People have also said the same about Russia. Is that an act of war, too?Sam Lowry said:He said Ukraine's future lies in NATO. That's nothing if not an assurance.ATL Bear said:Didn't find it on Google. Furthermore, you didn't say "it was up to Ukraine". You said Biden assured them they could join. Everyone knows that "up to Ukraine" goes back to all the required changes necessary to qualify, as well as a vote by the members. You guys are playing fast and loose with the truth. It's getting old.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:You have google, it's quite easily found in the public domain. And two months later after Biden assured them it was up to the Ukraine to join or not, Russia invaded.ATL Bear said:Show your work here.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:whiterock said:It is amazing how hard people work to ignore very elementary geo-strategic realities: Ukraine is a sovereign country which was invaded by Russia without any cause whatsoever, an act which was a significant threat to Nato, an alliance to which we are a member. Russia committed an act of war; Ukraine did not. Nato is significantly more threatened by Russian actions than Russia than vice-versa.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:Putin should not have invaded. But he did.Osodecentx said:
Ukraine Never Should Have Made the Mistake of Getting Invaded
Not just true, but the most important truth of all. RUSSIA started all of this.
Biden should not have openly assured the Ukraine that they could join Nato. But he did.
False. Refusing to categorically reject the idea is not synonymous with "assuring" membership.
So what exactly do you want the US to do? Will you send your sons/daughters to go fight for the Ukraine? Or do you just want to send our tax dollars? And to what end and how long?
Support others who are willing to fight, for as long as they are willing to fight, up to and including supporting any future insurgency against a victorious Russia (which we most definitely will do, should such happen).
.
You're wrong. Biden did in fact assure them that they could join nato.
As for the rest of your comments, I have no problem with Ukraine continuing to fight.
So how much taxpayer money are you willing to just give away so Ukraine can bleed Russia. 100 billion per year? 200 billion? Just curious.
Personally, I think Europe should foot much of the bill. I also think that if we are going to fund/arm them in huge amounts, getting some favors/pay/guarantees in return for America would be reasonable. So I don't disagree entirely with you. There is value in bleeding Russia, but I wouldn't want to incentivize millions of deaths to do it. So if they want to continue to fight, let's sell them weapons and intelligence, but shelling out unlimited cash clearly makes it very easy for the Ukrainian oligarchs to keep killing off their own people without any personal sacrifice.
Yeah, I know ... Russia was always going to invade, blah blah blah. That conversation had nothing to do with it, blah blah blah.
Why Are We in Ukraine?
634,975 Views |
8138 Replies |
Last: 59 min ago by LIB,MR BEARS
European states did not meet their 2%of GDP requirement. (on military spending)Assassin said:Merz: „Absolutely no illusions“ about Trump.
— Thorsten Benner (@thorstenbenner) February 23, 2025
Goal needs to be step by step
independence from a US who „pretty much no longer cares about fate of 🇪🇺“.
„Unclear whether we will still speak of NATO in present shape“ by time of June summit or we need to come up with 🇪🇺alternative. pic.twitter.com/n2KOqHmVKa
US complains.
Europe continues to not meet the requirement.
US complains some more.
(rinse & repat for 50 years)
Trump arrives.
Europe continues to let the US take the lion's share of military readiness.
Trump cajoles.
Trump wrankles.
Then Trump demands military spending at 5% of GDP
Voila. Now Europe has resolved to actually build militaries capable of defending Europe without direct involvement of US troops (who will still be available via alliance).
#winning.
now, we can focus on China.
#winning
LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
They have an equivalent nuclear arsenal and an adversarial relationship with us. Heck, you and your ilk have argued to not escalate the Ukraine War due to that very existential threat! Who's crazy again??Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:That's the myth you tell yourself. Internal political corruption and dysfunction are real concerns (not to mention standard fare in democracies), but they do not rise to the level of existential threats posed by powerful foreign adversaries, including non state actors. Russia.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Perhaps you forgot the massive military downsizing that was occurring in the 90s through 9/11. We became the wealthiest most powerful military and economy in conjunction with our ramp up post 9/11 and the reality of a unipolar world.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:You are such a simpleton. We literally lost Trillions, have put significant restraints around our personal freedoms, built giant security apparatuses,Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
We were brought to our knees by people living in caves from all purposes 4th world countries .
Not even close to being true
The USA was and remained the greatest military and economic power on earth after the 9/11 attacks.
America then easily crushed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and drove the Taliban from power.
When even easily invaded a decent size country like Iraq and toppled its Baathist government
(The long decades insurgent war to remake Afghanistan & Iraq being a different issue)
You really do seem to think that the USA and America power is a fragile thing
And you are such a flip flopping jerk who loves wars aboard and the massive security State.....(as well as proxy wars with Russia) and then turns around dares complain about the cost!
Hypocrite you are!
And while I hate the trillions lost....as well as thousands of dead Americans in this wars....that was because of the long term wars of occupation and "nation-building" that your side loves.
That was not the direct result of 9/11....the initial conflicts were short and mostly inexpensive...(.the wars of occupation were part of utopian fantasies and a deliberate choice from our Neo-Con and Liberals elites who thought they could transform Middle Eastern Muslim tribal peoples in to Manhattan progressives )
And while our leaders in DC (who you trust now on the Ukraine war) led us into disaster in the long term occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.....they did no fundamentally long term harm the USA
The United States in 2025....just as in 2001....remains the richest and most militarily powerful Nation on Earth.
Despite the failure of the Iraq and Afghan occupation/re-construction wars
Al Qaeda and its attacks no more changed that than did Sioux attacks on the frontier in the 1860s
You think I'm a hypocrite, but I'm worried about the macro position we put ourselves in and the necessity to maintain it now or risk significant economic and geopolitical risk. When that balance is altered, Americans will lean into overbearing government even more.
But you still don't understand and I can't explain it any clearer. You are focused on a disparate micro evaluation. The repercussions of our actions went well beyond our defeat of al Qaeda (who is still very active FYI) or ISIS. And the struggle for power has never ceased with Iran, Russia, or China. And once again, I wasn't even referencing our nation building dalliances. That's completely separate.
Our elites are driving us into debt no doubt….but that is an internal problem of our corrupt political class
Has very little to do with external adversaries
9/11 hurt us becomes of our leaders….nothing Al Qaeda could do could really hurt us
You don't understand that the problem is internal and not external.
The people who can bring down the USA are not hiding in caves in Afghanistan or in Moscow
They are in DC (and the other USA power centers)Cumulative US foreign aid 1946 to 2023.
— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) December 24, 2024
Annually we are now giving away over $63 billion officially.
If you include Ukraine, It around $200 billion in the past two years, so the annual spending is closer to $160+ billion per year in 2023 and 2024.
We have a $2 trillion annual… pic.twitter.com/ZF2j6F84B5
Russia is not an existential threat to the USA
That is almost as crazy a thing to say as your contention that Al Qaeda "brought the USA to its knees"
But I am coming to understand your extremist view on promoting war with Russia over Ukraine.
You honeslty think somehow Russia is an existential threat to America
You told me that you wanted this war to go on as long as possible and peace talks were off the table because you wanted to crush Russia for as long as possible.whiterock said:Yeah, but Obama and Biden bungled the readiness and diplomacy.Doc Holliday said:Better no lives lost and peace.whiterock said:Better Russian lives than ours.KaiBear said:
This entire narrative that this bloodfest in Ukraine was somehow worth it in order to 'weaken' the Russian military is ludicrous.
It is the price Russia pays for imperialism. That price has significantly weakened them. More importantly, we did not cause the events which unfolded. RUSSIA DID.
Hundreds of thousands of people have been slaughtered.
Russia's invaded Ukraine, not Nato.
Only folks thousands of miles from the carnage can even attempt to be smug about it.
Nobody is smug. Just doing what must be done.
And for what …..to argue about tanks ?
Noting a relevant data point highlighting the nearly existential cost Russia has paid.
Russia will easily rebuild their tank numbers.
Nope. Will take them 30-40 years, minimum, if ever. They built those stores when they were twice as large a country. And now the demographic trends are working against them.
The United States might even get back some of the hundreds of billions Biden cynically gave away.
Probably will indeed get some sweetheart commercial deals that will matter.
But those lives are irrevocably lost.
Better Ukrainian lives than ours.
When an adversary advances toward you and an ally in the way is willing to resist that adversary, you support that ally until they run out of the ability to fight. Ukraine is a long, long way from that point.
Better redlines and diplomacy than war.
This is what the Trump administration is pursuing. Are ya'll now wholly against this administration? Based on your logic, I would assume you would prefer Kamala had won in order to pursue the endless support for the continuation of this war.
I told you that Trump would not end the war by cutting off aid to Ukraine. And look at the headlines this morning......Trump saying the minerals deal would give Ukraine all the money it needed to fight for as long as it needed.
Trump (and I) understand what many of his supporters do not - Russia's invasion of Ukraine cannot be allowed to stand. Russia must lose. Or it must retreat. Those are its choices. Or, at least, those are the choices Trump just sat in front of them at the peace talks.
The Trump administration has no intentions of allowing this war to continue.
ATL Bear said:They have an equivalent nuclear arsenal and an adversarial relationship with us. Heck, you and your ilk have argued to not escalate the Ukraine War due to that very existential threat! Who's crazy again??Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:That's the myth you tell yourself. Internal political corruption and dysfunction are real concerns (not to mention standard fare in democracies), but they do not rise to the level of existential threats posed by powerful foreign adversaries, including non state actors. Russia.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Perhaps you forgot the massive military downsizing that was occurring in the 90s through 9/11. We became the wealthiest most powerful military and economy in conjunction with our ramp up post 9/11 and the reality of a unipolar world.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:You are such a simpleton. We literally lost Trillions, have put significant restraints around our personal freedoms, built giant security apparatuses,Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
We were brought to our knees by people living in caves from all purposes 4th world countries .
Not even close to being true
The USA was and remained the greatest military and economic power on earth after the 9/11 attacks.
America then easily crushed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and drove the Taliban from power.
When even easily invaded a decent size country like Iraq and toppled its Baathist government
(The long decades insurgent war to remake Afghanistan & Iraq being a different issue)
You really do seem to think that the USA and America power is a fragile thing
And you are such a flip flopping jerk who loves wars aboard and the massive security State.....(as well as proxy wars with Russia) and then turns around dares complain about the cost!
Hypocrite you are!
And while I hate the trillions lost....as well as thousands of dead Americans in this wars....that was because of the long term wars of occupation and "nation-building" that your side loves.
That was not the direct result of 9/11....the initial conflicts were short and mostly inexpensive...(.the wars of occupation were part of utopian fantasies and a deliberate choice from our Neo-Con and Liberals elites who thought they could transform Middle Eastern Muslim tribal peoples in to Manhattan progressives )
And while our leaders in DC (who you trust now on the Ukraine war) led us into disaster in the long term occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.....they did no fundamentally long term harm the USA
The United States in 2025....just as in 2001....remains the richest and most militarily powerful Nation on Earth.
Despite the failure of the Iraq and Afghan occupation/re-construction wars
Al Qaeda and its attacks no more changed that than did Sioux attacks on the frontier in the 1860s
You think I'm a hypocrite, but I'm worried about the macro position we put ourselves in and the necessity to maintain it now or risk significant economic and geopolitical risk. When that balance is altered, Americans will lean into overbearing government even more.
But you still don't understand and I can't explain it any clearer. You are focused on a disparate micro evaluation. The repercussions of our actions went well beyond our defeat of al Qaeda (who is still very active FYI) or ISIS. And the struggle for power has never ceased with Iran, Russia, or China. And once again, I wasn't even referencing our nation building dalliances. That's completely separate.
Our elites are driving us into debt no doubt….but that is an internal problem of our corrupt political class
Has very little to do with external adversaries
9/11 hurt us becomes of our leaders….nothing Al Qaeda could do could really hurt us
You don't understand that the problem is internal and not external.
The people who can bring down the USA are not hiding in caves in Afghanistan or in Moscow
They are in DC (and the other USA power centers)Cumulative US foreign aid 1946 to 2023.
— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) December 24, 2024
Annually we are now giving away over $63 billion officially.
If you include Ukraine, It around $200 billion in the past two years, so the annual spending is closer to $160+ billion per year in 2023 and 2024.
We have a $2 trillion annual… pic.twitter.com/ZF2j6F84B5
Russia is not an existential threat to the USA
That is almost as crazy a thing to say as your contention that Al Qaeda "brought the USA to its knees"
But I am coming to understand your extremist view on promoting war with Russia over Ukraine.
You honestly think somehow Russia is an existential threat to America
1. Is every country that has nukes an existential threat to the USA?
How about Israel?
The idea that a country we have never had a war with....and one that we actually were allied in two different world wars with....is now an "existential threat" is a scary idea you are pushing.
2. I have also never used the term "existential threat" with russia or nuclear war.....I did say it was beyond stupid to fight a proxy war with Russia over a long time client state of theirs.....a war that could turn nuclear an be a disaster for us and Western Civilization. Not worth the risk at all.
I would feel the same about fighting a nuclear war with France over the Belgium
You are ok with the risk because you have already predetermined that the Russian Federation already posses some kind of "existential threat" to the United States
whiterock said:LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]
Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?
Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian
Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians
[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]
The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism. The English have been in Crimea forever, should they claim it?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]
Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?
Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian
Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians
[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]
FLBear5630 said:The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism. The English have been in Crimea forever, should they claim it?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]
Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?
Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian
Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians
[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]
So were the Goths and the Greeks
Hopefully we are dealing with facts on the ground and real life demographic issues....not ancient history.
Donbas and Crimea are super majority ethnic russian today....do you want them expelled?
And if so how would you accomplish this?
After all you are a big Israel fan.....no real presence of Jews in Israel in the 1800s.
I know you would not be in favor of expelling the Jews from modern Israel were they now form a majority of the population.
[Palestine in 1850 had about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews]
[In October 2024, Israel's population was 10,027,000, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics , 78.6% of the population was Jewish, and 21.4% was Arab]
FLBear5630 said:The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]
Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?
Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian
Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians
[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]
For the record....Crimea was never Ukrainian....go back and look at the Census from the days long before the USSR
Even 130 years ago Ukrainians were not even close to being a majority there
[The 1897 Russian Empire Census, Crimean Tatars continued to form a slight plurality (35%) of Crimea's still largely rural population, but there were large numbers of Russians (33%) and Ukrainians (11%), as well as smaller numbers of Germans, Jews (including Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites), Bulgarians and Belarusians]
1. I specifically said an adversarial relationship. If Israel, France, UK, etc. became adversarial they would be viewed as an existential threat, especially with a history of waving the threat of nuclear strike at us.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:They have an equivalent nuclear arsenal and an adversarial relationship with us. Heck, you and your ilk have argued to not escalate the Ukraine War due to that very existential threat! Who's crazy again??Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:That's the myth you tell yourself. Internal political corruption and dysfunction are real concerns (not to mention standard fare in democracies), but they do not rise to the level of existential threats posed by powerful foreign adversaries, including non state actors. Russia.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Perhaps you forgot the massive military downsizing that was occurring in the 90s through 9/11. We became the wealthiest most powerful military and economy in conjunction with our ramp up post 9/11 and the reality of a unipolar world.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:You are such a simpleton. We literally lost Trillions, have put significant restraints around our personal freedoms, built giant security apparatuses,Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
We were brought to our knees by people living in caves from all purposes 4th world countries .
Not even close to being true
The USA was and remained the greatest military and economic power on earth after the 9/11 attacks.
America then easily crushed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and drove the Taliban from power.
When even easily invaded a decent size country like Iraq and toppled its Baathist government
(The long decades insurgent war to remake Afghanistan & Iraq being a different issue)
You really do seem to think that the USA and America power is a fragile thing
And you are such a flip flopping jerk who loves wars aboard and the massive security State.....(as well as proxy wars with Russia) and then turns around dares complain about the cost!
Hypocrite you are!
And while I hate the trillions lost....as well as thousands of dead Americans in this wars....that was because of the long term wars of occupation and "nation-building" that your side loves.
That was not the direct result of 9/11....the initial conflicts were short and mostly inexpensive...(.the wars of occupation were part of utopian fantasies and a deliberate choice from our Neo-Con and Liberals elites who thought they could transform Middle Eastern Muslim tribal peoples in to Manhattan progressives )
And while our leaders in DC (who you trust now on the Ukraine war) led us into disaster in the long term occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.....they did no fundamentally long term harm the USA
The United States in 2025....just as in 2001....remains the richest and most militarily powerful Nation on Earth.
Despite the failure of the Iraq and Afghan occupation/re-construction wars
Al Qaeda and its attacks no more changed that than did Sioux attacks on the frontier in the 1860s
You think I'm a hypocrite, but I'm worried about the macro position we put ourselves in and the necessity to maintain it now or risk significant economic and geopolitical risk. When that balance is altered, Americans will lean into overbearing government even more.
But you still don't understand and I can't explain it any clearer. You are focused on a disparate micro evaluation. The repercussions of our actions went well beyond our defeat of al Qaeda (who is still very active FYI) or ISIS. And the struggle for power has never ceased with Iran, Russia, or China. And once again, I wasn't even referencing our nation building dalliances. That's completely separate.
Our elites are driving us into debt no doubt….but that is an internal problem of our corrupt political class
Has very little to do with external adversaries
9/11 hurt us becomes of our leaders….nothing Al Qaeda could do could really hurt us
You don't understand that the problem is internal and not external.
The people who can bring down the USA are not hiding in caves in Afghanistan or in Moscow
They are in DC (and the other USA power centers)Cumulative US foreign aid 1946 to 2023.
— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) December 24, 2024
Annually we are now giving away over $63 billion officially.
If you include Ukraine, It around $200 billion in the past two years, so the annual spending is closer to $160+ billion per year in 2023 and 2024.
We have a $2 trillion annual… pic.twitter.com/ZF2j6F84B5
Russia is not an existential threat to the USA
That is almost as crazy a thing to say as your contention that Al Qaeda "brought the USA to its knees"
But I am coming to understand your extremist view on promoting war with Russia over Ukraine.
You honestly think somehow Russia is an existential threat to America
1. Is every country that has nukes an existential threat to the USA?
How about Israel?
The idea that a country we have never had a war with....and one that we actually were allied in two different world wars with....is now an "existential threat" is a scary idea your are pushing.
2. I have also never used the term "existential threat" with russia or nuclear war.....I did say it was beyond stupid to fight a proxy war with Russia over a long time client state of theirs.....a war that could turn nuclear an be a disaster for us and Western Civilization. Not worth the risk at all.
I would feel the same about fighting a nuclear war with France over the Belgium
You are ok with the risk because you have already predetermined that the Russian Federation already posses some kind of "existential threat" to the United States
And let's not memory hole the fact we've fought many wars with Russia; big, small, and non military. But you'll be intentionally obtuse and say it wasn't a massive direct battle. We fought alongside China against Japan. Does that mean they shouldn't be considered an existential threat?
2.You either don't understand what existential threat means, or you're dug too deep into your opinion to admit that's what you're positing, regardless of whether you have or have not used the words.
Russia does pose an existential threat to the U.S. How we manage that risk is the debate, not whether they are or aren't. And it's not as if that can't be changed (Germany and Japan were once). Maybe Trump will succeed at quelling that where others have failed.
I expect Russia to give away some land if native language has anything to do with thisRedbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]
Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?
Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian
Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians
[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]
For the record....Crimea was never Ukrainian....go back and look at the Census from the days long before the USSR
Even 130 years ago Ukrainians were not even close to being a majority there
[The 1897 Russian Empire Census, Crimean Tatars continued to form a slight plurality (35%) of Crimea's still largely rural population, but there were large numbers of Russians (33%) and Ukrainians (11%), as well as smaller numbers of Germans, Jews (including Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites), Bulgarians and Belarusians]
ATL Bear said:1. I specifically said an adversarial relationship. If Israel, France, UK, etc. became adversarial they would be viewed as an existential threat, especially with a history of waving the threat of nuclear strike at us.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:They have an equivalent nuclear arsenal and an adversarial relationship with us. Heck, you and your ilk have argued to not escalate the Ukraine War due to that very existential threat! Who's crazy again??Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:That's the myth you tell yourself. Internal political corruption and dysfunction are real concerns (not to mention standard fare in democracies), but they do not rise to the level of existential threats posed by powerful foreign adversaries, including non state actors. Russia.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Perhaps you forgot the massive military downsizing that was occurring in the 90s through 9/11. We became the wealthiest most powerful military and economy in conjunction with our ramp up post 9/11 and the reality of a unipolar world.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:You are such a simpleton. We literally lost Trillions, have put significant restraints around our personal freedoms, built giant security apparatuses,Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
We were brought to our knees by people living in caves from all purposes 4th world countries .
Not even close to being true
The USA was and remained the greatest military and economic power on earth after the 9/11 attacks.
America then easily crushed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and drove the Taliban from power.
When even easily invaded a decent size country like Iraq and toppled its Baathist government
(The long decades insurgent war to remake Afghanistan & Iraq being a different issue)
You really do seem to think that the USA and America power is a fragile thing
And you are such a flip flopping jerk who loves wars aboard and the massive security State.....(as well as proxy wars with Russia) and then turns around dares complain about the cost!
Hypocrite you are!
And while I hate the trillions lost....as well as thousands of dead Americans in this wars....that was because of the long term wars of occupation and "nation-building" that your side loves.
That was not the direct result of 9/11....the initial conflicts were short and mostly inexpensive...(.the wars of occupation were part of utopian fantasies and a deliberate choice from our Neo-Con and Liberals elites who thought they could transform Middle Eastern Muslim tribal peoples in to Manhattan progressives )
And while our leaders in DC (who you trust now on the Ukraine war) led us into disaster in the long term occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.....they did no fundamentally long term harm the USA
The United States in 2025....just as in 2001....remains the richest and most militarily powerful Nation on Earth.
Despite the failure of the Iraq and Afghan occupation/re-construction wars
Al Qaeda and its attacks no more changed that than did Sioux attacks on the frontier in the 1860s
You think I'm a hypocrite, but I'm worried about the macro position we put ourselves in and the necessity to maintain it now or risk significant economic and geopolitical risk. When that balance is altered, Americans will lean into overbearing government even more.
But you still don't understand and I can't explain it any clearer. You are focused on a disparate micro evaluation. The repercussions of our actions went well beyond our defeat of al Qaeda (who is still very active FYI) or ISIS. And the struggle for power has never ceased with Iran, Russia, or China. And once again, I wasn't even referencing our nation building dalliances. That's completely separate.
Our elites are driving us into debt no doubt….but that is an internal problem of our corrupt political class
Has very little to do with external adversaries
9/11 hurt us becomes of our leaders….nothing Al Qaeda could do could really hurt us
You don't understand that the problem is internal and not external.
The people who can bring down the USA are not hiding in caves in Afghanistan or in Moscow
They are in DC (and the other USA power centers)Cumulative US foreign aid 1946 to 2023.
— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) December 24, 2024
Annually we are now giving away over $63 billion officially.
If you include Ukraine, It around $200 billion in the past two years, so the annual spending is closer to $160+ billion per year in 2023 and 2024.
We have a $2 trillion annual… pic.twitter.com/ZF2j6F84B5
Russia is not an existential threat to the USA
That is almost as crazy a thing to say as your contention that Al Qaeda "brought the USA to its knees"
But I am coming to understand your extremist view on promoting war with Russia over Ukraine.
You honestly think somehow Russia is an existential threat to America
1. Is every country that has nukes an existential threat to the USA?
How about Israel?
The idea that a country we have never had a war with....and one that we actually were allied in two different world wars with....is now an "existential threat" is a scary idea your are pushing.
2. I have also never used the term "existential threat" with russia or nuclear war.....I did say it was beyond stupid to fight a proxy war with Russia over a long time client state of theirs.....a war that could turn nuclear an be a disaster for us and Western Civilization. Not worth the risk at all.
I would feel the same about fighting a nuclear war with France over the Belgium
You are ok with the risk because you have already predetermined that the Russian Federation already posses some kind of "existential threat" to the United States
And let's not memory hole the fact we've fought many wars with Russia; big, small, and non military. But you'll be intentionally obtuse and say it wasn't a massive direct battle. We fought alongside China against Japan. Does that mean they shouldn't be considered an existential threat?
2.You either don't understand what existential threat means, or you're dug too deep into your opinion to admit that's what you're positing, regardless of whether you have or have not used the words.
Russia does pose an existential threat to the U.S. How we manage that risk is the debate, not whether they are or aren't. And it's not as if that can't be changed (Germany and Japan were once). Maybe Trump will succeed at quelling that where others have failed.
1. You again act like its a forgone conclusion that conflict with Russia is needed or unavoidable
And even if Israel became adversarial to us and our interests that does not mean they form an "existential threat" to the powerful United States
2. We have never fought any wars against the Russian Federation (until this very stupid proxy war that Obama and Biden got us into)
You constantly conflate the Soviet & Communist USSR to the modern nationalist Russian Federation....two different entities, two very different economic systems, two very different State ideologies
Of course you do this to try and pull on the narrative that somehow we have had a long history of conflict with the Russian people and need to continue to view them as enemies and "an existential threat"
3. I think is been proven on here you have no idea what "existential threat" means or at least no idea how to use it correctly in English.....every State that has nukes is not an existential threat to the USA...and you have not proven in any way that Russia desires the complete destruction of the USA or is even attempting it
So far they are simply trying to hold on to their long term sphere of influence around their border lands.
If you think Russian is an existential threat to the USA.....gosh what must they feel like as they see a hostile Military alliance led by DC come creeping up on their borders and see a Nation on the other side of the world fund a proxy war against them?
ron.reagan said:I expect Russia to give away some land if native language has anything to do with thisRedbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]
Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?
Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian
Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians
[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]
For the record....Crimea was never Ukrainian....go back and look at the Census from the days long before the USSR
Even 130 years ago Ukrainians were not even close to being a majority there
[The 1897 Russian Empire Census, Crimean Tatars continued to form a slight plurality (35%) of Crimea's still largely rural population, but there were large numbers of Russians (33%) and Ukrainians (11%), as well as smaller numbers of Germans, Jews (including Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites), Bulgarians and Belarusians]
Borders all over the world would be redraw if everyone could chose who they wanted to be in a political union with.
Of course DC would not like to see that at home
Kyiv does not want that right now.
And Moscow does not want that.
I am starting to see a pattern where centralized States fear letting people actually vote and leave and form new political unions....
Well that's how their military is designed. You can tout whatever Kremlin talking point you need, but that's who they are militarily. Their decision to move from rapid advance early in the war to slow, war of attrition doesn't change the nature or purpose of their forces.Sam Lowry said:Incorrect.ATL Bear said:Tanks are an offensive ground force weapon. The fact you can use them in a defensive battle tactic doesn't change their function.Sam Lowry said:That is all part of being a regional defensive force. What it's not is a force that threatens Europe.FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Tanks are an essential part of the Russian defensive strategy. They use them for rapid counterattacks after drawing the enemy into prepared positions. This is one of the ways they've depleted Ukraine's manpower and equipment so successfully over the last three years.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.Redbrickbear said:ron.reagan said:It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefieldhistorian said:
Your takes are always funny
Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe.
You live in a delusional world. I don't doubt you believe it. Putin, 12k tanks and 2 invasions in 10 years does not add up to defense.
Russia has a very limited naval expeditionary force, but their ground forces built around tanks, long range bombers, air superiority fighters, mobile missile systems, drones, and cyber warfare are very much intended as an expeditionary force. Deterrence forces (long range nuclear, non nuclear, and hypersonic missiles) along with anti aircraft and missile systems are Russia's primary mechanism for defense.
Impossible to discuss because of your complete lack of comprehension and a repeat of the same inane talking points and incorrect characterization of what is written. Good grief…Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:1. I specifically said an adversarial relationship. If Israel, France, UK, etc. became adversarial they would be viewed as an existential threat, especially with a history of waving the threat of nuclear strike at us.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:They have an equivalent nuclear arsenal and an adversarial relationship with us. Heck, you and your ilk have argued to not escalate the Ukraine War due to that very existential threat! Who's crazy again??Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:That's the myth you tell yourself. Internal political corruption and dysfunction are real concerns (not to mention standard fare in democracies), but they do not rise to the level of existential threats posed by powerful foreign adversaries, including non state actors. Russia.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Perhaps you forgot the massive military downsizing that was occurring in the 90s through 9/11. We became the wealthiest most powerful military and economy in conjunction with our ramp up post 9/11 and the reality of a unipolar world.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:You are such a simpleton. We literally lost Trillions, have put significant restraints around our personal freedoms, built giant security apparatuses,Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
We were brought to our knees by people living in caves from all purposes 4th world countries .
Not even close to being true
The USA was and remained the greatest military and economic power on earth after the 9/11 attacks.
America then easily crushed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and drove the Taliban from power.
When even easily invaded a decent size country like Iraq and toppled its Baathist government
(The long decades insurgent war to remake Afghanistan & Iraq being a different issue)
You really do seem to think that the USA and America power is a fragile thing
And you are such a flip flopping jerk who loves wars aboard and the massive security State.....(as well as proxy wars with Russia) and then turns around dares complain about the cost!
Hypocrite you are!
And while I hate the trillions lost....as well as thousands of dead Americans in this wars....that was because of the long term wars of occupation and "nation-building" that your side loves.
That was not the direct result of 9/11....the initial conflicts were short and mostly inexpensive...(.the wars of occupation were part of utopian fantasies and a deliberate choice from our Neo-Con and Liberals elites who thought they could transform Middle Eastern Muslim tribal peoples in to Manhattan progressives )
And while our leaders in DC (who you trust now on the Ukraine war) led us into disaster in the long term occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.....they did no fundamentally long term harm the USA
The United States in 2025....just as in 2001....remains the richest and most militarily powerful Nation on Earth.
Despite the failure of the Iraq and Afghan occupation/re-construction wars
Al Qaeda and its attacks no more changed that than did Sioux attacks on the frontier in the 1860s
You think I'm a hypocrite, but I'm worried about the macro position we put ourselves in and the necessity to maintain it now or risk significant economic and geopolitical risk. When that balance is altered, Americans will lean into overbearing government even more.
But you still don't understand and I can't explain it any clearer. You are focused on a disparate micro evaluation. The repercussions of our actions went well beyond our defeat of al Qaeda (who is still very active FYI) or ISIS. And the struggle for power has never ceased with Iran, Russia, or China. And once again, I wasn't even referencing our nation building dalliances. That's completely separate.
Our elites are driving us into debt no doubt….but that is an internal problem of our corrupt political class
Has very little to do with external adversaries
9/11 hurt us becomes of our leaders….nothing Al Qaeda could do could really hurt us
You don't understand that the problem is internal and not external.
The people who can bring down the USA are not hiding in caves in Afghanistan or in Moscow
They are in DC (and the other USA power centers)Cumulative US foreign aid 1946 to 2023.
— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) December 24, 2024
Annually we are now giving away over $63 billion officially.
If you include Ukraine, It around $200 billion in the past two years, so the annual spending is closer to $160+ billion per year in 2023 and 2024.
We have a $2 trillion annual… pic.twitter.com/ZF2j6F84B5
Russia is not an existential threat to the USA
That is almost as crazy a thing to say as your contention that Al Qaeda "brought the USA to its knees"
But I am coming to understand your extremist view on promoting war with Russia over Ukraine.
You honestly think somehow Russia is an existential threat to America
1. Is every country that has nukes an existential threat to the USA?
How about Israel?
The idea that a country we have never had a war with....and one that we actually were allied in two different world wars with....is now an "existential threat" is a scary idea your are pushing.
2. I have also never used the term "existential threat" with russia or nuclear war.....I did say it was beyond stupid to fight a proxy war with Russia over a long time client state of theirs.....a war that could turn nuclear an be a disaster for us and Western Civilization. Not worth the risk at all.
I would feel the same about fighting a nuclear war with France over the Belgium
You are ok with the risk because you have already predetermined that the Russian Federation already posses some kind of "existential threat" to the United States
And let's not memory hole the fact we've fought many wars with Russia; big, small, and non military. But you'll be intentionally obtuse and say it wasn't a massive direct battle. We fought alongside China against Japan. Does that mean they shouldn't be considered an existential threat?
2.You either don't understand what existential threat means, or you're dug too deep into your opinion to admit that's what you're positing, regardless of whether you have or have not used the words.
Russia does pose an existential threat to the U.S. How we manage that risk is the debate, not whether they are or aren't. And it's not as if that can't be changed (Germany and Japan were once). Maybe Trump will succeed at quelling that where others have failed.
1. You again act like its a forgone conclusion that conflict with Russia is needed or unavoidable
And even if Israel became adversarial to us and our interests that does not mean they form an "existential threat" to the powerful United States
2. We have never fought any wars against the Russian Federation (until this very stupid proxy war that Obama and Biden got us into)
You constantly conflate the Soviet & Communist USSR to the modern nationalist Russian Federation....two different entities, two very different economic systems, two very different State ideologies
Of course you do this to try and pull on the narrative that somehow we have had a long history of conflict with the Russian people and need to continue to view them as enemies and "an existential threat"
3. I think is been proven on here you have no idea what "existential threat" means or at least no idea how to use it correctly in English.....every State that has nukes is not an existential threat to the USA...and you have not proven in any way that Russia desires the complete destruction of the USA or is even attempting it
So far they are simply trying to hold on to their long term sphere of influence around their border lands.
If you think Russian is an existential threat to the USA.....gosh what must they feel like as they see a hostile Military alliance led by DC come creeping up on their borders and see a Nation on the other side of the world fund a proxy war against them?
ATL Bear said:Impossible to discuss because of your complete lack of comprehension and a repeat of the same inane talking points and incorrect characterization of what is written. Good grief…Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:1. I specifically said an adversarial relationship. If Israel, France, UK, etc. became adversarial they would be viewed as an existential threat, especially with a history of waving the threat of nuclear strike at us.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:They have an equivalent nuclear arsenal and an adversarial relationship with us. Heck, you and your ilk have argued to not escalate the Ukraine War due to that very existential threat! Who's crazy again??Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:That's the myth you tell yourself. Internal political corruption and dysfunction are real concerns (not to mention standard fare in democracies), but they do not rise to the level of existential threats posed by powerful foreign adversaries, including non state actors. Russia.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Perhaps you forgot the massive military downsizing that was occurring in the 90s through 9/11. We became the wealthiest most powerful military and economy in conjunction with our ramp up post 9/11 and the reality of a unipolar world.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:You are such a simpleton. We literally lost Trillions, have put significant restraints around our personal freedoms, built giant security apparatuses,Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
We were brought to our knees by people living in caves from all purposes 4th world countries .
Not even close to being true
The USA was and remained the greatest military and economic power on earth after the 9/11 attacks.
America then easily crushed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and drove the Taliban from power.
When even easily invaded a decent size country like Iraq and toppled its Baathist government
(The long decades insurgent war to remake Afghanistan & Iraq being a different issue)
You really do seem to think that the USA and America power is a fragile thing
And you are such a flip flopping jerk who loves wars aboard and the massive security State.....(as well as proxy wars with Russia) and then turns around dares complain about the cost!
Hypocrite you are!
And while I hate the trillions lost....as well as thousands of dead Americans in this wars....that was because of the long term wars of occupation and "nation-building" that your side loves.
That was not the direct result of 9/11....the initial conflicts were short and mostly inexpensive...(.the wars of occupation were part of utopian fantasies and a deliberate choice from our Neo-Con and Liberals elites who thought they could transform Middle Eastern Muslim tribal peoples in to Manhattan progressives )
And while our leaders in DC (who you trust now on the Ukraine war) led us into disaster in the long term occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.....they did no fundamentally long term harm the USA
The United States in 2025....just as in 2001....remains the richest and most militarily powerful Nation on Earth.
Despite the failure of the Iraq and Afghan occupation/re-construction wars
Al Qaeda and its attacks no more changed that than did Sioux attacks on the frontier in the 1860s
You think I'm a hypocrite, but I'm worried about the macro position we put ourselves in and the necessity to maintain it now or risk significant economic and geopolitical risk. When that balance is altered, Americans will lean into overbearing government even more.
But you still don't understand and I can't explain it any clearer. You are focused on a disparate micro evaluation. The repercussions of our actions went well beyond our defeat of al Qaeda (who is still very active FYI) or ISIS. And the struggle for power has never ceased with Iran, Russia, or China. And once again, I wasn't even referencing our nation building dalliances. That's completely separate.
Our elites are driving us into debt no doubt….but that is an internal problem of our corrupt political class
Has very little to do with external adversaries
9/11 hurt us becomes of our leaders….nothing Al Qaeda could do could really hurt us
You don't understand that the problem is internal and not external.
The people who can bring down the USA are not hiding in caves in Afghanistan or in Moscow
They are in DC (and the other USA power centers)Cumulative US foreign aid 1946 to 2023.
— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) December 24, 2024
Annually we are now giving away over $63 billion officially.
If you include Ukraine, It around $200 billion in the past two years, so the annual spending is closer to $160+ billion per year in 2023 and 2024.
We have a $2 trillion annual… pic.twitter.com/ZF2j6F84B5
Russia is not an existential threat to the USA
That is almost as crazy a thing to say as your contention that Al Qaeda "brought the USA to its knees"
But I am coming to understand your extremist view on promoting war with Russia over Ukraine.
You honestly think somehow Russia is an existential threat to America
1. Is every country that has nukes an existential threat to the USA?
How about Israel?
The idea that a country we have never had a war with....and one that we actually were allied in two different world wars with....is now an "existential threat" is a scary idea your are pushing.
2. I have also never used the term "existential threat" with russia or nuclear war.....I did say it was beyond stupid to fight a proxy war with Russia over a long time client state of theirs.....a war that could turn nuclear an be a disaster for us and Western Civilization. Not worth the risk at all.
I would feel the same about fighting a nuclear war with France over the Belgium
You are ok with the risk because you have already predetermined that the Russian Federation already posses some kind of "existential threat" to the United States
And let's not memory hole the fact we've fought many wars with Russia; big, small, and non military. But you'll be intentionally obtuse and say it wasn't a massive direct battle. We fought alongside China against Japan. Does that mean they shouldn't be considered an existential threat?
2.You either don't understand what existential threat means, or you're dug too deep into your opinion to admit that's what you're positing, regardless of whether you have or have not used the words.
Russia does pose an existential threat to the U.S. How we manage that risk is the debate, not whether they are or aren't. And it's not as if that can't be changed (Germany and Japan were once). Maybe Trump will succeed at quelling that where others have failed.
1. You again act like its a forgone conclusion that conflict with Russia is needed or unavoidable
And even if Israel became adversarial to us and our interests that does not mean they form an "existential threat" to the powerful United States
2. We have never fought any wars against the Russian Federation (until this very stupid proxy war that Obama and Biden got us into)
You constantly conflate the Soviet & Communist USSR to the modern nationalist Russian Federation....two different entities, two very different economic systems, two very different State ideologies
Of course you do this to try and pull on the narrative that somehow we have had a long history of conflict with the Russian people and need to continue to view them as enemies and "an existential threat"
3. I think is been proven on here you have no idea what "existential threat" means or at least no idea how to use it correctly in English.....every State that has nukes is not an existential threat to the USA...and you have not proven in any way that Russia desires the complete destruction of the USA or is even attempting it
So far they are simply trying to hold on to their long term sphere of influence around their border lands.
If you think Russian is an existential threat to the USA.....gosh what must they feel like as they see a hostile Military alliance led by DC come creeping up on their borders and see a Nation on the other side of the world fund a proxy war against them?
I feel 100% the same way
You have already made up your mind that Russia is an "existential threat" to the USA and that conflict with them is unavoidable.
And that proxy wars against them are a good policy.
Not sure there is anything else to discuss with you......since you don't provide any new insights and you have not even bothered to read up on the history of the region.
Just a reminder that the Donbas never voted, never even informally raised joining Russia as an issue, and was NOT majority "Ethnic Russian" in 2014.Redbrickbear said:ron.reagan said:I expect Russia to give away some land if native language has anything to do with thisRedbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]
Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?
Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian
Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians
[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]
For the record....Crimea was never Ukrainian....go back and look at the Census from the days long before the USSR
Even 130 years ago Ukrainians were not even close to being a majority there
[The 1897 Russian Empire Census, Crimean Tatars continued to form a slight plurality (35%) of Crimea's still largely rural population, but there were large numbers of Russians (33%) and Ukrainians (11%), as well as smaller numbers of Germans, Jews (including Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites), Bulgarians and Belarusians]
Borders all over the world would be redraw if everyone could chose who they wanted to be in a political union with.
Of course DC would not like to see that at home
Kyiv does not want that right now.
And Moscow does not want that.
I am starting to see a pattern where centralized States fear letting people actually vote and leave and form new political unions....
ATL Bear said:You can tout whatever Kremlin talking point you need, but that's who they are militarily.Sam Lowry said:Incorrect.ATL Bear said:Tanks are an offensive ground force weapon. The fact you can use them in a defensive battle tactic doesn't change their function.Sam Lowry said:That is all part of being a regional defensive force. What it's not is a force that threatens Europe.FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Tanks are an essential part of the Russian defensive strategy. They use them for rapid counterattacks after drawing the enemy into prepared positions. This is one of the ways they've depleted Ukraine's manpower and equipment so successfully over the last three years.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.Redbrickbear said:ron.reagan said:It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefieldhistorian said:
Your takes are always funny
Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe.
You live in a delusional world. I don't doubt you believe it. Putin, 12k tanks and 2 invasions in 10 years does not add up to defense.
Russia has a very limited naval expeditionary force, but their ground forces built around tanks, long range bombers, air superiority fighters, mobile missile systems, drones, and cyber warfare are very much intended as an expeditionary force. Deterrence forces (long range nuclear, non nuclear, and hypersonic missiles) along with anti aircraft and missile systems are Russia's primary mechanism for defense.
Every opinion and fact you don't like is not a "kremlin talking point"
But I should not be surprised to see you retreat into these verbal defenses
sombear said:Just a reminder that the Donbas never voted, never even informally raised joining Russia as an issue, and was NOT majority "Ethnic Russian" in 2014.Redbrickbear said:ron.reagan said:I expect Russia to give away some land if native language has anything to do with thisRedbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]
Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?
Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian
Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians
[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]
For the record....Crimea was never Ukrainian....go back and look at the Census from the days long before the USSR
Even 130 years ago Ukrainians were not even close to being a majority there
[The 1897 Russian Empire Census, Crimean Tatars continued to form a slight plurality (35%) of Crimea's still largely rural population, but there were large numbers of Russians (33%) and Ukrainians (11%), as well as smaller numbers of Germans, Jews (including Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites), Bulgarians and Belarusians]
Borders all over the world would be redraw if everyone could chose who they wanted to be in a political union with.
Of course DC would not like to see that at home
Kyiv does not want that right now.
And Moscow does not want that.
I am starting to see a pattern where centralized States fear letting people actually vote and leave and form new political unions....
1. True, and they will unfortunately never get a chance to do so in a open and fair election.
The powers that be in Kyiv (and DC behind them) have no desire to see an election of that kind in Donbas and Crimea
Moscow at this point probably does not either
2.
[The Donbas is a predominately Russophone region. According to the 2001 census, Russian is the main language of 74.9% of residents in Donetsk Oblast and 68.8% in Luhansk Oblast.]
We'd be changing countries every 4 years. Although I don't have an issue with a law letting you leave if you get something like 80% of the vote in an annual election over 5-10 years. It should be very difficult to leave but not require a civil war every time a population evolves into a new culture.Redbrickbear said:ron.reagan said:I expect Russia to give away some land if native language has anything to do with thisRedbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]
Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?
Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian
Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians
[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]
For the record....Crimea was never Ukrainian....go back and look at the Census from the days long before the USSR
Even 130 years ago Ukrainians were not even close to being a majority there
[The 1897 Russian Empire Census, Crimean Tatars continued to form a slight plurality (35%) of Crimea's still largely rural population, but there were large numbers of Russians (33%) and Ukrainians (11%), as well as smaller numbers of Germans, Jews (including Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites), Bulgarians and Belarusians]
Borders all over the world would be redraw if everyone could chose who they wanted to be in a political union with.
Of course DC would not like to see that at home
Kyiv does not want that right now.
And Moscow does not want that.
I am starting to see a pattern where centralized States fear letting people actually vote and leave and form new political unions....
Language, yes, but they still were ethnic Ukrainians and considered themselves Ukrainian.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Just a reminder that the Donbas never voted, never even informally raised joining Russia as an issue, and was NOT majority "Ethnic Russian" in 2014.Redbrickbear said:ron.reagan said:I expect Russia to give away some land if native language has anything to do with thisRedbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]
Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?
Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian
Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians
[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]
For the record....Crimea was never Ukrainian....go back and look at the Census from the days long before the USSR
Even 130 years ago Ukrainians were not even close to being a majority there
[The 1897 Russian Empire Census, Crimean Tatars continued to form a slight plurality (35%) of Crimea's still largely rural population, but there were large numbers of Russians (33%) and Ukrainians (11%), as well as smaller numbers of Germans, Jews (including Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites), Bulgarians and Belarusians]
Borders all over the world would be redraw if everyone could chose who they wanted to be in a political union with.
Of course DC would not like to see that at home
Kyiv does not want that right now.
And Moscow does not want that.
I am starting to see a pattern where centralized States fear letting people actually vote and leave and form new political unions....
1. True, and they will unfortunately never get a chance to do so in a open and fair election.
The powers that be in Kyiv (and DC behind them) have no desire to see an election of that kind in Donbas and Crimea
Moscow at this point probably does not either
2.
[The Donbas is a predominately Russophone region. According to the 2001 census, Russian is the main language of 74.9% of residents in Donetsk Oblast and 68.8% in Luhansk Oblast.]
And this opens another can of worms, but the reason why a majority spoke Russian is literally hundreds of years of intense periodic forced Russiafication.
I agree with you nobody wants a separate election for the East. From Ukraine's persepective, Russia killed, imprisoned or removed the Ukrainians, and the war scattered more.
From Russia's perspective, its indiscriminate bombings have turned previously pro-Russian folks away.
sombear said:Language, yes, but they still were ethnic Ukrainians and considered themselves Ukrainian.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Just a reminder that the Donbas never voted, never even informally raised joining Russia as an issue, and was NOT majority "Ethnic Russian" in 2014.Redbrickbear said:ron.reagan said:I expect Russia to give away some land if native language has anything to do with thisRedbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]
Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?
Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian
Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians
[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]
For the record....Crimea was never Ukrainian....go back and look at the Census from the days long before the USSR
Even 130 years ago Ukrainians were not even close to being a majority there
[The 1897 Russian Empire Census, Crimean Tatars continued to form a slight plurality (35%) of Crimea's still largely rural population, but there were large numbers of Russians (33%) and Ukrainians (11%), as well as smaller numbers of Germans, Jews (including Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites), Bulgarians and Belarusians]
Borders all over the world would be redraw if everyone could chose who they wanted to be in a political union with.
Of course DC would not like to see that at home
Kyiv does not want that right now.
And Moscow does not want that.
I am starting to see a pattern where centralized States fear letting people actually vote and leave and form new political unions....
1. True, and they will unfortunately never get a chance to do so in a open and fair election.
The powers that be in Kyiv (and DC behind them) have no desire to see an election of that kind in Donbas and Crimea
Moscow at this point probably does not either
2.
[The Donbas is a predominately Russophone region. According to the 2001 census, Russian is the main language of 74.9% of residents in Donetsk Oblast and 68.8% in Luhansk Oblast.]
And this opens another can of worms, but the reason why a majority spoke Russian is literally hundreds of years of intense periodic forced Russiafication.
I agree with you nobody wants a separate election for the East. From Ukraine's persepective, Russia killed, imprisoned or removed the Ukrainians, and the war scattered more.
From Russia's perspective, its indiscriminate bombings have turned previously pro-Russian folks away.
1. That goes both ways....people who might mark down that they speak Ukrainian but feel they are ethnic Russian
We can not forget that the Party of Regions (the more pro-Russian party) was the preferred party in those areas.
By like 90% of the electorate in many cases. (no American State votes for the Democratic party at 90% or the GOP)
2. And maybe the bombing and war has turn the people of Donbas away from supporting Moscow....its possible.
Or maybe the war and struggle has intensified their bond with Russia and made them dislike Kyiv and Ukraine even more.
Only a election can tell us that.
ron.reagan said:We'd be changing countries every 4 years. Although I don't have an issue with a law letting you leave if you get something like 80% of the vote in an annual election over 5-10 years. It should be very difficult to leave but not require a civil war every time a population evolves into a new culture.Redbrickbear said:ron.reagan said:I expect Russia to give away some land if native language has anything to do with thisRedbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]
Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?
Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian
Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians
[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]
For the record....Crimea was never Ukrainian....go back and look at the Census from the days long before the USSR
Even 130 years ago Ukrainians were not even close to being a majority there
[The 1897 Russian Empire Census, Crimean Tatars continued to form a slight plurality (35%) of Crimea's still largely rural population, but there were large numbers of Russians (33%) and Ukrainians (11%), as well as smaller numbers of Germans, Jews (including Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites), Bulgarians and Belarusians]
Borders all over the world would be redraw if everyone could chose who they wanted to be in a political union with.
Of course DC would not like to see that at home
Kyiv does not want that right now.
And Moscow does not want that.
I am starting to see a pattern where centralized States fear letting people actually vote and leave and form new political unions....
A very reasonable and civilized approach to the issue
Sustained plebiscites over a decade
1. The polls told a far different story. A strong majority of Donbas considered themselves "Ukrainian," and that includes all speakers. Far more Russian speakers considered themselves Ukrainian than the converse.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Language, yes, but they still were ethnic Ukrainians and considered themselves Ukrainian.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Just a reminder that the Donbas never voted, never even informally raised joining Russia as an issue, and was NOT majority "Ethnic Russian" in 2014.Redbrickbear said:ron.reagan said:I expect Russia to give away some land if native language has anything to do with thisRedbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]
Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?
Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian
Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians
[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]
For the record....Crimea was never Ukrainian....go back and look at the Census from the days long before the USSR
Even 130 years ago Ukrainians were not even close to being a majority there
[The 1897 Russian Empire Census, Crimean Tatars continued to form a slight plurality (35%) of Crimea's still largely rural population, but there were large numbers of Russians (33%) and Ukrainians (11%), as well as smaller numbers of Germans, Jews (including Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites), Bulgarians and Belarusians]
Borders all over the world would be redraw if everyone could chose who they wanted to be in a political union with.
Of course DC would not like to see that at home
Kyiv does not want that right now.
And Moscow does not want that.
I am starting to see a pattern where centralized States fear letting people actually vote and leave and form new political unions....
1. True, and they will unfortunately never get a chance to do so in a open and fair election.
The powers that be in Kyiv (and DC behind them) have no desire to see an election of that kind in Donbas and Crimea
Moscow at this point probably does not either
2.
[The Donbas is a predominately Russophone region. According to the 2001 census, Russian is the main language of 74.9% of residents in Donetsk Oblast and 68.8% in Luhansk Oblast.]
And this opens another can of worms, but the reason why a majority spoke Russian is literally hundreds of years of intense periodic forced Russiafication.
I agree with you nobody wants a separate election for the East. From Ukraine's persepective, Russia killed, imprisoned or removed the Ukrainians, and the war scattered more.
From Russia's perspective, its indiscriminate bombings have turned previously pro-Russian folks away.
1. That goes both ways....people who might mark down that they speak Ukrainian but feel they are ethnic Russian
We can not forget that the Party of Regions (the more pro-Russian party) was the preferred party in those areas.
By like 90% of the electorate in many cases. (no American State votes for the Democratic party at 90% or the GOP)
2. And maybe the bombing and war has turn the people of Donbas away from supporting Moscow....its possible.
Or maybe the war and struggle has intensified their bond with Russia and made them dislike Kyiv and Ukraine even more.
Only a election can tell us that.
Yes, I've conceded, because it's well-documented, that Eastern Ukrainians wanted to maintain good relations with Russia. But it's also well-documented that even the most extreme members of the POR never supported leaving Ukraine or joining Russia. In fact, leading up to 2014, the POR openly supported the EU economic deal in similar numbers to its opposition.
2. I don't pretend to know. I was making an argument on why Russia might not want a vote either. And if I had to guess, I'd still say Russia would be more inclined to want a vote than Ukraine. And I don't believe any election in the East would be legitimate right now.
sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Language, yes, but they still were ethnic Ukrainians and considered themselves Ukrainian.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Just a reminder that the Donbas never voted, never even informally raised joining Russia as an issue, and was NOT majority "Ethnic Russian" in 2014.Redbrickbear said:ron.reagan said:I expect Russia to give away some land if native language has anything to do with thisRedbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]
Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?
Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian
Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians
[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]
For the record....Crimea was never Ukrainian....go back and look at the Census from the days long before the USSR
Even 130 years ago Ukrainians were not even close to being a majority there
[The 1897 Russian Empire Census, Crimean Tatars continued to form a slight plurality (35%) of Crimea's still largely rural population, but there were large numbers of Russians (33%) and Ukrainians (11%), as well as smaller numbers of Germans, Jews (including Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites), Bulgarians and Belarusians]
Borders all over the world would be redraw if everyone could chose who they wanted to be in a political union with.
Of course DC would not like to see that at home
Kyiv does not want that right now.
And Moscow does not want that.
I am starting to see a pattern where centralized States fear letting people actually vote and leave and form new political unions....
1. True, and they will unfortunately never get a chance to do so in a open and fair election.
The powers that be in Kyiv (and DC behind them) have no desire to see an election of that kind in Donbas and Crimea
Moscow at this point probably does not either
2.
[The Donbas is a predominately Russophone region. According to the 2001 census, Russian is the main language of 74.9% of residents in Donetsk Oblast and 68.8% in Luhansk Oblast.]
And this opens another can of worms, but the reason why a majority spoke Russian is literally hundreds of years of intense periodic forced Russiafication.
I agree with you nobody wants a separate election for the East. From Ukraine's persepective, Russia killed, imprisoned or removed the Ukrainians, and the war scattered more.
From Russia's perspective, its indiscriminate bombings have turned previously pro-Russian folks away.
1. That goes both ways....people who might mark down that they speak Ukrainian but feel they are ethnic Russian
We can not forget that the Party of Regions (the more pro-Russian party) was the preferred party in those areas.
By like 90% of the electorate in many cases. (no American State votes for the Democratic party at 90% or the GOP)
2. And maybe the bombing and war has turn the people of Donbas away from supporting Moscow....its possible.
Or maybe the war and struggle has intensified their bond with Russia and made them dislike Kyiv and Ukraine even more.
Only a election can tell us that.
2. I don't pretend to know. I was making an argument on why Russia might not want a vote either. And if I had to guess, I'd still say Russia would be more inclined to want a vote than Ukraine. And I don't believe any election in the East would be legitimate right now.
I agree that it is not in the interests of Kyiv or Moscow to hold a real vote in Donbas or Crimea
Since they have both sent so much money and so many lives that they can not risk a real vote that might not go the way they want
Using your logic San Diego, Rio Grande Valley and Miami should all be given to other Nations.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism. The English have been in Crimea forever, should they claim it?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]
Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?
Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian
Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians
[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]
So were the Goths and the Greeks
Hopefully we are dealing with facts on the ground and real life demographic issues....not ancient history.
Donbas and Crimea are super majority ethnic russian today....do you want them expelled?
And if so how would you accomplish this?
After all you are a big Israel fan.....no real presence of Jews in Israel in the 1800s.
I know you would not be in favor of expelling the Jews from modern Israel were they now form a majority of the population.
[Palestine in 1850 had about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews]
[In October 2024, Israel's population was 10,027,000, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics , 78.6% of the population was Jewish, and 21.4% was Arab]
FLBear5630 said:Using your logic San Diego, Rio Grande Valley and Miami should all be given to other Nations.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism. The English have been in Crimea forever, should they claim it?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]
Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?
Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian
Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians
[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]
So were the Goths and the Greeks
Hopefully we are dealing with facts on the ground and real life demographic issues....not ancient history.
Donbas and Crimea are super majority ethnic russian today....do you want them expelled?
And if so how would you accomplish this?
After all you are a big Israel fan.....no real presence of Jews in Israel in the 1800s.
I know you would not be in favor of expelling the Jews from modern Israel were they now form a majority of the population.
[Palestine in 1850 had about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews]
[In October 2024, Israel's population was 10,027,000, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics , 78.6% of the population was Jewish, and 21.4% was Arab]
Well it's true those regions belong to the USA because they were won in war and settled with Anglos (something you seem to hate that Russia did in parts of Ukraine against the tartars and ottomans…won wars and settled Russians)
And of course demographics are destiny
In the future it's possible those areas might not belong to the USA….unless of course you want to expel millions of Hispanics or use huge amounts of violence to keep them inside a political union they may no longer wish to be inside of…
It is more likely the northeast won't belong to the US. There is no reason the hispanics would give up a country they will be runningRedbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Using your logic San Diego, Rio Grande Valley and Miami should all be given to other Nations.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism. The English have been in Crimea forever, should they claim it?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]
Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?
Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian
Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians
[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]
So were the Goths and the Greeks
Hopefully we are dealing with facts on the ground and real life demographic issues....not ancient history.
Donbas and Crimea are super majority ethnic russian today....do you want them expelled?
And if so how would you accomplish this?
After all you are a big Israel fan.....no real presence of Jews in Israel in the 1800s.
I know you would not be in favor of expelling the Jews from modern Israel were they now form a majority of the population.
[Palestine in 1850 had about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews]
[In October 2024, Israel's population was 10,027,000, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics , 78.6% of the population was Jewish, and 21.4% was Arab]
Well it's true those regions belong to the USA because they were won in war and settled with Anglos (something you seem to hate that Russia did in parts of Ukraine against the tartars and ottomans…won wars and settled Russians)
And of course demographics are destiny
In the future it's possible those areas might not belong to the USA….unless of course you want to expel millions of Hispanics or use huge amounts of violence to keep the inside a political union they may no longer wish to be inside of…
ron.reagan said:It is more likely the northeast won't belong to the US. There is no reason the hispanics would give up a country they will be runningRedbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Using your logic San Diego, Rio Grande Valley and Miami should all be given to other Nations.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism. The English have been in Crimea forever, should they claim it?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]
Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?
Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian
Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians
[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]
So were the Goths and the Greeks
Hopefully we are dealing with facts on the ground and real life demographic issues....not ancient history.
Donbas and Crimea are super majority ethnic russian today....do you want them expelled?
And if so how would you accomplish this?
After all you are a big Israel fan.....no real presence of Jews in Israel in the 1800s.
I know you would not be in favor of expelling the Jews from modern Israel were they now form a majority of the population.
[Palestine in 1850 had about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews]
[In October 2024, Israel's population was 10,027,000, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics , 78.6% of the population was Jewish, and 21.4% was Arab]
Well it's true those regions belong to the USA because they were won in war and settled with Anglos (something you seem to hate that Russia did in parts of Ukraine against the tartars and ottomans…won wars and settled Russians)
And of course demographics are destiny
In the future it's possible those areas might not belong to the USA….unless of course you want to expel millions of Hispanics or use huge amounts of violence to keep the inside a political union they may no longer wish to be inside of…
Certainly possible
You never know what the future holds
And historical New England (and not the South) was the hot bed of secessionist sentiment in the USA
Years ago my foreman Santos told me that the Mexicans were going to get California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado 'back'.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Using your logic San Diego, Rio Grande Valley and Miami should all be given to other Nations.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:The Russians in Crimea were shipped or migrated to work the Naval base. The Russian gentrified these areas. Look at the population pre-Communism. The English have been in Crimea forever, should they claim it?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:LOL. "never."Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski slams Russia’s Ambassador to the UN at the GA:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 24, 2025
“Ukraine isn’t as the Russian ambassador said, a ‘project.’ It has a longer history than Russia. It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It has a language, identity & its own aspirations” pic.twitter.com/Rfs4iVcy68
"It has been a member of the UN longer than Russia. It (Ukraine) has a language, identity & its own aspirations"
The Polish Ambassador is absolutely right
But he forgets that a least a 1/3rd of Ukraine was never culturally, ethnically, and historically part of the Ukrainian Nation.
And that Kyiv is still fighting a war to try and pull people back into a Union with Ukraine who don't want to be part of that Nation
You need to go back and read your history again........
I just finished [The Cossacks: The History and Legacy of the Legendary Slavic Warriors]
Got a book I should read that proves that Tatar Muslim inhabited Crimea...later ethnic Russian inhabited Crimea is somehow a long term part of the Ukrainian Nation?
Especially since its was not until 1954 that Soviet dictator Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
Plus....[According to the 2014 census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% Crimean Tatar; 3.7% Tatar; and 3.3% Ukrainian
Or how about the Donbas? Sparsely populated until the Russian Empire got some Scots and Welsh businessmen/experts to come in and develop the coal industry....itself worked mostly by ethnic Russians
[The rise of the coal industry led to a population boom in the region, largely driven by Russian settlers]
So were the Goths and the Greeks
Hopefully we are dealing with facts on the ground and real life demographic issues....not ancient history.
Donbas and Crimea are super majority ethnic russian today....do you want them expelled?
And if so how would you accomplish this?
After all you are a big Israel fan.....no real presence of Jews in Israel in the 1800s.
I know you would not be in favor of expelling the Jews from modern Israel were they now form a majority of the population.
[Palestine in 1850 had about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews]
[In October 2024, Israel's population was 10,027,000, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics , 78.6% of the population was Jewish, and 21.4% was Arab]
Well it's true those regions belong to the USA because they were won in war and settled with Anglos (something you seem to hate that Russia did in parts of Ukraine against the tartars and ottomans…won wars and settled Russians)
And of course demographics are destiny
In the future it's possible those areas might not belong to the USA….unless of course you want to expel millions of Hispanics or use huge amounts of violence to keep the inside a political union they may no longer wish to be inside of…
Of course the fact that Mexico 'took' the land from Spain did not matter.
The fact that Mexico had the land less than 30 years before the US conquered the land didn't matter either.
Said ' We are going to breed you right out of the country'.
Told him he was right; but that it wouldn't matter.
Because at that point the area would be just as ****ed up as the rest of Mexico.
I gave facts, he gave an opinion. Literally parroted a Kremlin talking point. But I'm not shocked you can't understand that.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:You can tout whatever Kremlin talking point you need, but that's who they are militarily.Sam Lowry said:Incorrect.ATL Bear said:Tanks are an offensive ground force weapon. The fact you can use them in a defensive battle tactic doesn't change their function.Sam Lowry said:That is all part of being a regional defensive force. What it's not is a force that threatens Europe.FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Tanks are an essential part of the Russian defensive strategy. They use them for rapid counterattacks after drawing the enemy into prepared positions. This is one of the ways they've depleted Ukraine's manpower and equipment so successfully over the last three years.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.Redbrickbear said:ron.reagan said:It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefieldhistorian said:
Your takes are always funny
Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe.
You live in a delusional world. I don't doubt you believe it. Putin, 12k tanks and 2 invasions in 10 years does not add up to defense.
Russia has a very limited naval expeditionary force, but their ground forces built around tanks, long range bombers, air superiority fighters, mobile missile systems, drones, and cyber warfare are very much intended as an expeditionary force. Deterrence forces (long range nuclear, non nuclear, and hypersonic missiles) along with anti aircraft and missile systems are Russia's primary mechanism for defense.
Every opinion and fact you don't like is not a "kremlin talking point"
But I should not be surprised to see you retreat into these verbal defenses
You read a book and think you understand a country. I mean histories have never been manipulated for political advantage…Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Impossible to discuss because of your complete lack of comprehension and a repeat of the same inane talking points and incorrect characterization of what is written. Good grief…Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:1. I specifically said an adversarial relationship. If Israel, France, UK, etc. became adversarial they would be viewed as an existential threat, especially with a history of waving the threat of nuclear strike at us.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:They have an equivalent nuclear arsenal and an adversarial relationship with us. Heck, you and your ilk have argued to not escalate the Ukraine War due to that very existential threat! Who's crazy again??Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:That's the myth you tell yourself. Internal political corruption and dysfunction are real concerns (not to mention standard fare in democracies), but they do not rise to the level of existential threats posed by powerful foreign adversaries, including non state actors. Russia.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Perhaps you forgot the massive military downsizing that was occurring in the 90s through 9/11. We became the wealthiest most powerful military and economy in conjunction with our ramp up post 9/11 and the reality of a unipolar world.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:You are such a simpleton. We literally lost Trillions, have put significant restraints around our personal freedoms, built giant security apparatuses,Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
We were brought to our knees by people living in caves from all purposes 4th world countries .
Not even close to being true
The USA was and remained the greatest military and economic power on earth after the 9/11 attacks.
America then easily crushed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and drove the Taliban from power.
When even easily invaded a decent size country like Iraq and toppled its Baathist government
(The long decades insurgent war to remake Afghanistan & Iraq being a different issue)
You really do seem to think that the USA and America power is a fragile thing
And you are such a flip flopping jerk who loves wars aboard and the massive security State.....(as well as proxy wars with Russia) and then turns around dares complain about the cost!
Hypocrite you are!
And while I hate the trillions lost....as well as thousands of dead Americans in this wars....that was because of the long term wars of occupation and "nation-building" that your side loves.
That was not the direct result of 9/11....the initial conflicts were short and mostly inexpensive...(.the wars of occupation were part of utopian fantasies and a deliberate choice from our Neo-Con and Liberals elites who thought they could transform Middle Eastern Muslim tribal peoples in to Manhattan progressives )
And while our leaders in DC (who you trust now on the Ukraine war) led us into disaster in the long term occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.....they did no fundamentally long term harm the USA
The United States in 2025....just as in 2001....remains the richest and most militarily powerful Nation on Earth.
Despite the failure of the Iraq and Afghan occupation/re-construction wars
Al Qaeda and its attacks no more changed that than did Sioux attacks on the frontier in the 1860s
You think I'm a hypocrite, but I'm worried about the macro position we put ourselves in and the necessity to maintain it now or risk significant economic and geopolitical risk. When that balance is altered, Americans will lean into overbearing government even more.
But you still don't understand and I can't explain it any clearer. You are focused on a disparate micro evaluation. The repercussions of our actions went well beyond our defeat of al Qaeda (who is still very active FYI) or ISIS. And the struggle for power has never ceased with Iran, Russia, or China. And once again, I wasn't even referencing our nation building dalliances. That's completely separate.
Our elites are driving us into debt no doubt….but that is an internal problem of our corrupt political class
Has very little to do with external adversaries
9/11 hurt us becomes of our leaders….nothing Al Qaeda could do could really hurt us
You don't understand that the problem is internal and not external.
The people who can bring down the USA are not hiding in caves in Afghanistan or in Moscow
They are in DC (and the other USA power centers)Cumulative US foreign aid 1946 to 2023.
— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) December 24, 2024
Annually we are now giving away over $63 billion officially.
If you include Ukraine, It around $200 billion in the past two years, so the annual spending is closer to $160+ billion per year in 2023 and 2024.
We have a $2 trillion annual… pic.twitter.com/ZF2j6F84B5
Russia is not an existential threat to the USA
That is almost as crazy a thing to say as your contention that Al Qaeda "brought the USA to its knees"
But I am coming to understand your extremist view on promoting war with Russia over Ukraine.
You honestly think somehow Russia is an existential threat to America
1. Is every country that has nukes an existential threat to the USA?
How about Israel?
The idea that a country we have never had a war with....and one that we actually were allied in two different world wars with....is now an "existential threat" is a scary idea your are pushing.
2. I have also never used the term "existential threat" with russia or nuclear war.....I did say it was beyond stupid to fight a proxy war with Russia over a long time client state of theirs.....a war that could turn nuclear an be a disaster for us and Western Civilization. Not worth the risk at all.
I would feel the same about fighting a nuclear war with France over the Belgium
You are ok with the risk because you have already predetermined that the Russian Federation already posses some kind of "existential threat" to the United States
And let's not memory hole the fact we've fought many wars with Russia; big, small, and non military. But you'll be intentionally obtuse and say it wasn't a massive direct battle. We fought alongside China against Japan. Does that mean they shouldn't be considered an existential threat?
2.You either don't understand what existential threat means, or you're dug too deep into your opinion to admit that's what you're positing, regardless of whether you have or have not used the words.
Russia does pose an existential threat to the U.S. How we manage that risk is the debate, not whether they are or aren't. And it's not as if that can't be changed (Germany and Japan were once). Maybe Trump will succeed at quelling that where others have failed.
1. You again act like its a forgone conclusion that conflict with Russia is needed or unavoidable
And even if Israel became adversarial to us and our interests that does not mean they form an "existential threat" to the powerful United States
2. We have never fought any wars against the Russian Federation (until this very stupid proxy war that Obama and Biden got us into)
You constantly conflate the Soviet & Communist USSR to the modern nationalist Russian Federation....two different entities, two very different economic systems, two very different State ideologies
Of course you do this to try and pull on the narrative that somehow we have had a long history of conflict with the Russian people and need to continue to view them as enemies and "an existential threat"
3. I think is been proven on here you have no idea what "existential threat" means or at least no idea how to use it correctly in English.....every State that has nukes is not an existential threat to the USA...and you have not proven in any way that Russia desires the complete destruction of the USA or is even attempting it
So far they are simply trying to hold on to their long term sphere of influence around their border lands.
If you think Russian is an existential threat to the USA.....gosh what must they feel like as they see a hostile Military alliance led by DC come creeping up on their borders and see a Nation on the other side of the world fund a proxy war against them?
I feel 100% the same way
You have already made up your mind that Russia is an "existential threat" to the USA and that conflict with them is unavoidable.
And that proxy wars against them are a good policy.
Not sure there is anything else to discuss with you......since you don't provide any new insights and you have not even bothered to read up on the history of the region.
Ever been to Russia? Ever interacted with Russians? Conducted business there? Met with government officials? Keep living your life through your book club and bot filled X feed.
And I didn't "make up my mind" Russia is an existential threat. It is by its nature that. The nature of the relationship, the military capabilities and policies, and its words and deeds. I hope we can deescalate from that, but we are there now.
ATL Bear said:You read a book and think you understand a country. I mean histories have never been manipulated for political advantage…Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Impossible to discuss because of your complete lack of comprehension and a repeat of the same inane talking points and incorrect characterization of what is written. Good grief…Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:1. I specifically said an adversarial relationship. If Israel, France, UK, etc. became adversarial they would be viewed as an existential threat, especially with a history of waving the threat of nuclear strike at us.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:They have an equivalent nuclear arsenal and an adversarial relationship with us. Heck, you and your ilk have argued to not escalate the Ukraine War due to that very existential threat! Who's crazy again??Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:That's the myth you tell yourself. Internal political corruption and dysfunction are real concerns (not to mention standard fare in democracies), but they do not rise to the level of existential threats posed by powerful foreign adversaries, including non state actors. Russia.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Perhaps you forgot the massive military downsizing that was occurring in the 90s through 9/11. We became the wealthiest most powerful military and economy in conjunction with our ramp up post 9/11 and the reality of a unipolar world.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:You are such a simpleton. We literally lost Trillions, have put significant restraints around our personal freedoms, built giant security apparatuses,Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
We were brought to our knees by people living in caves from all purposes 4th world countries .
Not even close to being true
The USA was and remained the greatest military and economic power on earth after the 9/11 attacks.
America then easily crushed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and drove the Taliban from power.
When even easily invaded a decent size country like Iraq and toppled its Baathist government
(The long decades insurgent war to remake Afghanistan & Iraq being a different issue)
You really do seem to think that the USA and America power is a fragile thing
And you are such a flip flopping jerk who loves wars aboard and the massive security State.....(as well as proxy wars with Russia) and then turns around dares complain about the cost!
Hypocrite you are!
And while I hate the trillions lost....as well as thousands of dead Americans in this wars....that was because of the long term wars of occupation and "nation-building" that your side loves.
That was not the direct result of 9/11....the initial conflicts were short and mostly inexpensive...(.the wars of occupation were part of utopian fantasies and a deliberate choice from our Neo-Con and Liberals elites who thought they could transform Middle Eastern Muslim tribal peoples in to Manhattan progressives )
And while our leaders in DC (who you trust now on the Ukraine war) led us into disaster in the long term occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.....they did no fundamentally long term harm the USA
The United States in 2025....just as in 2001....remains the richest and most militarily powerful Nation on Earth.
Despite the failure of the Iraq and Afghan occupation/re-construction wars
Al Qaeda and its attacks no more changed that than did Sioux attacks on the frontier in the 1860s
You think I'm a hypocrite, but I'm worried about the macro position we put ourselves in and the necessity to maintain it now or risk significant economic and geopolitical risk. When that balance is altered, Americans will lean into overbearing government even more.
But you still don't understand and I can't explain it any clearer. You are focused on a disparate micro evaluation. The repercussions of our actions went well beyond our defeat of al Qaeda (who is still very active FYI) or ISIS. And the struggle for power has never ceased with Iran, Russia, or China. And once again, I wasn't even referencing our nation building dalliances. That's completely separate.
Our elites are driving us into debt no doubt….but that is an internal problem of our corrupt political class
Has very little to do with external adversaries
9/11 hurt us becomes of our leaders….nothing Al Qaeda could do could really hurt us
You don't understand that the problem is internal and not external.
The people who can bring down the USA are not hiding in caves in Afghanistan or in Moscow
They are in DC (and the other USA power centers)Cumulative US foreign aid 1946 to 2023.
— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) December 24, 2024
Annually we are now giving away over $63 billion officially.
If you include Ukraine, It around $200 billion in the past two years, so the annual spending is closer to $160+ billion per year in 2023 and 2024.
We have a $2 trillion annual… pic.twitter.com/ZF2j6F84B5
Russia is not an existential threat to the USA
That is almost as crazy a thing to say as your contention that Al Qaeda "brought the USA to its knees"
But I am coming to understand your extremist view on promoting war with Russia over Ukraine.
You honestly think somehow Russia is an existential threat to America
1. Is every country that has nukes an existential threat to the USA?
How about Israel?
The idea that a country we have never had a war with....and one that we actually were allied in two different world wars with....is now an "existential threat" is a scary idea your are pushing.
2. I have also never used the term "existential threat" with russia or nuclear war.....I did say it was beyond stupid to fight a proxy war with Russia over a long time client state of theirs.....a war that could turn nuclear an be a disaster for us and Western Civilization. Not worth the risk at all.
I would feel the same about fighting a nuclear war with France over the Belgium
You are ok with the risk because you have already predetermined that the Russian Federation already posses some kind of "existential threat" to the United States
And let's not memory hole the fact we've fought many wars with Russia; big, small, and non military. But you'll be intentionally obtuse and say it wasn't a massive direct battle. We fought alongside China against Japan. Does that mean they shouldn't be considered an existential threat?
2.You either don't understand what existential threat means, or you're dug too deep into your opinion to admit that's what you're positing, regardless of whether you have or have not used the words.
Russia does pose an existential threat to the U.S. How we manage that risk is the debate, not whether they are or aren't. And it's not as if that can't be changed (Germany and Japan were once). Maybe Trump will succeed at quelling that where others have failed.
1. You again act like its a forgone conclusion that conflict with Russia is needed or unavoidable
And even if Israel became adversarial to us and our interests that does not mean they form an "existential threat" to the powerful United States
2. We have never fought any wars against the Russian Federation (until this very stupid proxy war that Obama and Biden got us into)
You constantly conflate the Soviet & Communist USSR to the modern nationalist Russian Federation....two different entities, two very different economic systems, two very different State ideologies
Of course you do this to try and pull on the narrative that somehow we have had a long history of conflict with the Russian people and need to continue to view them as enemies and "an existential threat"
3. I think is been proven on here you have no idea what "existential threat" means or at least no idea how to use it correctly in English.....every State that has nukes is not an existential threat to the USA...and you have not proven in any way that Russia desires the complete destruction of the USA or is even attempting it
So far they are simply trying to hold on to their long term sphere of influence around their border lands.
If you think Russian is an existential threat to the USA.....gosh what must they feel like as they see a hostile Military alliance led by DC come creeping up on their borders and see a Nation on the other side of the world fund a proxy war against them?
I feel 100% the same way
You have already made up your mind that Russia is an "existential threat" to the USA and that conflict with them is unavoidable.
And that proxy wars against them are a good policy.
Not sure there is anything else to discuss with you......since you don't provide any new insights and you have not even bothered to read up on the history of the region.
Ever been to Russia? Ever interacted with Russians? Conducted business there? Met with government officials? Keep living your life through your book club and bot filled X feed.
And I didn't "make up my mind" Russia is an existential threat..
I have read more than one book about the region
But its true I have never been to Russia or done business deals with Russians
But you seem to be mistaken if you think I am under any illusion about the kind of society Russia is (it's not good…alcoholism, abortion, corruption) or the kind of kleptocrats in Moscow running things.
But it's not an existential threat
And not worth potential wider war to pull their satellite states out from their orbit
No, that is not how their military is designed. It is vastly different from its Soviet predecessor.ATL Bear said:Well that's how their military is designed. You can tout whatever Kremlin talking point you need, but that's who they are militarily. Their decision to move from rapid advance early in the war to slow, war of attrition doesn't change the nature or purpose of their forces.Sam Lowry said:Incorrect.ATL Bear said:Tanks are an offensive ground force weapon. The fact you can use them in a defensive battle tactic doesn't change their function.Sam Lowry said:That is all part of being a regional defensive force. What it's not is a force that threatens Europe.FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Tanks are an essential part of the Russian defensive strategy. They use them for rapid counterattacks after drawing the enemy into prepared positions. This is one of the ways they've depleted Ukraine's manpower and equipment so successfully over the last three years.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:The Russian army is highly competent at what it's designed to do, which is to defend Russia and its bordering regions. It's not in a posture that would enable it to attack Europe, and if that ever changed we would know years in advance. It's not something they could prepare overnight.Redbrickbear said:ron.reagan said:It wouldn't be the first time Russia was completely ignorant of the battlefieldhistorian said:
Your takes are always funny
Russia is incompetent on the battlefield (they are)...but are also going to run through Warsaw & Berlin on their way to conquer Paris.....lol
Russia tank divisions were built to invade Europe.
You live in a delusional world. I don't doubt you believe it. Putin, 12k tanks and 2 invasions in 10 years does not add up to defense.
Russia has a very limited naval expeditionary force, but their ground forces built around tanks, long range bombers, air superiority fighters, mobile missile systems, drones, and cyber warfare are very much intended as an expeditionary force. Deterrence forces (long range nuclear, non nuclear, and hypersonic missiles) along with anti aircraft and missile systems are Russia's primary mechanism for defense.
Russian doctrines serve two main purposes -- to define the parameters of military action and to define what the military needs in order to accomplish its goals. Our own military understands this and analyzes Russian doctrinal statements accordingly. To refer to them as "Kremlin talking points," as if they were concocted for your benefit, is to misunderstand the subject entirely.
Russia's military is currently designed for regional defense and nuclear deterrence. This is not controversial. Any politician who tells you otherwise is playing on your fears just like they did with Afghanistan and Iraq.