Der Zeitgeist

This is actually quite common pyramid in Europe. Look at Italy, I think this is the "worst" one(in Europe). I guess that their unemployment problem will end too quickly for their liking.

I can't speak for Japan. For Germany I think especially some US forum members seem to misunderstand the role the Allies played in bringing about the change in German culture.
To start with, I'm not sure how much of a cultural change there actually was between, say, 1930 to 1960. The Nazis were not elected because Germans believed in all this aryan superiority nonsense or were convinced of the need for war for Lebensraum. They were elected because Germany was among the countries hit hardest by the worldwide economic crisis and had stopped trusting in the democratic system that was known for petty power squabbles and being unable to keep public order. Under the Nazis the economical situation improved, there was work for everyone, people could even go on vacations. Some lost territory was "reintregated" ... as some historian put it: had Hitler died in mid '39 he'd be counted among the greatest German leaders today. Still, there was no enthusiasm for war whatsoever at that time. Also the society was not nearly as "nazified" as Hollywood wants to make us believe. On the countryside it was still pretty much the church who ruled daily life. There was antisemitism, yes, but only up to a point. Public violence was still frowned upon (well, don't look, don't tell and all). In short, the hardcore nazis were more of a minority, most were chameleons, conformists, people who adapted to the system and were most interested in living their lives without being bothered. Don't get me wrong, many thought that Hitler had some good points. Antisemitism and some sense of superiority was common sense at the at the time and the Germans hadn't forgotten the Versailles contracts and the humiliation. Of course after the victory over France many held Hitler high regard. But they were not hardcore ideological Nazis.
Having survived the war and the chaos in the years directly after, the Germans wanted to just get on with their lives.
Denazification didn't really happen, at least not by the Allies. The Nuremberg trials did make sure that noone could say afterwards he didn't know. While they were a powerful sign that regimes could be held accountable for their deeds, it also gave the common German a bunch of scapegoats. Denazification among the common population was effectively rather symbolic. Most importantly the whole civil service was left largely untouched - our third chancellor, Kiesinger, had been a somewhat higher ranking Nazi. At least that quickly enabled a functioning state (compare to Iraq...). The civil servants functioned in the new system just as well as in the old system.
Generally, people knew of the war and what had happened at that time (although many claimed otherwise). But it was not spoken about. Former Nazis rarely ended in court because most of the judges had already been judges under the Nazis. And because the Germans didn't want to be reminded of the time and their deeds, people who tried were generally being frowned upon or even seen as traitors.
This really only changed with the next generation who suddenly demanded to know what their parents had done. That is what brought about a slow(!) change in culture.
What was vastly more important than denazification was what became known as the economic miracle. The Germans profited from the new system, their lives became objectively better. This is also where the US come into play: The Marshall plan, while strictly speaking did not do that much in reality (in the and it was all paid for by Germany), was brilliant because those signs everywhere "built with the help of the Marshall plan" connected the new good life with the Allies and the West in general. Then there was France (under de Gaulle) who extended their hands in friendship, the Queen came for a visit and all that. And then of course we discovered that we can just go on vacations if we want to see other countries 😉

What I always find fascinating about these kind of pictures of the Ukrainian military is the quiet professionalism that they seem to emit. That was something noticeable from the first hours of the war. Whatever the situation, they always seem to know exactly what they're doing.
In a few years, these guys will be training us, not the other way around.

What I always find fascinating about these kind of pictures of the Ukrainian military is the quiet professionalism that they seem to emit. That was something noticeable from the first hours of the war. Whatever the situation, they always seem to know exactly what they're doing.
In a few years, these guys will be training us, not the other way around.

Infamous old USSR school RU Nat Alksnis commits thought crime (from his VK, sorry did not save the link. Adjusted for readability)
Alsknis laid out how they are going to throw Putin under the bus - he is traitor/western puppet who sabotaged RU defense capabilities and caused it to lose war with Ukraine.

Disagree.  I also get his impulse, we have all had it. However, his "only good Russian, is a dead Russian" rhetoric is:
- Promoting hatred and violence of an entire society - he has never discriminated for or against non-combatants in this conflict, in fact in his last post he has basically openly declared that there are no non-combatants.
- Rarely if ever providing any new facts - it is just a steady stream of the same hatred note that has frankly gone on far too long in my opinion.
- His attitude is apparently pulling in other like minded folks, which risks us sliding into polarized discussion forum - the hints of which we have already seen.
- His narrative actually will erode support to Ukraine from the audience, largely western, by representing his nation this way - the less informed may believe that all Ukrainians are thinking like him.  This will have the exact opposite effect he appears to be looking for as we begin to wonder if all Ukrainians are genocidal - which they clearly are not.
- To the point, Russian counter-IO would be employing exactly these sort of over the top narratives using false identities to try and sour western support: "See Ukrainians are really all a bunch of extremist Nazis!!!" - an attempt to re-shift the narrative, something the Russians are very adept at.
I am not saying that this individual is actually working for the Russians; however, his narrative is.  

leaving so abruptly?  That is awfully suspicious....

Yes.

In your posts, the influence of Russian propaganda is noticeable. Obviously, frequent exposure to pro-Russian resources does not benefit the objectivity of judgments

Russia is the only actor in all this who is continuously trying to make the situation more fuzzy, uncertain and chaotic. It is their modus operandi to project uncertainty and chaos on political level. They are also assholes that enjoy doing things to show they can get away with them.
Recently, they were
running fake referendums to threaten nukes, shelling largest nuclear power plant launching missiles at grain storage right after saying they wont launching missiles at dams and power plants kidnapping children murdering refugees (see videos above) setting up "humanitarian corridors" then mining and shelling them Not so recently, they murdered people with chemical weapons in UK, sabotaged a lot of stuff all over EU and shot down airliner to show they can get away with it.
Of course they blew up their own pipeline. While laughing about "now useful idiots all over the world will talk about how USA did it".

There are multiple lines from Russia to Europe, aside from using Nord Stream to skip paying transit fees to Poland or Ukraine, the Nord Stream is designed to allow the gas to flow to Western Europe without pesky interference from Ukraine or Poland. Like a situation where Ukraine is being invaded and Europe refuses to assist, destroying the pipeline might be quite fair.
But Ukraine is holding out, Europe supports it, Russia is paying the transit fees, so all is well. Except this dispute threatens it. Who is the one causing issues? Maybe Ukraine, but considering Russia’s entire messaging has been a freezing Europe forced to beg Russia for gas and to stop supporting Ukraine….I really don’t think it’s not Russia.


 
You mean Russia? The U.S gets way more punishment in rising fuel costs worldwide fueling inflation than any benefit to increasing dependence on U.S LNG. 
No, I don’t think you understand, Norwegian LNG is a significant source of supply to the rest of Europe, it is entirely offshore. I’m assuming it is all in use. Russia blowing up one of those lines might be considered too much a escalation for NATO to ignore.
Better to blow NS 1 and NS 2 and make clear if Russia wants Europe to freeze, it can do so by destroying the Norwegian pipelines. If Europe folds in the future, the pipelines thru Ukraine and Poland remain to supply Europe.

"When he reached the New World, Cortez burned his ships. As a result his men were well motivated."
Captain Ramius, Hunt for Red October

Probably because this card did not work in the sense in which we initially assumed and Putin had to use this card a little differently

Well thanks for this to start.  I firmly believe you are correct.  Ukraine has waged this war well within the law of armed conflict, frankly demonstrating admirable restraint with respect to POWs and especially targeting within Russia itself - a master class in precision strikes against legitimate military targets.  
Further, if any Russian picks up a weapon and deploys to Ukraine, he has earned the right to be engaged until he is dead or no longer a combatant - all stop.  Further those responsible for the egregious Russian war crimes must be prosecuted.  Finally, reparations must be made by Russia to pay for this war.
Russia needs to definitively  lose this war and frankly has already.  I personally do not like the idea of a collapsed and fractured Russia, too many unknowns and risks; however, if it the only way this goes, so be it.
Ukraine needs to definitively win, and will.  At least to pre-war borders and they are fully entitled to re-taking the pre-2014 lines, we have talked about the risks there too.
However, one thing I have learned over the last three decades is that winning means more than on the battlefield, it means whatever comes next.  I have zero doubts that there is a minority in Ukraine that share the same sentiments, and I really do get why.  But as a nation Ukraine needs to rise above it and become the regional counter-power it has already demonstrated it can be.
Kraze is entitled to his opinion and all; however, I will not leave his calls for more atrocity and crimes on the table unchallenged.  Anymore than if a Russian poster came here trying to justify the same.
 

I am going to ignore most of your rant, frankly if anyone were to push that kind of hatred towards any other group they would get tossed off this forum pretty quickly; however, we live in odd times.  
The Russian military and political system are responsible for this war.  I have no doubt some of the population does as well; however to blame an entire people - who you don’t recognize as a people, yet point to them as an evil homogeneous empire that has been a threat for hundreds of years - down to many who have nothing to do with this or actively opposed it, nor had a say in it because Russia lacks a democratic system, is wrong on so many levels.
If in your fractured Russian scenario - the one you are promoting, and I notice no denial of you promoting cultural genocide either btw- Russian elderly, women and children show up on on your borders in a humanitarian crisis I expect you and your nation to be better than the a$$holes we are currently supporting your nation against.  If you cannot do that - and for the record I really do not believe you represent your nation - then why are we even bothering with this whole war?  If a post-war Ukraine is suppressing democracy in re-taken regions, actively supporting civil strife in former Russian fragments (which would have to be in your plan), and let potentially thousands of people die because of their ethnicity (oh wait Russian isn’t a thing, so, how will you tell who to keep out) - the what the hell are we defending here?
If we wanted a brutal regime in Ukraine to ignore human rights and suppress freedoms based on pseudo-ethnicity then why we didn’t we just sit back and let Russia take the damn place?
I stand with Ukraine in this war, but I do not stand with you on this.  We want a Ukraine with a fully functional democracy for all its citizens, a Ukraine that recognizes and operates under international law and respects human rights, regardless of who is suffering.  That is the Ukraine that gets into NATO/EU - with Hungarian arm twisting if need be.  That is the Ukraine we invest hundreds of billions in reconstruction. That is the Ukraine we support and enforce Russian accountability for.
Not whatever nightmare you are selling here.

I agree with much of what you said but you mildly ignored my main point a bit. No other western MBTs and IFVs. Why? Yes, of course Germany has mothballed stuff Ukraine could put to better use, I totally agree.
But, honest question, why don't the other countries supply western MBTs and IFVs? It looks to me that others are just as reluctant as we are about this topic and are happy that Germany makes such a good job of presenting a target for criticism.

That's two things being mixed up. I agree, Germany could and should do more and I am upset about how Scholz or worse or defense secretary, are... well, scholzing. You can rightly single us out for that?
But which country has sent Western MBTs or IFVs? If it was about some kind of sharing the burden, than I'd be all in. But I have a very hard time believing the US, UK, France, Sweden, etc are not sending MBTs just because they are supplying all the other stuff and now it's Germany's turn.
Criticise us for not doing enough but criticising us for not doing something others aren't willing to do either is IMO unfair.
 

But I do, what will you do about it? 😉
You also didn't get my point. I did not criticise the US for not sending M1s to Ukraine. I just asserted that they don't. I criticise people for singling out Germany despite no other country supplies MBTs and IFVs. And of course I can rightly ask why the US don't supply M1s or M2s. I just don't believe its only because "well we already send ton of other stuff". I believe the Biden administration doesn't do it for a concrete reason. Again, I don't criticise them for it, just saying that if others are allowed to not deliver that kind of equipment for their own reasons than so should Germany.

I won't speculate on the reasons why the respective countries don't send their stuff. It's their decision (and theirs alone, mind you) to decide what to deliver. I just get frustrated with this constant applying of double standards. Where are the cries of "Why doesn't Biden finally send M1s to Ukraine?"?

Nobody likes how Scholz is handling this. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of Germans who are just afraid of WW3. These people are very much in line with what Scholz is doing. 
Also, I'll say it for the umpteenth time: You can rightly criticise that the West as a whole is not willing to send tanks and IFVs. But as long as neither US nor UK nor any other western country with domestic tank development and production is willing to send their stuff it is rather hypocritical to single out Germany.

Ok then, well good luck with that then.  So you plan is for the west to support until Russia shatters and then Ukraine ride it out as a lone state?  Unfortunately Ukraine does not appear in the Bible so I am not sure western support will last.
“A shattered Russia with an unsecured nuclear arsenal vs a lone state in a sea of people who can only agree on the fact that they hate you.” Is not a geopolitical solution.  Neither is hoping that making their dysfunction worse or them being pushed deeper into crisis will somehow lead to them forgetting you.
Your proposed strategy will have set conditions for long term direct threats to your nation without any real mitigating mechanisms against increasing regional insecurity.  This is extremely bad for business, so western economic investment is going to be very difficult.  Reconstruction is also at risk, as you note terrorism will be a significant threat in your country.  If these conditions create enough significant humanitarian crisis you could waves of former-Russian refugees try and get into Ukraine - which you can of course turn away by force, completely losing any strategic narrative high ground you have.
About the only way you approach would work would be for all Russians to cease to be at all, a strategy of extermination, but of course I know you are not proposing that.
I have to say that your isolationist entirely uncompromising view of the future sounds a lot like the narratives coming out of Russia itself, just pointed in the other direction.
 
 

Ah, well now this is a different story.  This is Russia and separatist abandoning democratic process and turning to violence because they did not like the answer...not cool.
My point on "clear" is that there it was unclear as to the level of separatist sentiment in the region, I think you answered that; clearly a section of the population within the Donbass region are not "all in" with the Ukrainian union.  I suspect we would find the same in Crimea.
So what does Ukraine do when it re-takes these regions, assuming Russia fall all the way back and is no longer a real factor?
We have been debating legitimacy a lot and frankly I do not know if the cause of the separatist was or is legitimate, I am not even sure we on the outside have the right to judge - how they went about trying to gain freedom, or Russian involvement, was clearly not legitimate.
I am very concerned about any suggestion that the peoples of the Donbass or Crimea, who were separatists or even served in the LNR/DNR forces are somehow not entitled to democratic rights and freedoms as any Ukrainian citizens, not that I think that is what most of us are suggesting.  I think there are a lot of grey areas here, and we should not dismiss a peoples free choice lightly - even the ones we really do not like.
I am very concerned about side-stepping or sweeping the issue aside when we discuss end-states for this war.
I have to say this entire discussion has gotten me really thinking about post-conflict and the challenges of nation building, which are muscles I have not used in some time.

There are risk escalation moments.

- Retaking LPR/DPR
- Retaking Crimea
- post-war settling of populations
- post-war rebuilding
 
LPR and DPR are the least risky both because their forces are already engaged, Ukraine can boil the frog, and its unlikely that western electoral populations will become engaged. This means that LPR/DPR cannot make Ukraine's life significantly harder, they can "cross the red line" in a way that doesn't create a reaction (will Russia nuke Ukraine for capturing a pig farm in LPR? Will Western supporters say "No! Return that pig farm!"?), and Ukraine can exercise its preference without Western support being withdrawn or damaged.

Retaking Crimea is far more risky. It is militarily more difficult. There is a clear red line (Perekop). Russia has a stronger claim to it. I suspect more Russians feel that it is "Mother Russia" than LPR/DPR so this means more special interests in Russia will want to work together to defend it. For example, LPR/DPR has hardcore nationalist and its own government. Crimea has hardcore nationalist, military, perhaps oligarchs who own land or have wealth tied up in the area, etc... This will bring in more Western opinion and pressure (both government and electoral)  and the West can use rebuilding as a stick to halt Ukraine.

To sum up Crimea:
- Very clear red line
- More parties in Russia lay claim to it
- Militarily more expensive to retake (even Warlordism might find Crimea being a tough nut to crack)
- Easier for West to also declare red line or see red line
Post-war population measures seems low risk as long as Ukraine does not screw up too much. Even intentional resettlement of populations can probably be done with good documentaries on Russian crimes in Bucha and Izyum. West will shrug and it seems to me that LPR/DPR will be in state closer to Germany in 1945 with most iits men fought out and exhausted. Less likely to lead insurgency and more likely to be done with war and glad that there is no longer threat of bombings and death of loved ones.

post-war rebuilding this seems like stick West can use to control Ukraine to some degree. Big risk here seems to be war lasting past 2024 and new U.S. government being less friendly to Ukraine or electoral unhappiness at large size of funding. Biggest seems to me is that Western voters bulk at the price.

With how Russia has done so far I suspect that they don't have a good hold on what they can/cannot handle and are overshooting their mark. Maybe they were expecting a lot of loss through corruption/draft dodging?
They also might be reading current Ukrainian offensives as largely exhausted and trying to backfill as mush as possible by the time of the winter freeze and renewed large attacks.
 

Ok, ok, let's all settle down.  Irritate is fine by me.  We are in a heated debate, I am sure we can irritate each other just fine and still have productive conversations. 
Look, we are all on the same side here.  We vary in some areas but I can say we are all very much pro-Ukrainian on this thread.
Probably on me, I poked back too hard.  I withdraw "irritate", maybe frustrate is a better word, but hey we can disagree.  So long as we keep it clean and most importantly productive.
Right?

Ok, I think that just about wraps up this topic, so glad we could come to rational common ground.  I am pretty sure the Canadian government will find and fleece me in my tax bracket over this, as they have demonstrated so much acumen to do, but so be it.
You guys in the "non-negotiable" camp do you, I hope maybe you found a few things to think about and mull over, I know I did - the entire post-conflict thing is something to unpack, but we need to get there first.