[late]

Masha grew up in Russia, she watched Putin come to power. As an outspoken scholar opposing autocrats and dictators, she left the country. There are few that understand Putin as well as she does.

"During the interview, Putin gave every indication that he thinks of former imperial possessions as still rightfully Russia’s. That would include not only former Soviet republics but also Finland and Poland.

I can’t get one passage out of my mind. In the history-lecture portion of the interview, when Putin got to 1939, he said, “Poland coöperated with Germany, but then it refused to comply with Hitler’s demands. . . . By not ceding the Danzig Corridor to Hitler, Poles forced him, they overplayed their hand and they forced Hitler to start the Second World War by attacking Poland.” (This is my translation.) The idea that the victim of the attack serves as its instigator by forcing the hand of the aggressor is central to all of Putin’s explanations for Russia’s war in Ukraine.

It’s telling, too, that Putin took the time to accuse Poland of both allying with Nazi Germany and inciting Hitler’s aggression. As he has done with Ukraine in the past, he is positioning Poland as an heir to Nazism. He mentioned Poland more than thirty times in his conversation with Tucker. If I were Poland, I’d be scared."

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/tucker-carlson-promised-an-unedited-putin-the-result-was-boring

Ukraine isn't the goal. But it's on the way to 3 places that are easy to defend, and all of them are in NATO.

If we let Putin have Ukraine, that won't be the end of it.

I don't know how to get House Republicans to act sane, but this is going to get a lot worse if we don't.

[Puffer Fish]

That would include not only former Soviet republics but also Finland and Poland.

Putin has made in clear he has no plans of trying to invade Finland and Poland, and said it is absurd.

Finland wasn't even incorporated into the Soviet Union. (Although the Soviets did take a small part of Finland to serve as a buffer so the important big city of Leningrad (Saint Petersburg) wouldn't be too close to the border with another non-Soviet aligned country.
The Karelian isthmus, which encompasses most of that small sliver of territory, was not actually ceded to independent Finland until 1918, but then Finland was forced to cede it back to Russia in the 1939–40 Russo-Finnish War. Russia had previously held the isthmus since 1721, when it had been ceded to them by Sweden when Finland was under Swedish rule)

[Puffer Fish]

It’s telling, too, that Putin took the time to accuse Poland of both allying with Nazi Germany and inciting Hitler’s aggression.

It's an interesting little tidbit of history I had no idea about. And I previously thought I knew everything about the history leading up the second world war in Eastern Europe.

Certainly not something given much attention in the Western history books.

[Potemkin]

It's an interesting little tidbit of history I had no idea about. And I previously thought I knew everything about the history leading up the second world war in Eastern Europe.

Certainly not something given much attention in the Western history books.

Poland grabbed parts of Czechoslovakia in 1938 when Hitler invaded it. Ironically, the same thing was to happen to Poland itself the following year, and then to the Soviet Union two years after that. Hitler was, to put it mildly, a rather unreliable ally. Putin is not entirely incorrect when he says that Poland co-operated with Hitler - almost everybody did back then. And usually regretted it soon afterwards. Lol.

Oh, and history got rewritten after 1945 to erase the more embarrassing parts. Hitler was evil incarnate and Poland and Russia were just helpless victims, yadda yadda. The reality, as usual, was rather more nuanced than that.

[noemon]

Reminder: this war happened purely because the US refused to agree on Ukraine's neutrality.

Not to worry though, the EU will eventually pick up the possily multi-trillion bill over the course of the war and later of Ukraine's reconstruction.

As for the comical claim that Russia is eyeing on all of Eastern Europe, the trolls forget that Russia unilaterally demilitarised all of Eastern Europe and did not start a war when all of Eastern Europe joined NATO.

Letting Crimea and Donbass become NATO was never going to happen, Putin or no Putin as that would be NATO taking over Russia's 300-year old naval base along with 90% ethnic-Russian territories that have been internationally recognised as having the right to self-determination.

[Tainari88]

@noemon wrote:

Reminder: this war happened purely because the US refused to agree on Ukraine's neutrality.

Not to worry though, the EU will eventually pick up the possily multi-trillion bill over the course of the war and later of Ukraine's reconstruction.

You are getting the reasons right? The US needs to slow down the EU and the China/Russia combination. It has to remain in a dominant position.

It is about resolving what it can. When it can. If it means hurting the Ukrainians and making them dependent on aid from the USA, in the long term it might mean slowing down the other competitors for World Domination.

But, if the USA does not pay attention to its own side of the world soon? They will fail at a lot of plans they may have for the future.

[Verv]

Masha grew up in Russia, she watched Putin come to power. As an outspoken scholar opposing autocrats and dictators, she left the country. There are few that understand Putin as well as she does.

Masha Gessen had also written an article back in 2020 saying Trump is worse than Putin! which I found to be entertaining.

I can’t get one passage out of my mind. In the history-lecture portion of the interview, when Putin got to 1939, he said, “Poland coöperated with Germany, but then it refused to comply with Hitler’s demands. . . . By not ceding the Danzig Corridor to Hitler, Poles forced him, they overplayed their hand and they forced Hitler to start the Second World War by attacking Poland.” (This is my translation.) The idea that the victim of the attack serves as its instigator by forcing the hand of the aggressor is central to all of Putin’s explanations for Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The rendering of this by a news site:

“Good, good. I’m so gratified that you appreciate that. Thank you. So before World War II, Poland collaborated with Hitler. And although it did not yield to Hitler’s demands, it still participated in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia together with Hitler, as the Poles had not given the Danzig corridor to Germany, and went too far, pushing Hitler to start World War II by attacking them,” Putin continued.

“Why was it Poland against whom the war started, on 1st September 1939? Poland turned out to be uncompromising and Hitler had nothing to do but start implementing his plans with Poland.

MSN

I would also point out...

Pushed too far does not necessarily have some connotation that Poland overstepped their rights by demanding to maintain the Danzig corridor in English...

The first is, of course, the one where we use it to say that someone has overstepped their rights by going too far...

The second is only that someone has overplayed their hand, and they have thus done something unwise from a purely pragmatic view.

The Telegraph says this of Putin, actually, in a 2017 article:

Vladimir Putin may have pushed too far by aiding Bashar al-Assad.

So my presumption is that if a translator said "pushed too far" it can simply mean "uncompromising," as it was state din the article above...

[Rugoz]

Oh, and history got rewritten after 1945 to erase the more embarrassing parts. Hitler was evil incarnate and Poland and Russia were just helpless victims, yadda yadda. The reality, as usual, was rather more nuanced than that.

Poland annexed a tiny peace of land in 1938 (906 km2), while it lost ~20% of its population under German/Soviet occupation, more than any other country. At some point it's bad taste to add "nuance".

[Rugoz]

If we let Putin have Ukraine, that won't be the end of it.

I don't see Putin attacking NATO countries. Moldova probably, and potentially Georgia and Central Asian countries, if they don't align. But it shows how important NATO expansion was.

[late]

Putin has made in clear he has no plans of trying to invade Finland and Poland, and said it is absurd.

He says a lot of things, and a lot of them are lies, paranoia, and BS...

[late]

I don't see Putin attacking NATO countries. Moldova probably, and potentially Georgia and Central Asian countries, if they don't align. But it shows how important NATO expansion was.

If Putin conquers Ukraine, he would immediately start undermining Poland. Like he did with Crimea..

The risk would keep going up.

[Rugoz]

If Putin conquers Ukraine, he would immediately start undermining Poland. Like he did with Crimea..

The risk would keep going up.

How is that supposed to happen? Russia doesn't have troops in Poland. Ukraine was in no position to defend Crimea at the time.

[late]

How is that supposed to happen? Russia doesn't have troops in Poland. Ukraine was in no position to defend Crimea at the time.

Putin was KGB...

He follows the playbook, he sends in a few guys that identify those that will have to be killed, those that can be corrupted, those that can be intimidated. He then sends in teams to do that.
Putin has done this time and again, in countries that don't make the headlines, like Kyrgyzstan...

If you remember, he was able to get a puppet elected in Urkaine. That's something the whiners don't usually mention. When he showed his true colors, he got resistance, and eventually had to run and hide behind Putins skirts.

Putin'll do something similar to Poland. If that doesn't work, he'll use more direct measures, which I mentioned in the first paragraph.

This isn't just my opinion, it's what he does, and it's why Europe is freaking out.

[Rich]

I can’t get one passage out of my mind. In the history-lecture portion of the interview, when Putin got to 1939, he said, “Poland coöperated with Germany, but then it refused to comply with Hitler’s demands. . . . By not ceding the Danzig Corridor to Hitler, Poles forced him, they overplayed their hand and they forced Hitler to start the Second World War by attacking Poland.” (This is my translation.) The idea that the victim of the attack serves as its instigator by forcing the hand of the aggressor is central to all of Putin’s explanations for Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Good grief is there no end the the liberal's moralistic cretinsim. Putin was absolutely right to criticise Poland's behaviour in the twenties and thirties. Poland didn't just act like a Great Power, it acted more like it thought it was a super power. The Polish German non aggression pact was the height of stupidity, it spat in the faces of the British and the French. Poland was one of the biggest winners from the WWI peace, to protect its gains it was vital to form strong alliances, above all it needed to do nothing, absolutely nothing to imperil alliances with Czechoslovakia, Britain and France. They should also have been looking to form strong defence pacts with Yugoslavia and Romania the other big winners from WWI.

The Liberal know nothings have been whining on about Chamberlain's Munich peace deal for three quarters of a century. Where were the Poles? If the Poles weren't willing nay demanding to defend Czechoslovakia's Versailles borders, how in God's name was it meant to be Britain's responsibility?

[late]

Good grief is there no end the the liberal's moralistic cretinsim. Putin was absolutely right to criticise Poland's behaviour in the twenties and thirties. Poland didn't just act like a Great Power, it acted more like it thought it was a super power. The Polish German non aggression pact was the height of stupidity, it spat in the faces of the British and the French. Poland was one of the biggest winners from the WWI peace, to protect its gains it was vital to form strong alliances, above all it needed to do nothing, absolutely nothing to imperil alliances with Czechoslovakia, Britain and France. They should also have been looking to form strong defence pacts with Yugoslavia and Romania the other big winners from WWI.

The Liberal know nothings have been whining on about Chamberlain's Munich peace deal for three quarters of a century. Where were the Poles? If the Poles weren't willing nay demanding to defend Czechoslovakia's Versailles borders, how in God's name was it meant to be Britain's responsibility?

It's a crap analogy that in no way justifies the murder and destruction Putin is doing.

[Rugoz]

@Rich Are you a liberal? I'm asking for a friend.

[Rich]

@Rich Are you a liberal? I'm asking for a friend.

That depends on how you define, or more often fail to define "Liberal". I tend to support a lot of the policies that were associated with so called classical liberalism and pre woke progressive liberalism. However at the philosophical level I don't seem to agree at all and seem to have far more in common with Marxists than liberals. Although I don't buy the Marxist stages of history. I don't believe in capitalism. I don't believe in feudalism, as in I don't believe these cataegories are honest and meaningful I do believe strongly in a form of historical materialism. So lets pose the question.

Were the Romans wrong to engage in genocidal warfare, mass terrorism, industrial level slavery, including industrial level sex slavery, industrial level child slavery and industrial level child sex slavery? Were the Romans wrong to savage kill and torture people in public arena's just for entertainment? Was this behaviour immoral?

Most Liberals I think would say the Romans were wrong, that they were in some way acting immorally, where as I find condemnation of them utterly absurd. Even though my German and Celtic ancestors were often the victims of Roman dominance. Now I'm not going to engage in unilateral moralistic disarmament, I'm going to continue to pick on groups from hundreds of years ago that suit me and denounce them, but I'm always aware of the practice's fundamental silliness.

Why does attitudes to long past history matter? Because liberalism always seems to have the belief in some sort of fundamental contract, whether its between a commoner and the monarch, between a human and the Biblical God or some Constitutional contract between the citizen and the state. Individual rights can be a useful social and legal mechanism, but they are not, never have been, nor ever will be absolutes. I don't believe in the British monarchy, I have no respect for it, but I have no respect for the American Constitution either. I do not believe in fundamental law. Laws and rights are always negotiated in a particular socio-economic, historical- cultural context.

[late]

Why does attitudes to long past history matter? Because liberalism always seems to have the belief in some sort of fundamental contract, whether its between a commoner and the monarch, between a human and the Biblical God or some Constitutional contract between the citizen and the state. Individual rights can be a useful social and legal mechanism, but they are not, never have been, nor ever will be absolutes. I don't believe in the British monarchy, I have no respect for it, but I have no respect for the American Constitution either. I do not believe in fundamental law. Laws and rights are always negotiated in a particular socio-economic, historical- cultural context.

You are talking about the Enlightenment.

The idea of a social contract includes Rule of Law, and democracy follows from that line of thought.

It's an integral part of the evolution into the Modern. Which is to say the modern world is a package deal. You screw with it, and hell is likely to come for a visit...

So while I don't care what you think, the current suicidal nihilism of the Right is something that needs to be dealt with.

[Tainari88]

@Rich wrote:

That depends on how you define, or more often fail to define "Liberal". I tend to support a lot of the policies that were associated with so called classical liberalism and pre woke progressive liberalism. However at the philosophical level I don't seem to agree at all and seem to have far more in common with Marxists than liberals. Although I don't buy the Marxist stages of history. I don't believe in capitalism. I don't believe in feudalism, as in I don't believe these cataegories are honest and meaningful I do believe strongly in a form of historical materialism. So lets pose the question.

Aha, so how do you see yourself within a historical materialism framework?

How do you see yourself within that philosophy?

You do not believe in capitalism Señor Rich--I am seriously curious now.

What is it about capitalism that does not convince you?

I find you a very interesting collection of thoughts and perspectives.

Sometimes I think you are just unconventional in the extreme. In other ways you are very much Anglo.

Your writing is always provoking thoughts in me. About what is going on there in your head?

[Rich]

You do not believe in capitalism Señor Rich--I am seriously curious now.

What is it about capitalism that does not convince you?

I don't believe in capitalism in the same way that i don't believe in Jesus. Its not that I think that Jesus i a bad person / God, it just that I severely doubt he ever existed and certainly don't believe he's around now, sitting in the heavens, interfering in human affairs.

We fundamentally have the same economic system today that we've had for the least 5000 years and probably considerably longer going right back into the deep Neolithic. When you ask people what distinguishes capitalism from these supposed other earlier systems, all you get is some hand waving. The Romans didn't have joint stock companies in the way we do, but this was just a totally unsurprising lack of development of financial technology, its not because we've had some sort of revolution in the relations of the means of production.