Olaf Scholz: the NATO will not be part of the Ukrainian War

[oldbadger]

Do you believe that the Liberty Ships
were of so little value that England
was entirely "alone"?

History update: the 1st Liberty ship was launched two months before Pearl Harbour was attacked.

There are many here who believe that we
should let Putin have Ukraine. And some
of you across the Pond would also let him
take Moldova, etc.
Do you agree that USA should stand down?

BTW, the morals & judgement of USA are
indeed dubious, eg, supporting Israel's apartheid
& now genocide of Palestinians....the tip of a big
iceberg. So I can understand why you'd all rather
go it alone. But this preference should be very
carefully considered.

What the USA will do is an unknown, and European countries may need to get ready to be alone in all that.

We didn't want be alone before, we may have to be in the near future.

I feel sure that we will welcome any friends who want to be.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, although they did manage to hold back the German blitz.

In any case, logistically, the Germans simply didn't have the wherewithal for a cross-channel invasion. And the British had the finest navy in the world (until we caught up and surpassed you in that area).

Thank goodness. Our 'victory' in the BB was surely more like the Nazi mess up .
But anyway which leads to survival is great.

We thought our navy was the finest, until our outdated flahships met with German armour and big gun accuracy.

I don't think the U.S. would have wanted Britain to go down alone. While there was some isolationist sentiment at the time, it seems a lot of people genuinely thought that France and Britain could have handled the Germans without our help. On paper, they had the Germans outnumbered and outgunned. How was anyone to know that France would fold up and surrender so quickly?

That was in June, 1940, when the U.S. Army was no larger than Belgium's. However, just after that, the U.S. passed the Two-Ocean Navy Act. In addition, FDR called for massive production increases in aircraft, tanks, and other equipment around the same time. So, we knew that we were headed to war, but it took time to marshal all the necessary resources and industries to build up our military-industrial complex.

FDR wanted to help us so much. I've read that he arranged for US planes to be hand-pushed across the Canadian border because of a delivery embargo.

One thing to remember is that, in the aftermath of WW2, the entire attitude in the U.S. changed. I perceive that there's been a great deal of national regret over what many regard as a short-sighted, xenophobic, and isolationist attitude which pervaded in the U.S. after WW1, which opposed the U.S. entry into the League of Nations. Our military was reduced in size and kept at a minimal level, so by 1939-40, we were woefully unprepared to enter a world war. We weren't even all that prepared in December 1941, but we were getting there.

Ever since then, the U.S. has made it a priority to maintain high levels of military spending and to take a much more proactive (and somewhat aggressive) approach to geopolitics. All of it is rooted in the notion that, "if we had been stronger in 1940, we could have stopped Hitler before he even got started."

Thank you for all that info.

 

[Stevicus]

In the RF discussion, here claims were made that
US didn't support England until a couple years
into the war. This in fact ignores the Liberty Ships.

A quick perusal of you link shows that there
was some highly discounted payment for US
services. This falls far short of the claim that
England paid us back. And this did not include
anything for the many lives lost & damaged.
If you're suggesting that the US role in WW2
was strictly mercenary, you've not supported
that.

Okay, you win. Let's send them an amended bill and demand payment. You remember what Trump said about NATO allies who don't pay their bills...

From your link, a popular view...


I view WW2 as a concerted effort by all allies,
eventually even including Russia, Italy, & Egypt.
However, Russia's claim of singularly defeating
Nazi Germany is rendered shameful by its role
in initially plotting with Hitler to jointly rampage
across Europe.

They probably never would have made that agreement if not for the Munich agreement a year earlier. There's always a cause and effect at work; things just don't happen in a vacuum.

 

[Revoltingest]

History update: the 1st Liberty ship was launched two months before Pearl Harbour was attacked.

Were they useful?

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, you win. Let's send them an amended bill and demand payment. You remember what Trump said about NATO allies who don't pay their bills...

This isn't about Trump.

They probably never would have made that agreement if not for the Munich agreement a year earlier. There's always a cause and effect at work; things just don't happen in a vacuum.

Are you excusing Russia's plotting
with Hitler to join in on violent
conquest of Europe by saying
there are cause & effect?

 

[Stevicus]

This isn't about Trump.

Are you excusing Russia's plotting
with Hitler to join in on violent
conquest of Europe by saying
there are cause & effect?

I'm saying that countries tend to act on behalf of their own national interests more so than any selfless desire to give aid to other nations, solely out of the goodness of their hearts.

The Munich Agreement signaled to Russia that Britain and France were weak, and he was apparently trying to set the stage so that Germany, France, and Britain would slug it out with each other. So, that would weaken their primary adversaries in Europe, which could have bolstered their own position.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm saying that countries tend to act on behalf of their own national interests more so than any selfless desire to give aid to other nations, solely out of the goodness of their hearts.

That's a truism.
Why state it, other than to excuse
Russia's having supported Hitler?
After all, you invoke it for Russia
but not USA.

The Munich Agreement signaled to Russia that Britain and France were weak, and he was apparently trying to set the stage so that Germany, France, and Britain would slug it out with each other. So, that would weaken their primary adversaries in Europe, which could have bolstered their own position.

Smells like Russophilia.

 

[Stevicus]

That's a truism.
Why state it, other than to excuse
Russia's having supported Hitler?

Why not just stick to the issue instead of trying to act like some inquisitor?

I'm not excusing any nation of any action (as if I had the power to do so), but regardless, what difference does it make to you anyway? What do you expect to accomplish with this inquisition of yours? What does it have to do with the topic?

After all, you invoke it for Russia
but not USA.

Smells like Russophilia.

What difference does it make? What does it have to do with the topic?

 

[Brickjectivity]

That question was already decided from the outset.

Yes. From the beginning it was understood, stated, exclaimed. The USA also does not intend to go there. All of this mess is on Russia. Its the one that wants to start a war.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Yes. From the beginning it was understood, stated, exclaimed. The USA also does not intend to go there. All of this mess is on Russia. Its the one that wants to start a war.

They do not want to 'start a war' but rather consolidate/reunite the Motherland.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why not just stick to the issue instead of trying to act like some inquisitor?

Why note stick to the issue instead
of proclaiming broad truisms?

I'm not excusing any nation of any action (as if I had the power to do so), but regardless, what difference does it make to you anyway?

I seek to understand what appears
to be your excusing Russian having
sided with Hitler.

What do you expect to accomplish with this inquisition of yours? What does it have to do with the topic?

Your defense of Russian support
for Hitler is interesting.

What difference does it make? What does it have to do with the topic?

You raised a fascinating &
controversial issue.
Why backpedal now?

 

[Brickjectivity]

They do not want to 'start a war' but rather consolidate/reunite the Motherland.

I can empathize with that. Why do you suppose Ukraine is pulling away from them, culturally? I don't think its because of the USA but because the land is no longer controlled using starvation and vodka. As the people recover they become able to self govern. They will want to get away from centralized control. They want leadership that responds to their problems.

 

[Regiomontanus]

I can empathize with that. Why do you suppose Ukraine is pulling away from them, culturally? I don't think its because of the USA but because the land is no longer controlled using starvation and vodka. As the people recover they become able to self govern. They will want to get away from centralized control. They want leadership that responds to their problems.

What most Ukrainians think or want is irrelevant for many Russians (especially Putin). And besides, most people in the west are completely clueless about Ukraine, Russia, and their long, complicated history.

Look at the election results over the last ~15 years; eastern Ukraine is mostly Russian speaking and have voted to be a part of Russia (roughly equivalent to the territory held by Russia as of today).

The western powers are trying to paint this conflict in apocalyptic terms but, ironically, it is our imperialist ambitions that will lead to nuclear war (if we keep demonizing and trying to humiliate Russia, IMHO).

No, I am not a supporter of Putin. But we need to step back, learn some history, and mind our own business. Ukraine - not a member of NATO and up until a few decades ago part of the Soviet Union - is not (I would argue) worth the risk of nuclear war. And let there be no doubt, Russia will resort to such measures if we really do put their back to the wall. God help us.

 

[Stevicus]

Why stick to the issue instead of
proclaiming broad truisms?

My point was about cause and effect and countries acting for their own interests. You suggested that I was "excusing Russia's actions," when all I was doing was explaining that they were acting in their own national interests. Just as Britain and France were doing, and just as the U.S. would do.

I seek to understand what appears
to be your excusing Russian having
sided with Hitler.

What "appears" to you is way off the mark. "Excusing" it is beside the point. This is a discussion of current events which has generated a side discussion of history, not a trial or an inquisition. I sometimes tend to look from different angles, to look at the viewpoints of other countries and their national security perceptions, but I neither have the power nor the inclination to "excuse" anyone's actions, especially if they lead to war.

But it is helpful towards understanding those actions and the motivations of national leaders - just so that we might try to find ways of avoiding wars in the future.

Your defense of Russian support
for Hitler is interesting.

I was merely observing that they were taking actions which one might expect them to take for their own national interests, considering the circumstances they were facing at the time. Your interpretation of that observation as "defense of Russian support of Hitler" is interesting, in and of itself, but it does not indicate any disagreement with my observation either.

Why would I need to "defend" what the Russian government does anyway? I would expect them to act in their own interests, just as I would expect the U.S. government to act in U.S. interests. It doesn't mean that everything they do is right or indicative of sound judgment.

One could also look at it from the other side and say that Germany was giving support to Stalin (just like they gave support to Lenin in the previous war).

You raised a fascinating &
controversial issue.
Why backpedal now?

It's not really all that controversial. I think it's pretty well-established that the 1939 German-Soviet non-aggression pact was merely for the sake of temporary convenience. It's also quite obvious that neither Hitler nor Stalin had any intention of honoring the terms of the pact for the full 10 years it was supposed to have lasted. Hitler just managed to be quicker and beat Stalin to the punch. You said it was "Russophilia," but I just see it as Machiavellian geopolitics.

It's not that great of a mystery or even all that controversial, at least when looking at the general situation at hand. If you're trying to just find someone to blame for it all, then I can assure you it ain't me.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What most Ukrainians think or want is irrelevant for many Russians (especially Putin). And besides, most people in the west are completely clueless about Ukraine, Russia, and their long, complicated history.

Look at the election results over the last ~15 years; eastern Ukraine is mostly Russian speaking and have voted to be a part of Russia (roughly equivalent to the territory held by Russia as of today).

The western powers are trying to paint this conflict in apocalyptic terms but, ironically, it is our imperialist ambitions that will lead to nuclear war (if we keep demonizing and trying to humiliate Russia, IMHO).

No, I am not a supporter of Putin. But we need to step back, learn some history, and mind our own business. Ukraine - not a member of NATO and up until a few decades ago part of the Soviet Union - is not (I would argue) worth the risk of nuclear war. And let there be no doubt, Russia will resort to such measures if we really do put their back to the wall. God help us.

Mind our business? I think that is what we're doing.

Over my lifetime I have met a couple of Ukrainians at different times in my life. I also met a man who fled Russia for asylum in North Carolina.

Aside from that I don't have a lot of direct contact or knowledge, but I know Russia is in trouble. Its territorial integrity is just the tip of the iceberg. Its climate (the cold) is its #1 problem, but second to that are all of the revolutions that have been happening one on top of the other since the times of the tzars. Russians just cannot catch a break for ten minutes before there is another existential threat. Russians build and create and think and learn and do all kinds of things, and then comes along another meteor from the sky. Its not Ok, and uniting around a glorious past just isn't working. Who does have a glorious past? Sweden perhaps. Everyone else has a bloody and duplicitous past. This territorial integrity thing is a distraction, a phase, a denial of what is happening. They need a break from war. They need some time to build and not be in trouble, and they aren't getting it. They've lost so many people, too many. They still haven't recovered from wars from 100 years ago, just as we have not; but for them it has been worse.

Without war and with some time all the states around Russia would have banded together automatically. They needed each other, and they knew it. Now they are all afraid of Russia again.

The USA has no central and uniform position on Russia's obvious dissolution except that we don't want its guns pointed at us and don't want a nuclear war in Asia. That's why Ukraine matters strategically. Any failed state is dangerous. A failed nuclear state is, too. So...what is the solution to this from a USA standpoint? We try to get Russia to stabilize. Barring that we wait for Russia to fall to pieces and try to encourage the pieces to stick together...like with a nuclear treaty organization, so that there isn't some feudal nuclear war in Asia.

We want Russians to succeed and be happy. They matter. We like them.

 

[Revoltingest]

My point was about cause and effect and countries acting for their own interests. You suggested that I was "excusing Russia's actions," when all I was doing was explaining that they were acting in their own national interests. Just as Britain and France were doing, and just as the U.S. would do.

The timing of a truism that applies to all the
parties involved, including Nazi Germany,
Russia, USA, etc, suggests to me a claim of
equivalence & exculpation for Russia.
Your friendliness towards Soviet socialism
comports with this.
Otherwise, why state a particularly obvious
truism at that point in a discussion, eh.

I think it's pretty well-established that the 1939 German-Soviet non-aggression pact was merely for the sake of temporary convenience. It's also quite obvious that neither Hitler nor Stalin had any intention of honoring the terms of the pact for the full 10 years it was supposed to have lasted. Hitler just managed to be quicker and beat Stalin to the punch. You said it was "Russophilia," but I just see it as Machiavellian geopolitics.

Hitler & Stalin sound so reasonable
when you put it that way.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I hear this a lot here from Biden and others. "We need to send more money to Ukraine because if we don't stop Putin there he will keep going and invade other (NATO) countries." Total BS IMHO. The last thing Putin wants is to fight NATO because, short of the use of tactical nukes, he would be crushed.

It may or may not be rubbish, but I wouldn't be pushing it as 'Biden's rubbish'.
1. Ukraine isn't a NATO country, so talk of invading 'other' NATO countries is not really accurate.
2. Non-NATO countries have become more likely to join NATO because of Putin's actions, because of the risk of being a non-NATO country seen as a possible future NATO partner (as Ukraine was). Better to either denounce NATO entirely, or join NATO and have the protection of Article 5 guarantees.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Paranoiac assumptions have never led anywhere. With all the utmost respect.

Russia is not interested in Europe.

Apart from Ukraine, you mean?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

WW2 has never been something static. But incredibly mutable.
Germany and Russia were allies. Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Pact.
Russia was in on it, when Poland was invaded. They wanted to dismember it and divy up the cake, once again.

It happened that strangely....the Nazis decided to break the pact and to invade Russia.
Italians had no idea that Hitler wanted to take Moscow. Otherwise they would have never been in the war.

You're suggesting the German war with the Soviets wasn't predictable?

 

[oldbadger]

Were they useful?

Not in our darkest hours......... they did not exist at that time.

Look, it was great that the USA came in to the war......eventually.