It’s not Godwin-izing when the comparison is exactly valid. Russia’s (and the former Soviet) territorial conquests paralleled those of Hitler both in ambition and intent (geopolitical rather than the economically-motivated colonialism of other powers) and most importantly in the fact that they were successful because they were basically geographically contiguous. The accessibility to land forces and relatively close proximity also let them put down local insurrections. In the case of Crimea and the present conflict in Donetsk, Russia is essentially doing the converse, creating separatist insurrections in its favor.
Little of use was found from the black boxes in Pan Am 103. The valuable data came from investigation of the wreckage. In that regard, it’s disturbing that the Russian rebels have been reported to be systematically removing pieces of the wreckage, even reportedly cutting into the cockpit to remove items. It’s considered doubtful that they’ll be able to remove all important evidence, but the site is being seriously tampered with.
God didn’t kill them, the Donetsk People’s Republic did. (Accidentally, one assumes).
Even if God is on the side of the Donetsk folks, that doesn’t mean He inspired them to shoot down the plane. I realize this is a response to a rather silly tangent, but it does annoy me when people fail to get the distinction between what God causes and what he permits (i.e. what He fails to intervene to prevent).
So, if I allow a child to play in traffic and he gets run over, I bear no responsibility? I have far less control over that child than God has over his creations.
I’m quite aware of Russian empire-building (which is almost exactly like those of other great powers). Show me a major world power that didn’t engage in hegemony against their neighbours. India and Brazil, if they become major world powers, might be the first, but in India’s case that’s mostly because she didn’t exist as a country before 1947 (and individual Indian peoples, like the Marathas, were more than happy to indulge in empire building beyond their ethnic frontiers).
Assuming you’re an American, this is really too amusing for words. Because Russia’s and America’s expansions as continental powers driven by a grand geopolitical vision were actually remarkably similar, and many people have made that observation, historically. Did you ever hear of, uh, Manifest Destiny, or the Mexican-American War, or the conquest of the Philippines and Cuba, or America’s interventions in Central America during the Cold War? (America’s proxy wars in Central America since 1945, for what it’s worth, were typically more bloody than Russian interventions in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland or East Germany. If you doubt that, get on the internet and look up the body counts). The main difference between Russian and American territorial expansion is of course that American demographic replacement of the indigenous people was aided by diseases to which the NA’s had no resistance, and was therefore much more thorough.
Anyway- show me why Russian support for the Donetsk People’s Republic is any more morally objectionable than American spport for the Nicaraguan Contras. Other than the fact that Nicaragua has a much longer history as a nation, that the Contras’ political program was much more objectionable than the DPR, and that the Contras killed a whole lot more people, and deliberately targeted civilians instead of accidentally being excessively trigger happy and shooting them out of the sky.
What made Hitler the prototypical Evil Person of History wasn’t the territorial expansionism, it was the racism and genocide. But don’t let that stop you. I’m fascinated how you prefer to compare Russia to Hitler, when you could have instead compared them to, I dunno, the other country who had a declared intent to expand their territorial and ideological frontiers from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and to overcome by conquest any native peoples who stood in their way (That would be America, if you were wondering).
Also, speaking of Hitler, were you aware which country sacrificed the most lives in order to defeat him?
Russia was declining prior to the early 2000s (and declining extremely fast- the economic collapse that started around 1990 was monumental, and it was coupled with massive declines in life expectancy, nutrition, overall quality of life, birth rates, etc.). Since then things have been at worst stable, at best somewhat getting better.
Whatever it is that you’re on about, the discussion wasn’t “list the reasons that Hitler was evil”, it was about the parallels between Nazi Germany’s territorial ambitions and those of the Soviet Union and, now, Russia. Indeed the commonality of ambition was the major reason for Hitler’s pact with Stalin, which enabled the territorial ambitions of both. What this has to do with American Indians I have no idea.
I find the current State Department press release a little underwhelming… A map and a ground image overlain with some hand drawn lines is hardly a smoking gun.
Still at least they’re backing off alleging that the Russian government was directly involved.
Yeah, “we thought it was military” isn’t an excuse. Until Russia stops sending in mercenary agitators and weapons and materiel, we can’t judge that this is anything than what it looks like: an illegitimate Russian overthrow and invasion. Anyone harming Ukrainian military or civilian or completely innocent “collateral damage” can be hanged.
You’re missing the point. How can anyone claim that when hundreds die it’s nothing to do with God, but a single survivor is evidence of his benevolence? It’s the ultimate confirmation bias. What was wrong with the people who died that they weren’t worth saving? How low must the value of a life be to someone who is omnipotent and yet still doesn’t consider that life worth saving? It’s a sickening thing to believe in that requires an amazing amount of doublethink.
Russia collectively (or more precisely, the people of the Soviet Union collectively) sacrificed the most lives to beat Hitler. I don’t credit the victory to Stalin personally (who as you rightly point out, his moral depravity aside, was also dumb enough to make a nonaggression pact with Hitler).
Clearly you do have no idea, so let me try to restate it. In what way is Russia’s history of territorial expansion and hegemony over its near neighbors any more objectionable than America’s? And why do you think Nazi Germany is a better analogy for Russian/Soviet territorial expansionism than America is?
I’ll let you have the last word here since this thread is supposed to be about Russian foreign policy, not the problem of evil , and it’s my fault for slightly taking it off course.
I’m somewhat surprised at the OP’s question…it’s like he hasn’t followed the events of the last 4 months or so…Here’s precisely what’s going to happen next (same thing that’s been happening again and again actually):
Europeans are going to kiss Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin’s ass. Now, they might argue about the terms of the kiss (“Would Mr. Putin mind squatting a bit lower, so that his behind is easier to reach? Would Mr. Putin mind spreading his butt-cheeks a bit wider so that the kiss can be more firmly delivered?”), but kiss it they will.
Obama is going to continue to huff and puff and make funny monkey noises. Vladimir Vladimirovich is going to continue to slap him silly.
John Kerry is going to fly to the Hague (or Brussels, or Paris, or Geneva). Negotiations will be held. Joint communiques will be issued. Wolf Blitzer will look magnificent on CNN, covering the latest diplomatic developments. Accidentally, Wolf Blitzer’s magnificent look will be the only thing of any consequence out of the said negotiations.
We all should feel privileged and lucky to watch Mr. Putin in action. A true master of realpolitik, the consummate ease with which he outplays his Western opponents is a joy to behold.
I think the best thing to do here is combine all the idiotic hijacks: why did God permit the Nazis and America to conduct genocidal expansions? Once we answer that the answer to the Ukraine crisis will be obvious.