• Why Russia wants Ukraine.

    From Peter Jason@pj@jostle.com to aus.legal on Fri Jan 2 08:25:41 2026
    From Newsgroup: aus.legal

    Some similarities with Fredric II invasion and annexation of Silesia.

    From ChatBot...

    Frederick II of Prussia (oFrederick the Greato) invaded and ultimately
    annexed **Silesia** in **1740u1742** for a mix of **strategic,
    economic, dynastic, and political** reasons. HereAs the breakdown:

    ---

    ### 1. Strategic and Military Security

    Silesia lay directly south of PrussiaAs core territories
    (Brandenburg). Controlling it:

    * Removed a potential **Austrian invasion route**
    * Gave Prussia a **more defensible frontier**
    * Strengthened PrussiaAs position in Central Europe

    Frederick believed Prussia could not be secure while Austria held such
    a strategically important region nearby.

    ---

    ### 2. Economic Value

    Silesia was one of the **richest provinces in Central Europe**:

    * Fertile farmland
    * Thriving textile and mining industries
    * Large population that could provide **tax revenue and soldiers**

    For a relatively small state like Prussia, this economic boost was transformative.

    ---

    ### 3. Dynastic and Legal Claims (a Justification)

    Frederick claimed that the Hohenzollern dynasty had **old inheritance
    rights** to parts of Silesia based on medieval treaties and marriages.
    While these claims were **legally weak**, they provided a **diplomatic pretext** for invasion rather than being the true motivation.

    ---

    ### 4. Political Opportunity (Timing)

    Frederick acted immediately after:

    * **Emperor Charles VI died in 1740**
    * His daughter **Maria Theresa** inherited the Habsburg lands

    Many European powers doubted a woman could successfully rule Austria.
    Frederick saw this as a moment of **Habsburg vulnerability** and moved
    quickly before Austria could fully mobilize.

    ---

    ### 5. Ambition and Prestige

    Frederick was a new king (he became king in 1740) and wanted to:

    * Prove himself as a **military leader**
    * Elevate Prussia from a secondary power to a **great European state**

    A successful war would bring both territory and international respect.

    ---

    ### Outcome

    * Prussia seized most of Silesia during the **War of the Austrian
    Succession**
    * Austria formally ceded it in the **Treaty of Breslau (1742)**
    * Austria later tried to regain Silesia in the **Seven YearsA War
    (1756u1763)** but failed

    Holding Silesia permanently turned Prussia into a **major European
    power**.

    ---

    GreatuhereAs **why Austria never managed to regain Silesia**, even
    though it tried very hard.

    ---

    ## 1. Prussia Became Militarily Too Strong

    After taking Silesia, Frederick the Great used its wealth to build:

    * One of the **best-trained armies in Europe**
    * A highly efficient system of **taxation and administration**

    By the time Austria seriously tried to recover Silesia, Prussia was no
    longer a small stateuit was a **top-tier military power**, especially
    strong in infantry tactics and discipline.

    ---

    ## 2. FrederickAs Military Leadership

    Frederick himself was an exceptional battlefield commander:

    * He moved armies quickly
    * Chose terrain carefully
    * Often defeated **larger Austrian forces** (e.g., at Leuthen in 1757)

    Even when Austria had numerical advantages, FrederickAs tactics often
    made the difference.

    ---

    ## 3. Diplomatic Isolation DidnAt Last Long Enough

    Austria did attempt to box Prussia in diplomatically:

    * During the **Seven YearsA War**, Austria allied with **France and
    Russia**
    * This was part of a major shift in alliances known as the
    **Diplomatic Revolution**

    However:

    * Britain supported Prussia financially and militarily
    * Russia unexpectedly **withdrew from the war in 1762** after a change
    of ruler, removing AustriaAs most dangerous ally against Prussia

    That single event badly weakened AustriaAs chances.

    ---

    ## 4. Geography Favored the Defender

    Once Prussia controlled Silesia:

    * It built **fortifications**
    * Controlled key roads and supply routes
    * Could reinforce the region quickly from nearby territories

    Austria, attacking from farther away, had **longer supply lines**,
    which made sustained campaigns difficult.

    ---

    ## 5. War Fatigue and Cost

    The Seven YearsA War was extremely expensive and destructive:

    * Austria suffered major losses
    * Its economy was strained
    * Repeated campaigns produced **no decisive breakthrough**

    Eventually, Austria had to accept that continuing the war was not
    worth the cost.

    ---

    ## 6. International Recognition of the Status Quo

    At the **Treaty of Hubertusburg (1763)**:

    * Austria formally recognized PrussiaAs possession of Silesia
    * European powers accepted Prussia as a **permanent great power**

    From that point on, trying to retake Silesia would have risked a wider
    European war with little chance of success.

    ---

    ## Big Picture

    Austria didnAt fail because it lacked effortuit failed because:

    * Prussia had become **too strong**
    * Frederick was **too effective**
    * AustriaAs allies proved **unreliable**
    * The cost of continued war outweighed the potential gain

    SilesiaAs loss marked the **end of Habsburg dominance in Germany** and
    the **rise of Prussia**, a rivalry that would shape German and
    European history for the next 150 years.

    If you want, I can also explain how this rivalry eventually led to
    **German unification**, or compare Frederick with **Maria Theresa** as
    rulers.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From not@not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) to aus.legal on Fri Jan 2 08:26:30 2026
    From Newsgroup: aus.legal

    Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
    Some similarities with Fredric II invasion and annexation of Silesia.

    Bah, you don't have to go that far back. Ukraine went from almost a
    Russian puppet government to trying to threaten them with NATO, all
    on Putin's watch. A major failure of his foreign policy which he
    tried to recover from, before he lost his domestic public image as
    a strong leader, by launching a quick invasion. Now if Russia
    loses the war he knows the precident of how Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War was the beginning of the end for the Tsars, and
    losing their war in Afghanistan contrubuted to the collapse of the
    communist government. He'd be next for the chop if he can't claim
    some sort of win in Ukraine.

    Of course if Zelenskiy hadn't been trying to prop up support for
    his own ineffective and corrupt government by playing the same
    tough man game and trying to claim he could now get leverage over
    Putin by joining NATO, it wouldn't have happened.
    --
    __ __
    #_ < |\| |< _#
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Peter Jason@pj@jostle.com to aus.legal on Sat Jan 3 08:13:21 2026
    From Newsgroup: aus.legal

    On 2 Jan 2026 08:26:30 +1000, not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd
    Kev) wrote:

    Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
    Some similarities with Fredric II invasion and annexation of Silesia.

    Bah, you don't have to go that far back. Ukraine went from almost a
    Russian puppet government to trying to threaten them with NATO, all
    on Putin's watch. A major failure of his foreign policy which he
    tried to recover from, before he lost his domestic public image as
    a strong leader, by launching a quick invasion. Now if Russia
    loses the war he knows the precident of how Russia's defeat in the >Russo-Japanese War was the beginning of the end for the Tsars, and
    losing their war in Afghanistan contrubuted to the collapse of the
    communist government. He'd be next for the chop if he can't claim
    some sort of win in Ukraine.

    Of course if Zelenskiy hadn't been trying to prop up support for
    his own ineffective and corrupt government by playing the same
    tough man game and trying to claim he could now get leverage over
    Putin by joining NATO, it wouldn't have happened.

    Of course it beggars all belief how Putin (ex KGB) didn't prepare for
    the invasion by eliminating relevent principals in Ukraine.
    Chatbot gives a summary, and the Bismarck/Roon defeat of France in
    1970 is an example...

    Here are the four major requirements before engaging in war in terms
    of preparations:

    1. Intelligence and Espionage

    Gathering Information: One of the most crucial steps in preparing for
    war is obtaining reliable intelligence about the enemy. This includes information on their military capabilities, troop movements, strategic alliances, and economic stability.

    Espionage: Engaging in covert operations to infiltrate or spy on the
    enemy is common. This can involve gathering data on their plans,
    disrupting their communications, or even sowing disinformation to
    confuse or destabilize their leadership.

    Cyber Intelligence: In modern times, cyber warfare is a significant
    part of espionage, involving hacking into systems to steal sensitive information, sabotage critical infrastructure, or spread
    misinformation.

    2. Military and Logistical Preparation (Hardware)

    Mobilizing Armed Forces: The nation must have sufficient military
    personnel, equipment, and weapons. This includes everything from
    soldiers, tanks, aircraft, and ships, to specialized forces like
    intelligence, engineering, and medical teams.

    Weaponry and Technology: Stockpiling weapons, ammunition, and advanced technologies (like drones, cyber weapons, and missile defense systems)
    is crucial. Nations often invest heavily in new technologies to gain a strategic advantage.

    Logistical Infrastructure: War requires a robust supply chain to
    ensure that troops have food, medical supplies, and weapons at the
    front lines. This includes preparing transport networks, warehouses,
    and communication systems to coordinate these efforts.

    3. Obfuscation and Deception

    Military Deception (Camouflage): Misleading the enemy about troop
    movements, intentions, or capabilities can give a significant
    advantage. This can include fake military units, misinformation
    campaigns, or decoy attacks.

    Strategic Obfuscation: Creating confusion and distraction to hide the
    true objectives of the war is a key part of military strategy. This
    might include misleading public statements, using propaganda, or
    feigning weakness in certain areas to lure the enemy into a false
    sense of security.

    Cyber Operations: Deception is also carried out through cyber tactics,
    such as sending false information to the enemy or disrupting their communications and intelligence networks.

    4. Economic and Political Mobilization

    Economic Preparation: War is costly, so itAs crucial to ensure the
    nation has enough financial resources to sustain a prolonged conflict.
    This includes preparing for wartime production (such as producing
    weapons and ammunition), securing trade routes, and managing inflation
    or other economic impacts.

    Political Consensus and Alliances: Before engaging in war, a country
    often seeks to secure support from allies or neutral nations. This
    could involve diplomatic negotiations, treaties, or military alliances
    (e.g., NATO). Also, the nation must maintain internal political
    stability to ensure public support for the war effort.

    Propaganda and Morale: Keeping the civilian population and soldiers
    motivated is key. Governments often use propaganda to maintain morale
    and unity, both domestically and internationally. This can involve
    emphasizing national pride, demonizing the enemy, or promising quick
    victory.

    In summary, war preparation involves a mix of gathering intelligence, mobilizing military resources, misleading the enemy, and ensuring
    economic and political stability. These factors all work together to
    make a nation ready for the complexity of war.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Rod Speed@rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com to aus.legal on Sat Jan 3 11:59:08 2026
    From Newsgroup: aus.legal

    Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
    Some similarities with Fredric II invasion and annexation of Silesia.
    And even more with what Adolf got up to
    From ChatBot...
    Frederick II of Prussia (rCLFrederick the GreatrCY) invaded and ultimately annexed **Silesia** in **1740rCo1742** for a mix of **strategic,> economic, dynastic, and political** reasons. HererCOs the breakdown:

    ---

    ### 1. Strategic and Military Security

    Silesia lay directly south of PrussiarCOs core territories
    (Brandenburg). Controlling it:

    * Removed a potential **Austrian invasion route**
    * Gave Prussia a **more defensible frontier**
    * Strengthened PrussiarCOs position in Central Europe

    Frederick believed Prussia could not be secure while Austria held such> a strategically important region nearby.

    ---

    ### 2. Economic Value

    Silesia was one of the **richest provinces in Central Europe**:

    * Fertile farmland
    * Thriving textile and mining industries
    * Large population that could provide **tax revenue and soldiers**

    For a relatively small state like Prussia, this economic boost was transformative.

    ---

    ### 3. Dynastic and Legal Claims (a Justification)

    Frederick claimed that the Hohenzollern dynasty had **old inheritance rights** to parts of Silesia based on medieval treaties and marriages.> While these claims were **legally weak**, they provided a **diplomatic> pretext** for invasion rather than being the true motivation.

    ---

    ### 4. Political Opportunity (Timing)

    Frederick acted immediately after:

    * **Emperor Charles VI died in 1740**
    * His daughter **Maria Theresa** inherited the Habsburg lands

    Many European powers doubted a woman could successfully rule Austria. Frederick saw this as a moment of **Habsburg vulnerability** and moved> quickly before Austria could fully mobilize.

    ---

    ### 5. Ambition and Prestige

    Frederick was a new king (he became king in 1740) and wanted to:

    * Prove himself as a **military leader**
    * Elevate Prussia from a secondary power to a **great European state**>
    A successful war would bring both territory and international respect.>
    ---

    ### Outcome

    * Prussia seized most of Silesia during the **War of the Austrian Succession**
    * Austria formally ceded it in the **Treaty of Breslau (1742)**
    * Austria later tried to regain Silesia in the **Seven YearsrCO War (1756rCo1763)** but failed

    Holding Silesia permanently turned Prussia into a **major European
    power**.

    ---

    GreatrCohererCOs **why Austria never managed to regain Silesia**, even
    though it tried very hard.

    ---

    ## 1. Prussia Became Militarily Too Strong

    After taking Silesia, Frederick the Great used its wealth to build:

    * One of the **best-trained armies in Europe**
    * A highly efficient system of **taxation and administration**

    By the time Austria seriously tried to recover Silesia, Prussia was no> longer a small staterCoit was a **top-tier military power**, especially
    strong in infantry tactics and discipline.

    ---

    ## 2. FrederickrCOs Military Leadership

    Frederick himself was an exceptional battlefield commander:

    * He moved armies quickly
    * Chose terrain carefully
    * Often defeated **larger Austrian forces** (e.g., at Leuthen in 1757)>
    Even when Austria had numerical advantages, FrederickrCOs tactics often
    made the difference.

    ---

    ## 3. Diplomatic Isolation DidnrCOt Last Long Enough

    Austria did attempt to box Prussia in diplomatically:

    * During the **Seven YearsrCO War**, Austria allied with **France and Russia**
    * This was part of a major shift in alliances known as the
    **Diplomatic Revolution**

    However:

    * Britain supported Prussia financially and militarily
    * Russia unexpectedly **withdrew from the war in 1762** after a change> of ruler, removing AustriarCOs most dangerous ally against Prussia

    That single event badly weakened AustriarCOs chances.

    ---

    ## 4. Geography Favored the Defender

    Once Prussia controlled Silesia:

    * It built **fortifications**
    * Controlled key roads and supply routes
    * Could reinforce the region quickly from nearby territories

    Austria, attacking from farther away, had **longer supply lines**,
    which made sustained campaigns difficult.

    ---

    ## 5. War Fatigue and Cost

    The Seven YearsrCO War was extremely expensive and destructive:

    * Austria suffered major losses
    * Its economy was strained
    * Repeated campaigns produced **no decisive breakthrough**

    Eventually, Austria had to accept that continuing the war was not
    worth the cost.

    ---

    ## 6. International Recognition of the Status Quo

    At the **Treaty of Hubertusburg (1763)**:

    * Austria formally recognized PrussiarCOs possession of Silesia
    * European powers accepted Prussia as a **permanent great power**

    From that point on, trying to retake Silesia would have risked a wider> European war with little chance of success.

    ---

    ## Big Picture

    Austria didnrCOt fail because it lacked effortrCoit failed because:

    * Prussia had become **too strong**
    * Frederick was **too effective**
    * AustriarCOs allies proved **unreliable**
    * The cost of continued war outweighed the potential gain

    SilesiarCOs loss marked the **end of Habsburg dominance in Germany** and
    the **rise of Prussia**, a rivalry that would shape German and
    European history for the next 150 years.

    If you want, I can also explain how this rivalry eventually led to
    **German unification**, or compare Frederick with **Maria Theresa** as> rulers.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Rod Speed@rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com to aus.legal on Sat Jan 3 12:05:02 2026
    From Newsgroup: aus.legal

    Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
    Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote

    Some similarities with Fredric II invasion and annexation of Silesia.

    Bah, you don't have to go that far back. Ukraine went from almost a
    Russian puppet government to trying to threaten them with NATO,

    Only when Putin tried to pretend that some unkrainians
    tried to pretend that they wanted to be part of russia again

    all on Putin's watch. A major failure of his foreign policy which he
    tried to recover from, before he lost his domestic public image as
    a strong leader, by launching a quick invasion. Now if Russia
    loses the war he knows the precident of how Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War was the beginning of the end for the Tsars,

    That is mindless bullshit

    and losing their war in Afghanistan contrubuted to the collapse of the communist government.

    More mindless bullshit

    He'd be next for the chop if he can't claim some sort of win in Ukraine.

    Quite rightly too after having killed all those
    russians and wrecking the russian economy

    Of course if Zelenskiy hadn't been trying to prop up support for
    his own ineffective and corrupt government by playing the same
    tough man game and trying to claim he could now get leverage over
    Putin by joining NATO, it wouldn't have happened.

    More mindless bullshit
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Rod Speed@rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com to aus.legal on Sat Jan 3 12:07:14 2026
    From Newsgroup: aus.legal

    Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
    not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote
    Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
    Some similarities with Fredric II invasion and annexation of Silesia.
    Bah, you don't have to go that far back. Ukraine went from almost a
    Russian puppet government to trying to threaten them with NATO, all
    on Putin's watch. A major failure of his foreign policy which he
    tried to recover from, before he lost his domestic public image as
    a strong leader, by launching a quick invasion. Now if Russia
    loses the war he knows the precident of how Russia's defeat in the
    Russo-Japanese War was the beginning of the end for the Tsars, and
    losing their war in Afghanistan contrubuted to the collapse of the
    communist government. He'd be next for the chop if he can't claim
    some sort of win in Ukraine.
    Of course if Zelenskiy hadn't been trying to prop up support for
    his own ineffective and corrupt government by playing the same
    tough man game and trying to claim he could now get leverage over
    Putin by joining NATO, it wouldn't have happened.
    Of course it beggars all belief how Putin (ex KGB) didn't prepare for
    the invasion by eliminating relevent principals in Ukraine.
    That was never possible
    Chatbot gives a summary, and the Bismarck/Roon defeat of France in
    1970 is an example...

    Here are the four major requirements before engaging in war in terms
    of preparations:

    1. Intelligence and Espionage

    Gathering Information: One of the most crucial steps in preparing for
    war is obtaining reliable intelligence about the enemy. This includes information on their military capabilities, troop movements, strategic> alliances, and economic stability.

    Espionage: Engaging in covert operations to infiltrate or spy on the
    enemy is common. This can involve gathering data on their plans,
    disrupting their communications, or even sowing disinformation to
    confuse or destabilize their leadership.

    Cyber Intelligence: In modern times, cyber warfare is a significant
    part of espionage, involving hacking into systems to steal sensitive information, sabotage critical infrastructure, or spread
    misinformation.

    2. Military and Logistical Preparation (Hardware)

    Mobilizing Armed Forces: The nation must have sufficient military
    personnel, equipment, and weapons. This includes everything from
    soldiers, tanks, aircraft, and ships, to specialized forces like intelligence, engineering, and medical teams.

    Weaponry and Technology: Stockpiling weapons, ammunition, and advanced> technologies (like drones, cyber weapons, and missile defense systems)> is crucial. Nations often invest heavily in new technologies to gain a> strategic advantage.

    Logistical Infrastructure: War requires a robust supply chain to
    ensure that troops have food, medical supplies, and weapons at the
    front lines. This includes preparing transport networks, warehouses,
    and communication systems to coordinate these efforts.

    3. Obfuscation and Deception

    Military Deception (Camouflage): Misleading the enemy about troop
    movements, intentions, or capabilities can give a significant
    advantage. This can include fake military units, misinformation
    campaigns, or decoy attacks.

    Strategic Obfuscation: Creating confusion and distraction to hide the
    true objectives of the war is a key part of military strategy. This
    might include misleading public statements, using propaganda, or
    feigning weakness in certain areas to lure the enemy into a false
    sense of security.

    Cyber Operations: Deception is also carried out through cyber tactics,> such as sending false information to the enemy or disrupting their
    communications and intelligence networks.

    4. Economic and Political Mobilization

    Economic Preparation: War is costly, so itrCOs crucial to ensure the
    nation has enough financial resources to sustain a prolonged conflict.> This includes preparing for wartime production (such as producing
    weapons and ammunition), securing trade routes, and managing inflation> or other economic impacts.

    Political Consensus and Alliances: Before engaging in war, a country
    often seeks to secure support from allies or neutral nations. This
    could involve diplomatic negotiations, treaties, or military alliances> (e.g., NATO). Also, the nation must maintain internal political
    stability to ensure public support for the war effort.

    Propaganda and Morale: Keeping the civilian population and soldiers
    motivated is key. Governments often use propaganda to maintain morale
    and unity, both domestically and internationally. This can involve emphasizing national pride, demonizing the enemy, or promising quick
    victory.

    In summary, war preparation involves a mix of gathering intelligence, mobilizing military resources, misleading the enemy, and ensuring
    economic and political stability. These factors all work together to
    make a nation ready for the complexity of war.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2