250
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
250 points (94.0% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's absurd, what is anybody's source on this claim? America can end this war in a month by just strong arming Ukraine to surrender Crimea. And best of all, if the conspiracy theory is true, we will know immediately, because Russia will have already gotten what they say they want.
It is interesting to see how people seems to think that if Ukraine (the victim) surrender everything will be ok while nobody think that Russia (the aggressor) could just stop.
I've seen somewhere else... let me think... oh yes, in the 1930's, just before WWII...
History maybe ?
This account is less than a day old. Just block and move on.
It's not the same situation. Obviously. Russia wants one small region that they lost custody of in their divorce. Germany wanted all of Poland, Belgium, and Netherlands. And it's certainly not as if the reason WW2 happened was that Poland surrendered eventually. The sum total of similarities between the two scenarios is: both countries tried to take land.
It's actually a better argument to say that taking Poland and Belgium by force allowed Germany to accelerate their war machine dramatically compared to their future opponents, and had they been surrendered to, might not have been able to pull off the massively complicated military feats that were 100% required to be done in the first few months of the war if they wanted to even have a chance to win it.
If you're trying to stop a steamroller, your best possible course of action is to not let it get started. And there is no steam roller required vs a surrender.
It is the exact same situation. That the region is small or big is irrelevant.
Germany took Poland and Belgium when the German's army was ready while their opponents were not that ready exactly because this was the entire plan of Hitler.
Hitler always counted on the fact that the rest of Europe wanted peace and that they were willing to do anything to preserve it, even to believe to all the false promises Hitler did.
You really need to study some history.
True. In this case it was when Putin invaded Crimea, now the steamroller is already going and it would not be a surrender to stop it.
This is how Czechoslovakia lost the Sudety region just before WW2. Germany also claimed that the German populace there is being mistreated and there is so much Germans living there that it should belong to Germany anyway.
Maybe this sounds a bit more familiar? Back then the West let them have it to maintain peace - funny how Russia and pro-Russians are calling for the same thing now...
Man, all these different countries Germany wanted to invade, almost as if that was a completely different situation.
There are multiple countries Russia would like to invade too - but they were stopped (or at least slowed down - depends on how it will develop) in Ukraine.
Just because it's not the exact same situation doesn't mean there aren't paralels.
That claim is highly speculative at best. Russia hasn't invaded anyone else in the last, what, 50 years?
You forgot about Georgia, Moldova, and Afghanistan... all of which Russian troops fully invaded (Georgia & Afghanistan) or at the very least sent core military forces to fight against in a primarily Russian-backed war (Moldova), all in the past 1 to 4 decades. Although in Afghanistan's case, it wasn't to take land or annex it or anything, it was just to overthrow the government. Still a blatant invasion though.
They've also stripped Belarus of most of its autonomy via installing a puppet government a few years after it gained independence, and have now effectively incorporated in into Russia in all but name via the Union State.
Azerbaijan and Armenia would have both likely been candidates for absorption by Russia in the future for various reasons, but that is entirely speculative, and the only ones which constantly are currently facing extreme encroachment on territory or independence by Russia are currently Belarus, Ukraine, and Georgia.
When the dictator and military leaders of a larger country are all talking about how the lands of their former domain (located in significantly smaller countries) are rightfully historically theirs and stuff, you know exactly what their goals are... It doesn't matter if it's Hitler, Mussolini, Horthy, Putin, or anyone else, their intentions are clear.
So they've invaded 4 places, all of which directly border them, in 40 years? That doesn't seem very dictator-like or authoritarian to me. Why are we supposed to be inherently against former USSR abortion into Russia? Seems to me like it'd be a good thing for all involved
Bro you have got to be a jester or something, a troll account surely... either that or you drank the entire world supply of stupid juice
You lost all hopes of othere taking you seriously as soon as you implied Putin is a democratic leader, let alone outright saying "yeah, Russia invaded 3 bordering countries part of its former empire that it has historical ideological/nationalistic goals to conquer, took a chunk of their land and put it in the hands of rebels, has been in the process of removing the soveirgnty of a 4th bordering country for 3 decades, and invaded a 5th bordering country to overthrow the government and make it a puppet state of the USSR – BUT this surely isn't at all like when Germany did the same thing with Austria, Slovakia, Czechia, and Poland, or when Italy did the same thing to Albania, Greece, and Ethiopia"
Russia already had Crimea secured from their previous invasion of Ukraine many years prior (which happened after Ukraine deposed of their Russian puppet dictator in a revolution BTW), the outbreak of the more recent stage of the war had little to do with Crimea. They have used the Donbass as a nationalistic war goal towards Ukraine for a long time, to say that it belongs to Russia because there are a lot of ethnic Russians (which is how almost any border region with a much larger country goes), and now that they've started a war with that they've declared full intent to dissolve Ukraine as a soveirgn state and incorporate it into Russia. It is not about some strategically important areas, it is about continuing Russification and making Russia "what it once was" by absorbing neighbour states. After Belarus and Ukraine, Georgia is undoubtedly next – hell, the only reason Russia isn't doing the same thing to Georgia is because they're busy getting their ass handed to them by Ukraine.
Putin gets democratically elected, what other definition of democratic is there?
Why are you just assuming that Russia acquiring Ukraine would even be a bad thing? Ukraine was certainly more powerful as the USSR. The only people who it would be bad for are the current Ukraine govt. But as for the people of Ukraine, why shouldn't they be part of the USSR again?
But please, keep telling me how reunification of USSR is the same thing as fucking WW2.