Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

historian said:

---

---

You mean the "Russians" who voted 85% to leave Russia? You mean the "Russia" that is majority ethnic Ukrainian?

---

Crimea is not majority ethnic Ukrainian..it's majority ethnic Russian. Donbas is Russian speaking majority so an good guess would be it's actually majority ethnic Russian as well

[Crimea, the region with the highest rate of people identifying itself as of Russian ethnicity, the figure for this demographic group was 58.3%]

And Crimea and the Donbas might not have voted in 1991 for a Ukrainian State if they thought it was not a going to be aligned with Russia

---

The pic says Donbas. Donbas has always been ethnic Ukr majority, and 85% voted for independence. Crimea is a totally different situation. Strong majority ethnic Russian but still noted to leave. Facts are stubborn things.

---

Well Donbas is Russian speaking and was always the strong hold of the party of regions (the more pro-Russian party)

Harder to determine exact ethnicity in the area

Since Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians are all eastern Slavs with strong similarities

In the similar way that Norwegians, Swedes, Danes are all Nordic people (but even more so since all 3 groups were all in the old Russian empire and USSR together)

Donbas always had a lot of people marking down "russian" in the pre-2014 census. Probably more than that today.

And those residents that considered themselves more "Ukrainian" have fled. Why the people who in Ukraine who considered themselves more "Russian" have fled to Donbas and Crimea

---

Just more gibberish. Seriously stick with your "we just can't afford it" argument. It's your strongest by far. The so-called "pro-Russian" parties never supported rejoining Russia. 85% voted to leave. I have no idea what Ukrainians write in a census or anywhere else. But a majority are ethnic Ukrainians. The original post/picture is wildly inaccurate no matter what else you want to argue.

Perhaps you're getting your info from Rogan.

---

The pro-Moscow parties also never supported joining the EU or NATO either

Sorry facts often offend you

Donbas is majority Russian supporting…always has been….and probably more so now than ever before

Even if you got your dream and Kyiv could retake Donbas it would still face a long insurgency against a local population that does not want to be ruled from Kyiv

---

You're changing the subject again. I responded to the stupid post/pic that said Donbas was Russia and Donbas residents were Russian. Both are false and have been since 1991.

---

And I responded that Donbas had a lot of Russians living there (probably the majority)

And they have been fighting a long conflict now from 2014 to break off from Ukraine

Things have changed since 1991

You think we should help Kyiv make war on them to deprive them of self determination?

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter, and with opinion polls also showing them very pleased to NOT be part of Russia. Nothing occurring after Russia's invasion, occupation, and removal of Ukrainians (who were the clear 2/3 majority) is legitimate.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

historian said:

---

---

You mean the "Russians" who voted 85% to leave Russia? You mean the "Russia" that is majority ethnic Ukrainian?

---

Crimea is not majority ethnic Ukrainian..it's majority ethnic Russian. Donbas is Russian speaking majority so an good guess would be it's actually majority ethnic Russian as well

[Crimea, the region with the highest rate of people identifying itself as of Russian ethnicity, the figure for this demographic group was 58.3%]

And Crimea and the Donbas might not have voted in 1991 for a Ukrainian State if they thought it was not a going to be aligned with Russia

---

The pic says Donbas. Donbas has always been ethnic Ukr majority, and 85% voted for independence. Crimea is a totally different situation. Strong majority ethnic Russian but still noted to leave. Facts are stubborn things.

---

Well Donbas is Russian speaking and was always the strong hold of the party of regions (the more pro-Russian party)

Harder to determine exact ethnicity in the area

Since Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians are all eastern Slavs with strong similarities

In the similar way that Norwegians, Swedes, Danes are all Nordic people (but even more so since all 3 groups were all in the old Russian empire and USSR together)

Donbas always had a lot of people marking down "russian" in the pre-2014 census. Probably more than that today.

And those residents that considered themselves more "Ukrainian" have fled. Why the people who in Ukraine who considered themselves more "Russian" have fled to Donbas and Crimea

---

Just more gibberish. Seriously stick with your "we just can't afford it" argument. It's your strongest by far. The so-called "pro-Russian" parties never supported rejoining Russia. 85% voted to leave. I have no idea what Ukrainians write in a census or anywhere else. But a majority are ethnic Ukrainians. The original post/picture is wildly inaccurate no matter what else you want to argue.

Perhaps you're getting your info from Rogan.

---

The pro-Moscow parties also never supported joining the EU or NATO either

Sorry facts often offend you

Donbas is majority Russian supporting…always has been….and probably more so now than ever before

Even if you got your dream and Kyiv could retake Donbas it would still face a long insurgency against a local population that does not want to be ruled from Kyiv

---

You're changing the subject again. I responded to the stupid post/pic that said Donbas was Russia and Donbas residents were Russian. Both are false and have been since 1991.

---

And I responded that Donbas had a lot of Russians living there (probably the majority)

And they have been fighting a long conflict now from 2014 to break off from Ukraine

Things have changed since 1991

You think we should help Kyiv make war on them to deprive them of self determination?

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter.

---

Gosh….what could have changed in 2014 that made the people of Donbas feel differently?

Let's have a modern vote and find out who Donbas wants to be in a political union with

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

historian said:

---

---

You mean the "Russians" who voted 85% to leave Russia? You mean the "Russia" that is majority ethnic Ukrainian?

---

Crimea is not majority ethnic Ukrainian..it's majority ethnic Russian. Donbas is Russian speaking majority so an good guess would be it's actually majority ethnic Russian as well

[Crimea, the region with the highest rate of people identifying itself as of Russian ethnicity, the figure for this demographic group was 58.3%]

And Crimea and the Donbas might not have voted in 1991 for a Ukrainian State if they thought it was not a going to be aligned with Russia

---

The pic says Donbas. Donbas has always been ethnic Ukr majority, and 85% voted for independence. Crimea is a totally different situation. Strong majority ethnic Russian but still noted to leave. Facts are stubborn things.

---

Well Donbas is Russian speaking and was always the strong hold of the party of regions (the more pro-Russian party)

Harder to determine exact ethnicity in the area

Since Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians are all eastern Slavs with strong similarities

In the similar way that Norwegians, Swedes, Danes are all Nordic people (but even more so since all 3 groups were all in the old Russian empire and USSR together)

Donbas always had a lot of people marking down "russian" in the pre-2014 census. Probably more than that today.

And those residents that considered themselves more "Ukrainian" have fled. Why the people who in Ukraine who considered themselves more "Russian" have fled to Donbas and Crimea

---

Just more gibberish. Seriously stick with your "we just can't afford it" argument. It's your strongest by far. The so-called "pro-Russian" parties never supported rejoining Russia. 85% voted to leave. I have no idea what Ukrainians write in a census or anywhere else. But a majority are ethnic Ukrainians. The original post/picture is wildly inaccurate no matter what else you want to argue.

Perhaps you're getting your info from Rogan.

---

The pro-Moscow parties also never supported joining the EU or NATO either

Sorry facts often offend you

Donbas is majority Russian supporting…always has been….and probably more so now than ever before

Even if you got your dream and Kyiv could retake Donbas it would still face a long insurgency against a local population that does not want to be ruled from Kyiv

---

You're changing the subject again. I responded to the stupid post/pic that said Donbas was Russia and Donbas residents were Russian. Both are false and have been since 1991.

---

And I responded that Donbas had a lot of Russians living there (probably the majority)

And they have been fighting a long conflict now from 2014 to break off from Ukraine

Things have changed since 1991

You think we should help Kyiv make war on them to deprive them of self determination?

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter.

---

Gosh….what could have changed in 2014 that made the people of Donbas feel differently?

Let's have a modern vote and find out who Donbas wants to be in a political union with

---

Without the ethnic Ukrainians Russia forced out? And run by GRU Gregor and Spetsnaz Slava? You really believe that is fair and legitimate?

And why so enthralled with and offended by Maidan? News flash: free people sometimes rise up. That's not an open invite to a scorned neighbor.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

historian said:

---

---

You mean the "Russians" who voted 85% to leave Russia? You mean the "Russia" that is majority ethnic Ukrainian?

---

Crimea is not majority ethnic Ukrainian..it's majority ethnic Russian. Donbas is Russian speaking majority so an good guess would be it's actually majority ethnic Russian as well

[Crimea, the region with the highest rate of people identifying itself as of Russian ethnicity, the figure for this demographic group was 58.3%]

And Crimea and the Donbas might not have voted in 1991 for a Ukrainian State if they thought it was not a going to be aligned with Russia

---

The pic says Donbas. Donbas has always been ethnic Ukr majority, and 85% voted for independence. Crimea is a totally different situation. Strong majority ethnic Russian but still noted to leave. Facts are stubborn things.

---

Well Donbas is Russian speaking and was always the strong hold of the party of regions (the more pro-Russian party)

Harder to determine exact ethnicity in the area

Since Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians are all eastern Slavs with strong similarities

In the similar way that Norwegians, Swedes, Danes are all Nordic people (but even more so since all 3 groups were all in the old Russian empire and USSR together)

Donbas always had a lot of people marking down "russian" in the pre-2014 census. Probably more than that today.

And those residents that considered themselves more "Ukrainian" have fled. Why the people who in Ukraine who considered themselves more "Russian" have fled to Donbas and Crimea

---

Just more gibberish. Seriously stick with your "we just can't afford it" argument. It's your strongest by far. The so-called "pro-Russian" parties never supported rejoining Russia. 85% voted to leave. I have no idea what Ukrainians write in a census or anywhere else. But a majority are ethnic Ukrainians. The original post/picture is wildly inaccurate no matter what else you want to argue.

Perhaps you're getting your info from Rogan.

---

The pro-Moscow parties also never supported joining the EU or NATO either

Sorry facts often offend you

Donbas is majority Russian supporting…always has been….and probably more so now than ever before

Even if you got your dream and Kyiv could retake Donbas it would still face a long insurgency against a local population that does not want to be ruled from Kyiv

---

You're changing the subject again. I responded to the stupid post/pic that said Donbas was Russia and Donbas residents were Russian. Both are false and have been since 1991.

---

And I responded that Donbas had a lot of Russians living there (probably the majority)

And they have been fighting a long conflict now from 2014 to break off from Ukraine

Things have changed since 1991

You think we should help Kyiv make war on them to deprive them of self determination?

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter.

---

Gosh….what could have changed in 2014 that made the people of Donbas feel differently?

Let's have a modern vote and find out who Donbas wants to be in a political union with

---

Without the ethnic Ukrainians Russia forced out? And run by GRU Gregor and Spetsnaz Slava? You really believe that is fair and legitimate?.

---

Have anyone who was a resident pre-2014 vote

I'm for it

And I'm for a 3rd party like the UN running the election.

I doubt you want a real vote…because the majority would almost certainly vote against union with Kyiv

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

historian said:

---

---

You mean the "Russians" who voted 85% to leave Russia? You mean the "Russia" that is majority ethnic Ukrainian?

---

Crimea is not majority ethnic Ukrainian..it's majority ethnic Russian. Donbas is Russian speaking majority so an good guess would be it's actually majority ethnic Russian as well

[Crimea, the region with the highest rate of people identifying itself as of Russian ethnicity, the figure for this demographic group was 58.3%]

And Crimea and the Donbas might not have voted in 1991 for a Ukrainian State if they thought it was not a going to be aligned with Russia

---

The pic says Donbas. Donbas has always been ethnic Ukr majority, and 85% voted for independence. Crimea is a totally different situation. Strong majority ethnic Russian but still noted to leave. Facts are stubborn things.

---

Well Donbas is Russian speaking and was always the strong hold of the party of regions (the more pro-Russian party)

Harder to determine exact ethnicity in the area

Since Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians are all eastern Slavs with strong similarities

In the similar way that Norwegians, Swedes, Danes are all Nordic people (but even more so since all 3 groups were all in the old Russian empire and USSR together)

Donbas always had a lot of people marking down "russian" in the pre-2014 census. Probably more than that today.

And those residents that considered themselves more "Ukrainian" have fled. Why the people who in Ukraine who considered themselves more "Russian" have fled to Donbas and Crimea

---

Just more gibberish. Seriously stick with your "we just can't afford it" argument. It's your strongest by far. The so-called "pro-Russian" parties never supported rejoining Russia. 85% voted to leave. I have no idea what Ukrainians write in a census or anywhere else. But a majority are ethnic Ukrainians. The original post/picture is wildly inaccurate no matter what else you want to argue.

Perhaps you're getting your info from Rogan.

---

The pro-Moscow parties also never supported joining the EU or NATO either

Sorry facts often offend you

Donbas is majority Russian supporting…always has been….and probably more so now than ever before

Even if you got your dream and Kyiv could retake Donbas it would still face a long insurgency against a local population that does not want to be ruled from Kyiv

---

You're changing the subject again. I responded to the stupid post/pic that said Donbas was Russia and Donbas residents were Russian. Both are false and have been since 1991.

---

And I responded that Donbas had a lot of Russians living there (probably the majority)

And they have been fighting a long conflict now from 2014 to break off from Ukraine

Things have changed since 1991

You think we should help Kyiv make war on them to deprive them of self determination?

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter.

---

Gosh….what could have changed in 2014 that made the people of Donbas feel differently?

Let's have a modern vote and find out who Donbas wants to be in a political union with

---

Without the ethnic Ukrainians Russia forced out? And run by GRU Gregor and Spetsnaz Slava? You really believe that is fair and legitimate?.

---

Have anyone who was a resident pre-2014 vote

I'm for it

And I'm for a 3rd party like the UN running the election.

I doubt you want a real vote…because the majority would almost certainly vote against union with Kyiv

---

Let's just say that was possible (which it is not) I would bet every dollar I had they would strongly reject Russia. You think 1/3 or more ethnic Ukrainians would vote for Russia despite Russia's butchery? Heck, 95% or more of ethnic Ukrainians voted against Russia in 1991 when Russia was rolling out the red carpet. And polls through pre-2014 invasion showed similar sentiment. Heck, ethnic Russian did. It want to rejoin Russia. But now they've somehow seen the Putin light?
.

---

Well both Donesk and Luhansk (the Donbas) have been providing a steady stream of fighters against Kyiv for a decade.

That have never shown any interest in launching an similar insurrection against Moscow

Those people have also suffered bombings and shelling, land based attacks, and economic hardship in order to break off from Ukraine and the ultra-nationalists in Kyiv

I think in a fair vote the majority votes for secession.

And I think DC and Brussels know that…its why you never see their mouth pieces making the argument you are that the people of Donbas magically want to be a part of Ukraine

If Donbas or Crimea did then Russian would have a very hard time holding them. As it is…its the opposite…with Ukraine having a tough time reconquering those areas

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

historian said:

---

---

You mean the "Russians" who voted 85% to leave Russia? You mean the "Russia" that is majority ethnic Ukrainian?

---

Crimea is not majority ethnic Ukrainian..it's majority ethnic Russian. Donbas is Russian speaking majority so an good guess would be it's actually majority ethnic Russian as well

[Crimea, the region with the highest rate of people identifying itself as of Russian ethnicity, the figure for this demographic group was 58.3%]

And Crimea and the Donbas might not have voted in 1991 for a Ukrainian State if they thought it was not a going to be aligned with Russia

---

The pic says Donbas. Donbas has always been ethnic Ukr majority, and 85% voted for independence. Crimea is a totally different situation. Strong majority ethnic Russian but still noted to leave. Facts are stubborn things.

---

Well Donbas is Russian speaking and was always the strong hold of the party of regions (the more pro-Russian party)

Harder to determine exact ethnicity in the area

Since Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians are all eastern Slavs with strong similarities

In the similar way that Norwegians, Swedes, Danes are all Nordic people (but even more so since all 3 groups were all in the old Russian empire and USSR together)

Donbas always had a lot of people marking down "russian" in the pre-2014 census. Probably more than that today.

And those residents that considered themselves more "Ukrainian" have fled. Why the people who in Ukraine who considered themselves more "Russian" have fled to Donbas and Crimea

---

Just more gibberish. Seriously stick with your "we just can't afford it" argument. It's your strongest by far. The so-called "pro-Russian" parties never supported rejoining Russia. 85% voted to leave. I have no idea what Ukrainians write in a census or anywhere else. But a majority are ethnic Ukrainians. The original post/picture is wildly inaccurate no matter what else you want to argue.

Perhaps you're getting your info from Rogan.

---

The pro-Moscow parties also never supported joining the EU or NATO either

Sorry facts often offend you

Donbas is majority Russian supporting…always has been….and probably more so now than ever before

Even if you got your dream and Kyiv could retake Donbas it would still face a long insurgency against a local population that does not want to be ruled from Kyiv

---

You're changing the subject again. I responded to the stupid post/pic that said Donbas was Russia and Donbas residents were Russian. Both are false and have been since 1991.

---

And I responded that Donbas had a lot of Russians living there (probably the majority)

And they have been fighting a long conflict now from 2014 to break off from Ukraine

Things have changed since 1991

You think we should help Kyiv make war on them to deprive them of self determination?

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter.

---

Gosh….what could have changed in 2014 that made the people of Donbas feel differently?

Let's have a modern vote and find out who Donbas wants to be in a political union with

---

Without the ethnic Ukrainians Russia forced out? And run by GRU Gregor and Spetsnaz Slava? You really believe that is fair and legitimate?.

---

Have anyone who was a resident pre-2014 vote

I'm for it

And I'm for a 3rd party like the UN running the election.

I doubt you want a real vote…because the majority would almost certainly vote against union with Kyiv

---

Let's just say that was possible (which it is not) I would bet every dollar I had they would strongly reject Russia. You think 1/3 or more ethnic Ukrainians would vote for Russia despite Russia's butchery? Heck, 95% or more of ethnic Ukrainians voted against Russia in 1991 when Russia was rolling out the red carpet. And polls through pre-2014 invasion showed similar sentiment. Heck, ethnic Russian did. It want to rejoin Russia. But now they've somehow seen the Putin light?

It's only an odd subgroup of Americans who actually would choose Putin. Virtually everyone else sees him for what he really is - an evil, morally bankrupt, murderous, thug, dictator, tyrant, spy, narcissist, Soviet Empire daydreamer.

---

Polls consistently showed support for good relations with both Russia and the West. Not all-or-nothing alignment, as we insisted upon.

It's worth asking why the US itself supported Ukrainian neutrality in 1991. Today we talk as if that was a gross violation of sovereignty, but no one said so at the time. There are two possible reasons, neither of which is very good for your argument. One is that we lied. The other is that we recognized Russia's legitimate interests in Ukraine. So again, what changed?

A lot changed in 2014. Until then the people of the Donbas had relatively fair representation in Kiev. Maidan was, at best, a revolt by a small number of Western Ukrainians who fiercely opposed not only Russia but also Russian language, culture, and religion in Ukraine. At worst it was a coup orchestrated by the US. Either way, Crimea and the Donbas wanted no part of it. They and the rest of the country gave Zelensky a mandate to implement the Minsk Agreement, and Kiev betrayed them yet again. Meanwhile thousands were dying in a civil war against whom...Putin? No, they were being killed by Ukrainian forces with Western backing. That's the reality today, not 30 years ago.

And just to emphasize the most important point--even if everything you said were true, it would not remotely justify our risk of getting into war with Russia. The political shape of Ukraine is famously variable, so much so that there are ancient jokes about it. Life has always gone on. We should keep it that way.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

historian said:

---

---

You mean the "Russians" who voted 85% to leave Russia? You mean the "Russia" that is majority ethnic Ukrainian?

---

Crimea is not majority ethnic Ukrainian..it's majority ethnic Russian. Donbas is Russian speaking majority so an good guess would be it's actually majority ethnic Russian as well

[Crimea, the region with the highest rate of people identifying itself as of Russian ethnicity, the figure for this demographic group was 58.3%]

And Crimea and the Donbas might not have voted in 1991 for a Ukrainian State if they thought it was not a going to be aligned with Russia

---

The pic says Donbas. Donbas has always been ethnic Ukr majority, and 85% voted for independence. Crimea is a totally different situation. Strong majority ethnic Russian but still noted to leave. Facts are stubborn things.

---

Well Donbas is Russian speaking and was always the strong hold of the party of regions (the more pro-Russian party)

Harder to determine exact ethnicity in the area

Since Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians are all eastern Slavs with strong similarities

In the similar way that Norwegians, Swedes, Danes are all Nordic people (but even more so since all 3 groups were all in the old Russian empire and USSR together)

Donbas always had a lot of people marking down "russian" in the pre-2014 census. Probably more than that today.

And those residents that considered themselves more "Ukrainian" have fled. Why the people who in Ukraine who considered themselves more "Russian" have fled to Donbas and Crimea

---

Just more gibberish. Seriously stick with your "we just can't afford it" argument. It's your strongest by far. The so-called "pro-Russian" parties never supported rejoining Russia. 85% voted to leave. I have no idea what Ukrainians write in a census or anywhere else. But a majority are ethnic Ukrainians. The original post/picture is wildly inaccurate no matter what else you want to argue.

Perhaps you're getting your info from Rogan.

---

The pro-Moscow parties also never supported joining the EU or NATO either

Sorry facts often offend you

Donbas is majority Russian supporting…always has been….and probably more so now than ever before

Even if you got your dream and Kyiv could retake Donbas it would still face a long insurgency against a local population that does not want to be ruled from Kyiv

---

You're changing the subject again. I responded to the stupid post/pic that said Donbas was Russia and Donbas residents were Russian. Both are false and have been since 1991.

---

And I responded that Donbas had a lot of Russians living there (probably the majority)

And they have been fighting a long conflict now from 2014 to break off from Ukraine

Things have changed since 1991

You think we should help Kyiv make war on them to deprive them of self determination?

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter.

---

Gosh….what could have changed in 2014 that made the people of Donbas feel differently?

Let's have a modern vote and find out who Donbas wants to be in a political union with

---

Without the ethnic Ukrainians Russia forced out? And run by GRU Gregor and Spetsnaz Slava? You really believe that is fair and legitimate?.

---

Have anyone who was a resident pre-2014 vote

I'm for it

And I'm for a 3rd party like the UN running the election.

I doubt you want a real vote…because the majority would almost certainly vote against union with Kyiv

---

Let's just say that was possible (which it is not) I would bet every dollar I had they would strongly reject Russia. You think 1/3 or more ethnic Ukrainians would vote for Russia despite Russia's butchery? Heck, 95% or more of ethnic Ukrainians voted against Russia in 1991 when Russia was rolling out the red carpet. And polls through pre-2014 invasion showed similar sentiment. Heck, ethnic Russian did. It want to rejoin Russia. But now they've somehow seen the Putin light?
.

---

Well both Donesk and Luhansk (the Donbas) have been providing a steady stream of fighters against Kyiv for a decade.

That have never shown any interest in launching an similar insurrection against Moscow

Those people have also suffered bombings and shelling, land based attacks, and economic hardship in order to break off from Ukraine and the ultra-nationalists in Kyiv

I think in a fair vote the majority votes for secession.

And I think DC and Brussels know that…its why you never see their mouth pieces making the argument you are that the people of Donbas magically want to be a part of Ukraine

If Donbas or Crimea did then Russian would have a very hard time holding them. As it is…its the opposite…with Ukraine having a tough time reconquering those areas

---

Ukrainians aren't into invading other countries. They just want to be free and sovereign.

Again, Putin and his thugs forced the ethnic Ukrainians out of the Donbas, so yes, there is a dearth of potential Ukrainian fighters there now.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

historian said:

---

---

You mean the "Russians" who voted 85% to leave Russia? You mean the "Russia" that is majority ethnic Ukrainian?

---

Crimea is not majority ethnic Ukrainian..it's majority ethnic Russian. Donbas is Russian speaking majority so an good guess would be it's actually majority ethnic Russian as well

[Crimea, the region with the highest rate of people identifying itself as of Russian ethnicity, the figure for this demographic group was 58.3%]

And Crimea and the Donbas might not have voted in 1991 for a Ukrainian State if they thought it was not a going to be aligned with Russia

---

The pic says Donbas. Donbas has always been ethnic Ukr majority, and 85% voted for independence. Crimea is a totally different situation. Strong majority ethnic Russian but still noted to leave. Facts are stubborn things.

---

Well Donbas is Russian speaking and was always the strong hold of the party of regions (the more pro-Russian party)

Harder to determine exact ethnicity in the area

Since Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians are all eastern Slavs with strong similarities

In the similar way that Norwegians, Swedes, Danes are all Nordic people (but even more so since all 3 groups were all in the old Russian empire and USSR together)

Donbas always had a lot of people marking down "russian" in the pre-2014 census. Probably more than that today.

And those residents that considered themselves more "Ukrainian" have fled. Why the people who in Ukraine who considered themselves more "Russian" have fled to Donbas and Crimea

---

Just more gibberish. Seriously stick with your "we just can't afford it" argument. It's your strongest by far. The so-called "pro-Russian" parties never supported rejoining Russia. 85% voted to leave. I have no idea what Ukrainians write in a census or anywhere else. But a majority are ethnic Ukrainians. The original post/picture is wildly inaccurate no matter what else you want to argue.

Perhaps you're getting your info from Rogan.

---

The pro-Moscow parties also never supported joining the EU or NATO either

Sorry facts often offend you

Donbas is majority Russian supporting…always has been….and probably more so now than ever before

Even if you got your dream and Kyiv could retake Donbas it would still face a long insurgency against a local population that does not want to be ruled from Kyiv

---

You're changing the subject again. I responded to the stupid post/pic that said Donbas was Russia and Donbas residents were Russian. Both are false and have been since 1991.

---

And I responded that Donbas had a lot of Russians living there (probably the majority)

And they have been fighting a long conflict now from 2014 to break off from Ukraine

Things have changed since 1991

You think we should help Kyiv make war on them to deprive them of self determination?

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter.

---

Gosh….what could have changed in 2014 that made the people of Donbas feel differently?

Let's have a modern vote and find out who Donbas wants to be in a political union with

---

Without the ethnic Ukrainians Russia forced out? And run by GRU Gregor and Spetsnaz Slava? You really believe that is fair and legitimate?.

---

Have anyone who was a resident pre-2014 vote

I'm for it

And I'm for a 3rd party like the UN running the election.

I doubt you want a real vote…because the majority would almost certainly vote against union with Kyiv

---

Let's just say that was possible (which it is not) I would bet every dollar I had they would strongly reject Russia. You think 1/3 or more ethnic Ukrainians would vote for Russia despite Russia's butchery? Heck, 95% or more of ethnic Ukrainians voted against Russia in 1991 when Russia was rolling out the red carpet. And polls through pre-2014 invasion showed similar sentiment. Heck, ethnic Russian did. It want to rejoin Russia. But now they've somehow seen the Putin light?

It's only an odd subgroup of Americans who actually would choose Putin. Virtually everyone else sees him for what he really is - an evil, morally bankrupt, murderous, thug, dictator, tyrant, spy, narcissist, Soviet Empire daydreamer.

---

Polls consistently showed support for good relations with both Russia and the West. Not all-or-nothing alignment, as we insisted upon.

It's worth asking why the US itself supported Ukrainian neutrality in 1991. Today we talk as if that was a gross violation of sovereignty, but no one said so at the time. There are two possible reasons, neither of which is very good for your argument. One is that we lied. The other is that we recognized Russia's legitimate interests in Ukraine. So again, what changed?

A lot changed in 2014. Until then the people of the Donbas had relatively fair representation in Kiev. Maidan was, at best, a revolt by a small number of Western Ukrainians who fiercely opposed not only Russia but also Russian language, culture, and religion in Ukraine. At worst it was a coup orchestrated by the US. Either way, Crimea and the Donbas wanted no part of it. They and the rest of the country gave Zelensky a mandate to implement the Minsk Agreement, and Kiev betrayed them yet again. Meanwhile thousands were dying in a civil war against whom...Putin? No, they were being killed by Ukrainian forces with Western backing. That's the reality today, not 30 years ago.

And just to emphasize the most important point--even if everything you said were true, it would not remotely justify our risk of getting into war with Russia. The political shape of Ukraine is famously variable, so much so that there are ancient jokes about it. Life has always gone on. We should keep it that way.

---

I agree with more than you might think, but it really takes the Russian perspective on the issues. I fully realize there are multiple sides to these stories and that nobody has completely clean hands. I've never said to the contrary. However based on my study and knowledge of Russia and the region, my travel and work there, and countless hours discussing these issues with my Russian in-laws and Serb family, I believe Russia is by far most responsible for the carnage and instability and has always planned all of it.

I further believe Ukraine's cause is just, that we and our allies should support them, and that we are not risking war with Russia.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

historian said:

---

---

You mean the "Russians" who voted 85% to leave Russia? You mean the "Russia" that is majority ethnic Ukrainian?

---

Crimea is not majority ethnic Ukrainian..it's majority ethnic Russian. Donbas is Russian speaking majority so an good guess would be it's actually majority ethnic Russian as well

[Crimea, the region with the highest rate of people identifying itself as of Russian ethnicity, the figure for this demographic group was 58.3%]

And Crimea and the Donbas might not have voted in 1991 for a Ukrainian State if they thought it was not a going to be aligned with Russia

---

The pic says Donbas. Donbas has always been ethnic Ukr majority, and 85% voted for independence. Crimea is a totally different situation. Strong majority ethnic Russian but still noted to leave. Facts are stubborn things.

---

Well Donbas is Russian speaking and was always the strong hold of the party of regions (the more pro-Russian party)

Harder to determine exact ethnicity in the area

Since Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians are all eastern Slavs with strong similarities

In the similar way that Norwegians, Swedes, Danes are all Nordic people (but even more so since all 3 groups were all in the old Russian empire and USSR together)

Donbas always had a lot of people marking down "russian" in the pre-2014 census. Probably more than that today.

And those residents that considered themselves more "Ukrainian" have fled. Why the people who in Ukraine who considered themselves more "Russian" have fled to Donbas and Crimea

---

Just more gibberish. Seriously stick with your "we just can't afford it" argument. It's your strongest by far. The so-called "pro-Russian" parties never supported rejoining Russia. 85% voted to leave. I have no idea what Ukrainians write in a census or anywhere else. But a majority are ethnic Ukrainians. The original post/picture is wildly inaccurate no matter what else you want to argue.

Perhaps you're getting your info from Rogan.

---

The pro-Moscow parties also never supported joining the EU or NATO either

Sorry facts often offend you

Donbas is majority Russian supporting…always has been….and probably more so now than ever before

Even if you got your dream and Kyiv could retake Donbas it would still face a long insurgency against a local population that does not want to be ruled from Kyiv

---

You're changing the subject again. I responded to the stupid post/pic that said Donbas was Russia and Donbas residents were Russian. Both are false and have been since 1991.

It is highly unlikely whether through force or through a Trump negotiated deal that Ukraine gets the Donbas back. I accept that. Buts let's not rationalize or minimize it. Russia invaded and took over a significant region of a sovereign nation and people.

---

Albania is more likely to take what little is left of Serbia, than Russia is of taking the rest of Ukraine.

It probably would have been better to either (a) abandon Ukraine from the start and tell it to surrender or (b) give it full support to win quickly rather than (c) the drip-drip of limited support that prolongs the conflict and solidifies the China-Russia-Iran-NKorea axis. https://t.co/Q5T8nPzY5w

— Whyvert (@whyvert) December 2, 2024

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

historian said:

---

---

You mean the "Russians" who voted 85% to leave Russia? You mean the "Russia" that is majority ethnic Ukrainian?

---

Crimea is not majority ethnic Ukrainian..it's majority ethnic Russian. Donbas is Russian speaking majority so an good guess would be it's actually majority ethnic Russian as well

[Crimea, the region with the highest rate of people identifying itself as of Russian ethnicity, the figure for this demographic group was 58.3%]

And Crimea and the Donbas might not have voted in 1991 for a Ukrainian State if they thought it was not a going to be aligned with Russia

---

The pic says Donbas. Donbas has always been ethnic Ukr majority, and 85% voted for independence. Crimea is a totally different situation. Strong majority ethnic Russian but still noted to leave. Facts are stubborn things.

---

Well Donbas is Russian speaking and was always the strong hold of the party of regions (the more pro-Russian party)

Harder to determine exact ethnicity in the area

Since Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians are all eastern Slavs with strong similarities

In the similar way that Norwegians, Swedes, Danes are all Nordic people (but even more so since all 3 groups were all in the old Russian empire and USSR together)

Donbas always had a lot of people marking down "russian" in the pre-2014 census. Probably more than that today.

And those residents that considered themselves more "Ukrainian" have fled. Why the people who in Ukraine who considered themselves more "Russian" have fled to Donbas and Crimea

---

Just more gibberish. Seriously stick with your "we just can't afford it" argument. It's your strongest by far. The so-called "pro-Russian" parties never supported rejoining Russia. 85% voted to leave. I have no idea what Ukrainians write in a census or anywhere else. But a majority are ethnic Ukrainians. The original post/picture is wildly inaccurate no matter what else you want to argue.

Perhaps you're getting your info from Rogan.

---

The pro-Moscow parties also never supported joining the EU or NATO either

Sorry facts often offend you

Donbas is majority Russian supporting…always has been….and probably more so now than ever before

Even if you got your dream and Kyiv could retake Donbas it would still face a long insurgency against a local population that does not want to be ruled from Kyiv

---

You're changing the subject again. I responded to the stupid post/pic that said Donbas was Russia and Donbas residents were Russian. Both are false and have been since 1991.

---

And I responded that Donbas had a lot of Russians living there (probably the majority)

And they have been fighting a long conflict now from 2014 to break off from Ukraine

Things have changed since 1991

You think we should help Kyiv make war on them to deprive them of self determination?

---

We've been over this. They never self-determined to leave Ukraine and join Russia. Before Russia invaded in 2014, Donbas and all of its sectors had 23 years to vote to leave. Not only did they not do it, the pro-Russia parties never even tried to raise the issue. Polls showed even the minority Russians opposed joining Russia.

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

And you're wrong, pro-Russia parties did support the EU deal while still generally wanting neutrality with Russia. They ran on that very platform.

---

Russian proxies in The Donbas declared its own independence in 2014. As with Crimea, Western polls showed that a strong majority of the people agreed (94% of likely voters and 65% of the overall population).

---

FIFY

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

The pic says Donbas. Donbas has always been ethnic Ukr majority, and 85% voted for independence. Crimea is a totally different situation. Strong majority ethnic Russian but still noted to leave. Facts are stubborn things.

---

Well Donbas is Russian speaking and was always the strong hold of the party of regions (the more pro-Russian party)

Harder to determine exact ethnicity in the area

Since Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians are all eastern Slavs with strong similarities

In the similar way that Norwegians, Swedes, Danes are all Nordic people (but even more so since all 3 groups were all in the old Russian empire and USSR together)

Donbas always had a lot of people marking down "russian" in the pre-2014 census. Probably more than that today.

And those residents that considered themselves more "Ukrainian" have fled. Why the people who in Ukraine who considered themselves more "Russian" have fled to Donbas and Crimea

---

Just more gibberish. Seriously stick with your "we just can't afford it" argument. It's your strongest by far. The so-called "pro-Russian" parties never supported rejoining Russia. 85% voted to leave. I have no idea what Ukrainians write in a census or anywhere else. But a majority are ethnic Ukrainians. The original post/picture is wildly inaccurate no matter what else you want to argue.

Perhaps you're getting your info from Rogan.

---

The pro-Moscow parties also never supported joining the EU or NATO either

Sorry facts often offend you

Donbas is majority Russian supporting…always has been….and probably more so now than ever before

Even if you got your dream and Kyiv could retake Donbas it would still face a long insurgency against a local population that does not want to be ruled from Kyiv

---

You're changing the subject again. I responded to the stupid post/pic that said Donbas was Russia and Donbas residents were Russian. Both are false and have been since 1991.

---

And I responded that Donbas had a lot of Russians living there (probably the majority)

And they have been fighting a long conflict now from 2014 to break off from Ukraine

Things have changed since 1991

You think we should help Kyiv make war on them to deprive them of self determination?

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

Well, it's not the only way, but it is a reasonable way as part of a peace settlement. But nothing like that plebiscite held by the Russians. Must be done by the UN with international observers.

No matter how reasonable such proposals might seem on the surface, they are rarely done for obvious reasons - they would create instability all over the world. Nations rarely fit states in a tidy manner. So many examples. Lots of nations have no states - Kurds, Tuaregs, Berbers, Uighurs, Sikhs, and quite a few peoples in Russia. And then there are innumerable places like Donbas, where people are overwhelmingly ethically "A" but a large proportion are linguistically "B" while culturally not terribly distinguishable from either A or B. Compare what we're talking about to Alsace-Lorraine, a major factor in French decisions re WWI. There's a far stronger case to being German than Donbas does to being Russian, but it is where it is. Shatterzones come at go at the will of larger entities.

The error in pro-Russian arguments on this topic place far too much weight on language. Russian speakers in Ukraine are not synonymous with Russians. Mostly, they are Ukrainians who speak Russian. And this war has decidedly moved Russian-speaking Ukrainians into the Ukrainian column, with great hostility to Russia. Donbas has been, as far back in history one goes, party of Ukraine (which for much of his history has been wholly or partly a province of Russia). But Russia itself was born in Kyiv. So the two have a "complicated" history, which is hardly rare.

French Canadians, Scots, Catalans, Mindinanans, etc......there are lots of places which used to be independent or want to be independent but just can't quite find a way back. That doesn't mean they "belong" to anyone. It just means they are where they are. And it's damned near impossible for them to start shifting or inventing borders, because nearly every other state in the world has a vested interest in it not happening, as the precedent might complicated matters in their own bed. the argument you make is quite a bit more complicated than your argument allows. If it was as simple as just holding a vote on the question, Texas would have a good chance of becoming independent.......again.

A foundation stone of the post WWII order is "the borders are the borders, and they shall not change." Sure, the implementation has been messy, but the alternative is pretty scary. And few nations on earth would be more at risk of dismemberment by plebiscite than Russia. So the irony over Russian jockeying over Donbas is extreme.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter.

---

Gosh….what could have changed in 2014 that made the people of Donbas feel differently?

Let's have a modern vote and find out who Donbas wants to be in a political union with

---

How often would you propose letting every province in the world having a plebiscite on the question of which state it preferred to be a part of? Once a century? Once a decade? Every year?

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter.

---

Gosh….what could have changed in 2014 that made the people of Donbas feel differently?

Let's have a modern vote and find out who Donbas wants to be in a political union with

---

How often would you propose letting every province in the world having a plebiscite on the question of which state it preferred to be a part of? Once a century? Once a decade? Every year?

---

Sure, why not?

Should we be preventing borders from being redrawn by force?

I get confused when the DC crowd hates secession movements at home or in Donbas...but then likes them in South Sudan, Kosovo, East Timor, Ukraine and the Baltic States in 1991, etc.

It all seems very very arbitrary

Independence for some people....not for others.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter.

---

Gosh….what could have changed in 2014 that made the people of Donbas feel differently?

Let's have a modern vote and find out who Donbas wants to be in a political union with

---

How often would you propose letting every province in the world having a plebiscite on the question of which state it preferred to be a part of? Once a century? Once a decade? Every year?

---

Sure, why not?

Should we be preventing borders from being redrawn by force?

I get confused when the DC crowd hates secession movements at home or in Donbas...but then likes them in South Sudan, Kosovo, East Timor, Ukraine and the Baltic States in 1991, etc.

It all seems very very arbitrary

Independence for some people....not for others.

---

For one, there is ample evidence (been pasted here dozens/hundreds of times in this thread) that there was no real secession movement in Donbas....it was entirely a Russian proxy doctrine. There is audio evidence that the vote was 100% fabricated. (something the Trumpiest of Trump fans 100% agree with regarding 2020, but can't seem to find any fault with Russia)

It's sad and hilarious how some folks can see through both lenses in the bifocal.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

historian said:

---

---

You mean the "Russians" who voted 85% to leave Russia? You mean the "Russia" that is majority ethnic Ukrainian?

---

Crimea is not majority ethnic Ukrainian..it's majority ethnic Russian. Donbas is Russian speaking majority so an good guess would be it's actually majority ethnic Russian as well

[Crimea, the region with the highest rate of people identifying itself as of Russian ethnicity, the figure for this demographic group was 58.3%]

And Crimea and the Donbas might not have voted in 1991 for a Ukrainian State if they thought it was not a going to be aligned with Russia

---

The pic says Donbas. Donbas has always been ethnic Ukr majority, and 85% voted for independence. Crimea is a totally different situation. Strong majority ethnic Russian but still noted to leave. Facts are stubborn things.

---

Well Donbas is Russian speaking and was always the strong hold of the party of regions (the more pro-Russian party)

Harder to determine exact ethnicity in the area

Since Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians are all eastern Slavs with strong similarities

In the similar way that Norwegians, Swedes, Danes are all Nordic people (but even more so since all 3 groups were all in the old Russian empire and USSR together)

Donbas always had a lot of people marking down "russian" in the pre-2014 census. Probably more than that today.

And those residents that considered themselves more "Ukrainian" have fled. Why the people who in Ukraine who considered themselves more "Russian" have fled to Donbas and Crimea

---

Just more gibberish. Seriously stick with your "we just can't afford it" argument. It's your strongest by far. The so-called "pro-Russian" parties never supported rejoining Russia. 85% voted to leave. I have no idea what Ukrainians write in a census or anywhere else. But a majority are ethnic Ukrainians. The original post/picture is wildly inaccurate no matter what else you want to argue.

Perhaps you're getting your info from Rogan.

---

The pro-Moscow parties also never supported joining the EU or NATO either

Sorry facts often offend you

Donbas is majority Russian supporting…always has been….and probably more so now than ever before

Even if you got your dream and Kyiv could retake Donbas it would still face a long insurgency against a local population that does not want to be ruled from Kyiv

---

You're changing the subject again. I responded to the stupid post/pic that said Donbas was Russia and Donbas residents were Russian. Both are false and have been since 1991.

---

And I responded that Donbas had a lot of Russians living there (probably the majority)

And they have been fighting a long conflict now from 2014 to break off from Ukraine

Things have changed since 1991

You think we should help Kyiv make war on them to deprive them of self determination?

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter.

---

Gosh….what could have changed in 2014 that made the people of Donbas feel differently?

Let's have a modern vote and find out who Donbas wants to be in a political union with

---

Without the ethnic Ukrainians Russia forced out? And run by GRU Gregor and Spetsnaz Slava? You really believe that is fair and legitimate?.

---

Have anyone who was a resident pre-2014 vote

I'm for it

And I'm for a 3rd party like the UN running the election.

I doubt you want a real vote…because the majority would almost certainly vote against union with Kyiv

---

Let's just say that was possible (which it is not) I would bet every dollar I had they would strongly reject Russia. You think 1/3 or more ethnic Ukrainians would vote for Russia despite Russia's butchery? Heck, 95% or more of ethnic Ukrainians voted against Russia in 1991 when Russia was rolling out the red carpet. And polls through pre-2014 invasion showed similar sentiment. Heck, ethnic Russian did. It want to rejoin Russia. But now they've somehow seen the Putin light?
.

---

Well both Donesk and Luhansk (the Donbas) have been providing a steady stream of fighters against Kyiv for a decade.

That have never shown any interest in launching an similar insurrection against Moscow

Those people have also suffered bombings and shelling, land based attacks, and economic hardship in order to break off from Ukraine and the ultra-nationalists in Kyiv

I think in a fair vote the majority votes for secession.

And I think DC and Brussels know that…its why you never see their mouth pieces making the argument you are that the people of Donbas magically want to be a part of Ukraine

If Donbas or Crimea did then Russian would have a very hard time holding them. As it is…it's the opposite…with Ukraine having a tough time reconquering those areas

---

50 percent or more of the Ukrainian troops in Crimea defected to the Russian military in 2014. I suspect it was similar in the Donbas.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

historian said:

---

---

You mean the "Russians" who voted 85% to leave Russia? You mean the "Russia" that is majority ethnic Ukrainian?

---

Crimea is not majority ethnic Ukrainian..it's majority ethnic Russian. Donbas is Russian speaking majority so an good guess would be it's actually majority ethnic Russian as well

[Crimea, the region with the highest rate of people identifying itself as of Russian ethnicity, the figure for this demographic group was 58.3%]

And Crimea and the Donbas might not have voted in 1991 for a Ukrainian State if they thought it was not a going to be aligned with Russia

---

The pic says Donbas. Donbas has always been ethnic Ukr majority, and 85% voted for independence. Crimea is a totally different situation. Strong majority ethnic Russian but still noted to leave. Facts are stubborn things.

---

Well Donbas is Russian speaking and was always the strong hold of the party of regions (the more pro-Russian party)

Harder to determine exact ethnicity in the area

Since Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians are all eastern Slavs with strong similarities

In the similar way that Norwegians, Swedes, Danes are all Nordic people (but even more so since all 3 groups were all in the old Russian empire and USSR together)

Donbas always had a lot of people marking down "russian" in the pre-2014 census. Probably more than that today.

And those residents that considered themselves more "Ukrainian" have fled. Why the people who in Ukraine who considered themselves more "Russian" have fled to Donbas and Crimea

---

Just more gibberish. Seriously stick with your "we just can't afford it" argument. It's your strongest by far. The so-called "pro-Russian" parties never supported rejoining Russia. 85% voted to leave. I have no idea what Ukrainians write in a census or anywhere else. But a majority are ethnic Ukrainians. The original post/picture is wildly inaccurate no matter what else you want to argue.

Perhaps you're getting your info from Rogan.

---

The pro-Moscow parties also never supported joining the EU or NATO either

Sorry facts often offend you

Donbas is majority Russian supporting…always has been….and probably more so now than ever before

Even if you got your dream and Kyiv could retake Donbas it would still face a long insurgency against a local population that does not want to be ruled from Kyiv

---

You're changing the subject again. I responded to the stupid post/pic that said Donbas was Russia and Donbas residents were Russian. Both are false and have been since 1991.

---

And I responded that Donbas had a lot of Russians living there (probably the majority)

And they have been fighting a long conflict now from 2014 to break off from Ukraine

Things have changed since 1991

You think we should help Kyiv make war on them to deprive them of self determination?

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter.

---

Gosh….what could have changed in 2014 that made the people of Donbas feel differently?

Let's have a modern vote and find out who Donbas wants to be in a political union with

---

Without the ethnic Ukrainians Russia forced out? And run by GRU Gregor and Spetsnaz Slava? You really believe that is fair and legitimate?.

---

Have anyone who was a resident pre-2014 vote

I'm for it

And I'm for a 3rd party like the UN running the election.

I doubt you want a real vote…because the majority would almost certainly vote against union with Kyiv

---

Let's just say that was possible (which it is not) I would bet every dollar I had they would strongly reject Russia. You think 1/3 or more ethnic Ukrainians would vote for Russia despite Russia's butchery? Heck, 95% or more of ethnic Ukrainians voted against Russia in 1991 when Russia was rolling out the red carpet. And polls through pre-2014 invasion showed similar sentiment. Heck, ethnic Russian did. It want to rejoin Russia. But now they've somehow seen the Putin light?

It's only an odd subgroup of Americans who actually would choose Putin. Virtually everyone else sees him for what he really is - an evil, morally bankrupt, murderous, thug, dictator, tyrant, spy, narcissist, Soviet Empire daydreamer.

---

Polls consistently showed support for good relations with both Russia and the West. Not all-or-nothing alignment, as we insisted upon.

It's worth asking why the US itself supported Ukrainian neutrality in 1991. Today we talk as if that was a gross violation of sovereignty, but no one said so at the time. There are two possible reasons, neither of which is very good for your argument. One is that we lied. The other is that we recognized Russia's legitimate interests in Ukraine. So again, what changed?

A lot changed in 2014. Until then the people of the Donbas had relatively fair representation in Kiev. Maidan was, at best, a revolt by a small number of Western Ukrainians who fiercely opposed not only Russia but also Russian language, culture, and religion in Ukraine. At worst it was a coup orchestrated by the US. Either way, Crimea and the Donbas wanted no part of it. They and the rest of the country gave Zelensky a mandate to implement the Minsk Agreement, and Kiev betrayed them yet again. Meanwhile thousands were dying in a civil war against whom...Putin? No, they were being killed by Ukrainian forces with Western backing. That's the reality today, not 30 years ago.

And just to emphasize the most important point--even if everything you said were true, it would not remotely justify our risk of getting into war with Russia. The political shape of Ukraine is famously variable, so much so that there are ancient jokes about it. Life has always gone on. We should keep it that way.

---

I agree with more than you might think, but it really takes the Russian perspective on the issues. I fully realize there are multiple sides to these stories and that nobody has completely clean hands. I've never said to the contrary. However based on my study and knowledge of Russia and the region, my travel and work there, and countless hours discussing these issues with my Russian in-laws and Serb family, I believe Russia is by far most responsible for the carnage and instability and has always planned all of it.

I further believe Ukraine's cause is just, that we and our allies should support them, and that we are not risking war with Russia.

---

I'm curious about your last statement. How do you see this as not risking war?

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

historian said:

---

---

You mean the "Russians" who voted 85% to leave Russia? You mean the "Russia" that is majority ethnic Ukrainian?

---

Crimea is not majority ethnic Ukrainian..it's majority ethnic Russian. Donbas is Russian speaking majority so an good guess would be it's actually majority ethnic Russian as well

[Crimea, the region with the highest rate of people identifying itself as of Russian ethnicity, the figure for this demographic group was 58.3%]

And Crimea and the Donbas might not have voted in 1991 for a Ukrainian State if they thought it was not a going to be aligned with Russia

---

The pic says Donbas. Donbas has always been ethnic Ukr majority, and 85% voted for independence. Crimea is a totally different situation. Strong majority ethnic Russian but still noted to leave. Facts are stubborn things.

---

Well Donbas is Russian speaking and was always the strong hold of the party of regions (the more pro-Russian party)

Harder to determine exact ethnicity in the area

Since Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians are all eastern Slavs with strong similarities

In the similar way that Norwegians, Swedes, Danes are all Nordic people (but even more so since all 3 groups were all in the old Russian empire and USSR together)

Donbas always had a lot of people marking down "russian" in the pre-2014 census. Probably more than that today.

And those residents that considered themselves more "Ukrainian" have fled. Why the people who in Ukraine who considered themselves more "Russian" have fled to Donbas and Crimea

---

Just more gibberish. Seriously stick with your "we just can't afford it" argument. It's your strongest by far. The so-called "pro-Russian" parties never supported rejoining Russia. 85% voted to leave. I have no idea what Ukrainians write in a census or anywhere else. But a majority are ethnic Ukrainians. The original post/picture is wildly inaccurate no matter what else you want to argue.

Perhaps you're getting your info from Rogan.

---

The pro-Moscow parties also never supported joining the EU or NATO either

Sorry facts often offend you

Donbas is majority Russian supporting…always has been….and probably more so now than ever before

Even if you got your dream and Kyiv could retake Donbas it would still face a long insurgency against a local population that does not want to be ruled from Kyiv

---

You're changing the subject again. I responded to the stupid post/pic that said Donbas was Russia and Donbas residents were Russian. Both are false and have been since 1991.

---

And I responded that Donbas had a lot of Russians living there (probably the majority)

And they have been fighting a long conflict now from 2014 to break off from Ukraine

Things have changed since 1991

You think we should help Kyiv make war on them to deprive them of self determination?

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter.

---

Gosh….what could have changed in 2014 that made the people of Donbas feel differently?

Let's have a modern vote and find out who Donbas wants to be in a political union with

---

Without the ethnic Ukrainians Russia forced out? And run by GRU Gregor and Spetsnaz Slava? You really believe that is fair and legitimate?.

---

Have anyone who was a resident pre-2014 vote

I'm for it

And I'm for a 3rd party like the UN running the election.

I doubt you want a real vote…because the majority would almost certainly vote against union with Kyiv

---

Let's just say that was possible (which it is not) I would bet every dollar I had they would strongly reject Russia. You think 1/3 or more ethnic Ukrainians would vote for Russia despite Russia's butchery? Heck, 95% or more of ethnic Ukrainians voted against Russia in 1991 when Russia was rolling out the red carpet. And polls through pre-2014 invasion showed similar sentiment. Heck, ethnic Russian did. It want to rejoin Russia. But now they've somehow seen the Putin light?

It's only an odd subgroup of Americans who actually would choose Putin. Virtually everyone else sees him for what he really is - an evil, morally bankrupt, murderous, thug, dictator, tyrant, spy, narcissist, Soviet Empire daydreamer.

---

Polls consistently showed support for good relations with both Russia and the West. Not all-or-nothing alignment, as we insisted upon.

It's worth asking why the US itself supported Ukrainian neutrality in 1991. Today we talk as if that was a gross violation of sovereignty, but no one said so at the time. There are two possible reasons, neither of which is very good for your argument. One is that we lied. The other is that we recognized Russia's legitimate interests in Ukraine. So again, what changed?

A lot changed in 2014. Until then the people of the Donbas had relatively fair representation in Kiev. Maidan was, at best, a revolt by a small number of Western Ukrainians who fiercely opposed not only Russia but also Russian language, culture, and religion in Ukraine. At worst it was a coup orchestrated by the US. Either way, Crimea and the Donbas wanted no part of it. They and the rest of the country gave Zelensky a mandate to implement the Minsk Agreement, and Kiev betrayed them yet again. Meanwhile thousands were dying in a civil war against whom...Putin? No, they were being killed by Ukrainian forces with Western backing. That's the reality today, not 30 years ago.

And just to emphasize the most important point--even if everything you said were true, it would not remotely justify our risk of getting into war with Russia. The political shape of Ukraine is famously variable, so much so that there are ancient jokes about it. Life has always gone on. We should keep it that way.

---

I agree with more than you might think, but it really takes the Russian perspective on the issues. I fully realize there are multiple sides to these stories and that nobody has completely clean hands. I've never said to the contrary. However based on my study and knowledge of Russia and the region, my travel and work there, and countless hours discussing these issues with my Russian in-laws and Serb family, I believe Russia is by far most responsible for the carnage and instability and has always planned all of it.

I further believe Ukraine's cause is just, that we and our allies should support them, and that we are not risking war with Russia.

---

I'm curious about your last statement. How do you see this as not risking war?

---

Russia and the U.S. have supported each other's adversaries forever. We were supplying Ukraine before the invasion. Putin knew we and the Euros would help Ukraine post-invasion. Putin's only surprised (pleasantly so) that we didn't do more.

Putin wants no part of a war with the U.S. and we don't want one with him. Less than zero chance.

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter.

---

Gosh….what could have changed in 2014 that made the people of Donbas feel differently?

Let's have a modern vote and find out who Donbas wants to be in a political union with

---

How often would you propose letting every province in the world having a plebiscite on the question of which state it preferred to be a part of? Once a century? Once a decade? Every year?

---

Sure, why not?

Should we be preventing borders from being redrawn by force?

I get confused when the DC crowd hates secession movements at home or in Donbas...but then likes them in South Sudan, Kosovo, East Timor, Ukraine and the Baltic States in 1991, etc.

It all seems very very arbitrary

Independence for some people....not for others.

---

For one, there is ample evidence (been pasted here dozens/hundreds of times in this thread) that there was no real secession movement in Donbas....it was entirely a Russian proxy doctrine.

---

Funny....that is what China says about Tibetan independence (an American proxy doctrine)

In truth we can't really know about Donbas but the fact they can easily recruit volunteers among Donbas residents to fight Kyiv...while not having to worry about a local insurgency would see to show us that there is not much opposition there to Russia and probably a lot of support.

And we know for a fact that Crimea is very pro-Russia....its not proxy doctrine there.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

historian said:

---

---

You mean the "Russians" who voted 85% to leave Russia? You mean the "Russia" that is majority ethnic Ukrainian?

---

Crimea is not majority ethnic Ukrainian..it's majority ethnic Russian. Donbas is Russian speaking majority so an good guess would be it's actually majority ethnic Russian as well

[Crimea, the region with the highest rate of people identifying itself as of Russian ethnicity, the figure for this demographic group was 58.3%]

And Crimea and the Donbas might not have voted in 1991 for a Ukrainian State if they thought it was not a going to be aligned with Russia

---

The pic says Donbas. Donbas has always been ethnic Ukr majority, and 85% voted for independence. Crimea is a totally different situation. Strong majority ethnic Russian but still noted to leave. Facts are stubborn things.

---

Well Donbas is Russian speaking and was always the strong hold of the party of regions (the more pro-Russian party)

Harder to determine exact ethnicity in the area

Since Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians are all eastern Slavs with strong similarities

In the similar way that Norwegians, Swedes, Danes are all Nordic people (but even more so since all 3 groups were all in the old Russian empire and USSR together)

Donbas always had a lot of people marking down "russian" in the pre-2014 census. Probably more than that today.

And those residents that considered themselves more "Ukrainian" have fled. Why the people who in Ukraine who considered themselves more "Russian" have fled to Donbas and Crimea

---

Just more gibberish. Seriously stick with your "we just can't afford it" argument. It's your strongest by far. The so-called "pro-Russian" parties never supported rejoining Russia. 85% voted to leave. I have no idea what Ukrainians write in a census or anywhere else. But a majority are ethnic Ukrainians. The original post/picture is wildly inaccurate no matter what else you want to argue.

Perhaps you're getting your info from Rogan.

---

The pro-Moscow parties also never supported joining the EU or NATO either

Sorry facts often offend you

Donbas is majority Russian supporting…always has been….and probably more so now than ever before

Even if you got your dream and Kyiv could retake Donbas it would still face a long insurgency against a local population that does not want to be ruled from Kyiv

---

You're changing the subject again. I responded to the stupid post/pic that said Donbas was Russia and Donbas residents were Russian. Both are false and have been since 1991.

---

And I responded that Donbas had a lot of Russians living there (probably the majority)

And they have been fighting a long conflict now from 2014 to break off from Ukraine

Things have changed since 1991

You think we should help Kyiv make war on them to deprive them of self determination?

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter.

---

Gosh….what could have changed in 2014 that made the people of Donbas feel differently?

Let's have a modern vote and find out who Donbas wants to be in a political union with

---

Without the ethnic Ukrainians Russia forced out? And run by GRU Gregor and Spetsnaz Slava? You really believe that is fair and legitimate?.

---

Have anyone who was a resident pre-2014 vote

I'm for it

And I'm for a 3rd party like the UN running the election.

I doubt you want a real vote…because the majority would almost certainly vote against union with Kyiv

---

Let's just say that was possible (which it is not) I would bet every dollar I had they would strongly reject Russia. You think 1/3 or more ethnic Ukrainians would vote for Russia despite Russia's butchery? Heck, 95% or more of ethnic Ukrainians voted against Russia in 1991 when Russia was rolling out the red carpet. And polls through pre-2014 invasion showed similar sentiment. Heck, ethnic Russian did. It want to rejoin Russia. But now they've somehow seen the Putin light?

It's only an odd subgroup of Americans who actually would choose Putin. Virtually everyone else sees him for what he really is - an evil, morally bankrupt, murderous, thug, dictator, tyrant, spy, narcissist, Soviet Empire daydreamer.

---

Polls consistently showed support for good relations with both Russia and the West. Not all-or-nothing alignment, as we insisted upon.

It's worth asking why the US itself supported Ukrainian neutrality in 1991. Today we talk as if that was a gross violation of sovereignty, but no one said so at the time. There are two possible reasons, neither of which is very good for your argument. One is that we lied. The other is that we recognized Russia's legitimate interests in Ukraine. So again, what changed?

A lot changed in 2014. Until then the people of the Donbas had relatively fair representation in Kiev. Maidan was, at best, a revolt by a small number of Western Ukrainians who fiercely opposed not only Russia but also Russian language, culture, and religion in Ukraine. At worst it was a coup orchestrated by the US. Either way, Crimea and the Donbas wanted no part of it. They and the rest of the country gave Zelensky a mandate to implement the Minsk Agreement, and Kiev betrayed them yet again. Meanwhile thousands were dying in a civil war against whom...Putin? No, they were being killed by Ukrainian forces with Western backing. That's the reality today, not 30 years ago.

And just to emphasize the most important point--even if everything you said were true, it would not remotely justify our risk of getting into war with Russia. The political shape of Ukraine is famously variable, so much so that there are ancient jokes about it. Life has always gone on. We should keep it that way.

---

I agree with more than you might think, but it really takes the Russian perspective on the issues. I fully realize there are multiple sides to these stories and that nobody has completely clean hands. I've never said to the contrary. However based on my study and knowledge of Russia and the region, my travel and work there, and countless hours discussing these issues with my Russian in-laws and Serb family, I believe Russia is by far most responsible for the carnage and instability and has always planned all of it.

I further believe Ukraine's cause is just, that we and our allies should support them, and that we are not risking war with Russia.

---

I'm curious about your last statement. How do you see this as not risking war?

---

Russia and the U.S. have supported each other's adversaries forever..

---

Forever?

The Russian Federation did not exist until 1991

And we allied with the government in Moscow in the largest war in human history….WWII

Before that we had not had hostilities with the Russian Empire

Heck we were longer adversaries with England and various Indian Nations than with Russia

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter.

---

Gosh….what could have changed in 2014 that made the people of Donbas feel differently?

Let's have a modern vote and find out who Donbas wants to be in a political union with

---

How often would you propose letting every province in the world having a plebiscite on the question of which state it preferred to be a part of? Once a century? Once a decade? Every year?

---

Sure, why not?

Should we be preventing borders from being redrawn by force?

I get confused when the DC crowd hates secession movements at home or in Donbas...but then likes them in South Sudan, Kosovo, East Timor, Ukraine and the Baltic States in 1991, etc.

It all seems very very arbitrary

Independence for some people....not for others.

---

For one, there is ample evidence (been pasted here dozens/hundreds of times in this thread) that there was no real secession movement in Donbas....it was entirely a Russian proxy doctrine.

---

Funny....that is what China says about Tibetan independence (an American proxy doctrine)

In truth we can't really know about Donbas but the fact they can easily recruit volunteers among Donbas residents to fight Kyiv...while not having to worry about a local insurgency would see to show us that there is not much opposition there to Russia and probably a lot of support.

And we know for a fact that Crimea is very pro-Russia....its not proxy doctrine there.

---

All it shows is that Russia forced out virtually all the ethnic Ukrainians in 2014 and beyond, which of course, was a necessary step in Putin's master plan to invade and take over all of Ukraine.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

historian said:

---

---

You mean the "Russians" who voted 85% to leave Russia? You mean the "Russia" that is majority ethnic Ukrainian?

---

Crimea is not majority ethnic Ukrainian..it's majority ethnic Russian. Donbas is Russian speaking majority so an good guess would be it's actually majority ethnic Russian as well

[Crimea, the region with the highest rate of people identifying itself as of Russian ethnicity, the figure for this demographic group was 58.3%]

And Crimea and the Donbas might not have voted in 1991 for a Ukrainian State if they thought it was not a going to be aligned with Russia

---

The pic says Donbas. Donbas has always been ethnic Ukr majority, and 85% voted for independence. Crimea is a totally different situation. Strong majority ethnic Russian but still noted to leave. Facts are stubborn things.

---

Well Donbas is Russian speaking and was always the strong hold of the party of regions (the more pro-Russian party)

Harder to determine exact ethnicity in the area

Since Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians are all eastern Slavs with strong similarities

In the similar way that Norwegians, Swedes, Danes are all Nordic people (but even more so since all 3 groups were all in the old Russian empire and USSR together)

Donbas always had a lot of people marking down "russian" in the pre-2014 census. Probably more than that today.

And those residents that considered themselves more "Ukrainian" have fled. Why the people who in Ukraine who considered themselves more "Russian" have fled to Donbas and Crimea

---

Just more gibberish. Seriously stick with your "we just can't afford it" argument. It's your strongest by far. The so-called "pro-Russian" parties never supported rejoining Russia. 85% voted to leave. I have no idea what Ukrainians write in a census or anywhere else. But a majority are ethnic Ukrainians. The original post/picture is wildly inaccurate no matter what else you want to argue.

Perhaps you're getting your info from Rogan.

---

The pro-Moscow parties also never supported joining the EU or NATO either

Sorry facts often offend you

Donbas is majority Russian supporting…always has been….and probably more so now than ever before

Even if you got your dream and Kyiv could retake Donbas it would still face a long insurgency against a local population that does not want to be ruled from Kyiv

---

You're changing the subject again. I responded to the stupid post/pic that said Donbas was Russia and Donbas residents were Russian. Both are false and have been since 1991.

---

And I responded that Donbas had a lot of Russians living there (probably the majority)

And they have been fighting a long conflict now from 2014 to break off from Ukraine

Things have changed since 1991

You think we should help Kyiv make war on them to deprive them of self determination?

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter.

---

Gosh….what could have changed in 2014 that made the people of Donbas feel differently?

Let's have a modern vote and find out who Donbas wants to be in a political union with

---

Without the ethnic Ukrainians Russia forced out? And run by GRU Gregor and Spetsnaz Slava? You really believe that is fair and legitimate?.

---

Have anyone who was a resident pre-2014 vote

I'm for it

And I'm for a 3rd party like the UN running the election.

I doubt you want a real vote…because the majority would almost certainly vote against union with Kyiv

---

Let's just say that was possible (which it is not) I would bet every dollar I had they would strongly reject Russia. You think 1/3 or more ethnic Ukrainians would vote for Russia despite Russia's butchery? Heck, 95% or more of ethnic Ukrainians voted against Russia in 1991 when Russia was rolling out the red carpet. And polls through pre-2014 invasion showed similar sentiment. Heck, ethnic Russian did. It want to rejoin Russia. But now they've somehow seen the Putin light?

It's only an odd subgroup of Americans who actually would choose Putin. Virtually everyone else sees him for what he really is - an evil, morally bankrupt, murderous, thug, dictator, tyrant, spy, narcissist, Soviet Empire daydreamer.

---

Polls consistently showed support for good relations with both Russia and the West. Not all-or-nothing alignment, as we insisted upon.

It's worth asking why the US itself supported Ukrainian neutrality in 1991. Today we talk as if that was a gross violation of sovereignty, but no one said so at the time. There are two possible reasons, neither of which is very good for your argument. One is that we lied. The other is that we recognized Russia's legitimate interests in Ukraine. So again, what changed?

A lot changed in 2014. Until then the people of the Donbas had relatively fair representation in Kiev. Maidan was, at best, a revolt by a small number of Western Ukrainians who fiercely opposed not only Russia but also Russian language, culture, and religion in Ukraine. At worst it was a coup orchestrated by the US. Either way, Crimea and the Donbas wanted no part of it. They and the rest of the country gave Zelensky a mandate to implement the Minsk Agreement, and Kiev betrayed them yet again. Meanwhile thousands were dying in a civil war against whom...Putin? No, they were being killed by Ukrainian forces with Western backing. That's the reality today, not 30 years ago.

And just to emphasize the most important point--even if everything you said were true, it would not remotely justify our risk of getting into war with Russia. The political shape of Ukraine is famously variable, so much so that there are ancient jokes about it. Life has always gone on. We should keep it that way.

---

I agree with more than you might think, but it really takes the Russian perspective on the issues. I fully realize there are multiple sides to these stories and that nobody has completely clean hands. I've never said to the contrary. However based on my study and knowledge of Russia and the region, my travel and work there, and countless hours discussing these issues with my Russian in-laws and Serb family, I believe Russia is by far most responsible for the carnage and instability and has always planned all of it.

I further believe Ukraine's cause is just, that we and our allies should support them, and that we are not risking war with Russia.

---

I'm curious about your last statement. How do you see this as not risking war?

---

Russia and the U.S. have supported each other's adversaries forever..

---

Forever?

The Russian Federation did not exist until 1991

And we allied with the government in Moscow in the largest war in human history….WWII

Before that we had not hostilities with the Russian Empire

Heck we were longer adversaries with England and various Indian Nations than with Russia

---

Obviously meant post WW2, and whether it's the Soviet Union or Russia, as a general rule, their close friends are our adversaries.

You say Putin had a master plan to invade and take over Ukraine. Putin and all his officials, from the most hawkish to the most dovish, say Ukrainian membership in NATO is an existential threat and the invasion was a response to this threat. Countless Western sources have echoed these views, including Jens Stoltenberg, Avril Haines, Fiona Hill, the Office of the DNI, the US Army War College, and the RAND Corporation, not to mention the former diplomats and others I mentioned in an earlier post.

If they're right and you're wrong--and there is a greater than zero chance of that--we're playing a very risky game indeed. It's made even worse by the other ways in which relations have deteriorated in recent years. We used to have constant communication at every level. Now we never talk, especially since Trump and Biden have been in office. I'm not a big fan of Obama, but at least he had an idea of what the job entailed. The collapse of the arms control framework has left both sides more suspicious and less certain of how to respond to possible attacks. Russia has adopted a more aggressive nuclear doctrine. And while we did support each other's enemies in the past, we didn't attack each other's sovereign territory.

It may not be entirely accurate to say that no one wants war. Some posters in this forum have been cheering for WW3 all along. But especially in this context, the fact that no one may want it means very little. If history teaches anything, it's that miscalculations and bluffs have unintended consequences.

Sam Lowry said:

---

You say Putin had a master plan to invade and take over Ukraine. Putin and all his officials, from the most hawkish to the most dovish, say Ukrainian membership in NATO is an existential threat and the invasion was a response to this threat. Countless Western sources have echoed these views, including Jens Stoltenberg, Avril Haines, Fiona Hill, the Office of the DNI, the US Army War College, and the RAND Corporation, not to mention the former diplomats and others I mentioned in an earlier post.

If they're right and you're wrong--and there is a greater than zero chance of that--we're playing a very risky game indeed. It's made even worse by the other ways in which relations have deteriorated in recent years. We used to have constant communication at every level. Now we never talk, especially since Trump and Biden have been in office. I'm not a big fan of Obama, but at least he had an idea of what the job entailed. The collapse of the arms control framework has left both sides more suspicious and less certain of how to respond to possible attacks. Russia has adopted a more aggressive nuclear doctrine. And while we did support each other's enemies in the past, we didn't attack each other's sovereign territory.

It may not be entirely accurate to say that no one wants war. Some posters in this forum have been cheering for WW3 all along. But especially in this context, the fact that no one may want it means very little. If history teaches anything, it's that miscalculations and bluffs have unintended consequences.

---

We are in regular contact with Russia at the highest levels and have been throughout the Trump and Biden administrations.

Russia had a plan to invade Ukraine long before the Ukraine/NATO flirtations.

You are correct, there are many who blame the NATO issue for Russia's invasion. I just disagree. Putin was always going to go after the Pukee Ukees. 2014 (and earlier events) was just part of that plan.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You say Putin had a master plan to invade and take over Ukraine. Putin and all his officials, from the most hawkish to the most dovish, say Ukrainian membership in NATO is an existential threat and the invasion was a response to this threat. Countless Western sources have echoed these views, including Jens Stoltenberg, Avril Haines, Fiona Hill, the Office of the DNI, the US Army War College, and the RAND Corporation, not to mention the former diplomats and others I mentioned in an earlier post.

If they're right and you're wrong--and there is a greater than zero chance of that--we're playing a very risky game indeed. It's made even worse by the other ways in which relations have deteriorated in recent years. We used to have constant communication at every level. Now we never talk, especially since Trump and Biden have been in office. I'm not a big fan of Obama, but at least he had an idea of what the job entailed. The collapse of the arms control framework has left both sides more suspicious and less certain of how to respond to possible attacks. Russia has adopted a more aggressive nuclear doctrine. And while we did support each other's enemies in the past, we didn't attack each other's sovereign territory.

It may not be entirely accurate to say that no one wants war. Some posters in this forum have been cheering for WW3 all along. But especially in this context, the fact that no one may want it means very little. If history teaches anything, it's that miscalculations and bluffs have unintended consequences.

---

We are in regular contact with Russia at the highest levels and have been throughout the Trump and Biden administrations.

Russia had a plan to invade Ukraine long before the Ukraine/NATO flirtations.

You are correct, there are many who blame the NATO issue for Russia's invasion. I just disagree. Putin was always going to go after the Pukee Ukees. 2014 (and earlier events) was just part of that plan.

---

Really? When was the last time Biden talked to Putin? Who ever saw this invasion plan or provided anything but conjecture to demonstrate such a conspiracy? Why did Russia work for years to settle the dispute in a way that would avoid war and preserve Ukrainian sovereignty?

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You say Putin had a master plan to invade and take over Ukraine. Putin and all his officials, from the most hawkish to the most dovish, say Ukrainian membership in NATO is an existential threat and the invasion was a response to this threat. Countless Western sources have echoed these views, including Jens Stoltenberg, Avril Haines, Fiona Hill, the Office of the DNI, the US Army War College, and the RAND Corporation, not to mention the former diplomats and others I mentioned in an earlier post.

If they're right and you're wrong--and there is a greater than zero chance of that--we're playing a very risky game indeed. It's made even worse by the other ways in which relations have deteriorated in recent years. We used to have constant communication at every level. Now we never talk, especially since Trump and Biden have been in office. I'm not a big fan of Obama, but at least he had an idea of what the job entailed. The collapse of the arms control framework has left both sides more suspicious and less certain of how to respond to possible attacks. Russia has adopted a more aggressive nuclear doctrine. And while we did support each other's enemies in the past, we didn't attack each other's sovereign territory.

It may not be entirely accurate to say that no one wants war. Some posters in this forum have been cheering for WW3 all along. But especially in this context, the fact that no one may want it means very little. If history teaches anything, it's that miscalculations and bluffs have unintended consequences.

---

We are in regular contact with Russia at the highest levels and have been throughout the Trump and Biden administrations.

Russia had a plan to invade Ukraine long before the Ukraine/NATO flirtations.

You are correct, there are many who blame the NATO issue for Russia's invasion. I just disagree. Putin was always going to go after the Pukee Ukees. 2014 (and earlier events) was just part of that plan.

---

Really? When was the last time Biden talked to Putin? Who ever saw this invasion plan or provided anything but conjecture to demonstrate such a conspiracy? Why did Russia work for years to settle the dispute in a way that would avoid war and preserve Ukrainian sovereignty?

---

the US govt went on display 2+ weeks before the invasion saying "Russia is going to invade Ukraine" while Putin said "why would we invade Ukraine? We're merely having a military exercise! Trust us! "


And I outlined weeks before the US govt officially called the invasion that Russia was indeed invading. And you can go look at 2 other threads about why I knew and that it was long before official analysis said it would happen. U

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You say Putin had a master plan to invade and take over Ukraine. Putin and all his officials, from the most hawkish to the most dovish, say Ukrainian membership in NATO is an existential threat and the invasion was a response to this threat. Countless Western sources have echoed these views, including Jens Stoltenberg, Avril Haines, Fiona Hill, the Office of the DNI, the US Army War College, and the RAND Corporation, not to mention the former diplomats and others I mentioned in an earlier post.

If they're right and you're wrong--and there is a greater than zero chance of that--we're playing a very risky game indeed. It's made even worse by the other ways in which relations have deteriorated in recent years. We used to have constant communication at every level. Now we never talk, especially since Trump and Biden have been in office. I'm not a big fan of Obama, but at least he had an idea of what the job entailed. The collapse of the arms control framework has left both sides more suspicious and less certain of how to respond to possible attacks. Russia has adopted a more aggressive nuclear doctrine. And while we did support each other's enemies in the past, we didn't attack each other's sovereign territory.

It may not be entirely accurate to say that no one wants war. Some posters in this forum have been cheering for WW3 all along. But especially in this context, the fact that no one may want it means very little. If history teaches anything, it's that miscalculations and bluffs have unintended consequences.

---

We are in regular contact with Russia at the highest levels and have been throughout the Trump and Biden administrations.

Russia had a plan to invade Ukraine long before the Ukraine/NATO flirtations.

You are correct, there are many who blame the NATO issue for Russia's invasion. I just disagree. Putin was always going to go after the Pukee Ukees. 2014 (and earlier events) was just part of that plan.

---

Really? When was the last time Biden talked to Putin? Who ever saw this invasion plan or provided anything but conjecture to demonstrate such a conspiracy? Why did Russia work for years to settle the dispute in a way that would avoid war and preserve Ukrainian sovereignty?

---

the US govt went on display 2+ weeks before the invasion saying "Russia is going to invade Ukraine" while Putin said "why would we invade Ukraine? We're merely having a military exercise! Trust us! "


And I outlined weeks before the US govt officially called the invasion that Russia was indeed invading. And you can go look at 2 other threads about why I knew and that it was long before official analysis said it would happen. U

---

No rational military leader would announce an invasion plan two weeks in advance. Only Zelensky does that sort of thing. Lavrov made it clear to Blinken in December 2021 that Russia would take "retaliatory measures to correct the military-strategic balance" if certain assurances weren't made.

You are correct that our officials remained in denial to the last minute. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You say Putin had a master plan to invade and take over Ukraine. Putin and all his officials, from the most hawkish to the most dovish, say Ukrainian membership in NATO is an existential threat and the invasion was a response to this threat. Countless Western sources have echoed these views, including Jens Stoltenberg, Avril Haines, Fiona Hill, the Office of the DNI, the US Army War College, and the RAND Corporation, not to mention the former diplomats and others I mentioned in an earlier post.

If they're right and you're wrong--and there is a greater than zero chance of that--we're playing a very risky game indeed. It's made even worse by the other ways in which relations have deteriorated in recent years. We used to have constant communication at every level. Now we never talk, especially since Trump and Biden have been in office. I'm not a big fan of Obama, but at least he had an idea of what the job entailed. The collapse of the arms control framework has left both sides more suspicious and less certain of how to respond to possible attacks. Russia has adopted a more aggressive nuclear doctrine. And while we did support each other's enemies in the past, we didn't attack each other's sovereign territory.

It may not be entirely accurate to say that no one wants war. Some posters in this forum have been cheering for WW3 all along. But especially in this context, the fact that no one may want it means very little. If history teaches anything, it's that miscalculations and bluffs have unintended consequences.

---

We are in regular contact with Russia at the highest levels and have been throughout the Trump and Biden administrations.

Russia had a plan to invade Ukraine long before the Ukraine/NATO flirtations.

You are correct, there are many who blame the NATO issue for Russia's invasion. I just disagree. Putin was always going to go after the Pukee Ukees. 2014 (and earlier events) was just part of that plan.

---

Really? When was the last time Biden talked to Putin? Who ever saw this invasion plan or provided anything but conjecture to demonstrate such a conspiracy? Why did Russia work for years to settle the dispute in a way that would avoid war and preserve Ukrainian sovereignty?

---

Russia worked to resolve the dispute? That's laughable. Does working to resolve entail violating the nuke agreement, poisoning a pro-western President, infiltrating intel apparatus, threatening and murdering farmers, miners, and business folks, inciting foment in Crimea and parts of the Donbas, repeatedly threatening to end gas supply, invading Crimea and the Donbas, forcibly removing ethnic Ukrainians, invading all of Ukraine and repeatedly hitting purely civilian targets?

---

It could, although not all of that happened. Some of it happened on both sides, e.g. infiltrating intel agencies and fomenting unrest (both of which we did to a far greater extent). IIRC the threat to end gas supplies was a response to unpaid debts after Ukraine and its American patrons scuttled the economic deal.

Western North Carolinians get to tent camp outside their houses for the winter https://t.co/ncuBCWBJjR

— Oilfield Rando (@Oilfield_Rando) December 2, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter.

---

Gosh….what could have changed in 2014 that made the people of Donbas feel differently?

Let's have a modern vote and find out who Donbas wants to be in a political union with

---

How often would you propose letting every province in the world having a plebiscite on the question of which state it preferred to be a part of? Once a century? Once a decade? Every year?

---

Sure, why not?

Should we be preventing borders from being redrawn by force?

I get confused when the DC crowd hates secession movements at home or in Donbas...but then likes them in South Sudan, Kosovo, East Timor, Ukraine and the Baltic States in 1991, etc.

It all seems very very arbitrary

Independence for some people....not for others.

---

Perpetually fluid borders is the worst possible plan of all to prevent wars.

Proxy war going very badly for Russia indeed.

NEW: Russia is evacuating naval assets from its base in Tartus, Syria, which may suggest that Russia does not intend to send significant reinforcements to support Syrian President Bashar al Assad's regime in the near term.🧵(1/7) pic.twitter.com/0FdoOZikiD

— Institute for the Study of War (@TheStudyofWar) December 4, 2024

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Russia invaded in 2014. You and Putin believe that invasion and Russia's subsequent declaration of Donbas independence and inclusion in the Russian Fed was legitimate and should be recognized. The rest of the world disagrees.

---

And you think DC bombing Serbia into submission so that Kosovo could be illegally separated from the Nation was fine

Both Moscow and DC violate international law when it pleases them

Personally I think the people of Donbas should be allowed to vote on it

Do you oppose the people of Donbas being able to vote who they want to be in a political union with?

---

Of course I oppose it now. A vote after invasion, takeover, and murder/expulsion of people is not a vote at all. And nothing like Spetsnaz voting observers!

I would not have opposed it pre-2014

---

So what is the plan?

Zelensky keeps making war trying to retake the Donbas? (Been going on now for 10 years)

Kyiv does somehow retake it and then has to deal with a long term Russian backed rebel/insurgency movement?

---

A few posts back I said I accept that Ukraine will have to give up the Donbas. That does not mean it's right, and certainly does not mean "it's always been Russia anyway."

---

The Donbas was part of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years

It was part of the USSR for 70 years

It was part of a independent Ukrainian State for 23 years before hostilities broken out (1991-2014)

Letting the people of the Donbas vote is the only logical way to solve the problem of "who owns the Donbas"

---

They voted overwhelmingly in 1991 and voted through inaction every year thereafter.

---

Gosh….what could have changed in 2014 that made the people of Donbas feel differently?

Let's have a modern vote and find out who Donbas wants to be in a political union with

---

How often would you propose letting every province in the world having a plebiscite on the question of which state it preferred to be a part of? Once a century? Once a decade? Every year?

---

Sure, why not?

Should we be preventing borders from being redrawn by force?

I get confused when the DC crowd hates secession movements at home or in Donbas...but then likes them in South Sudan, Kosovo, East Timor, Ukraine and the Baltic States in 1991, etc.

It all seems very very arbitrary

Independence for some people....not for others.

---

Perpetually fluid borders is the worst possible plan of all to prevent wars.

---

Humans have been changing borders forever

No matter how much Empires and their rulers hate it

DC and Moscow both dislike it when people try to leave and become independent ….but you can't keep a boot on people forever

whiterock said:

---

Proxy war going very badly for Russia indeed.

NEW: Russia is evacuating naval assets from its base in Tartus, Syria, which may suggest that Russia does not intend to send significant reinforcements to support Syrian President Bashar al Assad's regime in the near term.🧵(1/7) pic.twitter.com/0FdoOZikiD

— Institute for the Study of War (@TheStudyofWar) December 4, 2024

---

It will come as a shock to Sam that the U.S. has been in contact with Russia about the escalation in Syria.