Cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/9202260
Vladimir Putin will spark a third world war if the Russian president is allowed to declare victory in Ukraine, according to the boss of the country’s biggest private employer.
Yuriy Ryzhenkov, chief executive of Metinvest, which ran the sprawling Azovstal steelworks that became the site of a relentless Russian assault at the start of the 2022 invasion, warned of the consequences of a Kremlin victory.
“I don’t believe that if Ukraine fails, Putin will stop,” he said in an interview ahead of the two year anniversary of the war in Ukraine. “The Baltic states, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia are the next targets.”
That’s absurd, what is anybody’s source on this claim? America can end this war in a month by just strong arming Ukraine to surrender Crimea. And best of all, if the conspiracy theory is true, we will know immediately, because Russia will have already gotten what they say they want.
My neighbour keeps trying to steal my property. Maybe if I just give him some he’ll stop.
Brilliant.
You left out that your neighbor is more than capable of taking it by force, and you making him do so will cause millions of deaths. The answer to this question depends entirely on America’s ego. If we do our usual thing, we will save face and cause millions of deaths. If we instead choose to wage peace, we look slightly weaker, and prevent a world war. It’s unlikely America is capable of advanced reasoning such as this, but I really hope we are.
Let’s go back to the days of redrawing borders by force. That definitely won’t encourage more wars.
Brilliant.
Of course! If we end the war, we will have more wars. It’s so obvious!
We shouldn’t have fighted Hitler, because wars are bad.
Man, you really need an history book and to study what happened before WWII.
Let me explain a couple of things.
Before WWII, in March 1938 Hitler annexed Austria on March the 12th with referendum on April the 10th (where the ballot were not secret and the vote were manipulate). After that, Europe did nothing because, like you, they thought that if they concede to this Hitler demand, he will not ask for anything else. Look for Anschluß Österreichs
Then look for Munich Agreement (October 1938) which granted Hitler part of the Czechoslovakia as last request for territorial expansion, signed just because doing this way they would have kept peace.
Then on March 15th 1939, Hitler bullied the Czechoslovakia president to sign the independence of Slovak (with the threat of invasion). The Slovak state then became Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia on March the 16th. Europe still does nothing, just because Hitler assured this will be his last request.
We all know what happened next, on September 1939…
Problem is: it was exactly this “advanced reasoning” that was the cause for WWII. Hitler did what he wanted because he noted that Europe did nothing at every step he tried.
Putin invaded Ukraine because he noted that the world did nothing when he annexed Crimea (and, btw, breached an agreement Russia signed with Ukraine).
Do you see the parallel ?
Just a small correction: Slovak state became nominally independent and the Czech part became the Protectorate.
Thanks.
I don’t see the parallel, because so far, Russia and Germany have literally one thing in common. You’re extrapolating that several highly unlikely events will just so happen to occur the same way they did the first time. Your entire argument could just as easily be applied to america in like 4 different decades between WW2 and now, yet not once did America start a world war as a result. The situation in Russia is wildly different from 1930s Germany, and trying to declare them to be the same is far too reductive to be useful analysis.
Also, Putin invaded more of Ukraine because it is literally on the way to Crimea, and owning just the peninsula is weird. The entirety of the invasion consists of the coast of a single large bay. There is no logical reason to think that Putin is the next Hitler. He literally just wants a region that has historically been highly important to Russia/USSR. It’s like if America were currently invading Texas, because we lost it to Mexico for 20 years and want it back.
So, if I understand you correctly, Russia should also invade Latvia and Lithuania? By your logic it would be highly important to Russia since they would get a land bridge to Kaliningrad and they were historically part of the USSR.
The analogy to Anschluss Österreichs and Crimea is quite apt. The votings were manipulated - just look at the soldiers outside of voting stations on Crimea, who in their right mind wouldn’t want to vote for selfpreservation?
The second analogy would be Sudetenland and Donetsk and Luhansk is as apt with the only distinction that there is a war now going on. The two republics that are only recognized by Russia and their “Motherland”. While Hitler didn’t have a Sudeten-Republik he wanted to get them back into the fold. So it is also quite apt.
Does Russia have parallels to Germany 1930s? Yes. And no. Why not? Time moved on, tactics evolved (just look at the two republics). Why yes? Some tactics stayed the same. And greed.
How exactly do soldiers outside polling places imply a rigged election? Self preservation is irrelevant, the question is whether Russia or Ukraine controls the region. Voting in alignment with the more powerful state is literally the only means of self preservation possible, as it best avoids a war.
I don’t think they should invade those places, no. And if they wanted that much more land, it would be a completely different story. Having control of the northern black sea is obviously important.
Russia is obviously not invading anywhere else in the foreseeable future, let’s move past that.
Are you serious ?
Which is the definition of rigged election.
Following your logic, they could also invade Turkey so they could access the Mediterranean Sea. Then they can also invade Alaska, after all having the control of the Bering sea is obviously important. Or US could invade Panama, for the Panama canal, or Spain can seize Gibraltar.
Yeah, like they said in 2014.
Come up with an argument that is not obviously a fallacy, and get back to me. And LOL at voter self interest being described as the definition of a rigged election.
It’s a tactic of fear. Invoke fear in civilians and you can get them to do what you need them to do. If there are soldiers with weapons in front of a voting place who quite clearly belongs to a specific party without so much as openly stating it, then people are going to vote for that party out of fear. That is what I called selfpreservation. They don’t want to die.
If by any chance you wouldn’t be swayed by such blatant show of force then I admire you. The majority of people are swayed. Especially when there are literally truckloads of soldiers all about the coutryside. And as you said: voting with the more powerful state. At that moment the Russians had their force in Crimea and the people chose selfpreservation. Was it the right choice? For Ukraine? No. For Russia? Yes, of course. That’s why they showed force.
Then why do you follow that logic with Crimea but not the baltics?
Ah, now I understand. “We need a harbour that’s ice free the whole year around.” There are some holes in that logic:
a) Russia had/has a lease on the Sevastopol Navy Yard. That’s where the Black Sea Fleet was/is anchored. b) Russia has Novorossiysk, a harbour that is ice free all year around and is one of their biggest - if not the biggest - trade harbours. They even have a Navy Yard there.
So why do they need Crimea? To get their stuff from Rostov at Don all the way to the Dardanelles? They already could do that since they had the other half of the strait of Kertch.
And the other question: Why do they need the control of the northern black sea?
Why would you think that? Spokespersons of the Kremlin are rattling their sabres for Svalsbard and they are painting themselves as an oppressed minority. Does that sound familiar? Yes, since Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk were the same.
Svalbard is protected by a treaty, but Ukraine also had a treaty with Russia about territorial integrity.
Abkhazia and South Ossetia are regions that were carved out of Georgia, an independent nation.
Transnistria is a region of Moldova, also an independent nation. Transnistria has requested the annexation into Russia. So the question is, do you recognize Transnistria as a sovereign state or is it a part of Moldova? If it is a part of Moldova it would be an invasion of Russia. Although since they already have troops there it is an ongoing occupation.
Since Russia is still engaged in occupation and invasion and is still rattling their sabres, can we really move past the threat of invasion?
The thing is, we don’t know what they are planning. We don’t know what they are aiming for. But we see that there are tactics in play they use quite often. For instance the tactic of propping up people that want their own state (see Luhansk, Donetsk). Then going in to help them.
Then there is the tactic of subtle influencing. The problem with this is that there are just clues but no real evidence. So it is really difficult to prove that Russia is behind such things like the Brexit for instance. But there is meddling with the elections of the United States.
But so much text for just saying that Russia might as well already have started the Third World War and all machinations are going to culminate in it. Does Putin want to do that? I don’t know. I don’t think anyone knows except him and perhaps a handfull of his confidants. So we as ordinary people will never truly know. The parallels to Hitler and the Second World War are there, some tactics stayed the same (fear, forceful annexation), tactics changed (propping up partisan governments). It’s all a question of time, but I’m not confident enough to say that Russia won’t be annexing anything else or will stop once Luhansk, Crimea, and Donetzk are independent and can be integrated into Russia. There are too many clues to the contrary.
I really don’t know enough about black sea geography to say what is actually necessary, but needing control of crimea for various shipping reasons rings very true to me. I live near Seattle/Tacoma, and we have 2 ports even though you have to literally go past Seattle’s port to get to Tacoma’s (by sea, obv). More ports is better in all ways. They need control of the northern black sea so they can control the northern black sea. It’s a very important sea.
Personally, I would actually prefer if there were soldiers stationed at polling places, mostly to convince MAGA people that the election really was legitimate. There is also a non-zero potential for violence or even terrorism at them, and I obviously don’t trust US cops to prevent violence.
It’s not as if the 2nd world war breaking out was a big surprise to an ordinary person in 1939. If Putin had further plans, we would know it. If he starts targeting more places, and ones that aren’t obviously critical to their economy, then we can worry. I mean, at their current pace of “global domination”, Putin will have died of old age before they even get to Munich.
France used a similar tactic as Russia in the 1770s, and in the long run it worked out tremendously for both France and USA (Less so for the french king at the time, Louis XVI. It was a big part of why he got guillotined). It’s a great tactic, I’m certainly not going to criticize them for using it.
Two in fact: that they illegally annexed part of other countries and that they breach treaties they signed.
No, I am only pointing out that what you suggest was already tried and failed exactly because at the time they wanted to preserve peace, whatever the cost.
It was already tried to concede to the small demands in exchange of quiet living, we know how it ended.
Ok, I documented what I say, care to do the same ?
Different yes, but the end result is the same.
So, what part of your country are you willing to give up to your neighbour ?
Except that he is doing exactly the same, at the moment.
Man, I am from Italy. Following your reasoning big part of Europe, all the Mediterranean sea and a good part of the Middle East would be Italian since all these territories were part of the Roman Empire.
One peninsula is entirely different than all of Europe. 1000 years ago is also entirely different than 30 years ago. Crucially to the argument, Russia is actually capable of taking it by force. Just like America could take Texas back. If Russia had made any move on another place, I wouldn’t be saying this. Like, consider how many different places you’ve brought up that Germany had its eyes on invading around that time. Compare it to the fact that you can’t name a 2nd place Russia is trying to to take. They’re not trying to take all of Ukraine. They’re not even trying to take 1/5 of Ukraine.
Comparing them to Germany is utterly absurd, figure out a better analogy or move on.
The west got too aggressive in their attempts to influence Ukraine, and now Russia is fighting back. Now we need to back off and rethink our diplomacy.
The 4 decades I was thinking of were the Korean war, Vietnam war, and 2000 - 2020. All of them featured America invading a place (for far more dubious reasons than Russia has now, BTW), followed by them categorically NOT deciding to take over the world. Though you could probably say it about literally every stretch of 10 years dating back to 1945.
Wrong. Alaska. Russia passed a law recently to that declare illegal the sale to the US. Not that they will ever try to get it back by force anyway.
But it seems that you are not understanding the point.
Hitler, while annexing all the places before WWII, said exactly what you are saying now: “this is my last request/annexation”. And while of course we could like to think that Putin will do not do the same think, what he is doing is the same thing: in 2014 they take Crimea and said “we will stop here”, then in 2022 they invanded the rest of Ukraine.
And you know what ? In all al this, I have the proof of what Putin did and I can infer what maybe could happen while you have no proof that Putin will not try to pull the same trick another time somewhere else. (Belarus of any of the old Baltic state for example)
You don’t stop a bully thinking “this is the last time he bullied me”, you stop a bully beating him so bad that he don’t want to bully you, or anyone else, anymore.
So I suppose you are ready to give up 1/5 of your country, am I correct ? Yes or no. (funny how nobody will ever directly answer this question…)
Is you say so…
I don’t understand what the hell are you thinking. Ukraine is a sovereign state that decide to ask for some things to Europe, it is none of Russia business. To enter into EU and NATO a state should ask, and Ukraine is free to do so. Maybe if Russia was better…
Aside the Second Gulf War (and the supposed WOMD never found) US don’t started any of them. Not to say that they have not done their share of despicable things of course.
But I suppose that you agree that the fact that someone once did something is not a justification for other to do something now.
Of course I can’t prove that he won’t do it in the future, did you think that was possible? Hitler did not do it once, he did it many times. I am choosing to believe Putin that the first one is the only one, because it makes a ton of sense for Russia to want to control that territory.
Wait, you think the US hasn’t started literally every war they’ve been in since 1945? Then why are they on enemy soil literally every time? The only one that it’s defensible for you to be wrong about is the Iraq war, because most people don’t know about all the war crimes we were doing over there in the 90s. How exactly did the Vietnamese provoke us from all the way across an ocean though? Or Afghanistan from even farther?
Obviously I wouldbt give up 1/5 of my country. Is that supposed to be a gotcha? I was saying the fact that they’re not even trying to take 20% of one country makes it pretty outlandish to claim they’re on the path to world domination.
I agree that we should have come down like the wrath of God when Russia illegally annexed Crimea. Good point!
This doesn’t make any sense.
Why not ? He fucked around then he found out. In your terms it would be “stop the steamroller before it start”
It is interesting to see how people seems to think that if Ukraine (the victim) surrender everything will be ok while nobody think that Russia (the aggressor) could just stop.
I’ve seen somewhere else… let me think… oh yes, in the 1930’s, just before WWII…
History maybe ?
This account is less than a day old. Just block and move on.
It’s not the same situation. Obviously. Russia wants one small region that they lost custody of in their divorce. Germany wanted all of Poland, Belgium, and Netherlands. And it’s certainly not as if the reason WW2 happened was that Poland surrendered eventually. The sum total of similarities between the two scenarios is: both countries tried to take land.
It’s actually a better argument to say that taking Poland and Belgium by force allowed Germany to accelerate their war machine dramatically compared to their future opponents, and had they been surrendered to, might not have been able to pull off the massively complicated military feats that were 100% required to be done in the first few months of the war if they wanted to even have a chance to win it.
If you’re trying to stop a steamroller, your best possible course of action is to not let it get started. And there is no steam roller required vs a surrender.
It is the exact same situation. That the region is small or big is irrelevant.
Germany took Poland and Belgium when the German’s army was ready while their opponents were not that ready exactly because this was the entire plan of Hitler.
Hitler always counted on the fact that the rest of Europe wanted peace and that they were willing to do anything to preserve it, even to believe to all the false promises Hitler did.
You really need to study some history.
True. In this case it was when Putin invaded Crimea, now the steamroller is already going and it would not be a surrender to stop it.
This is how Czechoslovakia lost the Sudety region just before WW2. Germany also claimed that the German populace there is being mistreated and there is so much Germans living there that it should belong to Germany anyway.
Maybe this sounds a bit more familiar? Back then the West let them have it to maintain peace - funny how Russia and pro-Russians are calling for the same thing now…
Man, all these different countries Germany wanted to invade, almost as if that was a completely different situation.
There are multiple countries Russia would like to invade too - but they were stopped (or at least slowed down - depends on how it will develop) in Ukraine.
Just because it’s not the exact same situation doesn’t mean there aren’t paralels.
That claim is highly speculative at best. Russia hasn’t invaded anyone else in the last, what, 50 years?
You forgot about Georgia, Moldova, and Afghanistan… all of which Russian troops fully invaded (Georgia & Afghanistan) or at the very least sent core military forces to fight against in a primarily Russian-backed war (Moldova), all in the past 1 to 4 decades. Although in Afghanistan’s case, it wasn’t to take land or annex it or anything, it was just to overthrow the government. Still a blatant invasion though.
They’ve also stripped Belarus of most of its autonomy via installing a puppet government a few years after it gained independence, and have now effectively incorporated in into Russia in all but name via the Union State.
Azerbaijan and Armenia would have both likely been candidates for absorption by Russia in the future for various reasons, but that is entirely speculative, and the only ones which constantly are currently facing extreme encroachment on territory or independence by Russia are currently Belarus, Ukraine, and Georgia.
When the dictator and military leaders of a larger country are all talking about how the lands of their former domain (located in significantly smaller countries) are rightfully historically theirs and stuff, you know exactly what their goals are… It doesn’t matter if it’s Hitler, Mussolini, Horthy, Putin, or anyone else, their intentions are clear.
So they’ve invaded 4 places, all of which directly border them, in 40 years? That doesn’t seem very dictator-like or authoritarian to me. Why are we supposed to be inherently against former USSR abortion into Russia? Seems to me like it’d be a good thing for all involved
The problem with that, beyond the moral one, is that if that happens, it basically establishes a world order where the only guarantee to any kind of territorial sovereignty are nuclear weapons and the will to use them.
The deal with Ukraine was that they agreed to give away their nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees to its territorial integrity. Russia went back on that promise, if the US would follow suit, that means a global arms race for nukes.
Ukraine and Russia had an agreement and Russia leased Sevastopol from them. Then after the Euromaiden protests / ouster of the Russia friendly regime they wanted to join Nato. So they’d either lose Sevastopol, their Fleet HQ for Russia in the Black Sea, or have it surrounded by Nato weapons. What use is a naval HQ if it’s surrounded by the enemy?
Here is a pretty good article why this war started: https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
And no, I don’t like Putin at all or make any excuses for Russia, but the invasion wasn’t quite willy nilly or makes him Hitler.
Nobody should want American nukes in Ukraine, any more than we should want Russian nukes in Cuba. So Russia went back on their word, that’s not actually relevant to anyone else. I can assure you that going forward, people will definitely continue to lie, especially concerning global politics/war
Ukraine had Soviet nukes, not American ones.
If they knew the Russians were lying, they would have never given up their nuclear weapons. And it’s because Russia lies as a matter of course that nobody takes CSTO seriously as opposed to NATO.
That would be a 180 even someone as dumb as Trump wouldn’t do.
What, ending a war? Actually trump would do that. He did it in Afghanistan.
Trump wouldn’t have started a war with Hitler. We all should vote for Trump. He’s a stable genius.
Good thing America has literally never been criticized for being too uninvolved in other peoples busoness. I promise you, if Hitler 2 comes around, not even a president can prevent America joining the war.
You never know - Putin attacked Georgia and Syria.
True, Putin could be plotting global domination as we speak. Hell, he might be planning domination of the entire galaxy as we speak! But we have zero reason to believe he wants to do so, even if he were capable of it, which he’s not. Y’know, I bet his incapability of it has a lot to do with why he doesn’t want to try.
Putin is a totally trustworthy open-minded guy caring for people. Letting him do what he wants will lead to safety, democracy and peace. He is just like Hitler. We should have never gone to war against Hitler.
Well, the present events seem to refute what you are saying.
Taking 10% of Ukraine in order to control a highly important sea refutes me?
What refutes you is the fact that Putin take territories that are not Russia. Plain and simple.
While we have proof that he is willing to take something, we have not proof that he will stop after this time (which is, btw, the second time he pull the trick)
Now they no longer provide any support… how will that strong arming work? Give them less? (This is the thing that the isolationists overlook in the US, the US buys their influence).
Sure Ukraine has it difficult, but it has not even conscripted their youngest fittest men. It is silly to think either side currently has the power to beat the other. In the current stance this can last another decade.
Oh, is America no longer supporting Ukraine? News to me. If that were true, that’d be great. If Ukraine can win their war without us, more power to them, seriously. I hope they win. As long as America is uninvolved, I’m happy. The east is more than welcome to settle border disputes on their own.
LOL, isolationism and no understanding of geopolitics.
The US is as rich and powerful because one of their key exports is safety for their allies.
Once that goes out the window many other things might change or fade away.
Trying to be top dog of a global trade empire and being an isolationist don’t go well together.
And if the US where to abandon Europe/Ukraine, why would anyone care to stop trade with China, once the inevitable clash between the US and China occurs.
The US needs their allies just as much as they need the US.
Agreed, we need to stop being the top dog, and start coexisting with Russia and China as equals. There is zero reason we need anyone to not trade with China, or why we need to be the “world police”. It’s gotten us nothing but inequality and terrible life outcomes, we NEED to stop trying to make it happen.
Fine, but do you understand that in this case everyone need to follow the same rules, right ? And I think that the ones we have in EU/US, for all their problems, are far better than the ones in Russia and China.
It depends on what you think it is important.
The other side seems a lot worse.
It does not work this way. You cannot stop (if you want to survive), you need to become better. If we stop, we will be gone because the other side will not stop and “invade” us.
How is the other side worse? How many foreign leaders have they assassinated? How many elections have they rigged? How many authoritarian warlords have they armed in order to destabilize governments? All of those things have historically (back to 1950) been done by USA. I agree that everyone should follow the same rules, whenever America decides to start following them, they should let us know.
World politics is not Us or Them. Claiming that we have to do the bad things or else they’ll be done to us is literally the logic of abusers.
Still not the topic we are discussing here.
If we go arbitrarily back into the past, Italy has only to teach about all these things. And Europe as well in relatively recent times. What US are doing, to a European who know history, is just child play.
Maybe, but I prefer to live in Europe with US than in Russia and or China. Feel free to go to these countries, it is not my problem.
Article may be exaggerating the possible escalation if ukraine fully looses the war. But your comment makes no sense. US is not at liberty to force the US into a decision by itself, for that europe would have accept that and it could very well brake NATO (Not even mentioning a partizan movement if Ukraine would lose). Not sure why would Russia want Ukraine to surrender a land that they were already occupying for what, eight years? This is less of a conspiracy and more of an actual possibility, no NATO country is at liberty to defy russia with their own soldiers without being attacked first. Any conflict between nuclear powers could easily escalate into nuclear war, any direct confrontation between NATO countries besides the US could still lead to that as a chain reaction.