Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

sombear said:

---

Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Speaking of Ukraine and calls, how about that call from Brandon to Ukraine demanding that Viktor Shokin get fired and the probe into Burisma end. Yeah, Ukraine's government is independent alright.

---

It's quite ironic . . . y'all scream about Ukrainian corruption but object when a corrupt prosecutor is canned.

And what this has to do with Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations I have no idea, except to say conspiracists love to piece together unrelated issues. I'm waiting for someone to tie in the JFK assassination and Iraq.

---

The propensity of conservatives to so easily buy conspiracy theories is a concerning trend.

---

It's both sides of course but I agree. I blame twitter …. The most troubling aspect to me (and no, this is not a passive aggressive shot at the pro-Russia folks b/c we can set that issue aside, and it's still true) is so many on my side (conservative) virtually always give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-American side and always give the benefit of the doubt to the narrative that supports their own opinions. There is too little objective analysis.

---

It's hard to give America the benefit of the doubt when you know the history of our covert wars. Like many Americans you are in deep denial on that subject.

---

Not in denial at all. All I've ever argued is that we're no worse than other world powers. I think we've been better. Far from perfect, but better, and usually fighting for freedom/democracy and/or against communism and Islamic regimes.

---

We're fighting against countries that we think are too big economically. We're more than happy to support Islamists if it helps that agenda, and the anti-communist rationale fell by the wayside a long time ago. Wiser presidents like Reagan did indeed oppose communism, but they did so without making Russia an enemy per se.

---

Russia's economy is smaller than CA. If the size of the economy were the criteria, we would be going to war with Germany, India and Japan as well.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

It confirms what's in the Nation article, with the addition of a straw man and a lot of opinion. No one is saying the West exercised technical veto power. As pointed out above, that is a vacuous argument. Did the West effectively shut down negotiations? Absolutely. Even mainstream American media have had to admit as much.

---

Wrong on both accounts.

First, several posters (and many right wing influencers) have repeatedly claimed that we would not allow Ukraine to settle and/or we forced them to fight. No nuance, just that clear. And it's false.

Second, we did not "effectively" shut down negotiations. Negotiations continued. Putin refused to meet with Zelensky despite repeated Zelensky requests. From the start until now, Ukraine 100% has had the discretion to decide to fight or settle. Mainstream media have admitted nothing of the sort.

Supporting Ukraine and not pleading with to settle is nowhere near "effectively shutting down negotiations."

---

You've unknowingly hit on a crucial point: Putin indeed refused to meet with Zelensky until negotiations were in the final stage. It was at that point that Boris Johnson intervened. I need hardly point out that saying "don't negotiate with criminals" is a far cry from "not pleading hard enough" to settle. I mean, really.

Your analysis is another example of the danger in believing one's own propaganda. The problem with Ukraine exercising its own discretion is that the Russians know the West instigated the conflict. You're free to deny it to your heart's content. Zelensky doesn't have that luxury.

---

He refused to meet with Zelensky, period. And, finally, when the parties got pretty close, Putin ordered the horrific war crimes. He thought that would create the leverage needed to push the deal over the line. Instead. It hardened Ukraine's resolve. Had he met with Zelensky before that, there may have been a formal agreement.

As to final your final point, you're conflating issues. Correct, I reject the argument that we instigated anything. But even if we did, that has no bearing on what happened in post-invasion negotiations. Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Putin did not refuse to meet, period. He refused to meet until the deal was close to final.

The alleged war crimes are completely irrelevant, except as a pretext to end negotiations.

The West's involvement has everything to do with post-invasion talks. It would be hard enough for Russia to trust a deal we claimed to support. With our opposition it's basically impossible.

---

If you knew anything about the negotiations you'd know that Russia wanted us to be part of the deal.

Bucha, a pretext? Nice.

---

Of course Russia wanted us to be part of the deal. That's what I'm saying. There was little that Ukraine could do without our support.

The fact that Bucha was cited as a reason to end negotiations is telling. It's another version of the Western talking point that you don't negotiate with criminals. If you're really concerned about war crimes, you want to end the war sooner rather than later. I understand that may not be satisfying emotionally, but emotions aren't supposed to govern when the stakes are this high.

---

As you know (at least I assume you do) negotiations did not end. Putin just ordered Bucha (and others) at the worst possible time. It goes without saying that trust is major issue in any negotiation. Totally understandable to me how something as horrific as Bucha would seriously undermine trust. That massacre in addition to Ukraine performing well on the battlefield slowed real momentum that had been building.

Of course, there were still major roadblocks to settlement, not the least of which was one of the keys to the deal that I'm guessing you, Red, and Reality would have never supported - that the U.S. agree to take military action directly against Russia if Russia violated the agreement.

Look, I've said all along - and the best reporting confirmed - that both sides share blame in the failed negotiations. My main point is that your narratives on the negotiations - that (1) the U.S. actually or effectively tubed a deal and (2) Russia had offered simply taking over parts of the east - are pure fiction.

---

Regarding your second point, it goes without saying that Ukrainian neutrality was always going to be part of any deal. That's not a matter of Ukraine giving anything up. They had already agreed to it, and limitations on military power were an ancillary means of enforcing what they had violated by attempting to join NATO. All they would really have given up in exchange for independence was the Donbas.

---

-Pro-Russia regime change
-Federal, pro-Russia history and civics taught in schools
-Forced trade with Russia and trade restrictions elsewhere

---

Are you sure you're reading objectively? Because none of those points were in the draft agreement as reported by WSJ, Foreign Affairs, or anyone else that I've seen. There is some conjecture that regime change was part of Putin's original goal before negotiations started, but there's not a shred of evidence offered.

I would not have supported a security agreement committing the US beyond what was in the Budapest Memorandum and even beyond NATO Article 5. But that was far from the only option. Zelensky was advised that such a demand was unrealistic, and there's every reason to think the West could have persuaded him. Instead we delivered a clear message against any further negotiation.

---

There are general references in the FA article and other sources. And future U.S. military assistance was an integral part of the framework. There was no other way to come close to assuring Russian compliance. I've not seen anything saying we told Zelensky that was a deal-breaker.

---

Our refusal to participate in any multilateral agreement was obviously a deal-breaker. As you said, the Russians wanted us to be involved.

You've argued that the agreement would have left Ukraine dependent on Western intervention in case of hostilities with Russia. If that's true, US military assistance in peacetime was anything but an integral part of the framework. If anything it was a contradiction. Of course there was a reason for us to consider it essential, and that has to with our real goal. Not to achieve peace, but to build up an anti-Russian military force in Ukraine. Which is exactly what we did.

Regarding limitations on Ukraine's military, just look at the concessions that Germany made in order to achieve reunification. They included drastic reductions in military capacity, renunciation of nuclear ambitions, and the agreement that no foreign forces would be stationed in the former East Germany. Such demands are well precedented and completely unsurprising.

---

I don't understand your second paragraph. If you don't mind, please try right explain further.

I see your point on military limitations in general, but Germany is a poor example b/c the circumstances were nothing like Russia/Ukraine.

What made Russia's demands so difficult were the numbers. Ukraine wouldn't have been able to defend itself against invader using bows and arrows. Russia would have had zero deterrent - at least without the pledge of U.S. force.

I think you and I agree negotiations were exceedingly complex. As I've posted before, I actually came away with a more negative view of Zelensky after reading FA and some recent corp analysis. I agree with the majority of analysts I trust that both sides looked bad.

I just try to rebut those posters who try to minimize what Russia was (and still is demanding (e.g, they just wanted a bit more of the east) or who claim it was an easy call for Ukraine to bend over. It wasn't. In fact, it would have been almost unprecedented in world history.

I acknowledge however that it might have been better than how this thing will end.

---

I took "future military assistance" to mean support for the Ukrainian military. I see now you probably meant US intervention.

All I really disagree with is the part in bold. I think you share the assumption of most Western commentators that the Russians entered negotiations because they were unprepared militarily. That has proven to be the grossest of miscalculations. The Russian successes we're seeing now were not made in a day. Far from being unprecedented, capitulation was the only realistic option. It was only the West's outlandish promises that pushed Ukraine the other way.

---

Correct. A key element was the U.S. (and allies) guaranteeing to use direct force against Russia if Russia ever reneged.

Yes, of course, capitulation of this kind has occurred AFTER a brutal war where an undermanned and outgunned country or group fights despite knowing the odds and loses. But history has proven that people will fight for the freedom against all odds.

In my view, the biggest hole in your theory that we pushed Ukraine (besides the reporting) is that then and now Ukrainians have overwhelmingly supported defending themselves and not giving in. As I've posted many times, that may be surprising or even seem idiotic to many of us, but until one's very freedom and liberty is threatened, it is impossible to put ourselves in their shoes. And, again, history has proven that is how free people react.

I surmise from your posts that you are knowledgeable about Eastern Euro and likely have spent time there. If so, you know the abject hatred for Putin among most former Soviet states. We really have nothing to compare it to here. Maybe OBL, but I don't think that even quite captures it.

You and I will never agree on Russia's war goals, expectations, or success (or lack thereof). Putin expected a quick win. He has been fuming from early in the invasion. They have failed miserably according to their own goals and expectations. Putin misjudged Ukraine's military and resolve. He overestimated his own military. And he expected the west to back off far sooner. He was correct that China, North Korea, and Iran would step up big time for him, and that India would help indirectly.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"…which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

That was never going to happen.

In the real world Moscow was never going to allow itself to be surrounded by a Western military alliance.

Ukraine and Georgia were always going to be prevented from joining NATO.

Just like DC would never allow Mexico or Canada to join a Chinese-communist lead alliance.

We need men who are realists in Washington like Kissinger was…someone to tell the ruling class the truth to their face

---

actually, we know Kissinger's thoughts on Ukraine and they were not what you suppose.
https://www.newsweek.com/henry-kissingers-shifting-views-ukraine-1774710

he was a foreign policy realist, for sure, but implicit in the evolution of his thoughts was an erroneous presumption of Russian might. For sure, the geography of any Great Power dictates what the Great Power will feel it needs to control. But needing to control those areas and being ABLE to control those areas are two different things. Russia simply does not have the resources to control what it wants to control. Literally all the arguments about why Ukraine cannot defeat Russia apply in far greater magnitude to the arguments about why Russia cannot defeat Nato. (defeat used in larger context of imposing will militarily OR diplomatically).

giving a large and important shatterzone area to Russia in pursuit of stability is doomed to fail if Russia cannot impose order in the shatterzone. All it does is make the instability area larger and bring it further under the nuclear umbrella.

The EU has a far greater prospect for integrating Ukraine and transforming it into something less corrupt and more stable.

---

And there it is at last: the admission that maintaining this shatter zone, which you used to claim was of paramount importance, was never the real goal at all.

---

It's not our job to maintain Russian power on behalf Russia. If they are a paper tiger, they will get the respect due to a paper tiger. That is the fatal flaw in Meirsheimer's argument. It presumes a role for Russia that Russia cannot play.

Russia could have let Ukraine do it's thing....join EU, apply to Nato, etc.....wait for the Zelensky govt to get mired in corruption and lose an election to a more pro-Russian opposition figure.....and then come back to play again another day. Eventually, it would have happened. But Russian arrogance got the better of them. They didn't think they needed to wait. They thought Ukraine would collapse upon first contact. Huge miscalculation on their part. They are going to emerge from the way considerably weaker than they entered it, and likely in an considerably worse geo-political position than when they began.

---

"Maintaining" in the sense of continuing Ukraine's neutral status, not enforcing it. It's clear to most people outside the Western propaganda bubble that Russia needs no help from us to maintain its power.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"Putin continued to claim that NATO's 2008 Bucharest Declaration, which promised Ukraine and Georgia paths to membership but took no concrete steps towards opening such paths, violated Ukraine's 1991 Declaration of Independence that declared that Ukraine is a neutral state. The Russian Federation, however, had committed "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine," which include Crimea and Donbas, in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in exchange for Ukraine's return of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons on its territory to Russia.[12] The Budapest Memorandum guarantees Ukraine all sovereign rights, which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

Where does the Budapest Memorandum say anything about Ukraine choosing its own alignment?

---

It's right there in bold. You must have skipped the "sovereignty" lecture in Poli Sci class.

---

A frivolous argument, as if recognizing Ukraine's independence caused all its commitments to magically disappear.

---

LOL apparently, recognizing Ukrainian independence apparently did cause Russian commitments to magically disappear, given that Ukraine was a neutral state on the day Russia invaded.....

---

Ridiculous. A neutral state doesn't have NATO membership enshrined in its constitution.

Except the western Ukrainians who are fighting aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the right to be told what to do by Brussels, and for their military to be forced to buy stuff from Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrup-Grumman. Freedom is actually the pre-2014 situation with the ability to negotiate the best deal with all comers and not Arkanciding hundreds of thousands of your own citizens due to dictates from foreign capitals.

I think a lot of people aren't aware just how badly regime media and the deep state manipulate their thinking.

Regime media:

"Kiev, whose shortages of manpower have been compounded by delays to Western arms supplies..." (Reuters)

Also regime media:

"Ukraine war: Zelensky says 31,000 troops killed since Russia's full-scale invasion" (BBC)

So lets reason through this. 31,000 KIA doesn't constitute a manpower shortage. 310,000 does. Equipment does not make up for manpower. If someone snapped their fingers today and sent 500 F-16s to Kiev, without the pilots to fly them, mechanics to service them, and ground crew to fuel them they are little more than targets. So the Reuters statement conflating equipment and manpower is patently false UNLESS what they are really saying is that delays in general arms, ammunition, and artillery have gotten ten times as many of the UAF KIA as Zelensky is willing to admit. But one of those headlines is a lie.

Lets look at another:

"Ukraine war: Zelenskyy cancels all foreign trips - as Russian troops 'partially pushed back' (Sky News)

Now there's no tactical reason to cancel all foreign trips. The current limited Russian advance in Kharkov to eliminate the UAF's shelling of the civilian populace of Belograd has no effect on Zelensky's ability to leave the country. The Russian military has openly stated that they have no desire to capture or occupy Kharkov, and the relatively small size of the force that they have commited to action there backs this up.

The real reason Zelensky isn't going anywhere? Well, the president of this bastion of democracy has cancelled Ukrainian elections and his constitutionally provided for term ends next week. After Monday, Zelensky is every bit the dictator of Ukraine as the Kim family is of North Korea, and there's no sugar coating that.

"But the war!" Really? You're OK with cancelling the US election in November if we go to war?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

sombear said:

---

Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Speaking of Ukraine and calls, how about that call from Brandon to Ukraine demanding that Viktor Shokin get fired and the probe into Burisma end. Yeah, Ukraine's government is independent alright.

---

It's quite ironic . . . y'all scream about Ukrainian corruption but object when a corrupt prosecutor is canned.

And what this has to do with Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations I have no idea, except to say conspiracists love to piece together unrelated issues. I'm waiting for someone to tie in the JFK assassination and Iraq.

---

The propensity of conservatives to so easily buy conspiracy theories is a concerning trend.

---

It's both sides of course but I agree. I blame twitter …. The most troubling aspect to me (and no, this is not a passive aggressive shot at the pro-Russia folks b/c we can set that issue aside, and it's still true) is so many on my side (conservative) virtually always give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-American side and always give the benefit of the doubt to the narrative that supports their own opinions. There is too little objective analysis.

---

It's hard to give America the benefit of the doubt when you know the history of our covert wars. Like many Americans you are in deep denial on that subject.

---

Not in denial at all. All I've ever argued is that we're no worse than other world powers. I think we've been better. Far from perfect, but better, and usually fighting for freedom/democracy and/or against communism and Islamic regimes.

---

We're fighting against countries that we think are too big economically. We're more than happy to support Islamists if it helps that agenda, and the anti-communist rationale fell by the wayside a long time ago. Wiser presidents like Reagan did indeed oppose communism, but they did so without making Russia an enemy per se.

---

Russia's economy is smaller than CA. If the size of the economy were the criteria, we would be going to war with Germany, India and Japan as well.

---

We already went to war with Germany and Japan. Some would like to put India next on the list after China (assuming we survive that long).

Going to war with China and India would put us into a war with a third of the world's population. That really doesn't sound wise. But whatever. Permawar so long as Boeing and Lockheed get paid and continue campaign contributions. Maybe Boeing can find the time to build an airliner whose doors don't fall off somewhere along the line.

Realitybites said:

---

"Ukraine wouldn't have been able to defend itself against invader using bows and arrows."

There are not that many potential invaders of Ukraine.

The US, Germany, Poland. Russia, and the aliens from Independence Day. Nobody else has the necessary combination of thee proximity, the capability to project force, or the military to do it.

So "we could get invaded as a neutral state" isn't a particularly valid concern. When you seek EU and NATO membership, you are not acting as a neutral state.

---

Same applies to most countries in the world, but, guess what, they have strong militaries. Stuff happens. Not to mention, Ukraine has that one notorious bully next door . . . .

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

It confirms what's in the Nation article, with the addition of a straw man and a lot of opinion. No one is saying the West exercised technical veto power. As pointed out above, that is a vacuous argument. Did the West effectively shut down negotiations? Absolutely. Even mainstream American media have had to admit as much.

---

Wrong on both accounts.

First, several posters (and many right wing influencers) have repeatedly claimed that we would not allow Ukraine to settle and/or we forced them to fight. No nuance, just that clear. And it's false.

Second, we did not "effectively" shut down negotiations. Negotiations continued. Putin refused to meet with Zelensky despite repeated Zelensky requests. From the start until now, Ukraine 100% has had the discretion to decide to fight or settle. Mainstream media have admitted nothing of the sort.

Supporting Ukraine and not pleading with to settle is nowhere near "effectively shutting down negotiations."

---

You've unknowingly hit on a crucial point: Putin indeed refused to meet with Zelensky until negotiations were in the final stage. It was at that point that Boris Johnson intervened. I need hardly point out that saying "don't negotiate with criminals" is a far cry from "not pleading hard enough" to settle. I mean, really.

Your analysis is another example of the danger in believing one's own propaganda. The problem with Ukraine exercising its own discretion is that the Russians know the West instigated the conflict. You're free to deny it to your heart's content. Zelensky doesn't have that luxury.

---

He refused to meet with Zelensky, period. And, finally, when the parties got pretty close, Putin ordered the horrific war crimes. He thought that would create the leverage needed to push the deal over the line. Instead. It hardened Ukraine's resolve. Had he met with Zelensky before that, there may have been a formal agreement.

As to final your final point, you're conflating issues. Correct, I reject the argument that we instigated anything. But even if we did, that has no bearing on what happened in post-invasion negotiations. Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Putin did not refuse to meet, period. He refused to meet until the deal was close to final.

The alleged war crimes are completely irrelevant, except as a pretext to end negotiations.

The West's involvement has everything to do with post-invasion talks. It would be hard enough for Russia to trust a deal we claimed to support. With our opposition it's basically impossible.

---

If you knew anything about the negotiations you'd know that Russia wanted us to be part of the deal.

Bucha, a pretext? Nice.

---

Of course Russia wanted us to be part of the deal. That's what I'm saying. There was little that Ukraine could do without our support.

The fact that Bucha was cited as a reason to end negotiations is telling. It's another version of the Western talking point that you don't negotiate with criminals. If you're really concerned about war crimes, you want to end the war sooner rather than later. I understand that may not be satisfying emotionally, but emotions aren't supposed to govern when the stakes are this high.

---

As you know (at least I assume you do) negotiations did not end. Putin just ordered Bucha (and others) at the worst possible time. It goes without saying that trust is major issue in any negotiation. Totally understandable to me how something as horrific as Bucha would seriously undermine trust. That massacre in addition to Ukraine performing well on the battlefield slowed real momentum that had been building.

Of course, there were still major roadblocks to settlement, not the least of which was one of the keys to the deal that I'm guessing you, Red, and Reality would have never supported - that the U.S. agree to take military action directly against Russia if Russia violated the agreement.

Look, I've said all along - and the best reporting confirmed - that both sides share blame in the failed negotiations. My main point is that your narratives on the negotiations - that (1) the U.S. actually or effectively tubed a deal and (2) Russia had offered simply taking over parts of the east - are pure fiction.

---

Regarding your second point, it goes without saying that Ukrainian neutrality was always going to be part of any deal. That's not a matter of Ukraine giving anything up. They had already agreed to it, and limitations on military power were an ancillary means of enforcing what they had violated by attempting to join NATO. All they would really have given up in exchange for independence was the Donbas.

---

-Pro-Russia regime change
-Federal, pro-Russia history and civics taught in schools
-Forced trade with Russia and trade restrictions elsewhere

---

Are you sure you're reading objectively? Because none of those points were in the draft agreement as reported by WSJ, Foreign Affairs, or anyone else that I've seen. There is some conjecture that regime change was part of Putin's original goal before negotiations started, but there's not a shred of evidence offered.

I would not have supported a security agreement committing the US beyond what was in the Budapest Memorandum and even beyond NATO Article 5. But that was far from the only option. Zelensky was advised that such a demand was unrealistic, and there's every reason to think the West could have persuaded him. Instead we delivered a clear message against any further negotiation.

---

There are general references in the FA article and other sources. And future U.S. military assistance was an integral part of the framework. There was no other way to come close to assuring Russian compliance. I've not seen anything saying we told Zelensky that was a deal-breaker.

---

Our refusal to participate in any multilateral agreement was obviously a deal-breaker. As you said, the Russians wanted us to be involved.

You've argued that the agreement would have left Ukraine dependent on Western intervention in case of hostilities with Russia. If that's true, US military assistance in peacetime was anything but an integral part of the framework. If anything it was a contradiction. Of course there was a reason for us to consider it essential, and that has to with our real goal. Not to achieve peace, but to build up an anti-Russian military force in Ukraine. Which is exactly what we did.

Regarding limitations on Ukraine's military, just look at the concessions that Germany made in order to achieve reunification. They included drastic reductions in military capacity, renunciation of nuclear ambitions, and the agreement that no foreign forces would be stationed in the former East Germany. Such demands are well precedented and completely unsurprising.

---

I don't understand your second paragraph. If you don't mind, please try right explain further.

I see your point on military limitations in general, but Germany is a poor example b/c the circumstances were nothing like Russia/Ukraine.

What made Russia's demands so difficult were the numbers. Ukraine wouldn't have been able to defend itself against invader using bows and arrows. Russia would have had zero deterrent - at least without the pledge of U.S. force.

I think you and I agree negotiations were exceedingly complex. As I've posted before, I actually came away with a more negative view of Zelensky after reading FA and some recent corp analysis. I agree with the majority of analysts I trust that both sides looked bad.

I just try to rebut those posters who try to minimize what Russia was (and still is demanding (e.g, they just wanted a bit more of the east) or who claim it was an easy call for Ukraine to bend over. It wasn't. In fact, it would have been almost unprecedented in world history.

I acknowledge however that it might have been better than how this thing will end.

---

I took "future military assistance" to mean support for the Ukrainian military. I see now you probably meant US intervention.

All I really disagree with is the part in bold. I think you share the assumption of most Western commentators that the Russians entered negotiations because they were unprepared militarily. That has proven to be the grossest of miscalculations. The Russian successes we're seeing now were not made in a day. Far from being unprecedented, capitulation was the only realistic option. It was only the West's outlandish promises that pushed Ukraine the other way.

---

Yes, of course, capitulation of this kind has occurred AFTER a brutal war where a undermanned and outgunned country or group fights despite knowing the odds and loses. But history has proven that people will fight for the freedom against all odds.

---

Austria didn't. Vichy France didn't. Native American tribes often fought until they had saved face, then went home. China and India fought over border territories until China called a unilateral ceasefire. History has examples of all manner of things.

Of course any talk of Ukrainian support for the war has to distinguish between western Ukraine and the Donbas. Only the latter was fighting for freedom in any real sense. Kiev had the opportunity to make peace and keep its independence.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

It confirms what's in the Nation article, with the addition of a straw man and a lot of opinion. No one is saying the West exercised technical veto power. As pointed out above, that is a vacuous argument. Did the West effectively shut down negotiations? Absolutely. Even mainstream American media have had to admit as much.

---

Wrong on both accounts.

First, several posters (and many right wing influencers) have repeatedly claimed that we would not allow Ukraine to settle and/or we forced them to fight. No nuance, just that clear. And it's false.

Second, we did not "effectively" shut down negotiations. Negotiations continued. Putin refused to meet with Zelensky despite repeated Zelensky requests. From the start until now, Ukraine 100% has had the discretion to decide to fight or settle. Mainstream media have admitted nothing of the sort.

Supporting Ukraine and not pleading with to settle is nowhere near "effectively shutting down negotiations."

---

You've unknowingly hit on a crucial point: Putin indeed refused to meet with Zelensky until negotiations were in the final stage. It was at that point that Boris Johnson intervened. I need hardly point out that saying "don't negotiate with criminals" is a far cry from "not pleading hard enough" to settle. I mean, really.

Your analysis is another example of the danger in believing one's own propaganda. The problem with Ukraine exercising its own discretion is that the Russians know the West instigated the conflict. You're free to deny it to your heart's content. Zelensky doesn't have that luxury.

---

He refused to meet with Zelensky, period. And, finally, when the parties got pretty close, Putin ordered the horrific war crimes. He thought that would create the leverage needed to push the deal over the line. Instead. It hardened Ukraine's resolve. Had he met with Zelensky before that, there may have been a formal agreement.

As to final your final point, you're conflating issues. Correct, I reject the argument that we instigated anything. But even if we did, that has no bearing on what happened in post-invasion negotiations. Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Putin did not refuse to meet, period. He refused to meet until the deal was close to final.

The alleged war crimes are completely irrelevant, except as a pretext to end negotiations.

The West's involvement has everything to do with post-invasion talks. It would be hard enough for Russia to trust a deal we claimed to support. With our opposition it's basically impossible.

---

If you knew anything about the negotiations you'd know that Russia wanted us to be part of the deal.

Bucha, a pretext? Nice.

---

Of course Russia wanted us to be part of the deal. That's what I'm saying. There was little that Ukraine could do without our support.

The fact that Bucha was cited as a reason to end negotiations is telling. It's another version of the Western talking point that you don't negotiate with criminals. If you're really concerned about war crimes, you want to end the war sooner rather than later. I understand that may not be satisfying emotionally, but emotions aren't supposed to govern when the stakes are this high.

---

As you know (at least I assume you do) negotiations did not end. Putin just ordered Bucha (and others) at the worst possible time. It goes without saying that trust is major issue in any negotiation. Totally understandable to me how something as horrific as Bucha would seriously undermine trust. That massacre in addition to Ukraine performing well on the battlefield slowed real momentum that had been building.

Of course, there were still major roadblocks to settlement, not the least of which was one of the keys to the deal that I'm guessing you, Red, and Reality would have never supported - that the U.S. agree to take military action directly against Russia if Russia violated the agreement.

Look, I've said all along - and the best reporting confirmed - that both sides share blame in the failed negotiations. My main point is that your narratives on the negotiations - that (1) the U.S. actually or effectively tubed a deal and (2) Russia had offered simply taking over parts of the east - are pure fiction.

---

Regarding your second point, it goes without saying that Ukrainian neutrality was always going to be part of any deal. That's not a matter of Ukraine giving anything up. They had already agreed to it, and limitations on military power were an ancillary means of enforcing what they had violated by attempting to join NATO. All they would really have given up in exchange for independence was the Donbas.

---

-Pro-Russia regime change
-Federal, pro-Russia history and civics taught in schools
-Forced trade with Russia and trade restrictions elsewhere

---

Are you sure you're reading objectively? Because none of those points were in the draft agreement as reported by WSJ, Foreign Affairs, or anyone else that I've seen. There is some conjecture that regime change was part of Putin's original goal before negotiations started, but there's not a shred of evidence offered.

I would not have supported a security agreement committing the US beyond what was in the Budapest Memorandum and even beyond NATO Article 5. But that was far from the only option. Zelensky was advised that such a demand was unrealistic, and there's every reason to think the West could have persuaded him. Instead we delivered a clear message against any further negotiation.

---

There are general references in the FA article and other sources. And future U.S. military assistance was an integral part of the framework. There was no other way to come close to assuring Russian compliance. I've not seen anything saying we told Zelensky that was a deal-breaker.

---

Our refusal to participate in any multilateral agreement was obviously a deal-breaker. As you said, the Russians wanted us to be involved.

You've argued that the agreement would have left Ukraine dependent on Western intervention in case of hostilities with Russia. If that's true, US military assistance in peacetime was anything but an integral part of the framework. If anything it was a contradiction. Of course there was a reason for us to consider it essential, and that has to with our real goal. Not to achieve peace, but to build up an anti-Russian military force in Ukraine. Which is exactly what we did.

Regarding limitations on Ukraine's military, just look at the concessions that Germany made in order to achieve reunification. They included drastic reductions in military capacity, renunciation of nuclear ambitions, and the agreement that no foreign forces would be stationed in the former East Germany. Such demands are well precedented and completely unsurprising.

---

I don't understand your second paragraph. If you don't mind, please try right explain further.

I see your point on military limitations in general, but Germany is a poor example b/c the circumstances were nothing like Russia/Ukraine.

What made Russia's demands so difficult were the numbers. Ukraine wouldn't have been able to defend itself against invader using bows and arrows. Russia would have had zero deterrent - at least without the pledge of U.S. force.

I think you and I agree negotiations were exceedingly complex. As I've posted before, I actually came away with a more negative view of Zelensky after reading FA and some recent corp analysis. I agree with the majority of analysts I trust that both sides looked bad.

I just try to rebut those posters who try to minimize what Russia was (and still is demanding (e.g, they just wanted a bit more of the east) or who claim it was an easy call for Ukraine to bend over. It wasn't. In fact, it would have been almost unprecedented in world history.

I acknowledge however that it might have been better than how this thing will end.

---

I took "future military assistance" to mean support for the Ukrainian military. I see now you probably meant US intervention.

All I really disagree with is the part in bold. I think you share the assumption of most Western commentators that the Russians entered negotiations because they were unprepared militarily. That has proven to be the grossest of miscalculations. The Russian successes we're seeing now were not made in a day. Far from being unprecedented, capitulation was the only realistic option. It was only the West's outlandish promises that pushed Ukraine the other way.

---

Yes, of course, capitulation of this kind has occurred AFTER a brutal war where a undermanned and outgunned country or group fights despite knowing the odds and loses. But history has proven that people will fight for the freedom against all odds.

---

Of course any talk of Ukrainian support for the war has to distinguish between western Ukraine and the Donbas. Only the latter was fighting for freedom in any real sense. Kyiv had the opportunity to make peace and keep its independence.

---

LMAO. No.

Realitybites said:

---

Going to war with China and India would put us into a war with a third of the world's population. That really doesn't sound wise. But whatever. Permawar so long as Boeing and Lockheed get paid and continue campaign contributions. Maybe Boeing can find the time to build an airliner whose doors don't fall off somewhere along the line.

---

Relations Break Down Between U.S. And Them

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

It confirms what's in the Nation article, with the addition of a straw man and a lot of opinion. No one is saying the West exercised technical veto power. As pointed out above, that is a vacuous argument. Did the West effectively shut down negotiations? Absolutely. Even mainstream American media have had to admit as much.

---

Wrong on both accounts.

First, several posters (and many right wing influencers) have repeatedly claimed that we would not allow Ukraine to settle and/or we forced them to fight. No nuance, just that clear. And it's false.

Second, we did not "effectively" shut down negotiations. Negotiations continued. Putin refused to meet with Zelensky despite repeated Zelensky requests. From the start until now, Ukraine 100% has had the discretion to decide to fight or settle. Mainstream media have admitted nothing of the sort.

Supporting Ukraine and not pleading with to settle is nowhere near "effectively shutting down negotiations."

---

You've unknowingly hit on a crucial point: Putin indeed refused to meet with Zelensky until negotiations were in the final stage. It was at that point that Boris Johnson intervened. I need hardly point out that saying "don't negotiate with criminals" is a far cry from "not pleading hard enough" to settle. I mean, really.

Your analysis is another example of the danger in believing one's own propaganda. The problem with Ukraine exercising its own discretion is that the Russians know the West instigated the conflict. You're free to deny it to your heart's content. Zelensky doesn't have that luxury.

---

He refused to meet with Zelensky, period. And, finally, when the parties got pretty close, Putin ordered the horrific war crimes. He thought that would create the leverage needed to push the deal over the line. Instead. It hardened Ukraine's resolve. Had he met with Zelensky before that, there may have been a formal agreement.

As to final your final point, you're conflating issues. Correct, I reject the argument that we instigated anything. But even if we did, that has no bearing on what happened in post-invasion negotiations. Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Putin did not refuse to meet, period. He refused to meet until the deal was close to final.

The alleged war crimes are completely irrelevant, except as a pretext to end negotiations.

The West's involvement has everything to do with post-invasion talks. It would be hard enough for Russia to trust a deal we claimed to support. With our opposition it's basically impossible.

---

If you knew anything about the negotiations you'd know that Russia wanted us to be part of the deal.

Bucha, a pretext? Nice.

---

Of course Russia wanted us to be part of the deal. That's what I'm saying. There was little that Ukraine could do without our support.

The fact that Bucha was cited as a reason to end negotiations is telling. It's another version of the Western talking point that you don't negotiate with criminals. If you're really concerned about war crimes, you want to end the war sooner rather than later. I understand that may not be satisfying emotionally, but emotions aren't supposed to govern when the stakes are this high.

---

As you know (at least I assume you do) negotiations did not end. Putin just ordered Bucha (and others) at the worst possible time. It goes without saying that trust is major issue in any negotiation. Totally understandable to me how something as horrific as Bucha would seriously undermine trust. That massacre in addition to Ukraine performing well on the battlefield slowed real momentum that had been building.

Of course, there were still major roadblocks to settlement, not the least of which was one of the keys to the deal that I'm guessing you, Red, and Reality would have never supported - that the U.S. agree to take military action directly against Russia if Russia violated the agreement.

Look, I've said all along - and the best reporting confirmed - that both sides share blame in the failed negotiations. My main point is that your narratives on the negotiations - that (1) the U.S. actually or effectively tubed a deal and (2) Russia had offered simply taking over parts of the east - are pure fiction.

---

Regarding your second point, it goes without saying that Ukrainian neutrality was always going to be part of any deal. That's not a matter of Ukraine giving anything up. They had already agreed to it, and limitations on military power were an ancillary means of enforcing what they had violated by attempting to join NATO. All they would really have given up in exchange for independence was the Donbas.

---

-Pro-Russia regime change
-Federal, pro-Russia history and civics taught in schools
-Forced trade with Russia and trade restrictions elsewhere

---

Are you sure you're reading objectively? Because none of those points were in the draft agreement as reported by WSJ, Foreign Affairs, or anyone else that I've seen. There is some conjecture that regime change was part of Putin's original goal before negotiations started, but there's not a shred of evidence offered.

I would not have supported a security agreement committing the US beyond what was in the Budapest Memorandum and even beyond NATO Article 5. But that was far from the only option. Zelensky was advised that such a demand was unrealistic, and there's every reason to think the West could have persuaded him. Instead we delivered a clear message against any further negotiation.

---

There are general references in the FA article and other sources. And future U.S. military assistance was an integral part of the framework. There was no other way to come close to assuring Russian compliance. I've not seen anything saying we told Zelensky that was a deal-breaker.

---

Our refusal to participate in any multilateral agreement was obviously a deal-breaker. As you said, the Russians wanted us to be involved.

You've argued that the agreement would have left Ukraine dependent on Western intervention in case of hostilities with Russia. If that's true, US military assistance in peacetime was anything but an integral part of the framework. If anything it was a contradiction. Of course there was a reason for us to consider it essential, and that has to with our real goal. Not to achieve peace, but to build up an anti-Russian military force in Ukraine. Which is exactly what we did.

Regarding limitations on Ukraine's military, just look at the concessions that Germany made in order to achieve reunification. They included drastic reductions in military capacity, renunciation of nuclear ambitions, and the agreement that no foreign forces would be stationed in the former East Germany. Such demands are well precedented and completely unsurprising.

---

I don't understand your second paragraph. If you don't mind, please try right explain further.

I see your point on military limitations in general, but Germany is a poor example b/c the circumstances were nothing like Russia/Ukraine.

What made Russia's demands so difficult were the numbers. Ukraine wouldn't have been able to defend itself against invader using bows and arrows. Russia would have had zero deterrent - at least without the pledge of U.S. force.

I think you and I agree negotiations were exceedingly complex. As I've posted before, I actually came away with a more negative view of Zelensky after reading FA and some recent corp analysis. I agree with the majority of analysts I trust that both sides looked bad.

I just try to rebut those posters who try to minimize what Russia was (and still is demanding (e.g, they just wanted a bit more of the east) or who claim it was an easy call for Ukraine to bend over. It wasn't. In fact, it would have been almost unprecedented in world history.

I acknowledge however that it might have been better than how this thing will end.

---

I took "future military assistance" to mean support for the Ukrainian military. I see now you probably meant US intervention.

All I really disagree with is the part in bold. I think you share the assumption of most Western commentators that the Russians entered negotiations because they were unprepared militarily. That has proven to be the grossest of miscalculations. The Russian successes we're seeing now were not made in a day. Far from being unprecedented, capitulation was the only realistic option. It was only the West's outlandish promises that pushed Ukraine the other way.

---

Yes, of course, capitulation of this kind has occurred AFTER a brutal war where a undermanned and outgunned country or group fights despite knowing the odds and loses. But history has proven that people will fight for the freedom against all odds.

---

Austria didn't. Vichy France didn't. Native American tribes often fought until they had saved face, then went home. China and India fought over border territories until China called a unilateral ceasefire. History has examples of all manner of things.

Of course any talk of Ukrainian support for the war has to distinguish between western Ukraine and the Donbas. Only the latter was fighting for freedom in any real sense. Kiev had the opportunity to make peace and keep its independence.

---

The fact that those are the examples you use just further strengthens my point.

I dispute your east/west premise. Neither is monolithic. Plenty of folks in the east want nothing to do with Russia.

You and I have very different definitions of independent, and that is one of our core disagreements.

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

The relationship between Finland and Russia is nothing like that between Ukraine and Russia. And your "this is a ruse, that is a ruse" is just silly. Putin has been up front and transparent about what he is doing and why. Even now with the push into the Kharkov region in the north:

"When asked about Russia's goals there, Putin noted that Ukraine is to blame for recent fighting in the area, as it "unfortunately continues to shell residential blocks in the border areas, including Belgorod."

"Civilians are dying out there. Everything is crystal clear. They are firing directly at the center of the city," the president said, recalling that he had publicly warned Kiev that Russia would be forced to establish a "cordon sanitaire" in the areas under Kiev's control if the attacks continued."

If the Ukrainians have any sense at all, they will knock off the cross border attacks and negotiate a peace treaty. The longer this goes on and the more Russian civilians the UAF attacks, the less of their country they will have left when it is over.

---

We finally agree on something . . . . Putin has been very transparent for decades . . . that Ukraine isn't a real country, Ukrainians aren't a real people, and they belong to Russia!

---

Of course its a real country...and Russia has no problem with that...just like that have no problem with Belarus being a country.

But they DO have a problem with Ukraine or Belarus being outside their sphere of orbit.

The same way DC looks at Canada.

Canada is a country...its also a minor- small population country that is never going to be allowed to be outside the USA economic/military orbit.

China acts the same way toward Mongolia.

Etc.

Realitybites said:

---

Except the western Ukrainians who are fighting aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the right to be told what to do by Brussels, and for their military to be forced to buy stuff from Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrup-Grumman.

---

Bingo.

Ukraine has never been....and never will be....a completely independent actor like the USA is.

Its a minor country pulled between two large Nations/Alliances....USA/EU and the Russian Federation.

Its going to be taking orders from Brussels (and DC) or from Moscow.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet again for the vatniks:

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-8-2024

"…which include the right for Ukraine to choose its own alignment."

---

That was never going to happen.

In the real world Moscow was never going to allow itself to be surrounded by a Western military alliance.

Ukraine and Georgia were always going to be prevented from joining NATO.

Just like DC would never allow Mexico or Canada to join a Chinese-communist lead alliance.

We need men who are realists in Washington like Kissinger was…someone to tell the ruling class the truth to their face

---

actually, we know Kissinger's thoughts on Ukraine and they were not what you suppose.
https://www.newsweek.com/henry-kissingers-shifting-views-ukraine-1774710

he was a foreign policy realist, for sure, but implicit in the evolution of his thoughts was an erroneous presumption of Russian might. For sure, the geography of any Great Power dictates what the Great Power will feel it needs to control. But needing to control those areas and being ABLE to control those areas are two different things. Russia simply does not have the resources to control what it wants to control. Literally all the arguments about why Ukraine cannot defeat Russia apply in far greater magnitude to the arguments about why Russia cannot defeat Nato. (defeat used in larger context of imposing will militarily OR diplomatically).

giving a large and important shatterzone area to Russia in pursuit of stability is doomed to fail if Russia cannot impose order in the shatterzone. All it does is make the instability area larger and bring it further under the nuclear umbrella.

The EU has a far greater prospect for integrating Ukraine and transforming it into something less corrupt and more stable.

---

He opposed NATO expansion to the far east for decades

He long said trying to bring Ukriane in would spark off conflict (and it did).

Now at the end he might have decided that since the war was here now then NATO might as well absorb Ukraine…but that is him adapting to facts on the ground.

His point still stands about the sensibility of doing it in the first place

---

that's the way a diplomat says "I miscalculated and now have a new position."

---

Maybe...

It also might just be Kissinger saying "I told you this would spark a war with Moscow...but since you did it anyway and the war came...we might as well just finish the job and pull Ukraine into the USA/EU orbit"

He was a realist after all.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Except the western Ukrainians who are fighting aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the right to be told what to do by Brussels, and for their military to be forced to buy stuff from Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrup-Grumman.

---

Bingo.

Ukraine has never been....and never will be....a completely independent actor like the USA is.

Its a minor country pulled between two large Nations/Alliances....USA/EU and the Russian Federation.

Its going to be taking orders from Brussels (and DC) or from Moscow.

---

While of course I disagree with your premise, even if true, vast majorities of Eastern Euro people - in fact, most of the world - would much rather be under the "control" of the west than they would Russia.

---

Oversimplified, at best. I've posted a pre-Maidan Ukraine poll by USAID showing about equal levels of support for the US and Russia, with the US viewed as slightly more of a threat. It would be one thing if Russia had supported the overthrow of a duly elected government in 2014 and turned Ukraine into a puppet state. The fact that we had to do it instead tells you a lot.

Also, BRICS says hi.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Except the western Ukrainians who are fighting aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the right to be told what to do by Brussels, and for their military to be forced to buy stuff from Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrup-Grumman.

---

Bingo.

Ukraine has never been....and never will be....a completely independent actor like the USA is.

Its a minor country pulled between two large Nations/Alliances....USA/EU and the Russian Federation.

Its going to be taking orders from Brussels (and DC) or from Moscow.

---

While of course I disagree with your premise, even if true, vast majorities of Eastern Euro people - in fact, most of the world - would much rather be under the "control" of the west than they would Russia.

But I guess if you think the U.S. and Russia are interchangeable, which a few posters seem to think, then your perspective is at least consistent.

---

Well sure...that is why the NATO alliance now has 32 nations in it (spending more than a trillion in military spending and has 969 million people)

While Russia only has Belarus and Kazakhstan...lol

The point is not that the West is more desirable...its that russia will fight for ukraine.

Why would the West risk a potential mass European war over a poor, corrupt, rusting out ex-soviet state on the borders of Russia?

Not to mention that at least 1/3 of Ukrainians are ethnic russians and will always be a destabilizing element inside the country if its brought into the EU/NATO

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

sombear said:

---

Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Speaking of Ukraine and calls, how about that call from Brandon to Ukraine demanding that Viktor Shokin get fired and the probe into Burisma end. Yeah, Ukraine's government is independent alright.

---

It's quite ironic . . . y'all scream about Ukrainian corruption but object when a corrupt prosecutor is canned.

And what this has to do with Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations I have no idea, except to say conspiracists love to piece together unrelated issues. I'm waiting for someone to tie in the JFK assassination and Iraq.

---

The propensity of conservatives to so easily buy conspiracy theories is a concerning trend.

---

It's both sides of course but I agree. I blame twitter …. The most troubling aspect to me (and no, this is not a passive aggressive shot at the pro-Russia folks b/c we can set that issue aside, and it's still true) is so many on my side (conservative) virtually always give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-American side and always give the benefit of the doubt to the narrative that supports their own opinions. There is too little objective analysis.

---

It's hard to give America the benefit of the doubt when you know the history of our covert wars. Like many Americans you are in deep denial on that subject.

---

Not in denial at all. All I've ever argued is that we're no worse than other world powers. I think we've been better. Far from perfect, but better, and usually fighting for freedom/democracy and/or against communism and Islamic regimes.

---

We're fighting against countries that we think are too big economically. We're more than happy to support Islamists if it helps that agenda, and the anti-communist rationale fell by the wayside a long time ago. Wiser presidents like Reagan did indeed oppose communism, but they did so without making Russia an enemy per se.

---

Russia's economy is smaller than CA. If the size of the economy were the criteria, we would be going to war with Germany, India and Japan as well.

---

We already went to war with Germany and Japan. Some would like to put India next on the list after China (assuming we survive that long).

---

Under your theory, we should be doing so again. Why haven't we?

Who would like to go to war with India?

You're ridiculous.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Except the western Ukrainians who are fighting aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the right to be told what to do by Brussels, and for their military to be forced to buy stuff from Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrup-Grumman.

---

Bingo.

Ukraine has never been....and never will be....a completely independent actor like the USA is.

Its a minor country pulled between two large Nations/Alliances....USA/EU and the Russian Federation.

Its going to be taking orders from Brussels (and DC) or from Moscow.

---

While of course I disagree with your premise, even if true, vast majorities of Eastern Euro people - in fact, most of the world - would much rather be under the "control" of the west than they would Russia.

---

Oversimplified, at best. I've posted a pre-Maidan Ukraine poll by USAID showing about equal levels of support for the US and Russia, with the US viewed as slightly more of a threat. It would be one thing if Russia had supported the overthrow of a duly elected government in 2014 and turned Ukraine into a puppet state. The fact that we had to do it instead tells you a lot.

Also, BRICS says hi.

---

I was referring to people, not countries, but regardless, BRICS is your retort? What a motley crew that is! But, more importantly, those countries aren't "controlled" by the others, and it's basically an economic alliance, in which most of those countries do as much business with the U.S. as the others.

Is the poll you reference from the East or are you saying the entire country?

As you know, I think it's comical that folks seriously think we were responsible for Maidan. And Russia, they didn't support an overthrow . . . they just invaded . . . twice.

---

It was a nationwide poll. Ukraine wasn't really being controlled by Russia either; I was just mirroring your language.

If you like comedy, keep an eye on Georgia. We're currently trying to do the same thing there.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

sombear said:

---

Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Speaking of Ukraine and calls, how about that call from Brandon to Ukraine demanding that Viktor Shokin get fired and the probe into Burisma end. Yeah, Ukraine's government is independent alright.

---

It's quite ironic . . . y'all scream about Ukrainian corruption but object when a corrupt prosecutor is canned.

And what this has to do with Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations I have no idea, except to say conspiracists love to piece together unrelated issues. I'm waiting for someone to tie in the JFK assassination and Iraq.

---

The propensity of conservatives to so easily buy conspiracy theories is a concerning trend.

---

It's both sides of course but I agree. I blame twitter …. The most troubling aspect to me (and no, this is not a passive aggressive shot at the pro-Russia folks b/c we can set that issue aside, and it's still true) is so many on my side (conservative) virtually always give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-American side and always give the benefit of the doubt to the narrative that supports their own opinions. There is too little objective analysis.

---

It's hard to give America the benefit of the doubt when you know the history of our covert wars. Like many Americans you are in deep denial on that subject.

---

Not in denial at all. All I've ever argued is that we're no worse than other world powers. I think we've been better. Far from perfect, but better, and usually fighting for freedom/democracy and/or against communism and Islamic regimes.

---

We're fighting against countries that we think are too big economically. We're more than happy to support Islamists if it helps that agenda, and the anti-communist rationale fell by the wayside a long time ago. Wiser presidents like Reagan did indeed oppose communism, but they did so without making Russia an enemy per se.

---

Russia's economy is smaller than CA. If the size of the economy were the criteria, we would be going to war with Germany, India and Japan as well.

---

We already went to war with Germany and Japan. Some would like to put India next on the list after China (assuming we survive that long).

---

Under your theory, we should be doing so again. Why haven't we?

Who would like to go to war with India?

You're ridiculous.

---

We made Germany and Japan completely dependent on us for defense (and we did it with Russia's help). By Sombear's definition they're not even independent countries any more. We expect them to stay in their place without another war any time soon.

Sam Lowry said:

---

So you're telling us that by supporting EU membership, Russia was actually opposing it. And by reducing Ukraine's military, we would actually be building it up.

Bizarro World logic.

---

Bizarro world is not understanding what the word control means.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

sombear said:

---

Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Speaking of Ukraine and calls, how about that call from Brandon to Ukraine demanding that Viktor Shokin get fired and the probe into Burisma end. Yeah, Ukraine's government is independent alright.

---

It's quite ironic . . . y'all scream about Ukrainian corruption but object when a corrupt prosecutor is canned.

And what this has to do with Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations I have no idea, except to say conspiracists love to piece together unrelated issues. I'm waiting for someone to tie in the JFK assassination and Iraq.

---

The propensity of conservatives to so easily buy conspiracy theories is a concerning trend.

---

It's both sides of course but I agree. I blame twitter …. The most troubling aspect to me (and no, this is not a passive aggressive shot at the pro-Russia folks b/c we can set that issue aside, and it's still true) is so many on my side (conservative) virtually always give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-American side and always give the benefit of the doubt to the narrative that supports their own opinions. There is too little objective analysis.

---

It's hard to give America the benefit of the doubt when you know the history of our covert wars. Like many Americans you are in deep denial on that subject.

---

Not in denial at all. All I've ever argued is that we're no worse than other world powers. I think we've been better. Far from perfect, but better, and usually fighting for freedom/democracy and/or against communism and Islamic regimes.

---

We're fighting against countries that we think are too big economically. We're more than happy to support Islamists if it helps that agenda, and the anti-communist rationale fell by the wayside a long time ago. Wiser presidents like Reagan did indeed oppose communism, but they did so without making Russia an enemy per se.

---

Russia's economy is smaller than CA. If the size of the economy were the criteria, we would be going to war with Germany, India and Japan as well.

---

We already went to war with Germany and Japan. Some would like to put India next on the list after China (assuming we survive that long).

---

Under your theory, we should be doing so again. Why haven't we?

Who would like to go to war with India?

You're ridiculous.

---

We made Germany and Japan completely dependent on us for defense (and we did it with Russia's help). By Sombear's definition they're not even independent countries any more. We expect them to stay in their place without another war any time soon.

---

Gotcha. Since we told Japan and Germany that imperialism and genocide are a bad thing, we are ok with them having some of the world's largest economies. I guess that's the caveat to the rule.

Who wants to go to war with India again, Sam?

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Except the western Ukrainians who are fighting aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the right to be told what to do by Brussels, and for their military to be forced to buy stuff from Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrup-Grumman.

---

Bingo.

Ukraine has never been....and never will be....a completely independent actor like the USA is.

Its a minor country pulled between two large Nations/Alliances....USA/EU and the Russian Federation.

Its going to be taking orders from Brussels (and DC) or from Moscow.

---

While of course I disagree with your premise, even if true, vast majorities of Eastern Euro people - in fact, most of the world - would much rather be under the "control" of the west than they would Russia.

But I guess if you think the U.S. and Russia are interchangeable, which a few posters seem to think, then your perspective is at least consistent.

---

Well sure...that is why the NATO alliance now has 32 nations in it (spending more than a trillion in military spending and has 969 million people)

While Russia only has Belarus and Kazakhstan...lol

The point is not that the West is more desirable...its that russia will fight for ukraine.

Why would the West risk a potential mass European war over a poor, corrupt, rusting out ex-soviet state on the borders of Russia?

Not to mention that at least 1/3 of Ukrainians are ethnic russians and will always be a destabilizing element inside the country if its brought into the EU/NATO

---

Maybe because Ukraine has been trying to get out from being a poor, corrupt, rusting out ex-Soviet state for several decades now. Russia's influential "sphere" would never let them. In essence what's held them back is the Russia in their Ukrainian approach to everything.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Except the western Ukrainians who are fighting aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the right to be told what to do by Brussels, and for their military to be forced to buy stuff from Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrup-Grumman.

---

Bingo.

Ukraine has never been....and never will be....a completely independent actor like the USA is.

Its a minor country pulled between two large Nations/Alliances....USA/EU and the Russian Federation.

Its going to be taking orders from Brussels (and DC) or from Moscow.

---

While of course I disagree with your premise, even if true, vast majorities of Eastern Euro people - in fact, most of the world - would much rather be under the "control" of the west than they would Russia.

But I guess if you think the U.S. and Russia are interchangeable, which a few posters seem to think, then your perspective is at least consistent.

---

Well sure...that is why the NATO alliance now has 32 nations in it (spending more than a trillion in military spending and has 969 million people)

While Russia only has Belarus and Kazakhstan...lol

The point is not that the West is more desirable...its that russia will fight for ukraine.

Why would the West risk a potential mass European war over a poor, corrupt, rusting out ex-soviet state on the borders of Russia?

Not to mention that at least 1/3 of Ukrainians are ethnic russians and will always be a destabilizing element inside the country if its brought into the EU/NATO

---

Maybe because Ukraine has been trying to get out from being a poor, corrupt, rusting out ex-Soviet state for several decades now. Russia's influential "sphere" would never let them. In essence what's held them back is the Russia in their Ukrainian approach to everything.

---

1. You act like being in the EU solves all problems.

Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia are still poor and corrupt and lost out of the promised movement of jobs from the richer EU counties that was promised in the 1990s. Big capital just moved the jobs straight to Asia and cut out the Eastern European/Balkans middle man.

2. But even if getting into the EU solved all problems (and it is most certainly better than Russia) it still does not explain why the USA should get involved in a bloody proxy war to make that happen?

Why should the CIA and U.S. taxpayers being paying for this war?


3. I'm sure Mongolia would be better off as a U.S. state…but that is never going to happen. It's always going to be within the Chinese-sphere of orbit

There are facts on the ground that don't change.

Canada is not getting out from under the wing of the American eagle….for good or bad

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Except the western Ukrainians who are fighting aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the right to be told what to do by Brussels, and for their military to be forced to buy stuff from Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrup-Grumman.

---

Bingo.

Ukraine has never been....and never will be....a completely independent actor like the USA is.

Its a minor country pulled between two large Nations/Alliances....USA/EU and the Russian Federation.

Its going to be taking orders from Brussels (and DC) or from Moscow.

---

While of course I disagree with your premise, even if true, vast majorities of Eastern Euro people - in fact, most of the world - would much rather be under the "control" of the west than they would Russia.

But I guess if you think the U.S. and Russia are interchangeable, which a few posters seem to think, then your perspective is at least consistent.

---

Well sure...that is why the NATO alliance now has 32 nations in it (spending more than a trillion in military spending and has 969 million people)

While Russia only has Belarus and Kazakhstan...lol

The point is not that the West is more desirable...its that russia will fight for ukraine.

Why would the West risk a potential mass European war over a poor, corrupt, rusting out ex-soviet state on the borders of Russia?

Not to mention that at least 1/3 of Ukrainians are ethnic russians and will always be a destabilizing element inside the country if its brought into the EU/NATO

---

Maybe because Ukraine has been trying to get out from being a poor, corrupt, rusting out ex-Soviet state for several decades now. Russia's influential "sphere" would never let them. In essence what's held them back is the Russia in their Ukrainian approach to everything.

---

1. You act like being in the EU solves all problems.

Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia are still poor and corrupt and lost out of the promised movement of jobs from the richer EU counties that was promised in the 1990s. Big capital just moved the jobs straight to Asia and cut out the Eastern European/Balkans middle man.

2. But even if getting into the EU solved all problems (and it is most certainly better than Russia) it still does not explain why the USA should get involved in a bloody proxy war to make that happen?

Why should the CIA and U.S. taxpayers being paying for this war?


3. I'm sure Mongolia would be better off as a U.S. state…but that is never going to happen. It's always going to be within the Chinese-sphere of orbit

There are facts on the ground that don't change.

Canada is not getting out from under the wing of the American eagle….for good or bad

---

Why are China, Iran, and North Korea doing even more to help Russia?

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Except the western Ukrainians who are fighting aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the right to be told what to do by Brussels, and for their military to be forced to buy stuff from Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrup-Grumman.

---

Bingo.

Ukraine has never been....and never will be....a completely independent actor like the USA is.

Its a minor country pulled between two large Nations/Alliances....USA/EU and the Russian Federation.

Its going to be taking orders from Brussels (and DC) or from Moscow.

---

While of course I disagree with your premise, even if true, vast majorities of Eastern Euro people - in fact, most of the world - would much rather be under the "control" of the west than they would Russia.

But I guess if you think the U.S. and Russia are interchangeable, which a few posters seem to think, then your perspective is at least consistent.

---

Well sure...that is why the NATO alliance now has 32 nations in it (spending more than a trillion in military spending and has 969 million people)

While Russia only has Belarus and Kazakhstan...lol

The point is not that the West is more desirable...its that russia will fight for ukraine.

Why would the West risk a potential mass European war over a poor, corrupt, rusting out ex-soviet state on the borders of Russia?

Not to mention that at least 1/3 of Ukrainians are ethnic russians and will always be a destabilizing element inside the country if its brought into the EU/NATO

---

Maybe because Ukraine has been trying to get out from being a poor, corrupt, rusting out ex-Soviet state for several decades now. Russia's influential "sphere" would never let them. In essence what's held them back is the Russia in their Ukrainian approach to everything.

---

Western neo-colonialism has held them back. Trying to get out of it is what got them regime-changed and re-militarized on the double. Oldest story in the postwar world.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Except the western Ukrainians who are fighting aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the right to be told what to do by Brussels, and for their military to be forced to buy stuff from Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrup-Grumman.

---

Bingo.

Ukraine has never been....and never will be....a completely independent actor like the USA is.

Its a minor country pulled between two large Nations/Alliances....USA/EU and the Russian Federation.

Its going to be taking orders from Brussels (and DC) or from Moscow.

---

While of course I disagree with your premise, even if true, vast majorities of Eastern Euro people - in fact, most of the world - would much rather be under the "control" of the west than they would Russia.

But I guess if you think the U.S. and Russia are interchangeable, which a few posters seem to think, then your perspective is at least consistent.

---

Well sure...that is why the NATO alliance now has 32 nations in it (spending more than a trillion in military spending and has 969 million people)

While Russia only has Belarus and Kazakhstan...lol

The point is not that the West is more desirable...its that russia will fight for ukraine.

Why would the West risk a potential mass European war over a poor, corrupt, rusting out ex-soviet state on the borders of Russia?

Not to mention that at least 1/3 of Ukrainians are ethnic russians and will always be a destabilizing element inside the country if its brought into the EU/NATO

---

…Russia's influential "sphere" would never let them. In essence what's held them back is the Russia in their Ukrainian approach to everything.

---

Part of the Slavic world, in a sense, along with Belarus and Russia. The boundaries of higher cultures are not necessarily fixed, we also can’t see them but we can feel them. Huntington spoke of Ukraine as a cleft state, which is split between two civilizations (West and the…

— Naif Adnan Al Bidh | نايف عدنان البيض (@Naifalbidh) May 17, 2024

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Except the western Ukrainians who are fighting aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the right to be told what to do by Brussels, and for their military to be forced to buy stuff from Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrup-Grumman.

---

Bingo.

Ukraine has never been....and never will be....a completely independent actor like the USA is.

Its a minor country pulled between two large Nations/Alliances....USA/EU and the Russian Federation.

Its going to be taking orders from Brussels (and DC) or from Moscow.

---

While of course I disagree with your premise, even if true, vast majorities of Eastern Euro people - in fact, most of the world - would much rather be under the "control" of the west than they would Russia.

---

Oversimplified, at best. I've posted a pre-Maidan Ukraine poll by USAID showing about equal levels of support for the US and Russia, with the US viewed as slightly more of a threat. It would be one thing if Russia had supported the overthrow of a duly elected government in 2014 and turned Ukraine into a puppet state. The fact that we had to do it instead tells you a lot.

Also, BRICS says hi.

---

I was referring to people, not countries, but regardless, BRICS is your retort? What a motley crew that is! But, more importantly, those countries aren't "controlled" by the others, and it's basically an economic alliance, in which most of those countries do as much business with the U.S. as the others.

Is the poll you reference from the East or are you saying the entire country?

As you know, I think it's comical that folks seriously think we were responsible for Maidan. And Russia, they didn't support an overthrow . . . they just invaded . . . twice.

---

It was a nationwide poll. Ukraine wasn't really being controlled by Russia either; I was just mirroring your language.

If you like comedy, keep an eye on Georgia. We're currently trying to do the same thing there.

---

Is Nuland handing out cookies in Tbilisi now? Seriously, though, you're surprised Georgians don't want to align with Russia?

---

I don't know but DC is freaking out about the idea that their NGO racket might be cut off in Georgia…

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Except the western Ukrainians who are fighting aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the right to be told what to do by Brussels, and for their military to be forced to buy stuff from Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrup-Grumman.

---

Bingo.

Ukraine has never been....and never will be....a completely independent actor like the USA is.

Its a minor country pulled between two large Nations/Alliances....USA/EU and the Russian Federation.

Its going to be taking orders from Brussels (and DC) or from Moscow.

---

While of course I disagree with your premise, even if true, vast majorities of Eastern Euro people - in fact, most of the world - would much rather be under the "control" of the west than they would Russia.

But I guess if you think the U.S. and Russia are interchangeable, which a few posters seem to think, then your perspective is at least consistent.

---

Well sure...that is why the NATO alliance now has 32 nations in it (spending more than a trillion in military spending and has 969 million people)

While Russia only has Belarus and Kazakhstan...lol

The point is not that the West is more desirable...its that russia will fight for ukraine.

Why would the West risk a potential mass European war over a poor, corrupt, rusting out ex-soviet state on the borders of Russia?

Not to mention that at least 1/3 of Ukrainians are ethnic russians and will always be a destabilizing element inside the country if its brought into the EU/NATO

---

Maybe because Ukraine has been trying to get out from being a poor, corrupt, rusting out ex-Soviet state for several decades now. Russia's influential "sphere" would never let them. In essence what's held them back is the Russia in their Ukrainian approach to everything.

---

1. You act like being in the EU solves all problems.

Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia are still poor and corrupt and lost out of the promised movement of jobs from the richer EU counties that was promised in the 1990s. Big capital just moved the jobs straight to Asia and cut out the Eastern European/Balkans middle man.

2. But even if getting into the EU solved all problems (and it is most certainly better than Russia) it still does not explain why the USA should get involved in a bloody proxy war to make that happen?

Why should the CIA and U.S. taxpayers being paying for this war?


3. I'm sure Mongolia would be better off as a U.S. state…but that is never going to happen. It's always going to be within the Chinese-sphere of orbit

There are facts on the ground that don't change.

Canada is not getting out from under the wing of the American eagle….for good or bad

---

Why are China, Iran, and North Korea doing even more to help Russia?

---

They see US power as a threat to them in their regions as well?

Iran was of course nearly surrounded by US bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Both have no love for the USA

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Except the western Ukrainians who are fighting aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the right to be told what to do by Brussels, and for their military to be forced to buy stuff from Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrup-Grumman.

---

Bingo.

Ukraine has never been....and never will be....a completely independent actor like the USA is.

Its a minor country pulled between two large Nations/Alliances....USA/EU and the Russian Federation.

Its going to be taking orders from Brussels (and DC) or from Moscow.

---

While of course I disagree with your premise, even if true, vast majorities of Eastern Euro people - in fact, most of the world - would much rather be under the "control" of the west than they would Russia.

---

Oversimplified, at best. I've posted a pre-Maidan Ukraine poll by USAID showing about equal levels of support for the US and Russia, with the US viewed as slightly more of a threat. It would be one thing if Russia had supported the overthrow of a duly elected government in 2014 and turned Ukraine into a puppet state. The fact that we had to do it instead tells you a lot.

Also, BRICS says hi.

---

I was referring to people, not countries, but regardless, BRICS is your retort? What a motley crew that is! But, more importantly, those countries aren't "controlled" by the others, and it's basically an economic alliance, in which most of those countries do as much business with the U.S. as the others.

Is the poll you reference from the East or are you saying the entire country?

As you know, I think it's comical that folks seriously think we were responsible for Maidan. And Russia, they didn't support an overthrow . . . they just invaded . . . twice.

---

It was a nationwide poll. Ukraine wasn't really being controlled by Russia either; I was just mirroring your language.

If you like comedy, keep an eye on Georgia. We're currently trying to do the same thing there.

---

Is Nuland handing out cookies in Tbilisi now? Seriously, though, you're surprised Georgians don't want to align with Russia?

---

It might surprise you that they're being accused of aligning with Russia just for trying to pass a foreign agent law similar to our own…but it shouldn't.

You remain steadfastly unaware of what Western NGOs do, and they want to make very certain it stays that way.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Except the western Ukrainians who are fighting aren't fighting for freedom. They are fighting for the right to be told what to do by Brussels, and for their military to be forced to buy stuff from Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrup-Grumman.

---

Bingo.

Ukraine has never been....and never will be....a completely independent actor like the USA is.

Its a minor country pulled between two large Nations/Alliances....USA/EU and the Russian Federation.

Its going to be taking orders from Brussels (and DC) or from Moscow.

---

While of course I disagree with your premise, even if true, vast majorities of Eastern Euro people - in fact, most of the world - would much rather be under the "control" of the west than they would Russia.

---

Oversimplified, at best. I've posted a pre-Maidan Ukraine poll by USAID showing about equal levels of support for the US and Russia, with the US viewed as slightly more of a threat. It would be one thing if Russia had supported the overthrow of a duly elected government in 2014 and turned Ukraine into a puppet state. The fact that we had to do it instead tells you a lot.

Also, BRICS says hi.

---

I was referring to people, not countries, but regardless, BRICS is your retort? What a motley crew that is! But, more importantly, those countries aren't "controlled" by the others, and it's basically an economic alliance, in which most of those countries do as much business with the U.S. as the others.

Is the poll you reference from the East or are you saying the entire country?

As you know, I think it's comical that folks seriously think we were responsible for Maidan. And Russia, they didn't support an overthrow . . . they just invaded . . . twice.

---

It was a nationwide poll. Ukraine wasn't really being controlled by Russia either; I was just mirroring your language.

If you like comedy, keep an eye on Georgia. We're currently trying to do the same thing there.

---

Is Nuland handing out cookies in Tbilisi now? Seriously, though, you're surprised Georgians don't want to align with Russia?

---

You remain steadfastly unaware of what Western NGOs do, and they want to make very certain it stays that way.

---

He knows what they do…and he knows they are a tool of DC state craft…that is why he likes them