Denying Russia's Only Strategy for Success
understandingwar.org
Denying Russia's Only Strategy for Success
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: Denying Russia's Only Strategy for Success
#2I still don't understand the stance of the US and many other Western countries to try to continue to appease, and not upset Russia.
Like, right now in Europe, Russia is actively jamming GPS systems of commercial airliners in Kaliningrad... how isn't this considered aggression?
Why are Western countries just sitting idle, stating "oh well... its just Russia doing its thing."
What kind of world is this where a handful of people, Putin and a close group of the regime, get to dictate the lives of hundreds of millions of democratic citizens?
Re: Denying Russia's Only Strategy for Success
#3I still don't understand the stance of the US and many other Western countries to try to continue to appease, and not upset Russia. Like, right now in Europe, Russia is actively jamming GPS systems of commercial airliners in Kaliningrad... how isn't this considered aggression? Why are Western countries just sitting idle, stating "oh well... its just Russia doing its thing." What kind of world is this where a handful…
> What kind of world is this where a handful of people, Putin and a close group of the regime, get to dictate the lives of hundreds of millions of democratic citizens?
World full of peaceful people who don't want any kind of violence, so they try to fight as little as currently possible.
Re: Denying Russia's Only Strategy for Success
#4I still don't understand the stance of the US and many other Western countries to try to continue to appease, and not upset Russia. Like, right now in Europe, Russia is actively jamming GPS systems of commercial airliners in Kaliningrad... how isn't this considered aggression? Why are Western countries just sitting idle, stating "oh well... its just Russia doing its thing." What kind of world is this where a handful…
> What kind of world is this where a handful of people, Putin and a close group of the regime, get to dictate the lives of hundreds of millions of democratic citizens? World full of peaceful people who don't want any kind of violence, so they try to fight as little as currently possible.
So, a world where people forgot about History and the outcomes of appeasing dictators, and all that was achieved with the UN was pointless, so let's go back to a time of military expansionism.
Re: Denying Russia's Only Strategy for Success
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What kind of world is this where a handful of people, Putin and a close group of the regime, get to dictate the lives of hundreds of millions of democratic citizens? World full of peaceful people who don't want any kind of violence, so they try to fight as little as currently possible.
So, a world where people forgot about History and the outcomes of appeasing dictators, and all that was achieved with the UN was pointless, so let's go back to a time of military expansionism.
Nukes. People are afraid of provoking him too much to where he uses nukes. It's that simple.
Re: Denying Russia's Only Strategy for Success
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What kind of world is this where a handful of people, Putin and a close group of the regime, get to dictate the lives of hundreds of millions of democratic citizens? World full of peaceful people who don't want any kind of violence, so they try to fight as little as currently possible.
So, a world where people forgot about History and the outcomes of appeasing dictators, and all that was achieved with the UN was pointless, so let's go back to a time of military expansionism.
I don't think the verdict of "History" is as clear as you seem to think it is. Finland and Austria for example definitely appeased the dictator Stalin and his successor dictators for decades. They were careful not to join NATO or the EU. They consulted the dictator (or an authorized underling) on all defense decisions. Finland encouraged trade ties with the dictator's country. These decades of appeasement did not result in an attack or a loss of territory or any other persistent negative outcome as far as I know.
If I had been a citizen of Finland or Austria during the relevant decades, I think I would've been angry if my government had decided against appeasing the Soviet Union.
The strategic situation has changed, and now it is no longer necessary for Finland to appease the dictator to the east.
Re: Denying Russia's Only Strategy for Success
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, a world where people forgot about History and the outcomes of appeasing dictators, and all that was achieved with the UN was pointless, so let's go back to a time of military expansionism.
Nukes. People are afraid of provoking him too much to where he uses nukes. It's that simple.
So everyone will be bound to a psychopath because he has the world hostage under the threat of nuclear destruction.
That ain't much of a world worth living in, now is it?
Re: Denying Russia's Only Strategy for Success
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, a world where people forgot about History and the outcomes of appeasing dictators, and all that was achieved with the UN was pointless, so let's go back to a time of military expansionism.
I don't think the verdict of "History" is as clear as you seem to think it is. Finland and Austria for example definitely appeased the dictator Stalin and his successor dictators for decades. They were careful not to join NATO or the EU. They consulted the dictator (or an authorized underling) on all defense decisions. Finland encouraged trade ties with the dictator's country. These decades of appeasement did not res…
> I don't think the verdict of "History" is as clear as you seem to think it is.
Well, I think it is - because the verdict was documents signed by Russia that stated clearly that each country is entitled to its own sovereignty, territorial integrity, foreign policy, alliances, and strategic decisions.
The documents are:
- UN Charter
- Helsinki Accords
- Charter of Paris for a New Europe
- Russia–NATO Founding Act
If Finland made their strategic decisions to appease Putin, including not joining NATO, I don't know. And it would be great if you could share some sources on this information because it made me curious. I'm finding it hard to believe Finland was on a tight leash from Russia (especially because they rebuilt and maintained their military without restrictions).
Re: Denying Russia's Only Strategy for Success
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the verdict of "History" is as clear as you seem to think it is. Finland and Austria for example definitely appeased the dictator Stalin and his successor dictators for decades. They were careful not to join NATO or the EU. They consulted the dictator (or an authorized underling) on all defense decisions. Finland encouraged trade ties with the dictator's country. These decades of appeasement did not res…
> I don't think the verdict of "History" is as clear as you seem to think it is. Well, I think it is - because the verdict was documents signed by Russia that stated clearly that each country is entitled to its own sovereignty, territorial integrity, foreign policy, alliances, and strategic decisions. The documents are: - UN Charter - Helsinki Accords - Charter of Paris for a New Europe - Russia–NATO Founding Act If…
>If Finland made their strategic decisions to appease Putin . . .
That is not what I said: I said Finland and Austria appeased the Soviets in the ways I described from 1945 to at least 1990.
Re: Denying Russia's Only Strategy for Success
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think the verdict of "History" is as clear as you seem to think it is. Well, I think it is - because the verdict was documents signed by Russia that stated clearly that each country is entitled to its own sovereignty, territorial integrity, foreign policy, alliances, and strategic decisions. The documents are: - UN Charter - Helsinki Accords - Charter of Paris for a New Europe - Russia–NATO Founding Act If…
>If Finland made their strategic decisions to appease Putin . . . That is not what I said: I said Finland and Austria appeased the Soviets in the ways I described from 1945 to at least 1990.
I see what you're saying. But as I stated, the world changed, and Russia (and even the USSR) changed during that period and signed the documents to marked such change.
Going back in time just because "Russia has nukes" doesn't seem like a very viable option - not to mention that others also have nukes.