Striving to make sense of the Ukraine war

[Bort 34]

6 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Yeah, "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles" can sound a bit shonky as well due to those N-a-z-i-s. 

Which is exactly why Germans don't sing the first stanza of their national anthem any more. It would be alarming if they started doing so again. 

[Herman 9,838]

1 hour ago, 1902 said:

Someone would have shorted the pound given the impossibility of maintaining the ERM. 

If someone was getting rich from incompetence, it might aswell have been him.

I remember Jools,the proper headbanger, using Black Wednesday as a stick to beat Soros with, while neglecting the facts that he would have barely been touched by it, there were hundreds making money out of it and he backed a very hard Brexit favoured by disaster capitalists and financiers that make Soros look like a saint. A big dollop of hypocrisy and faux outrage coming from some of the far right.

[1902 1,167]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

I haven't read all the posts but I am not sure anyone has used that as a justification, but more as an explanation, without approving of it. I posted something on the latter lines myself back in March:

Over the last couple of nights I watched three Eisenstein films, because they have a current relevance. In Alexander Nevsky the eponymous hero defeats the invading Teutonic Knights. It came out in 1938 and was an obvious warning about the threat of Hitler ordering just such an attack, as happened in 1941.

This stresses Russia's long-standing problem of not having natural boundaries and so being prey to invasion, particularly from the north and west, and why leaders, whether tsars or dictators, have wanted a ring of buffer states. What must seem not just to Putin but to other Russians as the increasing westernisation of Ukraine has to be seen in this light.

One can explain why the invasion fits in with a long-standing Soviet/fear without approving of it.

Absolutely, and I don't think that's untrue. To be aware of the Russian position is essential.

However if someone says "this has happened because NATO expanded and that was therefore the cause of the war" which has been actively said on here, then the inference is that Russia is not to blame. 

I would also say that here in Belgium, the far left has been all over that explanation and has solidly blamed 'NATO imperialism'. 

[1902 1,167]

1 minute ago, Herman said:

I remember Jools,the proper headbanger, using Black Wednesday as a stick to beat Soros with, while neglecting the facts that he would have barely been touched by it, there were hundreds making money out of it and he backed a very hard Brexit favoured by disaster capitalists and financiers that make Soros look like a saint. A big dollop of hypocrisy and faux outrage coming from some of the far right.

Precisley, you can't have a floating exchange rate and say that financial speculation leads to the correct allocation of resources and then complain about the person doing the speculating. That's absurd.

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

36 minutes ago, Bort said:

Which is exactly why Germans don't sing the first stanza of their national anthem any more. It would be alarming if they started doing so again. 

Not really. The primary reason is that the geography stated in the first verse is no longer accurate. Here's the whole verse:

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt,
Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze
Brüderlich zusammenhält.
Von der Maas bis an die Memel,
Von der Etsch bis an den Belt,
𝄆 Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt!𝄇

Your problem is the bit in bold. The Maas (Meuse) is a river that doesn't flow through any German soil nowadays. Memel is the old German name for the city of Klaipeda, in modern-day Lithuania (as well as the area around it). The Etsch (Adige) is another river which is wholly in Italy (due to the days when Südtirol was part of Austria and not Italy), and the Belt refers to the strait of water between peninsular Denmark and the island of Funen, which is likewise part of Denmark.
 

[Bort 34]

29 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Not really. The primary reason is that the geography stated in the first verse is no longer accurate. Here's the whole verse:

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt,
Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze
Brüderlich zusammenhält.
Von der Maas bis an die Memel,
Von der Etsch bis an den Belt,
𝄆 Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt!𝄇

Your problem is the bit in bold. The Maas (Meuse) is a river that doesn't flow through any German soil nowadays. Memel is the old German name for the city of Klaipeda, in modern-day Lithuania (as well as the area around it). The Etsch (Adige) is another river which is wholly in Italy (due to the days when Südtirol was part of Austria and not Italy), and the Belt refers to the strait of water between peninsular Denmark and the island of Funen, which is likewise part of Denmark.
 

I've never seen this explanation before. I'd be interested if you have any sources to support it as the main driver behind the change.

Here's a recent event that suggests the N*zi association is the real problem: 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tennis-fedcup-anthem-idUSKBN15R0OL

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

5 hours ago, Herman said:

Probably not. He probably realised it would be a short term pain rather than a crippler. 

It was a short-term pain at the time, but it was the foundation for skepticism concerning the Euro within the UK  meaning it was pivotal in us ultimately not joining the Euro. John Major had taken us into the ERM as a precursor to us joining the Euro when it was launched, but Soros' action forced John Major into the humiliating decision of pulling us out of the ERM in order to prevent any speculators taking further advantage. Had we been in the Euro then Brexit would have been completely impossible. 
 

Soros didn't just jump on some bandwagon either; he initiated an attack on Sterling and forced it out of the ERM. That's not revisionism, that's how it happened. 

I don't get why Brexiteers don't hail him as a hero for that, nor do I get why remainers seem to want to gloss over his part in it. 

Edited May 18, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Herman 9,838]

Anyone remember this incident with a anthem mix up. Was it deliberate? At 1.10.

 

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

28 minutes ago, Bort said:

I've never seen this explanation before. I'd be interested if you have any sources to support it as the main driver behind the change.

Here's a recent event that suggests the N*zi association is the real problem: 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tennis-fedcup-anthem-idUSKBN15R0OL

And what were the borders of Germany / Austria at the time of the Weimar Republic / N-a-z-i period? You'll find Memel was still part of Germany, as that was East Prussia and was lost when Germany lost its eastern territories after WW2. You'll find the Meuse was part of the Duchy of Limburg, which was created in 1839. The lyrics were written in 1841. As for Adige, the Nazis had control of it but relinquished control with their defeat in 1945.

The rest of the verse, as von Fallersleben wrote it, were simply a call for all myriad states to come together for a greater state, the Germany which was ultimately founded, and to stay together when threatened. In other words, nothing remotely martial or aggressive about it at all.

And I'll also point out that the whole anthem was the anthem of Germany under the Weimar Republic, which was the very liberal precursor to the Third Reich.

Edited May 18, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

11 minutes ago, Herman said:

Anyone remember this incident with a anthem mix up. Was it deliberate? At 1.10.

 

Nothing, and I mean, nothing, can trump this.

Although an honourable mention should go to Tony Henry and a slight linguistic mishap when belting out the Croatian national anthem in the legendary game where McLaren was the wally with the brolly.

BBC SPORT | Football | Anthem gaffe 'lifted Croatia'

Edited May 18, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[Herman 9,838]

46 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It was a short-term pain at the time, but it was the foundation for skepticism concerning the Euro within the UK  meaning it was pivotal in us ultimately not joining the Euro. John Major had taken us into the ERM as a precursor to us joining the Euro when it was launched, but Soros' action forced John Major into the humiliating decision of pulling us out of the ERM in order to prevent any speculators taking further advantage. Had we been in the Euro then Brexit would have been completely impossible. 
 

Soros didn't just jump on some bandwagon either; he initiated an attack on Sterling and forced it out of the ERM. That's not revisionism, that's how it happened. 

I don't get why Brexiteers don't hail him as a hero for that, nor do I get why remainers seem to want to gloss over his part in it. 

I wouldn't say I'm glossing over it, what I am suggesting is that it is the only thing the headbangers have against him. It seems they can't be honest about why they dislike him so scratch around for something that happened 30 years.

[1902 1,167]

50 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

And what were the borders of Germany / Austria at the time of the Weimar Republic / N-a-z-i period? You'll find Memel was still part of Germany, as that was East Prussia and was lost when Germany lost its eastern territories after WW2. You'll find the Meuse was part of the Duchy of Limburg, which was created in 1839. The lyrics were written in 1841. As for Adige, the Nazis had control of it but relinquished control with their defeat in 1945.

The rest of the verse, as von Fallersleben wrote it, were simply a call for all myriad states to come together for a greater state, the Germany which was ultimately founded, and to stay together when threatened. In other words, nothing remotely martial or aggressive about it at all.

And I'll also point out that the whole anthem was the anthem of Germany under the Weimar Republic, which was the very liberal precursor to the Third Reich.

I would add, that when it was written, 'Germany' or in this case any of its predecessors was not seen as an aggressor in Europe (even given Prussia's militarism).

One of the principal reasons for the drive towards a unified Germany was the threat from France and the theory of her 'natural borders' which included the West bank of the Rhine and many German speakers and states of the old Holy Roman Empire. Land which had in fact been annexed by the French First Republic just 40 years before.

Hence another patriotic German song 'Die Wacht am Rhein' written just one year before Deutschland Über Alles which is specifically about countering the perceived threat from the West. 

Edited May 18, 2022 by 1902

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

7 minutes ago, Herman said:

I wouldn't say I'm glossing over it, what I am suggesting is that it is the only thing the headbangers have against him. It seems they can't be honest about why they dislike him so scratch around for something that happened 30 years.

I don't care about the headbangers. I don't know why you keep going on about them. As I've said, I have no dislike of him whatsover, but I simply find his historical role in fuelling Euroscepticism in the UK as distinctly ironic. 

Edited May 18, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

59 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

And what were the borders of Germany / Austria at the time of the Weimar Republic / N-a-z-i period? You'll find Memel was still part of Germany, as that was East Prussia and was lost when Germany lost its eastern territories after WW2. You'll find the Meuse was part of the Duchy of Limburg, which was created in 1839. The lyrics were written in 1841. As for Adige, the Nazis had control of it but relinquished control with their defeat in 1945.

The rest of the verse, as von Fallersleben wrote it, were simply a call for all myriad states to come together for a greater state, the Germany which was ultimately founded, and to stay together when threatened. In other words, nothing remotely martial or aggressive about it at all.

And I'll also point out that the whole anthem was the anthem of Germany under the Weimar Republic, which was the very liberal precursor to the Third Reich.

I think it is not that well understood in the UK how until well into the 19^th century Germany was a not a unified country but included small states, city states and even I think bishoprics. I remembered this from Neil MacGregor’s Germany – Memories of a Nation: 

“The new flag and the new national anthem, the “Deutschlandlied”, carried the same message. Freedom was to be guaranteed by a new constitution to protect against the arbitrary rules of princes. The flag was to be the flag of the German people rather than a specific state.”

And there is a quote from a historian about the Deutschlandlied:

“Its initial phrase – Deutschlandl uber alles – was designed to mean Germany was more important to people than their local monarch, than their city, than their home…history has distorted its meaning for the outside world… [because] it is so associated with the N.A.Z.I.S. but it was originally designed as a democratic national song.”

Edited May 18, 2022 by PurpleCanary

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

11 minutes ago, 1902 said:

I would add, that when it was written, 'Germany' or in this case any of its predecessors was not seen as an aggressor in Europe (even given Prussia's militarism).

One of the principal reasons for the drive towards a unified Germany was the threat from France and the theory of her 'natural borders' which included the West bank of the Rhine and many German speakers and states of the old Holy Roman Empire. Land which had in fact been annexed by the French First Republic just 40 years before.

Hence another patriotic German song 'Die Wacht am Rhein' written just one year before Deutschland Über Alles which is specifically about countering the perceived threat from the West. 

A very fair point, Prussia's militarism really came to an apogee later on. The Franco-Prussian War would probably be that point. 

And yes, Die Wacht am Rhein (I have a version of that on my MP3 player, it's a damn good tune) was very much about the threat from France.

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

 

8 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I think it is not that well understood in the UK how until well into the 19^th century Germany was a not a unified country but included small states, city states and even I think bishoprics. I remembered this from Neil MacGregor’s Germany – Memories of a Nation: 

“The new flag and the new national anthem, the “Deutschlandlied”, carried the same message. Freedom was to be guaranteed by a new constitution to protect against the arbitrary rules of princes. The flag was to be the flag of the German people rather than a specific state.”

And there is a quote from a historian about the Deutschlandlied:

“Its initial phrase – Deutschlandl uber alles – was designed to mean Germany was more important to people than their local monarch, than their city, than their home…history has distorted its meaning for the outside world… [because] it is so associated with the N.A.Z.I.S. but it was originally designed as a democratic national song.”

Exactly that. Which is where the Nazis spectacularly misunderstood it when they seized it for their own purposes of Germany being a dominating force throughout Europe, whereas von Fallersleben wrote it as a plea for solidarity in self-defence. von Fallersleben himself had suffered considerable personal upheaval due to his - for the era - exceptionally liberal beliefs.

I wouldn't have thought it could be much clearer when the lyrics were actually written 30 years before the actual state began to exist though.

[1902 1,167]

15 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

A very fair point, Prussia's militarism really came to an apogee later on. The Franco-Prussian War would probably be that point. 

And yes, Die Wacht am Rhein (I have a version of that on my MP3 player, it's a damn good tune) was very much about the threat from France.

I would argue Prussia was always a militaristic state, it had to be for most of its existence as it was always a relatively small and poor state until after the Napoleonic wars. For a lot of it's history, its only major strength was it's army.H However I agree that it was far more aggressive under Bismarck and it's victories of the 1860s and 70s.

[Bort 34]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

And what were the borders of Germany / Austria at the time of the Weimar Republic / N-a-z-i period? You'll find Memel was still part of Germany, as that was East Prussia and was lost when Germany lost its eastern territories after WW2. You'll find the Meuse was part of the Duchy of Limburg, which was created in 1839. The lyrics were written in 1841. As for Adige, the Nazis had control of it but relinquished control with their defeat in 1945.

The rest of the verse, as von Fallersleben wrote it, were simply a call for all myriad states to come together for a greater state, the Germany which was ultimately founded, and to stay together when threatened. In other words, nothing remotely martial or aggressive about it at all.

And I'll also point out that the whole anthem was the anthem of Germany under the Weimar Republic, which was the very liberal precursor to the Third Reich.

Thank you for the list of facts, but I'm not sure you've answered my question there. Much like the swastika, the origin of the anthem is inconsequential relative to the way it was then used by the N*zis. The German people in the link I shared (not sure if you looked at it) referred to the full anthem being "associated with the horror of the past". I don't think they were talking about the founding of Germany or the specifics of regional river geography when saying that.

I'm struggling to understand why you seem reluctant to acknowledge that people wouldn't - and shouldn't - want to celebrate anything tainted by N*zis.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I wonder how many have died, on both sides, while the discussion about the current German National Anthem has taken place. Its something that seems to be expendable while the debate ensues. I imagine the equivalent of a full house at Carrow Road have perished needlessly already.

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

26 minutes ago, Bort said:

Thank you for the list of facts, but I'm not sure you've answered my question there. Much like the swastika, the origin of the anthem is inconsequential relative to the way it was then used by the N*zis. The German people in the link I shared (not sure if you looked at it) referred to the full anthem being "associated with the horror of the past". I don't think they were talking about the founding of Germany or the specifics of regional river geography when saying that.

I'm struggling to understand why you seem reluctant to acknowledge that people wouldn't - and shouldn't - want to celebrate anything tainted by N*zis.

It did answer the question, but I think you were hoping for a more definitive riposte, ideally from German historical records at the time such as when Adenauer was discussing this back in 1952. The point was simply this: the geographical borders stated in the lyrics went hand-in-hand as a manifestation of N-a-z-iism, the rest of the lyrics in that verse were down to the Nazis grievously misunderstanding the text.

The rest of the verse in question merely required a decent understanding of the history of the song at the time it was written. And the full anthem was already the anthem of the liberal, tolerant Weimar Republic too, so it wasn't fully linked to Nazis (who, as I said before, had the knack of misappropriating things for their own ends).

Verse two wouldn't get anywhere not because of N-a-z-iism, but because it is basically chauvinistic as all hell!

Edited May 18, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[If wed kept Howie.. 217]

the conflict will come down to the battle for control of a place called Kupiansk... and i expect the outcome within the next week.

FYI, Kupiansk is north east of Izyum, on the Donets river. If the Ukrainians can capture or gain "tactical control" (i.e. cover approaches within M777 artillery range) then they will cut off around 20,000 russian troops (around 25% of their current deployable combat power) around Izyum.

The Russians can't cope with a loss like that.. Game over, Putin hanging from a lamp post..

[Bort 34]

2 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

The point was simply this: the geographical borders stated in the lyrics went hand-in-hand as a manifestation of N-a-z-iism, the rest of the lyrics in that verse were down to the Nazis grievously misunderstanding the text.

Okay, so you agree - the primary reason the first stanza was scrapped is because of its co-opted association with N*zism, not merely geographical "inaccuracy" as you originally claimed. That's a very important distinction in my mind.

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

1 minute ago, Bort said:

Okay, so you agree - the primary reason the first stanza was scrapped is because of its co-opted association with N*zism, not merely geographical "inaccuracy" as you originally claimed. That's a very important distinction in my mind.

No, I said the geography was the only way the N-aziism was manifested in that first verse as anyone with any knowledge of German history would know that the Nazis totally misunderstood the key thrust of the remaining lyrics in that same verse, not to mention there's no getting away from the fact that the whole anthem was the anthem for the Weimar Republic before it.

Ask yourself this question: if those two lines in that first verse were rewritten, so we had a hypothetical "Von der Neisse bis zum Saarland; von den Alpen bis zum Sylt" (From the Neisse to the Saarland, from the Alps to Sylt - the Neisse is Germany's eastern border along with the Oder, the Saarland is Germany's most western state, and Sylt is a German island in the North Sea close to the border with Denmark), where would there be a hint of N-aziism in that lyric?

[horsefly 4,318]

16 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I haven't read all the posts but I am not sure anyone has used that as a justification, but more as an explanation, without approving of it. I posted something on the latter lines myself back in March:

Over the last couple of nights I watched three Eisenstein films, because they have a current relevance. In Alexander Nevsky the eponymous hero defeats the invading Teutonic Knights. It came out in 1938 and was an obvious warning about the threat of Hitler ordering just such an attack, as happened in 1941.

This stresses Russia's long-standing problem of not having natural boundaries and so being prey to invasion, particularly from the north and west, and why leaders, whether tsars or dictators, have wanted a ring of buffer states. What must seem not just to Putin but to other Russians as the increasing westernisation of Ukraine has to be seen in this light.

One can explain why the invasion fits in with a long-standing Soviet/fear without approving of it.

Nothing really to dispute in what you say here about the history of Russia's "concerns". I do, however, think you are underestimating the extent to which such historical explanations are being used as a significant justification for Putin's invasion. Putin quite obviously invoked that history in his claim that the justification for the invasion was primarily to "de-Naz*ify" Ukraine, and some contributors on this site have repeated this claim precisely to do the same. It is patently absurd to claim that the Zelensky government is riddled with Na*zis, or indeed that the general population of Ukraine is. The reason to disseminate this lie is clearly to invoke memories of operation Barbarossa, and suggest that a "Na*z dominated" Ukraine must share the same aspirations. Hence Putin's claim that his action is a form of pre-emptive self defence.  Putin knows this is a blatant lie, posters on here know this is a blatant lie, yet it remains the primary justification for the invasion. This lie is deeply ironic given that Russia is considered to harbour more neo-Na*zi groups than any other country (see link above), and Putin long ago exported his own band of neo-Na*zi mercenaries, the Wagner group, into Ukraine to fight in the Donbass region.

As for the history, Russia quite obviously once had reasons to fear that the open plains of Europe left them vulnerable to invasion (Napoleon and Hitler did a good job in confirming that worry). However, history is just history and it's influence on current thinking changes as the course of political events and world order change.  We no longer fear an invasion by Italians despite having endured around four centuries of Roman occupation. Likewise, I suggest that, post-cold war, the Russians have had no reason at all to fear invasion from any country on its western borders. Not one of those countries has demonstrated the slightest inclination to do so, nor the threat to do so. Indeed, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal to signal the very opposite. Frankly, I don't believe there is a single Russian strategist who believes that any such threat was genuinely foreseeable, or remotely plausible.

Further, talk of "buffer states" is an egregious anachronism belonging to the era of empires. In the current world order it is entirely unacceptable to conceive of independent sovereign nations as "buffer states" whose purpose is to protect the interests of more powerful nations. It is the duty of all nation states to respect the sovereignty of all other nation states, and secure safe borders through diplomacy. That requires the notion of a "buffer state" to be confined to history and regarded as an irrelevant (and immoral) concept in a post-colonial political world order.

 

Edited May 19, 2022 by horsefly

[horsefly 4,318]

Perhaps one thing we can all agree on is the need for this site to de-censor the word "Na*zi". It is a word that is crucial and unavoidable to the normal discussion of history. If someone wants to use the word as an abusive attack on another poster then ban the person using it, not the word.

Edited May 19, 2022 by horsefly

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

3 hours ago, horsefly said:

Nothing really to dispute in what you say here about the history of Russia's "concerns". I do, however, think you are underestimating the extent to which such historical explanations are being used as a significant justification for Putin's invasion. Putin quite obviously invoked that history in his claim that the justification for the invasion was primarily to "de-Naz*ify" Ukraine, and some contributors on this site have repeated this claim precisely to do the same. It is patently absurd to claim that the Zelensky government is riddled with Na*zis, or indeed that the general population of Ukraine is. The reason to disseminate this lie is clearly to invoke memories of operation Barbarossa, and suggest that a "Na*z dominated" Ukraine must share the same aspirations. Hence Putin's claim that his action is a form of pre-emptive self defence.  Putin knows this is a blatant lie, posters on here know this is a blatant lie, yet it remains the primary justification for the invasion. This lie is deeply ironic given that Russia is considered to harbour more neo-Na*zi groups than any other country (see link above), and Putin long ago exported his own band of neo-Na*zi mercenaries, the Wagner group, into Ukraine to fight in the Donbass region.

As for the history, Russia quite obviously once had reasons to fear that the open plains of Europe left them vulnerable to invasion (Napoleon and Hitler did a good job in confirming that worry). However, history is just history and it's influence on current thinking changes as the course of political events and world order change.  We no longer fear an invasion by Italians despite having endured around four centuries of Roman occupation. Likewise, I suggest that, post-cold war, the Russians have had no reason at all to fear invasion from any country on its western borders. Not one of those countries has demonstrated the slightest inclination to do so, nor the threat to do so. Indeed, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal to signal the very opposite. Frankly, I don't believe there is a single Russian strategist who believes that any such threat was genuinely foreseeable, or remotely plausible.

Further, talk of "buffer states" is an egregious anachronism belonging to the era of empires. In the current world order it is entirely unacceptable to conceive of independent sovereign nations as "buffer states" whose purpose is to protect the interests of more powerful nations. It is the duty of all nation states to respect the sovereignty of all other nation states, and secure safe borders through diplomacy. That requires the notion of a "buffer state" to be confined to history and regarded as an irrelevant (and immoral) concept in a post-colonial political world order.

 

I haven't under- or over-estimated that because I haven't estlmated it. As to buffer states, yes, there is an argument that they are no longer necessary, but that doesn't mean that Putin believes that or alternatively that even though he knows Russia doesn't now need them he has to act as if it does, because otherwise he would look like a weak tsar. And a modern-day tsar is in effect what he has to appear as.

Edited May 19, 2022 by PurpleCanary

[horsefly 4,318]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

I haven't under- or over-estimated that because I haven't estlmated it. As to buffer states, yes, there is an argument that they are no longer necessary, but that doesn't mean that Putin believes that or alternatively that even though he knows Russia doesn't now need them he has to act as if it does, because otherwise he would look like a weak tsar. And a modern-day tsar is in effect what he has to appear as.

Well, your exact words were, "I haven't read all the posts but I am not sure anyone has used that as a justification, but more as an explanation, without approving of it." That looks very much like an estimation of the extent to which the history of Russian concerns is being used as a justification for the invasion of Ukraine.

Regarding your point about buffer states. Of course Putin is using that as a justification, my point is simply that there are no grounds for doing that; militarily, politically, morally, or otherwise.

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

Agree that the notion of "buffer states" is absolutely absurd. Should be up to the political elites of the country in question to decide on what they want to do in such matters, ideally with a referendum with its populace.

[king canary 7,681]

4 hours ago, horsefly said:

Perhaps one thing we can all agree on is the need for this site to de-censor the word "Na*zi". It is a word that is crucial and unavoidable to the normal discussion of history. If someone wants to use the word as an abusive attack on another poster then ban the person using it, not the word.

FYI @Pete Raven

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Well, your exact words were, "I haven't read all the posts but I am not sure anyone has used that as a justification, but more as an explanation, without approving of it." That looks very much like an estimation of the extent to which the history of Russian concerns is being used as a justification for the invasion of Ukraine.

Regarding your point about buffer states. Of course Putin is using that as a justification, my point is simply that there are no grounds for doing that; militarily, politically, morally, or otherwise.

I said I hadn't read all the posts, so I wasn't sure and wasn't estimating a percentage. As it happens I don't remember any that used it as  'a significant justification' for the invasion, as opposed to a non-justified reason, but there may be some such. I just hadn't noticed any. I understood your point about buffer states.