitute for victory. And without the threat of intervention by the West, the Russians have no more reason to give up than did the Soviets - who got everything they had originally demanded plus much more, including 1/3rd of Finland's industrial base.

 

[jgarden47]

However, all six of your points are irrelevant to what @Eatomus wrote, so the question remains unanswered, why won't Biden provide the weapons necessary for Ukraine to win?

Neither the administration nor any poster has provided a reason that is plausible or rational. Rather, like the administration, they attempt to dodge it. It doesn't matter what Trump would have done, what Trump didn't believe, or even what Biden and NATO are "attempting to do". The entire question is what should we have been doing since the war started and what should be doing at present?

I don't expect you to have that answer because even the administration cannot explain it in concrete terms. They either use a strawman (e.g. on the issue of the planes), handwave about 'what Ukraine actually need', invoke some strange characterizations of weapons being 'defensive' and 'offensive', etc., and never explain what the point is of this branding of typical conventional weapons as either 'holy' or 'profane' is - its very, very strange.

Look, I can come up with my own lists of preferred weapons, or weapons that may not be wise (e.g. those that violate international law), but what none of us can do is read the mind of leaders who seem to pull their self imposed limits out of their ass.

The press has been a miserable failure in demanding coherent policy statements...they have let leaders shuffle about with vagaries and excuses that don't hold up.

Many have come to the conclusion that the real answer is simple: Biden, Scholtz, Macon, and even Johnson don't want Ukraine to win...they'd rather see the country fall than let that happen. They don't care if a stalemate develops where the bloodshed continues to flow, of if Ukraine is eventually dismembered. They may have some sympathy for Ukraine's people but they have more regard for protecting Putin's position as an essential. And if Ukraine has to pay the price, so be it.

In other words, they are the wests own 5th column. Weak, cowardly, and deeply immoral. Working on behalf of Putin's interests.

Sad, but it is the only explanation.

1) A view of world affairs based on nothing more than cynical assumptions and right-wing conspiracy theories!

2) Its not just my opinion that NATO was in disarray under Trump - that was an opinion widely held by other members, particularly in Europe!

3) Given that Trump still holds the Republican Party tightly in his grip, with Congressional members vying for his endorsement during an election year - what he believes or doesn't believe is important, because they're being promoted by his surrogates, like Tucker Carlson, on FOXNEWS!

4) As much as Trump supporters try to shield him from criticism, the fact remains that he is still the presumptive Republican Presidential candidate for 2024 - given that he has yet to make an announcement one way or the other, that makes him a major player in every political discussion over the next 2 years!

5) In 2014, Putin invaded Crimea and the Donbass as the 1st stage in creating his legacy, a Greater Russia - flexing his nation's military muscles also has the added benefit of redirecting public opinion away from their economy woes and his sagging popularity, secure leaders don't feel threatened by peaceful protesters!



6) NATO members have no vested interest in having this Ukrainian War prolonged - for starters, European members would be faced with major political, economic and social burdens associated with the influx of millions of refugees over an extended period of time!

7) Should Putin be successful, as was the case in Crimea and Donbass, it would only embolden him to take greater risks!


8) Ukraine is one of the world's major agricultural producers with markets in Africa and the Mid-East - food shortages could result dramatic price increases, shortages, riots and famine in those parts of the world that are already destabilized at the best of times!

9) World financial markets don't react well to uncertainty - a major ongoing war on the EU's doorstep, NATO military forces on full alert, an unpredictable dictator in the Kremlin, high rates of inflation (food, energy), the impacts of climate change and successive waves of COVID variants could all conceivably trigger the next world-wide economic recession or worse!

 

[jgarden47]

Sometimes I wonder why I am bothering to reply to a contrived analogy whose real relevance to Ukraine has gone a mile over your head. I guess I'm bored enough to educate you.

1. You do know it was a 4 month war and FINLAND LOST, right?

2. You are aware that like Ukraine, the Finns repeatedly asked for a ceasefire and negotiations and the Soviets refused, right?

3. And the Soviets learned from their initial debacle and relaunched their offensives, and by February the Finnish forces were depleted and exhausted, undermined by Sweden, and only given material supplies from by the west because the 50 to 100K Franco-British troops planned to assist couldn't reach them without Norway and Sweden's cooperation.

4. Finally:

On 5 March, the Red Army advanced 10 to 15 km (6.2 to 9.3 mi) past the Mannerheim Line and entered the suburbs of Viipuri. The same day, the Red Army established a beachhead on the Western Gulf of Viipuri. The Finns proposed an armistice on 6 March, but the Soviets, wanting to keep the pressure on the Finnish government, declined the offer. The Finnish peace delegation travelled to Moscow via Stockholm and arrived on 7 March. The Soviets had further demands, as their military position was strong and improving. On 9 March, the Finnish military situation on the Karelian Isthmus was dire, as troops were experiencing heavy casualties. Artillery ammunition was exhausted and weapons were wearing out. The Finnish government, realizing that the hoped-for Franco-British military expedition would not arrive in time, as Norway and Sweden had not given the Allies right of passage, had little choice but to accept the Soviet terms.[178] Finnish President Kyösti Kallio resisted the idea of giving up any territory to the Soviet Union, but was forced to agree to sign the Moscow Peace Treaty. When he signed the document, the tormented president uttered the well-known words:

Let the hand wither that signs this monstrous treaty![179]​

​

Winter War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The obvious lesson here is the heroism is no substitute for victory. And without the threat of intervention by the West, the Russians have no more reason to give up than did the Soviets - who got everything they had originally demanded plus much more, including 1/3rd of Finland's industrial base.

1) With all due respect, the real issue wasn't the Finland - USSR peace agreement or even the final outcome of the war itself - the important take-away was that it was the "unintended consequences" that resulted from Russia, widely considered a major military power, struggling to dispense with a "lightweight," like Finland!

2) The real importance of the USSR's debacle in Finland was that it convinced Adolph Hitler, who had long held aspirations of a "Greater Germany" by expanding east, that Stalin's military so inept as to sustain 400,000 casualties numbers against "mighty" Finland, it would be no match against the armed forces of the 3rd Reich - arguably, the best in the world!

3) History repeats itself in 2022, where once again Russia voluntarily places its incompetence on full display against yet another military "lightweight" like Ukraine!

4) This represents another unforced error, a SELF-INFLICTED wound on the world stage - just as with Finland, the attack on Ukraine was another conflict of Russia's own choosing, with the Kremlin leadership, along with international observers, fully expecting that its mighty legions would "steamroller" over its adversaries in just a matter of days!

5) Once again Russia's reputation as a military power has suffered irreparable harm - just as the 1939 Finland-USSR War led to "Operation Barbarossa" in 1941, it would be naive to think that Putin's surrounding neighbors and the rest of the world aren't already re-calculating, behind closed doors, how to capitalize from a "wounded" Kremlin, that will be further weakened by sanctions for decades to come!

 

[Sweden]

Sorry Sweden, you may have a soft spot for the UK but you've not been paying attention to Boris and his use of bold words to cover for his obstructionist view. In fact, he and Germany claim they see it the same way:

UK, Germany deny Ukraine's request for weapons to fight Russia; call it 'inappropriate'- Republic World

The UK and Germany, two of the most powerful military forces in Europe, have said they will not be supplying certain types of ammunition and war equipment to Ukraine. In a press conference on Friday, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that it “wouldn’t be appropriate” for Western allies...

www.republicworld.com

The UK and Germany, two of the most powerful military forces in Europe, have said they will not be supplying certain types of ammunition and war equipment to Ukraine. In a press conference on Friday, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that it “wouldn’t be appropriate” for Western allies to fulfil all of Ukraine's requests for weaponry. The British leader was speaking at a joint press conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz following their first in-person meeting in London.

Earlier in the day, Berlin denied Kyiv’s request to supply Marder infantry fighting vehicles. In a response to Ukraine’s request for 100 Mander "tanks" (my note: those weren't tanks), German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht had said, “There is a request for Marder. But all of our own Marder infantry fighting vehicles are committed to NATO, so a decision must also be made within NATO.” (my note: ya shure, all of them but the many hundreds being retired to make room for the new Puma IVF).

Notably, NATO had earlier this week denied injecting weapons into the war-hit country, asserting that supplying heavy weapons to Ukrainian troops could elongate the ongoing war.

While Johnson said that supplying some of the requested ammunition “wouldn’t be appropriate”, he emphasized that in principle, he was open to sending any form of “defensive weapons” to Ukraine. “I’m in principle willing to consider anything by way of defensive weaponry to help the Ukrainians protect themselves and their people" he had said.

READ | EU steps up in monitoring Ukraine crisis; creates Twitter page to report aid to Zelenskyy


Lots of double talk filled with non-sequiturs and weasel words like "what is useful" and "defensive" and "appropriate".

In other words, pure bull shit.

UK, Germany deny Ukraine's request for weapons to fight Russia; call it 'inappropriate'- Republic World

The UK and Germany, two of the most powerful military forces in Europe, have said they will not be supplying certain types of ammunition and war equipment to Ukraine. In a press conference on Friday, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that it “wouldn’t be appropriate” for Western allies...

www.republicworld.com

Being both Swedish and British it is unsurprising that your have guess is right; I do indeed have a soft spot for the UK.

Before the Russian invasion I had not a good word to say about Boris Johnson, since then hardly a bad one. More importantly the Ukrainians see him as much their most effective supporter.

 

[Litwin]

President Biden give Ukraine the offensive weapons

why didn´t Trump do so ? its a good qestion , and I dont have an answer , do you ?

 

[Sweden]

And that was an act of war. If Russia sold weapons to Iraq, while we were attacking them, we would be pretty upset.

Sweden allowed Germany to transport troops to Finland. Shouldnt Finland think that Sweden was aiding their enemy? Sweden allowed Norwegians to train in Sweden, to go kill Germans. Germany wouldnt consider that aiding their enemy?

This proxy war stuff is exactly what got us where we are.

The attack on Finland was by the USSR. The German troops who reached Finland were the Finn's allies against Russia.

None of the Norwegians who, late in the war, were allowed to train in Sweden returned to Norway "to kill Germans". Their purpose was to re-establish order when Germany was defeated.

I cannot blame you for your lack of knowledge of these events - many Swedes are equally ignorant. Though the Finns have longer memories and hate the Russians to this day.

 

[bave]

They are involved.
China already arranged the date of the invasion of Ukraine with it's partner Russia
You are no less wrong the second time around being clueless to this fact.

"China asked Russia to delay Ukraine invasion until after Winter Olympics, say US officials"​

That's not involved by any stretch of the imagination. Let me know when you see Chinese flags flying over combat units in Ukraine or even remotely close to the AO. Stop redefining things to absurdity in an effort to make your fallacies seem more true.

When asking "why nots" how about avoiding the fallacy of false choices? Since when is a Marder IFV, a field howitzer, HIMARs or a Mig -29 so "offensive" as to reach Moscow?

Uh, considering a HIMARs range is running just about the distance from Ukraine to Moscow and a Mig-29 can certainly reach Moscow, yea, I would called those clearly offensive and game changing.

So there is only a "problem" in supplying weapons that work because then might attempt to cut those lines with interdiction?

In a nutshell, yea, you generally don't want to escalate a situation by supplying arms that change the battlefield drastically if you don't want a war with the otherside to expand. There is a reason why Taiwan doesn't get any weapon system they want as an example.

Well yaaaaa... do you think the purpose of sending supplies to a war is provide a safe way to display one's virtue, or to feed the front with decisive weapons that work? Ya friend, supply is a part of war...just like in WW2 in supplying the UK and then Normandy entailed risk.

And those things are precisely what got us in WW2. Why did Japan attack PH? Because of our logistical positions and choking them off from vital war materiel. Why did we get drug into WW1? Because an arms ship was interdicted by a German naval vessel.

I think at this point you are out of coherent objections, which is not unlike the other NATO weasels that are allergic to winning.

This is where your absurd hits the crescendo apparently. NATO can't win or lose because NATO is not in this war. My sole goal is to keep that from happening. I don't want another war, certainly not one that is being demanded by chickenhawks who have never worn a uniform a day in their life.

 

[bave]

The obvious lesson here is the heroism is no substitute for victory. And without the threat of intervention by the West, the Russians have no more reason to give up than did the Soviets - who got everything they had originally demanded plus much more, including 1/3rd of Finland's industrial base.

As previously mentioned, The Finns lost that war and they teamed up with the Nazis as a result.

 

[bave]

4) Fast forward to 2022, just as with the Finnish debacle the incompetence of the Russian military is once again on full display for all to see on the world stage - her neighbors, particularly China, must already be re-calculating as to just how much pressure they can now exert on Putin to make concessions - given that both sides know that the abysmal performance of his conventional military forces poses no real threat!

This also makes it an extremely dangerous position for Putin to be in. Too many ignorant people are trying to make Putin feel like this is existential and thusly continue down the road regardless of where it goes. A lack of off ramps lead to consistent escalation.

2) Its not just my opinion that NATO was in disarray under Trump - that was an opinion widely held by other members, particularly in Europe!

NATO has been in disarray for decades. Besides the UK and US there is no real military power left in NATO. All the other nations have effectively hollowed our their ability to project power with cost cutting.

6) NATO members have no vested interest in having this Ukrainian War prolonged - for starters, European members would be faced with major political, economic and social burdens associated with the influx of millions of refugees over an extended period of time!

Effectively the West has no objective interest in Ukraine at all. It is a minor economy, with minor trade deals, that is militarily and economically insignificant to the world.

7) Should Putin be successful, as was the case in Crimea and Donbass, it would only embolden him to take greater risks!

Disagree. I think if he can manage to save face and take the Donbas he will hunker down and spend quite some time just rebuilding.

8) Ukraine is one of the world's major agricultural producers with markets in Africa and the Mid-East - food shortages could result dramatic price increases, shortages, riots and famine in those parts of the world that are already destabilized at the best of times!

Yea, no one cares about Africa though.

9) World financial markets don't react well to uncertainty - a major ongoing war on the EU's doorstep, NATO military forces on full alert, an unpredictable dictator in the Kremlin, high rates of inflation (food, energy), the impacts of climate change and successive waves of COVID variants could all conceivably trigger the next world-wide economic recession or worse!

I'm not sure why anyone would call Putin unpredictable. Has hasn't done anything that hasn't been clearly indicated in a very long time.

None of the Norwegians who, late in the war, were allowed to train in Sweden returned to Norway "to kill Germans". Their purpose was to re-establish order when Germany was defeated.

Ahhh Sweden, whitewashing history of their deals with the Nazis.

 

[jonny5]

The attack on Finland was by the USSR. The German troops who reached Finland were the Finn's allies against Russia.

None of the Norwegians who, late in the war, were allowed to train in Sweden returned to Norway "to kill Germans". Their purpose was to re-establish order when Germany was defeated.

I cannot blame you for your lack of knowledge of these events - many Swedes are equally ignorant. Though the Finns have longer memories and hate the Russians to this day.

Reverse it then. Sweden helped both the axis and the allies to fight each other. The UK apparently thought it was wrong.

"Sweden ignored the greater moral issues of the war and played both sides for profit,” - Churchill

So to is helping Ukraine to fight Russia, when we arent at war with Russia. This half assed measure of sorta helping them just annoys both Ukraine and Russia. Pick a side and be prepared for the consequences.

 

[code1211]

Much of this awful warring has to do with the US government's (USG) arrogance as the superduperit'sallgoodpower. If the US had invested in international justice instead of global domination (based on scarcity), then humanity might be in a much different place. Note that the USG didn't invest 100% in global domination, and that the USG isn't 100% bad, but the overall picture is that the USG chose the domination model over the cooperation model. Why? Because it's in "our national interest" ... otherwise known as "we want to benefit, first"... otherwise known as "America first" ... otherwise known as ______ (<- several forms of) supremacy.

Your view of this is odd.

How is striving for enhanced self interest while cooperating with others who are also striving for enhanced self interest interpreted by you to be "global domination"?

I sold a car to a young man at a price above that offered by Carmax but below market value.

I felt I was getting a fair price and he felt he was paying a fair price. We both got what we want and we both said , "Thank you" when the deal was completed.

Which of us was trying to enforce Global Domination over the other?

 

[Antiwar]

Your view of this is odd.

How is striving for enhanced self interest while cooperating with others who are also striving for enhanced self interest interpreted by you to be "global domination"?

I sold a car to a young man at a price above that offered by Carmax but below market value.

I felt I was getting a fair price and he felt he was paying a fair price. We both got what we want and we both said , "Thank you" when the deal was completed.

Which of us was trying to enforce Global Domination over the other?

In this context 'global' means 'the world.' Global domination has nothing to do with a private party sale of a car.

The biggest part of the US government's global domination is military power, which isn't a good thing.

"The US controls about 750 bases in at least 80 countries worldwide and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined."

 

[maxparrish]

1) A view of world affairs based on nothing more than cynical assumptions and right-wing conspiracy theories!

Of course, none have said that it is a conspiracy, but similar and shared irrational mindsets of individual leaders isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a reality of human nature. Alas, people have motivations, some of which, they cannot admit to themselves.

Perhaps you should read the article I cited again.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth!". (Sherlock Holmes).

2) Its not just my opinion that NATO was in disarray under Trump - that was an opinion widely held by other members, particularly in Europe!

3) Given that Trump still holds the Republican Party tightly in his grip, with Congressional members vying for his endorsement during an election year - what he believes or doesn't believe is important, because they're being promoted by his surrogates, like Tucker Carlson, on FOXNEWS!

4) As much as Trump supporters try to shield him from criticism, the fact remains that he is still the presumptive Republican Presidential candidate for 2024 - given that he has yet to make an announcement one way or the other, that makes him a major player in every political discussion over the next 2 years!

2) Immaterial
3) Immaterial
4) Immaterial

Read the OP again and quit trying to dodge by changing the subject.

5) In 2014, Putin invaded Crimea and the Donbass as the 1st stage in creating his legacy, a Greater Russia - flexing his nation's military muscles also has the added benefit of redirecting public opinion away from their economy woes and his sagging popularity, secure leaders don't feel threatened by peaceful protesters!

Agreed but not relevant to the op, except that reluctant Western leaders did next to nothing.

6) NATO members have no vested interest in having this Ukrainian War prolonged - for starters, European members would be faced with major political, economic and social burdens associated with the influx of millions of refugees over an extended period of time!

7) Should Putin be successful, as was the case in Crimea and Donbass, it would only embolden him to take greater risks!


8) Ukraine is one of the world's major agricultural producers with markets in Africa and the Mid-East - food shortages could result dramatic price increases, shortages, riots and famine in those parts of the world that are already destabilized at the best of times!

9) World financial markets don't react well to uncertainty - a major ongoing war on the EU's doorstep, NATO military forces on full alert, an unpredictable dictator in the Kremlin, high rates of inflation (food, energy), the impacts of climate change and successive waves of COVID variants could all conceivably trigger the next world-wide economic recession or worse!

AGREED! Exactly, and therefore the question remains is why they are acting in the interests of Putin and against that of Ukraine? Malice, pathological denial, or unbelievable stupidity?

 

[maxparrish]

1) With all due respect, the real issue wasn't the Finland - USSR peace agreement or even the final outcome of the war itself - the important take-away was that it was the "unintended consequences" that resulted from Russia, widely considered a major military power, struggling to dispense with a "lightweight," like Finland!

"With all due respect" what does Hitler's perception of the invasion of Finland have a thimble of relevancy to the OP? OTHER than as a lesson that a failed allied response sealed Finland's fate, it doesn't... well unless your daffy enough to think NATO is Hitler and is plotting to invade Russia.

And while you are wandering into immaterial discursions, you might also note:

1) that AT LEAST the attempt to put allied boots on the ground in Finland contributed to Stalin's decision to terminate the war, unlike today where the allies reassure Putin every other day that there would be no boots on the ground.

2) the allies didn't beclown themselves by making distinctions between defensive and offensive weapons to Finland - such would have been laughed as both weak and stupid.

2) The real importance of the USSR's debacle in Finland was that it convinced Adolph Hitler, who had long held aspirations of a "Greater Germany" by expanding east, that Stalin's military so inept as to sustain 400,000 casualties numbers against "mighty" Finland, it would be no match against the armed forces of the 3rd Reich - arguably, the best in the world!

3) History repeats itself in 2022, where once again Russia voluntarily places its incompetence on full display against yet another military "lightweight" like Ukraine!

4) This represents another unforced error, a SELF-INFLICTED wound on the world stage - just as with Finland, the attack on Ukraine was another conflict of Russia's own choosing, with the Kremlin leadership, along with international observers, fully expecting that its mighty legions would "steamroller" over its adversaries in just a matter of days!

5) Once again Russia's reputation as a military power has suffered irreparable harm - just as the 1939 Finland-USSR War led to "Operation Barbarossa" in 1941, it would be naive to think that Putin's surrounding neighbors and the rest of the world aren't already re-calculating, behind closed doors, how to capitalize from a "wounded" Kremlin, that will be further weakened by sanctions for decades to come!

LOL... NOW in item five you are now blathering the propaganda of a right wing conspiracy theory against Russia... plotting "behind closed doors" on how to leap upon a prostrate Russia...

At this point your premises are not only immaterial to the op, but contradictory and inscrutable. Your random sets of observations are a waste of our time.

 

[maxparrish]

Being both Swedish and British it is unsurprising that your have guess is right; I do indeed have a soft spot for the UK.

Before the Russian invasion I had not a good word to say about Boris Johnson, since then hardly a bad one. More importantly the Ukrainians see him as much their most effective supporter.

Ukraine has plenty of cheerleaders, but what it needs are players that show up and give it all they have. Save for the Baltics, Poland, and Czech's and Slovaks, that is not happening.

 

[Sweden]

Reverse it then. Sweden helped both the axis and the allies to fight each other. The UK apparently thought it was wrong.

"Sweden ignored the greater moral issues of the war and played both sides for profit,” - Churchill

So to is helping Ukraine to fight Russia, when we arent at war with Russia. This half assed measure of sorta helping them just annoys both Ukraine and Russia. Pick a side and be prepared for the consequences.

Churchill was right about Sweden.

 

[Sweden]

This also makes it an extremely dangerous position for Putin to be in. Too many ignorant people are trying to make Putin feel like this is existential and thusly continue down the road regardless of where it goes. A lack of off ramps lead to consistent escalation.



NATO has been in disarray for decades. Besides the UK and US there is no real military power left in NATO. All the other nations have effectively hollowed our their ability to project power with cost cutting.



Effectively the West has no objective interest in Ukraine at all. It is a minor economy, with minor trade deals, that is militarily and economically insignificant to the world.



Disagree. I think if he can manage to save face and take the Donbas he will hunker down and spend quite some time just rebuilding.



Yea, no one cares about Africa though.



I'm not sure why anyone would call Putin unpredictable. Has hasn't done anything that hasn't been clearly indicated in a very long time.



Ahhh Sweden, whitewashing history of their deals with the Nazis.

The current Swedish position is that they did deals with Germany and that they were wrong to do so. They plead the partial excuse is that if they had refused to sell Germany iron ore and refused to allow German military trains to use the Swedish rail system, Sweden would have been invaded.

 

[jonny5]

Churchill was right about Sweden.

Point being aiding an enemy of a country is an act of war. If Russia was selling or giving weapons to Iraq to shoot at american planes, we would and should consider that an act of war. Likewise, if the US is selling or giving weapons to Ukraine to shoot at Russian planes, thats aiding their enemy, and thus an act of war. Now, maybe Russia will pretend it isnt for the moment because they dont want to escalate. But maybe they will escalate. Then what?

 

[Sweden]

Point being aiding an enemy of a country is an act of war. If Russia was selling or giving weapons to Iraq to shoot at american planes, we would and should consider that an act of war. Likewise, if the US is selling or giving weapons to Ukraine to shoot at Russian planes, thats aiding their enemy, and thus an act of war. Now, maybe Russia will pretend it isnt for the moment because they dont want to escalate. But maybe they will escalate. Then what?

In your opinion but not in that of the British government of 1940 to 1945. Or the governments, then or later, of Norway and Denmark. Sorry, but you simply mistaken.

 

[bave]

The current Swedish position is that they did deals with Germany and that they were wrong to do so. They plead the partial excuse is that if they had refused to sell Germany iron ore and refused to allow German military trains to use the Swedish rail system, Sweden would have been invaded.

Yea, I get the history, but Norway, Finland, and Denmark could have all said the same thing but didn't. You guys and the Swiss just rolled over and cooperated. I get the impulse, you would have been steamrolled. Not judging it as wrong, but history views it harshly. At least you weren't taking deposits of tons of gold fillings like the Swiss.