6 ms·
“Invading a well-armed Europe is almost impossible.” Funny, the world had the same thought in 1936.
by reactordev 3y ago
“Invading a well-armed Europe is almost impossible.”
Funny, the world had the same thought in 1936.
- ninjin 3y agoFair point. But if you want to use that analogy, maybe you are also willing to admit that the might of the Wehrmacht accomplished substantially more than getting bogged down about 100km beyond their initial borders two years into the conflict?
- reactordev 3y agoI will admit no such accomplishments. Where I'm from, we punch Nazi's in the face.
- ninjin 3y agoNot sure how admitting that the current state of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation relative to the rest of Europe is not as good that of the pre-WWII Wehrmacht has any relationship to punching Nazis.
- reactordev 3y agoI do not admire Nazi military accomplishments nor compare current military strategy to a world invasion. Russia’s military state is because Russia’s military doesn’t want this fight, but they must.
- ithkuil 3y agoAnd they must fight because?
- jacquesm 3y agoOtherwise they get shot.
- thriftwy 3y agoSo they basically just heroically breached Avdeevka because their boss shouted at them?
- reactordev 3y agoNope, they cowardly did it because they did. No invasion is heroic. Ukraine pulled out to redirect forces elsewhere. Avdiivka isn’t worth the bloodshed.
- baobabKoodaa 3y agoNot sure if refusing to learn from history is the approach I would take to stop nazis or Russia, but to each their own I guess
- reactordev 3y agoI refuse to acknowledge any nazi accomplishments. That does not mean I haven’t learned from history. I think the evidence shows it’s the other way around. That people forget history and like to admire a fascist regime for their murder rate or ability to take down unsuspecting neighbors. Russia got bogged down because Russia doesn’t want this fight. Russia’s Kremlin does.
- baobabKoodaa 3y agoNobody "admires" the murder rate of nazis (except perhaps other nazis). People are horrified by the efficiency and success that Nazis achieved. It's a stark reminder of what can happen when the wrong people get too much uncheckered power. Denying or minimizing that it happened will make it more likely for it to happen again.
- ithkuil 3y agoIndeed. Understanding something doesn't imply endorsing it
- Qwertious 3y agoFascists weren't efficient, broadly speaking. They presented the aesthetic of efficiency and disappeared anyone who called them out on their bullshit. For example, Mussolini's trains didn't run on time, apart from one or two showpony lines.
- baobabKoodaa 3y agoOk so maybe the trains didn't run on time, but they invaded a lot of neighboring countries really fast. Something that Russia doesn't seem capably of doing, as was pointed out upthread. It's not a good idea to broadly think "nazis are stupid, they won't get anything done". Sometimes they get things done and then we're fucked.
- gettodachoppa 3y agoThis isn't Twitter or your polycule's Wednesday night political discussion, my friend. Being proud of rejecting historical facts doesn't give you as many virtue signalling points as you think.
- BurningFrog 3y agoSomeone was always wrong about something similar in the past. That proves nothing about the present.
- ovulator 3y agoHow did that work out for the Germans?
- OkayPhysicist 3y agoWar is fundamentally different now than it was at the beginning of WW2. A nuclear superpower cannot be invaded. You can poke the bear A LOT, but basically everyone recognizes that a ground invasion is crossing a red line. That's the purpose of NATO. In exchange for giving up some autonomy to the US (letting the USA build military bases in your territory, not acting overtly against our interests), and paying us for our fancy weapons, NATO members get the immeasurably valuable power of a nuclear red line border, and protection by the most powerful military the world has ever seen. It's a very, very good deal, and the most stabilizing force in history. Given the NATO membership of most of Europe, the only wars possible in Europe are small, regional conflicts between non-member states.
- misja111 3y agoWell that assumes that NATO will hold its promise and defend the member state that is invaded. Lately, considering Trump's recent outings, this isn't set in stone anymore.
- Aaronstotle 3y agoU.K. & France both have Nuclear Weapons
- reactordev 3y agoTrump has bigger things to deal with than NATO accounting imho. He should be so scrutinizing internally.
- reactordev 3y ago“War is fundamentally different now than it was at the beginning of WW2. A nuclear superpower cannot be invaded.” You are right on the former, incorrect on the latter. Invasion looks different now that warfare has changed. You might have been invaded and not even know it. When was the last time you looked at your ssh logs?
- Jenda_ 3y agoBesides an open military invasion (hopefully improbable), I'm afraid of slowly tilting and influencing border states (Slovakia, Hungary) to lean towards Russia, with maybe some future economic extortion, or in the very extreme case, staging an election/referendum to leave EU/NATO.