whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I think you mistake cooperation for capitulation. We largely did try cooperation, we let them have the pieces of Ukraine they took in 2014 and left their energy industry alone. We flat out ignored Chechnya and Georgia getting swallowed up, not to mention brazen assassinations across western Europe. Three successive Presidents tried to reach out and work with Putin. Our next SecState after 2014 was an Exxon exec who had a Russian medal of friendship pinned on his chest by Putin himself. Of course Russia worked hard to help that SecState's boss get elected, so maybe that (and pretty much ignoring what they did in 2016) was just reciprocity.

What you want is for us (and Ukraine, then whoever else) to just lie down and take it, which frankly is incomprehensible to me. If their strategy works for them, why would they stop using it?

---

How could Russia "swallow up" Chechnya when it's always legally been apart of the Russian Federation.

Are you under the impression that Chechnya was an independent nation?

---

"n 9 April 1991, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Supreme Council of Georgia declared independence after a referendum held on 31 March. Georgia was the first non-Baltic republic of the Soviet Union to officially declare independence."

You continually act like 1991 never happened, let alone1921 when the Soviets took over! The Putin apologist keep bringing up 1880's and earlier when in the 1990s Georgia was independent. Russia was wrong in Georgia and Chechnya just like in Ukraine now. Using you logic, we should be a British Colony!

---

Georgia and Chechnya are two completely different places.

So not sure why are seeming to conflate them.

Georgia was an independent Kingdom all the way back in the year 1008 AD

And had the status of a full Soviet Republic during the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

It declared its independence in 1991 and Russia did not try to stop it.

Chechnya was never a full kingdom and has been apart of Russia proper since the 1800s after the Russians conquered the Islamic mountain tribes of that area.

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

These two places have very different histories.

---

"On November 1, 1991, Head of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People, Dzokhar Dudayev issued a Decree of Sovereignty of the Chechen Republic[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Galina_M.-1][1][/url] (Russian: o ).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Stanford_Libraries-2][2][/url] Between 1991 and 2000 Chechnya was de facto an independent state."

I don't post stuff I don't research first. They declared sovereignty in 1991, when the other Soviet Block nations declared Sovereignty. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, you are wrong they did become independent until the Russian boot was put back on their throat.

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION. You seem to be good with that...

---

If you want to defend the right of Chechnya to break off from the Russian Federation and to create an Islamic emirate...then fine go ahead.

I have no stake in the question itself.

But as a historic reality the region of Chechnya was never a sovereign Kingdom like Georgia and never was a full Soviet Republic within the USSR.

It was always part of Russia. (in whatever form.. Imperial Russia, Soviet Russia, modern Russian Federation)

All the countries that got their independence in 1991 had been full Soviet Republics.

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

---

It was a republic and declared independence in 91. Russia brutally put down that independence in 94/95 before recognized by the World. Chechnya was invaded by Russia in 1921 and forced into Russia, again. This has happened multiple times in history. Sure doesn't look like Chechnya considers itself Russian. But, you are technically correct, in 1991 they declared independence but it was not recognized before Russia invaded again.

Ok, is this better:

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites or republics do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION.

---

The Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union invaded in 1921.

Russia did not invade anything. So lets get that straight.

And again...Chechnya has never been an independent country...not in 1921 or at any other time.

It had been part of the Russian empire and then after that the USSR remained in control.

And before Russia took the area it was under the overlordship of Persia.

A short lived (non-internationally recognized state) does not make Chechnya anymore real than any other break away region that calls itself a country.

If Chechnya was a independent country in 1921 then Luhansk is an independent country today.

---

The history books and people living there disagree with you.

First off, the Caucaus didn't have the same definition of nation even up to the 1850's. Chechnya/Caucauses have never considered themselves Russian and have been fighting for over a millennia to get free. Anytime it has broken away, as usual, the big country to the north, call it Rus, Russia, Soviet Union, Russian Federation has one response, throw Cossacks, cavalry, infantry or political troops at it. You can play all the semantics and word-play you want, the bottomline is that the Land Mass now run by Putin took this land as far back as the 15th and 16th Century and has had the same response to individual freedom and independence: force. Chechnya has declared independence at least twice since the 1920's. As soon as Putin is gone, Chechnya will go for independence again...

---

If you are trying to make an argument for Chechnya to be independent...fine.

I have no fundamental problem with Chechnya breaking off from the Russian Federation.

(well except for the fact that Chechnya will probably end up being a violent Islamic theocracy, but still)

After all that is consistent with the actions of the West who helped Kosovo break off from Serbia.

But then you have to grant the same to the people of the Donbas to break off from Ukraine.

---

I have no problem with Donbas or Crimea breaking off. To be honest, I think Crimea has all the makings of a City-State similar to Singapore or back in the day Hong Kong. They could do fine based on their location and if they were allowed free trade.

My problem is with the tanks and Russia's strong arm tactics.

---

Sebastopol as a city-state, and the rest of Crimea reverting to Ukraine would make a lot of sense as a compromise position for peace. Russia would never agree to it, though....

---

Including the fact that the people of Crimea don't want to be part of Ukraine.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation prompted by ill will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject. At other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

George Washington

---

I found that part in bold to be particularly amusing, as you are indeed demanding the Ukrainians to surrender their interests so that you may....what?.....exactly what is the gain, other than to Russia, from the policy you propose?

Most pointedly, Washington's Warning simply does not fit the dynamic. This policy exists within the context of post-Cold War policy toward Russia, which has fit within Washington's recommendations on unstable alliances. On the particulars of Ukraine, we've had no formal alliance of any substance with them in our history. In the last 12 months, we have sold them a modest amount arms and ammunition for use not to invade others but to defend their Republic from an invasion by an autocratic power. So there is, quite patently, no evidence of either momentary infatuation or long-term attachment. Neither does supporting Ukraine risk dragging us into entanglements that threaten escalation. Our policy is by any measure squarely within the warnings issued by Washington, rooted in self-interest. On not a single plank of alleged benefit are the interests of the American people enhanced by appeasing Russian desires for hegemony over Central Europe. Quite the opposite. Helping like-minded peoples to defend their own self-governing Republic is a policy simultaneously principled and pragmatic, a rarer instance where the dynamics of morals and markets align.

I do have to hand it to you, though. Using Washington's Farewell Address to beg the question on Russian Appeasement is an irony not at all sublime, but rather amplified to garishness by the sheer audacity of the effort.

---

I'm not demanding anything of Ukraine. But if you honestly believe our post-Cold War policy has followed Washington's recommendation of good faith, justice, peace, and harmony, you've perverted the meaning of those words beyond all recognition. In truth this is a textbook case of inveterate antipathy that's long outlived its usefulness to anyone except the most corrupt elements of our ruling class (and our client's).

---

into what post-cold war alliance have we entered?
have there not been sea changes in some of our historic alliances over the last 20 years?
can you not see at least one ischemic "180 degrees" foreign policy change?
can you not see another gradual evolution in a strategic relationship spanning several decades to nearly the same degree?

evidence of your refutation is everywhere, man.

---

Don't try to avoid Washington's argument by narrowing it unduly. As this war demonstrates, it is quite easy for foreign entanglements to influence policy without formal alliances.

---

how are we entangled in Ukraine?
Is it not a fairly simple case of "a Ukraine win is better for us than a Ukraine loss?"

Does Russian hegemony over Ukraine not negatively affect a wide range of US commercial interests?
(of course)

Our support for Ukraine is manifestly in our self-interest.
Why would policy be based on anything other than self-interest?

---

How deep do you think U.S. Commercial interests are in eastern Europe?

And of course going by the EU's own map...eastern Europe is Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine.

We are not talking about Central Europe.

We have very little invested in Eastern Europe at all.

And judging by the corruption levels there we should probably not be involved at all.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation prompted by ill will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject. At other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

George Washington

---

I found that part in bold to be particularly amusing, as you are indeed demanding the Ukrainians to surrender their interests so that you may....what?.....exactly what is the gain, other than to Russia, from the policy you propose?

Most pointedly, Washington's Warning simply does not fit the dynamic. This policy exists within the context of post-Cold War policy toward Russia, which has fit within Washington's recommendations on unstable alliances. On the particulars of Ukraine, we've had no formal alliance of any substance with them in our history. In the last 12 months, we have sold them a modest amount arms and ammunition for use not to invade others but to defend their Republic from an invasion by an autocratic power. So there is, quite patently, no evidence of either momentary infatuation or long-term attachment. Neither does supporting Ukraine risk dragging us into entanglements that threaten escalation. Our policy is by any measure squarely within the warnings issued by Washington, rooted in self-interest. On not a single plank of alleged benefit are the interests of the American people enhanced by appeasing Russian desires for hegemony over Central Europe. Quite the opposite. Helping like-minded peoples to defend their own self-governing Republic is a policy simultaneously principled and pragmatic, a rarer instance where the dynamics of morals and markets align.

I do have to hand it to you, though. Using Washington's Farewell Address to beg the question on Russian Appeasement is an irony not at all sublime, but rather amplified to garishness by the sheer audacity of the effort.

---

I'm not demanding anything of Ukraine. But if you honestly believe our post-Cold War policy has followed Washington's recommendation of good faith, justice, peace, and harmony, you've perverted the meaning of those words beyond all recognition. In truth this is a textbook case of inveterate antipathy that's long outlived its usefulness to anyone except the most corrupt elements of our ruling class (and our client's).

---

into what post-cold war alliance have we entered?
have there not been sea changes in some of our historic alliances over the last 20 years?
can you not see at least one ischemic "180 degrees" foreign policy change?
can you not see another gradual evolution in a strategic relationship spanning several decades to nearly the same degree?

evidence of your refutation is everywhere, man.

---

Don't try to avoid Washington's argument by narrowing it unduly. As this war demonstrates, it is quite easy for foreign entanglements to influence policy without formal alliances.

---

how are we entangled in Ukraine?
Is it not a fairly simple case of "a Ukraine win is better for us than a Ukraine loss?"

Does Russian hegemony over Ukraine not negatively affect a wide range of US commercial interests?
(of course)

Our support for Ukraine is manifestly in our self-interest.
Why would policy be based on anything other than self-interest?

---

How deep do you think U.S. Commercial interests are in eastern Europe?

And of course going by the EU's own map...eastern Europe is Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine.

We are not talking about Central Europe.

We have very little invested in Eastern Europe at all.

And judging by the corruption levels there we should probably not be involved at all.

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I think you mistake cooperation for capitulation. We largely did try cooperation, we let them have the pieces of Ukraine they took in 2014 and left their energy industry alone. We flat out ignored Chechnya and Georgia getting swallowed up, not to mention brazen assassinations across western Europe. Three successive Presidents tried to reach out and work with Putin. Our next SecState after 2014 was an Exxon exec who had a Russian medal of friendship pinned on his chest by Putin himself. Of course Russia worked hard to help that SecState's boss get elected, so maybe that (and pretty much ignoring what they did in 2016) was just reciprocity.

What you want is for us (and Ukraine, then whoever else) to just lie down and take it, which frankly is incomprehensible to me. If their strategy works for them, why would they stop using it?

---

How could Russia "swallow up" Chechnya when it's always legally been apart of the Russian Federation.

Are you under the impression that Chechnya was an independent nation?

---

"n 9 April 1991, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Supreme Council of Georgia declared independence after a referendum held on 31 March. Georgia was the first non-Baltic republic of the Soviet Union to officially declare independence."

You continually act like 1991 never happened, let alone1921 when the Soviets took over! The Putin apologist keep bringing up 1880's and earlier when in the 1990s Georgia was independent. Russia was wrong in Georgia and Chechnya just like in Ukraine now. Using you logic, we should be a British Colony!

---

Georgia and Chechnya are two completely different places.

So not sure why are seeming to conflate them.

Georgia was an independent Kingdom all the way back in the year 1008 AD

And had the status of a full Soviet Republic during the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

It declared its independence in 1991 and Russia did not try to stop it.

Chechnya was never a full kingdom and has been apart of Russia proper since the 1800s after the Russians conquered the Islamic mountain tribes of that area.

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

These two places have very different histories.

---

"On November 1, 1991, Head of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People, Dzokhar Dudayev issued a Decree of Sovereignty of the Chechen Republic[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Galina_M.-1][1][/url] (Russian: o ).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Stanford_Libraries-2][2][/url] Between 1991 and 2000 Chechnya was de facto an independent state."

I don't post stuff I don't research first. They declared sovereignty in 1991, when the other Soviet Block nations declared Sovereignty. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, you are wrong they did become independent until the Russian boot was put back on their throat.

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION. You seem to be good with that...

---

I think Redbrick has the honors on this point.

the key differentiation is this: Georgia was an SSR. Chechnya was not. Chechnya was a region within the Russian SSR. So it did not have the same status other SSR had to simply leave the a union they had previously formed.

The analogy would be.......the 50 American States decided to separate, each state legislature making declarations of independence, amending constitutions & laws as necessary to take over former federal responsibilities, creating armies, establishing relationships with foreign powers, etc...... and then in the middle of all that mess, a group of elected leaders in Waco meet at Ferrell Center to announce that they are creating their own Republic of Baylor.

The state of Texas could be expected to move forthwith to shut that down...... Yes, initiative & referendum is a right of free peoples. Yes, self-determination is a primary purpose of self-government. But McLennan Co, no matter how much more Baptist it might be than the rest of the state, is an administrative creation of the State of Texas, not a recognized state in its own right. That fundamentally changes things.,,,,

---

Funny, coming from Texas.

My point was not to argue the finer points of Chechenia independence and their legal right. That is a red herring, a bit of minutia inside the bigger argument. The point was about Russia's response and how they have and still do respond to Nations, Regions, Territories, Cities, etc, that want to leave their orbit. Force and military. Let the tanks roll. Whether Chechnya had the right to declare independence in 91 or 21 is irrelevant. The Russian heel is not.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I think you mistake cooperation for capitulation. We largely did try cooperation, we let them have the pieces of Ukraine they took in 2014 and left their energy industry alone. We flat out ignored Chechnya and Georgia getting swallowed up, not to mention brazen assassinations across western Europe. Three successive Presidents tried to reach out and work with Putin. Our next SecState after 2014 was an Exxon exec who had a Russian medal of friendship pinned on his chest by Putin himself. Of course Russia worked hard to help that SecState's boss get elected, so maybe that (and pretty much ignoring what they did in 2016) was just reciprocity.

What you want is for us (and Ukraine, then whoever else) to just lie down and take it, which frankly is incomprehensible to me. If their strategy works for them, why would they stop using it?

---

How could Russia "swallow up" Chechnya when it's always legally been apart of the Russian Federation.

Are you under the impression that Chechnya was an independent nation?

---

"n 9 April 1991, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Supreme Council of Georgia declared independence after a referendum held on 31 March. Georgia was the first non-Baltic republic of the Soviet Union to officially declare independence."

You continually act like 1991 never happened, let alone1921 when the Soviets took over! The Putin apologist keep bringing up 1880's and earlier when in the 1990s Georgia was independent. Russia was wrong in Georgia and Chechnya just like in Ukraine now. Using you logic, we should be a British Colony!

---

Georgia and Chechnya are two completely different places.

So not sure why are seeming to conflate them.

Georgia was an independent Kingdom all the way back in the year 1008 AD

And had the status of a full Soviet Republic during the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

It declared its independence in 1991 and Russia did not try to stop it.

Chechnya was never a full kingdom and has been apart of Russia proper since the 1800s after the Russians conquered the Islamic mountain tribes of that area.

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

These two places have very different histories.

---

"On November 1, 1991, Head of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People, Dzokhar Dudayev issued a Decree of Sovereignty of the Chechen Republic[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Galina_M.-1][1][/url] (Russian: o ).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Stanford_Libraries-2][2][/url] Between 1991 and 2000 Chechnya was de facto an independent state."

I don't post stuff I don't research first. They declared sovereignty in 1991, when the other Soviet Block nations declared Sovereignty. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, you are wrong they did become independent until the Russian boot was put back on their throat.

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION. You seem to be good with that...

---

If you want to defend the right of Chechnya to break off from the Russian Federation and to create an Islamic emirate...then fine go ahead.

I have no stake in the question itself.

But as a historic reality the region of Chechnya was never a sovereign Kingdom like Georgia and never was a full Soviet Republic within the USSR.

It was always part of Russia. (in whatever form.. Imperial Russia, Soviet Russia, modern Russian Federation)

All the countries that got their independence in 1991 had been full Soviet Republics.

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

---

It was a republic and declared independence in 91. Russia brutally put down that independence in 94/95 before recognized by the World. Chechnya was invaded by Russia in 1921 and forced into Russia, again. This has happened multiple times in history. Sure doesn't look like Chechnya considers itself Russian. But, you are technically correct, in 1991 they declared independence but it was not recognized before Russia invaded again.

Ok, is this better:

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites or republics do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION.

---

The Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union invaded in 1921.

Russia did not invade anything. So lets get that straight.

And again...Chechnya has never been an independent country...not in 1921 or at any other time.

It had been part of the Russian empire and then after that the USSR remained in control.

And before Russia took the area it was under the overlordship of Persia.

A short lived (non-internationally recognized state) does not make Chechnya anymore real than any other break away region that calls itself a country.

If Chechnya was an independent country in 1921 then Luhansk is an independent country today.

---

So does only having been an independent country under modern terms allow an area to be able to break away from a ruling country?

If that is the case we better invite the British back…..

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I think you mistake cooperation for capitulation. We largely did try cooperation, we let them have the pieces of Ukraine they took in 2014 and left their energy industry alone. We flat out ignored Chechnya and Georgia getting swallowed up, not to mention brazen assassinations across western Europe. Three successive Presidents tried to reach out and work with Putin. Our next SecState after 2014 was an Exxon exec who had a Russian medal of friendship pinned on his chest by Putin himself. Of course Russia worked hard to help that SecState's boss get elected, so maybe that (and pretty much ignoring what they did in 2016) was just reciprocity.

What you want is for us (and Ukraine, then whoever else) to just lie down and take it, which frankly is incomprehensible to me. If their strategy works for them, why would they stop using it?

---

How could Russia "swallow up" Chechnya when it's always legally been apart of the Russian Federation.

Are you under the impression that Chechnya was an independent nation?

---

"n 9 April 1991, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Supreme Council of Georgia declared independence after a referendum held on 31 March. Georgia was the first non-Baltic republic of the Soviet Union to officially declare independence."

You continually act like 1991 never happened, let alone1921 when the Soviets took over! The Putin apologist keep bringing up 1880's and earlier when in the 1990s Georgia was independent. Russia was wrong in Georgia and Chechnya just like in Ukraine now. Using you logic, we should be a British Colony!

---

Georgia and Chechnya are two completely different places.

So not sure why are seeming to conflate them.

Georgia was an independent Kingdom all the way back in the year 1008 AD

And had the status of a full Soviet Republic during the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

It declared its independence in 1991 and Russia did not try to stop it.

Chechnya was never a full kingdom and has been apart of Russia proper since the 1800s after the Russians conquered the Islamic mountain tribes of that area.

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

These two places have very different histories.

---

"On November 1, 1991, Head of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People, Dzokhar Dudayev issued a Decree of Sovereignty of the Chechen Republic[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Galina_M.-1][1][/url] (Russian: o ).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Stanford_Libraries-2][2][/url] Between 1991 and 2000 Chechnya was de facto an independent state."

I don't post stuff I don't research first. They declared sovereignty in 1991, when the other Soviet Block nations declared Sovereignty. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, you are wrong they did become independent until the Russian boot was put back on their throat.

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION. You seem to be good with that...

---

I think Redbrick has the honors on this point.

the key differentiation is this: Georgia was an SSR. Chechnya was not. Chechnya was a region within the Russian SSR. So it did not have the same status other SSR had to simply leave the a union they had previously formed.

The analogy would be.......the 50 American States decided to separate, each state legislature making declarations of independence, amending constitutions & laws as necessary to take over former federal responsibilities, creating armies, establishing relationships with foreign powers, etc...... and then in the middle of all that mess, a group of elected leaders in Waco meet at Ferrell Center to announce that they are creating their own Republic of Baylor.

The state of Texas could be expected to move forthwith to shut that down...... Yes, initiative & referendum is a right of free peoples. Yes, self-determination is a primary purpose of self-government. But McLennan Co, no matter how much more Baptist it might be than the rest of the state, is an administrative creation of the State of Texas, not a recognized state in its own right. That fundamentally changes things.,,,,

---

Funny, coming from Texas.

My point was not to argue the finer points of Chechenia independence and their legal right. That is a red herring, a bit of minutia inside the bigger argument. The point was about Russia's response and how they have and still do respond to Nations, Regions, Territories, Cities, etc, that want to leave their orbit. Force and military. Let the tanks roll. Whether Chechnya had the right to declare independence in 91 or 21 is irrelevant. The Russian heel is not.

---

That is for sure. They are the modern equivalent of the Mongols. Pay your tribute, or they'll burn your cities to the ground, kill all your men, rape all your women, and take your children off to settle in the east. What we're witnessing in Ukraine right now from Russia has been done in that part of the world for the last 1500 years or so.

---

You are right. This is nothing new. But, what is not happening is others taking advantage of their attention in Ukraine. 1500 years ago, they would have to worry about several different areas being attacked. Putin is getting to choose his targets with impunity, no one is stepping in or attacking other areas. We are making it worse.

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I think you mistake cooperation for capitulation. We largely did try cooperation, we let them have the pieces of Ukraine they took in 2014 and left their energy industry alone. We flat out ignored Chechnya and Georgia getting swallowed up, not to mention brazen assassinations across western Europe. Three successive Presidents tried to reach out and work with Putin. Our next SecState after 2014 was an Exxon exec who had a Russian medal of friendship pinned on his chest by Putin himself. Of course Russia worked hard to help that SecState's boss get elected, so maybe that (and pretty much ignoring what they did in 2016) was just reciprocity.

What you want is for us (and Ukraine, then whoever else) to just lie down and take it, which frankly is incomprehensible to me. If their strategy works for them, why would they stop using it?

---

How could Russia "swallow up" Chechnya when it's always legally been apart of the Russian Federation.

Are you under the impression that Chechnya was an independent nation?

---

"n 9 April 1991, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Supreme Council of Georgia declared independence after a referendum held on 31 March. Georgia was the first non-Baltic republic of the Soviet Union to officially declare independence."

You continually act like 1991 never happened, let alone1921 when the Soviets took over! The Putin apologist keep bringing up 1880's and earlier when in the 1990s Georgia was independent. Russia was wrong in Georgia and Chechnya just like in Ukraine now. Using you logic, we should be a British Colony!

---

Georgia and Chechnya are two completely different places.

So not sure why are seeming to conflate them.

Georgia was an independent Kingdom all the way back in the year 1008 AD

And had the status of a full Soviet Republic during the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

It declared its independence in 1991 and Russia did not try to stop it.

Chechnya was never a full kingdom and has been apart of Russia proper since the 1800s after the Russians conquered the Islamic mountain tribes of that area.

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

These two places have very different histories.

---

"On November 1, 1991, Head of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People, Dzokhar Dudayev issued a Decree of Sovereignty of the Chechen Republic[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Galina_M.-1][1][/url] (Russian: o ).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Stanford_Libraries-2][2][/url] Between 1991 and 2000 Chechnya was de facto an independent state."

I don't post stuff I don't research first. They declared sovereignty in 1991, when the other Soviet Block nations declared Sovereignty. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, you are wrong they did become independent until the Russian boot was put back on their throat.

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION. You seem to be good with that...

---

If you want to defend the right of Chechnya to break off from the Russian Federation and to create an Islamic emirate...then fine go ahead.

I have no stake in the question itself.

But as a historic reality the region of Chechnya was never a sovereign Kingdom like Georgia and never was a full Soviet Republic within the USSR.

It was always part of Russia. (in whatever form.. Imperial Russia, Soviet Russia, modern Russian Federation)

All the countries that got their independence in 1991 had been full Soviet Republics.

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

---

It was a republic and declared independence in 91. Russia brutally put down that independence in 94/95 before recognized by the World. Chechnya was invaded by Russia in 1921 and forced into Russia, again. This has happened multiple times in history. Sure doesn't look like Chechnya considers itself Russian. But, you are technically correct, in 1991 they declared independence but it was not recognized before Russia invaded again.

Ok, is this better:

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites or republics do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION.

---

The Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union invaded in 1921.

Russia did not invade anything. So lets get that straight.

And again...Chechnya has never been an independent country...not in 1921 or at any other time.

It had been part of the Russian empire and then after that the USSR remained in control.

And before Russia took the area it was under the overlordship of Persia.

A short lived (non-internationally recognized state) does not make Chechnya anymore real than any other break away region that calls itself a country.

If Chechnya was an independent country in 1921 then Luhansk is an independent country today.

---

So does only having been an independent country under modern terms allow an area to be able to break away from a ruling country?

If that is the case we better invite the British back…..

---

He continually overlooks the acts of the people in the Republic declaring independence. All that counts is Russia's view of their subjugation. Russia apologist argument. No one but Moscow has the right to determine these areas future. We are not talking a set up like the US, the Russian Republics operate independently.
History.com view:

"In August 1991, Dzhozkhar Dudayev, a Chechen politician and former Soviet air force general, toppled Chechnya's local communist government and established an anti-Russian autocratic state. President Yeltsin feared the secession of Chechnya would prompt a domino effect of independence movements within the vast Russian Federation. He also hoped to recover Chechnya's valuable oil resources. After ineffective attempts at funding Chechen opposition groups, a Russian invasion began on December 11, 1994."

"A big part of the Russia hawkishness from the left is blood lust over 2016. They still blame Vladimir Putin for Donald Trump. And the fact that so many Republicans don't see that obvious obsession from the left is bizarre to me, because if the left wasn't so obsessed with Vladimir Putin, I don't think that they would be seeing the Russia-Ukraine conflict the way that they do."

J.D. Vance

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I think you mistake cooperation for capitulation. We largely did try cooperation, we let them have the pieces of Ukraine they took in 2014 and left their energy industry alone. We flat out ignored Chechnya and Georgia getting swallowed up, not to mention brazen assassinations across western Europe. Three successive Presidents tried to reach out and work with Putin. Our next SecState after 2014 was an Exxon exec who had a Russian medal of friendship pinned on his chest by Putin himself. Of course Russia worked hard to help that SecState's boss get elected, so maybe that (and pretty much ignoring what they did in 2016) was just reciprocity.

What you want is for us (and Ukraine, then whoever else) to just lie down and take it, which frankly is incomprehensible to me. If their strategy works for them, why would they stop using it?

---

How could Russia "swallow up" Chechnya when it's always legally been apart of the Russian Federation.

Are you under the impression that Chechnya was an independent nation?

---

"n 9 April 1991, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Supreme Council of Georgia declared independence after a referendum held on 31 March. Georgia was the first non-Baltic republic of the Soviet Union to officially declare independence."

You continually act like 1991 never happened, let alone1921 when the Soviets took over! The Putin apologist keep bringing up 1880's and earlier when in the 1990s Georgia was independent. Russia was wrong in Georgia and Chechnya just like in Ukraine now. Using you logic, we should be a British Colony!

---

Georgia and Chechnya are two completely different places.

So not sure why are seeming to conflate them.

Georgia was an independent Kingdom all the way back in the year 1008 AD

And had the status of a full Soviet Republic during the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

It declared its independence in 1991 and Russia did not try to stop it.

Chechnya was never a full kingdom and has been apart of Russia proper since the 1800s after the Russians conquered the Islamic mountain tribes of that area.

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

These two places have very different histories.

---

"On November 1, 1991, Head of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People, Dzokhar Dudayev issued a Decree of Sovereignty of the Chechen Republic[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Galina_M.-1][1][/url] (Russian: o ).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Stanford_Libraries-2][2][/url] Between 1991 and 2000 Chechnya was de facto an independent state."

I don't post stuff I don't research first. They declared sovereignty in 1991, when the other Soviet Block nations declared Sovereignty. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, you are wrong they did become independent until the Russian boot was put back on their throat.

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION. You seem to be good with that...

---

If you want to defend the right of Chechnya to break off from the Russian Federation and to create an Islamic emirate...then fine go ahead.

I have no stake in the question itself.

But as a historic reality the region of Chechnya was never a sovereign Kingdom like Georgia and never was a full Soviet Republic within the USSR.

It was always part of Russia. (in whatever form.. Imperial Russia, Soviet Russia, modern Russian Federation)

All the countries that got their independence in 1991 had been full Soviet Republics.

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

---

It was a republic and declared independence in 91. Russia brutally put down that independence in 94/95 before recognized by the World. Chechnya was invaded by Russia in 1921 and forced into Russia, again. This has happened multiple times in history. Sure doesn't look like Chechnya considers itself Russian. But, you are technically correct, in 1991 they declared independence but it was not recognized before Russia invaded again.

Ok, is this better:

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites or republics do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION.

---

The Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union invaded in 1921.

Russia did not invade anything. So lets get that straight.

And again...Chechnya has never been an independent country...not in 1921 or at any other time.

It had been part of the Russian empire and then after that the USSR remained in control.

And before Russia took the area it was under the overlordship of Persia.

A short lived (non-internationally recognized state) does not make Chechnya anymore real than any other break away region that calls itself a country.

If Chechnya was an independent country in 1921 then Luhansk is an independent country today.

---

So does only having been an independent country under modern terms allow an area to be able to break away from a ruling country?

If that is the case we better invite the British back…..

---

He continually overlooks the acts of the people in the Republic declaring independence. All that counts is Russia's view of their subjugation. Russia apologist argument. No one but Moscow has the right to determine these areas future. We are not talking a set up like the US, the Russian Republics operate independently.
History.com view:

"In August 1991, Dzhozkhar Dudayev, a Chechen politician and former Soviet air force general, toppled Chechnya's local communist government and established an anti-Russian autocratic state. President Yeltsin feared the secession of Chechnya would prompt a domino effect of independence movements within the vast Russian Federation. He also hoped to recover Chechnya's valuable oil resources. After ineffective attempts at funding Chechen opposition groups, a Russian invasion began on December 11, 1994."

---

But I have actually never denied that.

Obviously Chechens have been trying to break off from Russia for a long time.

I have no major issue with that (other than the fact the Chechens seem to want to create an Islamic state)

But if you support Chechnya independence then you have to support other secessionist movements around the world.

When your reference point for foreign conflict is always WW II and Germany (i.e. Hitler) then everything becomes "You're either a Churchill or a Chamberlain." pic.twitter.com/aux2Om4pWc

— Andrew Smith (@AndrewSmithClub) March 14, 2023

"While the U.S. has many vital national interests -- securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness within our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural, and military power of the Chinese Communist Party -- becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them. The Biden administration's virtual 'blank check' funding of this conflict for 'as long as it takes,' without any defined objectives or accountability, distracts from our country's most pressing challenges."

Ron DeSantis

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I think you mistake cooperation for capitulation. We largely did try cooperation, we let them have the pieces of Ukraine they took in 2014 and left their energy industry alone. We flat out ignored Chechnya and Georgia getting swallowed up, not to mention brazen assassinations across western Europe. Three successive Presidents tried to reach out and work with Putin. Our next SecState after 2014 was an Exxon exec who had a Russian medal of friendship pinned on his chest by Putin himself. Of course Russia worked hard to help that SecState's boss get elected, so maybe that (and pretty much ignoring what they did in 2016) was just reciprocity.

What you want is for us (and Ukraine, then whoever else) to just lie down and take it, which frankly is incomprehensible to me. If their strategy works for them, why would they stop using it?

---

How could Russia "swallow up" Chechnya when it's always legally been apart of the Russian Federation.

Are you under the impression that Chechnya was an independent nation?

---

"n 9 April 1991, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Supreme Council of Georgia declared independence after a referendum held on 31 March. Georgia was the first non-Baltic republic of the Soviet Union to officially declare independence."

You continually act like 1991 never happened, let alone1921 when the Soviets took over! The Putin apologist keep bringing up 1880's and earlier when in the 1990s Georgia was independent. Russia was wrong in Georgia and Chechnya just like in Ukraine now. Using you logic, we should be a British Colony!

---

Georgia and Chechnya are two completely different places.

So not sure why are seeming to conflate them.

Georgia was an independent Kingdom all the way back in the year 1008 AD

And had the status of a full Soviet Republic during the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

It declared its independence in 1991 and Russia did not try to stop it.

Chechnya was never a full kingdom and has been apart of Russia proper since the 1800s after the Russians conquered the Islamic mountain tribes of that area.

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

These two places have very different histories.

---

"On November 1, 1991, Head of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People, Dzokhar Dudayev issued a Decree of Sovereignty of the Chechen Republic[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Galina_M.-1][1][/url] (Russian: o ).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Stanford_Libraries-2][2][/url] Between 1991 and 2000 Chechnya was de facto an independent state."

I don't post stuff I don't research first. They declared sovereignty in 1991, when the other Soviet Block nations declared Sovereignty. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, you are wrong they did become independent until the Russian boot was put back on their throat.

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION. You seem to be good with that...

---

If you want to defend the right of Chechnya to break off from the Russian Federation and to create an Islamic emirate...then fine go ahead.

I have no stake in the question itself.

But as a historic reality the region of Chechnya was never a sovereign Kingdom like Georgia and never was a full Soviet Republic within the USSR.

It was always part of Russia. (in whatever form.. Imperial Russia, Soviet Russia, modern Russian Federation)

All the countries that got their independence in 1991 had been full Soviet Republics.

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

---

It was a republic and declared independence in 91. Russia brutally put down that independence in 94/95 before recognized by the World. Chechnya was invaded by Russia in 1921 and forced into Russia, again. This has happened multiple times in history. Sure doesn't look like Chechnya considers itself Russian. But, you are technically correct, in 1991 they declared independence but it was not recognized before Russia invaded again.

Ok, is this better:

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites or republics do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION.

---

The Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union invaded in 1921.

Russia did not invade anything. So lets get that straight.

And again...Chechnya has never been an independent country...not in 1921 or at any other time.

It had been part of the Russian empire and then after that the USSR remained in control.

And before Russia took the area it was under the overlordship of Persia.

A short lived (non-internationally recognized state) does not make Chechnya anymore real than any other break away region that calls itself a country.

If Chechnya was an independent country in 1921 then Luhansk is an independent country today.

---

So does only having been an independent country under modern terms allow an area to be able to break away from a ruling country?

If that is the case we better invite the British back…..

---

He continually overlooks the acts of the people in the Republic declaring independence. All that counts is Russia's view of their subjugation. Russia apologist argument. No one but Moscow has the right to determine these areas future. We are not talking a set up like the US, the Russian Republics operate independently.
History.com view:

"In August 1991, Dzhozkhar Dudayev, a Chechen politician and former Soviet air force general, toppled Chechnya's local communist government and established an anti-Russian autocratic state. President Yeltsin feared the secession of Chechnya would prompt a domino effect of independence movements within the vast Russian Federation. He also hoped to recover Chechnya's valuable oil resources. After ineffective attempts at funding Chechen opposition groups, a Russian invasion began on December 11, 1994."

---

But I have actually never denied that.

Obviously Chechens have been trying to break off from Russia for a long time.

I have no major issue with that (other than the fact the Chechens seem to want to create an Islamic state)

But if you support Chechnya independence then you have to support other secessionist movements around the world.

---

Depends on how many Spetznaz are creating the movement. Or how many people a larger nation moved in to displace to get a warm weather port. If you think this all happened organically, I have some waterfron property in AZ.

Russia has been working on this for decades, at least the 70's. I know for a fact we were trained on it in 1987 in officer training in the military by the Psyops guys. This is how Russia functions. It is not a secret, they wanted to avoid future Afghanistans. Putin got surprised here by NATO's resolve. That is the only reason this is going on. Putin thought it would be 2014 all over again. But, Ukraine fought back and NATO is supplying. Putin did not think NATO had the stones for a proxy war. He is now in the meat grinder.

All your Russia-apologist stuff sounds really similar to the Psyop presentation I saw in 1987...

He's not wrong, it's definitely part of the calculus. It's not the only factor, or even a main one, but it matters. At some point the Russian attacks and direct meddling in domestic politics in the West needs to be checked (not just talking about America in 2016 here).

I used to think when a foreign power attacked America with some pretty blunt and obvious espionage, we could at least agree that was a bad thing and worth responsing to. But that proved to be naive, and since Russia went after Democrats, most Republicans seem to have decided that's not so bad (the ones who even acknowledge it happened, that is). Not surprisingly, the guy who Russia helped in 2016 (and 2020, and I'm sure they hope to do it again in 2024) is now openly signaling his willingness to let Russia have whatever parts of Ukraine they want as his "peace plan". Coincidentally (lol), that stance is exactly what his Russian-asset campaign manager is alleged to have offered up as trade for Russian assistance in the election, which they did provide.

If our involvement in Ukrainian politics was/is antagonistic enough to be a ligitmate casus belli and provoke a fight (which seems to be the position occupied by you and some others), then Russian involvement in Western politics should be included on the list of our grievances against them as well.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I think you mistake cooperation for capitulation. We largely did try cooperation, we let them have the pieces of Ukraine they took in 2014 and left their energy industry alone. We flat out ignored Chechnya and Georgia getting swallowed up, not to mention brazen assassinations across western Europe. Three successive Presidents tried to reach out and work with Putin. Our next SecState after 2014 was an Exxon exec who had a Russian medal of friendship pinned on his chest by Putin himself. Of course Russia worked hard to help that SecState's boss get elected, so maybe that (and pretty much ignoring what they did in 2016) was just reciprocity.

What you want is for us (and Ukraine, then whoever else) to just lie down and take it, which frankly is incomprehensible to me. If their strategy works for them, why would they stop using it?

---

How could Russia "swallow up" Chechnya when it's always legally been apart of the Russian Federation.

Are you under the impression that Chechnya was an independent nation?

---

"n 9 April 1991, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Supreme Council of Georgia declared independence after a referendum held on 31 March. Georgia was the first non-Baltic republic of the Soviet Union to officially declare independence."

You continually act like 1991 never happened, let alone1921 when the Soviets took over! The Putin apologist keep bringing up 1880's and earlier when in the 1990s Georgia was independent. Russia was wrong in Georgia and Chechnya just like in Ukraine now. Using you logic, we should be a British Colony!

---

Georgia and Chechnya are two completely different places.

So not sure why are seeming to conflate them.

Georgia was an independent Kingdom all the way back in the year 1008 AD

And had the status of a full Soviet Republic during the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

It declared its independence in 1991 and Russia did not try to stop it.

Chechnya was never a full kingdom and has been apart of Russia proper since the 1800s after the Russians conquered the Islamic mountain tribes of that area.

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

These two places have very different histories.

---

"On November 1, 1991, Head of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People, Dzokhar Dudayev issued a Decree of Sovereignty of the Chechen Republic[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Galina_M.-1][1][/url] (Russian: o ).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Stanford_Libraries-2][2][/url] Between 1991 and 2000 Chechnya was de facto an independent state."

I don't post stuff I don't research first. They declared sovereignty in 1991, when the other Soviet Block nations declared Sovereignty. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, you are wrong they did become independent until the Russian boot was put back on their throat.

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION. You seem to be good with that...

---

If you want to defend the right of Chechnya to break off from the Russian Federation and to create an Islamic emirate...then fine go ahead.

I have no stake in the question itself.

But as a historic reality the region of Chechnya was never a sovereign Kingdom like Georgia and never was a full Soviet Republic within the USSR.

It was always part of Russia. (in whatever form.. Imperial Russia, Soviet Russia, modern Russian Federation)

All the countries that got their independence in 1991 had been full Soviet Republics.

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

---

It was a republic and declared independence in 91. Russia brutally put down that independence in 94/95 before recognized by the World. Chechnya was invaded by Russia in 1921 and forced into Russia, again. This has happened multiple times in history. Sure doesn't look like Chechnya considers itself Russian. But, you are technically correct, in 1991 they declared independence but it was not recognized before Russia invaded again.

Ok, is this better:

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites or republics do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION.

---

The Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union invaded in 1921.

Russia did not invade anything. So lets get that straight.

And again...Chechnya has never been an independent country...not in 1921 or at any other time.

It had been part of the Russian empire and then after that the USSR remained in control.

And before Russia took the area it was under the overlordship of Persia.

A short lived (non-internationally recognized state) does not make Chechnya anymore real than any other break away region that calls itself a country.

If Chechnya was an independent country in 1921 then Luhansk is an independent country today.

---

So does only having been an independent country under modern terms allow an area to be able to break away from a ruling country?

If that is the case we better invite the British back…..

---

He continually overlooks the acts of the people in the Republic declaring independence. All that counts is Russia's view of their subjugation. Russia apologist argument. No one but Moscow has the right to determine these areas future. We are not talking a set up like the US, the Russian Republics operate independently.
History.com view:

"In August 1991, Dzhozkhar Dudayev, a Chechen politician and former Soviet air force general, toppled Chechnya's local communist government and established an anti-Russian autocratic state. President Yeltsin feared the secession of Chechnya would prompt a domino effect of independence movements within the vast Russian Federation. He also hoped to recover Chechnya's valuable oil resources. After ineffective attempts at funding Chechen opposition groups, a Russian invasion began on December 11, 1994."

---

But I have actually never denied that.

Obviously Chechens have been trying to break off from Russia for a long time.

I have no major issue with that (other than the fact the Chechens seem to want to create an Islamic state)

But if you support Chechnya independence then you have to support other secessionist movements around the world.

---

Depends on how many Spetznaz are creating the movement. Or how many people a larger nation moved in to displace to get a warm weather port. If you think this all happened organically, I have some waterfron property in AZ.

Russia has been working on this for decades, at least the 70's. I know for a fact we were trained on it in 1987 in officer training in the military by the Psyops guys. This is how Russia functions. It is not a secret, they wanted to avoid future Afghanistans. Putin got surprised here by NATO's resolve. That is the only reason this is going on. Putin thought it would be 2014 all over again. But, Ukraine fought back and NATO is supplying. Putin did not think NATO had the stones for a proxy war. He is now in the meat grinder.

All your Russia-apologist stuff sounds really similar to the Psyop presentation I saw in 1987...

---

Calm sober assessments of geopolitics only sound like apologist propaganda to insane neo-con war mongers.

If you surround any large regional power (Russia or China) with a adversarial military alliance (NATO) you are going to get a violent response.

When the USSR and Warsaw pact were playing around in Cuba how did we respond?

If you support every secessionist movement you can think of around the world (E. Timor, S. Sudan, Kosovo, Chechnya) but then refuse to accept secessionist movements at home (Texit) or abroad (Donbas) you just look like a hypocritical global empire who does not like it when other states play the empire game.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I think you mistake cooperation for capitulation. We largely did try cooperation, we let them have the pieces of Ukraine they took in 2014 and left their energy industry alone. We flat out ignored Chechnya and Georgia getting swallowed up, not to mention brazen assassinations across western Europe. Three successive Presidents tried to reach out and work with Putin. Our next SecState after 2014 was an Exxon exec who had a Russian medal of friendship pinned on his chest by Putin himself. Of course Russia worked hard to help that SecState's boss get elected, so maybe that (and pretty much ignoring what they did in 2016) was just reciprocity.

What you want is for us (and Ukraine, then whoever else) to just lie down and take it, which frankly is incomprehensible to me. If their strategy works for them, why would they stop using it?

---

How could Russia "swallow up" Chechnya when it's always legally been apart of the Russian Federation.

Are you under the impression that Chechnya was an independent nation?

---

"n 9 April 1991, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Supreme Council of Georgia declared independence after a referendum held on 31 March. Georgia was the first non-Baltic republic of the Soviet Union to officially declare independence."

You continually act like 1991 never happened, let alone1921 when the Soviets took over! The Putin apologist keep bringing up 1880's and earlier when in the 1990s Georgia was independent. Russia was wrong in Georgia and Chechnya just like in Ukraine now. Using you logic, we should be a British Colony!

---

Georgia and Chechnya are two completely different places.

So not sure why are seeming to conflate them.

Georgia was an independent Kingdom all the way back in the year 1008 AD

And had the status of a full Soviet Republic during the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

It declared its independence in 1991 and Russia did not try to stop it.

Chechnya was never a full kingdom and has been apart of Russia proper since the 1800s after the Russians conquered the Islamic mountain tribes of that area.

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

These two places have very different histories.

---

"On November 1, 1991, Head of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People, Dzokhar Dudayev issued a Decree of Sovereignty of the Chechen Republic[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Galina_M.-1][1][/url] (Russian: o ).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Stanford_Libraries-2][2][/url] Between 1991 and 2000 Chechnya was de facto an independent state."

I don't post stuff I don't research first. They declared sovereignty in 1991, when the other Soviet Block nations declared Sovereignty. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, you are wrong they did become independent until the Russian boot was put back on their throat.

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION. You seem to be good with that...

---

If you want to defend the right of Chechnya to break off from the Russian Federation and to create an Islamic emirate...then fine go ahead.

I have no stake in the question itself.

But as a historic reality the region of Chechnya was never a sovereign Kingdom like Georgia and never was a full Soviet Republic within the USSR.

It was always part of Russia. (in whatever form.. Imperial Russia, Soviet Russia, modern Russian Federation)

All the countries that got their independence in 1991 had been full Soviet Republics.

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

---

It was a republic and declared independence in 91. Russia brutally put down that independence in 94/95 before recognized by the World. Chechnya was invaded by Russia in 1921 and forced into Russia, again. This has happened multiple times in history. Sure doesn't look like Chechnya considers itself Russian. But, you are technically correct, in 1991 they declared independence but it was not recognized before Russia invaded again.

Ok, is this better:

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites or republics do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION.

---

The Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union invaded in 1921.

Russia did not invade anything. So lets get that straight.

And again...Chechnya has never been an independent country...not in 1921 or at any other time.

It had been part of the Russian empire and then after that the USSR remained in control.

And before Russia took the area it was under the overlordship of Persia.

A short lived (non-internationally recognized state) does not make Chechnya anymore real than any other break away region that calls itself a country.

If Chechnya was an independent country in 1921 then Luhansk is an independent country today.

---

So does only having been an independent country under modern terms allow an area to be able to break away from a ruling country?

If that is the case we better invite the British back…..

---

He continually overlooks the acts of the people in the Republic declaring independence. All that counts is Russia's view of their subjugation. Russia apologist argument. No one but Moscow has the right to determine these areas future. We are not talking a set up like the US, the Russian Republics operate independently.
History.com view:

"In August 1991, Dzhozkhar Dudayev, a Chechen politician and former Soviet air force general, toppled Chechnya's local communist government and established an anti-Russian autocratic state. President Yeltsin feared the secession of Chechnya would prompt a domino effect of independence movements within the vast Russian Federation. He also hoped to recover Chechnya's valuable oil resources. After ineffective attempts at funding Chechen opposition groups, a Russian invasion began on December 11, 1994."

---

But I have actually never denied that.

Obviously Chechens have been trying to break off from Russia for a long time.

I have no major issue with that (other than the fact the Chechens seem to want to create an Islamic state)

But if you support Chechnya independence then you have to support other secessionist movements around the world.

---

Depends on how many Spetznaz are creating the movement. Or how many people a larger nation moved in to displace to get a warm weather port. If you think this all happened organically, I have some waterfron property in AZ.

Russia has been working on this for decades, at least the 70's. I know for a fact we were trained on it in 1987 in officer training in the military by the Psyops guys. This is how Russia functions. It is not a secret, they wanted to avoid future Afghanistans. Putin got surprised here by NATO's resolve. That is the only reason this is going on. Putin thought it would be 2014 all over again. But, Ukraine fought back and NATO is supplying. Putin did not think NATO had the stones for a proxy war. He is now in the meat grinder.

All your Russia-apologist stuff sounds really similar to the Psyop presentation I saw in 1987...

---

Calm sober assessments of geopolitics only sound like apologist propaganda to insane neo-con war mongers.

If you surround any large regional power (Russia or China) with a adversarial military alliance (NATO) you are going to get a violent response.

When the the USSR and Warsaw pact were playing around in Cuba how did we respond?

If you support every secessionist movement you can think of around the world (E. Timor, S. Sudan, Kosovo, Chechnya) but then refuse to accept secessionist movements at home (Texit) or abroad (Donbas) you just look like a hypocritical global empire who does not like it when other states play the empire game.

---

That is where you are wrong. We let the others play the global empire game and then don't do the same. China, Russia, India and others do what is in their best interest whether we like it or not. Only the US worries what everyone else will think. Xi does what is best for China as he sees fit.

They count on US citizens making your arguments to keep us in check. Russia taking Crimea is bad for the US. Russia taking Donbas is bad for the US. China making islands in the South China Sea is bad for the US. Russia putting missles in Cuba is bad for the US. Sorry, not going to apologize for siding with the US and our Allies, especially against Russia and China! Neither have acted in good faith towards the US in 100+ years!

As for Texit, so who counts in making this determination? Illegal Aliens that have broken US law? They get a critical mass and we should honor that request? You really think that the US citizens of CA, AZ and NV would vote to succeed to join Mexico?? Donbas and Crimea are the same, they were settled by Russians to get that mass. And people like you give that credence! Amazing.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I think you mistake cooperation for capitulation. We largely did try cooperation, we let them have the pieces of Ukraine they took in 2014 and left their energy industry alone. We flat out ignored Chechnya and Georgia getting swallowed up, not to mention brazen assassinations across western Europe. Three successive Presidents tried to reach out and work with Putin. Our next SecState after 2014 was an Exxon exec who had a Russian medal of friendship pinned on his chest by Putin himself. Of course Russia worked hard to help that SecState's boss get elected, so maybe that (and pretty much ignoring what they did in 2016) was just reciprocity.

What you want is for us (and Ukraine, then whoever else) to just lie down and take it, which frankly is incomprehensible to me. If their strategy works for them, why would they stop using it?

---

How could Russia "swallow up" Chechnya when it's always legally been apart of the Russian Federation.

Are you under the impression that Chechnya was an independent nation?

---

"n 9 April 1991, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Supreme Council of Georgia declared independence after a referendum held on 31 March. Georgia was the first non-Baltic republic of the Soviet Union to officially declare independence."

You continually act like 1991 never happened, let alone1921 when the Soviets took over! The Putin apologist keep bringing up 1880's and earlier when in the 1990s Georgia was independent. Russia was wrong in Georgia and Chechnya just like in Ukraine now. Using you logic, we should be a British Colony!

---

Georgia and Chechnya are two completely different places.

So not sure why are seeming to conflate them.

Georgia was an independent Kingdom all the way back in the year 1008 AD

And had the status of a full Soviet Republic during the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

It declared its independence in 1991 and Russia did not try to stop it.

Chechnya was never a full kingdom and has been apart of Russia proper since the 1800s after the Russians conquered the Islamic mountain tribes of that area.

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

These two places have very different histories.

---

"On November 1, 1991, Head of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People, Dzokhar Dudayev issued a Decree of Sovereignty of the Chechen Republic[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Galina_M.-1][1][/url] (Russian: o ).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Stanford_Libraries-2][2][/url] Between 1991 and 2000 Chechnya was de facto an independent state."

I don't post stuff I don't research first. They declared sovereignty in 1991, when the other Soviet Block nations declared Sovereignty. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, you are wrong they did become independent until the Russian boot was put back on their throat.

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION. You seem to be good with that...

---

If you want to defend the right of Chechnya to break off from the Russian Federation and to create an Islamic emirate...then fine go ahead.

I have no stake in the question itself.

But as a historic reality the region of Chechnya was never a sovereign Kingdom like Georgia and never was a full Soviet Republic within the USSR.

It was always part of Russia. (in whatever form.. Imperial Russia, Soviet Russia, modern Russian Federation)

All the countries that got their independence in 1991 had been full Soviet Republics.

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

---

It was a republic and declared independence in 91. Russia brutally put down that independence in 94/95 before recognized by the World. Chechnya was invaded by Russia in 1921 and forced into Russia, again. This has happened multiple times in history. Sure doesn't look like Chechnya considers itself Russian. But, you are technically correct, in 1991 they declared independence but it was not recognized before Russia invaded again.

Ok, is this better:

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites or republics do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION.

---

The Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union invaded in 1921.

Russia did not invade anything. So lets get that straight.

And again...Chechnya has never been an independent country...not in 1921 or at any other time.

It had been part of the Russian empire and then after that the USSR remained in control.

And before Russia took the area it was under the overlordship of Persia.

A short lived (non-internationally recognized state) does not make Chechnya anymore real than any other break away region that calls itself a country.

If Chechnya was an independent country in 1921 then Luhansk is an independent country today.

---

So does only having been an independent country under modern terms allow an area to be able to break away from a ruling country?

If that is the case we better invite the British back…..

---

He continually overlooks the acts of the people in the Republic declaring independence. All that counts is Russia's view of their subjugation. Russia apologist argument. No one but Moscow has the right to determine these areas future. We are not talking a set up like the US, the Russian Republics operate independently.
History.com view:

"In August 1991, Dzhozkhar Dudayev, a Chechen politician and former Soviet air force general, toppled Chechnya's local communist government and established an anti-Russian autocratic state. President Yeltsin feared the secession of Chechnya would prompt a domino effect of independence movements within the vast Russian Federation. He also hoped to recover Chechnya's valuable oil resources. After ineffective attempts at funding Chechen opposition groups, a Russian invasion began on December 11, 1994."

---

But I have actually never denied that.

Obviously Chechens have been trying to break off from Russia for a long time.

I have no major issue with that (other than the fact the Chechens seem to want to create an Islamic state)

But if you support Chechnya independence then you have to support other secessionist movements around the world.

---

Depends on how many Spetznaz are creating the movement. Or how many people a larger nation moved in to displace to get a warm weather port. If you think this all happened organically, I have some waterfron property in AZ.

Russia has been working on this for decades, at least the 70's. I know for a fact we were trained on it in 1987 in officer training in the military by the Psyops guys. This is how Russia functions. It is not a secret, they wanted to avoid future Afghanistans. Putin got surprised here by NATO's resolve. That is the only reason this is going on. Putin thought it would be 2014 all over again. But, Ukraine fought back and NATO is supplying. Putin did not think NATO had the stones for a proxy war. He is now in the meat grinder.

All your Russia-apologist stuff sounds really similar to the Psyop presentation I saw in 1987...

---

Calm sober assessments of geopolitics only sound like apologist propaganda to insane neo-con war mongers.

If you surround any large regional power (Russia or China) with a adversarial military alliance (NATO) you are going to get a violent response.

When the the USSR and Warsaw pact were playing around in Cuba how did we respond?

If you support every secessionist movement you can think of around the world (E. Timor, S. Sudan, Kosovo, Chechnya) but then refuse to accept secessionist movements at home (Texit) or abroad (Donbas) you just look like a hypocritical global empire who does not like it when other states play the empire game.

---

That is where you are wrong. We let the others play the global empire game and then don't do the same. China, Russia, India and others do what is in their best interest whether we like it or not. Only the US worries what everyone else will think. Xi does what is best for China as he sees fit.

They count on US citizens making your arguments to keep us in check. Russia taking Crimea is bad for the US. Russia taking Donbas is bad for the US. China making islands in the South China Sea is bad for the US. Russia putting missles in Cuba is bad for the US. Sorry, not going to apologize for siding with the US and our Allies, especially against Russia and China! Neither have acted in good faith towards the US in 100+ years!

As for Texit, so who counts in making this determination? Illegal Aliens that have broken US law? They get a critical mass and we should honor that request? You really think that the US citizens of CA, AZ and NV would vote to succeed to join Mexico?? Donbas and Crimea are the same, they were settled by Russians to get that mass. And people like you give that credence! Amazing.

---

These things are not in an apples to oranges comparison.

It a crazy thing to even try and equate.

The USA has no strategic or financial interests in Donbas.

We have serious strategic interest in not letting another rival power put weapons in Cuba (90 miles off our coast)

You seem to be imply that the USA is a global empire that has interests all over the planet. And the right to intervene and interfere as it wishes.

But then claim Russia and China don't have interests right on their own boarders.

In your world Donbas is as vital to the USA as it is to Russia...and the south China sea as important to us as it is to Beijing.

And I have no idea if Hispanics in the Southwest would ever want to break off and join Mexico. But if they did attempt such a thing. Or if Texas attempted to claim its independent. You can be sure D.C. would respond with violence and war.

The USA has literally killed hundreds of thousands of people and burned down whole cities to prevent peaceful secession in the past...and would do it again in a heart beat.

I personally have no problem with self determination anywhere....no matter if its in the American Southwest or if its in Tibet.

I have this strange dislike for empires and centrally located power states that ignore self determination and local rule.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I think you mistake cooperation for capitulation. We largely did try cooperation, we let them have the pieces of Ukraine they took in 2014 and left their energy industry alone. We flat out ignored Chechnya and Georgia getting swallowed up, not to mention brazen assassinations across western Europe. Three successive Presidents tried to reach out and work with Putin. Our next SecState after 2014 was an Exxon exec who had a Russian medal of friendship pinned on his chest by Putin himself. Of course Russia worked hard to help that SecState's boss get elected, so maybe that (and pretty much ignoring what they did in 2016) was just reciprocity.

What you want is for us (and Ukraine, then whoever else) to just lie down and take it, which frankly is incomprehensible to me. If their strategy works for them, why would they stop using it?

---

How could Russia "swallow up" Chechnya when it's always legally been apart of the Russian Federation.

Are you under the impression that Chechnya was an independent nation?

---

"n 9 April 1991, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Supreme Council of Georgia declared independence after a referendum held on 31 March. Georgia was the first non-Baltic republic of the Soviet Union to officially declare independence."

You continually act like 1991 never happened, let alone1921 when the Soviets took over! The Putin apologist keep bringing up 1880's and earlier when in the 1990s Georgia was independent. Russia was wrong in Georgia and Chechnya just like in Ukraine now. Using you logic, we should be a British Colony!

---

Georgia and Chechnya are two completely different places.

So not sure why are seeming to conflate them.

Georgia was an independent Kingdom all the way back in the year 1008 AD

And had the status of a full Soviet Republic during the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

It declared its independence in 1991 and Russia did not try to stop it.

Chechnya was never a full kingdom and has been apart of Russia proper since the 1800s after the Russians conquered the Islamic mountain tribes of that area.

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

These two places have very different histories.

---

"On November 1, 1991, Head of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People, Dzokhar Dudayev issued a Decree of Sovereignty of the Chechen Republic[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Galina_M.-1][1][/url] (Russian: o ).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Stanford_Libraries-2][2][/url] Between 1991 and 2000 Chechnya was de facto an independent state."

I don't post stuff I don't research first. They declared sovereignty in 1991, when the other Soviet Block nations declared Sovereignty. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, you are wrong they did become independent until the Russian boot was put back on their throat.

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION. You seem to be good with that...

---

If you want to defend the right of Chechnya to break off from the Russian Federation and to create an Islamic emirate...then fine go ahead.

I have no stake in the question itself.

But as a historic reality the region of Chechnya was never a sovereign Kingdom like Georgia and never was a full Soviet Republic within the USSR.

It was always part of Russia. (in whatever form.. Imperial Russia, Soviet Russia, modern Russian Federation)

All the countries that got their independence in 1991 had been full Soviet Republics.

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

---

It was a republic and declared independence in 91. Russia brutally put down that independence in 94/95 before recognized by the World. Chechnya was invaded by Russia in 1921 and forced into Russia, again. This has happened multiple times in history. Sure doesn't look like Chechnya considers itself Russian. But, you are technically correct, in 1991 they declared independence but it was not recognized before Russia invaded again.

Ok, is this better:

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites or republics do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION.

---

The Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union invaded in 1921.

Russia did not invade anything. So lets get that straight.

And again...Chechnya has never been an independent country...not in 1921 or at any other time.

It had been part of the Russian empire and then after that the USSR remained in control.

And before Russia took the area it was under the overlordship of Persia.

A short lived (non-internationally recognized state) does not make Chechnya anymore real than any other break away region that calls itself a country.

If Chechnya was an independent country in 1921 then Luhansk is an independent country today.

---

So does only having been an independent country under modern terms allow an area to be able to break away from a ruling country?

If that is the case we better invite the British back…..

---

He continually overlooks the acts of the people in the Republic declaring independence. All that counts is Russia's view of their subjugation. Russia apologist argument. No one but Moscow has the right to determine these areas future. We are not talking a set up like the US, the Russian Republics operate independently.
History.com view:

"In August 1991, Dzhozkhar Dudayev, a Chechen politician and former Soviet air force general, toppled Chechnya's local communist government and established an anti-Russian autocratic state. President Yeltsin feared the secession of Chechnya would prompt a domino effect of independence movements within the vast Russian Federation. He also hoped to recover Chechnya's valuable oil resources. After ineffective attempts at funding Chechen opposition groups, a Russian invasion began on December 11, 1994."

---

But I have actually never denied that.

Obviously Chechens have been trying to break off from Russia for a long time.

I have no major issue with that (other than the fact the Chechens seem to want to create an Islamic state)

But if you support Chechnya independence then you have to support other secessionist movements around the world.

---

Depends on how many Spetznaz are creating the movement. Or how many people a larger nation moved in to displace to get a warm weather port. If you think this all happened organically, I have some waterfron property in AZ.

Russia has been working on this for decades, at least the 70's. I know for a fact we were trained on it in 1987 in officer training in the military by the Psyops guys. This is how Russia functions. It is not a secret, they wanted to avoid future Afghanistans. Putin got surprised here by NATO's resolve. That is the only reason this is going on. Putin thought it would be 2014 all over again. But, Ukraine fought back and NATO is supplying. Putin did not think NATO had the stones for a proxy war. He is now in the meat grinder.

All your Russia-apologist stuff sounds really similar to the Psyop presentation I saw in 1987...

---

Calm sober assessments of geopolitics only sound like apologist propaganda to insane neo-con war mongers.

If you surround any large regional power (Russia or China) with a adversarial military alliance (NATO) you are going to get a violent response.

When the the USSR and Warsaw pact were playing around in Cuba how did we respond?

If you support every secessionist movement you can think of around the world (E. Timor, S. Sudan, Kosovo, Chechnya) but then refuse to accept secessionist movements at home (Texit) or abroad (Donbas) you just look like a hypocritical global empire who does not like it when other states play the empire game.

---

That is where you are wrong. We let the others play the global empire game and then don't do the same. China, Russia, India and others do what is in their best interest whether we like it or not. Only the US worries what everyone else will think. Xi does what is best for China as he sees fit.

They count on US citizens making your arguments to keep us in check. Russia taking Crimea is bad for the US. Russia taking Donbas is bad for the US. China making islands in the South China Sea is bad for the US. Russia putting missles in Cuba is bad for the US. Sorry, not going to apologize for siding with the US and our Allies, especially against Russia and China! Neither have acted in good faith towards the US in 100+ years!

As for Texit, so who counts in making this determination? Illegal Aliens that have broken US law? They get a critical mass and we should honor that request? You really think that the US citizens of CA, AZ and NV would vote to succeed to join Mexico?? Donbas and Crimea are the same, they were settled by Russians to get that mass. And people like you give that credence! Amazing.

---

These things are not in an apples to oranges comparison.

It a crazy thing to even try and equate.

The USA has no strategic or financial interests in Donbas.

We have serious strategic interest in not letting another rival power put weapons in Cuba (90 miles off our coast)

You seem to be imply that the USA is a global empire that has interests all over the planet. And the right to intervene and interfere as it wishes.

But then claim Russia and China don't have interests right on their own boarders.

In your world Donbas is as vital to the USA as it is to Russia...and the south China sea as important to us as it is to Beijing.

And I have no idea if Hispanics in the Southwest would ever want to break off and join Mexico. But if they did attempt such a thing. Or if Texas attempted to claim its independent. You can be sure D.C. would respond with violence and war.

The USA has literally killed hundreds of thousands of people and burned down whole cities to prevent peaceful secession in the past...and would do it again in a heart beat.

I personally have no problem with self determination anywhere....no matter if its in the American Southwest or if its in Tibet.

I have this strange dislike for empires and centrally located power states that ignore self determination and local rule.

---

Sorry, we disagree on this one. Collaboration is great, but at some level there are some items that are zero sum games. This is one of them. Commerce is for collaboration. Research is for collaboration. Education is for collaboration. Occupying territory, those are fighting words.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I think you mistake cooperation for capitulation. We largely did try cooperation, we let them have the pieces of Ukraine they took in 2014 and left their energy industry alone. We flat out ignored Chechnya and Georgia getting swallowed up, not to mention brazen assassinations across western Europe. Three successive Presidents tried to reach out and work with Putin. Our next SecState after 2014 was an Exxon exec who had a Russian medal of friendship pinned on his chest by Putin himself. Of course Russia worked hard to help that SecState's boss get elected, so maybe that (and pretty much ignoring what they did in 2016) was just reciprocity.

What you want is for us (and Ukraine, then whoever else) to just lie down and take it, which frankly is incomprehensible to me. If their strategy works for them, why would they stop using it?

---

How could Russia "swallow up" Chechnya when it's always legally been apart of the Russian Federation.

Are you under the impression that Chechnya was an independent nation?

---

"n 9 April 1991, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Supreme Council of Georgia declared independence after a referendum held on 31 March. Georgia was the first non-Baltic republic of the Soviet Union to officially declare independence."

You continually act like 1991 never happened, let alone1921 when the Soviets took over! The Putin apologist keep bringing up 1880's and earlier when in the 1990s Georgia was independent. Russia was wrong in Georgia and Chechnya just like in Ukraine now. Using you logic, we should be a British Colony!

---

Georgia and Chechnya are two completely different places.

So not sure why are seeming to conflate them.

Georgia was an independent Kingdom all the way back in the year 1008 AD

And had the status of a full Soviet Republic during the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

It declared its independence in 1991 and Russia did not try to stop it.

Chechnya was never a full kingdom and has been apart of Russia proper since the 1800s after the Russians conquered the Islamic mountain tribes of that area.

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

These two places have very different histories.

---

"On November 1, 1991, Head of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People, Dzokhar Dudayev issued a Decree of Sovereignty of the Chechen Republic[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Galina_M.-1][1][/url] (Russian: o ).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Stanford_Libraries-2][2][/url] Between 1991 and 2000 Chechnya was de facto an independent state."

I don't post stuff I don't research first. They declared sovereignty in 1991, when the other Soviet Block nations declared Sovereignty. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, you are wrong they did become independent until the Russian boot was put back on their throat.

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION. You seem to be good with that...

---

If you want to defend the right of Chechnya to break off from the Russian Federation and to create an Islamic emirate...then fine go ahead.

I have no stake in the question itself.

But as a historic reality the region of Chechnya was never a sovereign Kingdom like Georgia and never was a full Soviet Republic within the USSR.

It was always part of Russia. (in whatever form.. Imperial Russia, Soviet Russia, modern Russian Federation)

All the countries that got their independence in 1991 had been full Soviet Republics.

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

---

It was a republic and declared independence in 91. Russia brutally put down that independence in 94/95 before recognized by the World. Chechnya was invaded by Russia in 1921 and forced into Russia, again. This has happened multiple times in history. Sure doesn't look like Chechnya considers itself Russian. But, you are technically correct, in 1991 they declared independence but it was not recognized before Russia invaded again.

Ok, is this better:

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites or republics do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION.

---

The Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union invaded in 1921.

Russia did not invade anything. So lets get that straight.

And again...Chechnya has never been an independent country...not in 1921 or at any other time.

It had been part of the Russian empire and then after that the USSR remained in control.

And before Russia took the area it was under the overlordship of Persia.

A short lived (non-internationally recognized state) does not make Chechnya anymore real than any other break away region that calls itself a country.

If Chechnya was an independent country in 1921 then Luhansk is an independent country today.

---

So does only having been an independent country under modern terms allow an area to be able to break away from a ruling country?

If that is the case we better invite the British back…..

---

He continually overlooks the acts of the people in the Republic declaring independence. All that counts is Russia's view of their subjugation. Russia apologist argument. No one but Moscow has the right to determine these areas future. We are not talking a set up like the US, the Russian Republics operate independently.
History.com view:

"In August 1991, Dzhozkhar Dudayev, a Chechen politician and former Soviet air force general, toppled Chechnya's local communist government and established an anti-Russian autocratic state. President Yeltsin feared the secession of Chechnya would prompt a domino effect of independence movements within the vast Russian Federation. He also hoped to recover Chechnya's valuable oil resources. After ineffective attempts at funding Chechen opposition groups, a Russian invasion began on December 11, 1994."

---

But I have actually never denied that.

Obviously Chechens have been trying to break off from Russia for a long time.

I have no major issue with that (other than the fact the Chechens seem to want to create an Islamic state)

But if you support Chechnya independence then you have to support other secessionist movements around the world.

---

Depends on how many Spetznaz are creating the movement. Or how many people a larger nation moved in to displace to get a warm weather port. If you think this all happened organically, I have some waterfron property in AZ.

Russia has been working on this for decades, at least the 70's. I know for a fact we were trained on it in 1987 in officer training in the military by the Psyops guys. This is how Russia functions. It is not a secret, they wanted to avoid future Afghanistans. Putin got surprised here by NATO's resolve. That is the only reason this is going on. Putin thought it would be 2014 all over again. But, Ukraine fought back and NATO is supplying. Putin did not think NATO had the stones for a proxy war. He is now in the meat grinder.

All your Russia-apologist stuff sounds really similar to the Psyop presentation I saw in 1987...

---

Calm sober assessments of geopolitics only sound like apologist propaganda to insane neo-con war mongers.

If you surround any large regional power (Russia or China) with a adversarial military alliance (NATO) you are going to get a violent response.

When the the USSR and Warsaw pact were playing around in Cuba how did we respond?

If you support every secessionist movement you can think of around the world (E. Timor, S. Sudan, Kosovo, Chechnya) but then refuse to accept secessionist movements at home (Texit) or abroad (Donbas) you just look like a hypocritical global empire who does not like it when other states play the empire game.

---

That is where you are wrong. We let the others play the global empire game and then don't do the same. China, Russia, India and others do what is in their best interest whether we like it or not. Only the US worries what everyone else will think. Xi does what is best for China as he sees fit.

They count on US citizens making your arguments to keep us in check. Russia taking Crimea is bad for the US. Russia taking Donbas is bad for the US. China making islands in the South China Sea is bad for the US. Russia putting missles in Cuba is bad for the US. Sorry, not going to apologize for siding with the US and our Allies, especially against Russia and China! Neither have acted in good faith towards the US in 100+ years!

As for Texit, so who counts in making this determination? Illegal Aliens that have broken US law? They get a critical mass and we should honor that request? You really think that the US citizens of CA, AZ and NV would vote to succeed to join Mexico?? Donbas and Crimea are the same, they were settled by Russians to get that mass. And people like you give that credence! Amazing.

---

These things are not in an apples to oranges comparison.

It a crazy thing to even try and equate.

The USA has no strategic or financial interests in Donbas.

We have serious strategic interest in not letting another rival power put weapons in Cuba (90 miles off our coast)

You seem to be imply that the USA is a global empire that has interests all over the planet. And the right to intervene and interfere as it wishes.

But then claim Russia and China don't have interests right on their own boarders.

In your world Donbas is as vital to the USA as it is to Russia...and the south China sea as important to us as it is to Beijing.

And I have no idea if Hispanics in the Southwest would ever want to break off and join Mexico. But if they did attempt such a thing. Or if Texas attempted to claim its independent. You can be sure D.C. would respond with violence and war.

The USA has literally killed hundreds of thousands of people and burned down whole cities to prevent peaceful secession in the past...and would do it again in a heart beat.

I personally have no problem with self determination anywhere....no matter if its in the American Southwest or if its in Tibet.

I have this strange dislike for empires and centrally located power states that ignore self determination and local rule.

---

Sorry, we disagree on this one. Collaboration is great, but at some level there are some items that are zero sum games. This is one of them. Commerce is for collaboration. Research is for collaboration. Education is for collaboration. Occupying territory, those are fighting words.

---

I understand you arguments.

But did China and Russia run guns to Iraq when we invaded?

If they gave our enemies billions of dollars in weapons...maybe we could make the argument that turn around is fair play.

As of right now we have been the major military aggressor over the past 20 years (right or wrong). Operating in areas far outside our traditional sphere of influence.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I think you mistake cooperation for capitulation. We largely did try cooperation, we let them have the pieces of Ukraine they took in 2014 and left their energy industry alone. We flat out ignored Chechnya and Georgia getting swallowed up, not to mention brazen assassinations across western Europe. Three successive Presidents tried to reach out and work with Putin. Our next SecState after 2014 was an Exxon exec who had a Russian medal of friendship pinned on his chest by Putin himself. Of course Russia worked hard to help that SecState's boss get elected, so maybe that (and pretty much ignoring what they did in 2016) was just reciprocity.

What you want is for us (and Ukraine, then whoever else) to just lie down and take it, which frankly is incomprehensible to me. If their strategy works for them, why would they stop using it?

---

How could Russia "swallow up" Chechnya when it's always legally been apart of the Russian Federation.

Are you under the impression that Chechnya was an independent nation?

---

"n 9 April 1991, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Supreme Council of Georgia declared independence after a referendum held on 31 March. Georgia was the first non-Baltic republic of the Soviet Union to officially declare independence."

You continually act like 1991 never happened, let alone1921 when the Soviets took over! The Putin apologist keep bringing up 1880's and earlier when in the 1990s Georgia was independent. Russia was wrong in Georgia and Chechnya just like in Ukraine now. Using you logic, we should be a British Colony!

---

Georgia and Chechnya are two completely different places.

So not sure why are seeming to conflate them.

Georgia was an independent Kingdom all the way back in the year 1008 AD

And had the status of a full Soviet Republic during the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

It declared its independence in 1991 and Russia did not try to stop it.

Chechnya was never a full kingdom and has been apart of Russia proper since the 1800s after the Russians conquered the Islamic mountain tribes of that area.

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

These two places have very different histories.

---

"On November 1, 1991, Head of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People, Dzokhar Dudayev issued a Decree of Sovereignty of the Chechen Republic[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Galina_M.-1][1][/url] (Russian: o ).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Stanford_Libraries-2][2][/url] Between 1991 and 2000 Chechnya was de facto an independent state."

I don't post stuff I don't research first. They declared sovereignty in 1991, when the other Soviet Block nations declared Sovereignty. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, you are wrong they did become independent until the Russian boot was put back on their throat.

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION. You seem to be good with that...

---

If you want to defend the right of Chechnya to break off from the Russian Federation and to create an Islamic emirate...then fine go ahead.

I have no stake in the question itself.

But as a historic reality the region of Chechnya was never a sovereign Kingdom like Georgia and never was a full Soviet Republic within the USSR.

It was always part of Russia. (in whatever form.. Imperial Russia, Soviet Russia, modern Russian Federation)

All the countries that got their independence in 1991 had been full Soviet Republics.

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

---

It was a republic and declared independence in 91. Russia brutally put down that independence in 94/95 before recognized by the World. Chechnya was invaded by Russia in 1921 and forced into Russia, again. This has happened multiple times in history. Sure doesn't look like Chechnya considers itself Russian. But, you are technically correct, in 1991 they declared independence but it was not recognized before Russia invaded again.

Ok, is this better:

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites or republics do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION.

---

The Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union invaded in 1921.

Russia did not invade anything. So lets get that straight.

And again...Chechnya has never been an independent country...not in 1921 or at any other time.

It had been part of the Russian empire and then after that the USSR remained in control.

And before Russia took the area it was under the overlordship of Persia.

A short lived (non-internationally recognized state) does not make Chechnya anymore real than any other break away region that calls itself a country.

If Chechnya was an independent country in 1921 then Luhansk is an independent country today.

---

So does only having been an independent country under modern terms allow an area to be able to break away from a ruling country?

If that is the case we better invite the British back…..

---

He continually overlooks the acts of the people in the Republic declaring independence. All that counts is Russia's view of their subjugation. Russia apologist argument. No one but Moscow has the right to determine these areas future. We are not talking a set up like the US, the Russian Republics operate independently.
History.com view:

"In August 1991, Dzhozkhar Dudayev, a Chechen politician and former Soviet air force general, toppled Chechnya's local communist government and established an anti-Russian autocratic state. President Yeltsin feared the secession of Chechnya would prompt a domino effect of independence movements within the vast Russian Federation. He also hoped to recover Chechnya's valuable oil resources. After ineffective attempts at funding Chechen opposition groups, a Russian invasion began on December 11, 1994."

---

But I have actually never denied that.

Obviously Chechens have been trying to break off from Russia for a long time.

I have no major issue with that (other than the fact the Chechens seem to want to create an Islamic state)

But if you support Chechnya independence then you have to support other secessionist movements around the world.

---

Depends on how many Spetznaz are creating the movement. Or how many people a larger nation moved in to displace to get a warm weather port. If you think this all happened organically, I have some waterfron property in AZ.

Russia has been working on this for decades, at least the 70's. I know for a fact we were trained on it in 1987 in officer training in the military by the Psyops guys. This is how Russia functions. It is not a secret, they wanted to avoid future Afghanistans. Putin got surprised here by NATO's resolve. That is the only reason this is going on. Putin thought it would be 2014 all over again. But, Ukraine fought back and NATO is supplying. Putin did not think NATO had the stones for a proxy war. He is now in the meat grinder.

All your Russia-apologist stuff sounds really similar to the Psyop presentation I saw in 1987...

---

Calm sober assessments of geopolitics only sound like apologist propaganda to insane neo-con war mongers.

If you surround any large regional power (Russia or China) with a adversarial military alliance (NATO) you are going to get a violent response.

When the the USSR and Warsaw pact were playing around in Cuba how did we respond?

If you support every secessionist movement you can think of around the world (E. Timor, S. Sudan, Kosovo, Chechnya) but then refuse to accept secessionist movements at home (Texit) or abroad (Donbas) you just look like a hypocritical global empire who does not like it when other states play the empire game.

---

That is where you are wrong. We let the others play the global empire game and then don't do the same. China, Russia, India and others do what is in their best interest whether we like it or not. Only the US worries what everyone else will think. Xi does what is best for China as he sees fit.

They count on US citizens making your arguments to keep us in check. Russia taking Crimea is bad for the US. Russia taking Donbas is bad for the US. China making islands in the South China Sea is bad for the US. Russia putting missles in Cuba is bad for the US. Sorry, not going to apologize for siding with the US and our Allies, especially against Russia and China! Neither have acted in good faith towards the US in 100+ years!

As for Texit, so who counts in making this determination? Illegal Aliens that have broken US law? They get a critical mass and we should honor that request? You really think that the US citizens of CA, AZ and NV would vote to succeed to join Mexico?? Donbas and Crimea are the same, they were settled by Russians to get that mass. And people like you give that credence! Amazing.

---

These things are not in an apples to oranges comparison.

It a crazy thing to even try and equate.

The USA has no strategic or financial interests in Donbas.

We have serious strategic interest in not letting another rival power put weapons in Cuba (90 miles off our coast)

You seem to be imply that the USA is a global empire that has interests all over the planet. And the right to intervene and interfere as it wishes.

But then claim Russia and China don't have interests right on their own boarders.

In your world Donbas is as vital to the USA as it is to Russia...and the south China sea as important to us as it is to Beijing.

And I have no idea if Hispanics in the Southwest would ever want to break off and join Mexico. But if they did attempt such a thing. Or if Texas attempted to claim its independent. You can be sure D.C. would respond with violence and war.

The USA has literally killed hundreds of thousands of people and burned down whole cities to prevent peaceful secession in the past...and would do it again in a heart beat.

I personally have no problem with self determination anywhere....no matter if its in the American Southwest or if its in Tibet.

I have this strange dislike for empires and centrally located power states that ignore self determination and local rule.

---

Sorry, we disagree on this one. Collaboration is great, but at some level there are some items that are zero sum games. This is one of them. Commerce is for collaboration. Research is for collaboration. Education is for collaboration. Occupying territory, those are fighting words.

---

I understand you arguments.

But did China and Russia run guns to Iraq when we invaded?

If they gave our enemies billions of dollars in weapons...maybe we could make the argument that turn around is fair play.

As of right now we have been the major military aggressor over the past 20 years (right or wrong). Operating in areas far outside our traditional sphere of influence.

---

We are more transparent in our support. Don't fool yourself, Russia and China support who they want.

Theoretically and academically, I understand your position. In an academic exercise I would probably lose a debate on it.

Unfortunately, it is not an exercise. I get why we do it and agree, Putin and Xi are that bad.

We have been the aggressor, more than I would like. I thought Iraq was wrong. Afghanistan went too long and suffered from mission creep. I had little issue with Reagan and Bush Sr, they both went in accomplished the goals, set parameters and left. They avoided the nation-building that causes many of the problems. I have no problem with nation building, just do it right. Germany and Japan come to mind, but we re-built those nations inside and out. Was never going to happen in Iraq or Afghanistan.

We can't let Russia move into Ukraine.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I think you mistake cooperation for capitulation. We largely did try cooperation, we let them have the pieces of Ukraine they took in 2014 and left their energy industry alone. We flat out ignored Chechnya and Georgia getting swallowed up, not to mention brazen assassinations across western Europe. Three successive Presidents tried to reach out and work with Putin. Our next SecState after 2014 was an Exxon exec who had a Russian medal of friendship pinned on his chest by Putin himself. Of course Russia worked hard to help that SecState's boss get elected, so maybe that (and pretty much ignoring what they did in 2016) was just reciprocity.

What you want is for us (and Ukraine, then whoever else) to just lie down and take it, which frankly is incomprehensible to me. If their strategy works for them, why would they stop using it?

---

How could Russia "swallow up" Chechnya when it's always legally been apart of the Russian Federation.

Are you under the impression that Chechnya was an independent nation?

---

"n 9 April 1991, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Supreme Council of Georgia declared independence after a referendum held on 31 March. Georgia was the first non-Baltic republic of the Soviet Union to officially declare independence."

You continually act like 1991 never happened, let alone1921 when the Soviets took over! The Putin apologist keep bringing up 1880's and earlier when in the 1990s Georgia was independent. Russia was wrong in Georgia and Chechnya just like in Ukraine now. Using you logic, we should be a British Colony!

---

Georgia and Chechnya are two completely different places.

So not sure why are seeming to conflate them.

Georgia was an independent Kingdom all the way back in the year 1008 AD

And had the status of a full Soviet Republic during the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

It declared its independence in 1991 and Russia did not try to stop it.

Chechnya was never a full kingdom and has been apart of Russia proper since the 1800s after the Russians conquered the Islamic mountain tribes of that area.

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

These two places have very different histories.

---

"On November 1, 1991, Head of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People, Dzokhar Dudayev issued a Decree of Sovereignty of the Chechen Republic[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Galina_M.-1][1][/url] (Russian: o ).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Stanford_Libraries-2][2][/url] Between 1991 and 2000 Chechnya was de facto an independent state."

I don't post stuff I don't research first. They declared sovereignty in 1991, when the other Soviet Block nations declared Sovereignty. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, you are wrong they did become independent until the Russian boot was put back on their throat.

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION. You seem to be good with that...

---

If you want to defend the right of Chechnya to break off from the Russian Federation and to create an Islamic emirate...then fine go ahead.

I have no stake in the question itself.

But as a historic reality the region of Chechnya was never a sovereign Kingdom like Georgia and never was a full Soviet Republic within the USSR.

It was always part of Russia. (in whatever form.. Imperial Russia, Soviet Russia, modern Russian Federation)

All the countries that got their independence in 1991 had been full Soviet Republics.

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

---

It was a republic and declared independence in 91. Russia brutally put down that independence in 94/95 before recognized by the World. Chechnya was invaded by Russia in 1921 and forced into Russia, again. This has happened multiple times in history. Sure doesn't look like Chechnya considers itself Russian. But, you are technically correct, in 1991 they declared independence but it was not recognized before Russia invaded again.

Ok, is this better:

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites or republics do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION.

---

The Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union invaded in 1921.

Russia did not invade anything. So lets get that straight.

And again...Chechnya has never been an independent country...not in 1921 or at any other time.

It had been part of the Russian empire and then after that the USSR remained in control.

And before Russia took the area it was under the overlordship of Persia.

A short lived (non-internationally recognized state) does not make Chechnya anymore real than any other break away region that calls itself a country.

If Chechnya was an independent country in 1921 then Luhansk is an independent country today.

---

So does only having been an independent country under modern terms allow an area to be able to break away from a ruling country?

If that is the case we better invite the British back…..

---

He continually overlooks the acts of the people in the Republic declaring independence. All that counts is Russia's view of their subjugation. Russia apologist argument. No one but Moscow has the right to determine these areas future. We are not talking a set up like the US, the Russian Republics operate independently.
History.com view:

"In August 1991, Dzhozkhar Dudayev, a Chechen politician and former Soviet air force general, toppled Chechnya's local communist government and established an anti-Russian autocratic state. President Yeltsin feared the secession of Chechnya would prompt a domino effect of independence movements within the vast Russian Federation. He also hoped to recover Chechnya's valuable oil resources. After ineffective attempts at funding Chechen opposition groups, a Russian invasion began on December 11, 1994."

---

But I have actually never denied that.

Obviously Chechens have been trying to break off from Russia for a long time.

I have no major issue with that (other than the fact the Chechens seem to want to create an Islamic state)

But if you support Chechnya independence then you have to support other secessionist movements around the world.

---

Depends on how many Spetznaz are creating the movement. Or how many people a larger nation moved in to displace to get a warm weather port. If you think this all happened organically, I have some waterfron property in AZ.

Russia has been working on this for decades, at least the 70's. I know for a fact we were trained on it in 1987 in officer training in the military by the Psyops guys. This is how Russia functions. It is not a secret, they wanted to avoid future Afghanistans. Putin got surprised here by NATO's resolve. That is the only reason this is going on. Putin thought it would be 2014 all over again. But, Ukraine fought back and NATO is supplying. Putin did not think NATO had the stones for a proxy war. He is now in the meat grinder.

All your Russia-apologist stuff sounds really similar to the Psyop presentation I saw in 1987...

---

Calm sober assessments of geopolitics only sound like apologist propaganda to insane neo-con war mongers.

If you surround any large regional power (Russia or China) with a adversarial military alliance (NATO) you are going to get a violent response.

When the the USSR and Warsaw pact were playing around in Cuba how did we respond?

If you support every secessionist movement you can think of around the world (E. Timor, S. Sudan, Kosovo, Chechnya) but then refuse to accept secessionist movements at home (Texit) or abroad (Donbas) you just look like a hypocritical global empire who does not like it when other states play the empire game.

---

That is where you are wrong. We let the others play the global empire game and then don't do the same. China, Russia, India and others do what is in their best interest whether we like it or not. Only the US worries what everyone else will think. Xi does what is best for China as he sees fit.

They count on US citizens making your arguments to keep us in check. Russia taking Crimea is bad for the US. Russia taking Donbas is bad for the US. China making islands in the South China Sea is bad for the US. Russia putting missles in Cuba is bad for the US. Sorry, not going to apologize for siding with the US and our Allies, especially against Russia and China! Neither have acted in good faith towards the US in 100+ years!

As for Texit, so who counts in making this determination? Illegal Aliens that have broken US law? They get a critical mass and we should honor that request? You really think that the US citizens of CA, AZ and NV would vote to succeed to join Mexico?? Donbas and Crimea are the same, they were settled by Russians to get that mass. And people like you give that credence! Amazing.

---

These things are not in an apples to oranges comparison.

It a crazy thing to even try and equate.

The USA has no strategic or financial interests in Donbas.

We have serious strategic interest in not letting another rival power put weapons in Cuba (90 miles off our coast)

You seem to be imply that the USA is a global empire that has interests all over the planet. And the right to intervene and interfere as it wishes.

But then claim Russia and China don't have interests right on their own boarders.

In your world Donbas is as vital to the USA as it is to Russia...and the south China sea as important to us as it is to Beijing.

And I have no idea if Hispanics in the Southwest would ever want to break off and join Mexico. But if they did attempt such a thing. Or if Texas attempted to claim its independent. You can be sure D.C. would respond with violence and war.

The USA has literally killed hundreds of thousands of people and burned down whole cities to prevent peaceful secession in the past...and would do it again in a heart beat.

I personally have no problem with self determination anywhere....no matter if its in the American Southwest or if its in Tibet.

I have this strange dislike for empires and centrally located power states that ignore self determination and local rule.

---

Sorry, we disagree on this one. Collaboration is great, but at some level there are some items that are zero sum games. This is one of them. Commerce is for collaboration. Research is for collaboration. Education is for collaboration. Occupying territory, those are fighting words.

---

I understand you arguments.

But did China and Russia run guns to Iraq when we invaded?

If they gave our enemies billions of dollars in weapons...maybe we could make the argument that turn around is fair play.

As of right now we have been the major military aggressor over the past 20 years (right or wrong). Operating in areas far outside our traditional sphere of influence.

---

We are more transparent in our support. Don't fool yourself, Russia and China support who they want.

Theoretically and academically, I understand your position. In an academic exercise I would probably lose a debate on it.

Unfortunately, it is not an exercise. I get why we do it and agree, Putin and Xi are that bad.

We have been the aggressor, more than I would like. I thought Iraq was wrong. Afghanistan went too long and suffered from mission creep. I had little issue with Reagan and Bush Sr, they both went in accomplished the goals, set parameters and left. They avoided the nation-building that causes many of the problems. I have no problem with nation building, just do it right. Germany and Japan come to mind, but we re-built those nations inside and out. Was never going to happen in Iraq or Afghanistan.

We can't let Russia move into Ukraine.

---

1. You are correct. Russia and China certainly play the empire game.

2. We certainly can. The Ukraine was entirely inside the USSR for 75 years. And was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years and it never effected the United States at all. If it becomes another allied satellite state of Russia. Or its eastern portions are broken off an absorbed by the Russia Federation will still not have any effect on the United States of America.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I think you mistake cooperation for capitulation. We largely did try cooperation, we let them have the pieces of Ukraine they took in 2014 and left their energy industry alone. We flat out ignored Chechnya and Georgia getting swallowed up, not to mention brazen assassinations across western Europe. Three successive Presidents tried to reach out and work with Putin. Our next SecState after 2014 was an Exxon exec who had a Russian medal of friendship pinned on his chest by Putin himself. Of course Russia worked hard to help that SecState's boss get elected, so maybe that (and pretty much ignoring what they did in 2016) was just reciprocity.

What you want is for us (and Ukraine, then whoever else) to just lie down and take it, which frankly is incomprehensible to me. If their strategy works for them, why would they stop using it?

---

How could Russia "swallow up" Chechnya when it's always legally been apart of the Russian Federation.

Are you under the impression that Chechnya was an independent nation?

---

"n 9 April 1991, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Supreme Council of Georgia declared independence after a referendum held on 31 March. Georgia was the first non-Baltic republic of the Soviet Union to officially declare independence."

You continually act like 1991 never happened, let alone1921 when the Soviets took over! The Putin apologist keep bringing up 1880's and earlier when in the 1990s Georgia was independent. Russia was wrong in Georgia and Chechnya just like in Ukraine now. Using you logic, we should be a British Colony!

---

Georgia and Chechnya are two completely different places.

So not sure why are seeming to conflate them.

Georgia was an independent Kingdom all the way back in the year 1008 AD

And had the status of a full Soviet Republic during the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

It declared its independence in 1991 and Russia did not try to stop it.

Chechnya was never a full kingdom and has been apart of Russia proper since the 1800s after the Russians conquered the Islamic mountain tribes of that area.

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

These two places have very different histories.

---

"On November 1, 1991, Head of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People, Dzokhar Dudayev issued a Decree of Sovereignty of the Chechen Republic[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Galina_M.-1][1][/url] (Russian: o ).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Stanford_Libraries-2][2][/url] Between 1991 and 2000 Chechnya was de facto an independent state."

I don't post stuff I don't research first. They declared sovereignty in 1991, when the other Soviet Block nations declared Sovereignty. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, you are wrong they did become independent until the Russian boot was put back on their throat.

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION. You seem to be good with that...

---

If you want to defend the right of Chechnya to break off from the Russian Federation and to create an Islamic emirate...then fine go ahead.

I have no stake in the question itself.

But as a historic reality the region of Chechnya was never a sovereign Kingdom like Georgia and never was a full Soviet Republic within the USSR.

It was always part of Russia. (in whatever form.. Imperial Russia, Soviet Russia, modern Russian Federation)

All the countries that got their independence in 1991 had been full Soviet Republics.

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

---

It was a republic and declared independence in 91. Russia brutally put down that independence in 94/95 before recognized by the World. Chechnya was invaded by Russia in 1921 and forced into Russia, again. This has happened multiple times in history. Sure doesn't look like Chechnya considers itself Russian. But, you are technically correct, in 1991 they declared independence but it was not recognized before Russia invaded again.

Ok, is this better:

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites or republics do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION.

---

The Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union invaded in 1921.

Russia did not invade anything. So lets get that straight.

And again...Chechnya has never been an independent country...not in 1921 or at any other time.

It had been part of the Russian empire and then after that the USSR remained in control.

And before Russia took the area it was under the overlordship of Persia.

A short lived (non-internationally recognized state) does not make Chechnya anymore real than any other break away region that calls itself a country.

If Chechnya was an independent country in 1921 then Luhansk is an independent country today.

---

So does only having been an independent country under modern terms allow an area to be able to break away from a ruling country?

If that is the case we better invite the British back…..

---

He continually overlooks the acts of the people in the Republic declaring independence. All that counts is Russia's view of their subjugation. Russia apologist argument. No one but Moscow has the right to determine these areas future. We are not talking a set up like the US, the Russian Republics operate independently.
History.com view:

"In August 1991, Dzhozkhar Dudayev, a Chechen politician and former Soviet air force general, toppled Chechnya's local communist government and established an anti-Russian autocratic state. President Yeltsin feared the secession of Chechnya would prompt a domino effect of independence movements within the vast Russian Federation. He also hoped to recover Chechnya's valuable oil resources. After ineffective attempts at funding Chechen opposition groups, a Russian invasion began on December 11, 1994."

---

But I have actually never denied that.

Obviously Chechens have been trying to break off from Russia for a long time.

I have no major issue with that (other than the fact the Chechens seem to want to create an Islamic state)

But if you support Chechnya independence then you have to support other secessionist movements around the world.

---

Depends on how many Spetznaz are creating the movement. Or how many people a larger nation moved in to displace to get a warm weather port. If you think this all happened organically, I have some waterfron property in AZ.

Russia has been working on this for decades, at least the 70's. I know for a fact we were trained on it in 1987 in officer training in the military by the Psyops guys. This is how Russia functions. It is not a secret, they wanted to avoid future Afghanistans. Putin got surprised here by NATO's resolve. That is the only reason this is going on. Putin thought it would be 2014 all over again. But, Ukraine fought back and NATO is supplying. Putin did not think NATO had the stones for a proxy war. He is now in the meat grinder.

All your Russia-apologist stuff sounds really similar to the Psyop presentation I saw in 1987...

---

Calm sober assessments of geopolitics only sound like apologist propaganda to insane neo-con war mongers.

If you surround any large regional power (Russia or China) with a adversarial military alliance (NATO) you are going to get a violent response.

When the the USSR and Warsaw pact were playing around in Cuba how did we respond?

If you support every secessionist movement you can think of around the world (E. Timor, S. Sudan, Kosovo, Chechnya) but then refuse to accept secessionist movements at home (Texit) or abroad (Donbas) you just look like a hypocritical global empire who does not like it when other states play the empire game.

---

That is where you are wrong. We let the others play the global empire game and then don't do the same. China, Russia, India and others do what is in their best interest whether we like it or not. Only the US worries what everyone else will think. Xi does what is best for China as he sees fit.

They count on US citizens making your arguments to keep us in check. Russia taking Crimea is bad for the US. Russia taking Donbas is bad for the US. China making islands in the South China Sea is bad for the US. Russia putting missles in Cuba is bad for the US. Sorry, not going to apologize for siding with the US and our Allies, especially against Russia and China! Neither have acted in good faith towards the US in 100+ years!

As for Texit, so who counts in making this determination? Illegal Aliens that have broken US law? They get a critical mass and we should honor that request? You really think that the US citizens of CA, AZ and NV would vote to succeed to join Mexico?? Donbas and Crimea are the same, they were settled by Russians to get that mass. And people like you give that credence! Amazing.

---

These things are not in an apples to oranges comparison.

It a crazy thing to even try and equate.

The USA has no strategic or financial interests in Donbas.

We have serious strategic interest in not letting another rival power put weapons in Cuba (90 miles off our coast)

You seem to be imply that the USA is a global empire that has interests all over the planet. And the right to intervene and interfere as it wishes.

But then claim Russia and China don't have interests right on their own boarders.

In your world Donbas is as vital to the USA as it is to Russia...and the south China sea as important to us as it is to Beijing.

And I have no idea if Hispanics in the Southwest would ever want to break off and join Mexico. But if they did attempt such a thing. Or if Texas attempted to claim its independent. You can be sure D.C. would respond with violence and war.

The USA has literally killed hundreds of thousands of people and burned down whole cities to prevent peaceful secession in the past...and would do it again in a heart beat.

I personally have no problem with self determination anywhere....no matter if its in the American Southwest or if its in Tibet.

I have this strange dislike for empires and centrally located power states that ignore self determination and local rule.

---

Sorry, we disagree on this one. Collaboration is great, but at some level there are some items that are zero sum games. This is one of them. Commerce is for collaboration. Research is for collaboration. Education is for collaboration. Occupying territory, those are fighting words.

---

I understand you arguments.

But did China and Russia run guns to Iraq when we invaded?

If they gave our enemies billions of dollars in weapons...maybe we could make the argument that turn around is fair play.

As of right now we have been the major military aggressor over the past 20 years (right or wrong). Operating in areas far outside our traditional sphere of influence.

---

We are more transparent in our support. Don't fool yourself, Russia and China support who they want.

Theoretically and academically, I understand your position. In an academic exercise I would probably lose a debate on it.

Unfortunately, it is not an exercise. I get why we do it and agree, Putin and Xi are that bad.

We have been the aggressor, more than I would like. I thought Iraq was wrong. Afghanistan went too long and suffered from mission creep. I had little issue with Reagan and Bush Sr, they both went in accomplished the goals, set parameters and left. They avoided the nation-building that causes many of the problems. I have no problem with nation building, just do it right. Germany and Japan come to mind, but we re-built those nations inside and out. Was never going to happen in Iraq or Afghanistan.

We can't let Russia move into Ukraine.

---

1. You are correct. Russia and China certainly play the empire game.

2. We certainly can. The Ukraine was entirely inside the USSR for 75 years. And was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years and it never effected the United States at all. If it becomes another allied satellite state of Russia. Or its eastern portions are broken off an absorbed by the Russia Federation will still not have any effect on the United States of America.

---

I think the difference now is where Ukraine is on the NATO/Russia line. For 50 of those years Ukraine was a backwater in the Soviet Union. The "front line" was Poland, Czech, and East Germany. Ukraine could be in the Soviet Union and not be a strategic interest.

Now, if you let Ukraine fall. You have created a salient projecting into the heart of present day NATO. Creating a two front situation in Poland and Romania. You lose Romania... You now have a 1000 mile Russian front from Poland to Bulgaria.

That does not account for Belaruis. Add them in it could go from Latvia to Bulgaria with just 2 meaningless dominoes falling.

Ukraine has to hold or you are back to 1992. All the investment, all the work with those nations gone. Ukraine is strategically important to NATO.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I think you mistake cooperation for capitulation. We largely did try cooperation, we let them have the pieces of Ukraine they took in 2014 and left their energy industry alone. We flat out ignored Chechnya and Georgia getting swallowed up, not to mention brazen assassinations across western Europe. Three successive Presidents tried to reach out and work with Putin. Our next SecState after 2014 was an Exxon exec who had a Russian medal of friendship pinned on his chest by Putin himself. Of course Russia worked hard to help that SecState's boss get elected, so maybe that (and pretty much ignoring what they did in 2016) was just reciprocity.

What you want is for us (and Ukraine, then whoever else) to just lie down and take it, which frankly is incomprehensible to me. If their strategy works for them, why would they stop using it?

---

How could Russia "swallow up" Chechnya when it's always legally been apart of the Russian Federation.

Are you under the impression that Chechnya was an independent nation?

---

"n 9 April 1991, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Supreme Council of Georgia declared independence after a referendum held on 31 March. Georgia was the first non-Baltic republic of the Soviet Union to officially declare independence."

You continually act like 1991 never happened, let alone1921 when the Soviets took over! The Putin apologist keep bringing up 1880's and earlier when in the 1990s Georgia was independent. Russia was wrong in Georgia and Chechnya just like in Ukraine now. Using you logic, we should be a British Colony!

---

Georgia and Chechnya are two completely different places.

So not sure why are seeming to conflate them.

Georgia was an independent Kingdom all the way back in the year 1008 AD

And had the status of a full Soviet Republic during the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic

It declared its independence in 1991 and Russia did not try to stop it.

Chechnya was never a full kingdom and has been apart of Russia proper since the 1800s after the Russians conquered the Islamic mountain tribes of that area.

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

These two places have very different histories.

---

"On November 1, 1991, Head of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People, Dzokhar Dudayev issued a Decree of Sovereignty of the Chechen Republic[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Galina_M.-1][1][/url] (Russian: o ).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sovereignty_of_the_Chechen_Republic#cite_note-Stanford_Libraries-2][2][/url] Between 1991 and 2000 Chechnya was de facto an independent state."

I don't post stuff I don't research first. They declared sovereignty in 1991, when the other Soviet Block nations declared Sovereignty. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, you are wrong they did become independent until the Russian boot was put back on their throat.

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION. You seem to be good with that...

---

If you want to defend the right of Chechnya to break off from the Russian Federation and to create an Islamic emirate...then fine go ahead.

I have no stake in the question itself.

But as a historic reality the region of Chechnya was never a sovereign Kingdom like Georgia and never was a full Soviet Republic within the USSR.

It was always part of Russia. (in whatever form.. Imperial Russia, Soviet Russia, modern Russian Federation)

All the countries that got their independence in 1991 had been full Soviet Republics.

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

---

It was a republic and declared independence in 91. Russia brutally put down that independence in 94/95 before recognized by the World. Chechnya was invaded by Russia in 1921 and forced into Russia, again. This has happened multiple times in history. Sure doesn't look like Chechnya considers itself Russian. But, you are technically correct, in 1991 they declared independence but it was not recognized before Russia invaded again.

Ok, is this better:

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites or republics do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION.

---

The Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union invaded in 1921.

Russia did not invade anything. So lets get that straight.

And again...Chechnya has never been an independent country...not in 1921 or at any other time.

It had been part of the Russian empire and then after that the USSR remained in control.

And before Russia took the area it was under the overlordship of Persia.

A short lived (non-internationally recognized state) does not make Chechnya anymore real than any other break away region that calls itself a country.

If Chechnya was an independent country in 1921 then Luhansk is an independent country today.

---

So does only having been an independent country under modern terms allow an area to be able to break away from a ruling country?

If that is the case we better invite the British back…..

---

He continually overlooks the acts of the people in the Republic declaring independence. All that counts is Russia's view of their subjugation. Russia apologist argument. No one but Moscow has the right to determine these areas future. We are not talking a set up like the US, the Russian Republics operate independently.
History.com view:

"In August 1991, Dzhozkhar Dudayev, a Chechen politician and former Soviet air force general, toppled Chechnya's local communist government and established an anti-Russian autocratic state. President Yeltsin feared the secession of Chechnya would prompt a domino effect of independence movements within the vast Russian Federation. He also hoped to recover Chechnya's valuable oil resources. After ineffective attempts at funding Chechen opposition groups, a Russian invasion began on December 11, 1994."

---

But I have actually never denied that.

Obviously Chechens have been trying to break off from Russia for a long time.

I have no major issue with that (other than the fact the Chechens seem to want to create an Islamic state)

But if you support Chechnya independence then you have to support other secessionist movements around the world.

---

Depends on how many Spetznaz are creating the movement. Or how many people a larger nation moved in to displace to get a warm weather port. If you think this all happened organically, I have some waterfron property in AZ.

Russia has been working on this for decades, at least the 70's. I know for a fact we were trained on it in 1987 in officer training in the military by the Psyops guys. This is how Russia functions. It is not a secret, they wanted to avoid future Afghanistans. Putin got surprised here by NATO's resolve. That is the only reason this is going on. Putin thought it would be 2014 all over again. But, Ukraine fought back and NATO is supplying. Putin did not think NATO had the stones for a proxy war. He is now in the meat grinder.

All your Russia-apologist stuff sounds really similar to the Psyop presentation I saw in 1987...

---

Calm sober assessments of geopolitics only sound like apologist propaganda to insane neo-con war mongers.

If you surround any large regional power (Russia or China) with a adversarial military alliance (NATO) you are going to get a violent response.

When the the USSR and Warsaw pact were playing around in Cuba how did we respond?

If you support every secessionist movement you can think of around the world (E. Timor, S. Sudan, Kosovo, Chechnya) but then refuse to accept secessionist movements at home (Texit) or abroad (Donbas) you just look like a hypocritical global empire who does not like it when other states play the empire game.

---

That is where you are wrong. We let the others play the global empire game and then don't do the same. China, Russia, India and others do what is in their best interest whether we like it or not. Only the US worries what everyone else will think. Xi does what is best for China as he sees fit.

They count on US citizens making your arguments to keep us in check. Russia taking Crimea is bad for the US. Russia taking Donbas is bad for the US. China making islands in the South China Sea is bad for the US. Russia putting missles in Cuba is bad for the US. Sorry, not going to apologize for siding with the US and our Allies, especially against Russia and China! Neither have acted in good faith towards the US in 100+ years!

As for Texit, so who counts in making this determination? Illegal Aliens that have broken US law? They get a critical mass and we should honor that request? You really think that the US citizens of CA, AZ and NV would vote to succeed to join Mexico?? Donbas and Crimea are the same, they were settled by Russians to get that mass. And people like you give that credence! Amazing.

---

These things are not in an apples to oranges comparison.

It a crazy thing to even try and equate.

The USA has no strategic or financial interests in Donbas.

We have serious strategic interest in not letting another rival power put weapons in Cuba (90 miles off our coast)

You seem to be imply that the USA is a global empire that has interests all over the planet. And the right to intervene and interfere as it wishes.

But then claim Russia and China don't have interests right on their own boarders.

In your world Donbas is as vital to the USA as it is to Russia...and the south China sea as important to us as it is to Beijing.

And I have no idea if Hispanics in the Southwest would ever want to break off and join Mexico. But if they did attempt such a thing. Or if Texas attempted to claim its independent. You can be sure D.C. would respond with violence and war.

The USA has literally killed hundreds of thousands of people and burned down whole cities to prevent peaceful secession in the past...and would do it again in a heart beat.

I personally have no problem with self determination anywhere....no matter if its in the American Southwest or if its in Tibet.

I have this strange dislike for empires and centrally located power states that ignore self determination and local rule.

---

Sorry, we disagree on this one. Collaboration is great, but at some level there are some items that are zero sum games. This is one of them. Commerce is for collaboration. Research is for collaboration. Education is for collaboration. Occupying territory, those are fighting words.

---

I understand you arguments.

But did China and Russia run guns to Iraq when we invaded?

If they gave our enemies billions of dollars in weapons...maybe we could make the argument that turn around is fair play.

As of right now we have been the major military aggressor over the past 20 years (right or wrong). Operating in areas far outside our traditional sphere of influence.

---

We are more transparent in our support. Don't fool yourself, Russia and China support who they want.

Theoretically and academically, I understand your position. In an academic exercise I would probably lose a debate on it.

Unfortunately, it is not an exercise. I get why we do it and agree, Putin and Xi are that bad.

We have been the aggressor, more than I would like. I thought Iraq was wrong. Afghanistan went too long and suffered from mission creep. I had little issue with Reagan and Bush Sr, they both went in accomplished the goals, set parameters and left. They avoided the nation-building that causes many of the problems. I have no problem with nation building, just do it right. Germany and Japan come to mind, but we re-built those nations inside and out. Was never going to happen in Iraq or Afghanistan.

We can't let Russia move into Ukraine.

---

1. You are correct. Russia and China certainly play the empire game.

2. We certainly can. The Ukraine was entirely inside the USSR for 75 years. And was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years and it never effected the United States at all. If it becomes another allied satellite state of Russia. Or its eastern portions are broken off an absorbed by the Russia Federation will still not have any effect on the United States of America.

---

I think the difference now is where Ukraine is on the NATO/Russia line. For 50 of those years Ukraine was a backwater in the Soviet Union. The "front line" was Poland, Czech, and East Germany. Ukraine could be in the Soviet Union and not be a strategic interest.

Now, if you let Ukraine fall. You have created a salient projecting into the heart of present day NATO. Creating a two front situation in Poland and Romania. You lose Romania... You now have a 1000 mile Russian front from Poland to Bulgaria.

That does not account for Belaruis. Add them in it could go from Latvia to Bulgaria with just 2 meaningless dominoes falling.

Ukraine has to hold or you are back to 1992. All the investment, all the work with those nations gone. Ukraine is strategically important to NATO.

---

NATO has existed since 1949.

At no time has Ukraine been a member or has anyone associated with NATO argued that it must be a member or its non inclusion would "created a salient projecting into the heart of NATO"

This is laughable.

NATO might one day include Ukraine...but not because it is some kind of geo-strategic necessity to protect the alliance.

This is also the kind of argument that could be used to advocate that NATO will never been safe until the Russian state itself is broken up.

In fact some neo-con and liberals are making exactly that kind of wild claim right now.

A fantasy project if ever there was one.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/is-breaking-up-russia-the-only-way-to-end-its-imperialism/2022/06/01/e1962c3e-e170-11ec-ae64-6b23e5155b62_story.html

We are SO back 2005cels. SO BACK. https://t.co/Wrg1DedXc1

— Edward Badgette (@acrimonyand) March 15, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If you want to defend the right of Chechnya to break off from the Russian Federation and to create an Islamic emirate...then fine go ahead.

I have no stake in the question itself.

But as a historic reality the region of Chechnya was never a sovereign Kingdom like Georgia and never was a full Soviet Republic within the USSR.

It was always part of Russia. (in whatever form.. Imperial Russia, Soviet Russia, modern Russian Federation)

All the countries that got their independence in 1991 had been full Soviet Republics.

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

---

It was a republic and declared independence in 91. Russia brutally put down that independence in 94/95 before recognized by the World. Chechnya was invaded by Russia in 1921 and forced into Russia, again. This has happened multiple times in history. Sure doesn't look like Chechnya considers itself Russian. But, you are technically correct, in 1991 they declared independence but it was not recognized before Russia invaded again.

Ok, is this better:

The two areas have VERY different histories, just like ALL the Soviet/Russian satellites or republics do. BUT, they all have one thing in common, RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, INVASION AND SUBJEGATION.

---

The Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union invaded in 1921.

Russia did not invade anything. So lets get that straight.

And again...Chechnya has never been an independent country...not in 1921 or at any other time.

It had been part of the Russian empire and then after that the USSR remained in control.

And before Russia took the area it was under the overlordship of Persia.

A short lived (non-internationally recognized state) does not make Chechnya anymore real than any other break away region that calls itself a country.

If Chechnya was an independent country in 1921 then Luhansk is an independent country today.

---

So does only having been an independent country under modern terms allow an area to be able to break away from a ruling country?

If that is the case we better invite the British back…..

---

He continually overlooks the acts of the people in the Republic declaring independence. All that counts is Russia's view of their subjugation. Russia apologist argument. No one but Moscow has the right to determine these areas future. We are not talking a set up like the US, the Russian Republics operate independently.
History.com view:

"In August 1991, Dzhozkhar Dudayev, a Chechen politician and former Soviet air force general, toppled Chechnya's local communist government and established an anti-Russian autocratic state. President Yeltsin feared the secession of Chechnya would prompt a domino effect of independence movements within the vast Russian Federation. He also hoped to recover Chechnya's valuable oil resources. After ineffective attempts at funding Chechen opposition groups, a Russian invasion began on December 11, 1994."

---

But I have actually never denied that.

Obviously Chechens have been trying to break off from Russia for a long time.

I have no major issue with that (other than the fact the Chechens seem to want to create an Islamic state)

But if you support Chechnya independence then you have to support other secessionist movements around the world.

---

Depends on how many Spetznaz are creating the movement. Or how many people a larger nation moved in to displace to get a warm weather port. If you think this all happened organically, I have some waterfron property in AZ.

Russia has been working on this for decades, at least the 70's. I know for a fact we were trained on it in 1987 in officer training in the military by the Psyops guys. This is how Russia functions. It is not a secret, they wanted to avoid future Afghanistans. Putin got surprised here by NATO's resolve. That is the only reason this is going on. Putin thought it would be 2014 all over again. But, Ukraine fought back and NATO is supplying. Putin did not think NATO had the stones for a proxy war. He is now in the meat grinder.

All your Russia-apologist stuff sounds really similar to the Psyop presentation I saw in 1987...

---

Calm sober assessments of geopolitics only sound like apologist propaganda to insane neo-con war mongers.

If you surround any large regional power (Russia or China) with a adversarial military alliance (NATO) you are going to get a violent response.

When the the USSR and Warsaw pact were playing around in Cuba how did we respond?

If you support every secessionist movement you can think of around the world (E. Timor, S. Sudan, Kosovo, Chechnya) but then refuse to accept secessionist movements at home (Texit) or abroad (Donbas) you just look like a hypocritical global empire who does not like it when other states play the empire game.

---

That is where you are wrong. We let the others play the global empire game and then don't do the same. China, Russia, India and others do what is in their best interest whether we like it or not. Only the US worries what everyone else will think. Xi does what is best for China as he sees fit.

They count on US citizens making your arguments to keep us in check. Russia taking Crimea is bad for the US. Russia taking Donbas is bad for the US. China making islands in the South China Sea is bad for the US. Russia putting missles in Cuba is bad for the US. Sorry, not going to apologize for siding with the US and our Allies, especially against Russia and China! Neither have acted in good faith towards the US in 100+ years!

As for Texit, so who counts in making this determination? Illegal Aliens that have broken US law? They get a critical mass and we should honor that request? You really think that the US citizens of CA, AZ and NV would vote to succeed to join Mexico?? Donbas and Crimea are the same, they were settled by Russians to get that mass. And people like you give that credence! Amazing.

---

These things are not in an apples to oranges comparison.

It a crazy thing to even try and equate.

The USA has no strategic or financial interests in Donbas.
We do have strategic interests in the neutrality and integrity of Ukraine, as such directly affects NATO.

We have serious strategic interest in not letting another rival power put weapons in Cuba (90 miles off our coast)
Not analogous to the situation. Russia stationed strategic nuclear weapons under Russian control on Cuban soil; the US Military is not stationing weapons systems under its control in Ukraine. The US, with full support, cooperation, and participation of Nato allies, is selling conventional weapon systems to Ukraine.

You seem to be imply that the USA is a global empire that has interests all over the planet. And the right to intervene and interfere as it wishes.
We do. And we do. It is the price of being what we are, a global economic and military superpower.

But then claim Russia and China don't have interests right on their own boarders.
Strawman claim. They do have interests on their borders. That doesn't mean they can invade and annex as they like.

In your world Donbas is as vital to the USA as it is to Russia...and the south China sea as important to us as it is to Beijing.
The Donbas is not vital to Russia either. Valuable, yes. Vital, no.
The SCS is indeed of strategic interest to the USA, given the world commerce that flows thru it and the number of allied nations which live in it.

And I have no idea if Hispanics in the Southwest would ever want to break off and join Mexico. But if they did attempt such a thing. Or if Texas attempted to claim its independent. You can be sure D.C. would respond with violence and war.
Exactly. As did Ukraine with Donbas and Crimea.

The USA has literally killed hundreds of thousands of people and burned down whole cities to prevent peaceful secession in the past...and would do it again in a heart beat.
Exactly. Why should Ukraine be any different?

I personally have no problem with self determination anywhere....no matter if its in the American Southwest or if its in Tibet.
Agree. But achieving it is hard, and doing it peacefully is not a choice those who desire it get to make.

I have this strange dislike for empires and centrally located power states that ignore self determination and local rule.
Then you should really, really hate Russia.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"While the U.S. has many vital national interests -- securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness within our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural, and military power of the Chinese Communist Party -- becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them. The Biden administration's virtual 'blank check' funding of this conflict for 'as long as it takes,' without any defined objectives or accountability, distracts from our country's most pressing challenges."

Ron DeSantis

---

That statement is very good. It appeals to the anti-war crowd while giving him considerable latitude to execute pro-Ukrainian policy. i.e. "as long as it takes" would be a fairly short period of time if we accelerated our aid to Ukraine, which I suspect is what he would do.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

These things are not in an apples to oranges comparison.

It a crazy thing to even try and equate.

The USA has no strategic or financial interests in Donbas.

We have serious strategic interest in not letting another rival power put weapons in Cuba (90 miles off our coast)

You seem to be imply that the USA is a global empire that has interests all over the planet. And the right to intervene and interfere as it wishes.

But then claim Russia and China don't have interests right on their own boarders.

In your world Donbas is as vital to the USA as it is to Russia...and the south China sea as important to us as it is to Beijing.

And I have no idea if Hispanics in the Southwest would ever want to break off and join Mexico. But if they did attempt such a thing. Or if Texas attempted to claim its independent. You can be sure D.C. would respond with violence and war.

The USA has literally killed hundreds of thousands of people and burned down whole cities to prevent peaceful secession in the past...and would do it again in a heart beat.

I personally have no problem with self determination anywhere....no matter if its in the American Southwest or if its in Tibet.

I have this strange dislike for empires and centrally located power states that ignore self determination and local rule.

---

Sorry, we disagree on this one. Collaboration is great, but at some level there are some items that are zero sum games. This is one of them. Commerce is for collaboration. Research is for collaboration. Education is for collaboration. Occupying territory, those are fighting words.

---

I understand you arguments.

But did China and Russia run guns to Iraq when we invaded?
Yes. Of course they did.

If they gave our enemies billions of dollars in weapons...maybe we could make the argument that turn around is fair play.

As of right now we have been the major military aggressor over the past 20 years (right or wrong). Operating in areas far outside our traditional sphere of influence.
Not so. Afghanistan would be the only possible exception, and we would never have gone there had not.....Afghanistan operated far outside of its traditional sphere of influence (sponsoring a direct attack on the USA).

---

Did you know the 2nd largest owner of AK-47s in the world is the USG?
(massive stocks for use in (deniably) arming 3rd parties.)
If there's a war going on, world powers are playing in it.

And the biggest problem your position has is...well, reality: straight-up conventional arms sales between sovereign governments is not a particularly contentious dynamic, with respect to igniting hot-wars. To whit: Cuban soldiers STILL carry Russian rifles, load Russian artillery pieces, drive Russian tanks, fly Russian jets, etc.....

The percentage of the world's surface where the USA has zero national security interests is vanishingly small. Every square inch matters to someone who is either an ally or an adversary.

RMF5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

These things are not in an apples to oranges comparison.

It a crazy thing to even try and equate.

The USA has no strategic or financial interests in Donbas.

We have serious strategic interest in not letting another rival power put weapons in Cuba (90 miles off our coast)

You seem to be imply that the USA is a global empire that has interests all over the planet. And the right to intervene and interfere as it wishes.

But then claim Russia and China don't have interests right on their own boarders.

In your world Donbas is as vital to the USA as it is to Russia...and the south China sea as important to us as it is to Beijing.

And I have no idea if Hispanics in the Southwest would ever want to break off and join Mexico. But if they did attempt such a thing. Or if Texas attempted to claim its independent. You can be sure D.C. would respond with violence and war.

The USA has literally killed hundreds of thousands of people and burned down whole cities to prevent peaceful secession in the past...and would do it again in a heart beat.

I personally have no problem with self determination anywhere....no matter if its in the American Southwest or if its in Tibet.

I have this strange dislike for empires and centrally located power states that ignore self determination and local rule.

---

Sorry, we disagree on this one. Collaboration is great, but at some level there are some items that are zero sum games. This is one of them. Commerce is for collaboration. Research is for collaboration. Education is for collaboration. Occupying territory, those are fighting words.

---

I understand you arguments.

But did China and Russia run guns to Iraq when we invaded?

If they gave our enemies billions of dollars in weapons...maybe we could make the argument that turn around is fair play.

As of right now we have been the major military aggressor over the past 20 years (right or wrong). Operating in areas far outside our traditional sphere of influence.

---

We are more transparent in our support. Don't fool yourself, Russia and China support who they want.

Theoretically and academically, I understand your position. In an academic exercise I would probably lose a debate on it.

Unfortunately, it is not an exercise. I get why we do it and agree, Putin and Xi are that bad.

We have been the aggressor, more than I would like. I thought Iraq was wrong. Afghanistan went too long and suffered from mission creep. I had little issue with Reagan and Bush Sr, they both went in accomplished the goals, set parameters and left. They avoided the nation-building that causes many of the problems. I have no problem with nation building, just do it right. Germany and Japan come to mind, but we re-built those nations inside and out. Was never going to happen in Iraq or Afghanistan.

We can't let Russia move into Ukraine.

---

1. You are correct. Russia and China certainly play the empire game.

2. We certainly can. The Ukraine was entirely inside the USSR for 75 years. And was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years and it never effected the United States at all. If it becomes another allied satellite state of Russia. Or its eastern portions are broken off an absorbed by the Russia Federation will still not have any effect on the United States of America.

---

I think the difference now is where Ukraine is on the NATO/Russia line. For 50 of those years Ukraine was a backwater in the Soviet Union. The "front line" was Poland, Czech, and East Germany. Ukraine could be in the Soviet Union and not be a strategic interest.

Now, if you let Ukraine fall. You have created a salient projecting into the heart of present day NATO. Creating a two front situation in Poland and Romania. You lose Romania... You now have a 1000 mile Russian front from Poland to Bulgaria.

That does not account for Belaruis. Add them in it could go from Latvia to Bulgaria with just 2 meaningless dominoes falling.

Ukraine has to hold or you are back to 1992. All the investment, all the work with those nations gone. Ukraine is strategically important to NATO.

---

well said. Nato has a strategic interest in maintaining, at minimum, a neutral Ukraine.

In addition to that, the critics of current US support levels for Ukraine also completely disregard the profoundly positive dynamic impact their proposed policy will have on Russian power. The loss of Ukraine to the Russian orbit strengthens Russia. It adds 50m people to their ecosphere, substantial percentages of world capacity in manufacturing, minerals, and agriculture which give Russia effective dominance over certain strategic international markets, to include the ability to manipulate prices to the detriment of the US economy. And, of course, Russian victory in Ukraine will hasten Russian rearmament, hasten Russian destabilization of Moldova, and accelerate Russian policy aims to destabilize the entire eastern rim of NATO into near-term scenarios. Critics of current policy are improvident to the point of purblindness on this point.

In the very next sentence he talks about how F-16s and longer range missiles should be completely off the table, to avoid "escalation". What you suspect (hope for?) in this case is unfortunately opposite of what he's saying.

HuMcK said:

---

He's not wrong, it's definitely part of the calculus. It's not the only factor, or even a main one, but it matters. At some point the Russian attacks and direct meddling in domestic politics in the West needs to be checked (not just talking about America in 2016 here).

I used to think when a foreign power attacked America with some pretty blunt and obvious espionage, we could at least agree that was a bad thing and worth responsing to. But that proved to be naive, and since Russia went after Democrats, most Republicans seem to have decided that's not so bad (the ones who even acknowledge it happened, that is). Not surprisingly, the guy who Russia helped in 2016 (and 2020, and I'm sure they hope to do it again in 2024) is now openly signaling his willingness to let Russia have whatever parts of Ukraine they want as his "peace plan". Coincidentally (lol), that stance is exactly what his Russian-asset campaign manager is alleged to have offered up as trade for Russian assistance in the election, which they did provide.

If our involvement in Ukrainian politics was/is antagonistic enough to be a ligitmate casus belli and provoke a fight (which seems to be the position occupied by you and some others), then Russian involvement in Western politics should be included on the list of our grievances against them as well.

---

It's a complicated topic, but no, it's not my position that Russia had a valid casus belli. Were they provoked, yes. My position is that there are no clean hands in the situation and no net benefit to prolonging it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

He's not wrong, it's definitely part of the calculus. It's not the only factor, or even a main one, but it matters. At some point the Russian attacks and direct meddling in domestic politics in the West needs to be checked (not just talking about America in 2016 here).

I used to think when a foreign power attacked America with some pretty blunt and obvious espionage, we could at least agree that was a bad thing and worth responsing to. But that proved to be naive, and since Russia went after Democrats, most Republicans seem to have decided that's not so bad (the ones who even acknowledge it happened, that is). Not surprisingly, the guy who Russia helped in 2016 (and 2020, and I'm sure they hope to do it again in 2024) is now openly signaling his willingness to let Russia have whatever parts of Ukraine they want as his "peace plan". Coincidentally (lol), that stance is exactly what his Russian-asset campaign manager is alleged to have offered up as trade for Russian assistance in the election, which they did provide.

If our involvement in Ukrainian politics was/is antagonistic enough to be a ligitmate casus belli and provoke a fight (which seems to be the position occupied by you and some others), then Russian involvement in Western politics should be included on the list of our grievances against them as well.

---

It's a complicated topic, but no, it's not my position that Russia had a valid casus belli. Were they provoked, yes. My position is that there are no clean hands in the situation and no net benefit to prolonging it.

---

It's the ole russkies and chi-coms that keep encroaching on us…and not our 55+ nation military alliances.

They must stop their imperialism!!!!

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

He's not wrong, it's definitely part of the calculus. It's not the only factor, or even a main one, but it matters. At some point the Russian attacks and direct meddling in domestic politics in the West needs to be checked (not just talking about America in 2016 here).

I used to think when a foreign power attacked America with some pretty blunt and obvious espionage, we could at least agree that was a bad thing and worth responsing to. But that proved to be naive, and since Russia went after Democrats, most Republicans seem to have decided that's not so bad (the ones who even acknowledge it happened, that is). Not surprisingly, the guy who Russia helped in 2016 (and 2020, and I'm sure they hope to do it again in 2024) is now openly signaling his willingness to let Russia have whatever parts of Ukraine they want as his "peace plan". Coincidentally (lol), that stance is exactly what his Russian-asset campaign manager is alleged to have offered up as trade for Russian assistance in the election, which they did provide.

If our involvement in Ukrainian politics was/is antagonistic enough to be a ligitmate casus belli and provoke a fight (which seems to be the position occupied by you and some others), then Russian involvement in Western politics should be included on the list of our grievances against them as well.

---

It's a complicated topic, but no, it's not my position that Russia had a valid casus belli. Were they provoked, yes. My position is that there are no clean hands in the situation and no net benefit to prolonging it.

---

It's the ole russkies and chi-coms that keep encroaching on us…and not our 55+ nation military alliances.

They must stop their imperialism!!!!

---

I really do not get your point. You are saying that less freedom and individual rights is better? Every area, even includig Rio Pact Nations, the citizens have more freedom, opportunity, and control over their lives. Yet, we shouldn't enter into treaties with Nations or add Nations that have the same believes because??????

The biggest issue I have with your comment is that every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced. Can you say that about the Russian Federation or China? Let's ask Georgia, Chechnya or Hong Kong their thoughts. Or should we wait until Putin and Xi move enough people in to change the demographics?