Settle Crimea with a Referendum

[Jayjay]

So anyone who bothered to read the article and willing to discuss its content?

Are you?

Zorq made a pertinent comment that related to the content of the article. You didn't respond in any way. So now it's your turn, what part of the article do you think he misunderstood or what is it that you want us to comment on? Just because not everyone agrees with you (or the author of the article), doesn't mean it's not valid conversation.

Basically, the article suggests that the west should find an excuse to normalize relations and he suggests that an internationally observed referendum would be that excuse. I think it's bullshit. Then sanctions should remain as long as Russia is in Donbass, period. Like zorq said, a solution that let's Russia off the hook while it's actively in the process of doing the same thing in eastern Ukraine just incentivizes Russia to continue to push for more. On the other hand, if there is a solution, it doesn't require a fake face-saving referendum because the opinion of majority of Crimeans is pretty obvious and the handover could easily be justified even without it.

I agree with the author that NATO could give guarantees that Georgia and Ukraine won't become members, in exchange for Russia to get out of Donbass. Russia could have Crimea (or at least not be sanctioned for it) to sweeten the deal but unlike what the author says, Donbass is not just an Ukrainian problem.

 

[barbos]

So anyone who bothered to read the article and willing to discuss its content?

Are you?

I am doing just that,

Zorq made a pertinent comment that related to the content of the article.

He absolutely did not.

You didn't respond in any way.

Well, I did, I called his comment BS which is the only correct response.

So now it's your turn, what part of the article do you think he misunderstood or what is it that you want us to comment on? Just because not everyone agrees with you (or the author of the article), doesn't mean it's not valid conversation.

Basically, the article suggests that the west should find an excuse to normalize relations

No, it does not basically suggests that. It actually provides what you call "excuse" And it's a very good face saving excuse for US/EU/NATO. We all know that Crimea is not going back to Ukraine. Not because Putin is such a tyrant but because they simply don't want to be part of Ukraine.

and he suggests that an internationally observed referendum would be that excuse. I think it's bullshit.

Why?

Then sanctions should remain as long as Russia is in Donbass, period.

Well, OK. And Russia will "stay" in Donbass as long as NATO keeps moving into former soviet Republics, period!
Fun fact: The russian memo explaining this was sent to US in the spring of 2008 (10 years ago)
US must have missed that memo.
In any case, Eastern Ukraine is less and less likely to go back to Ukraine. Not with ukrainain military blowing up their eastern Ukraine government heads. Kiev is insane if they think terrorism will help them.

Like zorq said, a solution that let's Russia off the hook while it's actively in the process of doing the same thing in eastern Ukraine just incentivizes Russia to continue to push for more.

Complete and utter bullshit with which both Kissinger and author disagrees. And you know you have a problem when such a big "lover" of USSR disagrees with you.

On the other hand, if there is a solution, it doesn't require a fake face-saving referendum because the opinion of majority of Crimeans is pretty obvious and the handover could easily be justified even without it.

What are you talking about?

I agree with the author that NATO could give guarantees that Georgia and Ukraine won't become members, in exchange for Russia to get out of Donbass. Russia could have Crimea (or at least not be sanctioned for it) to sweeten the deal but unlike what the author says, Donbass is not just an Ukrainian problem.

So basically you disagree with earlier yourself
And what's up with this "Russia could have Crimea"? You can't force yourself to admit that Crimea was never a part of Ukraine and should really be part of Russia in the first place as author did? Come on, you can do it.

Bottom line, you accept that NATO has been wrong.

 

[Horatio Parker]

We don't need Russia. Russia needs us. And if they want us, they'll have to do much better.

If eastern Europe desired to remain in the Russian orbit, they would. They don't.

I don't know who pays Kissinger, but I doubt he works for free.

 

[laughing dog]

Here is the problem I have with normalizing relations with Russia after they stole a chunk of Ukraine: Where does it end?

You did not read the article. So go read it it first, then get back and discuss the article.

I did read the article. The article thinks the west should normalize relations with Russia and ignore the sin of Crimea. My response was pertinent.
Your assumption that I did not read the article seems to be a deflection.
The article proposes some ways for the West to justify forgiving Russia for their sin but it still boils down to forgiving Russia.

Yes, the article is about reaching some understanding with Russia in order to get their co-operation in helping the US with other issues by basically forgetting about the invasion of Crimea. It is an example of realpolitik.

I find it understandable why people do not agree with the thrust of the article, because realpolitik is not universally accepted as a model for international relations. I think the author is foolish in believing that essentially sanctioning the invasion of Crimea will induce Russia to co-operate with us. It appears Putin embraces realpolitik and will only help if and when it furthers his interests. If that is true, there is no need to sanction the invasion.

I also find it understandable why russians would think this article is correct because it satisfies their country's longstanding cravings for recognition as a legitimate international power. And it is quite understandable that they would dismiss any rational criticism of the article, since it basically is a rejection of the delusion of legitimacy

 

[zorq]

I did read the article. The article thinks the west should normalize relations with Russia and ignore the sin of Crimea. My response was pertinent.
Your assumption that I did not read the article seems to be a deflection.
The article proposes some ways for the West to justify forgiving Russia for their sin but it still boils down to forgiving Russia.

Yes, the article is about reaching some understanding with Russia in order to get their co-operation in helping the US with other issues by basically forgetting about the invasion of Crimea. It is an example of realpolitik.

I find it understandable why people do not agree with the thrust of the article, because realpolitik is not universally accepted as a model for international relations. I think the author is foolish in believing that essentially sanctioning the invasion of Crimea will induce Russia to co-operate with us. It appears Putin embraces realpolitik and will only help if and when it furthers his interests. If that is true, there is no need to sanction the invasion.

I also find it understandable why russians would think this article is correct because it satisfies their country's longstanding cravings for recognition as a legitimate international power. And it is quite understandable that they would dismiss any rational criticism of the article, since it basically is a rejection of the delusion of legitimacy

Exactly. We understand each other.

Another referendum on Crimea would serve to legitimize the first one, which was both illegal and illegitimate. Having a new referendum, even if done legitimately this time, still doesn't negate the illegal part of the first referendum.

Furthermore this new internationally sanctioned referendum will set a precident for future landgrab referendums just like the one Putin proposed to Trump in the Donbass. This tells Russia that any time it wants a land grab all it has to do is destabalize a region and then hold a referendum when enough opposition population has been slaughtered or driven out to safety. It is a ridiculously reckless precedent to set. And it still doesn't negate the illegal aspect of these referendums.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That was not a perception at the time. Perception was that Russia certainly deserves the credit for leaving East Europe peacefully.

Hah!
Funny.
The perception at the time was that tha Soviets had bankrupted the country, and they could not afford to do anything but leave quietly.
Ship commanders were in the position of EITHER paying their crews or buying fuel to leave port, for instance.
And that would be for a standard deployment. Who would pay for any reloads after they fired weapons in some dispeaceful display of aggression?


Russia gets no credit for not taking any option that was unavailable to them at the time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So anyone who bothered to read the article and willing to discuss its content?

Why should we as it's obvious a propaganda piece--it's based on a false premise.

The thing is, there has already been a referendum--and Russia didn't allow it to be honest. The fact they rigged it makes it very clear they knew the people don't agree. Thus there is no reason for another referendum.

 

[Jayjay]

I am doing just that,

Zorq made a pertinent comment that related to the content of the article.

He absolutely did not.

You didn't respond in any way.

Well, I did, I called his comment BS which is the only correct response.

So now it's your turn, what part of the article do you think he misunderstood or what is it that you want us to comment on? Just because not everyone agrees with you (or the author of the article), doesn't mean it's not valid conversation.

Pointless one-liners only. My last comment stands. You know, when three people who read the article disagree with your interpretation of it, maybe it's because your interpretation is wrong rather than theirs?

Basically, the article suggests that the west should find an excuse to normalize relations

No, it does not basically suggests that. It actually provides what you call "excuse" And it's a very good face saving excuse for US/EU/NATO. We all know that Crimea is not going back to Ukraine. Not because Putin is such a tyrant but because they simply don't want to be part of Ukraine.

and he suggests that an internationally observed referendum would be that excuse. I think it's bullshit.

Why?

Because the west, especially EU, doesn't need an excuse or face-saving. It would be happy to get rid of the sanctions and the Russian counter-sanctions. But it can't do that because of the reason zorq already brought up: if you reward a thief, all you get is more thefts in the future.

Then sanctions should remain as long as Russia is in Donbass, period.

Well, OK. And Russia will "stay" in Donbass as long as NATO keeps moving into former soviet Republics, period!

NATO is not moving anywhere. The ex-Soviet republics themselves are moving towards NATO to get away from Russian meddling. Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO before, and only started getting closer to it after Russia's takeover of Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

Fun fact: The russian memo explaining this was sent to US in the spring of 2008 (10 years ago)
US must have missed that memo.
In any case, Eastern Ukraine is less and less likely to go back to Ukraine. Not with ukrainain military blowing up their eastern Ukraine government heads. Kiev is insane if they think terrorism will help them.

If that's all they can do, that's what they will do. Ukraine can't beat Russia militarily so sniping off individuals seems to be their best stratagem. If Russia were to offer a way out, or even stick to the Minsk treaty (which neither side is currently taking seriously), there might be some progress.

Like zorq said, a solution that let's Russia off the hook while it's actively in the process of doing the same thing in eastern Ukraine just incentivizes Russia to continue to push for more.

Complete and utter bullshit with which both Kissinger and author disagrees. And you know you have a problem when such a big "lover" of USSR disagrees with you.

Kissinger's realpolitik is hardly a good model for fair and equitable international relations.

On the other hand, if there is a solution, it doesn't require a fake face-saving referendum because the opinion of majority of Crimeans is pretty obvious and the handover could easily be justified even without it.

What are you talking about?

I agree with the author that NATO could give guarantees that Georgia and Ukraine won't become members, in exchange for Russia to get out of Donbass. Russia could have Crimea (or at least not be sanctioned for it) to sweeten the deal but unlike what the author says, Donbass is not just an Ukrainian problem.

So basically you disagree with earlier yourself

Nonsense. What I wrote was that "sanctions should remain as long as Russia is in Donbass, period." So if Russia gets out of Donbass and cedes it to Ukraine, I would have no problem with Russia getting Crimea and the sanctions to be removed (not necessarily in that order) in exchange. And just because I think NATO could give guarantees not to let Georgia or Ukraine join, that's a worthy concession, but it should not be necessary. Simply getting Crimea ought to be enough for Russia and it's none of Russia's business if Georgia or Ukraine wants to cooperate with NATO.

Then sanctions should remain as long as Russia is in Donbass, period. And what's up with this "Russia could have Crimea"? You can't force yourself to admit that Crimea was never a part of Ukraine and should really be part of Russia in the first place as author did? Come on, you can do it.

Bottom line, you accept that NATO has been wrong.

NATO doesn't impose sanctions. EU and USA do. And of course Crimea was part of Ukraine. It was part of Ukraine for about six decades. It just isn't anymore, and is very unlikely to go back. To say otherwise is like saying that Estonia was never part of Soviet Union or that Kaliningrad is not part of Russia. Possession is nine tenths of ownership.

 

[barbos]

We don't need Russia. Russia needs us. And if they want us, they'll have to do much better.

That's very wise approach which caused WW2.

If eastern Europe desired to remain in the Russian orbit, they would. They don't.

Nobody asked them to remain in Russian orbit. They were asked not became an enemy of Russia.

I don't know who pays Kissinger, but I doubt he works for free.

Is not it convenient to accuse old retired man in doing it for money and not to do the same for relatively young american general who just happened to have a different opinion and some prospect of getting onto board of directors at Lockheed Martin?

 

[barbos]

So anyone who bothered to read the article and willing to discuss its content?

Why should we as it's obvious a propaganda piece--it's based on a false premise.

The thing is, there has already been a referendum--and Russia didn't allow it to be honest.

Says who? even if it' were true, how does that prevent conducting another one but free and fair?

The fact they rigged
it makes it very clear they knew the people don't agree. Thus there is no reason for another referendum.

First they did not rig it, second the fact that you try hard not to allow fair and free referendum proves that you know that result would be the same.

 

[laughing dog]

That's very wise approach which caused WW2.

Are you blaming WW2 in Europe on the USA? That is fucking insane.

 

[barbos]

I am doing just that,

He absolutely did not.

Well, I did, I called his comment BS which is the only correct response.

So now it's your turn, what part of the article do you think he misunderstood or what is it that you want us to comment on? Just because not everyone agrees with you (or the author of the article), doesn't mean it's not valid conversation.

Pointless one-liners only. My last comment stands. You know, when three people who read the article disagree with your interpretation of it, maybe it's because your interpretation is wrong rather than theirs?

Basically, the article suggests that the west should find an excuse to normalize relations

No, it does not basically suggests that. It actually provides what you call "excuse" And it's a very good face saving excuse for US/EU/NATO. We all know that Crimea is not going back to Ukraine. Not because Putin is such a tyrant but because they simply don't want to be part of Ukraine.

and he suggests that an internationally observed referendum would be that excuse. I think it's bullshit.

Why?

Because the west, especially EU, doesn't need an excuse or face-saving.

It does, it does. They try hard to hide the truth about what they created in Ukraine but they know they need way out.

It would be happy to get rid of the sanctions and the Russian counter-sanctions. But it can't do that because of the reason zorq already brought up: if you reward a thief, all you get is more thefts in the future.

Again, you contradicting yourself and the article. You accepted "theft" of Crimea as fair, and article/Kissinger puts the blame for everything on NATO

Then sanctions should remain as long as Russia is in Donbass, period.

Well, OK. And Russia will "stay" in Donbass as long as NATO keeps moving into former soviet Republics, period!

NATO is not moving anywhere. The ex-Soviet republics themselves are moving towards NATO to get away from Russian meddling.

Nope, that's not what happening.

Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO before, and only started getting closer to it after Russia's takeover of Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

Fun fact: The russian memo explaining this was sent to US in the spring of 2008 (10 years ago)
US must have missed that memo.
In any case, Eastern Ukraine is less and less likely to go back to Ukraine. Not with ukrainain military blowing up their eastern Ukraine government heads. Kiev is insane if they think terrorism will help them.

If that's all they can do, that's what they will do. Ukraine can't beat Russia militarily so sniping off individuals seems to be their best stratagem.

How is that best stratagem at getting Donbas back? 200 thousands people went to the funerals. People in Kiev are idiots.

If Russia were to offer a way out, or even stick to the Minsk treaty (which neither side is currently taking seriously), there might be some progress.

Like zorq said, a solution that let's Russia off the hook while it's actively in the process of doing the same thing in eastern Ukraine just incentivizes Russia to continue to push for more.

Complete and utter bullshit with which both Kissinger and author disagrees. And you know you have a problem when such a big "lover" of USSR disagrees with you.

Kissinger's realpolitik is hardly a good model for fair and equitable international relations.

It may be so, but at least he does not refuse to see at the problem.
The fact is, US neocons run the show and they use realpolitik, and Putin is forced to play by these rules.
Now, we have one of the neocons agreeing with Putin, while a bunch of hippies refuse to accept obvious facts.

On the other hand, if there is a solution, it doesn't require a fake face-saving referendum because the opinion of majority of Crimeans is pretty obvious and the handover could easily be justified even without it.

What are you talking about?

I am asking again What are you talking about? Are you implying that you accept results of the referendum that crimeans don't want to be in Ukraine? If so, you should have a talk with Loren

I agree with the author that NATO could give guarantees that Georgia and Ukraine won't become members, in exchange for Russia to get out of Donbass. Russia could have Crimea (or at least not be sanctioned for it) to sweeten the deal but unlike what the author says, Donbass is not just an Ukrainian problem.

So basically you disagree with earlier yourself

Nonsense. What I wrote was that "sanctions should remain as long as Russia is in Donbass, period."
So if Russia gets out of Donbass and cedes it to Ukraine, I would have no problem with Russia getting Crimea and the sanctions to be removed (not necessarily in that order) in exchange. And just because I think NATO could give guarantees not to let Georgia or Ukraine join, that's a worthy concession, but it should not be necessary. Simply getting Crimea ought to be enough for Russia and it's none of Russia's business if Georgia or Ukraine wants to cooperate with NATO.

Cooperate? what does that mean? And was it america's business when USSR decided to "cooperate" with Cuba in 1962?
Regardless, article is not about technicalities of getting out of this Ukrainian mess. It's more general than that and it does put a blame on the West/US for most of what is happening. What do you think of that? Author goes through usual list of russian talking points - Iraq, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, NATO expansion and he does calls western arguments "nonsense" couple of times. Again, the guy is from Raygun administration. And he is not alone, basically pattern is the same, once people get out of active life they suddenly change their opinion. Does it bother you?

Then sanctions should remain as long as Russia is in Donbass, period. And what's up with this "Russia could have Crimea"? You can't force yourself to admit that Crimea was never a part of Ukraine and should really be part of Russia in the first place as author did? Come on, you can do it.

Bottom line, you accept that NATO has been wrong.

NATO doesn't impose sanctions. EU and USA do. And of course Crimea was part of Ukraine. It was part of Ukraine for about six decades. It just isn't anymore, and is very unlikely to go back. To say otherwise is like saying that Estonia was never part of Soviet Union or that Kaliningrad is not part of Russia. Possession is nine tenths of ownership.

Very dishonest on your part. You know damn well that there is no practical difference between NATO and EU, sorry Finland, you are not significant member of EU. And NATO has been wrong in moving into former Soviet republics. No, don't give me that crap that they choose to join to NATO themselves (which it is not) It does not matter, NATO was expected not do that and then when they started doing that they were warned about consequences of that. Again, free will of 4 million Georgians is irrelevant, they can will whatever they want, it simply does not matter. In fact you should fucking understand it better being from Finland. Stalin started a war with you over it, and you actually learned the lesson and decided not to join NATO.

 

[laughing dog]

You know damn well that there is no practical difference between NATO and EU

If the USA were part of the EU, you'd have a factually based point instead of crazy talk.

 

[barbos]

You know damn well that there is no practical difference between NATO and EU

If the USA were part of the EU, you'd have a factually based point instead of crazy talk.

So you admit that NATO!=EU and NATO is against EU
Sorry dog, as far as voting goes EU=NATO and it was not really my point anyway, my point was NATO (which is mostly EU) was wrong in annexing former Soviet Republic, yes, annexing.

 

[barbos]

That's very wise approach which caused WW2.

Are you blaming WW2 in Europe on the USA? That is fucking insane.

No, I blame it on the concept that Germany must be forever damned because they lost in WW1, in which by the way everybody was equally wrong, it's just England convinced US to help them, otherwise we would have been speaking now in german.

 

[zorq]

The fact they rigged
it makes it very clear they knew the people don't agree. Thus there is no reason for another referendum.

First they did not rig it, second the fact that you try hard not to allow fair and free referendum proves that you know that result would be the same.

I thought you TOTALLY agreed with EVERY WORD of that article you linked to.

Here's a quote from that article regarding the first referendum:

So Washington should propose a referendum in Crimea under UN auspices. The vote would have to be legitimate, unlike the 2014 poll. Although a majority of residents then likely wanted to separate, the opposition was stifled and the election demonstrated nothing.

The article says the first vote was bogus, so now that you have actually read part of the article, do you agree that it is trash propoganda like the rest of us?

 

[bilby]

That's very wise approach which caused WW2.

Are you blaming WW2 in Europe on the USA? That is fucking insane.

No, I blame it on the concept that Germany must be forever damned because they lost in WW1, in which by the way everybody was equally wrong, it's just England convinced US to help them, otherwise we would have been speaking now in german.

Nah. The Germans couldn't win on the Western Front; They used up the last of their materiel in the Spring offensive in 1918, and having failed to secure a decisive victory in that campaign, they were doomed; They were running out of pretty much everything.

In the absence of the Americans, the best they could have hoped for was a negotiated peace that gave them a handful of minor territorial gains. The Americans just forced them to accept much harsher armistice terms than they might have held out for against France and England alone, by pushing them back behind the defensive lines that they had held since 1914.

If they Germans had not launched the Spring Offensive (which they might well have decided against, in the absence of impending American reinforcement), they could perhaps have held out long enough to sue for peace, but they couldn't force the French to surrender, and they couldn't even have persuaded them to part with more than a few trivial bits of territory in exchange for peace.

The French were not going to let the Germans have a huge swathe of North Eastern France; And the Germans didn't have the strength to make them. Nobody was going to end up speaking German after WWI, unless they were already speaking German beforehand.

So you are probably right that the US involvement was key to the forcing of harsh terms on Germany at Versailles; But not about us having to learn Deutsch.

And the situation of Germany post the Great War is in no way comparable to the situation of Russia post the Cold War. Russia is not paying huge reparations to NATO, nor does she have strict limits imposed on her military strength.

 

[barbos]

I thought you TOTALLY agreed with EVERY WORD of that article you linked to.

Here's a quote from that article regarding the first referendum:

So Washington should propose a referendum in Crimea under UN auspices. The vote would have to be legitimate, unlike the 2014 poll. Although a majority of residents then likely wanted to separate, the opposition was stifled and the election demonstrated nothing.

The article says the first vote was bogus, so now that you have actually read part of the article, do you agree that it is trash propoganda like the rest of us?

Damn! you got me, damn! But what took you so long?

No, article does not say it was bogus, it merely imply it was not accepted by UN, hence illegitimate. UN or rather US and its allies were flat out against any kind of referendum and simply refused to observe it. Their position was referendum is simply illegal according to Ukraine constitution which is, again, is true but irrelevant. So yeah I agree it was "illegitimate", in fact I myself told pretty much that to FSB agents which asked about my opinion in summer of 2014. I told them "Boy, you guys are fast, the way you conducted this whole thing will be viewed as scam, you should have taken more time and performed some bureaucratic/diplomatic dancing". Of course it was obvious that US/EU were vehemently against any kind of referendum, period. So these dancing mves would not matter. But doing it fast saved lives.

So yes, I agree with every single word in it, including that.

 

[barbos]

No, I blame it on the concept that Germany must be forever damned because they lost in WW1, in which by the way everybody was equally wrong, it's just England convinced US to help them, otherwise we would have been speaking now in german.

Nah. The Germans couldn't win on the Western Front; They used up the last of their materiel in the Spring offensive in 1918, and having failed to secure a decisive victory in that campaign, they were doomed; They were running out of pretty much everything.

In the absence of the Americans, the best they could have hoped for was a negotiated peace that gave them a handful of minor territorial gains. The Americans just forced them to accept much harsher armistice terms than they might have held out for against France and England alone, by pushing them back behind the defensive lines that they had held since 1914.

If they Germans had not launched the Spring Offensive (which they might well have decided against, in the absence of impending American reinforcement), they could perhaps have held out long enough to sue for peace, but they couldn't force the French to surrender, and they couldn't even have persuaded them to part with more than a few trivial bits of territory in exchange for peace.

The French were not going to let the Germans have a huge swathe of North Eastern France; And the Germans didn't have the strength to make them. Nobody was going to end up speaking German after WWI, unless they were already speaking German beforehand.

So you are probably right that the US involvement was key to the forcing of harsh terms on Germany at Versailles; But not about us having to learn Deutsch.

And the situation of Germany post the Great War is in no way comparable to the situation of Russia post the Cold War. Russia is not paying huge reparations to NATO, nor does she have strict limits imposed on her military strength.

Who would have won in case US staying out is both not obvious and irrelevant. Some historians say US entering the war decided the outcome. What is important both sides were wrong and both sides were lying. British (and French) were more successful in their lies convincing US to enter the WW1. WW2 is a direct result of winners punishing WW1 losers beyond reasonable. That's an accepted fact. EU itself was created as a result of learning that mistake. Now for some reason Russia is kept being punished for losing in Cold War.

 

[bilby]

No, I blame it on the concept that Germany must be forever damned because they lost in WW1, in which by the way everybody was equally wrong, it's just England convinced US to help them, otherwise we would have been speaking now in german.

Nah. The Germans couldn't win on the Western Front; They used up the last of their materiel in the Spring offensive in 1918, and having failed to secure a decisive victory in that campaign, they were doomed; They were running out of pretty much everything.

In the absence of the Americans, the best they could have hoped for was a negotiated peace that gave them a handful of minor territorial gains. The Americans just forced them to accept much harsher armistice terms than they might have held out for against France and England alone, by pushing them back behind the defensive lines that they had held since 1914.

If they Germans had not launched the Spring Offensive (which they might well have decided against, in the absence of impending American reinforcement), they could perhaps have held out long enough to sue for peace, but they couldn't force the French to surrender, and they couldn't even have persuaded them to part with more than a few trivial bits of territory in exchange for peace.

The French were not going to let the Germans have a huge swathe of North Eastern France; And the Germans didn't have the strength to make them. Nobody was going to end up speaking German after WWI, unless they were already speaking German beforehand.

So you are probably right that the US involvement was key to the forcing of harsh terms on Germany at Versailles; But not about us having to learn Deutsch.

And the situation of Germany post the Great War is in no way comparable to the situation of Russia post the Cold War. Russia is not paying huge reparations to NATO, nor does she have strict limits imposed on her military strength.

Who would have won in case US staying out is both not obvious and irrelevant. Some historians say US entering the war decided the outcome.

Mostly US historians. But hey, they might be right.

What is important both sides were wrong and both sides were lying. British (and French) were more successful in their lies convincing US to enter the WW1. WW2 is a direct result of winners punishing WW1 losers beyond reasonable. That's an accepted fact.

Indeed, and we agree on that.

EU itself was created as a result of learning that mistake.

It seems that the British didn't learn it very well.

Now for some reason Russia is kept being punished for losing in Cold War.

No, they are not. The situation of Germany post the Great War is in no way comparable to the situation of Russia post the Cold War. Russia is not paying huge reparations to NATO, nor does she have strict limits imposed on her military strength.