- cross-posted to:
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
- ukrainianconflict@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
- ukrainianconflict@lemmit.online
Cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/9202260
Vladimir Putin will spark a third world war if the Russian president is allowed to declare victory in Ukraine, according to the boss of the country’s biggest private employer.
Yuriy Ryzhenkov, chief executive of Metinvest, which ran the sprawling Azovstal steelworks that became the site of a relentless Russian assault at the start of the 2022 invasion, warned of the consequences of a Kremlin victory.
“I don’t believe that if Ukraine fails, Putin will stop,” he said in an interview ahead of the two year anniversary of the war in Ukraine. “The Baltic states, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia are the next targets.”
I don’t see the parallel, because so far, Russia and Germany have literally one thing in common. You’re extrapolating that several highly unlikely events will just so happen to occur the same way they did the first time. Your entire argument could just as easily be applied to america in like 4 different decades between WW2 and now, yet not once did America start a world war as a result. The situation in Russia is wildly different from 1930s Germany, and trying to declare them to be the same is far too reductive to be useful analysis.
Also, Putin invaded more of Ukraine because it is literally on the way to Crimea, and owning just the peninsula is weird. The entirety of the invasion consists of the coast of a single large bay. There is no logical reason to think that Putin is the next Hitler. He literally just wants a region that has historically been highly important to Russia/USSR. It’s like if America were currently invading Texas, because we lost it to Mexico for 20 years and want it back.
So, if I understand you correctly, Russia should also invade Latvia and Lithuania? By your logic it would be highly important to Russia since they would get a land bridge to Kaliningrad and they were historically part of the USSR.
The analogy to Anschluss Österreichs and Crimea is quite apt. The votings were manipulated - just look at the soldiers outside of voting stations on Crimea, who in their right mind wouldn’t want to vote for selfpreservation?
The second analogy would be Sudetenland and Donetsk and Luhansk is as apt with the only distinction that there is a war now going on. The two republics that are only recognized by Russia and their “Motherland”. While Hitler didn’t have a Sudeten-Republik he wanted to get them back into the fold. So it is also quite apt.
Does Russia have parallels to Germany 1930s? Yes. And no. Why not? Time moved on, tactics evolved (just look at the two republics). Why yes? Some tactics stayed the same. And greed.
How exactly do soldiers outside polling places imply a rigged election? Self preservation is irrelevant, the question is whether Russia or Ukraine controls the region. Voting in alignment with the more powerful state is literally the only means of self preservation possible, as it best avoids a war.
I don’t think they should invade those places, no. And if they wanted that much more land, it would be a completely different story. Having control of the northern black sea is obviously important.
Russia is obviously not invading anywhere else in the foreseeable future, let’s move past that.
Are you serious ?
Which is the definition of rigged election.
Following your logic, they could also invade Turkey so they could access the Mediterranean Sea. Then they can also invade Alaska, after all having the control of the Bering sea is obviously important. Or US could invade Panama, for the Panama canal, or Spain can seize Gibraltar.
Yeah, like they said in 2014.
Come up with an argument that is not obviously a fallacy, and get back to me. And LOL at voter self interest being described as the definition of a rigged election.
The current US electoral system maybe ?
But at this point I am curios to know what you think is a rigged election, since obviously voting with foreign soldiers outside the polling station seems normal to you.
It’s a tactic of fear. Invoke fear in civilians and you can get them to do what you need them to do. If there are soldiers with weapons in front of a voting place who quite clearly belongs to a specific party without so much as openly stating it, then people are going to vote for that party out of fear. That is what I called selfpreservation. They don’t want to die.
If by any chance you wouldn’t be swayed by such blatant show of force then I admire you. The majority of people are swayed. Especially when there are literally truckloads of soldiers all about the coutryside. And as you said: voting with the more powerful state. At that moment the Russians had their force in Crimea and the people chose selfpreservation. Was it the right choice? For Ukraine? No. For Russia? Yes, of course. That’s why they showed force.
Then why do you follow that logic with Crimea but not the baltics?
Ah, now I understand. “We need a harbour that’s ice free the whole year around.” There are some holes in that logic:
a) Russia had/has a lease on the Sevastopol Navy Yard. That’s where the Black Sea Fleet was/is anchored. b) Russia has Novorossiysk, a harbour that is ice free all year around and is one of their biggest - if not the biggest - trade harbours. They even have a Navy Yard there.
So why do they need Crimea? To get their stuff from Rostov at Don all the way to the Dardanelles? They already could do that since they had the other half of the strait of Kertch.
And the other question: Why do they need the control of the northern black sea?
Why would you think that? Spokespersons of the Kremlin are rattling their sabres for Svalsbard and they are painting themselves as an oppressed minority. Does that sound familiar? Yes, since Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk were the same.
Svalbard is protected by a treaty, but Ukraine also had a treaty with Russia about territorial integrity.
Abkhazia and South Ossetia are regions that were carved out of Georgia, an independent nation.
Transnistria is a region of Moldova, also an independent nation. Transnistria has requested the annexation into Russia. So the question is, do you recognize Transnistria as a sovereign state or is it a part of Moldova? If it is a part of Moldova it would be an invasion of Russia. Although since they already have troops there it is an ongoing occupation.
Since Russia is still engaged in occupation and invasion and is still rattling their sabres, can we really move past the threat of invasion?
The thing is, we don’t know what they are planning. We don’t know what they are aiming for. But we see that there are tactics in play they use quite often. For instance the tactic of propping up people that want their own state (see Luhansk, Donetsk). Then going in to help them.
Then there is the tactic of subtle influencing. The problem with this is that there are just clues but no real evidence. So it is really difficult to prove that Russia is behind such things like the Brexit for instance. But there is meddling with the elections of the United States.
But so much text for just saying that Russia might as well already have started the Third World War and all machinations are going to culminate in it. Does Putin want to do that? I don’t know. I don’t think anyone knows except him and perhaps a handfull of his confidants. So we as ordinary people will never truly know. The parallels to Hitler and the Second World War are there, some tactics stayed the same (fear, forceful annexation), tactics changed (propping up partisan governments). It’s all a question of time, but I’m not confident enough to say that Russia won’t be annexing anything else or will stop once Luhansk, Crimea, and Donetzk are independent and can be integrated into Russia. There are too many clues to the contrary.
I really don’t know enough about black sea geography to say what is actually necessary, but needing control of crimea for various shipping reasons rings very true to me. I live near Seattle/Tacoma, and we have 2 ports even though you have to literally go past Seattle’s port to get to Tacoma’s (by sea, obv). More ports is better in all ways. They need control of the northern black sea so they can control the northern black sea. It’s a very important sea.
Personally, I would actually prefer if there were soldiers stationed at polling places, mostly to convince MAGA people that the election really was legitimate. There is also a non-zero potential for violence or even terrorism at them, and I obviously don’t trust US cops to prevent violence.
It’s not as if the 2nd world war breaking out was a big surprise to an ordinary person in 1939. If Putin had further plans, we would know it. If he starts targeting more places, and ones that aren’t obviously critical to their economy, then we can worry. I mean, at their current pace of “global domination”, Putin will have died of old age before they even get to Munich.
France used a similar tactic as Russia in the 1770s, and in the long run it worked out tremendously for both France and USA (Less so for the french king at the time, Louis XVI. It was a big part of why he got guillotined). It’s a great tactic, I’m certainly not going to criticize them for using it.
Geographycally the black sea is just a giant lake. It is a closed sea and you need to pass through Instanbul to exit from it and enter in another “closed” sea, the Sea of Marmara.
Moreover, if Russia just wanted to have access to the Black Sea ports (and Sea of Marmara and then the Mediterranean Sea) they could just have done like the Chinese that just bought the ports they want.
Listen, if there are soldiers of your own country at the polling places it is somewhat obvious, even in Italy we have soldiers (usually just a couple) outside to ensure law and order (not that it will happen something), the problem is when you are voting to accept the annexion to another country and the soldiers from said country are at the polling station.
WWII broke out exactly because Europe wanted to keep peace at any cost, failing to understand that Hitler never had the intention to stop. What happened in WWI were still a vivid memory here back at the time and I understand that people would have done anything to avoid all the horrors. True, the real reasons date back to the Treaty of Versailles and the 1929 Great Depression which set up the stage for someone like Hitler to raise.
Putin want the Great Russia back. But it is no more and he cannot accept it. And he can play the card of an outside enemy to hide the problems he has inside.
The black sea is vastly important strategically and economically. Which means it is entirely believable that Russia primarily wants control of it. I’m sure Putin believes the former USSR was all better off before dissolution, I can’t blame him for trying to reunify. If Russia spends the next 30 years doing so, is that really a problem? It’s certainly not anything close to Hitler or WW2.
Saying Russia can’t have Crimea is, to me, trying to say they can’t be a competitor for the position of Top Dog. Its delusional, they obviously are one, but America is trying too hard to neuter them so they have to deny it. America needs to let them be as powerful as they are, and stop trying to cheat rather than compete.
Economically sure, strategically maybe, it depends on a lot of other things.
The Black Sea has a single point of access which leads to a even smaller sea (Marmara, which is 1/5 the size of Lake Michigan). And the access is controlled by a NATO country (Turkey), pass through the city of Istanbul and is within the reach of Bulgaria, another NATO member. Even assuming Russia can somehow seize it, there is then the Dardanelli, which is within the reach of Greece (a NATO member). From here there is the Aegean Sea, which is under the reach of Greece. Not to mention that to even arrive to (or leave from) the Aegean Sea, a fleet neet to go through Gibraltar, go south of Italy and once out he need to sail in the Atlantic (NATO members on both sides) and then north, along a long list of NATO members.
Honestly, in a war if a fleet try to enter the Black Sea, it will just be a sitting duck, even assuming it even succeeds in doing so. Even the oil and gas are usefull only to be moved by road, there is no way that a ship could even exit the Black Sea. Nah, if Russia goes to war with NATO, the Black Sea is strategically useless.
Maybe, but it would be much more smart to do it economically.
Well, I’d agree if Russia tried to do it economically (like China is trying to do) but it is not that they can just invade every country they like to have.
So Russia can have Alaska ?
Nobody say that Russia cannot be a competitor for a position of Top Dog, it is the method they used that it not acceptable today.
So why is it acceptable for America to stage coups, rig elections, and assassinate leaders covertly, but not okay for Russia to try to take control of an area openly? America declared their puppet the president of Venezuela (in spite of Maduro winning a legitimate election) like 5 years ago. You might say “but less blood shed!”, but Pinochet sure as hell shed a lot of blood when the CIA installed him. And venezuala was economically ruined by the CIA in the 70s. So if we’re looking at means, if I’m a civilian in Ukraine, I’d rather have our army fight Russias army openly, than have America take power via subterfuge and destroy us from the inside. The Russia style doesn’t directly attack civilians, unlike the US method.
Control of the black sea is universally useful. Imagine if Russia could threaten a sea invasion of Israel if they keep up the genocide. Or be supplying Gaza with the food Israel keeps out. Militarily, it’s not about getting out of the black sea, it’s about exerting your strength on the adjacent land.
Alaska was never meaningfully Russian, the natives and the cities built there have nothing to do with russia. Not so for Crimea.
Two in fact: that they illegally annexed part of other countries and that they breach treaties they signed.
No, I am only pointing out that what you suggest was already tried and failed exactly because at the time they wanted to preserve peace, whatever the cost.
It was already tried to concede to the small demands in exchange of quiet living, we know how it ended.
Ok, I documented what I say, care to do the same ?
Different yes, but the end result is the same.
So, what part of your country are you willing to give up to your neighbour ?
Except that he is doing exactly the same, at the moment.
Man, I am from Italy. Following your reasoning big part of Europe, all the Mediterranean sea and a good part of the Middle East would be Italian since all these territories were part of the Roman Empire.
One peninsula is entirely different than all of Europe. 1000 years ago is also entirely different than 30 years ago. Crucially to the argument, Russia is actually capable of taking it by force. Just like America could take Texas back. If Russia had made any move on another place, I wouldn’t be saying this. Like, consider how many different places you’ve brought up that Germany had its eyes on invading around that time. Compare it to the fact that you can’t name a 2nd place Russia is trying to to take. They’re not trying to take all of Ukraine. They’re not even trying to take 1/5 of Ukraine.
Comparing them to Germany is utterly absurd, figure out a better analogy or move on.
The west got too aggressive in their attempts to influence Ukraine, and now Russia is fighting back. Now we need to back off and rethink our diplomacy.
The 4 decades I was thinking of were the Korean war, Vietnam war, and 2000 - 2020. All of them featured America invading a place (for far more dubious reasons than Russia has now, BTW), followed by them categorically NOT deciding to take over the world. Though you could probably say it about literally every stretch of 10 years dating back to 1945.
Wrong. Alaska. Russia passed a law recently to that declare illegal the sale to the US. Not that they will ever try to get it back by force anyway.
But it seems that you are not understanding the point.
Hitler, while annexing all the places before WWII, said exactly what you are saying now: “this is my last request/annexation”. And while of course we could like to think that Putin will do not do the same think, what he is doing is the same thing: in 2014 they take Crimea and said “we will stop here”, then in 2022 they invanded the rest of Ukraine.
And you know what ? In all al this, I have the proof of what Putin did and I can infer what maybe could happen while you have no proof that Putin will not try to pull the same trick another time somewhere else. (Belarus of any of the old Baltic state for example)
You don’t stop a bully thinking “this is the last time he bullied me”, you stop a bully beating him so bad that he don’t want to bully you, or anyone else, anymore.
So I suppose you are ready to give up 1/5 of your country, am I correct ? Yes or no. (funny how nobody will ever directly answer this question…)
Is you say so…
I don’t understand what the hell are you thinking. Ukraine is a sovereign state that decide to ask for some things to Europe, it is none of Russia business. To enter into EU and NATO a state should ask, and Ukraine is free to do so. Maybe if Russia was better…
Aside the Second Gulf War (and the supposed WOMD never found) US don’t started any of them. Not to say that they have not done their share of despicable things of course.
But I suppose that you agree that the fact that someone once did something is not a justification for other to do something now.
Of course I can’t prove that he won’t do it in the future, did you think that was possible? Hitler did not do it once, he did it many times. I am choosing to believe Putin that the first one is the only one, because it makes a ton of sense for Russia to want to control that territory.
Wait, you think the US hasn’t started literally every war they’ve been in since 1945? Then why are they on enemy soil literally every time? The only one that it’s defensible for you to be wrong about is the Iraq war, because most people don’t know about all the war crimes we were doing over there in the 90s. How exactly did the Vietnamese provoke us from all the way across an ocean though? Or Afghanistan from even farther?
Obviously I wouldbt give up 1/5 of my country. Is that supposed to be a gotcha? I was saying the fact that they’re not even trying to take 20% of one country makes it pretty outlandish to claim they’re on the path to world domination.
Also Putin is doing more than once.
Maybe, but it is not their territory. And the fact that it make sense does not make it right. But I somewhat see your logic: you are stronger so you can get what you want. Gotcha.
That phrase alone make me lose all the residual respect I could have for you.
It. Don’t. Matter. How. Much. They. Take.
It is the concept. Too hard to understand ?
I agree that we should have come down like the wrath of God when Russia illegally annexed Crimea. Good point!
This doesn’t make any sense.
Why not ? He fucked around then he found out. In your terms it would be “stop the steamroller before it start”