| World War 3 08:44 - Mar 1 with 8139 views | onceablue |
Trump has received a lot of criticism on this page in the last 24 hours and rightly so
However him so called cosying up with Putin at least puts a hold on World War 3 in the short term
If Trump and Putin hated each other the World would be over |  | | |  |
| World War 3 on 16:45 - Mar 1 with 1852 views | mellowblue |
| World War 3 on 13:36 - Mar 1 by Churchman |
The paper waving was at a point in time when Hitler could have been stopped. Was Britain prepared for war? No. Was France? No. But everybody forgets that Germany wasn’t either. Much of the equipment the Germans used in Poland and France was made in Czechoslovakia after Germany had swallowed the country.
Germany carried on rearming, Britain and France were stuttering with it and praying for the inevitable not to happen. Everything on hold for some months in the hope of the peace dividend of Munich. It didn’t have to be that way. Even in 1938 France had the largest, most mechanised army in the world. Britain the world’s most powerful navy. By the end of 1940 Britain was out producing Germany by 2-1 as it geared its economy to total war - the only country to do so. That’s how weak Germany actually was behind the noise.
The spirit of the Maginot line, fear, old men and heads in the sand dominated allied thinking. The stench of it led to Hitler easily duping Chamberlain and Daladier.
Yalta was a different situation. Europe was smashed and or bankrupt. Japan was still at war and a threat. Roosevelt and Churchill wanted Stalin to commit to attacking Japan in return for land. Also the debate and partition of Europe was on the agenda.
Spheres of influence with free elections was basically the outcome, with the exception of Poland and a couple of other countries that were shamefully sold out. It was only later that the US realised they’d been duped into agreeing something with Russia that they’d never adhere to. So down came, to use Churchill’s phrase, the Iron Curtain.
Had Britain had any power left I doubt the European 1945 settlement would have looked quite as it did. Churchill didn’t trust the Russians an inch. Roosevelt did. He trusted Stalin and was soon criticised for his settlement.
However given the state of Europe, war with Japan, the casualties etc I’m not sure what could have dissuaded Stalin from his actions other than a nuclear bomb which of course came months later.
I’m no expert on Yalta or any of this so this is just a view on what little I know. |
Something I have read on Yalta is that Stalin put on his Uncle Joe act and charmed the other leaders. Very convivial and friendly, served refreshments personally and probably completely disarmed Roosevelt and Churchill. The iron fist was very much hidden in the velvet glove. | | | |
| World War 3 on 16:46 - Mar 1 with 1850 views | Guthrum |
| World War 3 on 13:36 - Mar 1 by Churchman |
The paper waving was at a point in time when Hitler could have been stopped. Was Britain prepared for war? No. Was France? No. But everybody forgets that Germany wasn’t either. Much of the equipment the Germans used in Poland and France was made in Czechoslovakia after Germany had swallowed the country.
Germany carried on rearming, Britain and France were stuttering with it and praying for the inevitable not to happen. Everything on hold for some months in the hope of the peace dividend of Munich. It didn’t have to be that way. Even in 1938 France had the largest, most mechanised army in the world. Britain the world’s most powerful navy. By the end of 1940 Britain was out producing Germany by 2-1 as it geared its economy to total war - the only country to do so. That’s how weak Germany actually was behind the noise.
The spirit of the Maginot line, fear, old men and heads in the sand dominated allied thinking. The stench of it led to Hitler easily duping Chamberlain and Daladier.
Yalta was a different situation. Europe was smashed and or bankrupt. Japan was still at war and a threat. Roosevelt and Churchill wanted Stalin to commit to attacking Japan in return for land. Also the debate and partition of Europe was on the agenda.
Spheres of influence with free elections was basically the outcome, with the exception of Poland and a couple of other countries that were shamefully sold out. It was only later that the US realised they’d been duped into agreeing something with Russia that they’d never adhere to. So down came, to use Churchill’s phrase, the Iron Curtain.
Had Britain had any power left I doubt the European 1945 settlement would have looked quite as it did. Churchill didn’t trust the Russians an inch. Roosevelt did. He trusted Stalin and was soon criticised for his settlement.
However given the state of Europe, war with Japan, the casualties etc I’m not sure what could have dissuaded Stalin from his actions other than a nuclear bomb which of course came months later.
I’m no expert on Yalta or any of this so this is just a view on what little I know. |
In 1938 France was an utter shambles, on the brink of civil strife. They'd had 13 Prime Ministers in the five years before Munich (some of those multiple tenures by the same people). Only one had lasted a whole year. Daladier at least brought some semblance of stability in the final 11 months before the outbreak of war, meaning they would actually take part.
France's army was large and well-equipped, but lacked organisation and tactical coordination. Many of their tanks did not even have radios. Their best aircraft were still in development, with few getting into service before the German attack in 1940.
Another major problem was the difficulty of mounting any kind of effective attack upon Germany while Belgium and the Netherlands remained strictly neutral. The front is narrow, hilly and wooded*, backed by the Rhine and then a long way to go before you reach anywhere particularly vital. Other than that there was only the possibility of minor naval incursions along the German North Sea coast, with anywhere valuable being well inland up the rivers and the Heligoland Bight being a dangerous area to send shipping into.
* The French had got themselves badly in trouble around there in 1914. |  |
| |
| World War 3 on 16:56 - Mar 1 with 1826 views | Guthrum |
| World War 3 on 13:42 - Mar 1 by Tangledupin_Blue |
I can't see any doubt about whether it was a deliberate ambush.
Why were they even having their discussion in front of a room full of press? Surely any serious meaty discussion, including disagreements, should be in private.
And then the question from Marjorie Taylor Greene's rutting partner allowing Vance to fabricate some indignance.
Can only have been deliberate. |
'Why were they even having their discussion in front of a room full of press?' - Because it's all for effect. Playing to the gallery of MAGA cultists, the kind of people who cheer along at his rallies. It has limited relevance to the real world, where anyone with half a brain can see through the subterfuge.
Likely to cause real-world damage, tho. | |
| |
| World War 3 on 17:03 - Mar 1 with 1808 views | Guthrum |
| World War 3 on 15:12 - Mar 1 by StokieBlue |
That could be true with regards to cutting off the other states (as Guthers has also pointed out) but I don't see it happening.
What's in it for Putin? There aren't resources like in Ukraine and he's attacking a number of NATO and EU countries. I don't think the Europeans would stand by. Is he going to attack the UK units in Estonia?
SB |
Blows NATO apart if people don't respond to an Article 5 call. Should the USA sit on its hands, would places like Hungary, Slovakia and even Turkey also opt out?
Putin is not just after resources, but also reclaiming what he considers to be lost territories of the Empire and Soviet Union. The Baltics come under that heading. Pushes the buffer zone further away from St Petersburg, too. | |
| |
| World War 3 on 17:31 - Mar 1 with 1735 views | Churchman |
| World War 3 on 16:46 - Mar 1 by Guthrum |
In 1938 France was an utter shambles, on the brink of civil strife. They'd had 13 Prime Ministers in the five years before Munich (some of those multiple tenures by the same people). Only one had lasted a whole year. Daladier at least brought some semblance of stability in the final 11 months before the outbreak of war, meaning they would actually take part.
France's army was large and well-equipped, but lacked organisation and tactical coordination. Many of their tanks did not even have radios. Their best aircraft were still in development, with few getting into service before the German attack in 1940.
Another major problem was the difficulty of mounting any kind of effective attack upon Germany while Belgium and the Netherlands remained strictly neutral. The front is narrow, hilly and wooded*, backed by the Rhine and then a long way to go before you reach anywhere particularly vital. Other than that there was only the possibility of minor naval incursions along the German North Sea coast, with anywhere valuable being well inland up the rivers and the Heligoland Bight being a dangerous area to send shipping into.
* The French had got themselves badly in trouble around there in 1914. |
France was not in the finest state and its military leadership was woeful. They went into WW2 fighting WW1. The Maginot line was actually pretty impregnable bit that wasn’t much use if the Germans could go around it.
Their kit was ok (artillery CharB tanks etc were better than the Germans (Panzer 3 etc). Even Mauser 98 rifles were old and heavy and the famed Luger complex and outmoded. Machine guns were beautiful bits of kit. Brilliant engineering. But they were expensive, hard to make and overheated.
Uniforms were wool and rubbish (they had no proper clothing industry), and not enough lorrys or people to drive them. Air wise, the Germans had better aircraft, pilots and Spain had taught them the best way of operating a tactical air force. But they still lost a lot of aircraft even with their advantages.
Tactically, France hadn’t learned the lessons and used armour in penny packets - most of the German divisions were on foot or horse drawn, but not the spearhead. Aviation, the French had some reasonable aircraft including 75As, Morane 406s and the new Dewoitine 520 was good. They just didn’t use them. An aeroplane doesn’t have to be technically the best. Air combat is also about how aircraft are used and the quality of the crews. Wastage of the appalling Fairey Battle light bombers and Bristol Blenheims was proof of that.
France had not invested in radar to any degree and old men like Gamelin wouldn’t even use a telephone. Some divisions were really strong (e.g. defence of Dunkirk perimeter) others not so (Ardennes - oops!). But the same variable weaknesses afflicted the German army. The difference was how it was used. In other words Blitzkrieg - concentration of land and air power, initiative, moving at pace.
It was a development of what Britain did to crush the German army in 1918. The French command was beaten before it started. But that need not have been the case. There were sufficient assets there. The bravery of their men was not in doubt. Leadership was. When Germany attacked Poland and France actually had a little wander across the border, there was literally no opposition. They scurried back to their lines. Didn’t want to provoke anything.
In 1938 Germany was woefully short of everything. In the 18 months prior to wars breakout, that’s when they really strengthened. Germany was technically bankrupt by the end of 1941, sustained by plunder. All France had to do was survive.
Attacking through Belgium and Holland proved difficult in 1944 let alone 1940. |  | | |
| World War 3 on 17:34 - Mar 1 with 1733 views | StokieBlue |
| World War 3 on 17:03 - Mar 1 by Guthrum |
Blows NATO apart if people don't respond to an Article 5 call. Should the USA sit on its hands, would places like Hungary, Slovakia and even Turkey also opt out?
Putin is not just after resources, but also reclaiming what he considers to be lost territories of the Empire and Soviet Union. The Baltics come under that heading. Pushes the buffer zone further away from St Petersburg, too. |
Lots of assumptions and guesswork in there and very little evidence.
Could easily argue Trump is more likely to blow NATO apart.
What buffer zone with St. Petersburg? Russia doesn't need a buffer zone and there used to be a train connecting the two places (not sure it's still running). There has never been a buffer zone there since the fall of the USSR so why would they need one now? The EU or NATO aren't going to attack them.
SB |  | | |
| World War 3 on 17:54 - Mar 1 with 1671 views | Pinewoodblue |
| World War 3 on 17:34 - Mar 1 by StokieBlue |
Lots of assumptions and guesswork in there and very little evidence.
Could easily argue Trump is more likely to blow NATO apart.
What buffer zone with St. Petersburg? Russia doesn't need a buffer zone and there used to be a train connecting the two places (not sure it's still running). There has never been a buffer zone there since the fall of the USSR so why would they need one now? The EU or NATO aren't going to attack them.
SB |
Belarus has suggested that they , and Poland, agree to allow inspection within 80km of the border, sounds very much like a buffer zone oof sorts to me.
There are also joint military exercises to be held in Belarus involving over 10,000 Russian personnel in September. Sounds very much like what happened 3 years ago.
https://kyivindependent.com/belarus-weekly-russia-belarus-confirm-zapad-2025-joi
Scroll down for details. |  |
| |
| World War 3 on 18:01 - Mar 1 with 1647 views | StokieBlue |
| World War 3 on 17:54 - Mar 1 by Pinewoodblue |
Belarus has suggested that they , and Poland, agree to allow inspection within 80km of the border, sounds very much like a buffer zone oof sorts to me.
There are also joint military exercises to be held in Belarus involving over 10,000 Russian personnel in September. Sounds very much like what happened 3 years ago.
https://kyivindependent.com/belarus-weekly-russia-belarus-confirm-zapad-2025-joi
Scroll down for details. |
That's not what was mentioned though, St. Petersburg isn't Poland and it was suggested Russia would want the buffer zone which doesn't make sense unless they expected NATO to attack.
As for the exercise, you think 10000 Russian troops would get far against an EU country? Maybe the Baltic states but they would get nowhere against Poland. Russia has lost 60 times that in Ukraine.
Just lots of assumptions here and there is still nothing really in it for Putin. Just think we need to be careful of talking up an attack on NATO or the EU just because of Trumps behaviour.
Not saying it won't happen, I just think the odds are very slim or perhaps I just hope the odds are very slim.
SB | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| World War 3 on 18:06 - Mar 1 with 1628 views | Churchman |
| World War 3 on 17:54 - Mar 1 by Pinewoodblue |
Belarus has suggested that they , and Poland, agree to allow inspection within 80km of the border, sounds very much like a buffer zone oof sorts to me.
There are also joint military exercises to be held in Belarus involving over 10,000 Russian personnel in September. Sounds very much like what happened 3 years ago.
https://kyivindependent.com/belarus-weekly-russia-belarus-confirm-zapad-2025-joi
Scroll down for details. |
Belarus is a Russian satellite. Their hand picked Putin installed leader has to ask Uncle Vlad to go to the toilet.
This buffer zone. If they want it on 80kms of Belarus land fine. If they are already starting on Poland, get stuffed. Build a wall. Trump is good at those. He can pay for it and get all the idiots who were going to dig up Ukraines assets to build it. A new skill never does any harm.. | | | |
| World War 3 on 18:23 - Mar 1 with 1581 views | Pinewoodblue |
| World War 3 on 18:01 - Mar 1 by StokieBlue |
That's not what was mentioned though, St. Petersburg isn't Poland and it was suggested Russia would want the buffer zone which doesn't make sense unless they expected NATO to attack.
As for the exercise, you think 10000 Russian troops would get far against an EU country? Maybe the Baltic states but they would get nowhere against Poland. Russia has lost 60 times that in Ukraine.
Just lots of assumptions here and there is still nothing really in it for Putin. Just think we need to be careful of talking up an attack on NATO or the EU just because of Trumps behaviour.
Not saying it won't happen, I just think the odds are very slim or perhaps I just hope the odds are very slim.
SB |
Zelenskyy talked down the threat of a Russian invasion three years ago. It is actually 13,000 Russian personnel plus however many Belarus troops are involved. | |
| |
| World War 3 on 18:25 - Mar 1 with 1577 views | mellowblue |
| World War 3 on 17:31 - Mar 1 by Churchman |
France was not in the finest state and its military leadership was woeful. They went into WW2 fighting WW1. The Maginot line was actually pretty impregnable bit that wasn’t much use if the Germans could go around it.
Their kit was ok (artillery CharB tanks etc were better than the Germans (Panzer 3 etc). Even Mauser 98 rifles were old and heavy and the famed Luger complex and outmoded. Machine guns were beautiful bits of kit. Brilliant engineering. But they were expensive, hard to make and overheated.
Uniforms were wool and rubbish (they had no proper clothing industry), and not enough lorrys or people to drive them. Air wise, the Germans had better aircraft, pilots and Spain had taught them the best way of operating a tactical air force. But they still lost a lot of aircraft even with their advantages.
Tactically, France hadn’t learned the lessons and used armour in penny packets - most of the German divisions were on foot or horse drawn, but not the spearhead. Aviation, the French had some reasonable aircraft including 75As, Morane 406s and the new Dewoitine 520 was good. They just didn’t use them. An aeroplane doesn’t have to be technically the best. Air combat is also about how aircraft are used and the quality of the crews. Wastage of the appalling Fairey Battle light bombers and Bristol Blenheims was proof of that.
France had not invested in radar to any degree and old men like Gamelin wouldn’t even use a telephone. Some divisions were really strong (e.g. defence of Dunkirk perimeter) others not so (Ardennes - oops!). But the same variable weaknesses afflicted the German army. The difference was how it was used. In other words Blitzkrieg - concentration of land and air power, initiative, moving at pace.
It was a development of what Britain did to crush the German army in 1918. The French command was beaten before it started. But that need not have been the case. There were sufficient assets there. The bravery of their men was not in doubt. Leadership was. When Germany attacked Poland and France actually had a little wander across the border, there was literally no opposition. They scurried back to their lines. Didn’t want to provoke anything.
In 1938 Germany was woefully short of everything. In the 18 months prior to wars breakout, that’s when they really strengthened. Germany was technically bankrupt by the end of 1941, sustained by plunder. All France had to do was survive.
Attacking through Belgium and Holland proved difficult in 1944 let alone 1940. |
The psychological blow of the impregnable Maginot line being bypassed would have been enormous to the French. Probably also the maginot line gave a massive false sense of security leading to complacence as well. | | | |
| World War 3 on 18:53 - Mar 1 with 1531 views | Churchman |
| World War 3 on 18:25 - Mar 1 by mellowblue |
The psychological blow of the impregnable Maginot line being bypassed would have been enormous to the French. Probably also the maginot line gave a massive false sense of security leading to complacence as well. |
It certainly encouraged their inertia. Used properly it wasn’t a joke idea. France had a manpower shortage and defending using impenetrable fortifications was a sound idea.
Impenetrable? A key defence point was Belgium fortress Eben Emael and it was meant to be just that. Using paratroopers and gliders, well trained German solders captured it in no time. | | | |
| World War 3 on 19:33 - Mar 1 with 1467 views | mellowblue |
| World War 3 on 18:53 - Mar 1 by Churchman |
It certainly encouraged their inertia. Used properly it wasn’t a joke idea. France had a manpower shortage and defending using impenetrable fortifications was a sound idea.
Impenetrable? A key defence point was Belgium fortress Eben Emael and it was meant to be just that. Using paratroopers and gliders, well trained German solders captured it in no time. |
Ében-Émael was a text book attack, fraught with potential problems , but was executed perfectly. As you say, overwhelmed quickly with few losses. Did not help that the fort was under-manned at the time. | | | |
| World War 3 on 19:43 - Mar 1 with 1449 views | Churchman |
| World War 3 on 19:33 - Mar 1 by mellowblue |
Ében-Émael was a text book attack, fraught with potential problems , but was executed perfectly. As you say, overwhelmed quickly with few losses. Did not help that the fort was under-manned at the time. |
Old ideas that once worked but overtaken by tech and new methods. | | | |
| World War 3 on 20:00 - Mar 1 with 1426 views | StokieBlue |
| World War 3 on 18:23 - Mar 1 by Pinewoodblue |
Zelenskyy talked down the threat of a Russian invasion three years ago. It is actually 13,000 Russian personnel plus however many Belarus troops are involved. |
No Belarusians entered Ukraine so why is that relevant?
Just think we need to be calm and logical about this situation. The context is different, Russia is actually pretty weak in conventional military terms at the moment compared to is historical average.
SB | | | |
| World War 3 on 00:30 - Mar 2 with 1287 views | Guthrum |
| World War 3 on 17:34 - Mar 1 by StokieBlue |
Lots of assumptions and guesswork in there and very little evidence.
Could easily argue Trump is more likely to blow NATO apart.
What buffer zone with St. Petersburg? Russia doesn't need a buffer zone and there used to be a train connecting the two places (not sure it's still running). There has never been a buffer zone there since the fall of the USSR so why would they need one now? The EU or NATO aren't going to attack them.
SB |
Throughout its history Russia has faced threats from the south, west and north. Many times it has been invaded, trashed and taken over. That is part of the Russian psyche, especially if you're a hard-line nationalist. To push west and create the largest buffer they can is only logical when, within living memory, enemy tanks have rolled to the gates of Leningrad (as it was then).
The EU and NATO have been threatening Russia, with their encroachment to the east, into the former Soviet sphere, over the last quarter century. That is what the perception is.
Trump blowing NATO apart is my point. If Moscow stages a provocation, Article 5 is invoked and the USA fails to respond, then NATO (in its current form) is dead. Not that I think it will happen any time soon. There's a lot of lower-risk stuff the Russians can do first. | |
| |
| World War 3 on 01:08 - Mar 2 with 1262 views | Churchman |
| World War 3 on 00:30 - Mar 2 by Guthrum |
Throughout its history Russia has faced threats from the south, west and north. Many times it has been invaded, trashed and taken over. That is part of the Russian psyche, especially if you're a hard-line nationalist. To push west and create the largest buffer they can is only logical when, within living memory, enemy tanks have rolled to the gates of Leningrad (as it was then).
The EU and NATO have been threatening Russia, with their encroachment to the east, into the former Soviet sphere, over the last quarter century. That is what the perception is.
Trump blowing NATO apart is my point. If Moscow stages a provocation, Article 5 is invoked and the USA fails to respond, then NATO (in its current form) is dead. Not that I think it will happen any time soon. There's a lot of lower-risk stuff the Russians can do first. |
I have to disagree. This idea that NATO was any sort of threat is pure Putinspeak. NATO was designed to keep expansionist Russia off. They had reneged on what was agreed at the end of the war and built their eastern block empire. The nature and make up of Western European forces and their limitations meant it was impossible for them to do what Napoleon or Hitler did.
When the Soviet Union imploded, old eastern block countries got their freedom. They could be independent of Russia or not. As independent countries, if they wanted to join a defensive alliance, what right did Russia have to deny them that? They are not part of Russia.
Finland and Sweden have recently wanted to become part of NATO. Why? Because they are threatened. Russia sees Finland as its territory and has invaded and stolen chunks of it many times. The Finns don’t want that. Why should they not join a defensive alliance if they wish? Same for Poland Czech Republic and others. One cannot call them independent countries then deny them the chance to act as they wish - within the international framework
NATO is finished. It ended the day Trump took office. Russia will push hard once Ukraine is in their pocket. Why wouldn’t they? The opportunity is now. Wait 5 years it may not be and Putin the Great might be dead. Would you wait in his shoes, unless you were forced to? | | | |
| World War 3 on 09:24 - Mar 2 with 1186 views | StokieBlue |
| World War 3 on 00:30 - Mar 2 by Guthrum |
Throughout its history Russia has faced threats from the south, west and north. Many times it has been invaded, trashed and taken over. That is part of the Russian psyche, especially if you're a hard-line nationalist. To push west and create the largest buffer they can is only logical when, within living memory, enemy tanks have rolled to the gates of Leningrad (as it was then).
The EU and NATO have been threatening Russia, with their encroachment to the east, into the former Soviet sphere, over the last quarter century. That is what the perception is.
Trump blowing NATO apart is my point. If Moscow stages a provocation, Article 5 is invoked and the USA fails to respond, then NATO (in its current form) is dead. Not that I think it will happen any time soon. There's a lot of lower-risk stuff the Russians can do first. |
"The EU and NATO have been threatening Russia, with their encroachment to the east, into the former Soviet sphere, over the last quarter century."
This simply isn't true though, it's Putin narrative and it's pretty offensive to label independent countries who worked hard to get their independence to be defined under any current Russian sphere. NATO has never invaded anyone. The implication that it might by giving small independent countries some protection doesn't really stand up to scrutiny hence it's propaganda rather than a real threat.
To say tanks have rolled across St. Petersburg within living memory is stretching it as well, anyone who could remember that would be into their 90's by now. We can't keep making excuses for present behaviour based on these historical contexts.
There are many Russians who don't feel as you are claiming.
I do agree that Russia won't be invading a country that requires an article 5 response which is what I have been saying in all of my previous replies. I also think NATO over the longer term is probably finished and the EU and UK need to look towards their own defence, as a block we are rich enough and advanced enough to not require US protection even if it takes time to get there.
SB | | | |
| World War 3 on 10:02 - Mar 2 with 1140 views | Churchman |
| World War 3 on 09:24 - Mar 2 by StokieBlue |
"The EU and NATO have been threatening Russia, with their encroachment to the east, into the former Soviet sphere, over the last quarter century."
This simply isn't true though, it's Putin narrative and it's pretty offensive to label independent countries who worked hard to get their independence to be defined under any current Russian sphere. NATO has never invaded anyone. The implication that it might by giving small independent countries some protection doesn't really stand up to scrutiny hence it's propaganda rather than a real threat.
To say tanks have rolled across St. Petersburg within living memory is stretching it as well, anyone who could remember that would be into their 90's by now. We can't keep making excuses for present behaviour based on these historical contexts.
There are many Russians who don't feel as you are claiming.
I do agree that Russia won't be invading a country that requires an article 5 response which is what I have been saying in all of my previous replies. I also think NATO over the longer term is probably finished and the EU and UK need to look towards their own defence, as a block we are rich enough and advanced enough to not require US protection even if it takes time to get there.
SB |
For historical context, the siege of Leningrad was raised in 1944. Estimates of deaths vary, but 1.5m is a very approximate estimate. 500k civilians are buried in one cemetery alone.
The city was one of the three early main targets for Adolf. They reached the city in about ten weeks but due to robust defence they couldn’t take it so decided to starve it instead. The 1941/2 was one of the worst on record. The dead were everywhere. Leningrad had only a months supply of food.
People resorted to boiling leather, eating anything they could including pets, wallpaper paste, you name it. 2000 people were charged with cannibalism. Access was purely through an ice road that could supply just a fraction of the City’s needs.
Was Stalin indifferent to their fate? He disliked Leningraders and distrusted them. Bit like everyone else then. He’d purged it of opponents before the war again as he did anywhere he could, guilty or innocent. I don’t think he was indifferent. He was conscious of the desperate situation the Soviet armies were in and they were his only priority.
So the tanks didn’t roll across Leningrad. They rolled on by or stopped and besieged it. [Post edited 2 Mar 16:03]
| | | |
| World War 3 on 10:23 - Mar 2 with 1096 views | mellowblue |
| World War 3 on 09:24 - Mar 2 by StokieBlue |
"The EU and NATO have been threatening Russia, with their encroachment to the east, into the former Soviet sphere, over the last quarter century."
This simply isn't true though, it's Putin narrative and it's pretty offensive to label independent countries who worked hard to get their independence to be defined under any current Russian sphere. NATO has never invaded anyone. The implication that it might by giving small independent countries some protection doesn't really stand up to scrutiny hence it's propaganda rather than a real threat.
To say tanks have rolled across St. Petersburg within living memory is stretching it as well, anyone who could remember that would be into their 90's by now. We can't keep making excuses for present behaviour based on these historical contexts.
There are many Russians who don't feel as you are claiming.
I do agree that Russia won't be invading a country that requires an article 5 response which is what I have been saying in all of my previous replies. I also think NATO over the longer term is probably finished and the EU and UK need to look towards their own defence, as a block we are rich enough and advanced enough to not require US protection even if it takes time to get there.
SB |
Semantics really, It is possibly more accurate that the Russian Fed, feel threatened rather than that Nato, Europe are being threatening. | | | |
| World War 3 on 10:32 - Mar 2 with 1069 views | StokieBlue |
| World War 3 on 10:23 - Mar 2 by mellowblue |
Semantics really, It is possibly more accurate that the Russian Fed, feel threatened rather than that Nato, Europe are being threatening. |
Not sure it is semantics, if someone is never going to attack you but you feel threatened anyway then I'm not sure it's the fault of the body that's never going to attack you.
I don't think they do feel threatened though, it's a convenient narrative to push to their citizens to justify things like the invasion of Ukraine or Georgia but in reality they have no external threats.
However pushing this narrative does solidify Putin's position and distract from issues he's created at home so that's is why we are here.
SB | | | |
| World War 3 on 11:06 - Mar 2 with 977 views | Guthrum |
| World War 3 on 09:24 - Mar 2 by StokieBlue |
"The EU and NATO have been threatening Russia, with their encroachment to the east, into the former Soviet sphere, over the last quarter century."
This simply isn't true though, it's Putin narrative and it's pretty offensive to label independent countries who worked hard to get their independence to be defined under any current Russian sphere. NATO has never invaded anyone. The implication that it might by giving small independent countries some protection doesn't really stand up to scrutiny hence it's propaganda rather than a real threat.
To say tanks have rolled across St. Petersburg within living memory is stretching it as well, anyone who could remember that would be into their 90's by now. We can't keep making excuses for present behaviour based on these historical contexts.
There are many Russians who don't feel as you are claiming.
I do agree that Russia won't be invading a country that requires an article 5 response which is what I have been saying in all of my previous replies. I also think NATO over the longer term is probably finished and the EU and UK need to look towards their own defence, as a block we are rich enough and advanced enough to not require US protection even if it takes time to get there.
SB |
The thing is, Putin's narrative is the thought pattern that Putin is operating on. If that's his world-view, it is how he's going to direct policy. There's no point in believing that he won't behave like that just because it is an inaccurate or extreme position.
In predicting Russia's future actions, we have to take into account how their leadership think, even if it is objectively wrong.
The Russians who don't think like that are, unfortunately, not in power at the moment. Putin was born in Leningrad, an elder brother died during the Siege. These historical memories (passed down from parents and neighbours) will be strong for him. | |
| |
| World War 3 on 11:13 - Mar 2 with 953 views | Guthrum |
| World War 3 on 01:08 - Mar 2 by Churchman |
I have to disagree. This idea that NATO was any sort of threat is pure Putinspeak. NATO was designed to keep expansionist Russia off. They had reneged on what was agreed at the end of the war and built their eastern block empire. The nature and make up of Western European forces and their limitations meant it was impossible for them to do what Napoleon or Hitler did.
When the Soviet Union imploded, old eastern block countries got their freedom. They could be independent of Russia or not. As independent countries, if they wanted to join a defensive alliance, what right did Russia have to deny them that? They are not part of Russia.
Finland and Sweden have recently wanted to become part of NATO. Why? Because they are threatened. Russia sees Finland as its territory and has invaded and stolen chunks of it many times. The Finns don’t want that. Why should they not join a defensive alliance if they wish? Same for Poland Czech Republic and others. One cannot call them independent countries then deny them the chance to act as they wish - within the international framework
NATO is finished. It ended the day Trump took office. Russia will push hard once Ukraine is in their pocket. Why wouldn’t they? The opportunity is now. Wait 5 years it may not be and Putin the Great might be dead. Would you wait in his shoes, unless you were forced to? |
Perceptions are everything in international affairs. Putin's viewpoint is driving policy, not an objective truth.
I've travelled enough in the old Soviet Bloc to know how much they are concerned about Russian expansionism and why they joined NATO. I'm not suggesting they didn't have the right to. But we can't ignore Putin's world-view in predicting how he will act.
I don't thing Russia is in a position for much military adventurism in the immediate future. Their armed forces have taken a battering in Ukraine. I don't think Putin would have launched that invasion had he known it would turn into a long-drawn-out attritional slog, rather than a quick and easy coup de main. | |
| |
| World War 3 on 13:18 - Mar 2 with 814 views | mellowblue |
| World War 3 on 11:13 - Mar 2 by Guthrum |
Perceptions are everything in international affairs. Putin's viewpoint is driving policy, not an objective truth.
I've travelled enough in the old Soviet Bloc to know how much they are concerned about Russian expansionism and why they joined NATO. I'm not suggesting they didn't have the right to. But we can't ignore Putin's world-view in predicting how he will act.
I don't thing Russia is in a position for much military adventurism in the immediate future. Their armed forces have taken a battering in Ukraine. I don't think Putin would have launched that invasion had he known it would turn into a long-drawn-out attritional slog, rather than a quick and easy coup de main. |
the moment that huge convoy of tanks came to a grinding halt on the main highway to Kyiv, the chance of a quick victory had gone. | | | |
| World War 3 on 15:07 - Mar 2 with 733 views | Guthrum |
| World War 3 on 13:18 - Mar 2 by mellowblue |
the moment that huge convoy of tanks came to a grinding halt on the main highway to Kyiv, the chance of a quick victory had gone. |
Absolutely, along with having their initial special forces drop bottled up in Hostomel Airfield, unsupported and forced to surrender or disperse. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
