Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>On 3/26/2024 11:36 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:15:35 -0400, Cryptoengineer
>> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/23/2024 12:36 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> When I was taking Russian in the Army, one of our instructors (the
>>>>> instructors were all people expelled/fleeing from the Soviet Union, so
>>>>> a certain amount of bias may be presumed to be present in these
>>>>> vignettes) that the students at Patrice Lumumba University, in Moscow,
>>>>> were carefully kept away from ordinary Russians, who were racist to
>>>>> the core.=20
>>>>
>>>> A former co-worker of mine actually went to Lumumba and had similar
>>>> things to say (although he was white, which was not unusual among
>>>> the Lumumba students). It was interesting when we realized that we
>>>> had different notions of horsepower, also.
>>>>
>>>> In the thirties and forties there was a big propaganda push to convince
>>>> Soviet citizens of the unity of their country, with films about how Tatars
>>>> were just like normal Russian people and so forth. The fact that this was
>>>> needed is a sign of a problem. The fact that it kind of petered out and
>>>> the problem continued is a sign of humans being human again.
>>>>
>>>>> During the Sochi games, their Patriarch asserted that Russians should
>>>>> not mix with the locals or other non-Russians, not because it was
>>>>> immoral, but because it would "dilute the racial purity of the Russian
>>>>> people".
>>>>
>>>> Well, yes, but there are plenty of other reasons for Russian insularity
>>>> besides just racism. Centuries of being taught that everyone in the
>>>> outside world is out to get you leaves attitudes behind that are hard to
>>>> erase.
>>>
>>> Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. It sits in the middle of a vast
>>> plane without natural barriers; contrast to the US, which has a friendly
>>> ally to the north, and a weak nation to the south, and vast ocean moats
>>> in east and west.
>>>
>>> Russian paranoia is based on bitter experience.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> But does it explain the racism? That's what it was brought up here to
>> do.
>>
>> And does it excuse (or explain) their attempts to seize their
>> neighbors' land -- thus opening themselves up to retribution.
>
>Russian Racism I can't speak on. Russia has a 'Manifest Destiny'
>complex known as 'Russki Mir', or 'Russian World', in which it
>desires to spread its Orthodox, authoritarian culture to the
>rest of the world. [1]
>
>[I note that America, and earlier European colonial powers
>are/were guilty of similar hubris.

Up until 1895 or so, the US was very insular and refused to
involve themselves in foriegn events and politics, even in
central and south america. Since then, not so much.

In article <utv0n1$1uobn$1@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>As for expansionism, when you have no geographical barriers
>between you and your perceived enemies, one vital defense is
>creating buffer zones, pushing out until you *do* reach
>geographical barriers.

Expansion is counter-productive until the whole world is encompassed
because longer borders are correlated with more neighbours. An easier
solution is to place the entire Russian population in a single well
guarded fortress in some secret remote region.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

In article <utv2pf$d1h$1@reader1.panix.com>,
James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <utv0n1$1uobn$1@dont-email.me>,
>Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>As for expansionism, when you have no geographical barriers
>>between you and your perceived enemies, one vital defense is
>>creating buffer zones, pushing out until you *do* reach
>>geographical barriers.
>
>
>Expansion is counter-productive until the whole world is encompassed
>because longer borders are correlated with more neighbours. An easier
>solution is to place the entire Russian population in a single well
>guarded fortress in some secret remote region.

There are 120 million Russians in Russia (not every person in
Russia is Russian). Each Russian is about one tenth of a cubic
metre. 12 million cubic metres is a cube less than 220 metres on
an edge. Even if we double the volume, that is a cube less than
three football fields on a side. Easy to hide in mountains or
deep beneath the sea.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On 3/26/2024 2:05 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <utv0n1$1uobn$1@dont-email.me>,
> Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> As for expansionism, when you have no geographical barriers
>> between you and your perceived enemies, one vital defense is
>> creating buffer zones, pushing out until you *do* reach
>> geographical barriers.
>
>
> Expansion is counter-productive until the whole world is encompassed
> because longer borders are correlated with more neighbours. An easier
> solution is to place the entire Russian population in a single well
> guarded fortress in some secret remote region.

Watch the Peter Zeihan video I linked. By pushing the 'border' out to
mountain ranges, seas, deserts, and larger rivers they can greatly
ease their defense problem.

The obvious example is the Baltic States. Now part of NATO, nothing
natural stands between them and invading Moscow but a day's drive.
But if the Baltics 'belong' to Russia, as they did until 1940-1990,
the Baltic Sea makes that an very difficult invasion route.

Similarly, pushing Russian control into Poland means that the
Carpathians are on the south, and you can concentrate on
blocking the Fulda Gap.

Controlling Ukraine makes the Black Sea one of your
defenses. There are more 'gap fillers', but you get the
idea.

pt

On 3/26/2024 2:11 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <utv2pf$d1h$1@reader1.panix.com>,
> James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <utv0n1$1uobn$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> As for expansionism, when you have no geographical barriers
>>> between you and your perceived enemies, one vital defense is
>>> creating buffer zones, pushing out until you *do* reach
>>> geographical barriers.
>>
>>
>> Expansion is counter-productive until the whole world is encompassed
>> because longer borders are correlated with more neighbours. An easier
>> solution is to place the entire Russian population in a single well
>> guarded fortress in some secret remote region.
>
> There are 120 million Russians in Russia (not every person in
> Russia is Russian). Each Russian is about one tenth of a cubic
> metre. 12 million cubic metres is a cube less than 220 metres on
> an edge. Even if we double the volume, that is a cube less than
> three football fields on a side. Easy to hide in mountains or
> deep beneath the sea.

Sounds like a good start.

pt

On 3/26/2024 1:53 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
> On 3/25/2024 4:15 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> [snip-snip]
>> Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]
>
> Would you happen to remember where you read this claim? I wonder if it
> included the Crimean Khanate's raids into Russia, Poland-Lithuania and
> other regions in the 15-18th centuries. There were well over a hundred
> major raids, which resulted in the capture and enslavement of hundreds
> of thousands of people. (Estimates vary, but it seems likely that the
> grand total was over 1 million, possibly over 2 million.)

I got it from the Peter Zeihan video I linked. While he is a more than
a little cavalier with his claims, always picking the most click-baity
version, the point remains:

Russia has been invaded A LOT, which is why their gunshy of anything
which makes them feel less safe, justified or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Russia

lists 19 events, 14 since 1800.

Contrast to the US, with just 1 in the past 200 years. (The
Aleutian campaign in WW2).

pt

On 3/26/2024 4:14 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> On 3/26/2024 1:53 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
>> On 3/25/2024 4:15 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> [snip-snip]
>>> Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]
>>
>> Would you happen to remember where you read this claim? I wonder if it
>> included the Crimean Khanate's raids into Russia, Poland-Lithuania and
>> other regions in the 15-18th centuries. There were well over a hundred
>> major raids, which resulted in the capture and enslavement of hundreds
>> of thousands of people. (Estimates vary, but it seems likely that the
>> grand total was over 1 million, possibly over 2 million.)
>
> I got it from the Peter Zeihan video I linked. While he is a more than
> a little cavalier with his claims, always picking the most click-baity
> version, the point remains:

I have now read Chapter 6 of Zeihan's 2020 book _Disunited Nations_. He
makes a lot of bold claims like:

> By the late 1970s, the leader of this group [he top tier of the
> intelligence services], Yuri Andropov, had privately come to the
> quiet conclusion that the Soviet Union had lost the Cold War.
> Ascending to national leadership in 1982, he and his disciples,
> Konstantin Chernenko and Mikhail Gorbachev, began an internal
> debate about how to manage defeat with honor.

The notion that Chernenko, Brezhnev's confidant for over 20 years, was
Andropov's disciple is ... truly revolutionary.

Or:

> Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union
[June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and
entered Berlin [April 1945].

Bold claims indeed.

> Russia has been invaded A LOT, which is why their gunshy of anything
> which makes them feel less safe, justified or not.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Russia
>
> lists 19 events, 14 since 1800.
>
> Contrast to the US, with just 1 in the past 200 years. (The
> Aleutian campaign in WW2).

It's a curious list. Let's take "Swedish invasion of Russia
(1708–1709)". The invasion in question was actually a prolonged campaign
fought in Poland-Lithuania, the Cossack Hetmanate and Russia during the
Great Northern War (1700-1721). The Great Northern War had started in
1700 when Russia and its allies declared war on Sweden.

"Crimean War (1853–1856)". The war started in 1853 when Russia invaded a
part of what we would now call Romania, which was then under Ottoman
control. Great Britain and France came to the Ottomans' rescue and
counter-invaded Crimea, then a part of the Russian Empire.

"Japanese invasion of Sakhalin (1905)". In the early 19th century this
Pacific island was under Japanese control. Growing Russian presence in
the Far East in the middle of the 19th century resulted in a division of
the island between Russia and Japan in 1855. In 1875 Japan ceded the
whole island to Russia in exchange for territorial gains elsewhere. At
the tail end of the Russo-Japanese war (1904-1905), which was fought
mostly in China, victorious Japanese forces retook Sakhalin. The Treaty
of Portsmouth, which ended the war a couple of months later, awarded the
southern half of the island to Japan. Russia/the USSR invaded the
southern part of Sakhalin in August 1945 and has governed it ever since.

"Continuation War (1941–1944)". This was Finland's attempt to take
advantage of the Soviet-German war (1941-1945) and reclaim the lands
lost to the USSR in 1940 after the Winter War (1939-1940) when the
Soviet Union invaded Finland and (unsuccessfully) tried to install a
Communist government.

On 3/26/2024 1:14 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> On 3/26/2024 1:53 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
>> On 3/25/2024 4:15 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> [snip-snip]
>>> Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]
>>
>> Would you happen to remember where you read this claim? I wonder if it
>> included the Crimean Khanate's raids into Russia, Poland-Lithuania and
>> other regions in the 15-18th centuries. There were well over a hundred
>> major raids, which resulted in the capture and enslavement of hundreds
>> of thousands of people. (Estimates vary, but it seems likely that the
>> grand total was over 1 million, possibly over 2 million.)
>
> I got it from the Peter Zeihan video I linked. While he is a more than
> a little cavalier with his claims, always picking the most click-baity
> version, the point remains:
>
> Russia has been invaded A LOT, which is why their gunshy of anything
> which makes them feel less safe, justified or not.
>
And anyone else doing anything Russia didn't order them to do makes them
feel less safe.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Russia
>
> lists 19 events, 14 since 1800.
>
> Contrast to the US, with just 1 in the past 200 years. (The
> Aleutian campaign in WW2).
>
2 if you start in 1800 as with Russia. (War of 1812.)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

In article <utvr5f$2el55$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 3/26/2024 1:14 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> > On 3/26/2024 1:53 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
> >> On 3/25/2024 4:15 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> >> [snip-snip]
> >>> Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]
> >>
> >> Would you happen to remember where you read this claim? I wonder if it
> >> included the Crimean Khanate's raids into Russia, Poland-Lithuania and
> >> other regions in the 15-18th centuries. There were well over a hundred
> >> major raids, which resulted in the capture and enslavement of hundreds
> >> of thousands of people. (Estimates vary, but it seems likely that the
> >> grand total was over 1 million, possibly over 2 million.)
> >
> > I got it from the Peter Zeihan video I linked. While he is a more than
> > a little cavalier with his claims, always picking the most click-baity
> > version, the point remains:
> >
> > Russia has been invaded A LOT, which is why their gunshy of anything
> > which makes them feel less safe, justified or not.
> >
> And anyone else doing anything Russia didn't order them to do makes them
> feel less safe.
>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Russia
> >
> > lists 19 events, 14 since 1800.
> >
> > Contrast to the US, with just 1 in the past 200 years. (The
> > Aleutian campaign in WW2).
> >
> 2 if you start in 1800 as with Russia. (War of 1812.)

There were multiple British raids (and in fact the New Orleans campaign
was an attempted invasion) during 1814.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On 3/27/2024 12:45 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <utvr5f$2el55$1@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/26/2024 1:14 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>> On 3/26/2024 1:53 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2024 4:15 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>> [snip-snip]
>>>>> Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Would you happen to remember where you read this claim? I wonder if it
>>>> included the Crimean Khanate's raids into Russia, Poland-Lithuania and
>>>> other regions in the 15-18th centuries. There were well over a hundred
>>>> major raids, which resulted in the capture and enslavement of hundreds
>>>> of thousands of people. (Estimates vary, but it seems likely that the
>>>> grand total was over 1 million, possibly over 2 million.)
>>>
>>> I got it from the Peter Zeihan video I linked. While he is a more than
>>> a little cavalier with his claims, always picking the most click-baity
>>> version, the point remains:
>>>
>>> Russia has been invaded A LOT, which is why their gunshy of anything
>>> which makes them feel less safe, justified or not.
>>>
>> And anyone else doing anything Russia didn't order them to do makes them
>> feel less safe.
>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Russia
>>>
>>> lists 19 events, 14 since 1800.
>>>
>>> Contrast to the US, with just 1 in the past 200 years. (The
>>> Aleutian campaign in WW2).
>>>
>> 2 if you start in 1800 as with Russia. (War of 1812.)
>
> There were multiple British raids (and in fact the New Orleans campaign
> was an attempted invasion) during 1814.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Columbus_(1916) is another
relevant episode.

In article <uu08qu$2l84d$1@dont-email.me>,
Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> wrote:
>On 3/27/2024 12:45 AM, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> In article <utvr5f$2el55$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/26/2024 1:14 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>> On 3/26/2024 1:53 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
>>>>> On 3/25/2024 4:15 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>>> [snip-snip]
>>>>>> Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you happen to remember where you read this claim? I wonder if it
>>>>> included the Crimean Khanate's raids into Russia, Poland-Lithuania and
>>>>> other regions in the 15-18th centuries. There were well over a hundred
>>>>> major raids, which resulted in the capture and enslavement of hundreds
>>>>> of thousands of people. (Estimates vary, but it seems likely that the
>>>>> grand total was over 1 million, possibly over 2 million.)
>>>>
>>>> I got it from the Peter Zeihan video I linked. While he is a more than
>>>> a little cavalier with his claims, always picking the most click-baity
>>>> version, the point remains:
>>>>
>>>> Russia has been invaded A LOT, which is why their gunshy of anything
>>>> which makes them feel less safe, justified or not.
>>>>
>>> And anyone else doing anything Russia didn't order them to do makes them
>>> feel less safe.
>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Russia
>>>>
>>>> lists 19 events, 14 since 1800.
>>>>
>>>> Contrast to the US, with just 1 in the past 200 years. (The
>>>> Aleutian campaign in WW2).
>>>>
>>> 2 if you start in 1800 as with Russia. (War of 1812.)
>>
>> There were multiple British raids (and in fact the New Orleans campaign
>> was an attempted invasion) during 1814.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Columbus_(1916) is another
>relevant episode.

Well, if you count the Aleutians, then you have to count Pearl Harbor &
The Philippines.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 3/25/2024 11:29 PM, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
> On 3/25/24 2:18 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Mad Hamish  <newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>>> On 5 Mar 2024 01:35:28 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was
>>>> that the
>>>> Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely
>>>> pro-Chinese.
>>>> It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium
>>>> War, and
>>>> the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but
>>>> was
>>>> determined.
>>>
>>> I think I've heard that the issue isn't the current work but that
>>> she's written stuff critical of China in the past.
>>
>> Which would be even WORSE because it would be punishing her for
>> "reforming"
>> and finally writing something less critical.
>>
>> Whatever it was, it was sure a mess.
>> --scott
>
> As I noted elsewhere, the good news is that all this resulted in a lot
> of publicity for the book, which could well reach a wider audience than
> if it *had* won the Hugo.

Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.

pt

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:47:35 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/25/2024 11:29 PM, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
>> On 3/25/24 2:18 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Mad Hamish  <newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>>>> On 5 Mar 2024 01:35:28 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, I am reading Rebecca Kuang's _Babel_ to see just what it was
>>>>> that the
>>>>> Hugo Committee may have objected to, and I find it extremely
>>>>> pro-Chinese.
>>>>> It is strongly against British imperialism and against the Opium
>>>>> War, and
>>>>> the Chinese government of the time may not have been very strong but
>>>>> was
>>>>> determined.
>>>>
>>>> I think I've heard that the issue isn't the current work but that
>>>> she's written stuff critical of China in the past.
>>>
>>> Which would be even WORSE because it would be punishing her for
>>> "reforming"
>>> and finally writing something less critical.
>>>
>>> Whatever it was, it was sure a mess.
>>> --scott
>>
>> As I noted elsewhere, the good news is that all this resulted in a lot
>> of publicity for the book, which could well reach a wider audience than
>> if it *had* won the Hugo.
>
>Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
>been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
>
>pt

Depends how far back you go in history. How about the first half of
the last half millennium.
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>TLDNR: Putin feels Russia isn't safe unless it can
>reconstruct the Soviet Union and regain suzerainty over
>the former Warsaw Pact. Russia won't stop, so it has
>to be stopped.

I do not believe this is true at all. Putin considers the USSR to have
been weak, and Lenin as having made compromises that wouldn't have been
made by a stronger leader. Putin does not want to reconstruct the Soviet
Union, he wants to reconstruct the Russian state of Ivan the Terrible.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:03:12 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>>On 3/26/2024 11:36 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:15:35 -0400, Cryptoengineer
>>> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/23/2024 12:36 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> When I was taking Russian in the Army, one of our instructors (the
>>>>>> instructors were all people expelled/fleeing from the Soviet Union, so
>>>>>> a certain amount of bias may be presumed to be present in these
>>>>>> vignettes) that the students at Patrice Lumumba University, in Moscow,
>>>>>> were carefully kept away from ordinary Russians, who were racist to
>>>>>> the core.=20
>>>>>
>>>>> A former co-worker of mine actually went to Lumumba and had similar
>>>>> things to say (although he was white, which was not unusual among
>>>>> the Lumumba students). It was interesting when we realized that we
>>>>> had different notions of horsepower, also.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the thirties and forties there was a big propaganda push to convince
>>>>> Soviet citizens of the unity of their country, with films about how Tatars
>>>>> were just like normal Russian people and so forth. The fact that this was
>>>>> needed is a sign of a problem. The fact that it kind of petered out and
>>>>> the problem continued is a sign of humans being human again.
>>>>>
>>>>>> During the Sochi games, their Patriarch asserted that Russians should
>>>>>> not mix with the locals or other non-Russians, not because it was
>>>>>> immoral, but because it would "dilute the racial purity of the Russian
>>>>>> people".
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, yes, but there are plenty of other reasons for Russian insularity
>>>>> besides just racism. Centuries of being taught that everyone in the
>>>>> outside world is out to get you leaves attitudes behind that are hard to
>>>>> erase.
>>>>
>>>> Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. It sits in the middle of a vast
>>>> plane without natural barriers; contrast to the US, which has a friendly
>>>> ally to the north, and a weak nation to the south, and vast ocean moats
>>>> in east and west.
>>>>
>>>> Russian paranoia is based on bitter experience.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> But does it explain the racism? That's what it was brought up here to
>>> do.
>>>
>>> And does it excuse (or explain) their attempts to seize their
>>> neighbors' land -- thus opening themselves up to retribution.
>>
>>Russian Racism I can't speak on. Russia has a 'Manifest Destiny'
>>complex known as 'Russki Mir', or 'Russian World', in which it
>>desires to spread its Orthodox, authoritarian culture to the
>>rest of the world. [1]
>>
>>[I note that America, and earlier European colonial powers
>>are/were guilty of similar hubris.
>
>Up until 1895 or so, the US was very insular and refused to
>involve themselves in foriegn events and politics, even in
>central and south america. Since then, not so much.

That's because it was pursuing its Manifest Destiny and Taking Up the
White Man's Burden while settling the country.

It expanded these interests overseas once the mainland was subdued.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:43:36 -0400, Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com>
wrote:

>On 3/26/2024 4:14 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> On 3/26/2024 1:53 PM, Ahasuerus wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2024 4:15 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>> [snip-snip]
>>>> Russia's been invaded roughly 50 times. [snip]
>>>
>>> Would you happen to remember where you read this claim? I wonder if it
>>> included the Crimean Khanate's raids into Russia, Poland-Lithuania and
>>> other regions in the 15-18th centuries. There were well over a hundred
>>> major raids, which resulted in the capture and enslavement of hundreds
>>> of thousands of people. (Estimates vary, but it seems likely that the
>>> grand total was over 1 million, possibly over 2 million.)
>>
>> I got it from the Peter Zeihan video I linked. While he is a more than
>> a little cavalier with his claims, always picking the most click-baity
>> version, the point remains:
>
>I have now read Chapter 6 of Zeihan's 2020 book _Disunited Nations_. He
>makes a lot of bold claims like:
>
> > By the late 1970s, the leader of this group [he top tier of the
> > intelligence services], Yuri Andropov, had privately come to the
> > quiet conclusion that the Soviet Union had lost the Cold War.
> > Ascending to national leadership in 1982, he and his disciples,
> > Konstantin Chernenko and Mikhail Gorbachev, began an internal
> > debate about how to manage defeat with honor.
>
>The notion that Chernenko, Brezhnev's confidant for over 20 years, was
>Andropov's disciple is ... truly revolutionary.
>
>Or:
>
> > Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union
>[June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and
>entered Berlin [April 1945].

OK, 46 months (4x12 - 2). This is essentially correct, as it was the
fall of Berlin that removed Hitler and led to the German surrender. It
is even more correct from the Soviet (and, no doubt, current Russian)
perspective.

In /The Last Battle/, Cornelius Ryan asks the question: Why did the
Allies not take Berlin? His answer: it would have cost [100,000] [1]
lives, and the Allies were not willing to pay the price. The Soviets
were, and it did.

[1] That's what comes to mind, but it could have been higher. Cite the
correct figure if you wish, but that won't change the point: the
Soviets were willing to lose the men, the Allies were not.

Of course, stopping at the pre-agreed line past which the Soviets
would control the territory was also a consideration.

Note that this book, along with /The Longest Day/ and /A Bridge to
Far/, were commissioned by Reader's Digest to document the events
primarily from the viewpoint of the people /not/ in charge but merely
required to be in the battle. This is why they have so many vignettes
of individual participant's experiences, although they also do cover
the overall story. /The Last Battle/ does less of this, as the sources
were mostly unavailable, being (if not dead) behind the Iron Curtain.

<interesting discussion of former wars involving Russia, if not
exactly invasions of Russia since Russian territory was not involved
in some cases>
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:03:12 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>

>>>
>>>[I note that America, and earlier European colonial powers
>>>are/were guilty of similar hubris.
>>
>>Up until 1895 or so, the US was very insular and refused to
>>involve themselves in foriegn events and politics, even in
>>central and south america. Since then, not so much.
>
>That's because it was pursuing its Manifest Destiny and Taking Up the
>White Man's Burden while settling the country.

Simplistic and irrelevent.

I refer you to

John W. Foster's _A Century of American Diplomacy_.

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:43:36 -0400, Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com>

>>
>> > Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union=20
>>[June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and=20
>>entered Berlin [April 1945].
>
>OK, 46 months (4x12 - 2). This is essentially correct, as it was the
>fall of Berlin that removed Hitler and led to the German surrender. It
>is even more correct from the Soviet (and, no doubt, current Russian)
>perspective.

The point that should be made is that without lend-lease, the
Germans would still occupy moscow and rule the former Rus.

On 3/27/2024 6:19 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> TLDNR: Putin feels Russia isn't safe unless it can
>> reconstruct the Soviet Union and regain suzerainty over
>> the former Warsaw Pact. Russia won't stop, so it has
>> to be stopped.
>
> I do not believe this is true at all. Putin considers the USSR to have
> been weak, and Lenin as having made compromises that wouldn't have been
> made by a stronger leader. Putin does not want to reconstruct the Soviet
> Union, he wants to reconstruct the Russian state of Ivan the Terrible.
> --scott
>
Either way he is trying to justify conquest now based on past "glory".

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 3/27/2024 10:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:43:36 -0400, Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com>
>
>>>
>>>> Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union=20
>>> [June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and=20
>>> entered Berlin [April 1945].
>>
>> OK, 46 months (4x12 - 2). This is essentially correct, as it was the
>> fall of Berlin that removed Hitler and led to the German surrender. It
>> is even more correct from the Soviet (and, no doubt, current Russian)
>> perspective.
>
> The point that should be made is that without lend-lease, the
> Germans would still occupy moscow and rule the former Rus.
>
That is debatable. Lend-lease helped but even without it there is good
reason to believe the CCCP would have at least regained all their lost
territory. It just would have taken longer and a larger body count.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 3/27/2024 7:47 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:

>
> Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
> been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
>
> pt
>
December 1814 not count?

Tim

Tim Illingworth <tim@smofs.org> wrote:
> Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
>> been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.

> December 1814 not count?

I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.

Some might also count January 2021. Is it an invasion of all
participants were US citizens? One person there was carrying the
flag of the nation (not US state) of Georgia, though he was probably
just confused.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 3/27/2024 12:34 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 3/27/2024 10:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:43:36 -0400, Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thirty-four months [sic] after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union=20
>>>> [June 1941], the Red Army swept away the final German resistance and=20
>>>> entered Berlin [April 1945].
>>>
>>> OK, 46 months (4x12 - 2). This is essentially correct, as it was the
>>> fall of Berlin that removed Hitler and led to the German surrender. It
>>> is even more correct from the Soviet (and, no doubt, current Russian)
>>> perspective.
>>
>> The point that should be made is that without lend-lease, the
>> Germans would still occupy moscow and rule the former Rus.
>>
> That is debatable.  Lend-lease helped but even without it there is good
> reason to believe the CCCP would have at least regained all their lost
> territory.  It just would have taken longer and a larger body count.

I agree with Scott. Lend-Lease not only moved thousands of tanks and
other vehicles and planes into the Soviet Union, the Soviets also
learned how to build advanced weaponry.

Lynn

Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Tim Illingworth <tim@smofs.org> wrote:
>> Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>> Regardless of nigglined edge cases, the point remains. Russia has
>>> been invaded many times in history, while the US mainland has not.
>
>> December 1814 not count?
>
>I think you mean August of that year. More recently there was an
>invasion of Pennsylvania in June and July 1863.

1814 definitely counts, although we really needed a new capitol building
anyway.

The 1863 invasion is kind of a special case because it depends on whether
you define the invaders as US citizens or not. Since the war was about
who was a citizen and who wasn't, and the US won, I think it fair to define
them as rebellious citizens. My Confederate-supporting high school history
teacher would not do so, however.

>Some might also count January 2021. Is it an invasion of all
>participants were US citizens? One person there was carrying the
>flag of the nation (not US state) of Georgia, though he was probably
>just confused.

Does not count, for the same reason that 1863 unpleasantness doesn't.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I agree with Scott. Lend-Lease not only moved thousands of tanks and
>other vehicles and planes into the Soviet Union, the Soviets also
>learned how to build advanced weaponry.

Although we definitely tried to avoid sharing anything too advanced with
them. At the end of the war we were still shipping them tanks with
prewar British radio designs that were several generations behind what
we were using. Not that they needed any, with the T-34 being probably
the best tank of the war according to my father.

That incident with the B-29 was not the result of lend-lease but was
probably the greatest technology transfer to the Soviets short of the
atomic bomb.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."