I don’t care what Winston Churchill would do. I know what I would do and after research and reviewing intel, it would be the right thing.
WC would have not allowed unchecked mass immigration into the UK. He would have viewed the same in Europe as a serious threat. That probably would have generated a change the current situation.
Would he have bought into the climate change lie, however? I’m sort of undecided about that. On one hand, people in his time had more respect for science than they do now. (No, the Left’s slavish worship of science is not respect.) On the other hand, it takes a lot of setting-up to get people to believe such a big lie. I would hope he would listen once and snort, then laugh, then throw the pesky science guy out of his office.
Of course, that kind of hard-nosed pragmatist would never attain a place of power today. (He thought WWI was the stupidest thing in the world, by the way, according to the history I’m reading.)
Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Philippines, Spanish-American War, and interventions in Central American banana republics by Marines on a regular basis.
Yours is a well-reasoned point of view. Ukraine is getting a lot of help, but not enough and not of the nature really needed to help them defeat Russia. So I believe Ukraine will fall to Russia eventually because they can’t withstand this kind of pounding indefinitely. What happens after that is anyone’s guess. Only Putin knows, and even he might not know yet. It depends on several factors after Ukraine is wrapped up.
I’m more of a “what would George Washington do” type of guy
Churchill was the right man at the right time for the UK during WW 2.
But he sure did make his share of major mistakes. For example, Churchill was heavily involved in the planning for the disastrous Gallipoli campaign during WW 1.
And his dealing with Stalin were often naive. As WW 2 was ending Churchill and Stalin made a secret agreement on how to divide Eastern Europe into “spheres of influence”. For example, the UK was to get something like 20% influence in Hungary. Who is his right mind would think Stalin would honor that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement
The actor, Richard Burton, in preparing to play Churchill, read of and said, "What man of sanity would say on hearing of the atrocities committed by the Japanese against British and Anzac prisoners of war, 'We shall wipe them out, every one of them, men, women, and children. There shall not be a Japanese left on the face of the earth?' Such simple-minded cravings for revenge leave me with a horrified but reluctant awe for such single-minded and merciless ferocity."
In this light, your question seems poignant. What might the Rambam have done, especially considering how he had to serve his master and patients in various manners and ways? As to the Russia/Ukraine conflict, which is more Amalek?
That's obviously true by design.
Everything Putin has been telling the Russian people is true -- the West wants to foment a revolution in Russia, break it into six or so different countries and gain control of it and its natural resources.
Fomenting a revolution in Ukraine in 2014 and using Ukraine as a battering ram against Russia was part of that objective.
The discovery of the biolabs in Ukraine, in addition to a heavily-armed Ukraine joining NATO, is most certainly a security threat to Russia, far more so than Iraq was every a threat to us.
Foolishly defend the British Empire?
The variable is Putin..
So everone want scream “Hitler!” that fine but we have established the habit of saying “Hitler!” “NAZIS!” To justify everything.. hell Putin is doing it too
So the question is simply for me..how would ANY Russian leader act at this time if he had their country and there people intrested at heart..not Putin.. But ANY Russian leader
He would run for President of the USA, he had an American mother, he is just as eligible as Ted Cruz.
(Congress bestowed “honorary” citizenship upon him in the 1950’s, guess they didn’t know he was a natural born citizen of the USA..../s)
You are using Clintionian semantics. You do realize the coup that took place in 2014 in Ukraine which toppled an elected government had western intelligence agencies including our own along with Soros sponsored groups and other foreign fingerprints all over it? And let's not forget a long series of puppet regimes installed in “banana republics” in Central and South America. But no, those don't count as “wars of conquests” do they? No, they are all something else.
But to answer your question, Churchill was a proponent of subversive tactics, at least when it came to defeating our enemies in WWII. Whether or not he would have approved of the types of operations which have culminated in the current situation in Ukraine however is a different question. He certainly would be disgusted to hear of Richard Moore, the current Chief of MI6 saying that the Ukraine War is about LGBTQ rights.
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1573993/mi6-culture-war-lgb-rights-ukraine-pronouns
This entire fiasco is more the result of woke and corrupt Western organizations lining their own pockets and pushing things too far than Russian aggression. The current propaganda war being waged with numerous outrageous examples proves the insincerity of the proponents... The Ukrainian people have been victimized here by groups on both sides of this conflict.
And let's not forget about the sons of Biden, Pelosi, Romney, Kerry, et. al. bringing home millions of dollars in illicit funds from the Ukrainian regime intended to influence their politically connected fathers. No, none of them were experts in their fields worthy of multi-million dollar salaries. A lot of palms have been greased and that too has Western Intelligence and Soros fingerprints all over it.
This stinking heap of BS is not worth starting WWIII over! Yet this is exactly what a large percentage of vocal armchair warriors propose every day both in the MSM and right here on this forum. It is sickening and disgusting as is trying to invoke the memories of past leaders to somehow justify irrational actions.
https://rumble.com/vxon9j-putin-knew-exactly-what-he-was-doing-when-he-went-into-ukraine..html
Churchill was a lapdog for Russia and always screwed the U.S. over, so you can take it from that.
What would Winston Churchill do about the Russia/Ukraine war?
It depends on which Churchill you are referring to. Churchill was forced to accept the liberal government and had to work around their theories which effected the foreign spectrum.
The decline of the British Empire had been accelerated by the Second World War and the post-war government pursued a policy of decolonization. Churchill and his supporters believed that maintenance of Britain’s position as a world power depended on the empire’s continued existence.
A key location was the Suez Canal which gave Britain a pre-eminent position in the Middle East, despite the loss of India in 1947. Churchill was, however, obliged to recognize Colonel Nasser’s revolutionary government of Egypt, which took power in 1952. Much to Churchill’s private dismay, agreement was reached in October 1954 on the phased evacuation of British troops from their Suez base.
In addition, Britain agreed to terminate her rule in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan by 1956, though this was in return for Nasser’s abandonment of Egyptian claims over the region.
Elsewhere, the Malayan Emergency, a guerrilla war fought by pro-independence fighters against Commonwealth forces, had begun in 1948 and continued past Malayan independence (1957) until 1960. Churchill’s government maintained the military response to the crisis and adopted a similar strategy for the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya (1952–1960).
He ended up in a whole lot of losing campaigns because the inflicted areas were unsustainable so the Brits had to bail both politically and counting their blessings from further pain. It was a series of disputes they couldn’t win and probably shouldn’t have been involved in to begin with by releasing their hold much earlier. The US was a perfect example, in earlier times, of the same type of conflict.
Probably the latest of the efforts of major British satellites to slide away was Australia. They actually started in 1901 but didn’t reach a separating agreement until 1986 with the combined settlements of the Australian Act built separately by both.
Wy69
I am also a very right-wing Jew. My paternal line comes from what is now Ukraine (though they only considered their nationality to be Russian), and my maternal line from Poland. I am somewhat invested in this war from an emotional POV.
However, I am FULLY invested in what is best for this country. It gave my family refuge, and if it hadn’t I simply would not be alive - for certain my mother (if my grandparents had been able to meet over there) would have been slaughtered in the Shoah. Further, my family - past and present - have fully enjoyed both the freedom and the opportunities available here. Unlike the “bad old days” in the old country, there IS no refuge if this country goes down - it would be like the fall of Rome, meaning chaos and lots of violence, starvation, disease, etc. for many decades, if not longer. So I am interested in what is best for this country (i.e. America first - not America alone, but first).
You made this statement: “Regardless of MAD theory, a desperate Putin, desperate at losing, desperate at being dethroned, desperate at being humiliated, is a very dangerous prospect.” I agree with it. I also know, having lived through it, that there’s a way to fight the Russians and thoroughly damage them without the necessity of fighting a war, with all of the blood & treasure that would naturally be expended, as well as the risk of a nuclear exchange. We did it once before, and we’re inching in that direction again - cripple them economically.
“Cripple them economically.” That requires that their primary source of hard currency, the sale of oil and gas, be minimized. We did this in the ‘80s under Reagan by basically bribing the Saudis to ramp up the production of oil from about 2.5 MBD to over 12 MBD in about 6 months. Oil declined at one point to about $8/bbl. Between that, cutting their then-proposed twin natural gas pipelines to one and delaying that one by 2 years, and by forcing them to spend enormous sums to keep up with our massive defense build-up, we broke their backs - with no war, no nukes flying around.
Here’s the thing: Putin may be desperate (which is why we have to give him a somewhat face-saving way out), but in the final analysis he has family. Yes, the close members will be kept as safe as he, himself - but then they will all face (along with the rest of us) living in a post-nuclear environment. If Chernobyl was bad (and it was), what will a nuclear conflict do to Russia’s ability to grow food? To whom will they sell oil and gas - the nations that they just nuked? I don’t think that he will go that route - but, again, we HAVE to give him a face-saving way out. In the best case scenario, this war gets ended, the Russians keep minor areas of Ukraine, and in the next 2-3 years he faces the same fate as Khrushchev - forced retirement. With all of his billions, it wouldn’t be so bad.
Let as the question in reverse
What would Churchill do if he was the current Russian leader?
Any let be honest... we are talking a man that attacked the French fleet after the French surrender to Germany to Keep it out of possible German hand
I believe Churchill to have been a great man. I’m saddened at some of the comments on this thread (I was stunned at someone calling him a lapdog for Russia - which for anyone who has studied Churchill to any extent is an extraordinary accusation - his hatred for bolshevism is well documented), but each is entitled to their opinion.
It is impossible to know exactly what Winston would have done in the shoes of the Ukrainian leader, but I suspect the following quotes of his, give a clue:
“Nations that go down fighting rise again, but those who surrender tamely are finished....if our long island story is to end at last, let it end, only when each of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.”
He would probably also quote (as he did on more than one occasion) from Macaulay’s ‘Lays of Ancient Rome’:
“Then up spake brave Horatius, the captain of the Gate: To every man upon this earth death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better than facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his gods.”
Churchill was not perfect. He was wrong on many things throughout his long, long, career. But when in a hole, with hope fading, and the odds seemingly impossible, give me Churchill every time.