Yes,her name is Victoria Nuland.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
Vivek Ramaswamy - GOP Candidate for President
36,496 Views |
366 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by boognish_bear
It's a very complicated war with a long list of historical mistakes and misdeeds on all sides. Putin's hands are far from the dirtiest. Ukraine has killed at least 15,000 of its own people. How many Russians has Putin killed? Russia let Ukraine secede with the understanding that it would remain neutral, so they do have an interest in how it's governed. We've repeatedly deceived them and ignored their interests ever since. We've withdrawn from treaties like the ABM and INF. We've recklessly enlarged NATO, and don't you think for a moment it was entirely at the behest of our allies. Among other things we pressured Ukraine to the point of subverting its elected government and funding a civil war. We're funding the current war for the express purpose of harming Russia, and we've blocked peace agreements at literally every turn. It's not hard to see us as the real aggressor.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically? This is the same as the "proxy war" charge. The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to determine what former Soviet nations do, how they choose to govern themselves or who they choose to align with.Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
You're carrying water for a murderous dictator here and spouting pro-Russia talking points, Sam.
And to compare this to America's other post-WWII military entanglements is disingenuous.
A) We were the aggressor in most of those.
B) We put boots on the ground in many of those cases.
And C) We weren't dealing with an enemy capable of ending humanity.
This is a really simple war that is happening for one reason and one reason only. Because Vladimir Putin started it. He invaded a sovereign nation -- after being appeased time and again by NATO. This is Russia's war. Period.
Sam Lowry said:It's a very complicated war with a long list of historical mistakes and misdeeds on all sides. Putin's hands are far from the dirtiest. Ukraine has killed at least 15,000 of its own people. How many Russians has Putin killed? Russia let Ukraine secede with the understanding that it would remain neutral, so they do have an interest in how it's governed. We've repeatedly deceived them and ignored their interests ever since. We've withdrawn from treaties like the ABM and INF. We've recklessly enlarged NATO, and don't you think for a moment it was entirely at the behest of our allies. Among other things we pressured Ukraine to the point of subverting its elected government and funding a civil war. We're funding the current war for the express purpose of harming Russia, and we've blocked peace agreements at literally every turn. It's not hard to see us as the real aggressor.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically? This is the same as the "proxy war" charge. The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to determine what former Soviet nations do, how they choose to govern themselves or who they choose to align with.Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
You're carrying water for a murderous dictator here and spouting pro-Russia talking points, Sam.
And to compare this to America's other post-WWII military entanglements is disingenuous.
A) We were the aggressor in most of those.
B) We put boots on the ground in many of those cases.
And C) We weren't dealing with an enemy capable of ending humanity.
This is a really simple war that is happening for one reason and one reason only. Because Vladimir Putin started it. He invaded a sovereign nation -- after being appeased time and again by NATO. This is Russia's war. Period.
RU disinformation, quite a bit actually. But par for the course for you, vatnik.
Reagan would agree with Rawhide in this case. And it's NATO that's over a barrel.HuMcK said:
"It's not a very good decision for biden and his 'ettes' to ignore the deepening military partnership between China/Russia"
We aren't ignoring it. We are currently crippling one leg of that alliance at a bargain cost, but for some reason you are arguing Russia's position for them.
Biden has Russia bent over a barrel and is going in raw, while maintaining eye contact with China as a warning. It is frankly shaping up to be one of the strongest US foreign policy actions in a long time, but since Biden is a Democrat you are conditioned to reflexively hate it.
The same people who spent years asking dumb questions like "why would Russia support Trump/Republicans??" are now saying we should just let Russia do whatever they want without resistance, as if adding 2 and 2 together is too difficult. It's especially ironic coming from a poster with Ronald Reagan as his avatar...
What nation is 100% ethnic pure? So my response is what about them? They are just as Ukrainian as those living in Kyiv. Crimea was part of Ukraine when Russia agreed to Ukraine creating a soverign state.curtpenn said:FLBear5630 said:I agree with you on the financially overextended. You have to be able to help yourself before helping others. No arguement. There is a huge spectrum between bankrupting ourselves and just cheering them on.curtpenn said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:The United States has no reason to 'side' with Putin is this war; that is absurd.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
However the United States is certainly guilty of positioning Ukraine into fighting our proxy war with Russia.
The US is guilty of a lot of things that were questionable but helping and trying other Nations attain freedom of democratic rule is not one of them. At the end of the day, the Nations the US "helped" have the right of free rule and we have stood by even if they do things we don't agree, such as Germany, Japan, Korea, Phillipines, Israel, Iraq, etc... I expect the same with Ukraine.
I am not sure you can say that about Putin. I can't see how anyone that knows US history from Wilson to FDR to Eisenhower to Reagan can say the US has no interest beyond our shores. To do back to 1790 and say George Washington said not to get involved shows a lack of understanding of today's world.
Anyone who knows history understands that empires crumble once they become financially overextended. We must be selective and smart in how we engage with the world. Don't see a surplus of selective and smart in DC these days. There's a further question of defining our "interests". Are we willing to spend billions to "make the world safe" for Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Disney, Netflix, et al? We must look beyond arbitrary lines drawn on maps a al Sikes-Picot or the Russian Pale of Settlement and understand that modern Ukraine occupies a space of great flux with centuries of cultural shift. It is a particularly American conceit that we can direct these forces to our liking. Fwiw, I believe much of this applies equally to Taiwan, but that's for another thread.
Direct to our liking? Ukraine is asking for help and clearly does not want to be under the Russian sphere of influence. If up to Ukraine, they would be in the EU and NATO. Ukraine is a response to a request, not the US directing. Ask Taiwan, what do they want? Does that count? Or, is that a fake line too? Worked out well for Hong Kong, huh? Real garden spot now...
As for the others, we are a Capitalist society. It is in the US best interest for our Companies to be able to have access to the most markets and compete. I do agree there are reforms that need to be re-visited in regulatory requirements and serving two masters. No question.
What of the ethnic Russians in Crimea and the eastern portions of what is now identified as "Ukraine"? My point is what we now call Ukraine has a long history of flux. What is happening now has been happening for centuries. This is to be expected as the norm. It's not our responsibility to make things "right" as that is likely impossible for us to work out. Same thing with Hong Kong or Taiwan. No Americans should die for any of these nor should we fund any of these excessively. I have no confidence in our government to make good decisions. Bottom line: stay away from it and protect our own borders.
Should Mexico be able to roll tanks into San Diego or San Antonio? Should the US be able to take Cuba, after all Spain lost the Spanish-American War and ceded Cuba and other territories to the US. Let's invade...
England want Scotland back and Wales, should they be allowed? They think it was a bad deal, so the 1st Armored is going to take Edenborough.
The concept is silly. Crimea is part of Ukraine. The ethnic Russians are Ukrainian citizens. Form a party and take part in Parliment. Leave and go to Mother Russia, I am sure Putin will make an state for them and grant them say in the Govt, right?
Some Ukrainians want to be Russian and some don't. It's not always easy to tell, since Zelensky outlawed pro-Russian parties and cracked down on the press. He was given a mandate to implement the Minsk Agreement and grant autonomy to parts of the Donbas before he sold out to the West. Putin has tried to resolve these issues for years. Our only response has been to call for regime change. It's almost unthinkable that we'd find a more moderate replacement. Any potential rival would be more aggressive, not less.Frank Galvin said:Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
However one characterizes the Ukrainian government, it is obvious that the people of Ukraine are willing to endure enormous sacrifice to not be Russian citizens.
The less influence Vladimir Putin has in the world, the better.
Combined, those two things make supporting the Ukrainians the right thing to do, IMHO. It's expensive but money better spent then at least 70% of the federal budget.
Finally, you say it is a futile effort. I don't see it. The Russians are not going to be able to make Ukraine a puppet state even if Ukraine can't completely eject Russia from their current territorial gains.
The rational settlement would be to cede some of that territory in exchange for agreed Ukrainian NATO membership. Hopefully something like that happens in the near future because the one thing we agree on is the war ending soon would be a good thing.
Then take your case to the UN, just like others have done. Don't orchestrate an invasion.Sam Lowry said:Some Ukrainians want to be Russian and some don't. It's not always easy to tell, since Zelensky outlawed pro-Russian parties and cracked down on the press. He was given a mandate to implement the Minsk Agreement and grant autonomy to parts of the Donbas before he sold out to the West. Putin has tried to resolve these issues for years. Our only response has been to call for regime change. It's almost unthinkable that we'd find a more moderate replacement. Any potential rival would be more aggressive, not less.Frank Galvin said:Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
However one characterizes the Ukrainian government, it is obvious that the people of Ukraine are willing to endure enormous sacrifice to not be Russian citizens.
The less influence Vladimir Putin has in the world, the better.
Combined, those two things make supporting the Ukrainians the right thing to do, IMHO. It's expensive but money better spent then at least 70% of the federal budget.
Finally, you say it is a futile effort. I don't see it. The Russians are not going to be able to make Ukraine a puppet state even if Ukraine can't completely eject Russia from their current territorial gains.
The rational settlement would be to cede some of that territory in exchange for agreed Ukrainian NATO membership. Hopefully something like that happens in the near future because the one thing we agree on is the war ending soon would be a good thing.
FLBear5630 said:Then take your case to the UN, just like others have done. Don't orchestrate an invasion.Sam Lowry said:Some Ukrainians want to be Russian and some don't. It's not always easy to tell, since Zelensky outlawed pro-Russian parties and cracked down on the press. He was given a mandate to implement the Minsk Agreement and grant autonomy to parts of the Donbas before he sold out to the West. Putin has tried to resolve these issues for years. Our only response has been to call for regime change. It's almost unthinkable that we'd find a more moderate replacement. Any potential rival would be more aggressive, not less.Frank Galvin said:Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
However one characterizes the Ukrainian government, it is obvious that the people of Ukraine are willing to endure enormous sacrifice to not be Russian citizens.
The less influence Vladimir Putin has in the world, the better.
Combined, those two things make supporting the Ukrainians the right thing to do, IMHO. It's expensive but money better spent then at least 70% of the federal budget.
Finally, you say it is a futile effort. I don't see it. The Russians are not going to be able to make Ukraine a puppet state even if Ukraine can't completely eject Russia from their current territorial gains.
The rational settlement would be to cede some of that territory in exchange for agreed Ukrainian NATO membership. Hopefully something like that happens in the near future because the one thing we agree on is the war ending soon would be a good thing.
Poisonings and 2 invasions.
We wouldn't give them the chance any more than Putin would give it to Ukraine.FLBear5630 said:Should Mexico be able to roll tanks into San Diego or San Antonio?curtpenn said:FLBear5630 said:I agree with you on the financially overextended. You have to be able to help yourself before helping others. No arguement. There is a huge spectrum between bankrupting ourselves and just cheering them on.curtpenn said:FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:The United States has no reason to 'side' with Putin is this war; that is absurd.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
However the United States is certainly guilty of positioning Ukraine into fighting our proxy war with Russia.
The US is guilty of a lot of things that were questionable but helping and trying other Nations attain freedom of democratic rule is not one of them. At the end of the day, the Nations the US "helped" have the right of free rule and we have stood by even if they do things we don't agree, such as Germany, Japan, Korea, Phillipines, Israel, Iraq, etc... I expect the same with Ukraine.
I am not sure you can say that about Putin. I can't see how anyone that knows US history from Wilson to FDR to Eisenhower to Reagan can say the US has no interest beyond our shores. To do back to 1790 and say George Washington said not to get involved shows a lack of understanding of today's world.
Anyone who knows history understands that empires crumble once they become financially overextended. We must be selective and smart in how we engage with the world. Don't see a surplus of selective and smart in DC these days. There's a further question of defining our "interests". Are we willing to spend billions to "make the world safe" for Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Disney, Netflix, et al? We must look beyond arbitrary lines drawn on maps a al Sikes-Picot or the Russian Pale of Settlement and understand that modern Ukraine occupies a space of great flux with centuries of cultural shift. It is a particularly American conceit that we can direct these forces to our liking. Fwiw, I believe much of this applies equally to Taiwan, but that's for another thread.
Direct to our liking? Ukraine is asking for help and clearly does not want to be under the Russian sphere of influence. If up to Ukraine, they would be in the EU and NATO. Ukraine is a response to a request, not the US directing. Ask Taiwan, what do they want? Does that count? Or, is that a fake line too? Worked out well for Hong Kong, huh? Real garden spot now...
As for the others, we are a Capitalist society. It is in the US best interest for our Companies to be able to have access to the most markets and compete. I do agree there are reforms that need to be re-visited in regulatory requirements and serving two masters. No question.
What of the ethnic Russians in Crimea and the eastern portions of what is now identified as "Ukraine"? My point is what we now call Ukraine has a long history of flux. What is happening now has been happening for centuries. This is to be expected as the norm. It's not our responsibility to make things "right" as that is likely impossible for us to work out. Same thing with Hong Kong or Taiwan. No Americans should die for any of these nor should we fund any of these excessively. I have no confidence in our government to make good decisions. Bottom line: stay away from it and protect our own borders.
100k+ dead Russian soldiers so far, and counting. How many NATO casualties?
They did, in 2019. The UN did nothing despite two Security Council resolutions having endorsed the agreement.FLBear5630 said:Then take your case to the UN, just like others have done. Don't orchestrate an invasion.Sam Lowry said:Some Ukrainians want to be Russian and some don't. It's not always easy to tell, since Zelensky outlawed pro-Russian parties and cracked down on the press. He was given a mandate to implement the Minsk Agreement and grant autonomy to parts of the Donbas before he sold out to the West. Putin has tried to resolve these issues for years. Our only response has been to call for regime change. It's almost unthinkable that we'd find a more moderate replacement. Any potential rival would be more aggressive, not less.Frank Galvin said:Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
However one characterizes the Ukrainian government, it is obvious that the people of Ukraine are willing to endure enormous sacrifice to not be Russian citizens.
The less influence Vladimir Putin has in the world, the better.
Combined, those two things make supporting the Ukrainians the right thing to do, IMHO. It's expensive but money better spent then at least 70% of the federal budget.
Finally, you say it is a futile effort. I don't see it. The Russians are not going to be able to make Ukraine a puppet state even if Ukraine can't completely eject Russia from their current territorial gains.
The rational settlement would be to cede some of that territory in exchange for agreed Ukrainian NATO membership. Hopefully something like that happens in the near future because the one thing we agree on is the war ending soon would be a good thing.
hundreds of thousands of dudes named ben franklinHuMcK said:
100k+ dead Russian soldiers so far, and counting. How many NATO casualties?
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
Sam Lowry said:Some Ukrainians want to be Russian and some don't. It's not always easy to tell, since Zelensky outlawed pro-Russian parties and cracked down on the press. He was given a mandate to implement the Minsk Agreement and grant autonomy to parts of the Donbas before he sold out to the West. Putin has tried to resolve these issues for years. Our only response has been to call for regime change. It's almost unthinkable that we'd find a more moderate replacement. Any potential rival would be more aggressive, not less.Frank Galvin said:Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
However one characterizes the Ukrainian government, it is obvious that the people of Ukraine are willing to endure enormous sacrifice to not be Russian citizens.
The less influence Vladimir Putin has in the world, the better.
Combined, those two things make supporting the Ukrainians the right thing to do, IMHO. It's expensive but money better spent then at least 70% of the federal budget.
Finally, you say it is a futile effort. I don't see it. The Russians are not going to be able to make Ukraine a puppet state even if Ukraine can't completely eject Russia from their current territorial gains.
The rational settlement would be to cede some of that territory in exchange for agreed Ukrainian NATO membership. Hopefully something like that happens in the near future because the one thing we agree on is the war ending soon would be a good thing.
Apparently, a lot of them really, really do not want to be Russian. They are fighting very hard for that result. How many are fighting to be Russian?
I understand the historical context and the problems with the current Ukrainian government. But you are overlooking a mountain of evidence-the Ukrainian people have overwhelmingly said they do not want to be a Russian puppet state- they are sacrificing everything to that end. Your "meh" response to that fact to me says Neville Chamberlin.
Putin is no Hitler. He has neither the desire nor the ability to widen this conflict into Western Europe.Frank Galvin said:Sam Lowry said:Some Ukrainians want to be Russian and some don't. It's not always easy to tell, since Zelensky outlawed pro-Russian parties and cracked down on the press. He was given a mandate to implement the Minsk Agreement and grant autonomy to parts of the Donbas before he sold out to the West. Putin has tried to resolve these issues for years. Our only response has been to call for regime change. It's almost unthinkable that we'd find a more moderate replacement. Any potential rival would be more aggressive, not less.Frank Galvin said:Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
However one characterizes the Ukrainian government, it is obvious that the people of Ukraine are willing to endure enormous sacrifice to not be Russian citizens.
The less influence Vladimir Putin has in the world, the better.
Combined, those two things make supporting the Ukrainians the right thing to do, IMHO. It's expensive but money better spent then at least 70% of the federal budget.
Finally, you say it is a futile effort. I don't see it. The Russians are not going to be able to make Ukraine a puppet state even if Ukraine can't completely eject Russia from their current territorial gains.
The rational settlement would be to cede some of that territory in exchange for agreed Ukrainian NATO membership. Hopefully something like that happens in the near future because the one thing we agree on is the war ending soon would be a good thing.
Apparently, a lot of them really, really do not want to be Russian. They are fighting very hard for that result. How many are fighting to be Russian?
I understand the historical context and the problems with the current Ukrainian government. But you are overlooking a mountain of evidence-the Ukrainian people have overwhelmingly said they do not want to be a Russian puppet state- they are sacrificing everything to that end. Your "meh" response to that fact to me says Neville Chamberlin.
I don't mind speculating about Ukraine's present wishes, but I won't pretend our policy has anything to do with that. If we cared about Ukraine, we would have supported neutrality and recognized the ethnic Russians' autonomy, as most Ukrainians wanted.
Bear in mind that Ukraine's corruption isn't some random factor that we've somehow been forced to deal with. It's the fruit of our own government's efforts to turn the country into a proxy. Ukraine is nothing but a tool to them, and like others it will be discarded at the earliest convenience.
The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically?Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.
Just ask yourself:
1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.KaiBear said:The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically?Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.
Just ask yourself:
1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.
As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.bear2be2 said:The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.KaiBear said:The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically?Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.
Just ask yourself:
1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.
As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?Sam Lowry said:We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.bear2be2 said:The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.KaiBear said:The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically?Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.
Just ask yourself:
1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.
As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?bear2be2 said:You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?Sam Lowry said:We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.bear2be2 said:The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.KaiBear said:The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically?Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.
Just ask yourself:
1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.
As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.
Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.
Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?
It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.KaiBear said:Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?bear2be2 said:You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?Sam Lowry said:We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.bear2be2 said:The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.KaiBear said:The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically?Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.
Just ask yourself:
1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.
As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.
Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.
Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?
It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.
No, I mean Ukraine's declaration of state sovereignty, adopted in 1990 with our enthusiastic support.bear2be2 said:You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?Sam Lowry said:We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.bear2be2 said:The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.KaiBear said:The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically?Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.
Just ask yourself:
1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.
As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
"Democracy and ideological alignment with the Western world" is a long way of saying American hegemony.
"Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?"
For one thing, NATO has a rule that a nation may be admitted as a member only when at peace.
For one thing, NATO has a rule that a nation may be admitted as a member only when at peace.
Only one country has actually violated that treaty, and Russia's done it twice by invading Ukraine's borders -- first in 2014 and again in 2022.Sam Lowry said:No, I mean Ukraine's declaration of state sovereignty, adopted in 1990 with our enthusiastic support.bear2be2 said:You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?Sam Lowry said:We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.bear2be2 said:The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.KaiBear said:The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically?Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.
Just ask yourself:
1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.
As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
"Democracy and ideological alignment with the Western world" is a long way of saying American hegemony.
That you're siding with the one that has shown no desire or ability to recognize Ukraine's borders, independence and sovereignty is odd, to say the least.
And that you're citing American hegemony while siding with a country that has literally invaded Ukraine twice (in addition to interfering with its elections) is even odder.
Sam: ' I mean Ukraine's declaration of state sovereignty, adopted in 1990 with our enthusiastic support."
You think it was wrong to applaud Ukraine's independence. Many of us can cheer Ukraine's independence without supporting putting Putin's puppet in a palace.
You think it was wrong to applaud Ukraine's independence. Many of us can cheer Ukraine's independence without supporting putting Putin's puppet in a palace.
Russia has bent over backwards to preserve its security and that of ethnic Russians in the Donbas without disturbing Ukraine's borders, independence, or sovereignty. That's what the Minsk Agreement was all about.bear2be2 said:Only one country has actually violated that treaty, and Russia's done it twice by invading Ukraine's borders -- first in 2014 and again in 2022.Sam Lowry said:No, I mean Ukraine's declaration of state sovereignty, adopted in 1990 with our enthusiastic support.bear2be2 said:You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?Sam Lowry said:We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.bear2be2 said:The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.KaiBear said:The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically?Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.
Just ask yourself:
1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.
As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
"Democracy and ideological alignment with the Western world" is a long way of saying American hegemony.
That you're siding with the one that has shown no desire or ability to recognize Ukraine's borders, independence and sovereignty is odd, to say the least.
And that you're citing American hegemony while siding with a country that has literally invaded Ukraine twice (in addition to interfering with its elections) is even odder.
... against imagined threats to its security.Sam Lowry said:Russia has bent over backwards to preserve its security and that of ethnic Russians in the Donbas without disturbing Ukraine's borders, independence, or sovereignty. That's what the Minsk Agreement was all about.bear2be2 said:Only one country has actually violated that treaty, and Russia's done it twice by invading Ukraine's borders -- first in 2014 and again in 2022.Sam Lowry said:No, I mean Ukraine's declaration of state sovereignty, adopted in 1990 with our enthusiastic support.bear2be2 said:You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?Sam Lowry said:We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.bear2be2 said:The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.KaiBear said:The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically?Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.
Just ask yourself:
1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.
As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
"Democracy and ideological alignment with the Western world" is a long way of saying American hegemony.
That you're siding with the one that has shown no desire or ability to recognize Ukraine's borders, independence and sovereignty is odd, to say the least.
And that you're citing American hegemony while siding with a country that has literally invaded Ukraine twice (in addition to interfering with its elections) is even odder.
The only thing Russia has actually bent over backwards to do is expand its power and influence over former Soviet countries, particularly those without NATO's backing. And in recent years, it's used focused misinformation campaigns to try to destabilize the West as well.
This isn't the 1980s anymore. No one in the West wants war with Russia. If Russia was capable of playing nice with those near its sandbox, it would be left alone. It has proven utterly incapable of that. Unfortunately, that's what authoritarian leaders do. They're never content with the power they have over their own people.
bear2be2 said:... against imagined threats to its security.Sam Lowry said:Russia has bent over backwards to preserve its security and that of ethnic Russians in the Donbas without disturbing Ukraine's borders, independence, or sovereignty. That's what the Minsk Agreement was all about.bear2be2 said:Only one country has actually violated that treaty, and Russia's done it twice by invading Ukraine's borders -- first in 2014 and again in 2022.Sam Lowry said:No, I mean Ukraine's declaration of state sovereignty, adopted in 1990 with our enthusiastic support.bear2be2 said:You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?Sam Lowry said:We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.bear2be2 said:The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.KaiBear said:The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically?Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.
Just ask yourself:
1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.
As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
"Democracy and ideological alignment with the Western world" is a long way of saying American hegemony.
That you're siding with the one that has shown no desire or ability to recognize Ukraine's borders, independence and sovereignty is odd, to say the least.
And that you're citing American hegemony while siding with a country that has literally invaded Ukraine twice (in addition to interfering with its elections) is even odder.
The only thing Russia has actually bent over backwards to do is expand its power and influence over former Soviet countries, particularly those without NATO's backing. And in recent years, it's used focused misinformation campaigns to try to destabilize the West as well.
This isn't the 1980s anymore. No one in the West wants war with Russia. If Russia was capable of playing nice with those near its sandbox, it would be left alone. It has proven utterly incapable of that. Unfortunately, that's what authoritarian leaders do. They're never content with the power they have over their own people.
Be that as it may, it is not our responsibility nor can you positively demonstrate that it is in our best interest to spend our collective resources of blood or money to be involved in border squabbles in regions where borders have forever been fluid. The region we now refer to as Ukraine has been overrun by Tatars, Cossacks, Poles, Russians, Lithuanians, Czechs, Turks, and on and on. It is the just not our fight. That Putin is at fault or that Russia is the aggressor is irrelevant.
I read Ramaswamy fell in Iowa polls after debate from 11% to 7%.
DeSantis and Haley bettered their standings, especially Haley .
Three sensible ones fell to last place. Christy, Hutchinson and Burgum.
DeSantis and Haley bettered their standings, especially Haley .
Three sensible ones fell to last place. Christy, Hutchinson and Burgum.
Astros in Home Stretch Geaux Texans
Geography and history tend to show otherwise. Ukraine is an ideal place from which to threaten Russia.bear2be2 said:... against imagined threats to its security.Sam Lowry said:Russia has bent over backwards to preserve its security and that of ethnic Russians in the Donbas without disturbing Ukraine's borders, independence, or sovereignty. That's what the Minsk Agreement was all about.bear2be2 said:Only one country has actually violated that treaty, and Russia's done it twice by invading Ukraine's borders -- first in 2014 and again in 2022.Sam Lowry said:No, I mean Ukraine's declaration of state sovereignty, adopted in 1990 with our enthusiastic support.bear2be2 said:You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?Sam Lowry said:We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.bear2be2 said:The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.KaiBear said:The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically?Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.
Just ask yourself:
1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.
As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
"Democracy and ideological alignment with the Western world" is a long way of saying American hegemony.
That you're siding with the one that has shown no desire or ability to recognize Ukraine's borders, independence and sovereignty is odd, to say the least.
And that you're citing American hegemony while siding with a country that has literally invaded Ukraine twice (in addition to interfering with its elections) is even odder.
Ukraine has never threatened Russia, much less invaded it. That Russia views Ukraine's ideological shift toward democracy and Western values as a large enough threat to invade it twice, says more about Russia than the West's influence on Ukraine.Sam Lowry said:Geography and history tend to show otherwise. Ukraine is an ideal place from which to threaten Russia.bear2be2 said:... against imagined threats to its security.Sam Lowry said:Russia has bent over backwards to preserve its security and that of ethnic Russians in the Donbas without disturbing Ukraine's borders, independence, or sovereignty. That's what the Minsk Agreement was all about.bear2be2 said:Only one country has actually violated that treaty, and Russia's done it twice by invading Ukraine's borders -- first in 2014 and again in 2022.Sam Lowry said:No, I mean Ukraine's declaration of state sovereignty, adopted in 1990 with our enthusiastic support.bear2be2 said:You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?Sam Lowry said:We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.bear2be2 said:The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.KaiBear said:The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically?Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.
Just ask yourself:
1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.
As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
"Democracy and ideological alignment with the Western world" is a long way of saying American hegemony.
That you're siding with the one that has shown no desire or ability to recognize Ukraine's borders, independence and sovereignty is odd, to say the least.
And that you're citing American hegemony while siding with a country that has literally invaded Ukraine twice (in addition to interfering with its elections) is even odder.
Vladimir Putin a paranoid madman. Any perceived threats to Russia or its sovereignty by Ukraine -- or the West through Ukraine -- are imaginary.
That's why Russia hesitated to invade. It only happened because of NATO and related issues. It's the threat coming through Ukraine that they're worried about.bear2be2 said:Ukraine has never threatened Russia, much less invaded it.Sam Lowry said:Geography and history tend to show otherwise. Ukraine is an ideal place from which to threaten Russia.bear2be2 said:... against imagined threats to its security.Sam Lowry said:Russia has bent over backwards to preserve its security and that of ethnic Russians in the Donbas without disturbing Ukraine's borders, independence, or sovereignty. That's what the Minsk Agreement was all about.bear2be2 said:Only one country has actually violated that treaty, and Russia's done it twice by invading Ukraine's borders -- first in 2014 and again in 2022.Sam Lowry said:No, I mean Ukraine's declaration of state sovereignty, adopted in 1990 with our enthusiastic support.bear2be2 said:You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?Sam Lowry said:We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.bear2be2 said:The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.KaiBear said:The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically?Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.
Just ask yourself:
1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.
As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
"Democracy and ideological alignment with the Western world" is a long way of saying American hegemony.
That you're siding with the one that has shown no desire or ability to recognize Ukraine's borders, independence and sovereignty is odd, to say the least.
And that you're citing American hegemony while siding with a country that has literally invaded Ukraine twice (in addition to interfering with its elections) is even odder.
It only happened because Putin is a paranoid madman. And you're making excuses for him.Sam Lowry said:That's why Russia hesitated to invade. It only happened because of NATO and related issues. It's the threat coming through Ukraine that they're worried about.bear2be2 said:Ukraine has never threatened Russia, much less invaded it.Sam Lowry said:Geography and history tend to show otherwise. Ukraine is an ideal place from which to threaten Russia.bear2be2 said:... against imagined threats to its security.Sam Lowry said:Russia has bent over backwards to preserve its security and that of ethnic Russians in the Donbas without disturbing Ukraine's borders, independence, or sovereignty. That's what the Minsk Agreement was all about.bear2be2 said:Only one country has actually violated that treaty, and Russia's done it twice by invading Ukraine's borders -- first in 2014 and again in 2022.Sam Lowry said:No, I mean Ukraine's declaration of state sovereignty, adopted in 1990 with our enthusiastic support.bear2be2 said:You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?Sam Lowry said:We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.bear2be2 said:The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.KaiBear said:The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically?Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.
Just ask yourself:
1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.
As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
"Democracy and ideological alignment with the Western world" is a long way of saying American hegemony.
That you're siding with the one that has shown no desire or ability to recognize Ukraine's borders, independence and sovereignty is odd, to say the least.
And that you're citing American hegemony while siding with a country that has literally invaded Ukraine twice (in addition to interfering with its elections) is even odder.
No one wants war with Russia. And there wouldn't be one at all if Putin hadn't started this one.
Was there ever a war and they didn't tell us the bad guy was a "paranoid madman?" Meanwhile we've got military bases in 80+ countries.bear2be2 said:It only happened because Putin is a paranoid madman. And you're making excuses for him.Sam Lowry said:That's why Russia hesitated to invade. It only happened because of NATO and related issues. It's the threat coming through Ukraine that they're worried about.bear2be2 said:Ukraine has never threatened Russia, much less invaded it.Sam Lowry said:Geography and history tend to show otherwise. Ukraine is an ideal place from which to threaten Russia.bear2be2 said:... against imagined threats to its security.Sam Lowry said:Russia has bent over backwards to preserve its security and that of ethnic Russians in the Donbas without disturbing Ukraine's borders, independence, or sovereignty. That's what the Minsk Agreement was all about.bear2be2 said:Only one country has actually violated that treaty, and Russia's done it twice by invading Ukraine's borders -- first in 2014 and again in 2022.Sam Lowry said:No, I mean Ukraine's declaration of state sovereignty, adopted in 1990 with our enthusiastic support.bear2be2 said:You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?Sam Lowry said:We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.bear2be2 said:The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.KaiBear said:The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically?Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.
Just ask yourself:
1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.
As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
"Democracy and ideological alignment with the Western world" is a long way of saying American hegemony.
That you're siding with the one that has shown no desire or ability to recognize Ukraine's borders, independence and sovereignty is odd, to say the least.
And that you're citing American hegemony while siding with a country that has literally invaded Ukraine twice (in addition to interfering with its elections) is even odder.
No one wants war with Russia. And there wouldn't be one at all if Putin hadn't started this one.
It's funny how the whole world is paranoid except for us.
You're not going to get me to defend the United States' military-industrial complex or our foreign policy record.Sam Lowry said:Was there ever a war and they didn't tell us the bad guy was a "paranoid madman?" Meanwhile we've got military bases in 80+ countries.bear2be2 said:It only happened because Putin is a paranoid madman. And you're making excuses for him.Sam Lowry said:That's why Russia hesitated to invade. It only happened because of NATO and related issues. It's the threat coming through Ukraine that they're worried about.bear2be2 said:Ukraine has never threatened Russia, much less invaded it.Sam Lowry said:Geography and history tend to show otherwise. Ukraine is an ideal place from which to threaten Russia.bear2be2 said:... against imagined threats to its security.Sam Lowry said:Russia has bent over backwards to preserve its security and that of ethnic Russians in the Donbas without disturbing Ukraine's borders, independence, or sovereignty. That's what the Minsk Agreement was all about.bear2be2 said:Only one country has actually violated that treaty, and Russia's done it twice by invading Ukraine's borders -- first in 2014 and again in 2022.Sam Lowry said:No, I mean Ukraine's declaration of state sovereignty, adopted in 1990 with our enthusiastic support.bear2be2 said:You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?Sam Lowry said:We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.bear2be2 said:The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.KaiBear said:The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically?Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.
Just ask yourself:
1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.
As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
"Democracy and ideological alignment with the Western world" is a long way of saying American hegemony.
That you're siding with the one that has shown no desire or ability to recognize Ukraine's borders, independence and sovereignty is odd, to say the least.
And that you're citing American hegemony while siding with a country that has literally invaded Ukraine twice (in addition to interfering with its elections) is even odder.
No one wants war with Russia. And there wouldn't be one at all if Putin hadn't started this one.
It's funny how the whole world is paranoid except for us.
That does nothing, however, to change the fact that Vladimir Putin is a murderous madman. Or that he is solely to blame for the current war in Ukraine.
bear2be2 said:You're mistaking (failed) Russian appeasement for some more sinister American/NATO motive of your creation.KaiBear said:Why isn't NATO admitting Ukraine if this was the issue to begin with ?bear2be2 said:You mean Russia's agreement with a puppet head of state, who was eventually run out on a rail ... to Russia?Sam Lowry said:We'll never understand Russia's rationale if the fact that it's Russian is all it takes to negate it. That's circular reasoning.bear2be2 said:The answer to both questions is Russian appeasement. And it still didn't stop Putin from invading.KaiBear said:The details have been pointed out by me and others several times over the last 7 months.bear2be2 said:Provoked in what way specifically?Sam Lowry said:Many proud and distinguished Americans have lamented the folly and cruelty of our foreign policy. We've supported far worse regimes than Putin's when it served our purposes. Ukraine itself is no democracy in any meaningful sense. It's a corrupt, repressive state led by an American puppet.bear2be2 said:Feel free to explain your position here. I don't think most with a firm grasp of history or any pride whatsoever in America's stated (and too often ignored) values regarding freedom, democracy and national sovereignty would hold the position you do here.Sam Lowry said:I don't know about imperial Russia, but not siding with modern-day Russia in this war is insane.bear2be2 said:It's wild to me that a guy can go on a debate stage and TV and say that we should not only appease imperial Russia but align with with them and can gain favor in one of our major political parties. That's just insane.boognish_bear said:RAMASWAMY: We can actually go the other direction. Reopen economic relations with Russia. Freeze the current lines of control--
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 25, 2023
KILMEADE: So let Russia take 20 percent of the country? pic.twitter.com/gzFseR8NAO
The responsibility for that ultimately falls at the feet war-mongering neo-cons and Clinton Democrats because their actions have swung sentiment on war so far in the other direction here (which is a good thing on its own).
But if history has taught us anything, it's that underestimating and appeasing murderous dictators with imperial aspirations never turns out well. Siding with Russia in this war is insane.
There is one person and one person only to blame for this war, and I would be ashamed to live in a country that not only sided with him but helped fund his war machine.
We need to be on the side of reality, and the reality is that Russia won this war before it started. They took years to prepare, and we didn't. It isn't a vital interest for us. It is for Russia. They were provoked, and they acted much the same as we would. NATO had become a source of instability rather than stability. It needed boundaries.
The sooner the war ends, the better. There's always the risk that it could escalate or spread. Wantonly sacrificing lives in a futile cause is a crime, and we're more than complicit in that crime. We could stop it tomorrow if we wanted.
And with all due respect I am too tired to do it still again.
Just ask yourself:
1. What happened to Ukraine's nuclear stockpile ?
2. If this war is about Ukraine membership into NATO; why isn't Ukraine in NATO right NOW ?
This is Putin's war, and you guys are regurgitating his warped rationale.
As a sovereign state, Ukraine doesn't owe Russia "neutrality" any more than we owe Britain fealty. The entire concept is nonsense.
If Russia's agreements with Ukraine mean nothing, then neither do ours. You can't have it both ways.
The Soviet Union fell. Russia doesn't get to control what former Soviet states do anymore, regardless of what Putin believes. No one has done more than Putin has to push Ukraine toward democracy and an ideological alignment with the Western world.
Thousands of people are already dead, millions forced to leave their homes.
Yet now when Ukraine needs NATO the most, magically no invitation shows up.
Really think Russia invades Ukraine if they still had their nuclear stockpile; one of the largest in the world ?
It was the US that convinced Urkraine to give them up; not Russia.
Ukraine was disarmed and not admitted to NATO because the West didn't want war with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has all but insisted on it. Appeasement doesn't work.
The United States is using the blood of Ukrainians to fight a proxy war with Russia in the hope of deposing Putin.
A reprehensible act.
And only those filled with 'my country right or wrong' jingoism ( or the inability to study the events leading up to the war ) can fail to admit it .