War with Russia

[newfhouse]

What do you think ?

asked because I don’t know the answer.

 

[newfhouse]

I known your point is not enough Jews murdered right?

Piss off.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

This is the same point your trying to make like a 1000 times in this topic, The point your missing is that Putin didn't start a war in 2014, not in 2008 but in 1999 nd then as part of these war changed how to learn history in Russia, making the Sovjet unions role more heroic. Let's also not forget Russia had it's own version of the Nato too, it's just became less popular when it started attacking it's own members(Including Ukraine) But it did work in the conflict last year with Azerbaijan against Armenia. Or to keep al those friendly dictators in place, who coincidently all are big fans of Putin. Most regional tensions starter way before Nato, Poland and Russia are add odds since the second world war, somehow they didn't like the Red Army holding their advance so Hitler could kill of Poles for example.

I am pretty sure I haven't made the same point 1000 times, but I probably need to, with you, since nothing seems to help you see the other side's viewpoint. But alas, life is not long enough...

I am no admirer of Russian leadership (although they are FAR less hubristic, warmongering and murderous than the American in recent decades), but if Russia needed ANY heroic story that beats ANY OTHER over the past hundred year in Europe, their dominant role in the victory over Nazi Germany with extreme sacrifices is all they need. Do you accept that or have you swallowed Hollywood's narratives? Wait! Without the Russians, since you are Dutch, or the Poles since you mentioned them, would almost certainly be speaking German today.

It seems to me you are incapable of seeing the world in anything but black and white. That's boring, and makes you look very unwise. With due respect, I suggest you read and digest the article I linked to again.

 

[Unkraut]

I am no admirer of Russian leadership (although they are FAR less hubristic, warmongering and murderous than the American in recent decades), but if Russia needed ANY heroic story that beats ANY OTHER over the past hundred year in Europe, their dominant role in the victory over Nazi Germany with extreme sacrifices is all they need.

Whilst that is true, the Russians could not have overcome the Germans without American assistance. This used to be acknowledged in Russia, but in Putin's time the story has been reversed to a narrative that Russia could have succeeded on her own. Re-writing history like this is never a good thing. There has even been a limited rehabilitation of Stalin. Historian Antony Beevor talks about this in his dealings with the Russians.

 

[Ian H]

Every country tends to write history to glorify itself. Or rather, the ruling class does that. Look at the current furore in the UK about 'rewriting our history' or 'destroying our past'.

 

[BoldonLad]

Every country tends to write history to glorify itself. Or rather, the ruling class does that. Look at the current furore in the UK about 'rewriting our history' or 'destroying our past'.

Of course, you are correct, but... if the initial 'version' of history was incorrect, because, say, it was 'spun' to suit the then ruling class, how do we know the second, or third, etc version is true, and not simply 'spun' to suit another group (including, possibly, the current ruling class) ?

'We' have to rely on our own judgement, and, we all know where that has got us recently.

 

[Ian H]

Of course, you are correct, but... if the initial 'version' of history was incorrect, because, say, it was 'spun' to suit the then ruling class, how do we know the second, or third, etc version is true, and not simply 'spun' to suit another group (including, possibly, the current ruling class) ?

'We' have to rely on our own judgement, and, we all know where that has got us recently.

There is never a final, definitive version of history, as any historiun kno.

 

[BoldonLad]

There is never a final, definitive version of history, as any historiun kno.

I am no historian, but, I wouldn't disagree with that. So of makes history a rather unreliable source on which to base our actions, perhaps.

 

[Ian H]

I am no historian, but, I wouldn't disagree with that. So of makes history a rather unreliable source on which to base our actions, perhaps.

In the same way that climate science is an unreliable resource on which to base our future actions?

 

[BoldonLad]

In the same way that climate science is an unreliable resource on which to base our future actions?

Well, to a degree (no pun intended) all Science is suspect, as our knowledge moves on, old theories are debunked, and, new ones become the accepted wisdom.

At one stage, the Science of the day, no doubt believed the Earth was flat, and, the Sun revolved around the Earth.

However (IMHO), 'good' Science is based on peer reviewed processes, whereas, History is much more prone to manipulation or spin.

 

[Ian H]

Well, to a degree (no pun intended) all Science is suspect, as our knowledge moves on, old theories are debunked, and, new ones become the accepted wisdom.

At one stage, the Science of the day, no doubt believed the Earth was flat, and, the Sun revolved around the Earth.

However (IMHO), 'good' Science is based on peer reviewed processes, whereas, History is much more prone to manipulation or spin.

That's true to the extent that anyone can call themselves an historian. But it's relatively easy to check any historian's credentials, and all properly researched histories include a list of sources. And there's plenty of peer review from other historians.

 

[BoldonLad]

That's true to the extent that anyone can call themselves an historian. But it's relatively easy to check any historian's credentials, and all properly researched histories include a list of sources. And there's plenty of peer review from other historians.

I suppose it rather depends what you mean by 'History', ie, when does 'Current Affairs' become 'History'? a day after the event, a week, a year?.

In my view, in 'History', the facts' themselves are often questionable (ie if recent may be hidden or covered up, further in the past, may have been covered up, distorted, be incomplete).

A healthy scepticism does no harm (IMHO). In the case of Religion, facts and proof don't come into it, but, with or without religion, there are always those among us who are convinced they have it 'right' and, do not shrink from telling others they are misguided/wrong/wicked. So, with, or without Religion, there will always be (effectively) 'Gods', (IMHO).

But, to return to the thread topic, I don't see how Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and, destruction of life, liberty and property can be justified,

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

I am pretty sure I haven't made the same point 1000 times, but I probably need to, with you, since nothing seems to help you see the other side's viewpoint. But alas, life is not long enough...

nit-picking you known damn well what i meant.

I am no admirer of Russian leadership (although they are FAR less hubristic, warmongering and murderous than the American in recent decades), but if Russia needed ANY heroic story that beats ANY OTHER over the past hundred year in Europe, their dominant role in the victory over Nazi Germany with extreme sacrifices is all they need. Do you accept that or have you swallowed Hollywood's narratives? Wait! Without the Russians, since you are Dutch, or the Poles since you mentioned them, would almost certainly be speaking German today.

America has nothing to do with this, nor has Nato. Your post prove that you don't understand Russia's viewpoint, you understand the viewpoint that others say Russia has. That is something else.
Let me show you the quote below:

That is much more the issue, the other is, Russians will not blame Putin, the blame their local politics, the west, Nato but never their leader.
So reposting an article that says ''it's Nato'' not only ignores the fact that Russia had 90% of it's neighbor former sovjet countries in an Nato like alliance(but then from Russia), but they all wanted out at first opportunity because Russia proved to be an unreliable partner, either by meddling in politics, other forms of influence or in some cases outright invastion. So the expansion of the Nato was because the countries Russia promised to protect didn't feel safe with said protection.

It also ignores an whole different culture as explained above. Kind off a dangerous combination with a president that gloryfies his countries role in the second world war by ommitting information.
The results of widespread ommitting information that doesn't really work for you and pocketing some cash in between can be seen in the Ukrainian war statistics under Russian losses in material, personal and aviation.

It seems to me you are incapable of seeing the world in anything but black and white. That's boring, and makes you look very unwise. With due respect, I suggest you read and digest the article I linked to again.

Yeah rinse and repeat of the black and white vision that the west is per default guilty of any threat to the west. It's nothing new, it not an alternative view, it's the common view. A sauce called how others think Russia thinks about it doesn't really change it.

 

[albion]

Science is not suspect at all. It is just vast.

Abuse of science is as certain as science itself. Reason is a science too, political abuse again used to bastardise it.
The difference between the US and Russia is that as long as democracy holds, change can happen.

The likes of Bolsonaro, Trump and Putin are on the very same page, democracy being loss of power.
Russia pumped a lot of money and resources into both Trump and Brexit, it being easy to see their reasoning.
I for one am fairly certain their successes here influenced the Ukraine decision.

 

[albion]

This details further the very close link the conservatives had to Russia and its money.
https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/poli...-russia-group-disbands-with-immediate-effect/

I suspect the fuller truth is quite sordid.