for reforming and strenghtening the EU. At the moment Europe is the only thing that separates..
At the movement the EU as it it, is not able to do it. Hence, i have many options in mind, Counting on the EU is stupidity. First step, Poland should regain independence from the post-soviet clique.
Poland should regain independence from the post-soviet clique.
You have been saying that ever since I can remember. What does that even mean? The quasi-soviet system ended in 1989 - that's almost 40 years ago. Hardly any old-time communists are even alive today, not to mention being in power. And if you mean their children and grandchildren, then you would have to get rid of, for example, about 70-80% of police and military - not a very wise thing to do at the moment. Stalinist-like purges are better left for times of quiet and peace, not right before a war with a superpower (somewhat past its prime but still).
We need to unite Poles as much as we can, not create divisions and conduct purges.
It means that informal structures that have big influence on everything in Poland started with the soviets and their cronies. Communism is Poland did not end. If that would be the case people in government and judiciary and everywhere would change in a significant number, it should be visible in political offices. However after 89 the sad impression everyone would get - was the same people everywhere, the only change they coopted some new losers. Not to mention money and property that was whisked away, hardly any property stoles by Soviets in 1945 was returned to their rightful owner. I don't care about who was and who wasn't communist party members, I care about the fact they are incompetent and the only way they know how to make money is on our expense (Polish nation). That KPO and money they got (some of them) from that EU bribe, tells you everything you need to know, if you want to know. How many pollical killing where there? Lepper? That general that created GROM, Petelicki? Are just obvious cases. --- My proposition is two fold , a new constitution and a new people. Advancement by merit. Nothing wrong with it. You all together is very native. All who are agree what is the national interest and who have ability to implement it, together.
The Soviets, just like the Chinese, always take much more than they give in return. Partnership with Russia is always one sided - for the benefit of Russia (we should give a credit to the USA which has been more generous to nations they supported).
Are you advocating nothing less than total Russian defeat will ensure an end to this war? If so, is that really obtainable without triggering something more cataclysmic?
I don't think the Sudetenland and Austria are good analogies. Being that Sudetenland and the Anschluss were about avoiding war, whereas with the current Russian situation we are talking about a way to end a war that has been immensely costly for both sides. It cost Hitler nothing, Putin has already ponied up a hefty sum.
They were defeated in Afghanistan and withdrew with nothing much but shame. If something similar doesn't happen in Ukraine, if Putin is rewarded for his aggression with territorial gains, we can expect more of the same from him.
We should have learnt by now, if history is indeed magistra vitae, that you can't appease dictators by giving them what they want. They will always want more.
I don't think the Sudetenland and Austria are good analogies.
In both cases the international community tried to appease Hitler by giving in to his demands and giving him land to annex. It was done in hope that he wouldn't reach for more. A vain hope, just like it is with hoping that Putin will stop when given Crimea and Donbas.
Putin has already ponied up a hefty sum
Well, if one goes to paint the town red, visits pubs and strip bars, and the next day notices that a considerable sum of money was spent in the process, one has nobody else but himself to blame.
if Putin is rewarded for his aggression with territorial gains, we can expect more of the..
Maybe you are right about that, but there's just as much a chance that there wouldn't be further exercises of encroachment.
What I've read is Russia, at best, has been able to replace equipment and people at an equal rate of loss, however there are obvious signs of strain in continuing these rates. They are paying significant amounts of signing bonuses and also need to recruit large number of foreigners. Putin may not be a shining example of decency, but he isn't a total idiot. To encroach on a more powerful country would lead to a Russian catastrophe that would undermine Putin's goal of a securer Russia.
In both cases the international community tried to appease Hitler by giving in to his demands..
But we are well beyond appeasement at this point in the Russian-Ukraine War. We are now talking about ending a destructive and ruinous war. It's about ending the grinding of human meat by finding an agreement that is going to demand both sides give something up.
To be clear, I'm not advocating for anything in particular, I'm simply saying, short of a complete defeat of Russia (something neither Europe nor America is willing to engage in), Russia's considerations need to be dealt with and they will need to be given something if this damn thing is going to end and usher in a prevailing peace.
We should learn by now, if history is indeed magistra vitae, that you can't appease dictators..
There is also the lesson that if you rub the bad guy's nose in his own sh!t, belittle and give him no consideration and rake him over the coals you only perpetuate discord, for example see Treaty of Versailles.
There is also the lesson that if you rub the bad guy's nose in his own..
But that did not happen to North Nigeria. They did not have to pay any reparations to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary etc despite their colonial invasions and occupations.
Putler's goal is not a "securer North Nigeria" - it is old fashioned colonial empire, complete with rape and theft.
his goal has nothing to do with security, if anythihng according ot one of the architects of his russia (surkov iirc) the goal is an ever expanding russia... that's the opposite of security
more directly his goal is to stay alive (and he really doesn't care how many russians have to die for that goal).
I'm sure he wouldn't mind an expanded Russia, but security is a part of it.
The whole geopolitics of northern european plain is, in part, wrapped up in security. As it obviously should b, as everyone is exposed without any natural buffers in that part of the world.
His personal security, it has nothing to do with security for russian citizens (all russian governments are utterly indifferent to what they must suffer....).
He addressed the North Nigerian nation 3 days before the illegal colonial invasion and in his 3 hours on TV made it clear that he thought North Nigeria owns Ukraine.
He then asked all of his pussy ass ministers live on TV and they agreed with him.
This is a pure piece of colonialism - just as when Golden Cow says he wants to take all Iran's oil.
the international community tried to appease Hitler
Seeing everything only through the prism of WW2 is a dangerous mistake, I feel.
That war was a very special war. It was a total war. It was morally unambiguous. And its end lead to a permanent reconfiguration of the pre-war status quo.
That has never happened since.
Yet it doesn't prevent everyone and their mother from clobbering advocates of compromise with the "appeaser" stick or branding them Chamberlains. The legend is just too deeply embedded in the brain...
To be a credible critic of appeasement, you've got to also deliver on that other important thing the allies had achieved in WW2 - actually winning.
Instead, the wars since have either been regionally contained meat grinders (Ukraine), morally complex (Vietnam), or just ultimately inconclusive (Korea). Each time, the hawks had failed to deliver, and instead created a different kind of nightmare.
-//-
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy decided on removing American ballistic missiles from Turkey - in a move that deescalated the situation away from imminent nuclear war.
In another historic instance, America recognized Communist China, and threw Taiwan under the bus. Allowing two of the world's largest countries to finally establish meaningful contact.
In the UK, Irish paramilitaries were released from jail, and then allowed to serve in an independent government. To Unionists this felt like the ultimate betrayal, but it succeeded in ending decades of violence.
In Colombia, Marxist guerillas were offered a blanket amnesty, and allowed to participate in government - ending decades of civil war.
Finland gave away territory, and renounced its right to join enemy alliances - in order to appease Stalin. But it preserved its democracy, avoided occupation, and retained its sovereignty.
Begin returned the Sinai to Egypt, in exchange for which Sadat recognized Israel. The two have never been at war with each other since.
It is literal whataboutism bullshit. Will the bear be satisfied with its meal if you give it your leg? Which was exactly the calculus behind letting them have Crimea btw. The point is that you already know Putin lies and is a liar. Yeah, just forget the past 30 years and only listen to Russian propaganda about poor Russia. Poor, poor Russia just invaded a few times. Just broke a few treaties and agreements. Mere ink on a page. Why do people not want to give this brotherly nation a chance?
There was nothing Ukraine realistically could have done that would have prevented an invasion by the time Zelensky was elected, other than giving ever more and more concessions to Russia, eventually culminating in Ukraine being subjugated by Russia. Putin decided two decades ago he wanted Ukraine, and nothing that has occurred since has convinced him to give up on that ambition. Ukraine didn't do anything to provoke Russia's aggression other than not being under the control of Russia.
Giving Russia some concessions hoping they would be satisfied (aka appeasement) wasn't ever going to work. Russia was always going to keep coming back demanding more and more concessions until they had everything. Each previous concession would only make it harder to resist the next demand.
Seeing everything only through the prism of WW2 is a dangerous mistake
Quite right.
I am definitely not saying that every compromise is Munich - that would be retarded. However, the examples that you gave (with the possible exception of the Winter War) differ substantially from the current situation in Ukraine in that they didn't include rewards for successful territorial conquest, e.g. in exchange for peace Israel gave back the land that they earlier took from Egypt - something that Russia is not willing to do in Ukraine. Cuban missile crisis was simply a mutual de-escalation between two superpowers, and Good Friday Agreement didn't involve any handing over of territory after invasion.
Your strongest analogy, as I mentioned before, is the Winter War but even in this case the so-called "Finlandisation" wasn't a total success story - ask Finns what they think about those decades of constrained sovereignty under constant Soviet pressure.
So, if Russia is allowed to permanently annex Ukrainian territory gained by unprovoked (OK, we can argue about this adjective a bit) invasion, what principle is established afterwards? And this is a valid question because if military conquest works, why would it stop with just one round? Why wouldn't every nuclear-armed state conclude that sufficient brutality plus nuclear threats eventually force negotiations on favorable terms?Hier is der Hund begraben, as our German friends and neighbours say. There's a fine line between a compromise that stabilises a balance of power, and concessions that validate aggressive war of expansion.
In your opinion, Bobko, would this specific compromise - to give Russia Crimea and Donbass - create a stable peace, or would it teach Putin that invasion pays and lead to further wars? Give it to me straight.
Nonsense comparison - the North Nigerian leadership have regularly called for London, Warsaw and Paris to be nuked, have threatened the Baltics with invasion and have funded corrupt weirdos all over Europe.
It is obvious that these drunk maniacs can not be appeased
this specific compromise - to give Russia Crimea and Donbass - create a stable peace
I mean.... it doesn't look good - I'll give you that.
However, there are some reasons to think it may be a permanent settlement.
If America (more and more questionable by the day) actually provides legally binding security guarantees, and Europe offers something similar - then it could prevent further war.
If Ukraine is abandoned, by refusing NATO membership and indefinitely delaying EU accession - then Putin or some future Putin could very well attempt to end Ukrainian statehood at some future point in time.
-//-
that they didn't include rewards for successful territorial conquest
For Russia, and for Russians - it's not a "reward".
The price has been so heavy, that's it difficult to see it as any type of reward, but instead a "just price".
It long ago stopped being about just the Ukrainians, but more about whether the collective West has the power to impose outcomes on us.
People understand that we didn't lose hundreds of thousands of men, because Ukrainians are some nation of space marines. We are paying such a heavy price because Europe and America are emptying their war arsenals and lending hundreds of billions of dollars to the enemy.
The feeling is more - "we cannot show them that they can coerce Russia into retreat".
The feeling is that if we allow the West to see that they can box Russia into a cage, and treat us like monkeys, it won't end there and in the future will only become worse. Better to persist until they understand that Russia can't be forced to do anything it doesn't want to do.
-//-
The two sides are really talking past each other.
You see us as some Hitler Jr., and we see you as scheming imperialists.
whether the collective West has the power to impose outcomes on us.
It's a sh1t test... russia is very interested in the west but isn't sure about its intentions and so it makes unrealistic demands (which it hopes will be rejected). russia wants to be embraced by the west, no an apathetic androgynous west but a rugged he-man west that will keep it in line.
treat us like monkeys
the only ones treating russians like monkeys are in the russian government....
ussia can't be forced to do anything it doesn't want to do.
America was always skeptical of this approach, even under Biden, and has now abandoned it almost completely.
Kallas, Von Der Leyen, and the rest - treat us like misbehaving children. Because of this - they have completely been frozen out of any negotiation, and now have no influence over the future of the conflict.
America accords us the respect we feel we deserve, and so we listen to America more closely (maybe big countries just understand each other better).
Europe talking to us like we are dangerous retards that need to be sedated - leads to what I described above - where we ignore you, and you have no influence either on us or the war.
If Ukraine is abandoned, by refusing NATO membership and indefinitely delaying EU accession
Can't remember where I heard or saw it, but a couple weeks ago I came across a piece that stated Europe and America have basically settled on an approach of barring Ukraine from NATO but putting Ukraine on track to join the EU.
Any idea how that would play in Russia?
The two sides are really talking past each other.
That was one of the points this Diesen fellow was making. You can't develop anything that has any effective endurance if you don't consider what the other sides real concerns are.
It long ago stopped being about just the Ukrainians,
The alternative to the EU is our Customs Union (that's literally the name of the organization - yes very creative).
We been trying to make the Ukrainians join it, forever. They just don't want to. They got their sights set on the EU.
Yanukovych was the last chance to get them into the Customs Union.
Since then, there's been some level of resignation to the fact that Ukraine will join the EU sooner or later (since 2015 roughly).
In Russia, the EU is viewed much less threateningly than NATO. We like working with the EU, even though it's a huge pain in the ass to comply with their rules.
There is also some good deal of excitement re: what type of Trojan Horse role Ukraine might play inside the EU. We know they hate us now, but once they're in the EU they won't be able to blame all their problems on us.
We know Ukraine is corrupt to the core, nationalistic, and xenophobic, and also not scared of taking really "out there" positions.
Ukraine can become our "torpedo" which will sink the EU.
It's a big country, with demands which will make Poland (until now the biggest net recipient) look like a spring picnic.
If the EU may actually be able to digest Ukraine, then we will have our agent embedded inside.
The EU is not so bad. Only NATO is.
Has ever been about JUST the Ukrainians?
Quite right. It's mostly about the assh*les that planted all sorts of delusions in their Ukrainian brains, and then decided not to take responsibility for it.
Hopefully these people feel ashamed of themselves now, for plunging Ukraine into misery.
We are paying such a heavy price because Europe and America are emptying their war arsenals..
But the NN's have had more material help from your Chinese frenemies, from the starving North Koreans, from Iranian fundamentalist murderers plus other scum like Orban, Fico, Assad and all the rest.
During that whole Maidan protest, I vividly remember thinking:
1. Why would the EU want to assume the basketcase that is Ukraine? But...whatever.
2. I totally get why Ukes want in the EU. But...whatever.
3. What the {bleepedy bleep} is John McCain and Chris Murphy doing there? What the {bleepedy bleep} is going on with that?. Even called my buddy about it.
We don't use anything, that we did not pay an arm and a leg for.
-//-
We are selling gold reserves, and diamonds from the diamond fund, and forcing our banks to buy (non stop) treasuries. Imposing new taxes constantly.
Not quite at the point Stalin was, when he was selling Picassos and Matisses from the Hermitage, and Faberge eggs - but if it comes to that - we'll sell our Crown Jewels too - for more shells and more artillery guns.
The main message should remain - you cannot break Russia, before you sh*t yourself.
One cannot help but admire the defiance, Bobi. As usual. Russians are hard to break, we know it.
Yet, in the long run, we too are fighting for our survival. Hence, a slight loss of composure, or even a mildly soiled pair of trousers, hardly seems an extravagant price to pay, even if it costs us a measure of decorum.
... a veritable Gordian Knot this war.
Home / History / USSR / Russia History and Military Interventions + Poland's Role
