ATL Bear said:

---

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.

---

We are providing assistance, but not of this type. The irony is that it won't really help Ukraine despite the enormous risks.

It's pointless to argue whether secession is always right or always wrong. It all depends on the circumstances. The civil wars in America and the Donbas have nothing to do with each other.

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

---

You pin a lot on the U.S. that isn't on the U.S.

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's pointless to argue whether secession is always right or always wrong. It all depends on the circumstances. The civil wars in America and the Donbas have nothing to do with each other.

---

I agree.

Realitybites said:

---

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.

---

You make my point, exactly. Look what happened when a single state was dissolved into smaller constituent pieces.

The Kosovo question was whether it should, during the breakup of Yugoslavia, be independent or part of another polity. It took a not inconsiderable amount of military conflict to sort out winners/losers. The Serbs didn't really want the Kosovars per se, but they were not going to give up their claim on the geography (and still haven't). The best way to avoid that kind of conflict is to defend the position that "the borders are the borders" until that position becomes untenable. Most separatist movements will fail against such opposition. That failure will not be without cost, but the cost will almost always be a pittance compared to all-out war.

The Kurds are the largest nation without its own country. They SHOULD, by rights, have their own country. But crating a Kurdish state in any of the four countries they are located would spark all out war between Turkey and Iran, who would invade to stop statehood (because it would destabilize their own polities which include substantial Kurdish minorities spanning significant geography). Saudi and Egypt would take sides (quietly). We would not support Kurdish independence i because Turkey is a Nato ally and fostering a Kurdish state against Turkish interests would be a high-percentage scenario for Turkey leaving Nato (empowering Russia).

These things are never tidy, but they turn into complete disasters when people start using erasers and grease pens to redraw maps.

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's pointless to argue whether secession is always right or always wrong. It all depends on the circumstances. The civil wars in America and the Donbas have nothing to do with each other.

---

The statements in the Declaration of Independence are neither conditional, nor nation specific. They are broad philosophical statements (ie when in the course of *human* events). So the right of self determination is always correct, and if that expresses itself as secession, so be it.

I equally support the right of Donbass to leave Ukraine, Texas to leave the union, California to leave the union (should Trump be re-elected), and western Oregon to leave Oregon and join Idaho.

Quote:

---

Few nations had a better claim on territory than Britain had on America

---

So was the American revolution wrong?

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

You make my point, exactly. Look what happened when a single state was dissolved into smaller constituent pieces. The Kosovo question was whether it should, during the breakup of Yugoslavia, be independent or part of another polity. It took a not inconsiderable amount of military conflict to sort out winners/losers. The Serbs didn't really want the Kosovars per se, but they were not going to give up their claim on the geography (and still haven't). The best way to avoid that kind of conflict is to defend the position that "the borders are the borders" until that position becomes untenable. Most separatist movements will fail against such opposition. That failure will not be without cost, but the cost will almost always be a pittance compared to all-out war.

---

Kosovo was the creation of NATO, courtesy of a lot of bombs falling on Belgrade.

Quote:

---

The Kurds are the largest nation without its own country. They SHOULD, by rights, have their own country. But crating a Kurdish state in any of the four countries they are located would spark all out war between Turkey and Iran, who would invade to stop statehood (because it would destabilize their own polities which include substantial Kurdish minorities spanning significant geography). Saudi and Egypt would take sides (quietly). We would not support Kurdish independence i because Turkey is a Nato ally and fostering a Kurdish state against Turkish interests would be a high-percentage scenario for Turkey leaving Nato (empowering Russia).

---

The best case scenario for Iraq would have been splitting it into three states, a Kurdish state, a Sunni state, and a Shia state.

This is the history of modern Iraq: "Ottoman rule over Iraq lasted until World War I, when the Ottomans sided with Germany and the Central Powers. In the Mesopotamian campaign against the Central Powers, British forces invaded the country and suffered a defeat at the hands of the Turkish army during the Siege of Kut (191516). However the British finally won in the Mesopotamian Campaign with the capture of Baghdad in March 1917. During the war the British employed the help of a number of Assyrian, Armenian and Arab tribes against the Ottomans, who in turn employed the Kurds as allies. After the war the Ottoman Empire was divided up, and the British Mandate of Mesopotamia was established by League of Nations mandate.

Britain imposed a Hshimite monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq without taking into account the politics of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds and the Christian Assyrians to the north. During the British occupation, the Kurds fought for independence, and the British employed Assyrian Levies to help quell these insurrections. Iraq also became an oligarchy government at this time.
Although the monarch Faisal I of Iraq was legitimized and proclaimed King by a plebiscite on 23 August 1921, simultaneously changing the official name of the country from Mesopotamia to Iraq,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq#cite_note-22][22][/url] independence was achieved in 1932, when the British Mandate officially ended."

---

Preserving the borders of a 100 year old British Mandate wasn't worth a single American life.

ATL Bear 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

---

You pin a lot on the U.S. that isn't on the U.S.

---

You take it as criticism

It's a fact that the U.S. was instrumental in bringing about the independence (secession) of South Sudan and East Timor

And for what its worth I think it was 100% the right call

Muslims in Sudan and Indonesia were engaged in genocide or out right persecution of the ethnic Christians in those two nations

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

You make my point, exactly. Look what happened when a single state was dissolved into smaller constituent pieces. The Kosovo question was whether it should, during the breakup of Yugoslavia, be independent or part of another polity. It took a not inconsiderable amount of military conflict to sort out winners/losers. The Serbs didn't really want the Kosovars per se, but they were not going to give up their claim on the geography (and still haven't). The best way to avoid that kind of conflict is to defend the position that "the borders are the borders" until that position becomes untenable. Most separatist movements will fail against such opposition. That failure will not be without cost, but the cost will almost always be a pittance compared to all-out war.

---

Kosovo was the creation of NATO, courtesy of a lot of bombs falling on Belgrade.

Quote:

---

The Kurds are the largest nation without its own country. They SHOULD, by rights, have their own country. But crating a Kurdish state in any of the four countries they are located would spark all out war between Turkey and Iran, who would invade to stop statehood (because it would destabilize their own polities which include substantial Kurdish minorities spanning significant geography). Saudi and Egypt would take sides (quietly). We would not support Kurdish independence i because Turkey is a Nato ally and fostering a Kurdish state against Turkish interests would be a high-percentage scenario for Turkey leaving Nato (empowering Russia).

---

The best case scenario for Iraq would have been splitting it into three states, a Kurdish state, a Sunni state, and a Shia state.

This is the history of modern Iraq: "Ottoman rule over Iraq lasted until World War I, when the Ottomans sided with Germany and the Central Powers. In the Mesopotamian campaign against the Central Powers, British forces invaded the country and suffered a defeat at the hands of the Turkish army during the Siege of Kut (191516). However the British finally won in the Mesopotamian Campaign with the capture of Baghdad in March 1917. During the war the British employed the help of a number of Assyrian, Armenian and Arab tribes against the Ottomans, who in turn employed the Kurds as allies. After the war the Ottoman Empire was divided up, and the British Mandate of Mesopotamia was established by League of Nations mandate.

Britain imposed a Hshimite monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq without taking into account the politics of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds and the Christian Assyrians to the north. During the British occupation, the Kurds fought for independence, and the British employed Assyrian Levies to help quell these insurrections. Iraq also became an oligarchy government at this time.
Although the monarch Faisal I of Iraq was legitimized and proclaimed King by a plebiscite on 23 August 1921, simultaneously changing the official name of the country from Mesopotamia to Iraq,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq#cite_note-22][22][/url] independence was achieved in 1932, when the British Mandate officially ended."

---

Preserving the borders of a 100 year old British Mandate wasn't worth a single American life.

---

Here's the way you say that: as bad as the Sykes-Picot agreement might be, it is the status quo today and preserving that status quo is preferrable to redrawing the lines, which would engulf the entire region into a generation of war.

If you want to prevent America from being dragged into a war......to prevent us from spending money to support one or more parties to a war.....then you should insist that the borders are the borders. Any other position increases drastically the likelihood of policies you will like even less than the ones you have now. Yes, you may have to support one or more parties seeking to defend existing borders, but that is almost always a far cheaper and less risky task than allowing the borders to go away and leaving the new borders to be determined by the victors (who might or might not be your friends).

Better the devil you know......

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

You make my point, exactly. Look what happened when a single state was dissolved into smaller constituent pieces. The Kosovo question was whether it should, during the breakup of Yugoslavia, be independent or part of another polity. It took a not inconsiderable amount of military conflict to sort out winners/losers. The Serbs didn't really want the Kosovars per se, but they were not going to give up their claim on the geography (and still haven't). The best way to avoid that kind of conflict is to defend the position that "the borders are the borders" until that position becomes untenable. Most separatist movements will fail against such opposition. That failure will not be without cost, but the cost will almost always be a pittance compared to all-out war.

---

Kosovo was the creation of NATO, courtesy of a lot of bombs falling on Belgrade.

Quote:

---

The Kurds are the largest nation without its own country. They SHOULD, by rights, have their own country. But crating a Kurdish state in any of the four countries they are located would spark all out war between Turkey and Iran, who would invade to stop statehood (because it would destabilize their own polities which include substantial Kurdish minorities spanning significant geography). Saudi and Egypt would take sides (quietly). We would not support Kurdish independence i because Turkey is a Nato ally and fostering a Kurdish state against Turkish interests would be a high-percentage scenario for Turkey leaving Nato (empowering Russia).

---

The best case scenario for Iraq would have been splitting it into three states, a Kurdish state, a Sunni state, and a Shia state.

This is the history of modern Iraq: "Ottoman rule over Iraq lasted until World War I, when the Ottomans sided with Germany and the Central Powers. In the Mesopotamian campaign against the Central Powers, British forces invaded the country and suffered a defeat at the hands of the Turkish army during the Siege of Kut (191516). However the British finally won in the Mesopotamian Campaign with the capture of Baghdad in March 1917. During the war the British employed the help of a number of Assyrian, Armenian and Arab tribes against the Ottomans, who in turn employed the Kurds as allies. After the war the Ottoman Empire was divided up, and the British Mandate of Mesopotamia was established by League of Nations mandate.

Britain imposed a Hshimite monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq without taking into account the politics of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds and the Christian Assyrians to the north. During the British occupation, the Kurds fought for independence, and the British employed Assyrian Levies to help quell these insurrections. Iraq also became an oligarchy government at this time.
Although the monarch Faisal I of Iraq was legitimized and proclaimed King by a plebiscite on 23 August 1921, simultaneously changing the official name of the country from Mesopotamia to Iraq,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq#cite_note-22][22][/url] independence was achieved in 1932, when the British Mandate officially ended."

---

Preserving the borders of a 100 year old British Mandate wasn't worth a single American life.

---

Here's the way you say that: as bad as the Sykes-Picot agreement might be, it is the status quo today and preserving that status quo is preferrable to redrawing the lines, which would engulf the entire region into a generation of war.

If you want to prevent America from being dragged into a war.......

---

1. While it makes some sense it's ultimately futile

The Middle East has been changing borders and having wars since before the Bronze Age

You can't just freeze history (no matter what ***uyama thought)


2. The USA is a continental hegemon and massive empire. America does not have to get involved in any wars outside the Western Hemisphere unless it wants to get involved.

Heck America could have sat out both world wars if it wanted (and had Japan not attacked it)

As long as it has client governments in place in Ottawa and Mexico City it is essentially impossible to invade and has enough natural resources, population, and farm land to be an Autarky if it wanted

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's pointless to argue whether secession is always right or always wrong. It all depends on the circumstances. The civil wars in America and the Donbas have nothing to do with each other.

---

The statements in the Declaration of Independence are neither conditional, nor nation specific. They are broad philosophical statements (ie when in the course of *human* events). So the right of self determination is always correct, and if that expresses itself as secession, so be it.

I equally support the right of Donbass to leave Ukraine, Texas to leave the union, California to leave the union (should Trump be re-elected), and western Oregon to leave Oregon and join Idaho.

Quote:

---

Few nations had a better claim on territory than Britain had on America

---

So was the American revolution wrong?

---

Wrong? I don't think you can look at these things as right or wrong. If Britain had made concessions, it never would have happened. We would probably be part of the Commonwealth, like Canada.

Britain didn't make any moves to make the Colonies more a part of the State, they were viewed as a possession and those that lived there were either criminals or malcontents. I don't think you can say that about Donbas or Crimea as they were integrated into Ukraine the Nation, not some possession thousands of miles away.

So, I think the two are not an apples to apples comparison as the Colonies were not adjacent to Britain. It would be more like Texas and San Diego deciding they wanted to leave because there are more ethnic Mexicans. Would that fly? Would the US say, OK you go ahead.

As others have said, every secession is different, just as every war is different.

In the American Revolution, heck even the civil war, there were organized political processes that failed and that supported the actions taken. They also were not induced by another country by force.

Ukraine is nothing like either situation. There was no political process; no passed legislation. There was never even any evidence that anything close to a majority wanted Russia to take over. And Russia supported an insurgency and sent in troops.

Had Eastern Ukraine voted through some kind of official political process to become part of Russia, especially if it involved failed official negotiations with the Ukrainian Gov, I doubt anyone in this thread would have objected.

For this argument, I don't even care who is wrong or right. But Ukraine did not involve anything close to a traditional attempted secession or even break-off.

sombear said:

---

As others have said, every secession is different, just as every war is different.

In the American Revolution, heck even the civil war, there were organized political processes that failed and that supported the actions taken. They also were not induced by another country by force.

Ukraine is nothing like either situation. There was no political process; no passed legislation. There was never even any evidence that anything close to a majority wanted Russia to take over. And Russia supported an insurgency and sent in troops.

Had Eastern Ukraine voted through some kind of official political process to become part of Russia, especially if it involved failed official negotiations with the Ukrainian Gov, I doubt anyone in this thread would have objected.

For this argument, I don't even care who is wrong or right. But Ukraine did not involve anything close to a traditional attempted secession or even break-off.

---

It absolutely did. They voted overwhelmingly for independence in the Donbas status referendums of 2014.

Objections in 3…2…1…

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

As others have said, every secession is different, just as every war is different.

In the American Revolution, heck even the civil war, there were organized political processes that failed and that supported the actions taken. They also were not induced by another country by force.

Ukraine is nothing like either situation. There was no political process; no passed legislation. There was never even any evidence that anything close to a majority wanted Russia to take over. And Russia supported an insurgency and sent in troops.

Had Eastern Ukraine voted through some kind of official political process to become part of Russia, especially if it involved failed official negotiations with the Ukrainian Gov, I doubt anyone in this thread would have objected.

For this argument, I don't even care who is wrong or right. But Ukraine did not involve anything close to a traditional attempted secession or even break-off.

---

It absolutely did. They voted overwhelmingly for independence in the Donbas status referendums of 2014.

Objections in 3…2…1…

---

You and I disagree on most Russia-Ukraine issues, but I don't usually doubt your sincerity. I find it difficult to fathom you truly believe those referendums were anything close to legitimate.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

As others have said, every secession is different, just as every war is different.

In the American Revolution, heck even the civil war, there were organized political processes that failed and that supported the actions taken. They also were not induced by another country by force.

Ukraine is nothing like either situation. There was no political process; no passed legislation. There was never even any evidence that anything close to a majority wanted Russia to take over. And Russia supported an insurgency and sent in troops.

Had Eastern Ukraine voted through some kind of official political process to become part of Russia, especially if it involved failed official negotiations with the Ukrainian Gov, I doubt anyone in this thread would have objected.

For this argument, I don't even care who is wrong or right. But Ukraine did not involve anything close to a traditional attempted secession or even break-off.

---

It absolutely did. They voted overwhelmingly for independence in the Donbas status referendums of 2014.

Objections in 3…2…1…

---

So, that Referendum was legal? The World recognized it?

Funny, how you pick and choose what is legal and enforceable and what isn't. Budapest Memorandum, non-binding. Can't count it. The illegal 2014 Russian Referendum, that is a bedrock of law...

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

As others have said, every secession is different, just as every war is different.

In the American Revolution, heck even the civil war, there were organized political processes that failed and that supported the actions taken. They also were not induced by another country by force.

Ukraine is nothing like either situation. There was no political process; no passed legislation. There was never even any evidence that anything close to a majority wanted Russia to take over. And Russia supported an insurgency and sent in troops.

Had Eastern Ukraine voted through some kind of official political process to become part of Russia, especially if it involved failed official negotiations with the Ukrainian Gov, I doubt anyone in this thread would have objected.

For this argument, I don't even care who is wrong or right. But Ukraine did not involve anything close to a traditional attempted secession or even break-off.

---

It absolutely did. They voted overwhelmingly for independence in the Donbas status referendums of 2014.

Objections in 3…2…1…

---

You and I disagree on most Russia-Ukraine issues, but I don't usually doubt your sincerity. I find it difficult to fathom you truly believe those referendums were anything close to legitimate.

---

There is no reason to think the referendums did not accurately reflect the views of the people in Donbas or Crimea…even with Putin putting his finger on the scales

Even before the war they were the most pro-Russia regions of Ukraine.






Not to mention since the war hundreds of thousands of people have left those regions (mostly pro-Ukrainians) while more pro-Russian people have moved in

Those regions are now almost certainly MORE pro-Russian than they were 8-10 years ago

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

As others have said, every secession is different, just as every war is different.

In the American Revolution, heck even the civil war, there were organized political processes that failed and that supported the actions taken. They also were not induced by another country by force.

Ukraine is nothing like either situation. There was no political process; no passed legislation. There was never even any evidence that anything close to a majority wanted Russia to take over. And Russia supported an insurgency and sent in troops.

Had Eastern Ukraine voted through some kind of official political process to become part of Russia, especially if it involved failed official negotiations with the Ukrainian Gov, I doubt anyone in this thread would have objected.

For this argument, I don't even care who is wrong or right. But Ukraine did not involve anything close to a traditional attempted secession or even break-off.

---

It absolutely did. They voted overwhelmingly for independence in the Donbas status referendums of 2014.

Objections in 3…2…1…

---

You and I disagree on most Russia-Ukraine issues, but I don't usually doubt your sincerity. I find it difficult to fathom you truly believe those referendums were anything close to legitimate.

---

I don't know how legitimate they were. There are a few things we do know. Whether in Crimea, the Donbas in 2014, or again in 2022, no vote that goes Russia's way is ever valid according to the West. The Crimea annexation vote was confirmed by multiple Western polls, yet we refused to recognize it. So it's difficult to believe an attempted secession by the Donbas would ever pass without objection no matter how legitimate it was.

We also know that Ukraine was militarily weak at the time. Putin could have seized upon the the results of the referendum, immediately recognized or annexed the Donbas republics, and secured their status with Russian forces. Instead he discouraged the vote, delayed formal recognition, and relied on Western assurances to implement the Minsk Agreement. So the question is, why go to the trouble of faking a referendum if you're not going to act on it?

The simplest explanation is the one we never consider. Maybe he actually wanted to avoid conflict and pursue a diplomatic solution. One could argue, as his Russian critics do, that Putin was the appeaser and that he pushed us toward war by being too nice a guy.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

As others have said, every secession is different, just as every war is different.

In the American Revolution, heck even the civil war, there were organized political processes that failed and that supported the actions taken. They also were not induced by another country by force.

Ukraine is nothing like either situation. There was no political process; no passed legislation. There was never even any evidence that anything close to a majority wanted Russia to take over. And Russia supported an insurgency and sent in troops.

Had Eastern Ukraine voted through some kind of official political process to become part of Russia, especially if it involved failed official negotiations with the Ukrainian Gov, I doubt anyone in this thread would have objected.

For this argument, I don't even care who is wrong or right. But Ukraine did not involve anything close to a traditional attempted secession or even break-off.

---

It absolutely did. They voted overwhelmingly for independence in the Donbas status referendums of 2014.

Objections in 3…2…1…

---

You and I disagree on most Russia-Ukraine issues, but I don't usually doubt your sincerity. I find it difficult to fathom you truly believe those referendums were anything close to legitimate.

---

There is no reason to think the referendums did not accurately reflect the views of the people in Donbas or Crimea…even with Putin putting his finger on the scales

Even before the war they were the most pro-Russia regions of Ukraine.






Not to mention since the war hundreds of thousands of people have left those regions (mostly pro-Ukrainians) while more pro-Russian people have moved in

Those regions are now almost certainly MORE pro-Russian than they were 8-10 years ago

---

Geez, even with Putin's finger on the scale there is no reason to doubt? You are the same person that told us the Budapest Memorandum was non-binding. So, the US shouldn't defend Ukraine since it is not official. But, for Comrade Putin, I am sure he just had everyone's best interest at heart, even though he moved most of those people there!

In 2014 the polls in the east clearly showed they did not want to join Russia.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

As others have said, every secession is different, just as every war is different.

In the American Revolution, heck even the civil war, there were organized political processes that failed and that supported the actions taken. They also were not induced by another country by force.

Ukraine is nothing like either situation. There was no political process; no passed legislation. There was never even any evidence that anything close to a majority wanted Russia to take over. And Russia supported an insurgency and sent in troops.

Had Eastern Ukraine voted through some kind of official political process to become part of Russia, especially if it involved failed official negotiations with the Ukrainian Gov, I doubt anyone in this thread would have objected.

For this argument, I don't even care who is wrong or right. But Ukraine did not involve anything close to a traditional attempted secession or even break-off.

---

It absolutely did. They voted overwhelmingly for independence in the Donbas status referendums of 2014.

Objections in 3…2…1…

---

You and I disagree on most Russia-Ukraine issues, but I don't usually doubt your sincerity. I find it difficult to fathom you truly believe those referendums were anything close to legitimate.

---

secured their status with Russian forces.

---

LOL! That's what he did, dumbnuts. And the "Putin the peacemaker" is absurd Russian BS. Just as stupid as "Putin the white knight of Christianity".

sombear said:

---

In 2014 the polls in the east clearly showed they did not want to join Russia.

---

But the great majority wanted independence or autonomy from Ukraine in some form.

sombear said:

---

In 2014 the polls in the east clearly showed they did not want to join Russia.

---

It was always a pro-Russian region but still interested in saying in Ukraine.

The protests/riots in Kyiv seemed to have changed that..

[However, the Euromaidan, or Revolution of Dignity, which began in the fall of 2013 and ended with President Yanukovych fleeing to Russia on or about February 24, 2014, upset Crimea's political equanimity. Anti-Maidan street demonstrations began, with some publicly calling for Russia to intervene and take Crimea under its wing.

Such sentiments spread among Crimeans with unnatural speed…

Referendum and Annexation:

A much-disputed referendum took place in Crimea and Sevastopol in March 2014, barely a month after the Euromaidan ejected Yanukovych. With high voter turnout, the official tally was 95 percent in favor of Crimea integrating with Russia…]

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

In 2014 the polls in the east clearly showed they did not want to join Russia.

---

It was always a pro-Russian region but still interested in saying in Ukraine.

The protests/riots in Kyiv seemed to have changed that..

[However, the Euromaidan, or Revolution of Dignity, which began in the fall of 2013 and ended with President Yanukovych fleeing to Russia on or about February 24, 2014, upset Crimea's political equanimity. Anti-Maidan street demonstrations began, with some publicly calling for Russia to intervene and take Crimea under its wing.

Such sentiments spread among Crimeans with unnatural speed…

Referendum and Annexation:

A much-disputed referendum took place in Crimea and Sevastopol in March 2014, barely a month after the Euromaidan ejected Yanukovych. With high voter turnout, the official tally was 95 percent in favor of Crimea integrating with Russia…]

---

Good luck getting Iran to give up their Nukes! Sorry Ukraine, you screwed up. You trusted us.

Ukrainian troops are reportedly now surrounded in Volchansk, near Kharkiv. The Russians waited for them to arrive in force, destroyed bridges over the Vovcha River, trapped the Ukes in the northern half of the city, and began sending in tanks. Similar situations developing elsewhere, including Chasiv Yar and Krasnohorivka.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

In 2014 the polls in the east clearly showed they did not want to join Russia.

---

It was always a pro-Russian region but still interested in saying in Ukraine.

The protests/riots in Kyiv seemed to have changed that..

[However, the Euromaidan, or Revolution of Dignity, which began in the fall of 2013 and ended with President Yanukovych fleeing to Russia on or about February 24, 2014, upset Crimea's political equanimity. Anti-Maidan street demonstrations began, with some publicly calling for Russia to intervene and take Crimea under its wing.

Such sentiments spread among Crimeans with unnatural speed…

Referendum and Annexation:

A much-disputed referendum took place in Crimea and Sevastopol in March 2014, barely a month after the Euromaidan ejected Yanukovych. With high voter turnout, the official tally was 95 percent in favor of Crimea integrating with Russia…]

---

Further proof is that unbeknown to most, pro-Russian political parties never did well in the east.

The riots changed nothing. The referendums were jokes.

Mearsheimer on Ukraine at 23:00

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

In 2014 the polls in the east clearly showed they did not want to join Russia.

---

It was always a pro-Russian region but still interested in saying in Ukraine.

The protests/riots in Kyiv seemed to have changed that..

[However, the Euromaidan, or Revolution of Dignity, which began in the fall of 2013 and ended with President Yanukovych fleeing to Russia on or about February 24, 2014, upset Crimea's political equanimity. Anti-Maidan street demonstrations began, with some publicly calling for Russia to intervene and take Crimea under its wing.

Such sentiments spread among Crimeans with unnatural speed…

Referendum and Annexation:

A much-disputed referendum took place in Crimea and Sevastopol in March 2014, barely a month after the Euromaidan ejected Yanukovych. With high voter turnout, the official tally was 95 percent in favor of Crimea integrating with Russia…]

---

Further proof is that unbeknown to most, pro-Russian political parties never did well in the east.

The riots changed nothing. The referendums were jokes.

---

Party of Regions is the political party that Zelensky banned for being "pro-Russian"

It did well in the East and South electorally





yanukovych had is best percentage support in Donbas and Crimea

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

In 2014 the polls in the east clearly showed they did not want to join Russia.

---

It was always a pro-Russian region but still interested in saying in Ukraine.

The protests/riots in Kyiv seemed to have changed that..

[However, the Euromaidan, or Revolution of Dignity, which began in the fall of 2013 and ended with President Yanukovych fleeing to Russia on or about February 24, 2014, upset Crimea's political equanimity. Anti-Maidan street demonstrations began, with some publicly calling for Russia to intervene and take Crimea under its wing.

Such sentiments spread among Crimeans with unnatural speed…

Referendum and Annexation:

A much-disputed referendum took place in Crimea and Sevastopol in March 2014, barely a month after the Euromaidan ejected Yanukovych. With high voter turnout, the official tally was 95 percent in favor of Crimea integrating with Russia…]

---

Further proof is that unbeknown to most, pro-Russian political parties never did well in the east.

The riots changed nothing. The referendums were jokes.

---

Party of Regions is the political party that Zelensky banned for being "pro-Russian"

It did well in the East and South electorally





yanukovych had is best percentage support in Donbas and Crimea

---

You either didn't know (which I suspect and understand) or purposefully got this all wrong, which, despite all our debates, is not like you.

Just a few key points. (Sorry, I'm late for dinner!)

Party of Regions was not considered one of the true pro-Russia parties until the very end.

VY ran strongly pro-West campaign.

36 of the 38 POR members of parliament voted to impeach VY after his about-face on Russia.

When the party was banned in 2023, it was nothing like its former self. It had been restructured and reorganized a number of times. It had become a tiny, fringe party that openly supported Russia.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

In 2014 the polls in the east clearly showed they did not want to join Russia.

---

It was always a pro-Russian region but still interested in saying in Ukraine.

The protests/riots in Kyiv seemed to have changed that..

[However, the Euromaidan, or Revolution of Dignity, which began in the fall of 2013 and ended with President Yanukovych fleeing to Russia on or about February 24, 2014, upset Crimea's political equanimity. Anti-Maidan street demonstrations began, with some publicly calling for Russia to intervene and take Crimea under its wing.

Such sentiments spread among Crimeans with unnatural speed…

Referendum and Annexation:

A much-disputed referendum took place in Crimea and Sevastopol in March 2014, barely a month after the Euromaidan ejected Yanukovych. With high voter turnout, the official tally was 95 percent in favor of Crimea integrating with Russia…]

---

Further proof is that unbeknown to most, pro-Russian political parties never did well in the east.

The riots changed nothing. The referendums were jokes.

---

Party of Regions is the political party that Zelensky banned for being "pro-Russian"

It did well in the East and South electorally





yanukovych had is best percentage support in Donbas and Crimea

---

You either didn't know (which I suspect and understand) or purposefully got this all wrong, which, despite all our debates, is not like you.

Just a few key points. (Sorry, I'm late for dinner!)

Party of Regions was not considered one of the true pro-Russia parties until the very end.

VY ran strongly pro-West campaign.

---

1. Party of Regions was always the party favored by the ethnic Russian or Russian speaking population of Ukraine

It's electoral strong holds on election maps show which areas were more interested in friendly relations with Moscow.

Of course the party itself never advocated merging these regions with Russia but it's a good indicator of generally support for pro-Russian relations

2. That just brings up another question on why Zelensky the great "hero of democracy" banned the party when it was never a secessionist party.

3. Yanukovych ran a neutral campaign. Closer economic relations with the EU. But keeping relations good with Russia and no NATO membership.

(A reasonable political compromise position and yet still DC wanted him overthrown)

Yushchenko wants the Ukraine to join Nato, but Yanukovych's Regions party, which carries the vote in Crimea an autonomous republic of Ukraine on the northern coast of the Black Sea wants to keep Nato out, and a referendum on keeping Russian as an official language there.

If Ukraine joins Nato, the presence of Russia's large naval fleet in the Crimea would be in jeopardy, and the area would come under Nato command.]

Poll: Half of people in occupied Donbas want to join Russia
November 9, 2019

Only 5.1 percent of people living in the Russia-controlled parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions want Ukraine to regain control over the territories under the old terms, according to the findings of a joint survey conducted by the Ukrainian Institute of the Future and the Dzerkalo Tyzhnia.Ukraine weekly newspaper with the assistance of New Image Marketing Group, which were unveiled on Nov. 9.

A special status for the region as part of Ukraine is desired by 13.4 percent while 16.2 percent insist on independence.

Half (50.9 percent) want a union with Russia and another 13.4 percent said the region should accede to Russia with a "special status." For the whole of Donbas, including its Ukraine-controlled areas, 49.6 percent want it to become part of Russia, with another 13.3 percent choosing such a scenario with a "special status" for Donbas. A fifth (19.2 percent) see Donbas as part of Ukraine.

The face-to-face survey polled 1,606 respondents (800 in occupied Luhansk Oblast and 806 in the occupied Donetsk Oblast) on Oct. 7-31, using the 2014 statistics for comparison, after controlling for existing demographic data on temporarily displaced people who left the territories. The margin of error does not exceed 3.2 percent.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/7557

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

In 2014 the polls in the east clearly showed they did not want to join Russia.

---

It was always a pro-Russian region but still interested in saying in Ukraine.

The protests/riots in Kyiv seemed to have changed that..

[However, the Euromaidan, or Revolution of Dignity, which began in the fall of 2013 and ended with President Yanukovych fleeing to Russia on or about February 24, 2014, upset Crimea's political equanimity. Anti-Maidan street demonstrations began, with some publicly calling for Russia to intervene and take Crimea under its wing.

Such sentiments spread among Crimeans with unnatural speed…

Referendum and Annexation:

A much-disputed referendum took place in Crimea and Sevastopol in March 2014, barely a month after the Euromaidan ejected Yanukovych. With high voter turnout, the official tally was 95 percent in favor of Crimea integrating with Russia…]

---

Further proof is that unbeknown to most, pro-Russian political parties never did well in the east.

The riots changed nothing. The referendums were jokes.

---

Party of Regions is the political party that Zelensky banned for being "pro-Russian"

It did well in the East and South electorally





yanukovych had is best percentage support in Donbas and Crimea

---

Party of Regions was not considered one of the true pro-Russia parties until the very end.

---

The U.S. State Department (a source I think you would like) claims it was a pro-Russian party

[It advocated a moderate pro-Russian political course, opposing itself to the Ukrainian national democratic camp. It held dominant positions in power in Crimea and in the southern and eastern regions of Ukraine. During the Revolution of Dignity, it launched the Antimaidan movement.]


Now if you want to argue there were even MORE pro-Russian parties out there in the country then sure…it was pretty moderate but still wanted good terms with Moscow.



[In 2007, the Party of Regions campaigned on a program of 'Stability and Prosperity.' In addition to giving the Russian language the status of a state language (on par with Ukrainian), it promised social guarantees, better health care, help for farmers and family businesses, greater opportunities for higher education, systematic reforms, and opposed accession to NATO. It would attempt to maintain a neutral and balanced stance for Ukraine in international affairs. Much of this appealed principally to voters still not reconciled to the collapse of the Soviet Union and its socioeconomic order. Its vote improved to 34.4 percent, although in absolute numbers it slipped from 8.1 to 8.0 million. In Donetsk oblast, the vote was 72.1 per cent; only 3 percent in Ivano-Frankivsk oblast. This illustrated the party's polarizing effect on the electorate. Despite the increased vote share, the Party of Regions obtained 175 seats in the Supreme Council of Ukraine…Its legislative record embodied very little of the party's electoral platform, except for a modest effort to better the lives of rural residents.

The party nominated Viktor Yanukovych as presidential candidate in 2009. Elected president in 2010…]

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

In 2014 the polls in the east clearly showed they did not want to join Russia.

---

It was always a pro-Russian region but still interested in saying in Ukraine.

The protests/riots in Kyiv seemed to have changed that..

[However, the Euromaidan, or Revolution of Dignity, which began in the fall of 2013 and ended with President Yanukovych fleeing to Russia on or about February 24, 2014, upset Crimea's political equanimity. Anti-Maidan street demonstrations began, with some publicly calling for Russia to intervene and take Crimea under its wing.

Such sentiments spread among Crimeans with unnatural speed…

Referendum and Annexation:

A much-disputed referendum took place in Crimea and Sevastopol in March 2014, barely a month after the Euromaidan ejected Yanukovych. With high voter turnout, the official tally was 95 percent in favor of Crimea integrating with Russia…]

---

Further proof is that unbeknown to most, pro-Russian political parties never did well in the east.

The riots changed nothing. The referendums were jokes.

---

Party of Regions is the political party that Zelensky banned for being "pro-Russian"

It did well in the East and South electorally





yanukovych had is best percentage support in Donbas and Crimea

---

You either didn't know (which I suspect and understand) or purposefully got this all wrong, which, despite all our debates, is not like you.

Just a few key points. (Sorry, I'm late for dinner!)

Party of Regions was not considered one of the true pro-Russia parties until the very end.

VY ran strongly pro-West campaign.

---

1. Party of Regions was always the party favored by the ethnic Russian or Russian speaking population of Ukraine

It's electoral strong holds on election maps show which areas were more interested in friendly relations with Moscow.

Of course the party itself never advocated merging these regions with Russia but it's a good indicator of generally support for pro-Russian relations

2. That just brings up another question on why Zelensky the great "hero of democracy" banned the party when it was never a secessionist party.

3. Yanukovych ran a neutral campaign. Closer economic relations with the EU. But keeping relations good with Russia and no NATO membership.

(A reasonable political compromise position and yet still DC wanted him overthrown)

Yushchenko wants the Ukraine to join Nato, but Yanukovych's Regions party, which carries the vote in Crimea an autonomous republic of Ukraine on the northern coast of the Black Sea wants to keep Nato out, and a referendum on keeping Russian as an official language there.

If Ukraine joins Nato, the presence of Russia's large naval fleet in the Crimea would be in jeopardy, and the area would come under Nato command.]

---

Fair response. In my rush, if I wasn't clear, my main point was that if you study Ukrainian history, there are clear pro-Russian parties. They worked very hard to grow in the east but failed miserably.

Yes, POR was strong in the east. But, again, it was nowhere near a pro-Russian party.

As for the ban, again, read up on it. It's a poor analogy, but it's almost like comparing today's democrats with the old southern democrats, but even oceans wider apart. The POR of 2023 truly was POR in name only. All the traditional PORs moved to different parties. Russian seps basically just assumed the name. It became barely an asterisk. A tiny group of agitators whose platform was simply to support Russia.

As for VY, it was complicated. Remember, his predecessor openly supported joining NATO, and Russia said or did little about it (BTW, exhibit #1123 proving none of this was ever about NATO). VY took more of a middle ground, and most observers thought it was a political calculation, but regardless, that's what he did. He mostly spoke highly of NATO and emphasized alliances with NATO but opposed joining.

VY mostly aligned with the west throughout his career and far more so during his last campaign. That is why it was so shocking when he did his infamous 180.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

In 2014 the polls in the east clearly showed they did not want to join Russia.

---

It was always a pro-Russian region but still interested in saying in Ukraine.

The protests/riots in Kyiv seemed to have changed that..

[However, the Euromaidan, or Revolution of Dignity, which began in the fall of 2013 and ended with President Yanukovych fleeing to Russia on or about February 24, 2014, upset Crimea's political equanimity. Anti-Maidan street demonstrations began, with some publicly calling for Russia to intervene and take Crimea under its wing.

Such sentiments spread among Crimeans with unnatural speed…

Referendum and Annexation:

A much-disputed referendum took place in Crimea and Sevastopol in March 2014, barely a month after the Euromaidan ejected Yanukovych. With high voter turnout, the official tally was 95 percent in favor of Crimea integrating with Russia…]

---

Further proof is that unbeknown to most, pro-Russian political parties never did well in the east.

The riots changed nothing. The referendums were jokes.

---

Party of Regions is the political party that Zelensky banned for being "pro-Russian"

It did well in the East and South electorally





yanukovych had is best percentage support in Donbas and Crimea

---

2012???

Also, this just shows that Ukraine was tolerant of opposing Parties, until Russia got involved.

If the Donbas and Crimea wanted to be Russian and Russia wanted them they would not have been included in the 1991 creation of Sovereign Ukraine.

Show 1992, 1972, 1952, 1942... Show before the Soviet Union put a Naval Base there and shipped in 100's of thousands of Russians.

Anyone can play snapshot in time.

Was these areas part a sovereign Ukraine blessed by Russia at the break up of the Soviet Union? Yes or No?

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

You make my point, exactly. Look what happened when a single state was dissolved into smaller constituent pieces. The Kosovo question was whether it should, during the breakup of Yugoslavia, be independent or part of another polity. It took a not inconsiderable amount of military conflict to sort out winners/losers. The Serbs didn't really want the Kosovars per se, but they were not going to give up their claim on the geography (and still haven't). The best way to avoid that kind of conflict is to defend the position that "the borders are the borders" until that position becomes untenable. Most separatist movements will fail against such opposition. That failure will not be without cost, but the cost will almost always be a pittance compared to all-out war.

---

Kosovo was the creation of NATO, courtesy of a lot of bombs falling on Belgrade.

Quote:

---

The Kurds are the largest nation without its own country. They SHOULD, by rights, have their own country. But crating a Kurdish state in any of the four countries they are located would spark all out war between Turkey and Iran, who would invade to stop statehood (because it would destabilize their own polities which include substantial Kurdish minorities spanning significant geography). Saudi and Egypt would take sides (quietly). We would not support Kurdish independence i because Turkey is a Nato ally and fostering a Kurdish state against Turkish interests would be a high-percentage scenario for Turkey leaving Nato (empowering Russia).

---

The best case scenario for Iraq would have been splitting it into three states, a Kurdish state, a Sunni state, and a Shia state.

This is the history of modern Iraq: "Ottoman rule over Iraq lasted until World War I, when the Ottomans sided with Germany and the Central Powers. In the Mesopotamian campaign against the Central Powers, British forces invaded the country and suffered a defeat at the hands of the Turkish army during the Siege of Kut (191516). However the British finally won in the Mesopotamian Campaign with the capture of Baghdad in March 1917. During the war the British employed the help of a number of Assyrian, Armenian and Arab tribes against the Ottomans, who in turn employed the Kurds as allies. After the war the Ottoman Empire was divided up, and the British Mandate of Mesopotamia was established by League of Nations mandate.

Britain imposed a Hshimite monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq without taking into account the politics of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds and the Christian Assyrians to the north. During the British occupation, the Kurds fought for independence, and the British employed Assyrian Levies to help quell these insurrections. Iraq also became an oligarchy government at this time.
Although the monarch Faisal I of Iraq was legitimized and proclaimed King by a plebiscite on 23 August 1921, simultaneously changing the official name of the country from Mesopotamia to Iraq,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq#cite_note-22][22][/url] independence was achieved in 1932, when the British Mandate officially ended."

---

Preserving the borders of a 100 year old British Mandate wasn't worth a single American life.

---

Here's the way you say that: as bad as the Sykes-Picot agreement might be, it is the status quo today and preserving that status quo is preferrable to redrawing the lines, which would engulf the entire region into a generation of war.

If you want to prevent America from being dragged into a war.......

---

1. While it makes some sense it's ultimately futile

The Middle East has been changing borders and having wars since before the Bronze Age

You can't just freeze history (no matter what ***uyama thought)
False dilemma. Just because wars change borders over the centuries does not mean borders are unimportant today. In fact, the way you limit wars is by defending the borders you have today. Because the surest way to start a war is to start fiddling with borders. I mean, we have a very large and recent example going on right now. Had Russia not fiddled and schemed about borders, or had Nato reacted more quickly and firmly to defend those borders, we likely would not be in the middle of the largest land war in Europe, which you in other posts have described as a threat for potential nuclear war.

If you want peace TODAY, you defend the borders, TODAY.

2. The USA is a continental hegemon and massive empire. America does not have to get involved in any wars outside the Western Hemisphere unless it wants to get involved.
....due to interests. And what happens to trading partners and defense alliance partners does affect our interests. Just look at what the Russo-Ukrainian War of 2022 has done to the agriculture industry on multiple levels. Do you like bread? Do you not know it takes fertilizer to make wheat to make bread? Do you not realize that when Russian or Ukrainian wheat supplies are denied from the market it raises the price of wheat & bread all around the world? Do you not know that bread shortages have felled empires?

Heck America could have sat out both world wars if it wanted (and had Japan not attacked it)
At what cost? (See above)

As long as it has client governments in place in Ottawa and Mexico City it is essentially impossible to invade and has enough natural resources, population, and farm land to be an Autarky if it wanted

---

True enough. But some level of trade improves the general welfare, does it not? You cannot regulate domestic fertilizer production out of existence unless you intended to import it from elsewhere...... Or regulate coal power out of existence unless you intend to import the stuff needed for windmills and solar panels from elsewhere (because we also have regulated out of existence a lot o production for the constituent parts of windmills and solar panels)......

Isolationism requires purposeful myopia.