So I want to start by saying this is me trying to work out what perspective to have on the current situation in Ukraine.

We've seen a lot of comparisons of this action by Putin to Hitler in 1938 with Czechoslavakia. That always seems to be the perspective taken whenever any madman does something similar post-WW2 and I get that reason for that. Balking at Munich led to one of the worst time periods in world history.

But...is it the right lens to view this situation. The U.S.S.R. used violence to capture a number of countries post WW1 and we ignore that when looking at the modern-day. China did the same with Nepal and we didn't bat an eye. So why is this one more like Chamberlain's mistake at Munich and not like one of the others?

I've done a crappy job articulating my question but I appreciate the perspective you guys provide.

BQ78 IMO hit the nail pretty square. There is a lot of Russian (read: Putin) ego in this, but the security buffer, just like post-WWII, is pretty clear. True or not, NATO certainly appeared to be encroaching upon Russia and trying to wall it in.

The comparison to Hitler (might be more appropriate to say Nazis) is more to the tactics and justifications used vs ideology or "take over the world" mentality. The parallels are remarkably similar. You even have China standing in for Imperial Japan.

Why care now? It's because we have the examples of WWII to forget...er, try and learn from. The world in general is far better aware of how events in far off place that most don't give a damn about can eventually effect you personally and devastatingly.

The Hungarian Revolution of 1956?

Back In 1956, the USSR invaded Hungary to rollback a nationalist revolution and re-install a pro-Soviet regime. NATO chose not to oppose the Soviet forces. The successful Soviet operation lasted about a week and resulted in approximately 3,000 civilian deaths and 200,000 refugees.

Hitler started out with 100 infantry divisions and ultimately raised 315 infantry divisions plus armored etc. For comparison, how many divisions does Putin have ?

I saw a video today that enlightened me on the need for Russia (from their point of view) to have buffer states.

Everything from Ukraine's Western border to Russia is open plains. At Ukraine's Western border is a mountain range that reaches all the way into Poland and almost to the Baltic Sea. This mountain range serves as a natural border to hinder any land invasion from the west. To attack Russia by land, the best route is north of this range through territory friendly with Russia. It is an easy front to defend in that sense.

If you add Ukraine to NATO, you take away that mountain range deterrent (and the Black Sea buffer) and establish western forces in front of that range.

I never knew the geography of that region well enough to realize the strategy there. And yes modern war can fly over mountains, but a deterrent is still a deterrent.

And that is all before you even begin to talk about the natural resources available in Ukraine.

BQ78 said:

---

This is not Hitler, Putin won't be rolling tanks into Paris.

It's typical Russian. They want to be in control of the nations that are next to them so while there is some hegemony, it is mostly to create a defensive buffer with the nations they fear. This is Catherine the Great seizing the Crimea or Stalin attacking Finland, nothing more or less.

---

I think you're underplaying how much Putin wants to recreate a Russian empire that is a major player in wider geopolitics. Ukraine overwhelmingly deciding to look to western Europe weakened Putin's larger imperial ambitions.