Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---

Of course not. But it's your position that Ukrainians didn't?

---

Of course not. Ukraine was fighting against both Russian forces and Russian-backed separatists.

I was responding to another poster's point that "[o]nly after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in." This is a clearly erroneous statement, as Russians had already invaded the Eastern provinces and were in fact fighting against Ukrainian forces from the beginning. In other words, Ukrainians were not merely fighting Ukrainians.

Context is important.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---

Of course not. But it's your position that Ukrainians didn't?

---

Donbas is in Ukraine! It is their Nation to defend.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---

Of course not. But it's your position that Ukrainians didn't?

---

Donbas is in Ukraine!

---

Only because the Bolsheviks drew the border that way.

What about what the people in the actual region wanted?

[it was the Bolsheviks who emerged victorious in the struggle for power at the end of World War I, who had to solve the problem of the border between Russia and Ukraine. Drawing the boundaries of a new country within a previously centralized empire was no small problem, especially since the provinces that were to become Ukraine had not had any special status or autonomy in the tsarist empire. In the nineteenth century, the territory of today's Ukraine was divided into three general governments encompassing various provinces: the General Government of Kiev (northwest), the General Government of Little Russia (northeast), and the General Government of New Russia and Bessarabia (east and south). After the gradual liquidation of the general governments, this de facto subdivision into three regions persisted.

Based on this language-based data, the Central Rada drew up a list of provinces that were to be considered Ukrainian, which included Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Poltava, and Chernigov, but also the eastern and southern provinces of Kharkov, Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, and Taurida (without Crimea). Although the large cities were the centers of colonial domination and spoke Russian...

The idea of a Donets-Krivoi Rog republic, uniting eastern Ukraine and the industrialized part of the Don oblast, seemingly emerged among the Kharkov Bolsheviks under the influence of some militants coming from Rostov-on-Don after the conquest of this neighboring Russian region by anti-Bolshevik general Alexei..

The main question remains why, long after the defeat of the Ukrainian nationalists, the top Soviet authorities continued to support the conception of a "greater Ukraine" while ruling out any possibility of a Russian or independent Donbas. Wasn't the main mission of this project namely to combat the Ukrainian nationalists now complete?

As Terry Martin rightly points out, the Bolsheviks' strategy was "to assume leadership over what now appeared to be the inevitable process of decolonization." This is why, first in theory and then in practice, Lenin opted for a national principle in building the USSR. Each Soviet nation was thus to have its own territorially and administratively delimited "national home" a difficult plan to implement in a continental empire like Russia's. Indeed, the tsarist empire had a multiplicity of geographical areas, halfway between metropolitan and colonial status. Eastern Ukraine represented such a zone of hybridization: its urban centers, economically and culturally oriented toward Russia...]

https://jacobin.com/2022/03/bolshevik-soviet-republic-donbas-ukraine-national-question-lenin-putin-ussr

Not to mention that Crimea was not even transferred to Ukraine until the 1950s

[On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=The%20decree%20was%20first%20announced,SFSR%20to%20the%20Ukrainian%20SSR.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Donbas is in Ukraine! It is their Nation to defend.

---

Donbas declared its independence from Ukraine.

No different from Texas declaring its independence from Mexico.

You either believe in the ideas of the Declaration of Independence or don't.

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Donbas is in Ukraine! It is their Nation to defend.

---

Donbas declared its independence from Ukraine.

No different from Texas declaring its independence from Mexico.

You either believe in the ideas of the Declaration of Independence or don't.

---

So, Texas says one day it is independent. US forces have no right to go in. Ft Hood, Ft Bliss just stand down.

To take it one step further to follow your logic, Mexican troops have more rights to be there because there are a lot of ethnic Mexicans in Texas.

So, it is all right for Mexican troops to come in because of the Ethnic Mexicans, but not ok for the US because Texas decided to be independent.

What color is the sky in you f-ed up world? You can't honestly think this is kosher?

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I keep checking back - has our $100B in donations to a ukrainian crime lords defeated Russia yet?

---

Every tank destroyed, arty round fired, etc....is one that cannot be used against our troops.

---

You always act like war with Russia is inevitable (and even desirable)

Instead of something to be avoided at all costs.

It would be a disaster that would make Iraq and Afghanistan look tame

---

He would have a different outlook if his daughter was actually on the front lines in actual danger of dying. But since his daughter is relatively safe, he's cool with the idea of sending YOUR son or YOUR daughter over there. If Biden ever tried to draft him? "Oh I have shin splints, oh I have chronic ingrown toenails, oh I have gastritis, oh I'm nearsighted, oh I'm too old to go, oh no but you go, my job over here is too important"

---

My son is an combat cameraman in the USMC reserves, having rolled off active duty almost a year ago as an NCO. If China invades Taiwan, he will be subject to recall. I.E. he will be proverbial cannon fodder.

The reason I keep pointing out the shallowness and foolishness of your policy recommendations is because I would prefer to keep my kids out of harm's way.

---

SIX STRAIGHT posts in a row.

You are the only person I have ever seen pull such a stunt on this message board and you do so regularly..

You are a lunatic.

Despise such ' keyboard warriors'.

Bored beyond measure with their unproductive lives and only get off playing 'general' .

---

how to say "I lost the argument" without saying "I lost the argument".....

I typically only read/post in the mornings while I'm drinking coffee. I reply to the discussions I'm engaged in, then close the laptop and get on with the day. try to keep it to an hour or less. No warpaint, just structure to avoid getting bogged down with pus-gutted old farts who get cranky when they run out of ideas.

---

You are so weird.

All you have got left in life is the fruitless attempt to 'win an argument' on a free internet message board.
LOL look in the mirror.

Try a few rounds of golf, do some hiking in the mountains or go white water rafting instead.
Very time consuming circular activities. Hiking in particular is just plain goofy. Without a shotgun and a dozen bird dogs it is a complete and utter waste of time.

In the process you might drop 40-50 pounds of fat and extend your life.
5'11, 195 at 63yoa with BP of 125-75. I avoid the TV and never, ever exercise. Just work on things that will outlast me.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

---

And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?

---

They're not launching missiles at the United States.

---

Do bases count?

---

Again, my point has to do with attacks on the territory of the US or Russia themselves. This is something that both powers have historically avoided. The fact we're even talking about crossing that line just shows how desperate and irrational our position in Ukraine is.

---

How? We've provided weapons to Ukraine in a war against Russia. Russia is arming and supplying its military from the positions in Russia just beyond Ukraines border. Is Crimea off limits too? The Black Sea? Sevastopol? I would agree with you if the intent is to strike population centers with no military purpose, but Russia is regularly launching missile attacks and doing resupplies from position in Russia. No reason Ukraine should be limited for that purpose. I think even Putin's ire was pointed at those saying to strike "deep into Russia". Would it be more palatable if we sold the weapons to Poland and supplied them? Because many of the weapons coming to them have US origins, particularly in parts, tech, etc.

The reason we're at this point unfortunately is Putin is forcing it in his conduct of the war. Perhaps some escalation will bring us back to some rationality.

---

The issue isn't whether the attacks have a military purpose. It's who participates in them and how much damage they can do. Ukraine has been attacking Belgorod with Czech-made rockets throughout the war. These are small, multiple-launch systems used for saturation attacks. There's no legitimate reason to fire them at population centers. Even if a military installation were nearby, they would have no way to target it accurately. One of the purposes of the Kharkiv offensive is to stop these attacks. But Russia hasn't retaliated against Czechia because it isn't directly involved.

The precision missiles we're talking about are different. They need reconnaissance from our satellites and targeting by Western personnel, either American or European. Giving them to Poland would make a difference to the extent that Russia would only retaliate against Poland. Of course the problem is that Poland is a NATO ally and there would be even more pressure for the US to get involved. Once the escalation starts, you don't know where it ends.

ETA: I should add that when I say Russia would limit its retaliation to Poland, I mean they wouldn't immediately attack US territory. I suspect American bases elsewhere in the world would be very much on the table.

---

Two questions. First, do you understand what missile types Russia is using?
Second, are you saying a mobilization in Russia resulting in a maneuver to take Kharkiv is a reason for Ukraine with allied weapons to not attack into Russia? I think you've got your cause and effect backwards.

And Ukraine is already utilizing our satellite comms for their war execution, including targeting.

---

No, it's certainly not a reason for Ukraine not to attack Russia. The question is whether the US should attack Russia by way of Ukraine.

I suppose Russia is using whatever it finds effective. The point is that they're not using it against us.

And yes, they are using our systems, but not against Russia proper.

---

The semantics of whose weapon is firing at who and where became moot when Russia sat back behind their border launching long range attacks and attempted a new ground invasion front from their border town fortifications. They strategically use their cheaper drones (long range Iranian Shaheds), and artillery positions in Russia, so I don't think anyone should be appalled that Ukraine would and should use all means available to disrupt supply lines and counter cross border offensive efforts.

---

You are completely missing the point. Russia and Ukraine are attacking each other because they're at war with each other. This is to be expected. But we're not Ukraine. If we get involved in our own right, it's no mere matter of semantics.

It's a false perception that escalation is somehow not escalation as long as we think it's justified. Another example of the danger in listening to too much of our own moralizing. The reality is that escalation is escalation, period. If we choose to get in the game, we really are in the game, believe it or not.

---

Weird take since we are in the game of providing weapons and support to Ukraine already, and would be continuing to do so. The fact our assistance would help them fight their war with Russia is only an escalation in the difficulty for Russia to win, not an expansion of the conflict. Russia made the decision to expand the front not Ukraine.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---

Of course not. But it's your position that Ukrainians didn't?

---

Donbas is in Ukraine!

---

Only because the Bolsheviks drew the border that way.

What about what the people in the actual region wanted?

[it was the Bolsheviks who emerged victorious in the struggle for power at the end of World War I, who had to solve the problem of the border between Russia and Ukraine. Drawing the boundaries of a new country within a previously centralized empire was no small problem, especially since the provinces that were to become Ukraine had not had any special status or autonomy in the tsarist empire. In the nineteenth century, the territory of today's Ukraine was divided into three general governments encompassing various provinces: the General Government of Kiev (northwest), the General Government of Little Russia (northeast), and the General Government of New Russia and Bessarabia (east and south). After the gradual liquidation of the general governments, this de facto subdivision into three regions persisted.

Based on this language-based data, the Central Rada drew up a list of provinces that were to be considered Ukrainian, which included Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Poltava, and Chernigov, but also the eastern and southern provinces of Kharkov, Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, and Taurida (without Crimea). Although the large cities were the centers of colonial domination and spoke Russian...

The idea of a Donets-Krivoi Rog republic, uniting eastern Ukraine and the industrialized part of the Don oblast, seemingly emerged among the Kharkov Bolsheviks under the influence of some militants coming from Rostov-on-Don after the conquest of this neighboring Russian region by anti-Bolshevik general Alexei..

The main question remains why, long after the defeat of the Ukrainian nationalists, the top Soviet authorities continued to support the conception of a "greater Ukraine" while ruling out any possibility of a Russian or independent Donbas. Wasn't the main mission of this project namely to combat the Ukrainian nationalists now complete?

As Terry Martin rightly points out, the Bolsheviks' strategy was "to assume leadership over what now appeared to be the inevitable process of decolonization." This is why, first in theory and then in practice, Lenin opted for a national principle in building the USSR. Each Soviet nation was thus to have its own territorially and administratively delimited "national home" a difficult plan to implement in a continental empire like Russia's. Indeed, the tsarist empire had a multiplicity of geographical areas, halfway between metropolitan and colonial status. Eastern Ukraine represented such a zone of hybridization: its urban centers, economically and culturally oriented toward Russia...]

https://jacobin.com/2022/03/bolshevik-soviet-republic-donbas-ukraine-national-question-lenin-putin-ussr

Not to mention that Crimea was not even transferred to Ukraine until the 1950s

[On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=The%20decree%20was%20first%20announced,SFSR%20to%20the%20Ukrainian%20SSR.

---

once you go down that road, you are going to be redrawing borders and creating wars all over the globe.

The borders are the borders unless everyone involved is in substantial agreement

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I keep checking back - has our $100B in donations to a ukrainian crime lords defeated Russia yet?

---

Every tank destroyed, arty round fired, etc....is one that cannot be used against our troops.

---

You always act like war with Russia is inevitable (and even desirable)

Instead of something to be avoided at all costs.

It would be a disaster that would make Iraq and Afghanistan look tame

---

He would have a different outlook if his daughter was actually on the front lines in actual danger of dying. But since his daughter is relatively safe, he's cool with the idea of sending YOUR son or YOUR daughter over there. If Biden ever tried to draft him? "Oh I have shin splints, oh I have chronic ingrown toenails, oh I have gastritis, oh I'm nearsighted, oh I'm too old to go, oh no but you go, my job over here is too important"

---

My son is an combat cameraman in the USMC reserves, having rolled off active duty almost a year ago as an NCO. If China invades Taiwan, he will be subject to recall. I.E. he will be proverbial cannon fodder.

The reason I keep pointing out the shallowness and foolishness of your policy recommendations is because I would prefer to keep my kids out of harm's way.

---

SIX STRAIGHT posts in a row.

You are the only person I have ever seen pull such a stunt on this message board and you do so regularly..

You are a lunatic.

Despise such ' keyboard warriors'.

Bored beyond measure with their unproductive lives and only get off playing 'general' .

---

how to say "I lost the argument" without saying "I lost the argument".....

I typically only read/post in the mornings while I'm drinking coffee. I reply to the discussions I'm engaged in, then close the laptop and get on with the day. try to keep it to an hour or less. No warpaint, just structure to avoid getting bogged down with pus-gutted old farts who get cranky when they run out of ideas.

---

You are so weird.

All you have got left in life is the fruitless attempt to 'win an argument' on a free internet message board.
LOL look in the mirror.

Try a few rounds of golf, do some hiking in the mountains or go white water rafting instead.
Very time consuming circular activities. Hiking in particular is just plain goofy. Without a shotgun and a dozen bird dogs it is a complete and utter waste of time.

In the process you might drop 40-50 pounds of fat and extend your life.
5'11, 195 at 63yoa with BP of 125-75. I avoid the TV and never, ever exercise. Just work on things that will outlast me.

---

---

69 in two weeks

5'10" 175 lbs

360 pushups and 600 set ups three times a week alternating with 2 days of hiking or an hour on the treadmill.

Travel whenever our rental properties and grandkids allow it.

Grateful beyond words to have survived and prospered up to now.

Give all the credit to half a dozen comrades and the best wife in the world.

whiterock said:

---

The borders are the borders unless everyone involved is in substantial agreement

---

The Serbians would like to discuss the matter of Kosovo with you.

FLBear5630 said:

---

What color is the sky in you f-ed up world? You can't honestly think this is kosher

---

This color.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Call me silly, I actually believe that. Unlike most government-americans.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Donbas is in Ukraine! It is their Nation to defend.

---

Donbas declared its independence from Ukraine.

No different from Texas declaring its independence from Mexico.

You either believe in the ideas of the Declaration of Independence or don't.

---

So, Texas says one day it is independent. US forces have no right to go in. Ft Hood, Ft Bliss just stand down.

To take it one step further to follow your logic, Mexican troops have more rights to be there because there are a lot of ethnic Mexicans in Texas.

---

1. Absolutely Texas should be able to declare its independence from the USA

It belongs to Texans...you know the people who actual live in an area should be able to have self determination.

"Whether the...people were justified in seceding has nothing to do with the fact or the right of secession. If a community is dissatisfied, from any cause or from none...they have the right-the inalienable right-to change them"-James Redpath (Abolitionist)

2. The perfidious Feds in DC already changed the name of Ft. Hood because of course we are going through a destructive and hateful cultural revolution in the modern USA

3. Because of the insane mass immigration policies of the Feds you might one day see Texas become part of Mexico (or some other Latin American nation)....its early in the century and demographics are destiny

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---

Of course not. But it's your position that Ukrainians didn't?

---

Donbas is in Ukraine!

---

Only because the Bolsheviks drew the border that way.

What about what the people in the actual region wanted?

[it was the Bolsheviks who emerged victorious in the struggle for power at the end of World War I, who had to solve the problem of the border between Russia and Ukraine. Drawing the boundaries of a new country within a previously centralized empire was no small problem, especially since the provinces that were to become Ukraine had not had any special status or autonomy in the tsarist empire. In the nineteenth century, the territory of today's Ukraine was divided into three general governments encompassing various provinces: the General Government of Kiev (northwest), the General Government of Little Russia (northeast), and the General Government of New Russia and Bessarabia (east and south). After the gradual liquidation of the general governments, this de facto subdivision into three regions persisted.

Based on this language-based data, the Central Rada drew up a list of provinces that were to be considered Ukrainian, which included Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Poltava, and Chernigov, but also the eastern and southern provinces of Kharkov, Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, and Taurida (without Crimea). Although the large cities were the centers of colonial domination and spoke Russian...

The idea of a Donets-Krivoi Rog republic, uniting eastern Ukraine and the industrialized part of the Don oblast, seemingly emerged among the Kharkov Bolsheviks under the influence of some militants coming from Rostov-on-Don after the conquest of this neighboring Russian region by anti-Bolshevik general Alexei..

The main question remains why, long after the defeat of the Ukrainian nationalists, the top Soviet authorities continued to support the conception of a "greater Ukraine" while ruling out any possibility of a Russian or independent Donbas. Wasn't the main mission of this project namely to combat the Ukrainian nationalists now complete?

As Terry Martin rightly points out, the Bolsheviks' strategy was "to assume leadership over what now appeared to be the inevitable process of decolonization." This is why, first in theory and then in practice, Lenin opted for a national principle in building the USSR. Each Soviet nation was thus to have its own territorially and administratively delimited "national home" a difficult plan to implement in a continental empire like Russia's. Indeed, the tsarist empire had a multiplicity of geographical areas, halfway between metropolitan and colonial status. Eastern Ukraine represented such a zone of hybridization: its urban centers, economically and culturally oriented toward Russia...]

https://jacobin.com/2022/03/bolshevik-soviet-republic-donbas-ukraine-national-question-lenin-putin-ussr

Not to mention that Crimea was not even transferred to Ukraine until the 1950s

[On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=The%20decree%20was%20first%20announced,SFSR%20to%20the%20Ukrainian%20SSR.

---

once you go down that road, you are going to be redrawing borders and creating wars all over the globe.

---

1. The borders of the countries of the world have always been changing and always will be.

2. That is rich coming from a partisan of the DC crowd....they have been redrawing borders all over the place since WWII.

Just since 1999 the USA has redraw the borders of Serbia (Kosovo), Sudan (South Sudan), and Indonesia (East Timor).

DC loves a secessionist movement as long as its not inside the borders of the USA and its not something that benefits Russia. lol

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

What color is the sky in you f-ed up world? You can't honestly think this is kosher

---

This color.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Call me silly, I actually believe that. Unlike most government-americans.

---

So, I guess this means nothing -

"Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787 one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances."

Abraham Lincoln

Call me silly, but we fought a war over this. The Union is perpetual.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

What color is the sky in you f-ed up world? You can't honestly think this is kosher

---

This color.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Call me silly, I actually believe that. Unlike most government-americans.

---

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances."

Abraham Lincoln

Call me silly, but we fought a war over this. The Union is perpetual.

---

Only because Lincoln and the Federal government would/will kill anyone trying to get out of it.

Not because its just or Constitutional

The Founding Fathers (the original secessionists) would have hated your views

"To coerce a State [to remain in the Federal union] would be one of the maddest projects ever devised." --Alexander Hamilton

"This Union must be a voluntary one, and not compulsory. A Union upheld by force would be despotism."
-William H. Seward

"The...States had rightfully the power to withdraw from the Union into which they had, as sovereign communities, voluntarily entered; that right was a violation of the letter and spirit of the compact between the States; and that war waged by the Federal Government against the seceding States was in disgrace of the limitations of the Constitution and destructive of the principles of the Declaration of Independence."

Lincoln's opinions run contrary to the ideas of the Declaration of Independence, and therefore can be disregarded...as can the ideas of all politicians whose statements run contrary to it. That Declaration was a watershed, and perhaps the single most important document about human governance ever crafted. Prior to it, there was no nation. After it (and the war necessary to enforce it) there was. It is our penultimate founding document. The Articles of Confederation and Constitution were merely the first two frameworks to give hands and feet to its ideas, and may not be the last.

Quote:

---

Call me silly, but we fought a war over this. The Union is perpetual.

---

Now there's a real advocate of representative self-governance.

Realitybites said:

---

Lincoln's opinions run contrary to the ideas of the Declaration of Independence, and therefore can be disregarded...as can the ideas of all politicians whose statements run contrary to it. That Declaration was a watershed, and perhaps the single most important document about human governance ever crafted. Prior to it, there was no nation. After it (and the war necessary to enforce it) there was. It is our penultimate founding document. The Articles of Confederation and Constitution were merely the first two frameworks to give hands and feet to its ideas, and may not be the last.

Quote:

---

Call me silly, but we fought a war over this. The Union is perpetual.

---

Now there's a real advocate of representative self-governance.

---

Lincoln's views and actions ran contrary to the US Constitution itself.

No where in that document is the Federal government given the right to invade a State and no where in that document is secession declared forbidden.

[In the course of the Constitutional Convention's debates, James Madison also came to admit that "the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice, and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually." He conceded that the "use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." He acknowledged that expressly providing for military coercion against delinquent states should be avoided in the Constitution, since using force in a union of states might prove self-destructive.] American Journal of Legal History, Volume 56, Issue 3, September 2016, Pages 326358,

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution lists everything states are forbidden from doing. Seceding isn't one of them.

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---

Of course not. But it's your position that Ukrainians didn't?

---

Donbas is in Ukraine!

---

Only because the Bolsheviks drew the border that way.

What about what the people in the actual region wanted?

[it was the Bolsheviks who emerged victorious in the struggle for power at the end of World War I, who had to solve the problem of the border between Russia and Ukraine. Drawing the boundaries of a new country within a previously centralized empire was no small problem, especially since the provinces that were to become Ukraine had not had any special status or autonomy in the tsarist empire. In the nineteenth century, the territory of today's Ukraine was divided into three general governments encompassing various provinces: the General Government of Kiev (northwest), the General Government of Little Russia (northeast), and the General Government of New Russia and Bessarabia (east and south). After the gradual liquidation of the general governments, this de facto subdivision into three regions persisted.

Based on this language-based data, the Central Rada drew up a list of provinces that were to be considered Ukrainian, which included Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Poltava, and Chernigov, but also the eastern and southern provinces of Kharkov, Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, and Taurida (without Crimea). Although the large cities were the centers of colonial domination and spoke Russian...

The idea of a Donets-Krivoi Rog republic, uniting eastern Ukraine and the industrialized part of the Don oblast, seemingly emerged among the Kharkov Bolsheviks under the influence of some militants coming from Rostov-on-Don after the conquest of this neighboring Russian region by anti-Bolshevik general Alexei..

The main question remains why, long after the defeat of the Ukrainian nationalists, the top Soviet authorities continued to support the conception of a "greater Ukraine" while ruling out any possibility of a Russian or independent Donbas. Wasn't the main mission of this project namely to combat the Ukrainian nationalists now complete?

As Terry Martin rightly points out, the Bolsheviks' strategy was "to assume leadership over what now appeared to be the inevitable process of decolonization." This is why, first in theory and then in practice, Lenin opted for a national principle in building the USSR. Each Soviet nation was thus to have its own territorially and administratively delimited "national home" a difficult plan to implement in a continental empire like Russia's. Indeed, the tsarist empire had a multiplicity of geographical areas, halfway between metropolitan and colonial status. Eastern Ukraine represented such a zone of hybridization: its urban centers, economically and culturally oriented toward Russia...]

https://jacobin.com/2022/03/bolshevik-soviet-republic-donbas-ukraine-national-question-lenin-putin-ussr

Not to mention that Crimea was not even transferred to Ukraine until the 1950s

[On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=The%20decree%20was%20first%20announced,SFSR%20to%20the%20Ukrainian%20SSR.

---

once you go down that road, you are going to be redrawing borders and creating wars all over the globe.

---

1. The borders of the countries of the world have always been changing and always will be.

2. That is rich coming from a partisan of the DC crowd....they have been redrawing borders all over the place since WWII.

Just since 1999 the USA has redraw the borders of Serbia (Kosovo), Sudan (South Sudan), and Indonesia (East Timor).

DC loves a secessionist movement as long as its not inside the borders of the USA and its not something that benefits Russia. lol

---

USA? I think you have that wrong. Russia wanted the new borders. The Trump Administration caught heat for allowing it. It was not the US or Britain's idea. The new Border is your buddy Russia's doing. So, I am sure it was warranted and totally correct.

So, funny list, the US just did all this? None of these were US actions. The Us does not have the authority to create borders. Various Presidents may have supported or been against proposals, but to say the US re-wrote the Borders is disingenuous.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Lincoln's opinions run contrary to the ideas of the Declaration of Independence, and therefore can be disregarded...as can the ideas of all politicians whose statements run contrary to it. That Declaration was a watershed, and perhaps the single most important document about human governance ever crafted. Prior to it, there was no nation. After it (and the war necessary to enforce it) there was. It is our penultimate founding document. The Articles of Confederation and Constitution were merely the first two frameworks to give hands and feet to its ideas, and may not be the last.

Quote:

---

Call me silly, but we fought a war over this. The Union is perpetual.

---

Now there's a real advocate of representative self-governance.

---

Lincoln's views and actions ran contrary to the US Constitution itself.

No where in that document is the Federal government given the right to invade a State and no where in that document is secession declared forbidden.

[In the course of the Constitutional Convention's debates, James Madison also came to admit that "the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice, and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually." He conceded that the "use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." He acknowledged that expressly providing for military coercion against delinquent states should be avoided in the Constitution, since using force in a union of states might prove self-destructive.] American Journal of Legal History, Volume 56, Issue 3, September 2016, Pages 326358,

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution lists everything states are forbidden from doing. Seceding isn't one of them.

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

---

Thank God you guys are the fringe. The US would have come together, broke apart by now. The US would be the equivalent to Africa, constantly changing borders and Nations. That is a recipe for safe, prosperous world.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---

Of course not. But it's your position that Ukrainians didn't?

---

Donbas is in Ukraine!

---

Only because the Bolsheviks drew the border that way.

What about what the people in the actual region wanted?

[it was the Bolsheviks who emerged victorious in the struggle for power at the end of World War I, who had to solve the problem of the border between Russia and Ukraine. Drawing the boundaries of a new country within a previously centralized empire was no small problem, especially since the provinces that were to become Ukraine had not had any special status or autonomy in the tsarist empire. In the nineteenth century, the territory of today's Ukraine was divided into three general governments encompassing various provinces: the General Government of Kiev (northwest), the General Government of Little Russia (northeast), and the General Government of New Russia and Bessarabia (east and south). After the gradual liquidation of the general governments, this de facto subdivision into three regions persisted.

Based on this language-based data, the Central Rada drew up a list of provinces that were to be considered Ukrainian, which included Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Poltava, and Chernigov, but also the eastern and southern provinces of Kharkov, Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, and Taurida (without Crimea). Although the large cities were the centers of colonial domination and spoke Russian...

The idea of a Donets-Krivoi Rog republic, uniting eastern Ukraine and the industrialized part of the Don oblast, seemingly emerged among the Kharkov Bolsheviks under the influence of some militants coming from Rostov-on-Don after the conquest of this neighboring Russian region by anti-Bolshevik general Alexei..

The main question remains why, long after the defeat of the Ukrainian nationalists, the top Soviet authorities continued to support the conception of a "greater Ukraine" while ruling out any possibility of a Russian or independent Donbas. Wasn't the main mission of this project namely to combat the Ukrainian nationalists now complete?

As Terry Martin rightly points out, the Bolsheviks' strategy was "to assume leadership over what now appeared to be the inevitable process of decolonization." This is why, first in theory and then in practice, Lenin opted for a national principle in building the USSR. Each Soviet nation was thus to have its own territorially and administratively delimited "national home" a difficult plan to implement in a continental empire like Russia's. Indeed, the tsarist empire had a multiplicity of geographical areas, halfway between metropolitan and colonial status. Eastern Ukraine represented such a zone of hybridization: its urban centers, economically and culturally oriented toward Russia...]

https://jacobin.com/2022/03/bolshevik-soviet-republic-donbas-ukraine-national-question-lenin-putin-ussr

Not to mention that Crimea was not even transferred to Ukraine until the 1950s

[On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=The%20decree%20was%20first%20announced,SFSR%20to%20the%20Ukrainian%20SSR.

---

once you go down that road, you are going to be redrawing borders and creating wars all over the globe.

---

1. The borders of the countries of the world have always been changing and always will be.

2. That is rich coming from a partisan of the DC crowd....they have been redrawing borders all over the place since WWII.

Just since 1999 the USA has redraw the borders of Serbia (Kosovo), Sudan (South Sudan), and Indonesia (East Timor).

DC loves a secessionist movement as long as its not inside the borders of the USA and its not something that benefits Russia. lol

---

So, funny list, the US just did all this? None of these were US actions. The Us does not have the authority to create borders. Various Presidents may have supported or been against proposals, but to say the US re-wrote the Borders is disingenuous.

---

DC was instrumental in Kosovo, South Sudan, and East Timor

(for good or bad reasons)

They supported those secessionist movements and supported the redrawing of borders in those cases.

[The United States also provided assistance that was essential to hold the January 2011 referendum on self-determination for southern Sudan. South Sudan became an independent nation on July 9, 2011.]

https://www.usaid.gov/south-sudan/history#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20also%20provided,nation%20on%20July%209%2C%20201

Same goes for Kosovo

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-us-broke-kosovo-and-what-that-means-for-ukraine/

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Lincoln's opinions run contrary to the ideas of the Declaration of Independence, and therefore can be disregarded...as can the ideas of all politicians whose statements run contrary to it. That Declaration was a watershed, and perhaps the single most important document about human governance ever crafted. Prior to it, there was no nation. After it (and the war necessary to enforce it) there was. It is our penultimate founding document. The Articles of Confederation and Constitution were merely the first two frameworks to give hands and feet to its ideas, and may not be the last.

Quote:

---

Call me silly, but we fought a war over this. The Union is perpetual.

---

Now there's a real advocate of representative self-governance.

---

Lincoln's views and actions ran contrary to the US Constitution itself.

No where in that document is the Federal government given the right to invade a State and no where in that document is secession declared forbidden.

[In the course of the Constitutional Convention's debates, James Madison also came to admit that "the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice, and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually." He conceded that the "use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." He acknowledged that expressly providing for military coercion against delinquent states should be avoided in the Constitution, since using force in a union of states might prove self-destructive.] American Journal of Legal History, Volume 56, Issue 3, September 2016, Pages 326358,

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution lists everything states are forbidden from doing. Seceding isn't one of them.

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

---

Thank God you guys are the fringe. The US would have come together, broke apart by now. The US would be the equivalent to Africa, constantly changing borders and Nations.

---

Yea thank God no one in the USA had a right to self determination right...its just a big Federal Empire that will kill you if you try and get out...so great.

You think that was what the Founding Fathers intended when they broke off from the British Empire?

Not to mention its a fools errand anyway in the long run...you can't keep a large empire together forever...even by force.

Human history has shown us that...every large Empire in history eventually breaks up

Somehow and someway freedom always breaks out....even if you dislike that.

"The consolidation of these states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it."

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---

Of course not. But it's your position that Ukrainians didn't?

---

Donbas is in Ukraine!

---

Only because the Bolsheviks drew the border that way.

What about what the people in the actual region wanted?

[it was the Bolsheviks who emerged victorious in the struggle for power at the end of World War I, who had to solve the problem of the border between Russia and Ukraine. Drawing the boundaries of a new country within a previously centralized empire was no small problem, especially since the provinces that were to become Ukraine had not had any special status or autonomy in the tsarist empire. In the nineteenth century, the territory of today's Ukraine was divided into three general governments encompassing various provinces: the General Government of Kiev (northwest), the General Government of Little Russia (northeast), and the General Government of New Russia and Bessarabia (east and south). After the gradual liquidation of the general governments, this de facto subdivision into three regions persisted.

Based on this language-based data, the Central Rada drew up a list of provinces that were to be considered Ukrainian, which included Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Poltava, and Chernigov, but also the eastern and southern provinces of Kharkov, Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, and Taurida (without Crimea). Although the large cities were the centers of colonial domination and spoke Russian...

The idea of a Donets-Krivoi Rog republic, uniting eastern Ukraine and the industrialized part of the Don oblast, seemingly emerged among the Kharkov Bolsheviks under the influence of some militants coming from Rostov-on-Don after the conquest of this neighboring Russian region by anti-Bolshevik general Alexei..

The main question remains why, long after the defeat of the Ukrainian nationalists, the top Soviet authorities continued to support the conception of a "greater Ukraine" while ruling out any possibility of a Russian or independent Donbas. Wasn't the main mission of this project namely to combat the Ukrainian nationalists now complete?

As Terry Martin rightly points out, the Bolsheviks' strategy was "to assume leadership over what now appeared to be the inevitable process of decolonization." This is why, first in theory and then in practice, Lenin opted for a national principle in building the USSR. Each Soviet nation was thus to have its own territorially and administratively delimited "national home" a difficult plan to implement in a continental empire like Russia's. Indeed, the tsarist empire had a multiplicity of geographical areas, halfway between metropolitan and colonial status. Eastern Ukraine represented such a zone of hybridization: its urban centers, economically and culturally oriented toward Russia...]

https://jacobin.com/2022/03/bolshevik-soviet-republic-donbas-ukraine-national-question-lenin-putin-ussr

Not to mention that Crimea was not even transferred to Ukraine until the 1950s

[On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=The%20decree%20was%20first%20announced,SFSR%20to%20the%20Ukrainian%20SSR.

---

once you go down that road, you are going to be redrawing borders and creating wars all over the globe.

---

1. The borders of the countries of the world have always been changing and always will be.

2. That is rich coming from a partisan of the DC crowd....they have been redrawing borders all over the place since WWII.

Just since 1999 the USA has redraw the borders of Serbia (Kosovo), Sudan (South Sudan), and Indonesia (East Timor).

DC loves a secessionist movement as long as its not inside the borders of the USA and its not something that benefits Russia. lol

---

So, funny list, the US just did all this? None of these were US actions. The Us does not have the authority to create borders. Various Presidents may have supported or been against proposals, but to say the US re-wrote the Borders is disingenuous.

---

DC was instrumental in Kosovo, South Sudan, and East Timor

(for good or bad reasons)

They supported those secessionist movements and supported the redrawing of borders in those cases.

[The United States also provided assistance that was essential to hold the January 2011 referendum on self-determination for southern Sudan. South Sudan became an independent nation on July 9, 2011.]

https://www.usaid.gov/south-sudan/history#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20also%20provided,nation%20on%20July%209%2C%20201

Same goes for Kosovo

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-us-broke-kosovo-and-what-that-means-for-ukraine/

---

So were 50 other Nations! You seem to love to pick the US out of the list of Nations involved in a situation and leave out everyone else. Britain, Russia, and a host of Nations were involved in those situations. Russia played a bigger role in the Kosovo-Serbia swap than the US. Australia was much more involved in Timor. Sudan is a UN issue. Yet, it is all DC... I know DC really calls the shots, wink, wink...

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Lincoln's opinions run contrary to the ideas of the Declaration of Independence, and therefore can be disregarded...as can the ideas of all politicians whose statements run contrary to it. That Declaration was a watershed, and perhaps the single most important document about human governance ever crafted. Prior to it, there was no nation. After it (and the war necessary to enforce it) there was. It is our penultimate founding document. The Articles of Confederation and Constitution were merely the first two frameworks to give hands and feet to its ideas, and may not be the last.

Quote:

---

Call me silly, but we fought a war over this. The Union is perpetual.

---

Now there's a real advocate of representative self-governance.

---

Lincoln's views and actions ran contrary to the US Constitution itself.

No where in that document is the Federal government given the right to invade a State and no where in that document is secession declared forbidden.

[In the course of the Constitutional Convention's debates, James Madison also came to admit that "the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice, and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually." He conceded that the "use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." He acknowledged that expressly providing for military coercion against delinquent states should be avoided in the Constitution, since using force in a union of states might prove self-destructive.] American Journal of Legal History, Volume 56, Issue 3, September 2016, Pages 326358,

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution lists everything states are forbidden from doing. Seceding isn't one of them.

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

---

Thank God you guys are the fringe. The US would have come together, broke apart by now. The US would be the equivalent to Africa, constantly changing borders and Nations.

---

Yea thank God no one in the USA had a right to self determination right...its just a big Federal Empire that will kill you if you try and get out...so great.

You think that was what the Founding Fathers intended when they broke off from the British Empire?

Not to mention its a fools errand anyway in the long run...you can't keep a large empire together forever...even by force.

Human history has shown us that...every large Empire in history eventually breaks up

Somehow and someway freedom always breaks out....even if you dislike that.

"The consolidation of these states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it."

---

We are now on to Human History???

You are quoting Robert E Lee to support your position???? Jefferson and Lee. You do know that Jefferson was ONE of the founding fathers, the others did not agree with him, hence the Federalist Papers.

Funny, your hero did the most to create that "vast empire" of any President buy simply BUYING land, people and resources. So, enlightened...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Lincoln's opinions run contrary to the ideas of the Declaration of Independence, and therefore can be disregarded...as can the ideas of all politicians whose statements run contrary to it. That Declaration was a watershed, and perhaps the single most important document about human governance ever crafted. Prior to it, there was no nation. After it (and the war necessary to enforce it) there was. It is our penultimate founding document. The Articles of Confederation and Constitution were merely the first two frameworks to give hands and feet to its ideas, and may not be the last.

Quote:

---

Call me silly, but we fought a war over this. The Union is perpetual.

---

Now there's a real advocate of representative self-governance.

---

Lincoln's views and actions ran contrary to the US Constitution itself.

No where in that document is the Federal government given the right to invade a State and no where in that document is secession declared forbidden.

[In the course of the Constitutional Convention's debates, James Madison also came to admit that "the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice, and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually." He conceded that the "use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." He acknowledged that expressly providing for military coercion against delinquent states should be avoided in the Constitution, since using force in a union of states might prove self-destructive.] American Journal of Legal History, Volume 56, Issue 3, September 2016, Pages 326358,

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution lists everything states are forbidden from doing. Seceding isn't one of them.

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

---

Thank God you guys are the fringe. The US would have come together, broke apart by now. The US would be the equivalent to Africa, constantly changing borders and Nations.

---

Yea thank God no one in the USA had a right to self determination right...its just a big Federal Empire that will kill you if you try and get out...so great.

You think that was what the Founding Fathers intended when they broke off from the British Empire?

Not to mention its a fools errand anyway in the long run...you can't keep a large empire together forever...even by force.

Human history has shown us that...every large Empire in history eventually breaks up

Somehow and someway freedom always breaks out....even if you dislike that.

"The consolidation of these states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it."

---

We are now on to Human History???

You are quoting Robert E Lee to support your position????

---

Lee was a great man and could see far.

You still have not explained how secession is forbidden by the Constitution (it isn't)

Or how vast and large "Empires" don't eventually break up.

You can't just command "we can't break up" and make it so...that is not how history works.

I think you know in your heart that the USA is no more a permanent thing than was the Roman Empire.

Its not going to last forever...and certainly not if it becomes aggressive abroad and despotic at home.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---

Of course not. But it's your position that Ukrainians didn't?

---

Donbas is in Ukraine!

---

Only because the Bolsheviks drew the border that way.

What about what the people in the actual region wanted?

[it was the Bolsheviks who emerged victorious in the struggle for power at the end of World War I, who had to solve the problem of the border between Russia and Ukraine. Drawing the boundaries of a new country within a previously centralized empire was no small problem, especially since the provinces that were to become Ukraine had not had any special status or autonomy in the tsarist empire. In the nineteenth century, the territory of today's Ukraine was divided into three general governments encompassing various provinces: the General Government of Kiev (northwest), the General Government of Little Russia (northeast), and the General Government of New Russia and Bessarabia (east and south). After the gradual liquidation of the general governments, this de facto subdivision into three regions persisted.

Based on this language-based data, the Central Rada drew up a list of provinces that were to be considered Ukrainian, which included Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Poltava, and Chernigov, but also the eastern and southern provinces of Kharkov, Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, and Taurida (without Crimea). Although the large cities were the centers of colonial domination and spoke Russian...

The idea of a Donets-Krivoi Rog republic, uniting eastern Ukraine and the industrialized part of the Don oblast, seemingly emerged among the Kharkov Bolsheviks under the influence of some militants coming from Rostov-on-Don after the conquest of this neighboring Russian region by anti-Bolshevik general Alexei..

The main question remains why, long after the defeat of the Ukrainian nationalists, the top Soviet authorities continued to support the conception of a "greater Ukraine" while ruling out any possibility of a Russian or independent Donbas. Wasn't the main mission of this project namely to combat the Ukrainian nationalists now complete?

As Terry Martin rightly points out, the Bolsheviks' strategy was "to assume leadership over what now appeared to be the inevitable process of decolonization." This is why, first in theory and then in practice, Lenin opted for a national principle in building the USSR. Each Soviet nation was thus to have its own territorially and administratively delimited "national home" a difficult plan to implement in a continental empire like Russia's. Indeed, the tsarist empire had a multiplicity of geographical areas, halfway between metropolitan and colonial status. Eastern Ukraine represented such a zone of hybridization: its urban centers, economically and culturally oriented toward Russia...]

https://jacobin.com/2022/03/bolshevik-soviet-republic-donbas-ukraine-national-question-lenin-putin-ussr

Not to mention that Crimea was not even transferred to Ukraine until the 1950s

[On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=The%20decree%20was%20first%20announced,SFSR%20to%20the%20Ukrainian%20SSR.

---

once you go down that road, you are going to be redrawing borders and creating wars all over the globe.

---

1. The borders of the countries of the world have always been changing and always will be.

2. That is rich coming from a partisan of the DC crowd....they have been redrawing borders all over the place since WWII.

Just since 1999 the USA has redraw the borders of Serbia (Kosovo), Sudan (South Sudan), and Indonesia (East Timor).

DC loves a secessionist movement as long as its not inside the borders of the USA and its not something that benefits Russia. lol

---

So, funny list, the US just did all this? None of these were US actions. The Us does not have the authority to create borders. Various Presidents may have supported or been against proposals, but to say the US re-wrote the Borders is disingenuous.

---

DC was instrumental in Kosovo, South Sudan, and East Timor

(for good or bad reasons)

They supported those secessionist movements and supported the redrawing of borders in those cases.

[The United States also provided assistance that was essential to hold the January 2011 referendum on self-determination for southern Sudan. South Sudan became an independent nation on July 9, 2011.]

https://www.usaid.gov/south-sudan/history#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20also%20provided,nation%20on%20July%209%2C%20201

Same goes for Kosovo

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-us-broke-kosovo-and-what-that-means-for-ukraine/

---

So were 50 other Nations! You seem to love to pick the US out of the list of Nations involved in a situation and leave out everyone else.

---

You know well that these events don't take place without DC leadership.

A good example is about 48 nations joined on to the Invasion of Iraq

Yet none of them would have if the USA had not led the invasion and pushed for them to join in the first place.

It was a DC led and pushed invasion from the get go.

You know that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---

Of course not. But it's your position that Ukrainians didn't?

---

Donbas is in Ukraine!

---

Only because the Bolsheviks drew the border that way.

What about what the people in the actual region wanted?

[it was the Bolsheviks who emerged victorious in the struggle for power at the end of World War I, who had to solve the problem of the border between Russia and Ukraine. Drawing the boundaries of a new country within a previously centralized empire was no small problem, especially since the provinces that were to become Ukraine had not had any special status or autonomy in the tsarist empire. In the nineteenth century, the territory of today's Ukraine was divided into three general governments encompassing various provinces: the General Government of Kiev (northwest), the General Government of Little Russia (northeast), and the General Government of New Russia and Bessarabia (east and south). After the gradual liquidation of the general governments, this de facto subdivision into three regions persisted.

Based on this language-based data, the Central Rada drew up a list of provinces that were to be considered Ukrainian, which included Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Poltava, and Chernigov, but also the eastern and southern provinces of Kharkov, Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, and Taurida (without Crimea). Although the large cities were the centers of colonial domination and spoke Russian...

The idea of a Donets-Krivoi Rog republic, uniting eastern Ukraine and the industrialized part of the Don oblast, seemingly emerged among the Kharkov Bolsheviks under the influence of some militants coming from Rostov-on-Don after the conquest of this neighboring Russian region by anti-Bolshevik general Alexei..

The main question remains why, long after the defeat of the Ukrainian nationalists, the top Soviet authorities continued to support the conception of a "greater Ukraine" while ruling out any possibility of a Russian or independent Donbas. Wasn't the main mission of this project namely to combat the Ukrainian nationalists now complete?

As Terry Martin rightly points out, the Bolsheviks' strategy was "to assume leadership over what now appeared to be the inevitable process of decolonization." This is why, first in theory and then in practice, Lenin opted for a national principle in building the USSR. Each Soviet nation was thus to have its own territorially and administratively delimited "national home" a difficult plan to implement in a continental empire like Russia's. Indeed, the tsarist empire had a multiplicity of geographical areas, halfway between metropolitan and colonial status. Eastern Ukraine represented such a zone of hybridization: its urban centers, economically and culturally oriented toward Russia...]

https://jacobin.com/2022/03/bolshevik-soviet-republic-donbas-ukraine-national-question-lenin-putin-ussr

Not to mention that Crimea was not even transferred to Ukraine until the 1950s

[On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=The%20decree%20was%20first%20announced,SFSR%20to%20the%20Ukrainian%20SSR.

---

once you go down that road, you are going to be redrawing borders and creating wars all over the globe.

---

1. The borders of the countries of the world have always been changing and always will be.

2. That is rich coming from a partisan of the DC crowd....they have been redrawing borders all over the place since WWII.

Just since 1999 the USA has redraw the borders of Serbia (Kosovo), Sudan (South Sudan), and Indonesia (East Timor).

DC loves a secessionist movement as long as its not inside the borders of the USA and its not something that benefits Russia. lol

---

So, funny list, the US just did all this? None of these were US actions. The Us does not have the authority to create borders. Various Presidents may have supported or been against proposals, but to say the US re-wrote the Borders is disingenuous.

---

DC was instrumental in Kosovo, South Sudan, and East Timor

(for good or bad reasons)

They supported those secessionist movements and supported the redrawing of borders in those cases.

[The United States also provided assistance that was essential to hold the January 2011 referendum on self-determination for southern Sudan. South Sudan became an independent nation on July 9, 2011.]

https://www.usaid.gov/south-sudan/history#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20also%20provided,nation%20on%20July%209%2C%20201

Same goes for Kosovo

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-us-broke-kosovo-and-what-that-means-for-ukraine/

---

So were 50 other Nations! You seem to love to pick the US out of the list of Nations involved in a situation and leave out everyone else.

---

You know well that these events don't take place without DC leadership.

A good example is about 48 nations joined on to the Invasion of Iraq

Yet none of them would have if the USA had not led the invasion and pushed for them to join in the first place.

It was a DC led and pushed invasion from the get go.

You know that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)

---

"You know well"

This is the basis of every thread you go on. We are supposed to know that there is some great conspiracy going on and what you really see is not "real." If we listen to you, we will be enlightened in what is "real".


Lincoln's first Inaugural Address and Supreme Court rulings spell out why the Union is perpetual. The war was fought, your Great Man lost. Issue done.

No Nation on earth operates under your illusion of what our Constitution says, that anyone can come and go at any time based on whoever occupies that space at that time wants. That is an insane way to function as a Nation.

As for no large entity can remain together. I agree, I will use the Roman Republic/Empire. Combined 1482 years. We can talk then about how bad large Nations survive.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---

Of course not. But it's your position that Ukrainians didn't?

---

Donbas is in Ukraine!

---

Only because the Bolsheviks drew the border that way.

What about what the people in the actual region wanted?

[it was the Bolsheviks who emerged victorious in the struggle for power at the end of World War I, who had to solve the problem of the border between Russia and Ukraine. Drawing the boundaries of a new country within a previously centralized empire was no small problem, especially since the provinces that were to become Ukraine had not had any special status or autonomy in the tsarist empire. In the nineteenth century, the territory of today's Ukraine was divided into three general governments encompassing various provinces: the General Government of Kiev (northwest), the General Government of Little Russia (northeast), and the General Government of New Russia and Bessarabia (east and south). After the gradual liquidation of the general governments, this de facto subdivision into three regions persisted.

Based on this language-based data, the Central Rada drew up a list of provinces that were to be considered Ukrainian, which included Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Poltava, and Chernigov, but also the eastern and southern provinces of Kharkov, Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, and Taurida (without Crimea). Although the large cities were the centers of colonial domination and spoke Russian...

The idea of a Donets-Krivoi Rog republic, uniting eastern Ukraine and the industrialized part of the Don oblast, seemingly emerged among the Kharkov Bolsheviks under the influence of some militants coming from Rostov-on-Don after the conquest of this neighboring Russian region by anti-Bolshevik general Alexei..

The main question remains why, long after the defeat of the Ukrainian nationalists, the top Soviet authorities continued to support the conception of a "greater Ukraine" while ruling out any possibility of a Russian or independent Donbas. Wasn't the main mission of this project namely to combat the Ukrainian nationalists now complete?

As Terry Martin rightly points out, the Bolsheviks' strategy was "to assume leadership over what now appeared to be the inevitable process of decolonization." This is why, first in theory and then in practice, Lenin opted for a national principle in building the USSR. Each Soviet nation was thus to have its own territorially and administratively delimited "national home" a difficult plan to implement in a continental empire like Russia's. Indeed, the tsarist empire had a multiplicity of geographical areas, halfway between metropolitan and colonial status. Eastern Ukraine represented such a zone of hybridization: its urban centers, economically and culturally oriented toward Russia...]

https://jacobin.com/2022/03/bolshevik-soviet-republic-donbas-ukraine-national-question-lenin-putin-ussr

Not to mention that Crimea was not even transferred to Ukraine until the 1950s

[On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=The%20decree%20was%20first%20announced,SFSR%20to%20the%20Ukrainian%20SSR.

---

once you go down that road, you are going to be redrawing borders and creating wars all over the globe.

---

1. The borders of the countries of the world have always been changing and always will be.

2. That is rich coming from a partisan of the DC crowd....they have been redrawing borders all over the place since WWII.

Just since 1999 the USA has redraw the borders of Serbia (Kosovo), Sudan (South Sudan), and Indonesia (East Timor).

DC loves a secessionist movement as long as its not inside the borders of the USA and its not something that benefits Russia. lol

---

So, funny list, the US just did all this? None of these were US actions. The Us does not have the authority to create borders. Various Presidents may have supported or been against proposals, but to say the US re-wrote the Borders is disingenuous.

---

DC was instrumental in Kosovo, South Sudan, and East Timor

(for good or bad reasons)

They supported those secessionist movements and supported the redrawing of borders in those cases.

[The United States also provided assistance that was essential to hold the January 2011 referendum on self-determination for southern Sudan. South Sudan became an independent nation on July 9, 2011.]

https://www.usaid.gov/south-sudan/history#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20also%20provided,nation%20on%20July%209%2C%20201

Same goes for Kosovo

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-us-broke-kosovo-and-what-that-means-for-ukraine/

---

So were 50 other Nations! You seem to love to pick the US out of the list of Nations involved in a situation and leave out everyone else.

---

You know well that these events don't take place without DC leadership.

A good example is about 48 nations joined on to the Invasion of Iraq

Yet none of them would have if the USA had not led the invasion and pushed for them to join in the first place.

It was a DC led and pushed invasion from the get go.

You know that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)

---

"You know well"

This is the basis of every thread you go on. We are supposed to know that there is some great conspiracy going on and what you really see is not "real."

As for no large entity can remain together. I agree, I will use the Roman Republic/Empire. Combined 1482 years.

---

1. lol "conspiracy"....what are you talking about?

Events like the invasion of Iraq or the secession of South Sudan do NOT take place without DC leadership.

DC admits it....I have the quote and link from the US GOVERNMENT itself!

[The United States also provided assistance that was essential to hold the January 2011 referendum on self-determination for southern Sudan. South Sudan became an independent nation on July 9, 2011.]

https://www.usaid.gov/south-sudan/history#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20also%20provided,nation%20on%20July%209%2C%20201


2. And it is simply well know historic FACT that no large empire/State endures forever

It just does not happen.

Name one empire or great state from history that is still with us in its exact same boundaries?

At least you admit that you can't because no such empire/state exists.

Proven through the example of Rome when it went through major changes in government and borders during its history. By the time the last Eastern Roman empire collapsed-aka Byzantine Empire- (Constantinople fell in 1453 AD) the Western Half of the empire had seceded from it for over 1,000 years (476 AD)

At one point there were even 3 separate Roman Empires created via secession....[By 268, the Empire had split into three competing states: the Gallic Empire, including the Roman provinces of Gaul, Britannia, and (briefly) Hispania; the Palmyrene Empire, including the eastern provinces of Syria Palaestina and Aegyptus; and the Italian-centered and independent Roman Empire proper

I'm sure until the very end the Roman Emperors were screaming about how no one had a right to leave the Empire... all while it disintegrated around them.

If the powers that be in DC buck this historic trend they will be the first great power/empire in history to ever do it.


ps

You still have not explained why such great states should be held together by violence or where in the US Constitution the Federal government is empowered to make war on its constituent States for the crime of declaring independence

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---

Of course not. But it's your position that Ukrainians didn't?

---

Donbas is in Ukraine!

---

Only because the Bolsheviks drew the border that way.

What about what the people in the actual region wanted?

[it was the Bolsheviks who emerged victorious in the struggle for power at the end of World War I, who had to solve the problem of the border between Russia and Ukraine. Drawing the boundaries of a new country within a previously centralized empire was no small problem, especially since the provinces that were to become Ukraine had not had any special status or autonomy in the tsarist empire. In the nineteenth century, the territory of today's Ukraine was divided into three general governments encompassing various provinces: the General Government of Kiev (northwest), the General Government of Little Russia (northeast), and the General Government of New Russia and Bessarabia (east and south). After the gradual liquidation of the general governments, this de facto subdivision into three regions persisted.

Based on this language-based data, the Central Rada drew up a list of provinces that were to be considered Ukrainian, which included Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Poltava, and Chernigov, but also the eastern and southern provinces of Kharkov, Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, and Taurida (without Crimea). Although the large cities were the centers of colonial domination and spoke Russian...

The idea of a Donets-Krivoi Rog republic, uniting eastern Ukraine and the industrialized part of the Don oblast, seemingly emerged among the Kharkov Bolsheviks under the influence of some militants coming from Rostov-on-Don after the conquest of this neighboring Russian region by anti-Bolshevik general Alexei..

The main question remains why, long after the defeat of the Ukrainian nationalists, the top Soviet authorities continued to support the conception of a "greater Ukraine" while ruling out any possibility of a Russian or independent Donbas. Wasn't the main mission of this project namely to combat the Ukrainian nationalists now complete?

As Terry Martin rightly points out, the Bolsheviks' strategy was "to assume leadership over what now appeared to be the inevitable process of decolonization." This is why, first in theory and then in practice, Lenin opted for a national principle in building the USSR. Each Soviet nation was thus to have its own territorially and administratively delimited "national home" a difficult plan to implement in a continental empire like Russia's. Indeed, the tsarist empire had a multiplicity of geographical areas, halfway between metropolitan and colonial status. Eastern Ukraine represented such a zone of hybridization: its urban centers, economically and culturally oriented toward Russia...]

https://jacobin.com/2022/03/bolshevik-soviet-republic-donbas-ukraine-national-question-lenin-putin-ussr

Not to mention that Crimea was not even transferred to Ukraine until the 1950s

[On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=The%20decree%20was%20first%20announced,SFSR%20to%20the%20Ukrainian%20SSR.

---

once you go down that road, you are going to be redrawing borders and creating wars all over the globe.

---

1. The borders of the countries of the world have always been changing and always will be.

2. That is rich coming from a partisan of the DC crowd....they have been redrawing borders all over the place since WWII.

Just since 1999 the USA has redraw the borders of Serbia (Kosovo), Sudan (South Sudan), and Indonesia (East Timor).

DC loves a secessionist movement as long as its not inside the borders of the USA and its not something that benefits Russia. lol

---

So, funny list, the US just did all this? None of these were US actions. The Us does not have the authority to create borders. Various Presidents may have supported or been against proposals, but to say the US re-wrote the Borders is disingenuous.

---

DC was instrumental in Kosovo, South Sudan, and East Timor

(for good or bad reasons)

They supported those secessionist movements and supported the redrawing of borders in those cases.

[The United States also provided assistance that was essential to hold the January 2011 referendum on self-determination for southern Sudan. South Sudan became an independent nation on July 9, 2011.]

https://www.usaid.gov/south-sudan/history#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20also%20provided,nation%20on%20July%209%2C%20201

Same goes for Kosovo

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-us-broke-kosovo-and-what-that-means-for-ukraine/

---

So were 50 other Nations! You seem to love to pick the US out of the list of Nations involved in a situation and leave out everyone else.

---

You know well that these events don't take place without DC leadership.

A good example is about 48 nations joined on to the Invasion of Iraq

Yet none of them would have if the USA had not led the invasion and pushed for them to join in the first place.

It was a DC led and pushed invasion from the get go.

You know that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)

---

Lincoln's first Inaugural Address and Supreme Court rulings spell out why the Union is perpetual. The war was fought, your Great Man lost. Issue done.

---

The USA is only "perpetual" (actually a common term used in treaties during the 1700s. It meant there was no planned termination date, but as a practical matter the sovereign signatories could of course end the agreement) because the central government is willing to use overwhelming force to keep it together.

That is not Constitutional...and I'm not sure why you think its moral

"It is a common maxim of law, that every right has a means of enforcement; & every wrong a remedy. By this rule the right of secession is undoubted. The Constitution provides no means of coercing a state in the Union; nor any punishment for secession."-Kenosha Democrat 1/11/1861

[A coerced Union, one in which states were forcibly restrained from secession, would change the nature of government from "a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves"]

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---

Of course not. But it's your position that Ukrainians didn't?

---

Donbas is in Ukraine!

---

Only because the Bolsheviks drew the border that way.

What about what the people in the actual region wanted?

[it was the Bolsheviks who emerged victorious in the struggle for power at the end of World War I, who had to solve the problem of the border between Russia and Ukraine. Drawing the boundaries of a new country within a previously centralized empire was no small problem, especially since the provinces that were to become Ukraine had not had any special status or autonomy in the tsarist empire. In the nineteenth century, the territory of today's Ukraine was divided into three general governments encompassing various provinces: the General Government of Kiev (northwest), the General Government of Little Russia (northeast), and the General Government of New Russia and Bessarabia (east and south). After the gradual liquidation of the general governments, this de facto subdivision into three regions persisted.

Based on this language-based data, the Central Rada drew up a list of provinces that were to be considered Ukrainian, which included Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Poltava, and Chernigov, but also the eastern and southern provinces of Kharkov, Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, and Taurida (without Crimea). Although the large cities were the centers of colonial domination and spoke Russian...

The idea of a Donets-Krivoi Rog republic, uniting eastern Ukraine and the industrialized part of the Don oblast, seemingly emerged among the Kharkov Bolsheviks under the influence of some militants coming from Rostov-on-Don after the conquest of this neighboring Russian region by anti-Bolshevik general Alexei..

The main question remains why, long after the defeat of the Ukrainian nationalists, the top Soviet authorities continued to support the conception of a "greater Ukraine" while ruling out any possibility of a Russian or independent Donbas. Wasn't the main mission of this project namely to combat the Ukrainian nationalists now complete?

As Terry Martin rightly points out, the Bolsheviks' strategy was "to assume leadership over what now appeared to be the inevitable process of decolonization." This is why, first in theory and then in practice, Lenin opted for a national principle in building the USSR. Each Soviet nation was thus to have its own territorially and administratively delimited "national home" a difficult plan to implement in a continental empire like Russia's. Indeed, the tsarist empire had a multiplicity of geographical areas, halfway between metropolitan and colonial status. Eastern Ukraine represented such a zone of hybridization: its urban centers, economically and culturally oriented toward Russia...]

https://jacobin.com/2022/03/bolshevik-soviet-republic-donbas-ukraine-national-question-lenin-putin-ussr

Not to mention that Crimea was not even transferred to Ukraine until the 1950s

[On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=The%20decree%20was%20first%20announced,SFSR%20to%20the%20Ukrainian%20SSR.

---

once you go down that road, you are going to be redrawing borders and creating wars all over the globe.

---

1. The borders of the countries of the world have always been changing and always will be.

2. That is rich coming from a partisan of the DC crowd....they have been redrawing borders all over the place since WWII.

Just since 1999 the USA has redraw the borders of Serbia (Kosovo), Sudan (South Sudan), and Indonesia (East Timor).

DC loves a secessionist movement as long as its not inside the borders of the USA and its not something that benefits Russia. lol

---

So, funny list, the US just did all this? None of these were US actions. The Us does not have the authority to create borders. Various Presidents may have supported or been against proposals, but to say the US re-wrote the Borders is disingenuous.

---

DC was instrumental in Kosovo, South Sudan, and East Timor

(for good or bad reasons)

They supported those secessionist movements and supported the redrawing of borders in those cases.

[The United States also provided assistance that was essential to hold the January 2011 referendum on self-determination for southern Sudan. South Sudan became an independent nation on July 9, 2011.]

https://www.usaid.gov/south-sudan/history#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20also%20provided,nation%20on%20July%209%2C%20201

Same goes for Kosovo

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-us-broke-kosovo-and-what-that-means-for-ukraine/

---

So were 50 other Nations! You seem to love to pick the US out of the list of Nations involved in a situation and leave out everyone else.

---

You know well that these events don't take place without DC leadership.

A good example is about 48 nations joined on to the Invasion of Iraq

Yet none of them would have if the USA had not led the invasion and pushed for them to join in the first place.

It was a DC led and pushed invasion from the get go.

You know that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)

---

Lincoln's first Inaugural Address and Supreme Court rulings spell out why the Union is perpetual. The war was fought, your Great Man lost. Issue done.

---

The USA is only "perpetual" (actually a common term used in treaties during the 1700s. It meant there was no planned termination date, but as a practical matter the sovereign signatories could of course end the agreement) because the central government is willing to use overwhelming force to keep it together.

That is not Constitutional...and I'm not sure why you think its moral

"It is a common maxim of law, that every right has a means of enforcement; & every wrong a remedy. By this rule the right of secession is undoubted. The Constitution provides no means of coercing a state in the Union; nor any punishment for secession."-Kenosha Democrat 1/11/1861

[A coerced Union, one in which states were forcibly restrained from secession, would change the nature of government from "a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves"]

---

Geez, this is settled on the battlefield, in Court, and in Legislation. You are wrong. You are acting like secession is the same as healthcare, both State's rights. There is NOTHING about secession, it is not even considered an option. To get where you are you have to go through mental gymnastics of either "what ifs" or "shouldn't a State..." Secession is a fugazi...

As for the large Nations staying together, we better change our ways because the Roman Republic only last 452 years. Who cares? We are not Rome. History is a very poor indicator of the future, otherwise we would all kill the Stock Market and Draftkings.

I get it, you do not like the modern US. You majored in Jeffersonian America and love Jeffersonian thought. Much different than Jeffersonian thought, what Jefferson did as President set us on the path you so hate. Louisiana Purchase (big equals death) and Barbary Pirates (military without declaration of war). He obviously forgot the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---

Of course not. But it's your position that Ukrainians didn't?

---

Donbas is in Ukraine!

---

Only because the Bolsheviks drew the border that way.

What about what the people in the actual region wanted?

[it was the Bolsheviks who emerged victorious in the struggle for power at the end of World War I, who had to solve the problem of the border between Russia and Ukraine. Drawing the boundaries of a new country within a previously centralized empire was no small problem, especially since the provinces that were to become Ukraine had not had any special status or autonomy in the tsarist empire. In the nineteenth century, the territory of today's Ukraine was divided into three general governments encompassing various provinces: the General Government of Kiev (northwest), the General Government of Little Russia (northeast), and the General Government of New Russia and Bessarabia (east and south). After the gradual liquidation of the general governments, this de facto subdivision into three regions persisted.

Based on this language-based data, the Central Rada drew up a list of provinces that were to be considered Ukrainian, which included Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Poltava, and Chernigov, but also the eastern and southern provinces of Kharkov, Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, and Taurida (without Crimea). Although the large cities were the centers of colonial domination and spoke Russian...

The idea of a Donets-Krivoi Rog republic, uniting eastern Ukraine and the industrialized part of the Don oblast, seemingly emerged among the Kharkov Bolsheviks under the influence of some militants coming from Rostov-on-Don after the conquest of this neighboring Russian region by anti-Bolshevik general Alexei..

The main question remains why, long after the defeat of the Ukrainian nationalists, the top Soviet authorities continued to support the conception of a "greater Ukraine" while ruling out any possibility of a Russian or independent Donbas. Wasn't the main mission of this project namely to combat the Ukrainian nationalists now complete?

As Terry Martin rightly points out, the Bolsheviks' strategy was "to assume leadership over what now appeared to be the inevitable process of decolonization." This is why, first in theory and then in practice, Lenin opted for a national principle in building the USSR. Each Soviet nation was thus to have its own territorially and administratively delimited "national home" a difficult plan to implement in a continental empire like Russia's. Indeed, the tsarist empire had a multiplicity of geographical areas, halfway between metropolitan and colonial status. Eastern Ukraine represented such a zone of hybridization: its urban centers, economically and culturally oriented toward Russia...]

https://jacobin.com/2022/03/bolshevik-soviet-republic-donbas-ukraine-national-question-lenin-putin-ussr

Not to mention that Crimea was not even transferred to Ukraine until the 1950s

[On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=The%20decree%20was%20first%20announced,SFSR%20to%20the%20Ukrainian%20SSR.

---

once you go down that road, you are going to be redrawing borders and creating wars all over the globe.

---

1. The borders of the countries of the world have always been changing and always will be.

2. That is rich coming from a partisan of the DC crowd....they have been redrawing borders all over the place since WWII.

Just since 1999 the USA has redraw the borders of Serbia (Kosovo), Sudan (South Sudan), and Indonesia (East Timor).

DC loves a secessionist movement as long as its not inside the borders of the USA and its not something that benefits Russia. lol

---

So, funny list, the US just did all this? None of these were US actions. The Us does not have the authority to create borders. Various Presidents may have supported or been against proposals, but to say the US re-wrote the Borders is disingenuous.

---

DC was instrumental in Kosovo, South Sudan, and East Timor

(for good or bad reasons)

They supported those secessionist movements and supported the redrawing of borders in those cases.

[The United States also provided assistance that was essential to hold the January 2011 referendum on self-determination for southern Sudan. South Sudan became an independent nation on July 9, 2011.]

https://www.usaid.gov/south-sudan/history#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20also%20provided,nation%20on%20July%209%2C%20201

Same goes for Kosovo

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-us-broke-kosovo-and-what-that-means-for-ukraine/

---

So were 50 other Nations! You seem to love to pick the US out of the list of Nations involved in a situation and leave out everyone else.

---

You know well that these events don't take place without DC leadership.

A good example is about 48 nations joined on to the Invasion of Iraq

Yet none of them would have if the USA had not led the invasion and pushed for them to join in the first place.

It was a DC led and pushed invasion from the get go.

You know that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)

---

Lincoln's first Inaugural Address and Supreme Court rulings spell out why the Union is perpetual. The war was fought, your Great Man lost. Issue done.

---

The USA is only "perpetual" (actually a common term used in treaties during the 1700s. It meant there was no planned termination date, but as a practical matter the sovereign signatories could of course end the agreement) because the central government is willing to use overwhelming force to keep it together.

That is not Constitutional...and I'm not sure why you think its moral

"It is a common maxim of law, that every right has a means of enforcement; & every wrong a remedy. By this rule the right of secession is undoubted. The Constitution provides no means of coercing a state in the Union; nor any punishment for secession."-Kenosha Democrat 1/11/1861

[A coerced Union, one in which states were forcibly restrained from secession, would change the nature of government from "a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves"]

---

Geez, this is settled on the battlefield, in Court, and in Legislation.

---

Well that is the whole point....it was settled by the massive application of Federal violence against Americans and the States.

There was never a single piece of Congressional Legislation against secession, never a Constitutional amendment against secession, and never a single Supreme Court case that prevented it (before long after the war)

Why was it just to kill people for wanting to become independent? Is that what the Founders would have wanted?

"Secession may have been wrong in the abstract, and now has been tried and settled by the arbitrament of the sword and bayonet, but I am as firm in my convictions today of the right of secession as I was in 1861. The South is our country, the North is the country of those who live there. We are an agricultural people; they are a manufacturing people. They are the descendants of the old Puritan Plymouth Rock stock, and we of the South from the proud and aristocratic Cavaliers and hard fighting Scot [Ulster Scots]. We believe in the doctrine of State Rights, they in the doctrine of centralization. We had as every much right to leave this Union as we did to enter it in the first place." ~ Private Sam Watkins

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---

Of course not. But it's your position that Ukrainians didn't?

---

Donbas is in Ukraine!

---

Only because the Bolsheviks drew the border that way.

What about what the people in the actual region wanted?

[it was the Bolsheviks who emerged victorious in the struggle for power at the end of World War I, who had to solve the problem of the border between Russia and Ukraine. Drawing the boundaries of a new country within a previously centralized empire was no small problem, especially since the provinces that were to become Ukraine had not had any special status or autonomy in the tsarist empire. In the nineteenth century, the territory of today's Ukraine was divided into three general governments encompassing various provinces: the General Government of Kiev (northwest), the General Government of Little Russia (northeast), and the General Government of New Russia and Bessarabia (east and south). After the gradual liquidation of the general governments, this de facto subdivision into three regions persisted.

Based on this language-based data, the Central Rada drew up a list of provinces that were to be considered Ukrainian, which included Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Poltava, and Chernigov, but also the eastern and southern provinces of Kharkov, Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, and Taurida (without Crimea). Although the large cities were the centers of colonial domination and spoke Russian...

The idea of a Donets-Krivoi Rog republic, uniting eastern Ukraine and the industrialized part of the Don oblast, seemingly emerged among the Kharkov Bolsheviks under the influence of some militants coming from Rostov-on-Don after the conquest of this neighboring Russian region by anti-Bolshevik general Alexei..

The main question remains why, long after the defeat of the Ukrainian nationalists, the top Soviet authorities continued to support the conception of a "greater Ukraine" while ruling out any possibility of a Russian or independent Donbas. Wasn't the main mission of this project namely to combat the Ukrainian nationalists now complete?

As Terry Martin rightly points out, the Bolsheviks' strategy was "to assume leadership over what now appeared to be the inevitable process of decolonization." This is why, first in theory and then in practice, Lenin opted for a national principle in building the USSR. Each Soviet nation was thus to have its own territorially and administratively delimited "national home" a difficult plan to implement in a continental empire like Russia's. Indeed, the tsarist empire had a multiplicity of geographical areas, halfway between metropolitan and colonial status. Eastern Ukraine represented such a zone of hybridization: its urban centers, economically and culturally oriented toward Russia...]

https://jacobin.com/2022/03/bolshevik-soviet-republic-donbas-ukraine-national-question-lenin-putin-ussr

Not to mention that Crimea was not even transferred to Ukraine until the 1950s

[On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=The%20decree%20was%20first%20announced,SFSR%20to%20the%20Ukrainian%20SSR.

---

once you go down that road, you are going to be redrawing borders and creating wars all over the globe.

---

1. The borders of the countries of the world have always been changing and always will be.

2. That is rich coming from a partisan of the DC crowd....they have been redrawing borders all over the place since WWII.

Just since 1999 the USA has redraw the borders of Serbia (Kosovo), Sudan (South Sudan), and Indonesia (East Timor).

DC loves a secessionist movement as long as its not inside the borders of the USA and its not something that benefits Russia. lol

---

So, funny list, the US just did all this? None of these were US actions. The Us does not have the authority to create borders. Various Presidents may have supported or been against proposals, but to say the US re-wrote the Borders is disingenuous.

---

DC was instrumental in Kosovo, South Sudan, and East Timor

(for good or bad reasons)

They supported those secessionist movements and supported the redrawing of borders in those cases.

[The United States also provided assistance that was essential to hold the January 2011 referendum on self-determination for southern Sudan. South Sudan became an independent nation on July 9, 2011.]

https://www.usaid.gov/south-sudan/history#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20also%20provided,nation%20on%20July%209%2C%20201

Same goes for Kosovo

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-us-broke-kosovo-and-what-that-means-for-ukraine/

---

So were 50 other Nations! You seem to love to pick the US out of the list of Nations involved in a situation and leave out everyone else.

---

You know well that these events don't take place without DC leadership.

A good example is about 48 nations joined on to the Invasion of Iraq

Yet none of them would have if the USA had not led the invasion and pushed for them to join in the first place.

It was a DC led and pushed invasion from the get go.

You know that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)

---

Lincoln's first Inaugural Address and Supreme Court rulings spell out why the Union is perpetual. The war was fought, your Great Man lost. Issue done.

---

The USA is only "perpetual" (actually a common term used in treaties during the 1700s. It meant there was no planned termination date, but as a practical matter the sovereign signatories could of course end the agreement) because the central government is willing to use overwhelming force to keep it together.

That is not Constitutional...and I'm not sure why you think its moral

"It is a common maxim of law, that every right has a means of enforcement; & every wrong a remedy. By this rule the right of secession is undoubted. The Constitution provides no means of coercing a state in the Union; nor any punishment for secession."-Kenosha Democrat 1/11/1861

[A coerced Union, one in which states were forcibly restrained from secession, would change the nature of government from "a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves"]

---

Geez, this is settled on the battlefield, in Court, and in Legislation.

---

Well that is the whole point....it was settled by the massive application of Federal violence against Americans and the States.

There was never a single piece of Congressional Legislation against secession, never a Constitutional amendment against secession, and never a single Supreme Court case that prevented it (before long after the war)

Why was it just to kill people for wanting to become independent? Is that what the Founders would have wanted?

"Secession may have been wrong in the abstract, and now has been tried and settled by the arbitrament of the sword and bayonet, but I am as firm in my convictions today of the right of secession as I was in 1861. The South is our country, the North is the country of those who live there. We are an agricultural people; they are a manufacturing people. They are the descendants of the old Puritan Plymouth Rock stock, and we of the South from the proud and aristocratic Cavaliers and hard fighting Scot [Ulster Scots]. We believe in the doctrine of State Rights, they in the doctrine of centralization. We had as every much right to leave this Union as we did to enter it in the first place." ~ Private Sam Watkins

---

I am sure there is a Lost Cause rally this weekend. Enjoy.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---

Of course not. But it's your position that Ukrainians didn't?

---

Donbas is in Ukraine!

---

Only because the Bolsheviks drew the border that way.

What about what the people in the actual region wanted?

[it was the Bolsheviks who emerged victorious in the struggle for power at the end of World War I, who had to solve the problem of the border between Russia and Ukraine. Drawing the boundaries of a new country within a previously centralized empire was no small problem, especially since the provinces that were to become Ukraine had not had any special status or autonomy in the tsarist empire. In the nineteenth century, the territory of today's Ukraine was divided into three general governments encompassing various provinces: the General Government of Kiev (northwest), the General Government of Little Russia (northeast), and the General Government of New Russia and Bessarabia (east and south). After the gradual liquidation of the general governments, this de facto subdivision into three regions persisted.

Based on this language-based data, the Central Rada drew up a list of provinces that were to be considered Ukrainian, which included Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Poltava, and Chernigov, but also the eastern and southern provinces of Kharkov, Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, and Taurida (without Crimea). Although the large cities were the centers of colonial domination and spoke Russian...

The idea of a Donets-Krivoi Rog republic, uniting eastern Ukraine and the industrialized part of the Don oblast, seemingly emerged among the Kharkov Bolsheviks under the influence of some militants coming from Rostov-on-Don after the conquest of this neighboring Russian region by anti-Bolshevik general Alexei..

The main question remains why, long after the defeat of the Ukrainian nationalists, the top Soviet authorities continued to support the conception of a "greater Ukraine" while ruling out any possibility of a Russian or independent Donbas. Wasn't the main mission of this project namely to combat the Ukrainian nationalists now complete?

As Terry Martin rightly points out, the Bolsheviks' strategy was "to assume leadership over what now appeared to be the inevitable process of decolonization." This is why, first in theory and then in practice, Lenin opted for a national principle in building the USSR. Each Soviet nation was thus to have its own territorially and administratively delimited "national home" a difficult plan to implement in a continental empire like Russia's. Indeed, the tsarist empire had a multiplicity of geographical areas, halfway between metropolitan and colonial status. Eastern Ukraine represented such a zone of hybridization: its urban centers, economically and culturally oriented toward Russia...]

https://jacobin.com/2022/03/bolshevik-soviet-republic-donbas-ukraine-national-question-lenin-putin-ussr

Not to mention that Crimea was not even transferred to Ukraine until the 1950s

[On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=The%20decree%20was%20first%20announced,SFSR%20to%20the%20Ukrainian%20SSR.

---

once you go down that road, you are going to be redrawing borders and creating wars all over the globe.

---

1. The borders of the countries of the world have always been changing and always will be.

2. That is rich coming from a partisan of the DC crowd....they have been redrawing borders all over the place since WWII.

Just since 1999 the USA has redraw the borders of Serbia (Kosovo), Sudan (South Sudan), and Indonesia (East Timor).

DC loves a secessionist movement as long as its not inside the borders of the USA and its not something that benefits Russia. lol

---

So, funny list, the US just did all this? None of these were US actions. The Us does not have the authority to create borders. Various Presidents may have supported or been against proposals, but to say the US re-wrote the Borders is disingenuous.

---

DC was instrumental in Kosovo, South Sudan, and East Timor

(for good or bad reasons)

They supported those secessionist movements and supported the redrawing of borders in those cases.

[The United States also provided assistance that was essential to hold the January 2011 referendum on self-determination for southern Sudan. South Sudan became an independent nation on July 9, 2011.]

https://www.usaid.gov/south-sudan/history#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20also%20provided,nation%20on%20July%209%2C%20201

Same goes for Kosovo

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-us-broke-kosovo-and-what-that-means-for-ukraine/

---

So were 50 other Nations! You seem to love to pick the US out of the list of Nations involved in a situation and leave out everyone else.

---

You know well that these events don't take place without DC leadership.

A good example is about 48 nations joined on to the Invasion of Iraq

Yet none of them would have if the USA had not led the invasion and pushed for them to join in the first place.

It was a DC led and pushed invasion from the get go.

You know that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)

---

Lincoln's first Inaugural Address and Supreme Court rulings spell out why the Union is perpetual. The war was fought, your Great Man lost. Issue done.

---

The USA is only "perpetual" (actually a common term used in treaties during the 1700s. It meant there was no planned termination date, but as a practical matter the sovereign signatories could of course end the agreement) because the central government is willing to use overwhelming force to keep it together.

That is not Constitutional...and I'm not sure why you think its moral

"It is a common maxim of law, that every right has a means of enforcement; & every wrong a remedy. By this rule the right of secession is undoubted. The Constitution provides no means of coercing a state in the Union; nor any punishment for secession."-Kenosha Democrat 1/11/1861

[A coerced Union, one in which states were forcibly restrained from secession, would change the nature of government from "a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves"]

---

Geez, this is settled on the battlefield, in Court, and in Legislation.

---

Well that is the whole point....it was settled by the massive application of Federal violence against Americans and the States.

There was never a single piece of Congressional Legislation against secession, never a Constitutional amendment against secession, and never a single Supreme Court case that prevented it (before long after the war)

Why was it just to kill people for wanting to become independent? Is that what the Founders would have wanted?

"Secession may have been wrong in the abstract, and now has been tried and settled by the arbitrament of the sword and bayonet, but I am as firm in my convictions today of the right of secession as I was in 1861. The South is our country, the North is the country of those who live there. We are an agricultural people; they are a manufacturing people. They are the descendants of the old Puritan Plymouth Rock stock, and we of the South from the proud and aristocratic Cavaliers and hard fighting Scot [Ulster Scots]. We believe in the doctrine of State Rights, they in the doctrine of centralization. We had as every much right to leave this Union as we did to enter it in the first place." ~ Private Sam Watkins

---

I am sure there is a Lost Cause rally this weekend. Enjoy.

---

lol I'm sure it would be a fun time with good folks...but I have a lot of kids I'm raising at home and no time to get out.

You still dogged the question.

Why should the USA be kept together via mass violence?

And where does the U.S. Constitution give the Federal government the right to prevent secession by the States?

And as it relates by the Ukraine....both DC and Moscow have supported secessionist movements when they thought they were helpful and opposed them when they did not like them.

DC waged war on Texas to keep it. Moscow waged war on Chechnya to keep it.

DC support secession movements in Kosovo, S. Sudan, and East Timor.....while Moscow has supported secession movements in Donbas, Abkhazia, and Ossetia

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---

Of course not. But it's your position that Ukrainians didn't?

---

Donbas is in Ukraine!

---

Only because the Bolsheviks drew the border that way.

What about what the people in the actual region wanted?

[it was the Bolsheviks who emerged victorious in the struggle for power at the end of World War I, who had to solve the problem of the border between Russia and Ukraine. Drawing the boundaries of a new country within a previously centralized empire was no small problem, especially since the provinces that were to become Ukraine had not had any special status or autonomy in the tsarist empire. In the nineteenth century, the territory of today's Ukraine was divided into three general governments encompassing various provinces: the General Government of Kiev (northwest), the General Government of Little Russia (northeast), and the General Government of New Russia and Bessarabia (east and south). After the gradual liquidation of the general governments, this de facto subdivision into three regions persisted.

Based on this language-based data, the Central Rada drew up a list of provinces that were to be considered Ukrainian, which included Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Poltava, and Chernigov, but also the eastern and southern provinces of Kharkov, Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, and Taurida (without Crimea). Although the large cities were the centers of colonial domination and spoke Russian...

The idea of a Donets-Krivoi Rog republic, uniting eastern Ukraine and the industrialized part of the Don oblast, seemingly emerged among the Kharkov Bolsheviks under the influence of some militants coming from Rostov-on-Don after the conquest of this neighboring Russian region by anti-Bolshevik general Alexei..

The main question remains why, long after the defeat of the Ukrainian nationalists, the top Soviet authorities continued to support the conception of a "greater Ukraine" while ruling out any possibility of a Russian or independent Donbas. Wasn't the main mission of this project namely to combat the Ukrainian nationalists now complete?

As Terry Martin rightly points out, the Bolsheviks' strategy was "to assume leadership over what now appeared to be the inevitable process of decolonization." This is why, first in theory and then in practice, Lenin opted for a national principle in building the USSR. Each Soviet nation was thus to have its own territorially and administratively delimited "national home" a difficult plan to implement in a continental empire like Russia's. Indeed, the tsarist empire had a multiplicity of geographical areas, halfway between metropolitan and colonial status. Eastern Ukraine represented such a zone of hybridization: its urban centers, economically and culturally oriented toward Russia...]

https://jacobin.com/2022/03/bolshevik-soviet-republic-donbas-ukraine-national-question-lenin-putin-ussr

Not to mention that Crimea was not even transferred to Ukraine until the 1950s

[On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=The%20decree%20was%20first%20announced,SFSR%20to%20the%20Ukrainian%20SSR.

---

once you go down that road, you are going to be redrawing borders and creating wars all over the globe.

---

1. The borders of the countries of the world have always been changing and always will be.

2. That is rich coming from a partisan of the DC crowd....they have been redrawing borders all over the place since WWII.

Just since 1999 the USA has redraw the borders of Serbia (Kosovo), Sudan (South Sudan), and Indonesia (East Timor).

DC loves a secessionist movement as long as its not inside the borders of the USA and its not something that benefits Russia. lol

---

So, funny list, the US just did all this? None of these were US actions. The Us does not have the authority to create borders. Various Presidents may have supported or been against proposals, but to say the US re-wrote the Borders is disingenuous.

---

DC was instrumental in Kosovo, South Sudan, and East Timor

(for good or bad reasons)

They supported those secessionist movements and supported the redrawing of borders in those cases.

[The United States also provided assistance that was essential to hold the January 2011 referendum on self-determination for southern Sudan. South Sudan became an independent nation on July 9, 2011.]

https://www.usaid.gov/south-sudan/history#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20also%20provided,nation%20on%20July%209%2C%20201

Same goes for Kosovo

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-us-broke-kosovo-and-what-that-means-for-ukraine/

---

So were 50 other Nations! You seem to love to pick the US out of the list of Nations involved in a situation and leave out everyone else.

---

You know well that these events don't take place without DC leadership.

A good example is about 48 nations joined on to the Invasion of Iraq

Yet none of them would have if the USA had not led the invasion and pushed for them to join in the first place.

It was a DC led and pushed invasion from the get go.

You know that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)

---

Lincoln's first Inaugural Address and Supreme Court rulings spell out why the Union is perpetual. The war was fought, your Great Man lost. Issue done.

---

The USA is only "perpetual" (actually a common term used in treaties during the 1700s. It meant there was no planned termination date, but as a practical matter the sovereign signatories could of course end the agreement) because the central government is willing to use overwhelming force to keep it together.

That is not Constitutional...and I'm not sure why you think its moral

"It is a common maxim of law, that every right has a means of enforcement; & every wrong a remedy. By this rule the right of secession is undoubted. The Constitution provides no means of coercing a state in the Union; nor any punishment for secession."-Kenosha Democrat 1/11/1861

[A coerced Union, one in which states were forcibly restrained from secession, would change the nature of government from "a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves"]

---

Geez, this is settled on the battlefield, in Court, and in Legislation.

---

Well that is the whole point....it was settled by the massive application of Federal violence against Americans and the States.

There was never a single piece of Congressional Legislation against secession, never a Constitutional amendment against secession, and never a single Supreme Court case that prevented it (before long after the war)

Why was it just to kill people for wanting to become independent? Is that what the Founders would have wanted?

"Secession may have been wrong in the abstract, and now has been tried and settled by the arbitrament of the sword and bayonet, but I am as firm in my convictions today of the right of secession as I was in 1861. The South is our country, the North is the country of those who live there. We are an agricultural people; they are a manufacturing people. They are the descendants of the old Puritan Plymouth Rock stock, and we of the South from the proud and aristocratic Cavaliers and hard fighting Scot [Ulster Scots]. We believe in the doctrine of State Rights, they in the doctrine of centralization. We had as every much right to leave this Union as we did to enter it in the first place." ~ Private Sam Watkins

---

I am sure there is a Lost Cause rally this weekend. Enjoy.

---

lol I'm sure it would be a fun time with good folks...but I have a lot of kids I'm raising at home and no time to get out.

You still dogged the question.

Why should the USA be kept together via mass violence?

And where does the U.S. Constitution give the Federal government the right to prevent secession by the States?

And as it relates by the Ukraine....both DC and Moscow have supported secessionist movements when they thought they were helpful and opposed them when they did not like them.

DC waged war on Texas to keep it. Moscow waged war on Chechnya to keep it.

DC support secession movements in Kosovo, S. Sudan, and East Timor.....while Moscow has supported secession movements in Donbas, Abkhazia, and Ossetia

---

I have answered the question, the courts answered the question, the Legislature has answered the question the land and borders belong to the US, not the people that move there. The Union is in-dissolvable. You and a few others seem to think that if Seattle decides it can just become a Venetian City-State of CA can just leave.

The other side of your question is those that do not like it are free to leave. There is no law keeping you in the US. Want to be Mexican, have at it. Want to be Russian, I am sure they will take you. BUT, I bet they make you follow their laws and if the City you move into decides to leave Russia they won't just say good luck and let you go. Nobody is forcing anyone to stay in the US.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---

Of course not. But it's your position that Ukrainians didn't?

---

Donbas is in Ukraine!

---

Only because the Bolsheviks drew the border that way.

What about what the people in the actual region wanted?

[it was the Bolsheviks who emerged victorious in the struggle for power at the end of World War I, who had to solve the problem of the border between Russia and Ukraine. Drawing the boundaries of a new country within a previously centralized empire was no small problem, especially since the provinces that were to become Ukraine had not had any special status or autonomy in the tsarist empire. In the nineteenth century, the territory of today's Ukraine was divided into three general governments encompassing various provinces: the General Government of Kiev (northwest), the General Government of Little Russia (northeast), and the General Government of New Russia and Bessarabia (east and south). After the gradual liquidation of the general governments, this de facto subdivision into three regions persisted.

Based on this language-based data, the Central Rada drew up a list of provinces that were to be considered Ukrainian, which included Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Poltava, and Chernigov, but also the eastern and southern provinces of Kharkov, Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, and Taurida (without Crimea). Although the large cities were the centers of colonial domination and spoke Russian...

The idea of a Donets-Krivoi Rog republic, uniting eastern Ukraine and the industrialized part of the Don oblast, seemingly emerged among the Kharkov Bolsheviks under the influence of some militants coming from Rostov-on-Don after the conquest of this neighboring Russian region by anti-Bolshevik general Alexei..

The main question remains why, long after the defeat of the Ukrainian nationalists, the top Soviet authorities continued to support the conception of a "greater Ukraine" while ruling out any possibility of a Russian or independent Donbas. Wasn't the main mission of this project namely to combat the Ukrainian nationalists now complete?

As Terry Martin rightly points out, the Bolsheviks' strategy was "to assume leadership over what now appeared to be the inevitable process of decolonization." This is why, first in theory and then in practice, Lenin opted for a national principle in building the USSR. Each Soviet nation was thus to have its own territorially and administratively delimited "national home" a difficult plan to implement in a continental empire like Russia's. Indeed, the tsarist empire had a multiplicity of geographical areas, halfway between metropolitan and colonial status. Eastern Ukraine represented such a zone of hybridization: its urban centers, economically and culturally oriented toward Russia...]

https://jacobin.com/2022/03/bolshevik-soviet-republic-donbas-ukraine-national-question-lenin-putin-ussr

Not to mention that Crimea was not even transferred to Ukraine until the 1950s

[On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=The%20decree%20was%20first%20announced,SFSR%20to%20the%20Ukrainian%20SSR.

---

once you go down that road, you are going to be redrawing borders and creating wars all over the globe.

---

1. The borders of the countries of the world have always been changing and always will be.

2. That is rich coming from a partisan of the DC crowd....they have been redrawing borders all over the place since WWII.

Just since 1999 the USA has redraw the borders of Serbia (Kosovo), Sudan (South Sudan), and Indonesia (East Timor).

DC loves a secessionist movement as long as its not inside the borders of the USA and its not something that benefits Russia. lol

---

So, funny list, the US just did all this? None of these were US actions. The Us does not have the authority to create borders. Various Presidents may have supported or been against proposals, but to say the US re-wrote the Borders is disingenuous.

---

DC was instrumental in Kosovo, South Sudan, and East Timor

(for good or bad reasons)

They supported those secessionist movements and supported the redrawing of borders in those cases.

[The United States also provided assistance that was essential to hold the January 2011 referendum on self-determination for southern Sudan. South Sudan became an independent nation on July 9, 2011.]

https://www.usaid.gov/south-sudan/history#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20also%20provided,nation%20on%20July%209%2C%20201

Same goes for Kosovo

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-us-broke-kosovo-and-what-that-means-for-ukraine/

---

So were 50 other Nations! You seem to love to pick the US out of the list of Nations involved in a situation and leave out everyone else.

---

You know well that these events don't take place without DC leadership.

A good example is about 48 nations joined on to the Invasion of Iraq

Yet none of them would have if the USA had not led the invasion and pushed for them to join in the first place.

It was a DC led and pushed invasion from the get go.

You know that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)

---

Lincoln's first Inaugural Address and Supreme Court rulings spell out why the Union is perpetual. The war was fought, your Great Man lost. Issue done.

---

The USA is only "perpetual" (actually a common term used in treaties during the 1700s. It meant there was no planned termination date, but as a practical matter the sovereign signatories could of course end the agreement) because the central government is willing to use overwhelming force to keep it together.

That is not Constitutional...and I'm not sure why you think its moral

"It is a common maxim of law, that every right has a means of enforcement; & every wrong a remedy. By this rule the right of secession is undoubted. The Constitution provides no means of coercing a state in the Union; nor any punishment for secession."-Kenosha Democrat 1/11/1861

[A coerced Union, one in which states were forcibly restrained from secession, would change the nature of government from "a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves"]

---

Geez, this is settled on the battlefield, in Court, and in Legislation.

---

Well that is the whole point....it was settled by the massive application of Federal violence against Americans and the States.

There was never a single piece of Congressional Legislation against secession, never a Constitutional amendment against secession, and never a single Supreme Court case that prevented it (before long after the war)

Why was it just to kill people for wanting to become independent? Is that what the Founders would have wanted?

"Secession may have been wrong in the abstract, and now has been tried and settled by the arbitrament of the sword and bayonet, but I am as firm in my convictions today of the right of secession as I was in 1861. The South is our country, the North is the country of those who live there. We are an agricultural people; they are a manufacturing people. They are the descendants of the old Puritan Plymouth Rock stock, and we of the South from the proud and aristocratic Cavaliers and hard fighting Scot [Ulster Scots]. We believe in the doctrine of State Rights, they in the doctrine of centralization. We had as every much right to leave this Union as we did to enter it in the first place." ~ Private Sam Watkins

---

I am sure there is a Lost Cause rally this weekend. Enjoy.

---

lol I'm sure it would be a fun time with good folks...but I have a lot of kids I'm raising at home and no time to get out.

You still dogged the question.

Why should the USA be kept together via mass violence?

And where does the U.S. Constitution give the Federal government the right to prevent secession by the States?

And as it relates by the Ukraine....both DC and Moscow have supported secessionist movements when they thought they were helpful and opposed them when they did not like them.

DC waged war on Texas to keep it. Moscow waged war on Chechnya to keep it.

DC support secession movements in Kosovo, S. Sudan, and East Timor.....while Moscow has supported secession movements in Donbas, Abkhazia, and Ossetia

---

I have answered the question, the courts answered the question, the Legislature has answered the question the land and borders belong to the US, not the people that move there. The Union is in-dissolvable. You and a few others seem to think that if Seattle decides it can just become a Venetian City-State of CA can just leave.

The other side of your question is those that do not like it are free to leave. There is no law keeping you in the US. Want to be Mexican, have at it. Want to be Russian, I am sure they will take you. BUT, I bet they make you follow their laws and if the City you move into decides to leave Russia they won't just say good luck and let you go. Nobody is forcing anyone to stay in the US.

---

1. The point is its only in-dissolvable because of the central government will use mass violence

Not because of the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Congressional Law, or our history.

You must have loved it when the British used violence on those pesky American secessionists.

2. DC has imported in 50+ million people from south of the border and other foreign lands. The century is young and they might well lose control of the Southwest because of demographic issues.

Just like Ukraine is losing Donbas to its ethnic Russian population.

Force is your answer to the problem but demographics is destiny

"since 1990, at least 25 new independent countries recognized by the international community have been founded with support from the United States, most of which proceeded along with enormous disputes and conflicts. Over the years, the international community has come to reach some consensus on opposing secession from an existing state as well as safeguarding territorial and sovereign integrity. At the same time, the United States has frequently used human rights as an excuse to support certain separatist movements in other countries and even to obstruct and undermine other states' anti-secession actions. For many years, the United States has provided support to the separatist forces in Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong. Supported the independence of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, George, Armenia, Azerbaijan, M, South Sudan, East Timor (from Indonesia), Namibia (from South Africa), Eritrea (from Ethiopia), Kosovo (from Serbia), and several other nations."

For some strange reason the USA just seems to oppose secession when it's Dixie or Donbas.

The rest of the time you can usually rely on D.C. to support secession.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

You're forgetting one major point: After the Victoria Nuland coup of 2014, the provinces that the Russian military is now in declared independence from the new government in Kiev. The war started then, with the Ukranian Armed Forces attacking these eastern provinces. Only after Kiev's unwillingness to honor the Minsk accords did the Russian military move in. This war did not magically start a few years ago because Putin got up on the wrong side of the bed.

---

It appears you're glib to another major point: Russia invaded the breakaway provinces prior to the commencement of hostilities. Who the hell do you think the Ukrainian Armed Forces were fighting? Ukrainians?

LOL.

---

So you don't actually know who they were fighting? Interesting.

---

No, but apparently you do not:

Toward the end of February 2014, unidentified military figures, later confirmed to be Russian personnel, surrounded the airports in Crimea, a majority-Russian peninsula in Ukraine. The Crimean autonomous assembly was then seized by Russian reservists and pro-Russian forces. In March 2014 the assembly issued a declaration of independence and a subsequent referendum on union with Russia was held.

In the days that followed, other groups appeared. These were genuine volunteers, who had come from Moscow to join what they saw as the liberation of Crimea.

---

There was no significant fighting in Crimea, nor is it one of the eastern provinces.

---

Is it your position Russians troops did not take part in the fighting in Donbas as well?

---

Of course not. But it's your position that Ukrainians didn't?

---

Donbas is in Ukraine!

---

Only because the Bolsheviks drew the border that way.

What about what the people in the actual region wanted?

[it was the Bolsheviks who emerged victorious in the struggle for power at the end of World War I, who had to solve the problem of the border between Russia and Ukraine. Drawing the boundaries of a new country within a previously centralized empire was no small problem, especially since the provinces that were to become Ukraine had not had any special status or autonomy in the tsarist empire. In the nineteenth century, the territory of today's Ukraine was divided into three general governments encompassing various provinces: the General Government of Kiev (northwest), the General Government of Little Russia (northeast), and the General Government of New Russia and Bessarabia (east and south). After the gradual liquidation of the general governments, this de facto subdivision into three regions persisted.

Based on this language-based data, the Central Rada drew up a list of provinces that were to be considered Ukrainian, which included Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Poltava, and Chernigov, but also the eastern and southern provinces of Kharkov, Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, and Taurida (without Crimea). Although the large cities were the centers of colonial domination and spoke Russian...

The idea of a Donets-Krivoi Rog republic, uniting eastern Ukraine and the industrialized part of the Don oblast, seemingly emerged among the Kharkov Bolsheviks under the influence of some militants coming from Rostov-on-Don after the conquest of this neighboring Russian region by anti-Bolshevik general Alexei..

The main question remains why, long after the defeat of the Ukrainian nationalists, the top Soviet authorities continued to support the conception of a "greater Ukraine" while ruling out any possibility of a Russian or independent Donbas. Wasn't the main mission of this project namely to combat the Ukrainian nationalists now complete?

As Terry Martin rightly points out, the Bolsheviks' strategy was "to assume leadership over what now appeared to be the inevitable process of decolonization." This is why, first in theory and then in practice, Lenin opted for a national principle in building the USSR. Each Soviet nation was thus to have its own territorially and administratively delimited "national home" a difficult plan to implement in a continental empire like Russia's. Indeed, the tsarist empire had a multiplicity of geographical areas, halfway between metropolitan and colonial status. Eastern Ukraine represented such a zone of hybridization: its urban centers, economically and culturally oriented toward Russia...]

https://jacobin.com/2022/03/bolshevik-soviet-republic-donbas-ukraine-national-question-lenin-putin-ussr

Not to mention that Crimea was not even transferred to Ukraine until the 1950s

[On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=The%20decree%20was%20first%20announced,SFSR%20to%20the%20Ukrainian%20SSR.

---

once you go down that road, you are going to be redrawing borders and creating wars all over the globe.

---

1. The borders of the countries of the world have always been changing and always will be.

2. That is rich coming from a partisan of the DC crowd....they have been redrawing borders all over the place since WWII.

Just since 1999 the USA has redraw the borders of Serbia (Kosovo), Sudan (South Sudan), and Indonesia (East Timor).

DC loves a secessionist movement as long as its not inside the borders of the USA and its not something that benefits Russia. lol

---

So, funny list, the US just did all this? None of these were US actions. The Us does not have the authority to create borders. Various Presidents may have supported or been against proposals, but to say the US re-wrote the Borders is disingenuous.

---

DC was instrumental in Kosovo, South Sudan, and East Timor

(for good or bad reasons)

They supported those secessionist movements and supported the redrawing of borders in those cases.

[The United States also provided assistance that was essential to hold the January 2011 referendum on self-determination for southern Sudan. South Sudan became an independent nation on July 9, 2011.]

https://www.usaid.gov/south-sudan/history#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20also%20provided,nation%20on%20July%209%2C%20201

Same goes for Kosovo

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-us-broke-kosovo-and-what-that-means-for-ukraine/

---

So were 50 other Nations! You seem to love to pick the US out of the list of Nations involved in a situation and leave out everyone else.

---

You know well that these events don't take place without DC leadership.

A good example is about 48 nations joined on to the Invasion of Iraq

Yet none of them would have if the USA had not led the invasion and pushed for them to join in the first place.

It was a DC led and pushed invasion from the get go.

You know that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)

---

Lincoln's first Inaugural Address and Supreme Court rulings spell out why the Union is perpetual. The war was fought, your Great Man lost. Issue done.

---

The USA is only "perpetual" (actually a common term used in treaties during the 1700s. It meant there was no planned termination date, but as a practical matter the sovereign signatories could of course end the agreement) because the central government is willing to use overwhelming force to keep it together.

That is not Constitutional...and I'm not sure why you think its moral

"It is a common maxim of law, that every right has a means of enforcement; & every wrong a remedy. By this rule the right of secession is undoubted. The Constitution provides no means of coercing a state in the Union; nor any punishment for secession."-Kenosha Democrat 1/11/1861

[A coerced Union, one in which states were forcibly restrained from secession, would change the nature of government from "a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves"]

---

Geez, this is settled on the battlefield, in Court, and in Legislation.

---

Well that is the whole point....it was settled by the massive application of Federal violence against Americans and the States.

There was never a single piece of Congressional Legislation against secession, never a Constitutional amendment against secession, and never a single Supreme Court case that prevented it (before long after the war)

Why was it just to kill people for wanting to become independent? Is that what the Founders would have wanted?

"Secession may have been wrong in the abstract, and now has been tried and settled by the arbitrament of the sword and bayonet, but I am as firm in my convictions today of the right of secession as I was in 1861. The South is our country, the North is the country of those who live there. We are an agricultural people; they are a manufacturing people. They are the descendants of the old Puritan Plymouth Rock stock, and we of the South from the proud and aristocratic Cavaliers and hard fighting Scot [Ulster Scots]. We believe in the doctrine of State Rights, they in the doctrine of centralization. We had as every much right to leave this Union as we did to enter it in the first place." ~ Private Sam Watkins

---

I am sure there is a Lost Cause rally this weekend. Enjoy.

---

lol I'm sure it would be a fun time with good folks...but I have a lot of kids I'm raising at home and no time to get out.

You still dogged the question.

Why should the USA be kept together via mass violence?

And where does the U.S. Constitution give the Federal government the right to prevent secession by the States?

And as it relates by the Ukraine....both DC and Moscow have supported secessionist movements when they thought they were helpful and opposed them when they did not like them.

DC waged war on Texas to keep it. Moscow waged war on Chechnya to keep it.

DC support secession movements in Kosovo, S. Sudan, and East Timor.....while Moscow has supported secession movements in Donbas, Abkhazia, and Ossetia

---

I have answered the question, the courts answered the question, the Legislature has answered the question the land and borders belong to the US, not the people that move there. The Union is in-dissolvable. You and a few others seem to think that if Seattle decides it can just become a Venetian City-State of CA can just leave.

The other side of your question is those that do not like it are free to leave. There is no law keeping you in the US. Want to be Mexican, have at it. Want to be Russian, I am sure they will take you. BUT, I bet they make you follow their laws and if the City you move into decides to leave Russia they won't just say good luck and let you go. Nobody is forcing anyone to stay in the US.

---

1. The point is its only in-dissolvable because of the central government will use mass violence

Not because of the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Congressional Law, or our history.

You must have loved it when the British used violence on those pesky American secessionists.

2. DC has imported in 50+ million people from south of the border and other foreign lands. The century is young and they might well lose control of the Southwest because of demographic issues.

Just like Ukraine is losing Donbas to its ethnic Russian population.

Force is your answer to the problem but demographics is destiny

"since 1990, at least 25 new independent countries recognized by the international community have been founded with support from the United States, most of which proceeded along with enormous disputes and conflicts. Over the years, the international community has come to reach some consensus on opposing secession from an existing state as well as safeguarding territorial and sovereign integrity. At the same time, the United States has frequently used human rights as an excuse to support certain separatist movements in other countries and even to obstruct and undermine other states' anti-secession actions. For many years, the United States has provided support to the separatist forces in Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong. Supported the independence of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, George, Armenia, Azerbaijan, M, South Sudan, East Timor (from Indonesia), Namibia (from South Africa), Eritrea (from Ethiopia), Kosovo (from Serbia), and several other nations."

For some strange reason the USA just seems to oppose secession when it's Dixie or Donbas.

The rest of the time you can usually rely on D.C. to support secession.

---

Texas vs White ended this discussion.

Also, the Articles of Confederation stated the Union was perpetual and the Constitution makes the Articles more perfect. (If the Dec of Independence is a guiding document, the Articles of Confederation surely must be taken into account as well). The Battlefield win and Appomattox made the law real. Sorry, but the Union is perpetual.

As for Demographics, if they vote to leave, can't meet the requirements of TX vs White, the Federal Army will ensure that they do not leave, which is perfectly legal.

In Ukraine's situation you are taking the side of the Russian Army because a census says there are a lot of Russians?????

Every case is unique. You are putting a cookie cutter approach to complicated issues.