RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in. For some strange reason with all the hell you describe of our Nation and its allies compared to the fair, courteous, exploited, and industrious Chinese and Russians Nations ARE LINED UP to join our alliances. How many are petitioning Russa and China to join???? Any?

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in.

---

So what?

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

Funny, Brookings does not agree that the Annexation is legal or that there was any problem. Of course now they want to stay, Russia moved in 250k worth of people and chased out the native populations..

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/17/crimea-six-years-after-illegal-annexation/


Don't tell me Brooking Institute is not objective? This may give you some input on that...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brookings-institute/

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

Funny, Brookings does not agree that the Annexation is legal or that there was any problem. Of course now they want to stay, Russia moved in 250k worth of people and chased out the native populations..

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/17/crimea-six-years-after-illegal-annexation/


Don't tell me Brooking Institute is not objective? This may give you some input on that...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brookings-institute/

---

And there you go again putting words in peoples mouths.... did I say the annexation of Crimea was legal?

I said specially that Crimea is populated currently by ethnic Russians (now...historic demographics are not pertinent)...and there is no evidence the vast majority of the populace wants to be ruled by Ukraine.

When even NBC and their usual pro-war propaganda is admitting that when they go to Crimea everyone they speak to feels Russian...maybe its time to stop laboring the point.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in. For some strange reason with all the hell you describe of our Nation and its allies compared to the fair, courteous, exploited, and industrious Chinese and Russians Nations ARE LINED UP to join our alliances. How many are petitioning Russa and China to join???? Any?

---

You think the Han Chinese are not courteous and industrious...you think they are shifty, mean, and lazy?

Nice racism bud.

And no I have never said the GOVERNMENTS of Russia or China are fair or good.

I have just never engaged in guttural hatred of the Russia or Chinese peoples. I leave that to you.

Nor am I interesting in fighting a world war with them.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

Funny, Brookings does not agree that the Annexation is legal or that there was any problem. Of course now they want to stay, Russia moved in 250k worth of people and chased out the native populations..

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/17/crimea-six-years-after-illegal-annexation/


Don't tell me Brooking Institute is not objective? This may give you some input on that...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brookings-institute/

---

And there you go again putting words in peoples mouths.... did I say the annexation of Crimea was legal?

I said specially that Crimea is populated currently by ethnic Russians (now...historic demographics are not pertinent)...and there is no evidence the vast majority of the populace wants to be ruled by Ukraine.

When even NBC and their usual pro-war propaganda is admitting that when they go to Crimea everyone they speak to feels Russian...maybe its time to stop laboring the point.

---

Ethnic Russians NOW! They moved them in. What you are saying is that we take over the Bahamas, move in a million people and hold a vote. That doesn't mean ***** They eliminated or forced out the ethnic population the Tartars over the years and now say look... You don't see that as not the same as going to Maine and asking people do they want to annex to Canada. It was set up.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in. For some strange reason with all the hell you describe of our Nation and its allies compared to the fair, courteous, exploited, and industrious Chinese and Russians Nations ARE LINED UP to join our alliances. How many are petitioning Russa and China to join???? Any?

---

You think the Han Chinese are not courteous and industrious...you think they are shifty, mean, and lazy?

Nice racism bud.

And no I have never said the GOVERNMENTS of Russia or China are fair or good.

I have just never engaged in guttural hatred of the Russia or Chinese peoples. I leave that to you.

Nor am I interesting in fighting a world war with them.

---

Grow up. Xi and Putin are courteous in their policies?? How much tech has China and Russia stolen??

You know my point, get over the juvenile accusations how many Nations are asking to join the Russian Federation? Hong Kong want to stay under Chinese rule? Taiwan, Philippines, Viet Nam, India how many are lining up to join a Chinese/Russian Federation? You put the map up. Answer the question for once.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in. For some strange reason with all the hell you describe of our Nation and its allies compared to the fair, courteous, exploited, and industrious Chinese and Russians Nations ARE LINED UP to join our alliances. How many are petitioning Russa and China to join???? Any?

---

You think the Han Chinese are not courteous and industrious...you think they are shifty, mean, and lazy?

Nice racism bud.

And no I have never said the GOVERNMENTS of Russia or China are fair or good.

I have just never engaged in guttural hatred of the Russia or Chinese peoples. I leave that to you.

Nor am I interesting in fighting a world war with them.

---

Grow up. Xi and Putin are courteous in their policies?? How much tech has China and Russia stolen??

You know my point, get over the juvenile accusations how many Nations are asking to join the Russian Federation? Hong Kong want to stay under Chinese rule? Taiwan, Philippines, Viet Nam, India how many are lining up to join a Chinese/Russian Federation? You put the map up. Answer the question for once.

---

Did I say that?

At this point I don't know if you just can't read English or if you are just making things up as a tactic because you think it makes you look better on a internet thread.

Russians and Han Chinese are actually good people. If you dislike their governments (and I do) then fine.

But leave the personally attacks toward them as peoples out of it.

And as for how many are lining up to be there allies? I have no idea. They have some (our State Department is always complaining about it). So go call them if you want to know the allies list of the Russian Federation and the Peoples Republic of China.

Our list of allies is enough for our security needs and we have no reason to expand the alliances we have...and in the process possibly kick off a massive war.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

Funny, Brookings does not agree that the Annexation is legal or that there was any problem. Of course now they want to stay, Russia moved in 250k worth of people and chased out the native populations..

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/17/crimea-six-years-after-illegal-annexation/


Don't tell me Brooking Institute is not objective? This may give you some input on that...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brookings-institute/

---

And there you go again putting words in peoples mouths.... did I say the annexation of Crimea was legal?

I said specially that Crimea is populated currently by ethnic Russians (now...historic demographics are not pertinent)...and there is no evidence the vast majority of the populace wants to be ruled by Ukraine.

When even NBC and their usual pro-war propaganda is admitting that when they go to Crimea everyone they speak to feels Russian...maybe its time to stop laboring the point.

---

Ethnic Russians NOW! They moved them in. What you are saying is that we take over the Bahamas, move in a million people and hold a vote. That doesn't mean ***** They eliminated or forced out the ethnic population the Tartars over the years and now say look... You don't see that as not the same as going to Maine and asking people do they want to annex to Canada. It was set up.

---

lol and how do you think Anglos and Irish got to the Western areas of the USA? Or Hispanics got to Chicago? And Pakistanis got to Dallas? And Somalis got to Minnesota? OUR GOVERNMENT MOVED THEM IN....lol

Yes the Russian government moved ethnic Russians into Crimea starting in the 1700s. Do you want us to expel them now?

Right now as of today...the people that actually live in Crimea are ethnic Russians and have a right to self determination.

Just like the various ethnic groups that live in the USA have the right to self determination...and peoples all over the world that live in a specific place have a right to self determination.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in.

---

So what?

---

you can't say on one hand that self-determination matters for Russians in Donbas and Crimea, while simultaneously deny that self-determination matters for Ukrainians in Ukraine......

---

They matter equally, but that's not the question. Redbrick asked where is the endpoint to Western expansion. REMF replied that Western expansion is voluntary. Even assuming that's true, it's not an answer.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in.

---

So what?

---

you can't say on one hand that self-determination matters for Russians in Donbas and Crimea, while simultaneously deny that self-determination matters for Ukrainians in Ukraine......

---

You guys REALLY see no difference between Nations ASKING join an economic and security alliance (Not only asking applying and making changes to meet the entrance requirements.) and rolling Tanks over a border and supplanting the native population????? That is a "So what?" comparison.

No difference. One holds the same weight as the other. Finland applying to enter NATO and Taiwan or Mongolia or Nepal being forced to join China are the same?

You can say that with a straight face. Although, I am talking to attorneys...

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in.

---

So what?

---

you can't say on one hand that self-determination matters for Russians in Donbas and Crimea, while simultaneously deny that self-determination matters for Ukrainians in Ukraine......

---

You guys REALLY see no difference between Nations ASKING join an economic and security alliance (Not only asking applying and making changes to meet the entrance requirements.) and rolling Tanks over a border and supplanting the native population????? That is a "So what?" comparison.

No difference. One holds the same weight as the other. Finland applying to enter NATO and Taiwan or Mongolia or Nepal being forced to join China are the same?

You can say that with a straight face. Although, I am talking to attorneys...

---

Did any of them say that?

Donbas (filled with ethnic Russians) has a right to self determination.

The rest of Ukraine (filled with ethnic Ukrainians) has a right to defend itself from invasion.

Both can be true at the same time.

And of course Taiwan is a interesting point to bring up. It certainly has a right to join whatever geo-political organizations it wants. But its leaders know very well that if Taiwan joined a "Pacific NATO" it would get a violent response from China.

The Chinese are not going to let a hostile military alliance be right on its borders.

It has told the U.S. in no uncertain terms that no large scale American military presence will be tolerated in Taiwan, Mongolia, Myanmar, Vietnam, N. Korea, or Laos.

If you ignore that threat you are playing with fire.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in.

---

So what?

---

you can't say on one hand that self-determination matters for Russians in Donbas and Crimea, while simultaneously deny that self-determination matters for Ukrainians in Ukraine......

---

You guys REALLY see no difference between Nations ASKING join an economic and security alliance (Not only asking applying and making changes to meet the entrance requirements.) and rolling Tanks over a border and supplanting the native population????? That is a "So what?" comparison.

No difference. One holds the same weight as the other. Finland applying to enter NATO and Taiwan or Mongolia or Nepal being forced to join China are the same?

You can say that with a straight face. Although, I am talking to attorneys...

---

Did any of them say that?

Donbas (filled with ethnic Russians) has a right to self determination.

The rest of Ukraine (filled with ethnic Ukrainians) has a right to defend itself from invasion.

Both can be true at the same time.

And of course Taiwan is a interesting point to bring up. It certainly has a right to join whatever geo-political organizations it wants. But its leaders know very well that if Taiwan joined a "Pacific NATO" it would get a violent response from China.

The Chinese are not going to let a hostile military alliance be right on its borders.

It has told the U.S. in no uncertain terms that no large scale American military presence will be tolerated in Taiwan, Mongolia, Myanmar, Vietnam, N. Korea, or Laos.

If you ignore that threat you are playing with fire.

---

Come on, Really? His response was "So what?"


You keep mixing things. If you want to talk pragmatic, tactical or even strategic responses to a situation, fine. I understand why Russia doesn't want Ukraine in NATO. Ukraine, which includes Donbas and Crimea based on the sovereignty agreement in 1991, has the right AS A SOVERIGN Nation to decide if it joins NATO or a Russian coallition. (I admit I was trying to get your goat on Chechnya... You are right on Chechnya, it is part of Russia. : ) Sorry)

If you want to talk what is ethically right and whether areas have the right to leave their Nation? In the US that was settled in 1865, the answer is no. Once they agree to be a State, they are in. Once in, Never Out. Hawaii is probably the best case-study for that one in the US. It is ethically right? No, but it is a realty.

So, for clarity -

Ukraine including Donbas and Crimea, has the right to choose its alliances.

Regions or sub-areas do not have the right to leave. Chechnya, Hawaii, Quebec, Donbas, etc. are part of bigger Nations. People can leave, but land and assets stay with the Nation. Sorry, that is the modern politcal environment. I am trying to think of one that has happened, peacefully.

Kashmir may be one. Aren't they voting to determine the future? Don't really follow the sub-Continent area.

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in.

---

So what?

---

you can't say on one hand that self-determination matters for Russians in Donbas and Crimea, while simultaneously deny that self-determination matters for Ukrainians in Ukraine......

---

You guys REALLY see no difference between Nations ASKING join an economic and security alliance (Not only asking applying and making changes to meet the entrance requirements.) and rolling Tanks over a border and supplanting the native population????? That is a "So what?" comparison.

No difference. One holds the same weight as the other. Finland applying to enter NATO and Taiwan or Mongolia or Nepal being forced to join China are the same?

You can say that with a straight face. Although, I am talking to attorneys...

---

Did any of them say that?

Donbas (filled with ethnic Russians) has a right to self determination.

The rest of Ukraine (filled with ethnic Ukrainians) has a right to defend itself from invasion.

Both can be true at the same time.

And of course Taiwan is a interesting point to bring up. It certainly has a right to join whatever geo-political organizations it wants. But its leaders know very well that if Taiwan joined a "Pacific NATO" it would get a violent response from China.

The Chinese are not going to let a hostile military alliance be right on its borders.

It has told the U.S. in no uncertain terms that no large scale American military presence will be tolerated in Taiwan, Mongolia, Myanmar, Vietnam, N. Korea, or Laos.

If you ignore that threat you are playing with fire.

---

Ukraine, which includes Donbas and Crimea based on the sovereignty agreement in 1991, has the right AS A SOVERIGN Nation to decide if it joins NATO or a Russian coallition.

---

Then why did we support the overthrow of the Ukrainian government to keep them from joining a Russian coalition?

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in.

---

So what?

---

you can't say on one hand that self-determination matters for Russians in Donbas and Crimea, while simultaneously deny that self-determination matters for Ukrainians in Ukraine......

---

You guys REALLY see no difference between Nations ASKING join an economic and security alliance (Not only asking applying and making changes to meet the entrance requirements.) and rolling Tanks over a border and supplanting the native population????? That is a "So what?" comparison.

No difference. One holds the same weight as the other. Finland applying to enter NATO and Taiwan or Mongolia or Nepal being forced to join China are the same?

You can say that with a straight face. Although, I am talking to attorneys...

---

Did any of them say that?

Donbas (filled with ethnic Russians) has a right to self determination.

The rest of Ukraine (filled with ethnic Ukrainians) has a right to defend itself from invasion.

Both can be true at the same time.

And of course Taiwan is a interesting point to bring up. It certainly has a right to join whatever geo-political organizations it wants. But its leaders know very well that if Taiwan joined a "Pacific NATO" it would get a violent response from China.

The Chinese are not going to let a hostile military alliance be right on its borders.

It has told the U.S. in no uncertain terms that no large scale American military presence will be tolerated in Taiwan, Mongolia, Myanmar, Vietnam, N. Korea, or Laos.

If you ignore that threat you are playing with fire.

---

Ukraine, which includes Donbas and Crimea based on the sovereignty agreement in 1991, has the right AS A SOVERIGN Nation to decide if it joins NATO or a Russian coallition.

---

Then why did we support the overthrow of the Ukrainian government to keep them from joining a Russian coalition?

---

For the sake of moving the argument forward and not circling back the last 2 weeks, how about chalking that up to the difference between pragmatic governance and philosophical. So the answer is because at the time, we could...

Besides the guy being a shill for Russia, there is no reason I can find. Just like what Russia did in Cuba and Venezuela, because they could.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in.

---

So what?

---

you can't say on one hand that self-determination matters for Russians in Donbas and Crimea, while simultaneously deny that self-determination matters for Ukrainians in Ukraine......

---

You guys REALLY see no difference between Nations ASKING join an economic and security alliance (Not only asking applying and making changes to meet the entrance requirements.) and rolling Tanks over a border and supplanting the native population????? That is a "So what?" comparison.

No difference. One holds the same weight as the other. Finland applying to enter NATO and Taiwan or Mongolia or Nepal being forced to join China are the same?

You can say that with a straight face. Although, I am talking to attorneys...

---

Did any of them say that?

Donbas (filled with ethnic Russians) has a right to self determination.

The rest of Ukraine (filled with ethnic Ukrainians) has a right to defend itself from invasion.

Both can be true at the same time.

And of course Taiwan is a interesting point to bring up. It certainly has a right to join whatever geo-political organizations it wants. But its leaders know very well that if Taiwan joined a "Pacific NATO" it would get a violent response from China.

The Chinese are not going to let a hostile military alliance be right on its borders.

It has told the U.S. in no uncertain terms that no large scale American military presence will be tolerated in Taiwan, Mongolia, Myanmar, Vietnam, N. Korea, or Laos.

If you ignore that threat you are playing with fire.

---

Ukraine, which includes Donbas and Crimea based on the sovereignty agreement in 1991, has the right AS A SOVERIGN Nation to decide if it joins NATO or a Russian coallition.

---

Then why did we support the overthrow of the Ukrainian government to keep them from joining a Russian coalition?

---

For the sake of moving the argument forward and not circling back the last 2 weeks, how about chalking that up to the difference between pragmatic governance and philosophical. So the answer is because at the time, we could...

Besides the guy being a shill for Russia, there is no reason I can find. Just like what Russia did in Cuba and Venezuela, because they could.

---

Well, Russia had people to look out for in the Donbas and an agreement for a naval base in Crimea. So they did what they could.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in.

---

So what?

---

you can't say on one hand that self-determination matters for Russians in Donbas and Crimea, while simultaneously deny that self-determination matters for Ukrainians in Ukraine......

---

You guys REALLY see no difference between Nations ASKING join an economic and security alliance (Not only asking applying and making changes to meet the entrance requirements.) and rolling Tanks over a border and supplanting the native population????? That is a "So what?" comparison.

No difference. One holds the same weight as the other. Finland applying to enter NATO and Taiwan or Mongolia or Nepal being forced to join China are the same?

You can say that with a straight face. Although, I am talking to attorneys...

---

Did any of them say that?

Donbas (filled with ethnic Russians) has a right to self determination.

The rest of Ukraine (filled with ethnic Ukrainians) has a right to defend itself from invasion.

Both can be true at the same time.

And of course Taiwan is a interesting point to bring up. It certainly has a right to join whatever geo-political organizations it wants. But its leaders know very well that if Taiwan joined a "Pacific NATO" it would get a violent response from China.

The Chinese are not going to let a hostile military alliance be right on its borders.

It has told the U.S. in no uncertain terms that no large scale American military presence will be tolerated in Taiwan, Mongolia, Myanmar, Vietnam, N. Korea, or Laos.

If you ignore that threat you are playing with fire.

---

Ukraine, which includes Donbas and Crimea based on the sovereignty agreement in 1991, has the right AS A SOVERIGN Nation to decide if it joins NATO or a Russian coallition.

---

Then why did we support the overthrow of the Ukrainian government to keep them from joining a Russian coalition?

---

For the sake of moving the argument forward and not circling back the last 2 weeks, how about chalking that up to the difference between pragmatic governance and philosophical. So the answer is because at the time, we could...

Besides the guy being a shill for Russia, there is no reason I can find. Just like what Russia did in Cuba and Venezuela, because they could.

---

Well, Russia had people to look out for in the Donbas and an agreement for a naval base in Crimea. So they did what they could.

---

And the West is working to stop it. Status quo...

Putin is about to go on the offensive. This will make Ukraine look like a temper tantrum.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/17/world/turkey-finland-nato-intl/index.html

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in.

---

So what?

---

you can't say on one hand that self-determination matters for Russians in Donbas and Crimea, while simultaneously deny that self-determination matters for Ukrainians in Ukraine......

---

You guys REALLY see no difference between Nations ASKING join an economic and security alliance (Not only asking applying and making changes to meet the entrance requirements.) and rolling Tanks over a border and supplanting the native population????? That is a "So what?" comparison.

No difference. One holds the same weight as the other. Finland applying to enter NATO and Taiwan or Mongolia or Nepal being forced to join China are the same?

You can say that with a straight face. Although, I am talking to attorneys...

---

Did any of them say that?

Donbas (filled with ethnic Russians) has a right to self determination.

The rest of Ukraine (filled with ethnic Ukrainians) has a right to defend itself from invasion.

Both can be true at the same time.

And of course Taiwan is a interesting point to bring up. It certainly has a right to join whatever geo-political organizations it wants. But its leaders know very well that if Taiwan joined a "Pacific NATO" it would get a violent response from China.

The Chinese are not going to let a hostile military alliance be right on its borders.

It has told the U.S. in no uncertain terms that no large scale American military presence will be tolerated in Taiwan, Mongolia, Myanmar, Vietnam, N. Korea, or Laos.

If you ignore that threat you are playing with fire.

---

Ukraine, which includes Donbas and Crimea based on the sovereignty agreement in 1991, has the right AS A SOVERIGN Nation to decide if it joins NATO or a Russian coallition.

---

Then why did we support the overthrow of the Ukrainian government to keep them from joining a Russian coalition?

---

faulty premise: the revolution happened organically when the Ukrainian President caved to Russian threats NOT to join western coalitions the Ukrainian government had been elected to join.

We supported the revolution to ensure Ukraine, the shatterzone between Russia and Nato, remained neutral.

Stone cold sober policy, our support for the Maidan Revolution was, Paduwan. It's the textbook on the way to play in the shatterzone.....support/oppose internal dynamics to ensure that one either controls the shatterzone, or maintains neutrality in the shatterzone. Never let your opponent control the shatterzone.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in.

---

So what?

---

you can't say on one hand that self-determination matters for Russians in Donbas and Crimea, while simultaneously deny that self-determination matters for Ukrainians in Ukraine......

---

You guys REALLY see no difference between Nations ASKING join an economic and security alliance (Not only asking applying and making changes to meet the entrance requirements.) and rolling Tanks over a border and supplanting the native population????? That is a "So what?" comparison.

No difference. One holds the same weight as the other. Finland applying to enter NATO and Taiwan or Mongolia or Nepal being forced to join China are the same?

You can say that with a straight face. Although, I am talking to attorneys...

---

Did any of them say that?

Donbas (filled with ethnic Russians) has a right to self determination.

The rest of Ukraine (filled with ethnic Ukrainians) has a right to defend itself from invasion.

Both can be true at the same time.

And of course Taiwan is a interesting point to bring up. It certainly has a right to join whatever geo-political organizations it wants. But its leaders know very well that if Taiwan joined a "Pacific NATO" it would get a violent response from China.

The Chinese are not going to let a hostile military alliance be right on its borders.

It has told the U.S. in no uncertain terms that no large scale American military presence will be tolerated in Taiwan, Mongolia, Myanmar, Vietnam, N. Korea, or Laos.

If you ignore that threat you are playing with fire.

---

Ukraine, which includes Donbas and Crimea based on the sovereignty agreement in 1991, has the right AS A SOVERIGN Nation to decide if it joins NATO or a Russian coallition.

---

Then why did we support the overthrow of the Ukrainian government to keep them from joining a Russian coalition?

---

Define support? Did we say that we hope they would continue to make changes to one day be included in NATO? Did our intelligence agencies held? Did we send troops? Did we send Wagner? Did we send blankets? (Different Ukraine issue). How did we support? Those are all different levels. Some played above the horizon, some under.

Are you saying we should stay out and let Russia and China have free reign to dictate terms world wide? They will if we let them.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in.

---

So what?

---

you can't say on one hand that self-determination matters for Russians in Donbas and Crimea, while simultaneously deny that self-determination matters for Ukrainians in Ukraine......

---

You guys REALLY see no difference between Nations ASKING join an economic and security alliance (Not only asking applying and making changes to meet the entrance requirements.) and rolling Tanks over a border and supplanting the native population????? That is a "So what?" comparison.

No difference. One holds the same weight as the other. Finland applying to enter NATO and Taiwan or Mongolia or Nepal being forced to join China are the same?

You can say that with a straight face. Although, I am talking to attorneys...

---

Did any of them say that?

Donbas (filled with ethnic Russians) has a right to self determination.

The rest of Ukraine (filled with ethnic Ukrainians) has a right to defend itself from invasion.

Both can be true at the same time.

And of course Taiwan is a interesting point to bring up. It certainly has a right to join whatever geo-political organizations it wants. But its leaders know very well that if Taiwan joined a "Pacific NATO" it would get a violent response from China.

The Chinese are not going to let a hostile military alliance be right on its borders.

It has told the U.S. in no uncertain terms that no large scale American military presence will be tolerated in Taiwan, Mongolia, Myanmar, Vietnam, N. Korea, or Laos.

If you ignore that threat you are playing with fire.

---

Ukraine, which includes Donbas and Crimea based on the sovereignty agreement in 1991, has the right AS A SOVERIGN Nation to decide if it joins NATO or a Russian coallition.

---

Then why did we support the overthrow of the Ukrainian government to keep them from joining a Russian coalition?

---

faulty premise: the revolution happened organically when the Ukrainian President caved to Russian threats NOT to join western coalitions the Ukrainian government had been elected to join.

We supported the revolution to ensure Ukraine, the shatterzone between Russia and Nato, remained neutral.

Stone cold sober policy, our support for the Maidan Revolution was, Paduwan. It's the textbook on the way to play in the shatterzone.....support/oppose internal dynamics to ensure that one either controls the shatterzone, or maintains neutrality in the shatterzone. Never let your opponent control the shatterzone.

---

Give it up, man. We've been hearing this propaganda for so many years that it barely makes an impression any more. The only thing that ever changes is the name of the country we're targeting.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in.

---

So what?

---

you can't say on one hand that self-determination matters for Russians in Donbas and Crimea, while simultaneously deny that self-determination matters for Ukrainians in Ukraine......

---

You guys REALLY see no difference between Nations ASKING join an economic and security alliance (Not only asking applying and making changes to meet the entrance requirements.) and rolling Tanks over a border and supplanting the native population????? That is a "So what?" comparison.

No difference. One holds the same weight as the other. Finland applying to enter NATO and Taiwan or Mongolia or Nepal being forced to join China are the same?

You can say that with a straight face. Although, I am talking to attorneys...

---

Did any of them say that?

Donbas (filled with ethnic Russians) has a right to self determination.

The rest of Ukraine (filled with ethnic Ukrainians) has a right to defend itself from invasion.

Both can be true at the same time.

And of course Taiwan is a interesting point to bring up. It certainly has a right to join whatever geo-political organizations it wants. But its leaders know very well that if Taiwan joined a "Pacific NATO" it would get a violent response from China.

The Chinese are not going to let a hostile military alliance be right on its borders.

It has told the U.S. in no uncertain terms that no large scale American military presence will be tolerated in Taiwan, Mongolia, Myanmar, Vietnam, N. Korea, or Laos.

If you ignore that threat you are playing with fire.

---

Ukraine, which includes Donbas and Crimea based on the sovereignty agreement in 1991, has the right AS A SOVERIGN Nation to decide if it joins NATO or a Russian coallition.

---

Then why did we support the overthrow of the Ukrainian government to keep them from joining a Russian coalition?

---

faulty premise: the revolution happened organically when the Ukrainian President caved to Russian threats NOT to join western coalitions the Ukrainian government had been elected to join.

We supported the revolution to ensure Ukraine, the shatterzone between Russia and Nato, remained neutral.

Stone cold sober policy, our support for the Maidan Revolution was, Paduwan. It's the textbook on the way to play in the shatterzone.....support/oppose internal dynamics to ensure that one either controls the shatterzone, or maintains neutrality in the shatterzone. Never let your opponent control the shatterzone.

---

Give it up, man. We've been hearing this propaganda for so many years that it barely makes an impression any more. The only thing that ever changes is the name of the country we're targeting.

---

Geez, Sam. We have 2 choices

Intervene or Not Intervene. Neither are good choices. If you were talking of a Nation developing organically, I agree. But that is not what happens.

Iraq is a great example. BBC did a fantastic piece on this. The only thing worse than intervening and the mess that came after, would have been not intervening and leaving Iraq. Sadaam was not the problem, he was astute enough to know how far to push. It was his psycho-path sons that were set to take control This is not an US view, this is the British view of someone that saw all the evidence and is talking about 25 years in hind sight.

You say that the US intervening caused Ukraine. It is the exact opposite. Putin saw that after Iraq and Afghanistan, the west had no appetite to intervene. First he pushed in Georgia, not many troops. Spetznaz and Wagner mercs. No response, the west let him. Than Crimea, little response. We sent blankets. The issue is that the West US/Brits misread Putin. They thought he would take little pieces, old Republics like Georgia, Chechnya, Crimea. They didn't expect him to go ALL IN on Ukraine, which than caused the current knee jerk supply of Ukraine.

The problem was we disengaged from being World's Police Man, a role we held since 1949.

The analysis of China was even more fascinating. Why hasn't China invaded Tawaian? They are not sure they can. To do so would require a massive amphibious operation, something THEY HAVE NEVER DONE. Xi does not want to try the most difficult thing in offensive military operations for the first time versus Taiwan and US in a bathtub. Why are they not intervening? Because they have no experience in it. Xi is sending troops around the world as peacekeepers to get them operational experience in foreign lands. More importantly, one of the things that Xi truly admires about the US military, logistics. How to supply and maintain operations overseas and thousands of miles away. They have no experience.

Disengaging and letting them get their feet, is not the right move. That is why we intervene and engage. The BBC piece was excellent. Listened to it in the parking lot for an hour when I got to work! People who were there and nobody knows this stuff better than the Brits.

Taiwan is a particularly difficult target for an amphibious operation, as well.

Georgia wasn't a whim on Russia's part. It was an express response to NATO expansion. Ukraine is the same and should have been no surprise.

The idea that Saddam or his sons were America's "problem" to solve is an example of the dysfunction that's been at the heart of our foreign policy for as long as most of us can remember. It never even occurs to us to question it. But imposing regime change on other countries is not only wrong and counterproductive, it's in direct opposition to our stated principles. It gives the lie to all of our moralizing about democracy and the international order.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Taiwan is a particularly difficult target for an amphibious operation, as well.

Georgia wasn't a whim on Russia's part. It was an express response to NATO expansion. Ukraine is the same and should have been no surprise.

The idea that Saddam or his sons were America's "problem" to solve is an example of the dysfunction that's been at the heart of our foreign policy for as long as most of us can remember. It never even occurs to us to question it. But imposing regime change on other countries is not only wrong and counterproductive, it's in direct opposition to our stated principles. It gives the lie to all of our moralizing about democracy and the international or der.

---

No one said it was America's problem to solve, it was in our best interest to solve it. You act like all this happens in a vacuum. There is a zero sum game being played for influence. Putin acted in Georgia because he knew we wouldn't act. He took Crimea because he knew we wouldn't act.

React to NATO? They are not capable of reacting to NATO without threatening Nukes. You act like Russia and the US or NATO are force equals. Putin knows that, he saw what happened in Syria when he and Assad tried to take on NATO troops. Putin is opportunistic. He knows he can't go toe to toe with the US and NATO. He will act where we let him. He tested in Georgia, Chechnya, Crimea and this is the latest test. He is counting on your opinion that he won't do anyhting if we back off and others not having the will to stop him. He loves it is not the US's job to stop him, he counts on it.

By the way, China is just starting to get to peer level with the US, Japan, S Korea and Tawian on their top line troops and equipment. They still have a way's to go to create a force of equal strength throughout and not have to rely on throwing hordes like fodder. They believe they are getting there at least technology-wise. But, it is a generational fix to establish the culture and especially the NCO Corps that the US and NATO have in place. That is the only reason you don't see Chinese troops, Xi doesn't know what will happen. He does not move unless he knows.

By the way, Russia has a similar problem, you are seeing the same play out in Ukraine. They do not have the professional NCO's throughout to carry through. It is mercs or the officer corps that has to do everything. Many times with threats.

US better watch it, we better not let our advantage deteriorate or the world will become much more dangerous. This woke **** isn't helping...

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in.

---

So what?

---

you can't say on one hand that self-determination matters for Russians in Donbas and Crimea, while simultaneously deny that self-determination matters for Ukrainians in Ukraine......

---

They matter equally, but that's not the question. Redbrick asked where is the endpoint to Western expansion. REMF replied that Western expansion is voluntary. Even assuming that's true, it's not an answer.

---

"Western Expansion."
The word "expansionism" has a meaning. And it means by force.
No NATO army has invaded Ukraine. Or Belarus. Or Sweden. Or Finland. Or Georgia. Or Armenia.
Only the Russian army has invaded to expand its influence.

If a people of a country look to the east for lessons, then look to the west for lessons, and decide the west offers far better lessons, that is not expansionism.

As a matter of textbook definition = Only Russia has engaged in expansionism.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Did any of them say that?

Donbas (filled with ethnic Russians) has a right to self determination.

The rest of Ukraine (filled with ethnic Ukrainians) has a right to defend itself from invasion.

Both can be true at the same time.

And of course Taiwan is a interesting point to bring up. It certainly has a right to join whatever geo-political organizations it wants. But its leaders know very well that if Taiwan joined a "Pacific NATO" it would get a violent response from China.

The Chinese are not going to let a hostile military alliance be right on its borders.

It has told the U.S. in no uncertain terms that no large scale American military presence will be tolerated in Taiwan, Mongolia, Myanmar, Vietnam, N. Korea, or Laos.

If you ignore that threat you are playing with fire.

---

Ukraine, which includes Donbas and Crimea based on the sovereignty agreement in 1991, has the right AS A SOVERIGN Nation to decide if it joins NATO or a Russian coallition.

---

Then why did we support the overthrow of the Ukrainian government to keep them from joining a Russian coalition?

---

faulty premise: the revolution happened organically when the Ukrainian President caved to Russian threats NOT to join western coalitions the Ukrainian government had been elected to join.

We supported the revolution to ensure Ukraine, the shatterzone between Russia and Nato, remained neutral.

Stone cold sober policy, our support for the Maidan Revolution was, Paduwan. It's the textbook on the way to play in the shatterzone.....support/oppose internal dynamics to ensure that one either controls the shatterzone, or maintains neutrality in the shatterzone. Never let your opponent control the shatterzone.

---

Give it up, man. We've been hearing this propaganda for so many years that it barely makes an impression any more. The only thing that ever changes is the name of the country we're targeting.

---

The propaganda is that somehow the USA inspired the Maidan revolution out of thin air.

---

No one said that.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in.

---

So what?

---

you can't say on one hand that self-determination matters for Russians in Donbas and Crimea, while simultaneously deny that self-determination matters for Ukrainians in Ukraine......

---

They matter equally, but that's not the question. Redbrick asked where is the endpoint to Western expansion. REMF replied that Western expansion is voluntary. Even assuming that's true, it's not an answer.

---

"Western Expansion."
The word "expansionism" has a meaning. And it means by force.
No NATO army has invaded Ukraine. Or Belarus. Or Sweden. Or Finland. Or Georgia. Or Armenia.
Only the Russian army has invaded to expand its influence.

If a people of a country look to the east for lessons, then look to the west for lessons, and decide the west offers far better lessons, that is not expansionism.

As a matter of textbook definition = Only Russia has engaged in expansionism.

---

No one called it "expansionism." I'm referring to NATO's addition of new members.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in.

---

So what?

---

you can't say on one hand that self-determination matters for Russians in Donbas and Crimea, while simultaneously deny that self-determination matters for Ukrainians in Ukraine......

---

They matter equally, but that's not the question. Redbrick asked where is the endpoint to Western expansion. REMF replied that Western expansion is voluntary. Even assuming that's true, it's not an answer.

---

"Western Expansion."
The word "expansionism" has a meaning. And it means by force.
No NATO army has invaded Ukraine. Or Belarus. Or Sweden. Or Finland. Or Georgia. Or Armenia.
Only the Russian army has invaded to expand its influence.

If a people of a country look to the east for lessons, then look to the west for lessons, and decide the west offers far better lessons, that is not expansionism.

As a matter of textbook definition = Only Russia has engaged in expansionism.

---

No one called it "expansionism." I'm referring to NATO's addition of new members.

---

Uh, yes you did. See your words in bold.

NATO did not recruit anyone. Others applied to enter, after seeing aggressive RUSSIAN EXPANSIONISM.
I mean, seriously.
(Russia invades Ukraine.)
Sam says: "This is a result of western expansionism."
(crowd groans)

Your argument here is like criticizing Travis for allowing Bonham and others in to help defend the Alamo as an unreasonable provocation which caused Santa Ana to attack.

(at a loss as to why you would continue playing such a dreadfully weak hand)......

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in.

---

So what?

---

you can't say on one hand that self-determination matters for Russians in Donbas and Crimea, while simultaneously deny that self-determination matters for Ukrainians in Ukraine......

---

They matter equally, but that's not the question. Redbrick asked where is the endpoint to Western expansion. REMF replied that Western expansion is voluntary. Even assuming that's true, it's not an answer.

---

"Western Expansion."
The word "expansionism" has a meaning. And it means by force.
No NATO army has invaded Ukraine. Or Belarus. Or Sweden. Or Finland. Or Georgia. Or Armenia.
Only the Russian army has invaded to expand its influence.

If a people of a country look to the east for lessons, then look to the west for lessons, and decide the west offers far better lessons, that is not expansionism.

As a matter of textbook definition = Only Russia has engaged in expansionism.

---

No one called it "expansionism." I'm referring to NATO's addition of new members.

---

Uh, yes you did. See your words in bold.

NATO did not recruit anyone. Others applied to enter, after seeing aggressive RUSSIAN EXPANSIONISM.
I mean, seriously.
(Russia invades Ukraine.)
Sam says: "This is a result of western expansionism."
(crowd groans)

Your argument here is like criticizing Travis for allowing Bonham and others in to help defend the Alamo as an unreasonable provocation which caused Santa Ana to attack.

(at a loss as to why you would continue playing such a dreadfully weak hand)......

---

Which words in bold? I did not use the word "expansionism."

Semantic arguments are about the weakest hand you can play.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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?

---

1. Lets set aside the tyranny we just witnessed over the past 3 years in the West related to Covid (lockdowns, schools closures, citizens being fired from their jobs for dissent, closing of Churches and Synagogues) and lets leave aside that in many Western countries you can get arrested for free speech...including for criticizing mass immigration or homosexuality. All interesting things to discuss when we throw around terms like "freedom".

2. But lets say yes...the Western Bloc is vastly more free than Autocratic Russia and Communist China.

The point is that the Western alliance has these nations well surrounded. And the question has to be raised....where is the end point? When we topple the Regime in Moscow? When we topple the CCP in Beijing? How much are we willing to risk on that? Are we willing to fight a 3rd world war? At what point is the Western military alliance enough? Should Belarus be in NATO? Should communist Laos be in a Asian defense alliance with the USA?

---

You ALWAYS avoid the main point. "every nation on the map in a colored area ELECTED of their own free will to join, no one was forced." They want in.

---

So what?

---

you can't say on one hand that self-determination matters for Russians in Donbas and Crimea, while simultaneously deny that self-determination matters for Ukrainians in Ukraine......

---

They matter equally, but that's not the question. Redbrick asked where is the endpoint to Western expansion. REMF replied that Western expansion is voluntary. Even assuming that's true, it's not an answer.

---

"Western Expansion."
The word "expansionism" has a meaning. And it means by force.
No NATO army has invaded Ukraine. Or Belarus. Or Sweden. Or Finland. Or Georgia. Or Armenia.
Only the Russian army has invaded to expand its influence.

If a people of a country look to the east for lessons, then look to the west for lessons, and decide the west offers far better lessons, that is not expansionism.

As a matter of textbook definition = Only Russia has engaged in expansionism.

---

They totally disregard that these Nations ask to be members of NATO, nobody coercing them.

Bulls-eye.

What sets the US apart is training doctrine.

Plan, train, review and adapt.

Then repeat.

That kind of training is difficult and expensive, and a lot of people see no value in it, especially places like China and Russia where image is far more important than actual ability.

Large nations seldom believe they face real threats. China today is a lot like the US in say, 1935. They look good on paper but are nowhere near ready for a war against a determined opponent.

Between 1970 and 1985, the US rebuilt its military to be ready for actual threats, and it showed in several wars since then. China - speaking bluntly - has stolen much of the technology they used to build their military, which means they have trouble adapting it to specific needs, and in understanding its limits.

Meanwhile, Taiwan has slowly built a defense which can cause China a lot of pain while providing time for the US to send help.

Knowing this, China has used its influence to affect US foreign policy. If you want to know who has been the focus of China's efforts to drive US policy, look for the members of the House and Senate who say the US cannot beat China, or that defending Taiwan would lead to a bad loss for the US.

And yes, the 'woke' policies of Biden's DOD will decay our ability to fight and win. They are already damaging our ability to recruit able soldiers, sailors and airmen.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Bulls-eye.

What sets the US apart is training doctrine.

Plan, train, review and adapt.

Then repeat.

That kind of training is difficult and expensive, and a lot of people see no value in it, especially places like China and Russia where image is far more important than actual ability.

Large nations seldom believe they face real threats. China today is a lot like the US in say, 1935. They look good on paper but are nowhere near ready for a war against a determined opponent.

Between 1970 and 1985, the US rebuilt its military to be ready for actual threats, and it showed in several wars since then. China - speaking bluntly - has stolen much of the technology they used to build their military, which means they have trouble adapting it to specific needs, and in understanding its limits.

Meanwhile, Taiwan has slowly built a defense which can cause China a lot of pain while providing time for the US to send help.

Knowing this, China has used its influence to affect US foreign policy. If you want to know who has been the focus of China's efforts to drive US policy, look for the members of the House and Senate who say the US cannot beat China, or that defending Taiwan would lead to a bad loss for the US.

And yes, the 'woke' policies of Biden's DOD will decay our ability to fight and win. They are already damaging our ability to recruit able soldiers, sailors and airmen.

---

Have to maintain training and logistics capabilities. The US Military on the wall is the ONLY thing keeping us free.

One thing I am a bit disappointed in is the focus and escalation of special operations. Necessary, best trained, but the Armor, Infantry, Artillery, Surface Warships, Sub Service, Marine Expeditionary, and the Air Force is just as important. Making it seem if you are not a SEAL you are not really a serving or if you are a logistics/support/Engineering you are a REMF. That kills morale and in a near peer war, those non-glorified jobs are what is going to win. Media pisses me off with that *****..