3 ms·

Most people don’t know that Lenin was sent to Russia from his Swiss exile by the Germans in a sealed diplomatic train with the express intent to induce the Octo

Most people don’t know that Lenin was sent to Russia from his Swiss exile by the Germans in a sealed diplomatic train with the express intent to induce the October revolution and end the hostilities on that front. It was done to the Russians by cynical Germans who still ended up losing WWI. Churchill deliberately courted the Russians and prevented attacks on them early on in WWII to make it easier for them to switch sides, a very successful tactic which won WWII at the cost of Russian lives. I’m one of those people who see China as a bigger threat to western hegemony and instead of using Ukraine to give Russia a bloody nose we should have again fermented divisions between Russia and China. It would have been possible to admit Russia into NATO, I know it sounds ridiculous but Switzerland was formed out of a having the bully canton join the alliance of smaller cantons that was expressly formed to defend against it. It can be done and there was historical precedent. Not anymore, China and Russia are now so joined at the hip they might as well be considered a single entity. I think the west overestimated its strength, and even now with the posturing for WWIII with fancy and expensive weapons it appears that the West doesn’t understand that warfare has forever changed. I did hope the Houthi conflict would have woken people up to that reality but somehow we’re holding on to this notion that a WWIII is winnable. I should note that I lament the cost of these conflicts to human lives on both sides and wish smarter populations governed by astute politicians would have found ways to successfully avoid war, perhaps at the cost of a multipolar world which we’re likely to get anyway. I much prefer the Chinese way of fighting with ‘high tech overproduction’ and wish we could ‘fight back’ with our own overproduction. We would all be far wealthier for it, especially since the alternative is massively destructive.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
surfingdino 2y ago
China no longer sees Russia as a partner, but a vassal state. They rejected Putin's proposal for the Siberian pipeline and are slowing down deliveries of various components needed to manufacture weapons. Chinese banks are limiting their dealing with Russian banks and companies to avoid sanctions. Like it or hate it, US Dollar is the world's reserve currency and getting cut off from the global banking network is not worth all the gold that Putin can offer. China doesn't want Russia to attack other countries, because like a wise drug dealer, it does not want to loose its customers. Russia is killing them and that messes with China's business. To be honest if China could capture Putin and give him to the West in a box with a red ribbon it would. They saw how weak he is and have no respect for him. On top of that, China has its own problems--demographic and economic. Russia cannot help China solve them so China is happy to see Russia bleed and slowly descend into the inevitable chaos once the Russian economy collapses. Xi will be happy to carve out a part of Russia for himself once an opportunity presents itself. Although how much more of a really backwards population and barren land he needs is a open question.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  I don't agree with your assessments but I don't have the time to discuss it on HN. Back to work for me.
racional 2y ago
Instead of using Ukraine to give Russia a bloody nose we should have again fermented divisions between Russia and China. Your reading of what's driving Western support for Ukraine is completely wrong here. They're not simply doing it to "give Russia a bloody nose" for its own sake. They certainly don't mind if that's what Russia gets out of it. But that's not the key objective in itself. On the flip side: "fermenting divisions between Russia and China" is just fantasy, as at the moment U.S. is really quite inept in regard to such influence. It has no clue how to do that effectively (and any efforts it did take in that direction would most likely be moot and/or backfire). I should note that I lament the cost of these conflicts to human lives on both sides and wish smarter populations governed by astute politicians would have found ways to successfully avoid war, perhaps at the cost of a multipolar world which we’re likely to get anyway. Okay, multipolar world, whatever. But what it really comes down to is this: the only way to have "avoided war" (after 2014) would have been to simply give Russia what it wanted -- recognized sovereignty over significant chunks of territory (most likely at least as much as it's sitting on now), combined with permanent limits on Ukraine's own sovereignty (in terms of its ability to enter treaties). If you think this would have been (or still would be) an astute course of action -- you might as well come out an say so.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  I think peace could have been bought at the cost of neutrality, so sovereignty yes. I’m sure Ukraine would have been far better off with that, and there are many hundred of thousands of men who definitely would be. It is hard to discuss this with people because it appears to me that most people are divorced from reality of the war. The framing of it has been warped and anyone who strays from the NAFO line is somehow an apologist. I hate this war and I hate the wars that it seems we’re on the precipice of starting with China and Iran and world will be much worse off when that happens.
  - racional 2y ago
    I think peace could have been bought at the cost of neutrality, so sovereignty yes. It's possible of course, but it's also speculative, and the window for that option is long since closed -- once Putin grabbed the Crimea and then the LNR/DNR, the "neutrality" bid fell from the table. In any case he's been quite consistent about maintaining whatever regions he's currently occupying (and likely then some, according to the most recent formulations). So if we're to buy peace now by just giving him what he wants -- that (or some approximation thereof) is what he'll be demanding. In any case it seems extremely unlikely he'd accept a neutrality-only bid by this point.
jholman 2y ago
It'd be more apt to write "fomented divisions", rather than "fermented divisions".
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  Ah thanks, thats what I meant to write, I think a typo + autocorrect got me there
atombender 2y ago
You make it sound like Germany weaponised an oblivious Lenin by letting him loose on Russia. In reality, Lenin observed the February revolution from afar and realized it was a critical time to rejoin the struggle, and petitioned the German government to leave; the Germans agreed because it was strategically advantageous for them to allow dissidents to travel into Russia. The so-called "sealed" train was a cover story [1]. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/lenin-and-the-russian-spark https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/lenin-and-the...
hackandthink 2y ago
>Churchill deliberately courted the Russians Churchill was too late "Its (Munichs appeasement) reverse side was an unwillingness to cooperate with the USSR against Nazi Germany" They prefered Hitler to Stalin. "Winston Churchill, then a backbench Tory MP, insisted that without an alliance with the USSR, France and Britain could not help their allies or would-be allies in Eastern Europe" https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Fiasco_The_Anglo-Franco-Soviet_Alliance-3-2.pdf https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Fiasco_The_Anglo-Franco-...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

surfingdino 2y ago

China no longer sees Russia as a partner, but a vassal state. They rejected Putin's proposal for the Siberian pipeline and are slowing down deliveries of various components needed to manufacture weapons. Chinese banks are limiting their dealing with Russian banks and companies to avoid sanctions. Like it or hate it, US Dollar is the world's reserve currency and getting cut off from the global banking network is not worth all the gold that Putin can offer. China doesn't want Russia to attack other countries, because like a wise drug dealer, it does not want to loose its customers. Russia is killing them and that messes with China's business. To be honest if China could capture Putin and give him to the West in a box with a red ribbon it would. They saw how weak he is and have no respect for him. On top of that, China has its own problems--demographic and economic. Russia cannot help China solve them so China is happy to see Russia bleed and slowly descend into the inevitable chaos once the Russian economy collapses. Xi will be happy to carve out a part of Russia for himself once an opportunity presents itself. Although how much more of a really backwards population and barren land he needs is a open question.

cjbgkagh 2y ago
I don't agree with your assessments but I don't have the time to discuss it on HN. Back to work for me.

racional 2y ago

Instead of using Ukraine to give Russia a bloody nose we should have again fermented divisions between Russia and China. Your reading of what's driving Western support for Ukraine is completely wrong here. They're not simply doing it to "give Russia a bloody nose" for its own sake. They certainly don't mind if that's what Russia gets out of it. But that's not the key objective in itself. On the flip side: "fermenting divisions between Russia and China" is just fantasy, as at the moment U.S. is really quite inept in regard to such influence. It has no clue how to do that effectively (and any efforts it did take in that direction would most likely be moot and/or backfire). I should note that I lament the cost of these conflicts to human lives on both sides and wish smarter populations governed by astute politicians would have found ways to successfully avoid war, perhaps at the cost of a multipolar world which we’re likely to get anyway. Okay, multipolar world, whatever. But what it really comes down to is this: the only way to have "avoided war" (after 2014) would have been to simply give Russia what it wanted -- recognized sovereignty over significant chunks of territory (most likely at least as much as it's sitting on now), combined with permanent limits on Ukraine's own sovereignty (in terms of its ability to enter treaties). If you think this would have been (or still would be) an astute course of action -- you might as well come out an say so.

cjbgkagh 2y ago
I think peace could have been bought at the cost of neutrality, so sovereignty yes. I’m sure Ukraine would have been far better off with that, and there are many hundred of thousands of men who definitely would be. It is hard to discuss this with people because it appears to me that most people are divorced from reality of the war. The framing of it has been warped and anyone who strays from the NAFO line is somehow an apologist. I hate this war and I hate the wars that it seems we’re on the precipice of starting with China and Iran and world will be much worse off when that happens.
- racional 2y ago
  I think peace could have been bought at the cost of neutrality, so sovereignty yes. It's possible of course, but it's also speculative, and the window for that option is long since closed -- once Putin grabbed the Crimea and then the LNR/DNR, the "neutrality" bid fell from the table. In any case he's been quite consistent about maintaining whatever regions he's currently occupying (and likely then some, according to the most recent formulations). So if we're to buy peace now by just giving him what he wants -- that (or some approximation thereof) is what he'll be demanding. In any case it seems extremely unlikely he'd accept a neutrality-only bid by this point.

jholman 2y ago

It'd be more apt to write "fomented divisions", rather than "fermented divisions".

cjbgkagh 2y ago
Ah thanks, thats what I meant to write, I think a typo + autocorrect got me there

atombender 2y ago

You make it sound like Germany weaponised an oblivious Lenin by letting him loose on Russia. In reality, Lenin observed the February revolution from afar and realized it was a critical time to rejoin the struggle, and petitioned the German government to leave; the Germans agreed because it was strategically advantageous for them to allow dissidents to travel into Russia. The so-called "sealed" train was a cover story [1]. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/lenin-and-the-russian-spark https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/lenin-and-the...

hackandthink 2y ago

>Churchill deliberately courted the Russians Churchill was too late "Its (Munichs appeasement) reverse side was an unwillingness to cooperate with the USSR against Nazi Germany" They prefered Hitler to Stalin. "Winston Churchill, then a backbench Tory MP, insisted that without an alliance with the USSR, France and Britain could not help their allies or would-be allies in Eastern Europe" https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Fiasco_The_Anglo-Franco-Soviet_Alliance-3-2.pdf https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Fiasco_The_Anglo-Franco-...