whiterock said:

---

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.]

---

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.

---

Only if that is how you interpret USA history...as some kind of moralist story or narrative.

You also seem to think Russia is a eternal "bad guy"...including continuing to conflate Russia with the USSR

Neither the USA or Russia are "bad" in wanting to expand their territory historically (brings security and land for settlers)

Russia expanded into the East into basically nothing....no real population centers from the Ural mountains to the Pacific... In the West they faced the Poles (and others) also interested in expansion and fought wars with them.

The USA as you said was lucky to face stone age tribes as it expanded across the continent and was able to buy off and intimidate other European powers who did not yet have a strong presence.

America is a super power because it expanded across a continent. (by war, intimidation, and negotiation)

Russia is a regional power because it did the same.

Both exist...and you have to explain today why its right for us to fight proxy wars around the borderlands of Russia...while explaining how that would be wrong if Moscow did it to us in Canada or Mexico.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.]

---

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.

---

Only if that is how you interpret USA history...as some kind of moralist story or narrative.

You also seem to think Russia is a eternal "bad guy"...including continuing to conflate Russia with the USSR

---

This is what neocon "history" has in common with other ideological dogmas, e.g. religious fundamentalism, Marxism, or liberal utopianism. It assumes history is a narrative and we're the heroes. And you can't have a hero without a villain.

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.]

---

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.

---

Only if that is how you interpret USA history...as some kind of moralist story or narrative.

You also seem to think Russia is a eternal "bad guy"...including continuing to conflate Russia with the USSR

---

This is what neocon "history" has in common with other ideological dogmas, e.g. religious fundamentalism, Marxism, or liberal utopianism. It assumes history is a narrative and we're the heroes. And you can't have a hero without a villain.

---

Yes, compared to every other dominant world power in the history of the world, we are heroes.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

Oil; other countries' oil expertise; and China.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.]

---

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.

---

Only if that is how you interpret USA history...as some kind of moralist story or narrative.

You also seem to think Russia is a eternal "bad guy"...including continuing to conflate Russia with the USSR

---

This is what neocon "history" has in common with other ideological dogmas, e.g. religious fundamentalism, Marxism, or liberal utopianism. It assumes history is a narrative and we're the heroes. And you can't have a hero without a villain.

---

Yes, compared to every other dominant world power in the history of the world, we are heroes.

---

The world agrees less and less, and they're suffering more casualties at our hands lately than anyone else's.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.]

---

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.

---

Only if that is how you interpret USA history...as some kind of moralist story or narrative.

You also seem to think Russia is a eternal "bad guy"...including continuing to conflate Russia with the USSR

---

This is what neocon "history" has in common with other ideological dogmas, e.g. religious fundamentalism, Marxism, or liberal utopianism. It assumes history is a narrative and we're the heroes. And you can't have a hero without a villain.

---

Yes, compared to every other dominant world power in the history of the world, we are heroes.

---

The world agrees less and less, and they're suffering more casualties at our hands lately than anyone else's.

---

LMAO. No, vatnik.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.]

---

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.

---

Only if that is how you interpret USA history...as some kind of moralist story or narrative.

You also seem to think Russia is a eternal "bad guy"...including continuing to conflate Russia with the USSR

---

This is what neocon "history" has in common with other ideological dogmas, e.g. religious fundamentalism, Marxism, or liberal utopianism. It assumes history is a narrative and we're the heroes. And you can't have a hero without a villain.

---

Yes, compared to every other dominant world power in the history of the world, we are heroes.

---

The world agrees less and less, and they're suffering more casualties at our hands lately than anyone else's.

---

Envy is a hell of a drug.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

.

Really? Russia best Ukraine! I am sure that is who Putin wants to be compared. I am sure Putin is ecstatic he had to take Xi's deal. Because we know the Chinese are famous for fair deals.

Russia's economy is on the level of Mexico and Canada. Beating Ukraine is like a the US comparing itself to Ethiopia.

Putin guided Russia from being invited into the Council of Europe, even though they didn't qualify, to competing with Mexico. They would have been better off forgetting Ukraine and focusing on EU trade.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

.

Really? Russia best Ukraine! I am sure that is who Putin wants to be compared. I am sure Putin is ecstatic he had to take Xi's deal. Because we know the Chinese are famous for fair deals.

Russia's economy is on the level of Mexico and Canada. Beating Ukraine is like a the US comparing itself to Ethiopia.

Putin guided Russia from being invited into the Council of Europe, even though they didn't qualify, to competing with Mexico. They would have been better off forgetting Ukraine and focusing on EU trade.

---

Then why does your side keep saying Russia is some "great threat to Europe"?

Its poor, rapidly depopulating, with massive corruption, bad leadership, dysfunctional military planning, and now reliant on China to stay afloat.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

.

Really? Russia best Ukraine! I am sure that is who Putin wants to be compared. I am sure Putin is ecstatic he had to take Xi's deal. Because we know the Chinese are famous for fair deals.

Russia's economy is on the level of Mexico and Canada. Beating Ukraine is like a the US comparing itself to Ethiopia.

Putin guided Russia from being invited into the Council of Europe, even though they didn't qualify, to competing with Mexico. They would have been better off forgetting Ukraine and focusing on EU trade.

---

You can be sure that Ukraine is not what Russia wants to be compared with. That's why they're taking steps to make sure they don't meet the same fate.

Redbrickbear said:

---

You also seem to think Russia is a eternal "bad guy"...including continuing to conflate Russia with the USSR

---

Pretty common flaw in neocon thinking. The Dems on the other hand hate modern Russia for philosophical reasons.

In other news, Scott Ritter's passport was seized on order of the State Department.

https://tr.im/politics/courts-law/us-ex-intel-officer-claims-removal-from-flight-to-russia-by-state-department-order

Perhaps it is time to add the State Department to the ATF, FBI, NPR, and other .gov actors that need to be defunded and shut down.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

You need to read more Tolstoy and Dostoevsky

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

.

Really? Russia best Ukraine! I am sure that is who Putin wants to be compared. I am sure Putin is ecstatic he had to take Xi's deal. Because we know the Chinese are famous for fair deals.

Russia's economy is on the level of Mexico and Canada. Beating Ukraine is like a the US comparing itself to Ethiopia.

Putin guided Russia from being invited into the Council of Europe, even though they didn't qualify, to competing with Mexico. They would have been better off forgetting Ukraine and focusing on EU trade.

---

Then why does your side keep saying Russia is some "great threat to Europe"?

Its poor, rapidly depopulating, with massive corruption, bad leadership, dysfunctional military planning, and now reliant on China to stay afloat.

---

It's a great threat to Eastern Europe because when they don't get their way, they are more than happy to suffer the loss of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of their sons in order to lay their imperial desires in ruins so others can't have their way either.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.]

---

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.

---

Only if that is how you interpret USA history...as some kind of moralist story or narrative.

You also seem to think Russia is a eternal "bad guy"...including continuing to conflate Russia with the USSR

Neither the USA or Russia are "bad" in wanting to expand their territory historically (brings security and land for settlers)

Russia expanded into the East into basically nothing....no real population centers from the Ural mountains to the Pacific... In the West they faced the Poles (and others) also interested in expansion and fought wars with them.

The USA as you said was lucky to face stone age tribes as it expanded across the continent and was able to buy off and intimidate other European powers who did not yet have a strong presence.

America is a super power because it expanded across a continent. (by war, intimidation, and negotiation)

Russia is a regional power because it did the same.

Both exist...and you have to explain today why its right for us to fight proxy wars around the borderlands of Russia...while explaining how that would be wrong if Moscow did it to us in Canada or Mexico.

---

USSR was Russia. It was Russia's imperial legacy wrapped up in a tidy philosophical bow called communism and exacted at the end of the sword, the gun, the crop harvest, and every other mechanism Moscow could comprehend.

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

You need to read more Tolstoy and Dostoevsky

---

I get plenty of fiction reading your posts.

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

You need to read more Tolstoy and Dostoevsky

---

I get plenty of fiction reading your posts.

---

Sometimes art imitates life . Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are adept at capturing Russian savoir faire, whereas you are adept at orally capturing the Russian phallus.

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

You need to read more Tolstoy and Dostoevsky

---

I get plenty of fiction reading your posts.

---

Sometimes art imitates life . Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are adept at capturing Russian savoir faire, whereas you are adept at orally capturing the Russian phallus.

---

Russia will always be a top down mentality, they do not value independent thought, initiative or problem solving, which is why it became a lawless State in the 90's and 00's. The oligarchs, organized crime families and former military strong men flourished as no one else dared challenge and the populous just kept looking to Moscow. As much as they complain, Russians deserve someone like Putin. He is the only type that can keep control.

Unfortunately, all he understands is force. Hence, Ukraine.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

.

Really? Russia best Ukraine! I am sure that is who Putin wants to be compared. I am sure Putin is ecstatic he had to take Xi's deal. Because we know the Chinese are famous for fair deals.

Russia's economy is on the level of Mexico and Canada. Beating Ukraine is like a the US comparing itself to Ethiopia.

Putin guided Russia from being invited into the Council of Europe, even though they didn't qualify, to competing with Mexico. They would have been better off forgetting Ukraine and focusing on EU trade.

---

You can be sure that Ukraine is not what Russia wants to be compared with. That's why they're taking steps to make sure they don't meet the same fate.

---

The West made every accomodations to incorporate Russia into a modern 1st world economic and political Nation. They included them on Coucils that they were not qualified.

But Russia could not get around having a learning curve and resorted right back to the same Tsarist/Politboro strongman form of Govt using military to force what they wanted. In Russias mind missiles and tanks outweigh economy and trade. They shouldn't have to catch up to the West. Why should they when they can just threaten, assisnate and invade to get what they want.

---

The West doesn't want Russia as a first world nation. It just wants another place to plunder.

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.]

---

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.

---

Only if that is how you interpret USA history...as some kind of moralist story or narrative.

You also seem to think Russia is a eternal "bad guy"...including continuing to conflate Russia with the USSR

Neither the USA or Russia are "bad" in wanting to expand their territory historically (brings security and land for settlers)

Russia expanded into the East into basically nothing....no real population centers from the Ural mountains to the Pacific... In the West they faced the Poles (and others) also interested in expansion and fought wars with them.

The USA as you said was lucky to face stone age tribes as it expanded across the continent and was able to buy off and intimidate other European powers who did not yet have a strong presence.

America is a super power because it expanded across a continent. (by war, intimidation, and negotiation)

Russia is a regional power because it did the same.

Both exist...and you have to explain today why its right for us to fight proxy wars around the borderlands of Russia...while explaining how that would be wrong if Moscow did it to us in Canada or Mexico.

---

USSR was Russia. It was Russia's imperial legacy wrapped up in a tidy philosophical bow called communism and exacted at the end of the sword, the gun, the crop harvest, and every other mechanism Moscow could comprehend.

---

No it was not.

Literally not the same legal entity....and certainly NOT the same cultural/political entity

They in fact ruthlessly persecuted Russian nationalists and Orthodox Christians...the core of the old Russian State and disliked the Russian nation...more than the elite in DC currently dislikes the historic American Nation.

[Having come to power in October 1917 by means of a coup d'tat, Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks spent the next few years struggling to maintain their rule against widespread popular opposition. They had overthrown the provisional democratic government and were inherently hostile to any form of popular participation in politics. In the name of the revolutionary cause, they employed ruthless methods to suppress real or perceived political enemies. The small, elite group of Bolshevik revolutionaries which formed the core of the newly established Communist Party dictatorship ruled by decree, enforced with terror.

This tradition of tight centralization, with decision-making concentrated at the highest party levels, reached new dimensions under Joseph Stalin]

Lets not even go down the road of what the ethnic origins of the early leaders of Communism were....some people on here will start screaming about "muh racism"

[Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who first exposed the horrors of the Stalinist gulag, is now attempting to tackle one of the most sensitive topics of his writing career - the role of the Jews in the Bolshevik revolution and Soviet purges.

In his latest book Solzhenitsyn, 84, deals with one of the last taboos of the communist revolution: that Jews were as much perpetrators of the repression as its victims...

he added: "But it is impossible to find the answer to the eternal question: who is to be blamed, who led us to our death? To explain the actions of the Kiev cheka [secret police] only by the fact that two thirds were Jews...]

Its a complicated subject but lets just say a good portion of the Bolsheviks did not consider themselves Russians...many hated the Russians for ethnic-racial-historic reasons.

Stalin was of course a Georgian.

Simon Arshaki Ter-Petrosian was Armenian

Lavrentiy Beria was also Georgian

Etc.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/25/russia.books

https://www.jpost.com/magazine/was-the-russian-revolution-jewish-514323

Now the USSR and Russia Federation have pursued similar geo-strategic foreign policy concerns....but this is because the geographic area does not change. (push foreign armies away from the core of the European Russia and Moscow...exert power in Central Asia)

The ideology does change of course.

The USA would pursue a similar course of engagement with Western Europe (military presence), and security concerns in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean . No matter what the government in DC was....Democrats, Republicans, Communists, Fascists, Monarchists....whatever it would not matter because the geo-strategic concerns remain.

FLBear5630 said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Moving too fast does not indicate not wanting Russia to be a peaceful, productive member of Europe and get along with NATO.

The issue is Russia couldnt take being behind and went back to old ways.

---

Nothing about Russia's ways prevents it from being peaceful or productive. Since Yeltsin's departure they've done a lot better economically than Ukraine. Think about why that might be.

---

You need to read more Tolstoy and Dostoevsky

---

I get plenty of fiction reading your posts.

---

Sometimes art imitates life . Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are adept at capturing Russian savoir faire, whereas you are adept at orally capturing the Russian phallus.

---

Russia will always be a top down mentality, they do not value independent thought, initiative or problem solving, which is why it became a lawless State in the 90's and 00's. The oligarchs, organized crime families and former military strong men flourished as no one else dared challenge and the populous just kept looking to Moscow. As much as they complain, Russians deserve someone like Putin. He is the only type that can keep control.

Unfortunately, all he understands is force. Hence, Ukraine.

---

I imagine if you talked that way about Black African nations some of your neo-con and liberal buddies on here would be screaming racism.

The break down of Russian (really Post Soviet) society in the 1990s had nothing to do with Slavic cultural norms or "lack of independent thought" and more do do with the break down of an entire political and economic system.

Russia has always had a more autocratic and centralized form of government but no one can rationally accuse them of some kind of mental defect in independent thought or initiative unless they are just extremely ignorant of Russian history and of the Russian people themselves. They think just as much as other people and can be very clever.

[The dismantling of the Soviet Union had many long-lasting effects on the global economy and the region's foreign trade. Its downfall increased the United States' influence as a global power and created an opportunity for corruption and crime in Russia. It also prompted many cultural changes and social upheavals in former Soviet nations and smaller neighboring communist countries. Between 1989 and 1991, the gross national product in Soviet countries fell by 20 percent, ushering in a period of complete economic breakdown.]

[The decade included two failed coups in 1991 and 1993, and the abolition of both the ruling Communist Party and the USSR. Massive economic dislocation occurred as Soviet economic ties were severed, a market economy was created and shock therapy accompanied by mass privatisation...

The social impact was immense. Life expectancy fell, with up to five million excess adult deaths in Russia in 1991-2001, birth rates collapsed and both of these trends were compounded by widespread crime and trafficking. These negative effects were concentrated in periods of economic crisis in 1991-94 and 1998-99.]

https://online.norwich.edu/online/about/resource-library/consequences-collapse-soviet-union

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

1919?

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

Here is Brookings view as well...

The Budapest Memorandum and U.S. Obligations | Brookings

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

---

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

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

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

It's NOT a formal legal treaty

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

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

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

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

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

---

No, the US can't convince Nations to go non-Nuclear nobody is going to listen after Ukraine. But, like you Nationalist point out, nothing is binding. Obama gave the death blow to US credibility when he told Ukraine not to resist. I am not the only one who believes that supplying weapons to Ukraine, not troops, meets the obligations that the "assurances" in the Budapest Memorandum that were agreed to.

If keeping your word is Neo-con, than I am guilty. We said that we would act if Russia didn't adhere to the agreement, they didn't. So we should, with GB and EU, get Ukraine what they need to defend themselves.


The Budapest Memorandum and U.S. Obligations | Brookings

Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum | Brookings

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

1919?

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

Here is Brookings view as well...

The Budapest Memorandum and U.S. Obligations | Brookings

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

---

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

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

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

It's NOT a formal legal treaty

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

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

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

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

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

---

No, the US can't convince Nations to go non-Nuclear nobody is going to listen after Ukraine. But, like you Nationalist point out, nothing is binding. Obama gave the death blow to US credibility when he told Ukraine not to resist. I am not the only one who believes that supplying weapons to Ukraine, not troops, meets the obligations that the "assurances" in the Budapest Memorandum that were agreed to.

If keeping your word is Neo-con, than I am guilty. We said that we would act if Russia didn't adhere to the agreement, they didn't. So we should, with GB and EU, get Ukraine what they need to defend themselves.


The Budapest Memorandum and U.S. Obligations | Brookings

Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum | Brookings

---

No he did not

Anymore than he gave a "death blow to US crediablity" by not getting us deeply involved in the Syrian Civil War (which would have been a disaster)

And I say that as no fan of Obama.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

1919?

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

Here is Brookings view as well...

The Budapest Memorandum and U.S. Obligations | Brookings

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

---

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

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

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

It's NOT a formal legal treaty

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

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

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

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

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

---

No, the US can't convince Nations to go non-Nuclear nobody is going to listen after Ukraine. But, like you Nationalist point out, nothing is binding. Obama gave the death blow to US credibility when he told Ukraine not to resist. I am not the only one who believes that supplying weapons to Ukraine, not troops, meets the obligations that the "assurances" in the Budapest Memorandum that were agreed to.

If keeping your word is Neo-con, than I am guilty. We said that we would act if Russia didn't adhere to the agreement, they didn't. So we should, with GB and EU, get Ukraine what they need to defend themselves.


The Budapest Memorandum and U.S. Obligations | Brookings

Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum | Brookings

---

No he did not

Anymore than he gave a "death blow to US crediablity" by not getting us deeply involved in the Syrian Civil War (which would have been a disaster)

And I say that as no fan of Obama.

---

No fan, but you loved that part of his foreign policy. I might be a NeoCon, but at least I am not "pro-Obama"! He created this mess. .. but it you are rooting for Russia, Putin and Obama would rock...

We were trying to encourage "free market" reform -- meaning free for exploitation by the West. The end goal is break-up and balkanization of the country. All the stereotyping and demonization that passes for "historical analysis" is our way of justifying it. If the Russians are backward enough, we can convince ourselves that they deserve it.

Putin has been avoiding the NATO countries like the plague. Meanwhile they are trying to Article V him at every turn. https://t.co/zw4TbxShYW

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) June 4, 2024

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

1919?

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

Here is Brookings view as well...

The Budapest Memorandum and U.S. Obligations | Brookings

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

---

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

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

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

It's NOT a formal legal treaty

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

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

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

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

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

---

No, the US can't convince Nations to go non-Nuclear nobody is going to listen after Ukraine. But, like you Nationalist point out, nothing is binding. Obama gave the death blow to US credibility when he told Ukraine not to resist. I am not the only one who believes that supplying weapons to Ukraine, not troops, meets the obligations that the "assurances" in the Budapest Memorandum that were agreed to.

If keeping your word is Neo-con, than I am guilty. We said that we would act if Russia didn't adhere to the agreement, they didn't. So we should, with GB and EU, get Ukraine what they need to defend themselves.


The Budapest Memorandum and U.S. Obligations | Brookings

Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum | Brookings

---

No he did not

Anymore than he gave a "death blow to US crediablity" by not getting us deeply involved in the Syrian Civil War (which would have been a disaster)

And I say that as no fan of Obama.

---

No fan, but you loved that part of his foreign policy. I might be a NeoCon, but at least I am not "pro-Obama"! He created this mess. .. but it you are rooting for Russia, Putin and Obama would rock...

---

It was also part of Trump's foreign policy to not get involved in Syria and to try and to not escalate things in the Donbas/Crimea conflict

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were trying to encourage "free market" reform -- meaning free for exploitation by the West. The end goal is break-up and balkanization of the country. All the stereotyping and demonization that passes for "historical analysis" is our way of justifying it. If the Russians are backward enough, we can convince ourselves that they deserve it.

---

because feudalism is such a superior system

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were trying to encourage "free market" reform -- meaning free for exploitation by the West. The end goal is break-up and balkanization of the country. All the stereotyping and demonization that passes for "historical analysis" is our way of justifying it. If the Russians are backward enough, we can convince ourselves that they deserve it.

---

How were they exploited? They were giving a seat at the table. They are a 100% commodity based economy. Still are. But, hey I am sure the Chinese agreement and their dealings with Crimea, the Stans and Georgia will create a record economic boom.

Those moves seem so much better than a Free Market economy trading with the EU and North America. Funny thing about Free Market exploitation, everyone usually ends up with a higher standard of living.

WP: US concerned about Ukrainian strikes on early-warning radars on Russian soil, official says
by Kateryna Hodunova

The U.S. government is concerned about Ukraine striking radar stations on Russian territory as it could "dangerously unsettle Moscow," the Washington Post (WP) reported on May 29, citing an undisclosed U.S. official.

Washington expressed its concerns to Kyiv about the two attacks against radar stations that provide conventional air defense as well as warning of nuclear launches by the West.

At least one strike against the town of Armavir in southeastern Krasnodar Krai has caused some damage, according to the WP.

The U.S. official claimed that the facilities that were targeted had not been involved in the support of Russia's war against Ukraine.

https://kyivindependent.com/wsj-washington-concerns-about-ukrainian-strikes-on-nuclear-radars-on-russian-soil/

***

Strategic Blindness: the Effect of Ukraine's Attack on Voronezh-M Over-the-Horizon Radar in Orsk Explained
Defense Express

Another over-the-horizon radar of the Voronezh family was attacked by Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicles overnight May 27th. Initial reports were coming from local media, and now the Ukrainian branch of RFE/RL stated it got confirmation from sources in the Defense Intelligence of Ukraine who claims to be responsible for the strike. This time, the Voronezh-M radar system was hit, located about 1,500 km from the Ukrainian border. However, when asked by Ukrainian military official Bratchuk, the sources noted that the drone had to cross over 1,800 km to reach the radar, setting a new record for a long-range UAV strike.

Considering the earlier attack on the similar Voronezh-DM radar in Armavir on May 23, the effort has signs of being systematic at this point. The facilities affected by these strikes are the strategic "eyes" of russia that are designed to detect intercontinental and medium-range ballistic missiles; they are an integral component of the russian system of early warning about an incoming strategic missile strike.

While one of these radars in Armavir could observe a small part of the russian-occupied Crimea, focusing more on the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea and Turkiye, the Voronezh-M near Orsk did not look in the direction of Ukraine at all.

https://en.defence-ua.com/news/strategic_blindness_the_effect_of_ukraines_attack_on_voronezh_m_over_the_horizon_radar_in_orsk_explained-10643.html

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were trying to encourage "free market" reform -- meaning free for exploitation by the West. The end goal is break-up and balkanization of the country. All the stereotyping and demonization that passes for "historical analysis" is our way of justifying it. If the Russians are backward enough, we can convince ourselves that they deserve it.

---

because feudalism is such a superior system

---

Interesting enough many argue that Russia never had feudalism (at least not traditional feudalism as we understand it)

https://engelsbergideas.com/essays/the-problem-of-power-in-russia/

[The open, flat heartlands of northern Eurasia were both Russia's burden and her opportunity. Once a major European state, as distinct from a nomadic confederation, was established there, it commanded an area so immense and so richly endowed with natural resources that its population could survive disasters that would engulf a more modestly provided polity...Yet at the same time those heartlands suffered from grave disadvantages. They were open to attack from outside, remote from the seas and major trade routes, mostly relatively infertile, situated in an agriculturally marginal area of sometimes extreme cold, and their internal communications were cumbersome. All these factors made mobilizing the resources of nature and population extremely difficult...Tsarist Russia was a patrimonial monarchy in which the ideas of ownership, obligation and power were mingled. Authority was mediated downwards through persons rather than institutions, from the fifteenth to seventeenth century through boyars ('big men') to the peasant communities under their patronage, later through the dvorianstvo (nobility) or through non-Russian tribal chiefs...but whereas in western Europe feudalism went with the dispersal and fragmentation of power, in Muscovy/Russia it was an instrument for the concentration of power.]

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

We were trying to encourage "free market" reform -- meaning free for exploitation by the West. The end goal is break-up and balkanization of the country. All the stereotyping and demonization that passes for "historical analysis" is our way of justifying it. If the Russians are backward enough, we can convince ourselves that they deserve it.

---

How were they exploited? They were giving a seat at the table. They are a 100% commodity based economy. Still are. But, hey I am sure the Chinese agreement and their dealings with Crimea, the Stans and Georgia will create a record economic boom.

Those moves seem so much better than a Free Market economy trading with the EU and North America. Funny thing about Free Market exploitation, everyone usually ends up with a higher standard of living.

---

The "loosely confederated Russia", that [Zbigniew] Brzezinski imagines, would be a toothless, dependent nation that could not defend its own borders or sovereignty. It would not be able to prevent more powerful countries from invading, occupying and establishing military bases on its soil. Nor would it be able to unify its disparate people beneath a single banner or pursue a positive "unified" vision for the future of the country. A confederal Russia --fragmented into a myriad of smaller parts -- would allow the US to maintain its dominant role in the region without threat of challenge or interference. And that appears to be Brzezinski's real goal as he pointed out in this passage in his magnum opus The Grand Chessboard....

Brzezinski sums up US imperial ambitions succinctly. Washington plans to establish its primacy in the world's most prosperous and populous region, Eurasia. And -- in order to do so -- Russia must be decimated and partitioned, its leaders must be toppled and replaced, and its vast resources must be transferred to the iron grip of global transnationals who will use them to perpetuate the flow of wealth from east to west. In other words, Moscow must accept its humble role in the new order as America's de-facto Gas and Mining Company.

https://www.eurasiareview.com/03112022-washingtons-plan-to-break-up-russia-oped/