• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Excellent article. The phrase "Mother Ukraine" comes to mind, not only as a counter to Mother Russia but also as a statement of Ukraine's own identity, history and destiny.
Ukraine was the birthplace of the Proto-Indo-European language, wasn't it?
Well, that area is near the area that most linguists think of as the original homeland, based on cognate geographical, flora, fauna, etc., terms that exist in most of the daughter branches. However, that was thousands of years ago and has nothing to do with modern Ukraine or Russia. Some argue that Anatolia (Turkey) is a possible alternative homeland. Lpetrich has posted a lot on the subject and may be able to direct interested people to those posts.
 
If you think of it from Putin's point-of-view, NATO is effectively surrounding him on all sides

If that is his point of view, it is severely divorced from reality. NATO only exists on Russia's Western borders, and is there largely due to Russia's proven expansionist tendencies toward the West. To the the East they have thousands of miles of coastline, they have grabbed Crimea to the south, and have the whole Berents, Kara, Laptev and East Siberian seas as well as a third or more of the Arctic Ocean pretty much to themselves. Borders with Khazakstan and Mongolia/China are longer than any Nato country's Russian border... Ports of Vladivostok and Murmansk might not be ideal for shipping to much of the world, but they also have St Pete, and now Crimea...
This "I'm surrounded" point of view is truly delusional and paranoid, if actually held, which I doubt.

NATO has never invaded and occupied any country and they're certainly not about to do it to Russia. Putin knows that. He doesn't need to "defend himself" from anyone, but desperately needs an Enemy if he is to galvanize the Russian people in favor of his agenda of dominion. So far, The West™ fills the bill.
 
Faux Noise isn't a credible source for much of anything.
Exactly the point I am making by posting that video.

Having said that, the video is from 2008 and other MSM news sources were not any better. In fact they were worse.
People who don’t have a dog in the race and know a lot more about it than you or I, disagree with your impression.
1644807329345.png
 
Faux Noise isn't a credible source for much of anything.
Exactly the point I am making by posting that video.

Having said that, the video is from 2008 and other MSM news sources were not any better. In fact they were worse.
People who don’t have a dog in the race and know a lot more about it than you or I, disagree with your impression.
View attachment 37235
Wait... CNN, Slate, and Vox are to the Left as OAN is to the Right? No, no it isn't. Nor is Fox News and OAN and Newsmax in the same category. Yahoo News is leaning left? Their news aggregator was getting heavy on right-wing BS... so umm... no.

And last I checked The Guardian is umm... from England.
 
@barbos I can disagree with most people on respectful terms. This is usually an indication that I take their opinions seriously. For instance, I respectfully disagree with Wang Yang's views on Taiwan. I nevertheless hold him generally in high esteem. Yes, I know that if his faction were to become ascendant in the CCP, they would want to court a closer relationship with Taiwan, but if I always had my way in everything, then life would become perilously uninteresting. I can have respect for somebody without always agreeing with them.

However, you are not going to take any pro-western stance seriously at all. You are like one of those pompous anti-maskers, who will tell you, in tones of resonating authority, that the science is unclear about the effectiveness of masks, when there is really no controversy about masks among actual scientists. You remind me of climate change deniers, who envision themselves as the "sober and objective" alternative to "climate alarmism," even though the consequences of climate change are starting to become a source of irritation.

How can you expect someone to have a sensible conversation with you when it is clear that you will not hear of any point-of-view that is not based on your bizarre alternate reality?
barbos' point of view is coming from two hundred plus years of Russia v Europe issues. Britain and France have been at odds with Russia for a long time. The US only joined the party a while afterwards when the Communists started slaughtering Russians. So there certainly is a viable Russian view of Western desires to restrain a stretching Russia. To be fair, Russia wasn't alone, there was issues with Prussia as well.

I think the funny part is that usually when people attack Russia directly in Russia, it never ends well for them. So some of the paranoia is silly, but that doesn't mean there hasn't been western meddling.

The other issue is that Europe was changing borders all the time. And this leads to crazy claims about who originally owned what. This tedious BS was one reason the US didn't enter WWI initially. Oh look, Europe is at war... again.

So when barbos says western meddling, it isn't without historical precedence. Of course, for 50 or so years, the West meddled with a rather messed up Communist regime that wasn't doing their own country any favors.
 
Excellent article. The phrase "Mother Ukraine" comes to mind, not only as a counter to Mother Russia but also as a statement of Ukraine's own identity, history and destiny.
Ukraine was the birthplace of the Proto-Indo-European language, wasn't it?
More or less. The  Proto-Indo-European homeland was likely the territory of the  Yamnaya culture of 5000 years ago, in a long thick strip running roughly Moldova - Ukraine - southern European Russia - western Kazakhstan - southern Ural Mountains. It was bordered to the south by the Black Sea, the Caucasus Mountains, and the Caspian Sea.

The PIE speakers were likely the first people to have domestic horses and wheeled vehicles, and they were the first of the nomads that would overrun settled people every now and then until recent centuries.

Their homeland was part of the  Eurasian Steppe - a long strip of grassland that extends from Hungary to Manchuria (NE China).

North of it is mostly flatland, except for the Ural Mountains. This flatland includes the  North European Plain of Belgium - Holland - N Germany - Poland.

Among their offshoots was the  Corded Ware culture of northern Europe, which stretched from Belgium to Moscow. I read somewhere (one of JP Mallory's books?) that this was the most culturally unified Northern Europe has been, more culturally unified than at any time before -- or since.


Advancing forward in time to around 2000 BCE, we find the people of the  Sintashta culture of the Asian side of the southern Urals. They invented the chariot, a stripped-down two-wheeled horse-drawn vehicle designed for speed. These people then spread southward into India and Iran, and westward into the ancestral IE homeland, becoming the Scythians and Sarmatians there.

The Scythians were difficult to conquer, because they could easily retreat from some would-be conquerors -- and return when those conquerors decided to quit.

Around 1000 - 500 BCE, Greek colonists spread all over the Mediterranean and Black Seas, but never went very far inland. Odessa got its name centuries later because someone thought that it was at the location of a Greek colony named Odessos. It was more likely at what's now Varna, Bulgaria.

Around 500 BCE, Celtic people spread out from central Europe, overrunning much of it, and making much of Western Europe Celtic. But they were not as successful in Eastern Europe, though Galicia in southern Poland got its name from them, as did the Galatians in the New Testament.

A few centuries later, Germanic people started spreading out from their homeland in N Germany - Denmark - S Sweden, and around 300 - 500 CE, they spread over much of Europe, deposing the last Western Roman Emperor. In some places, they stuck, and that's why English is a Germanic language and not a Celtic or pre-Celtic one. Also why Germany extends as far south as it does and why Austria is German and part of Switzerland is also. These Germanic invaders got assimilated into western and southwestern Europe, but not before leaving such evidence as their words for "north", "east", "south", and "west". They also reached the Black Sea and even settled in the Crimea:  Crimean Goths We have evidence of them in a word list collected by Flemish ambassador Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq in the late 16th century.

Over the centuries, they also went eastward, into what's now eastern Germany, western Poland, and northeastern Poland / the Kaliningrad District of Russia. That latter territory was East Prussia, and it was German since the late Middle Ages, with its capital city originally being called Königsberg. Adolf Hitler wanted to go further, to turn Poland and the Baltic States and the eastern Slavic lands into Lebensraum for the German people: habitat / living space for them. But his attempt to build a Greater Germany was crushed. The easternmost parts of Germany were annexed by Poland and the Soviet Union and their ethnic Germans driven out. The ethnic Germans of Czechoslovakia were also driven out, those ethnic Germans that Neville Chamberlain infamously appeared Hitler about. The remaining parts of Germany were split in two by that nation's conquerors.

Backing up, Huns from central Asia invaded Europe at about 400 CE, noted for their leader Attila. But they ended up assimilated.

Then over 500 - 1000 CE, Slavic people started spreading out of their homeland in SW Belarus, W Ukraine, and SE Poland. They went in all directions, and their languages have three main groupings, West (Polish, Czech, Slovak), South (Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian), and East (Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian).

Also over that time, Turkic people started spreading out from their homeland, likely just west of Mongolia. As with the previous waves of nomads, some of them become dominant, some assimilated. Turkic people became dominant in places like Turkey and Kazakhstan, but assimilated elsewhere. Around 1000 CE, there was a Turkic people called the Pechenegs that live in what's now southern Ukraine.

Some more invaders were some people from the southern Ural Mountains who settled down in Hungary around 900 - 1000 CE. Their language is a Uralic one, related to languages of people living near the Ural Mountains.

Around 1200 CE, Temüjin of Mongolia organized a coalition and he started conquering territory around him, and he became known as Genghis Khan, "Universal Ruler". His successors continued their conquests, making the Mongol Empire one of the largest in history, comparable to the Russian Empire and only behind the British Empire:  List of largest empires The Mongols would murder entire populations of cities which did not submit to them, and some estimates of their death toll are as high as 11% of humanity's total population back then.  Destruction under the Mongol Empire

At its height, the Mongol Empire covered European Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, the Caucasus, Iran, Pakistan, Tibet, China, Korea, Siberia, and the central Asian stans. The Mongols tried to invade Japan in 1274 and 1281, but despite having 100,000 soldiers, Japanese ones held them off at a beach, and a typhoon (hurricane) came by and smashed up the fleet. The Japanese called that hurricane "kamikaze" - "divine wind". The suicide attackers at the end of WWII got that name out of their hoped-for effect: another last-minute miracle.

But the Mongols were the last of the conquering nomads.

So it's a long way, from Proto-Indo-European speakers to Mongols.
 
I think the funny part is that usually when people attack Russia directly in Russia, it never ends well for them
That's why West is not doing it anymore, plus nukes of course make direct war impossible. Strategy is to surround Russia with smaller and loud puppet states which harass Russia into regime change and hopefully split into a number of smaller states.

So some of the paranoia is silly, but that doesn't mean there hasn't been western meddling.
It's not silly, because even though historically direct invasion of Russia were giant failures on the part of the invaders, these invasions never stopped and they were/are costing russians. French/British did not try to conquer Russia when they invaded Crimea. They only tried to weaken Russia.
 
Last edited:
Strategy is to surround Russia with smaller and loud puppet states which harass Russia into regime change and hopefully split into number of smaller states.
How has Ukraine harrassed Russia?
The usual - banning russian language, calling Russia agressor, raping history, calling for sanctions, going after 12 year old girls, in other words creating a picture of Bad Russia.
Same shit Baltic states are paid to do.
 
Last edited:
Strategy is to surround Russia with smaller and loud puppet states which harass Russia into regime change and hopefully split into number of smaller states.
How has Ukraine harrassed Russia?
The usual - banning russian language, calling Russia agressor, raping history, calling for sanctions, going after 12 year old girls, in other words creating a picture of Bad Russia.
Same shit Baltic states are paid to do.
Excuse me, but Russia is the aggressor! Tomorrow they are going to launch an attack that will kill thousands of civilians. And why, because they fear that Ukraine will join Nato in the future. Bye bye nord stream 2.

 
Excuse me, but Russia is the aggressor!
No, it has not happened yet, hence you can't call Russia aggressor.
But occupation of Ukraine by NATO and US specifically has happened already.

But yeah, US finally convinced Zelensky to play his part better.
To me, everything works great for Putin. Absolutely no need to invade Ukraine.
 
Excuse me, but Russia is the aggressor!
No, it has not happened yet, hence you can't call Russia aggressor.
But occupation of Ukraine by NATO and US specifically has happened already.

But yeah, US finally convinced Zelensky to play his part better.
So you are privy to conversations between Zelensky and Biden?
 
Back
Top Bottom