ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Interesting that Biden pardoned his entire family back to January 2014, 1 month before the CIA toppled the Ukrainian government and began money laundering... pic.twitter.com/zTCTNq6fks

— Financelot (@FinanceLancelot) January 20, 2025

---

The CIA toppling Ukraine has become like the J6 was an insurrection myth.

---

What they have in common is that you're in desperate denial about both.

---

They also have a common danger they've exacted on the world because of that decision to use it as such.

---

The danger you should be worried about is the USA overextending itself by getting involved in parts of the world far outside its traditional sphere of influence

You should be worried about the danger of the USA getting into wars on behalf of NON-allied nations (like Ukraine) who we have no security treaty with and no long term relationship with

Not to mention the greatest danger.....possible civilizational ending nuclear war over foolish proxy conflicts in backwaters that are of very little importance the United States or its long term geo-strategic security

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.

---

Nothing new in theory

Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow

Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders

10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU

---

You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade. A long swim or a quick flight/submarine trip, totally fine. And what about the Soviet's supporting communists in our own country? Totally cool?

.

---

Every time the Soviets sponsored communists or Marxists in our back yard we strongly opposed it…with military force or coups often times

And we had every right to do so

Moscow has no business in our sphere of influence

And they wasted money and resources trying to do foolish things like that

In fact being overextend was a contributing factor in the collapse of the USSR

---

When is the last time we invaded anyone at all in our "sphere of influence?"

---

You can't be this naive about our own geo-political history can you?

The US has invaded all of its neighbors--Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, and Domincan Republic. https://t.co/VzVMGse8By

— American Exception (@Aaron_Good_) December 20, 2022

The U.S. invaded Granada in 1983 and Panama in 1990 and Haiti in 1994 (3 times we have invaded Haiti)

---

So your answer on invade with intent to take over is none.

---

You asked how many we invaded…i gave you those facts

DC has done it so many times in the Caribbean and Latin America it's hard to keep count

(And for the record I think most were totally justified)

Now you moved the goal post to "intent to take over"

DC goes the regime change route (like in Iraq) when it invades

Moscow was actually trying to do the same thing in Ukraine and attempted to take Kyiv with its army and install a new regime.

Now that they failed at that (another sign they are not a major threat) they have had to settle for trying to absorb ethnic Russian areas in the east (face saving measure)

But their initial attempt was to basically copy the USA in Iraq….get to the capital…topple the old regime and install a more manageable one

---

And I love your oversimplification as if all Russia wanted was a more favorable President. I mean, that's bad enough, as Zelensky was democratically elected. But Russia wanted much more than that, which Putin himself made clear - significantly reduced military and weapons with permanent Russian observers; end of Euro alliances (existing and future); implement pro-Russia education mandates; mandated energy/trade "partnership"; incorporate the East into Russia; and on and on.

---

The only part of this that's true is the demand for limits on Ukraine's military, and possibly for Russian observers. That was with good reason, in order to ensure Ukraine's agreed neutrality.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.

---

Nothing new in theory

Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow

Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders

10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU

---

You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade. A long swim or a quick flight/submarine trip, totally fine. And what about the Soviet's supporting communists in our own country? Totally cool?

.

---

Every time the Soviets sponsored communists or Marxists in our back yard we strongly opposed it…with military force or coups often times

And we had every right to do so

Moscow has no business in our sphere of influence

And they wasted money and resources trying to do foolish things like that

In fact being overextend was a contributing factor in the collapse of the USSR

---

When is the last time we invaded anyone at all in our "sphere of influence?"

---

You can't be this naive about our own geo-political history can you?

The US has invaded all of its neighbors--Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, and Domincan Republic. https://t.co/VzVMGse8By

— American Exception (@Aaron_Good_) December 20, 2022

The U.S. invaded Granada in 1983 and Panama in 1990 and Haiti in 1994 (3 times we have invaded Haiti)

---

So your answer on invade with intent to take over is none.

---

You asked how many we invaded…i gave you those facts

DC has done it so many times in the Caribbean and Latin America it's hard to keep count

(And for the record I think most were totally justified)

Now you moved the goal post to "intent to take over"

DC goes the regime change route (like in Iraq) when it invades

Moscow was actually trying to do the same thing in Ukraine and attempted to take Kyiv with its army and install a new regime.

Now that they failed at that (another sign they are not a major threat) they have had to settle for trying to absorb ethnic Russian areas in the east (face saving measure)

But their initial attempt was to basically copy the USA in Iraq….get to the capital…topple the old regime and install a more manageable one

---

And I love your oversimplification as if all Russia wanted was a more favorable President.

---

I have never presented it in such a oversimplification

Of course Moscow wanted a regime and President in Kyiv that would do its bidding

(keep the lease on the Black sea naval base forever, keep Uk. out of the EU/NATO, and keep looting the country no doubt through corrupt politicians...its a very corrupt place after all)

The regime in Moscow is corrupt as well and all the other kinds of bad things people say about it.

The point is that pulling Ukraine out of its orbit was going to be a bloody (possibly futile) effort from the start.

Taking lots of money and lots of lives.

Those facts have not changed.

And the US having little core interests east of the Bug river has also not changed

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.

---

Nothing new in theory

Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow

Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders

10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU

---

You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade. A long swim or a quick flight/submarine trip, totally fine. And what about the Soviet's supporting communists in our own country? Totally cool?

.

---

Every time the Soviets sponsored communists or Marxists in our back yard we strongly opposed it…with military force or coups often times

And we had every right to do so

Moscow has no business in our sphere of influence

And they wasted money and resources trying to do foolish things like that

In fact being overextend was a contributing factor in the collapse of the USSR

---

When is the last time we invaded anyone at all in our "sphere of influence?"

---

You can't be this naive about our own geo-political history can you?

The US has invaded all of its neighbors--Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, and Domincan Republic. https://t.co/VzVMGse8By

— American Exception (@Aaron_Good_) December 20, 2022

The U.S. invaded Granada in 1983 and Panama in 1990 and Haiti in 1994 (3 times we have invaded Haiti)

---

So your answer on invade with intent to take over is none.

---

You asked how many we invaded…i gave you those facts

DC has done it so many times in the Caribbean and Latin America it's hard to keep count

(And for the record I think most were totally justified)

Now you moved the goal post to "intent to take over"

DC goes the regime change route (like in Iraq) when it invades

Moscow was actually trying to do the same thing in Ukraine and attempted to take Kyiv with its army and install a new regime.

Now that they failed at that (another sign they are not a major threat) they have had to settle for trying to absorb ethnic Russian areas in the east (face saving measure)

But their initial attempt was to basically copy the USA in Iraq….get to the capital…topple the old regime and install a more manageable one

---

And I love your oversimplification as if all Russia wanted was a more favorable President. I mean, that's bad enough, as Zelensky was democratically elected. But Russia wanted much more than that, which Putin himself made clear - significantly reduced military and weapons with permanent Russian observers; end of Euro alliances (existing and future); implement pro-Russia education mandates; mandated energy/trade "partnership"; incorporate the East into Russia; and on and on.

---

The only part of this that's true is the demand for limits on Ukraine's military, and possibly for Russian observers. That was with good reason, in order to ensure Ukraine's agreed neutrality.

---

Every letter of that is true and has been widely reported. Heck, I left out more ridiculous BS, such as making Russian official language.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Interesting that Biden pardoned his entire family back to January 2014, 1 month before the CIA toppled the Ukrainian government and began money laundering... pic.twitter.com/zTCTNq6fks

— Financelot (@FinanceLancelot) January 20, 2025

---

The CIA toppling Ukraine has become like the J6 was an insurrection myth.

---

What they have in common is that you're in desperate denial about both.

---

They also have a common danger they've exacted on the world because of that decision to use it as such.

---

The danger you should be worried about is the USA overextending itself by getting involved in parts of the world far outside its traditional sphere of influence

You should be worried about the danger of the USA getting into wars on behalf of NON-allied nations (like Ukraine) who we have no security treaty with and no long term relationship with

Not to mention the greatest danger.....possible civilizational ending nuclear war over foolish proxy conflicts in backwaters that are of very little importance the United States or its long term geo-strategic security

---

We literally have countries bordering all around Ukraine that we "exert influence", and have for a long time. This argument is frankly invalid. Furthermore, we didn't create the danger, as you and Sam have been promoting, we've only answered it.

Oldie but a goodie from Alexander Boot circa 2014. Hitchens parrots some of the misguided logic used in this thread even today. It also reminded me that prior to Russia's overt aggression in 2014, NATO was drawing down significantly in Europe.

Probably tl;dr.

Quote:

---

Peter Hitchens's love affair with Putin continues

The kind of affair I mean isn't the coupling of bodies but the meeting of minds. When both minds are perverse, they run the risk of an awful affliction, a sort of mental AIDS (Acquired Intellectual Deficiency Syndrome).

Peter first went down on his knee in 2012, when he praised Col. Putin as the 'strong leader' he wished we had. In today's Mail article, Peter, God bless his cotton socks, screams his love for Vladimir yet again.

Col. Putin, he says, is at odds with the West because he feels unloved. By us, that is. This is an injustice Peter has set out to correct, sticking out for his bit of rough.

Vladimir, according to his swain Peter, is like a murderer who, according to his lawyer, only killed because his Mummy was a *****, he never knew his Daddy and the flat-screen TV set in his room was only a 19-inch.

Thus the object of Peter's affection is only raping the Ukraine the way he previously raped Chechnia, Georgia and his own people because "We have been rubbing Russia up the wrong way for nearly 25 years."

Had we been rubbing Russia up the right way, Col. Putin wouldn't be murdering everyone he dislikes, including, incidentally, dozens of Peter's Russian colleagues. He wouldn't have blown up blocks of flats in his own country to provoke aggression against Chechnia. He wouldn't have turned Russia into a giant crime syndicate. And he wouldn't have waged nuclear war in London by using polonium to murder Litvinenko.

Our lovelorn hero draws some interesting parallels. How is it, he complains, that we're on good terms with China but not with Russia? That's an easy question to answer and, if Peter's burning love for Putin weren't making him babble sweet nothings, he'd see it for himself.

First, ever since the so-called 'collapse of the Soviet Union' the West has been more than on good terms with Russia. It has been bending over backwards to accommodate her. Billions have been pumped into the country, with most of them settling in the private accounts of international gangsters, i.e. Col. Putin's friends and proxies.

This vindicated the observation that foreign aid is the transfer of funds from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries, but then the late Lord Bauer was able to think straight he wasn't in 'lurv'.

The West has been mollycoddling Russia, and specifically Col. Putin, with nothing short of spineless obsequiousness. Yet in every conflict in which the West is involved it invariably finds Russia on the opposite side.

Putin's Russia has been arming, either openly or secretly, every disgusting regime you can think of. When this is done secretly, Col. Putin deals with every whistleblower in his customary manner. Thus the Kommersant reporter Ivan Safronov was defenestrated in 2007 for exposing Russia's secret supplies of arms to Iran and Syria. And you don't think all of Iran's nuclear know-how came from France, do you?

True, China is no friend of ours either, but at least, over the last couple of decades she has been behaving in a reasonably friendly manner, mainly by eagerly turning herself into the West's source of cheap labour. It may all come to grief later, and I fear it will, but the West's dealings with China are based not on love but on a cold-blooded calculation of costs and benefits.

Vodka apart, the only thing Russia supplies to the West is the stuff that comes out of the ground, and it's a wasting asset. In anticipation of the time when the asset has been wasted, Russia has been using her oil revenues to arm herself to the teeth.

Not only is Russia the dominant military force in Europe, but it's clearly on the way to being able to match up to NATO globally, especially in view of the West's demob-happy disarmament.

If Peter's parallel with China is spurious, the one he draws between Scotland and the Ukraine is frankly ignorant. "Imagine how you would feel if Russia's Foreign Minister turned up at SNP rallies in Edinburgh, backing Scottish independence," he invites.

There's a salient difference here, Peter. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, and has been for 300 years. The Ukraine, on the other hand, became an independent country in 1991 and wishes to stay that way. Unless this escaped Peter's attention, she's no longer part of the Soviet Union.

True, there's little in the Ukraine's history to suggest she can stay independent for ever. It's also true that she joined the Russian Empire voluntarily 360 years ago, for fear of suffering the same atrocities at Poland's hands as she herself had perpetrated on the Jews (Bohdan Khmelnytsky's record of anti-Semitic massacres stood unchallenged until Hitler).

But the Ukraine has earned her chance at least to try God knows she has suffered enough at Russia's hands, mainly courtesy of Col. Putin's sponsoring organization.

Now that we're in the business of parallels, I'd like to indulge in one that works much better. Imagine how you'd feel if it were 1968, the same 23 years since the collapse of Nazi Germany as have elapsed since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Imagine further that Germany's government is made up of either career criminals or former SS and SD officers led by an Obersturmbannfhrer (an equivalent of Putin's KGB rank).

This government openly refuses to atone for Hitler's crimes, trying to rehabilitate Hitler and portray him as mainly a stern but effective manager (as Putin's government is doing with Stalin).

Germany's leader is publicly proud of his SS past (as Putin is proud of his KGB career: "There's no such thing as ex-KGB. This is for life."). He regards the defeat of Nazi Germany as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century" (as Putin regards the collapse of the Soviet Union).

Under his tutelage Germany is committed to rebuilding the Third Reich by either bribing or forcing its former parts to rejoin Germany (as Putin is doing with the former Soviet republics). Even as we speak, it's launching yet another aggressive war (as Putin is doing in the Ukraine).

Lest the West protest too vociferously, Germany, already the world's second greatest nuclear power, is rebuilding her military muscle to its erstwhile strength (as Putin is doing in Russia).

So how would you feel? More to the point, how would Peter feel? One suspects that he'd scream bloody murder, demanding that the West unite to repel the evil, by force of arms if necessary.

But Russia wasn't Nazi; she was communist as Peter himself was as a young but already mature adult. So he's upset that the West is trying feebly, it has to be said to "detach Ukraine from Russia and draw her into the EU orbit, knowing very well that this would infuriate Moscow".

Infuriate Moscow? Can't do that, perish the thought.

Peter, Peter, Peter, such a sensible lad on most other issues. Apparently, to paraphrase his love interest, "there's no such thing as" ex-communist. Once in, never out. No doubt, when the Ukraine is first raped and then murdered, Peter will dance on her grave, his arm tenderly embracing Col. Putin's waist.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldie but a goodie from Alexander Boot circa 2014. Hitchens parrots some of the misguided logic used in this thread even today. It also reminded me that prior to Russia's overt aggression in 2014, NATO was drawing down significantly in Europe.

---

Love to hear more about that

There seemed to be plenty of NATO expansion before 2014 and plenty of military build up under Bush and Obama (to be fair I have no issues with military build up in NATO States)

[Poland hails US missile battery amid Russian criticism- May 2010]
https://www.bbc.com/news/10162394

[Bush links U.S. aid to Poland with missile defense system-March 2008]
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-mar-11-fg-bush11-story.html

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.

---

Nothing new in theory

Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow

Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders

10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU

---

You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade. A long swim or a quick flight/submarine trip, totally fine. And what about the Soviet's supporting communists in our own country? Totally cool?

.

---

Every time the Soviets sponsored communists or Marxists in our back yard we strongly opposed it…with military force or coups often times

And we had every right to do so

Moscow has no business in our sphere of influence

And they wasted money and resources trying to do foolish things like that

In fact being overextend was a contributing factor in the collapse of the USSR

---

When is the last time we invaded anyone at all in our "sphere of influence?"

---

You can't be this naive about our own geo-political history can you?

The US has invaded all of its neighbors--Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, and Domincan Republic. https://t.co/VzVMGse8By

— American Exception (@Aaron_Good_) December 20, 2022

The U.S. invaded Granada in 1983 and Panama in 1990 and Haiti in 1994 (3 times we have invaded Haiti)

---

So your answer on invade with intent to take over is none.

---

You asked how many we invaded…i gave you those facts

DC has done it so many times in the Caribbean and Latin America it's hard to keep count

(And for the record I think most were totally justified)

Now you moved the goal post to "intent to take over"

DC goes the regime change route (like in Iraq) when it invades

Moscow was actually trying to do the same thing in Ukraine and attempted to take Kyiv with its army and install a new regime.

Now that they failed at that (another sign they are not a major threat) they have had to settle for trying to absorb ethnic Russian areas in the east (face saving measure)

But their initial attempt was to basically copy the USA in Iraq….get to the capital…topple the old regime and install a more manageable one

---

And I love your oversimplification as if all Russia wanted was a more favorable President. I mean, that's bad enough, as Zelensky was democratically elected. But Russia wanted much more than that, which Putin himself made clear - significantly reduced military and weapons with permanent Russian observers; end of Euro alliances (existing and future); implement pro-Russia education mandates; mandated energy/trade "partnership"; incorporate the East into Russia; and on and on.

---

The only part of this that's true is the demand for limits on Ukraine's military, and possibly for Russian observers. That was with good reason, in order to ensure Ukraine's agreed neutrality.

---

Every letter of that is true and has been widely reported. Heck, I left out more ridiculous BS, such as making Russian official language.

---

It's been widely shouted by propagandists and their unwitting mouthpieces. If you pay attention to what was actually reported, it's very different. Russia never tried to end Ukraine's ties with the EU. It was the West that demanded an either/or solution and tried to force Ukraine to break with Russia. Far from demanding incorporation of Ukraine's east, Putin was seeking limited autonomy for the Donbas within Ukraine. He was still proposing this even after the invasion in 2022 (as was widely reported), and Ukraine was on the verge of accepting it until the West intervened yet again.

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:

---

Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.

---

Nothing new in theory

Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow

Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders

10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU

---

You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade. A long swim or a quick flight/submarine trip, totally fine. And what about the Soviet's supporting communists in our own country? Totally cool?

.

---

Every time the Soviets sponsored communists or Marxists in our back yard we strongly opposed it…with military force or coups often times

And we had every right to do so

Moscow has no business in our sphere of influence

And they wasted money and resources trying to do foolish things like that

In fact being overextend was a contributing factor in the collapse of the USSR

---

When is the last time we invaded anyone at all in our "sphere of influence?"

---

You can't be this naive about our own geo-political history can you?

The US has invaded all of its neighbors--Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, and Domincan Republic. https://t.co/VzVMGse8By

— American Exception (@Aaron_Good_) December 20, 2022

The U.S. invaded Granada in 1983 and Panama in 1990 and Haiti in 1994 (3 times we have invaded Haiti)

---

So your answer on invade with intent to take over is none.

---

You asked how many we invaded…i gave you those facts

DC has done it so many times in the Caribbean and Latin America it's hard to keep count

(And for the record I think most were totally justified)

Now you moved the goal post to "intent to take over"

DC goes the regime change route (like in Iraq) when it invades

Moscow was actually trying to do the same thing in Ukraine and attempted to take Kyiv with its army and install a new regime.

Now that they failed at that (another sign they are not a major threat) they have had to settle for trying to absorb ethnic Russian areas in the east (face saving measure)

But their initial attempt was to basically copy the USA in Iraq….get to the capital…topple the old regime and install a more manageable one

---

And I love your oversimplification as if all Russia wanted was a more favorable President. I mean, that's bad enough, as Zelensky was democratically elected. But Russia wanted much more than that, which Putin himself made clear - significantly reduced military and weapons with permanent Russian observers; end of Euro alliances (existing and future); implement pro-Russia education mandates; mandated energy/trade "partnership"; incorporate the East into Russia; and on and on.

---

The only part of this that's true is the demand for limits on Ukraine's military, and possibly for Russian observers. That was with good reason, in order to ensure Ukraine's agreed neutrality.

---

Every letter of that is true and has been widely reported. Heck, I left out more ridiculous BS, such as making Russian official language.

---

It's been widely shouted by propagandists and their unwitting mouthpieces. If you pay attention to what was actually reported, it's very different. Russia never tried to end Ukraine's economic ties with the EU. It was the West that demanded an either/or solution and tried to force Ukraine to break with Russia. Far from demanding incorporation of Ukraine's east, Putin was seeking limited autonomy for the Donbas within Ukraine. He was still proposing this even after the invasion in 2022 (as was widely reported), and Ukraine was on the verge of accepting it until the West intervened yet again.

---

Says the Russian propagandandist who also shares their unwitting mouthpieces. As is shown here with BS.

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:

---

Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.

---

Nothing new in theory

Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow

Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders

10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU

---

You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade. A long swim or a quick flight/submarine trip, totally fine. And what about the Soviet's supporting communists in our own country? Totally cool?

.

---

Every time the Soviets sponsored communists or Marxists in our back yard we strongly opposed it…with military force or coups often times

And we had every right to do so

Moscow has no business in our sphere of influence

And they wasted money and resources trying to do foolish things like that

In fact being overextend was a contributing factor in the collapse of the USSR

---

When is the last time we invaded anyone at all in our "sphere of influence?"

---

You can't be this naive about our own geo-political history can you?

The US has invaded all of its neighbors--Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, and Domincan Republic. https://t.co/VzVMGse8By

— American Exception (@Aaron_Good_) December 20, 2022

The U.S. invaded Granada in 1983 and Panama in 1990 and Haiti in 1994 (3 times we have invaded Haiti)

---

So your answer on invade with intent to take over is none.

---

You asked how many we invaded…i gave you those facts

DC has done it so many times in the Caribbean and Latin America it's hard to keep count

(And for the record I think most were totally justified)

Now you moved the goal post to "intent to take over"

DC goes the regime change route (like in Iraq) when it invades

Moscow was actually trying to do the same thing in Ukraine and attempted to take Kyiv with its army and install a new regime.

Now that they failed at that (another sign they are not a major threat) they have had to settle for trying to absorb ethnic Russian areas in the east (face saving measure)

But their initial attempt was to basically copy the USA in Iraq….get to the capital…topple the old regime and install a more manageable one

---

And I love your oversimplification as if all Russia wanted was a more favorable President. I mean, that's bad enough, as Zelensky was democratically elected. But Russia wanted much more than that, which Putin himself made clear - significantly reduced military and weapons with permanent Russian observers; end of Euro alliances (existing and future); implement pro-Russia education mandates; mandated energy/trade "partnership"; incorporate the East into Russia; and on and on.

---

The only part of this that's true is the demand for limits on Ukraine's military, and possibly for Russian observers. That was with good reason, in order to ensure Ukraine's agreed neutrality.

---

Every letter of that is true and has been widely reported. Heck, I left out more ridiculous BS, such as making Russian official language.

---

It's been widely shouted by propagandists and their unwitting mouthpieces. If you pay attention to what was actually reported, it's very different. Russia never tried to end Ukraine's economic ties with the EU. It was the West that demanded an either/or solution and tried to force Ukraine to break with Russia. Far from demanding incorporation of Ukraine's east, Putin was seeking limited autonomy for the Donbas within Ukraine. He was still proposing this even after the invasion in 2022 (as was widely reported), and Ukraine was on the verge of accepting it until the West intervened yet again.

---

Accurate post.


However the past is past.


Now I just pray Trump will end this war with a peace treaty that recognizes the current realities on the battlefield.

Preventing the useless deaths of additional thousands of Ukrainians and Russians.

Please post detailed article supporting your position. I've posted several.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Interesting that Biden pardoned his entire family back to January 2014, 1 month before the CIA toppled the Ukrainian government and began money laundering... pic.twitter.com/zTCTNq6fks

— Financelot (@FinanceLancelot) January 20, 2025

---

The CIA toppling Ukraine has become like the J6 was an insurrection myth.

---

What they have in common is that you're in desperate denial about both.

---

They also have a common danger they've exacted on the world because of that decision to use it as such.

---

The danger you should be worried about is the USA overextending itself by getting involved in parts of the world far outside its traditional sphere of influence

You should be worried about the danger of the USA getting into wars on behalf of NON-allied nations (like Ukraine) who we have no security treaty with and no long term relationship with

Not to mention the greatest danger.....possible civilizational ending nuclear war over foolish proxy conflicts in backwaters that are of very little importance the United States or its long term geo-strategic security

---

We literally have countries bordering all around Ukraine that we "exert influence", and have for a long time.

---

And I have never been against us "exerting influence" in countries that are within our alliance net work or sphere of influence

Ukraine is not a enrolled ally of the United States, has no defense treaty with the United States, and is not a member of NATO or the EU

Its a place long controlled by other empires (Ottoman-Turks, Poland, Russia, etc), that is within the traditional Russian orbit and sphere of influence, and has a national independent life of 30 years.

Lets stop acting like our involvement with Ukraine is essential or some kind of long term deep relationship

sombear said:

---

Please post detailed article supporting your position. I've posted several.

---

I've done so many, many times. I'll try and throw out a few more when I get back to my desk.

You may have posted articles that you think support your position in some way, but you won't find anything with Putin demanding incorporation of the Donbas pre-war because it doesn't exist. The Istanbul deal even provided for Ukraine to join the EU.

sombear said:

---

Please post detailed article supporting your position. I've posted several.

---

I mean....do you really want to see regurgitated RT points, lies, shills, useful idiots and Russian propaganda again?

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:

---

Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.

---

Nothing new in theory

Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow

Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders

10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU

---

You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade. A long swim or a quick flight/submarine trip, totally fine. And what about the Soviet's supporting communists in our own country? Totally cool?

.

---

Every time the Soviets sponsored communists or Marxists in our back yard we strongly opposed it…with military force or coups often times

And we had every right to do so

Moscow has no business in our sphere of influence

And they wasted money and resources trying to do foolish things like that

In fact being overextend was a contributing factor in the collapse of the USSR

---

When is the last time we invaded anyone at all in our "sphere of influence?"

---

You can't be this naive about our own geo-political history can you?

The US has invaded all of its neighbors--Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, and Domincan Republic. https://t.co/VzVMGse8By

— American Exception (@Aaron_Good_) December 20, 2022

The U.S. invaded Granada in 1983 and Panama in 1990 and Haiti in 1994 (3 times we have invaded Haiti)

---

So your answer on invade with intent to take over is none.

---

You asked how many we invaded…i gave you those facts

DC has done it so many times in the Caribbean and Latin America it's hard to keep count

(And for the record I think most were totally justified)

Now you moved the goal post to "intent to take over"

DC goes the regime change route (like in Iraq) when it invades

Moscow was actually trying to do the same thing in Ukraine and attempted to take Kyiv with its army and install a new regime.

Now that they failed at that (another sign they are not a major threat) they have had to settle for trying to absorb ethnic Russian areas in the east (face saving measure)

But their initial attempt was to basically copy the USA in Iraq….get to the capital…topple the old regime and install a more manageable one

---

And I love your oversimplification as if all Russia wanted was a more favorable President. I mean, that's bad enough, as Zelensky was democratically elected. But Russia wanted much more than that, which Putin himself made clear - significantly reduced military and weapons with permanent Russian observers; end of Euro alliances (existing and future); implement pro-Russia education mandates; mandated energy/trade "partnership"; incorporate the East into Russia; and on and on.

---

The only part of this that's true is the demand for limits on Ukraine's military, and possibly for Russian observers. That was with good reason, in order to ensure Ukraine's agreed neutrality.

---

Every letter of that is true and has been widely reported. Heck, I left out more ridiculous BS, such as making Russian official language.

---

It's been widely shouted by propagandists and their unwitting mouthpieces. If you pay attention to what was actually reported, it's very different. Russia never tried to end Ukraine's ties with the EU. It was the West that demanded an either/or solution and tried to force Ukraine to break with Russia. Far from demanding incorporation of Ukraine's east, Putin was seeking limited autonomy for the Donbas within Ukraine. He was still proposing this even after the invasion in 2022 (as was widely reported), and Ukraine was on the verge of accepting it until the West intervened yet again.

---

The actual deal breaker for Yanukovych (and Russia) was the insistence of corruption curbs, starting with the release of Yulia Tymoschenko, his political enemy. That and not the economic terms was what was also causing the negotiations to drag out. There was nothing in the agreement that prohibited them from conducting business with Russia.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldie but a goodie from Alexander Boot circa 2014. Hitchens parrots some of the misguided logic used in this thread even today. It also reminded me that prior to Russia's overt aggression in 2014, NATO was drawing down significantly in Europe.

---

Love to hear more about that

There seemed to be plenty of NATO expansion before 2014 and plenty of military build up under Bush and Obama (to be fair I have no issues with military build up in NATO States)

[Poland hails US missile battery amid Russian criticism- May 2010]
https://www.bbc.com/news/10162394

[Bush links U.S. aid to Poland with missile defense system-March 2008]
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-mar-11-fg-bush11-story.html

---

Think about what conflicts were drawing down during that time, and the sentiment toward US militarism during that period. You hammer on one often. This was during the Obama admin. who didn't even believe Russia was a threat.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.

---

Nothing new in theory

Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow

Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders

10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU

---

You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade. A long swim or a quick flight/submarine trip, totally fine. And what about the Soviet's supporting communists in our own country? Totally cool?

.

---

Every time the Soviets sponsored communists or Marxists in our back yard we strongly opposed it…with military force or coups often times

And we had every right to do so

Moscow has no business in our sphere of influence

And they wasted money and resources trying to do foolish things like that

In fact being overextend was a contributing factor in the collapse of the USSR

---

When is the last time we invaded anyone at all in our "sphere of influence?"

---

You can't be this naive about our own geo-political history can you?

The US has invaded all of its neighbors--Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, and Domincan Republic. https://t.co/VzVMGse8By

— American Exception (@Aaron_Good_) December 20, 2022

The U.S. invaded Granada in 1983 and Panama in 1990 and Haiti in 1994 (3 times we have invaded Haiti)

---

So your answer on invade with intent to take over is none.

---

You asked how many we invaded…i gave you those facts

DC has done it so many times in the Caribbean and Latin America it's hard to keep count

(And for the record I think most were totally justified)

Now you moved the goal post to "intent to take over"

DC goes the regime change route (like in Iraq) when it invades

Moscow was actually trying to do the same thing in Ukraine and attempted to take Kyiv with its army and install a new regime.

Now that they failed at that (another sign they are not a major threat) they have had to settle for trying to absorb ethnic Russian areas in the east (face saving measure)

But their initial attempt was to basically copy the USA in Iraq….get to the capital…topple the old regime and install a more manageable one

---

And I love your oversimplification as if all Russia wanted was a more favorable President. I mean, that's bad enough, as Zelensky was democratically elected. But Russia wanted much more than that, which Putin himself made clear - significantly reduced military and weapons with permanent Russian observers; end of Euro alliances (existing and future); implement pro-Russia education mandates; mandated energy/trade "partnership"; incorporate the East into Russia; and on and on.

---

The only part of this that's true is the demand for limits on Ukraine's military, and possibly for Russian observers. That was with good reason, in order to ensure Ukraine's agreed neutrality.

---

Every letter of that is true and has been widely reported. Heck, I left out more ridiculous BS, such as making Russian official language.

---

It's been widely shouted by propagandists and their unwitting mouthpieces. If you pay attention to what was actually reported, it's very different. Russia never tried to end Ukraine's ties with the EU. It was the West that demanded an either/or solution and tried to force Ukraine to break with Russia. Far from demanding incorporation of Ukraine's east, Putin was seeking limited autonomy for the Donbas within Ukraine. He was still proposing this even after the invasion in 2022 (as was widely reported), and Ukraine was on the verge of accepting it until the West intervened yet again.

---

The actual deal breaker for Yanukovych (and Russia) was the insistence of corruption curbs, starting with the release of Yulia Tymoschenko, his political enemy. That and not the economic terms was what was also causing the negotiations to drag out. There was nothing in the agreement that prohibited them from conducting business with Russia.

---

There was never any true deal-breaker for Yanukovych. He was still trying to extend negotiations when we tossed him out. And yes, of course it was about the economic terms.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Please post detailed article supporting your position. I've posted several.

---

I've done so many, many times. I'll try and throw out a few more when I get back to my desk.

You may have posted articles that you think support your position in some way, but you won't find anything with Putin demanding incorporation of the Donbas pre-war because it doesn't exist. The Istanbul deal even provided for Ukraine to join the EU.

---

You might have. Though we disagree, you have posted source material for some of your positions. I've just never come across reporting of any kind - including our corporate intel - that Putin just wanted neutrality and a reduced military. I've always seen a laundry list of bizarre terms.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldie but a goodie from Alexander Boot circa 2014. Hitchens parrots some of the misguided logic used in this thread even today. It also reminded me that prior to Russia's overt aggression in 2014, NATO was drawing down significantly in Europe.

---

Love to hear more about that

There seemed to be plenty of NATO expansion before 2014 and plenty of military build up under Bush and Obama (to be fair I have no issues with military build up in NATO States)

[Poland hails US missile battery amid Russian criticism- May 2010]
https://www.bbc.com/news/10162394

[Bush links U.S. aid to Poland with missile defense system-March 2008]
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-mar-11-fg-bush11-story.html

---

This was during the Obama admin. who didn't even believe Russia was a threat.

---

Obama had his own views of course but his administration kept the same posture toward Moscow that had already been decided on in DC

NATO expansion and NATO-US build up in Europe (something I agree with by the way)

V. Nuland (despite the mention of her name triggering yall) was there in the Administration keeping the ship moving in the same direction

[2011, Nuland became special envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and then became State Department spokesperson. In May 2013, Nuland was nominated to act as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs and was sworn in on September 18, 2013]

Obama did not stop support for a build up in Europe (nor should he have)

[Under the European Reassurance Initiative that Obama announced in 2014, the United States increased training, exercises and readiness, and earlier this year the president said he increased the effort four-fold, proposing $3.4 billion to preposition more U.S. heavy equipment in the region and continuously rotate an armored brigade in Europe.]

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Into the West/free world orbit, mostly Europe. Nothing new there.

---

Nothing new in theory

Something new in practice and something that was always going to lead to a major conflict with Moscow

Ukraine is not Cuba….its of major importance to Moscow and right on their door step with millions of ethnic Russians living inside its borders

10 years of bloody conflict later and hundreds of billions spent….and yet Ukraine is still not in NATO or in the EU

---

You're making artificial distinctions and justifying Russian aggression based on those distinctions. So a border country, invade. A long swim or a quick flight/submarine trip, totally fine. And what about the Soviet's supporting communists in our own country? Totally cool?

.

---

Every time the Soviets sponsored communists or Marxists in our back yard we strongly opposed it…with military force or coups often times

And we had every right to do so

Moscow has no business in our sphere of influence

And they wasted money and resources trying to do foolish things like that

In fact being overextend was a contributing factor in the collapse of the USSR

---

When is the last time we invaded anyone at all in our "sphere of influence?"

---

You can't be this naive about our own geo-political history can you?

The US has invaded all of its neighbors--Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, and Domincan Republic. https://t.co/VzVMGse8By

— American Exception (@Aaron_Good_) December 20, 2022

The U.S. invaded Granada in 1983 and Panama in 1990 and Haiti in 1994 (3 times we have invaded Haiti)

---

So your answer on invade with intent to take over is none.

---

You asked how many we invaded…i gave you those facts

DC has done it so many times in the Caribbean and Latin America it's hard to keep count

(And for the record I think most were totally justified)

Now you moved the goal post to "intent to take over"

DC goes the regime change route (like in Iraq) when it invades

Moscow was actually trying to do the same thing in Ukraine and attempted to take Kyiv with its army and install a new regime.

Now that they failed at that (another sign they are not a major threat) they have had to settle for trying to absorb ethnic Russian areas in the east (face saving measure)

But their initial attempt was to basically copy the USA in Iraq….get to the capital…topple the old regime and install a more manageable one

---

And I love your oversimplification as if all Russia wanted was a more favorable President. I mean, that's bad enough, as Zelensky was democratically elected. But Russia wanted much more than that, which Putin himself made clear - significantly reduced military and weapons with permanent Russian observers; end of Euro alliances (existing and future); implement pro-Russia education mandates; mandated energy/trade "partnership"; incorporate the East into Russia; and on and on.

---

The only part of this that's true is the demand for limits on Ukraine's military, and possibly for Russian observers. That was with good reason, in order to ensure Ukraine's agreed neutrality.

---

Every letter of that is true and has been widely reported. Heck, I left out more ridiculous BS, such as making Russian official language.

---

It's been widely shouted by propagandists and their unwitting mouthpieces. If you pay attention to what was actually reported, it's very different. Russia never tried to end Ukraine's ties with the EU. It was the West that demanded an either/or solution and tried to force Ukraine to break with Russia. Far from demanding incorporation of Ukraine's east, Putin was seeking limited autonomy for the Donbas within Ukraine. He was still proposing this even after the invasion in 2022 (as was widely reported), and Ukraine was on the verge of accepting it until the West intervened yet again.

---

The actual deal breaker for Yanukovych (and Russia) was the insistence of corruption curbs, starting with the release of Yulia Tymoschenko, his political enemy. That and not the economic terms was what was also causing the negotiations to drag out. There was nothing in the agreement that prohibited them from conducting business with Russia.

---

There was never any true deal-breaker for Yanukovych. He was still trying to extend negotiations when we tossed him out. And yes, of course it was about the economic terms.

---

This is an odd take given that the Rada vote on Tymoschenko was the signal this was going South, and the emergency request for subsidies to help deal with Russian threats on their economy that had escalated to the point of reprimands from Ukraine and the EU.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldie but a goodie from Alexander Boot circa 2014. Hitchens parrots some of the misguided logic used in this thread even today. It also reminded me that prior to Russia's overt aggression in 2014, NATO was drawing down significantly in Europe.

---

Love to hear more about that

There seemed to be plenty of NATO expansion before 2014 and plenty of military build up under Bush and Obama (to be fair I have no issues with military build up in NATO States)

[Poland hails US missile battery amid Russian criticism- May 2010]
https://www.bbc.com/news/10162394

[Bush links U.S. aid to Poland with missile defense system-March 2008]
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-mar-11-fg-bush11-story.html

---

This was during the Obama admin. who didn't even believe Russia was a threat.

---

Obama had his own views of course but his administration kept the same posture toward Moscow that had already been decided on in DC

NATO expansion and NATO-US build up in Europe (something I agree with by the way)

V. Nuland (despite the mention of her name triggering yall) was there in the Administration keeping the ship moving in the same direction

[2011, Nuland became special envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and then became State Department spokesperson. In May 2013, Nuland was nominated to act as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs and was sworn in on September 18, 2013]

Obama did not stop support for a build up in Europe (nor should he have)

[Under the European Reassurance Initiative that Obama announced in 2014, the United States increased training, exercises and readiness, and earlier this year the president said he increased the effort four-fold, proposing $3.4 billion to preposition more U.S. heavy equipment in the region and continuously rotate an armored brigade in Europe.]

---

The build back up began in 2014. Something critical happened early in that year with Russia…

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldie but a goodie from Alexander Boot circa 2014. Hitchens parrots some of the misguided logic used in this thread even today. It also reminded me that prior to Russia's overt aggression in 2014, NATO was drawing down significantly in Europe.

---

Love to hear more about that

There seemed to be plenty of NATO expansion before 2014 and plenty of military build up under Bush and Obama (to be fair I have no issues with military build up in NATO States)

[Poland hails US missile battery amid Russian criticism- May 2010]
https://www.bbc.com/news/10162394

[Bush links U.S. aid to Poland with missile defense system-March 2008]
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-mar-11-fg-bush11-story.html

---

This was during the Obama admin. who didn't even believe Russia was a threat.

---

Obama had his own views of course but his administration kept the same posture toward Moscow that had already been decided on in DC

NATO expansion and NATO-US build up in Europe (something I agree with by the way)

V. Nuland (despite the mention of her name triggering yall) was there in the Administration keeping the ship moving in the same direction

[2011, Nuland became special envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and then became State Department spokesperson. In May 2013, Nuland was nominated to act as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs and was sworn in on September 18, 2013]

Obama did not stop support for a build up in Europe (nor should he have)

[Under the European Reassurance Initiative that Obama announced in 2014, the United States increased training, exercises and readiness, and earlier this year the president said he increased the effort four-fold, proposing $3.4 billion to preposition more U.S. heavy equipment in the region and continuously rotate an armored brigade in Europe.]

---

The build back up began in 2014. Something critical happened early in that year with Russia…

---

My understanding was that began long before under Bush

With missiles and build ups taking place in Poland and the Baltic States

Is that not the case?

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldie but a goodie from Alexander Boot circa 2014. Hitchens parrots some of the misguided logic used in this thread even today. It also reminded me that prior to Russia's overt aggression in 2014, NATO was drawing down significantly in Europe.

---

Love to hear more about that

There seemed to be plenty of NATO expansion before 2014 and plenty of military build up under Bush and Obama (to be fair I have no issues with military build up in NATO States)

[Poland hails US missile battery amid Russian criticism- May 2010]
https://www.bbc.com/news/10162394

[Bush links U.S. aid to Poland with missile defense system-March 2008]
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-mar-11-fg-bush11-story.html

---

This was during the Obama admin. who didn't even believe Russia was a threat.

---

Obama had his own views of course but his administration kept the same posture toward Moscow that had already been decided on in DC

NATO expansion and NATO-US build up in Europe (something I agree with by the way)

V. Nuland (despite the mention of her name triggering yall) was there in the Administration keeping the ship moving in the same direction

[2011, Nuland became special envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and then became State Department spokesperson. In May 2013, Nuland was nominated to act as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs and was sworn in on September 18, 2013]

Obama did not stop support for a build up in Europe (nor should he have)

[Under the European Reassurance Initiative that Obama announced in 2014, the United States increased training, exercises and readiness, and earlier this year the president said he increased the effort four-fold, proposing $3.4 billion to preposition more U.S. heavy equipment in the region and continuously rotate an armored brigade in Europe.]

---

The build back up began in 2014. Something critical happened early in that year with Russia…

---

My understanding was that began long before under Bush

With missiles and build ups taking place in Poland and the Baltic States

Is that not the case?

---

Despite Putin's recent propaganda spin, the missiles in Poland were a 9/11/war on terror response to rogue nation issues. You can argue the efficacy of it, but that's what it was. We even notified Russia and followed protocol on the necessary treaty withdrawals before doing so. The actual offensive military structures were significantly reduced during that period.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldie but a goodie from Alexander Boot circa 2014. Hitchens parrots some of the misguided logic used in this thread even today. It also reminded me that prior to Russia's overt aggression in 2014, NATO was drawing down significantly in Europe.

---

Love to hear more about that

There seemed to be plenty of NATO expansion before 2014 and plenty of military build up under Bush and Obama (to be fair I have no issues with military build up in NATO States)

[Poland hails US missile battery amid Russian criticism- May 2010]
https://www.bbc.com/news/10162394

[Bush links U.S. aid to Poland with missile defense system-March 2008]
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-mar-11-fg-bush11-story.html

---

This was during the Obama admin. who didn't even believe Russia was a threat.

---

Obama had his own views of course but his administration kept the same posture toward Moscow that had already been decided on in DC

NATO expansion and NATO-US build up in Europe (something I agree with by the way)

V. Nuland (despite the mention of her name triggering yall) was there in the Administration keeping the ship moving in the same direction

[2011, Nuland became special envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and then became State Department spokesperson. In May 2013, Nuland was nominated to act as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs and was sworn in on September 18, 2013]

Obama did not stop support for a build up in Europe (nor should he have)

[Under the European Reassurance Initiative that Obama announced in 2014, the United States increased training, exercises and readiness, and earlier this year the president said he increased the effort four-fold, proposing $3.4 billion to preposition more U.S. heavy equipment in the region and continuously rotate an armored brigade in Europe.]

---

The build back up began in 2014. Something critical happened early in that year with Russia…

---

My understanding was that began long before under Bush

With missiles and build ups taking place in Poland and the Baltic States

Is that not the case?

---

Despite Putin's recent propaganda spin, the missiles in Poland were a 9/11/war on terror response to rogue nation issues. You can argue the efficacy of it, but that's what it was. We even notified Russia and followed protocol on the necessary treaty withdrawals before doing so. The actual offensive military structures were significantly reduced during that period.

---

I'm not against us putting missiles in Poland

But you said there was some kind of draw down of forces under Bush and Obama.

I'm not seeing any evidence of that

Our military posture there stayed the same or increased

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Please post detailed article supporting your position. I've posted several.

---

I've done so many, many times. I'll try and throw out a few more when I get back to my desk.

You may have posted articles that you think support your position in some way, but you won't find anything with Putin demanding incorporation of the Donbas pre-war because it doesn't exist. The Istanbul deal even provided for Ukraine to join the EU.

---

You might have. Though we disagree, you have posted source material for some of your positions. I've just never come across reporting of any kind - including our corporate intel - that Putin just wanted neutrality and a reduced military. I've always seen a laundry list of bizarre terms.

---

Russia Offered to End War if Ukraine Dropped NATO Bid: Kyiv Official
Published Nov 27, 2023

Russia offered to end Moscow's invasion of Ukraine in the spring of 2022 if Ukraine agreed to drop its ambitions to join NATO, according to the head of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's political party, who was present at peace negotiations.

David Arakhamia, leader of the Ukrainian political party Servant of the People, revealed part of the purported deal during an interview with Ukrainian journalist Natalia Moseychuk on Friday. The Kyiv official previously led the Ukrainian delegation that held peace talks with senior Russian officials in the months following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Both sides of the war have laid out conditions for a ceasefire in the conflict in recent months, but many war analysts doubt neither Zelensky nor Russian President Vladimir Putin currently has a serious urge to end the 21-month-long fight.

According to Arakhamia, however, there was a drafted peace agreement between Ukrainian and Russian negotiators early in the war. Arakhamia said that Moscow pledged to end the fighting if Ukraine's agreed to remain neutral and forego its bid to join NATO.

"They really hoped almost to the last that they would put the squeeze on us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality," Arakhamia told Moseychuck, according to an English translation of his comments by the Kyiv Post. "It was the biggest thing for them."

"They were ready to end the war if we took...neutrality and made commitments that we would not join NATO. This was the key point," the Ukrainian official added.

Ukraine has aimed to become a member of NATO for decades, and in September 2022, Kyiv announced its bid for a fast-tracked membership in the military alliance. Russian officials have warned that fighting would only escalate if Ukraine was admitted into NATO, which would solidify Kyiv's alliances with Western countries like the United States and the United Kingdom.

Elsewhere in the interview, Arakhamia brought up former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson's surprise visit to Kyiv in April 2022. He said Johnson encouraged Ukraine to not "sign anything" with Russia and "just fight."

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-offered-end-war-if-ukraine-dropped-nato-bid-kyiv-official-1847373

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldie but a goodie from Alexander Boot circa 2014. Hitchens parrots some of the misguided logic used in this thread even today. It also reminded me that prior to Russia's overt aggression in 2014, NATO was drawing down significantly in Europe.

---

Love to hear more about that

There seemed to be plenty of NATO expansion before 2014 and plenty of military build up under Bush and Obama (to be fair I have no issues with military build up in NATO States)

[Poland hails US missile battery amid Russian criticism- May 2010]
https://www.bbc.com/news/10162394

[Bush links U.S. aid to Poland with missile defense system-March 2008]
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-mar-11-fg-bush11-story.html

---

This was during the Obama admin. who didn't even believe Russia was a threat.

---

Obama had his own views of course but his administration kept the same posture toward Moscow that had already been decided on in DC

NATO expansion and NATO-US build up in Europe (something I agree with by the way)

V. Nuland (despite the mention of her name triggering yall) was there in the Administration keeping the ship moving in the same direction

[2011, Nuland became special envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and then became State Department spokesperson. In May 2013, Nuland was nominated to act as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs and was sworn in on September 18, 2013]

Obama did not stop support for a build up in Europe (nor should he have)

[Under the European Reassurance Initiative that Obama announced in 2014, the United States increased training, exercises and readiness, and earlier this year the president said he increased the effort four-fold, proposing $3.4 billion to preposition more U.S. heavy equipment in the region and continuously rotate an armored brigade in Europe.]

---

The build back up began in 2014. Something critical happened early in that year with Russia…

---

My understanding was that began long before under Bush

With missiles and build ups taking place in Poland and the Baltic States

Is that not the case?

---

Despite Putin's recent propaganda spin, the missiles in Poland were a 9/11/war on terror response to rogue nation issues. You can argue the efficacy of it, but that's what it was. We even notified Russia and followed protocol on the necessary treaty withdrawals before doing so. The actual offensive military structures were significantly reduced during that period.

---

I'm not against us putting missiles in Poland

But you said there was some kind of draw down of forces under Bush and Obama.

I'm not seeing any evidence of that

Our military posture there stayed the same or increased

---

https://www.statista.com/chart/27534/nato-troop-levels-1990-to-present/

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldie but a goodie from Alexander Boot circa 2014. Hitchens parrots some of the misguided logic used in this thread even today. It also reminded me that prior to Russia's overt aggression in 2014, NATO was drawing down significantly in Europe.

---

Love to hear more about that

There seemed to be plenty of NATO expansion before 2014 and plenty of military build up under Bush and Obama (to be fair I have no issues with military build up in NATO States)

[Poland hails US missile battery amid Russian criticism- May 2010]
https://www.bbc.com/news/10162394

[Bush links U.S. aid to Poland with missile defense system-March 2008]
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-mar-11-fg-bush11-story.html

---

This was during the Obama admin. who didn't even believe Russia was a threat.

---

Obama had his own views of course but his administration kept the same posture toward Moscow that had already been decided on in DC

NATO expansion and NATO-US build up in Europe (something I agree with by the way)

V. Nuland (despite the mention of her name triggering yall) was there in the Administration keeping the ship moving in the same direction

[2011, Nuland became special envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and then became State Department spokesperson. In May 2013, Nuland was nominated to act as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs and was sworn in on September 18, 2013]

Obama did not stop support for a build up in Europe (nor should he have)

[Under the European Reassurance Initiative that Obama announced in 2014, the United States increased training, exercises and readiness, and earlier this year the president said he increased the effort four-fold, proposing $3.4 billion to preposition more U.S. heavy equipment in the region and continuously rotate an armored brigade in Europe.]

---

The build back up began in 2014. Something critical happened early in that year with Russia…

---

My understanding was that began long before under Bush

With missiles and build ups taking place in Poland and the Baltic States

Is that not the case?

---

Despite Putin's recent propaganda spin, the missiles in Poland were a 9/11/war on terror response to rogue nation issues. You can argue the efficacy of it, but that's what it was. We even notified Russia and followed protocol on the necessary treaty withdrawals before doing so. The actual offensive military structures were significantly reduced during that period.

---

I'm not against us putting missiles in Poland

But you said there was some kind of draw down of forces under Bush and Obama.

I'm not seeing any evidence of that

Our military posture there stayed the same or increased

---

---

NATO has not met their spending commitments in decades

But the chart for the USA includes 1990 and the years right after that (end of the Cold War)

I would be interested to see if any cuts or major pull backs took place during Bush or Obama (I don't believe they did)

There were some serious cuts right after 1990 but that was because of the end of the Cold War

A chart for the U.S. since 2000 would probably not show many if any cuts in defense commitments there

U.S. military’s top officer: 102,000 American troops in Europe today. (At height of Cold War there were 450,000)

— Lucas Tomlinson (@LucasFoxNews) May 23, 2022

You can see from the chart a large decline starting in 1990 and going on for several years

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doesn't sit right with me at all, but when you pair the two things together in an argument, there is an implied "we have to stop doing X abroad so we can do Y at home." Certainly that is the construction of many who argue here and most of the arguments on the matter in the public square. Fact is, we have to do both.

The end is simple: stop Russia, up to and including causing a collapse of the current regime. We do have it in our power to do that. quite easily. Nato GDP dwarfs Russia. Zero chance Russia can last longer than Nato. Biden has simply been taking half-measures.

Why is that end so important? See sombear's comments above. Russia will always have the ability to rebuild armies and airforces, which makes them an existential threat if not robustly resisted. For centuries they have looked west and seen they need to modernize, but the corruption always wins. As a result, throughout the centuries, they have over and over and over demonstrated a lack of maturity to know their limits. Their move against Ukraine was a frickin' comedy of errors, from intelligence assessments, to operational planning, to strategic & tactical execution. But look what it's costing to stop them......

History is abundantly clear on this: Russia is a bully. If you don't knock them flat on their asses when they get out of line, they will keep coming.

---

You're correct that Biden took half-measures. We don't even have any signed military data sharing agreements with Ukraine, No geospatial data, nothing. The same clowns that prolonged war in Afghanistan/Iraq and spent damn near $8 trillion doing so are in charge of this war. That leads me to believe they want to make this a prolonged proxy war for as long as possible. After personally visiting NATO in Brussels and seeing CNN on every TV in their building...I think they're also clowns.
US and Western intel liaison with Ukraine is robust. We helped Ukraine literally rebuilt its agencies from scratch to rid them of Russian infiltration. And, of course, we trained trained trained, in classical FI/CI operations as well as paramilitary operations. Had it not been for all this "covert" investment going back to 2015-2016 timeframe, the Russian plan for a 72-hour operation to take down Ukraine would almost certainly have been successful.

I don't trust them. Our intelligence community and military leaders have largely claimed that Trump is a Russian asset as well. I don't know how you feel good about this war considering those people are in charge.
The Russian asset meme has run its course. You will hear some of the die-hards on the left still parrot it because they believe it, but it's clearly not an election winner so it will die a natural death.

This is what DC believes. This is the belief of the military industrial complex, national security, NATO and DC.

The only explanation for today’s appalling performance by @realDonaldTrump is the Russians have high value compromising intel on POTUS. Something that would have been discovered during any serviceman’s background investigation. @realDonaldTrump is unfit to command our troops.

— Major General (ret) Paul Eaton (@PaulDEaton52) July 16, 2018

Trump will deliver peace either through major aggression or pulling funds. Our leaders very clearly don't want that. How do you reconcile this?
That is pure projection by his political opponents. He and his team are making all the right statements and, as I predicted, Trump is not going to pull funds. Has very clearly signaled such to the Ukrainians.

---

Trump has, technically, already escalated - he's called for increasing NATO defense spending to 5% of GDP. The Poles have already announced they will do so. There's also strategic escalation ongoing, and you can take it to the bank Trump will continue it (i.e. he flirted with it in his admin) - putting permanent Nato military installations in former WP countries. The Romanians have already approved building a major NATO joint base (Ramstein equivalent) at an existing Romania air base = 10k troops & squadrons of aircraft. In 2027, A German brigade will be stationed in Lithuania, to guard the Suwalki Gap. Also public statements about NATO bases in Finland.

---

Getting our NATO allies to meet their spending commitments or raise them slightly....and building bases inside current NATO territory is not "escalation"
It most certainly is.

Its building up a strong defense in our already established sphere of influence.
Mobilizing for war has many times in history been a cause of war.

Its also amazing how your side sees that as "escalation"
Because it is. Just like NOT putting bases in former WP countries was an effort NOT to escalate tensions.

But some how sponsoring coups in Russia's back yard or funding proxy wars against them using corrupt states we never had a relationship with is not escalation.....
We did not sponsor a coup. We supported a new government that came to power by constitutional processes.
Yes, sponsoring proxy wars is an escalation. Others do it to us. We respond accordingly, to include direct strikes against proxies, to include taking them out.

I am always stunned by neo-con/neo-liberal logic
because you do not understand the subject material very well

---

At every point, you excuse Russian escalation and scream that our prudent responses are unnecessarily provocative.

another fact inconvenient to your arguments: on the day Russia invaded it, Ukraine was less tied to the West, diplomatically, economically, and militarily, than was Sweden or Finland. The Finnish border is a mortar round away from St. Petersburg. So why did Russia instead invade Ukraine? Finland was once a part of Russia, too.

---

Actually that fact is highly inconvenient to your argument. The Russians have always denied that they were trying to reconstitute their old borders. They didn't invade Ukraine because it was once Russian or because it was tied to the West. They invaded it because of the specific threat that it posed.

---

They didn't invade Ukraine for gaining Nato Partner status in 1994. They invaded it for moving forward with EU membership, which "neutral" Finland and Sweden already had. So why invade Ukraine and not Finland?

(answer: Nato and EU issues had nothing to do with the invasion.)

Propagandists gonna propaganda......

---

---

So Russia does have, by your own analysis, ample justification for intervening in, or outright owning Finland and Ukraine. And Finland actually poses a far greater geopolitical threat to Russia than Ukraine - its border is only 90mi from St Petersburg,

---

Finland does not have millions of ethnic russians living inside its borders
Russians are 8-20% of the population in most of the former SSRs. Do you believe that gives Russia right to invade & subsume them back into Russian polity, too?

Finland is not the home of the Russian Black Sea Naval base
At the moment, neither is Crimea.

Finland is not the historic center of the Russian nation and civilization (Kievan Russ, etc.)
Neither is Ukraine. Ukraine has been on the periphery of Russian polity ever since Novgorod eclipsed Kyiv.

And most importantly Finland was accepted into the EU and now into NATO with no major objections from Moscow.
Uh, you missed the various Russian threats to deal with Finland later.

Russia let Finland go and its now firmly in the Western orbit
Russia did no such thing. Finland acted on its own, as it should. So should Ukraine.

Russia is fighting like hell for Ukraine
False analogy. Russia has fought like hell for Finland before, but can't do so at the moment because it is fully engaged in Ukraine. And it can't cut it's losses and withdraw from Ukraine because it would likely case the fall of the Putin regime.

See the difference?

---

The existence of an independent Finland is at least a comparable threat to Russia as is Ukraine, and in some ways moreso. Finland is also smaller by orders of magnitude. So why didn't they start there?

---

Finland doesn't have the warm water ports that Ukraine has. Historically, thus had been a Russian foreign policy goal for centuries.

Borders have ALWAYS been static. There always have been and always will be countries that have something their neighbors want. And some are willing to attack and kill to get what they want. This is a constant of human history and won't end until Christ returns. Literally.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Interesting that Biden pardoned his entire family back to January 2014, 1 month before the CIA toppled the Ukrainian government and began money laundering... pic.twitter.com/zTCTNq6fks

— Financelot (@FinanceLancelot) January 20, 2025

---

The CIA toppling Ukraine has become like the J6 was an insurrection myth. Big on feeling, small on reality. I know why Sam buys into it. Not sure why others do.

---

Sure the CIA had nothing to do with the coup in Kyiv

**eye roll**

---

Yes, the CIA got much more involved once Russia invaded Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

---

Don't kid yourself

They were there long before that…lol

“We overthrew the government of Ukraine in 2014.

We helped and funded a coup of $5 billion that the CIA put in through USAID.” pic.twitter.com/dRugcBzYtg

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) June 1, 2024

---

LOL not one of RFKJR's better takes. There are rather ironclad laws about using USAID for intel activities, for obvious reasons.

Using a USAID employee in a CIA operation requires approval of C/CIA (CIA Director). I.E. doesn't happen.

---

Unfortunately this is not very hard to believe. One only needs to look at the IRS, FBI, etc to see how corrupt & politicized our federal bureaucracy became under Obama & Biden. In fact, is extremely simple to imagine a corrupt CIA doing this if Barack wanted it. Remember Lois Lerner? Russia Russia Russia hoax? There are many examples of what might be the most corrupt administration in history.

I'm not saying it happened only that it's very possible to believe it could have happened.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Please post detailed article supporting your position. I've posted several.

---

I've done so many, many times. I'll try and throw out a few more when I get back to my desk.

You may have posted articles that you think support your position in some way, but you won't find anything with Putin demanding incorporation of the Donbas pre-war because it doesn't exist. The Istanbul deal even provided for Ukraine to join the EU.

---

You might have. Though we disagree, you have posted source material for some of your positions. I've just never come across reporting of any kind - including our corporate intel - that Putin just wanted neutrality and a reduced military. I've always seen a laundry list of bizarre terms.

---

Russia Offered to End War if Ukraine Dropped NATO Bid: Kyiv Official
Published Nov 27, 2023

Russia offered to end Moscow's invasion of Ukraine in the spring of 2022 if Ukraine agreed to drop its ambitions to join NATO, according to the head of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's political party, who was present at peace negotiations.

David Arakhamia, leader of the Ukrainian political party Servant of the People, revealed part of the purported deal during an interview with Ukrainian journalist Natalia Moseychuk on Friday. The Kyiv official previously led the Ukrainian delegation that held peace talks with senior Russian officials in the months following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Both sides of the war have laid out conditions for a ceasefire in the conflict in recent months, but many war analysts doubt neither Zelensky nor Russian President Vladimir Putin currently has a serious urge to end the 21-month-long fight.

According to Arakhamia, however, there was a drafted peace agreement between Ukrainian and Russian negotiators early in the war. Arakhamia said that Moscow pledged to end the fighting if Ukraine's agreed to remain neutral and forego its bid to join NATO.

"They really hoped almost to the last that they would put the squeeze on us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality," Arakhamia told Moseychuck, according to an English translation of his comments by the Kyiv Post. "It was the biggest thing for them."

"They were ready to end the war if we took...neutrality and made commitments that we would not join NATO. This was the key point," the Ukrainian official added.

Ukraine has aimed to become a member of NATO for decades, and in September 2022, Kyiv announced its bid for a fast-tracked membership in the military alliance. Russian officials have warned that fighting would only escalate if Ukraine was admitted into NATO, which would solidify Kyiv's alliances with Western countries like the United States and the United Kingdom.

Elsewhere in the interview, Arakhamia brought up former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson's surprise visit to Kyiv in April 2022. He said Johnson encouraged Ukraine to not "sign anything" with Russia and "just fight."

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-offered-end-war-if-ukraine-dropped-nato-bid-kyiv-official-1847373

---

Arakhamia made it clear in multiple interviews that neither Boris nor anyone else from the west forced Ukraine's hand or anything close to it.

As for Russia's terms, this article stops well short of saying those were the only terms, and Arakhamia detailed in other interviews some of the other terms.

More importantly, multiple outlets reviewed the actual proposals from early 2022, and the reporting was consistent. Ukraine, and Zelensky himself, agreed to the no-NATO and neutrality pledges. See, for example, Foreign Affairs, Financial Times, NPR, Rand, Wall Street Journal, etc. The biggest holdups were (1) security agreements - i.e., how to protect Ukraine from future Russia aggression - including requiring U.S. to send troops of Russia violated terms; (2) Crimea, Donbas, etc.; (3) size of Ukraine's military; (4) Ukraine's weapons restrictions; (5) Russian observers having full access to inspect all Ukraine military equipment; (6) "De-Nazification" programs; (7) Russian official language; (8) mandated pro-Russia history in schools.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

President-elect Donald Trump’s team has allegedly drafted a proposal to end the ongoing war in Ukraine war, per WSJ.

Allegedly the plan includes significant conditions: Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current…

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) November 7, 2024

---

"Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current front lines and the establishment of a demilitarized zone between Russian-held territory and Ukraine."


That does not accomplish anything long term

Kyiv has to give up forever its claims on Donbas and Crimea

Moscow has to give up the idea that the rest of Western oriented Ukraine is not going to join EU-NATO soon.

Just a demilitarized zone solves nothing long term.

---

Yeah I don't think this is intended to be a long term goal. Its a ceasefire.

Zelensky is opposed because a ceasefire was tried back in 2014 and Ukraine lost Crimea...but that's because there were no real forcible conditions. IMO Zelensky is delusional because Trump will withhold U.S. arms and funding to Ukraine unless it enters peace talks with Russia.

Trump will demand forcible conditions. If Russia doesn't abide, its war. If Ukraine doesn't abide, they stop getting funding. These would be the conditions for 20 years.

Long term, I would clean up the insane corruption in Ukraine. We cannot allow an oligarchy state to enter NATO, although some would argue their oligarchy control has diminished, which it has, it could turn into an autocracy. They simply don't have the track record for it.

---

As I predicted.

BREAKING: Trump tells Putin to end the war with Ukraine.

“We can do it the easy way, or the hard way.”

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 23, 2025

Doc Holliday said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

President-elect Donald Trump’s team has allegedly drafted a proposal to end the ongoing war in Ukraine war, per WSJ.

Allegedly the plan includes significant conditions: Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current…

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) November 7, 2024

---

"Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current front lines and the establishment of a demilitarized zone between Russian-held territory and Ukraine."


That does not accomplish anything long term

Kyiv has to give up forever its claims on Donbas and Crimea

Moscow has to give up the idea that the rest of Western oriented Ukraine is not going to join EU-NATO soon.

Just a demilitarized zone solves nothing long term.

---

Yeah I don't think this is intended to be a long term goal. Its a ceasefire.

Zelensky is opposed because a ceasefire was tried back in 2014 and Ukraine lost Crimea...but that's because there were no real forcible conditions. IMO Zelensky is delusional because Trump will withhold U.S. arms and funding to Ukraine unless it enters peace talks with Russia.

Trump will demand forcible conditions. If Russia doesn't abide, its war. If Ukraine doesn't abide, they stop getting funding. These would be the conditions for 20 years.

Long term, I would clean up the insane corruption in Ukraine. We cannot allow an oligarchy state to enter NATO, although some would argue their oligarchy control has diminished, which it has, it could turn into an autocracy. They simply don't have the track record for it.

---

As I predicted.

BREAKING: Trump tells Putin to end the war with Ukraine.

“We can do it the easy way, or the hard way.”

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 23, 2025

---

Love it

At this point he should sit Putin down and tell him to order a ceasefire right now and Trump will make Zelensky do it as well.

Putin must then give up any more territorial ambitions inside of Ukraine....and agree to Ukraine joining NATO/EU as soon as possible.

Zelensky must be told that he must give up the 20% of territory that the Russians currently hold.....if not the US will cut him off financially and leave him to deal with Putin and the Russians on his own

(lets just hope Congress and the permanent State don't try to impeach Trump again for negotiating with Russia)

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

President-elect Donald Trump’s team has allegedly drafted a proposal to end the ongoing war in Ukraine war, per WSJ.

Allegedly the plan includes significant conditions: Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current…

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) November 7, 2024

---

"Ukraine should give up its NATO membership aspirations for at least 20 years, the freezing of the current front lines and the establishment of a demilitarized zone between Russian-held territory and Ukraine."


That does not accomplish anything long term

Kyiv has to give up forever its claims on Donbas and Crimea

Moscow has to give up the idea that the rest of Western oriented Ukraine is not going to join EU-NATO soon.

Just a demilitarized zone solves nothing long term.

---

Yeah I don't think this is intended to be a long term goal. Its a ceasefire.

Zelensky is opposed because a ceasefire was tried back in 2014 and Ukraine lost Crimea...but that's because there were no real forcible conditions. IMO Zelensky is delusional because Trump will withhold U.S. arms and funding to Ukraine unless it enters peace talks with Russia.

Trump will demand forcible conditions. If Russia doesn't abide, its war. If Ukraine doesn't abide, they stop getting funding. These would be the conditions for 20 years.

Long term, I would clean up the insane corruption in Ukraine. We cannot allow an oligarchy state to enter NATO, although some would argue their oligarchy control has diminished, which it has, it could turn into an autocracy. They simply don't have the track record for it.

---

As I predicted.

BREAKING: Trump tells Putin to end the war with Ukraine.

“We can do it the easy way, or the hard way.”

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) January 23, 2025

---

Love it

At this point he should sit Putin down and tell him to order a ceasefire and Trump will make Zelensky do it as well.

Putin must give up any more territorial ambitions in Ukraine....and agree to Ukraine joining NATO/EU.

Zelensky must be told that he must give up the 20% of territory that the Russians currently hold.....if not the US will cut financially him off and leave him to deal with Putin on his own

(lets just hope Congress and the permanent State don't try to impeach Trump again for negotiating with Russia)

---

The warhawks are going to be pissed off.

If so, then if must be good news for the country and the world