Tuesday, September 27, 2022

Natzsofast, Guido

WRSA posted the above FAS graphic today as part of a larger meme dump. One ought to be careful when publishing the propaganda of communist front groups. The technical term for the FAS' poster is "lying by omission". We have amended the graphic to read more accurately.

One is forced to conclude the primary motivation for Putin's repeated Ukrainian land grabs since 2014 is that he did them mainly because he could.

Thus becoming lesson 8,000,012 in world history on why you never give up your weapons.


Anonymous said...

Robert Heinlein’s famous article “Who are the Heirs of Patrick Henry” is still a classic.

RandyGC said...

Be interesting to add countries that could become a nuclear power almost immediately after deciding to do so.

My initial list would be:

South Korea
Saudi Arabia

(Not counting Iran, which has announced it is becoming a nuclear power but lacks the resources ( and apparently the security for their labs and Boffins) to do so...yet

Jonathan H said...

Libya (specifically Quadafis downfall) became an example to Iran and North Korea of why they need to keep nuclear weapons; Ukraine is repeating the example...

Peter Grant said...

I suspect those numbers are radically low for a number of the "minor" nuclear powers. For example, Israel has just 90 nukes? Like hell! They had nukes in the 1970's, and stocked up on yellowcake uranium from South Africa in the 1980's - and that was forty-odd years ago. Who knows how much they've accumulated since then? They also have their own version of the "nuclear triad" - airborne, missile-based and sub-launched nuclear weapons. If Israel has less than 250 warheads, I'll be very, very surprised.

John Wilder said...

Wonder how much of (any of it) still works. Hoping to not see a field test.

Anonymous said...

Yes that is a question.

JimR said...

Of course, the west also promised not to push Nato membership further east, then brought in Poland, Hungary and others.

Pat H. said...

The Russian Federation is nullifying the Stalin land grabs of the pre and post war WW@.

Those opposing the Russian Federation are supporting Stalinists.

Aesop said...

Stalin's "land grabs" while he was Premier Of The Soviet Union?
Pull the other one; it's got bells on it.

Real life doesn't work that way.
The Russian Federation agreed to leave Ukraine exactly as it was territorially constituted in 1991, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the Soviet stash of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil.

Then Russia annexed Crimea - at gunpoint. Then they infiltrated Donbas and Luhansk with civilian-clothes-clad Russian armed forces, and began an 8-year undeclared war. Then they deliberately and openly invaded Ukraine and tried to conquer it.
The only land grab is the one underway by Russia. Their third such, in Ukraine, in only the last decade.
Like the python who swallowed a porcupine, it isn't working out the way they thought.

docfromjerusalem said...

Although Mr. Aesop does not like to be contradicted, I venture a few facts. 1- As I have stated previously, I have no quarrel with either side in the conflict, except for the loss of life the conflict generated. 2- If one reviews the voting map for at least the past twenty years, half of the Ukranian voters for Prime Minister west of Kiev vote for the Ukranian-leaning Party,and the other half[East of Kiev] vote for the Russian-backed Party, year over year over year. 3- The same populations, let's call them the Western Ukranians versus the Eastern Ukranians have very identifiable characteristics: W.U. prefer to speak Ukrainian. The E.U. prefer to speak Russian.

Aesop said...

So, using that level of illogic, if San Diego and Imperial counties, and all the border counties from Yuma AZ to Brownsville TX, voted to join Mexico, Mexico has the legal right to annex them all, at gunpoint, and declare them to be Mexico?
Show your work.

You're not contradicting me, you're contradicting common sense and reality.

If ethnic Russians miss the Rodina so much, they've had, at this point, 32 years to pack up their shit and move back there. They do not, however, retain any right to pack up half of Ukraine and bring it with them into Russia, nor does that authorize Russia to come and take it at gunpoint.

Aesop said...


NATO wasn't pushed anywhere. Russia pulled it, single-handedly.

Which countries in eastern Europe did we force into NATO at gunpoint after 1991?
Which ones begged to be admitted, with all due haste?

JimR said...

"Which countries in eastern Europe did we force into NATO at gunpoint after 1991?
Which ones begged to be admitted, with all due haste?"

and we showed the world what the word of the US govt was worth (again) Sweet fuck all.

The deal was, Ukraine gives up it's nukes, and Nato doesn't move east. Simple as that.

As for voting to rejoin Mexico analogy. I am not sure what that has to do with this post. Are you losing track of what conversation is where?

docfromjerusalem said...

The Ukrainian-rebels living in the borderland [Yuma- Brownsville] were considered Banditos by the Kiev-government and ex-patriots by the Moscow-government. How does a statesman manage the reality?

Aesop said...

We didn't push NATO anywhere. 50 years of Soviet oppression pulled it to their borders.

You seem to think that some subset of a nation's population can simply change countries at a whim. So once again, tell the class how it would be just fine if all the counties along the US border with Mexico voted to join Mexico, and Mexico moved troops into them to cement the deal.

If that's not okay, tell us why that's different than Ukrainian oblasts that think they can unilaterally move international borders east or west without any input from the national government in question, and without polling the entire country on the question.

If this is too hard for you to grasp, go to the local library and have someone read it to you very slowly, until the penny drops.

Aesop said...


They're both right.
A statesman from Kyiv would put down the rebellion.
A statesman from Moscow would recognize that he has Jack and Shit to say about the fate of those living in, and thus irrevocably subject to, the jurisdiction of a sovereign neighbor.

Prove this to yourself:
Go shoot up Ottawa or Mexico City, get apprehended by the local gendarmes, and see what the US State Dept. has to say about your fate after that. Bonus points: Demand your rights under the US Constitution.
Then demand that your vote to join the US should make your jail cell US territory, by a margin of 100%-0.
Tell us how it works out for you.

JimR said...

"We didn't push NATO anywhere. 50 years of Soviet oppression pulled it to their borders. "

Like the Austro-Hungarian empire, the USSR no longer exists.

The US (and NATO) agreed to not extend the membership of NATO further east, then reneged. Simple as that.

"You seem to think that some subset of a nation's population can simply change countries at a whim. "

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, ... "

Aesop said...

So you're claiming they have the right of rebellion.
Well and good.
Thus all military action against them until capitulation of the mother country - Ukraine - is wholly justified, on the grounds of suppressing sedition. So is any penalty, including summary executions, both to the population in rebellion, and making war on those who would aid and abet such rebellion.

Bummer for Donbas: they have no 3000-mile wide ocean to give them protection from the wrath of the owners in Kyiv
But Kyiv thus has every motivation, and all legal justification, to bleed both parties white until Hell freezes over.

Russia, OTOH, is now engaging in a war of aggression without justification, which should earn them expulsion from the UN, and eventual prosecutions for crimes against humanity.

John Fisher said...

RandyGC - to your list I would add:
1. Taiwan - almost certain. They worked with Israel and South Africa on the South African nuclear program in the 70s and 80s. It would explain why China threatens but hasn't invaded.
2. Poland - probably not yet but working on it. They do not trust the Russians or the Germans and within a couple of years will have the largest conventional military in Europe.
3. Brazil