whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Lol I'm 34, take your "boomer" nonsense elsewhere.

You can disclaim support for Russia all you want, but your rhetoric is an exact mirror for their narratives, and I'm not just talking about during this war either. Of course you throw in a token statement of condemnation every now and then...and then the rest of the time you argue that we should step aside and let Ukraine founder while also blaming us for initiating the conflict in the first place. Saying "Russia is wrong" loses some of its bite when you pair it with "but we should not help Ukraine", which is the tightrope you are attempting to stay on.

We are sending Ukraine tanks because stalemate favors Russia. Ukraine isn't losing, but they also can't win or make further gains without help. We should provide that help against our enemy for as long as Ukrainian soldiers are willing to use it. I don't want to hear any whining about money either, we are sending them second rate surplus equipment that was bought and paid for long ago. Not to mention this is is literally the enemy we designed and stockpiled all that stuff in order to counter. The time to counter is now, when they are invading their neighbors and openly meddling in our domestic politics (which you deny the very existence of, another gift from you to Russia), and we don't even have to deploy any of our own soldiers to do it.

Support for Ukraine is the most justifiable and effective use of our bloated defense budget since the second World War, and it has no relation whatsoever to errors of Iraq/Afghan and the war on terror. I get what you are saying about the WoT, it was stuoid should not ever be repeated, but this is not even close to being that.

---

My rhetoric is not supportive of Russia. I'm just calling it how it is.

I want peace deals now, and if that means Ukraine and Russia both don't get exactly as they want, fine.

What I don't want is exactly what its become: a proxy war for the US/NATO to weaken Russia at great cost. We moving in tanks. Next we'll move in our own military and boots on the ground. This escalation of resources doesn't line up with the narrative we've been fed about Russia being an easy opponent.

---

Of note: the Ukrainians don't.
Also of note: our security position is degraded by a Russian victory.

The Russians are indeed a shockingly weak opponent, far less potent than we ever dare assume, and particularly so now after a year of getting mauled by the Ukrainians. They have a third world quality army. The fight wouldn't last long if Nato were to intervene. But Nato won't. There is no evidence, anywhere, that Nato wants to escalate to that level. Everyone, with a remarkable degree of unanimity, agrees that we have limited risk of escalation as long as it remains a proxy war but significant risk of escalation if direct conflict occurs. That's why we see what we see happening. Russia is in a quagmire it cannot win unless the West withdraws support. All it can do is to withdraw, or to endure long enough that western will to continue breaks. Either way, Russia suffers mightily. (which is why the Russo-Ukrainian war is a strategic situation which will be studied by scholars and soldiers for centuries...so many classic lessons be re-learned.)

Neither is there much evidence in the last 50-70 years of proxy wars and small wars in which we are directly engaged inevitably escalate to full-blown direct conflict. The historical record shows that we have been loathe to disengage a few times (Vietnam, Afghanistan) but otherwise have demonstrated a very solid record of avoiding what we need to avoid to pursue overall policy. (notwithstanding non-martial policy errors like China policy of the 1992-2016 period).

---

The entire western world is sending resources, weapons and technically manpower in the form of mercs against Russia. That is unofficially NATO vs Russia.
That we are acting in concert with allies is discordant with the "boomers are responsible for everything" narrative. We are in fact leading NATO, largely against German inertia, and Nato is coming along because they see the obvious.

Russia being the big bad boogeyman that needs the counterbalancing of the entire western world against them, doesn't coincide with the idea that they're a weak third world quality military power. That narrative doesn't make sense.
That is no conflict at all. Russia has a population which outstrips every European country by half, and is multiples of the former WP nations in Eastern Europe. They in fact would have already run over Ukraine had it not been for western support. They would do so against all but 3 other Nato countries, who would be pressed every bit as hard themselves as Ukraine. More to the point: The barbarians were for centuries weaker than the Roman Empire. It was not weight of numbers or technological superiority which caused Rome to fall. It was the burden of sustained assault. Yes, Rome had internal issues as well. But plain fact is...WINNING a war is costly. Ukraine is going to win this one. But look at the cost. Nato will win any conflict with Russia. But it will devastate the nations on whose soil the conflict occurs, and it will cost all the allies dearly in blood and treasure. That is why deterrence is so important. You do not want to have to fight at all. you might lose. And even if you win, the cost is frightful.....decades of Russian poking, prodding, seeping in, sapping our resolve to get us to appease them.....THAT's the only way Russia can win. So now that Russia has spent two decades pushing testing around the margins, trying to influence, intimidate, then finally outright invading a sovereign nation....how do we RESTORE deterrence? Answer: by showing the resolve to stand, right now. On the Dnieper. In the Donbass. The cost doesn't really matter, because at the end of the day it's cheaper than doing it with our own troops on Nato soil in the future, and we can afford it today and Russia cannot.

If we don't stand here and now, then where? This is the best, easiest battlefield we will have. It's not our boys & girls doing the fighting. All we have to do is provide money and munitions. That's pretty easy, compared to my daughter having to dodge incoming ordnance & repair fuel depots and replace parts warehouses and repair maintenance sheds to keep the F-whatevers in the air to defend the other sons & daughters out there on the front lines getting shelled by Russian arty, all while managing the flow of caskets back to Dover (where on her first tour after the Academy she ran the warehouse that received all those caskets from Afghanistan....). Or. We could just let Russia have Ukraine, then a decade or three down when they start the process again in Romania or Hungary or wherever.....we just let Nato crater & we come home & let the chips fall where they may. How will that improve the national security of the American people? The easiest, cheapest, best way to prevent Russia from becoming the hegemon in Europe (and China from becoming the hegemon in Asia) is to deal with Russia right now in Ukraine = Beat up their army so badly their government collapses and will take decades to reform and rebuild an army. (make no mistake. that is the policy aim here.....)

Russia still holds a significant chunk of Ukraine.
Yep. For now. Slightly more than a few weeks ago, and a helluva lot less than they held nine months ago. If we supply Ukraine with what they're asking for, it'll likely start shrinking quickly again. It is not unreasonable for Ukraine to drive Russian troops from all Ukrainian soil within 12 months. But they will not do it if we keep dribbling and drabbling equipment out to them.

I see this going like Vietnam/Afghanistan. To the spoils are too good for it not to be planned that way. DC obviously didn't care what US citizens thought about the war on terror, what makes you think they care about how we feel if this turns into a very long expensive proxy war for many years?
American troops won all the battles but the policy failed in both countries, because our troops were directly involved and we were attempting to stabilize countries that were not viable states as drawn. Pointedly, that is not the dynamic at play here. Ukraine is a sovereign people of one ethnicity, language and most notably one mind, previously engaged successfully in social contract via democratic process. Whatever valid criticisms might be made about the Ukrainian model, and they are not small in number, Ukraine was successful enough that Russia assessed it necessary to invade rather than engage in diplomacy. So unlike your two examples, there IS something to build upon. Most importantly, WE are not doing the fighting. Ukrainians are. We are not trying to create order out of chaos. We are supporting a nation who is trying to honor its voters wishes to permanently join European liberal democracy, against an autocratic nation intent on stopping that policy by force of arms.

---

See bolded above.

Enormous error to compare Ukraine to Afghanistan or Vietnam. As noted above, totally different scenarios. And that's before we realize that both AFG and VIET were always on the ragged periphery of core US interests. Neither of them share a border with a key strategic ally. Not so Ukraine. Ukraine itself is not itself of strategic interest to the USA. But it's neighbors are. And Ukraine itself has resources of value to anyone allied to it. To the degree that Ukraine is incorporated, formally or via alliance, into the Russian sphere, it materially strengthens Russian ability to negatively impact US interests around the world.

not tiddlywinks we're playing here....

---

If Russian obtained Ukraine and they're a third world military power...they're not gonna further expand out and take on the west. I don't buy for a minute that they're a threat to Europe or the west if Ukraine fell.

My position isn't to leave Ukraine on its own, its actually to directly threaten Russia and make them bend the knee and end this. I want peace TODAY. I don't want to use this proxy war as a means to hurt Russia to the point where they can't be a threat to the west...because they're not actually a threat to the west. If the US says we're engaging in direct conflict and blowing you off the map if you don't pull out by the end of next week...they're gonna pull out. 100% guaranteed they do.

My plan saves money, time and lives.

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Lol I'm 34, take your "boomer" nonsense elsewhere.

You can disclaim support for Russia all you want, but your rhetoric is an exact mirror for their narratives, and I'm not just talking about during this war either. Of course you throw in a token statement of condemnation every now and then...and then the rest of the time you argue that we should step aside and let Ukraine founder while also blaming us for initiating the conflict in the first place. Saying "Russia is wrong" loses some of its bite when you pair it with "but we should not help Ukraine", which is the tightrope you are attempting to stay on.

We are sending Ukraine tanks because stalemate favors Russia. Ukraine isn't losing, but they also can't win or make further gains without help. We should provide that help against our enemy for as long as Ukrainian soldiers are willing to use it. I don't want to hear any whining about money either, we are sending them second rate surplus equipment that was bought and paid for long ago. Not to mention this is is literally the enemy we designed and stockpiled all that stuff in order to counter. The time to counter is now, when they are invading their neighbors and openly meddling in our domestic politics (which you deny the very existence of, another gift from you to Russia), and we don't even have to deploy any of our own soldiers to do it.

Support for Ukraine is the most justifiable and effective use of our bloated defense budget since the second World War, and it has no relation whatsoever to errors of Iraq/Afghan and the war on terror. I get what you are saying about the WoT, it was stuoid should not ever be repeated, but this is not even close to being that.

---

My rhetoric is not supportive of Russia. I'm just calling it how it is.

I want peace deals now, and if that means Ukraine and Russia both don't get exactly as they want, fine.

What I don't want is exactly what its become: a proxy war for the US/NATO to weaken Russia at great cost. We moving in tanks. Next we'll move in our own military and boots on the ground. This escalation of resources doesn't line up with the narrative we've been fed about Russia being an easy opponent.

---

Of note: the Ukrainians don't.
Also of note: our security position is degraded by a Russian victory.

The Russians are indeed a shockingly weak opponent, far less potent than we ever dare assume, and particularly so now after a year of getting mauled by the Ukrainians. They have a third world quality army. The fight wouldn't last long if Nato were to intervene. But Nato won't. There is no evidence, anywhere, that Nato wants to escalate to that level. Everyone, with a remarkable degree of unanimity, agrees that we have limited risk of escalation as long as it remains a proxy war but significant risk of escalation if direct conflict occurs. That's why we see what we see happening. Russia is in a quagmire it cannot win unless the West withdraws support. All it can do is to withdraw, or to endure long enough that western will to continue breaks. Either way, Russia suffers mightily. (which is why the Russo-Ukrainian war is a strategic situation which will be studied by scholars and soldiers for centuries...so many classic lessons be re-learned.)

Neither is there much evidence in the last 50-70 years of proxy wars and small wars in which we are directly engaged inevitably escalate to full-blown direct conflict. The historical record shows that we have been loathe to disengage a few times (Vietnam, Afghanistan) but otherwise have demonstrated a very solid record of avoiding what we need to avoid to pursue overall policy. (notwithstanding non-martial policy errors like China policy of the 1992-2016 period).

---

The entire western world is sending resources, weapons and technically manpower in the form of mercs against Russia. That is unofficially NATO vs Russia.
That we are acting in concert with allies is discordant with the "boomers are responsible for everything" narrative. We are in fact leading NATO, largely against German inertia, and Nato is coming along because they see the obvious.

Russia being the big bad boogeyman that needs the counterbalancing of the entire western world against them, doesn't coincide with the idea that they're a weak third world quality military power. That narrative doesn't make sense.
That is no conflict at all. Russia has a population which outstrips every European country by half, and is multiples of the former WP nations in Eastern Europe. They in fact would have already run over Ukraine had it not been for western support. They would do so against all but 3 other Nato countries, who would be pressed every bit as hard themselves as Ukraine. More to the point: The barbarians were for centuries weaker than the Roman Empire. It was not weight of numbers or technological superiority which caused Rome to fall. It was the burden of sustained assault. Yes, Rome had internal issues as well. But plain fact is...WINNING a war is costly. Ukraine is going to win this one. But look at the cost. Nato will win any conflict with Russia. But it will devastate the nations on whose soil the conflict occurs, and it will cost all the allies dearly in blood and treasure. That is why deterrence is so important. You do not want to have to fight at all. you might lose. And even if you win, the cost is frightful.....decades of Russian poking, prodding, seeping in, sapping our resolve to get us to appease them.....THAT's the only way Russia can win. So now that Russia has spent two decades pushing testing around the margins, trying to influence, intimidate, then finally outright invading a sovereign nation....how do we RESTORE deterrence? Answer: by showing the resolve to stand, right now. On the Dnieper. In the Donbass. The cost doesn't really matter, because at the end of the day it's cheaper than doing it with our own troops on Nato soil in the future, and we can afford it today and Russia cannot.

If we don't stand here and now, then where? This is the best, easiest battlefield we will have. It's not our boys & girls doing the fighting. All we have to do is provide money and munitions. That's pretty easy, compared to my daughter having to dodge incoming ordnance & repair fuel depots and replace parts warehouses and repair maintenance sheds to keep the F-whatevers in the air to defend the other sons & daughters out there on the front lines getting shelled by Russian arty, all while managing the flow of caskets back to Dover (where on her first tour after the Academy she ran the warehouse that received all those caskets from Afghanistan....). Or. We could just let Russia have Ukraine, then a decade or three down when they start the process again in Romania or Hungary or wherever.....we just let Nato crater & we come home & let the chips fall where they may. How will that improve the national security of the American people? The easiest, cheapest, best way to prevent Russia from becoming the hegemon in Europe (and China from becoming the hegemon in Asia) is to deal with Russia right now in Ukraine = Beat up their army so badly their government collapses and will take decades to reform and rebuild an army. (make no mistake. that is the policy aim here.....)

Russia still holds a significant chunk of Ukraine.
Yep. For now. Slightly more than a few weeks ago, and a helluva lot less than they held nine months ago. If we supply Ukraine with what they're asking for, it'll likely start shrinking quickly again. It is not unreasonable for Ukraine to drive Russian troops from all Ukrainian soil within 12 months. But they will not do it if we keep dribbling and drabbling equipment out to them.

I see this going like Vietnam/Afghanistan. To the spoils are too good for it not to be planned that way. DC obviously didn't care what US citizens thought about the war on terror, what makes you think they care about how we feel if this turns into a very long expensive proxy war for many years?
American troops won all the battles but the policy failed in both countries, because our troops were directly involved and we were attempting to stabilize countries that were not viable states as drawn. Pointedly, that is not the dynamic at play here. Ukraine is a sovereign people of one ethnicity, language and most notably one mind, previously engaged successfully in social contract via democratic process. Whatever valid criticisms might be made about the Ukrainian model, and they are not small in number, Ukraine was successful enough that Russia assessed it necessary to invade rather than engage in diplomacy. So unlike your two examples, there IS something to build upon. Most importantly, WE are not doing the fighting. Ukrainians are. We are not trying to create order out of chaos. We are supporting a nation who is trying to honor its voters wishes to permanently join European liberal democracy, against an autocratic nation intent on stopping that policy by force of arms.

---

See bolded above.

Enormous error to compare Ukraine to Afghanistan or Vietnam. As noted above, totally different scenarios. And that's before we realize that both AFG and VIET were always on the ragged periphery of core US interests. Neither of them share a border with a key strategic ally. Not so Ukraine. Ukraine itself is not itself of strategic interest to the USA. But it's neighbors are. And Ukraine itself has resources of value to anyone allied to it. To the degree that Ukraine is incorporated, formally or via alliance, into the Russian sphere, it materially strengthens Russian ability to negatively impact US interests around the world.

not tiddlywinks we're playing here....

---

If Russian obtained Ukraine and they're a third world military power...they're not gonna further expand out and take on the west. I don't buy for a minute that they're a threat to Europe or the west if Ukraine fell.

My position isn't to leave Ukraine on its own, its actually to directly threaten Russia and make them bend the knee and end this. I want peace TODAY. I don't want to use this proxy war as a means to hurt Russia to the point where they can't be a threat to the west...because they're not actually a threat to the west.

My plan saves money, time and lives.

---

Making people think that after Ukraine the next stop for Russian troops is to water their horses in the Seine river is what Washington-Brussels propaganda is all about. Its what you have to do to get the general American and European publics on board for a expanded war (possibly nuclear).

Obviously as we can see on this thread...that kind of propaganda works.

Now you are certainly right that the only moral position in this war for the West is to push for a peace deal...or just straight up military intervene with ground troops and push Russia out.

Turning the Ukraine into a Syrian civil war type place is horribly wicked. That war has gone on for 10 years and completely destroyed Syria.

Doing that to the people of Ukraine is monstrous.

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

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements.

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there.

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Their language is very similar and both are Eastern Orthodox Christians."

In the USA Civil War, both sides spoke the same language and went to the same churches.

The hatred was very real, for all of that.

---

You can also fight people and not actually hate them...in that war both sides felt they were fighting to uphold what they saw as important constitutional rights and less outright hate of the other.

"Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords & bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country & for the welfare and progress of mankind." -Robert E. Lee, 1/23/61

"I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were seeking to wrest from the South its dearest rights. But I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and I have never seen the day when I did not pray for them." -Robert E. Lee

---

I seriously doubt there is a Russian version of General Lee in this conflict

---

True

---

Indeed, but there is a reasonable facsimile of Lincoln in Kiev.

---

They have a dead bearded guy who built his own log cabin?

---

Actually, in the regions in question they have millions of bearded guys that built their own log cabins.

---

Good point. How many taught themselves Law?

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements.

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there.

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Their language is very similar and both are Eastern Orthodox Christians."

In the USA Civil War, both sides spoke the same language and went to the same churches.

The hatred was very real, for all of that.

---

You can also fight people and not actually hate them...in that war both sides felt they were fighting to uphold what they saw as important constitutional rights and less outright hate of the other.

"Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords & bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country & for the welfare and progress of mankind." -Robert E. Lee, 1/23/61

"I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were seeking to wrest from the South its dearest rights. But I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and I have never seen the day when I did not pray for them." -Robert E. Lee

---

I seriously doubt there is a Russian version of General Lee in this conflict

---

True

---

Indeed, but there is a reasonable facsimile of Lincoln in Kiev.

---

They have a dead bearded guy who built his own log cabin?

---

Actually, in the regions in question they have millions of bearded guys that built their own log cabins.

---

Good point. How many taught themselves Law?

---

It turns out that question depends on how you define "Law"

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements.

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there.

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

You keep talking want and people not liking. That does not change borders. If they want to be part of Tsarist Russia, go. Nobody is stopping them, emigrate and be happy. Borders are not determined in the 21st Century by invasions and people not liking their situation. Those areas belong to Ukraine, period. There really isn't another position. Whether they are happy or not about it does not play into the equation. The precedent you are backing is a very dangerous position.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Negotiations

---

Which rewards Putin for invading another Nation and disregarding past agreements. (Obama already did that once, shrugging off Russia's actions as not a core US concern. So I guess Putin is not to blame to think he could do whatever he wanted with no concern.)

---

Oh the "we never negotiate" position.

Great.

So this ends how? Nuclear war in Eastern Europe?

---

Frankly, we don't want it to end too soon.

---

This is evil

---

This is good policy for the US citizen. This is the only way to destroy Russian war-making capability without escalating to scenarios that actually do risk the use of nuclear weapons.

A political settlement today partitions Ukraine. It' strengthens Russia with more people and more resources. It guarantees that in 3-5 years, there will be another round in either Ukraine or Transnistria. And after that, Russian troops will camp along the Nato borders, and Russia will step up efforts to politically destabilize 1 or more Nato countries for the purpose of causing them to withdraw from Nato. Those scenarios are far riskier than the one we have today. It would be quite naive to think Russian troops on the Hungarian border (for example) will not have greater influence on Hungarian foreign policy than if they were camped on the Ukrainian border 500 miles away.

As long as the Ukrainians want to fight, we supply them with the ordnance to blow the Russian war machine apart, bit by bit. Every round fired decreases the odds the kids we have in military uniform, of which I have two, will have to face Russian troops in the future.

We fight Russia where they are today to prevent us from having to fight them inside Nato a decade from now. And the Ukrainians are willing to do the fighting for us. All we have to do is supply them with the tools to do it.

---

You've acknowledged a couple of times that Russia invading a NATO country unprovoked is about as likely as Saddam Hussein dropping that mushroom cloud on New York. Your alternative scenario (i.e. the motte position) is more believable. It is of course possible that Russia will make some kind of unspecified mischief years or decades in the future. That doesn't justify the wanton destruction of a country today. Many factors have shaped the current situation, including our own choice to isolate Russia and expand NATO. Confrontation is not unavoidable, nor is Putin a madman. I don't trust hypothetical horror stories about the latest Hitler du jour. We've been lied into war too many times. This time the stakes are too high.

---

Tedious straw man argument.

Read my posts again and you will see I have talked about Russian efforts to "destabilize" the easternmost NATO nations What that means is (and I've mentioned/alluded to this in other posts as well) political agitation supporting anti-NATO positions, outright support from more pro-Russian foreign policies, construction of more sympathetic if not outright pro-Russian leaders/parties. The goal - to weaken Nato, to cause enough members to freeze, to balk, etc.....with the brass ring being to get one or more outright leave NATO. All such efforts are empowered by encampment of Russian armies on borders....a constant reminder of the threat intensifies fear and empowers the appeasement argument. Right now, only the Baltic states face that kind of gunboat diplomacy. If Ukraine falls, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania are added to the list. All it takes is one of them to falter, in a time of socio-political unrest....a dovish, pro-Slav, anti-European populist movement to break with the west. Today? Not much of a risk. 10-20 years down the road? impossible to dismiss. Issues never go away. They wax & wane. Read the history of the countries I mentioned. They have more in common looking east than west.

Why is that important to understand? There will be a time of far greater tension than today. Where exactly do we want Russian armies to be when that time arrives? What lessons do we want Russia to remember about western responses? What kinds and levels of equipment do we want Russian Armies to have at that time.

We think this way because we must. We are a NATO member. And for NATO members, the most likely scenarios for war involve the collapse of Nato. Eventually, it will. So where do we want Russian armies to be when that happens?

Ergo, what we do in Ukraine is hand the Ukrainians all the arms & ammo they want/need to defend their country, right down to the last Ukrainian if that is their desire. We do this destroy the Russian Army. To make them understand they cannot win. To deplete their stocks of materiel so severely that it will take them many, many decades to rebuild. We do that to push further out into the future the date when the would be able to again make a push westward. Hopefully, by that time, more moderate ideas will guide Russian policy.

Until then, we have to play hardball. And it's pretty easy hardball for us, right now. Battlefield is wildly tipped in Nato's favor. The next one might not be so much.

---

I understand all of that just fine. It makes sense from a military point of view. That doesn't mean it's good policy (on the contrary).

---

War is a continuation of politics by other means.
--Clausewitz

Only we are not engaging in war in Ukraine. We are engaging in policy by foreign aid (to Ukraine) and diplomacy (with Russia).

I think we will achieve the policy aim (Ukrainian defeat of the Russian Army) without ever getting close to engaging in the war.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements.

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there.

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates.

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements.

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there.

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates.

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position.

---

The ethnic Crimeans (Tarters) were removed in the early 18 & 900's in favor of Russian immigrants. Russia populated Crimea at the expense of the Crimean Tartans. This goes back to Catherine. Russia has systematically removed the Tartans and replaced them with others. If anyone has a claim, it is the Crimean Tartans. As I said, give it back to them and make it a City-State.

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements.

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there.

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates.

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position.

---

The ethnic Crimeans (Tarters) were removed in the early 18 & 900's in favor of Russian immigrants. Russia populated Crimea at the expense of the Crimean Tartans. This goes back to Catherine. Russia has systematically removed the Tartans and replaced them with others. If anyone has a claim, it is the Crimean Tartans. As I said, give it back to them and make it a City-State.

---

young Crimean girl wearing the Crimean Tartan

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements.

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there.

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates.

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position.

---

The ethnic Crimeans (Tarters) were removed in the early 18 & 900's in favor of Russian immigrants. Russia populated Crimea at the expense of the Crimean Tartans. This goes back to Catherine. Russia has systematically removed the Tartans and replaced them with others. If anyone has a claim, it is the Crimean Tartans. As I said, give it back to them and make it a City-State.

---

young Crimean girl wearing the Crimean Tartan

---

Here is an article describing the deportation of the Tartans by these "ethnic" Russians that claim Crimea is theirs.

https://www.dailysabah.com/europe/2016/05/18/72-years-after-crimean-tatar-deportation-russia-continues-oppression

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements.

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there.

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates.

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position.

---

Not in the Donbas.

If anything 8 years of war has made them more anti-Ukrainian in those areas.

And while the Donbas has lost significant population..that population that has fled it's likely to be the less pro-Russia segment of the populace.

"If anything falls over in Kiev or God forbid, kills somebody, the whole world is screaming that Russia is the aggressor. They (the Ukrainians) have been killing us here for 9 years and the world doesn't see it."—a resident from DPR tells Johnny Miller.pic.twitter.com/FuZ7wvOJM0

— Hassan Mafi ‏ (@thatdayin1992) January 31, 2023

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Negotiations

---

Which rewards Putin for invading another Nation and disregarding past agreements. (Obama already did that once, shrugging off Russia's actions as not a core US concern. So I guess Putin is not to blame to think he could do whatever he wanted with no concern.)

---

Oh the "we never negotiate" position.

Great.

So this ends how? Nuclear war in Eastern Europe?

---

Frankly, we don't want it to end too soon.

---

This is evil

---

This is good policy for the US citizen. This is the only way to destroy Russian war-making capability without escalating to scenarios that actually do risk the use of nuclear weapons.

A political settlement today partitions Ukraine. It' strengthens Russia with more people and more resources. It guarantees that in 3-5 years, there will be another round in either Ukraine or Transnistria. And after that, Russian troops will camp along the Nato borders, and Russia will step up efforts to politically destabilize 1 or more Nato countries for the purpose of causing them to withdraw from Nato. Those scenarios are far riskier than the one we have today. It would be quite naive to think Russian troops on the Hungarian border (for example) will not have greater influence on Hungarian foreign policy than if they were camped on the Ukrainian border 500 miles away.

As long as the Ukrainians want to fight, we supply them with the ordnance to blow the Russian war machine apart, bit by bit. Every round fired decreases the odds the kids we have in military uniform, of which I have two, will have to face Russian troops in the future.

We fight Russia where they are today to prevent us from having to fight them inside Nato a decade from now. And the Ukrainians are willing to do the fighting for us. All we have to do is supply them with the tools to do it.

---

You've acknowledged a couple of times that Russia invading a NATO country unprovoked is about as likely as Saddam Hussein dropping that mushroom cloud on New York. Your alternative scenario (i.e. the motte position) is more believable. It is of course possible that Russia will make some kind of unspecified mischief years or decades in the future. That doesn't justify the wanton destruction of a country today. Many factors have shaped the current situation, including our own choice to isolate Russia and expand NATO. Confrontation is not unavoidable, nor is Putin a madman. I don't trust hypothetical horror stories about the latest Hitler du jour. We've been lied into war too many times. This time the stakes are too high.

---

Tedious straw man argument.

Read my posts again and you will see I have talked about Russian efforts to "destabilize" the easternmost NATO nations What that means is (and I've mentioned/alluded to this in other posts as well) political agitation supporting anti-NATO positions, outright support from more pro-Russian foreign policies, construction of more sympathetic if not outright pro-Russian leaders/parties. The goal - to weaken Nato, to cause enough members to freeze, to balk, etc.....with the brass ring being to get one or more outright leave NATO. All such efforts are empowered by encampment of Russian armies on borders....a constant reminder of the threat intensifies fear and empowers the appeasement argument. Right now, only the Baltic states face that kind of gunboat diplomacy. If Ukraine falls, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania are added to the list. All it takes is one of them to falter, in a time of socio-political unrest....a dovish, pro-Slav, anti-European populist movement to break with the west. Today? Not much of a risk. 10-20 years down the road? impossible to dismiss. Issues never go away. They wax & wane. Read the history of the countries I mentioned. They have more in common looking east than west.

Why is that important to understand? There will be a time of far greater tension than today. Where exactly do we want Russian armies to be when that time arrives? What lessons do we want Russia to remember about western responses? What kinds and levels of equipment do we want Russian Armies to have at that time.

We think this way because we must. We are a NATO member. And for NATO members, the most likely scenarios for war involve the collapse of Nato. Eventually, it will. So where do we want Russian armies to be when that happens?

Ergo, what we do in Ukraine is hand the Ukrainians all the arms & ammo they want/need to defend their country, right down to the last Ukrainian if that is their desire. We do this destroy the Russian Army. To make them understand they cannot win. To deplete their stocks of materiel so severely that it will take them many, many decades to rebuild. We do that to push further out into the future the date when the would be able to again make a push westward. Hopefully, by that time, more moderate ideas will guide Russian policy.

Until then, we have to play hardball. And it's pretty easy hardball for us, right now. Battlefield is wildly tipped in Nato's favor. The next one might not be so much.

---

I understand all of that just fine. It makes sense from a military point of view. That doesn't mean it's good policy (on the contrary).

---

War is a continuation of politics by other means.
--Clausewitz

Only we are not engaging in war in Ukraine. We are engaging in policy by foreign aid (to Ukraine) and diplomacy (with Russia).

I think we will achieve the policy aim (Ukrainian defeat of the Russian Army) without ever getting close to engaging in the war.

---

Quote:

---

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

---

You were right the first time, if only up to a point. As for what Russia might do, those are valid considerations from a military point of view. They're not necessarily factual, however, nor should they be the sole driver of our policy decisions.

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements.

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there.

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates.

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position.

---

The ethnic Crimeans (Tarters) were removed in the early 18 & 900's in favor of Russian immigrants. Russia populated Crimea at the expense of the Crimean Tartans. This goes back to Catherine. Russia has systematically removed the Tartans and replaced them with others. If anyone has a claim, it is the Crimean Tartans. As I said, give it back to them and make it a City-State.

---

Yippee...another intractable, multi-generational conflict on the other side of the world. Let's see if we can make it worse!

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements.

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there.

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates.

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position.

---

The ethnic Crimeans (Tarters) were removed in the early 18 & 900's in favor of Russian immigrants. Russia populated Crimea at the expense of the Crimean Tartans. This goes back to Catherine. Russia has systematically removed the Tartans and replaced them with others. If anyone has a claim, it is the Crimean Tartans. As I said, give it back to them and make it a City-State.

---

Yippee...another intractable, multi-generational conflict on the other side of the world. Let's see if we can make it worse!

---

You are right, which is why we can't go down that path. Ukraine is Ukraine, including Crimea, that is the only way to not go down the generational rabbit hole. Russia invaded, period. That is the only legal position that matters.

Been pointing that out for a while now.

https://mercatornet.com/did-ukraine-kill-14000-pro-russians-and-civilians-in-donbass/78793/

Also.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements.

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there.

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates.

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position.

---

The ethnic Crimeans (Tarters) were removed in the early 18 & 900's in favor of Russian immigrants. Russia populated Crimea at the expense of the Crimean Tartans. This goes back to Catherine. Russia has systematically removed the Tartans and replaced them with others. If anyone has a claim, it is the Crimean Tartans. As I said, give it back to them and make it a City-State.

---

Yippee...another intractable, multi-generational conflict on the other side of the world. Let's see if we can make it worse!

---

You are right, which is why we can't go down that path. Ukraine is Ukraine, including Crimea, that is the only way to not go down the generational rabbit hole. Russia invaded, period. That is the only legal position that matters.

---

Your Mexico analogy was on point, in a way:

Quote:

---

Kiev would point out that the 1994 Budapest Memorandum--to which Moscow was a party--guarantees that these regions belong to the Republic of Ukraine. And that's true. But what about their right to self-determination? Don't the people of Crimea and Donbas get a say?

You would think any objective observer would say that the Memorandum was a bad idea. If the local populations want to be part of Russia, they shouldn't be forced to join Ukraine.

Put it this way: Imagine if the United States signed a treaty saying that Mexico could occupy Texas. The majority of Texans oppose the treaty. They do not want to be Mexican. They don't speak Spanish. Culturally, they're American. They've always considered themselves American. They fought in the U. S. Army--as did their fathers, and their grandfathers, and their great-grandfathers.

True: Historically, Texas was part of Mexico. But that was back when Mexico was rather an ill-defined concept. And, anyway, they've been part of the United States for much longer.

Now say that Texans were taking up arms in a bid to rejoin the United States, and Washington was backing them up. Would there be any sense in starting a new World War to defend Mexico's claim to Texas?

And if Mexico went to war with the United States to assert that claim, would they be considered liberators--or conquerors?

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements.

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there.

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates.

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position.

---

Not in the Donbas.

If anything 8 years of war has made them more anti-Ukrainian in those areas.

And while the Donbas has lost significant population..that population that has fled it's likely to be the less pro-Russia segment of the populace.

"If anything falls over in Kiev or God forbid, kills somebody, the whole world is screaming that Russia is the aggressor. They (the Ukrainians) have been killing us here for 9 years and the world doesn't see it."—a resident from DPR tells Johnny Miller.pic.twitter.com/FuZ7wvOJM0

— Hassan Mafi ‏ (@thatdayin1992) January 31, 2023

---

Literal propaganda from a pro Iranian Regime tweeter? Wow....

---

All media is literally propaganda you dunce.

NPR and the BBC are as much state affiliated media as RT is…

I just spend the time to look at all the media I can and try to come to the best conclusion as to what is the truth.

You just seem to enjoy a certain brand of Pro-Western corporate approved media.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements.

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there.

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates.

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position.

---

Not in the Donbas.

If anything 8 years of war has made them more anti-Ukrainian in those areas.

And while the Donbas has lost significant population..that population that has fled it's likely to be the less pro-Russia segment of the populace.

"If anything falls over in Kiev or God forbid, kills somebody, the whole world is screaming that Russia is the aggressor. They (the Ukrainians) have been killing us here for 9 years and the world doesn't see it."—a resident from DPR tells Johnny Miller.pic.twitter.com/FuZ7wvOJM0

— Hassan Mafi ‏ (@thatdayin1992) January 31, 2023

---

Literal propaganda from a pro Iranian Regime tweeter? Wow....

---

All media is literally propaganda you dunce.

NPR and the BBC are as much state affiliated media as RT is…

I just spend the time to look at all the media I can and try to come to the best conclusion as to what is the truth.

You just seem to enjoy a certain brand of Pro-Western corporate approved media.

---

Atl is a dunce? Hardly

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements.

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there.

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates.

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position.

---

The ethnic Crimeans (Tarters) were removed in the early 18 & 900's in favor of Russian immigrants. Russia populated Crimea at the expense of the Crimean Tartans. This goes back to Catherine. Russia has systematically removed the Tartans and replaced them with others. If anyone has a claim, it is the Crimean Tartans. As I said, give it back to them and make it a City-State.

---

Yippee...another intractable, multi-generational conflict on the other side of the world. Let's see if we can make it worse!

---

You are right, which is why we can't go down that path. Ukraine is Ukraine, including Crimea, that is the only way to not go down the generational rabbit hole. Russia invaded, period. That is the only legal position that matters.

---

I guess Russia and China should have led an international force against the USA when we invaded two countries in the past 20 years.

Right?

Or can we simply acknowledge that countries go to war then they think their are compelling strategic objectives at stake.

Russia and China were right to stay out of our recent wars.

And we have no reason to inject ourselves in a far off war in their backyard.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements.

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there.

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates.

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position.

---

Not in the Donbas.

If anything 8 years of war has made them more anti-Ukrainian in those areas.

And while the Donbas has lost significant population..that population that has fled it's likely to be the less pro-Russia segment of the populace.

"If anything falls over in Kiev or God forbid, kills somebody, the whole world is screaming that Russia is the aggressor. They (the Ukrainians) have been killing us here for 9 years and the world doesn't see it."—a resident from DPR tells Johnny Miller.pic.twitter.com/FuZ7wvOJM0

— Hassan Mafi ‏ (@thatdayin1992) January 31, 2023

---

Literal propaganda from a pro Iranian Regime tweeter? Wow....

---

All media is literally propaganda you dunce.

NPR and the BBC are as much state affiliated media as RT is…

I just spend the time to look at all the media I can and try to come to the best conclusion as to what is the truth.

You just seem to enjoy a certain brand of Pro-Western corporate approved media.

---

At least I have a better understanding of your America loathing and pro-autocrat positions.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements.

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there.

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates.

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position.

---

The ethnic Crimeans (Tarters) were removed in the early 18 & 900's in favor of Russian immigrants. Russia populated Crimea at the expense of the Crimean Tartans. This goes back to Catherine. Russia has systematically removed the Tartans and replaced them with others. If anyone has a claim, it is the Crimean Tartans. As I said, give it back to them and make it a City-State.

---

Yippee...another intractable, multi-generational conflict on the other side of the world. Let's see if we can make it worse!

---

You are right, which is why we can't go down that path. Ukraine is Ukraine, including Crimea, that is the only way to not go down the generational rabbit hole. Russia invaded, period. That is the only legal position that matters.

---

I guess Russia and China should have led an international force against the USA when we invaded two countries in the past 20 years.

Right?

Or can we simply acknowledge that countries go to war then they think their are compelling strategic objectives at stake.

Russia and China were right to stay out of our recent wars.

And we have no reason to inject ourselves in a far off war in their backyard.

---

If I remember correctly, Kuwait asked for help, NATO backed going into Afghanistan and I don't disagree on Iraq. The only difference I will throw out there is that the US did go to the UN and allowed everyone to speak on it. The US didn't just roll tanks. Also Russia supplied Intel during invasion and advisors. So, this is not new. Ukraine is just more competent than Iraq.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) %A0That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. %A0If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. %A0Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. %A0 New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, %A0including some with nuclear weapons. %A0 Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. %A0 I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. %A0I did not make that argument. %A0That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. %A0The Kurds do deserve a State. %A0The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. %A0Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. %A0Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. %A0Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts. %A0

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. %A0Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. %A0What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way. %A0

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. %A0All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. %A0You cannot allow a Nation to invade a %A0neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. %A0Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. %A0In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? %A0You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. %A0And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. %A0Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. %A0Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). %A0NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements. %A0

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? %A0Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there. %A0

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. %A0But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). %A0Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? %A0Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates. %A0

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. %A0 Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. %A0All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position. %A0

---

The ethnic Crimeans (Tarters) were removed in the early 18 & 900's in favor of Russian immigrants. %A0Russia populated Crimea at the expense of the Crimean Tartans. This goes back to Catherine. %A0Russia has systematically removed the Tartans and replaced them with others. %A0 If anyone has a claim, it is the Crimean Tartans. %A0As I said, give it back to them and make it a City-State.

---

Yippee...another intractable, multi-generational conflict on the other side of the world. Let's see if we can make it worse!

---

You are right, which is why we can't go down that path. Ukraine is Ukraine, including Crimea, that is the only way to not go down the generational rabbit hole. %A0Russia invaded, period. That is the only legal position that matters. %A0

---

I guess Russia and China should have led an international force against the USA when we invaded two countries in the past 20 years.

Right?

Or can we simply acknowledge that countries go to war then they think their are compelling strategic objectives at stake.

Russia and China were right to stay out of our recent wars.

And we have no reason to inject ourselves in a far off war in their backyard.

---

If I remember correctly, Kuwait asked for help, NATO backed going into Afghanistan and I don't disagree on Iraq. %A0The only difference I will throw out there is that the US did go to the UN and allowed everyone to speak on it. %A0The US didn't just roll tanks. Also Russia supplied Intel during invasion and supplied T-90 tanks before. %A0So, this is not new. %A0Ukraine is just more competent than Iraq.

---

The Iraq war was 100% illegal. And the Russians would have been contemptible fools to interfere.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) %A0That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. %A0If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. %A0Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. %A0 New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, %A0including some with nuclear weapons. %A0 Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. %A0 I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. %A0I did not make that argument. %A0That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. %A0The Kurds do deserve a State. %A0The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. %A0Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. %A0Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. %A0Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts. %A0

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. %A0Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. %A0What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way. %A0

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. %A0All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. %A0You cannot allow a Nation to invade a %A0neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. %A0Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. %A0In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? %A0You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. %A0And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. %A0Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. %A0Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). %A0NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements. %A0

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? %A0Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there. %A0

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. %A0But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). %A0Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? %A0Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates. %A0

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. %A0 Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. %A0All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position. %A0

---

The ethnic Crimeans (Tarters) were removed in the early 18 & 900's in favor of Russian immigrants. %A0Russia populated Crimea at the expense of the Crimean Tartans. This goes back to Catherine. %A0Russia has systematically removed the Tartans and replaced them with others. %A0 If anyone has a claim, it is the Crimean Tartans. %A0As I said, give it back to them and make it a City-State.

---

Yippee...another intractable, multi-generational conflict on the other side of the world. Let's see if we can make it worse!

---

You are right, which is why we can't go down that path. Ukraine is Ukraine, including Crimea, that is the only way to not go down the generational rabbit hole. %A0Russia invaded, period. That is the only legal position that matters. %A0

---

I guess Russia and China should have led an international force against the USA when we invaded two countries in the past 20 years.

Right?

Or can we simply acknowledge that countries go to war then they think their are compelling strategic objectives at stake.

Russia and China were right to stay out of our recent wars.

And we have no reason to inject ourselves in a far off war in their backyard.

---

If I remember correctly, Kuwait asked for help, NATO backed going into Afghanistan and I don't disagree on Iraq. %A0The only difference I will throw out there is that the US did go to the UN and allowed everyone to speak on it. %A0The US didn't just roll tanks. Also Russia supplied Intel during invasion and supplied T-90 tanks before. %A0So, this is not new. %A0Ukraine is just more competent than Iraq.

---

The Iraq war was 100% illegal. And the Russians would have been contemptible fools to interfere.

---

Why illegal? By whose laws?

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) %A0That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. %A0If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. %A0Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. %A0 New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, %A0including some with nuclear weapons. %A0 Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. %A0 I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. %A0I did not make that argument. %A0That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. %A0The Kurds do deserve a State. %A0The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. %A0Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. %A0Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. %A0Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts. %A0

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. %A0Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. %A0What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way. %A0

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. %A0All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. %A0You cannot allow a Nation to invade a %A0neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. %A0Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. %A0In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? %A0You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. %A0And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. %A0Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. %A0Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). %A0NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements. %A0

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? %A0Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there. %A0

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. %A0But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). %A0Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? %A0Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates. %A0

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. %A0 Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. %A0All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position. %A0

---

The ethnic Crimeans (Tarters) were removed in the early 18 & 900's in favor of Russian immigrants. %A0Russia populated Crimea at the expense of the Crimean Tartans. This goes back to Catherine. %A0Russia has systematically removed the Tartans and replaced them with others. %A0 If anyone has a claim, it is the Crimean Tartans. %A0As I said, give it back to them and make it a City-State.

---

Yippee...another intractable, multi-generational conflict on the other side of the world. Let's see if we can make it worse!

---

You are right, which is why we can't go down that path. Ukraine is Ukraine, including Crimea, that is the only way to not go down the generational rabbit hole. %A0Russia invaded, period. That is the only legal position that matters. %A0

---

I guess Russia and China should have led an international force against the USA when we invaded two countries in the past 20 years.

Right?

Or can we simply acknowledge that countries go to war then they think their are compelling strategic objectives at stake.

Russia and China were right to stay out of our recent wars.

And we have no reason to inject ourselves in a far off war in their backyard.

---

If I remember correctly, Kuwait asked for help, NATO backed going into Afghanistan and I don't disagree on Iraq. %A0The only difference I will throw out there is that the US did go to the UN and allowed everyone to speak on it. %A0The US didn't just roll tanks. Also Russia supplied Intel during invasion and supplied T-90 tanks before. %A0So, this is not new. %A0Ukraine is just more competent than Iraq.

---

The Iraq war was 100% illegal. And the Russians would have been contemptible fools to interfere.

---

Why illegal? By whose laws?

---

Why is Russia's invasion illegal? By whose laws?

Except they did support various enemies of ours in Iraq, Syria and Pakistan.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) %A0That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. %A0If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. %A0Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. %A0 New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, %A0including some with nuclear weapons. %A0 Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. %A0 I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. %A0I did not make that argument. %A0That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. %A0The Kurds do deserve a State. %A0The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. %A0Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. %A0Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. %A0Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts. %A0

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. %A0Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. %A0What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way. %A0

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. %A0All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. %A0You cannot allow a Nation to invade a %A0neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. %A0Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. %A0In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? %A0You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. %A0And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. %A0Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. %A0Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). %A0NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements. %A0

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? %A0Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there. %A0

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. %A0But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). %A0Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? %A0Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates. %A0

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. %A0 Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. %A0All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position. %A0

---

The ethnic Crimeans (Tarters) were removed in the early 18 & 900's in favor of Russian immigrants. %A0Russia populated Crimea at the expense of the Crimean Tartans. This goes back to Catherine. %A0Russia has systematically removed the Tartans and replaced them with others. %A0 If anyone has a claim, it is the Crimean Tartans. %A0As I said, give it back to them and make it a City-State.

---

Yippee...another intractable, multi-generational conflict on the other side of the world. Let's see if we can make it worse!

---

You are right, which is why we can't go down that path. Ukraine is Ukraine, including Crimea, that is the only way to not go down the generational rabbit hole. %A0Russia invaded, period. That is the only legal position that matters. %A0

---

I guess Russia and China should have led an international force against the USA when we invaded two countries in the past 20 years.

Right?

Or can we simply acknowledge that countries go to war then they think their are compelling strategic objectives at stake.

Russia and China were right to stay out of our recent wars.

And we have no reason to inject ourselves in a far off war in their backyard.

---

If I remember correctly, Kuwait asked for help, NATO backed going into Afghanistan and I don't disagree on Iraq. %A0The only difference I will throw out there is that the US did go to the UN and allowed everyone to speak on it. %A0The US didn't just roll tanks. Also Russia supplied Intel during invasion and supplied T-90 tanks before. %A0So, this is not new. %A0Ukraine is just more competent than Iraq.

---

The Iraq war was 100% illegal. And the Russians would have been contemptible fools to interfere.

---

Why illegal? By whose laws?

---

Why is Russia's invasion illegal? By whose laws?

---

I give
Who?

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements.

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there.

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates.

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position.

---

The ethnic Crimeans (Tarters) were removed in the early 18 & 900's in favor of Russian immigrants. Russia populated Crimea at the expense of the Crimean Tartans. This goes back to Catherine. Russia has systematically removed the Tartans and replaced them with others. If anyone has a claim, it is the Crimean Tartans. As I said, give it back to them and make it a City-State.

---

Yippee...another intractable, multi-generational conflict on the other side of the world. Let's see if we can make it worse!

---

You are right, which is why we can't go down that path. Ukraine is Ukraine, including Crimea, that is the only way to not go down the generational rabbit hole. Russia invaded, period. That is the only legal position that matters.

---

I guess Russia and China should have led an international force against the USA when we invaded two countries in the past 20 years.

Right?

Or can we simply acknowledge that countries go to war then they think their are compelling strategic objectives at stake.

Russia and China were right to stay out of our recent wars.

And we have no reason to inject ourselves in a far off war in their backyard.

---

If I remember correctly, Kuwait asked for help, NATO backed going into Afghanistan and I don't disagree on Iraq. The only difference I will throw out there is that the US did go to the UN and allowed everyone to speak on it. The US didn't just roll tanks. Also Russia supplied Intel during invasion and advisors. So, this is not new. Ukraine is just more competent than Iraq.

---

If you are confused about the 1st Iraq war (gulf war) involving an invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent 2nd Iraq war not involving an invasion of Kuwait you might want to look those two separate conflicts up.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War


God knows it gets confusing. The USA engages in so many wars and a seemingly never ending amount of foreign conflicts and entanglements.

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) %A0That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. %A0If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. %A0Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. %A0 New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, %A0including some with nuclear weapons. %A0 Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. %A0 I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. %A0I did not make that argument. %A0That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. %A0The Kurds do deserve a State. %A0The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. %A0Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. %A0Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. %A0Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts. %A0

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. %A0Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. %A0What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way. %A0

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. %A0All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. %A0You cannot allow a Nation to invade a %A0neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. %A0Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. %A0In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? %A0You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. %A0And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. %A0Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. %A0Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). %A0NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements. %A0

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? %A0Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there. %A0

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. %A0But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). %A0Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? %A0Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates. %A0

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. %A0 Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. %A0All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position. %A0

---

The ethnic Crimeans (Tarters) were removed in the early 18 & 900's in favor of Russian immigrants. %A0Russia populated Crimea at the expense of the Crimean Tartans. This goes back to Catherine. %A0Russia has systematically removed the Tartans and replaced them with others. %A0 If anyone has a claim, it is the Crimean Tartans. %A0As I said, give it back to them and make it a City-State.

---

Yippee...another intractable, multi-generational conflict on the other side of the world. Let's see if we can make it worse!

---

You are right, which is why we can't go down that path. Ukraine is Ukraine, including Crimea, that is the only way to not go down the generational rabbit hole. %A0Russia invaded, period. That is the only legal position that matters. %A0

---

I guess Russia and China should have led an international force against the USA when we invaded two countries in the past 20 years.

Right?

Or can we simply acknowledge that countries go to war then they think their are compelling strategic objectives at stake.

Russia and China were right to stay out of our recent wars.

And we have no reason to inject ourselves in a far off war in their backyard.

---

If I remember correctly, Kuwait asked for help, NATO backed going into Afghanistan and I don't disagree on Iraq. %A0The only difference I will throw out there is that the US did go to the UN and allowed everyone to speak on it. %A0The US didn't just roll tanks. Also Russia supplied Intel during invasion and supplied T-90 tanks before. %A0So, this is not new. %A0Ukraine is just more competent than Iraq.

---

The Iraq war was 100% illegal. And the Russians would have been contemptible fools to interfere.

---

Why illegal? By whose laws?

---

The UN Charter. Except in extraordinary circumstances, it's a violation of international law to invade another country without UN approval.

sombear said:

---

Except they did support various enemies of ours in Iraq, Syria and Pakistan.

---

"Enemies in Syria"

There is term to make the Founding Fathers turn over in their graves.

Interesting because it's the USA and the gulf Arabs funding the Islamists in that war.

We are enemies of islamists in Afghanistan and then turn around and become their allies in Syria.


It's all so very confusing.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Foreign soldier on the Ukrainian side says that fighting in Donbass is hard because most of the population is with the Russians and they constantly leak their positions.

Should make you question wtf you’re fighting for when the population supports the enemy, no??? pic.twitter.com/OpklIPnhFK

— What's the media hiding? (@narrative_hole) January 30, 2023

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

[It has been almost a year since Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. For many of our friends in Eastern Europe, I'm sure it feels like a lifetime.

Still, it's easy to forget that this conflict really began in 2014, when separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Kiev. (Then, as now, the separatists were backed by Moscow.) That same year, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine's core territory last year, Kiev and its allies have been adamant on one point: Whatever else happens in the course of this war, they will not accept the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. Now, Kiev is upping the ante. Last week the New York Times reported that the United States may supply Ukraine with arms to retake Crimea as well.

We can argue about whether that goal is feasible, or even possible. But we should be absolutely clear about one thing: If Ukraine retakes Crimeaor Luhansk, or Donetskthey will do so, not as liberators, but as conquerors.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Crimeans themselves overwhelmingly desired to join Russia. An official 1994 referendum found that nearly 80 percent of Crimeans desired greater regional autonomy. That same year, however, Yuriy Meshkov was elected President of Crimea with 72 percent of the vote. His campaign had only one major plank: unity with Russia.

The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.]

---

you are making the case that irredentism trumps international law. If we are to follow that logic, then Kurds get a "-stan" that includes parts of Turkey (a Nato member) and 3 other countries. Armenia gets part of Turkey, and three other states. New states emerge and others shatter into several pieces all across the globe, including some with nuclear weapons. Hell, polling shows nearly 40% of Texans are not averse to the idea of independence. I could go on, but nothing would be more destabilizing to world affairs than giving irredentist clams weight uber alles.

Borders stay where they are until the international community as a whole concurs.

That means Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to Ukraine, and Ukraine has every right to reclaim them by force according to long-developed, consistently defended and thoroughly uncontentious international law.

---

1. I did not make that argument. That article comes for a writer with the American Conservative.

2. The Kurds do deserve a State. The Treaty of Sevres should have been enforced.

3. Armenia should have gotten a larger shared of the Ottoman Empire as compensation for the Armenian genocide committed by the Muslim Turks.

4. Donetsk, Luhansk, AND Crimea belong to the people who live there....NOT some regime in Kyiv. Just like how central & western Ukraine don't belong to Russia but to the people that live there.

---

Once again, you are putting what you think should have happened in 1918 ahead of the actual facts.

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea are part of Ukraine, like it or not. Those people that want Russia have every right to leave and go to Russia, more power to them. What they don't have the right to do is to start a war and call a neighboring foreign power to invade to get their way.

Russia is wrong for invading, it is as simple as that. All the other philosophical gymnastics is really not relevant to the situation. Until Russia leave Ukraine's sovereign territory, NATO is right to continue to support Ukraine in defense of their territory. If F-16's are the next piece, so be it. You cannot allow a Nation to invade a neighbot and prosper.

---

And Ukraine was part of Russia before declaring its independence....So?

Russia is wrong for invading that is true....and Ukraine is wrong for waging war on the people of Donbas who want their independence from Kyiv. Simple as

Now (unlike Lincoln) Zelenksy has to deal with a foreign power militarily intervening to make sure that secessionist movement is successful.

Not only is Zelensky's decision to shell the the people of Donbas and kill 40,000 of them immoral...its not going to work in the end.

Ukraine's army is not strong enough to push Russian troops out of the country. In fact they have already taken
at least 100,000 casualties.

How many more do you think Ukraine can afford to take? You think NATO has a right to fight this war... but of course that is a lie since Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. And in fact this war is destroying Ukraine. Its going to cost at least $750 billion to rebuild the country. Its lost at least 8 million citizen who have fled abroad (many will never return). NATO instead of having Ukraine sue for peace is funding a war that is destroying it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-casualties-deaths.html

https://www.silkway.news/norway-ministry-of-defense-about-losses-110478/

---

So Khrushchev didn't cede the area to Ukraine in the 1950's and Russia didn't agree again in 1997?

It appears Ukraine even conceded Crimea in 2014 without much of a fight when Putin reneged on the 1954 and 1997 agreements.

So, Putin now going for Eastern Ukraine is also supposed to be accepted? Geez, there were a minority of ethnic Russians in Crimea until in the early 20th Century they supplanted the Crimean Tartars that did live there.

You know if this was about giving Crimea its own Nation or creation of a City-State like Singapore, I could see how Ukraine is wrong. But this is a land grab by Putin. He is not granting people more freedom, he is taking.

---

When Khrushchev as Premier of the Soviet Union (dictator in reality) moved Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR there was certainly internal blow back...but both were still part of the same entity...the USSR.

The same entity Ukraine eventually declared its independence from.

And yes Stalin's crimes including the forced deportation of the Tartars (and ethnic Germans). Yet what are we to do with the fact that today in the year 2023 the population living in Crimea is ethnic Russian? Expel them as well?

[The government in Kiev responded to the referendum, not by granting more autonomy to Crimea, but by scrapping their constitution, taking away whatever autonomy they once had. Ukraine also abolished the office of President of Crimea, arrested Meshkov, and exiled him to Russia.

If anything, Ukraine's crackdown on Crimea increased locals' desire to join Russia. A 2014 referendum found that 96 percent of the public supported the annexation. The results were understandably disputed, given that Russian troops had already begun to occupy Crimea. But when Gallup conducted a poll the following year, they found that over 80 percent of respondents felt the referendum was accurate.

Again: The overwhelming majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia.

The same is true of Luhansk and Donetsk. In 2019, the Kyiv Post, a pro-Western newspaper, found that just five percent of residents hoped Ukraine would retake the region. And while the separatist armies are officially fighting for independence, that outcome is desired by only sixteen percent of the public. A majorityover 60 percentwant to join the Russian Federation.
Really, this isn't at all surprising. Crimea and the Donbas (the easternmost part of Ukraine, which contains Donetsk and Luhansk) are ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. Most of them are Russian Orthodox Christians. Historically, those regions belonged to the Russian Empire. Its sons fought in the Russian Army. They were loyal to the Russian tsar. Now, they would rather be part of Russia again. Is that really so surprising?]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dangers-of-ukrainian-revanchism/

---

Except invasion by Russia is a completely unacceptable way to accomplish what your argument advocates.

And polling in 2022 showed that even Russian speaking Ukrainians have strongly moved toward the pro-Ukrainian position. Moreover, they have depopulated the Donbass, meaning it's now mostly empty territory recognized under international law as belonging to Ukraine, and the same will happen to Crimea. All those Russians there are going to go home.

What Russia has done in Ukraine has seriously undermined the legitimacy of its own position.

---

Not in the Donbas.

If anything 8 years of war has made them more anti-Ukrainian in those areas.

And while the Donbas has lost significant population..that population that has fled it's likely to be the less pro-Russia segment of the populace.

"If anything falls over in Kiev or God forbid, kills somebody, the whole world is screaming that Russia is the aggressor. They (the Ukrainians) have been killing us here for 9 years and the world doesn't see it."—a resident from DPR tells Johnny Miller.pic.twitter.com/FuZ7wvOJM0

— Hassan Mafi ‏ (@thatdayin1992) January 31, 2023

---

Literal propaganda from a pro Iranian Regime tweeter? Wow....

---

All media is literally propaganda you dunce.

NPR and the BBC are as much state affiliated media as RT is…

I just spend the time to look at all the media I can and try to come to the best conclusion as to what is the truth.

You just seem to enjoy a certain brand of Pro-Western corporate approved media.

---

At least I have a better understanding of your America loathing and pro-autocrat positions.

---

lol take your neo-con shilling somewhere else.

The Founding Fathers warned us about people like you.

People who try and conflate love of America with love of Empire & international war mongering.

If you want to go fight in Ukraine…then go.

If you wanna go fight in Syria…have fun.

Leave the American people out of it.