Ukraine? August 1914: A foolish war in the balkans

[August1991]

The mere name, y krai, is enough to explain the problem.

In summer 1914, civilised Europe foolishly/tragically commit suicide. For the next 30 years, millions of ordinary Europeans were killed.

In these 2020s, I fear that Europe's elite is about to do the same again.

===

In North America, we largely get along.

 

 

 

Edited March 4 by August1991

[Scott75]

On 3/3/2025 at 11:50 PM, August1991 said:

The mere name, y krai, is enough to explain the problem.

In summer 1914, civilised Europe foolishly/tragically commit suicide. For the next 30 years, millions of ordinary Europeans were killed.

In these 2020s, I fear that Europe's elite is about to do the same again.

I suspect it won't actually happen, now that the U.S. is backing off of backing western Ukraine. I believed even before the United States stopped supplying Ukraine with financial and military assistance that the war in Ukraine would end this year. I am even more confident that this will happen now. The only thing that I think could derail this would be a nuclear conflict, and I think those in charge, while pretty foolish, are not so foolish as to go down that path.

[eyeball]

On 3/7/2025 at 8:50 AM, Scott75 said:

The only thing that I think could derail this would be a nuclear conflict, and I think those in charge, while pretty foolish, are not so foolish as to go down that path.

Not if someone somewhere believes the adage better dead than fill-in-blank-here,  in this case a co-dominion of Putin and Trump's. Something that's about as bleak and black a future as anything I want to contemplate. That said I get the sense there's plenty of people who would hoot and hollar like Slim Pickens on a nuclear bomb if it came down to living in a future as bright and colourful as a Pride Day Parade.

The silver lining is that a nuclear winter would cool off the climate.

[August1991]

On 3/7/2025 at 11:50 AM, Scott75 said:

I suspect it won't actually happen, now that the U.S. is backing off of backing western Ukraine.

...

You Americans think that the world is you.

[Scott75]

11 hours ago, August1991 said:

You Americans think that the world is you.

You're not the first person to make me chuckle with your assumption that I'm American :-p. I've lived in the United States for a few months when I was a lot younger, but that's as American as I've ever been. I'm Canadian Mexican. 

[Scott75]

23 hours ago, eyeball said:

On 3/7/2025 at 10:50 AM, Scott75 said:

The only thing that I think could derail this would be a nuclear conflict, and I think those in charge, while pretty foolish, are not so foolish as to go down that path.

Not if someone somewhere believes the adage better dead than fill-in-blank-here,  in this case a co-dominion of Putin and Trump's. Something that's about as bleak and black a future as anything I want to contemplate.

Putin and Trump are just the temporary leaders of their respective countries. The benefits of the United States and Russia respecting each other are hard to overstate in my view. Far from it being "bleak and black", I think its effect would be just the opposite, a world where we can stop living under the constant fear that a quick set of events could lead to nuclear armageddon. A good website that's been working on this type of thing for a while:

https://defusenuclearwar.org/

23 hours ago, eyeball said:

That said I get the sense there's plenty of people who would hoot and hollar like Slim Pickens on a nuclear bomb if it came down to living in a future as bright and colourful as a Pride Day Parade.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm something of a political hybrid, with some views on the "left" and some on the "right". I'm definitely on the left when it comes to my LGBT views, though that doesn't mean I support some views there. To give an example, I think Trump made the right decision in allowing biological women to not have to compete with biological men. For nuances on my views, there's a large thread where I contributed quite a bit in the past, which can be seen here:

23 hours ago, eyeball said:

The silver lining is that a nuclear winter would cool off the climate.

I think we can agree that that'd be pretty cold comfort to anyone who might have survived a nuclear war.

Edited March 9 by Scott75

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Putin and Trump are just the temporary leaders of their respective countries. The benefits of the United States and Russia respecting each other are hard to overstate in my view. Far from it being "bleak and black", I think its effect would be just the opposite, a world where we can stop living under the constant fear that a quick set of events could lead to nuclear armgeddon. A good website that's been working on this type of thing for a while:

There's definitely benefits to mutual respect and cooperation but I'm nowhere near optimistic enough to believe that it's possible. We're going over a cliff whether we like it or not. Our global economy is completely unsustainable and scarcity of resources will soon be the only driver of conflict that matters.

When the waterhole shrinks the animals get meaner and they do not cooperate or share. Survival is entirely dependent on dominance.

2 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I'm definitely on the left when it comes to my LGBT views, though that doesn't mean I support some views there.

Me too, I think it's just a fad myself and that our Charter of rights should be plenty enough to provide for socioeconomic equality with no need for special rights for anyone. Unfortunately conservatives are so goddamn intransigent that even the Charter is too much for them.

The fact LGBT issues have become such an overarching issue is akin to Romans playing fiddles before their end. We've probably already driven off the cliff.

[Scott75]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

10 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Putin and Trump are just the temporary leaders of their respective countries. The benefits of the United States and Russia respecting each other are hard to overstate in my view. Far from it being "bleak and black", I think its effect would be just the opposite, a world where we can stop living under the constant fear that a quick set of events could lead to nuclear armageddon. A good website that's been working on this type of thing for a while:

https://defusenuclearwar.org/

There's definitely benefits to mutual respect and cooperation but I'm nowhere near optimistic enough to believe that it's possible. We're going over a cliff whether we like it or not. Our global economy is completely unsustainable and scarcity of resources will soon be the only driver of conflict that matters.

When the waterhole shrinks the animals get meaner and they do not cooperate or share. Survival is entirely dependent on dominance.

The thing is, with 2 countries essentially having the ability to annihilate most living things on earth is that they can't both dominate and if either were to try, it'd most likely trigger conditions where it'd be very difficult if not impossible for everyone to survive. I think people understood this pretty good during what we could call the first cold war. The problem is that when the Soviet Union dissolved, the United States got insanely arrogant, thinking that the heart of said Union, that is, Russia, was now powerless to stop it from dominating the world.

I think Jeffrey Sachs does a very good job of explaining how the U.S. provoked Russia into starting its military operation in Ukraine. Some good excerpts from an article of his that I've quoted before:

**

You will recall that on Feb. 7, 1990, Hans-Dietrich Genscher and James Baker III spoke with Gorbachev. Genscher gave a press conference afterwards where he explained that NATO will not move eastward.

 

Germany and the U.S. would not take advantage of the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Understand, please, that this commitment was made in a juridical and diplomatic context, not a casual context. These commitments were core to the negotiations to end World War II that made way for German reunification.

An understanding was reached that NATO will not move one inch eastward. (This was an agreement, albeit verbal, as Gorbachev emphasized to the U.S. and Germany the importance of the U.S.-German pledge not to expand NATO eastward.) And it was explicit, and it is in countless documents. And just look up National Security Archive of George Washington University, and you can get dozens of documents. It’s a website called “What Gorbachev Heard About NATO.” Take a look, please, because everything you’re told by the U.S. about this promise is a lie, but the archives are perfectly clear. (Many of the key documents are here  and here.)

So, the decision was taken by Clinton in 1994 to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine. This is a long-term U.S. project. This is not due to one administration or another. This is a U.S. government project that started more than 30 years ago. In 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote The Grand Chessboard, describing the NATO enlargement eastward.

That book is not just the musings of Mr. Brzezinski. That is his presentation to the public of decisions already made by the United States government, which is how a book like this works. The book describes the eastward enlargement of Europe and of NATO as simultaneous and conjoined events. And there’s a good chapter in that book that asks, what will Russia do as Europe and NATO expand eastward?

I knew Zbig Brzezinski personally. He was very nice to me. I was advising Poland, and he was a big help. He was also a smart man, and yet he got everything wrong in 1997.

In 1997, he wrote in detail why Russia could do nothing but accede to the eastward expansion of NATO and Europe.

 

(Here is Brzezinski on page 118 of Grand Chessboard:

“Russia’s only real geo-strategic option — the option that could give Russia a realistic international role and also maximize the opportunity of transforming and socially modernizing itself — is Europe. And not just any Europe, but the transatlantic Europe of the enlarging EU and NATO. Such a Europe is taking shape, as we have seen in chapter 3, and it is also likely to remain linked closely to America. That is the Europe to which Russia will have to relate, if it is to avoid dangerous geopolitical isolation.”)

In fact, he says the eastward expansion of Europe and not just Europe, but NATO. This was a U.S. plan, a project. And Brzezinski explains how Russia will never align with China. Unthinkable. Russia will never align with Iran.

According to Brzezinski, Russia has no vocation other than the European vocation. So, as Europe moves east, there’s nothing Russia can do about it. So, says yet another American strategist. Is it any question why we’re in war all the time? Because one thing about America is we always “know” what our counterparts are going to do, and we always get it wrong! And one reason we always get it wrong is that in the non-cooperative game theory that the American strategists play, you don’t actually talk to the other side. You just know what the other side’s strategy is. That’s wonderful. It saves so much time. You simply don’t need any diplomacy.

[snip]

In 2008, as everybody knows, our former C.I.A. Director William Burns, who at the time was the U.S. ambassador to Russia, sent a long diplomatic cable back to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, which was famously entitled “Nyet means Nyet.” Burns’ message was that NATO enlargement was opposed by the entire Russian political class, not just President Putin.

We know about the cable only from Julian Assange. Believe me, not one word is told to the American people about anything of this by our government or our leading newspapers these days. So, we have Julian Assange to thank for the memo, which we can read in detail.

As you know, Viktor Yanukovych was elected as president of Ukraine in 2010 on the platform of Ukraine’s neutrality. Russia had no territorial interests or designs in Ukraine at all. I know. I was there off-and-on during these years. What Russia was negotiating during 2010 was a 25-year lease to 2042 for Sevastopol naval base. That’s it. There were no Russian demands for Crimea, or for the Donbas. Nothing like that at all. The idea that Putin is reconstructing the Russian empire is childish propaganda. Excuse me.

If anyone knows the day-to-day and year-to-year history, this is childish stuff. Yet childish stuff seems to work better than adult stuff. So, there were no territorial demands at all before the 2014 coup [in Ukraine]. Yet the United States decided that Yanukovych must be overthrown because he favored neutrality and opposed NATO enlargement. It’s called a regime change operation.

There have been around one hundred regime-change operations by the U.S. since 1947, many in your countries [speaking to the MEPs] and many all over the world.  

[snip]

Now in 2014, the U.S. worked actively to overthrow Yanukovych. Everybody knows the phone call intercepted by my Columbia University colleague, Victoria Nuland, and the U.S. ambassador, Geoffrey Pyatt. You don’t get better evidence. The Russians intercepted her call, and they put it on the Internet. 

It’s fascinating. By doing that, they all got promoted in the Biden administration. That’s the job. When the Maidan occurred, I was called soon after. “Professor Sachs, the new Ukrainian prime minister would like to see you to talk about the economic crisis.” So, I flew to Kyiv, and I was walked around the Maidan. And I was told how the U.S. paid the money for all the people around the Maidan, the “spontaneous” Revolution of Dignity.

Ladies and gentlemen, please, how did all those Ukrainian media outlets suddenly appear at the time of the Maidan? Where did all this organization come from? Where did all these buses come from? Where did all those people come from? Are you kidding? This is an organized effort. And it’s not a secret, except perhaps to citizens of Europe and the United States. Everyone else understands it quite clearly.

**

 

Full article:

https://consortiumnews.com/2025/02/27/jeffrey-sachs-the-geopolitics-of-peace/

[Scott75]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

11 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I'm definitely on the left when it comes to my LGBT views, though that doesn't mean I support some views there.

Me too, I think it's just a fad myself and that our Charter of rights should be plenty enough to provide for socioeconomic equality with no need for special rights for anyone. Unfortunately conservatives are so goddamn intransigent that even the Charter is too much for them.

The fact LGBT issues have become such an overarching issue is akin to Romans playing fiddles before their end. We've probably already driven off the cliff.

Not driven off the cliff just yet. Here's to hoping we manage to hang on 🙂

[August1991]

On 3/9/2025 at 10:33 AM, Scott75 said:

You're not the first person to make me chuckle with your assumption that I'm American :-p. I've lived in the United States for a few months when I was a lot younger, but that's as American as I've ever been. I'm Canadian Mexican. 

Fair enough. I'm wrong.

But Americans (Trump, Bush) seem to think they rule the world.

Obama? Even he's an American - and he too wants to rule the world.

[Scott75]

5 minutes ago, August1991 said:

On 3/9/2025 at 8:33 AM, Scott75 said:

You're not the first person to make me chuckle with your assumption that I'm American :-p. I've lived in the United States for a few months when I was a lot younger, but that's as American as I've ever been. I'm Canadian Mexican. 

Fair enough. I'm wrong.

But Americans (Trump, Bush) seem to think they rule the world.

Obama? Even he's an American - and he too wants to rule the world.

The United States has been pretty imperialistic for a while. I liked Obama a lot more than Biden and Trump, but he certainly still had some serious flaws. 

[August1991]

16 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

The United States has been pretty imperialistic for a while. I liked Obama a lot more than Biden and Trump, but he certainly still had some serious flaws. 

Disagree.

You guys won. Kennedy, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon. You won the Cold War. Reagan took credit.

[Scott75]

1 minute ago, August1991 said:

23 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

The United States has been pretty imperialistic for a while. I liked Obama a lot more than Biden and Trump, but he certainly still had some serious flaws. 

Disagree.

What in my statements did you disagree with?

2 minutes ago, August1991 said:

You guys won. Kennedy, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon. You won the Cold War. Reagan took credit.

You haven't forgotten that I'm not American, have you? As to the United States winning the Cold War, sure, but that was then. At this point in time, I think that Russia is being far more sensible than the U.S. Trump, for all his flaws, seems to be reversing course when it comes to the foolish policies the U.S. had with Russia, at least to some extent. 

[August1991]

On 3/12/2025 at 9:55 PM, Scott75 said:

What in my statements did you disagree with?

You haven't forgotten that I'm not American, have you? As to the United States winning the Cold War, sure, but that was then. At this point in time, I think that Russia is being far more sensible than the U.S. Trump, for all his flaws, seems to be reversing course when it comes to the foolish policies the U.S. had with Russia, at least to some extent. 

NATO (and SEATO) won the Cold War.

You Americans lead us to defeat the Marxists/Communists/Soviets who wanted to control the world.

====

Since 1989, IMHO, we are back to 1815 or 1945 - after a cataclysm. Dunno.

We need a new structure.

[Scott75]

43 minutes ago, August1991 said:

On 3/12/2025 at 7:55 PM, Scott75 said:

You haven't forgotten that I'm not American, have you? As to the United States winning the Cold War, sure, but that was then. At this point in time, I think that Russia is being far more sensible than the U.S. Trump, for all his flaws, seems to be reversing course when it comes to the foolish policies the U.S. had with Russia, at least to some extent. 

NATO (and SEATO) won the Cold War.

I don't know about NATO and SEATO being the main reasons why, but I can certainly agree that the collective west essentially won the cold war against the U.S.S.R. The U.S.S.R.'s successor, Russia, on the other hand, is playing its cards quite well in my view. Barring a nuclear war wherein just about everyone loses, I think the odds of Russia achieving its objectives in Ukraine are incredibly high.

43 minutes ago, August1991 said:

You Americans lead us to defeat the Marxists/Communists/Soviets who wanted to control the world.

I feel like I'm talking to the main character in Memento -.- Once again, I'm not American. As to the Soviets, they are gone, but the Russians, who have taken their place, are operating in a much smarter manner, and they are not acting alone either. The Russians and others such as China, have decided that they'd like to live in a multi polar world. Just as with Ukraine, I think the only thing that could really put a spanner in this would be a nuclear war with the west, and I think we can agree that most of that 'west' would be the United States. It would be, in my view, the worst case scenario for everyone. Here's to hoping that diplomacy wins the day.

 

Edited March 15 by Scott75

[August1991]

6 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

... The U.S.S.R.'s successor, Russia, on the other hand, is playing its cards quite well in my view....

 

I strongly disagree.

The USSR was a communist ideological scheme to dominate the world.

Russia? It's another country on the map.

[Scott75]

3 hours ago, August1991 said:

I strongly disagree.

The USSR was a communist ideological scheme to dominate the world.

Does that mean that the U.S. is a "capitalist ideological scheme to dominate the world"?

3 hours ago, August1991 said:

Russia? It's another country on the map.

No, Russia is the only other country besides the U.S. that could destroy most if not all life on earth. I found it positively insane that Trump has to remind people of that, from the media to Zelensky. The -good- news is that, unlike the United States, which especially under Biden seemed to enjoy playing a game of chicken with Russia, helping Ukraine literally bomb Russia, Russia has not retaliated against the U.S. Even better news is it appears that Trump will not continue to escalate things with Russia as well. As long as he sticks to sanctions and just continuing Biden's legacy spending on Ukraine, the rest of the world may just get through this in one piece.

Edited March 15 by Scott75

[August1991]

On 3/15/2025 at 3:40 AM, Scott75 said:

Does that mean that the U.S. is a "capitalist ideological scheme to dominate the world"?

No, Russia is the only other country besides the U.S. that could destroy most if not all life on earth.

====

Disagree. Russia? Or "... besides the U.S" as you politely say?

===

Who dropped the bombs - Truman, or America?

[Scott75]

4 hours ago, August1991 said:

On 3/15/2025 at 1:40 AM, Scott75 said:

Does that mean that the U.S. is a "capitalist ideological scheme to dominate the world"?

No, Russia is the only other country besides the U.S. that could destroy most if not all life on earth. I found it positively insane that Trump has to remind people of that, from the media to Zelensky. The -good- news is that, unlike the United States, which especially under Biden seemed to enjoy playing a game of chicken with Russia, helping Ukraine literally bomb Russia, Russia has not retaliated against the U.S. Even better news is it appears that Trump will not continue to escalate things with Russia as well. As long as he sticks to sanctions and just continuing Biden's legacy spending on Ukraine, the rest of the world may just get through this in one piece.

Disagree.

With what?

4 hours ago, August1991 said:

Disagree. Russia? Or "... besides the U.S" as you politely say?

Could you elaborate on what you're asking here?

4 hours ago, August1991 said:

Who dropped the bombs - Truman, or America?

If you're referring to the 2 bombs dropped on Japan and you want to get technical, neither. The nuke dropped on Hiroshima was dropped by U.S. Air Force pilot Paul Tibbets, while the nuke dropped on Nagasaki was dropped by U.S. Air Force pilot Charles Sweeney. If you had meant to ask who made the -decision- to drop 2 nukes on Japan, though, then yes, that decision was Truman's:

https://www.nps.gov/articles/trumanatomicbomb.htm

[SpankyMcFarland]

Europe was entirely different in 1914, a continent ruled by six empires that had little respect for the rights of many of their subjects, especially ethnic minorities. Today only one of those despotic governments is left - in Russia. Elsewhere, norms of civilized behaviour have moved on dramatically. Thus the French don’t have to worry that Germany will invade and Ireland can discuss its issues with Britain on an equal basis. That’s why Europe is helping Ukraine. It wants to preserve the post-WWII consensus where small nations don’t have to fear powerful neighbours. 

[August1991]

On 3/27/2025 at 6:09 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Europe was entirely different in 1914, a continent ruled by six empires that had little respect for the rights of many of their subjects, especially ethnic minorities. Today only one of those despotic governments is left - in Russia. Elsewhere, norms of civilized behaviour have moved on dramatically. Thus the French don’t have to worry that Germany will invade and Ireland can discuss its issues with Britain on an equal basis. That’s why Europe is helping Ukraine. It wants to preserve the post-WWII consensus where small nations don’t have to fear powerful neighbours. 

In 1910 or so, Europe was at the end of a structure of peace -created in 1815.

In 2020s, we in the world need a new structure of peace -1815 style.

===

IMHO, our world today is very similar to the 1910s.

I reckon that we can avoid the disaster of August 1914.

 

Edited April 4 by August1991

[SpankyMcFarland]

4 minutes ago, August1991 said:

In 1910 or so, Europe was at the end of a structure of peace -created in 1815.

In 2020s, we in the world need a new structure of peace -1815 style.

The grip of the old empires was restored in 1815 but had been present a long time before the French Revolution as well. 

[August1991]

22 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The grip of the old empires was restored in 1815 but had been present a long time before the French Revolution as well. 

The collapse of August 1914 was avoidable.

JFK said this.

Trump said this.

[August1991]

On 3/24/2025 at 2:50 AM, Scott75 said:

====

If you're referring to the 2 bombs dropped on Japan and you want to get technical, neither.

===

Disagree. You make a typical point: "I was following orders... "

Truman at Potsdam ordered to drop both bombs. He told Stalin about this.

I reckon that, at the time, no one knew what would work in a bomb from a plane. They had two methods: plutonium and uranium. Truman learned that one method had worked.

====

Imagine Truman at the time. A salesman, an ordinary American, a Gerry Ford, suddenly put in such a situation to decide.

 

[August1991]

I am Canadian but I would have done as Truman.

Before, I thought that Truman was a poker player like Nixon - play your cards well. It is true that Truman was a good card player, an ordinary guy, in Truman's decision to drop two bombs?

I have been to Potsdam (near Berlin), looked at the table (it is now a museum). I reckon that I too would have approved both bombs, And passed the word to Stalin.

Truman was a Canadian at heart.