What? The war hawks would be pleased with those terms, and they're high-fiving right now in the back rooms because, as anyone with an objective brain knew would happen, Trump is not just bowing down to Putin.Doc Holliday said:The warhawks are going to be pissed off.Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:As I predicted.Doc Holliday said:Yeah I don't think this is intended to be a long term goal. Its a ceasefire.Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:President-elect Donald Trump’s team has allegedly drafted a proposal to end the ongoing war in Ukraine war, per WSJ.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) November 7, 2024
Allegedly the plan includes significant conditions: Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current…
"Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current front lines and the establishment of a demilitarized zone between Russian-held territory and Ukraine."
That does not accomplish anything long term
Kyiv has to give up forever its claims on Donbas and Crimea
Moscow has to give up the idea that the rest of Western oriented Ukraine is not going to join EU-NATO soon.
Just a demilitarized zone solves nothing long term.
Zelensky is opposed because a ceasefire was tried back in 2014 and Ukraine lost Crimea...but that's because there were no real forcible conditions. IMO Zelensky is delusional because Trump will withhold U.S. arms and funding to Ukraine unless it enters peace talks with Russia.
Trump will demand forcible conditions. If Russia doesn't abide, its war. If Ukraine doesn't abide, they stop getting funding. These would be the conditions for 20 years.
Long term, I would clean up the insane corruption in Ukraine. We cannot allow an oligarchy state to enter NATO, although some would argue their oligarchy control has diminished, which it has, it could turn into an autocracy. They simply don't have the track record for it.BREAKING: Trump tells Putin to end the war with Ukraine.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 23, 2025
“We can do it the easy way, or the hard way.”
Love it
At this point he should sit Putin down and tell him to order a ceasefire and Trump will make Zelensky do it as well.
Putin must give up any more territorial ambitions in Ukraine....and agree to Ukraine joining NATO/EU.
Zelensky must be told that he must give up the 20% of territory that the Russians currently hold.....if not the US will cut financially him off and leave him to deal with Putin on his own
(lets just hope Congress and the permanent State don't try to impeach Trump again for negotiating with Russia)
Why Are We in Ukraine?
541,002 Views |
7032 Replies |
Last: 12 hrs ago by sombear
Warhawks want war for as long as possible. They have no intentions of peace.sombear said:What? The war hawks would be pleased with those terms, and they're high-fiving right now in the back rooms because, as anyone with an objective brain knew would happen, Trump is not just bowing down to Putin.Doc Holliday said:The warhawks are going to be pissed off.Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:As I predicted.Doc Holliday said:Yeah I don't think this is intended to be a long term goal. Its a ceasefire.Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:President-elect Donald Trump’s team has allegedly drafted a proposal to end the ongoing war in Ukraine war, per WSJ.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) November 7, 2024
Allegedly the plan includes significant conditions: Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current…
"Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current front lines and the establishment of a demilitarized zone between Russian-held territory and Ukraine."
That does not accomplish anything long term
Kyiv has to give up forever its claims on Donbas and Crimea
Moscow has to give up the idea that the rest of Western oriented Ukraine is not going to join EU-NATO soon.
Just a demilitarized zone solves nothing long term.
Zelensky is opposed because a ceasefire was tried back in 2014 and Ukraine lost Crimea...but that's because there were no real forcible conditions. IMO Zelensky is delusional because Trump will withhold U.S. arms and funding to Ukraine unless it enters peace talks with Russia.
Trump will demand forcible conditions. If Russia doesn't abide, its war. If Ukraine doesn't abide, they stop getting funding. These would be the conditions for 20 years.
Long term, I would clean up the insane corruption in Ukraine. We cannot allow an oligarchy state to enter NATO, although some would argue their oligarchy control has diminished, which it has, it could turn into an autocracy. They simply don't have the track record for it.BREAKING: Trump tells Putin to end the war with Ukraine.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 23, 2025
“We can do it the easy way, or the hard way.”
Love it
At this point he should sit Putin down and tell him to order a ceasefire and Trump will make Zelensky do it as well.
Putin must give up any more territorial ambitions in Ukraine....and agree to Ukraine joining NATO/EU.
Zelensky must be told that he must give up the 20% of territory that the Russians currently hold.....if not the US will cut financially him off and leave him to deal with Putin on his own
(lets just hope Congress and the permanent State don't try to impeach Trump again for negotiating with Russia)
Sure, there is a strain of that among Ukraine supporters, but I think a strong majority would take those terms right now, and Zelensky would jump at it.Doc Holliday said:Warhawks want war for as long as possible. They have no intentions of peace.sombear said:What? The war hawks would be pleased with those terms, and they're high-fiving right now in the back rooms because, as anyone with an objective brain knew would happen, Trump is not just bowing down to Putin.Doc Holliday said:The warhawks are going to be pissed off.Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:As I predicted.Doc Holliday said:Yeah I don't think this is intended to be a long term goal. Its a ceasefire.Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:President-elect Donald Trump’s team has allegedly drafted a proposal to end the ongoing war in Ukraine war, per WSJ.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) November 7, 2024
Allegedly the plan includes significant conditions: Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current…
"Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current front lines and the establishment of a demilitarized zone between Russian-held territory and Ukraine."
That does not accomplish anything long term
Kyiv has to give up forever its claims on Donbas and Crimea
Moscow has to give up the idea that the rest of Western oriented Ukraine is not going to join EU-NATO soon.
Just a demilitarized zone solves nothing long term.
Zelensky is opposed because a ceasefire was tried back in 2014 and Ukraine lost Crimea...but that's because there were no real forcible conditions. IMO Zelensky is delusional because Trump will withhold U.S. arms and funding to Ukraine unless it enters peace talks with Russia.
Trump will demand forcible conditions. If Russia doesn't abide, its war. If Ukraine doesn't abide, they stop getting funding. These would be the conditions for 20 years.
Long term, I would clean up the insane corruption in Ukraine. We cannot allow an oligarchy state to enter NATO, although some would argue their oligarchy control has diminished, which it has, it could turn into an autocracy. They simply don't have the track record for it.BREAKING: Trump tells Putin to end the war with Ukraine.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 23, 2025
“We can do it the easy way, or the hard way.”
Love it
At this point he should sit Putin down and tell him to order a ceasefire and Trump will make Zelensky do it as well.
Putin must give up any more territorial ambitions in Ukraine....and agree to Ukraine joining NATO/EU.
Zelensky must be told that he must give up the 20% of territory that the Russians currently hold.....if not the US will cut financially him off and leave him to deal with Putin on his own
(lets just hope Congress and the permanent State don't try to impeach Trump again for negotiating with Russia)
Arakhamia addressed that by saying that NATO was the key point and that ''everything else was simply rhetoric and political 'seasoning' about denazification, the Russian-speaking population, and blah-blah-blah." Probably an overstatement, but you get the point.sombear said:Arakhamia made it clear in multiple interviews that neither Boris nor anyone else from the west forced Ukraine's hand or anything close to it.Sam Lowry said:Russia Offered to End War if Ukraine Dropped NATO Bid: Kyiv Officialsombear said:You might have. Though we disagree, you have posted source material for some of your positions. I've just never come across reporting of any kind - including our corporate intel - that Putin just wanted neutrality and a reduced military. I've always seen a laundry list of bizarre terms.Sam Lowry said:I've done so many, many times. I'll try and throw out a few more when I get back to my desk.sombear said:
Please post detailed article supporting your position. I've posted several.
You may have posted articles that you think support your position in some way, but you won't find anything with Putin demanding incorporation of the Donbas pre-war because it doesn't exist. The Istanbul deal even provided for Ukraine to join the EU.
Published Nov 27, 2023
Russia offered to end Moscow's invasion of Ukraine in the spring of 2022 if Ukraine agreed to drop its ambitions to join NATO, according to the head of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's political party, who was present at peace negotiations.
David Arakhamia, leader of the Ukrainian political party Servant of the People, revealed part of the purported deal during an interview with Ukrainian journalist Natalia Moseychuk on Friday. The Kyiv official previously led the Ukrainian delegation that held peace talks with senior Russian officials in the months following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Both sides of the war have laid out conditions for a ceasefire in the conflict in recent months, but many war analysts doubt neither Zelensky nor Russian President Vladimir Putin currently has a serious urge to end the 21-month-long fight.
According to Arakhamia, however, there was a drafted peace agreement between Ukrainian and Russian negotiators early in the war. Arakhamia said that Moscow pledged to end the fighting if Ukraine's agreed to remain neutral and forego its bid to join NATO.
"They really hoped almost to the last that they would put the squeeze on us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality," Arakhamia told Moseychuck, according to an English translation of his comments by the Kyiv Post. "It was the biggest thing for them."
"They were ready to end the war if we took...neutrality and made commitments that we would not join NATO. This was the key point," the Ukrainian official added.
Ukraine has aimed to become a member of NATO for decades, and in September 2022, Kyiv announced its bid for a fast-tracked membership in the military alliance. Russian officials have warned that fighting would only escalate if Ukraine was admitted into NATO, which would solidify Kyiv's alliances with Western countries like the United States and the United Kingdom.
Elsewhere in the interview, Arakhamia brought up former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson's surprise visit to Kyiv in April 2022. He said Johnson encouraged Ukraine to not "sign anything" with Russia and "just fight."
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-offered-end-war-if-ukraine-dropped-nato-bid-kyiv-official-1847373
As for Russia's terms, this article stops well short of saying those were the only terms, and Arakhamia detailed in other interviews some of the other terms.
More importantly, multiple outlets reviewed the actual proposals from early 2022, and the reporting was consistent. Ukraine, and Zelensky himself, agreed to the no-NATO and neutrality pledges. See, for example, Foreign Affairs, Financial Times, NPR, Rand, Wall Street Journal, etc. The biggest holdups were (1) security agreements - i.e., how to protect Ukraine from future Russia aggression - including requiring U.S. to send troops of Russia violated terms; (2) Crimea, Donbas, etc.; (3) size of Ukraine's military; (4) Ukraine's weapons restrictions; (5) Russian observers having full access to inspect all Ukraine military equipment; (6) "De-Nazification" programs; (7) Russian official language; (8) mandated pro-Russia history in schools.
It's not correct that Ukraine had agreed to the no-NATO and neutrality pledges. Arakhamia says in the same interview that this was tied to the security agreements, which in turn were the source of the delay. But it all led back to the neutrality issue.
Russia's demand at that time was to implement the Minsk Agreement, i.e. autonomous status for the Donbas within Ukraine. Crimea was to remain under Russia's control for 15 years, after which its status would be revisited. Ukraine would also be able to apply for EU membership.
As for language, the demand was that Russian and Ukrainian would return to equal status, not that Russian would be the exclusive language. We've talked about pro-Russian history before, and it's still not clear to me what you're referring to. There was a demand that schools in Russian-speaking areas be allowed to teach in Russian. That was reasonable enough, as were the proposed restrictions on Ukraine's military.
That's not a tenable position for Trump. He tells Putin to cease fire or we will boost aid to Ukraine. He tells Zelensky to cease fire or we will cut aid to Ukraine. If both sides keep fighting, which they almost certainly will, what does Trump do...cut military aid, or increase it?Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:As I predicted.Doc Holliday said:Yeah I don't think this is intended to be a long term goal. Its a ceasefire.Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:President-elect Donald Trump’s team has allegedly drafted a proposal to end the ongoing war in Ukraine war, per WSJ.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) November 7, 2024
Allegedly the plan includes significant conditions: Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current…
"Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current front lines and the establishment of a demilitarized zone between Russian-held territory and Ukraine."
That does not accomplish anything long term
Kyiv has to give up forever its claims on Donbas and Crimea
Moscow has to give up the idea that the rest of Western oriented Ukraine is not going to join EU-NATO soon.
Just a demilitarized zone solves nothing long term.
Zelensky is opposed because a ceasefire was tried back in 2014 and Ukraine lost Crimea...but that's because there were no real forcible conditions. IMO Zelensky is delusional because Trump will withhold U.S. arms and funding to Ukraine unless it enters peace talks with Russia.
Trump will demand forcible conditions. If Russia doesn't abide, its war. If Ukraine doesn't abide, they stop getting funding. These would be the conditions for 20 years.
Long term, I would clean up the insane corruption in Ukraine. We cannot allow an oligarchy state to enter NATO, although some would argue their oligarchy control has diminished, which it has, it could turn into an autocracy. They simply don't have the track record for it.BREAKING: Trump tells Putin to end the war with Ukraine.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 23, 2025
“We can do it the easy way, or the hard way.”
Love it
At this point he should sit Putin down and tell him to order a ceasefire right now and Trump will make Zelensky do it as well.
Putin must then give up any more territorial ambitions inside of Ukraine....and agree to Ukraine joining NATO/EU as soon as possible.
Zelensky must be told that he must give up the 20% of territory that the Russians currently hold.....if not the US will cut him off financially and leave him to deal with Putin and the Russians on his own
(lets just hope Congress and the permanent State don't try to impeach Trump again for negotiating with Russia)
Sam Lowry said:Arakhamia addressed that by saying that NATO was the key point and that ''everything else was simply rhetoric and political 'seasoning' about denazification, the Russian-speaking population, and blah-blah-blah." Probably an overstatement, but you get the point.sombear said:Arakhamia made it clear in multiple interviews that neither Boris nor anyone else from the west forced Ukraine's hand or anything close to it.Sam Lowry said:Russia Offered to End War if Ukraine Dropped NATO Bid: Kyiv Officialsombear said:You might have. Though we disagree, you have posted source material for some of your positions. I've just never come across reporting of any kind - including our corporate intel - that Putin just wanted neutrality and a reduced military. I've always seen a laundry list of bizarre terms.Sam Lowry said:I've done so many, many times. I'll try and throw out a few more when I get back to my desk.sombear said:
Please post detailed article supporting your position. I've posted several.
You may have posted articles that you think support your position in some way, but you won't find anything with Putin demanding incorporation of the Donbas pre-war because it doesn't exist. The Istanbul deal even provided for Ukraine to join the EU.
Published Nov 27, 2023
Russia offered to end Moscow's invasion of Ukraine in the spring of 2022 if Ukraine agreed to drop its ambitions to join NATO, according to the head of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's political party, who was present at peace negotiations.
David Arakhamia, leader of the Ukrainian political party Servant of the People, revealed part of the purported deal during an interview with Ukrainian journalist Natalia Moseychuk on Friday. The Kyiv official previously led the Ukrainian delegation that held peace talks with senior Russian officials in the months following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Both sides of the war have laid out conditions for a ceasefire in the conflict in recent months, but many war analysts doubt neither Zelensky nor Russian President Vladimir Putin currently has a serious urge to end the 21-month-long fight.
According to Arakhamia, however, there was a drafted peace agreement between Ukrainian and Russian negotiators early in the war. Arakhamia said that Moscow pledged to end the fighting if Ukraine's agreed to remain neutral and forego its bid to join NATO.
"They really hoped almost to the last that they would put the squeeze on us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality," Arakhamia told Moseychuck, according to an English translation of his comments by the Kyiv Post. "It was the biggest thing for them."
"They were ready to end the war if we took...neutrality and made commitments that we would not join NATO. This was the key point," the Ukrainian official added.
Ukraine has aimed to become a member of NATO for decades, and in September 2022, Kyiv announced its bid for a fast-tracked membership in the military alliance. Russian officials have warned that fighting would only escalate if Ukraine was admitted into NATO, which would solidify Kyiv's alliances with Western countries like the United States and the United Kingdom.
Elsewhere in the interview, Arakhamia brought up former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson's surprise visit to Kyiv in April 2022. He said Johnson encouraged Ukraine to not "sign anything" with Russia and "just fight."
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-offered-end-war-if-ukraine-dropped-nato-bid-kyiv-official-1847373
As for Russia's terms, this article stops well short of saying those were the only terms, and Arakhamia detailed in other interviews some of the other terms.
More importantly, multiple outlets reviewed the actual proposals from early 2022, and the reporting was consistent. Ukraine, and Zelensky himself, agreed to the no-NATO and neutrality pledges. See, for example, Foreign Affairs, Financial Times, NPR, Rand, Wall Street Journal, etc. The biggest holdups were (1) security agreements - i.e., how to protect Ukraine from future Russia aggression - including requiring U.S. to send troops of Russia violated terms; (2) Crimea, Donbas, etc.; (3) size of Ukraine's military; (4) Ukraine's weapons restrictions; (5) Russian observers having full access to inspect all Ukraine military equipment; (6) "De-Nazification" programs; (7) Russian official language; (8) mandated pro-Russia history in schools.
It's not correct that Ukraine had agreed to the no-NATO and neutrality pledges. Arakhamia says in the same interview that this was tied to the security agreements, which in turn were the source of the delay. But it all led back to the neutrality issue.
Russia's demand at that time was to implement the Minsk Agreement, i.e. autonomous status for the Donbas within Ukraine. Crimea was to remain under Russia's control for 15 years, after which its status would be revisited. Ukraine would also be able to apply for EU membership.
As for language, the demand was that Russian and Ukrainian would return to equal status, not that Russian would be the exclusive language. We've talked about pro-Russian history before, and it's still not clear to me what you're referring to. There was a demand that schools in Russian-speaking areas be allowed to teach in Russian. That was reasonable enough, as were the proposed restrictions on Ukraine's military.
We're not that far apart. I just think it's more semantical on NATO. Ukraine agreeing to that was massive, but of course it had to come with security agreements. Russia was essentially saying take our word for it and oh by the way reduce your military and weaponry to about 10% of what it was. We'll probably never know, but many observers think this was Russia's poison pill. They were never going to agree to NATO or other foreign troops enforcing the peace.
Sam Lowry said:That's not a tenable position for Trump. He tells Putin to cease fire or we will boost aid to Ukraine. He tells Zelensky to cease fire or we will cut aid to Ukraine. If both sides keep fighting, which they almost certainly will, what does Trump do...cut military aid, or increase it?Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:As I predicted.Doc Holliday said:Yeah I don't think this is intended to be a long term goal. Its a ceasefire.Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:President-elect Donald Trump’s team has allegedly drafted a proposal to end the ongoing war in Ukraine war, per WSJ.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) November 7, 2024
Allegedly the plan includes significant conditions: Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current…
"Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current front lines and the establishment of a demilitarized zone between Russian-held territory and Ukraine."
That does not accomplish anything long term
Kyiv has to give up forever its claims on Donbas and Crimea
Moscow has to give up the idea that the rest of Western oriented Ukraine is not going to join EU-NATO soon.
Just a demilitarized zone solves nothing long term.
Zelensky is opposed because a ceasefire was tried back in 2014 and Ukraine lost Crimea...but that's because there were no real forcible conditions. IMO Zelensky is delusional because Trump will withhold U.S. arms and funding to Ukraine unless it enters peace talks with Russia.
Trump will demand forcible conditions. If Russia doesn't abide, its war. If Ukraine doesn't abide, they stop getting funding. These would be the conditions for 20 years.
Long term, I would clean up the insane corruption in Ukraine. We cannot allow an oligarchy state to enter NATO, although some would argue their oligarchy control has diminished, which it has, it could turn into an autocracy. They simply don't have the track record for it.BREAKING: Trump tells Putin to end the war with Ukraine.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 23, 2025
“We can do it the easy way, or the hard way.”
Love it
At this point he should sit Putin down and tell him to order a ceasefire right now and Trump will make Zelensky do it as well.
Putin must then give up any more territorial ambitions inside of Ukraine....and agree to Ukraine joining NATO/EU as soon as possible.
Zelensky must be told that he must give up the 20% of territory that the Russians currently hold.....if not the US will cut him off financially and leave him to deal with Putin and the Russians on his own
(lets just hope Congress and the permanent State don't try to impeach Trump again for negotiating with Russia)
If Trump threated to use American troops (even in a peacekeeping way) I would assume that would make Putin come to heel quickly
In general I think Putin wants to end this war as soon as he can. He has Crimea and Donbas (protecting the Black Sea Naval base and the ethnic russians in Donbas and Crimea) and that lets him save face at home and keep Russians warm water port. It also allows him to end a war that is killing the Russian economy, making them dependent on China, killing lots of young men, and a conflict that is slowly destabilizing his regime.
Zelensky should be interesting in winning the war because its killing Ukraine to keep it up (financially, economically, demographically).....and if the US pulls support he literally can't even keep the lights on or pay his civil servants
I think there's zero chance Putin takes that deal, but we shall see.Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:That's not a tenable position for Trump. He tells Putin to cease fire or we will boost aid to Ukraine. He tells Zelensky to cease fire or we will cut aid to Ukraine. If both sides keep fighting, which they almost certainly will, what does Trump do...cut military aid, or increase it?Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:As I predicted.Doc Holliday said:Yeah I don't think this is intended to be a long term goal. Its a ceasefire.Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:President-elect Donald Trump’s team has allegedly drafted a proposal to end the ongoing war in Ukraine war, per WSJ.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) November 7, 2024
Allegedly the plan includes significant conditions: Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current…
"Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current front lines and the establishment of a demilitarized zone between Russian-held territory and Ukraine."
That does not accomplish anything long term
Kyiv has to give up forever its claims on Donbas and Crimea
Moscow has to give up the idea that the rest of Western oriented Ukraine is not going to join EU-NATO soon.
Just a demilitarized zone solves nothing long term.
Zelensky is opposed because a ceasefire was tried back in 2014 and Ukraine lost Crimea...but that's because there were no real forcible conditions. IMO Zelensky is delusional because Trump will withhold U.S. arms and funding to Ukraine unless it enters peace talks with Russia.
Trump will demand forcible conditions. If Russia doesn't abide, its war. If Ukraine doesn't abide, they stop getting funding. These would be the conditions for 20 years.
Long term, I would clean up the insane corruption in Ukraine. We cannot allow an oligarchy state to enter NATO, although some would argue their oligarchy control has diminished, which it has, it could turn into an autocracy. They simply don't have the track record for it.BREAKING: Trump tells Putin to end the war with Ukraine.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 23, 2025
“We can do it the easy way, or the hard way.”
Love it
At this point he should sit Putin down and tell him to order a ceasefire right now and Trump will make Zelensky do it as well.
Putin must then give up any more territorial ambitions inside of Ukraine....and agree to Ukraine joining NATO/EU as soon as possible.
Zelensky must be told that he must give up the 20% of territory that the Russians currently hold.....if not the US will cut him off financially and leave him to deal with Putin and the Russians on his own
(lets just hope Congress and the permanent State don't try to impeach Trump again for negotiating with Russia)
If Trump threated to use American troops (even in a peacekeeping way) I would assume that would make Putin come to heel quickly
In general I think Putin wants to end this war as soon as he can. He has Crimea and Donbas (protecting the Black Sea Naval base and the ethnic russians in Donbas and Crimea) and that lets him save face at home and keep Russians warm water port. It also allows him to end a war that is killing the Russian economy, making them dependent on China, killing lots of young men, and a conflict that is slowly destabilizing his regime.
Zelensky should be interesting in winning the war because its killing Ukraine to keep it up (financially, economically, demographically).....and if the US pulls support he literally can't even keep the lights on or pay his civil servants
Sam Lowry said:I think there's zero chance Putin takes that deal, but we shall see.Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:That's not a tenable position for Trump. He tells Putin to cease fire or we will boost aid to Ukraine. He tells Zelensky to cease fire or we will cut aid to Ukraine. If both sides keep fighting, which they almost certainly will, what does Trump do...cut military aid, or increase it?Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:As I predicted.Doc Holliday said:Yeah I don't think this is intended to be a long term goal. Its a ceasefire.Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:President-elect Donald Trump’s team has allegedly drafted a proposal to end the ongoing war in Ukraine war, per WSJ.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) November 7, 2024
Allegedly the plan includes significant conditions: Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current…
"Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current front lines and the establishment of a demilitarized zone between Russian-held territory and Ukraine."
That does not accomplish anything long term
Kyiv has to give up forever its claims on Donbas and Crimea
Moscow has to give up the idea that the rest of Western oriented Ukraine is not going to join EU-NATO soon.
Just a demilitarized zone solves nothing long term.
Zelensky is opposed because a ceasefire was tried back in 2014 and Ukraine lost Crimea...but that's because there were no real forcible conditions. IMO Zelensky is delusional because Trump will withhold U.S. arms and funding to Ukraine unless it enters peace talks with Russia.
Trump will demand forcible conditions. If Russia doesn't abide, its war. If Ukraine doesn't abide, they stop getting funding. These would be the conditions for 20 years.
Long term, I would clean up the insane corruption in Ukraine. We cannot allow an oligarchy state to enter NATO, although some would argue their oligarchy control has diminished, which it has, it could turn into an autocracy. They simply don't have the track record for it.BREAKING: Trump tells Putin to end the war with Ukraine.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 23, 2025
“We can do it the easy way, or the hard way.”
Love it
At this point he should sit Putin down and tell him to order a ceasefire right now and Trump will make Zelensky do it as well.
Putin must then give up any more territorial ambitions inside of Ukraine....and agree to Ukraine joining NATO/EU as soon as possible.
Zelensky must be told that he must give up the 20% of territory that the Russians currently hold.....if not the US will cut him off financially and leave him to deal with Putin and the Russians on his own
(lets just hope Congress and the permanent State don't try to impeach Trump again for negotiating with Russia)
If Trump threated to use American troops (even in a peacekeeping way) I would assume that would make Putin come to heel quickly
In general I think Putin wants to end this war as soon as he can. He has Crimea and Donbas (protecting the Black Sea Naval base and the ethnic russians in Donbas and Crimea) and that lets him save face at home and keep Russians warm water port. It also allows him to end a war that is killing the Russian economy, making them dependent on China, killing lots of young men, and a conflict that is slowly destabilizing his regime.
Zelensky should be interesting in winning the war because its killing Ukraine to keep it up (financially, economically, demographically).....and if the US pulls support he literally can't even keep the lights on or pay his civil servants
I think he is scared of Trump....and he should be
And a dozen U.S. Army divisions can change a lot of minds quickly
Putin may be evil, but he is not stupid.Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:I think there's zero chance Putin takes that deal, but we shall see.Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:That's not a tenable position for Trump. He tells Putin to cease fire or we will boost aid to Ukraine. He tells Zelensky to cease fire or we will cut aid to Ukraine. If both sides keep fighting, which they almost certainly will, what does Trump do...cut military aid, or increase it?Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:As I predicted.Doc Holliday said:Yeah I don't think this is intended to be a long term goal. Its a ceasefire.Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:President-elect Donald Trump’s team has allegedly drafted a proposal to end the ongoing war in Ukraine war, per WSJ.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) November 7, 2024
Allegedly the plan includes significant conditions: Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current…
"Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current front lines and the establishment of a demilitarized zone between Russian-held territory and Ukraine."
That does not accomplish anything long term
Kyiv has to give up forever its claims on Donbas and Crimea
Moscow has to give up the idea that the rest of Western oriented Ukraine is not going to join EU-NATO soon.
Just a demilitarized zone solves nothing long term.
Zelensky is opposed because a ceasefire was tried back in 2014 and Ukraine lost Crimea...but that's because there were no real forcible conditions. IMO Zelensky is delusional because Trump will withhold U.S. arms and funding to Ukraine unless it enters peace talks with Russia.
Trump will demand forcible conditions. If Russia doesn't abide, its war. If Ukraine doesn't abide, they stop getting funding. These would be the conditions for 20 years.
Long term, I would clean up the insane corruption in Ukraine. We cannot allow an oligarchy state to enter NATO, although some would argue their oligarchy control has diminished, which it has, it could turn into an autocracy. They simply don't have the track record for it.BREAKING: Trump tells Putin to end the war with Ukraine.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 23, 2025
“We can do it the easy way, or the hard way.”
Love it
At this point he should sit Putin down and tell him to order a ceasefire right now and Trump will make Zelensky do it as well.
Putin must then give up any more territorial ambitions inside of Ukraine....and agree to Ukraine joining NATO/EU as soon as possible.
Zelensky must be told that he must give up the 20% of territory that the Russians currently hold.....if not the US will cut him off financially and leave him to deal with Putin and the Russians on his own
(lets just hope Congress and the permanent State don't try to impeach Trump again for negotiating with Russia)
If Trump threated to use American troops (even in a peacekeeping way) I would assume that would make Putin come to heel quickly
In general I think Putin wants to end this war as soon as he can. He has Crimea and Donbas (protecting the Black Sea Naval base and the ethnic russians in Donbas and Crimea) and that lets him save face at home and keep Russians warm water port. It also allows him to end a war that is killing the Russian economy, making them dependent on China, killing lots of young men, and a conflict that is slowly destabilizing his regime.
Zelensky should be interesting in winning the war because its killing Ukraine to keep it up (financially, economically, demographically).....and if the US pulls support he literally can't even keep the lights on or pay his civil servants
I think he is scared of Trump....and he should be
And a dozen U.S. Army divisions can change a lot of minds quickly
He knows Trump may send more weapons and other support to Ukraine and might increase sanctions on Russia, but he also knows Trump will not send American troops. He probably won't even threaten it. When he floated that early on, he got major push back.
I'd draw lines slightly different for Putin (he'd have to give back certain, not all, Ukraine land gains), but other than that I agree with this, and hopefully a peace could be achieved.Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:As I predicted.Doc Holliday said:Yeah I don't think this is intended to be a long term goal. Its a ceasefire.Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:President-elect Donald Trump’s team has allegedly drafted a proposal to end the ongoing war in Ukraine war, per WSJ.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) November 7, 2024
Allegedly the plan includes significant conditions: Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current…
"Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current front lines and the establishment of a demilitarized zone between Russian-held territory and Ukraine."
That does not accomplish anything long term
Kyiv has to give up forever its claims on Donbas and Crimea
Moscow has to give up the idea that the rest of Western oriented Ukraine is not going to join EU-NATO soon.
Just a demilitarized zone solves nothing long term.
Zelensky is opposed because a ceasefire was tried back in 2014 and Ukraine lost Crimea...but that's because there were no real forcible conditions. IMO Zelensky is delusional because Trump will withhold U.S. arms and funding to Ukraine unless it enters peace talks with Russia.
Trump will demand forcible conditions. If Russia doesn't abide, its war. If Ukraine doesn't abide, they stop getting funding. These would be the conditions for 20 years.
Long term, I would clean up the insane corruption in Ukraine. We cannot allow an oligarchy state to enter NATO, although some would argue their oligarchy control has diminished, which it has, it could turn into an autocracy. They simply don't have the track record for it.BREAKING: Trump tells Putin to end the war with Ukraine.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 23, 2025
“We can do it the easy way, or the hard way.”
Love it
At this point he should sit Putin down and tell him to order a ceasefire right now and Trump will make Zelensky do it as well.
Putin must then give up any more territorial ambitions inside of Ukraine....and agree to Ukraine joining NATO/EU as soon as possible.
Zelensky must be told that he must give up the 20% of territory that the Russians currently hold.....if not the US will cut him off financially and leave him to deal with Putin and the Russians on his own
(lets just hope Congress and the permanent State don't try to impeach Trump again for negotiating with Russia)
Putin knows Trump can/will leverage China in a way that could severely hinder Russia,
I doubt we have a dozen divisions in all of Europe, much less the ability to move them quickly. Russia probably has six times that in Ukraine, and more in reserve.Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:I think there's zero chance Putin takes that deal, but we shall see.Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:That's not a tenable position for Trump. He tells Putin to cease fire or we will boost aid to Ukraine. He tells Zelensky to cease fire or we will cut aid to Ukraine. If both sides keep fighting, which they almost certainly will, what does Trump do...cut military aid, or increase it?Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:As I predicted.Doc Holliday said:Yeah I don't think this is intended to be a long term goal. Its a ceasefire.Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:President-elect Donald Trump’s team has allegedly drafted a proposal to end the ongoing war in Ukraine war, per WSJ.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) November 7, 2024
Allegedly the plan includes significant conditions: Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current…
"Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current front lines and the establishment of a demilitarized zone between Russian-held territory and Ukraine."
That does not accomplish anything long term
Kyiv has to give up forever its claims on Donbas and Crimea
Moscow has to give up the idea that the rest of Western oriented Ukraine is not going to join EU-NATO soon.
Just a demilitarized zone solves nothing long term.
Zelensky is opposed because a ceasefire was tried back in 2014 and Ukraine lost Crimea...but that's because there were no real forcible conditions. IMO Zelensky is delusional because Trump will withhold U.S. arms and funding to Ukraine unless it enters peace talks with Russia.
Trump will demand forcible conditions. If Russia doesn't abide, its war. If Ukraine doesn't abide, they stop getting funding. These would be the conditions for 20 years.
Long term, I would clean up the insane corruption in Ukraine. We cannot allow an oligarchy state to enter NATO, although some would argue their oligarchy control has diminished, which it has, it could turn into an autocracy. They simply don't have the track record for it.BREAKING: Trump tells Putin to end the war with Ukraine.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 23, 2025
“We can do it the easy way, or the hard way.”
Love it
At this point he should sit Putin down and tell him to order a ceasefire right now and Trump will make Zelensky do it as well.
Putin must then give up any more territorial ambitions inside of Ukraine....and agree to Ukraine joining NATO/EU as soon as possible.
Zelensky must be told that he must give up the 20% of territory that the Russians currently hold.....if not the US will cut him off financially and leave him to deal with Putin and the Russians on his own
(lets just hope Congress and the permanent State don't try to impeach Trump again for negotiating with Russia)
If Trump threated to use American troops (even in a peacekeeping way) I would assume that would make Putin come to heel quickly
In general I think Putin wants to end this war as soon as he can. He has Crimea and Donbas (protecting the Black Sea Naval base and the ethnic russians in Donbas and Crimea) and that lets him save face at home and keep Russians warm water port. It also allows him to end a war that is killing the Russian economy, making them dependent on China, killing lots of young men, and a conflict that is slowly destabilizing his regime.
Zelensky should be interesting in winning the war because its killing Ukraine to keep it up (financially, economically, demographically).....and if the US pulls support he literally can't even keep the lights on or pay his civil servants
I think he is scared of Trump....and he should be
And a dozen U.S. Army divisions can change a lot of minds quickly
Toretsk has fallen in the last few days. Chasiv Yar is in the mop-up phase. Pokrovsk is cut off and fully encircled. After that its officially end game--Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Konstantinovka--and exit the Kiev regime from the Donbas. No Russian leader would even think about freezing the battle lines at this point unless there was some kind of grand bargain involved...assuming there was a chance he could trust it.
Sam Lowry said:I doubt we have a dozen divisions in all of Europe, much less the ability to move them quickly. Russia probably has six times that in Ukraine, and more in reserve.Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:I think there's zero chance Putin takes that deal, but we shall see.Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:That's not a tenable position for Trump. He tells Putin to cease fire or we will boost aid to Ukraine. He tells Zelensky to cease fire or we will cut aid to Ukraine. If both sides keep fighting, which they almost certainly will, what does Trump do...cut military aid, or increase it?Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:As I predicted.Doc Holliday said:Yeah I don't think this is intended to be a long term goal. Its a ceasefire.Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:President-elect Donald Trump’s team has allegedly drafted a proposal to end the ongoing war in Ukraine war, per WSJ.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) November 7, 2024
Allegedly the plan includes significant conditions: Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current…
"Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current front lines and the establishment of a demilitarized zone between Russian-held territory and Ukraine."
That does not accomplish anything long term
Kyiv has to give up forever its claims on Donbas and Crimea
Moscow has to give up the idea that the rest of Western oriented Ukraine is not going to join EU-NATO soon.
Just a demilitarized zone solves nothing long term.
Zelensky is opposed because a ceasefire was tried back in 2014 and Ukraine lost Crimea...but that's because there were no real forcible conditions. IMO Zelensky is delusional because Trump will withhold U.S. arms and funding to Ukraine unless it enters peace talks with Russia.
Trump will demand forcible conditions. If Russia doesn't abide, its war. If Ukraine doesn't abide, they stop getting funding. These would be the conditions for 20 years.
Long term, I would clean up the insane corruption in Ukraine. We cannot allow an oligarchy state to enter NATO, although some would argue their oligarchy control has diminished, which it has, it could turn into an autocracy. They simply don't have the track record for it.BREAKING: Trump tells Putin to end the war with Ukraine.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 23, 2025
“We can do it the easy way, or the hard way.”
Love it
At this point he should sit Putin down and tell him to order a ceasefire right now and Trump will make Zelensky do it as well.
Putin must then give up any more territorial ambitions inside of Ukraine....and agree to Ukraine joining NATO/EU as soon as possible.
Zelensky must be told that he must give up the 20% of territory that the Russians currently hold.....if not the US will cut him off financially and leave him to deal with Putin and the Russians on his own
(lets just hope Congress and the permanent State don't try to impeach Trump again for negotiating with Russia)
If Trump threated to use American troops (even in a peacekeeping way) I would assume that would make Putin come to heel quickly
In general I think Putin wants to end this war as soon as he can. He has Crimea and Donbas (protecting the Black Sea Naval base and the ethnic russians in Donbas and Crimea) and that lets him save face at home and keep Russians warm water port. It also allows him to end a war that is killing the Russian economy, making them dependent on China, killing lots of young men, and a conflict that is slowly destabilizing his regime.
Zelensky should be interesting in winning the war because its killing Ukraine to keep it up (financially, economically, demographically).....and if the US pulls support he literally can't even keep the lights on or pay his civil servants
I think he is scared of Trump....and he should be
And a dozen U.S. Army divisions can change a lot of minds quickly
Toretsk has fallen in the last few days. Chasiv Yar is in the mop-up phase. Pokrovsk is cut off and fully encircled. After that its officially end game--Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Konstantinovka--and exit the Kyiv regime from the Donbas. No Russian leader would even think about freezing the battle lines at this point unless there was some kind of grand bargain involved...assuming there was a chance he could trust it.
ROFL. No.
Also as I predicted. But what you're failing to recognize, is that also as I predicted, the terms are going to be incompatible and out of the question for Putin.Doc Holliday said:As I predicted.Doc Holliday said:Yeah I don't think this is intended to be a long term goal. Its a ceasefire.Redbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:President-elect Donald Trump’s team has allegedly drafted a proposal to end the ongoing war in Ukraine war, per WSJ.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) November 7, 2024
Allegedly the plan includes significant conditions: Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current…
"Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current front lines and the establishment of a demilitarized zone between Russian-held territory and Ukraine."
That does not accomplish anything long term
Kyiv has to give up forever its claims on Donbas and Crimea
Moscow has to give up the idea that the rest of Western oriented Ukraine is not going to join EU-NATO soon.
Just a demilitarized zone solves nothing long term.
Zelensky is opposed because a ceasefire was tried back in 2014 and Ukraine lost Crimea...but that's because there were no real forcible conditions. IMO Zelensky is delusional because Trump will withhold U.S. arms and funding to Ukraine unless it enters peace talks with Russia.
Trump will demand forcible conditions. If Russia doesn't abide, its war. If Ukraine doesn't abide, they stop getting funding. These would be the conditions for 20 years.
Long term, I would clean up the insane corruption in Ukraine. We cannot allow an oligarchy state to enter NATO, although some would argue their oligarchy control has diminished, which it has, it could turn into an autocracy. They simply don't have the track record for it.BREAKING: Trump tells Putin to end the war with Ukraine.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 23, 2025
“We can do it the easy way, or the hard way.”
Meaning....Trump will go forward with efforts to break Russia's will to continue fighting. Economic and Political sanctions, and ramping up Ukraine armament.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Great example of the internal contradiction in your argument = you SAY static borders are the problem, but in fact, it's the effort to change borders that cause wars.Redbrickbear said:So borders are to be static forever?whiterock said:if we accept that reasoning as material grounds for changing borders, the world will be engulfed in war.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:
alas, the Ukrainians do not agree that they are really down deep plain ol' Russians and have fought to be free of Russia every time they've had a chance.
Of course not
But there are millions of people living within the borders of Ukraine....who are not Ukrainians
Its not surprising the most ethnically Ukrainian parts of the country want to align with the West....and the most ethnically Russian parts of the country want to align with Moscow
When has that ever happened in human history? unchangeable borders
Not to mention the powers that be in DC have helped bring about border changes in a dozen or so countries since 1991
Kosovo, S. Sudan, East Timor, etc
["since 1990, at least 25 new independent countries recognized by the international community and have been founded with support from the United States, most of which proceeded along with enormous disputes and conflicts. Over the years, the international community has come to reach some consensus on opposing secession from an existing state as well as safeguarding territorial and sovereign integrity. At the same time, the United States has frequently used human rights as an excuse to support certain separatist movements in other countries and even to obstruct and undermine other states' anti-secession actions."
For many years, the United States has provided support to the separatist movements in Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong. Supported the independence of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, George, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan (from the USSR), South Sudan (from Sudan), East Timor (from Indonesia), Namibia (from South Africa), Eritrea (from Ethiopia), Kosovo (from Serbia), and several other nations.]
The foundation stone of every state is to exercise sovereignty over its territory. Every state will go to war to defend its territory. Every time. The quickest, surest way to start a war is to try to move borders. And when that attempt to move borders is not an internal effort by a enclaved ethnic group but an outright invasion of one state to seize all/part of another state, war involves not just one state, but all states. The entire world lines up on one side or the other. Sure a few very poor countries halfway around the world from the zone of contention might not have strong feelings, but their allies/trading partners might, and that will impact their decision-making significantly.
No nation deserves its own state more than the Kurds. And no nation, today, is less likely to get one than the Kurds. Turkey is simply not going to let it happen. It will go to war to prevent it, with the whole world if need be. Promoting statehood for the Kurds is the quickest, surest path to destruction of Nato. Few are more sympathetic to Kurdish statehood than me. But I'm not going to war with Turkey over that question. Nor am I going to risk the Nato alliance over that question. Preserving Nato is more important to the American People than fixing the errors Sykes/Picot made in Mesopotamia.
You try to change a border, you always get a war.
Quickest way to encourage more states to challenge more borders.....let unilateral efforts to do so go unchallenged.
Very old lesson.
Still very relevant.
I advise heeding it.
The entire proposition that the existence within the west of spirited debate about Nato membership for Ukraine is a justification for war is completely unsupportable by existing facts. It is pure Russian propaganda designed to mislead less well-informed minds.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL repeat after me:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Except Nato has never extended to Ukraine a formal offer of membership. The votes are no there to admit them.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:It was public knowledge we gave billions to Ukraine starting when they left the Soviets. We do that with all nascent democracies. What does that have to do with a "coup" two decades later?Redbrickbear said:sombear said:
I thought we had moved beyond Nuland but evidently not. Serious question for you. What exactly did Nuland say that bothers you, and what about that call bothers you and/or in any way suggests a coup? Not a link. I'm truly interested in your take on this.
Well Nuland admitted on tape that the U.S. spent billions on influencing the politics of Ukraine in the decade leaving up to the Maidan coup/protest of dignity in 2014
That is a fact….not an opinion
In other tapes we have her (and other leaders) discussing who they should install in power in Kyiv….including the famous "f-the EU" line
This would all be strong evidence that DC was involved deeply in regime change in Ukraine long before the current war broke out.
Making the argument that DC spends billions of tax payer money buying influence around the world….does not mean Ukraine was not a different kind of animal
The DC foreign policy establishment decided without consulting the American people to try and pull a major border state of Moscow into the U.S. orbit
A policy that even long term DC experts like Kissinger said would be a disaster and a major mistake.
Did CIA or State Department officials direct the coup? Or did they simply come along side and take advantage of an organic revolution?
We won't know the truth until a few decades from now when the files get declassified
But we one day will find out the truth…it always comes out
Ukraine did not even request membership until after it was invaded by Russia.
Geez, dude. You are literally inventing boogeymen.
It like you don't understand that there of course are lots of factions at play
Some (mostly in DC) that want Ukraine in NATO.....and some (mostly in Europe) that oppose Ukraine in NATO
Biden literally said Ukraine should be in NATO
[Biden assures Zelenskiy that NATO membership in Ukraine's hands, Kyiv says]
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/
And Major DC think tanks and Mainstream Media entities are literally posting articles saying that Ukraine should be incorporated into NATO
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/five-reasons-why-ukraine-should-be-invited-to-join-nato/
https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2023/07/why-nato-should-accept-ukraine?lang=en
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-nato-allies-georgia-russia-donald-trump-war-british-french/
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/forget-nato-membership-for-ukraine-instead-trade-it-for-ukrainian-sovereignty/
- Nato has not offered membership to Ukraine.
- Ukraine is not eligible for Nato membership at this time.
- Ukraine does not have the votes it needs to join Nato at this time.
- Ukraine did not even request Nato membership until AFTER it was invaded in 2022.
The facts are simply not with you, friend......
None of these facts have I disagreed with
Now repeat after me
-Factions in the US government do want NATO membership offered to Ukraine
So? Nato membership for Ukraine has never been the state policy of the USG. Public debate of the question is not a threat to Russia. Refusal to remain silent on the question, or to publicly disavow the idea is not a threat to Russia. 31 other countries ALSO have to agree to add Ukraine. Further, Nato has membership critieria, and Ukraine does not meet them - they are not eligible for membership. .
-Factions in DC do think Ukraine should be eligible for NATO membership
So? See above. We do have a 1st Amendment in this country. We will debate about whatever the hell we want to debate about.
-Factions in DC are putting pressure on European allies to vote for NATO membership (including attacking leaders like Victor Orban in Hungary and Robert Fico in Slovakia who oppose it)
Could you expect anything less in a free society? You are ready to feed Ukraine to the Russian bear. Others want Ukraine in. I'm in the middle = admitting Ukraine before they're ready is a threat to the integrity of Nato, so I'd like to watch & wait for a decade or three and see how Ukraine "grows" as a western free-market democratic system. Failing to debate those and other points would cede policy to wonks, who do not have an unblemished record. (In fairness, no faction has an unblemished record on such things.....) Wars seem to happen no matter how hard people try to avoid them....
-Factions in DC are PUBLICLY saying that Ukraine should be brought into NATO
SO WHAT?!?! Are we going to stop public debate to avoid provoking autocracies? Or are we going to tell the autocracies to go pound sand?
This has been going on since Obama....
Its nothing knew....and no secret
-Ukraine was not eligible for Nato membership in 2014. (nascent, fragile democratic processes).
-Ukraine was not eligible for Nato membership in 2022. (above + border disputes over Crimea)
-Ukraine is LESS eligible for Nato membership now than at any time in its existence (a hot war with a major power over the territorial integrity of your state).
Ukraine is a textbook example of a state NOT eligible for Nato membership. And as long as a remnant Ukrainian state refuses to acknowledge Russian sovereignty over portions of Ukraine currently under Russian control, Ukraine will remain constitutionally ineligible for Nato membership.
whiterock said:Great example of the internal contradiction in your argument = you SAY static borders are the problem, but in fact, it's the effort to change borders that cause wars.Redbrickbear said:So borders are to be static forever?whiterock said:if we accept that reasoning as material grounds for changing borders, the world will be engulfed in war.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:
alas, the Ukrainians do not agree that they are really down deep plain ol' Russians and have fought to be free of Russia every time they've had a chance.
Of course not
But there are millions of people living within the borders of Ukraine....who are not Ukrainians
Its not surprising the most ethnically Ukrainian parts of the country want to align with the West....and the most ethnically Russian parts of the country want to align with Moscow
When has that ever happened in human history? unchangeable borders
Not to mention the powers that be in DC have helped bring about border changes in a dozen or so countries since 1991
Kosovo, S. Sudan, East Timor, etc
["since 1990, at least 25 new independent countries recognized by the international community and have been founded with support from the United States, most of which proceeded along with enormous disputes and conflicts. Over the years, the international community has come to reach some consensus on opposing secession from an existing state as well as safeguarding territorial and sovereign integrity. At the same time, the United States has frequently used human rights as an excuse to support certain separatist movements in other countries and even to obstruct and undermine other states' anti-secession actions."
For many years, the United States has provided support to the separatist movements in Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong. Supported the independence of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, George, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan (from the USSR), South Sudan (from Sudan), East Timor (from Indonesia), Namibia (from South Africa), Eritrea (from Ethiopia), Kosovo (from Serbia), and several other nations.]
The foundation stone of every state is to exercise sovereignty over its territory. Every state will go to war to defend its territory. Every time. The quickest, surest way to start a war is to try to move borders. And when that attempt to move borders is not an internal effort by a enclaved ethnic group but an outright invasion of one state to seize all/part of another state, war involves not just one state, but all states. The entire world lines up on one side or the other. Sure a few very poor countries halfway around the world from the zone of contention might not have strong feelings, but their allies/trading partners might, and that will impact their decision-making significantly.
You try to change a border, you always get a war.
Then why has DC consistently supported secession movements and border changes for decades all over the world?
Would you consider this pro-war behavior?
What secession movements/border changes?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Great example of the internal contradiction in your argument = you SAY static borders are the problem, but in fact, it's the effort to change borders that cause wars.Redbrickbear said:So borders are to be static forever?whiterock said:if we accept that reasoning as material grounds for changing borders, the world will be engulfed in war.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:
alas, the Ukrainians do not agree that they are really down deep plain ol' Russians and have fought to be free of Russia every time they've had a chance.
Of course not
But there are millions of people living within the borders of Ukraine....who are not Ukrainians
Its not surprising the most ethnically Ukrainian parts of the country want to align with the West....and the most ethnically Russian parts of the country want to align with Moscow
When has that ever happened in human history? unchangeable borders
Not to mention the powers that be in DC have helped bring about border changes in a dozen or so countries since 1991
Kosovo, S. Sudan, East Timor, etc
["since 1990, at least 25 new independent countries recognized by the international community and have been founded with support from the United States, most of which proceeded along with enormous disputes and conflicts. Over the years, the international community has come to reach some consensus on opposing secession from an existing state as well as safeguarding territorial and sovereign integrity. At the same time, the United States has frequently used human rights as an excuse to support certain separatist movements in other countries and even to obstruct and undermine other states' anti-secession actions."
For many years, the United States has provided support to the separatist movements in Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong. Supported the independence of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, George, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan (from the USSR), South Sudan (from Sudan), East Timor (from Indonesia), Namibia (from South Africa), Eritrea (from Ethiopia), Kosovo (from Serbia), and several other nations.]
The foundation stone of every state is to exercise sovereignty over its territory. Every state will go to war to defend its territory. Every time. The quickest, surest way to start a war is to try to move borders. And when that attempt to move borders is not an internal effort by a enclaved ethnic group but an outright invasion of one state to seize all/part of another state, war involves not just one state, but all states. The entire world lines up on one side or the other. Sure a few very poor countries halfway around the world from the zone of contention might not have strong feelings, but their allies/trading partners might, and that will impact their decision-making significantly.
You try to change a border, you always get a war.
Then why has DC consistently supported secession movements and border changes for decades all over the world?
Would you consider this pro-war behavior?
Dude. Nato membership for Ukraine at this moment means Nato is stepping directly into a hot war.Sam Lowry said:Of course you have endorsed NATO membership, just not right away.whiterock said:Russia doesn't want Ukraine to be a border zone. Russia wants Ukraine to be Russian.Sam Lowry said:No. A nuclear capable Russia 600 miles closer to NATO is what you want if you support NATO expansion.whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:I wish people understood what a screwed up place Ukraine has been for a long time. I've seen videos of Ukrainian soldiers committing war crimes. People say "what about Russia?". We're not funding Russia.whiterock said:Trump has, technically, already escalated - he's called for increasing NATO defense spending to 5% of GDP. The Poles have already announced they will do so. There's also strategic escalation ongoing, and you can take it to the bank Trump will continue it (i.e. he flirted with it in his admin) - putting permanent Nato military installations in former WP countries. The Romanians have already approved building a major NATO joint base (Ramstein equivalent) at an existing Romania air base = 10k troops & squadrons of aircraft. In 2027, A German brigade will be stationed in Lithuania, to guard the Suwalki Gap. Also public statements about NATO bases in Finland.Doc Holliday said:You're correct that Biden took half-measures. We don't even have any signed military data sharing agreements with Ukraine, No geospatial data, nothing. The same clowns that prolonged war in Afghanistan/Iraq and spent damn near $8 trillion doing so are in charge of this war. That leads me to believe they want to make this a prolonged proxy war for as long as possible. After personally visiting NATO in Brussels and seeing CNN on every TV in their building...I think they're also clowns.whiterock said:Doesn't sit right with me at all, but when you pair the two things together in an argument, there is an implied "we have to stop doing X abroad so we can do Y at home." Certainly that is the construction of many who argue here and most of the arguments on the matter in the public square. Fact is, we have to do both.Doc Holliday said:I'm not asking to change foreign policy to benefit domestic policy. I'm not stating a cause-effect relationship.whiterock said:yes, it's exactly what you are getting at. You are (along with millions of others) suggesting a cause-effect relationship - that we are not responding adequately to disasters, or canceling opposing views, or tolerating illegal immigration, or mismanaging big pharma/healthcare to facilitate policies abroad because we are obsessed with foreign affairs. That is just not so. There is nothing about fixing any of those domestic issues which would require a single change in foreign policy. In fact stopping everything we're doing abroad, closing all the bases, shutting off all the aid, bringing our entire diplomatic corps home.....would not come remotely close to balancing the budget. Those problems you cited are easily fixable with good policy, which will require negligible expense (and in many cases save us money).Doc Holliday said:Again, that's not what I'm getting at. There's TWO wars. One domestic and one abroad.whiterock said:
Your comment above reflects the faulty premise running thru the vast majority of isolationist arguments - that disengaging from world affairs will help fix our domestic problems. It's the opposite. Disengagement will make those problems worse. How many new bases do you want to build in Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria? Do you want to have to build a 600 ship navy again? Maintain a 3m soldier army again? How is letting China bully the rest of Asia going to benefit our economy? (and on and on....)
Cutting all foreign aid does not balance the budget.
Closing DOD and disbanding our military does not balance the budget.
DOING BOTH DOES NOT BALANCE OUR BUDGET.
Close down Dept of Education. States can handle the role just fine.
But if you want to make a really big impact = end the Green Energy nonsense, all $93T of it.
Repeat after me: We cannot balance our budget with a series of bad foreign policy decisions.
DC is super supportive of war in Ukraine or war anywhere. They jump through the hoops for financial support, weapons etc. When it comes to putting American's first, they're silent. They don't have the same sense of urgency that they do with war. When we have major weather disasters, they'll let people die, especially if they have certain political views. They let millions of illegals in. They allow big pharma and healthcare to let us die in order for those groups to be insanely greedy.
If we keep the current status quo together for the next several decades, our country won't even be recognizable and the freedom you and I would fight for, won't even exist. That's what I'm getting at.
The people in favor of the war in Ukraine have to understand that if we don't win the war at home, then the war in Ukraine doesn't matter. I want you to be pissed off that they're enthusiastic about war in Ukraine and against American First.
If we lose the war in Ukraine (i.e. let Russia have as much of it as it wants), we will in a worse position no matter how much improvement we make on those other things.
Don't take the false dilemma. BOTH Ukraine and the border (et al...) are important. We have to win on BOTH. Failure on either one is bad, and cannot be offset by victory on the other.
There is no number of bad foreign policy decisions which will balance our budget. In fact, each bad foreign policy decision will saddle us with ever greater future costs.
I'm asking to treat both equally and we're not.
It pisses me off that we send hundreds of billions in aid to Ukraine and simultaneously don't give a damn about hurricane victims. $5 billion for the border is too much, but hundreds of billions to Ukraine is urgent.
Surely that doesn't sit right with you guys?
What are your red lines?
Are you ok if this war proceeds for a decade or so?
Are you ok if it costs us a few trillion?
What end goal do you have in mind?
The end is simple: stop Russia, up to and including causing a collapse of the current regime. We do have it in our power to do that. quite easily. Nato GDP dwarfs Russia. Zero chance Russia can last longer than Nato. Biden has simply been taking half-measures.
Why is that end so important? See sombear's comments above. Russia will always have the ability to rebuild armies and airforces, which makes them an existential threat if not robustly resisted. For centuries they have looked west and seen they need to modernize, but the corruption always wins. As a result, throughout the centuries, they have over and over and over demonstrated a lack of maturity to know their limits. Their move against Ukraine was a frickin' comedy of errors, from intelligence assessments, to operational planning, to strategic & tactical execution. But look what it's costing to stop them......
History is abundantly clear on this: Russia is a bully. If you don't knock them flat on their asses when they get out of line, they will keep coming.
US and Western intel liaison with Ukraine is robust. We helped Ukraine literally rebuilt its agencies from scratch to rid them of Russian infiltration. And, of course, we trained trained trained, in classical FI/CI operations as well as paramilitary operations. Had it not been for all this "covert" investment going back to 2015-2016 timeframe, the Russian plan for a 72-hour operation to take down Ukraine would almost certainly have been successful.
I don't trust them. Our intelligence community and military leaders have largely claimed that Trump is a Russian asset as well. I don't know how you feel good about this war considering those people are in charge.
The Russian asset meme has run its course. You will hear some of the die-hards on the left still parrot it because they believe it, but it's clearly not an election winner so it will die a natural death.
This is what DC believes. This is the belief of the military industrial complex, national security, NATO and DC.The only explanation for today’s appalling performance by @realDonaldTrump is the Russians have high value compromising intel on POTUS. Something that would have been discovered during any serviceman’s background investigation. @realDonaldTrump is unfit to command our troops.
— Major General (ret) Paul Eaton (@PaulDEaton52) July 16, 2018
Trump will deliver peace either through major aggression or pulling funds. Our leaders very clearly don't want that. How do you reconcile this?
That is pure projection by his political opponents. He and his team are making all the right statements and, as I predicted, Trump is not going to pull funds. Has very clearly signaled such to the Ukrainians.
That is a fair price Russia pays for its aggression. We could always stop construction of the bases, or defer the deployment of Nato troops to the Baltics, or etc.......in exchange for Russian withdrawal from Ukraine.
The first faulty premise to sweep from analysis is that Nato actions provoked the war. Such is pure poppycock. Russian imperialism, an effort to rebuild something similar to the Ussr/Warsaw Pact footprint, is 100% the cause of the Russo-Ukraine War. Russia thought they could take Ukraine quickly and without consequence. Now, they are caught in a trap from which their current regime cannot escape. they cannot win, and they cannot withdraw. We should threaten to escalate, and then do so incrementally to ratchet up the pressure on Russia.
Opponents of policies supporting Ukraine are hopelessly out of touch with realities........
War crimes happen in wars. The victor gets to sort out what is/isn't a war crime.
With these huge sums of money we're giving to Ukraine, why should we tolerate their corruption and sin?
The purpose of our aid to Ukraine is not to rid it of corruption. It's to rid it of Russians. Why did we did not impose any conditions on Stalin to modernize, liberalize, economize, etc.... Because the purpose of our aid to them was to degrade the German war machine fighting on two fronts. We didn't care what Stalin believed or did to his own people, as long as he organized them to go kill Germans.
Why have we rejected an audit of aid to Ukraine? Do you deny that the west is completely without corruption here?
Wherever there is government spending, there is corruption. And you do audit and such to minimize it. What you do not do is determine that a Russian invasion of Ukraine is a threat to Nato (which it obviously is) but not respond because corruption might break out. It's like refusing to drive your car to avoid the risk of getting a flat tire.
If Ukraine is successful, I want Zelensky removed from power permanently as opposition leaders were murdered by his regime. People who opposed the war were kidnapped by militias and tortured. Its not a surprise to me that over 650K men left Ukraine when the war began.
Russian propaganda is designed to generate hyperbole like that.
Those 650k men you referred to did not leave Ukraine because of an oppressive Zelensky government. They left to avoid a repressive Russian government taking over control of Ukraine, of having to fight a hopeless battle against what at the time was seen as an unstoppable Russian Army.
Yes, Ukraine did a lot of work to root out Russian sympathizers throughout their government. They literally rebuilt their intel agencies from scratch. They had a Russian church hierarchy that was a veritable 5th column.
The idea that Ukraine is comparable to Russia on any of those yardsticks is highly suspect. War is a messy thing. You cannot be effective without stepping on toes, nicking fingers with knives, etc.... And there are only two ways to fix that:
1) Win, so you can sort it all out when it's over.
2) Lose, so your opponent can sort it all out when it's over.
If we don't help Ukraine resist pressure from Russia, Russian will use Ukraine to ramp up pressure on Nato. So pick the problem you want to deal with - Ukrainian corruption, or having a brutal, nuclear capable Russian army with hundreds of miles of new frontage on the Polish, Slovakian, Ukrainian, and Romanian borders, +600mi closer to Nato troops. And for that price, there still will be corruption in Ukraine, given that Russia is corrupt by orders of magnitude worse than Ukraine.
In Russian doctrine, use of tactical nukes is a battlefield decision. Do really want a corrupt Russian Army Colonel with tactical nukes at his disposal to be 600mi closer to our men & women in uniform? Is that really worse than a Zelensky regime skimming a little off of the war effort?
Choose your poison carefully.
I have not endorsed Nato membership for Ukraine. The list of reasons for that is not short, and includes statutory prohibitions - territorial disputes, democratic processes, etc......
What the Russians and the Ukraine war critics have always wanted was a buffer zone.
LOL you always spin Nato support for Ukraine as an effort to move Nato borders 600mi eastward, despite Ukraine's ineligibility for membership, then ignore that it is RUssia who actually went to war to move its borders 600mi westward.
Refusing to rule it out forever, wanting to watch & wait for decades, is not an endorsement of membership, Vlad, no matter how much you need it to be so. It's a very pragmatic middle-ground position to take on the matter.
You want to build up a military, install US bases, and otherwise make them a de facto member before making them a de jure member.
Nope. Not in Ukraine. I'm fine with building bases in former WP countries, though. We were wise not to do so in order to not provoke Russia. But now that Russia has returned to its old ways, we are wise to move forward with bases in Romania and Poland and Finland - prudent responses to Russian provocations. (it's Russia that broke the status quo, not the other way around).
That's what we were doing, and it's what one would expect.
Uh, no, we are not building Nato bases in Ukraine.
The statutory restrictions are a red herring, as I'm sure you know. We've made exceptions before (see Germany) and could do so again.
Sigh - false equivalence. At the time of Germany reunification, East Germany did not have Russian armies on its soil engaged in a hot war to annex German territory.
That is just not going to happen.
You've got so many busted-up strawmen on the floor you can hardly stand.
and, notably, none of them were efforts to turn all or part of a sovereign country into US territory.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:We were discussing the localized invasions you referenced. And everything in my last post stands as to the key distinctions.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:So your answer on invade with intent to take over is none.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:
Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.
Nothing new in theory
Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow
Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders
10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU
You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade. A long swim or a quick flight/submarine trip, totally fine. And what about the Soviet's supporting communists in our own country? Totally cool?
.
Every time the Soviets sponsored communists or Marxists in our back yard we strongly opposed it…with military force or coups often times
And we had every right to do so
Moscow has no business in our sphere of influence
And they wasted money and resources trying to do foolish things like that
In fact being overextend was a contributing factor in the collapse of the USSR
When is the last time we invaded anyone at all in our "sphere of influence?"
You can't be this naive about our own geo-political history can you?The US has invaded all of its neighbors--Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, and Domincan Republic. https://t.co/VzVMGse8By
— American Exception (@Aaron_Good_) December 20, 2022
The U.S. invaded Granada in 1983 and Panama in 1990 and Haiti in 1994 (3 times we have invaded Haiti)
You asked how many we invaded…i gave you those facts
DC has done it so many times in the Caribbean and Latin America it's hard to keep count
(And for the record I think most were totally justified)
Now you moved the goal post to "intent to take over"
DC goes the regime change route (like in Iraq) when it invades
Moscow was actually trying to do the same thing in Ukraine and attempted to take Kyiv with its army and install a new regime.
Now that they failed at that (another sign they are not a major threat) they have had to settle for trying to absorb ethnic Russian areas in the east (face saving measure)
But their initial attempt was to basically copy the USA in Iraq….get to the capital…topple the old regime and install a more manageable one
Again, in those countries, there were democratically elected regimes in place before the military coups. We were not trying to take away anyone's sovereignty. Quite the opposite.
Throughout the 20th and now 21 centuries DC has removed from power regimes it did not like for ones that it did like
Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Haiti, the list goes on and on and on
Moscow tried the same thing in Ukraine
Yes, a number so vast it needs its own wiki page to keep the running list (continuous interventions since the 1800s all the way to present times)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America
Be it Grenada in 1983
Or Panama in 1990
And even Haiti in 1995
All military interventions by the USA to change the regimes there
sombear said:What secession movements/border changes?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Great example of the internal contradiction in your argument = you SAY static borders are the problem, but in fact, it's the effort to change borders that cause wars.Redbrickbear said:So borders are to be static forever?whiterock said:if we accept that reasoning as material grounds for changing borders, the world will be engulfed in war.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:
alas, the Ukrainians do not agree that they are really down deep plain ol' Russians and have fought to be free of Russia every time they've had a chance.
Of course not
But there are millions of people living within the borders of Ukraine....who are not Ukrainians
Its not surprising the most ethnically Ukrainian parts of the country want to align with the West....and the most ethnically Russian parts of the country want to align with Moscow
When has that ever happened in human history? unchangeable borders
Not to mention the powers that be in DC have helped bring about border changes in a dozen or so countries since 1991
Kosovo, S. Sudan, East Timor, etc
["since 1990, at least 25 new independent countries recognized by the international community and have been founded with support from the United States, most of which proceeded along with enormous disputes and conflicts. Over the years, the international community has come to reach some consensus on opposing secession from an existing state as well as safeguarding territorial and sovereign integrity. At the same time, the United States has frequently used human rights as an excuse to support certain separatist movements in other countries and even to obstruct and undermine other states' anti-secession actions."
For many years, the United States has provided support to the separatist movements in Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong. Supported the independence of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, George, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan (from the USSR), South Sudan (from Sudan), East Timor (from Indonesia), Namibia (from South Africa), Eritrea (from Ethiopia), Kosovo (from Serbia), and several other nations.]
The foundation stone of every state is to exercise sovereignty over its territory. Every state will go to war to defend its territory. Every time. The quickest, surest way to start a war is to try to move borders. And when that attempt to move borders is not an internal effort by a enclaved ethnic group but an outright invasion of one state to seize all/part of another state, war involves not just one state, but all states. The entire world lines up on one side or the other. Sure a few very poor countries halfway around the world from the zone of contention might not have strong feelings, but their allies/trading partners might, and that will impact their decision-making significantly.
You try to change a border, you always get a war.
Then why has DC consistently supported secession movements and border changes for decades all over the world?
Would you consider this pro-war behavior?
Kosovo from Serbia
East Timor from Indonesia
South Sudan from Sudan
Etc
whiterock said:and, notably, none of them were efforts to turn all or part of a sovereign country into US territory.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:We were discussing the localized invasions you referenced. And everything in my last post stands as to the key distinctions.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:So your answer on invade with intent to take over is none.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:
Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.
Nothing new in theory
Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow
Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders
10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU
You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade. A long swim or a quick flight/submarine trip, totally fine. And what about the Soviet's supporting communists in our own country? Totally cool?
.
Every time the Soviets sponsored communists or Marxists in our back yard we strongly opposed it…with military force or coups often times
And we had every right to do so
Moscow has no business in our sphere of influence
And they wasted money and resources trying to do foolish things like that
In fact being overextend was a contributing factor in the collapse of the USSR
When is the last time we invaded anyone at all in our "sphere of influence?"
You can't be this naive about our own geo-political history can you?The US has invaded all of its neighbors--Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, and Domincan Republic. https://t.co/VzVMGse8By
— American Exception (@Aaron_Good_) December 20, 2022
The U.S. invaded Granada in 1983 and Panama in 1990 and Haiti in 1994 (3 times we have invaded Haiti)
You asked how many we invaded…i gave you those facts
DC has done it so many times in the Caribbean and Latin America it's hard to keep count
(And for the record I think most were totally justified)
Now you moved the goal post to "intent to take over"
DC goes the regime change route (like in Iraq) when it invades
Moscow was actually trying to do the same thing in Ukraine and attempted to take Kyiv with its army and install a new regime.
Now that they failed at that (another sign they are not a major threat) they have had to settle for trying to absorb ethnic Russian areas in the east (face saving measure)
But their initial attempt was to basically copy the USA in Iraq….get to the capital…topple the old regime and install a more manageable one
Again, in those countries, there were democratically elected regimes in place before the military coups. We were not trying to take away anyone's sovereignty. Quite the opposite.
Throughout the 20th and now 21 centuries DC has removed from power regimes it did not like for ones that it did like
Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Haiti, the list goes on and on and on
Moscow tried the same thing in Ukraine
Yes, a number so vast it needs its own wiki page to keep the running list (continuous interventions since the 1800s all the way to present times)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America
Be it Grenada in 1983
Or Panama in 1990
And even Haiti in 1995
All military interventions by the USA to change the regimes there
But the point is they were all regime change operations and military invasions
DC decided to use force in its sphere of influence regardless of international law
whiterock said:The entire proposition that the existence within the west of spirited debate about Nato membership for Ukraine is a justification for war is completely unsupportable by existing facts. It is pure Russian propaganda designed to misleadRedbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL repeat after me:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Except Nato has never extended to Ukraine a formal offer of membership. The votes are no there to admit them.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:It was public knowledge we gave billions to Ukraine starting when they left the Soviets. We do that with all nascent democracies. What does that have to do with a "coup" two decades later?Redbrickbear said:sombear said:
I thought we had moved beyond Nuland but evidently not. Serious question for you. What exactly did Nuland say that bothers you, and what about that call bothers you and/or in any way suggests a coup? Not a link. I'm truly interested in your take on this.
Well Nuland admitted on tape that the U.S. spent billions on influencing the politics of Ukraine in the decade leaving up to the Maidan coup/protest of dignity in 2014
That is a fact….not an opinion
In other tapes we have her (and other leaders) discussing who they should install in power in Kyiv….including the famous "f-the EU" line
This would all be strong evidence that DC was involved deeply in regime change in Ukraine long before the current war broke out.
Making the argument that DC spends billions of tax payer money buying influence around the world….does not mean Ukraine was not a different kind of animal
The DC foreign policy establishment decided without consulting the American people to try and pull a major border state of Moscow into the U.S. orbit
A policy that even long term DC experts like Kissinger said would be a disaster and a major mistake.
Did CIA or State Department officials direct the coup? Or did they simply come along side and take advantage of an organic revolution?
We won't know the truth until a few decades from now when the files get declassified
But we one day will find out the truth…it always comes out
Ukraine did not even request membership until after it was invaded by Russia.
Geez, dude. You are literally inventing boogeymen.
It like you don't understand that there of course are lots of factions at play
Some (mostly in DC) that want Ukraine in NATO.....and some (mostly in Europe) that oppose Ukraine in NATO
Biden literally said Ukraine should be in NATO
[Biden assures Zelenskiy that NATO membership in Ukraine's hands, Kyiv says]
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/
And Major DC think tanks and Mainstream Media entities are literally posting articles saying that Ukraine should be incorporated into NATO
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/five-reasons-why-ukraine-should-be-invited-to-join-nato/
https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2023/07/why-nato-should-accept-ukraine?lang=en
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-nato-allies-georgia-russia-donald-trump-war-british-french/
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/forget-nato-membership-for-ukraine-instead-trade-it-for-ukrainian-sovereignty/
- Nato has not offered membership to Ukraine.
- Ukraine is not eligible for Nato membership at this time.
- Ukraine does not have the votes it needs to join Nato at this time.
- Ukraine did not even request Nato membership until AFTER it was invaded in 2022.
The facts are simply not with you, friend......
None of these facts have I disagreed with
Now repeat after me
-Factions in the US government do want NATO membership offered to Ukraine
So? Nato membership for Ukraine has never been the state policy of the USG. Public debate of the question is not a threat to Russia. Refusal to remain silent on the question, or to publicly disavow the idea is not a threat to Russia. 31 other countries ALSO have to agree to add Ukraine. Further, Nato has membership critieria, and Ukraine does not meet them - they are not eligible for membership. .
-Factions in DC do think Ukraine should be eligible for NATO membership
So? See above. We do have a 1st Amendment in this country. We will debate about whatever the hell we want to debate about.
-Factions in DC are putting pressure on European allies to vote for NATO membership (including attacking leaders like Victor Orban in Hungary and Robert Fico in Slovakia who oppose it)
Could you expect anything less in a free society? You are ready to feed Ukraine to the Russian bear. Others want Ukraine in. I'm in the middle = admitting Ukraine before they're ready is a threat to the integrity of Nato, so I'd like to watch & wait for a decade or three and see how Ukraine "grows" as a western free-market democratic system. Failing to debate those and other points would cede policy to wonks, who do not have an unblemished record. (In fairness, no faction has an unblemished record on such things.....) Wars seem to happen no matter how hard people try to avoid them....
-Factions in DC are PUBLICLY saying that Ukraine should be brought into NATO
SO WHAT?!?! Are we going to stop public debate to avoid provoking autocracies? Or are we going to tell the autocracies to go pound sand?
This has been going on since Obama....
Its nothing knew....and no secret
-Ukraine was not eligible for Nato membership in 2014. (nascent, fragile democratic processes).
-Ukraine was not eligible for Nato membership in 2022. (above + border disputes over Crimea)
Ukraine is a textbook example of a state NOT eligible for Nato membership.
Then why do politicians, bureaucrats, and think tanks in DC keep advocating for it?
Are American politicians, bureaucrats, and think tanks under the sway of Russian propaganda lol
Nato interests do not stop at Nato borders. What happens on the periphery of Nato is of intense interest to every Nato state. Ukraine is a textbook example.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:They also have a common danger they've exacted on the world because of that decision to use it as such.Sam Lowry said:What they have in common is that you're in desperate denial about both.ATL Bear said:The CIA toppling Ukraine has become like the J6 was an insurrection myth.Redbrickbear said:Interesting that Biden pardoned his entire family back to January 2014, 1 month before the CIA toppled the Ukrainian government and began money laundering... pic.twitter.com/zTCTNq6fks
— Financelot (@FinanceLancelot) January 20, 2025
The danger you should be worried about is the USA overextending itself by getting involved in parts of the world far outside its traditional sphere of influence
You should be worried about the danger of the USA getting into wars on behalf of NON-allied nations (like Ukraine) who we have no security treaty with and no long term relationship with
Supporting Ukraine against Russia improves Nato security posture against Russia.
Not to mention the greatest danger.....possible civilizational ending nuclear war over foolish proxy conflicts in backwaters that are of very little importance the United States or its long term geo-strategic security
that is a childish oversimplification.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:So your answer on invade with intent to take over is none.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:
Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.
Nothing new in theory
Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow
Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders
10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU
You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade. A long swim or a quick flight/submarine trip, totally fine. And what about the Soviet's supporting communists in our own country? Totally cool?
.
Every time the Soviets sponsored communists or Marxists in our back yard we strongly opposed it…with military force or coups often times
And we had every right to do so
Moscow has no business in our sphere of influence
And they wasted money and resources trying to do foolish things like that
In fact being overextend was a contributing factor in the collapse of the USSR
When is the last time we invaded anyone at all in our "sphere of influence?"
You can't be this naive about our own geo-political history can you?The US has invaded all of its neighbors--Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, and Domincan Republic. https://t.co/VzVMGse8By
— American Exception (@Aaron_Good_) December 20, 2022
The U.S. invaded Granada in 1983 and Panama in 1990 and Haiti in 1994 (3 times we have invaded Haiti)
You asked how many we invaded…i gave you those facts
DC has done it so many times in the Caribbean and Latin America it's hard to keep count
(And for the record I think most were totally justified)
Now you moved the goal post to "intent to take over"
DC goes the regime change route (like in Iraq) when it invades
Moscow was actually trying to do the same thing in Ukraine and attempted to take Kyiv with its army and install a new regime.
Now that they failed at that (another sign they are not a major threat) they have had to settle for trying to absorb ethnic Russian areas in the east (face saving measure)
But their initial attempt was to basically copy the USA in Iraq….get to the capital…topple the old regime and install a more manageable one
And I love your oversimplification as if all Russia wanted was a more favorable President.
I have never presented it in such a oversimplification
Of course Moscow wanted a regime and President in Kyiv that would do its bidding
(keep the lease on the Black sea naval base forever, keep Uk. out of the EU/NATO, and keep looting the country no doubt through corrupt politicians...its a very corrupt place after all)
The regime in Moscow is corrupt as well and all the other kinds of bad things people say about it.
The point is that pulling Ukraine out of its orbit was going to be a bloody (possibly futile) effort from the start.
Taking lots of money and lots of lives.
Those facts have not changed.
And the US having little core interests east of the Bug river has also not changed
What happens east of the Bug is of intense interest to an alliance to which the USA belongs.
No serious leader would watch hostile armies move 600mi closer and take no action whatsoever.
whiterock said:Nato interests do not stop at Nato borders. What happens on the periphery of Nato is of intense interest to every Nato state.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:They also have a common danger they've exacted on the world because of that decision to use it as such.Sam Lowry said:What they have in common is that you're in desperate denial about both.ATL Bear said:The CIA toppling Ukraine has become like the J6 was an insurrection myth.Redbrickbear said:Interesting that Biden pardoned his entire family back to January 2014, 1 month before the CIA toppled the Ukrainian government and began money laundering... pic.twitter.com/zTCTNq6fks
— Financelot (@FinanceLancelot) January 20, 2025
The danger you should be worried about is the USA overextending itself by getting involved in parts of the world far outside its traditional sphere of influence
You should be worried about the danger of the USA getting into wars on behalf of NON-allied nations (like Ukraine) who we have no security treaty with and no long term relationship with
Supporting Ukraine against Russia improves Nato security posture against Russia.
Not to mention the greatest danger.....possible civilizational ending nuclear war over foolish proxy conflicts in backwaters that are of very little importance the United States or its long term geo-strategic security
lol so then there is no end to the interests and expansion of NATO?
Everything everywhere is a "threat" to NATO?
Its almost like you think this vast military alliance is somehow endlessly under threat
whiterock said:.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:So your answer on invade with intent to take over is none.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:
Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.
Nothing new in theory
Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow
Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders
10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU
You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade. A long swim or a quick flight/submarine trip, totally fine. And what about the Soviet's supporting communists in our own country? Totally cool?
.
Every time the Soviets sponsored communists or Marxists in our back yard we strongly opposed it…with military force or coups often times
And we had every right to do so
Moscow has no business in our sphere of influence
And they wasted money and resources trying to do foolish things like that
In fact being overextend was a contributing factor in the collapse of the USSR
When is the last time we invaded anyone at all in our "sphere of influence?"
You can't be this naive about our own geo-political history can you?The US has invaded all of its neighbors--Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, and Domincan Republic. https://t.co/VzVMGse8By
— American Exception (@Aaron_Good_) December 20, 2022
The U.S. invaded Granada in 1983 and Panama in 1990 and Haiti in 1994 (3 times we have invaded Haiti)
You asked how many we invaded…i gave you those facts
DC has done it so many times in the Caribbean and Latin America it's hard to keep count
(And for the record I think most were totally justified)
Now you moved the goal post to "intent to take over"
DC goes the regime change route (like in Iraq) when it invades
Moscow was actually trying to do the same thing in Ukraine and attempted to take Kyiv with its army and install a new regime.
Now that they failed at that (another sign they are not a major threat) they have had to settle for trying to absorb ethnic Russian areas in the east (face saving measure)
But their initial attempt was to basically copy the USA in Iraq….get to the capital…topple the old regime and install a more manageable one
And I love your oversimplification as if all Russia wanted was a more favorable President.
I have never presented it in such a oversimplification
Of course Moscow wanted a regime and President in Kyiv that would do its bidding
(keep the lease on the Black sea naval base forever, keep Uk. out of the EU/NATO, and keep looting the country no doubt through corrupt politicians...its a very corrupt place after all)
The regime in Moscow is corrupt as well and all the other kinds of bad things people say about it.
The point is that pulling Ukraine out of its orbit was going to be a bloody (possibly futile) effort from the start.
Taking lots of money and lots of lives.
Those facts have not changed.
And the US having little core interests east of the Bug river has also not changed
No serious leader would watch hostile armies move 600mi closer and take no action whatsoever.
Imagine how Moscow must have felt watching a DC military alliance move right up to its borders
Pretty weak examples for your thesis. Just a few things top of head:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:What secession movements/border changes?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Great example of the internal contradiction in your argument = you SAY static borders are the problem, but in fact, it's the effort to change borders that cause wars.Redbrickbear said:So borders are to be static forever?whiterock said:if we accept that reasoning as material grounds for changing borders, the world will be engulfed in war.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:
alas, the Ukrainians do not agree that they are really down deep plain ol' Russians and have fought to be free of Russia every time they've had a chance.
Of course not
But there are millions of people living within the borders of Ukraine....who are not Ukrainians
Its not surprising the most ethnically Ukrainian parts of the country want to align with the West....and the most ethnically Russian parts of the country want to align with Moscow
When has that ever happened in human history? unchangeable borders
Not to mention the powers that be in DC have helped bring about border changes in a dozen or so countries since 1991
Kosovo, S. Sudan, East Timor, etc
["since 1990, at least 25 new independent countries recognized by the international community and have been founded with support from the United States, most of which proceeded along with enormous disputes and conflicts. Over the years, the international community has come to reach some consensus on opposing secession from an existing state as well as safeguarding territorial and sovereign integrity. At the same time, the United States has frequently used human rights as an excuse to support certain separatist movements in other countries and even to obstruct and undermine other states' anti-secession actions."
For many years, the United States has provided support to the separatist movements in Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong. Supported the independence of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, George, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan (from the USSR), South Sudan (from Sudan), East Timor (from Indonesia), Namibia (from South Africa), Eritrea (from Ethiopia), Kosovo (from Serbia), and several other nations.]
The foundation stone of every state is to exercise sovereignty over its territory. Every state will go to war to defend its territory. Every time. The quickest, surest way to start a war is to try to move borders. And when that attempt to move borders is not an internal effort by a enclaved ethnic group but an outright invasion of one state to seize all/part of another state, war involves not just one state, but all states. The entire world lines up on one side or the other. Sure a few very poor countries halfway around the world from the zone of contention might not have strong feelings, but their allies/trading partners might, and that will impact their decision-making significantly.
You try to change a border, you always get a war.
Then why has DC consistently supported secession movements and border changes for decades all over the world?
Would you consider this pro-war behavior?
Kosovo from Serbia
East Timor from Indonesia
South Sudan from Sudan
Etc
I've posted before responding to you that I support free people determining their fate through democratic means. Kosovo supported its independence. I'm Serbian, so I'm naturally biased for Serbia. But, Kosovo was for many intents and purposes already "independent." Autonomous regions in the Baltics have always been odd entities. And the Baltics have been about as fluid as any region in the world. Even as a Serb, I don't really have a problem with it. Some of the skirmishes and other violence between the two are a different story.
East Timor, too, was unique. It was a Spanish province if I recall, and a radical communist faction led by Spain toppled the ET gov. It's not as if Indonesia was taking over a recognized independent nation. Not to mention, this was in the heart of the Cold War and Vietnam. We needed a strong Indonesia.
I don't know a whole lot about Sudan other than a nasty civil war, so I'd understand taking a side there.
sombear said:Pretty weak examples for your thesis. .Redbrickbear said:sombear said:What secession movements/border changes?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Great example of the internal contradiction in your argument = you SAY static borders are the problem, but in fact, it's the effort to change borders that cause wars.Redbrickbear said:So borders are to be static forever?whiterock said:if we accept that reasoning as material grounds for changing borders, the world will be engulfed in war.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:
alas, the Ukrainians do not agree that they are really down deep plain ol' Russians and have fought to be free of Russia every time they've had a chance.
Of course not
But there are millions of people living within the borders of Ukraine....who are not Ukrainians
Its not surprising the most ethnically Ukrainian parts of the country want to align with the West....and the most ethnically Russian parts of the country want to align with Moscow
When has that ever happened in human history? unchangeable borders
Not to mention the powers that be in DC have helped bring about border changes in a dozen or so countries since 1991
Kosovo, S. Sudan, East Timor, etc
["since 1990, at least 25 new independent countries recognized by the international community and have been founded with support from the United States, most of which proceeded along with enormous disputes and conflicts. Over the years, the international community has come to reach some consensus on opposing secession from an existing state as well as safeguarding territorial and sovereign integrity. At the same time, the United States has frequently used human rights as an excuse to support certain separatist movements in other countries and even to obstruct and undermine other states' anti-secession actions."
For many years, the United States has provided support to the separatist movements in Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong. Supported the independence of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, George, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan (from the USSR), South Sudan (from Sudan), East Timor (from Indonesia), Namibia (from South Africa), Eritrea (from Ethiopia), Kosovo (from Serbia), and several other nations.]
The foundation stone of every state is to exercise sovereignty over its territory. Every state will go to war to defend its territory. Every time. The quickest, surest way to start a war is to try to move borders. And when that attempt to move borders is not an internal effort by a enclaved ethnic group but an outright invasion of one state to seize all/part of another state, war involves not just one state, but all states. The entire world lines up on one side or the other. Sure a few very poor countries halfway around the world from the zone of contention might not have strong feelings, but their allies/trading partners might, and that will impact their decision-making significantly.
You try to change a border, you always get a war.
Then why has DC consistently supported secession movements and border changes for decades all over the world?
Would you consider this pro-war behavior?
Kosovo from Serbia
East Timor from Indonesia
South Sudan from Sudan
Etc
No they are pretty accurate examples
Then you spend time defending them (which is fine….i support E. Timor and S.Sudan independence as well)
But their merits are not the point
DC has been a consistent supporter of border changes, secession moments, independence movements
White rock said this guarantees war
I don't know how accurate this is but it certainly sparks some debate. Ukraine's kleptocracy is as corrupt as any.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
I read your post again. I thought you were saying each of these were secession and change of regime.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Pretty weak examples for your thesis. .Redbrickbear said:sombear said:What secession movements/border changes?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Great example of the internal contradiction in your argument = you SAY static borders are the problem, but in fact, it's the effort to change borders that cause wars.Redbrickbear said:So borders are to be static forever?whiterock said:if we accept that reasoning as material grounds for changing borders, the world will be engulfed in war.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:
alas, the Ukrainians do not agree that they are really down deep plain ol' Russians and have fought to be free of Russia every time they've had a chance.
Of course not
But there are millions of people living within the borders of Ukraine....who are not Ukrainians
Its not surprising the most ethnically Ukrainian parts of the country want to align with the West....and the most ethnically Russian parts of the country want to align with Moscow
When has that ever happened in human history? unchangeable borders
Not to mention the powers that be in DC have helped bring about border changes in a dozen or so countries since 1991
Kosovo, S. Sudan, East Timor, etc
["since 1990, at least 25 new independent countries recognized by the international community and have been founded with support from the United States, most of which proceeded along with enormous disputes and conflicts. Over the years, the international community has come to reach some consensus on opposing secession from an existing state as well as safeguarding territorial and sovereign integrity. At the same time, the United States has frequently used human rights as an excuse to support certain separatist movements in other countries and even to obstruct and undermine other states' anti-secession actions."
For many years, the United States has provided support to the separatist movements in Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong. Supported the independence of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, George, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan (from the USSR), South Sudan (from Sudan), East Timor (from Indonesia), Namibia (from South Africa), Eritrea (from Ethiopia), Kosovo (from Serbia), and several other nations.]
The foundation stone of every state is to exercise sovereignty over its territory. Every state will go to war to defend its territory. Every time. The quickest, surest way to start a war is to try to move borders. And when that attempt to move borders is not an internal effort by a enclaved ethnic group but an outright invasion of one state to seize all/part of another state, war involves not just one state, but all states. The entire world lines up on one side or the other. Sure a few very poor countries halfway around the world from the zone of contention might not have strong feelings, but their allies/trading partners might, and that will impact their decision-making significantly.
You try to change a border, you always get a war.
Then why has DC consistently supported secession movements and border changes for decades all over the world?
Would you consider this pro-war behavior?
Kosovo from Serbia
East Timor from Indonesia
South Sudan from Sudan
Etc
No they are pretty accurate examples
Then you spend time defending them (which is fine….i support E. Timor and S.Sudan independence as well)
But their merits are not the point
DC has been a consistent supporter of border changes, secession moments, independence movements
White rock said this guarantees war
But I still think this falls far short of consistent. And 2 of the 3 were not established independent countries and governments. I think it's more accurate to say we took a side - as even I acknowledge we've done throughout history - in existing civil war or at least civil flux.
And South Sudan recognized Sudan before we did.
BTW, 2 of the 3 did end up in war . . . and the third has been close and may still happen.
Okay, for those with a purposefully very short attention span, here's the "deal" that Russia had for Ukraine before the February 24 invasion:
— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) January 24, 2025
- Ukraine ceases to exist as a sovereign independent nation (because it's "not a real country")
- Ukraine's popularly elected leadership…