Striving to make sense of the Ukraine war

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

57 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

Turkey was always going to agree, if Sweden and Finland agreed to what he wanted.

Sweden and Finland have agreed to full cooperation with Turkey in the fight against the Kurdistan Workers' Party and the lifting of the embargo on the supply of Turkish defence industry products. 

The Nordic states also confirmed that the PKK is "a proscribed terrorist organisation".

 

I wonder whether it will amount to anything as far as Finland and Sweden actually acting on it is concerned. Erdogan has a symbolic victory prior to the elections, they get into NATO, the memorandum goes by the wayside much the Budapest memorandum...

Edited June 28, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,303]

8 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

I hope that you supported Thatcher re-taking of the Falkand Islands given the statements you make here.

Kind of you to ask. Just like Michael Foot I certainly did support the retaking of the Falkland Islands, because I was appalled by the illegal invasion. Shame that Thatcher's government were so incompetent that they failed to take note of and respond to the many warning signals they received about Galtieri's intentions. Then again I suppose it was lucky for Thatcher that the Argentines invaded before her planned cuts in the Navy would have made a military response near impossible (https://en.mercopress.com/2011/12/31/thatcher-was-warned-about-risks-of-navy-cuts-a-year-before-the-falklands-conflict).

Edited June 29, 2022 by horsefly

[PurpleCanary 5,563]

On 24/06/2022 at 13:00, horsefly said:

You think that amounts to accurate military analysis do you? I suggest you have a look at the work of actual military strategists who know what they are talking about (people like prof. Michael Clarke).

Btw, NATO is an acronym, it's not "Nato".

No. That is wrong-headed. An acronym is a set of initials that can be said as a word, such as Nato or Unesco, or Fifa, so it is perfectly proper to spell it out upper and lower, as one would with a word. Different papers have different styles. For example, the Mail uses NATO while style with The Guardian and the Financial Times is Nato. And Unesco is I think generally more common than UNESCO.

Edited June 29, 2022 by PurpleCanary

[horsefly 4,303]

3 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

No. That is wrong-headed. An acronym is a set of initials that can be said as a word, such as Nato or Unesco, or Fifa, so it is perfectly proper tor to spell it out upper and lower, as one would with a word. Different papers have different styles. For example, the Mail uses NATO while The Guardian and the Financial Times style is Nato. And Unesco is I think generally more common than UNESCO.

Far from wrong headed, given that some linguistic authorities still consider it proper to use capitals for acronyms, and NATO itself refers to itself as "NATO" on its documentation (not "Nato"). Seems at the very least linguistically impolite not to use the convention the organisation itself follows. However, I am happy to concede that some acronyms have become "normalised" as words in themselves. Personally I can understand why it makes sense for "LASER" to have become "laser" when the latter refers to an object; however, if you wish to refer to the process rather than an object you should use LASER for clarity. I also happen to believe that the use of NATO has greater clarity than "Nato" in that it draws attention to the fact that it represents the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Interestingly the computer spell-checker considers "Nato" to be an error. But as I said, I'm happy to concede that linguistic conventions change through time, even if it often results in linguistic barbarism. 

[PurpleCanary 5,563]

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

Far from wrong headed, given that some linguistic authorities still consider it proper to use capitals for acronyms, and NATO itself refers to itself as "NATO" on its documentation (not "Nato"). Seems at the very least linguistically impolite not to use the convention the organisation itself follows. However, I am happy to concede that some acronyms have become "normalised" as words in themselves. Personally I can understand why it makes sense for "LASER" to have become "laser" when the latter refers to an object; however, if you wish to refer to the process rather than an object you should use LASER for clarity. I also happen to believe that the use of NATO has greater clarity than "Nato" in that it draws attention to the fact that it represents the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Interestingly the computer spell-checker considers "Nato" to be an error. But as I said, I'm happy to concede that linguistic conventions change through time, even if it often results in linguistic barbarism. 

That is a splurge of misdirection. What you said was, and what I was saying was wrong-headed, was this:

 NATO is an acronym, it's not "Nato".

That is wrong-headed because it can only mean you are think acronyms cannot be said as words whereas sets of initials can be. Which of course they cannot. You have to be making there a comparison with sets of initials, otherwise it is a nonsense sentence.

If you had posted "I know acronyms, being sort of words, can be written upper and lower, but I think that is linguistic barbarism" that would have made sense. But saying because NATO is an acronym it cannot be upper and lower doesn't make sense.

The point about an acronym, such as Nato or Aslef, is that it is always said as and so is always said as a word. No-one ever spells out NATO as N.A.T.O. in the way they spell a set of initials, such as G.C.H.Q. which cannot be said as a word.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

6 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

That is a splurge of misdirection. What you said was, and what I was saying was wrong-headed, was this:

 NATO is an acronym, it's not "Nato".

That is wrong-headed because it can only mean you are think acronyms cannot be said as words whereas sets of initials can be. Which of course they cannot. You have to be making there a comparison with sets of initials, otherwise it is a nonsense sentence.

If you had posted "I know acronyms, being sort of words, can be written upper and lower, but I think that is linguistic barbarism" that would have made sense. But saying because NATO is an acronym it cannot be upper and lower doesn't make sense.

The point about an acronym, such as Nato or Aslef, is that it is always said as and so is always said as a word. No-one ever spells out NATO as N.A.T.O. in the way they spell a set of initials, such as G.C.H.Q. which cannot be said as a word.

By definition, an acronym is made up of the first letters of constituent words and pronounced as a word. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation), IFOR (Implementation Force), AUKUS (Australia UK US), and COBRA (Cabinet Office Briefing Room Annex) are all acronyms. In contrast, UK and US are initials, but not pronounced as a word, hence they're not acronyms.

COBRA is a great example of why you always capitalise acronyms, because that one could be confused (they attended the Cobra meeting).

Only example I can see of any journalists using Nato instead of NATO was in the Guardian, which might just be some weird subversive Guardian anti-war protest thing, knowing them.

[horsefly 4,303]

7 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

That is a splurge of misdirection. What you said was, and what I was saying was wrong-headed, was this:

 NATO is an acronym, it's not "Nato".

That is wrong-headed because it can only mean you are think acronyms cannot be said as words whereas sets of initials can be. Which of course they cannot. You have to be making there a comparison with sets of initials, otherwise it is a nonsense sentence.

If you had posted "I know acronyms, being sort of words, can be written upper and lower, but I think that is linguistic barbarism" that would have made sense. But saying because NATO is an acronym it cannot be upper and lower doesn't make sense.

The point about an acronym, such as Nato or Aslef, is that it is always said as and so is always said as a word. No-one ever spells out NATO as N.A.T.O. in the way they spell a set of initials, such as G.C.H.Q. which cannot be said as a word.

Not sure what a "splurge of misdirection" is supposed to mean. However,  since you are being so helpful can I help you in turn by pointing out "...you are think.." doesn't make any sense. I did, of course, respond to your original comment and acknowledged that acronyms can be said as words. You have simply ignored my further explanation regarding why I felt the use of upper case letters in the case of "NATO" is preferable to "Nato". "NATO" draws attention to the fact that the letters stand for individual words (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) in a way that "Nato" doesn't (Similarly "LASER" makes it clear that one is referring to Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, and not a device that actually is a laser). I certainly agree that my original statement "NATO is an acronym, it's not Nato" was somewhat terse and petulant and thus taken literally it is misleading. However, your follow up to my explanation, "But saying because NATO is an acronym it cannot be upper and lower doesn't make sense", simply ignores what I said in the clarification of my objection. Where do I say "...an acronym ... can not be upper and lower case" in my response?

BTW your claim "That is wrong-headed because it can only mean you are think acronyms cannot be said as words whereas sets of initials can be. Which of course they cannot. You have to be making there a comparison with sets of initials, otherwise it is a nonsense sentence." Is itself simply nonsense. Quite obviously no such implication about "sets of initials" follows at all from my original (admittedly misguided) statement.

I'll stick to using "NATO" as the organisation itself does. In the meantime perhaps there are more important issues to discuss regarding Russia's invasion of Ukrainian territory.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by horsefly

[Indy 3,301]

 

9 hours ago, horsefly said:

Not sure what a "splurge of misdirection" is supposed to mean. However,  since you are being so helpful can I help you in turn by pointing out "...you are think.." doesn't make any sense. I did, of course, respond to your original comment and acknowledged that acronyms can be said as words. You have simply ignored my further explanation regarding why I felt the use of upper case letters in the case of "NATO" is preferable to "Nato". "NATO" draws attention to the fact that the letters stand for individual words (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) in a way that "Nato" doesn't (Similarly "LASER" makes it clear that one is referring to Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, and not a device that actually is a laser). I certainly agree that my original statement "NATO is an acronym, it's not Nato" was somewhat terse and petulant and thus taken literally it is misleading. However, your follow up to my explanation, "But saying because NATO is an acronym it cannot be upper and lower doesn't make sense", simply ignores what I said in the clarification of my objection. Where do I say "...an acronym ... can not be upper and lower case" in my response?

BTW your claim "That is wrong-headed because it can only mean you are think acronyms cannot be said as words whereas sets of initials can be. Which of course they cannot. You have to be making there a comparison with sets of initials, otherwise it is a nonsense sentence." Is itself simply nonsense. Quite obviously no such implication about "sets of initials" follows at all from my original (admittedly misguided) statement.

I'll stick to using "NATO" as the organisation itself does. In the meantime perhaps there are more important issues to discuss regarding Russia's invasion of Ukrainian territory.

 

 

Funny thing yet OK, is acceptable to write in lower case as ok, as in reality it comes from oll korrect and should be in upper case, as you point out!

Edited June 30, 2022 by Indy

[horsefly 4,303]

3 hours ago, Indy said:

 

Funny thing yet OK, is acceptable to write in lower case as ok, as in reality it comes from oll korrect and should be in upper case, as you point out!

Indeed! The conventions of language usage are a melange of principles, rules, established practice, and modern deviations (often an unhappy melange it has to be said). Purple was correct to pick me up for my original petulant ejaculation (as I admitted), but failed to understand my later explanation regarding why it was incorrect to describe the motivation behind it as "wrongheaded". Abbreviations such as GCHQ and NATO derive their entire semantical function from the fact that each individual letter stands for another complete word. The only difference between them is that NATO is pronounceable as the word "Nato" and GCHQ isn't pronounceable in that form. Note that this difference between them does not alter in the slightest the identical semantical function they share (As countless linguists and philosophers have pointed out, signs (words) in themselves convey no intrinsic meaning). Thus my simple point remains that "NATO" is preferable to "Nato" in that the former makes clear that each letter of that construction represents another complete word, whereas "Nato" doesn't (LYB makes the  point even clearer above with the example of "COBRA" and "Cobra"). That's all!

Edited June 30, 2022 by horsefly

[1902 1,167]

13 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

By definition, an acronym is made up of the first letters of constituent words and pronounced as a word. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation), IFOR (Implementation Force), AUKUS (Australia UK US), and COBRA (Cabinet Office Briefing Room Annex) are all acronyms. In contrast, UK and US are initials, but not pronounced as a word, hence they're not acronyms.

COBRA is a great example of why you always capitalise acronyms, because that one could be confused (they attended the Cobra meeting).

Only example I can see of any journalists using Nato instead of NATO was in the Guardian, which might just be some weird subversive Guardian anti-war protest thing, knowing them.

To be honest, if you read the Guardian in the last few weeks it's been pretty hawkish on Russia.

The exception being Simon Jenkins, who is frankly a moron anyway (if he says something is right and Polly Toynbee says the opposite ... Then there must be a third option I hadn't considered given how useless they are).

 

[kirku 1,334]

Russia have withdrawn from Snake Island - a small but strategically important island near the major port of Odesa

Russian MoD explanation: this is a goodwill gesture 

Reality: NATO supplied arms (likely French Caesar artillery or US HIMARS) have made the island completely untenable for the Russian fascists 

[horsefly 4,303]

9 minutes ago, kirku said:

Russia have withdrawn from Snake Island - a small but strategically important island near the major port of Odesa

Russian MoD explanation: this is a goodwill gesture 

Reality: NATO supplied arms (likely French Caesar artillery or US HIMARS) have made the island completely untenable for the Russian fascists 

Exactly! If they truly intend to facilitate the export of grain from the Ukrainian ports at Odessa we can presumably expect an imminent declaration that they will under no circumstances attack or hinder any vessel engaged in that process. Not sure why that statement has been delayed.

[kirku 1,334]

40 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Exactly! If they truly intend to facilitate the export of grain from the Ukrainian ports at Odessa we can presumably expect an imminent declaration that they will under no circumstances attack or hinder any vessel engaged in that process. Not sure why that statement has been delayed.

Russian promises or declarations aren't worth the paper they're printed on. 

My hope is that Harpoon (and any other anti-naval missiles) that Ukraine has recently been supplied with is enough for them to consider removing the mines and get the exports going.

It's in everyone's best interests (except for Russia)

[kirku 1,334]

 

Not following F1, I'd never quite realised the extent of Bernie Ecclestone's sheer ****ery

Edited June 30, 2022 by kirku

[horsefly 4,303]

36 minutes ago, kirku said:

 

Not following F1, I'd never quite realised the extent of Bernie Ecclestone's sheer ****ery

Perhaps he should use that gun he attempted to smuggle into Brazil (for which he was arrested), and shortcut the need to "take a bullet".

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

6 hours ago, kirku said:

 

Not following F1, I'd never quite realised the extent of Bernie Ecclestone's sheer ****ery

Who thinks what this muppet thinks is important anyway?

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 25/06/2022 at 11:49, kirku said:

With all due respect, if your aim here was to join the thread to provide the most infantile analysis of the situation and then act as if it was some kind of profoundly significant insight that the rest of us ingrates hadn't yet grasped, then you succeeded.

It's like the Ladybird My First Book On Russian Fascism

If China would give 1 billion pounds to help build a Cuban or Mexican military base to strengthen their border and or curtail the flow of cocaine into the lucrative US market then your Ladybird special edition on fascism in America, as it has been promoted by the US in Ukraine for decades, will soon see what the reaction of fascists can achieve.

[1902 1,167]

2 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

If China would give 1 billion pounds to help build a Cuban or Mexican military base to strengthen their border and or curtail the flow of cocaine into the lucrative US market then your Ladybird special edition on fascism in America, as it has been promoted by the US in Ukraine for decades, will soon see what the reaction of fascists can achieve.

Well that makes it ok then. Anyway, off you trot Craig. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

3 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

If China would give 1 billion pounds to help build a Cuban or Mexican military base to strengthen their border and or curtail the flow of cocaine into the lucrative US market then your Ladybird special edition on fascism in America, as it has been promoted by the US in Ukraine for decades, will soon see what the reaction of fascists can achieve.

I've just got back from a customer, where his 67-year-old Russian-speaking Ukrainian electrician turned refugee kindly helped me running some cables. His daughter is still in Ukraine because she won't leave her husband fighting for Ukraine in Ukraine. How do you sleep at night being a supporter of this crap?

Edited July 2, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[kirku 1,334]

4 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

If China would give 1 billion pounds to help build a Cuban or Mexican military base to strengthen their border and or curtail the flow of cocaine into the lucrative US market then your Ladybird special edition on fascism in America, as it has been promoted by the US in Ukraine for decades, will soon see what the reaction of fascists can achieve.

With all due disrespect, you're a vatnik ****, Craig 

[horsefly 4,303]

4 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

If China would give 1 billion pounds to help build a Cuban or Mexican military base to strengthen their border and or curtail the flow of cocaine into the lucrative US market then your Ladybird special edition on fascism in America, as it has been promoted by the US in Ukraine for decades, will soon see what the reaction of fascists can achieve.

The Chinese can save their money. The US have already given Mexico well over a billion to fight the drugs trade

 https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/dec/08/mexico-war-on-drugs-cost-achievements-us-billions

[1902 1,167]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I've just got back from a customer, where his 67-year-old Russian-speaking Ukrainian electrician turned refugee kindly helped me running some cables. His daughter is still in Ukraine because she won't leave her husband fighting for Ukraine in Ukraine. How do you sleep at night being a supporter of this crap?

Because America does bad things, and somehow that's justification for everything. 

[PurpleCanary 5,563]

On 29/06/2022 at 23:18, horsefly said:

 

 

In the meantime perhaps there are more important issues to discuss regarding Russia's invasion of Ukrainian territory.

 

 

I think that is true, not least since I wasn’t actually the poster who introduced the question of the precise spelling of acronyms into a discussion on the Russia/Ukraine war. But I was the one who took up the subject. I confess I had an ulterior motive, in that I thought it might tease out the answer to a question of identity that has exercised some posters, although not particularly me, over the last several months. It may or it may not have done, but altogether best to move on from that and concentrate on the latest war on a continent that has seen far too many.

.

[horsefly 4,303]

10 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I think that is true, not least since I wasn’t actually the poster who introduced the question of the precise spelling of acronyms into a discussion on the Russia/Ukraine war. But I was the one who took up the subject. I confess I had an ulterior motive, in that I thought it might tease out the answer to a question of identity that has exercised some posters, although not particularly me, over the last several months. It may or it may not have done, but altogether best to move on from that and concentrate on the latest war on a continent that has seen far too many.

.

Really? If you're more interested in repeating the utter boring tripe that I am Billy rather than discussing the issues relating to this terrible war then that's a bit sad of you don't you think? But if you and others are so obsessed, I state again that I give full permission for anyone who wishes to contact the moderator(s) and ask them to confirm that I am not Billy. The moderator in turn has my full permission to confirm that I am not Billy (although obviously not reveal my real name). I liked Billy's posts, shared most of his views, wish he was still posting, but I don't have the slightest clue who he is. I only post under the name Horsefly. Now can we get on with discussing the actual issues?

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

4 hours ago, horsefly said:

Really? If you're more interested in repeating the utter boring tripe that I am Billy rather than discussing the issues relating to this terrible war then that's a bit sad of you don't you think? But if you and others are so obsessed, I state again that I give full permission for anyone who wishes to contact the moderator(s) and ask them to confirm that I am not Billy. The moderator in turn has my full permission to confirm that I am not Billy (although obviously not reveal my real name). I liked Billy's posts, shared most of his views, wish he was still posting, but I don't have the slightest clue who he is. I only post under the name Horsefly. Now can we get on with discussing the actual issues?

you can be Billy anytime you call me Craig, how does that sound. This silly game of badmouthing somebody, because one does not like her/his writing or is desperate to find out who the contributor is childish.

I could not care less.

Maybe now that Russia is in control over billions of our national expenditure, with many thousands of Ukrainians dead by choice of Zelenski , as well as Luchansk region, might it be a good idea to stop fueling this war and start talking of a cease fire and a long term European security agreement that includes all European countries including Russia.

America has had a 70 year old desire and concrete plans to use NATO as its vehicle to start a war, here in Europe, not on its own soil, convenient to arm others, ignore 8 years of violence in the two eastern regions who wanted some autonomy, violence from the right sector fascists, who signed Minsk 1 and 2 knowing full well that they had no intentions to carry it out.

They knew that Russia would gather forces to oppose the 130.000 Ukrainian soldiers fighting in the east, beefed up by 15.000 of all sorts, mercenaries and foreign special forces training new recruits and the use of billions of arms from collaborating countries.

After last weeks NATO summit welcoming Sweden and Finland's most rapid inclusion into the US attack club which should have been abandoned after the Warsaw pact was broken up, its official that this country will take part in any future war and that nobody within this club of warmongers wants a peaceful negotiated solution. Instead they will cause millions of death, destruction, long term environmental degradation and bad blood for decades to come, what a legacy to leave our children.

 

“When the first four of the seven seals have been Broken, four riders shall be summoned—Conquest, War, famine, and death. With them, these riders shall bring the apocalypse.”

 

[1902 1,167]

2 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

you can be Billy anytime you call me Craig, how does that sound. This silly game of badmouthing somebody, because one does not like her/his writing or is desperate to find out who the contributor is childish.

I could not care less.

Maybe now that Russia is in control over billions of our national expenditure, with many thousands of Ukrainians dead by choice of Zelenski , as well as Luchansk region, might it be a good idea to stop fueling this war and start talking of a cease fire and a long term European security agreement that includes all European countries including Russia.

America has had a 70 year old desire and concrete plans to use NATO as its vehicle to start a war, here in Europe, not on its own soil, convenient to arm others, ignore 8 years of violence in the two eastern regions who wanted some autonomy, violence from the right sector fascists, who signed Minsk 1 and 2 knowing full well that they had no intentions to carry it out.

They knew that Russia would gather forces to oppose the 130.000 Ukrainian soldiers fighting in the east, beefed up by 15.000 of all sorts, mercenaries and foreign special forces training new recruits and the use of billions of arms from collaborating countries.

After last weeks NATO summit welcoming Sweden and Finland's most rapid inclusion into the US attack club which should have been abandoned after the Warsaw pact was broken up, its official that this country will take part in any future war and that nobody within this club of warmongers wants a peaceful negotiated solution. Instead they will cause millions of death, destruction, long term environmental degradation and bad blood for decades to come, what a legacy to leave our children.

 

“When the first four of the seven seals have been Broken, four riders shall be summoned—Conquest, War, famine, and death. With them, these riders shall bring the apocalypse.”

 

Maybe we should stop feeding this troll @horsefly?

[horsefly 4,303]

1 hour ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Maybe now that Russia is in control over billions of our national expenditure, with many thousands of Ukrainians dead by choice of Zelenski

You win the award for stupidest comment of the day. Think you had best take a look at the news and see who is killing Innocent Ukrainians. FFS do you have no shame?

2 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

America has had a 70 year old desire and concrete plans to use NATO as its vehicle to start a war, here in Europe, not on its own soil, convenient to arm others, ignore 8 years of violence in the two eastern regions who wanted some autonomy, violence from the right sector fascists, who signed Minsk 1 and 2 knowing full well that they had no intentions to carry it out.

More Putin propaganda bollox bearing no relation to reality.

2 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

They knew that Russia would gather forces to oppose the 130.000 Ukrainian soldiers fighting in the east,

So that explains all those Russian soldiers invading from the north does it? Christ you really have sucked up Putin's shi*te haven't you!

 

2 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

After last weeks NATO summit welcoming Sweden and Finland's most rapid inclusion into the US attack club which should have been abandoned after the Warsaw pact was broken up, its official that this country will take part in any future war and that nobody within this club of warmongers wants a peaceful negotiated solution. Instead they will cause millions of death, destruction, long term environmental degradation and bad blood for decades to come, what a legacy to leave our children.

Sweden and Finland had not the slightest intention to join NATO until the moron you love so much invaded another sovereign territory. Finland in particular have good reason to fear Russia when it is lead by an empire building lunatic. Interesting that a number of those ex-Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO precisely because they never again wanted to be invaded and coerced into a pact with a Russian aggressor. There is one very easy option to prevent an escalation into a bigger war; the Russians just need to cease their murderous and criminal invasion of a democratic sovereign country. Now, best you get on the phone to Craig to see if he can come up with something better than that pile of tripe. On second thought's that probably was straight from Craig's website, so best get straight on the line to RT.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

How does Russian agitation in the Donbas differ from the Nazis doing the same thing in the Sudetenland?

[horsefly 4,303]

Just now, 1902 said:

Maybe we should stop feeding this troll @horsefly?

You're probably right. He clearly has no wish to engage with reality, and frankly some of his comments are genuinely disgusting and shameful when innocent Ukrainian people are being raped, robbed, tortured and slaughtered.

[Baracouda 47]

26 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

How does Russian agitation in the Donbas differ from the Nazis doing the same thing in the Sudetenland?

Whilst there is clear propaganda from all sources for the current conflict. Everyone is focussing on their own talking points and we will have a much clearer picture in 10-20 years when documents start getting declassified on what really happened and what is being said behind closed doors. Very similar to how the narrative in Iraq with WMDs has changed in the last 20 years.  If anyone thinks the western media or governments are telling the whole truth, how the Western leaders are championing how much they are doing/supplying to Ukraine, when in reality most of these are empty pledges without any real substance or to be delivered in 9 months. 

Hindsight is 20-20, which is why historical dilettantes of various stripes have numerous opinions as to when World War II “really” began—Others say that the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, finalized in 1919, assured that an aggrieved Germany would inevitably resume the “War to End All Wars.” Some say the first act of World War II was Japan’s 1931 invasion of Manchuria in blatant defiance of the League of Nations, while similar claims are made of Italy’s 1935 invasion of Ethiopia. Some might cite 1936 for Adolf Hitler’s risky but successful occupation of the Rhineland combined with the Spanish Civil War, while others might bring up Japan’s 1937 invasion of China. 

So in answer to your question, the clear difference with Sudetenland was that the 'West' gave it to Germany, without even consulting the Czech's. But other than that, it is quite clear it  is one of many flash points going on in the world similarly to the 1930s, with many threats and counter threats being made. 

We have the US threatening china if it builds a base in the Soloman Islands, this would be a clear threat and crossing red lines and would lead to war.  (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/usa-threats-china-solomon-islands-military-b2065742.html). Americans response to Soloman Islands, is very similar to the Russia's with regard to Ukraine prior to military action. “We have respect for the Solomon Islands’ sovereignty. But we also wanted to let them know that if steps were taken to establish a de facto permanent military presence... then we would have significant concerns, and we would very naturally respond to those concerns.”

At the same time, we have China continuing to threaten the US over Taiwan and their involvement in the breakaway region. Japan/US replying that if China invades Taiwan it will go to war. China replying that Taiwan is a part of china etc... 

We have the nuclear deals with Iran, and subsequently the issues this is having with America and the rest of the middle east. Its clear threats to the Saudis.

At the same time, Iran is now joining BRICS along with Argentina, both Russia and China are pushing this to a rival to the Western economic system. Talks of creating a BRICS reserve currency in direct challenge to the dollar.