sombear said:

---

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.]

---

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).

---

Quite a strange comment. Russia had plenty to say about it, and Yushchenko was defiant in return.

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

We can go back and for throughout history. Want to get into the Crimean War and the capitulations Russia was supposed to make? How about the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a Russian homeland used to be the Tarters, until Russia deported them to Siberia and imported Russian Workers. It was a boon to be selected, better climate...

You keep talking around the one treaty that counts, the 1990's creation of the Ukrainian state and Russia agreeing, even signing a lease until 2042 to keep its fleet there. Eye on the ball, none of this flash and fish lure stuff changing the argument for the jury. Ukranian Independence in 1991, the Russian Treaty of 1997, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994...

Those are the agreements that are in effect, a newspaper article from 1919 seems to have more currency with you and Redbrick than the written diplomatic agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

We can go back and for throughout history. Want to get into the Crimean War and the capitulations Russia was supposed to make? How about the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a Russian homeland used to be the Tarters, until Russia deported them to Siberia and imported Russian Workers. It was a boon to be selected, better climate...

You keep talking around the one treaty that counts, the 1990's creation of the Ukrainian state and Russia agreeing, even signing a lease until 2042 to keep its fleet there. Eye on the ball, none of this flash and fish lure stuff changing the argument for the jury. Ukranian Independence in 1991, the Russian Treaty of 1997, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994...

Those are the agreements that are in effect, a newspaper article from 1919 seems to have more currency with you and Redbrick than the written diplomatic agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed.

---

1919?

FLBear5630 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

---

2012???

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

---

Who said they were not?

The point is that the eastern parts of the country always wanted to be oriented toward Moscow.

While the Western parts wanted to be oriented toward the EU.

And the Ukrainian political system was handling the domestic issues and remaining militarily neutral…until the coup/riots in Kyiv in 2014

Strangely not long after Ukraine decided not to join NATO and to extend the lease on the Russian naval base in Crimea

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

We can go back and for throughout history. Want to get into the Crimean War and the capitulations Russia was supposed to make? How about the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a Russian homeland used to be the Tarters, until Russia deported them to Siberia and imported Russian Workers. It was a boon to be selected, better climate...

You keep talking around the one treaty that counts, the 1990's creation of the Ukrainian state and Russia agreeing, even signing a lease until 2042 to keep its fleet there. Eye on the ball, none of this flash and fish lure stuff changing the argument for the jury. Ukranian Independence in 1991, the Russian Treaty of 1997, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994...

Those are the agreements that are in effect, a newspaper article from 1919 seems to have more currency with you and Redbrick than the written diplomatic agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed.

---

1919?

---

typo 2019. I was exaggerating the argument, a snap shot in time is a snap shot in time. You can put up all the polls you like, it does not change the official borders of a Nation.

Frankly, I am shocked you guys are actually supporting, strongly, the invasion of a Nation based on polls. Using your logic, might makes right. Except, if it is the US. Than, the US are monsters...

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 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

---

2012???

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

---

Who said they were not

The point is that the eastern parts of the country always wants to be oriented toward Moscow/

While the Western parts wanted to be oriented toward the EU.

And the Ukrainian political system was handling the domestic issues and remaining militarily neutral…until the coup/riots in Kyiv in 2014

---

No, they have not ALWAYS been oriented toward Moscow. In 1991, Crimea voted to be part of Ukraine by 56%. Russia actually signed a lease until 2042 to use the Ukrainian port, if that doesn't show that Moscow and the Russians were on board with these borders I don't know what else would. They actually negotiated a lease with Ukraine, sort of like Hong Kong. Lease is up, you may have to leave. Get it, Crimea is Ukranian.

Supposedly Ukraine recently launched a large missile / drone attack on targets inside Russia with US weaponry.

Now just step back for a moment and give some honest thought to some questions.

How would US citizens and government officials react if our cities and / or military bases were repeatedly attacked by weapons openly supplied by Russia ?


Really think we would be ok with it ? That we would do nothing in response ?


How long before our people demanded revenge ?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

We can go back and for throughout history. Want to get into the Crimean War and the capitulations Russia was supposed to make? How about the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a Russian homeland used to be the Tarters, until Russia deported them to Siberia and imported Russian Workers. It was a boon to be selected, better climate...

You keep talking around the one treaty that counts, the 1990's creation of the Ukrainian state and Russia agreeing, even signing a lease until 2042 to keep its fleet there. Eye on the ball, none of this flash and fish lure stuff changing the argument for the jury. Ukranian Independence in 1991, the Russian Treaty of 1997, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994...

Those are the agreements that are in effect, a newspaper article from 1919 seems to have more currency with you and Redbrick than the written diplomatic agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed.

---

1919?

---

typo 2019. I was exaggerating the argument, a snap shot in time is a snap shot in time. You can put up all the polls you like, it does not change the official borders of a Nation.

Frankly, I am shocked you guys are actually supporting, strongly, the invasion of a Nation based on polls. Using your logic, might makes right. Except, if it is the US. Then, the US are monsters...

---

I only mention the poll because others raised the issue. But it's important to understand that the Ukrainians aren't in the Donbas as liberators. They are there as invaders and would-be conquerors.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 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

---

2012???

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

---

Who said they were not

The point is that the eastern parts of the country always wants to be oriented toward Moscow/

While the Western parts wanted to be oriented toward the EU.

And the Ukrainian political system was handling the domestic issues and remaining militarily neutral…until the coup/riots in Kyiv in 2014

---

No, they have not ALWAYS been oriented toward Moscow. In 1991, Crimea voted to be part of Ukraine by 56%...

---

A referendum in 1991 on continuing the status quo of being part of Ukraine is NOT a referendum on joining NATO, joining the EU, or cutting yourself off from Moscow via trade and local military base jobs.

You know that.

Not to mention that Crimea local citizens continued to vote overwhelmingly for the party in Ukraine that promised them MORE autonomy and MORE legal protections for the Russian language.

(Also the Soviets transferred Crimea to Ukraine SSR from the Russian SSR with little to no consultation with locals at all in the first place)

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

We can go back and for throughout history. Want to get into the Crimean War and the capitulations Russia was supposed to make? How about the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a Russian homeland used to be the Tarters, until Russia deported them to Siberia and imported Russian Workers. It was a boon to be selected, better climate...

You keep talking around the one treaty that counts, the 1990's creation of the Ukrainian state and Russia agreeing, even signing a lease until 2042 to keep its fleet there. Eye on the ball, none of this flash and fish lure stuff changing the argument for the jury. Ukranian Independence in 1991, the Russian Treaty of 1997, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994...

Those are the agreements that are in effect, a newspaper article from 1919 seems to have more currency with you and Redbrick than the written diplomatic agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed.

---

1919?

---

typo 2019. I was exaggerating the argument, a snap shot in time is a snap shot in time. You can put up all the polls you like, it does not change the official borders of a Nation.

Frankly, I am shocked you guys are actually supporting, strongly, the invasion of a Nation based on polls. Using your logic, might makes right. Except, if it is the US. Then, the US are monsters...

---

I only mention the poll because others raised the issue. But it's important to understand that the Ukrainians aren't in the Donbas as liberators. They are there as invaders and would-be conquerors.

---

FLbear has already explained he does not accept secession movements in the USA and Ukriane…he is ok with the central government killing people who want to break off.

He is ok with secessionist movements in other countries as long as DC approves of them. (Kosovo, S. Sudan, East Timor, etc)

It's a consistent position of his…even if it's not logical

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.]

---

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).

---

Quite a strange comment. Russia had plenty to say about it, and Yushchenko was defiant in return.

---

And they poisoned him for it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

We can go back and for throughout history. Want to get into the Crimean War and the capitulations Russia was supposed to make? How about the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a Russian homeland used to be the Tarters, until Russia deported them to Siberia and imported Russian Workers. It was a boon to be selected, better climate...

You keep talking around the one treaty that counts, the 1990's creation of the Ukrainian state and Russia agreeing, even signing a lease until 2042 to keep its fleet there. Eye on the ball, none of this flash and fish lure stuff changing the argument for the jury. Ukranian Independence in 1991, the Russian Treaty of 1997, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994...

Those are the agreements that are in effect, a newspaper article from 1919 seems to have more currency with you and Redbrick than the written diplomatic agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed.

---

1919?

---

typo 2019. I was exaggerating the argument, a snap shot in time is a snap shot in time. You can put up all the polls you like, it does not change the official borders of a Nation.

Frankly, I am shocked you guys are actually supporting, strongly, the invasion of a Nation based on polls. Using your logic, might makes right. Except, if it is the US. Then, the US are monsters...

---

I only mention the poll because others raised the issue. But it's important to understand that the Ukrainians aren't in the Donbas as liberators. They are there as invaders and would-be conquerors.

---

To be invaders, conquerors or even liberators implies that they are coming from the outside. It is their Nation, they are DEFENDERS. The Russians are the invaders. Ukraine is a sovereign Nation, a Nation we agreed, in principle, to protect in 1994. A Nation that Russia agreed existed and even signed a lease with to use their Port. You guys keep mixing issues. The one issue that is indefensible is Russia taking Crimea and being there now.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.]

---

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).

---

Quite a strange comment. Russia had plenty to say about it, and Yushchenko was defiant in return.

---

I'm summarizing probably an entire book's worth of material, but not a strange comment at all. Putin himself was quoted multiple times saying, and it became Russia's formal position, that countries have the right to choose their own security arrangements. Yes, there were a few counter-statements around the time Ukraine and Georgia officially requested MAP, but Putin had an entirely different strategy that largely failed. He knew NATO was a disputed issue even inside Ukraine. He thought Russia could counter it by using its shadow networks inside Ukraine to work with existing pro-Russian and/or anti-NATO Ukrainian factions to effectively destroy Ukraine's democracy and steer the country back to Russia. It worked short-term but he could never steer Ukraine away from the west until finally causing the VY flip, but the problem with that was Russia and its shadow networks focused on the elites. Russia thought that would then trickle down to the public, but it didn't.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

We can go back and for throughout history. Want to get into the Crimean War and the capitulations Russia was supposed to make? How about the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a Russian homeland used to be the Tarters, until Russia deported them to Siberia and imported Russian Workers. It was a boon to be selected, better climate...

You keep talking around the one treaty that counts, the 1990's creation of the Ukrainian state and Russia agreeing, even signing a lease until 2042 to keep its fleet there. Eye on the ball, none of this flash and fish lure stuff changing the argument for the jury. Ukranian Independence in 1991, the Russian Treaty of 1997, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994...

Those are the agreements that are in effect, a newspaper article from 1919 seems to have more currency with you and Redbrick than the written diplomatic agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed.

---

1919?

---

typo 2019. I was exaggerating the argument, a snap shot in time is a snap shot in time. You can put up all the polls you like, it does not change the official borders of a Nation.

Frankly, I am shocked you guys are actually supporting, strongly, the invasion of a Nation based on polls. Using your logic, might makes right. Except, if it is the US. Then, the US are monsters...

---

I only mention the poll because others raised the issue. But it's important to understand that the Ukrainians aren't in the Donbas as liberators. They are there as invaders and would-be conquerors.

---

To be invaders, conquerors or even liberators implies that they are coming from the outside. It is their Nation, they are DEFENDERS. The Russians are the invaders. Ukraine is a sovereign Nation, a Nation we agreed, in principle, to protect in 1994. A Nation that Russia agreed existed and even signed a lease with to use their Port. You guys keep mixing issues. The one issue that is indefensible is Russia taking Crimea and being there now.

---

1. They are welcome to defend their own nation without American tax payers footing the bill (we are trillions in debt as it is)

2. The USA NEVER agreed to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. And has NEVER enrolled Ukraine in as an ally through a Senate treaty or through joining NATO.

3. Moscow is trying to install a pro-Russian government in Kyiv and has invaded to facilitate that outcome. I don't remember you kvetching this badly when DC invaded Iraq to install a pro-American government in Bagdad. Not to mention Iraq is 6,900 miles from the U.S. border. Ukraine is right next door to Russia

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.]

---

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).

---

Quite a strange comment. Russia had plenty to say about it, and Yushchenko was defiant in return.

---

Putin himself was quoted multiple times saying, and it became Russia's formal position, that countries have the right to choose their own security arrangements. .

---

This might come as a shock to you but Putin often lies (so do most world leaders)

Under no circumstances were Belarus, Ukraine, or Georgia ever going to be allowed to join a Western oriented military alliance right in the borders of Russia.

Just like under no circumstances are Canada and Mexico going to be allowed to be in a hostile military alliance in opposition to DC.

DC might talk a big game about sovereignty and other nations being free to choose their own security relations. They are of course lying.

If Putin says things like that he is also lying.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

We can go back and for throughout history. Want to get into the Crimean War and the capitulations Russia was supposed to make? How about the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a Russian homeland used to be the Tarters, until Russia deported them to Siberia and imported Russian Workers. It was a boon to be selected, better climate...

You keep talking around the one treaty that counts, the 1990's creation of the Ukrainian state and Russia agreeing, even signing a lease until 2042 to keep its fleet there. Eye on the ball, none of this flash and fish lure stuff changing the argument for the jury. Ukranian Independence in 1991, the Russian Treaty of 1997, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994...

Those are the agreements that are in effect, a newspaper article from 1919 seems to have more currency with you and Redbrick than the written diplomatic agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed.

---

1919?

---

typo 2019. I was exaggerating the argument, a snap shot in time is a snap shot in time. You can put up all the polls you like, it does not change the official borders of a Nation.

Frankly, I am shocked you guys are actually supporting, strongly, the invasion of a Nation based on polls. Using your logic, might makes right. Except, if it is the US. Then, the US are monsters...

---

I only mention the poll because others raised the issue. But it's important to understand that the Ukrainians aren't in the Donbas as liberators. They are there as invaders and would-be conquerors.

---

To be invaders, conquerors or even liberators implies that they are coming from the outside. It is their Nation, they are DEFENDERS. The Russians are the invaders. Ukraine is a sovereign Nation, a Nation we agreed, in principle, to protect in 1994. A Nation that Russia agreed existed and even signed a lease with to use their Port. You guys keep mixing issues. The one issue that is indefensible is Russia taking Crimea and being there now.

---

1. They are welcome to defend their own nation without American tax payers footing the bill (we are trillions in debt as it is)

2. The USA NEVER agreed to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. And has NEVER enrolled Ukraine in as an ally through a Senate treaty or through joining NATO.

3. Moscow is trying to install a pro-Russian government in Kyiv and has invaded to facilitate that outcome. I don't remember you kvetching this badly when DC invaded Iraq to install a pro-American government in Bagdad. Not to mention Iraq is 6,900 miles from the U.S. border. Ukraine is right next door to Russia

---

We were involved in the turning over of the Nukes and specifically said, with NATO, if Ukraine went along, NATO would protect them. Then we said it was non-binding, attorneys. God help us when we listen to Attorneys, Diplomats and Risk Managers... Good luck getting N Korea, Iran or any other Nation to give up their nuclear assets. Even the ones that Ukraine could control would be enough to keep Russia honest.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

We can go back and for throughout history. Want to get into the Crimean War and the capitulations Russia was supposed to make? How about the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a Russian homeland used to be the Tarters, until Russia deported them to Siberia and imported Russian Workers. It was a boon to be selected, better climate...

You keep talking around the one treaty that counts, the 1990's creation of the Ukrainian state and Russia agreeing, even signing a lease until 2042 to keep its fleet there. Eye on the ball, none of this flash and fish lure stuff changing the argument for the jury. Ukranian Independence in 1991, the Russian Treaty of 1997, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994...

Those are the agreements that are in effect, a newspaper article from 1919 seems to have more currency with you and Redbrick than the written diplomatic agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed.

---

1919?

---

typo 2019. I was exaggerating the argument, a snap shot in time is a snap shot in time. You can put up all the polls you like, it does not change the official borders of a Nation.

Frankly, I am shocked you guys are actually supporting, strongly, the invasion of a Nation based on polls. Using your logic, might makes right. Except, if it is the US. Then, the US are monsters...

---

I only mention the poll because others raised the issue. But it's important to understand that the Ukrainians aren't in the Donbas as liberators. They are there as invaders and would-be conquerors.

---

To be invaders, conquerors or even liberators implies that they are coming from the outside. It is their Nation, they are DEFENDERS. The Russians are the invaders. Ukraine is a sovereign Nation, a Nation we agreed, in principle, to protect in 1994. A Nation that Russia agreed existed and even signed a lease with to use their Port. You guys keep mixing issues. The one issue that is indefensible is Russia taking Crimea and being there now.

---

1. They are welcome to defend their own nation without American tax payers footing the bill (we are trillions in debt as it is)

2. The USA NEVER agreed to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. And has NEVER enrolled Ukraine in as an ally through a Senate treaty or through joining NATO.

3. Moscow is trying to install a pro-Russian government in Kyiv and has invaded to facilitate that outcome. I don't remember you kvetching this badly when DC invaded Iraq to install a pro-American government in Bagdad. Not to mention Iraq is 6,900 miles from the U.S. border. Ukraine is right next door to Russia

---

We were involved in the turning over of the Nukes and specifically said, with NATO, if Ukraine went along, NATO would protect them...

---

No we did you NOT…at least not in the way you are trying to spin it.

The Budapest moratorium was NOT a security treaty passed by the United States Senate. It did NOT have any enforcement mechanism or establish by law that the U.S. had to intervene in any way on the side of Belarus, Kazakhstan, or Ukraine in the future.

The "Security guarantees" in that nuke process were almost all on the Russian side…they took on the responsibility of not intervening with no other stipulations other than compensation and no guarantee of US military involvement or promise of such assistance

How ever you want to spin this info as a casus belli for war it just does not float…


[Ukrainian regrets

The memorandum, signed in 1994, is not legally binding]

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-got-a-signed-commitment-in-1994-to-ensure-its-security-but-can-the-us-and-allies-stop-putins-aggression-now-173481

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

We can go back and for throughout history. Want to get into the Crimean War and the capitulations Russia was supposed to make? How about the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a Russian homeland used to be the Tarters, until Russia deported them to Siberia and imported Russian Workers. It was a boon to be selected, better climate...

You keep talking around the one treaty that counts, the 1990's creation of the Ukrainian state and Russia agreeing, even signing a lease until 2042 to keep its fleet there. Eye on the ball, none of this flash and fish lure stuff changing the argument for the jury. Ukranian Independence in 1991, the Russian Treaty of 1997, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994...

Those are the agreements that are in effect, a newspaper article from 1919 seems to have more currency with you and Redbrick than the written diplomatic agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed.

---

1919?

---

typo 2019. I was exaggerating the argument, a snap shot in time is a snap shot in time. You can put up all the polls you like, it does not change the official borders of a Nation.

Frankly, I am shocked you guys are actually supporting, strongly, the invasion of a Nation based on polls. Using your logic, might makes right. Except, if it is the US. Then, the US are monsters...

---

I only mention the poll because others raised the issue. But it's important to understand that the Ukrainians aren't in the Donbas as liberators. They are there as invaders and would-be conquerors.

---

To be invaders, conquerors or even liberators implies that they are coming from the outside. It is their Nation, they are DEFENDERS. The Russians are the invaders. Ukraine is a sovereign Nation, a Nation we agreed, in principle, to protect in 1994. A Nation that Russia agreed existed and even signed a lease with to use their Port. You guys keep mixing issues. The one issue that is indefensible is Russia taking Crimea and being there now.

---

1. They are welcome to defend their own nation without American tax payers footing the bill (we are trillions in debt as it is)

2. The USA NEVER agreed to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. And has NEVER enrolled Ukraine in as an ally through a Senate treaty or through joining NATO.

3. Moscow is trying to install a pro-Russian government in Kyiv and has invaded to facilitate that outcome. I don't remember you kvetching this badly when DC invaded Iraq to install a pro-American government in Bagdad. Not to mention Iraq is 6,900 miles from the U.S. border. Ukraine is right next door to Russia

---

We were involved in the turning over of the Nukes and specifically said, with NATO, if Ukraine went along, NATO would protect them...

---

No we did you NOT…at least not in the way you are trying to spin it.

The Budapest moratorium was NOT a security treaty passed by the United States Senate. It did NOT have any enforcement mechanism or establish by law that the U.S. had to intervene in any way on the side of Belarus, Kazakhstan, or Ukraine in the future.

The "Security guarantees" in that nuke process were almost all on the Russian side…they took on the responsibility of not intervening with no other stipulations other than compensation.

How every you want to spin this info a casus belli for war it just does not float…

---

Here is Brookings view as well...

The Budapest Memorandum and U.S. Obligations | Brookings

We need to just disagree. You will always support Russia's view and I will always support Ukraine's view.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.]

---

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).

---

Quite a strange comment. Russia had plenty to say about it, and Yushchenko was defiant in return.

---

I'm summarizing probably an entire book's worth of material, but not a strange comment at all. Putin himself was quoted multiple times saying, and it became Russia's formal position, that countries have the right to choose their own security arrangements. Yes, there were a few counter-statements around the time Ukraine and Georgia officially requested MAP, but Putin had an entirely different strategy that largely failed. He knew NATO was a disputed issue even inside Ukraine. He thought Russia could counter it by using its shadow networks inside Ukraine to work with existing pro-Russian and/or anti-NATO Ukrainian factions to effectively destroy Ukraine's democracy and steer the country back to Russia. It worked short-term but he could never steer Ukraine away from the west until finally causing the VY flip, but the problem with that was Russia and its shadow networks focused on the elites. Russia thought that would then trickle down to the public, but it didn't.

---

Countries have the right to choose their own security arrangements, but not at the expense of other countries' security. Russia has been clear and consistent about that. In any case, the behind-the-scenes efforts you describe demonstrate my point -- it was very much about NATO.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.]

---

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).

---

Quite a strange comment. Russia had plenty to say about it, and Yushchenko was defiant in return.

---

Putin himself was quoted multiple times saying, and it became Russia's formal position, that countries have the right to choose their own security arrangements. .

---

This might come as a shock to you but Putin often lies (so do most world leaders)

Under no circumstances were Belarus, Ukraine, or Georgia ever going to be allowed to join a Western oriented military alliance right in the borders of Russia.

Just like under no circumstances are Canada and Mexico going to be allowed to be in a hostile military alliance in opposition to DC.

DC might talk a big game about sovereignty and other nations being free to choose their own security relations. They are of course lying.

If Putin says things like that he is also lying.

---

Post Yeltsin, Putin and Russia were in some desperate economic straights, so that was his strategy, and he actually considered Russia aligning with the West, which Yeltsin had been leaning toward. But after oil picked up and the Chechen conflicts, his own oligarch siloviki gained power, so he shifted approach. Expanding this groups power, economic and otherwise, has been the objective since the early 2000's.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.]

---

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).

---

Quite a strange comment. Russia had plenty to say about it, and Yushchenko was defiant in return.

---

I'm summarizing probably an entire book's worth of material, but not a strange comment at all. Putin himself was quoted multiple times saying, and it became Russia's formal position, that countries have the right to choose their own security arrangements. Yes, there were a few counter-statements around the time Ukraine and Georgia officially requested MAP, but Putin had an entirely different strategy that largely failed. He knew NATO was a disputed issue even inside Ukraine. He thought Russia could counter it by using its shadow networks inside Ukraine to work with existing pro-Russian and/or anti-NATO Ukrainian factions to effectively destroy Ukraine's democracy and steer the country back to Russia. It worked short-term but he could never steer Ukraine away from the west until finally causing the VY flip, but the problem with that was Russia and its shadow networks focused on the elites. Russia thought that would then trickle down to the public, but it didn't.

---

Countries have the right to choose their own security arrangements, but not at the expense of other countries' security. Russia has been clear and consistent about that. In any case, the behind-the-scenes efforts you describe demonstrate my point -- it was very much about NATO.

---

How has Russia been clear and consistent??? They invaded their sovereign neighbor after agreeing not to! You guys really see what you want. They took Crimea and now invaded the rest with 300k troops and are destroying the infrastructure.

How in any form can you reconcile your statement with Russia invading another Nation!

"Countries have the right to choose their own security arrangements, but not at the expense of other countries' security. Russia has been clear and consistent about that"

Unless, you are Russian or on Russia's side. You can say that the US played political games, but no more than Russia and Russia used physical force. You basically are saying Ukraine only exists are Russia's whim, there is no real sovereignty.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.]

---

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).

---

Quite a strange comment. Russia had plenty to say about it, and Yushchenko was defiant in return.

---

I'm summarizing probably an entire book's worth of material, but not a strange comment at all. Putin himself was quoted multiple times saying, and it became Russia's formal position, that countries have the right to choose their own security arrangements. Yes, there were a few counter-statements around the time Ukraine and Georgia officially requested MAP, but Putin had an entirely different strategy that largely failed. He knew NATO was a disputed issue even inside Ukraine. He thought Russia could counter it by using its shadow networks inside Ukraine to work with existing pro-Russian and/or anti-NATO Ukrainian factions to effectively destroy Ukraine's democracy and steer the country back to Russia. It worked short-term but he could never steer Ukraine away from the west until finally causing the VY flip, but the problem with that was Russia and its shadow networks focused on the elites. Russia thought that would then trickle down to the public, but it didn't.

---

Countries have the right to choose their own security arrangements, but not at the expense of other countries' security. Russia has been clear and consistent about that. In any case, the behind-the-scenes efforts you describe demonstrate my point -- it was very much about NATO.

---

The only military security threat was Russia, and their invasion proved it accordingly. NATO is the ruse, his economic interests are the actual objective.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

We can go back and for throughout history. Want to get into the Crimean War and the capitulations Russia was supposed to make? How about the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a Russian homeland used to be the Tarters, until Russia deported them to Siberia and imported Russian Workers. It was a boon to be selected, better climate...

You keep talking around the one treaty that counts, the 1990's creation of the Ukrainian state and Russia agreeing, even signing a lease until 2042 to keep its fleet there. Eye on the ball, none of this flash and fish lure stuff changing the argument for the jury. Ukranian Independence in 1991, the Russian Treaty of 1997, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994...

Those are the agreements that are in effect, a newspaper article from 1919 seems to have more currency with you and Redbrick than the written diplomatic agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed.

---

1919?

---

typo 2019. I was exaggerating the argument, a snap shot in time is a snap shot in time. You can put up all the polls you like, it does not change the official borders of a Nation.

Frankly, I am shocked you guys are actually supporting, strongly, the invasion of a Nation based on polls. Using your logic, might makes right. Except, if it is the US. Then, the US are monsters...

---

I only mention the poll because others raised the issue. But it's important to understand that the Ukrainians aren't in the Donbas as liberators. They are there as invaders and would-be conquerors.

---

To be invaders, conquerors or even liberators implies that they are coming from the outside. It is their Nation, they are DEFENDERS. The Russians are the invaders. Ukraine is a sovereign Nation, a Nation we agreed, in principle, to protect in 1994. A Nation that Russia agreed existed and even signed a lease with to use their Port. You guys keep mixing issues. The one issue that is indefensible is Russia taking Crimea and being there now.

---

1. They are welcome to defend their own nation without American tax payers footing the bill (we are trillions in debt as it is)

2. The USA NEVER agreed to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. And has NEVER enrolled Ukraine in as an ally through a Senate treaty or through joining NATO.

3. Moscow is trying to install a pro-Russian government in Kyiv and has invaded to facilitate that outcome. I don't remember you kvetching this badly when DC invaded Iraq to install a pro-American government in Bagdad. Not to mention Iraq is 6,900 miles from the U.S. border. Ukraine is right next door to Russia

---

We were involved in the turning over of the Nukes and specifically said, with NATO, if Ukraine went along, NATO would protect them...

---

No we did you NOT…at least not in the way you are trying to spin it.

The Budapest moratorium was NOT a security treaty passed by the United States Senate. It did NOT have any enforcement mechanism or establish by law that the U.S. had to intervene in any way on the side of Belarus, Kazakhstan, or Ukraine in the future.

The "Security guarantees" in that nuke process were almost all on the Russian side…they took on the responsibility of not intervening with no other stipulations other than compensation.

How every you want to spin this info a casus belli for war it just does not float…

---

Here is Brookings view as well...

The Budapest Memorandum and U.S. Obligations | Brookings

We need to just disagree. You will always support Russia's view and I will always support Ukraine's view.

---

No we need to go by what the agreement says and the Brookings article breaks it down and admits it:

[Security assurances such as those in the Budapest memorandum do not carry as much weight as NATO security guarantees or the guarantees in the mutual security treaties that the United States has with Japan and South Korea…

These kinds of assurances may not by themselves offer major leverage.]

It's NOT a formal legal treaty

It's NOT confirmed by the U.S. Senate

It NOT a document that requires the U.S. to do anything but lodge a formal protest if it feels the agreement is being violated.

No where does it pledge the U.S. to fight Russia if it refuses to honor the current borders of Ukraine.

Obviously you want us to fight Russia over Ukriane…and it's your right to have a neo-con/liberal interventionist view

But you can't lean on a "Moratorium of understanding" from 1990s Budapest to make it happen

Maybe there was a moratorium of understanding…you have to admit it would explain a lot.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.]

---

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).

---

Quite a strange comment. Russia had plenty to say about it, and Yushchenko was defiant in return.

---

I'm summarizing probably an entire book's worth of material, but not a strange comment at all. Putin himself was quoted multiple times saying, and it became Russia's formal position, that countries have the right to choose their own security arrangements. Yes, there were a few counter-statements around the time Ukraine and Georgia officially requested MAP, but Putin had an entirely different strategy that largely failed. He knew NATO was a disputed issue even inside Ukraine. He thought Russia could counter it by using its shadow networks inside Ukraine to work with existing pro-Russian and/or anti-NATO Ukrainian factions to effectively destroy Ukraine's democracy and steer the country back to Russia. It worked short-term but he could never steer Ukraine away from the west until finally causing the VY flip, but the problem with that was Russia and its shadow networks focused on the elites. Russia thought that would then trickle down to the public, but it didn't.

---

Countries have the right to choose their own security arrangements, but not at the expense of other countries' security. Russia has been clear and consistent about that. In any case, the behind-the-scenes efforts you describe demonstrate my point -- it was very much about NATO.

---

No, it demonstrates Russia played the political/spy game like all countries, then were sore losers and invaded when they saw Ukraine's democracy showing strength and resiliency.. And it was suddenly all about NATO, Russian heritage, and Nazis.

Edit: your opening sentence reads like something out of a SNL skit or dark comedy.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.]

---

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).

---

Quite a strange comment. Russia had plenty to say about it, and Yushchenko was defiant in return.

---

I'm summarizing probably an entire book's worth of material, but not a strange comment at all. Putin himself was quoted multiple times saying, and it became Russia's formal position, that countries have the right to choose their own security arrangements. Yes, there were a few counter-statements around the time Ukraine and Georgia officially requested MAP, but Putin had an entirely different strategy that largely failed. He knew NATO was a disputed issue even inside Ukraine. He thought Russia could counter it by using its shadow networks inside Ukraine to work with existing pro-Russian and/or anti-NATO Ukrainian factions to effectively destroy Ukraine's democracy and steer the country back to Russia. It worked short-term but he could never steer Ukraine away from the west until finally causing the VY flip, but the problem with that was Russia and its shadow networks focused on the elites. Russia thought that would then trickle down to the public, but it didn't.

---

Countries have the right to choose their own security arrangements, but not at the expense of other countries' security. Russia has been clear and consistent about that. In any case, the behind-the-scenes efforts you describe demonstrate my point -- it was very much about NATO.

---

The only military security threat was Russia, and their invasion proved it accordingly. NATO is the ruse, his economic interests are the actual objective.

---

At worst that would make them as bad as us.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.]

---

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).

---

Quite a strange comment. Russia had plenty to say about it, and Yushchenko was defiant in return.

---

I'm summarizing probably an entire book's worth of material, but not a strange comment at all. Putin himself was quoted multiple times saying, and it became Russia's formal position, that countries have the right to choose their own security arrangements. Yes, there were a few counter-statements around the time Ukraine and Georgia officially requested MAP, but Putin had an entirely different strategy that largely failed. He knew NATO was a disputed issue even inside Ukraine. He thought Russia could counter it by using its shadow networks inside Ukraine to work with existing pro-Russian and/or anti-NATO Ukrainian factions to effectively destroy Ukraine's democracy and steer the country back to Russia. It worked short-term but he could never steer Ukraine away from the west until finally causing the VY flip, but the problem with that was Russia and its shadow networks focused on the elites. Russia thought that would then trickle down to the public, but it didn't.

---

Countries have the right to choose their own security arrangements, but not at the expense of other countries' security. Russia has been clear and consistent about that. In any case, the behind-the-scenes efforts you describe demonstrate my point -- it was very much about NATO.

---

No, it demonstrates Russia played the political/spy game like all countries, then were sore losers and invaded when they saw Ukraine's democracy showing strength and resiliency.. And it was suddenly all about NATO, Russian heritage, and Nazis.

Edit: your opening sentence reads like something out of a SNL skit or dark comedy.

---

Your last sentence reads inauspiciously, because the dual principles of national sovereignty and indivisible security are a deeply rooted part of the postwar discourse on alliances. It's impossible to understand the dispute between NATO and Russia without understanding that.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

We can go back and for throughout history. Want to get into the Crimean War and the capitulations Russia was supposed to make? How about the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a Russian homeland used to be the Tarters, until Russia deported them to Siberia and imported Russian Workers. It was a boon to be selected, better climate...

You keep talking around the one treaty that counts, the 1990's creation of the Ukrainian state and Russia agreeing, even signing a lease until 2042 to keep its fleet there. Eye on the ball, none of this flash and fish lure stuff changing the argument for the jury. Ukranian Independence in 1991, the Russian Treaty of 1997, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994...

Those are the agreements that are in effect, a newspaper article from 1919 seems to have more currency with you and Redbrick than the written diplomatic agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed.

---

92.7% of Kurds voted for independence in a 2017 a referendum. It prompted military conflict.
92.01% of Catalans vote for independence in a 2017 referendum. Madrid squashed the movement.

50% is a pretty low vote on such things. It means half of the people do NOT want to join Russia. That is a prescription for doing nothing.

When you start fiddling with borders, wars usually happen unless everyone involved and in the region are good with it. We are a long, long way from that in Ukraine.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

We can go back and for throughout history. Want to get into the Crimean War and the capitulations Russia was supposed to make? How about the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a Russian homeland used to be the Tarters, until Russia deported them to Siberia and imported Russian Workers. It was a boon to be selected, better climate...

You keep talking around the one treaty that counts, the 1990's creation of the Ukrainian state and Russia agreeing, even signing a lease until 2042 to keep its fleet there. Eye on the ball, none of this flash and fish lure stuff changing the argument for the jury. Ukranian Independence in 1991, the Russian Treaty of 1997, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994...

Those are the agreements that are in effect, a newspaper article from 1919 seems to have more currency with you and Redbrick than the written diplomatic agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed.

---

92.7% of Kurds voted for independence in a 2017 a referendum. It prompted military conflict.
92.01% of Catalans vote for independence in a 2017 referendum. Madrid squashed the movement.

50% is a pretty low vote on such things. It means half of the people do NOT want to join Russia. That is a prescription for doing nothing.

When you start fiddling with borders, wars usually happen unless everyone involved and in the region are good with it. We are a long, long way from that in Ukraine.

---

We're a long, long way from anything in Ukraine. If we left it to everyone involved and in the region, none of this would have happened.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

We can go back and for throughout history. Want to get into the Crimean War and the capitulations Russia was supposed to make? How about the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a Russian homeland used to be the Tarters, until Russia deported them to Siberia and imported Russian Workers. It was a boon to be selected, better climate...

You keep talking around the one treaty that counts, the 1990's creation of the Ukrainian state and Russia agreeing, even signing a lease until 2042 to keep its fleet there. Eye on the ball, none of this flash and fish lure stuff changing the argument for the jury. Ukranian Independence in 1991, the Russian Treaty of 1997, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994...

Those are the agreements that are in effect, a newspaper article from 1919 seems to have more currency with you and Redbrick than the written diplomatic agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed.

---

92.7% of Kurds voted for independence in a 2017 a referendum. It prompted military conflict.
92.01% of Catalans vote for independence in a 2017 referendum. Madrid squashed the movement.

50% is a pretty low vote on such things. It means half of the people do NOT want to join Russia. That is a prescription for doing nothing.

When you start fiddling with borders, wars usually happen unless everyone involved and in the region are good with it. We are a long, long way from that in Ukraine.

---

We're a long, long way from anything in Ukraine. If we left it to everyone involved and in the region, none of this would have happened.

---

if we "left it to everyone involved and in the region" Russia would have invaded Ukraine just like it did, only the justifications would have been different.

Hate to tell you this, but Nato had nothing to do with the numerous Russia invasions of its neighbors prior to WWII.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

We can go back and for throughout history. Want to get into the Crimean War and the capitulations Russia was supposed to make? How about the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a Russian homeland used to be the Tarters, until Russia deported them to Siberia and imported Russian Workers. It was a boon to be selected, better climate...

You keep talking around the one treaty that counts, the 1990's creation of the Ukrainian state and Russia agreeing, even signing a lease until 2042 to keep its fleet there. Eye on the ball, none of this flash and fish lure stuff changing the argument for the jury. Ukranian Independence in 1991, the Russian Treaty of 1997, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994...

Those are the agreements that are in effect, a newspaper article from 1919 seems to have more currency with you and Redbrick than the written diplomatic agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed.

---

92.7% of Kurds voted for independence in a 2017 a referendum. It prompted military conflict.
92.01% of Catalans vote for independence in a 2017 referendum. Madrid squashed the movement.

50% is a pretty low vote on such things. It means half of the people do NOT want to join Russia. That is a prescription for doing nothing.

When you start fiddling with borders, wars usually happen unless everyone involved and in the region are good with it. We are a long, long way from that in Ukraine.

---

We're a long, long way from anything in Ukraine. If we left it to everyone involved and in the region, none of this would have happened.

---

if we "left it to everyone involved and in the region" Russia would have invaded Ukraine just like it did, only the justifications would have been different.

Hate to tell you this, but Nato had nothing to do with the numerous Russia invasions of its neighbors prior to WWII.

---

Hate to tell you, but WWII was a long time ago. Modern Russia has no desire to recreate the problems of the former Soviet Union. And if they did, so what? 50% is only the number who wanted to join Russia outright. It doesn't count those who want independence or autonomy. Ukraine isn't welcome there. I know you don't care, and you can agree or disagree with the desire to secede, but it is what it is.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

We can go back and for throughout history. Want to get into the Crimean War and the capitulations Russia was supposed to make? How about the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a Russian homeland used to be the Tarters, until Russia deported them to Siberia and imported Russian Workers. It was a boon to be selected, better climate...

You keep talking around the one treaty that counts, the 1990's creation of the Ukrainian state and Russia agreeing, even signing a lease until 2042 to keep its fleet there. Eye on the ball, none of this flash and fish lure stuff changing the argument for the jury. Ukranian Independence in 1991, the Russian Treaty of 1997, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994...

Those are the agreements that are in effect, a newspaper article from 1919 seems to have more currency with you and Redbrick than the written diplomatic agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed.

---

92.7% of Kurds voted for independence in a 2017 a referendum. It prompted military conflict.
92.01% of Catalans vote for independence in a 2017 referendum. Madrid squashed the movement.

50% is a pretty low vote on such things. It means half of the people do NOT want to join Russia. That is a prescription for doing nothing.

When you start fiddling with borders, wars usually happen unless everyone involved and in the region are good with it. We are a long, long way from that in Ukraine.

---

We're a long, long way from anything in Ukraine. If we left it to everyone involved and in the region, none of this would have happened.

---

if we "left it to everyone involved and in the region" Russia would have invaded Ukraine just like it did, only the justifications would have been different.

Hate to tell you this, but Nato had nothing to do with the numerous Russia invasions of its neighbors prior to WWII.

---

Hate to tell you, but WWII was a long time ago. Modern Russia has no desire to recreate the problems of the former Soviet Union. And if they did, so what? 50% is only the number who wanted to join Russia outright. It doesn't count those who want independence or autonomy. Ukraine isn't welcome there. I know you don't care, and you can agree or disagree with the desire to secede, but it is what it is.

---

Yet Russia invaded its neighbor, made alliances with Iran/China and now threatening war in Europe.

The sure look like they are trying to recreate WW2, playing Germany...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

We can go back and for throughout history. Want to get into the Crimean War and the capitulations Russia was supposed to make? How about the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a Russian homeland used to be the Tarters, until Russia deported them to Siberia and imported Russian Workers. It was a boon to be selected, better climate...

You keep talking around the one treaty that counts, the 1990's creation of the Ukrainian state and Russia agreeing, even signing a lease until 2042 to keep its fleet there. Eye on the ball, none of this flash and fish lure stuff changing the argument for the jury. Ukranian Independence in 1991, the Russian Treaty of 1997, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994...

Those are the agreements that are in effect, a newspaper article from 1919 seems to have more currency with you and Redbrick than the written diplomatic agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed.

---

92.7% of Kurds voted for independence in a 2017 a referendum. It prompted military conflict.
92.01% of Catalans vote for independence in a 2017 referendum. Madrid squashed the movement.

50% is a pretty low vote on such things. It means half of the people do NOT want to join Russia. That is a prescription for doing nothing.

When you start fiddling with borders, wars usually happen unless everyone involved and in the region are good with it. We are a long, long way from that in Ukraine.

---

We're a long, long way from anything in Ukraine. If we left it to everyone involved and in the region, none of this would have happened.

---

if we "left it to everyone involved and in the region" Russia would have invaded Ukraine just like it did, only the justifications would have been different.

Hate to tell you this, but Nato had nothing to do with the numerous Russia invasions of its neighbors prior to WWII.

---

Hate to tell you, but WWII was a long time ago. Modern Russia has no desire to recreate the problems of the former Soviet Union. And if they did, so what? 50% is only the number who wanted to join Russia outright. It doesn't count those who want independence or autonomy. Ukraine isn't welcome there. I know you don't care, and you can agree or disagree with the desire to secede, but it is what it is.

---

Yet Russia invaded its neighbor, made alliances with Iran/China and now threatening war in Europe.

The sure look like they are trying to recreate WW2, playing Germany...

---

All signs are that they'd be happy to settle it in Ukraine. They're threatening war in Europe because Europe is threatening war in Russia. That's what I'm talking about with the missile strikes. Tell us exactly how far you think we should escalate.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

We can go back and for throughout history. Want to get into the Crimean War and the capitulations Russia was supposed to make? How about the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a Russian homeland used to be the Tarters, until Russia deported them to Siberia and imported Russian Workers. It was a boon to be selected, better climate...

You keep talking around the one treaty that counts, the 1990's creation of the Ukrainian state and Russia agreeing, even signing a lease until 2042 to keep its fleet there. Eye on the ball, none of this flash and fish lure stuff changing the argument for the jury. Ukranian Independence in 1991, the Russian Treaty of 1997, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994...

Those are the agreements that are in effect, a newspaper article from 1919 seems to have more currency with you and Redbrick than the written diplomatic agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed.

---

92.7% of Kurds voted for independence in a 2017 a referendum. It prompted military conflict.
92.01% of Catalans vote for independence in a 2017 referendum. Madrid squashed the movement.

50% is a pretty low vote on such things. It means half of the people do NOT want to join Russia. That is a prescription for doing nothing.

When you start fiddling with borders, wars usually happen unless everyone involved and in the region are good with it. We are a long, long way from that in Ukraine.

---

We're a long, long way from anything in Ukraine. If we left it to everyone involved and in the region, none of this would have happened.

---

Hate to tell you this, but Nato had nothing to do with the numerous Russia invasions of its neighbors prior to WWII.

---

Good point

Russia cares far more about Eastern Europe than we ever will.

They have been there for a long long time and are not going anywhere.

Russia troops were fighting the Poles over Ukraine back in the 1600s

You think DC can outlast Russia in Ukraine?

You think DC can outlast Iran in its interest in Iraq?
(Persians have been fighting in Iraq since Cyrus the Great back in 550BC)

You think DC can outlast China in its geopolitical concern for Vietnam?
(China first invaded Vietnam in 111BC)

I always wonder what the long game is for our leadership class when the get us involved in these sandbox wars over in diarrhea-stan or rust-belt ex-Soviet republic….how can they possibly ever convince themselves that America will ever care as much as the local regional power players?

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

---

We can go back and for throughout history. Want to get into the Crimean War and the capitulations Russia was supposed to make? How about the Ottoman Empire.

What you are saying is a Russian homeland used to be the Tarters, until Russia deported them to Siberia and imported Russian Workers. It was a boon to be selected, better climate...

You keep talking around the one treaty that counts, the 1990's creation of the Ukrainian state and Russia agreeing, even signing a lease until 2042 to keep its fleet there. Eye on the ball, none of this flash and fish lure stuff changing the argument for the jury. Ukranian Independence in 1991, the Russian Treaty of 1997, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994...

Those are the agreements that are in effect, a newspaper article from 1919 seems to have more currency with you and Redbrick than the written diplomatic agreements that Russia and Ukraine signed.

---

92.7% of Kurds voted for independence in a 2017 a referendum. It prompted military conflict.
92.01% of Catalans vote for independence in a 2017 referendum. Madrid squashed the movement.

50% is a pretty low vote on such things. It means half of the people do NOT want to join Russia. That is a prescription for doing nothing.

When you start fiddling with borders, wars usually happen unless everyone involved and in the region are good with it. We are a long, long way from that in Ukraine.

---

We're a long, long way from anything in Ukraine. If we left it to everyone involved and in the region, none of this would have happened.

---

Hate to tell you this, but Nato had nothing to do with the numerous Russia invasions of its neighbors prior to WWII.

---

Good point

Russia cares far more about Eastern Europe than we ever will.

They have been there for a long long time and are not going anywhere.

Russia troops were fighting the Poles over Ukraine back in the 1600s

You think DC can outlast Russia in Ukraine?

You think DC can outlast Iran in its interest in Iraq?
(Persians have been fighting in Iraq since Cyrus the Great back in 550BC)

You think DC can outlast China in its geopolitical concern for Vietnam?
(China first invaded Vietnam in 111BC)

I always wonder what the long game is for our leadership class when the get us involved in these sandbox wars over in diarrhea-stan or rust-belt ex-Soviet republic….how can they possibly ever convince themselves that America will ever care as much as the local regional power players?

---

Excellent post across the board.

Ho Chi Minh said something very similar about how China was a far bigger , longer lasting threat to Vietnam, than the US ever would be.