sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's interesting that Russia gaining control of Luhansk, and before long Donetsk, is not considered a significant gain. If that's the case, it's hard to see why the conflict wasn't resolved a long time ago. Under the Minsk Agreement the Donbas wouldn't even have been annexed but would only have received limited autonomy. A trivial concession by your standard, yet we refused to implement it.

---

Sam, the disturbing conclusion I am coming to about our foreign policy - regardless of if a (R) or (D) administration is in charge - is that it comes down to this one thing:

Christians die.

It was true of our targeting choices for the bomb at the end of World War 2. More recently, our support for the Arab Spring, the war in Iraq, Ukraine, Syria...

It is a disturbing conclusion but it is hard to avoid.

Think of the logical inconsistencies of the those promoting WW3: Russia is a gas station with nuclear weapons! Russia can't even beat Ukraine! Russia is going to invade the NATO countries!

Or is it merely the hatred for a white Christian nation that rejected communism and globalism?

---

Good Lord.

Far more white non-Christians have died in Ukraine than white Christians. No white Christians died in the Iran strikes, as best I can tell. Far more Muslims died in Iraq than Christians. Far more Muslims died in Syria than Christians. And so on and so on...

Russia is not a Christian country by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is Ukraine. They're largely secular, and in the case of Russia, are more socialist/communist in their economy than capitalist.

The idea that Russia being attacked because it is a white Christian nation that rejected communism is the height of absurdity and bears little resemblance to reality.

Perhaps it is a failure to understand what a Christian actually is (much less a Christian nation), who knows, but you're position here is fruitcake.

---

Agree with almost all of this, but Ukraine actually is one of the more Christian countries based on church attendance, belief, importance of faith in daily lives, etc.

---

For the record...

Its not even in the top 10 in terms of numbers of Christians or percentage

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

Nor in terms of weekly religious attendance

[In Africa, countries like Nigeria, Liberia, Senegal, Cameroon, and Chad have a high percentage of Christians who pray daily and attend church regularly, with more than 60% of Christians reporting weekly attendance in all surveyed African countries according to Pew Research,]

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/06/13/how-religious-commitment-varies-by-country-among-people-of-all-ages/

[Approximately 15.6% of Ukrainians attend church weekly or more often. Additionally, 18% attend church at least once a month, and 34.6% attend on major holidays]

In fairness to Ukrainians, maybe more of them would attend church if Zelensky quit burning them down.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's interesting that Russia gaining control of Luhansk, and before long Donetsk, is not considered a significant gain. If that's the case, it's hard to see why the conflict wasn't resolved a long time ago. Under the Minsk Agreement the Donbas wouldn't even have been annexed but would only have received limited autonomy. A trivial concession by your standard, yet we refused to implement it.

---

Sam, the disturbing conclusion I am coming to about our foreign policy - regardless of if a (R) or (D) administration is in charge - is that it comes down to this one thing:

Christians die.

It was true of our targeting choices for the bomb at the end of World War 2. More recently, our support for the Arab Spring, the war in Iraq, Ukraine, Syria...

It is a disturbing conclusion but it is hard to avoid.

Think of the logical inconsistencies of the those promoting WW3: Russia is a gas station with nuclear weapons! Russia can't even beat Ukraine! Russia is going to invade the NATO countries!

Or is it merely the hatred for a white Christian nation that rejected communism and globalism?

---

Good Lord.

Far more white non-Christians have died in Ukraine than white Christians. No white Christians died in the Iran strikes, as best I can tell. Far more Muslims died in Iraq than Christians. Far more Muslims died in Syria than Christians. And so on and so on...

Russia is not a Christian country by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is Ukraine. They're largely secular, and in the case of Russia, are more socialist/communist in their economy than capitalist.

The idea that Russia being attacked because it is a white Christian nation that rejected communism is the height of absurdity and bears little resemblance to reality.

Perhaps it is a failure to understand what a Christian actually is (much less a Christian nation), who knows, but you're position here is fruitcake.

---

Agree with almost all of this, but Ukraine actually is one of the more Christian countries based on church attendance, belief, importance of faith in daily lives, etc.

---

For the record...

Its not even in the top 10 in terms of numbers of Christians or percentage

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

Nor in terms of weekly religious attendance

[In Africa, countries like Nigeria, Liberia, Senegal, Cameroon, and Chad have a high percentage of Christians who pray daily and attend church regularly, with more than 60% of Christians reporting weekly attendance in all surveyed African countries according to Pew Research,]

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/06/13/how-religious-commitment-varies-by-country-among-people-of-all-ages/

[Approximately 15.6% of Ukrainians attend church weekly or more often. Additionally, 18% attend church at least once a month, and 34.6% attend on major holidays]

---

You and I have discussed this before. I was referring back to my earlier post about Europe.

Ukraine is one of the most Christian countries in Europe. Russia is one of the least. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe of the larger Euros is top 2-3 in all of those categories.

But Ukraine ranks fairly high internationally, too, as some of your data shows.

Edit: Also, I'll look when I have time, but I believe, in the last 5-7 years, Ukraine's numbers have increased, while Russia's have decreased.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

In fairness to Ukrainians, maybe more of them would attend church if Zelensky quit burning them down.

---

When Tucker Carlson, a popular American right-wing conservative, released an interview with lawyer Robert Amsterdam titled "Ukrainian churches are being burned and priests beaten," it quickly gained traction with the so-called MAGA movement seeking the return of Donald Trump as president.
The April interview was reposted as a YouTube short and included a clip of what was claimed to be Russia-linked Ukrainian churches burning, suggesting they were set ablaze by Ukraine's pro-western leadership or its supporters.
In fact, the video contained disinformation, actually showing a Ukrainian Greek Catholic church that caught fire in Canada in 2014. Another church on fire in the short clip was St. George's Church in the Kyiv Oblast town of Zavorychi. It was reportedly destroyed in a Russian strike in March 2022. A third church on fire in the video is the Sviatohirsk Lavra in Donetsk Oblast, which was repeatedly struck by Russian artillery in May and June of 2022.
The photo of the Sviatohirsk Lavra used in Carlson's video was a screenshot from a video shared by President Volodymyr Zelensky condemning the Russian attack, which he said killed four people and injured four others.

---

I don't know anything about the Carlson interview. You've seen the stories and photos I posted earlier, which came directly from church sources. I've also addressed the issue of church attendance, which has not decreased in Russia, but has tripled if I recall correctly.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's interesting that Russia gaining control of Luhansk, and before long Donetsk, is not considered a significant gain. If that's the case, it's hard to see why the conflict wasn't resolved a long time ago. Under the Minsk Agreement the Donbas wouldn't even have been annexed but would only have received limited autonomy. A trivial concession by your standard, yet we refused to implement it.

---

Sam, the disturbing conclusion I am coming to about our foreign policy - regardless of if a (R) or (D) administration is in charge - is that it comes down to this one thing:

Christians die.

It was true of our targeting choices for the bomb at the end of World War 2. More recently, our support for the Arab Spring, the war in Iraq, Ukraine, Syria...

It is a disturbing conclusion but it is hard to avoid.

Think of the logical inconsistencies of the those promoting WW3: Russia is a gas station with nuclear weapons! Russia can't even beat Ukraine! Russia is going to invade the NATO countries!

Or is it merely the hatred for a white Christian nation that rejected communism and globalism?

---

Good Lord.

Far more white non-Christians have died in Ukraine than white Christians. No white Christians died in the Iran strikes, as best I can tell. Far more Muslims died in Iraq than Christians. Far more Muslims died in Syria than Christians. And so on and so on...

Russia is not a Christian country by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is Ukraine. They're largely secular, and in the case of Russia, are more socialist/communist in their economy than capitalist.

The idea that Russia being attacked because it is a white Christian nation that rejected communism is the height of absurdity and bears little resemblance to reality.

Perhaps it is a failure to understand what a Christian actually is (much less a Christian nation), who knows, but you're position here is fruitcake.

---

Agree with almost all of this, but Ukraine actually is one of the more Christian countries based on church attendance, belief, importance of faith in daily lives, etc.

---

For the record...

Its not even in the top 10 in terms of numbers of Christians or percentage

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

Nor in terms of weekly religious attendance

[In Africa, countries like Nigeria, Liberia, Senegal, Cameroon, and Chad have a high percentage of Christians who pray daily and attend church regularly, with more than 60% of Christians reporting weekly attendance in all surveyed African countries according to Pew Research,]

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/06/13/how-religious-commitment-varies-by-country-among-people-of-all-ages/

[Approximately 15.6% of Ukrainians attend church weekly or more often. Additionally, 18% attend church at least once a month, and 34.6% attend on major holidays]

---

You and I have discussed this before. I was referring back to my earlier post about Europe.

Ukraine is one of the most Christian countries in Europe. Russia is one of the least. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe of the larger Euros is top 2-3 in all of those categories.

But Ukraine ranks fairly high internationally, too, as some of your data shows.

Edit: Also, I'll look when I have time, but I believe, in the last 5-7 years, Ukraine's numbers have increased, while Russia's have decreased.

---

Certainly Ukraine is religious by European standards…but it's a low bar

This is survey data on religious attendance. All fifty states are included, as well as many countries in Europe.

The overall weekly attendance rate:
US - 25%
Europe - 14%

44% of Poles report weekly attendance. Higher than any state.

It's 3% of Danes. Lower than any state. pic.twitter.com/Rz5vgC3k1Q

— Ryan Burge 📊 (@ryanburge) August 30, 2023

Map shows the share of Europeans who say religion is very important in their lives. Clear geographic patterns emerge. But even in the religious nations only half of the population claims that religion is very important. Source: https://t.co/IIlEnTdLR3 pic.twitter.com/nl4337EFXM

— Simon Kuestenmacher (@simongerman600) August 8, 2022

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's interesting that Russia gaining control of Luhansk, and before long Donetsk, is not considered a significant gain. If that's the case, it's hard to see why the conflict wasn't resolved a long time ago. Under the Minsk Agreement the Donbas wouldn't even have been annexed but would only have received limited autonomy. A trivial concession by your standard, yet we refused to implement it.

---

Sam, the disturbing conclusion I am coming to about our foreign policy - regardless of if a (R) or (D) administration is in charge - is that it comes down to this one thing:

Christians die.

It was true of our targeting choices for the bomb at the end of World War 2. More recently, our support for the Arab Spring, the war in Iraq, Ukraine, Syria...

It is a disturbing conclusion but it is hard to avoid.

Think of the logical inconsistencies of the those promoting WW3: Russia is a gas station with nuclear weapons! Russia can't even beat Ukraine! Russia is going to invade the NATO countries!

Or is it merely the hatred for a white Christian nation that rejected communism and globalism?

---

Good Lord.

Far more white non-Christians have died in Ukraine than white Christians. No white Christians died in the Iran strikes, as best I can tell. Far more Muslims died in Iraq than Christians. Far more Muslims died in Syria than Christians. And so on and so on...

Russia is not a Christian country by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is Ukraine. They're largely secular, and in the case of Russia, are more socialist/communist in their economy than capitalist.

The idea that Russia being attacked because it is a white Christian nation that rejected communism is the height of absurdity and bears little resemblance to reality.

Perhaps it is a failure to understand what a Christian actually is (much less a Christian nation), who knows, but you're position here is fruitcake.

---

Agree with almost all of this, but Ukraine actually is one of the more Christian countries based on church attendance, belief, importance of faith in daily lives, etc.

---

For the record...

Its not even in the top 10 in terms of numbers of Christians or percentage

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

Nor in terms of weekly religious attendance

[In Africa, countries like Nigeria, Liberia, Senegal, Cameroon, and Chad have a high percentage of Christians who pray daily and attend church regularly, with more than 60% of Christians reporting weekly attendance in all surveyed African countries according to Pew Research,]

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/06/13/how-religious-commitment-varies-by-country-among-people-of-all-ages/

[Approximately 15.6% of Ukrainians attend church weekly or more often. Additionally, 18% attend church at least once a month, and 34.6% attend on major holidays]

---

You and I have discussed this before. I was referring back to my earlier post about Europe.

Ukraine is one of the most Christian countries in Europe. Russia is one of the least. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe of the larger Euros is top 2-3 in all of those categories.

But Ukraine ranks fairly high internationally, too, as some of your data shows.

Edit: Also, I'll look when I have time, but I believe, in the last 5-7 years, Ukraine's numbers have increased, while Russia's have decreased.

---

Certainly Ukraine is religious by European standards…but it's a low bar

This is survey data on religious attendance. All fifty states are included, as well as many countries in Europe.

The overall weekly attendance rate:
US - 25%
Europe - 14%

44% of Poles report weekly attendance. Higher than any state.

It's 3% of Danes. Lower than any state. pic.twitter.com/Rz5vgC3k1Q

— Ryan Burge 📊 (@ryanburge) August 30, 2023

Map shows the share of Europeans who say religion is very important in their lives. Clear geographic patterns emerge. But even in the religious nations only half of the population claims that religion is very important. Source: https://t.co/IIlEnTdLR3 pic.twitter.com/nl4337EFXM

— Simon Kuestenmacher (@simongerman600) August 8, 2022

---

Sure. I only raised this issue way back when and then again recently in response to claims that Russia was this beacon of Christianity, which is absurd. It's the most Godless place I've ever been, and that's saying something.

But well over 80% of Ukrainians say they are "believing Christians. That's nothing to sneeze at. That's right up there with the U.S.

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's interesting that Russia gaining control of Luhansk, and before long Donetsk, is not considered a significant gain. If that's the case, it's hard to see why the conflict wasn't resolved a long time ago. Under the Minsk Agreement the Donbas wouldn't even have been annexed but would only have received limited autonomy. A trivial concession by your standard, yet we refused to implement it.

---

Sam, the disturbing conclusion I am coming to about our foreign policy - regardless of if a (R) or (D) administration is in charge - is that it comes down to this one thing:

Christians die.

It was true of our targeting choices for the bomb at the end of World War 2. More recently, our support for the Arab Spring, the war in Iraq, Ukraine, Syria...

It is a disturbing conclusion but it is hard to avoid.

Think of the logical inconsistencies of the those promoting WW3: Russia is a gas station with nuclear weapons! Russia can't even beat Ukraine! Russia is going to invade the NATO countries!

Or is it merely the hatred for a white Christian nation that rejected communism and globalism?

---

Good Lord.

Far more white non-Christians have died in Ukraine than white Christians. No white Christians died in the Iran strikes, as best I can tell. Far more Muslims died in Iraq than Christians. Far more Muslims died in Syria than Christians. And so on and so on...

Russia is not a Christian country by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is Ukraine. They're largely secular.

The idea that Russia is being attacked because it is a white Christian nation that rejected communism is the height of absurdity and bears little resemblance to reality (BTW, since when has Russian been attacked? We referring to Ukrainians defending themselves?).

Perhaps you simply don't understand what a Christian actually is, much less a Christian nation.

---

that wouldn't be the only important thing he doesn't understand.....

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's interesting that Russia gaining control of Luhansk, and before long Donetsk, is not considered a significant gain. If that's the case, it's hard to see why the conflict wasn't resolved a long time ago. Under the Minsk Agreement the Donbas wouldn't even have been annexed but would only have received limited autonomy. A trivial concession by your standard, yet we refused to implement it.

---

Sam, the disturbing conclusion I am coming to about our foreign policy - regardless of if a (R) or (D) administration is in charge - is that it comes down to this one thing:

Christians die.

It was true of our targeting choices for the bomb at the end of World War 2. More recently, our support for the Arab Spring, the war in Iraq, Ukraine, Syria...

It is a disturbing conclusion but it is hard to avoid.

Think of the logical inconsistencies of the those promoting WW3: Russia is a gas station with nuclear weapons! Russia can't even beat Ukraine! Russia is going to invade the NATO countries!

Or is it merely the hatred for a white Christian nation that rejected communism and globalism?

---

Good Lord.

Far more white non-Christians have died in Ukraine than white Christians. No white Christians died in the Iran strikes, as best I can tell. Far more Muslims died in Iraq than Christians. Far more Muslims died in Syria than Christians. And so on and so on...

Russia is not a Christian country by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is Ukraine. They're largely secular, and in the case of Russia, are more socialist/communist in their economy than capitalist.

The idea that Russia being attacked because it is a white Christian nation that rejected communism is the height of absurdity and bears little resemblance to reality.

Perhaps it is a failure to understand what a Christian actually is (much less a Christian nation), who knows, but you're position here is fruitcake.

---

Agree with almost all of this, but Ukraine actually is one of the more Christian countries based on church attendance, belief, importance of faith in daily lives, etc.

---

For the record...

Its not even in the top 10 in terms of numbers of Christians or percentage

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

Nor in terms of weekly religious attendance

[In Africa, countries like Nigeria, Liberia, Senegal, Cameroon, and Chad have a high percentage of Christians who pray daily and attend church regularly, with more than 60% of Christians reporting weekly attendance in all surveyed African countries according to Pew Research,]

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/06/13/how-religious-commitment-varies-by-country-among-people-of-all-ages/

[Approximately 15.6% of Ukrainians attend church weekly or more often. Additionally, 18% attend church at least once a month, and 34.6% attend on major holidays]

---

You and I have discussed this before. I was referring back to my earlier post about Europe.

Ukraine is one of the most Christian countries in Europe. Russia is one of the least. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe of the larger Euros is top 2-3 in all of those categories.

But Ukraine ranks fairly high internationally, too, as some of your data shows.

Edit: Also, I'll look when I have time, but I believe, in the last 5-7 years, Ukraine's numbers have increased, while Russia's have decreased.

---

Certainly Ukraine is religious by European standards…but it's a low bar

This is survey data on religious attendance. All fifty states are included, as well as many countries in Europe.

The overall weekly attendance rate:
US - 25%
Europe - 14%

44% of Poles report weekly attendance. Higher than any state.

It's 3% of Danes. Lower than any state. pic.twitter.com/Rz5vgC3k1Q

— Ryan Burge 📊 (@ryanburge) August 30, 2023

Map shows the share of Europeans who say religion is very important in their lives. Clear geographic patterns emerge. But even in the religious nations only half of the population claims that religion is very important. Source: https://t.co/IIlEnTdLR3 pic.twitter.com/nl4337EFXM

— Simon Kuestenmacher (@simongerman600) August 8, 2022

---

Sure. I only raised this issue way back when and then again recently in response to claims that Russia was this beacon of Christianity, which is absurd. It's the most Godless place I've ever been, and that's saying something.

But well over 80% of Ukrainians say they are "believing Christians. That's nothing to sneeze at. That's right up there with the U.S.

---

Interesting that the former Soviet Block/Communist all have higher percentages. I guess when you can't have it, it means more.

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Trump is such a meow TACO. Putin has repeatedly played Trump and made him look like an absolute fool. Why in the world would he give them 50 days? Sanctions should go into effect today, period.

---

1. He has continued the proxy war with Russia you were afraid he would end.

So nothing has changed on that front.

2. If there is a general large scale war with Russia....Trump giving him 50 days and making every attempt to come to some kind of reasonable agreement with the government in Moscow will go down in history as a reasonable and peace seeking offer.

It will prove it was Putin....and not Trump or the USA...that wanted the conflict to go on.

Not to bring up Nazi examples all the time...but

Similar to the Munich agreement...an agreement that was a reasonable thing....the allies offered Hitler the chance for peace. "You can have all the old German inhabited lands....but you have to stop now or there will be war. You can't invade Poland."

Hitler had a chance for peace....and to be the leader of a much enlarged and powerful Germany...he decided he wanted general European war and invaded Poland.

The Munich agreement was not a stupid mistake...it was a reasonable compromise that allowed the Allies to go down in history as the side seeking peace and finally drawing a line.

---

proxy war my ass. The real reason fat man continues to be played by Putin is that the only sanctions that will have any bite are huge penalties on India and China for importing Russian Oil. This will make gasoline prices rise dramatically which ruin fat boy's lying narrative. That is the real reason.

---

you are correct about the reason, but wrong about it being an unsolvable problem.

We did it to them to end the cold war. It'll be quite a bit easier to do it this time. Russia no longer owns vast reserves of cheap, easy, high-grade oil in Central Asia & the Caucasus, all of whom will be willing to increase production to poke Russia in the eye. Add in the Saudis, who Trump has courted assiduously (and successfully) and all the dominoes are in place. Add in some more sanctions on Iran the Chinese will have an array of high-cost options to help Russia.

36% of the Russian budget is deficit spending. They are tapped out. Won't take much.

---

I didn't say it was unsolvable as it is and should be done today. I simply said that Trump doesn't have the stones to do it. Instead, he gave them 50 extra days. Trump will not let gasoline prices increase.

---

the 50 days is paying homage to Art of War Chapter 36:

"When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard."

---

No to get us dragged into war strategy talk...but not sure people like Napoleon or Patton agreed with that.

They wanted to press the enemy army everywhere and at all times....and once they had cut if off and surround it...to move in and completely destroy it.

---

A moot question as it's the Ukrainian forces that are increasingly surrounded. Pokrovsk is showing signs of rapid collapse since the Russians began storming it a week or so ago. The last remaining suburb of Chasiv Yar looks set to fall around the same time. That sets up the endgame in Sloviansk/Kramatorsk/Konstantinovka.

---

over a year ago you said Pokrovsk was lost.

---

Nope.

[Protests against Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky erupted in the war-torn country Tuesday over a new law ending the independence of two government anti-corruption agencies.]

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/protests-against-zelensky-erupt-in-ukraine/

Zelensky is hardly a legitimate leader. He suspended elections, arrested opponents, censors people (IIRC), & attacked the church. No wonder US Dems love him so much. He's one of them!

historian said:

---

Zelensky is hardly a legitimate leader. He suspended elections, arrested opponents, censors people (IIRC), & attacked the church. No wonder US Dems love him so much. He's one of them!

---

a bit harsh.

Ukraine remains under Constitutional order, including specifically on elections: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/wartime-ukraines-election-dilemma.

Attacking "the church" is the most misleading allegation of all. He has indeed taken steps to repress the Russian Orthodox Church which has openly endorsed Russia in the war (not the Ukrainian Orthodox Church which was formed shortly after independence in the 1990s). Is the ROC a 5th column? In many meaningful ways, yes. How does one deal with that, in the context of a country with a large Russian minority while at war with Russia? Not easily. But to portray the steps taken against the ROC as one of a country wildly at war with religion is quite irresponsible.

Repression of political opponents is the most valid concern, but again, majority of the targets have close ties in one way or the other with Russia (and of course Ukraine is at war with Russia). Situation is more like surgery on cancer. Doing nothing is not an option. It's not possible to do anything without damaging healthy tissue. And no matter what you do, the room will be full of critics over your choices. So this is a very complicated situation, full of nuance, which is being exploited by opponents of our policy to support Ukraine against Russia. Not normal for two countries at war to have such blurred lines of culture, language, and religion, except in a secession situation (which this war in many aspects is).

best way to address these concerns is to help Ukraine defeat Russia, then promote process improvements in peacetime Ukraine. Nato has ample power, hard and soft, to do both. We will not likely get to a place that will make the critics happy, but we will be in a substantially better position than we would with Russia absorbing all of Ukraine into the Russian state (which is the Russian objective).

Beware the false dilemma. This war is not about creating Western liberal democracy in either Ukraine or Russia. It's about what resources are available to build Russian armies and where those armies will be stationed. When this war is over, neither Russia nor Ukraine will have a liberal society with democratic process remotely as robust as our (somewhat tattered) one. A free Ukraine will be dependent on Western aid, and that will come with strings attached, to include stipulations about political processes, which will nudge Ukraine in the right direction over time. Ukraine will be deficient in many ways from Western countries, but will also be a considerably more free society than Russia, which is desirable. But most of all, a free, independent Ukraine will be a bulwark against Russian expansion, keeping Russian armies hundreds of miles away from Nato borders. If you are betting man, you should put your money on that in bold. Some version of it is the most likely outcome, by a long-shot.

Better Ukraine is flawed but free than the largest and wealthiest province of mother Russia.

🚨 International Republican Institute (IRI) is a quasi-governmental NGO created as part of the NED charter.

IRI receives hundreds of millions from the NGO money laundering operation.

Tom Cotton is one of the Directors and was mentored by John McCain.

Thomas Massie warned… pic.twitter.com/Mp5g2lcXvL

— Publius (@OcrazioCornPop) July 29, 2025

Quote:

---

The woke right/pseudo-MAGA have ridiculous ideas and shouldn't be taken seriously.

---

OK Boomer.

Quote:

---

When this war is over, neither Russia nor Ukraine will have a liberal society with democratic process remotely as robust as our (somewhat tattered) one. A free Ukraine will be dependent on Western aid, and that will come with strings attached, to include stipulations about political processes, which will nudge Ukraine in the right direction over time. Ukraine will be deficient in many ways from Western countries, but will also be a considerably more free society than Russia, which is desirable. But most of all, a free, independent Ukraine will be a bulwark against Russian expansion, keeping Russian armies hundreds of miles away from Nato borders.

---

1. Modern Russia is not an expansionist state in the way that Nazi Germany, the USSR, Rome, or NATO were/are.

2. Russian armies were hundreds of miles from NATOs borders before it began its eastward ezpansion.

3. Given the events of the presidential election of 2020 and the congressional races of 2024, we are in no position to lecture anyone about "democracy".

4. Trying to remake eastern european societies in the mold of modern repressive western european societies is a *bad* thing.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

When this war is over, neither Russia nor Ukraine will have a liberal society with democratic process remotely as robust as our (somewhat tattered) one. A free Ukraine will be dependent on Western aid, and that will come with strings attached, to include stipulations about political processes, which will nudge Ukraine in the right direction over time. Ukraine will be deficient in many ways from Western countries, but will also be a considerably more free society than Russia, which is desirable. But most of all, a free, independent Ukraine will be a bulwark against Russian expansion, keeping Russian armies hundreds of miles away from Nato borders.

---

1. Modern Russia is not an expansionist state in the way that Nazi Germany, the USSR, Rome, or NATO were/are.

2. Russian armies were hundreds of miles from NATOs borders before it began its eastward ezpansion.

3. Given the events of the presidential election of 2020 and the congressional races of 2024, we are in no position to lecture anyone about "democracy".

4. Trying to remake eastern european societies in the mold of modern repressive western european societies is a *bad* thing.

---

LOL. Ok shill.

Russians are flanking Ukrainian positions around Temyrivka to attack the first and second layers of defense at once. If Pokrovsk falls in the next few weeks, as appears likely, the main Ukrainian defensive lines across Zaporizhzhia are in danger of being surrounded and attacked from the rear. Meanwhile Russian forces are reportedly finding many Ukrainian positions north of Pokrovsk completely abandoned.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Russians are flanking Ukrainian positions around Temyrivka to attack the first and second layers of defense at once. If Pokrovsk falls in the next few weeks, as appears likely, the main Ukrainian defensive lines across Zaporizhzhia are in danger of being surrounded and attacked from the rear. Meanwhile Russian forces are reportedly finding many Ukrainian positions north of Pokrovsk completely abandoned.

---

LOL

Do you realize how small these areas you're talking about are? (no, the entire Ukrainian front in Zapo is not about to collapse).

Putin is misreading western resolve. Sanctions are coming. So is more military support. Russia cannot continue indefinitely to lose thousands of casualties per day for advances of acreages rather than miles.

This thing will may sputter on until 2027.

Oh. Ukrainians advanced in Sumy yesterday.

July 31 (Reuters) - Russia said on Thursday it had captured the town of Chasiv Yar in eastern Ukraine after nearly 16 months of fighting, opening the way for potential further advances.

Russia's Defence Ministry said in a brief statement its forces had "liberated" the town. A Ukrainian military spokesperson called the claim "propaganda", but a video posted by a Russian military unit and verified by Reuters showed a Russian paratroop banner and the national flag being raised by soldiers in the desolate ruins of the town.

BREAKING:

Putin ready to meet with Ukrainian President Zelensky after "preparatory work at the expert level", Kremlin press secretary Peskov says. pic.twitter.com/h7jJIkPBxO

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) August 4, 2025

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

How the United States was transformed from guardian to spoiler of the postwar international order. An excellent summary from Harper's magazine.

Quote:

---

Why Are We in Ukraine?
On the dangers of American hubris
by Benjamin Schwarz, Christopher Layne

From the early Nineties, when Washington first raised the idea of NATO expansion, until 2008, when the U.S. delegation at the NATO summit in Bucharest advocated alliance membership for Ukraine and Georgia, U.S.-Russian exchanges were monotonous. While Russians protested Washington's NATO expansion plans, American officials shrugged off those protests--or pointed to them as evidence to justify still-further expansion. Washington's message to Moscow could not have been clearer or more disquieting: Normal diplomacy among great powers, distinguished by the recognition and accommodation of clashing interests--the approach that had defined the U.S.-Soviet rivalry during even the most intense stretches of the Cold War--was obsolete. Russia was expected to acquiesce to a new world order created and dominated by the United States.

The radical expansion of NATO's writ reflected the overweening aims that the end of the Cold War enabled Washington to pursue. Historically, great powers tend to focus pragmatically on reducing conflict among themselves. By frankly recognizing the realities of power and acknowledging each other's interests, they can usually relate to one another on a businesslike basis. This international give-and-take is bolstered by and helps engender a rough, contextual understanding of what's reasonable and legitimate--not in an abstract or absolute sense but in a way that permits fierce business rivals to moderate and accede to demands and to reach deals. By embracing what came to be called its "unipolar moment," Washington demonstrated--to Paris, Berlin, London, New Delhi, and Beijing, no less than to Moscow--that it would no longer be bound by the norms implicit in great power politics, norms that constrain the aims pursued as much as the means employed. Those who determine U.S. foreign policy hold that, as President George W. Bush declared in his second inaugural address, "the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." They maintain, as President Bill Clinton averred in 1993, that the security of the United States demands a "focus on relations within nations, on a nation's form of governance, on its economic structure."

Whatever one thinks of this doctrine, which prompted Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to dub America "the indispensable nation"--and which Gorbachev said defined America's "dangerous winner's mentality"--it lavishly expanded previously established conceptions of security and national interest. In its crusading universalism, it could be regarded by other states, with ample supporting evidence, as at best recklessly meddlesome and at worst messianically interventionist. Convinced that its national security depended on the domestic political and economic arrangements of ostensibly sovereign states--and therefore defining as a legitimate goal the alteration or eradication of those arrangements if they were not in accord with its professed ideals and values--the post-Cold War United States became a revolutionary force in world politics.

https://harpers.org/archive/2023/06/why-are-we-in-ukraine/

---

---

Good article, difficult questions. I don't know the answer

---

Again, we see the isolationist argument that we caused a war in which we had no interest. Both are patently false premises. Russia would have NEVER invaded or usurped Ukraine if Nato hadn't been meddling? Pfft. If NATO hadn't expanded eastward, Russia would have expanded westward. The issue at hand is merely about where the razor wire will be strung. NATO was slow, deliberate, and cautious in its move eastward, out of deference to Russia. And it is instructive that EVERYONE (except Belarus) wants to be on the west side of the wire.

Other strawmen: offering "alliance membership" is not the same as offering "membership." Sweden and Finland had alliance membership throughout most of the Cold War. Russia didn't nuke or invade anyone over those questions, did they? The Russian invasion of Ukraine was so alarming to those two notorious hegemonist imperialist powers that public opinion flipped on a dime and they requested full NATO membership. To suggest that alliance membership of Georgia or Ukraine was more threatening to Moscow than alliance membership of Sweden and FInland is.....well, war opponents, having a very weak case to make and do tend to exaggerate, but boy, is this one a whopper.

We did not presume to be a unipolar power. We WERE a unipolar power. And no nation similarly positioned ever acted more cautiously, deliberately, conservatively, responsibly. We did not bring a single new acre of territory under our jurisdiction. Yes, we responded when attacked or threatened, to real attacks and real threats, and we did so responsibly, not indiscriminately. Our errors were not on the conduct or aims of the wars, but rather the execution of the peace, leaving behind a stable, responsible government. And then we withdrew. And we did not leave behind armies or churches or corporate headquarters to extend our influence, did we? No. We did not.

Over and over we see reflexive recto-cranial inversion from the opponents of the Russo/Ukraine. Poor Russia....so mistreated, why, we FORCED them to invade Ukraine! It's not unusual to see the left making such arguments....that society is responsible for causing crime, not criminals. But in THIS war, we see conservatives making such patently stupid arguments. Literally conjuring up an America as a greater threat to world peace than the country which actually invaded a neighbor for the explicit purposes of carving up parts of it, installing a puppet regime to run the rest of it, and moving military bases hundreds of miles westward to project national power against a NATO which had gone out of its way over decades to NOT move bases hundreds of miles eastward to project power against Russia.

It's perfectly reasonable to talk about costs and benefits of a particular plank of foreign policy, but when we see such disingenuous prefacing to the argument at hand, it's really hard to be productive.

---

I thought we used Gun Boat Diplomacy? At least Cheney and Rumsfeld did...

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

How the United States was transformed from guardian to spoiler of the postwar international order. An excellent summary from Harper's magazine.

Quote:

---

Why Are We in Ukraine?
On the dangers of American hubris
by Benjamin Schwarz, Christopher Layne

From the early Nineties, when Washington first raised the idea of NATO expansion, until 2008, when the U.S. delegation at the NATO summit in Bucharest advocated alliance membership for Ukraine and Georgia, U.S.-Russian exchanges were monotonous. While Russians protested Washington's NATO expansion plans, American officials shrugged off those protests--or pointed to them as evidence to justify still-further expansion. Washington's message to Moscow could not have been clearer or more disquieting: Normal diplomacy among great powers, distinguished by the recognition and accommodation of clashing interests--the approach that had defined the U.S.-Soviet rivalry during even the most intense stretches of the Cold War--was obsolete. Russia was expected to acquiesce to a new world order created and dominated by the United States.

The radical expansion of NATO's writ reflected the overweening aims that the end of the Cold War enabled Washington to pursue. Historically, great powers tend to focus pragmatically on reducing conflict among themselves. By frankly recognizing the realities of power and acknowledging each other's interests, they can usually relate to one another on a businesslike basis. This international give-and-take is bolstered by and helps engender a rough, contextual understanding of what's reasonable and legitimate--not in an abstract or absolute sense but in a way that permits fierce business rivals to moderate and accede to demands and to reach deals. By embracing what came to be called its "unipolar moment," Washington demonstrated--to Paris, Berlin, London, New Delhi, and Beijing, no less than to Moscow--that it would no longer be bound by the norms implicit in great power politics, norms that constrain the aims pursued as much as the means employed. Those who determine U.S. foreign policy hold that, as President George W. Bush declared in his second inaugural address, "the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." They maintain, as President Bill Clinton averred in 1993, that the security of the United States demands a "focus on relations within nations, on a nation's form of governance, on its economic structure."

Whatever one thinks of this doctrine, which prompted Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to dub America "the indispensable nation"--and which Gorbachev said defined America's "dangerous winner's mentality"--it lavishly expanded previously established conceptions of security and national interest. In its crusading universalism, it could be regarded by other states, with ample supporting evidence, as at best recklessly meddlesome and at worst messianically interventionist. Convinced that its national security depended on the domestic political and economic arrangements of ostensibly sovereign states--and therefore defining as a legitimate goal the alteration or eradication of those arrangements if they were not in accord with its professed ideals and values--the post-Cold War United States became a revolutionary force in world politics.

https://harpers.org/archive/2023/06/why-are-we-in-ukraine/

---

---

Good article, difficult questions. I don't know the answer

---

Again, we see the isolationist argument that we caused a war in which we had no interest. Both are patently false premises. Russia would have NEVER invaded or usurped Ukraine if Nato hadn't been meddling? Pfft. If NATO hadn't expanded eastward, Russia would have expanded westward. The issue at hand is merely about where the razor wire will be strung. NATO was slow, deliberate, and cautious in its move eastward, out of deference to Russia. And it is instructive that EVERYONE (except Belarus) wants to be on the west side of the wire.

Other strawmen: offering "alliance membership" is not the same as offering "membership." Sweden and Finland had alliance membership throughout most of the Cold War. Russia didn't nuke or invade anyone over those questions, did they? The Russian invasion of Ukraine was so alarming to those two notorious hegemonist imperialist powers that public opinion flipped on a dime and they requested full NATO membership. To suggest that alliance membership of Georgia or Ukraine was more threatening to Moscow than alliance membership of Sweden and FInland is.....well, war opponents, having a very weak case to make and do tend to exaggerate, but boy, is this one a whopper.

We did not presume to be a unipolar power. We WERE a unipolar power. And no nation similarly positioned ever acted more cautiously, deliberately, conservatively, responsibly. We did not bring a single new acre of territory under our jurisdiction. Yes, we responded when attacked or threatened, to real attacks and real threats, and we did so responsibly, not indiscriminately. Our errors were not on the conduct or aims of the wars, but rather the execution of the peace, leaving behind a stable, responsible government. And then we withdrew. And we did not leave behind armies or churches or corporate headquarters to extend our influence, did we? No. We did not.

Over and over we see reflexive recto-cranial inversion from the opponents of the Russo/Ukraine. Poor Russia....so mistreated, why, we FORCED them to invade Ukraine! It's not unusual to see the left making such arguments....that society is responsible for causing crime, not criminals. But in THIS war, we see conservatives making such patently stupid arguments. Literally conjuring up an America as a greater threat to world peace than the country which actually invaded a neighbor for the explicit purposes of carving up parts of it, installing a puppet regime to run the rest of it, and moving military bases hundreds of miles westward to project national power against a NATO which had gone out of its way over decades to NOT move bases hundreds of miles eastward to project power against Russia.

It's perfectly reasonable to talk about costs and benefits of a particular plank of foreign policy, but when we see such disingenuous prefacing to the argument at hand, it's really hard to be productive.

---

I thought we used Gun Boat Diplomacy? At least Cheney and Rumsfeld did...

---

when you have 11 nuclear powered carrier battle groups, the implicit threat of gunboat diplomacy "if all else fails" is the default position.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

How the United States was transformed from guardian to spoiler of the postwar international order. An excellent summary from Harper's magazine.

Quote:

---

Why Are We in Ukraine?
On the dangers of American hubris
by Benjamin Schwarz, Christopher Layne

From the early Nineties, when Washington first raised the idea of NATO expansion, until 2008, when the U.S. delegation at the NATO summit in Bucharest advocated alliance membership for Ukraine and Georgia, U.S.-Russian exchanges were monotonous. While Russians protested Washington's NATO expansion plans, American officials shrugged off those protests--or pointed to them as evidence to justify still-further expansion. Washington's message to Moscow could not have been clearer or more disquieting: Normal diplomacy among great powers, distinguished by the recognition and accommodation of clashing interests--the approach that had defined the U.S.-Soviet rivalry during even the most intense stretches of the Cold War--was obsolete. Russia was expected to acquiesce to a new world order created and dominated by the United States.

The radical expansion of NATO's writ reflected the overweening aims that the end of the Cold War enabled Washington to pursue. Historically, great powers tend to focus pragmatically on reducing conflict among themselves. By frankly recognizing the realities of power and acknowledging each other's interests, they can usually relate to one another on a businesslike basis. This international give-and-take is bolstered by and helps engender a rough, contextual understanding of what's reasonable and legitimate--not in an abstract or absolute sense but in a way that permits fierce business rivals to moderate and accede to demands and to reach deals. By embracing what came to be called its "unipolar moment," Washington demonstrated--to Paris, Berlin, London, New Delhi, and Beijing, no less than to Moscow--that it would no longer be bound by the norms implicit in great power politics, norms that constrain the aims pursued as much as the means employed. Those who determine U.S. foreign policy hold that, as President George W. Bush declared in his second inaugural address, "the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." They maintain, as President Bill Clinton averred in 1993, that the security of the United States demands a "focus on relations within nations, on a nation's form of governance, on its economic structure."

Whatever one thinks of this doctrine, which prompted Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to dub America "the indispensable nation"--and which Gorbachev said defined America's "dangerous winner's mentality"--it lavishly expanded previously established conceptions of security and national interest. In its crusading universalism, it could be regarded by other states, with ample supporting evidence, as at best recklessly meddlesome and at worst messianically interventionist. Convinced that its national security depended on the domestic political and economic arrangements of ostensibly sovereign states--and therefore defining as a legitimate goal the alteration or eradication of those arrangements if they were not in accord with its professed ideals and values--the post-Cold War United States became a revolutionary force in world politics.

https://harpers.org/archive/2023/06/why-are-we-in-ukraine/

---

---

Good article, difficult questions. I don't know the answer

---

Again, we see the isolationist argument that we caused a war in which we had no interest. Both are patently false premises. Russia would have NEVER invaded or usurped Ukraine if Nato hadn't been meddling? Pfft. If NATO hadn't expanded eastward, Russia would have expanded westward. The issue at hand is merely about where the razor wire will be strung. NATO was slow, deliberate, and cautious in its move eastward, out of deference to Russia. And it is instructive that EVERYONE (except Belarus) wants to be on the west side of the wire.

Other strawmen: offering "alliance membership" is not the same as offering "membership." Sweden and Finland had alliance membership throughout most of the Cold War. Russia didn't nuke or invade anyone over those questions, did they? The Russian invasion of Ukraine was so alarming to those two notorious hegemonist imperialist powers that public opinion flipped on a dime and they requested full NATO membership. To suggest that alliance membership of Georgia or Ukraine was more threatening to Moscow than alliance membership of Sweden and FInland is.....well, war opponents, having a very weak case to make and do tend to exaggerate, but boy, is this one a whopper.

We did not presume to be a unipolar power. We WERE a unipolar power. And no nation similarly positioned ever acted more cautiously, deliberately, conservatively, responsibly. We did not bring a single new acre of territory under our jurisdiction. Yes, we responded when attacked or threatened, to real attacks and real threats, and we did so responsibly, not indiscriminately. Our errors were not on the conduct or aims of the wars, but rather the execution of the peace, leaving behind a stable, responsible government. And then we withdrew. And we did not leave behind armies or churches or corporate headquarters to extend our influence, did we? No. We did not.

Over and over we see reflexive recto-cranial inversion from the opponents of the Russo/Ukraine. Poor Russia....so mistreated, why, we FORCED them to invade Ukraine! It's not unusual to see the left making such arguments....that society is responsible for causing crime, not criminals. But in THIS war, we see conservatives making such patently stupid arguments. Literally conjuring up an America as a greater threat to world peace than the country which actually invaded a neighbor for the explicit purposes of carving up parts of it, installing a puppet regime to run the rest of it, and moving military bases hundreds of miles westward to project national power against a NATO which had gone out of its way over decades to NOT move bases hundreds of miles eastward to project power against Russia.

It's perfectly reasonable to talk about costs and benefits of a particular plank of foreign policy, but when we see such disingenuous prefacing to the argument at hand, it's really hard to be productive.

---

I thought we used Gun Boat Diplomacy? At least Cheney and Rumsfeld did...

---

when you have 11 nuclear powered carrier battle groups, the implicit threat of gunboat diplomacy "if all else fails" is the default position.

---

Good response. Carriers and Subs... There is no denying Carriers are the physical representation of US strategic policy, especially in the Pacific and Middle East. Atlantic doesn't seem to be as prone to their influence, although the Brit's may disagree.

A sign that the end is near for Ukraine:

Russian forces hit bridge over Dnipro River in Kremenchuk, traffic suspended

The carrier battle group may be as irrelevant in a world with drones, sea drones, and hypersonic missles as the lone battleship was in a world with military aviation.