Quote:

---

To portray Orthodox Christianity is completely incompatible with Western Civilization is quite a reach, certainly no fatal barrier to military alliance.

The divide between Orthodox and Catholic, in isolation, is no greater than the divide between Catholic and Protestant.

---

Orthodox Christianity is incompatible with what Western Civilization is becoming (a post-Christian, pagan culture). In fact, I suspect a significant amount of the animosity towards Russia that circulates inside the beltway is due to the apostasy of Russia from the socialist faith and its return to its Orthodox roots. Given current trends, it's highly likely that the only Christianity surviving in the west in another 20-40 years will be Orthodoxy.

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

again, you are just defining away Russia as a non-threat, instead of looking at current realities, history, geo-politics, etc.....

And Russian actions in Ukraine was the galvanizing force. Nato is supporting Ukraine, too, as well as starting to rebuild their armies....because they see exactly what you ignore = Russian expansionism is a current threat…

And yes, Russian expansionism against Nato is every bit as great a threat as what is happening on the Southern border. .

---

Is Russia so weak that it can be defeated by Ukraine or is it so strong it could start and win a direct confrontation with NATO? It can’t be both at once. https://t.co/8JXGZSVVIT

— James Kirkpatrick (@VDAREJamesK) December 30, 2023

---

if you had no strawman, you'd have no argument at all.

Russia does not have to invade a Nato nation to destablize it. Slovakia already has a pro-Russian PM (head of a small party leading a coalition govt.

---

Oh gotta democracy is destabilizing huh?


You really do sound like you work for some DC neo-con
/liberal interventionist outfit.

Democracy is bad in other countries when it comes to conclusions DC does not like

If the Slovaks want to be a good terms with Russia it's not actually "destabilizing" anymore than if a party gets elected that follows an opposite policy


Your arguments basically boils down to "Russia exists so it's a threat"

---

again, you revert to genetic fallacy rather than deal with facts and geo-political realities.

And those facts are = Nato exists. Voluntarily. Not one nation was forced to join. Not one nation has even been forced to make their pledged annual contribution. But all member nations, including the USA, have agreed to common defense, to include nuclear exchange, should the alliance be attacked. So rising threats to the Nato alliance are relevant. (a point you studiously avoid).

It is true that invasion of Nato by Russia appears neither likely nor imminent at this time, given the limits of Russian abilities on their best day, degraded over time by years of war. But Russia has miscalculated in Ukraine. Badly. How can we blithely assume they would not do so at some point in the future re Nato? (we can't.)

And invasion is not the only threat. I've laid it out many, many times for you. The pendulum swings in democracy. Political coalitions rise and fall. Right now, pro-EU forces are ascendant all across Europe. At some point, forces more favorable to Russia will win an election. The template is partially formed in Slovakia, although barely so (but it does show I'm not contriving unrealities). The proximity of Russian armies to those dynamics is a VERY material factor (yet another one you ignore). Nothing would strengthen pro-Russian dynamics in a European democracy more than a Russian army just across the border. Such would cause pro-EU forces to equivocate, to hedge bets. And it would cause pro-Russia forces to be more confident, aggressive. The scales of influence over time would time more toward Russia...... Just basic geopolitics 101. Gunboat diplomacy has a wiki page, ya know.....

How does Russian victory in Ukraine benefit the USA?
How does Russian victory in Ukraine lead to more rather than less stability?
(i could go on for a while with pertinent questions like that. and the answer for all of them is "it doesn't.")

You have no geopolitical policy at all except to do nothing, particularly where Russia is concerned. yours is the worldview that disengages to let forces find their own equilibrium, sleeps like a baby for a decade or so, then wakes up one morning to news videos of an general in an Eastern Europe Nato member announcing (while flanked by known, plain-clothed Russian military advisors) that he is now the head of state, after weeks of tumultuous and ultimately unsuccessful efforts by various parties to put together a shaky ruling coalition. ("shaky coalitions" are a problem - if do you not think domestic politics in Israel affected the timing of the Hamas decision to launch an attack, you are not thinking clearly). you look down at your desk and see frantic traffic from Foggy Bottom saying that other Nato states area all reporting that their liaison officers in that country have been restricted to house arrest, pending investigations of corruption. And now, your fear is.....will those Russian armies in Ukraine (or Belarus) be invited across the border to help stabilize the new government? And at that moment we will not be able to drive a sixteen-penny nail up your ass with a sledgehammer.

Dude, that is exactly how the next world war is GOING to start. Only questions are when, and WHERE. At this moment in time, we have a lot more influence right now over "where" than we do "when." That question is being argued as we speak on the Black Sea coast east of the Dnieper River. Our policy should be to keep those Russian armies in Russia, and if they step across borders, support anyone who will oppose them. IT is a very limited and cheap policy, even if lightweights refuse to understand it.

---

Speaking of straw men. Acknowledging a Russian sphere of influence is not "disengagement." It was an integral part of our policy until the unprecedented overreach of the last couple of decades.

---

There is a consistent theme in your arguments: "Often wrong, never in doubt."

"Sphere of influence" is a thing. But it's not "sphere of influence" when you invade it to subsume it into your state. In such a case, your "sphere of influence" doesn't just go away. It moves further out. It moves into the "sphere of influence" of others. (note your argument is premised on that concept....) And when you try to move your sphere of influence into that of others.......conflict occurs. The conflict in Ukraine is an effort to keep the Russian sphere of influence from becoming the eastern tier of Nato states.

In Political Geography, "spheres of influence" are called "shatter zones." The term itself belies the reality that spheres of influence always overlap. Where they overlap, they conflict. The goal is to keep that conflict political, economic...to seek influence rather than control, as control inherently invites military action. And if military action occurs, the goal is to keep it between proxies. That conflict over time ebbs & flows. If a major power miscalculates, it can expect to see its position in the shatter zone deteriorate, sometimes temporarily, sometimes not.

Nato would have been quite happy to have let Ukraine continue to be Ukraine, a corrupt buffer state between Nato and Russia. But Russia wasn't happy with that. So Russia invaded. And here we are. The appropriate response for Nato is not to say "oh, well. Russia deserves Ukraine. Let 'em have it. Russian armies moving 600mi closer to our capitals will have no impact on our security whatsoever..." because that is a quaintly Pollyanna take on geo-politics.

The fatal flaw in your analysis is stasis = it presumes that Russia is entitled to the sphere of influence it had in 1990. It further assumes a number of things downstream from that - that the events of 1991 are irrelevant, that Nato has a duty to stand back and let Russia reconstitute its former glory, that the states within the shatter zone have no agency in the course of affairs.

Only a Russian nationalist could reasonably expect such to be so. It's just not the way things work....have ever worked or will ever work. The Russian sphere of influence in 1990 was a historic maximum. It was also unsustainable. Patently, as history has demonstrated = Russia had a cataclysmic collapse in 1991. The state itself dissolved and got smaller. That by definition changed the location of the shatterzone. In central Asia, Turkey and Iran and China moved in to contest Russian influence, which is partly or wholly gone, depending on the state in question. Similarly, it's position in eastern Europe also collapsed. The shatterzone moved eastward several hundred miles, to Belarus and Ukraine. Russia was not content with a 600mi buffer between itself and Nato. So it invaded. That was an incredibly foolish thing to do. They are going to pay dearly for it. As they should. If they want their former glory back, they are going to have to earn it.

"Delusions of grandeur"
"Champaign taste on a beer budget"
"Biting off more than one can chew"
"Appetite exceeding arsehole"
Just a few of the ways to describe Russian nationalism.
At some point, they have to reminded that they have a lot of growing up to do.
Same is true for your foreign policy analysis, btw....

---

Your analysis begins with a patent falsehood and goes downhill from there. If we'd been content with Ukraine as a buffer state, we never would have tried to bring them into NATO.

Of course moving the line 600 miles to the west is dangerous. This is too obvious to mention. Yet with all your efforts, you cannot begin to fathom that moving it 600 miles to the east might be just as dangerous.

---

LOL the projection. Your first statement is a patent falsehood. At the time Putin invaded, there was neither an offer nor an application for Nato membership, or Nato partner status.

Seriously, dude. Get help.

---

LOL...you know perfectly well that doesn't disprove my point. Bringing Ukraine into NATO has been our stated objective since the George W. Bush administration. You've endorsed it several times yourself. It's laughably dishonest to suggest otherwise.

---

Geez, you can't get anything right. I have not endorsed it at all. I have expressed serious reservations about it, for the same exact reasons I want to keep Russia away from the current eastern flank of Nato - political instability in a NATO country bordering Russia is the scenario most likely to cause a war between Nato and Russia.

"Stated objective" is also a patent misrepresentation. Engaging in dialogue about the possibly of admitting a nation to NATO is not in any way an inevitable plan for membership. Entertaining vigorous debate in a free society on the wisdom of admitting (or not) a nation to NATO is not an irrevocable plan. Rather, you are imputing an irrational conclusion on this question because your argument requires such as its premise.

Your take on this also implies that you view free speech as a threat, just like Vlad.

---

You're obscuring the point with semantics. You said we were happy to let Ukraine continue as it was, a buffer state between NATO and Russia. That's just a plain lie, and we both know it.

Speech is only a threat when you use it to, you know, threaten. We knew bringing Ukraine into NATO was a threat to Russia. We just didn't think they could do anything about it. As is usually the case with our post-Cold War policy, we were wrong.

---

Why is NATO membership for Ukraine a threat to Russia? Are we going to attack Russia?

I understand the historic reasons Russia wants as much buffer as possible between it and Germany/France and their allies. But Russia's post WWII conduct makes clear that the real threat to the world is Russia, not NATO.

---

( sigh )

One last time.

Pretend Russia intervened in Mexican elections and had manipulated the results from which the government was now super friendly with Russia instead of the U.S.

And Mexico then permitted Russian Army bases to be built within its borders.

Then Russia began pressuring Mexico to join into a formal military alliance with the option of placing nuclear weapons targeted at the US on Mexican soil.

Really think the US would be ok with it ?

---

Of course not. Because Russia has proven time and again it is the enemy of freedom. Our history is nowhere near clean, but generally we are against people living under the boot of dictators. Complete and total false equivalency.

---

Suspect you would be shocked at the number of countries who consider the United States to be the ' enemy of freedom'

So because Russia is the 'enemy of freedom' if they did in Mexico what we have done in Ukraine it wouldn't be ok.

However it's totally fine for the US to meddle in Ukraine's elections , train troops on Ukrainian soil and constantly pressure Ukraine to join NATO with the alliances tacit approve to place nuclear weapons.

Yep, a totally false equivalency. Who could possible doubt it ?

---

To make it an apples to apples we would then have to invade Mexico, twice.

---

We have invaded Mexico twice or even three times.

Occupied Mexico City once .

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

again, you are just defining away Russia as a non-threat, instead of looking at current realities, history, geo-politics, etc.....

And Russian actions in Ukraine was the galvanizing force. Nato is supporting Ukraine, too, as well as starting to rebuild their armies....because they see exactly what you ignore = Russian expansionism is a current threat…

And yes, Russian expansionism against Nato is every bit as great a threat as what is happening on the Southern border. .

---

Is Russia so weak that it can be defeated by Ukraine or is it so strong it could start and win a direct confrontation with NATO? It can’t be both at once. https://t.co/8JXGZSVVIT

— James Kirkpatrick (@VDAREJamesK) December 30, 2023

---

if you had no strawman, you'd have no argument at all.

Russia does not have to invade a Nato nation to destablize it. Slovakia already has a pro-Russian PM (head of a small party leading a coalition govt.

---

Oh gotta democracy is destabilizing huh?


You really do sound like you work for some DC neo-con
/liberal interventionist outfit.

Democracy is bad in other countries when it comes to conclusions DC does not like

If the Slovaks want to be a good terms with Russia it's not actually "destabilizing" anymore than if a party gets elected that follows an opposite policy


Your arguments basically boils down to "Russia exists so it's a threat"

---

again, you revert to genetic fallacy rather than deal with facts and geo-political realities.

And those facts are = Nato exists. Voluntarily. Not one nation was forced to join. Not one nation has even been forced to make their pledged annual contribution. But all member nations, including the USA, have agreed to common defense, to include nuclear exchange, should the alliance be attacked. So rising threats to the Nato alliance are relevant. (a point you studiously avoid).

It is true that invasion of Nato by Russia appears neither likely nor imminent at this time, given the limits of Russian abilities on their best day, degraded over time by years of war. But Russia has miscalculated in Ukraine. Badly. How can we blithely assume they would not do so at some point in the future re Nato? (we can't.)

And invasion is not the only threat. I've laid it out many, many times for you. The pendulum swings in democracy. Political coalitions rise and fall. Right now, pro-EU forces are ascendant all across Europe. At some point, forces more favorable to Russia will win an election. The template is partially formed in Slovakia, although barely so (but it does show I'm not contriving unrealities). The proximity of Russian armies to those dynamics is a VERY material factor (yet another one you ignore). Nothing would strengthen pro-Russian dynamics in a European democracy more than a Russian army just across the border. Such would cause pro-EU forces to equivocate, to hedge bets. And it would cause pro-Russia forces to be more confident, aggressive. The scales of influence over time would time more toward Russia...... Just basic geopolitics 101. Gunboat diplomacy has a wiki page, ya know.....

How does Russian victory in Ukraine benefit the USA?
How does Russian victory in Ukraine lead to more rather than less stability?
(i could go on for a while with pertinent questions like that. and the answer for all of them is "it doesn't.")

You have no geopolitical policy at all except to do nothing, particularly where Russia is concerned. yours is the worldview that disengages to let forces find their own equilibrium, sleeps like a baby for a decade or so, then wakes up one morning to news videos of an general in an Eastern Europe Nato member announcing (while flanked by known, plain-clothed Russian military advisors) that he is now the head of state, after weeks of tumultuous and ultimately unsuccessful efforts by various parties to put together a shaky ruling coalition. ("shaky coalitions" are a problem - if do you not think domestic politics in Israel affected the timing of the Hamas decision to launch an attack, you are not thinking clearly). you look down at your desk and see frantic traffic from Foggy Bottom saying that other Nato states area all reporting that their liaison officers in that country have been restricted to house arrest, pending investigations of corruption. And now, your fear is.....will those Russian armies in Ukraine (or Belarus) be invited across the border to help stabilize the new government? And at that moment we will not be able to drive a sixteen-penny nail up your ass with a sledgehammer.

Dude, that is exactly how the next world war is GOING to start. Only questions are when, and WHERE. At this moment in time, we have a lot more influence right now over "where" than we do "when." That question is being argued as we speak on the Black Sea coast east of the Dnieper River. Our policy should be to keep those Russian armies in Russia, and if they step across borders, support anyone who will oppose them. IT is a very limited and cheap policy, even if lightweights refuse to understand it.

---

Speaking of straw men. Acknowledging a Russian sphere of influence is not "disengagement." It was an integral part of our policy until the unprecedented overreach of the last couple of decades.

---

There is a consistent theme in your arguments: "Often wrong, never in doubt."

"Sphere of influence" is a thing. But it's not "sphere of influence" when you invade it to subsume it into your state. In such a case, your "sphere of influence" doesn't just go away. It moves further out. It moves into the "sphere of influence" of others. (note your argument is premised on that concept....) And when you try to move your sphere of influence into that of others.......conflict occurs. The conflict in Ukraine is an effort to keep the Russian sphere of influence from becoming the eastern tier of Nato states.

In Political Geography, "spheres of influence" are called "shatter zones." The term itself belies the reality that spheres of influence always overlap. Where they overlap, they conflict. The goal is to keep that conflict political, economic...to seek influence rather than control, as control inherently invites military action. And if military action occurs, the goal is to keep it between proxies. That conflict over time ebbs & flows. If a major power miscalculates, it can expect to see its position in the shatter zone deteriorate, sometimes temporarily, sometimes not.

Nato would have been quite happy to have let Ukraine continue to be Ukraine, a corrupt buffer state between Nato and Russia. But Russia wasn't happy with that. So Russia invaded. And here we are. The appropriate response for Nato is not to say "oh, well. Russia deserves Ukraine. Let 'em have it. Russian armies moving 600mi closer to our capitals will have no impact on our security whatsoever..." because that is a quaintly Pollyanna take on geo-politics.

The fatal flaw in your analysis is stasis = it presumes that Russia is entitled to the sphere of influence it had in 1990. It further assumes a number of things downstream from that - that the events of 1991 are irrelevant, that Nato has a duty to stand back and let Russia reconstitute its former glory, that the states within the shatter zone have no agency in the course of affairs.

Only a Russian nationalist could reasonably expect such to be so. It's just not the way things work....have ever worked or will ever work. The Russian sphere of influence in 1990 was a historic maximum. It was also unsustainable. Patently, as history has demonstrated = Russia had a cataclysmic collapse in 1991. The state itself dissolved and got smaller. That by definition changed the location of the shatterzone. In central Asia, Turkey and Iran and China moved in to contest Russian influence, which is partly or wholly gone, depending on the state in question. Similarly, it's position in eastern Europe also collapsed. The shatterzone moved eastward several hundred miles, to Belarus and Ukraine. Russia was not content with a 600mi buffer between itself and Nato. So it invaded. That was an incredibly foolish thing to do. They are going to pay dearly for it. As they should. If they want their former glory back, they are going to have to earn it.

"Delusions of grandeur"
"Champaign taste on a beer budget"
"Biting off more than one can chew"
"Appetite exceeding arsehole"
Just a few of the ways to describe Russian nationalism.
At some point, they have to reminded that they have a lot of growing up to do.
Same is true for your foreign policy analysis, btw....

---

Your analysis begins with a patent falsehood and goes downhill from there. If we'd been content with Ukraine as a buffer state, we never would have tried to bring them into NATO.

Of course moving the line 600 miles to the west is dangerous. This is too obvious to mention. Yet with all your efforts, you cannot begin to fathom that moving it 600 miles to the east might be just as dangerous.

---

LOL the projection. Your first statement is a patent falsehood. At the time Putin invaded, there was neither an offer nor an application for Nato membership, or Nato partner status.

Seriously, dude. Get help.

---

LOL...you know perfectly well that doesn't disprove my point. Bringing Ukraine into NATO has been our stated objective since the George W. Bush administration. You've endorsed it several times yourself. It's laughably dishonest to suggest otherwise.

---

Geez, you can't get anything right. I have not endorsed it at all. I have expressed serious reservations about it, for the same exact reasons I want to keep Russia away from the current eastern flank of Nato - political instability in a NATO country bordering Russia is the scenario most likely to cause a war between Nato and Russia.

"Stated objective" is also a patent misrepresentation. Engaging in dialogue about the possibly of admitting a nation to NATO is not in any way an inevitable plan for membership. Entertaining vigorous debate in a free society on the wisdom of admitting (or not) a nation to NATO is not an irrevocable plan. Rather, you are imputing an irrational conclusion on this question because your argument requires such as its premise.

Your take on this also implies that you view free speech as a threat, just like Vlad.

---

You're obscuring the point with semantics. You said we were happy to let Ukraine continue as it was, a buffer state between NATO and Russia. That's just a plain lie, and we both know it.

Speech is only a threat when you use it to, you know, threaten. We knew bringing Ukraine into NATO was a threat to Russia. We just didn't think they could do anything about it. As is usually the case with our post-Cold War policy, we were wrong.

---

Why is NATO membership for Ukraine a threat to Russia? Are we going to attack Russia?

I understand the historic reasons Russia wants as much buffer as possible between it and Germany/France and their allies. But Russia's post WWII conduct makes clear that the real threat to the world is Russia, not NATO.

---

( sigh )

One last time.

Pretend Russia intervened in Mexican elections and had manipulated the results from which the government was now super friendly with Russia instead of the U.S.

And Mexico then permitted Russian Army bases to be built within its borders.

Then Russia began pressuring Mexico to join into a formal military alliance with the option of placing nuclear weapons targeted at the US on Mexican soil.

Really think the US would be ok with it ?

---

Of course not. Because Russia has proven time and again it is the enemy of freedom. Our history is nowhere near clean, but generally we are against people living under the boot of dictators. Complete and total false equivalency.

---

Suspect you would be shocked at the number of countries who consider the United States to be the ' enemy of freedom'

So because Russia is the 'enemy of freedom' if they did in Mexico what we have done in Ukraine it wouldn't be ok.

However it's totally fine for the US to meddle in Ukraine's elections , train troops on Ukrainian soil and constantly pressure Ukraine to join NATO with the alliances tacit approve to place nuclear weapons.

Yep, a totally false equivalency. Who could possible doubt it ?

---

To make it an apples to apples we would then have to invade Mexico, twice.

---

We have invaded Mexico twice or even three times.

Occupied Mexico City once .

---

DC has also funded certain sides in their civil wars/internal upheavals to make sure the more pro-DC faction was able to take power.

[The U.S. played a substantial role in the evolution of the Mexican Revolution. It supported the anti-reelectionist movement, agreed with Bernardo Reyes and Flix Daz's revolt against Francisco I. Madero, helped the revolutionaries defeat Huerta, and invaded Veracruz in 1914.]

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/mexican-revolution-and-the-united-states/us-involvement-before-1913.html#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20played%20a%20substantial,and%20invaded%20Veracruz%20in%201914.

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

again, you are just defining away Russia as a non-threat, instead of looking at current realities, history, geo-politics, etc.....

And Russian actions in Ukraine was the galvanizing force. Nato is supporting Ukraine, too, as well as starting to rebuild their armies....because they see exactly what you ignore = Russian expansionism is a current threat…

And yes, Russian expansionism against Nato is every bit as great a threat as what is happening on the Southern border. .

---

Is Russia so weak that it can be defeated by Ukraine or is it so strong it could start and win a direct confrontation with NATO? It can’t be both at once. https://t.co/8JXGZSVVIT

— James Kirkpatrick (@VDAREJamesK) December 30, 2023

---

if you had no strawman, you'd have no argument at all.

Russia does not have to invade a Nato nation to destablize it. Slovakia already has a pro-Russian PM (head of a small party leading a coalition govt.

---

Oh gotta democracy is destabilizing huh?


You really do sound like you work for some DC neo-con
/liberal interventionist outfit.

Democracy is bad in other countries when it comes to conclusions DC does not like

If the Slovaks want to be a good terms with Russia it's not actually "destabilizing" anymore than if a party gets elected that follows an opposite policy


Your arguments basically boils down to "Russia exists so it's a threat"

---

again, you revert to genetic fallacy rather than deal with facts and geo-political realities.

And those facts are = Nato exists. Voluntarily. Not one nation was forced to join. Not one nation has even been forced to make their pledged annual contribution. But all member nations, including the USA, have agreed to common defense, to include nuclear exchange, should the alliance be attacked. So rising threats to the Nato alliance are relevant. (a point you studiously avoid).

It is true that invasion of Nato by Russia appears neither likely nor imminent at this time, given the limits of Russian abilities on their best day, degraded over time by years of war. But Russia has miscalculated in Ukraine. Badly. How can we blithely assume they would not do so at some point in the future re Nato? (we can't.)

And invasion is not the only threat. I've laid it out many, many times for you. The pendulum swings in democracy. Political coalitions rise and fall. Right now, pro-EU forces are ascendant all across Europe. At some point, forces more favorable to Russia will win an election. The template is partially formed in Slovakia, although barely so (but it does show I'm not contriving unrealities). The proximity of Russian armies to those dynamics is a VERY material factor (yet another one you ignore). Nothing would strengthen pro-Russian dynamics in a European democracy more than a Russian army just across the border. Such would cause pro-EU forces to equivocate, to hedge bets. And it would cause pro-Russia forces to be more confident, aggressive. The scales of influence over time would time more toward Russia...... Just basic geopolitics 101. Gunboat diplomacy has a wiki page, ya know.....

How does Russian victory in Ukraine benefit the USA?
How does Russian victory in Ukraine lead to more rather than less stability?
(i could go on for a while with pertinent questions like that. and the answer for all of them is "it doesn't.")

You have no geopolitical policy at all except to do nothing, particularly where Russia is concerned. yours is the worldview that disengages to let forces find their own equilibrium, sleeps like a baby for a decade or so, then wakes up one morning to news videos of an general in an Eastern Europe Nato member announcing (while flanked by known, plain-clothed Russian military advisors) that he is now the head of state, after weeks of tumultuous and ultimately unsuccessful efforts by various parties to put together a shaky ruling coalition. ("shaky coalitions" are a problem - if do you not think domestic politics in Israel affected the timing of the Hamas decision to launch an attack, you are not thinking clearly). you look down at your desk and see frantic traffic from Foggy Bottom saying that other Nato states area all reporting that their liaison officers in that country have been restricted to house arrest, pending investigations of corruption. And now, your fear is.....will those Russian armies in Ukraine (or Belarus) be invited across the border to help stabilize the new government? And at that moment we will not be able to drive a sixteen-penny nail up your ass with a sledgehammer.

Dude, that is exactly how the next world war is GOING to start. Only questions are when, and WHERE. At this moment in time, we have a lot more influence right now over "where" than we do "when." That question is being argued as we speak on the Black Sea coast east of the Dnieper River. Our policy should be to keep those Russian armies in Russia, and if they step across borders, support anyone who will oppose them. IT is a very limited and cheap policy, even if lightweights refuse to understand it.

---

Speaking of straw men. Acknowledging a Russian sphere of influence is not "disengagement." It was an integral part of our policy until the unprecedented overreach of the last couple of decades.

---

There is a consistent theme in your arguments: "Often wrong, never in doubt."

"Sphere of influence" is a thing. But it's not "sphere of influence" when you invade it to subsume it into your state. In such a case, your "sphere of influence" doesn't just go away. It moves further out. It moves into the "sphere of influence" of others. (note your argument is premised on that concept....) And when you try to move your sphere of influence into that of others.......conflict occurs. The conflict in Ukraine is an effort to keep the Russian sphere of influence from becoming the eastern tier of Nato states.

In Political Geography, "spheres of influence" are called "shatter zones." The term itself belies the reality that spheres of influence always overlap. Where they overlap, they conflict. The goal is to keep that conflict political, economic...to seek influence rather than control, as control inherently invites military action. And if military action occurs, the goal is to keep it between proxies. That conflict over time ebbs & flows. If a major power miscalculates, it can expect to see its position in the shatter zone deteriorate, sometimes temporarily, sometimes not.

Nato would have been quite happy to have let Ukraine continue to be Ukraine, a corrupt buffer state between Nato and Russia. But Russia wasn't happy with that. So Russia invaded. And here we are. The appropriate response for Nato is not to say "oh, well. Russia deserves Ukraine. Let 'em have it. Russian armies moving 600mi closer to our capitals will have no impact on our security whatsoever..." because that is a quaintly Pollyanna take on geo-politics.

The fatal flaw in your analysis is stasis = it presumes that Russia is entitled to the sphere of influence it had in 1990. It further assumes a number of things downstream from that - that the events of 1991 are irrelevant, that Nato has a duty to stand back and let Russia reconstitute its former glory, that the states within the shatter zone have no agency in the course of affairs.

Only a Russian nationalist could reasonably expect such to be so. It's just not the way things work....have ever worked or will ever work. The Russian sphere of influence in 1990 was a historic maximum. It was also unsustainable. Patently, as history has demonstrated = Russia had a cataclysmic collapse in 1991. The state itself dissolved and got smaller. That by definition changed the location of the shatterzone. In central Asia, Turkey and Iran and China moved in to contest Russian influence, which is partly or wholly gone, depending on the state in question. Similarly, it's position in eastern Europe also collapsed. The shatterzone moved eastward several hundred miles, to Belarus and Ukraine. Russia was not content with a 600mi buffer between itself and Nato. So it invaded. That was an incredibly foolish thing to do. They are going to pay dearly for it. As they should. If they want their former glory back, they are going to have to earn it.

"Delusions of grandeur"
"Champaign taste on a beer budget"
"Biting off more than one can chew"
"Appetite exceeding arsehole"
Just a few of the ways to describe Russian nationalism.
At some point, they have to reminded that they have a lot of growing up to do.
Same is true for your foreign policy analysis, btw....

---

Your analysis begins with a patent falsehood and goes downhill from there. If we'd been content with Ukraine as a buffer state, we never would have tried to bring them into NATO.

Of course moving the line 600 miles to the west is dangerous. This is too obvious to mention. Yet with all your efforts, you cannot begin to fathom that moving it 600 miles to the east might be just as dangerous.

---

LOL the projection. Your first statement is a patent falsehood. At the time Putin invaded, there was neither an offer nor an application for Nato membership, or Nato partner status.

Seriously, dude. Get help.

---

LOL...you know perfectly well that doesn't disprove my point. Bringing Ukraine into NATO has been our stated objective since the George W. Bush administration. You've endorsed it several times yourself. It's laughably dishonest to suggest otherwise.

---

Geez, you can't get anything right. I have not endorsed it at all. I have expressed serious reservations about it, for the same exact reasons I want to keep Russia away from the current eastern flank of Nato - political instability in a NATO country bordering Russia is the scenario most likely to cause a war between Nato and Russia.

"Stated objective" is also a patent misrepresentation. Engaging in dialogue about the possibly of admitting a nation to NATO is not in any way an inevitable plan for membership. Entertaining vigorous debate in a free society on the wisdom of admitting (or not) a nation to NATO is not an irrevocable plan. Rather, you are imputing an irrational conclusion on this question because your argument requires such as its premise.

Your take on this also implies that you view free speech as a threat, just like Vlad.

---

You're obscuring the point with semantics. You said we were happy to let Ukraine continue as it was, a buffer state between NATO and Russia. That's just a plain lie, and we both know it.

Speech is only a threat when you use it to, you know, threaten. We knew bringing Ukraine into NATO was a threat to Russia. We just didn't think they could do anything about it. As is usually the case with our post-Cold War policy, we were wrong.

---

Why is NATO membership for Ukraine a threat to Russia? Are we going to attack Russia?

I understand the historic reasons Russia wants as much buffer as possible between it and Germany/France and their allies. But Russia's post WWII conduct makes clear that the real threat to the world is Russia, not NATO.

---

( sigh )

One last time.

Pretend Russia intervened in Mexican elections and had manipulated the results from which the government was now super friendly with Russia instead of the U.S.

And Mexico then permitted Russian Army bases to be built within its borders.

Then Russia began pressuring Mexico to join into a formal military alliance with the option of placing nuclear weapons targeted at the US on Mexican soil.

Really think the US would be ok with it ?

---

Of course not. Because Russia has proven time and again it is the enemy of freedom. Our history is nowhere near clean, but generally we are against people living under the boot of dictators. Complete and total false equivalency.

---

Suspect you would be shocked at the number of countries who consider the United States to be the ' enemy of freedom'

So because Russia is the 'enemy of freedom' if they did in Mexico what we have done in Ukraine it wouldn't be ok.

However it's totally fine for the US to meddle in Ukraine's elections , train troops on Ukrainian soil and constantly pressure Ukraine to join NATO with the alliances tacit approve to place nuclear weapons.

Yep, a totally false equivalency. Who could possible doubt it ?

---

To make it an apples to apples we would then have to invade Mexico, twice.

---

Well this is awkward…..


[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times. Across Latin America, U.S. forces have invaded southern neighbors more than 70 times, leaving occupying armies for months, years, and in some cases decades]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

To portray Orthodox Christianity is completely incompatible with Western Civilization is quite a reach, certainly no fatal barrier to military alliance.

The divide between Orthodox and Catholic, in isolation, is no greater than the divide between Catholic and Protestant.

---

Orthodox Christianity is incompatible with what Western Civilization is becoming (a post-Christian, pagan culture). In fact, I suspect a significant amount of the animosity towards Russia that circulates inside the beltway is due to the apostasy of Russia from the socialist faith and its return to its Orthodox roots. Given current trends, it's highly likely that the only Christianity surviving in the west in another 20-40 years will be Orthodoxy.

---

American far right: “Russia is the last hedge of decency against global degeneracy!”
Russia: https://t.co/DBUAdvnVDB

— Sonny Bunch (@SonnyBunch) January 19, 2024

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

To portray Orthodox Christianity is completely incompatible with Western Civilization is quite a reach, certainly no fatal barrier to military alliance.

The divide between Orthodox and Catholic, in isolation, is no greater than the divide between Catholic and Protestant.

---

Orthodox Christianity is incompatible with what Western Civilization is becoming (a post-Christian, pagan culture). In fact, I suspect a significant amount of the animosity towards Russia that circulates inside the beltway is due to the apostasy of Russia from the socialist faith and its return to its Orthodox roots. Given current trends, it's highly likely that the only Christianity surviving in the west in another 20-40 years will be Orthodoxy.

---

American far right: “Russia is the last hedge of decency against global degeneracy!”
Russia: https://t.co/DBUAdvnVDB

— Sonny Bunch (@SonnyBunch) January 19, 2024

---

Russia is of course simultaneously MORE degenerate than the West…and far less.

It's an admittedly a strange place.

Where transgender surgeries on kids are banned and where most women abort their own children

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Chuck Schumer confirms that Democrats refuse to secure the border unless we agree to a $60 billion shakedown for Ukraine:

"There were a couple of people in the room that said let's do border first. We said we have to do both together."

These people disgust me. pic.twitter.com/RsRyt6m5ml

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) January 18, 2024

---

Disgusting

But Dem partisans can't / won't comprehend the consequences of the actions of their 'team'.

---

They understand exactly what would happen if they reached a border agreement without agreement on Ukraine.

---

Ha, yeah…they'd save a lot of lives and get nothing but a more secure border in return. Hard to see any benefit from that.

---

Guess you don't consider the freedom and wishes of 40 million people a benefit.

---

A good number of that 40 million does not even consider itself ethnic Ukrainian….and many in Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk have been fighting for almost a decade to be free of Kyiv

---

So the groups in CA that want SoCal to be part of Mexico have the right to ask Mexico to invade the US and annex Southern Calf.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Chuck Schumer confirms that Democrats refuse to secure the border unless we agree to a $60 billion shakedown for Ukraine:

"There were a couple of people in the room that said let's do border first. We said we have to do both together."

These people disgust me. pic.twitter.com/RsRyt6m5ml

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) January 18, 2024

---

Disgusting

But Dem partisans can't / won't comprehend the consequences of the actions of their 'team'.

---

They understand exactly what would happen if they reached a border agreement without agreement on Ukraine.

---

Ha, yeah…they'd save a lot of lives and get nothing but a more secure border in return. Hard to see any benefit from that.

---

Guess you don't consider the freedom and wishes of 40 million people a benefit.

---

A good number of that 40 million does not even consider itself ethnic Ukrainian….and many in Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk have been fighting for almost a decade to be free of Kyiv

---

So the groups in CA that want SoCal to be part of Mexico have the right to ask Mexico to invade the US and annex Southern Calf.

---

No doubt mass immigration is going to cause all kinds of problems for the USA over the next 100 years…


But it interesting that DC always seems to support secessionist movements around the world (Kosovo, East Timor, South Sudan, etc)

Not not when it benefits Russia or if it's here at home in the good ole USA

One might almost think DC does not have set rules…but makes them up as they go along.


P.S.


I actually support secessionist movements in general.


No central government has the right to use force to keep people in an artificial political union.

Southern California belongs to the people of Southern California….Crimea belongs to the people that live there…and they both have the right to choose who they want to be in a political relationship with

NATO mobilizing 90,000 troops in largest drills since Cold War as Russia threat looms https://t.co/oCjWgYJwhi

— Axios (@axios) January 19, 2024

🚨Update: Russia used electronic warfare systems in Kaliningrad to disable NATO facilities in Poland being used to support the Ukrainian war effort!!

Over the past 48 hours ago, half of Poland was left without operational GPS systems, and NATO lost some surveillance… pic.twitter.com/fAgv9EarYg

— US Civil Defense News (@CaptCoronado) January 19, 2024

Russia can block GPS in Poland, Sweden and the Baltic States using electronic warfare equipment - ISW

On January 16-17, an unprecedented high level of GPS jamming was recorded in northern and central Poland. Earlier similar jamming was recorded in late December on the Polish… pic.twitter.com/A9rTW1c7zw

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) January 19, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Chuck Schumer confirms that Democrats refuse to secure the border unless we agree to a $60 billion shakedown for Ukraine:

"There were a couple of people in the room that said let's do border first. We said we have to do both together."

These people disgust me. pic.twitter.com/RsRyt6m5ml

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) January 18, 2024

---

Disgusting

But Dem partisans can't / won't comprehend the consequences of the actions of their 'team'.

---

They understand exactly what would happen if they reached a border agreement without agreement on Ukraine.

---

Ha, yeah…they'd save a lot of lives and get nothing but a more secure border in return. Hard to see any benefit from that.

---

Guess you don't consider the freedom and wishes of 40 million people a benefit.

---

A good number of that 40 million does not even consider itself ethnic Ukrainian….and many in Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk have been fighting for almost a decade to be free of Kyiv

---

So the groups in CA that want SoCal to be part of Mexico have the right to ask Mexico to invade the US and annex Southern Calf.

---

No doubt mass immigration is going to cause all kinds of problems for the USA over the next 100 years…


But it interesting that DC always seems to support secessionist movements around the world (Kosovo, East Timor, South Sudan, etc)

Not not when it benefits Russia or if it's here at home in the good ole USA

One might almost think DC does not have set rules…but makes them up as they go along.


P.S.


I actually support secessionist movements in general.


No central government has the right to use force to keep people in an artificial political union.

Southern California belongs to the people of Southern California….Crimea belongs to the people that live there…and they both have the right to choose who they want to be in a political relationship with

---

We disagree on that. The Southern Calf they love, is the result of the investment in time, resources and labor the US invested there and made it what it is. They didn't love it when it was desert, there was no one there. They moved in after the investment was made. So, I disagree.

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Why is NATO membership for Ukraine a threat to Russia? Are we going to attack Russia?

I understand the historic reasons Russia wants as much buffer as possible between it and Germany/France and their allies. But Russia's post WWII conduct makes clear that the real threat to the world is Russia, not NATO.

---

( sigh )

One last time.

Pretend Russia intervened in Mexican elections and had manipulated the results from which the government was now super friendly with Russia instead of the U.S.

And Mexico then permitted Russian Army bases to be built within its borders.

Then Russia began pressuring Mexico to join into a formal military alliance with the option of placing nuclear weapons targeted at the US on Mexican soil.

Really think the US would be ok with it ?

---

Of course not. Because Russia has proven time and again it is the enemy of freedom. Our history is nowhere near clean, but generally we are against people living under the boot of dictators. Complete and total false equivalency.

---

You expect Russia to take the same view: we're evil, so we should just accept whatever America wants? That's no realistic way to conduct foreign policy. Besides, it's debatable whether Russia is even a dictatorship. They're certainly freer than they were during the Cold War, and we were able to negotiate then. Let's be honest about what changed. We decided to ignore Russia's interests because we thought we could get away with it. It was part of our "unipolar moment." The same hubris brought us the fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now we're messing with a nuclear power, and you're talking about false equivalency. Who cares about false equivalency? It makes zero difference whether the US and Russia are morally equivalent in our self-satisfied view of the world. Really ask yourself whether you want to trade Boston for Bakhmut. That's the only equivalency that matters. Then get back to us about our noble mission to free the world from the boot of dictators. Which -- by the way -- is something we would never do even if we could. Dictators and authoritarians are far too useful. We don't care if they enslave their own countries as long as we get a share of the plunder. Putin's great crime was refusing to play ball, nothing more or less.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Why don't you move to Russia, post a bunch of stuff critical of the government and report back on which nations are enemies of freedom?

---

Try being an American journalist sentenced to slow death in a Ukrainian prison. Or a Russian blogger blown up in a cafe full of bystanders. Or a family shot to death in their car at a Ukrainian checkpoint. Or a nurse at a hospital in Donetsk, where Ukraine was bombing civilians for a decade until Russia put a stop to it.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Chuck Schumer confirms that Democrats refuse to secure the border unless we agree to a $60 billion shakedown for Ukraine:

"There were a couple of people in the room that said let's do border first. We said we have to do both together."

These people disgust me. pic.twitter.com/RsRyt6m5ml

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) January 18, 2024

---

Disgusting

But Dem partisans can't / won't comprehend the consequences of the actions of their 'team'.

---

They understand exactly what would happen if they reached a border agreement without agreement on Ukraine.

---

Ha, yeah…they'd save a lot of lives and get nothing but a more secure border in return. Hard to see any benefit from that.

---

Guess you don't consider the freedom and wishes of 40 million people a benefit.

---

If we cared even a little about the freedom and wishes of 40 million Ukrainians, we would have supported a peaceful resolution of the Donbas war and autonomy for the Russian oblasts. Zelensky ran on that platform, and Ukrainians supported it overwhelmingly.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Chuck Schumer confirms that Democrats refuse to secure the border unless we agree to a $60 billion shakedown for Ukraine:

"There were a couple of people in the room that said let's do border first. We said we have to do both together."

These people disgust me. pic.twitter.com/RsRyt6m5ml

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) January 18, 2024

---

Disgusting

But Dem partisans can't / won't comprehend the consequences of the actions of their 'team'.

---

They understand exactly what would happen if they reached a border agreement without agreement on Ukraine.

---

Ha, yeah…they'd save a lot of lives and get nothing but a more secure border in return. Hard to see any benefit from that.

---

Guess you don't consider the freedom and wishes of 40 million people a benefit.

---

A good number of that 40 million does not even consider itself ethnic Ukrainian….and many in Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk have been fighting for almost a decade to be free of Kyiv

---

So the groups in CA that want SoCal to be part of Mexico have the right to ask Mexico to invade the US and annex Southern Calf.

---

No doubt mass immigration is going to cause all kinds of problems for the USA over the next 100 years…


But it interesting that DC always seems to support secessionist movements around the world (Kosovo, East Timor, South Sudan, etc)

Not not when it benefits Russia or if it's here at home in the good ole USA

One might almost think DC does not have set rules…but makes them up as they go along.


P.S.


I actually support secessionist movements in general.


No central government has the right to use force to keep people in an artificial political union.

Southern California belongs to the people of Southern California….Crimea belongs to the people that live there…and they both have the right to choose who they want to be in a political relationship with

---

We disagree on that. The Southern Calf they love, is the result of the investment in time, resources and labor the US invested there and made it what it is. They didn't love it when it was desert, there was no one there. They moved in after the investment was made. So, I disagree.

---

I see what your saying..and its a decent argument.

But S. Cal was never a desert....well at least the coastal area was and is not.

It had large land holdings and successful agricultural ventures since Spanish colonial times

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

Half of the territory of Southern California is Mediterranean in climate

It was always a great place

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Why is NATO membership for Ukraine a threat to Russia? Are we going to attack Russia?

I understand the historic reasons Russia wants as much buffer as possible between it and Germany/France and their allies. But Russia's post WWII conduct makes clear that the real threat to the world is Russia, not NATO.

---

( sigh )

One last time.

Pretend Russia intervened in Mexican elections and had manipulated the results from which the government was now super friendly with Russia instead of the U.S.

And Mexico then permitted Russian Army bases to be built within its borders.

Then Russia began pressuring Mexico to join into a formal military alliance with the option of placing nuclear weapons targeted at the US on Mexican soil.

Really think the US would be ok with it ?

---

Of course not. Because Russia has proven time and again it is the enemy of freedom. Our history is nowhere near clean, but generally we are against people living under the boot of dictators. Complete and total false equivalency.

---

You expect Russia to take the same view: we're evil, so we should just accept whatever America wants? That's no realistic way to conduct foreign policy. Besides, it's debatable whether Russia is even a dictatorship. They're certainly freer than they were during the Cold War, and we were able to negotiate then. Let's be honest about what changed. We decided to ignore Russia's interests because we thought we could get away with it. It was part of our "unipolar moment." The same hubris brought us the fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now we're messing with a nuclear power, and you're talking about false equivalency. Who cares about false equivalency? It makes zero difference whether the US and Russia are morally equivalent in our self-satisfied view of the world. Really ask yourself whether you want to trade Boston for Bakhmut. That's the only equivalency that matters. Then get back to us about our noble mission to free the world from the boot of dictators. Which -- by the way -- is something we would never do even if we could. Dictators and authoritarians are far too useful. We don't care if they enslave their own countries as long as we get a share of the plunder. Putin's great crime was refusing to play ball, nothing more or less.

---

So we don't help an ally that Russia attacks becuase Russia has nuclear weapons? Finland, Poland, etc. etc. will be real happy with that.

We have different world views. You see America as essentially the same as Russia, focused solely on protecting its own interests. I see America as a flawed superpower that generally attempts to make the world freer and a place where market economies can work. I don't mind the criticisms of our past foreign policy becuase while it might be somewhat over-the-top it has some thruth to it also.

I do mind Americans who see little to no difference to how Russia conducts business and how America conducts business. Its just an excuse to avoid conflict. "Peace in our time" is your goal and it never works.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Chuck Schumer confirms that Democrats refuse to secure the border unless we agree to a $60 billion shakedown for Ukraine:

"There were a couple of people in the room that said let's do border first. We said we have to do both together."

These people disgust me. pic.twitter.com/RsRyt6m5ml

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) January 18, 2024

---

Disgusting

But Dem partisans can't / won't comprehend the consequences of the actions of their 'team'.

---

They understand exactly what would happen if they reached a border agreement without agreement on Ukraine.

---

Ha, yeah…they'd save a lot of lives and get nothing but a more secure border in return. Hard to see any benefit from that.

---

Guess you don't consider the freedom and wishes of 40 million people a benefit.

---

If we cared even a little about the freedom and wishes of 40 million Ukrainians, we would have supported a peaceful resolution of the Donbas war and autonomy for the Russian oblasts. Zelensky ran on that platform, and Ukrainians supported it overwhelmingly.

---

Instead we funded a demining campaign so that 5 year olds would not blow themselves up. We are a cruel nation indeed.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Why is NATO membership for Ukraine a threat to Russia? Are we going to attack Russia?

I understand the historic reasons Russia wants as much buffer as possible between it and Germany/France and their allies. But Russia's post WWII conduct makes clear that the real threat to the world is Russia, not NATO.

---

( sigh )

One last time.

Pretend Russia intervened in Mexican elections and had manipulated the results from which the government was now super friendly with Russia instead of the U.S.

And Mexico then permitted Russian Army bases to be built within its borders.

Then Russia began pressuring Mexico to join into a formal military alliance with the option of placing nuclear weapons targeted at the US on Mexican soil.

Really think the US would be ok with it ?

---

Of course not. Because Russia has proven time and again it is the enemy of freedom. Our history is nowhere near clean, but generally we are against people living under the boot of dictators. Complete and total false equivalency.

---

You expect Russia to take the same view: we're evil, so we should just accept whatever America wants? That's no realistic way to conduct foreign policy. Besides, it's debatable whether Russia is even a dictatorship. They're certainly freer than they were during the Cold War, and we were able to negotiate then. Let's be honest about what changed. We decided to ignore Russia's interests because we thought we could get away with it. It was part of our "unipolar moment." The same hubris brought us the fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now we're messing with a nuclear power, and you're talking about false equivalency. Who cares about false equivalency? It makes zero difference whether the US and Russia are morally equivalent in our self-satisfied view of the world. Really ask yourself whether you want to trade Boston for Bakhmut. That's the only equivalency that matters. Then get back to us about our noble mission to free the world from the boot of dictators. Which -- by the way -- is something we would never do even if we could. Dictators and authoritarians are far too useful. We don't care if they enslave their own countries as long as we get a share of the plunder. Putin's great crime was refusing to play ball, nothing more or less.

---

So we don't help an ally that Russia attacks becuase Russia has nuclear weapons? Finland, Poland, etc. etc. will be real happy with that.

We have different world views. You see America as essentially the same as Russia, focused solely on protecting its own interests. I see America as a flawed superpower that generally attempts to make the world freer and a place where market economies can work. I don't mind the criticisms of our past foreign policy becuase while it might be somewhat over-the-top it has some thruth to it also.

I do mind Americans who see little to no difference to how Russia conducts business and how America conducts business. Its just an excuse to avoid conflict. "Peace in our time" is your goal and it never works.

---

If your convictions are that strong (and I'm not implying that they aren't), why not advocate NATO boots on the ground? I don't think you want to get nuked over Kiev any more than I do. You just have a less realistic understanding of the risk.

Make no mistake. We are not in any way treating Ukraine as an ally. Otherwise we wouldn't have wasted their army in an obviously futile offensive just to weaken Russia. You'd never hear us talk about fighting Russia to the last Englishman. The implicit racism of that attitude should give you pause. Ukrainian or Russian, they're all snow-n*****s to us.

Ukrainian foreign minister Kuleba to Western countries: "We offer you the best deal: you don't sacrifice your soldiers, give us weapons and money, and we will finish the job." pic.twitter.com/1zSs97l5Q0

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) January 19, 2024

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Chuck Schumer confirms that Democrats refuse to secure the border unless we agree to a $60 billion shakedown for Ukraine:

"There were a couple of people in the room that said let's do border first. We said we have to do both together."

These people disgust me. pic.twitter.com/RsRyt6m5ml

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) January 18, 2024

---

Disgusting

But Dem partisans can't / won't comprehend the consequences of the actions of their 'team'.

---

They understand exactly what would happen if they reached a border agreement without agreement on Ukraine.

---

Ha, yeah…they'd save a lot of lives and get nothing but a more secure border in return. Hard to see any benefit from that.

---

Guess you don't consider the freedom and wishes of 40 million people a benefit.

---

If we cared even a little about the freedom and wishes of 40 million Ukrainians, we would have supported a peaceful resolution of the Donbas war and autonomy for the Russian oblasts. Zelensky ran on that platform, and Ukrainians supported it overwhelmingly.

---

Instead we funded a demining campaign so that 5 year olds would not blow themselves up. We are a cruel nation indeed.

---

Talk about lipstick on a pig. It doesn't get much more American than that...spend billions on a corrupt war, drop a few million on humanitarian aid, and walk away feeling good about ourselves. By the way, you know none of this money is a gift, right? Ukraine is on the hook for it, and it's Americans (a few of them) who will ultimately profit. As always.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Chuck Schumer confirms that Democrats refuse to secure the border unless we agree to a $60 billion shakedown for Ukraine:

"There were a couple of people in the room that said let's do border first. We said we have to do both together."

These people disgust me. pic.twitter.com/RsRyt6m5ml

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) January 18, 2024

---

Disgusting

But Dem partisans can't / won't comprehend the consequences of the actions of their 'team'.

---

They understand exactly what would happen if they reached a border agreement without agreement on Ukraine.

---

Ha, yeah…they'd save a lot of lives and get nothing but a more secure border in return. Hard to see any benefit from that.

---

Guess you don't consider the freedom and wishes of 40 million people a benefit.

---

A good number of that 40 million does not even consider itself ethnic Ukrainian….and many in Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk have been fighting for almost a decade to be free of Kyiv

---

So the groups in CA that want SoCal to be part of Mexico have the right to ask Mexico to invade the US and annex Southern Calf.

---

No doubt mass immigration is going to cause all kinds of problems for the USA over the next 100 years…


But it interesting that DC always seems to support secessionist movements around the world (Kosovo, East Timor, South Sudan, etc)

Not not when it benefits Russia or if it's here at home in the good ole USA

One might almost think DC does not have set rules…but makes them up as they go along.


P.S.


I actually support secessionist movements in general.


No central government has the right to use force to keep people in an artificial political union.

Southern California belongs to the people of Southern California….Crimea belongs to the people that live there…and they both have the right to choose who they want to be in a political relationship with

---

We disagree on that. The Southern Calf they love, is the result of the investment in time, resources and labor the US invested there and made it what it is. They didn't love it when it was desert, there was no one there. They moved in after the investment was made. So, I disagree.

---

I see what your saying..and its a decent argument.

But S. Cal was never a desert....well at least the coastal area was and is not.

It had large land holdings and successful agricultural ventures since Spanish colonial times

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

Half of the territory of Southern California is Mediterranean in climate

It was always a great place

---

Found the climate map

An hour and a half ago, a Russian "Special Flight Squadron" plane landed in Washington DC. They are used by Kremlin officials. It set out from St. Petersburg. You do the math. pic.twitter.com/aktU7N5Hc3

— Kit Klarenberg (@KitKlarenberg) December 20, 2023

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Why don't you move to Russia, post a bunch of stuff critical of the government and report back on which nations are enemies of freedom?

---

Try being an American journalist sentenced to slow death in a Ukrainian prison. Or a Russian blogger blown up in a cafe full of bystanders. Or a family shot to death in their car at a Ukrainian checkpoint. Or a nurse at a hospital in Donetsk, where Ukraine was bombing civilians for a decade until Russia put a stop to it.

---

You mean when Ukraine was fighting Russian soldiers that were running and fighting with Ukrainian citizens for promises of monetary gain in a new breakaway 'state' that would be absorbed into Russia?

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Why don't you move to Russia, post a bunch of stuff critical of the government and report back on which nations are enemies of freedom?

---

Try being an American journalist sentenced to slow death in a Ukrainian prison. Or a Russian blogger blown up in a cafe full of bystanders. Or a family shot to death in their car at a Ukrainian checkpoint. Or a nurse at a hospital in Donetsk, where Ukraine was bombing civilians for a decade until Russia put a stop to it.

---

You mean when Ukraine was fighting Russian soldiers that were running and fighting with Ukrainian citizens for promises of monetary gain in a new breakaway 'state' that would be absorbed into Russia?

---

Let's all just be honest… the whole idea a "Ukraine state" is fake.

The central and western parts (old Ruthenia)..want to be in the West (culturally, economically-EU, militarily-NATO, etc)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenia#:~:text=The%20word%20Ruthenia%20originated%20as,end%20of%20the%2017th%20century.

While the east wants to be aligned to Russia (old new Russia- Novorossiya)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya


It's long since time to divide up this modern entity into a more workable and longer lasting peace deal.


Let the west and central parts join the EU…let the East go with Russia

We can argue about where the lines should be drawn but not that some like of peace deal requires Russia accept that 2/3rds of Ukraine is going to the West. And for DC to accept that 1/3rd of Ukraine is going East.

Its unavoidable









p.s.

I know they misspelled ethnic as ethic…in that 2nd map…point stands

A more personal and detailed interview with the crew of the Ukrainian Bradley which took on a russian T-90M. Also goes over using American-supplied Bradley IFVs in conditions of the Ukrainian winter 💪 pic.twitter.com/GtSGt8Cxiq

— WarTranslated (Dmitri) (@wartranslated) January 19, 2024

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Why is NATO membership for Ukraine a threat to Russia? Are we going to attack Russia?

I understand the historic reasons Russia wants as much buffer as possible between it and Germany/France and their allies. But Russia's post WWII conduct makes clear that the real threat to the world is Russia, not NATO.

---

( sigh )

One last time.

Pretend Russia intervened in Mexican elections and had manipulated the results from which the government was now super friendly with Russia instead of the U.S.

And Mexico then permitted Russian Army bases to be built within its borders.

Then Russia began pressuring Mexico to join into a formal military alliance with the option of placing nuclear weapons targeted at the US on Mexican soil.

Really think the US would be ok with it ?

---

Of course not. Because Russia has proven time and again it is the enemy of freedom. Our history is nowhere near clean, but generally we are against people living under the boot of dictators. Complete and total false equivalency.

---

You expect Russia to take the same view: we're evil, so we should just accept whatever America wants? That's no realistic way to conduct foreign policy. Besides, it's debatable whether Russia is even a dictatorship. They're certainly freer than they were during the Cold War, and we were able to negotiate then. Let's be honest about what changed. We decided to ignore Russia's interests because we thought we could get away with it. It was part of our "unipolar moment." The same hubris brought us the fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now we're messing with a nuclear power, and you're talking about false equivalency. Who cares about false equivalency? It makes zero difference whether the US and Russia are morally equivalent in our self-satisfied view of the world. Really ask yourself whether you want to trade Boston for Bakhmut. That's the only equivalency that matters. Then get back to us about our noble mission to free the world from the boot of dictators. Which -- by the way -- is something we would never do even if we could. Dictators and authoritarians are far too useful. We don't care if they enslave their own countries as long as we get a share of the plunder. Putin's great crime was refusing to play ball, nothing more or less.

---

So we don't help an ally that Russia attacks becuase Russia has nuclear weapons? Finland, Poland, etc. etc. will be real happy with that.

We have different world views. You see America as essentially the same as Russia, focused solely on protecting its own interests. I see America as a flawed superpower that generally attempts to make the world freer and a place where market economies can work. I don't mind the criticisms of our past foreign policy becuase while it might be somewhat over-the-top it has some thruth to it also.

I do mind Americans who see little to no difference to how Russia conducts business and how America conducts business. Its just an excuse to avoid conflict. "Peace in our time" is your goal and it never works.

---

If your convictions are that strong (and I'm not implying that they aren't), why not advocate NATO boots on the ground? I don't think you want to get nuked over Kiev any more than I do. You just have a less realistic understanding of the risk.

Make no mistake. We are not in any way treating Ukraine as an ally. Otherwise we wouldn't have wasted their army in an obviously futile offensive just to weaken Russia. You'd never hear us talk about fighting Russia to the last Englishman. The implicit racism of that attitude should give you pause. Ukrainian or Russian, they're all snow-n*****s to us.

---

Good grief man…

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Why is NATO membership for Ukraine a threat to Russia? Are we going to attack Russia?

I understand the historic reasons Russia wants as much buffer as possible between it and Germany/France and their allies. But Russia's post WWII conduct makes clear that the real threat to the world is Russia, not NATO.

---

( sigh )

One last time.

Pretend Russia intervened in Mexican elections and had manipulated the results from which the government was now super friendly with Russia instead of the U.S.

And Mexico then permitted Russian Army bases to be built within its borders.

Then Russia began pressuring Mexico to join into a formal military alliance with the option of placing nuclear weapons targeted at the US on Mexican soil.

Really think the US would be ok with it ?

---

Of course not. Because Russia has proven time and again it is the enemy of freedom. Our history is nowhere near clean, but generally we are against people living under the boot of dictators. Complete and total false equivalency.

---

You expect Russia to take the same view: we're evil, so we should just accept whatever America wants? That's no realistic way to conduct foreign policy. Besides, it's debatable whether Russia is even a dictatorship. They're certainly freer than they were during the Cold War, and we were able to negotiate then. Let's be honest about what changed. We decided to ignore Russia's interests because we thought we could get away with it. It was part of our "unipolar moment." The same hubris brought us the fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now we're messing with a nuclear power, and you're talking about false equivalency. Who cares about false equivalency? It makes zero difference whether the US and Russia are morally equivalent in our self-satisfied view of the world. Really ask yourself whether you want to trade Boston for Bakhmut. That's the only equivalency that matters. Then get back to us about our noble mission to free the world from the boot of dictators. Which -- by the way -- is something we would never do even if we could. Dictators and authoritarians are far too useful. We don't care if they enslave their own countries as long as we get a share of the plunder. Putin's great crime was refusing to play ball, nothing more or less.

---

So we don't help an ally that Russia attacks becuase Russia has nuclear weapons? Finland, Poland, etc. etc. will be real happy with that.

We have different world views. You see America as essentially the same as Russia, focused solely on protecting its own interests. I see America as a flawed superpower that generally attempts to make the world freer and a place where market economies can work. I don't mind the criticisms of our past foreign policy becuase while it might be somewhat over-the-top it has some thruth to it also.

I do mind Americans who see little to no difference to how Russia conducts business and how America conducts business. Its just an excuse to avoid conflict. "Peace in our time" is your goal and it never works.

---

If your convictions are that strong (and I'm not implying that they aren't), why not advocate NATO boots on the ground? I don't think you want to get nuked over Kiev any more than I do. You just have a less realistic understanding of the risk.

Make no mistake. We are not in any way treating Ukraine as an ally. Otherwise we wouldn't have wasted their army in an obviously futile offensive just to weaken Russia. You'd never hear us talk about fighting Russia to the last Englishman. The implicit racism of that attitude should give you pause. Ukrainian or Russian, they're all snow-n*****s to us.

---

Good grief man…

---

It's truth. Own it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Why is NATO membership for Ukraine a threat to Russia? Are we going to attack Russia?

I understand the historic reasons Russia wants as much buffer as possible between it and Germany/France and their allies. But Russia's post WWII conduct makes clear that the real threat to the world is Russia, not NATO.

---

( sigh )

One last time.

Pretend Russia intervened in Mexican elections and had manipulated the results from which the government was now super friendly with Russia instead of the U.S.

And Mexico then permitted Russian Army bases to be built within its borders.

Then Russia began pressuring Mexico to join into a formal military alliance with the option of placing nuclear weapons targeted at the US on Mexican soil.

Really think the US would be ok with it ?

---

Of course not. Because Russia has proven time and again it is the enemy of freedom. Our history is nowhere near clean, but generally we are against people living under the boot of dictators. Complete and total false equivalency.

---

You expect Russia to take the same view: we're evil, so we should just accept whatever America wants? That's no realistic way to conduct foreign policy. Besides, it's debatable whether Russia is even a dictatorship. They're certainly freer than they were during the Cold War, and we were able to negotiate then. Let's be honest about what changed. We decided to ignore Russia's interests because we thought we could get away with it. It was part of our "unipolar moment." The same hubris brought us the fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now we're messing with a nuclear power, and you're talking about false equivalency. Who cares about false equivalency? It makes zero difference whether the US and Russia are morally equivalent in our self-satisfied view of the world. Really ask yourself whether you want to trade Boston for Bakhmut. That's the only equivalency that matters. Then get back to us about our noble mission to free the world from the boot of dictators. Which -- by the way -- is something we would never do even if we could. Dictators and authoritarians are far too useful. We don't care if they enslave their own countries as long as we get a share of the plunder. Putin's great crime was refusing to play ball, nothing more or less.

---

So we don't help an ally that Russia attacks becuase Russia has nuclear weapons? Finland, Poland, etc. etc. will be real happy with that.

We have different world views. You see America as essentially the same as Russia, focused solely on protecting its own interests. I see America as a flawed superpower that generally attempts to make the world freer and a place where market economies can work. I don't mind the criticisms of our past foreign policy becuase while it might be somewhat over-the-top it has some thruth to it also.

I do mind Americans who see little to no difference to how Russia conducts business and how America conducts business. Its just an excuse to avoid conflict. "Peace in our time" is your goal and it never works.

---

If your convictions are that strong (and I'm not implying that they aren't), why not advocate NATO boots on the ground? I don't think you want to get nuked over Kiev any more than I do. You just have a less realistic understanding of the risk.

Make no mistake. We are not in any way treating Ukraine as an ally. Otherwise we wouldn't have wasted their army in an obviously futile offensive just to weaken Russia. You'd never hear us talk about fighting Russia to the last Englishman. The implicit racism of that attitude should give you pause. Ukrainian or Russian, they're all snow-n*****s to us.

---

Good grief man…

---

It's truth. Own it.

---

Vatnik lies. Own it shill.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Why don't you move to Russia, post a bunch of stuff critical of the government and report back on which nations are enemies of freedom?

---

Try being an American journalist sentenced to slow death in a Ukrainian prison. Or a Russian blogger blown up in a cafe full of bystanders. Or a family shot to death in their car at a Ukrainian checkpoint. Or a nurse at a hospital in Donetsk, where Ukraine was bombing civilians for a decade until Russia put a stop to it.

---

You mean when Ukraine was fighting Russian soldiers that were running and fighting with Ukrainian citizens for promises of monetary gain in a new breakaway 'state' that would be absorbed into Russia?

---

Let's all just be honest… the whole idea a "Ukraine state" is fake.

The central and western parts (old Ruthenia)..want to be in the West (culturally, economically-EU, militarily-NATO, etc)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenia#:~:text=The%20word%20Ruthenia%20originated%20as,end%20of%20the%2017th%20century.

While the east wants to be aligned to Russia (old new Russia- Novorossiya)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya


It's long since time to divide up this modern entity into a more workable and longer lasting peace deal.


Let the west and central parts join the EU…let the East go with Russia

We can argue about where the lines should be drawn but not that some like of peace deal requires Russia accept that 2/3rds of Ukraine is going to the West. And for DC to accept that 1/3rd of Ukraine is going East.

Its unavoidable









p.s.

I know they misspelled ethnic as ethic…in that 2nd map…point stands

---

Thank you Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Putin.

---

You could have just as well said Napoleon, Hitler, Charles De Gualle


Not even George H W Bush thought Ukraine was a state able to sustain itself if the EU and Russia did not will it

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Why don't you move to Russia, post a bunch of stuff critical of the government and report back on which nations are enemies of freedom?

---

Try being an American journalist sentenced to slow death in a Ukrainian prison. Or a Russian blogger blown up in a cafe full of bystanders. Or a family shot to death in their car at a Ukrainian checkpoint. Or a nurse at a hospital in Donetsk, where Ukraine was bombing civilians for a decade until Russia put a stop to it.

---

You mean when Ukraine was fighting Russian soldiers that were running and fighting with Ukrainian citizens for promises of monetary gain in a new breakaway 'state' that would be absorbed into Russia?

---

Let's all just be honest… the whole idea a "Ukraine state" is fake.

The central and western parts (old Ruthenia)..want to be in the West (culturally, economically-EU, militarily-NATO, etc)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenia#:~:text=The%20word%20Ruthenia%20originated%20as,end%20of%20the%2017th%20century.

While the east wants to be aligned to Russia (old new Russia- Novorossiya)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya


It's long since time to divide up this modern entity into a more workable and longer lasting peace deal.


Let the west and central parts join the EU…let the East go with Russia

We can argue about where the lines should be drawn but not that some like of peace deal requires Russia accept that 2/3rds of Ukraine is going to the West. And for DC to accept that 1/3rd of Ukraine is going East.

Its unavoidable









p.s.

I know they misspelled ethnic as ethic…in that 2nd map…point stands

---

Thank you Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Putin.

---

You could have just as well said Napoleon, Hitler, Charles De Gualle


Not even George H W Bush thought Ukraine was a state able to sustain itself if the EU and Russia did not will it

---

Not sure any of your aforementioned had anything to do with the import of ethnic Russians or the starting of rebellions in those specific regions. But you do you.

---

Come on…Russians have been there since Peter the great (in very small numbers)

And in since Catherine the great and other monarchs (in large numbers in the east)


PS

Donetsk was established by a British guy

[The city of Donetsk was founded in 1869 by Welsh businessman John Hughes, who operated a steel plant and several coal mines at Aleksandrovka. The worker's settlement at the plant merged with Aleksandrovka and the place was named Yuzovo, later Yuzovka (Russian: , ), after Hughes.[10][11] In its early period, it received immigrants from Wales, especially from the town of Merthyr Tydfil.[12][13] By the beginning of the 20th century, Yuzovka had approximately 50,000 inhabitants,[14] and attained the status of a city in 1917.[15] The main district of Yuzovka is named English Colony, and the British origin of the city is reflected in its layout and architecture]

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Why don't you move to Russia, post a bunch of stuff critical of the government and report back on which nations are enemies of freedom?

---

Try being an American journalist sentenced to slow death in a Ukrainian prison. Or a Russian blogger blown up in a cafe full of bystanders. Or a family shot to death in their car at a Ukrainian checkpoint. Or a nurse at a hospital in Donetsk, where Ukraine was bombing civilians for a decade until Russia put a stop to it.

---

You mean when Ukraine was fighting Russian soldiers that were running and fighting with Ukrainian citizens for promises of monetary gain in a new breakaway 'state' that would be absorbed into Russia?

---

Let's all just be honest… the whole idea a "Ukraine state" is fake.

The central and western parts (old Ruthenia)..want to be in the West (culturally, economically-EU, militarily-NATO, etc)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenia#:~:text=The%20word%20Ruthenia%20originated%20as,end%20of%20the%2017th%20century.

While the east wants to be aligned to Russia (old new Russia- Novorossiya)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya


It's long since time to divide up this modern entity into a more workable and longer lasting peace deal.


Let the west and central parts join the EU…let the East go with Russia

We can argue about where the lines should be drawn but not that some like of peace deal requires Russia accept that 2/3rds of Ukraine is going to the West. And for DC to accept that 1/3rd of Ukraine is going East.

Its unavoidable









p.s.

I know they misspelled ethnic as ethic…in that 2nd map…point stands

---

Thank you Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Putin.

---

You could have just as well said Napoleon, Hitler, Charles De Gualle


Not even George H W Bush thought Ukraine was a state able to sustain itself if the EU and Russia did not will it

---

Not sure any of your aforementioned had anything to do with the import of ethnic Russians or the starting of rebellions in those specific regions. But you do you.

---

Come on…Russians have been there since Peter the great (in very small numbers)

And in since Catherine the great and other monarchs (in large numbers in the east)


PS

Donetsk was established by a British guy

[The city of Donetsk was founded in 1869 by Welsh businessman John Hughes, who operated a steel plant and several coal mines at Aleksandrovka. The worker's settlement at the plant merged with Aleksandrovka and the place was named Yuzovo, later Yuzovka (Russian: , ), after Hughes.[10][11] In its early period, it received immigrants from Wales, especially from the town of Merthyr Tydfil.[12][13] By the beginning of the 20th century, Yuzovka had approximately 50,000 inhabitants,[14] and attained the status of a city in 1917.[15] The main district of Yuzovka is named English Colony, and the British origin of the city is reflected in its layout and architecture]

---

So we're just going to ignore Stalin's starvation campaign on Ukraine, his expulsion of the Tatars from Crimea and his mass migration of Russians into Crimea and Eastern Ukraine?