[deathwalkr]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Like Cuba deciding to allow USSR to place missiles in their country?

US has their Monroe Doctrine, Russia expects the same in their sphere of influence.

Sorry my history is rather weak, but USA did not invade Cuba even when the threat of USSR setting up a nuclear base there did they?

If Russia is scared/paranoid about a NATO base coming up in Ukraine and this invasion is to stop that from happening then what next after Ukraine?

We can all go in circles talking about past present and future. War should be the last and absolutely last option to make a point. And I really hope this is not a spark that would set off a raging wildfire.

[C300]

Straight from the horse's mouth. He doesnt mince any words

https://youtu.be/W2Cugn8JZfk

[V.Narayan]

Bernie Sanders speaking on 11th February (I surmise) just before the attack but by when the heat had started. One of the most sensible & well read US politicians.

It is a 18 minute video, you can watch from roughly 7.00 minutes onwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8BJ4FajZzg&t=744s

Originally Posted by deathwalkr

Sorry my history is rather weak, but USA did not invade Cuba even when the threat of USSR setting up a nuclear base there did they?

1962 -The Bay of Pigs invasion. It ended with egg on the face of the US. USA then blockaded Cuba and threatened to launch nuclear warheads against Cuba. The threat was very real and not just a statement like Putin has made. B-52 and B-58 bombers armed with nuclear warheads were kept on a constant 24-hour in the air patrol to go and bomb Cuba out of existence.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by deathwalkr

Sorry my history is rather weak, but USA did not invade Cuba even when the threat of USSR setting up a nuclear base there did they?

You can easily google that information if your history is really that weak. Besides, US already has a naval base in Cuba. Instead, they blocked USSR navy from reaching Cuba. The Cuban missile crisis is the closest world came to nuclear war ever. BTW, if you think USA hates to invade other countries, there are plenty of history out there to disprove that notion. Ukraine is too large compared to Cuba, a naval blockade won't work to stop NATO.

US would never allow anyone to violate Monroe Doctrine. Russia has similar sentiments around their region.

[deathwalkr]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

1962 -The Bay of Pigs invasion. It ended with egg on the face of the US. USA then blockaded Cuba and threatened to launch nuclear warheads against Cuba. The threat was very real and not just a statement like Putin has made. B-52 and B-58 bombers armed with nuclear warheads were kept on a constant 24-hour in the air patrol to go and bomb Cuba out of existence.

Again, Bay of Pigs was not by the US Army right? Planned by CIA I assume but JFK backed off at the last minute or so which lead to it's failure or am I missing something here?

Wasn't the threat to America more real than the threat to Cuba? Man, I should start reading international history a bit more but Indian history is taking up all my time

Edit: @Samurai San, I never said I believed USA did not invade any other country. Was only referring to the point about Cuba. Shall read up more. Thank you.

[Poitive]

Originally Posted by C300

Straight from the horse's mouth. He doesnt mince any words

This is a very relevant video. Don't know how come it didn't come up earlier, as it already a few months old. Further:


Source: Link


Source: Link

One might wonder: Why did Russia put their country next to US Bases?

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by deathwalkr

Again, Bay of Pigs was not by the US Army right? Planned by CIA I assume but JFK backed off at the last minute or so which lead to it's failure or am I missing something here?

CIA+Cuban exiles+US Air force & Navy. It failed because Castro beat them back. {correction it was 1961}

Man, I should start reading international history a bit more but Indian history is taking up all my time

I agree you should. The sentence below is rather off course and explaining will be too off topic from this thread. Hint - Khruschev & Kennedy together sorted out the Cuban missile crises. But the readings usually portray it as a great victory for the West. The crises was started by USA to begin with!!! Your statement below tells me their propaganda was effective.

Wasn't the threat to America more real than the threat to Cuba?

Originally Posted by Poitive

This is a very relevant video. Don't know how come it didn't come up earlier, as it already a few months old. Further:

Attachment 2279646
Source: Link

Attachment 2279645
Source: Link

Speaking for the Americans this is not an accurate representation. Most of these are very tiny teams of trainers or say a listening post. While technically a US Armed forces unit it does not represent anything approaching a useful scale nor is it capable of being used as a launching pad. The real US military presence would be about a fifth of the dots on that map. The 2nd map with the coloured circles - I can see errors from memory alone. Directionally correct but not accurate nor does it give the right representation. For example in many countries US troops are there by express invitation (Costa Rica to take one of many examples) because their presence helps keep preying neighbours off the grass.

[Theyota]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Hint: please think carefully before you respond. On Team BHP I have learnt that on almost any topic under the sun there will be a dozen members with some very, very deep knowledge.

I read this as a little bit of preaching. I am no peasant if that is what you mean to say. Sir, sticking to subject focused arguments and opinions would add more value. In all my arguments I have only tried to convey that America has more credibility than Russia. Both are no saints. I will take the side of America over Russia, if I had a choice.

Iraq on the other hand did not even have the fig leaf of communism so they invented the WMD lie to lay waste a large country. And it lies in waste even today

Well Iraq had a dictator who was detrimental to American allies. So America went all out on the dictator by hook or crook. I agree WMDs turned out to be false. For it to be called a lie, it has to be proven that Bush knew there were no WMDs all along. It has not been proven so far. And Iraq does not lay a waste country. It does not have a smooth sailing, but it has a lot potential. Maybe we are confusing it with Afghanistan here. Afghanistan lays waste. Russia and America are for both reasons for that. At least from American perspective, if Russians had not poked their nose in Afghanistan, the US would not have bothered a bit about Afghanistan.

“Without American interference Ho Chi Minh would have united Vietnam in 1954 set up a communist Govt and saved an entire generation from devastation and grief.”

“They went into Vietnam to prop up the flailing French and to help them retain their colonial territories after the Japanese had beaten them.”

“You may be aware that in Vietnam it was a common policy of the Americans that in order to save a South Vietnamese village they needed to burn it to the ground. Cherished beliefs.”

“If anyone can be considered as brain washed, it is the one who is purely aligning his opinion along the books he has read.”

There are a lot of presumptions and read up thoughts like above in your arguments. They are up for anyone’s guess. I think it would be futile to argue about what could/should/may have happened. Instead of basing our opinions only on the books we have read, let’s take an objective stand on the actual events that are there for us to see. If anyone can be considered as brain washed, it is the one who is purely aligning his opinion along the books he has read. The only books I fully believe in are Math and Science books. To me, every other book is an opinion of someone to various degrees of extent.

If as a nation you have beliefs and values that require you to plunder and obliterate other nations that are not even at war with you then it says something about your values.

What plunder are you talking about? If anything, America has lost it’s wealth in most of these wars. I hope the next argument is not going to be “it’s all about oil”.

That war left 3.35 million Vietnamese dead on both sides against 58,000 odd Americans. 7.75 million tonnes of bombs were dropped by the Americans.

I have already said it many times that America has bit off more than it could chew multiple times which have ended up in human tragedies, more recently in Syria too. But it has also rescued many countries or disadvantaged populations. USSR broke up for a reason. Majority of the countries that broke away from the USSR have aligned with the west and are doing relatively better. The rest have dictators or remained where they were before.

Ouch. This is my area. The arms were rarely if ever crappy. This statement tells me you believe US propaganda, paraded as news, a little too much. On this topic I might know more than GTO does about cars. So either lay out facts or refrain from angry emotional statements.

If you expect me to compare system by system, to argue with you, no I cannot. But my opinion is that NATO weapons have won more wars, helped smaller countries defend themselves against significantly larger adversaries, are preferred by majority of those who can afford them or have access to.

[Mad Max]

While I am torn with empathy and sadness about loss of life in this conflict, it also triggers my curiosity on how data and information is so quickly manipulated to show what could be profitable and agreeable. Our unconscious bias is triggered so quickly by the high volume of information that we are rapidly able to access, I think we sometimes don't take the time to pause and think about the meaning behind the information presented to us.

"50 soldiers died" vs "50 enemies killed" are read with two different emotions.

I am observing media propaganda on every side, YouTube channels declaring war on each other and LinkedIn becoming another social media site run with meagerly validated articles.

I read through a lot of information in this thread and while this itself is not necessarily balanced, it does show us as a community trying our best to challenge each other's bias with data and not emotion. Glad to see that happen.

[deathwalkr]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

CIA+Cuban exiles+US Air force & Navy. It failed because Castro beat them back. {correction it was 1961}
I agree you should...The crises was started by USA to begin with!!! Your statement below tells me their propaganda was effective.

Guilty as charged your honour

Shall refrain from making historical references of which I know little of.

[Poitive]

Originally Posted by Poitive

One might wonder: Why did Russia put their country next to US Bases?

Further, one should bear in mind that Nuclear (or other) Deterrence works on a principle of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Say country A initiates a nuclear missile towards country B. If country B is not able to detect and initiate a significant counter-strike to country A before it is annihilated, it doesn't deter country A from bombing B. Distance of sensing equipment and missile launchpads is vital for Nuclear Deterrence to work.

Not having a balance of bases and destruction capability of both sides incentivizes a nuclear or similar war.

While Ukraine can go about it's independence to be a part of NATO, build and keep nuclear weapons (own/US/NATO), it would only a step closer to a terrible Nuclear War, one in which the US would be sitting protected by oceans and lack of opponent's bases, with most of the rest of the world more vulnerable to attacks and counter-attacks.

[sierrabravo98]

Originally Posted by deathwalkr

War should be the last and absolutely last option to make a point. .

Exactly. Putin has been trying to avoid this for as far as I can remember (he has requested that Russia be allowed to join NATO multiple times). I don't think Russia had any other play left in its book, with an ageing population and a much more powerful and richer neighbour, to avoid the complete obliteration of its sphere of influence. Trust me, we would do the same (and have been doing similar things just more covertly since ever) if China starts to do (which it is just not so blatantly) that in our sphere of influence.

And I really hope this is not a spark that would set off a raging wildfire

Well, that would depend on how far the West would like to push Russia. Going by their actions so far, I don't see much hope for avoiding your "raging wildfire".

Originally Posted by Theyota

If you expect me to compare system by system, to argue with you, no I cannot. But my opinion is that NATO weapons have won more wars, helped smaller countries defend themselves against significantly larger adversaries, are preferred by majority of those who can afford them or have access to.

Dear sir, the last time NATO weapons actually went against a peer adversary armed with Soviet weapons, a brand-spanking new country was formed by dividing a smaller country into two even smaller countries (Yep, talking about Bangladesh) . So, I would refrain from this argument if I were you. Yes, Soviet weapons had there own drawbacks. But they were extremely lethal and perfectly suited for the philosophies used by the countries which used them.

Originally Posted by dragonfire

I find it funny when people say that Russia attacked a NATO-backed Ukraine because it was afraid that NATO might deploy weapons there. Don't you see the irony there? It's like saying "I attacked the dog because I was afraid that it would attack me".

Now, I want to hear something more credible about why Russia attacked and annexed Crimea.

And then there are those who feel pity for Russia as post cold war it was broken up into too many small states. If you care to read history, all these countries were annexed by Russia post revolution. They annexed half of Europe, and they all got their independence back post Soviet collapse. So, no, Ukraine does not "belong" to Russia.

Putin wants to build back USSR - maybe minus communism.

What is wrong with this reasoning? You put down a rabid dog, kill terrorists, neutralise anyone who threatens your security pre-emptively. Don't you? That is the way it has been and that is the way it should be. What Zelensky (egged on by his Western masters) did was no different from any of the above. Russia's response was along expected lines. It was question of "when" and not "if".

[deetee]

I believe this war eventually will lead to some major reforms in UN though not about making it more unbiased. UN has hopelessly failed in many previous occasions ( most of the time, it is US doing the boss thing with UN nodding head) . It might look like a far fetched prediction but I think it will happen 'on demand'.

[dragonfire]

I find it funny when people say that Russia attacked a NATO-backed Ukraine because it was afraid that NATO might deploy weapons there. Don't you see the irony there? It's like saying "I attacked the dog because I was afraid that it would attack me".

Now, I want to hear something more credible about why Russia attacked and annexed Crimea.

And then there are those who feel pity for Russia as post cold war it was broken up into too many small states. If you care to read history, all these countries were annexed by Russia post revolution. They annexed half of Europe, and they all got their independence back post Soviet collapse. So, no, Ukraine does not "belong" to Russia.

Putin wants to build back USSR - maybe minus communism.

[akhil_007]

Originally Posted by C300

Straight from the horse's mouth. He doesnt mince any words

https://Youtu.be/W2Cugn8JZfk

So much data to consume, digest and ingest. And here goes my summary.

1. If you look at Putin's stand in isolation, he has every justification to start this war. There are arguments that countries are sovereign and they are free to make their own decisions. What about US invasion of Iraq then? Iraq had sovereign right to build weapons for their own security. While war is least preferred among all the options, it's not something that is off the table.

2.Morals and Principles do not exist in Geopolitics. I heard a quote recently something along these lines -> "If I am a person, I have shame, morals and principles. As a country, I have NO Morals, NO Shame and NO principles".

3. I think Russia had the plan of slowly increasing the cost of damage on Ukraine and that's exactly what they have been doing. Ukraine President did a PR blitzkrieg thinking Russians will retreat and UN/Nations will come in for them. That backfired big time.

4. Ukraine should go to the negotiating table ASAP. They might not lose the war but the severity of economic damage on their people will be catastrophic. Its always better to live to see another day. Best case, they can negotiate for a status quo

5. India's stand is right(mostly) and wrong(minimally) in not talking about world events. India is like a Middle Class Family in the World. Neither too rich to spend on whims and fancies Nor too Poor to think about big picture and be not taken seriously. Everything runs on a tight Budget, with minimal variations. We are still in Economic growth phase. Anything out of ordinary will throw our progress out of the way. Ofcourse, once in a while, we can indulge in Ice Cream/Party/Pizza (read: Surgical Strikes) but not frequently. Because the kids(read:Citizens) will ask for more(POK,Aksai Chin) and we cant let our economy derail because of that.
If there is some issue/problem with any country, we try to make it go away by dealing it under table/behind a curtain :-)

6. India also cannot take a bold stand in world affairs because, internally, it will set a new benchmark (Very bad for Optics). And our citizens do not take lightly if anything goes below the benchmark. It will be termed a drastic failure.

7. Unlike China, India is a growing economy. Taking sides either ways, will lead to degrowth. We are incapable of weathering any storm that might arise due to this. Maybe 50-60 years down the line when we are an economic powerhouse, we can voice our opinions openly.

8. What India can do is to tactfully handle the situation(like incase of Israel -Palestine). Openly offer no support to Israel but do not oppose operational aspects of Israel in the backend

9. In the new world order, most probably China will replace Russia at the other end of the spectrum (atleast on paper/media). West/Europe might sanction Russia publicly but I m sure these sanctions will be revoked silently after an year or two.