6 ms·

I tried to figure out if this reasoning is plausible by reading a few history books on the subject predating 2021- just to be sure i would not be sucked into gr

I tried to figure out if this reasoning is plausible by reading a few history books on the subject predating 2021- just to be sure i would not be sucked into group think. Turns out ALL historians tend to disagree heavily (Kappeler, Applebaum, Plokhy.. Checked on their national background too) Problem with these self proclaimed realists you are referring to is they dont have any solutions, never had (see 1993), have been wrong in the past, continue to be so… most reasonable among them is Kissinger, and even he is very much on the moderate side. It is up to you to reconsider or make yourself comfortable with Tucker Carlson.

hutzlibu 3y ago
Historians disagree on what exactly? That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico? "It is up to you to reconsider or make yourself comfortable with Tucker Carlson" And strong disagree. I don't have to make myself comfortable or align with any character or movement, just because most of the world wants only to think in black and white.
- chrysler 3y ago
  >> That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico? This is such a poor rhethorical question. Why play with hypothethicals like Mexico and China, if Europe already has direct Russian nukes in Kaliningrad enclave in the middle of Europe with constant threats of destroying Warsaw and London? And yet, that's tolerated, unlike what people like you suggest and imagine. Relevant maps: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/23/these-maps-show-how-russia-has-europe-spooked/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/23...
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    I happen to live in europe, so I am quite aware of our situation. But europe is not the US, as far as I know. And the US diplomatic stance towards EU inofficially was something like "fuck the EU". I also know how "the west" moved further east step by step. Which is in general very fine by me, as I do prefer living by western standards (and I was born in the east). So I certainly would not stand in the way, if Ukraine wants to go pro west. If I would not have little children I seriously would have considered going to the war as a volunteer. So much for context of "people like me" But that doesn't change one thing how the US plays this geopolitics game. Or our governments, sure. They are not better, just weaker.
    - chrysler 3y ago
      >> But europe is not the US, as far as I know. Doesn't really change anything in the equation. Russian missiles in Kaliningrad can hit key US military installations like Ramstein AFB and RAF Lakenheath with practically no warning. They are a direct threat from a hostile country that keeps making threats about using them, this is far more serious than any imagined Mexican alliance. And yet, the reaction is... what? Where are B52s bombing Kaliningrad? >> I also know how "the west" moved further east step by step. I am sure you do. Can you tell me why Russian apologists always phrase it as if a shadowy cabal in Washington forced countries into international cooperation, instead of portraying as it actually was?
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        "Can you tell me why Russian apologists always phrase it as if a shadowy cabal in Washington forced countries into international cooperation " Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east. This does not create trust.
        chrysler 3y ago
        >> Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east. Not according to the Soviet foreign minister at the time. He also explains why this conspiracy theory is nonsense: at the time when that verbal promise was allegedly given, no-one could even imagine that Warsaw Pact would cease to exist. According to him, NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries was not discussed with Western officials, not discussed within Warsaw Pact, and not within Communist Party circles in Moscow either. https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-eduard-shevardnadze-we-couldn-t-believe-that-the-warsaw-pact-could-be-dissolved-a-663595.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-e... Nor did you answer my question. Why do Russian apologists try to word this as NATO was somehow forced upon Eastern Europe instead of integration into international institutions being their own long-term goal?
        3y ago
  - pydry 3y ago
    Monroe doctrine has nothing to say about Kalingrad. The US invaded Grenada so for sure they would invade Mexico.
    - RealityVoid 3y ago
      I invite you to look at a map if you think the US would be so cavalier about invading Mexico as it was about Grenada. I'm not saying it couldn't, I'm just saying it's not a thing you do lightly.
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      Mexico is a huge country, Grenada is a tiny island so no, probably not “for sure”. Also it’s hypothetical and and entirely absurd scenario barely worth discussing.
- HellDunkel 3y ago
  „Historians disagree on what exactly?“ Nato expansion beeing the root cause of russian aggression. I recommend reading kappeler. He knows the russian language and history very well (what does nearsheimer know?), translated Putins essay and had no illusions about his intentions. We need to take those people serious who have been right with their predictions, not those who have failed and keep repeating the same talking point ad naseam.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    I will read Kappeler then. But I think I was clear that I have no illusions about Putin. He probably still dreams of a eurasian empire led by him. And he respects only raw power. I still think, it could have gone all very different. For example by sanctioning the russian people in charge and not the whole russian population after 2014. Or not getting involved in Maidan. Or by not invading Iraq, setting a often cited precedent. Putin allmost literally saying: "If the US can just ignore international law and invade a country, so can I"
    - selimthegrim 3y ago
      Which national origins of these historians were you referring to?
      - HellDunkel 3y ago
        I wanted to make sure to have native russians on the list too, not just american or european. You will have a very hard time finding historians with international publications blaming nato like nearsheimer.
    - HellDunkel 3y ago
      Well, we don't know if it would have been possible to change the course of history for the better- right? Might have been even worse- consider 1994. A great deal of effort has been made to respect russian interests, handover of nukes in 1994, no to Nato in 2008, eyes closed on chechnya and georgia, little consequences in 2014... The reasoning was always to respect the russian sphere of influence. But as you say, Putin respects only raw power. "Showing respect" does not equal "raw power". So what we are seeing is less "geopolitics in action" but history in the making, unless you are not willing to give "the people of Ukraine" any voice in this. Now, this is where Kappeler could be helpful. I encourage you reading what he has to say about "maidan involvement".

hutzlibu 3y ago

Historians disagree on what exactly? That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico? "It is up to you to reconsider or make yourself comfortable with Tucker Carlson" And strong disagree. I don't have to make myself comfortable or align with any character or movement, just because most of the world wants only to think in black and white.

chrysler 3y ago
>> That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico? This is such a poor rhethorical question. Why play with hypothethicals like Mexico and China, if Europe already has direct Russian nukes in Kaliningrad enclave in the middle of Europe with constant threats of destroying Warsaw and London? And yet, that's tolerated, unlike what people like you suggest and imagine. Relevant maps: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/23/these-maps-show-how-russia-has-europe-spooked/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/23...
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  I happen to live in europe, so I am quite aware of our situation. But europe is not the US, as far as I know. And the US diplomatic stance towards EU inofficially was something like "fuck the EU". I also know how "the west" moved further east step by step. Which is in general very fine by me, as I do prefer living by western standards (and I was born in the east). So I certainly would not stand in the way, if Ukraine wants to go pro west. If I would not have little children I seriously would have considered going to the war as a volunteer. So much for context of "people like me" But that doesn't change one thing how the US plays this geopolitics game. Or our governments, sure. They are not better, just weaker.
  - chrysler 3y ago
    >> But europe is not the US, as far as I know. Doesn't really change anything in the equation. Russian missiles in Kaliningrad can hit key US military installations like Ramstein AFB and RAF Lakenheath with practically no warning. They are a direct threat from a hostile country that keeps making threats about using them, this is far more serious than any imagined Mexican alliance. And yet, the reaction is... what? Where are B52s bombing Kaliningrad? >> I also know how "the west" moved further east step by step. I am sure you do. Can you tell me why Russian apologists always phrase it as if a shadowy cabal in Washington forced countries into international cooperation, instead of portraying as it actually was?
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      "Can you tell me why Russian apologists always phrase it as if a shadowy cabal in Washington forced countries into international cooperation " Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east. This does not create trust.
      - chrysler 3y ago
        >> Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east. Not according to the Soviet foreign minister at the time. He also explains why this conspiracy theory is nonsense: at the time when that verbal promise was allegedly given, no-one could even imagine that Warsaw Pact would cease to exist. According to him, NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries was not discussed with Western officials, not discussed within Warsaw Pact, and not within Communist Party circles in Moscow either. https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-eduard-shevardnadze-we-couldn-t-believe-that-the-warsaw-pact-could-be-dissolved-a-663595.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-e... Nor did you answer my question. Why do Russian apologists try to word this as NATO was somehow forced upon Eastern Europe instead of integration into international institutions being their own long-term goal?
        3y ago
- pydry 3y ago
  Monroe doctrine has nothing to say about Kalingrad. The US invaded Grenada so for sure they would invade Mexico.
  - RealityVoid 3y ago
    I invite you to look at a map if you think the US would be so cavalier about invading Mexico as it was about Grenada. I'm not saying it couldn't, I'm just saying it's not a thing you do lightly.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    Mexico is a huge country, Grenada is a tiny island so no, probably not “for sure”. Also it’s hypothetical and and entirely absurd scenario barely worth discussing.
HellDunkel 3y ago
„Historians disagree on what exactly?“ Nato expansion beeing the root cause of russian aggression. I recommend reading kappeler. He knows the russian language and history very well (what does nearsheimer know?), translated Putins essay and had no illusions about his intentions. We need to take those people serious who have been right with their predictions, not those who have failed and keep repeating the same talking point ad naseam.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  I will read Kappeler then. But I think I was clear that I have no illusions about Putin. He probably still dreams of a eurasian empire led by him. And he respects only raw power. I still think, it could have gone all very different. For example by sanctioning the russian people in charge and not the whole russian population after 2014. Or not getting involved in Maidan. Or by not invading Iraq, setting a often cited precedent. Putin allmost literally saying: "If the US can just ignore international law and invade a country, so can I"
  - selimthegrim 3y ago
    Which national origins of these historians were you referring to?
    - HellDunkel 3y ago
      I wanted to make sure to have native russians on the list too, not just american or european. You will have a very hard time finding historians with international publications blaming nato like nearsheimer.
  - HellDunkel 3y ago
    Well, we don't know if it would have been possible to change the course of history for the better- right? Might have been even worse- consider 1994. A great deal of effort has been made to respect russian interests, handover of nukes in 1994, no to Nato in 2008, eyes closed on chechnya and georgia, little consequences in 2014... The reasoning was always to respect the russian sphere of influence. But as you say, Putin respects only raw power. "Showing respect" does not equal "raw power". So what we are seeing is less "geopolitics in action" but history in the making, unless you are not willing to give "the people of Ukraine" any voice in this. Now, this is where Kappeler could be helpful. I encourage you reading what he has to say about "maidan involvement".