Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

We should escalate? We are providing weapon systems when asked by an invaded Nation to defend itself , we are not doing anything. Using your logic, France should not have helped the US against Britain.

How far Ukraine should escalate? You talk about Russia caring more about Eastern Europe than we ever will. Ukraine cares more about existing that Russia cares about having a buffer. Ukraine will escalate until there is nothing left, this is an existential situation. Crimea in 2014. Donbas in 2022. Next? Ukraine will cease to exist. So, they will use whatever weapons they can to cause the most damage and pain to Russia, if not US they will go to China, India, whoever will help them survive.

You keep putting the US in this battle, when we are not. NATO is not sending troops. If NATO did step in early this whole thing would have been over. But, once again show weak, Russia, China and Iran will go strong.

Quote:

---

A fifth (19.2 percent) see Donbas as part of Ukraine

---

With less than 20% of the population of Donbass wanting to see it ruled by Kiev after the 2014 Victoria Nuland coup, that is a pretty clear mandate for independence from Ukraine.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

A fifth (19.2 percent) see Donbas as part of Ukraine

---

With less than 20% of the population of Donbass wanting to see it ruled by Kiev after the 2014 Victoria Nuland coup, that is a pretty clear mandate for independence from Ukraine.

---

I guess TX will seceed . After all only 39% opposed it last poll. Borders are set by opinion polls, right

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

A fifth (19.2 percent) see Donbas as part of Ukraine

---

With less than 20% of the population of Donbass wanting to see it ruled by Kiev after the 2014 Victoria Nuland coup, that is a pretty clear mandate for independence from Ukraine.

---

I guess TX will seceed . After all only 39% opposed it last poll. Borders are set by opinion polls, right

---

I wasn't the one who raised the issue of opinion polls. It was the Russia! Russia! Russia! crowd that did. I was merely pointing out the correct interpretation of the data.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

A fifth (19.2 percent) see Donbas as part of Ukraine

---

With less than 20% of the population of Donbass wanting to see it ruled by Kiev after the 2014 Victoria Nuland coup, that is a pretty clear mandate for independence from Ukraine.

---

I guess TX will seceed . After all only 39% opposed it last poll. Borders are set by opinion polls, right

---

It's not like you care about polls anyway

You have already said you are ok with the Feds killing and oppressing Texans to keep them inside of an artificial political union…even if it was 100% of Texans who wanted independence

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

A fifth (19.2 percent) see Donbas as part of Ukraine

---

With less than 20% of the population of Donbass wanting to see it ruled by Kiev after the 2014 Victoria Nuland coup, that is a pretty clear mandate for independence from Ukraine.

---

I guess TX will seceed . After all only 39% opposed it last poll. Borders are set by opinion polls, right

---

It's not like you care about polls anyway

You have already said you are ok with the Feds killing and oppressing Texans to keep them inside of an artificial political union…even if it was 100% of Texans who wanted independence

---

Artificial political union? You really live in a strange world. Borders change on a whim. Nations invading others to protect ethnic peoples in another Nation, is encouraged. Every action by Russia is someone else's fault, Russia is a perpetual victim.

I really don't get why you live in the US. Seriously, we are an abhorrent nation responsible for every bad actor on the planet. China, Iran, Russia, N Korea, and Hamas are all reacting to the US. None of it is their doing, at least according to your analysis.

I am sure you would be much happier in a peoples paradise like Belarus, Venezuela, Cuba, N Korea. Where they really care about the people.

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

A fifth (19.2 percent) see Donbas as part of Ukraine

---

With less than 20% of the population of Donbass wanting to see it ruled by Kiev after the 2014 Victoria Nuland coup, that is a pretty clear mandate for independence from Ukraine.

---

I guess TX will seceed . After all only 39% opposed it last poll. Borders are set by opinion polls, right

---

I wasn't the one who raised the issue of opinion polls. It was the Russia! Russia! Russia! crowd that did. I was merely pointing out the correct interpretation of the data.

---

You raised polls that don't exist. No polls prior to Russian takeover ever showed anything close to majorities wanting a Russian takeover. And majorities did not want to leave Ukraine under other circumstances. Yes, majorities wanted more autonomy. Who doesn't?

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.

---

LOL modern Russia is doing the same exact things in foreign policy that the Soviets did (invading neighbors) and the Czars did (invading neighbors).

Put down the water pipe and come out into the sunlight. You've got mushrooms growing behind your ears.

whiterock 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.

---

LOL modern Russia is doing the same exact things in foreign policy that the Soviets did (invading neighbors) and the Czars did (invading neighbors).

---

1. For very different reasons

The Soviets were totalitarian utopians looking to spread world communism

The Czars and Putin's crew for more nationalistic reasons


2. As you point out…Moscow (under whatever government) wishes to push out and create geo-strategic depth. (Probably because Russia is very vulnerable to attacks along its exposed western border of grasslands and coastal plains)

So what do you want to do about it? Abolish Russia as a nation?

Plus is that not why NATO exits? It prevents Russia from moving farther west than its traditional sphere of influence (Ukraine of course is in that sphere of influence)

Redbrickbear said:

---

1. For very different reasons

The Soviets were totalitarian utopians looking to spread world communism

The Czars and Putin's crew for more nationalistic reasons


2. As you point out…Moscow (under whatever government) wishes to push out and create geo-strategic depth. (Probably because Russia is very vulnerable to attacks along its exposed western border of grasslands and coastal plains)

So what do you want to do about it? Abolish Russia as a nation?

Plus is that not why NATO exits? It prevents Russia from moving farther west than its traditional sphere of influence (Ukraine of course is in that sphere of influence)

---

100% correct. The easiest way to be to allay Russian concerns about the vulnerability of their western border by not expanding an alliance whose raison d'tre ended with the dissolution of the Warsaw pact. Of course that wouldn't be good for the MIC. The geographic relationship of Ukraine, Finland, and the Baltic States to Russia is an exact corollary to our relationship to Canada and Mexico. It's foolish to destabilize that.

Poland is the most realistic candidate for a small theatre of nuclear war, threatens Russian expert Konstantin Sivkov on Russian state TV.

„In 10-15 mins, both the state of Poland and the Polish people will disappear. The Polish language will also disappear.” pic.twitter.com/gtetEp6BOC

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 3, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

LOL modern Russia is doing the same exact things in foreign policy that the Soviets did (invading neighbors) and the Czars did (invading neighbors).

---

1. For very different reasons

The Soviets were totalitarian utopians looking to spread world communism
....but had the same exact geo-political realities as the old Czars and the modern Federation. as you point out below, the map is the map is the map....

The Czars and Putin's crew for more nationalistic reasons
the reasons may change, but the map doesn't. Whether you are defending the Czar, the Workers, or the Russian people, you still have the same geography to defend.


2. As you point out…Moscow (under whatever government) wishes to push out and create geo-strategic depth. (Probably because Russia is very vulnerable to attacks along its exposed western border of grasslands and coastal plains).
So you DO see the geo-strategic realities! Russia's vulnerability from east AND west are well documented throughout history, which explains why they invade neighbors = to dominate all possible invasion points.

So what do you want to do about it? Abolish Russia as a nation?
Not at all. I propose to have Russia to live in peace alongside independent, sovereign nations of Finns, Estonians, Letts, Lithuanians, Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians, Slovaks Hungarians, Moldovans, Romanians, and Bulgars, not one of whom is a threat to Russia in the slightest.


Plus is that not why NATO exits? It prevents Russia from moving farther west than its traditional sphere of influence (Ukraine of course is in that sphere of influence)
Nato exists to stop Russia from invading its western neighbors, because geography (as you note) gives them incentive to do so, and history (as anyone can see) shows they believe it is their right to do so.

---

Note that Nato still has not stationed permanent combat units in the former WP countries, so as to clearly signal to Russia that Nato is only interested in defending those countries, not using them as a springboard for attack. That changed, however, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Germany is going to deploy an armored brigade in Lithuania in 2027, specifically to defend the Suwalki Gap.

We've not touched on the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, formerly known as Konigsberg, a port city which Russia gained in the peace settlement of WWII. They promptly ethnically cleansed the city of historic German & Baltic (Prussian) residents and it now has an overwhelming Russian majority population (despite having no historical connections to the city whatsoever). That's a good example of the hardball Russia plays. The idea that they "have no interest" in moving their borders westward is wishful thinking on the order of Christmas cookies for Santa.

Kaliningrad is the first casualty of any Russian attack on Nato. Might even be a casualty if Russia collapses in Ukraine. Would be a very fair price.

Keeping Russia from invading Europe was only one role of NATO. Here is the mission from NATO.

Deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

NATO has done exactly that. The last 2 are just as important as the first. One can even say that with the fall of the Soviet Union #1 doesn't exist. The only people enthralled on that part are Putin and the pro-Putin crowd. Case in point Ukraine, there are no NATO troops rolling into Kiev. Only the Russians are obsessed with the Cold War posture.

Hell NATO is focusing more on #3 with the new members.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keeping Russia from invading Europe was only one role of NATO. Here is the mission from NATO.

Deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

NATO has done exactly that. The last 2 are just as important as the first. One can even say that with the fall of the Soviet Union #1 doesn't exist. The only people enthralled on that part are Putin and the pro-Putin crowd. Case in point Ukraine, there are no NATO troops rolling into Kiev. Only the Russians are obsessed with the Cold War posture.

Hell NATO is focusing more on #3 with the new members.

---

#1 doesn't exist.
#3 The EU does exist.
#2 Hitler isn't coming back.

So based on NATOs mission statement, there is no reason for it to exist.

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keeping Russia from invading Europe was only one role of NATO. Here is the mission from NATO.

Deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

NATO has done exactly that. The last 2 are just as important as the first. One can even say that with the fall of the Soviet Union #1 doesn't exist. The only people enthralled on that part are Putin and the pro-Putin crowd. Case in point Ukraine, there are no NATO troops rolling into Kiev. Only the Russians are obsessed with the Cold War posture.

Hell NATO is focusing more on #3 with the new members.

---

#1 doesn't exist.
#3 The EU does exist.
#2 Hitler isn't coming back.

So based on NATOs mission statement, there is no reason for it to exist.

---

so profoundly obtuse.

Expansionism IS the history of Russia. Relentless cycles of expansion, overreach, collapse, followed by inadequate reform leading to more expansion, overreach, collapse..... If you don't know that, read up on it. Russian armies have campaigned on the eastern border of China, at the gates of Edirne and Istanbul, thru the streets of Paris. not all were started by Russia, for sure, but plenty were. Russians think they are entitled to be the dominant power of the entire Eurasian landmass.

Yes, the EU and NATO exist. And they have done a grand job of preventing war in Europe, in no small part by freezing borders which mute incentives for larger powers (France, Germany, Italy) to get grabby.

Grand, multi-coaltion wars existed many centuries before Hitler. And now...after Hitler.

at some point, you gotta add more than just harrumph to your repertoire

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keeping Russia from invading Europe was only one role of NATO. Here is the mission from NATO.

Deterring Soviet expansionism....forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

NATO has done exactly that.

---

1. The Soviets are gone...long gone...the USSR itself is dead and has broken in 15+ pieces

2. No where in the NATO doc does it say its mission is "preventing the revival of nationalist" sentiments.

3. Nor does the document say that NATO needs to be the military force/muscle arm of forced EU integration.

If those are the 3 real reasons for NATO then maybe we need to think about getting out of it.

One is a dead letter item and the other two are NOT what we signed up for or where those issues debated by the US Senate and the American people.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_68144.htm

https://nato.usmission.gov/about-nato/

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keeping Russia from invading Europe was only one role of NATO. Here is the mission from NATO.

Deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

NATO has done exactly that. The last 2 are just as important as the first. One can even say that with the fall of the Soviet Union #1 doesn't exist. The only people enthralled on that part are Putin and the pro-Putin crowd. Case in point Ukraine, there are no NATO troops rolling into Kiev. Only the Russians are obsessed with the Cold War posture.

Hell NATO is focusing more on #3 with the new members.

---

#1 doesn't exist.
#3 The EU does exist.
#2 Hitler isn't coming back.

So based on NATOs mission statement, there is no reason for it to exist.

---

so profoundly obtuse.

Expansionism IS the history of Russia. Relentless cycles of expansion,

---

Expansionism is also the history of the USA

How do you think we got to dominate an entire continent (dominate two of them actually) and own Hawaii and various islands 3,000 miles away?

At the end of the day the USA exits and its not going anywhere....nations around the USA will just have to learn how to get along with DC unless they want trouble.

And Russia as well exists....and its not going anywhere no matter what Georgetown grads in DC might fantasize about.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

LOL modern Russia is doing the same exact things in foreign policy that the Soviets did (invading neighbors) and the Czars did (invading neighbors).

---

1. For very different reasons

The Soviets were totalitarian utopians looking to spread world communism
....but had the same exact geo-political realities as the old Czars and the modern Federation. as you point out below, the map is the map is the map....

The Czars and Putin's crew for more nationalistic reasons
the reasons may change, but the map doesn't. Whether you are defending the Czar, the Workers, or the Russian people, you still have the same geography to defend.


2. As you point out…Moscow (under whatever government) wishes to push out and create geo-strategic depth. (Probably because Russia is very vulnerable to attacks along its exposed western border of grasslands and coastal plains).
So you DO see the geo-strategic realities! Russia's vulnerability from east AND west are well documented throughout history, which explains why they invade neighbors = to dominate all possible invasion points.

So what do you want to do about it? Abolish Russia as a nation?
Not at all. I propose to have Russia to live in peace alongside independent, sovereign nations of Finns, Estonians, Letts, Lithuanians, Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians, Slovaks Hungarians, Moldovans, Romanians, and Bulgars, not one of whom is a threat to Russia in the slightest.


Plus is that not why NATO exits? It prevents Russia from moving farther west than its traditional sphere of influence (Ukraine of course is in that sphere of influence)
Nato exists to stop Russia from invading its western neighbors, because geography (as you note) gives them incentive to do so, and history (as anyone can see) shows they believe it is their right to do so.

---

Note that Nato still has not stationed permanent combat units in the former WP countries, so as to clearly signal to Russia that Nato is only interested in defending those countries,

---

And Russia has still has NOT attacked any NATO nation. (in fact its stood by while NATO has expanded into the Balkans, the Baltic, and even has Sweden and Finland join up)

Its obviously NOT interested in expansion into NATO controlled lands.

We are talking about Ukraine....a former ex-Soviet state and Russian imperial territory...NOT a member of NATO in anyway shape or form.

I suspect you guys would be wailing about the need for us to get involved if Russia started military intervening in Turkmenistan....even though freaking far off Turkmenistan has never been an American ally and never been a member of NATO.

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keeping Russia from invading Europe was only one role of NATO. Here is the mission from NATO.

Deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

NATO has done exactly that. The last 2 are just as important as the first. One can even say that with the fall of the Soviet Union #1 doesn't exist. The only people enthralled on that part are Putin and the pro-Putin crowd. Case in point Ukraine, there are no NATO troops rolling into Kiev. Only the Russians are obsessed with the Cold War posture.

Hell NATO is focusing more on #3 with the new members.

---

#1 doesn't exist.
#3 The EU does exist.
#2 Hitler isn't coming back.

So based on NATOs mission statement, there is no reason for it to exist.

---

What? The last two show it is needed. #2 is why the US & Canada is included. When is integration between governments over? You do see what you want to see.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keeping Russia from invading Europe was only one role of NATO. Here is the mission from NATO.

Deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

NATO has done exactly that. The last 2 are just as important as the first. One can even say that with the fall of the Soviet Union #1 doesn't exist. The only people enthralled on that part are Putin and the pro-Putin crowd. Case in point Ukraine, there are no NATO troops rolling into Kiev. Only the Russians are obsessed with the Cold War posture.

Hell NATO is focusing more on #3 with the new members.

---

#1 doesn't exist.
#3 The EU does exist.
#2 Hitler isn't coming back.

So based on NATOs mission statement, there is no reason for it to exist.

---

so profoundly obtuse.

Expansionism IS the history of Russia. Relentless cycles of expansion,

---

Expansionism is also the history of the USA

How do you think we got to dominate an entire continent (dominate two of them actually) and own Hawaii and various islands 3,000 miles away?

At the end of the day the USA exits and its not going anywhere....nations around the USA will just have to learn how to get along with DC unless they want trouble.

And Russia as well exists....and its not going anywhere no matter what Georgetown grads in DC might fantasize about.

---

yes, we expanded. Thru indigenous stone-age cultures that were going to be subsumed by someone if not us. And we did it without building a culture of engaging in wars with great powers. (or even minor powers). We honored agreements with France and Spain and England. The only big land grab at the expense of an internationally recognized state by force of arms in our history was following a war with Mexico, caused by unsupportable Mexican border claims.

Not so with Russia. They have marched armies across borders of every country that touches them, in some case a half-dozen countries away, over and over and over. Not against steppe nomad tribes either. They've done it to the greatest powers of the day over the boundaries of empire. Over and over and over.....

for sure, our "map" is quite a bit more favorable than Russia's, in so many, many ways...... But Russia did not need to invade Ukraine to remain secure. It could have played the long game and wait for pro-Russian people/parties to get elected into power. It will happen, ya know. Current examples and all that....

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

LOL modern Russia is doing the same exact things in foreign policy that the Soviets did (invading neighbors) and the Czars did (invading neighbors).

---

1. For very different reasons

The Soviets were totalitarian utopians looking to spread world communism
....but had the same exact geo-political realities as the old Czars and the modern Federation. as you point out below, the map is the map is the map....

The Czars and Putin's crew for more nationalistic reasons
the reasons may change, but the map doesn't. Whether you are defending the Czar, the Workers, or the Russian people, you still have the same geography to defend.


2. As you point out…Moscow (under whatever government) wishes to push out and create geo-strategic depth. (Probably because Russia is very vulnerable to attacks along its exposed western border of grasslands and coastal plains).
So you DO see the geo-strategic realities! Russia's vulnerability from east AND west are well documented throughout history, which explains why they invade neighbors = to dominate all possible invasion points.

So what do you want to do about it? Abolish Russia as a nation?
Not at all. I propose to have Russia to live in peace alongside independent, sovereign nations of Finns, Estonians, Letts, Lithuanians, Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians, Slovaks Hungarians, Moldovans, Romanians, and Bulgars, not one of whom is a threat to Russia in the slightest.


Plus is that not why NATO exits? It prevents Russia from moving farther west than its traditional sphere of influence (Ukraine of course is in that sphere of influence)
Nato exists to stop Russia from invading its western neighbors, because geography (as you note) gives them incentive to do so, and history (as anyone can see) shows they believe it is their right to do so.

---

Note that Nato still has not stationed permanent combat units in the former WP countries, so as to clearly signal to Russia that Nato is only interested in defending those countries, not using them as a springboard for attack. That changed, however, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Germany is going to deploy an armored brigade in Lithuania in 2027, specifically to defend the Suwalki Gap.

We've not touched on the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, formerly known as Konigsberg, a port city which Russia gained in the peace settlement of WWII. They promptly ethnically cleansed the city of historic German & Baltic (Prussian) residents and it now has an overwhelming Russian majority population (despite having no historical connections to the city whatsoever). That's a good example of the hardball Russia plays. The idea that they "have no interest" in moving their borders westward is wishful thinking on the order of Christmas cookies for Santa.

Kaliningrad is the first casualty of any Russian attack on Nato. Might even be a casualty if Russia collapses in Ukraine. Would be a very fair price.

---

We have troops in former WP countries and throughout Eastern Europe, and perhaps more important, we have missiles with potential nuclear capability.

It's not totally clear whether you think Russia would be secure behind a buffer zone of "independent" states or whether you think geography obliges them to expand into Europe in order to defend themselves. You seem to be saying both at different times. Considering that it was we who rejected the idea of an independent buffer by enlarging NATO, and that you seem to regard eventual war with Russia as inevitable, I take it that the latter is your true position. The logical implication is that Russia cannot avoid war with the West no matter how much it wants to, but this begs the question -- what if the West were to pursue peace and build trust with the Russians? We know this is possible because Reagan accomplished it to a remarkable extent. Your argument actually demonstrates that the decision is in our hands.

The alternative (and the unspoken assumption behind most of our policy) is that Russia delenda est. I'm guessing this is your position too. But we all need to recognize that it is an utter repudiation of the wisdom of Reagan, Kennedy, and others in the last century who actually practiced a conservative foreign policy. Yours is a neoconservative policy of endless crusading, and your view of history reflects that.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keeping Russia from invading Europe was only one role of NATO. Here is the mission from NATO.

Deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

NATO has done exactly that. The last 2 are just as important as the first. One can even say that with the fall of the Soviet Union #1 doesn't exist. The only people enthralled on that part are Putin and the pro-Putin crowd. Case in point Ukraine, there are no NATO troops rolling into Kiev. Only the Russians are obsessed with the Cold War posture.

Hell NATO is focusing more on #3 with the new members.

---

#1 doesn't exist.
#3 The EU does exist.
#2 Hitler isn't coming back.

So based on NATOs mission statement, there is no reason for it to exist.

---

so profoundly obtuse.

Expansionism IS the history of Russia. Relentless cycles of expansion,

---

Expansionism is also the history of the USA

How do you think we got to dominate an entire continent (dominate two of them actually) and own Hawaii and various islands 3,000 miles away?

At the end of the day the USA exits and its not going anywhere....nations around the USA will just have to learn how to get along with DC unless they want trouble.

And Russia as well exists....and its not going anywhere no matter what Georgetown grads in DC might fantasize about.

---

yes, we expanded. Thru indigenous stone-age cultures that were going to be subsumed by someone if not us. And we did it without building a culture of engaging in wars with great powers. (or even minor powers).

Not so with Russia. They have marched armies across borders of every country that touches them, in some case a half-dozen countries away, over and over and over. Not against steppe nomad tribes either. They've done it to the greatest powers of the day over the boundaries of empire. Over and over and over.....

---

I must have missed those two wars with the UK...and the threat on multiple occasions to fight another war with them again over the Pacific Northwest and even annex Canada.

Or when the USA threated France and Spain to get off our continent and either sell the land or get run over. (they wisely sold out)

Or the time we steam rolled over Mexico and annex 1/3rd of their entire country.

(none of these am I complaining about for the record)

You have a very rosy colored pictured of how DC reacts to rivals in North America...and eventually the whole hemisphere.

Has Russia ever declared all Europe and Asia its private zone of influence? Well the USA did with the entire freaking Western Hemisphere

[The Monroe Doctrine was articulated in President James Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823. The European powers, according to Monroe, were obligated to respect the Western Hemisphere as the United States' exclusive sphere of interest.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keeping Russia from invading Europe was only one role of NATO. Here is the mission from NATO.

Deterring Soviet expansionism....forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

NATO has done exactly that.

---

1. The Soviets are gone...long gone...the USSR itself is dead and has broken in 15+ pieces
but Muscovy survives with the same map and same intentions on expansionism.

2. No where in the NATO doc does it say its mission is "preventing the revival of nationalist" sentiments.
it is a defacto, unspoken fact - the Nato alliance muzzles the biggest powers (France and Germany) most. They have no need to capture stuff to prevent it from falling under the sway of another (the exact dynamic you cite to justify Russian invasion of Ukraine). The alliance in fact all agree that "the borders are the borders." Ever wondered why Germany has been the worst chronic offender for failing to meet Nato spending obligations? It's Germany's way of saying "if we can't use our military to dominate our space, then fine....you defend our space." The German military is a hollow shell...... And that is a big part of the reason why there have been no wars in Europe, an area of the world plagued for over a thousand years by wars every generation or three. Everyone agreed not to attack each other, to drop all border disputes, and focus on mutual defense. It was spectacularly successful.

3. Nor does the document say that NATO needs to be the military force/muscle arm of forced EU integration.
Not material. most Nato members are EU members, and the EU does have its own self-defense mission.

If those are the 3 real reasons for NATO then maybe we need to think about getting out of it.
I didn't say they were "real reason" for Nato. I said they were benefits = not just lack of war between Nato and Russia, but ALSO a lack of war within Nato. The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one, enlarging and enriching itself, making it a far more capable power right next to Germany.

One is a dead letter item and the other two are NOT what we signed up for or where those issues debated by the US Senate and the American people.
The reasons for Nato are really quite simple and obvious. You really have to work hard at purposeful obtusity not to see it.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_68144.htm

https://nato.usmission.gov/about-nato/

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keeping Russia from invading Europe was only one role of NATO. Here is the mission from NATO.

Deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

NATO has done exactly that. The last 2 are just as important as the first. One can even say that with the fall of the Soviet Union #1 doesn't exist. The only people enthralled on that part are Putin and the pro-Putin crowd. Case in point Ukraine, there are no NATO troops rolling into Kiev. Only the Russians are obsessed with the Cold War posture.

Hell NATO is focusing more on #3 with the new members.

---

#1 doesn't exist.
#3 The EU does exist.
#2 Hitler isn't coming back.

So based on NATOs mission statement, there is no reason for it to exist.

---

so profoundly obtuse.

Expansionism IS the history of Russia. Relentless cycles of expansion,

---

Expansionism is also the history of the USA

How do you think we got to dominate an entire continent (dominate two of them actually) and own Hawaii and various islands 3,000 miles away?

At the end of the day the USA exits and its not going anywhere....nations around the USA will just have to learn how to get along with DC unless they want trouble.

And Russia as well exists....and its not going anywhere no matter what Georgetown grads in DC might fantasize about.

---

Russia did not need to invade Ukraine to remain secure. It could have played the long game and wait for pro-Russian people/parties to get elected into power.

---

And immediately overthrown with our help. Pro-Russian people and parties are one of the main grievances we cite in order to justify intervention.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keeping Russia from invading Europe was only one role of NATO. Here is the mission from NATO.

Deterring Soviet expansionism....forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

NATO has done exactly that.

---

1. The Soviets are gone...long gone...the USSR itself is dead and has broken in 15+ pieces
but Muscovy survives with the same map and same intentions on expansionism.

---

---

So you want to destroy their 750 year old State?

What exactly is it that you want or that you think is going to work out by fighting proxy wars with them over their border lands?

So far they are NOT expanding anywhere they have not been before.

I fail to remember when the USA was deeply and historically involved in Ukraine....

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keeping Russia from invading Europe was only one role of NATO. Here is the mission from NATO.

Deterring Soviet expansionism....forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

NATO has done exactly that.

---

2. No where in the NATO doc does it say its mission is "preventing the revival of nationalist" sentiments.
it is a defacto, unspoken fact - the Nato alliance muzzles the biggest powers (France and Germany) most.

Ever wondered why Germany has been the worst chronic offender for failing to meet Nato spending obligations? It's Germany's way of saying "if we can't use our military to dominate our space, then fine....you defend our space." The German military is a hollow shell...... And that is a big part of the reason why there have been no wars in Europe, an area of the world plagued for over a thousand years by wars every generation or three.

---

---

Wow...well that just opens up another discussion on if the real reason for NATO is to keep Germany (and France) down.

But boy oh boy are you not afraid to come out and admit that NATO is just the military arm of US imperial power and used to dominate the entire European continent.

If I had said what you just did Flbear would be on here calling me a "conspiracy theorist" lol

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

LOL modern Russia is doing the same exact things in foreign policy that the Soviets did (invading neighbors) and the Czars did (invading neighbors).

---

1. For very different reasons

The Soviets were totalitarian utopians looking to spread world communism
....but had the same exact geo-political realities as the old Czars and the modern Federation. as you point out below, the map is the map is the map....

The Czars and Putin's crew for more nationalistic reasons
the reasons may change, but the map doesn't. Whether you are defending the Czar, the Workers, or the Russian people, you still have the same geography to defend.


2. As you point out…Moscow (under whatever government) wishes to push out and create geo-strategic depth. (Probably because Russia is very vulnerable to attacks along its exposed western border of grasslands and coastal plains).
So you DO see the geo-strategic realities! Russia's vulnerability from east AND west are well documented throughout history, which explains why they invade neighbors = to dominate all possible invasion points.

So what do you want to do about it? Abolish Russia as a nation?
Not at all. I propose to have Russia to live in peace alongside independent, sovereign nations of Finns, Estonians, Letts, Lithuanians, Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians, Slovaks Hungarians, Moldovans, Romanians, and Bulgars, not one of whom is a threat to Russia in the slightest.


Plus is that not why NATO exits? It prevents Russia from moving farther west than its traditional sphere of influence (Ukraine of course is in that sphere of influence)
Nato exists to stop Russia from invading its western neighbors, because geography (as you note) gives them incentive to do so, and history (as anyone can see) shows they believe it is their right to do so.

---

Note that Nato still has not stationed permanent combat units in the former WP countries, so as to clearly signal to Russia that Nato is only interested in defending those countries, not using them as a springboard for attack. That changed, however, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Germany is going to deploy an armored brigade in Lithuania in 2027, specifically to defend the Suwalki Gap.

We've not touched on the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, formerly known as Konigsberg, a port city which Russia gained in the peace settlement of WWII. They promptly ethnically cleansed the city of historic German & Baltic (Prussian) residents and it now has an overwhelming Russian majority population (despite having no historical connections to the city whatsoever). That's a good example of the hardball Russia plays. The idea that they "have no interest" in moving their borders westward is wishful thinking on the order of Christmas cookies for Santa.

Kaliningrad is the first casualty of any Russian attack on Nato. Might even be a casualty if Russia collapses in Ukraine. Would be a very fair price.

---

We have troops in former WP countries and throughout Eastern Europe, and perhaps more important, we have missiles with potential nuclear capability.

It's not totally clear whether you think Russia would be secure behind a buffer zone of "independent" states or whether you think geography obliges them to expand into Europe in order to defend themselves. You seem to be saying both at different times. Considering that it was we who rejected the idea of an independent buffer by enlarging NATO, and that you seem to regard eventual war with Russia as inevitable, I take it that the latter is your true position. The logical implication is that Russia cannot avoid war with the West no matter how much it wants to, but this begs the question -- what if the West were to pursue peace and build trust with the Russians? We know this is possible because Reagan accomplished it to a remarkable extent. Your argument actually demonstrates that the decision is in our hands.

The alternative (and the unspoken assumption behind most of our policy) is that Russia delenda est. I'm guessing this is your position too. But we all need to recognize that it is an utter repudiation of the wisdom of Reagan, Kennedy, and others in the last century who actually practiced a conservative foreign policy. Yours is a neoconservative policy of endless crusading, and your view of history reflects that.

---

That is not true. When the Soviet fell, Russia was embraced as a part of Europe. Remember Putin saying Russia is part of Europe? Until they found out how hard it is to actually have a Constitutional Republic-ish form of Government. You might actually lose an election or not have control. Then it was the West fault, so the historic rights of Russia path. Now, it is align with China, after all Russia has always been about the Orient.

Russia has a complex and is not willing to give it's people freedom to chose and not use force to get what it (Putin, Stalin, Kriueschev, "eyebrows", Lenin the whole system is based on force and telling people what they want. It is not the West that is keeping them in this perpetual we are being threatened stage.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Keeping Russia from invading Europe was only one role of NATO. Here is the mission from NATO.

Deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

NATO has done exactly that. The last 2 are just as important as the first. One can even say that with the fall of the Soviet Union #1 doesn't exist. The only people enthralled on that part are Putin and the pro-Putin crowd. Case in point Ukraine, there are no NATO troops rolling into Kiev. Only the Russians are obsessed with the Cold War posture.

Hell NATO is focusing more on #3 with the new members.

---

#1 doesn't exist.
#3 The EU does exist.
#2 Hitler isn't coming back.

So based on NATOs mission statement, there is no reason for it to exist.

---

so profoundly obtuse.

Expansionism IS the history of Russia. Relentless cycles of expansion,

---

Expansionism is also the history of the USA

How do you think we got to dominate an entire continent (dominate two of them actually) and own Hawaii and various islands 3,000 miles away?

At the end of the day the USA exits and its not going anywhere....nations around the USA will just have to learn how to get along with DC unless they want trouble.

And Russia as well exists....and its not going anywhere no matter what Georgetown grads in DC might fantasize about.

---

yes, we expanded. Thru indigenous stone-age cultures that were going to be subsumed by someone if not us. And we did it without building a culture of engaging in wars with great powers. (or even minor powers).

Not so with Russia. They have marched armies across borders of every country that touches them, in some case a half-dozen countries away, over and over and over. Not against steppe nomad tribes either. They've done it to the greatest powers of the day over the boundaries of empire. Over and over and over.....

---

I must have missed those two wars with the UK...and the threat on multiple occasions to fight another war with them again over the Pacific Northwest and even annex Canada.

Or when the USA threated France and Spain to get off our continent and either the sell the land or get run over.

Or the time we steam rolled over Mexico and annex 1/3rd of their country.

(none of these am I complaining about for the record)

You have a very rosy colored pictured of how DC reacts to rivals in North America...and eventually the whole hemisphere.

Has Russia ever declared all Europe and Asia its private zone of influence? Well the USA did with the entire freaking Western Hemisphere

[The Monroe Doctrine was articulated in President James Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823. The European powers, according to Monroe, were obligated to respect the Western Hemisphere as the United States' exclusive sphere of interest.]

---

Geez what a self-serving take on history. The War of 1812 was not started by US expansionism. It was started by British interdiction of American trade with Europe. The invasion of Canada during that war was an attack on the seat of remaining British power on the North American continent, which of course was the greatest threat to American power on the North American continent = a valid military target. yes, we would have like to have gained all of Canada. But when it didn't happen, a simple peace treaty fixed the problem for good.

We didn't need to threaten France to sell us Louisiana. France desperately needed the money more than they needed Louisiana.

Spain? It was "a triumph of American diplomacy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdamsOns_Treaty

Yes, the Monroe Doctrine is real, and it prevented European intrigues from creating problems in our neighborhood, an enforced neutrality, if you will. It worked splendidly.

Have you ever looked at the present footprint of Russia? It's quite a bit larger than ours. And still they are not happy. Still they are expanding. Expanding is what they do...... We, on the other hand, were quite comfortable to stop at the Pacific shore, except for a handful of Pacific island territories that help defend our Pacific shores. No country in history with the power we enjoy has done less than we have w/r/t imperial expansion.

You are cherry picking history to make the USA a bad guy and Russia a good guy. Not impressive.

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

"yes, we would have like to have gained all of Canada. But when it didn't happen, a simple peace treaty fixed the problem for good."


The difference is Russia would have invaded again and again. Maybe even a Special Military Operation...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

LOL modern Russia is doing the same exact things in foreign policy that the Soviets did (invading neighbors) and the Czars did (invading neighbors).

---

1. For very different reasons

The Soviets were totalitarian utopians looking to spread world communism
....but had the same exact geo-political realities as the old Czars and the modern Federation. as you point out below, the map is the map is the map....

The Czars and Putin's crew for more nationalistic reasons
the reasons may change, but the map doesn't. Whether you are defending the Czar, the Workers, or the Russian people, you still have the same geography to defend.


2. As you point out…Moscow (under whatever government) wishes to push out and create geo-strategic depth. (Probably because Russia is very vulnerable to attacks along its exposed western border of grasslands and coastal plains).
So you DO see the geo-strategic realities! Russia's vulnerability from east AND west are well documented throughout history, which explains why they invade neighbors = to dominate all possible invasion points.

So what do you want to do about it? Abolish Russia as a nation?
Not at all. I propose to have Russia to live in peace alongside independent, sovereign nations of Finns, Estonians, Letts, Lithuanians, Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians, Slovaks Hungarians, Moldovans, Romanians, and Bulgars, not one of whom is a threat to Russia in the slightest.


Plus is that not why NATO exits? It prevents Russia from moving farther west than its traditional sphere of influence (Ukraine of course is in that sphere of influence)
Nato exists to stop Russia from invading its western neighbors, because geography (as you note) gives them incentive to do so, and history (as anyone can see) shows they believe it is their right to do so.

---

Note that Nato still has not stationed permanent combat units in the former WP countries, so as to clearly signal to Russia that Nato is only interested in defending those countries, not using them as a springboard for attack. That changed, however, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Germany is going to deploy an armored brigade in Lithuania in 2027, specifically to defend the Suwalki Gap.

We've not touched on the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, formerly known as Konigsberg, a port city which Russia gained in the peace settlement of WWII. They promptly ethnically cleansed the city of historic German & Baltic (Prussian) residents and it now has an overwhelming Russian majority population (despite having no historical connections to the city whatsoever). That's a good example of the hardball Russia plays. The idea that they "have no interest" in moving their borders westward is wishful thinking on the order of Christmas cookies for Santa.

Kaliningrad is the first casualty of any Russian attack on Nato. Might even be a casualty if Russia collapses in Ukraine. Would be a very fair price.

---

We have troops in former WP countries and throughout Eastern Europe, and perhaps more important, we have missiles with potential nuclear capability.

It's not totally clear whether you think Russia would be secure behind a buffer zone of "independent" states or whether you think geography obliges them to expand into Europe in order to defend themselves. You seem to be saying both at different times. Considering that it was we who rejected the idea of an independent buffer by enlarging NATO, and that you seem to regard eventual war with Russia as inevitable, I take it that the latter is your true position. The logical implication is that Russia cannot avoid war with the West no matter how much it wants to, but this begs the question -- what if the West were to pursue peace and build trust with the Russians? We know this is possible because Reagan accomplished it to a remarkable extent. Your argument actually demonstrates that the decision is in our hands.

The alternative (and the unspoken assumption behind most of our policy) is that Russia delenda est. I'm guessing this is your position too. But we all need to recognize that it is an utter repudiation of the wisdom of Reagan, Kennedy, and others in the last century who actually practiced a conservative foreign policy. Yours is a neoconservative policy of endless crusading, and your view of history reflects that.

---

That is not true. When the Soviet fell, Russia was embraced as a part of Europe. Remember Putin saying Russia is part of Europe? Until they found out how hard it is to actually have a Constitutional Republic-ish form of Government. You might actually lose an election or not have control. Then it was the West fault, so the historic rights of Russia path. Now, it is align with China, after all Russia has always been about the Orient.

Russia has a complex and is not willing to give it's people freedom to chose and not use force to get what it (Putin, Stalin, Kriueschev, "eyebrows", Lenin the whole system is based on force and telling people what they want. It is not the West that is keeping them in this perpetual we are being threatened stage.

---

They were embraced to a limited extent, and more as a vassal. Putin did indeed say that Russia was part of Europe. I don't remember Europe saying the same.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

Russia controlled. Look at your language. They invaded and took over. The Iron Block was not voluntary! Go to Berlin. Don't tell me it was the US fault... That airlift was threatening, how dare we not let them starve the City... Same with Russia today, they agreed to these Borders and promised not to invade. There are no binding promises for NATO not to accept former Soviet nations. But, it is all DCs fault ....

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

LOL modern Russia is doing the same exact things in foreign policy that the Soviets did (invading neighbors) and the Czars did (invading neighbors).

---

1. For very different reasons

The Soviets were totalitarian utopians looking to spread world communism
....but had the same exact geo-political realities as the old Czars and the modern Federation. as you point out below, the map is the map is the map....

The Czars and Putin's crew for more nationalistic reasons
the reasons may change, but the map doesn't. Whether you are defending the Czar, the Workers, or the Russian people, you still have the same geography to defend.


2. As you point out…Moscow (under whatever government) wishes to push out and create geo-strategic depth. (Probably because Russia is very vulnerable to attacks along its exposed western border of grasslands and coastal plains).
So you DO see the geo-strategic realities! Russia's vulnerability from east AND west are well documented throughout history, which explains why they invade neighbors = to dominate all possible invasion points.

So what do you want to do about it? Abolish Russia as a nation?
Not at all. I propose to have Russia to live in peace alongside independent, sovereign nations of Finns, Estonians, Letts, Lithuanians, Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians, Slovaks Hungarians, Moldovans, Romanians, and Bulgars, not one of whom is a threat to Russia in the slightest.


Plus is that not why NATO exits? It prevents Russia from moving farther west than its traditional sphere of influence (Ukraine of course is in that sphere of influence)
Nato exists to stop Russia from invading its western neighbors, because geography (as you note) gives them incentive to do so, and history (as anyone can see) shows they believe it is their right to do so.

---

Note that Nato still has not stationed permanent combat units in the former WP countries, so as to clearly signal to Russia that Nato is only interested in defending those countries, not using them as a springboard for attack. That changed, however, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Germany is going to deploy an armored brigade in Lithuania in 2027, specifically to defend the Suwalki Gap.

We've not touched on the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, formerly known as Konigsberg, a port city which Russia gained in the peace settlement of WWII. They promptly ethnically cleansed the city of historic German & Baltic (Prussian) residents and it now has an overwhelming Russian majority population (despite having no historical connections to the city whatsoever). That's a good example of the hardball Russia plays. The idea that they "have no interest" in moving their borders westward is wishful thinking on the order of Christmas cookies for Santa.

Kaliningrad is the first casualty of any Russian attack on Nato. Might even be a casualty if Russia collapses in Ukraine. Would be a very fair price.

---

We have troops in former WP countries and throughout Eastern Europe, and perhaps more important, we have missiles with potential nuclear capability.

It's not totally clear whether you think Russia would be secure behind a buffer zone of "independent" states or whether you think geography obliges them to expand into Europe in order to defend themselves. You seem to be saying both at different times. Considering that it was we who rejected the idea of an independent buffer by enlarging NATO, and that you seem to regard eventual war with Russia as inevitable, I take it that the latter is your true position. The logical implication is that Russia cannot avoid war with the West no matter how much it wants to, but this begs the question -- what if the West were to pursue peace and build trust with the Russians? We know this is possible because Reagan accomplished it to a remarkable extent. Your argument actually demonstrates that the decision is in our hands.

The alternative (and the unspoken assumption behind most of our policy) is that Russia delenda est. I'm guessing this is your position too. But we all need to recognize that it is an utter repudiation of the wisdom of Reagan, Kennedy, and others in the last century who actually practiced a conservative foreign policy. Yours is a neoconservative policy of endless crusading, and your view of history reflects that.

---

That is not true. When the Soviet fell, Russia was embraced as a part of Europe. Remember Putin saying Russia is part of Europe? Until they found out how hard it is to actually have a Constitutional Republic-ish form of Government. You might actually lose an election or not have control. Then it was the West fault, so the historic rights of Russia path. Now, it is align with China, after all Russia has always been about the Orient.

Russia has a complex and is not willing to give it's people freedom to chose and not use force to get what it (Putin, Stalin, Kriueschev, "eyebrows", Lenin the whole system is based on force and telling people what they want. It is not the West that is keeping them in this perpetual we are being threatened stage.

---

They were embraced to a limited extent, and more as a vassal. Putin did indeed say that Russia was part of Europe. I don't remember Europe saying the same.

---

They tried. Look up Council of Europe. That is a good example of how Europe tried to work with Russia.

Russia's economic system was so different, did they expect no learning curve moving to capitalism and democracy?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

The "real reason" for Nato is to keep Russia from picking off all the countries east of Germany one by one by one

---

By which you mean the countries that Russia already controlled when NATO was formed.

---

Russia controlled. Look at your language. They invaded and took over. The Iron Block was not voluntary! Go to Berlin. Don't tell me it was the US fault... That airlift was threatening, how dare we not let them starve the City... Same with Russia today, they agreed to these Borders and promised not to invade. There are no binding promises for NATO not to accept former Soviet nations. But, it is all DCs fault ....

---

The Russians and Germans were competing to see who could invade everyone faster. So what? We settled that after WWII.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

LOL modern Russia is doing the same exact things in foreign policy that the Soviets did (invading neighbors) and the Czars did (invading neighbors).

---

1. For very different reasons

The Soviets were totalitarian utopians looking to spread world communism
....but had the same exact geo-political realities as the old Czars and the modern Federation. as you point out below, the map is the map is the map....

The Czars and Putin's crew for more nationalistic reasons
the reasons may change, but the map doesn't. Whether you are defending the Czar, the Workers, or the Russian people, you still have the same geography to defend.


2. As you point out…Moscow (under whatever government) wishes to push out and create geo-strategic depth. (Probably because Russia is very vulnerable to attacks along its exposed western border of grasslands and coastal plains).
So you DO see the geo-strategic realities! Russia's vulnerability from east AND west are well documented throughout history, which explains why they invade neighbors = to dominate all possible invasion points.

So what do you want to do about it? Abolish Russia as a nation?
Not at all. I propose to have Russia to live in peace alongside independent, sovereign nations of Finns, Estonians, Letts, Lithuanians, Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians, Slovaks Hungarians, Moldovans, Romanians, and Bulgars, not one of whom is a threat to Russia in the slightest.


Plus is that not why NATO exits? It prevents Russia from moving farther west than its traditional sphere of influence (Ukraine of course is in that sphere of influence)
Nato exists to stop Russia from invading its western neighbors, because geography (as you note) gives them incentive to do so, and history (as anyone can see) shows they believe it is their right to do so.

---

Note that Nato still has not stationed permanent combat units in the former WP countries, so as to clearly signal to Russia that Nato is only interested in defending those countries, not using them as a springboard for attack. That changed, however, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Germany is going to deploy an armored brigade in Lithuania in 2027, specifically to defend the Suwalki Gap.

We've not touched on the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, formerly known as Konigsberg, a port city which Russia gained in the peace settlement of WWII. They promptly ethnically cleansed the city of historic German & Baltic (Prussian) residents and it now has an overwhelming Russian majority population (despite having no historical connections to the city whatsoever). That's a good example of the hardball Russia plays. The idea that they "have no interest" in moving their borders westward is wishful thinking on the order of Christmas cookies for Santa.

Kaliningrad is the first casualty of any Russian attack on Nato. Might even be a casualty if Russia collapses in Ukraine. Would be a very fair price.

---

We have troops in former WP countries and throughout Eastern Europe, and perhaps more important, we have missiles with potential nuclear capability.

It's not totally clear whether you think Russia would be secure behind a buffer zone of "independent" states or whether you think geography obliges them to expand into Europe in order to defend themselves. You seem to be saying both at different times. Considering that it was we who rejected the idea of an independent buffer by enlarging NATO, and that you seem to regard eventual war with Russia as inevitable, I take it that the latter is your true position. The logical implication is that Russia cannot avoid war with the West no matter how much it wants to, but this begs the question -- what if the West were to pursue peace and build trust with the Russians? We know this is possible because Reagan accomplished it to a remarkable extent. Your argument actually demonstrates that the decision is in our hands.

The alternative (and the unspoken assumption behind most of our policy) is that Russia delenda est. I'm guessing this is your position too. But we all need to recognize that it is an utter repudiation of the wisdom of Reagan, Kennedy, and others in the last century who actually practiced a conservative foreign policy. Yours is a neoconservative policy of endless crusading, and your view of history reflects that.

---

That is not true. When the Soviet fell, Russia was embraced as a part of Europe. Remember Putin saying Russia is part of Europe? Until they found out how hard it is to actually have a Constitutional Republic-ish form of Government. You might actually lose an election or not have control. Then it was the West fault, so the historic rights of Russia path. Now, it is align with China, after all Russia has always been about the Orient.

Russia has a complex and is not willing to give it's people freedom to chose and not use force to get what it (Putin, Stalin, Kriueschev, "eyebrows", Lenin the whole system is based on force and telling people what they want. It is not the West that is keeping them in this perpetual we are being threatened stage.

---

They were embraced to a limited extent, and more as a vassal. Putin did indeed say that Russia was part of Europe. I don't remember Europe saying the same.

---

They tried. Look up Council of Europe. That is a good example of how Europe tried to work with Russia.

Russia's economic system was so different, did they expect no learning curve moving to capitalism and democracy?

---

They were moving too fast. That's the problem.