Cugel the Clever posted:

lol, you don't think "started a world war that killed tens of millions while in pursuit of irredentist goals" is one of the primary things he's remembered for, alongside the Holocaust and, of course, being the man who killed Hitler?

Vasukhani posted:

its not like russia has a history of autocrats like putin, he must be compared to hitler

quote:

Russia’s war plan is obviously secret, but the government of Ukraine has released its view of how a Russian invasion would be executed. It consists of three thrusts intended to isolate and occupy Kyiv: northward from the Crimean Peninsula, southward from Belarus and westward from Volgograd. Together, they would surround Kyiv and pass through a substantial part of Ukraine, giving them maximum opportunity for low-cost pacification.

quote:

There are three problems with the strategy. The first problem is logistical. These multi-division forces would be engaged in high-intensity maneuver and combat. All three would have to be supplied, and as they approached Kyiv they would take on a circular formation. Since it must be assumed that combat increases as movement declines, one phase would require massive amounts of "POL" – petroleum, oil and lubricants. The second phase would demand large amounts of munitions of all varieties. The possibility is high of uncoordinated pauses in advancing, leaving Russian flanks open.

The second issue is that it would create a complicated, multi-front war waged by untested troops. The Russians have not fought a multi-divisional battle like this since World War II. Their military is competent, but none of their commanders have commanded this type of battle. War games and maneuvers are valuable, but an untested force under fire for the first time needs a very sophisticated command structure. The Russians won’t know if they have one until they try it.

The third issue is the Americans, who will probably not attempt to block the advance with their own troops. Time is of the essence, but imposing friction on an enemy is valuable in itself. The U.S. is in a position to transport Polish forces, for example, to create that friction. (Assuming the Poles are willing.) But if it chose to send its own troops, it would force Russia into full-scale combat on a schedule it was not prepared for. The most important threat from the Americans, however, would be air and missile power. Their targets would be logistic nodes. In armored warfare, which seems to be the plan, the destruction of POL and munitions is the same as destroying tanks. The Russians would need to preempt this by taking out U.S. air and missile installations, very likely on a global scale. Doing this would escalate the war to world war status, and in that situation, the risk for Russia would skyrocket. (PLEASE NOTE that the US is very unlikely to resort to direct military force in this conflict.)

quote:

(...) Of course, the threat of invasion isn’t exclusive to this strategy. If Russia intends to occupy Ukraine, some variation will be necessary. But an invasion might simply entail taking a piece of Ukraine in the east or the north. The U.S., eager to avoid a war in the middle of Eurasia when the threat is trivial, will likely respond only with sanctions. Russia can stomach that as it threatens further penetration without taking it. This changes the political dynamic if Europe, incapable of mounting a defense, chooses to accommodate Russia.

quote:

(...) the entire threat might simply be an attempt to test Biden. During the Cold War, testing a new president was a Soviet routine. Doing so now could be seen as a low-risk, high-reward proposition.

quote:

The Russians cannot afford a defeat in their bid to secure Ukraine in the present geopolitical reality. They have time to move – that is, unless Putin, who hungers to restore the former Soviet border, sees the hand of time moving and is prepared to take a risk for the sake of glory. Perhaps so, but KGB men are trained to be careful. My bet is this is a bluff. But I wouldn’t bet the house on it.

i say swears online posted:

ah yes, reality, like the above analysis

i say swears online posted:

ah yes, reality, like the above analysis

Vasukhani posted:

hmm

cinci zoo sniper posted:

Grouchio posted:

Well what's your counter-analysis? (Other than Biden going for sanctions and nothing else because let your enemy trip over himself, duh)

Vasukhani posted:

hmm

Tweezer Reprise posted:

It's definitely true that the internal industrially-powered genocide was rather unique and characteristic of the Third Reich, but ruling out any comparison or direct metaphor between, say, Churchill and Hitler does a big disservice to how the vast crimes of both were motivated by racially-based worldviews with a shared common ancestor. You don't have to airwall Hitler off to maintain rhetorical power, quite the contrary in my opinion.

Neville Chamberlain, prior to the Munich Agreement in 1938 posted:

Calm down, everyone, it's not like we're dealing with 1945 Hitler, here. The man who we meet with today, 1938 Hitler, is not that bellicose monster we all know and revile. To pretend otherwise is hysterical and... disrespectful of the real vastness and horror of the crimes/threats compared. Has 1938 Hitler run roughshod over Europe, conquering states with wild abandon? No. Has 1938 Hitler slaughtered 6 million Jews? Also no.

You just have to face up to the fact that these comparisons to 1945 Hitler are hyperbolic at best and insulting at worst. Now, let's hammer out a nice modus vivendi to which both 1938 Hitler and ourselves can agree to and we shall truly have peace in our time.

Cugel the Clever posted:

If the chief complaint is that Hitler committed the Holocaust and thus is a step too far in comparison, we could turn to a less sensational irredentist strongman like Mussolini, but he still doesn't quite capture the ratcheting up of claims month after month and the international community's failure in the face of it. The point of the rhetoric is to highlight an obvious example where an authoritarian leader's belligerence was taken insufficiently seriously, allowing the repeated small arsons Hitler committed with each territorial acquisition to ignite into an extraordinary conflagration. Much like Russia today, Germany fundamentally wasn't ready for the conflict it created, yet still turned all of Europe into a slaughter house before the piper caught up with them.

The takeaway is that NATO countries and their allies should be doing what it can to make Ukraine too big a pill to swallow and to make sure that they are prepared should the threat turn toward them.

Vasukhani posted:

JFK was a lot like Hitler, he invaded Cuba and then Vietnam.

WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

I will admit I keep thinking of Biden as Neville chamberlain. Is that in itself a Hitler comparison?

piL posted:

I'd say similar but it depends on what comparison you want to make. I think most readers will assume you mean Chamberlain the appeaser and not Chamberlain the opponent of Poor Law boards, Chamberlain the Health Minister, Chamberlain the failed negotiator for cancelation of war debt, Chamberlain the architect of the Unemployment Assistance Board, Chamberlain the nationaliser of coal, or Chamberlain the proponent for better working conditions. I hadn't heard any of that other stuff until just skimming his wikipedia article.

piL posted:

I always assumed the comparisons to Hitler were a plea to Western Europe's appeasement while Hitler stepped over line after line drawn in the sand, refusing to act until his blade was at the throat of the then "greatest" continental power. Germany would have been easier to stop in 39 or even earlier when they first started violating the accepted order. Fortunately mistrust between the great European autocrats and throws by first Japan then Italy sealed his fate.

People arguing the danger of letting people violate the post-World-Wars norm of "don't invade other countries and keep territorial claims" are going to jump to the most egregious historical example that supports their point.

It's not the most precise fit, but Hitler is the strongest argument one can make against concessions ever. After Pyrrhus lost by winning, we called victories that doom the victor pyrrhic. A couple of hundred years and we may call the blunder of causing catastrophe by hiding from it either a Hitlerian or Chamberlaic fault.

If you're looking through any other lens--motive, capability, methods (other than patience and many small cuts)--the metaphor quickly disintigrates.

VitalSigns posted:

It's more of a "guy I don't like" thing

If it were just about invading countries then every US president is Hitler and nobody would be saying "hey you know what would make things better, some more Hilter"

CMYK BLYAT! posted:

god i love our media

https://twitter.com/NikkiMcR/status/1468385883774726151

is there/is there going to be a full readout of the call or are we only getting the press briefing talking points

Charliegrs posted:

Wouldn't like, now be a great time for the US to start flooding arms into Ukraine?

Smeef posted:

I wonder what the Stinger missile would be this time around.

CommieGIR posted:

Knock it off. Either address their post or ignore it.

GABA ghoul posted:

Polish troops fighting in Ukraine? Is this even remotely plausible? I can't even imagine a modern western military would voluntarily stick its dick into the hornet nest that is fighting without air superiority