What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not really. Disagree, even if Britain and allied with Germany to defeat Russia, then that would only have created an even bigger nd stronger Germany and a larger threat for Britain, in fact it would have led to an even bigger and more devastating war and led to an even faster collapse of our empire instead of a controlled and more measured one.
Hitler's aim was to control the whole of Europe and then the world , helping him defeat Russia would have only led to an even bigger blunder on our part. Since his full attention then would have been to face us completely without through need to worry about his Eastern flank.
Moreover I don't see the blunder Churchill made in this, if anything Churchill came to power due to chamberlain's naivety and trying to appease Hitler by all means, since he wanted to avoid another devastating world war in Europe and the world, however his constant appeasement of Hitler proved to be a huge failure and only emboldened Germany since Hitler knew Britain wanted to avoid war at all cost. So it only made things worse. Which we latter realised and hence the need for a war veteran and leader to lead the war on our front, hence the emergence of Churchill and fall of chamberlain.
Hitler was a GB lover.
He even liked France and Greece very much.
But even without Holocaust intention and all the stuff, I wouldn't have liked that strong Germany.
Germany should be a mix of Switzerland, Singapur and Israel.
Do trade with all and have no larger ambitions, except own wealth, tradition, strong(est) land force and peace in buffer states.
A German Kaiserreich, without the intention to have a too strong navy, would be ok.
 
Not really. Disagree, even if Britain and allied with Germany to defeat Russia, then that would only have created an even bigger nd stronger Germany and a larger threat for Britain, in fact it would have led to an even bigger and more devastating war and led to an even faster collapse of our empire instead of a controlled and more measured one.
Hitler's aim was to control the whole of Europe and then the world , helping him defeat Russia would have only led to an even bigger blunder on our part. Since his full attention then would have been to face us completely without through need to worry about his Eastern flank.
Moreover I don't see the blunder Churchill made in this, if anything Churchill came to power due to chamberlain's naivety and trying to appease Hitler by all means, since he wanted to avoid another devastating world war in Europe and the world, however his constant appeasement of Hitler proved to be a huge failure and only emboldened Germany since Hitler knew Britain wanted to avoid war at all cost. So it only made things worse. Which we latter realised and hence the need for a war veteran and leader to lead the war on our front, hence the emergence of Churchill and fall of chamberlain.

I am of the view that Chamberlain would have been better for everyone probably. I don'd think Germany wanted to control the world. They didnt even want to control all of Europe. Vichy France, Spain, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, there were many places he didnt plan to occupy.

And a Cold War vs Germany would have been easier than against USSR. Less ideological differences. And easier, as NAZI ideology is just not exportable to the world at large for obvious reasons. whereas, communism is.

A controlled and measured collapse of empire. lol, nicely put.
 
If NATO attacks Russia, China absolutely must join the fight and help Russia. This is of critical importance. It will no longer be about Ukraine sovereignty, it will a global war. China can’t just watch from the sideline and see Russia weakened.


It's a choice. Russian troops on our norther border, or NATO troops on our northern border, and taking back the outer northeast.
 
Germany should be a mix of Switzerland, Singapur and Israel.
Do trade with all and have no larger ambitions, except own wealth, tradition, strong(est) land force and peace in buffer states.

The problem is at the time, and even until recently. you cant do "trade with all." They simply wont let you. You can only trade on favourable terms to your colonies or neo colonies. Thats why Germany and France have their new empire. So they can do free trade with them.

Try selling that BMW to India.
 
The empire had a chance to crush Germany like a bug again in thirties, but it didn't (Chamberlain, etc)
Yeah at the beginning of Germany rearmement by Hitler, we had the chance to stop him and halt Germanys rise towards that militarism, however as I said our leadership back then were still recovering from the traumas of WWI , and so the last think we wanted was another useless war in Europe and the world which will weaken our empire even more. So Chamberlain kept ceedign ground to Hitler to appease him, believing after not interfering in Germanys capturing of small territories frommits neighbours that Hitler will stop there and not keep expanding . However, we all know that was wishful thinking .
You have to know that our policy was to look outward and solidfy our hold on our foreign territories and colonies and the would at large, we actually didn't get involved much in European affairs/politicking. Hitlers intransigence gave us no choice then to be involved politically and militarily in Europe much more than we would have loved to.
 
When the Soviets(Russians) invaded Afghanistan - and Pakistan supported the resistence - how much did the Soviets attempt to attack Pakistan ? Minor aerial incurisions - they never directly challenged Pakistan and Pakistan didnot have the protection of NATO or nuclear weapons at that time.

So - the question is - are the Russian prepared to directly challenge a NATO country - i suspect the answer will be - no. Time will tell .
Putin is no Gorbachev
 
General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine:

The targets south of Gostomel Airport and the #Russian convoy advancing in Kherson were neutralized by BayraktarTB2.
 
Ukrainian Howitzers stationed at a kindergarten. Recorded by a Ukrainian citizen.


View attachment 818849

@Foinikas

This is the headline of western posters and the pro west ones.

View attachment 818852

@lastofthepatriots, now don't blame the Russians for hitting this location.
 
Well what you describe is not far from what i think would be the ideal situation. You just had to change Ukraine with Baltic, Poland and Romania.

See thats what i was trying to tell ya. Russia wont accept Ukraine being a NATO territory. So we should instead had fortified existing NATO member lands along the eastern european border. Let Belarus and Ukraine stay as buffer and it may actually give Putin less room to manouver his policies. Because most Russians are not dumb. Putin only echoes what is already roaming in the average Russian mind: the fear of a NATO creeping closer to their border and one day attack weapons like missilies and so on just a few km from Russian border.
So the danger here is that we should be content with letting larger and more powerful countries dictate the independence of smaller and weaker countries.

Hold on...!!! Am not criticizing your argument but stating geopolitical realities. For ease of discussion, am going to conflate government and its people into a single entity -- for now.

Americans at large cannot identify with the fear of living with a hostile neighbor. For the entirety of the US existence, the absence of that fear is politically inherited from the previous generation, and from the previous generation, and regressively back to the country's founding. Political scientists have argued that absence is critical component of why Americans tends to be an optimistic and even overly idealistic people. As a naturalized US citizen, I have experienced both worlds, one where the people is constantly fearful of a neighbor and one where the people is essentially naive. Am generalizing here.

What you are asking for America to accept -- geopolitical buffer states -- is anathema to the American ethos, and here is the kicker, immigrants who came to America and established new lives, they cannot impart what they feared to their children. No way how. They left for America so that their children would not have to live like they have. The fear of an ever hostile neighbor can only be learned thru experience, never thru academia. It is like asking Mongolians to build a navy while disregarding the fact that Mongolia is landlocked. Even a riverine boatman have a better foundation for the seas than Americans can guess what it is like living next to an ideological opposite. And no one can ask Americans to imagine Canadians and Mexicans as angry giants eager to subjugate them.

But the American problem of geopolitical naivete is separate from what YOU and your fellow Euros must deal with, namely, how do you Euros are certain that Russia will be content with just a few buffer states? Does CONEUR history supports your contention that Russia will be so satisfied? You cannot dismiss history because all tyrants with expansionist dreams looked to history to support whatever might be their claims. That Ukraine resists should be seen as a challenge to history. Given technological progress, how far away is your Norway from Russia's expansionist threat? Not very, according to the map. If NATO is a shield, does it mean it is the only one? Or should it be the only one? Strengthening NATO is good, but several countries, including major France, have contemplated leaving NATO. What if NATO disband due to lack of interests? The US will be safe from Russian's aggression, but not your Norway.

In this little corner of the internet, you are willing to sacrifice Ukraine to Russia. So do many others. But their countries are far from Russia. Yours is not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom