Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[Ken]

I don't really have a strong opinion on NATO because it is not my kingdom. But, what is the difference between the entangling alliances of two nations, or of two states within a nation? Why does one entity of any sort 'need' to provide security for another? Usually it is a perceived need because of the desire for mutual support. These alliances are entangling, but you could make the argument that they are often empowering as well, functioning as a deterrent for conflict. Why did the Cold War never go hot? Maybe NATO was a factor.

This is a fair point...regarding comparing nations w/ states etc. I can't really argue with that.

I am not convinced that NATO is a peacekeeping organization on the whole. And I think a decent interpretation is that NATO escalated the post WWII tension.

We don't know the alternative history naturally, but of course letting an aggressor have his way deescalates tension; the question is whether that is the best course of action for those who stand to suffer from said aggression. It's easy to say that western Europe and America actually had nothing to fear from post WW2 Russia, which was armed to the teeth, angered from its suffering at the hands of the Nazis, and eager to build its own land empire and global superpower status. As bad as the two world wars were, I think that a third one would have potentially been much worse considering nuclear weapons. One could argue that NATO was a factor in preventing this.

The 77 year period of time from 1945 to 2022 was the longest period of peace and prosperity in European history. What conflicts did exist either involved the USSR/Russia occupying foreign countries (Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc.) or involved the disintegration of communism (Yugoslavia). And none of it occurred on the soil of any member of NATO. In fact, since 1945 the only attacks on NATO territory have been things like the 9-11 terrorist attack or odd events on the far-flung fringes like the Falkland's war. Or colonial independence movements like in Algeria. Nothing in the NATO heartland of Europe.

[joshuabgood]

I don't really have a strong opinion on NATO because it is not my kingdom. But, what is the difference between the entangling alliances of two nations, or of two states within a nation? Why does one entity of any sort 'need' to provide security for another? Usually it is a perceived need because of the desire for mutual support. These alliances are entangling, but you could make the argument that they are often empowering as well, functioning as a deterrent for conflict. Why did the Cold War never go hot? Maybe NATO was a factor.

This is a fair point...regarding comparing nations w/ states etc. I can't really argue with that.

I am not convinced that NATO is a peacekeeping organization on the whole. And I think a decent interpretation is that NATO escalated the post WWII tension.

We don't know the alternative history naturally, but of course letting an aggressor have his way deescalates tension; the question is whether that is the best course of action for those who stand to suffer from said aggression. It's easy to say that western Europe and America actually had nothing to fear from post WW2 Russia, which was armed to the teeth, angered from its suffering at the hands of the Nazis, and eager to build its own land empire and global superpower status. As bad as the two world wars were, I think that a third one would have potentially been much worse considering nuclear weapons. One could argue that NATO was a factor in preventing this.

I sort of get that, but sort of don't...for a bunch of, what seem to me, to be pretty fair historical arguments.

[Szdfan]

This is a fair point...regarding comparing nations w/ states etc. I can't really argue with that.

I am not convinced that NATO is a peacekeeping organization on the whole. And I think a decent interpretation is that NATO escalated the post WWII tension.

We don't know the alternative history naturally, but of course letting an aggressor have his way deescalates tension; the question is whether that is the best course of action for those who stand to suffer from said aggression. It's easy to say that western Europe and America actually had nothing to fear from post WW2 Russia, which was armed to the teeth, angered from its suffering at the hands of the Nazis, and eager to build its own land empire and global superpower status. As bad as the two world wars were, I think that a third one would have potentially been much worse considering nuclear weapons. One could argue that NATO was a factor in preventing this.

I sort of get that, but sort of don't...for a bunch of, what seem to me, to be pretty fair historical arguments.

The Soviets did attempt to force the allies out of Berlin -- there were a series of flashpoints collectively known as the "Berlin Crisis," which includes the Berlin Airlift (1948), the Berlin Ultimatum (1958) in which Kruschev demanded the Allies leave and the Checkpoint Charlie Standoff (1961) after the construction of the Wall. After World War II, the USSR wanted a buffer zone of satellite nations against the West, which is a dynamic stil playing out today in Ukraine.

[mike]

Not looking so hopeful for a meeting between Putin and Zelensky.



And Trump is grumbling that it's a complicated thing. Yeah no kidding.

[temporal1]

^^i’m not sure they are capable of being alone with each other.

rams

[temporal1]

$9 million bridge explained
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNBaxdMTLAg/

Ever wondered how corruption works in big projects?
Here’s a hilarious yet eye-opening take on how a $9 million bridge is “built” — without even touching a brick!
From budget breakdowns to shady deals, this one’s a masterclass in creative accounting.

This is directly applicable to the DOGE topic.
viewtopic.php?t=7321

This happens to be told using the U.S., Russia, Japan. i believe brother Ukraine gets Russia’s math.

[Ken]

$9 million bridge explained
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNBaxdMTLAg/

Ever wondered how corruption works in big projects?
Here’s a hilarious yet eye-opening take on how a $9 million bridge is “built” — without even touching a brick!
From budget breakdowns to shady deals, this one’s a masterclass in creative accounting.

This is directly applicable to the DOGE topic.
viewtopic.php?t=7321

This happens to be told using the U.S., Russia, Japan. i believe brother Ukraine gets Russia’s math.

You realize the instagram reel you forwarded is fiction and a pile of made-up nonsense. It is certainly not any kind of "eye-opening take" There is no such bridge that Japanese, American, and Russian companies bid on. And the actual bridge in video is a completely different bridge that I guarantee cost vastly more than $9 million.

The actual bridge in the video is the Woronora River Bridge in New South Whales, Australia. It was built in 2001 by an Australian company at a cost of $44.8 million: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woronora_River_Bridge

Google Street View: https://maps.app.goo.gl/GPaSq76RNikQEf5B6

[temporal1]

Yes. It’s a simplified colorful fictional interpretation of how corruption works.
Sorry you wasted time working trying to undermine it.

[Ken]

Yes. It’s a simplified colorful fictional interpretation of how corruption works.
Sorry you wasted time working trying to undermine it.

It isn't how corruption works either.

To understand that you would be better off studying the current White House.

[temporal1]

Yes. It’s a simplified colorful fictional interpretation of how corruption works.
Sorry you wasted time working trying to undermine it.

It isn't how corruption works either.
To understand that you would be better off studying the current White House.

Corruption is a universal condition, generally swirling around riches. Nothing in my post attempted to suggest the problems aren’t domestic+foreign. The DOGE topic gets into it, including obama’s early interest in addressing it.

Sorry you’re wasting time trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.