American Politics Discussion Thread

[BING_XI_LAO]

You didn't really address appeasement and annexing "ethnic populations" comparisons. Claiming to be protecting "ethnic minority populations" is an OLD excuse for war. Its important to look past the justification and just admit "Russia wants it".

So you are saying invasions for lower energy prices are ok? I mean I know there are American's who say that as well, but I can confidently say THIS IS WRONG!

Yeah my bad, I got sidetracked into only the ideological aspect.

On the geopolitical side, I should say that the comparison really grew on me once I went to bed last night, so I have some more thoughts.

I think appeasing Germany was the right thing to do before, during and after WW1. Once Hitler comes to power, appeasement no longer makes sense and the options become either allying with or opposing the country. But aside from under Hitler, Germany's aims were pretty logical. As the inherently largest and most powerful Western/Central European country, it naturally tends to dominate Europe. In WW1 if it had won it probably would have just expanded its borders, created a NATO-style sphere of influence with nominally independent states, and created a proto-EU customs union. There would have been nothing terribly wrong with that. Also it had plenty of democratic elements to its government form, and even as the Third Reich it still used a vassal state to govern France and other places. In fact due to the spiritual and intellectual hollowness of Nazism, I think that if the Third Reich had been victorious it would have seen a relaxation of its ideology in a couple of generations just like China adopting market reforms. I also think they wouldn't have eradicated the Jews because I think they did that out of desperation and the fear of having all those Jews still in place under a Jew-friendly regime.

Basically UK and especially the US should have stayed out of WW1 and let them win or stalemate. But instead this anti-German alliance fought two World Wars to prevent the natural outcome of Europe being dominated by its biggest and most advanced nation. Then Germany just ended up dominating Europe anyway via the EU, because that was the inevitable outcome. In the end, preventing German control of German places like Danzig required ethnic cleansing.

The collapse of the USSR is not the same as WW1 but you're left with a similar situation. Just as it's inevitable that Germany dominates Europe it's inevitable that Russia dominates far-Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia (unless China takes that part over, but right now China-Russia are very good friends so it's a moot point).

If you want stability why are you trying to maintain an inherently unstable scenario in which a large power country has its ethnic group being mistreated by nationalists in small and weak neighbouring countries? And in which very close neighbours like Kazakhstan (if protests/Nazarbayev restoration had succeeded), Ukraine, Belarus (if anti-Batka protests had succeeded) are sucked into the sphere of influence of the US which is on another continent on the other side of the world? That's not a stable arrangement of geopolitics. Better to concede some things to Russia. Also maybe natural gas is on the way out globally due to the green energy transition, but in the meantime it's a total absurdity to have a completed pipeline not sending gas from Russia to Europe because the Americans say so.

I will also reiterate my earlier point, why is Russia "Mordor" when the West's foreign policy has been far more destructive including more explicit military action for several decades?

Oh and:

You didn't really address appeasement and annexing "ethnic populations" comparisons. Claiming to be protecting "ethnic minority populations" is an OLD excuse for war. Its important to look past the justification and just admit "Russia wants it".

That's not an excuse lmao. Those Russians are getting shelled, fighting in militias, and running civilian evacuations, and you think the Russians on the other side of the border have no sympathy? You think there aren't tens of millions of Russians who suspect Putin is being too cautious, maybe getting old, has a history originally of trying to be pro-Western, etc?

Now I know defending your fellow-countrymen is old-fashioned, maybe the proper reason to invade countries is when you make up intel about it having nuclear weapons or Osama Bin Laden, and then you spend the last 10 years of the occupation trying to force Afghanistan to be feminist. That may be a strawman when directed at you but it's sadly not a strawman when directed at US, UK and friends.

So you are saying invasions for lower energy prices are ok? I mean I know there are American's who say that as well, but I can confidently say THIS IS WRONG!

So you are saying Ukrainian occupation of Russians is okay in exchange for high energy prices?
That's literally what the US is doing, it and the UK have stirred up the current war tensions just as much as Russia has with its demands. It has been trying to get Olaf Scholz to commit to cancelling Nordstream 2 if there is a Russian intervention.

These rebel areas are de facto already not ruled by Ukraine, and they don't want to be ruled by Ukraine. So why shouldn't Ukraine meet with the rebel leaders and allow them to be fully autonomous?

Also, why on earth don't you expect there to be loads of border adjustments after the fall of an empire like the USSR, and why do you care whether these two separatist regions are ruled by Russia or Ukraine, same with Crimea?
If you care deeply about the de jure borders set by the Kremlin in the USSR period then did you support Azerbaijan's invasion of Artsakh?

[Charriu]

Also it [WW1 Germany] had plenty of democratic elements to its government form, and even as the Third Reich it still used a vassal state to govern France and other places. In fact due to the spiritual and intellectual hollowness of Nazism, I think that if the Third Reich had been victorious it would have seen a relaxation of its ideology in a couple of generations just like China adopting market reforms. I also think they wouldn't have eradicated the Jews because I think they did that out of desperation and the fear of having all those Jews still in place under a Jew-friendly regime.

Wo wo wo. Yes, there were democratic elements to its government form, but far fewer then compared to its contemporary France or UK. More importantly those democratic elements were never as ingrained into society, which is one reason why the Weimar Republic failed. Society to a large degree believed in military hierarchy above all else and the word of the Kaiser was law to many. As for the Third Reichs use of vassals, that did not happen out of the kindness of their hearts but rather simple bureaucratic purposes. Also eradicating the Jews was the plan from the very beginning. They didn't just start with it, when the war turned. Please stop playing down the holocaust.

[BING_XI_LAO]

Also eradicating the Jews was the plan from the very beginning. They didn't just start with it, when the war turned. Please stop playing down the holocaust.

I don't get that impression from the Madagascar Plan or simple common sense. Nazis were still human and the usual way of things is to ethnically cleanse more people than you kill.

[Pindrich]

Also it [WW1 Germany] had plenty of democratic elements to its government form, and even as the Third Reich it still used a vassal state to govern France and other places. In fact due to the spiritual and intellectual hollowness of Nazism, I think that if the Third Reich had been victorious it would have seen a relaxation of its ideology in a couple of generations just like China adopting market reforms. I also think they wouldn't have eradicated the Jews because I think they did that out of desperation and the fear of having all those Jews still in place under a Jew-friendly regime.

...More importantly those democratic elements were never as ingrained into society, which is one reason why the Weimar Republic failed.

That's not true. The reason the Weimar Republic failed was precisely because those democratic elements were so ingrained in German society it was necessary to appoint a fascist chancellor because God forbid we start making concessions to workers and the populace like the supposedly democratic and liberal elite that we are. We'd rather let the fascists conviniently beat unionists and socialists up on the streets, amirite?

[Charriu]

The Madagascar Plan and all the other plans before the "Final Solution" were also attempts to remove Jews from this world. The only difference is the time frame when they are completely gone. To the same extend why would you put too many people into the Jewish Ghettos with not enough food. It's the same idea. Getting rid of the Jews as people. The only difference is how fast their numbers declined.

I'm not denying that the Nazis were humans. In fact it's important to remember that they were human just like us.

[Mjmd]

The topic of what makes a "nation" is stupidly complex. When does ethnicity or sphere of influence get "set". You make it sound like both Germany and Russia being the dominant powers in the region was a historical given.

Vichy sidebar

The use of vassal states and puppet kings is old as civilization itself. Germany made a lot of mistakes during WWII. Peacing France and creating a puppet state was not one of them. As I've gotten older I've at least gained some empathy for France in this regard if not acceptance.

If we are going on descendants and historical length of control we should probably fight for Mongolia to reconquer Russia.

Pretending the fighting in eastern Ukraine is somehow "Ukraine aggression" and not directly caused by Russia is a MUCH clearer logical failing. If I thought 100% that Russia would stop being an aggressor if they got the 3 provinces or whatever in the east, I would be fully ok with that to prevent a war. BUT I do not think Russia ambitions would stop there. Imperialistic ambitions do not have a set predefined area. Edit: they do have initial ambitions, but I'm trying to make the point that ambitions aren't set in stone.

[darrelljs]

We can have all sorts of conversations about all sorts of things, but none of it changes the fact that a nation is invading a smaller neighbor, lots of people are going to die, and the reasons given aren’t satisfactory. It’s not okay when the US does it, when China does it, or when Russia does it.

Darrell

[Mjmd]

We can have all sorts of conversations about all sorts of things, but none of it changes the fact that a nation is invading a smaller neighbor, lots of people are going to die, and the reasons given aren’t satisfactory.  It’s not okay when the US does it, when China does it, or when Russia does it.

Darrell

Yes

[Charriu]

We can have all sorts of conversations about all sorts of things, but none of it changes the fact that a nation is invading a smaller neighbor, lots of people are going to die, and the reasons given aren’t satisfactory.  It’s not okay when the US does it, when China does it, or when Russia does it.

Darrell

Well said

[Pindrich]

Yet the moral side of the question is never enough to deter war. We must face that fact if we want to understand how stuff works. What most of you fail to realize is how this is a matter of life and death for Russia, as it usually is, specially contemporarily, when things get bad enough that armed conflict has to be considered. I find it extremely deleterious for any serious understanding of geopolitical events when it is suggested that what Russia does, it does because of imperialism or because of whatever buzzword you want to make use of that in the end doesn't explain a thing, but serves to mistify its actions and intentions, when study alone of Russia's, Ukraine's and the Soviet Union's entangled history of economic development will make them crystal clear for anyone who bothers to actually try and understand. Russia isn't fighting to expand or gain more influence, it is fighting to preserve its geopolitical standing and maintain its economic integration with ex-USSR republics. Regardless of which side you're picking, let's be clear about Russia's intentions. Even if you go as far as to consider Russia your enemy, failing to understand the enemy will only lead you to ruin.