Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

Gotta ask Putin. He invaded. If he didn't invade, he would have Crimea and the status quo would have remained. Now, he is going to get the exact opposite, Ukraine will get NATO membership.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

Gotta ask Putin. He invaded. If he didn't invade, he would have Crimea and the status quo would have remained. Now, he is going to get the exact opposite, Ukraine will get NATO membership.

---

Ukraine cutting off the water to Crimea made the Russian annexation/occupation of the peninsula unsustainable.

That is a big part of why Russian invaded Kherson oblast (where the Canal that feeds Crimea is located).

Not defending the actions of Russia...simply pointing out that is a big reason they invaded.

Close to 90% of the water for Crimea (for drinking and farming) comes from the canal that brings water from the large Dnieper river to the peninsula.

First thing the Russians did after invading Kherson was turn the water back on and unblock the Canal.

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

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

Gotta ask Putin. He invaded. If he didn't invade, he would have Crimea and the status quo would have remained. Now, he is going to get the exact opposite, Ukraine will get NATO membership.

---

Ukraine cutting off the water to Crimea made the Russian annexation of the peninsula unsustainable

That is a big part of why Russian invaded Kherson oblast (where the Canal that feeds Crimea is located)

Not defending the actions of Russia...simply pointing out that is a big reason they invaded.

Close to 90% of the water for Crimea (for drinking and farming) come from the canal that brings water from the large Dnieper river to the peninsula.

First thing the Russians did after invading was turn the turn the water back on and unblock the Canal.

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

---

Annexation - to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state

Annexing means it is yours. You take control and responsibility. Many annexations DO NOT happen because the cost of bringing the infrastructure and providing services outweigh the value.

So, your view is that not only does Ukraine have to cede the land, city and infrastructure with no compensation, but also provide utilities and never join NATO or the EU. Then all is right????

Crimea is Russian, it is their responsibility to provide water, WITHOUT INVADING ANOTHER NATION. Seems a pretty low bar.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

Gotta ask Putin. He invaded. If he didn't invade, he would have Crimea and the status quo would have remained. Now, he is going to get the exact opposite, Ukraine will get NATO membership.

---

Ukraine cutting off the water to Crimea made the Russian annexation of the peninsula unsustainable

That is a big part of why Russian invaded Kherson oblast (where the Canal that feeds Crimea is located)

Not defending the actions of Russia...simply pointing out that is a big reason they invaded.

Close to 90% of the water for Crimea (for drinking and farming) come from the canal that brings water from the large Dnieper river to the peninsula.

First thing the Russians did after invading was turn the turn the water back on and unblock the Canal.

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

---

Annexation - to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state

Annexing means it is yours. You take control and responsibility. Many annexations DO NOT happen because the cost of bringing the infrastructure and providing services outweigh the value.

So, your view is that not only does Ukraine have to cede the land, city and infrastructure with no compensation, but also provide utilities and never join NATO or the EU. Then all is right????

Crimea is Russian, it is their responsibility to provide water, WITHOUT INVADING ANOTHER NATION. Seems a pretty low bar.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

Gotta ask Putin. He invaded. If he didn't invade, he would have Crimea and the status quo would have remained. Now, he is going to get the exact opposite, Ukraine will get NATO membership.

---

Ukraine cutting off the water to Crimea made the Russian annexation of the peninsula unsustainable

That is a big part of why Russian invaded Kherson oblast (where the Canal that feeds Crimea is located)

Not defending the actions of Russia...simply pointing out that is a big reason they invaded.

Close to 90% of the water for Crimea (for drinking and farming) come from the canal that brings water from the large Dnieper river to the peninsula.

First thing the Russians did after invading was turn the turn the water back on and unblock the Canal.

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

---

Annexation - to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state

Annexing means it is yours. You take control and responsibility. Many annexations DO NOT happen because the cost of bringing the infrastructure and providing services outweigh the value.

So, your view is that not only does Ukraine have to cede the land, city and infrastructure with no compensation, but also provide utilities and never join NATO or the EU. Then all is right????

Crimea is Russian, it is their responsibility to provide water, WITHOUT INVADING ANOTHER NATION. Seems a pretty low bar.

---

---

Your first sentence is confusing. It implies they did it just to make the annexation unsustainable. if Russia wasn't annexing, they wouldn't do it, correct?

Also, does not answer the question of why if invade the rest? They had Crimea. If it was just the south, I could see. The native speakers and connectivity to ethnic regions. I can see that. But they went for the whole thing and for Kiev.

It seems they are making up whatever they can to fit the facts at a specific time, than changing.

Still think that they should be able to determine where they want to be, including Crimea. But there has to be a legitimate process.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

Gotta ask Putin. He invaded. If he didn't invade, he would have Crimea and the status quo would have remained. Now, he is going to get the exact opposite, Ukraine will get NATO membership.

---

Ukraine cutting off the water to Crimea made the Russian annexation of the peninsula unsustainable

That is a big part of why Russian invaded Kherson oblast (where the Canal that feeds Crimea is located)

Not defending the actions of Russia...simply pointing out that is a big reason they invaded.

Close to 90% of the water for Crimea (for drinking and farming) come from the canal that brings water from the large Dnieper river to the peninsula.

First thing the Russians did after invading was turn the turn the water back on and unblock the Canal.

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

---

Annexation - to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state

Annexing means it is yours. You take control and responsibility. Many annexations DO NOT happen because the cost of bringing the infrastructure and providing services outweigh the value.

So, your view is that not only does Ukraine have to cede the land, city and infrastructure with no compensation, but also provide utilities and never join NATO or the EU. Then all is right????

Crimea is Russian, it is their responsibility to provide water, WITHOUT INVADING ANOTHER NATION. Seems a pretty low bar.

---

I am not advocating a personal view on the annexation/occupation of Crimea.

Only pointing out that Ukraine cut the water from the Canal that feeds Crimea and then for that reason Russia invaded to turn it back on.

Once the water to Crimea was cut the Russians had two options....pull out or invade Ukraine to get control of the Canal.

We see what they ended up doing. But the status quo was not going to last.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

Gotta ask Putin. He invaded. If he didn't invade, he would have Crimea and the status quo would have remained. Now, he is going to get the exact opposite, Ukraine will get NATO membership.

---

Ukraine cutting off the water to Crimea made the Russian annexation/occupation of the peninsula unsustainable.

That is a big part of why Russian invaded Kherson oblast (where the Canal that feeds Crimea is located).

Not defending the actions of Russia...simply pointing out that is a big reason they invaded.

Close to 90% of the water for Crimea (for drinking and farming) comes from the canal that brings water from the large Dnieper river to the peninsula.

First thing the Russians did after invading Kherson was turn the water back on and unblock the Canal.

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

---

A few desalination plants has got to be a lot cheaper than going to war. On the bright side, he did find out how bad his military is.

---

Agree with that.

Another mistake of the Russian government.

He Hate Me said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

Gotta ask Putin. He invaded. If he didn't invade, he would have Crimea and the status quo would have remained. Now, he is going to get the exact opposite, Ukraine will get NATO membership.

---

Not defending the actions of Russia...simply pointing out that is a big reason they invaded.

Close to 90% of the water for Crimea (for drinking and farming) comes from the canal that brings water from the large Dnieper river to the peninsula.

---

Putin said it was "de-Nazification" of the government which is led by a Jewish man. Putin tried to take Kyiv and was repelled. I think Putin's original goals were something other than water supplies to the Crimea.

---

True.

Getting control of the canal was the goal in the South...for the benefit of Crimea.

The invasion of northern Ukraine and the attack on Kyiv was about geo-politics and trying to take political control of the whole country for larger goals.

The invasion of eastern Ukraine was about getting control of the Donbass region and forcibly incorporating it into the Russian Federation.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

Gotta ask Putin. He invaded. If he didn't invade, he would have Crimea and the status quo would have remained. Now, he is going to get the exact opposite, Ukraine will get NATO membership.

---

Ukraine cutting off the water to Crimea made the Russian annexation of the peninsula unsustainable

That is a big part of why Russian invaded Kherson oblast (where the Canal that feeds Crimea is located)

Not defending the actions of Russia...simply pointing out that is a big reason they invaded.

Close to 90% of the water for Crimea (for drinking and farming) come from the canal that brings water from the large Dnieper river to the peninsula.

First thing the Russians did after invading was turn the turn the water back on and unblock the Canal.

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

---

Annexation - to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state

Annexing means it is yours. You take control and responsibility. Many annexations DO NOT happen because the cost of bringing the infrastructure and providing services outweigh the value.

So, your view is that not only does Ukraine have to cede the land, city and infrastructure with no compensation, but also provide utilities and never join NATO or the EU. Then all is right????

Crimea is Russian, it is their responsibility to provide water, WITHOUT INVADING ANOTHER NATION. Seems a pretty low bar.

---

I am not advocating a personal view on the annexation/occupation of Crimea.

Only pointing out that Ukraine cut the water from the Canal that feeds Crimea and then for that reason Russia invaded to turn it back on.

Once the water to Crimea was cut the Russians had two options....pull out or invade Ukraine to get control of the Canal.

We see what they ended up doing. But the status quo was not going to last.

---

I guess I am not up to speed. Did Ukraine cut the water in 2014 or 2022?

If 2014, I can see the point

If in 2021 or 2022, Russia took it and annexed it 8 years ago, what did they expect!

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

Gotta ask Putin. He invaded. If he didn't invade, he would have Crimea and the status quo would have remained. Now, he is going to get the exact opposite, Ukraine will get NATO membership.

---

Ukraine cutting off the water to Crimea made the Russian annexation of the peninsula unsustainable

That is a big part of why Russian invaded Kherson oblast (where the Canal that feeds Crimea is located)

Not defending the actions of Russia...simply pointing out that is a big reason they invaded.

Close to 90% of the water for Crimea (for drinking and farming) come from the canal that brings water from the large Dnieper river to the peninsula.

First thing the Russians did after invading was turn the turn the water back on and unblock the Canal.

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

---

Annexation - to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state

Annexing means it is yours. You take control and responsibility. Many annexations DO NOT happen because the cost of bringing the infrastructure and providing services outweigh the value.

So, your view is that not only does Ukraine have to cede the land, city and infrastructure with no compensation, but also provide utilities and never join NATO or the EU. Then all is right????

Crimea is Russian, it is their responsibility to provide water, WITHOUT INVADING ANOTHER NATION. Seems a pretty low bar.

---

I am not advocating a personal view on the annexation/occupation of Crimea.

Only pointing out that Ukraine cut the water from the Canal that feeds Crimea and then for that reason Russia invaded to turn it back on.

Once the water to Crimea was cut the Russians had two options....pull out or invade Ukraine to get control of the Canal.

We see what they ended up doing. But the status quo was not going to last.

---

I guess I am not up to speed. Did Ukraine cut the water in 2014 or 2022?

If 2014, I can see the point

If in 2021 or 2022, Russia took it and annexed it 8 years ago, what did they expect!

---

Found this:

[Ukraine shut down the canal in 2014 soon after the Russian annexation of Crimea. The flow of water was restored in March 2022 during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. A 2015 study found that the canal had been providing 85% of Crimea's water prior to the canal's 2014 shutdown.]

[Shortly after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ukraine built a concrete dam cutting off 85 percent of the peninsula's water supply. So one of Moscow's first strategic moves after invading the country was to blow it up.]

https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/597910-how-a-ukrainian-dam-played-a-key-role-in-tensions-with/

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

Gotta ask Putin. He invaded. If he didn't invade, he would have Crimea and the status quo would have remained. Now, he is going to get the exact opposite, Ukraine will get NATO membership.

---

Ukraine cutting off the water to Crimea made the Russian annexation of the peninsula unsustainable

That is a big part of why Russian invaded Kherson oblast (where the Canal that feeds Crimea is located)

Not defending the actions of Russia...simply pointing out that is a big reason they invaded.

Close to 90% of the water for Crimea (for drinking and farming) come from the canal that brings water from the large Dnieper river to the peninsula.

First thing the Russians did after invading was turn the turn the water back on and unblock the Canal.

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

---

Annexation - to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state

Annexing means it is yours. You take control and responsibility. Many annexations DO NOT happen because the cost of bringing the infrastructure and providing services outweigh the value.

So, your view is that not only does Ukraine have to cede the land, city and infrastructure with no compensation, but also provide utilities and never join NATO or the EU. Then all is right????

Crimea is Russian, it is their responsibility to provide water, WITHOUT INVADING ANOTHER NATION. Seems a pretty low bar.

---

I am not advocating a personal view on the annexation/occupation of Crimea.

Only pointing out that Ukraine cut the water from the Canal that feeds Crimea and then for that reason Russia invaded to turn it back on.

Once the water to Crimea was cut the Russians had two options....pull out or invade Ukraine to get control of the Canal.

We see what they ended up doing. But the status quo was not going to last.

---

I guess I am not up to speed. Did Ukraine cut the water in 2014 or 2022?

If 2014, I can see the point

If in 2021 or 2022, Russia took it and annexed it 8 years ago, what did they expect!

---

Found this:

[Ukraine shut down the canal in 2014 soon after the Russian annexation of Crimea. The flow of water was restored in March 2022 during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. A 2015 study found that the canal had been providing 85% of Crimea's water prior to the canal's 2014 shutdown.]

[Shortly after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ukraine built a concrete dam cutting off 85 percent of the peninsula's water supply. So one of Moscow's first strategic moves after invading the country was to blow it up.]

https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/597910-how-a-ukrainian-dam-played-a-key-role-in-tensions-with/

---

Ok, thanks.

And you guys are asking NATO why now???

Ukraine shut the canal when Russia invaded in 2014. EIGHT YEARS later it became an issue that made invading Ukraine unavoidable? Didn't Russia build a bridge? A rather major one? So big it had its own logo?? So, the canal was SO important that they invaded Ukriane. They couldn't build a water line to support their annexation? They had time (Obviously, they built the bridge below!)! Sam????









https://www.reduper.com/industry/traffic/bridge/sea-bridge/crimean-bridge/

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

Gotta ask Putin. He invaded. If he didn't invade, he would have Crimea and the status quo would have remained. Now, he is going to get the exact opposite, Ukraine will get NATO membership.

---

Putin doesn't determine our policies.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

Gotta ask Putin. He invaded. If he didn't invade, he would have Crimea and the status quo would have remained. Now, he is going to get the exact opposite, Ukraine will get NATO membership.

---

Ukraine cutting off the water to Crimea made the Russian annexation of the peninsula unsustainable

That is a big part of why Russian invaded Kherson oblast (where the Canal that feeds Crimea is located)

Not defending the actions of Russia...simply pointing out that is a big reason they invaded.

Close to 90% of the water for Crimea (for drinking and farming) come from the canal that brings water from the large Dnieper river to the peninsula.

First thing the Russians did after invading was turn the turn the water back on and unblock the Canal.

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

---

Annexation - to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state

Annexing means it is yours. You take control and responsibility. Many annexations DO NOT happen because the cost of bringing the infrastructure and providing services outweigh the value.

So, your view is that not only does Ukraine have to cede the land, city and infrastructure with no compensation, but also provide utilities and never join NATO or the EU. Then all is right????

Crimea is Russian, it is their responsibility to provide water, WITHOUT INVADING ANOTHER NATION. Seems a pretty low bar.

---

I am not advocating a personal view on the annexation/occupation of Crimea.

Only pointing out that Ukraine cut the water from the Canal that feeds Crimea and then for that reason Russia invaded to turn it back on.

Once the water to Crimea was cut the Russians had two options....pull out or invade Ukraine to get control of the Canal.

We see what they ended up doing. But the status quo was not going to last.

---

I guess I am not up to speed. Did Ukraine cut the water in 2014 or 2022?

If 2014, I can see the point

If in 2021 or 2022, Russia took it and annexed it 8 years ago, what did they expect!

---

Found this:

[Ukraine shut down the canal in 2014 soon after the Russian annexation of Crimea. The flow of water was restored in March 2022 during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. A 2015 study found that the canal had been providing 85% of Crimea's water prior to the canal's 2014 shutdown.]

[Shortly after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ukraine built a concrete dam cutting off 85 percent of the peninsula's water supply. So one of Moscow's first strategic moves after invading the country was to blow it up.]

https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/597910-how-a-ukrainian-dam-played-a-key-role-in-tensions-with/

---

How dare they shut the water off of a peninsula that was illegally annexed by Russia?

And Russia was so angry that they waited 8 years to invade and "turn the water back on".

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

Gotta ask Putin. He invaded. If he didn't invade, he would have Crimea and the status quo would have remained. Now, he is going to get the exact opposite, Ukraine will get NATO membership.

---

Ukraine cutting off the water to Crimea made the Russian annexation of the peninsula unsustainable

That is a big part of why Russian invaded Kherson oblast (where the Canal that feeds Crimea is located)

Not defending the actions of Russia...simply pointing out that is a big reason they invaded.

Close to 90% of the water for Crimea (for drinking and farming) come from the canal that brings water from the large Dnieper river to the peninsula.

First thing the Russians did after invading was turn the turn the water back on and unblock the Canal.

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

---

Annexation - to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state

Annexing means it is yours. You take control and responsibility. Many annexations DO NOT happen because the cost of bringing the infrastructure and providing services outweigh the value.

So, your view is that not only does Ukraine have to cede the land, city and infrastructure with no compensation, but also provide utilities and never join NATO or the EU. Then all is right????

Crimea is Russian, it is their responsibility to provide water, WITHOUT INVADING ANOTHER NATION. Seems a pretty low bar.

---

I am not advocating a personal view on the annexation/occupation of Crimea.

Only pointing out that Ukraine cut the water from the Canal that feeds Crimea and then for that reason Russia invaded to turn it back on.

Once the water to Crimea was cut the Russians had two options....pull out or invade Ukraine to get control of the Canal.

We see what they ended up doing. But the status quo was not going to last.

---

I guess I am not up to speed. Did Ukraine cut the water in 2014 or 2022?

If 2014, I can see the point

If in 2021 or 2022, Russia took it and annexed it 8 years ago, what did they expect!

---

Found this:

[Ukraine shut down the canal in 2014 soon after the Russian annexation of Crimea. The flow of water was restored in March 2022 during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. A 2015 study found that the canal had been providing 85% of Crimea's water prior to the canal's 2014 shutdown.]

[Shortly after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ukraine built a concrete dam cutting off 85 percent of the peninsula's water supply. So one of Moscow's first strategic moves after invading the country was to blow it up.]

https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/597910-how-a-ukrainian-dam-played-a-key-role-in-tensions-with/

---

Ok, thanks.

And you guys are asking NATO why now???

Ukraine shut the canal when Russia invaded in 2014. EIGHT YEARS later it became an issue that made invading Ukraine unavoidable? Didn't Russia build a bridge? A rather major one? So big it had its own logo?? So, the canal was SO important that they invaded Ukriane. They couldn't build a water line to support their annexation? They had time (Obviously, they built the bridge below!)! Sam????









https://www.reduper.com/industry/traffic/bridge/sea-bridge/crimean-bridge/

---

That bridge brought in supplies and military equipment but not enough water to Crimea.

Again the blocking of the canal was not the only reason that Russia decided to invaded Ukraine.

But it was a major reason for their invasion of the Southern theatre.

Without the canal the croplands in Crimea failed and drinking water had to be imported in at a high expense to keep the population alive.

The canal is vital to the control of Crimea. And Crimea is vital to control of the Black sea.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

Gotta ask Putin. He invaded. If he didn't invade, he would have Crimea and the status quo would have remained. Now, he is going to get the exact opposite, Ukraine will get NATO membership.

---

Putin doesn't determine our policies.

---

Yeah, well he sure created a short cut to the NATO application process didn't he?

• Sweden
• Finland
• Ukraine

Damn that Putin is shrewd...

JC:"They're stealing Ukrainian children. 500 just yesterday were shipped to Russia. & this is why we should be supporting them. We cannot allow this kind of evil to go unchecked...Don't you agree with me on that?"

BG: "I'm sorry, I don't. And here's why."https://t.co/2IhClPsGpX pic.twitter.com/0l3pOaggCe

— Briahna Joy Gray (@briebriejoy) October 31, 2022

The Pentagon officially confirmed today that US troops are on the ground in Ukraine, allegedly performing "inspections" of US weapon caches. This information was released via anonymous media briefing. No word on whether the troops are wearing "boots" as they walk "on the ground" pic.twitter.com/ok9aAT1gDk

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) November 1, 2022

Pentagon acquisition chief Bill LaPlante says Ukraine has helped him understand what really matters. "What really matters is production."

"We as a country did our best to not do production," LaPlante said.

— Lee Hudson (@LeeHudson_) November 4, 2022

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

For the oldest reason of all - to grow your economy by seizing someone else's - before you become too weak (or your opponent too strong) to succeed.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

For the oldest reason of all - to grow your economy by seizing someone else's - before you become too weak (or your opponent too strong) to succeed.

---

Also known as greed.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

For the oldest reason of all - to grow your economy by seizing someone else's - before you become too weak (or your opponent too strong) to succeed.

---

Also known as greed.

---

Or survival, depending on one's perspective.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

For the oldest reason of all - to grow your economy by seizing someone else's - before you become too weak (or your opponent too strong) to succeed.

---

Also known as greed.

---

Or survival, depending on one's perspective.

---

Which again begs the same question. If we've accepted Russian hegemony in Ukraine for as long as the United States has existed, why is it suddenly a matter of life and death?

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

For the oldest reason of all - to grow your economy by seizing someone else's - before you become too weak (or your opponent too strong) to succeed.

---

Also known as greed.

---

Or survival, depending on one's perspective.

---

Which again begs the same question. If we've accepted Russian hegemony in Ukraine for as long as the United States has existed, why is it suddenly a matter of life and death?

---

Because of the 200k troops rolling across the border... Russia caused the urgency, not NATO or Ukraine. Ukraine is a sovereign nation if they want to move west, that is there right. They don't need Putin's permission. This seems pretty straight forward, you really not seeing it? To put in simpler terms, if NATO didn't act IMMEADIATELY Ukraine would not exist. Russia would have rolled over in a month. That is pretty urgent.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

For the oldest reason of all - to grow your economy by seizing someone else's - before you become too weak (or your opponent too strong) to succeed.

---

Also known as greed.

---

Or survival, depending on one's perspective.

---

Which again begs the same question. If we've accepted Russian hegemony in Ukraine for as long as the United States has existed, why is it suddenly a matter of life and death?

---

It isn't, for us. But it is for Ukraine.

In Russia, we have an autocratic country prepared to invade a neighboring democracy solely so it can sleep better at night and grow its economy. If we accept that logic as valid, where does it stop?

There is an old adage in real estate about not wanting to own the whole world, just what touches you…….

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

For the oldest reason of all - to grow your economy by seizing someone else's - before you become too weak (or your opponent too strong) to succeed.

---

Also known as greed.

---

Or survival, depending on one's perspective.

---

Which again begs the same question. If we've accepted Russian hegemony in Ukraine for as long as the United States has existed, why is it suddenly a matter of life and death?

---

It isn't, for us. But it is for Ukraine.

In Russia, we have an autocratic country prepared to invade a neighboring democracy solely so it can sleep better at night and grow its economy. If we accept that logic as valid, where does it stop?

There is an old adage in real estate about not wanting to own the whole world, just what touches you…….

---

With Joe Biden at the helm, I would not be surprised to see Canada invade and take over the United States. He will do nothing. They had better hurry, though. The invasion of the U.S. from Mexico and Central America is well underway!

10 percent to The Big Guy from the cartels. The Biden family, his cronies, and the Mexican cartels are getting richer. Americans are getting poorer.

⚡️Bloomberg: US asks banks to keep doing business with some Russian firms.

The U.S. Treasury and State Departments have quietly urged large banks to keep doing business with some strategic Russian firms, Bloomberg reported, citing unnamed sources familiar with the matter.

— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) November 8, 2022

According to Bloomberg, the effort signals the Biden administration is looking to strike a balance between hindering Russia's invasion of Ukraine and avoiding adverse impacts of sanctions designed to punish Russia for the war.

— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) November 8, 2022

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

For the oldest reason of all - to grow your economy by seizing someone else's - before you become too weak (or your opponent too strong) to succeed.

---

Also known as greed.

---

Or survival, depending on one's perspective.

---

Which again begs the same question. If we've accepted Russian hegemony in Ukraine for as long as the United States has existed, why is it suddenly a matter of life and death?

---

It isn't, for us. But it is for Ukraine.

In Russia, we have an autocratic country prepared to invade a neighboring democracy solely so it can sleep better at night and grow its economy. If we accept that logic as valid, where does it stop?

There is an old adage in real estate about not wanting to own the whole world, just what touches you…….

---

You're still dancing around the question. We know what it means for Ukraine.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And it's been that way for years…which brings us back to the question no one wants to answer.

---

Which is?

---

Why now?

---

For the oldest reason of all - to grow your economy by seizing someone else's - before you become too weak (or your opponent too strong) to succeed.

---

Also known as greed.

---

Or survival, depending on one's perspective.

---

Which again begs the same question. If we've accepted Russian hegemony in Ukraine for as long as the United States has existed, why is it suddenly a matter of life and death?

---

It isn't, for us. But it is for Ukraine.

In Russia, we have an autocratic country prepared to invade a neighboring democracy solely so it can sleep better at night and grow its economy. If we accept that logic as valid, where does it stop?

There is an old adage in real estate about not wanting to own the whole world, just what touches you…….

---

You're still dancing around the question. We know what it means for Ukraine.

---

Sam we have answered it 5 times. We have supported and championed Democracies in Europe since 1949, NATO cannot let Russia just invade who they choose because they don't like the form of Govt Ukraine has chosen
NATO is not supplying combat troops only equipment and training. Same as Russia does around world. Why are you so forxsupporting the Russia invasion of Ukraine? You seem upset NATO is helping Ukraine stay independent. Why do you support totalitarian?