Redbrickbear said:

---

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.]

---

they more or less are a feudal society writ large. But not in St Pete and Moscow.

Sam Lowry said:

---

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/

---

Perhaps they should use more recruits from Moscow and St Pete for their ambitions to own Ukraine, then maybe this paper would actually be marginally coherent or relevant.

Sam Lowry said:

---

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/

---

Make it even more interesting that Brzezinski is a polack (his daughter is on MSNBC married to Joe Scarborough yuck) and the Poles spent a long time trying to conquer Russia.

Got pretty close to breaking it up in the 1600s and absorbing large parts of it into the old Polish-Lithuanian state

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth occupation of Moscow took place between 1610 and 1612 during the Polish intervention in Russia, when the Kremlin was occupied by the Polish garrison with additional Lithuanian units under the command of hetman Stanisaw kiewski]

The Poles even installed one of their own on the Russian throne for a while.

[Sigismund's son, Prince Wadysaw of Poland, was elected tsar]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Russian_War_(1605%E2%80%931618)


Really makes you wonder how much of DC foreign policy is being made by Ellis Islander- johnny come lately immigrants with old school ethnic hatreds from the old country.

God knows our Israel-Palestine policies are effected by such things.

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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/

---

Perhaps they should use more recruits from Moscow and St Pete for their ambitions to own Ukraine, then maybe this paper would actually be marginally coherent or relevant.

---

The fact that you're unaware doesn't mean it's not relevant. Cheney, ZB, and many others have talked about it, books and articles have been written, we've taught it to Ukrainian officials, etc.

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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/

---

Perhaps they should use more recruits from Moscow and St Pete for their ambitions to own Ukraine, then maybe this paper would actually be marginally coherent or relevant.

---

The fact that you're unaware doesn't mean it's not relevant. Cheney, ZB, and many others have talked about it, books and articles have been written, we've taught it to Ukrainian officials, etc.

---

These Euro-crats and mentally ill ivy league types in DC with liberal arts degrees are even making up fan fic maps about it....

God save us from these people.

(I particularly love the "decolonization" rhetoric...another example of how Regime Liberalism takes over and begins to use Leftist coded language and terms for their own ends)

I call for the Russian spring 2024 and the break up of Russia into 34 new, better, freer states pic.twitter.com/GDljFHK0rQ

— Gunther Fehlinger (@GunterFehlinger) February 5, 2023

[These map moves come amid growing chatter and even calls in Western foreign policy circles for the break up of the Russian Federation into a multitude of smaller states. The thinking is that being split into smaller states would blunt Russia's challenge to the West and its ability to carry on a war in Ukraine.]

https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2023/11/19/wishful-thinking-en

They're using the war as an excuse now, but our own propaganda outlets have been drooling over the idea since 2014:

Quote:

---

Redrawing Eurasia: Washington's Maps of a Divided Russia

With the division of the Russian Federation, Radio Free Europe's/Radio Liberty's article claims that any bipolar rivalry between Moscow and Washington would end after World War III. In a stark contradiction, it claims that only when Russia is destroyed will there be a genuine multipolar world, but also implies that the US will be the most dominant global power even though Washington and the European Union will be weakened from the anticipated major war with the Russians.



Accompanying the article are also two maps that outline the redrawn Eurasian space and the shape of the world after the destruction of Russia. Moreover, neither the author nor his two maps recognize the boundary change in the Crimean Peninsula and depict it as a part of Ukraine and not the Russian Federation. From west to east, the following changes are made to Russia's geography:

The Russian oblast of Kaliningrad will be annexed by Lithuania, Poland, or Germany. One way or another it will become a part of an enlarged European Union.

East Karelia (Russian Karelia) and what is currently the federal subject of the Republic of Karelia inside Russia's Northwestern Federal District, along with the Federal City of St. Petersburg, Leningrad Oblast, Novgorod Oblast, the northern two-thirds of Pskov Oblast, and Murmansk Oblast are split from Russia to form a Finnish-aligned country. This area could even be absorbed by Finland to create a Greater Finland. Although the oblast of Archangel (Arkhangelsk) is listed as a part of this partitioned area in the article, it is not included in the map (probably due to a mistake in the map).

The southern administrative districts of Sebezhsky, Pustoshkinsky, Nevelsky, and Usvyatsky in Pskov Oblast from the Northwestern Federal District and the westernmost administrative districts of Demidovsky, Desnogorsk, Dukhovshchinsky, Kardymovsky, Khislavichsky, Krasninsky, Monastyrshchinsky, Po*****ovsky, Roslavlsky, Rudnyansky, Shumyachsky, Smolensky, Velizhsky, Yartsevsky, and Yershichsky, as well as the cities of Smolensk and Roslavl, in Smolensk Oblast from the Central Federal District are joined to Belarus. The Smolensk Oblast's Dorogobuzhsky, Kholm-Zhirkovsky, Safonovsky, Ugransky, and Yelninsky districts appear to be portioned further in the map as the new border between Belarus and the proposed amputated Russia.

The North Caucasian Federal District of Russia, which is comprised of the Republic of Dagestan, the Republic of Ingushetia, the Kabardino-Balkar Republic, the Karachay-Cherkess Republic, the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, Stavropol Krai, and Chechnya, is separated from Russia as a European Union-influenced Caucasian confederation

The South Federal District of Russia, which is constituted by the Republic of Adygea, Astrakhan Oblast, Volgograd Oblast, Republic of Kalmykia, Krasnodar Krai, and Rostov Oblast, is completely annexed by Ukraine; this leads to a shared border between Ukraine and Kazakhstan and cuts Russia off from the energy-rich Caspian Sea and a direct southern frontier with Iran.

Ukraine also annexes the oblasts of Belgorod, Bryansk, Kursk, and Voronezh from Russia's most heavily populated federal district and area, the Central Federal District.

Siberia and the Russian Far East, specifically the Siberian Federal District and the Far Eastern Federal District, are torn off from Russia.

The text states that all of the territory in Siberia and most of the territory in the Russian Far East, which are comprised of the Altai Republic, Altai Krai, Amur Oblast, the Republic of Buryatia, Chukotka, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, Irkutsk Oblast, Kamchatka Krai, Kemerovo Oblast, Khabarovsk Krai, the Republic of Khakassia, Krasnoyarsk Krai, Magadan Oblast, Novosibirsk Oblast, Omsk Oblast, Primorsky Krai, Sakha Republic, Tomsk Oblast, the Tuva Republic, and Zabaykalsky Krai either turn into several Chinese-dominated independent states or, alongside Mongolia, become new territories of the People's Republic of China. The map categorically draws Siberia, most the Russian Far East, and Mongolia as Chinese territory. The exception to this is Sakhalin Oblast.

Russia loses Sakhalin Island (called Saharin and Karafuto in Japanese) and the Kurile Islands, which constitute Sakhalin Oblast. These islands are annexed by Japan.

On his own webpage, Sinchenko posted his Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty article days earlier, on September 2, 2014. The same maps, which are accredited to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, are also present. There, however, is an additional picture on Sinchenko's personal webpage that is worth noting; this is a picture of Russia being cheerfully carved out for consumption as a large meal by all the bordering countries.


https://www.globalresearch.ca/redrawing-the-map-of-the-russia-federation-partitioning-russia-after-world-war-iii/5400748?pdf=5400748

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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/

---

Ok, I get it now. You are a student/follower of Brzezinski. He is a fan of American mediocrity, very Carter and Obama. I bet he loved Obama apologizing. Now I get why we don't see eye to eye on Foreign Policy.

So, Brzezinski was for supporting Ukraine.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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/

---

Ok, I get it now. You are a student/follower of Brzezinski. He is a fan of American mediocrity, very Carter and Obama. I bet he loved Obama apologizing. Now I get why we don't see eye to eye on Foreign Policy.

So, Brzezinski was for supporting Ukraine.

---

No, I don't know what makes you think I'm a fan of Brzezinski. We got into this mess by trying to imitate his strategy in Afghanistan. Our leaders are in a panic now that they see it didn't work. They're making some very stupid and dangerous decisions as a result.

Just checking in to see if Ukraine has won yet or we just paid off a bunch of Ukrainian oligarchs that have been bribing the Bidens ...

If I have on one spot to virtue signal, can I take down the Ukraine flag for the groomer flag?

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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/

---

Ok, I get it now. You are a student/follower of Brzezinski. He is a fan of American mediocrity, very Carter and Obama. I bet he loved Obama apologizing. Now I get why we don't see eye to eye on Foreign Policy.

So, Brzezinski was for supporting Ukraine.

---

No, I don't know what makes you think I'm a fan of Brzezinski. We got into this mess by trying to imitate his strategy in Afghanistan. Our leaders are in a panic now that they see it didn't work. They're making some very stupid and dangerous decisions as a result.

---

You are quoting his book. Seemed you were in favor of his views. I am not.

I do not think we should help Ukraine because of any grand strategy. I think we should help them because we said we would in 1994.

I also do not think Russia is a victim or the US was part of some grand plan to keep them down or exploit them. Russia has brought stuff on them through actions.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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/

---

Ok, I get it now. You are a student/follower of Brzezinski. He is a fan of American mediocrity, very Carter and Obama. I bet he loved Obama apologizing. Now I get why we don't see eye to eye on Foreign Policy.

So, Brzezinski was for supporting Ukraine.

---

No, I don't know what makes you think I'm a fan of Brzezinski. We got into this mess by trying to imitate his strategy in Afghanistan. Our leaders are in a panic now that they see it didn't work. They're making some very stupid and dangerous decisions as a result.

---

I think we should help them because we said we would in 1994.

---

We did? Well what exactly did we agree to?

Did we agree to send them billions of dollars and fight a proxy war with Russia for them?

And when were these terms debated in the U.S. Senate and agreed to by the American people?

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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/

---

Ok, I get it now. You are a student/follower of Brzezinski. He is a fan of American mediocrity, very Carter and Obama. I bet he loved Obama apologizing. Now I get why we don't see eye to eye on Foreign Policy.

So, Brzezinski was for supporting Ukraine.

---

No, I don't know what makes you think I'm a fan of Brzezinski. We got into this mess by trying to imitate his strategy in Afghanistan. Our leaders are in a panic now that they see it didn't work. They're making some very stupid and dangerous decisions as a result.

---

I think we should help them because we said we would in 1994.

---

We did? Well what exactly did we agree to?

Did we agree to send them billions of dollars and fight a proxy war with Russia for them?

And when were these terms debated in the U.S. Senate and agreed to by the American people?

---

We took part in talking them into giving up nuclear weapons. No one said send troops, but providing weapons to defend themselves from Russia who clearly violated the agreement is reasonable. Whether you think so or not, US credibility is on the line, which does matter.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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/

---

Ok, I get it now. You are a student/follower of Brzezinski. He is a fan of American mediocrity, very Carter and Obama. I bet he loved Obama apologizing. Now I get why we don't see eye to eye on Foreign Policy.

So, Brzezinski was for supporting Ukraine.

---

No, I don't know what makes you think I'm a fan of Brzezinski. We got into this mess by trying to imitate his strategy in Afghanistan. Our leaders are in a panic now that they see it didn't work. They're making some very stupid and dangerous decisions as a result.

---

I think we should help them because we said we would in 1994.

---

We did? Well what exactly did we agree to?

Did we agree to send them billions of dollars and fight a proxy war with Russia for them?

And when were these terms debated in the U.S. Senate and agreed to by the American people?

---

We took part in talking them into giving up nuclear weapons. No one said send troops, but providing weapons to defend themselves from Russia who clearly violated the agreement is reasonable. Whether you think so or not, US credibility is on the line, which does matter.

---

Every time there as been another sandbox war over in diarrhea-stan over the past 30 years we have heard the excuse that we just had to get involved because "American credibility" was on the line.

I have a hard time believing people still buy this line

Iraq, Somalia, Iraq again, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, on and on it goes….

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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/

---

Ok, I get it now. You are a student/follower of Brzezinski. He is a fan of American mediocrity, very Carter and Obama. I bet he loved Obama apologizing. Now I get why we don't see eye to eye on Foreign Policy.

So, Brzezinski was for supporting Ukraine.

---

No, I don't know what makes you think I'm a fan of Brzezinski. We got into this mess by trying to imitate his strategy in Afghanistan. Our leaders are in a panic now that they see it didn't work. They're making some very stupid and dangerous decisions as a result.

---

You are quoting his book. Seemed you were in favor of his views. I am not.

I do not think we should help Ukraine because of any grand strategy. I think we should help them because we said we would in 1994.

I also do not think Russia is a victim or the US was part of some grand plan to keep them down or exploit them. Russia has brought stuff on them through actions.

---

None of this is about helping Ukraine. Their people are being sent to battle with practically no training, sometimes to die within days of being conscripted. They're being sacrificed to buy time and to save what little is left of Biden's popularity. If we wanted to help them, we'd tell them to negotiate an end to the war. We won't do that because we think America would lose face.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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/

---

Ok, I get it now. You are a student/follower of Brzezinski. He is a fan of American mediocrity, very Carter and Obama. I bet he loved Obama apologizing. Now I get why we don't see eye to eye on Foreign Policy.

So, Brzezinski was for supporting Ukraine.

---

No, I don't know what makes you think I'm a fan of Brzezinski. We got into this mess by trying to imitate his strategy in Afghanistan. Our leaders are in a panic now that they see it didn't work. They're making some very stupid and dangerous decisions as a result.

---

I think we should help them because we said we would in 1994.

---

We did? Well what exactly did we agree to?

Did we agree to send them billions of dollars and fight a proxy war with Russia for them?

And when were these terms debated in the U.S. Senate and agreed to by the American people?

---

We took part in talking them into giving up nuclear weapons. No one said send troops, but providing weapons to defend themselves from Russia who clearly violated the agreement is reasonable. Whether you think so or not, US credibility is on the line, which does matter.

---

US credibility has been an inevitable casualty of the war. Nothing will change that at this point.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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

---

See? Russia has not just previously, but notably recently picked off a laundry list of countries to its west all the way into central Europe, right up to German borders. And of course it could not hold onto them, and collapsed. After 25 years of rebuilding, Russia is now back into expansion mode.

you would have us simply let Russia have all they want, effectively doubling their market size, population, etc....which of course would make Russia something closer to a peer for Nato. Then, you insist, that larger, stronger, more proximate Russia would be sated and cease to be a threat to anyone.

Wiser heads would have us resist Russian expansion by all means available (in this case proxy armies) at every opportunity, to prevent them from growing stronger and closer, to force them to exhaust themselves so that they will be a threat much diminished and further from us, because history is quite clear that Russia will expand until it is stopped. The only question is where. The Donbas is a perfectly suitable location.

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.
Nothing moralist about it. Native American cultures were going to be rolled up by somebody. Better us than some other power with imperial ambitions.

You also seem to think Russia is a eternal "bad guy"...including continuing to conflate Russia with the USSR
you continue to presume, quite illogically, that the USSR was only an expansionist totalitarian empire regime in Russian history. It was not. Such is the only model Russia has ever had.

Neither the USA or Russia are "bad" in wanting to expand their territory historically (brings security and land for settlers)
There you go again - assigning moral equivalence between imperial autarky and constitutional republic.

Russia expanded into the East into basically nothing....no real population centers from the Ural mountains to the Pacific...
Ditto for USA moving west. Almost the same kind of demography...scattered stone age cultures engaged in hunter/gatherer existence.
In the West they faced the Poles (and others) also interested in expansion and fought wars with them.
to dominate them into a Russian empire......

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.
but what do they do with their power? We do not do what Russia does. Never have.

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.

---

Sigh. Because it harms our interests to have our 2nd largest strategic adversary to grow its polity by 25% overnight. So many economic and military implications to that. Because history shows us that they do/will not stop with Ukraine. They will start grinding and leaning on all the nations to the west.

It is a good thing when a country of substance (40m people, capable and well-resourced) say they would like to do more trade with you, be a part of your "civilization." It is fitting and proper to help that country defend itself when a dictatorship invades that country to make empire,, if for no other reason than to weaken the dictatorship, who has shown its intentions - to expand when & where it can. That is what Russia does - expand where it can. Nato has moved away from that. Russia has not. Russia of 2024 might as well be the Russia of 1724 - seeing itself as the rightful hegemon of everything between the Atlantic Ocean and the Great Wall of China.

Why could not Russia become a part of the EU?
Because it would require them to become a democracy and give up territorial claims.
That right there tells you everything you need to know.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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 is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Bingo.

Russian history is cycle of expansion, collapse, restructuring, expansion, etc.... Included in the "restructuring" phase is an acute awareness of the need to adopt "western reforms" in order that Russia may achieve its full potential, rightful place among nations, etc..... But the reforms never get very far. They require elites to give up more power than they are willing to do. So there's just a little improvement, then back to the old ways.

There's about 1500 years of those cycles......

I

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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/

---

Ok, I get it now. You are a student/follower of Brzezinski. He is a fan of American mediocrity, very Carter and Obama. I bet he loved Obama apologizing. Now I get why we don't see eye to eye on Foreign Policy.

So, Brzezinski was for supporting Ukraine.

---

No, I don't know what makes you think I'm a fan of Brzezinski. We got into this mess by trying to imitate his strategy in Afghanistan. Our leaders are in a panic now that they see it didn't work. They're making some very stupid and dangerous decisions as a result.

---

I think we should help them because we said we would in 1994.

---

We did? Well what exactly did we agree to?

Did we agree to send them billions of dollars and fight a proxy war with Russia for them?

And when were these terms debated in the U.S. Senate and agreed to by the American people?

---

We took part in talking them into giving up nuclear weapons. No one said send troops, but providing weapons to defend themselves from Russia who clearly violated the agreement is reasonable. Whether you think so or not, US credibility is on the line, which does matter.

---

Every time there as been another sandbox war over in diarrhea-stan over the past 30 years we have heard the excuse that we just had to get involved because "American credibility" was on the line.

I have a hard time believing people still buy this line

Iraq, Somalia, Iraq again, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, on and on it goes….

---

You keep putting Ukraine in with Sandbox wars. We had agreements in place that put the US in the middle. We took part in negotiations that involved security for giving up nuclear weapons. We were an active part of that process 10 years before this issue.

I concede the agreements do not require defending Ukraine, so no troops. But providing weapons, Intel and sanctions are a reasonable response. A response that meets our obligation, much more than blankets and the grab your ankles advice Obama gave.

This is a different situation than the wars you list. This one we should be helping.

Doc Holliday said:

---

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

---

I follow the RHL and like her work, but her take here is just plumb goofy.

what the hell is an alliance for if not to prepare for war?
is it not clear in the article that Nato is NOT preparing to deploy combat units on the Russian border?
isn't public war planning a good way to demonstrate resolve and build deterrence?

My daughter, btw, will be in command of the major logistics node on one of those blue arrows.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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/

---

Ok, I get it now. You are a student/follower of Brzezinski. He is a fan of American mediocrity, very Carter and Obama. I bet he loved Obama apologizing. Now I get why we don't see eye to eye on Foreign Policy.

So, Brzezinski was for supporting Ukraine.

---

No, I don't know what makes you think I'm a fan of Brzezinski. We got into this mess by trying to imitate his strategy in Afghanistan. Our leaders are in a panic now that they see it didn't work. They're making some very stupid and dangerous decisions as a result.

---

I think we should help them because we said we would in 1994.

---

We did? Well what exactly did we agree to?

Did we agree to send them billions of dollars and fight a proxy war with Russia for them?

And when were these terms debated in the U.S. Senate and agreed to by the American people?

---

We took part in talking them into giving up nuclear weapons. No one said send troops, but providing weapons to defend themselves from Russia who clearly violated the agreement is reasonable. Whether you think so or not, US credibility is on the line, which does matter.

---

US credibility has been an inevitable casualty of the war. Nothing will change that at this point.

---

You finally posted something I agree with . . . we've lost further credibility with North Korea, Iran, and Russia.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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/

---

Ok, I get it now. You are a student/follower of Brzezinski. He is a fan of American mediocrity, very Carter and Obama. I bet he loved Obama apologizing. Now I get why we don't see eye to eye on Foreign Policy.

So, Brzezinski was for supporting Ukraine.

---

No, I don't know what makes you think I'm a fan of Brzezinski. We got into this mess by trying to imitate his strategy in Afghanistan. Our leaders are in a panic now that they see it didn't work. They're making some very stupid and dangerous decisions as a result.

---

You are quoting his book. Seemed you were in favor of his views. I am not.

I do not think we should help Ukraine because of any grand strategy. I think we should help them because we said we would in 1994.

I also do not think Russia is a victim or the US was part of some grand plan to keep them down or exploit them. Russia has brought stuff on them through actions.

---

None of this is about helping Ukraine. Their people are being sent to battle with practically no training, sometimes to die within days of being conscripted. They're being sacrificed to buy time and to save what little is left of Biden's popularity. If we wanted to help them, we'd tell them to negotiate an end to the war. We won't do that because we think America would lose face.

---

That's what happens in wars of attrition - people being sent into battle as cannon fodder.

And yes, we are doing it to help Ukraine. That it also helps us does not mean it does not help Ukraine. The Ukrainians are willing to die to save their country. As long as they are willing to do so, we should send ammo. Because their survival as a country is a good thing for us. because their victory over Russia is a good thing for us.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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/

---

Ok, I get it now. You are a student/follower of Brzezinski. He is a fan of American mediocrity, very Carter and Obama. I bet he loved Obama apologizing. Now I get why we don't see eye to eye on Foreign Policy.

So, Brzezinski was for supporting Ukraine.

---

No, I don't know what makes you think I'm a fan of Brzezinski. We got into this mess by trying to imitate his strategy in Afghanistan. Our leaders are in a panic now that they see it didn't work. They're making some very stupid and dangerous decisions as a result.

---

I think we should help them because we said we would in 1994.

---

We did? Well what exactly did we agree to?

Did we agree to send them billions of dollars and fight a proxy war with Russia for them?

And when were these terms debated in the U.S. Senate and agreed to by the American people?

---

We took part in talking them into giving up nuclear weapons. No one said send troops, but providing weapons to defend themselves from Russia who clearly violated the agreement is reasonable. Whether you think so or not, US credibility is on the line, which does matter.

---

US credibility has been an inevitable casualty of the war. Nothing will change that at this point.

---

You finally posted something I agree with . . . we've lost further credibility with North Korea, Iran, and Russia.

---

There is Diplomatic credibility, and military credibility. Right now, after Afghanistan and some other operational failures our military credibility has taken a hit.

The only way to rebuild is step by step. leaving Ukraine to Russia does not help.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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 is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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 is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

---

You are missing the point, the US and UK are living up to their agreement and are supporting Ukraine and consulting with Russia. That was the agreement, that is what needs to be done. The rest of your posts are noise, they don't matter. What agreements are in place? That is what matters. Russia doesn't invade, Russia doesn't take Crimea there is no war. The whole purpose of the 1990 agreements were to prevent this.

Us and the UK need to support Ukraine until this thing is resolved. That is meeting our obligation.

---

You keep saying that...and I keep asking what was in the agreement?

Did the USA agree to spend endless billions funding a proxy war with russia?

Was this "moratorium of understanding" debated in the US Senate and voted on?

What were the actual promises made?

The only thing I see in the agreement is this:

[ol]

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments

[/ol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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 is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

---

You are missing the point, the US and UK are living up to their agreement and are supporting Ukraine

---

[My friend and colleague at Monterey, Philipp Bleek, has been growing weary of the frequent mischaracterization of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, particularly as its relates to Ukraine's renunciation of nuclear weapons.
He was kind enough to share his weary reflections based on a new article he's published, the work of our mutual colleague Jeffrey Knopf, and the very strange notion of actually reading the text of the Memorandum.

Quote:

---

Reading the (not so) fine print
or
Why Ukraine wasn't a nuclear power in the early 1990s and the West has no legal obligation to come to its aid now

---

https://web.archive.org/web/20140819085816/http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/7316/ukraine-and-the-1994-budapest-memorandum

[As for the purported treaty commitment to come to Ukraine's aid, that appears to be based on a misreading (or non-reading) of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum that extended guarantees to Ukraine in exchange for its joining the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state. Signed by Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom (with France and China, the other two NPT nuclear weapons states, separately making similar commitments), the document was part of the price Ukraine demanded in order to join Belarus and Kazakhstan in transferring nuclear weapons on their soil after the collapse of the Soviet Union to Russia, a diplomatic coup for the Clinton administration, eager to prevent the emergence of new nuclear-armed states.

A lot of folks, including apparently a former British ambassador to Moscow, now seem convinced that NATO's failure to respond more robustly to Russia's crass annexation of Crimea, and perhaps more of Ukraine in the coming weeks, violates commitments the United States and United Kingdom made under the agreement. One gets the impression that many of those opining about the Budapest Memorandum haven't read it, despite the fact that it's readily accessible online]

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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 is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

---

You are missing the point, the US and UK are living up to their agreement and are supporting Ukraine and consulting with Russia. That was the agreement, that is what needs to be done. The rest of your posts are noise, they don't matter. What agreements are in place? That is what matters. Russia doesn't invade, Russia doesn't take Crimea there is no war. The whole purpose of the 1990 agreements were to prevent this.

Us and the UK need to support Ukraine until this thing is resolved. That is meeting our obligation.

---

You keep saying that...and I keep asking what was in the agreement?

Did the USA agree to spend endless billions funding a proxy war with russia?

Was this "moratorium of understanding" debated in the US Senate and voted on?

What were the actual promises made?

The only thing I see in the agreement is this:

[ol]

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments

[/ol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

---

There were no details, which leaves it open. We are well within the expected support. The no detail is a two way street.

You can't talk a Nation into giving up protection against an action and when the action occurs turn your back. Simple as that.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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 is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

---

You are missing the point, the US and UK are living up to their agreement and are supporting Ukraine and consulting with Russia. That was the agreement, that is what needs to be done. The rest of your posts are noise, they don't matter. What agreements are in place? That is what matters. Russia doesn't invade, Russia doesn't take Crimea there is no war. The whole purpose of the 1990 agreements were to prevent this.

Us and the UK need to support Ukraine until this thing is resolved. That is meeting our obligation.

---

You keep saying that...and I keep asking what was in the agreement?

Did the USA agree to spend endless billions funding a proxy war with russia?

Was this "moratorium of understanding" debated in the US Senate and voted on?

What were the actual promises made?

The only thing I see in the agreement is this:

[ol]

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments

[/ol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

---

There were no details, which leaves it open. We are well within the expected support. The no detail is a two way street.

You can't talk a Nation into giving up protection against an action and when the action occurs turn your back. Simple as that.

---

Did you read the article?

There were of course details....none of which require the USA to fund a proxy war or do anything more than raise a complaint with the Security Council at the UN

Obviously the "moratorium of understanding" is your particular hobby horse because you think it can be spun to justify conflict with Russia.

But facts are stubborn things....the real documents makes no such statements or requirements.

[It might be a good idea for the US to stand up for Ukraine's territorial integrity, and it is true that the Budapest Memorandum commits Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity (I thought Russia's president wanted to respect international law?). The UN Charter does that anyway. The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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 is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

---

You are missing the point, the US and UK are living up to their agreement and are supporting Ukraine and consulting with Russia. That was the agreement, that is what needs to be done. The rest of your posts are noise, they don't matter. What agreements are in place? That is what matters. Russia doesn't invade, Russia doesn't take Crimea there is no war. The whole purpose of the 1990 agreements were to prevent this.

Us and the UK need to support Ukraine until this thing is resolved. That is meeting our obligation.

---

You keep saying that...and I keep asking what was in the agreement?

Did the USA agree to spend endless billions funding a proxy war with russia?

Was this "moratorium of understanding" debated in the US Senate and voted on?

What were the actual promises made?

The only thing I see in the agreement is this:

[ol]

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments

[/ol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

---

There were no details, which leaves it open. We are well within the expected support. The no detail is a two way street.

You can't talk a Nation into giving up protection against an action and when the action occurs turn your back. Simple as that.

---

Did you read the article?

There were of course details....none of which require the USA to fund a proxy war or do anything more than raise a complaint with the Security Council at the UN

Obviously the "moratorium of understanding" is your particular hobby horse because you think it can be spun to justify conflict with Russia.

But facts are stubborn things....the real documents makes no such statements or requirements.

[It might be a good idea for the US to stand up for Ukraine's territorial integrity, and it is true that the Budapest Memorandum commits Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity (I thought Russia's president wanted to respect international law?). The UN Charter does that anyway. The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/

---

But what does Ukraine need? They trusted the US and UK, this is about what Ukraine needs for "support". Not, what is the bare minimum for the US.

Right now, Ukraine trusted us and got screwed. How do we offset that? By getting Ukraine what they need, short of troops. So, you are asking the question from the wrong side, unless walking and forfeiting any world leadership role is good with you, which I expect it is.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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 is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

---

You are missing the point, the US and UK are living up to their agreement and are supporting Ukraine and consulting with Russia. That was the agreement, that is what needs to be done. The rest of your posts are noise, they don't matter. What agreements are in place? That is what matters. Russia doesn't invade, Russia doesn't take Crimea there is no war. The whole purpose of the 1990 agreements were to prevent this.

Us and the UK need to support Ukraine until this thing is resolved. That is meeting our obligation.

---

You keep saying that...and I keep asking what was in the agreement?

Did the USA agree to spend endless billions funding a proxy war with russia?

Was this "moratorium of understanding" debated in the US Senate and voted on?

What were the actual promises made?

The only thing I see in the agreement is this:

[ol]

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments

[/ol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

---

There were no details, which leaves it open. We are well within the expected support. The no detail is a two way street.

You can't talk a Nation into giving up protection against an action and when the action occurs turn your back. Simple as that.

---

Did you read the article?

There were of course details....none of which require the USA to fund a proxy war or do anything more than raise a complaint with the Security Council at the UN

Obviously the "moratorium of understanding" is your particular hobby horse because you think it can be spun to justify conflict with Russia.

But facts are stubborn things....the real documents makes no such statements or requirements.

[It might be a good idea for the US to stand up for Ukraine's territorial integrity, and it is true that the Budapest Memorandum commits Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity (I thought Russia's president wanted to respect international law?). The UN Charter does that anyway. The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/

---

But what does Ukraine need? They trusted the US and UK, this is about what Ukraine needs for "support". Not, what is the bare minimum for the US.

Right now, Ukraine trusted us and got screwed. How do we offset that? By getting Ukraine what they need, short of troops. So, you are asking the question from the wrong side, unless walking and forfeiting any world leadership role is good with you, which I expect it is.

---

Trusted us?

When did America (or more accurately the elites in DC) promise Ukraine they would fight a proxy war with Russia on their behalf? Or do anything for them other than log a complaint with the UN

When were any of these promises made?

You can't come up with the actual written promises (which do not exist) so you insinuate that we have some obligation to spend billions of tax payer money and direct a proxy war against a nuclear armed nation.

Again:

[The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/]

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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 is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

---

You are missing the point, the US and UK are living up to their agreement and are supporting Ukraine and consulting with Russia. That was the agreement, that is what needs to be done. The rest of your posts are noise, they don't matter. What agreements are in place? That is what matters. Russia doesn't invade, Russia doesn't take Crimea there is no war. The whole purpose of the 1990 agreements were to prevent this.

Us and the UK need to support Ukraine until this thing is resolved. That is meeting our obligation.

---

You keep saying that...and I keep asking what was in the agreement?

Did the USA agree to spend endless billions funding a proxy war with russia?

Was this "moratorium of understanding" debated in the US Senate and voted on?

What were the actual promises made?

The only thing I see in the agreement is this:

[ol]

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments

[/ol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

---

There were no details, which leaves it open. We are well within the expected support. The no detail is a two way street.

You can't talk a Nation into giving up protection against an action and when the action occurs turn your back. Simple as that.

---

Did you read the article?

There were of course details....none of which require the USA to fund a proxy war or do anything more than raise a complaint with the Security Council at the UN

Obviously the "moratorium of understanding" is your particular hobby horse because you think it can be spun to justify conflict with Russia.

But facts are stubborn things....the real documents makes no such statements or requirements.

[It might be a good idea for the US to stand up for Ukraine's territorial integrity, and it is true that the Budapest Memorandum commits Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity (I thought Russia's president wanted to respect international law?). The UN Charter does that anyway. The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/

---

But what does Ukraine need? They trusted the US and UK, this is about what Ukraine needs for "support". Not, what is the bare minimum for the US.

Right now, Ukraine trusted us and got screwed. How do we offset that? By getting Ukraine what they need, short of troops. So, you are asking the question from the wrong side, unless walking and forfeiting any world leadership role is good with you, which I expect it is.

---

Trusted us?

When did America (or more accurately the elites in DC) promise Ukraine they would fight a proxy war with Russia on their behalf? Or do anything for them other than log a complaint with the UN

When were any of these promises made?

You can't come up with the actual written promises (which do not exist) so you insinuate that we have some obligation to spend billions of tax payer money and direct a proxy war against a nuclear armed nation.

Again:

[The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/]

---

Coming from a Pro-Russia poster, I am not surprised. You are wrong, but I can see how you want Ukraine weak to help Russia


Also glad I am not in any deals that require counting on you, you would find a way to weasel out.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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 is amazing how you cite the proper facts then make the wrong conclusion.

Russia's demography is the primary cause of its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia is doing what all declining powers do - go to war to grow itself back to greatness.

I mean.....think, man, think!

---

If they are doing that then it's a poor strategy

1. They can't actually take the country and install a government they like (their military is just not good)

2. Ukraine is in demographic collapse as well

---

You are missing the point, the US and UK are living up to their agreement and are supporting Ukraine and consulting with Russia. That was the agreement, that is what needs to be done. The rest of your posts are noise, they don't matter. What agreements are in place? That is what matters. Russia doesn't invade, Russia doesn't take Crimea there is no war. The whole purpose of the 1990 agreements were to prevent this.

Us and the UK need to support Ukraine until this thing is resolved. That is meeting our obligation.

---

You keep saying that...and I keep asking what was in the agreement?

Did the USA agree to spend endless billions funding a proxy war with russia?

Was this "moratorium of understanding" debated in the US Senate and voted on?

What were the actual promises made?

The only thing I see in the agreement is this:

[ol]

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments

[/ol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

---

There were no details, which leaves it open. We are well within the expected support. The no detail is a two way street.

You can't talk a Nation into giving up protection against an action and when the action occurs turn your back. Simple as that.

---

Did you read the article?

There were of course details....none of which require the USA to fund a proxy war or do anything more than raise a complaint with the Security Council at the UN

Obviously the "moratorium of understanding" is your particular hobby horse because you think it can be spun to justify conflict with Russia.

But facts are stubborn things....the real documents makes no such statements or requirements.

[It might be a good idea for the US to stand up for Ukraine's territorial integrity, and it is true that the Budapest Memorandum commits Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity (I thought Russia's president wanted to respect international law?). The UN Charter does that anyway. The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/

---

But what does Ukraine need? They trusted the US and UK, this is about what Ukraine needs for "support". Not, what is the bare minimum for the US.

Right now, Ukraine trusted us and got screwed. How do we offset that? By getting Ukraine what they need, short of troops. So, you are asking the question from the wrong side, unless walking and forfeiting any world leadership role is good with you, which I expect it is.

---

Trusted us?

When did America (or more accurately the elites in DC) promise Ukraine they would fight a proxy war with Russia on their behalf? Or do anything for them other than log a complaint with the UN

When were any of these promises made?

You can't come up with the actual written promises (which do not exist) so you insinuate that we have some obligation to spend billions of tax payer money and direct a proxy war against a nuclear armed nation.

Again:

[The Memorandum does NOT in anyway obligate any country to intervene in order to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In other words, it is not a security guarantee, like the kind that the US has with Japan. It is also not a formal treaty which, at least under US law, would have more binding impact. So relax, American doves, it's 2014, not 1914. International agreements will not lead us blindly to war (sorry, Ukraine!).]

https://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/28/russians-coming-russians-coming/]

---

Coming from a Pro-Russia poster, I am not surprised. You are wrong, but I can see how you want Ukraine weak to help Russia


Also glad I am not in any deals that require counting on you, you would find a way to weasel out.

---

Any one in your world who wants a more restrained foreign policy and to not engage in reckless and stupid proxy wars on the other side of the world is a "pro-russian" poster to you.

Its also telling that when your arguments fail (they often do) you have to turn to innuendo.

I'm sure you accused people who did not want to get involved in the Syrian civil war as being "pro-Assad"

Its such a tired and lame old tactic

Again I ask....when did America promise to fight a proxy war with Russia and promise to spend billions on Ukraine?

PS

Have you sent any of your money over to Ukraine to spend on weapons? Have you volunteered to get off your couch and go fight? lol of course not