How should west respond to Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[Tigers!]

You've never explained why fighting against Russian imperialism will destroy Russia. Canada hasn't invaded any countries in a 100 years; they haven't been destroyed. Why are Russians such doomsayers?

There is no russian impearialism.

I agree there is no Russian impearialism.
But there is Russian imperialism

 

[Tigers!]

If it is a secret how did Mercouris find out?

 

[Copernicus]

Something I posted on another forum:

In 1939, Britain and France went to war to protect Poland from the German and Soviet Union invasion that abrogated the Polish sovereignty the British and French had underwritten.

At that time, the Soviets and Germans were allied with each other against Poland, under the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Neither Britain nor France saw Germany or the USSR as existential threats to themselves. They acted in accordance with their duty as underwriters of Polish independence.

By the end of 1941, the situation was radically different, with France defeated and Britain under clear existential threat. Britain needed any help she could get. The Japanese attack on the USA, and then the German betrayal of the USSR, led to both the US and the Soviet Union becoming allies of the British, in a war whose aim had radically shifted from the restoration of Poland, to the destruction of the Third Reich, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy, and the liberation of the vast territories they had by then invaded.

Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe was shamefully abandoned to the USSR, from whose yoke she was not freed until the 1990s.

That the US and Britain did not persue Polish independence in 1945 is understandable; War against the USSR in 1945 was undesirable on a huge number of levels, and the war aim of 1939 a distant memory, hidden behind the vast destruction that had been wreaked across the whole of Europe.

But to once again abandon those countries that were abandoned to Russia from 1945 to 1990, including not only Poland and other Warsaw Pact nations, but also the former Soviet Republics of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Ukraine, would be a further betrayal of a Western European and British historical duty to protect their independence - a protection that is today in the strategic interest of both the EU and the UK, both economically, as free trade is beneficial to all parties; And militarily, as a buffer zone between Putin's armies and German, French (and ultimately even British) territory.

The twin threats to Europe that existed in 1939, the Third Reich and the USSR, have both now been eliminated. But neither Russian expansionism nor Western European fascism are completely vanquished.

Defending Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe against Russian irredentism, and the whole of Europe against resurgent ultra-nationalism, are an ongoing (and likely eternal) duty for all who value freedom and prosperity over dictatorship and squalor.

We have both a moral imperative, and a strategic interest, in giving Ukraine all the assistance we can, not only to defeat and repel the current Russian invasion, but also to become a liberal democracy with strong protections against corruption, so she can become a prosperous trading partner for the rest of the free world.

The world needs to see, once again, that invasion and subjugation of neighbouring countries is intolerable, and demands resolute, timely, and unstinting action to ensure that the invader does not profit from his agression.

This is not somebody else's problem. It's our problem. And until we address it, the cost of addressing it will just keep rising.

In 1936, the French and British could have easily occupied the Rhineland to prevent the militarisation of that region. In 1938, they could have made a stand against the occupation of the Sudetenland, instead of signing the craven Munich Agreement. But they didn't act until it was too late, and the cost of defeating the expansionist dictator in Berlin became astronomical.

Let us not allow the cost of defeating the expansionist dictator in Moscow to become similarly inflated.

Nicely put. I just spent a couple of weeks in Poland on vacation and to participate in a university conference. Before leaving two days ago, my wife and I spent the day in the huge Museum of the Second World War (aka Westerplatte Museum). Hitler started the World War by attacking the free city of Gdansk in the Westerplatte peninsula where the museum is located. What was particularly striking to me was the way that the two major totalitarian empires--the Nazi empire and Russo-Soviet empire split up the territory of Poland in their efforts to undo the Treaty of Versaille, which had left Gdansk as an independent city outside of Poland but partially integrated with it administratively. Hitler wanted that territory back, and he wanted the former German-occupied territories of Poland back. The Russian-dominated Soviet government wanted revenge for having lost its former territories of occupied Poland. That was the secret pretext for that Molotov-Ribbentrop handshake between Nazis and Soviets--returning those territories to their former condition as territories of the pre-WWI status quo. Of course, Hitler planned to invade Soviet territory all along, and Stalin knew it. But Stalin felt Germany would be weakened by its conflict with the West, and he didn't realize how quickly Hitler would tear up his secret agreement not to attack the Russian-controlled areas of Poland. The West tended to turn a blind eye to the fact that the Soviets were just as guilty as the Nazis for the attack on Poland. The museum thoroughly documents the collapse of Poland, including some of the atrocities committed by the Polish government and people in pursuit of their own attempt to capitalize on Hitler's occupation of Czechoslovakia. (Poland seized a small area of Czech territory--Zaolzie--and Polish citizens persecuted ethnic Germans in that area.) Nobody and no side was without blame and guilt for all of the human suffering caused in WW2.

Right now, I think that Poles expect Russia to continue its program of asymmetric warfare against Poland. If Russia were to fully subjugate Ukraine again, its next move would be to go back to reassumption of control over the Baltic states and Poland, which now has substantial immigrant populations of Ukrainians and Belarussians. I was able to communicate easily in Russian while in Poland, since my Polish was substantially less fluent. However, the fact is that Poland represents a challenge for Russian control of Eastern Europe. Its economy has grown substantially, especially its industrial and agricultural sectors. For Ukrainians and Belarussians, it remains a source of freedom and supply that is completely independent of Russia. Hence, Russian irredentists will almost certainly target that country next. This is a continuation of the Russian imperial expansion that existed in pre-WWI Europe and was a primary cause of WW2--essentially a resumption of WWI after the Treaty of Versaille had temporarily created buffer states separating the German and Russian areas of dominance and occupation.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Something I posted on another forum:

In 1939, Britain and France went to war to protect Poland from the German and Soviet Union invasion that abrogated the Polish sovereignty the British and French had underwritten.

At that time, the Soviets and Germans were allied with each other against Poland, under the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Neither Britain nor France saw Germany or the USSR as existential threats to themselves. They acted in accordance with their duty as underwriters of Polish independence.

By the end of 1941, the situation was radically different, with France defeated and Britain under clear existential threat. Britain needed any help she could get. The Japanese attack on the USA, and then the German betrayal of the USSR, led to both the US and the Soviet Union becoming allies of the British, in a war whose aim had radically shifted from the restoration of Poland, to the destruction of the Third Reich, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy, and the liberation of the vast territories they had by then invaded.

Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe was shamefully abandoned to the USSR, from whose yoke she was not freed until the 1990s.

That the US and Britain did not persue Polish independence in 1945 is understandable; War against the USSR in 1945 was undesirable on a huge number of levels, and the war aim of 1939 a distant memory, hidden behind the vast destruction that had been wreaked across the whole of Europe.

But to once again abandon those countries that were abandoned to Russia from 1945 to 1990, including not only Poland and other Warsaw Pact nations, but also the former Soviet Republics of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Ukraine, would be a further betrayal of a Western European and British historical duty to protect their independence - a protection that is today in the strategic interest of both the EU and the UK, both economically, as free trade is beneficial to all parties; And militarily, as a buffer zone between Putin's armies and German, French (and ultimately even British) territory.

The twin threats to Europe that existed in 1939, the Third Reich and the USSR, have both now been eliminated. But neither Russian expansionism nor Western European fascism are completely vanquished.

Defending Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe against Russian irredentism, and the whole of Europe against resurgent ultra-nationalism, are an ongoing (and likely eternal) duty for all who value freedom and prosperity over dictatorship and squalor.

We have both a moral imperative, and a strategic interest, in giving Ukraine all the assistance we can, not only to defeat and repel the current Russian invasion, but also to become a liberal democracy with strong protections against corruption, so she can become a prosperous trading partner for the rest of the free world.

The world needs to see, once again, that invasion and subjugation of neighbouring countries is intolerable, and demands resolute, timely, and unstinting action to ensure that the invader does not profit from his agression.

This is not somebody else's problem. It's our problem. And until we address it, the cost of addressing it will just keep rising.

In 1936, the French and British could have easily occupied the Rhineland to prevent the militarisation of that region. In 1938, they could have made a stand against the occupation of the Sudetenland, instead of signing the craven Munich Agreement. But they didn't act until it was too late, and the cost of defeating the expansionist dictator in Berlin became astronomical.

Let us not allow the cost of defeating the expansionist dictator in Moscow to become similarly inflated.

The expansionist dictator in Moscow is stalled in Ukraine and unable to advance. His much larger and better equipped army failed to conquer the smaller and less well equipped neighbor.

I refuse to believe that 600 million Europeans can't handle 150 million Russians unless 325 million Americans rush to their aid, especially since Russia can't even handle Ukraine.

Making a comparison to stopping the Nazis has been made for many of the conflicts after WWII. After the fact it has been shown that the third world country the US just threw against the wall wasn't about to conquer the world. But this time is different, I'm sure.