It's very easy to tell what Eastern Europe in general thought of the Soviets. Most of them joined NATO as soon as they were free to do so.
Thoughts and Comments on Current Russian,Ukrainian Conflict/War
- Thread starter Matt_The_RocketMan
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
Funkworks
Low Earth Orbit, obstructing Earth's view of Venus
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2018
- Messages
- 5,379
- Reaction score
- 6,054
Not providing tanks. That’s what I’m looking to get an easy explanation for.
Last edited:
Looking at some recent posts I think there's a danger of over-simplifying the relationships between eastern Europe and Russia. I'll try to give a European perspective to the subject for those who aren't familiar with our regional politics.
Poland has spend centuries being carved up between Russia & Prussia/Germany and the former Austro-Hungarian empire. They are consequently proud of having retained their culture throughout numerous occupations, and are very independent-minded. They currently dislike Russia more than any of their former occupiers. They joined the EU for the money as the Russians left them bankrupt and technologically backward, and joined NATO as an anti-Russian gesture so they can't be invaded again. Their adherence to EU rules is lukewarm to the point where they comply just enough to keep the money rolling in.
Similar attitudes can be found in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, though they have not been kicked around as much by other European powers. They only came into being as 'Czechoslovakia' in 1918 from a series of smaller states and never really had a unified identity. Following invasion by Germany and occupation by Russia, they found their identity as two separate states in 1992.
Unlike the Czechs and Slovaks, there has been an identifiable Hungarian culture for over 1000 years. Like the Poles, they are very independent-minded with a strong military tradition. They have a tendency to like 'strongman' leaders. Postwar Hungary has gone from vehemently anti-German to anti-Russian, and back to pro-Russian depending on who holds the presidency.
Germany is a complex case. Former West Germany was NATO's front line, and has been a strong supporter of NATO, but also had to tread the path of defusing a NATO-WP conflict as it would be fought across their territory. This required West Germany to try to keep positive relations with Russia. East Germany was a non-country as many Western countries saw it as a territory which Russia occupied after the war but never relinquished. Russia did little to develop E Germany as part of their punishment for starting WW2. When the two halves unified W Germany was left to pick up the bill for dragging E Germany into the 20th century. The two halves of Germany are not at all united politically with the poorer east holding stronger anti-Russian feelings than the west, presumably resulting from years of occupation. The west of Germany has depended for a long time on cheap Russian fuel to power its industry and is still adjusting to the new reality. Both halves of Germany feel some war guilt, and show a significant reluctance to be seen as being responsible for escalating a European war. They want some 'top cover'. The UK has tried to provide this, but it doesn't seem to be enough for Germany. They seem to want the USA to sign up to this act of escalation first.
Thus endeth today's lecture. I hope its some use.
Poland has spend centuries being carved up between Russia & Prussia/Germany and the former Austro-Hungarian empire. They are consequently proud of having retained their culture throughout numerous occupations, and are very independent-minded. They currently dislike Russia more than any of their former occupiers. They joined the EU for the money as the Russians left them bankrupt and technologically backward, and joined NATO as an anti-Russian gesture so they can't be invaded again. Their adherence to EU rules is lukewarm to the point where they comply just enough to keep the money rolling in.
Similar attitudes can be found in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, though they have not been kicked around as much by other European powers. They only came into being as 'Czechoslovakia' in 1918 from a series of smaller states and never really had a unified identity. Following invasion by Germany and occupation by Russia, they found their identity as two separate states in 1992.
Unlike the Czechs and Slovaks, there has been an identifiable Hungarian culture for over 1000 years. Like the Poles, they are very independent-minded with a strong military tradition. They have a tendency to like 'strongman' leaders. Postwar Hungary has gone from vehemently anti-German to anti-Russian, and back to pro-Russian depending on who holds the presidency.
Germany is a complex case. Former West Germany was NATO's front line, and has been a strong supporter of NATO, but also had to tread the path of defusing a NATO-WP conflict as it would be fought across their territory. This required West Germany to try to keep positive relations with Russia. East Germany was a non-country as many Western countries saw it as a territory which Russia occupied after the war but never relinquished. Russia did little to develop E Germany as part of their punishment for starting WW2. When the two halves unified W Germany was left to pick up the bill for dragging E Germany into the 20th century. The two halves of Germany are not at all united politically with the poorer east holding stronger anti-Russian feelings than the west, presumably resulting from years of occupation. The west of Germany has depended for a long time on cheap Russian fuel to power its industry and is still adjusting to the new reality. Both halves of Germany feel some war guilt, and show a significant reluctance to be seen as being responsible for escalating a European war. They want some 'top cover'. The UK has tried to provide this, but it doesn't seem to be enough for Germany. They seem to want the USA to sign up to this act of escalation first.
Thus endeth today's lecture. I hope its some use.
Very informative, thank you.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2017
- Messages
- 2,880
- Reaction score
- 2,947
An interesting insight into Germany's internal politics.
Before WW1 European politics was much simpler. There were 6 major powers: England, Prussia/Germany, Austria, France, Russia and Spain. Others such as the Netherlands and Sweden had moments of unsustained greatness before reverting to being minor powers. If any of them got too powerful a coalition of the others would slap them down. This worked for centuries as everyone knew the rules of the game. Life's a bit more complex now.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,989
- Reaction score
- 4,097
I am not sure I totally agree with your assessment of E.Germany based on my limited interactions of German citizens as part of my former job many of whom were formerly born and raised as East Germans.
Many Berliners prior to WW2 were very sympathetic to communism. The E.German brand of communism was more of German version and many citizens of East Germany didn't feel they were under the thumb of Russia at all, they felt they were under the thumb of an incompetent local E.German government. Anyway, that's what the view of the E.Germans I knew post reconciliation.
Socialism and communism are very dangerous concepts. If the pure form, they are very attractive and many of the youth of the US find it very attractive. Unfortunately, they are going to have to learn the truth that this utopian society where everything is shared does not exist outside of a concept. Eventually, it always moves to authoritarianism eventually.
Back to Ukraine, I think they are in the process of a building up for a counteroffensive to limit or force a spreading of a future Russian build up or offensive.
Back to Ukraine, I think they are in the process of a building up for a counteroffensive to limit or force a spreading of a future Russian build up or offensive.
Agree wholeheartedly CWB. All of the classical, live and fictional utopias I've ever read about in high school literature have failed. I don't think any socialist or otherwise utopia has ever succeeded completely.
Democracy has some imperfections but is pretty derned good if you ask me.
Socialism, destroys the incentive to work and be the best you can be. Unless of course one is a socialist government hack who wants to progress up the ladder of by kissing "higher ups" tushes.
Kurt
True dat.
I sent my recommendation to my Senators to give Ukraine M1 tanks and aircraft. I don't know if it will make a difference. I do not care if Russia threatens to hit us. We will hit them back 10 fold. This war needs to end now and the way to end it is to show strength and a common stand against the invaders.
The two are not entirely antithetical. Democratic socialists and a whole bunch of other flavors of socialism exist.
I’ve also observed in my own work experience that slacking off is normal and “good enough” mentality prevails in the workplace, with de facto standards progressively falling except when management actively opposes it. Since their attention is limited, only the standards that are easiest to monitor and enforce are consistently met. We saw this as our governments gave up on COVID control and people started dismissing guidance on best practices. How many places still have “masks required” signs yet fail to actually make this happen? How many job postings actually disqualify everyone who doesn’t meet 100% of the listed minimum requirements? Not many, the common threshold is actually more like 75%. I was the only one in my previous workplace (a restaurant in a local theme park) who could lift 50lbs as required. Everyone else lied on the application or marked “no” and got in anyway. A lot of the most ambitious “requirements” are actually flexible, whether that be in job qualification or job performance.
“Kiss-up-kick-down” is therefore the norm in capitalist or mixed economies as well. The ones who are best able to boost compliance with stated standards when corporate comes to visit, or those who can appear to boost compliance, are the ones who get promoted.
Also remember that the Soviet sphere was never fully integrated with the world economy, actively sabotaged by the West, and it also bore the brunt of the Wehrmacht’s forces. It therefore took longer for it to recover from the havoc wrought and never did so as completely, but nonetheless performed admirably, given the circumstances.
The nature of the Soviet (and by extension, East German) system is a complicated question that is subject to debate by historians. The Soviet Union in particular enacted a number of different policies over a long period of time and a succession of different leaders, enough to make categorizing the Union as a whole tricky.
However, I think it’s fair to broadly summarize the Lenin era as rooted in his desire to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, an adaptation of Marx’s work to the unique economic and cultural conditions of the Russian Empire; Stalin’s rule starting as agricultural state capitalism and transitioning to industrial state capitalism, which carried forward to most of his less-infamously-brutal successors; and the leadership of Gorbachev as an attempt at a mixed economy that collapsed in the face of an oil price downturn and the resulting political fallout. Basically, three separate economic systems stacked up on top of each other and wrapped up in history’s hammer-and-sickle trench coat.
East Germany in particular came onto the scene during the latter part of Stalin’s rule and acted essentially as his puppet. Whether or not they attempted to follow Gorbachev’s example I’m not familiar enough to say, although I know Erich Honecker is generally considered a hardliner.
Regarding the whole Leopard question though, I seriously doubt that any affinity for the Russians remains. My guess is that they’re looking to the US for leadership on the question and are using the possibility of arms embargoes to ensure it. What they’re missing is that the tanks that are common in the American arsenal are just too sophisticated and expensive to be suitable in the short term. It’s a bit like how the F-15 is a bit too unwieldy for small nations or train on and use effectively, but something lighter, smaller, simpler, and less expensive like the F-16 is exported all over.
Last edited:
Socialism and communism are two different things. Finland, Sweden, and Norway are all Democratic socialism countries. They support capitalism but not rabid capitalism like we have here in the US. Corporations are not "people" with the rights of us flesh & blood. Their governments work for the best of their citizens. And they have the best healthcare systems and educational systems of any other countries.
As long as y'all are making up ad hoc definitions, let me add my own.
I rather enjoy the benefits of my America with socialist shared paved streets, lights, running water, police and fire services, and the authoritarian USDA and FDA the ensure the food I eat is safe, and the EPA to make sure we have clean air and water, and the FAA and the national air port system to make flying so incredibly safe, and the FCC so my radio and TV and cell phone work everywhere, and the SEC to cut out the worst financial scams. Etc.
If you don't like it, you're welcome to move to the libertarian paradise of Somalia.
I rather enjoy the benefits of my America with socialist shared paved streets, lights, running water, police and fire services, and the authoritarian USDA and FDA the ensure the food I eat is safe, and the EPA to make sure we have clean air and water, and the FAA and the national air port system to make flying so incredibly safe, and the FCC so my radio and TV and cell phone work everywhere, and the SEC to cut out the worst financial scams. Etc.
If you don't like it, you're welcome to move to the libertarian paradise of Somalia.
Deleted.
Last edited:
Fair enough.
I’m seeing reports that the Wagner Group has captured Soledar. The settlement and its population have been almost completely destroyed. Basically the Russians are so good at scorched Earth that they turned it into an offensive technique.
https://todaytimeslive.com/world/199313.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-signals-shift-veto-leopard-tanks-ukraine-2023-01-23/
Possible German movement.
Possible German movement.
Yes. I hear Germany might join in the shipments. I guess the M1s will be next.
Funkworks
Low Earth Orbit, obstructing Earth's view of Venus
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2018
- Messages
- 5,379
- Reaction score
- 6,054
I think this answers my question about Germany's position.
"Germany would not stand in the way if Poland sent its German-made Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said on Sunday in an interview with French television LCI.
If Poland were to go ahead and sent its Leopard 2 tanks without German approval, Baerbock said, "If we were asked we would not stand in the way."
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-updat...land-from-sending-tanks-to-ukraine/a-64480279
"Germany would not stand in the way if Poland sent its German-made Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said on Sunday in an interview with French television LCI.
If Poland were to go ahead and sent its Leopard 2 tanks without German approval, Baerbock said, "If we were asked we would not stand in the way."
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-updat...land-from-sending-tanks-to-ukraine/a-64480279
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,989
- Reaction score
- 4,097
It was always going to happen.
Russia's problems with scorched earth offensives are threefold.
1) they are still only moving incrementally with advances measured in meters per day.
2) the ground they take is worthless because they've leveled it to ruin.
3) They are expending so much ammunition that it is unsustainable even over the short term. They are reportedly running out of artillery shells, have already expended the supplies of Belarus, and have likely already purchased all available supplies from North Korea and Iran. They are already using nuclear capable missiles with concrete warheads and naval anti-ship missiles against civilian targets in an attempt to overwhelm Ukrainian air defenses (and still only getting 20 percent past those defenses).
Even if they call out another 300,000 troops, they don't have uniforms for them, or guns, or ammunition. I suppose human wave assaults are possible even if their soldiers only have pointy sticks, but I can't see that as an effective long-term strategy. Already I have seen reports that the successes of the Wagner group have come because they send human waves of convicts (and conscripts?) to soften up the Ukrainian defenses before sending in their veterans and even then they are still only gaining territory at a rate measured in meters per day. I have trouble envisioning how that is sustainable.
Talking heads are saying that this could be a long drawn-out conflict, but what happens when Russia simply doesn't have enough ammunition to defend, let alone attack?
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2017
- Messages
- 2,880
- Reaction score
- 2,947
I have a growing feeling that this will be a "drawn out conflict" until Russian military collapses ... suddenly and completely.
Between ammo and armor stocks exhaustion, and historical logistics incompetence, they just need a good push.
If we (the collective West) ever figure out how to stop tripping over our own private parts and supply Ukraine with adequate quantity of armor and medium-/long-range missiles, maintaining that 1000+ mile front across Ukraine will become unsustainable for the Russians.
And if Russians are forced to abandon and write-off the bulk of their military equipment presently deployed across Ukrainian territory, it would take decades for Russians to rebuild that force again. Should be plenty of time for Ukraine to rebuild, recover, join NATO, and put the final nail in the Russian ambitions to reconstitute the Evil Empire.
ThirstyBarbarian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 12,249
- Reaction score
- 7,482
Russia is going to be down to bayonet charges before the end.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,989
- Reaction score
- 4,097
But the silver lining for Russia is they are getting rid of all their criminals (at leqst the low level ones).
I understand what you're saying, and hope you appreicate that my comments were trying to increase understanding of the complexity of Europe and some generalisations were necessary.
Like you, I spent a lot of time in Germany as I worked for the German part of a Franco-German company. I spent a lot of time (my wife says too much) in Bierkellers discussing politics and the world with colleagues. I found the east-west German differences to be pretty much as I stated, though the older colleagues remembered the GDR slightly more kindly than the younger ones. Those from Saxony in the east couldn't wait to leave when the border opened as the economy was tanking under the GDR. I recall tales of talent and promising industries being moved into Russia and some frustration about the state of their local industry. Many, particularly the young and middle aged, moved to Bavaria for better jobs and much better salaries.
I was being a bit facetious, but you’re correct. My guess is that we’ll see something like the Hundred Days Offensive where relentless combined arms offensives against exhausted troops and supply lines punch big holes in the front line. Maybe if we’re lucky we’ll see entire BTGs completely surrounded.
I've just caught up with this thread due to timezone differences. At risk of being locked out I'll make one post about politics:
1. I think than Americans and Europeans have significantly different understanding socialism as a result of their different histories and cultures.
2. The UK and USA are bipartisan systems. I think it more likely that mistrust between two parties is more likely in a bipartisan system. It is tempting to deliberately misrepresent the messages of the other party as extreme.
3. Unlike the USA and UK, most European countries are not bipartisan but have multiple parties forming coalition governments. These tend to dilute the tendencies of the more extreme partiesand form more balanced and healthyy politics.
Meanwhile in Ukraine.....
1. I think than Americans and Europeans have significantly different understanding socialism as a result of their different histories and cultures.
2. The UK and USA are bipartisan systems. I think it more likely that mistrust between two parties is more likely in a bipartisan system. It is tempting to deliberately misrepresent the messages of the other party as extreme.
3. Unlike the USA and UK, most European countries are not bipartisan but have multiple parties forming coalition governments. These tend to dilute the tendencies of the more extreme partiesand form more balanced and healthyy politics.
Meanwhile in Ukraine.....
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,989
- Reaction score
- 4,097
Well then I will go with your judgement because you had a broader sample of German interaction than I had for sure.
Most of my interactions were over steins of German beer so the messages might have been garbled or exaggerated!
Similar threads
