Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Canada2017 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's not .

Never has been……never will be .

Ukrainians starved to death by the thousands prior to WW2 while part of the Soviet Union . Americans barely even noticed .
Post WW2 Stalin executed thousands of Ukrainians and sent thousands more to the gulags for ' collaborating ' with the Germans . Americans barely even noticed .

But now there are billions of US dollars invested in a country where high stakes money laundering is a routine part of business.

Follow the money .

---

We are involved in this war because it is in our strategist interest not to let Russia takeover territory on the western side. Bonus that the public largely supports it. I imagine this is going to go on for a decade or so and end with eastern Ukraine being a buffer zone.

---

A. Ukraine has NEVER been a strategic interest of the United States . Period .

B. Most Americans can't find Ukraine on a map even now . But they do know inflation , crime , and the influx of millions of illegals is adversely affecting them . They see the deteriorating cities , the fentanyl deaths , the bizarre cultural changes due to misguided woke programs . Americans want THEIR lives to come FIRST.

C. War will be concluded when Putin is either deposed or dead.

---

I agree with C.

As for A & B.

A - It was never in play before the 1990's. In the 2000's Ukraine indicated they preferred aligning west.
1 - Since when are nations restricted what they did in the past? At some point, this will be the past.
2 - There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of an opportunity that presents itself. If the Ukrainian people were aligned with Russia our overtures would have fell on deaf ears. Obviously, a significant portion of Ukraine wants to be Western, not Russian.

B - When did the American people's knowledge of geography play into policy? Sort of a false rabbit hole argument.

---

Half of Ukraine never agreed with Western realignment.

That is like saying that since Biden and the Democrats won the last election that the people of America agree with historic statue destruction, transgenderism, open borders, and an end to fossil fuels.

---

Yes, Biden won. Elections have consequences. Biden can do that some by Executive Order and some by Congress. Just because you disagree does not give you the right to split the Nation OR go and get a Nation you do like to invade. You can leave, that is your option.

Just like those people that do not agree with the Ukrainians can go to Russia. Have at it. What they can't do is what they are side with an invader. Using your logic a good portion of the SW USA should go to Mexico as they speck Spanish and Mexico used to have the territory. Sort of a silly argument.

---

The pro-Russian side actually won the 2010 election.....

And no one said the Russian military has a right to invade Ukraine.

You said Ukraine made a choice to join the EU bloc in the 2000s.... that is not true, it didn't.

That issue was very much up in the air all through the 2000s and 2010s

Whenever you're proven to be factual wrong about something you then move to some ridiculous made up hypothetical like "I'm supporting Russia invading Ukraine" or "I'm supporting the idea of Spanish speakers breaking off the Southwest and joining Mexico"

I've never supported those ideas and you only keep bringing them up because you think they help you in this thread.

---

Ukraine has been trying to join the EU since the early 1990s.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Canada2017 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's not .

Never has been……never will be .

Ukrainians starved to death by the thousands prior to WW2 while part of the Soviet Union . Americans barely even noticed .
Post WW2 Stalin executed thousands of Ukrainians and sent thousands more to the gulags for ' collaborating ' with the Germans . Americans barely even noticed .

But now there are billions of US dollars invested in a country where high stakes money laundering is a routine part of business.

Follow the money .

---

We are involved in this war because it is in our strategist interest not to let Russia takeover territory on the western side. Bonus that the public largely supports it. I imagine this is going to go on for a decade or so and end with eastern Ukraine being a buffer zone.

---

A. Ukraine has NEVER been a strategic interest of the United States . Period .

B. Most Americans can't find Ukraine on a map even now . But they do know inflation , crime , and the influx of millions of illegals is adversely affecting them . They see the deteriorating cities , the fentanyl deaths , the bizarre cultural changes due to misguided woke programs . Americans want THEIR lives to come FIRST.

C. War will be concluded when Putin is either deposed or dead.

---

I agree with C.

As for A & B.

A - It was never in play before the 1990's. In the 2000's Ukraine indicated they preferred aligning west.
1 - Since when are nations restricted what they did in the past? At some point, this will be the past.
2 - There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of an opportunity that presents itself. If the Ukrainian people were aligned with Russia our overtures would have fell on deaf ears. Obviously, a significant portion of Ukraine wants to be Western, not Russian.

B - When did the American people's knowledge of geography play into policy? Sort of a false rabbit hole argument.

---

Half of Ukraine never agreed with Western realignment.

That is like saying that since Biden and the Democrats won the last election that the people of America agree with historic statue destruction, transgenderism, open borders, and an end to fossil fuels.

Yanukovych (pro-Russia) won the 2010 runoff election with 48.95% of the vote compared with 45.47% for Tymoshenko (pro-EU). That probably gives a reasonable figure of the pro-EU and anti-EU factions in the country at the time.

Very much split.

---

The platforms weren't Russia vs EU. In fact Yanukovych was pro EU in that election. This issue was and still is corruption. Yanukovych turned more "pro Russian" due to other circumstances.

---

He was advocating more economic relations with both the EU and the Russian Federation. But no military alliance with NATO.

[In 2009, Yanukovych announced his intent to run for president in the then upcoming presidential election. He was endorsed by the Party of Regions and the Youth Party of Ukraine.

According to Yanukovych, Ukraine must be a "Neutral state"... Yanukovych wants Ukraine to "neither join NATO nor the CSTO". He stated on 7 January 2010 that Ukraine is ready to consider an initiative by Dmitry Medvedev on the creation of a new Europe collective security system stating "And we're ready to back Russia's and France's initiatives".]

Yulia Tymoshenko was the choice of the pro-EU/pro-NATO side of that election.

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

[She supports Ukraine's integration into the European Union and strongly opposes the membership of Ukraine in the Russia-led Eurasian Customs Union. She supports NATO membership for Ukraine.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Canada2017 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's not .

Never has been……never will be .

Ukrainians starved to death by the thousands prior to WW2 while part of the Soviet Union . Americans barely even noticed .
Post WW2 Stalin executed thousands of Ukrainians and sent thousands more to the gulags for ' collaborating ' with the Germans . Americans barely even noticed .

But now there are billions of US dollars invested in a country where high stakes money laundering is a routine part of business.

Follow the money .

---

We are involved in this war because it is in our strategist interest not to let Russia takeover territory on the western side. Bonus that the public largely supports it. I imagine this is going to go on for a decade or so and end with eastern Ukraine being a buffer zone.

---

A. Ukraine has NEVER been a strategic interest of the United States . Period .

B. Most Americans can't find Ukraine on a map even now . But they do know inflation , crime , and the influx of millions of illegals is adversely affecting them . They see the deteriorating cities , the fentanyl deaths , the bizarre cultural changes due to misguided woke programs . Americans want THEIR lives to come FIRST.

C. War will be concluded when Putin is either deposed or dead.

---

I agree with C.

As for A & B.

A - It was never in play before the 1990's. In the 2000's Ukraine indicated they preferred aligning west.
1 - Since when are nations restricted what they did in the past? At some point, this will be the past.
2 - There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of an opportunity that presents itself. If the Ukrainian people were aligned with Russia our overtures would have fell on deaf ears. Obviously, a significant portion of Ukraine wants to be Western, not Russian.

B - When did the American people's knowledge of geography play into policy? Sort of a false rabbit hole argument.

---

Half of Ukraine never agreed with Western realignment.

That is like saying that since Biden and the Democrats won the last election that the people of America agree with historic statue destruction, transgenderism, open borders, and an end to fossil fuels.

Yanukovych (pro-Russia) won the 2010 runoff election with 48.95% of the vote compared with 45.47% for Tymoshenko (pro-EU). That probably gives a reasonable figure of the pro-EU and anti-EU factions in the country at the time.

Very much split.

---

The platforms weren't Russia vs EU. In fact Yanukovych was pro EU in that election. This issue was and still is corruption. Yanukovych turned more "pro Russian" due to other circumstances.

---

He was advocating more economic relations with both the EU and the Russian Federation. But no military alliance with NATO.

[In 2009, Yanukovych announced his intent to run for president in the then upcoming presidential election. He was endorsed by the Party of Regions and the Youth Party of Ukraine.

According to Yanukovych, Ukraine must be a "Neutral state"... Yanukovych wants Ukraine to "neither join NATO nor the CSTO". He stated on 7 January 2010 that Ukraine is ready to consider an initiative by Dmitry Medvedev on the creation of a new Europe collective security system stating "And we're ready to back Russia's and France's initiatives".]

Yulia Tymoshenko was the choice of the pro-EU/pro-NATO side of that election.

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

[She supports Ukraine's integration into the European Union and strongly opposes the membership of Ukraine in the Russia-led Eurasian Customs Union. She supports NATO membership for Ukraine.]

---

At the very latest it was 2008 if you don't want to count anything before.

September 2008: Talks Open on New EU Relationship

The EU and Ukraine begin talks on a new "association agreement" and issue a communiqu that "Ukraine's future is in Europe." The EU considers such agreements to be legally binding contracts that commit countries to developing closer political, legal, and trading ties with the EU and sometimes lead to accession to the bloc. Implementation of the association agreement could mean major changes in Ukraine that would bring it closer to EU standards.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Canada2017 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's not .

Never has been……never will be .

Ukrainians starved to death by the thousands prior to WW2 while part of the Soviet Union . Americans barely even noticed .
Post WW2 Stalin executed thousands of Ukrainians and sent thousands more to the gulags for ' collaborating ' with the Germans . Americans barely even noticed .

But now there are billions of US dollars invested in a country where high stakes money laundering is a routine part of business.

Follow the money .

---

We are involved in this war because it is in our strategist interest not to let Russia takeover territory on the western side. Bonus that the public largely supports it. I imagine this is going to go on for a decade or so and end with eastern Ukraine being a buffer zone.

---

A. Ukraine has NEVER been a strategic interest of the United States . Period .

B. Most Americans can't find Ukraine on a map even now . But they do know inflation , crime , and the influx of millions of illegals is adversely affecting them . They see the deteriorating cities , the fentanyl deaths , the bizarre cultural changes due to misguided woke programs . Americans want THEIR lives to come FIRST.

C. War will be concluded when Putin is either deposed or dead.

---

I agree with C.

As for A & B.

A - It was never in play before the 1990's. In the 2000's Ukraine indicated they preferred aligning west.
1 - Since when are nations restricted what they did in the past? At some point, this will be the past.
2 - There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of an opportunity that presents itself. If the Ukrainian people were aligned with Russia our overtures would have fell on deaf ears. Obviously, a significant portion of Ukraine wants to be Western, not Russian.

B - When did the American people's knowledge of geography play into policy? Sort of a false rabbit hole argument.

---

Half of Ukraine never agreed with Western realignment.

That is like saying that since Biden and the Democrats won the last election that the people of America agree with historic statue destruction, transgenderism, open borders, and an end to fossil fuels.

Yanukovych (pro-Russia) won the 2010 runoff election with 48.95% of the vote compared with 45.47% for Tymoshenko (pro-EU). That probably gives a reasonable figure of the pro-EU and anti-EU factions in the country at the time.

Very much split.

---

The platforms weren't Russia vs EU. In fact Yanukovych was pro EU in that election. This issue was and still is corruption. Yanukovych turned more "pro Russian" due to other circumstances.

---

He was advocating more economic relations with both the EU and the Russian Federation. But no military alliance with NATO.

[In 2009, Yanukovych announced his intent to run for president in the then upcoming presidential election. He was endorsed by the Party of Regions and the Youth Party of Ukraine.

According to Yanukovych, Ukraine must be a "Neutral state"... Yanukovych wants Ukraine to "neither join NATO nor the CSTO". He stated on 7 January 2010 that Ukraine is ready to consider an initiative by Dmitry Medvedev on the creation of a new Europe collective security system stating "And we're ready to back Russia's and France's initiatives".]

Yulia Tymoshenko was the choice of the pro-EU/pro-NATO side of that election.

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

[She supports Ukraine's integration into the European Union and strongly opposes the membership of Ukraine in the Russia-led Eurasian Customs Union. She supports NATO membership for Ukraine.]

---

At the very latest it was 2008 if you don't want to count anything before.

September 2008: Talks Open on New EU Relationship

The EU and Ukraine begin talks on a new "association agreement" and issue a communiqu that "Ukraine's future is in Europe." The EU considers such agreements to be legally binding contracts that commit countries to developing closer political, legal, and trading ties with the EU and sometimes lead to accession to the bloc. Implementation of the association agreement could mean major changes in Ukraine that would bring it closer to EU standards.

---

I never denied there was support in Ukraine for EU membership.

The process of them wanting to join has been a long one.

And it did face internal opposition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_relations

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Canada2017 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's not .

Never has been……never will be .

Ukrainians starved to death by the thousands prior to WW2 while part of the Soviet Union . Americans barely even noticed .
Post WW2 Stalin executed thousands of Ukrainians and sent thousands more to the gulags for ' collaborating ' with the Germans . Americans barely even noticed .

But now there are billions of US dollars invested in a country where high stakes money laundering is a routine part of business.

Follow the money .

---

We are involved in this war because it is in our strategist interest not to let Russia takeover territory on the western side. Bonus that the public largely supports it. I imagine this is going to go on for a decade or so and end with eastern Ukraine being a buffer zone.

---

A. Ukraine has NEVER been a strategic interest of the United States . Period .

B. Most Americans can't find Ukraine on a map even now . But they do know inflation , crime , and the influx of millions of illegals is adversely affecting them . They see the deteriorating cities , the fentanyl deaths , the bizarre cultural changes due to misguided woke programs . Americans want THEIR lives to come FIRST.

C. War will be concluded when Putin is either deposed or dead.

---

I agree with C.

As for A & B.

A - It was never in play before the 1990's. In the 2000's Ukraine indicated they preferred aligning west.
1 - Since when are nations restricted what they did in the past? At some point, this will be the past.
2 - There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of an opportunity that presents itself. If the Ukrainian people were aligned with Russia our overtures would have fell on deaf ears. Obviously, a significant portion of Ukraine wants to be Western, not Russian.

B - When did the American people's knowledge of geography play into policy? Sort of a false rabbit hole argument.

---

Half of Ukraine never agreed with Western realignment.

That is like saying that since Biden and the Democrats won the last election that the people of America agree with historic statue destruction, transgenderism, open borders, and an end to fossil fuels.

---

Yes, Biden won. Elections have consequences. Biden can do that some by Executive Order and some by Congress. Just because you disagree does not give you the right to split the Nation OR go and get a Nation you do like to invade. You can leave, that is your option.

Just like those people that do not agree with the Ukrainians can go to Russia. Have at it. What they can't do is what they are side with an invader. Using your logic a good portion of the SW USA should go to Mexico as they speck Spanish and Mexico used to have the territory. Sort of a silly argument.

---

The pro-Russian side actually won the 2010 election.....

And no one said the Russian military has a right to invade Ukraine.

You said Ukraine made a choice to join the EU bloc in the 2000s.... that is not true, it didn't.

That issue was very much up in the air all through the 2000s and 2010s

Whenever you're proven to be factual wrong about something you then move to some ridiculous made up hypothetical like "I'm supporting Russia invading Ukraine" or "I'm supporting the idea of Spanish speakers breaking off the Southwest and joining Mexico"

I've never supported those ideas and you only keep bringing them up because you think they help you in this thread.

---

Ukraine has been trying to join the EU since the early 1990s.

---

True,

And the Party of Regions was always voicing various amounts of opposition and expressing Euroskepism positions.

[The Party of Regions was a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine formed in late 1997 that then grew to be the biggest party of Ukraine between 2006 and 2014.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Regions#European_integration

I said the issue of European integration, EU membership, and possible NATO membership has been one of the major issues in Ukrainian politics since Independence and it has been.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Canada2017 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's not .

Never has been……never will be .

Ukrainians starved to death by the thousands prior to WW2 while part of the Soviet Union . Americans barely even noticed .
Post WW2 Stalin executed thousands of Ukrainians and sent thousands more to the gulags for ' collaborating ' with the Germans . Americans barely even noticed .

But now there are billions of US dollars invested in a country where high stakes money laundering is a routine part of business.

Follow the money .

---

We are involved in this war because it is in our strategist interest not to let Russia takeover territory on the western side. Bonus that the public largely supports it. I imagine this is going to go on for a decade or so and end with eastern Ukraine being a buffer zone.

---

A. Ukraine has NEVER been a strategic interest of the United States . Period .

B. Most Americans can't find Ukraine on a map even now . But they do know inflation , crime , and the influx of millions of illegals is adversely affecting them . They see the deteriorating cities , the fentanyl deaths , the bizarre cultural changes due to misguided woke programs . Americans want THEIR lives to come FIRST.

C. War will be concluded when Putin is either deposed or dead.

---

I agree with C.

As for A & B.

A - It was never in play before the 1990's. In the 2000's Ukraine indicated they preferred aligning west.
1 - Since when are nations restricted what they did in the past? At some point, this will be the past.
2 - There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of an opportunity that presents itself. If the Ukrainian people were aligned with Russia our overtures would have fell on deaf ears. Obviously, a significant portion of Ukraine wants to be Western, not Russian.

B - When did the American people's knowledge of geography play into policy? Sort of a false rabbit hole argument.

---

Half of Ukraine never agreed with Western realignment.

That is like saying that since Biden and the Democrats won the last election that the people of America agree with historic statue destruction, transgenderism, open borders, and an end to fossil fuels.

Yanukovych (pro-Russia) won the 2010 runoff election with 48.95% of the vote compared with 45.47% for Tymoshenko (pro-EU). That probably gives a reasonable figure of the pro-EU and anti-EU factions in the country at the time.

Very much split.

---

The platforms weren't Russia vs EU. In fact Yanukovych was pro EU in that election. This issue was and still is corruption. Yanukovych turned more "pro Russian" due to other circumstances.

---

He was advocating more economic relations with both the EU and the Russian Federation. But no military alliance with NATO.

[In 2009, Yanukovych announced his intent to run for president in the then upcoming presidential election. He was endorsed by the Party of Regions and the Youth Party of Ukraine.

According to Yanukovych, Ukraine must be a "Neutral state"... Yanukovych wants Ukraine to "neither join NATO nor the CSTO". He stated on 7 January 2010 that Ukraine is ready to consider an initiative by Dmitry Medvedev on the creation of a new Europe collective security system stating "And we're ready to back Russia's and France's initiatives".]

Yulia Tymoshenko was the choice of the pro-EU/pro-NATO side of that election.

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

[She supports Ukraine's integration into the European Union and strongly opposes the membership of Ukraine in the Russia-led Eurasian Customs Union. She supports NATO membership for Ukraine.]

---

At the very latest it was 2008 if you don't want to count anything before.

September 2008: Talks Open on New EU Relationship

The EU and Ukraine begin talks on a new "association agreement" and issue a communiqu that "Ukraine's future is in Europe." The EU considers such agreements to be legally binding contracts that commit countries to developing closer political, legal, and trading ties with the EU and sometimes lead to accession to the bloc. Implementation of the association agreement could mean major changes in Ukraine that would bring it closer to EU standards.

---

I never denied there was support in Ukraine for EU membership.

The process of them wanting to join has been a long one.

And it did face internal opposition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_relations

---

What doesn't face some opposition? Every policy move has someone or alot of someones against it!

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Canada2017 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's not .

Never has been……never will be .

Ukrainians starved to death by the thousands prior to WW2 while part of the Soviet Union . Americans barely even noticed .
Post WW2 Stalin executed thousands of Ukrainians and sent thousands more to the gulags for ' collaborating ' with the Germans . Americans barely even noticed .

But now there are billions of US dollars invested in a country where high stakes money laundering is a routine part of business.

Follow the money .

---

We are involved in this war because it is in our strategist interest not to let Russia takeover territory on the western side. Bonus that the public largely supports it. I imagine this is going to go on for a decade or so and end with eastern Ukraine being a buffer zone.

---

A. Ukraine has NEVER been a strategic interest of the United States . Period .

B. Most Americans can't find Ukraine on a map even now . But they do know inflation , crime , and the influx of millions of illegals is adversely affecting them . They see the deteriorating cities , the fentanyl deaths , the bizarre cultural changes due to misguided woke programs . Americans want THEIR lives to come FIRST.

C. War will be concluded when Putin is either deposed or dead.

---

I agree with C.

As for A & B.

A - It was never in play before the 1990's. In the 2000's Ukraine indicated they preferred aligning west.
1 - Since when are nations restricted what they did in the past? At some point, this will be the past.
2 - There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of an opportunity that presents itself. If the Ukrainian people were aligned with Russia our overtures would have fell on deaf ears. Obviously, a significant portion of Ukraine wants to be Western, not Russian.

B - When did the American people's knowledge of geography play into policy? Sort of a false rabbit hole argument.

---

Half of Ukraine never agreed with Western realignment.

That is like saying that since Biden and the Democrats won the last election that the people of America agree with historic statue destruction, transgenderism, open borders, and an end to fossil fuels.

Yanukovych (pro-Russia) won the 2010 runoff election with 48.95% of the vote compared with 45.47% for Tymoshenko (pro-EU). That probably gives a reasonable figure of the pro-EU and anti-EU factions in the country at the time.

Very much split.

---

The platforms weren't Russia vs EU. In fact Yanukovych was pro EU in that election. This issue was and still is corruption. Yanukovych turned more "pro Russian" due to other circumstances.

---

He was advocating more economic relations with both the EU and the Russian Federation. But no military alliance with NATO.

[In 2009, Yanukovych announced his intent to run for president in the then upcoming presidential election. He was endorsed by the Party of Regions and the Youth Party of Ukraine.

According to Yanukovych, Ukraine must be a "Neutral state"... Yanukovych wants Ukraine to "neither join NATO nor the CSTO". He stated on 7 January 2010 that Ukraine is ready to consider an initiative by Dmitry Medvedev on the creation of a new Europe collective security system stating "And we're ready to back Russia's and France's initiatives".]

Yulia Tymoshenko was the choice of the pro-EU/pro-NATO side of that election.

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

[She supports Ukraine's integration into the European Union and strongly opposes the membership of Ukraine in the Russia-led Eurasian Customs Union. She supports NATO membership for Ukraine.]

---

At the very latest it was 2008 if you don't want to count anything before.

September 2008: Talks Open on New EU Relationship

The EU and Ukraine begin talks on a new "association agreement" and issue a communiqu that "Ukraine's future is in Europe." The EU considers such agreements to be legally binding contracts that commit countries to developing closer political, legal, and trading ties with the EU and sometimes lead to accession to the bloc. Implementation of the association agreement could mean major changes in Ukraine that would bring it closer to EU standards.

---

I never denied there was support in Ukraine for EU membership.

The process of them wanting to join has been a long one.

And it did face internal opposition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_relations

---

What doesn't face some opposition? Every policy move has someone or alot of someones against it!

---

Sure,

But that is also why its not accurate to present the pro-EU/pro-NATO side of Ukrainian politics as the overwhelming majority (at least pre-Russian invasion).

It faced strong opposition...especially in the eastern part of the country.

I suppose the logic here would imply China wants to get invaded by Russia because they are anti-west. There is no doubt that 10-20% of people in Ukraine fully wanted Russia to take them in though. Like you hinted at I'd guess that number is quite a bit lower after being thrown on the front line or having their lives destroyed at home.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Canada2017 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's not .

Never has been……never will be .

Ukrainians starved to death by the thousands prior to WW2 while part of the Soviet Union . Americans barely even noticed .
Post WW2 Stalin executed thousands of Ukrainians and sent thousands more to the gulags for ' collaborating ' with the Germans . Americans barely even noticed .

But now there are billions of US dollars invested in a country where high stakes money laundering is a routine part of business.

Follow the money .

---

We are involved in this war because it is in our strategist interest not to let Russia takeover territory on the western side. Bonus that the public largely supports it. I imagine this is going to go on for a decade or so and end with eastern Ukraine being a buffer zone.

---

A. Ukraine has NEVER been a strategic interest of the United States . Period .

B. Most Americans can't find Ukraine on a map even now . But they do know inflation , crime , and the influx of millions of illegals is adversely affecting them . They see the deteriorating cities , the fentanyl deaths , the bizarre cultural changes due to misguided woke programs . Americans want THEIR lives to come FIRST.

C. War will be concluded when Putin is either deposed or dead.

---

I agree with C.

As for A & B.

A - It was never in play before the 1990's. In the 2000's Ukraine indicated they preferred aligning west.
1 - Since when are nations restricted what they did in the past? At some point, this will be the past.
2 - There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of an opportunity that presents itself. If the Ukrainian people were aligned with Russia our overtures would have fell on deaf ears. Obviously, a significant portion of Ukraine wants to be Western, not Russian.

B - When did the American people's knowledge of geography play into policy? Sort of a false rabbit hole argument.

---

Half of Ukraine never agreed with Western realignment.

That is like saying that since Biden and the Democrats won the last election that the people of America agree with historic statue destruction, transgenderism, open borders, and an end to fossil fuels.

Yanukovych (pro-Russia) won the 2010 runoff election with 48.95% of the vote compared with 45.47% for Tymoshenko (pro-EU). That probably gives a reasonable figure of the pro-EU and anti-EU factions in the country at the time.

Very much split.

---

The platforms weren't Russia vs EU. In fact Yanukovych was pro EU in that election. This issue was and still is corruption. Yanukovych turned more "pro Russian" due to other circumstances.

---

He was advocating more economic relations with both the EU and the Russian Federation. But no military alliance with NATO.

[In 2009, Yanukovych announced his intent to run for president in the then upcoming presidential election. He was endorsed by the Party of Regions and the Youth Party of Ukraine.

According to Yanukovych, Ukraine must be a "Neutral state"... Yanukovych wants Ukraine to "neither join NATO nor the CSTO". He stated on 7 January 2010 that Ukraine is ready to consider an initiative by Dmitry Medvedev on the creation of a new Europe collective security system stating "And we're ready to back Russia's and France's initiatives".]

Yulia Tymoshenko was the choice of the pro-EU/pro-NATO side of that election.

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

[She supports Ukraine's integration into the European Union and strongly opposes the membership of Ukraine in the Russia-led Eurasian Customs Union. She supports NATO membership for Ukraine.]

---

At the very latest it was 2008 if you don't want to count anything before.

September 2008: Talks Open on New EU Relationship

The EU and Ukraine begin talks on a new "association agreement" and issue a communiqu that "Ukraine's future is in Europe." The EU considers such agreements to be legally binding contracts that commit countries to developing closer political, legal, and trading ties with the EU and sometimes lead to accession to the bloc. Implementation of the association agreement could mean major changes in Ukraine that would bring it closer to EU standards.

---

I never denied there was support in Ukraine for EU membership.

The process of them wanting to join has been a long one.

And it did face internal opposition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_relations

---

What doesn't face some opposition? Every policy move has someone or alot of someones against it!

---

Sure,

But that is also why its not accurate to present the pro-EU/pro-NATO side of Ukrainian politics as the overwhelming majority (at least pre-Russian invasion).

It faced strong opposition...especially in the eastern part of the country.

---

But at that point the official Government of Ukraine asked for assistance from the west and has done so numerous times. I don't doubt there are those that miss the Soviet Union! Whether they agree or not, the current Administration in Ukraine is the recognized Government by the world.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Canada2017 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's not .

Never has been……never will be .

Ukrainians starved to death by the thousands prior to WW2 while part of the Soviet Union . Americans barely even noticed .
Post WW2 Stalin executed thousands of Ukrainians and sent thousands more to the gulags for ' collaborating ' with the Germans . Americans barely even noticed .

But now there are billions of US dollars invested in a country where high stakes money laundering is a routine part of business.

Follow the money .

---

We are involved in this war because it is in our strategist interest not to let Russia takeover territory on the western side. Bonus that the public largely supports it. I imagine this is going to go on for a decade or so and end with eastern Ukraine being a buffer zone.

---

A. Ukraine has NEVER been a strategic interest of the United States . Period .

B. Most Americans can't find Ukraine on a map even now . But they do know inflation , crime , and the influx of millions of illegals is adversely affecting them . They see the deteriorating cities , the fentanyl deaths , the bizarre cultural changes due to misguided woke programs . Americans want THEIR lives to come FIRST.

C. War will be concluded when Putin is either deposed or dead.

---

I agree with C.

As for A & B.

A - It was never in play before the 1990's. In the 2000's Ukraine indicated they preferred aligning west.
1 - Since when are nations restricted what they did in the past? At some point, this will be the past.
2 - There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of an opportunity that presents itself. If the Ukrainian people were aligned with Russia our overtures would have fell on deaf ears. Obviously, a significant portion of Ukraine wants to be Western, not Russian.

B - When did the American people's knowledge of geography play into policy? Sort of a false rabbit hole argument.

---

Half of Ukraine never agreed with Western realignment.

That is like saying that since Biden and the Democrats won the last election that the people of America agree with historic statue destruction, transgenderism, open borders, and an end to fossil fuels.

Yanukovych (pro-Russia) won the 2010 runoff election with 48.95% of the vote compared with 45.47% for Tymoshenko (pro-EU). That probably gives a reasonable figure of the pro-EU and anti-EU factions in the country at the time.

Very much split.

---

The platforms weren't Russia vs EU. In fact Yanukovych was pro EU in that election. This issue was and still is corruption. Yanukovych turned more "pro Russian" due to other circumstances.

---

He was advocating more economic relations with both the EU and the Russian Federation. But no military alliance with NATO.

[In 2009, Yanukovych announced his intent to run for president in the then upcoming presidential election. He was endorsed by the Party of Regions and the Youth Party of Ukraine.

According to Yanukovych, Ukraine must be a "Neutral state"... Yanukovych wants Ukraine to "neither join NATO nor the CSTO". He stated on 7 January 2010 that Ukraine is ready to consider an initiative by Dmitry Medvedev on the creation of a new Europe collective security system stating "And we're ready to back Russia's and France's initiatives".]

Yulia Tymoshenko was the choice of the pro-EU/pro-NATO side of that election.

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

[She supports Ukraine's integration into the European Union and strongly opposes the membership of Ukraine in the Russia-led Eurasian Customs Union. She supports NATO membership for Ukraine.]

---

At the very latest it was 2008 if you don't want to count anything before.

September 2008: Talks Open on New EU Relationship

The EU and Ukraine begin talks on a new "association agreement" and issue a communiqu that "Ukraine's future is in Europe." The EU considers such agreements to be legally binding contracts that commit countries to developing closer political, legal, and trading ties with the EU and sometimes lead to accession to the bloc. Implementation of the association agreement could mean major changes in Ukraine that would bring it closer to EU standards.

---

I never denied there was support in Ukraine for EU membership.

The process of them wanting to join has been a long one.

And it did face internal opposition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_relations

---

What doesn't face some opposition? Every policy move has someone or alot of someones against it!

---

Sure,

But that is also why its not accurate to present the pro-EU/pro-NATO side of Ukrainian politics as the overwhelming majority (at least pre-Russian invasion).

It faced strong opposition...especially in the eastern part of the country.

---

But at that point the official Government of Ukraine asked for assistance from the west and has done so numerous times. I don't doubt there are those that miss the Soviet Union! Whether they agree or not, the current Administration in Ukraine is the recognized Government by the world.

---

Was the Ukrainian government asking for military assistance against Russia pre-Russian annexation of Crimea?

I imagine all of Ukraine has become less pro-Russian since the events of 2014 on.

But pre-2014 it was a different political climate.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Canada2017 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's not .

Never has been……never will be .

Ukrainians starved to death by the thousands prior to WW2 while part of the Soviet Union . Americans barely even noticed .
Post WW2 Stalin executed thousands of Ukrainians and sent thousands more to the gulags for ' collaborating ' with the Germans . Americans barely even noticed .

But now there are billions of US dollars invested in a country where high stakes money laundering is a routine part of business.

Follow the money .

---

We are involved in this war because it is in our strategist interest not to let Russia takeover territory on the western side. Bonus that the public largely supports it. I imagine this is going to go on for a decade or so and end with eastern Ukraine being a buffer zone.

---

A. Ukraine has NEVER been a strategic interest of the United States . Period .

B. Most Americans can't find Ukraine on a map even now . But they do know inflation , crime , and the influx of millions of illegals is adversely affecting them . They see the deteriorating cities , the fentanyl deaths , the bizarre cultural changes due to misguided woke programs . Americans want THEIR lives to come FIRST.

C. War will be concluded when Putin is either deposed or dead.

---

I agree with C.

As for A & B.

A - It was never in play before the 1990's. In the 2000's Ukraine indicated they preferred aligning west.
1 - Since when are nations restricted what they did in the past? At some point, this will be the past.
2 - There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of an opportunity that presents itself. If the Ukrainian people were aligned with Russia our overtures would have fell on deaf ears. Obviously, a significant portion of Ukraine wants to be Western, not Russian.

B - When did the American people's knowledge of geography play into policy? Sort of a false rabbit hole argument.

---

Half of Ukraine never agreed with Western realignment.

That is like saying that since Biden and the Democrats won the last election that the people of America agree with historic statue destruction, transgenderism, open borders, and an end to fossil fuels.

Yanukovych (pro-Russia) won the 2010 runoff election with 48.95% of the vote compared with 45.47% for Tymoshenko (pro-EU). That probably gives a reasonable figure of the pro-EU and anti-EU factions in the country at the time.

Very much split.

---

The platforms weren't Russia vs EU. In fact Yanukovych was pro EU in that election. This issue was and still is corruption. Yanukovych turned more "pro Russian" due to other circumstances.

---

He was advocating more economic relations with both the EU and the Russian Federation. But no military alliance with NATO.

[In 2009, Yanukovych announced his intent to run for president in the then upcoming presidential election. He was endorsed by the Party of Regions and the Youth Party of Ukraine.

According to Yanukovych, Ukraine must be a "Neutral state"... Yanukovych wants Ukraine to "neither join NATO nor the CSTO". He stated on 7 January 2010 that Ukraine is ready to consider an initiative by Dmitry Medvedev on the creation of a new Europe collective security system stating "And we're ready to back Russia's and France's initiatives".]

Yulia Tymoshenko was the choice of the pro-EU/pro-NATO side of that election.

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

[She supports Ukraine's integration into the European Union and strongly opposes the membership of Ukraine in the Russia-led Eurasian Customs Union. She supports NATO membership for Ukraine.]

---

At the very latest it was 2008 if you don't want to count anything before.

September 2008: Talks Open on New EU Relationship

The EU and Ukraine begin talks on a new "association agreement" and issue a communiqu that "Ukraine's future is in Europe." The EU considers such agreements to be legally binding contracts that commit countries to developing closer political, legal, and trading ties with the EU and sometimes lead to accession to the bloc. Implementation of the association agreement could mean major changes in Ukraine that would bring it closer to EU standards.

---

I never denied there was support in Ukraine for EU membership.

The process of them wanting to join has been a long one.

And it did face internal opposition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_relations

---

What doesn't face some opposition? Every policy move has someone or alot of someones against it!

---

Sure,

But that is also why its not accurate to present the pro-EU/pro-NATO side of Ukrainian politics as the overwhelming majority (at least pre-Russian invasion).

It faced strong opposition...especially in the eastern part of the country.

---

But at that point the official Government of Ukraine asked for assistance from the west and has done so numerous times. I don't doubt there are those that miss the Soviet Union! Whether they agree or not, the current Administration in Ukraine is the recognized Government by the world.

---

Was the Ukrainian government asking for military assistance against Russia pre-Russian annexation of Crimea?

I imagine all of Ukraine has become less pro-Russian since the events of 2014 on.

But pre-2014 it was a different political climate.

---

Yes and Obama sent blankets...

All the discussion about Ukrainian membership in Nato and EU presumes that just because there was some support in Nato/EU and majority support in Ukraine that it all would happen toot sweet.

Not so. There will be opposition to Ukrainian membership in Nato from WITHIN Nato. Their membership is decades away.* EU will come a lot first.

Ukraine does have a choice here: to become a part of Europe or to return to the Russian orbit as a Eurasian nation. The war has pretty well settled the issue as far as the will of the Ukrainian people - they want to be Europeans.


*in principle, I support Ukrainian membership in Nato. It's where they want to be and such would benefit Europe. But not now. Too soon. Not a stable country, politically or economically. Really bad idea to let in a country that could collapse and want to leave - posing a threat to the entire Nato structure. So we have a long process, with benchmarks......and maybe in the 10-20 year timeframe Ukraine enters Nato. If they can manage to stay on track that long, they'll probably stick.

Russia announces a withdrawal from Kherson and new military positions on the Dnipro’s eastern bank. A widely expected move that is nonetheless another huge blow for Putin’s credibility - his forces are abandoning the only regional capital they have captured in this war https://t.co/qO7OtthI8h

— Matthew Luxmoore (@mjluxmoore) November 9, 2022

HuMcK said:

---

Russia announces a withdrawal from Kherson and new military positions on the Dnipro’s eastern bank. A widely expected move that is nonetheless another huge blow for Putin’s credibility - his forces are abandoning the only regional capital they have captured in this war https://t.co/qO7OtthI8h

— Matthew Luxmoore (@mjluxmoore) November 9, 2022

---

It started in Crimea and will end in Crimea. --Zelensky

Russian troops are withdrawing from Kherson. It was the only regional Capital Russia held.

EDIT: HUMCK beat me to it.

HuMcK said:

---

Russia announces a withdrawal from Kherson and new military positions on the Dnipro’s eastern bank. A widely expected move that is nonetheless another huge blow for Putin’s credibility - his forces are abandoning the only regional capital they have captured in this war https://t.co/qO7OtthI8h

— Matthew Luxmoore (@mjluxmoore) November 9, 2022

---

and here in not too many weeks, the Dnieper will freeze. so those positions on the east bank will not be quite as well protected as they are at the moment.

whiterock said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Russia announces a withdrawal from Kherson and new military positions on the Dnipro’s eastern bank. A widely expected move that is nonetheless another huge blow for Putin’s credibility - his forces are abandoning the only regional capital they have captured in this war https://t.co/qO7OtthI8h

— Matthew Luxmoore (@mjluxmoore) November 9, 2022

---

and here in not too many weeks, the Dnieper will freeze. so those positions on the east bank will not be quite as well protected as they are at the moment.

---

Some Crimea bases will also begin to get nervous as HIMARS and long rage fires move closer and closer.

ATL Bear said:

---

Russian troops are withdrawing from Kherson. It was the only regional Capital Russia held.

---

Obvious tactical repositioning .

Long overdue .

Canada2017 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Russian troops are withdrawing from Kherson. It was the only regional Capital Russia held.

---

Obvious tactical repositioning .

Long overdue .

---

If they could have held it, they would have. It's a long shot, but could this be a catalyst to a ceasefire discussion or maybe start discussing where a "peace boundary" could be?

See? I'm not all about war and killing.

ATL Bear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Russian troops are withdrawing from Kherson. It was the only regional Capital Russia held.

---

Obvious tactical repositioning .

Long overdue .

---

It's a long shot, but could this be a catalyst to a ceasefire discussion or maybe start discussing where a "peace boundary" could be?

---

My first thought .

But only occurs if Putin believes such a boundary can be sold to the Russian people as a worthwhile 'victory'. Thereby ensuring Putin's survival.



Doubt such a 'victory' would save him .

whiterock said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Russia announces a withdrawal from Kherson and new military positions on the Dnipro’s eastern bank. A widely expected move that is nonetheless another huge blow for Putin’s credibility - his forces are abandoning the only regional capital they have captured in this war https://t.co/qO7OtthI8h

— Matthew Luxmoore (@mjluxmoore) November 9, 2022

---

and here in not too many weeks, the Dnieper will freeze. so those positions on the east bank will not be quite as well protected as they are at the moment.

---

The Dnieper is like the Mississippi...it does not really deep freeze like that. Maybe a few sections get iced up. But mostly its free flowing in the Winter.

In some places ice can endure a light car or people walking. But no heavy tanks or heavy equipment.

"The river is the artery of Ukraine, its main highway, and its source of hydroelectric power."

http://www.encyclopediao***raine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CD%5CN%5CDniproRiver.htm

But whether it freezes or not is not the real issue. It will only be a slight barrier for modern military forces.

It did not stop Nazi forces in 1941 from moving East. And it did not stop Soviet forces from moving West when they counter attacked in 1943.

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

Russia will not find it to be that much of a help.

Canada2017 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Russian troops are withdrawing from Kherson. It was the only regional Capital Russia held.

---

Obvious tactical repositioning .

Long overdue .

---

It is. And it is because they were getting attritioned pretty badly. All major supply bridges to Kherson City that side of the river were under Ukrainian fire control. Still are.

Canada2017 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Russian troops are withdrawing from Kherson. It was the only regional Capital Russia held.

---

Obvious tactical repositioning .

Long overdue .

---

It's a long shot, but could this be a catalyst to a ceasefire discussion or maybe start discussing where a "peace boundary" could be?

---

My first thought .

But only occurs if Putin believes such a boundary can be sold to the Russian people as a worthwhile 'victory'. Thereby ensuring Putin's survival.



Doubt such a 'victory' would save him .

---

If he can keep Ukrainian forces on the west bank of the Dnieper river and thus keep the rest of Kherson Oblast, along with Crimea, Zaporizhzhia oblast, Donetsk oblast, and Luhansk oblast...that can easy be sold to the Russian people as a victory because it would be one.

It adds territory, farmland, resources, population, and strategic depth to the Russian Federation.

The problem is that there is no indication that Russia can actually keep Ukrainian forces on the other side of the river or stop them from retaking those oblasts eventually.

Nine months into the war, the West’s fundamental unpreparedness has set off a mad scramble to supply Ukraine with what it needs while also replenishing NATO stockpiles. ⁦@StevenErlanger⁩ ⁦@jakesNYT⁩ https://t.co/eUhY6bDHk8

— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) November 27, 2022

trey3216 said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

Nine months into the war, the West’s fundamental unpreparedness has set off a mad scramble to supply Ukraine with what it needs while also replenishing NATO stockpiles. ⁦@StevenErlanger⁩ ⁦@jakesNYT⁩ https://t.co/eUhY6bDHk8

— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) November 27, 2022

---

That's funny, "fundamental unpreparedness". That's why we're giving Ukraine 20+ year old tech that is destroying the Russians' entire stockpile of heavy arms. Stuff that we were going to have to scrap within the next decade.

---

but the headline sure helps prepare the way for more money for the MIC

Ukraine strikes Poland with missiles and lies about it in hopes of starting WWIII. What an awesome ally.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

Nine months into the war, the West’s fundamental unpreparedness has set off a mad scramble to supply Ukraine with what it needs while also replenishing NATO stockpiles. ⁦@StevenErlanger⁩ ⁦@jakesNYT⁩ https://t.co/eUhY6bDHk8

— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) November 27, 2022

---

That's funny, "fundamental unpreparedness". That's why we're giving Ukraine 20+ year old tech that is destroying the Russians' entire stockpile of heavy arms. Stuff that we were going to have to scrap within the next decade.

---

but the headline sure helps prepare the way for more money for the MIC

---

In an accounting trick kind of way. This is basically a write down of inventory that was going to be scrapped, now it's being used and we'll move on to producing our next frontier of technology like we already have.

$100B +

Morning Pikachu Dance. Winter has never been an obstacle to a good mood.
🎥 by Operative #UAarmy pic.twitter.com/B5efM39lcT

— Defense of Ukraine (@DefenceU) December 5, 2022

Doc Holliday said:

---

$100B +

Morning Pikachu Dance. Winter has never been an obstacle to a good mood.
🎥 by Operative #UAarmy pic.twitter.com/B5efM39lcT

— Defense of Ukraine (@DefenceU) December 5, 2022

---

That is nothing. We had nurses doing that on Tik Tok almost three years ago and Washington's response was to print over $4 trillion.

He Hate Me said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

$100B +

Morning Pikachu Dance. Winter has never been an obstacle to a good mood.
🎥 by Operative #UAarmy pic.twitter.com/B5efM39lcT

— Defense of Ukraine (@DefenceU) December 5, 2022

---

That is nothing. We had nurses doing that on Tik Tok almost three years ago and Washington's response was to print over $4 trillion.

---

Yeah...Rather see high morale from the side fighting for their livelihood than what you see from the RU side: freezing to death as remote grenades are being dropped on them.

Bear8084 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

$100B +

Morning Pikachu Dance. Winter has never been an obstacle to a good mood.
🎥 by Operative #UAarmy pic.twitter.com/B5efM39lcT

— Defense of Ukraine (@DefenceU) December 5, 2022

---

That is nothing. We had nurses doing that on Tik Tok almost three years ago and Washington's response was to print over $4 trillion.

---

Yeah...Rather see high morale from the side fighting for their livelihood than what you see from the RU side: freezing to death as remote grenades are being dropped on them.

---

I have no idea if morale is high or low among the Ukrainian fighting men. As far as I know it's high since they are doing well right now against Russian forces.

But let's be completely honest. This lady and her brand new non-dirty uniform is no where near the front line engaging in combat.

She and her film crew drove to some woods (probably outside of Lviv) hours away from the front lines and actual battle…filming what is basically propaganda videos for clicks.

This non-combat bunny is not representative of the men doing the fighting and the dying in this war.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

$100B +

Morning Pikachu Dance. Winter has never been an obstacle to a good mood.
🎥 by Operative #UAarmy pic.twitter.com/B5efM39lcT

— Defense of Ukraine (@DefenceU) December 5, 2022

---

That is nothing. We had nurses doing that on Tik Tok almost three years ago and Washington's response was to print over $4 trillion.

---

Yeah...Rather see high morale from the side fighting for their livelihood than what you see from the RU side: freezing to death as remote grenades are being dropped on them.

---

I have no idea if morale is high or low among the Ukrainian fighting men. As far as I know it's high since they are doing well right now against Russian forces.

But let's be completely honest. This lady and her brand new non-dirty uniform is no where near the front line engaging in combat.

She and her film crew drove to some woods (probably outside of Lviv) hours away from the front lines and actual battle…filming what is basically propaganda videos for clicks.

This non-combat bunny is not representative of the men doing the fighting and the dying in this war.

---

Yes it is propaganda, but also morale seems to be high given the circumstances. Though plenty of women are fighting and dying on the frontlines over there too. There are even women POWs still in captivity.