I saw the memorials for myself, the walls upon walls of names sent to Siberia to die… but obviously it’s just to fit an agenda. edit https://estonianworld.com/life/memorial-to-the-victims-of-communism-opens-in-estonia/
WW2 comparisons are natural because it's the only thing we have in recent history to compare a horrific multi-nation war. I'm sure during WWI there were comparisons to Napoleon made even if it wasn't anything like the same war. Obviously Putin isn't Hitler, he has completely different motivations. The appeasing Hitler as he took chunk after chunk might be worth remembering though. Putin doesn't need lebensraum, for him it's about making Russia relevant as a major power heading a coalition of nations again and there is really no telling how far he's willing to go and how far the west are willing to let him. If Putin does eventually attack a NATO nation we will have to fight him or NATO loses all authority. There are NATO countries in the Baltic that have Russian enclaves and historic ties to Russia. Hopefully he never has the balls to try and "liberate" them.
They have. If it's not the highest per Capita military state, it's one of the highest. Pretty much the only reason anyone ever moves to Alaska is because the military transfers them there. Still not a major threat to Russia though. Russia probably doesn't care much about Alaskan bases there's nothing but snow and ice within range of Alaska.
Who said it was an agenda, no one. You said you went on tour guide, I merely said tour guides are often told what version of events to give, dependent on what they are paid to say. I never mentioned anything about Siberia or memorials. So for example, if Putin won the battle in Ukraine, a tour guide 50 years from now could say, he liberated the people, you and I would argue that he never, but someone 50 years from now might not know there history, much as it sounds like you didn't before you went on the tour guide.
Just a question for anyone who thinks Russia invading was nothing to do with NATO expansion to the east. In November the Secretary General of NATO made a provocative statement saying that if Germany chose not to hold their nuclear weapons... ‘’...the alternative is we end up with nuclear weapons in other countries of Europe, also to the east of Germany,’’ Hey ho a few weeks later Putin starts building up troops on the border. There's no way you can appease Russia by allowing them to dictate who becomes a NATO member. But following that statement by Stoltenberg which wouldn't have gone down well with the Kremlin at all, could they not have made a binding agreement that NO nukes would be placed in those eastern european NATO countries? Was that even offered?
FYI. Googled it. The top states with per Capita military enrollment are: #1 South Carolina (I expected us to be high but not number one. We do have a lot of military bases here though, I can hear the military test bombs from my house... My old house used to be located on an old WWII bombing range and every once in a blue moon someone would find an unexploded bomb. Didn't know we were #1 though) #2 Hawaii, this one makes sense as a military base, low population and strategic location in Pacific. #3 Alaska, I had expected this to be higher since there isn't much else in Alaska other than military and oil wells. So yeah, Alaska pretty well militarized and I'm probably ****ed if nuclear war ever happened.
Let’s go further back… Russia attacking Georgia and annexing Crimea in the last 15 years… I would say that’s bigger provocation in which NATO have decided we need to bolster our defences.
Well it's not the only thing but I cba going off on a tangent. It's an "easy thing" because most of the public can immediately identify with it, but there have been plenty of others. And this is all about painting a certain picture now.
But naivety played a huge part in World war 2. I think I read that at the imperial war museum, although now I’m questing existence after the @brb reference that you only read or see what governments want you to do WWII is being used an example on this occasion as this invasion involves a super power and it’s in Europe.
I am curious what else. Vietnam? Korea? Very localized. Same with Iraq or Afghanistan. I can't think of any other war in living memory that was fought over a wide area between multiple combatants like a conflict between NATO and Russia would be. WWII itself isn't even really a good comparison because technology dictates this would be a very different war. The current war probably most resembles Vietnam or Korea in reverse. Russia invading and the West fighting via proxy.
Russia has been carrying out troop build up exercises for years around Ukraine, always packing up and fcking off after, including 150,000 just last April iirc. The NATO boss makes that remark and then the build up happens again but this time, after almost 2 months this time they invade. I'm asking if there was a window of opportunity where an agreement could have been reached that no nukes would be placed in those countries. I think Russia would have every right to ask for that, much in the same way the Amercans didn't want nukes in Cuba.
Why have you said that bit though? The comparisons with Hitler and Nazis isn't being played out in the media because of what "would be happening", it's being done as a comparison of Putin's actions right now.
I think it would have been fair to offer no nukes in Ukraine (I even suggested it in comment way back), but I don't know that Russia would have accepted that or not. Impossible to know now.
But the build up of troops and then ****ing it off could be a pretence to seeing how the west react. Putin may have had this in mind for years and has been slowly probing. No one knows what’s going on in that man’s head to be honest.
