What part of 2014 do you not understand?

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

thales said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

USAID played a critical role in overturning the results of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election between the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko and pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. pic.twitter.com/AnbMEy85Io

— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) February 4, 2025

---

Glad this guy is breaking news that was well known over 20 years ago!

The fight was very much public: Russia and its allies on one wide, the Wes on the other.

.

---

Most Western countries in Europe never wanted this fight.

Most American either for that matter

Nor was the U.S. government open with our people that USAID and other groups were flooding Ukraine with tax payer money to support coups and regime change operations

---

sadly, Russia did want this fight, so it landed in our lap anyway.

---

lol Nothing landed in our lap

The powers that be in DC spent billions of tax payer dollars and 20+ years getting us into this mess

---

uh, no. the taxpayers did not spend billions to foment instability in Ukraine. Russia did that. We did the exact opposite.

There are things to criticize about our Ukraine policy over the last 20 years. But it is silly on every level to suggest that our actions forced Russia into a just war.

---

we have played the aggressor for the majority of the past 90 years so who are we to talk?

that and nato has slowly expanded since is creation and the ussr and then russia has been specifically excluded from it

they feel like they are being encroached upon - and they are

it is no different than communism spreading to cuba and our government throwing a fit when it did

---

lol Russia is being encroached upon only on the sense the number of countries they can invade goes down when NATO expands.


Zero chance Nato ever invades Russia, and Russia full well knows that

---

Had the USA lost the Cold War in 1991 and broken up leaving a rump American Federation that was 33% smaller in territory and with half the population….not to mention having to watch NATO collapse and the Warsaw pact expand to include all of Western Europe (our old sphere of influence )

DC leaders would probably be pretty upset

And they would get downright vicious if Russia then tied to expand its military alliance into Canada or Mexico and put military bases right on our borders

---

Again, we see the war policy opponents making stuff up to fit their template.

1) The USSR expanded alliances with states in Central America and we didn't invade them.

2) No one. Not one leader, advocated putting military bases in Ukraine.

3) For that matter, Nato had not put a single permanent base in any of the former Warsaw Pact states, specifically to avoid alarming Russia, to signal that admittance of those states was a "Russia shall not invade here" sign, not a springboard for and invasion of Russia. (And Russia knows that.)

4) on the day the war started in 2014, Ukraine was a Nato partner, JUST LIKE SWEDEN AND FINLAND.

5) Ukraine did not actually apply for membership until after Russia outright invaded in 2022.

The whole "Nato started it" is preposterously disingenuous bs, even more easily disprovable than the "Maidan was a USG sponsored coup" nonsense. Refusing to promise not to do something is not grounds for war. Prudent powers should never say what they will or will not do just to keep others happy. It's called "strategic ambiguity." Keep your opponent guessing. Make them prepare for every scenario, which forces them to disperse resources away from the more likely ones.

The premise of your argument is that we must coddle every Russian concern. How about we start demanding Russia coddle some of ours, like promising not to invade ANYT of their neighbors? Will you advocate going to war with them if they refuse to do so?

---

Just to expand on #4 and further demonstrate how ridiculous the NATO argument it, nobody in Ukraine even wanted NATO in 2014. Politicians were uniform in openly running against it. Russia turned Ukraine to NATO by invading it. It's just that simple.

---

Ukrainians didn't want a lot of things. They didn't want IMF "reforms." They didn't want the Maidan coup. They didn't want the Donbas war. What's ridiculous is pretending their wishes ever mattered.

It was widely predicted that NATO's ambitions in Ukraine would provoke Russia, and the simple fact is that's exactly what happened. Even Jens Stoltenberg himself admitted it. To claim otherwise is to rewrite history.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

---

Says the 5'4 comedian turned billon dollar welfare queen

What a massive suka this little Zelensky is

(Not to mention is saying that to a 6'2 former marine from Appalachia)

---

You'll like this one.

---

This reminds me of ice skating with my daughter last year. As we are black, a black guy comes up to us and tells us all the Jesus has done for him.

After his two bodies and 30 years in jail, me? I'm not interested in all the wisdom you should have had at 16.

Not to mention, France, Germany, and others essentially forever vetoed Ukraine NATO dreams in 2008.

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bingo

“Europe is going to have to pay
to defend itself!” 💥 pic.twitter.com/wrNA0FsRYp

— AGNEWSLIVE (@AMErikaNGIRLLL) March 2, 2025

---

If they do actually pay, which I highly doubt…then that means they could have been paying more all along.

---

The EU is one of the richest regions on earth

So we all know they can pay

And we all know they won't

They can live under the umbrella of US protection and not pay more than 2% GDP a year

---

Except we just showed them that US protection means nothing.

---

The U.S. has never failed to meet its security commitments and treaty obligations

(Ukraine is not in NATO and not an enrolled ally of the USA)

---

South Vietnam ?

---

Good point

But not a NATO member

---

Your initial comment was vague in regards to being NATO specific.

---

It was

And South Vietnam stands out of course as being a low point for us…..but it was a unique and long term intractable guerrilla war

But at the end of the day you are right and we didn't not re-enter the war as Hanoi conquered Saigon

---

All of the police actions or guerrilla wars have one thing in common, if you are not willing to occupy and rebuild for a good 50 years nation building does not work.

---

It does not work period.

Regardless how careful. soon many civilians are kiled and the survivors always hate you.

---

Categorically not true re: Vietnam.

sombear said:

---

Not to mention, France, Germany, and others essentially forever vetoed Ukraine NATO dreams in 2008.

---

France vetoing NATO membership for Ukraine in 2009

And now being the biggest saber rattler for European central army/European military integration is a strange one

Hard to know what game Paris is playing

sombear said:

---

What part of 2014 do you not understand?

---

The part where you think that the very politically divided country of Ukraine simply stopped being divided on the issue of NATO in 2014

Half the country wanted NATO membership for a long time....and half did not

There is no date that the whole country go on board with any position

The 2010 election....were NATO was a contested issue....ended up with one side winning 49.55% to the other sides 46.03%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

What part of 2014 do you not understand?

---

The part where you think that the very politically divided country of Ukraine simply stopped being divided on the issue of NATO in 2014

Half the country wanted NATO membership for a long time....and half did not

There is no date that the whole country go on board with any position

The 2010 election....were NATO was a contested issue....ended up with one side winning 49.55% to the other sides 46.03%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election

---

I dont think NATO was a contested campaign issue in 2010

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Sorry to play gotcha, but I just read the wiki you linked, and it says 12.5% supported NATO, so I actually understated the opposition . . . .

And, for the third time, I have never argued there was not debate about NATO in the early 2000s. Of course there was. There was debate on everything. Ukraine was struggling. Many doubted aligning with the west, but many were pissed at Russia's constant meddling. Virtually every Euro country has considered and hotly debated applying to NATO.

All that I've argued - and it's really not in dispute - is that:

(1) NATO itself (mainly France and Germany) basically took it off the table in 2008-2009

(2) No parties supported NATO in the 2010 campaign

(3) Ukraine government formally opposed it in 2010; and

(4) the public overwhelmingly opposed it until 2014.

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bingo

“Europe is going to have to pay
to defend itself!” 💥 pic.twitter.com/wrNA0FsRYp

— AGNEWSLIVE (@AMErikaNGIRLLL) March 2, 2025

---

If they do actually pay, which I highly doubt…then that means they could have been paying more all along.

---

The EU is one of the richest regions on earth

So we all know they can pay

And we all know they won't

They can live under the umbrella of US protection and not pay more than 2% GDP a year

---

Except we just showed them that US protection means nothing.

---

The U.S. has never failed to meet its security commitments and treaty obligations

(Ukraine is not in NATO and not an enrolled ally of the USA)

---

South Vietnam ?

---

Good point

But not a NATO member

---

Your initial comment was vague in regards to being NATO specific.

---

It was

And South Vietnam stands out of course as being a low point for us…..but it was a unique and long term intractable guerrilla war

But at the end of the day you are right and we didn't not re-enter the war as Hanoi conquered Saigon

---

All of the police actions or guerrilla wars have one thing in common, if you are not willing to occupy and rebuild for a good 50 years nation building does not work.

---

It does not work period.

Regardless how careful. soon many civilians are kiled and the survivors always hate you.

---

Categorically not true re: Vietnam.

---

Great to hear.

Guess that's why South Vietnam's morale was so strong after US firepower left.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

thales said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

USAID played a critical role in overturning the results of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election between the pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yuschenko and pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. pic.twitter.com/AnbMEy85Io

— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) February 4, 2025

---

Glad this guy is breaking news that was well known over 20 years ago!

The fight was very much public: Russia and its allies on one wide, the Wes on the other.

.

---

Most Western countries in Europe never wanted this fight.

Most American either for that matter

Nor was the U.S. government open with our people that USAID and other groups were flooding Ukraine with tax payer money to support coups and regime change operations

---

sadly, Russia did want this fight, so it landed in our lap anyway.

---

lol Nothing landed in our lap

The powers that be in DC spent billions of tax payer dollars and 20+ years getting us into this mess

---

uh, no. the taxpayers did not spend billions to foment instability in Ukraine. Russia did that. We did the exact opposite.

There are things to criticize about our Ukraine policy over the last 20 years. But it is silly on every level to suggest that our actions forced Russia into a just war.

---

we have played the aggressor for the majority of the past 90 years so who are we to talk?

that and nato has slowly expanded since is creation and the ussr and then russia has been specifically excluded from it

they feel like they are being encroached upon - and they are

it is no different than communism spreading to cuba and our government throwing a fit when it did

---

lol Russia is being encroached upon only on the sense the number of countries they can invade goes down when NATO expands.


Zero chance Nato ever invades Russia, and Russia full well knows that

---

Had the USA lost the Cold War in 1991 and broken up leaving a rump American Federation that was 33% smaller in territory and with half the population….not to mention having to watch NATO collapse and the Warsaw pact expand to include all of Western Europe (our old sphere of influence )

DC leaders would probably be pretty upset

And they would get downright vicious if Russia then tied to expand its military alliance into Canada or Mexico and put military bases right on our borders

---

Again, we see the war policy opponents making stuff up to fit their template.

1) The USSR expanded alliances with states in Central America and we didn't invade them.

2) No one. Not one leader, advocated putting military bases in Ukraine.

3) For that matter, Nato had not put a single permanent base in any of the former Warsaw Pact states, specifically to avoid alarming Russia, to signal that admittance of those states was a "Russia shall not invade here" sign, not a springboard for and invasion of Russia. (And Russia knows that.)

4) on the day the war started in 2014, Ukraine was a Nato partner, JUST LIKE SWEDEN AND FINLAND.

5) Ukraine did not actually apply for membership until after Russia outright invaded in 2022.

The whole "Nato started it" is preposterously disingenuous bs, even more easily disprovable than the "Maidan was a USG sponsored coup" nonsense. Refusing to promise not to do something is not grounds for war. Prudent powers should never say what they will or will not do just to keep others happy. It's called "strategic ambiguity." Keep your opponent guessing. Make them prepare for every scenario, which forces them to disperse resources away from the more likely ones.

The premise of your argument is that we must coddle every Russian concern. How about we start demanding Russia coddle some of ours, like promising not to invade ANYT of their neighbors? Will you advocate going to war with them if they refuse to do so?

---

Just to expand on #4 and further demonstrate how ridiculous the NATO argument it, nobody in Ukraine even wanted NATO in 2014. Politicians were uniform in openly running against it. Russia turned Ukraine to NATO by invading it. It's just that simple.

---

Ukrainians didn't want a lot of things. They didn't want IMF "reforms." They didn't want the Maidan coup. They didn't want the Donbas war. What's ridiculous is pretending their wishes ever mattered.

It was widely predicted that NATO's ambitions in Ukraine would provoke Russia, and the simple fact is that's exactly what happened. Even Jens Stoltenberg himself admitted it. To claim otherwise is to rewrite history.

---

Well, I mean, Rada and Pres candidates ran against it and the public opposed it overwhelmingly, so using it as an excuse is untenable.

---

The public was 60-70% opposed, and much of that opposition was in the eastern oblasts. After the fall of the Yanukovych government it was obvious how much their opinion counted. And in any case, Russia didn't mount a full-scale invasion until 2022.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Sorry to play gotcha, but I just read the wiki you linked, and it says 12.5% supported NATO, so I actually understated the opposition . . . .




(1) NATO itself (mainly France and Germany) basically took it off the table in 2008-2009

---

I have a hard time believing it was that low of support

and I still don't understand why France nixed the deal for Ukraine to join NATO

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Virtually every Euro country has considered and hotly debated applying to NATO.

---

And virtually every one eventually ended up joining. That's why this whole line of argument is basically meaningless. The fact that there was debate in no way means that it wasn't a genuine concern for the Russians.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Sorry to play gotcha, but I just read the wiki you linked, and it says 12.5% supported NATO, so I actually understated the opposition . . . .




(1) NATO itself (mainly France and Germany) basically took it off the table in 2008-2009

---

I have a hard time believing it was that low of support

and I still don't understand why France nixed the deal for Ukraine to join NATO

---

It's very interesting reading. I've read a fair amount about Bucharest 2008. There are multiple theories. But I think the most accurate is that they simply did not feel Ukraine met the criteria at that time - economic, political, or judicial - and they were concerned that more than 2/3 of Ukrainians opposed NATO.

---

Which is very different from saying it's off the table.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bingo

“Europe is going to have to pay
to defend itself!” 💥 pic.twitter.com/wrNA0FsRYp

— AGNEWSLIVE (@AMErikaNGIRLLL) March 2, 2025

---

You're looking at the newest signs of NATO's disintegration and still not getting it. Europe paying more means Europe having more independence.

---

What's wrong with Europe having more independence, when it means we are relieved of some of the financial burden of paying a disproportionate share of their defense? Why would we NOT want other Nato members to be capable of bearing a greater share of their own defense?

---

Because part of the reason for having NATO is to keep the Europeans in line with US policy and to keep them from fighting each other. I agree they should have more independence and that we have to adjust to a multi-polar world (who are you and what have you done with whiterock, by the way?) but I'm saying it may not look like you think it will.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Sorry to play gotcha, but I just read the wiki you linked, and it says 12.5% supported NATO, so I actually understated the opposition . . . .




(1) NATO itself (mainly France and Germany) basically took it off the table in 2008-2009

---

I have a hard time believing it was that low of support

and I still don't understand why France nixed the deal for Ukraine to join NATO

---

It's very interesting reading. I've read a fair amount about Bucharest 2008. There are multiple theories. But I think the most accurate is that they simply did not feel Ukraine met the criteria at that time - economic, political, or judicial - and they were concerned that more than 2/3 of Ukrainians opposed NATO.

---

Which is very different from saying it's off the table.

---

NATO is never totally off the table, not even for Russia. Countries apply, and NATO decides based on established criteria.

The point is that by ridiculously large margins, government and public opposition had stabilized, and NATO itself had rejected.

If some remote future NATO possibility was Russia's concern, then I don't know how anyone can justify the years of coercion and then the 2014 invasion.

Washington warned against “inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others," as they compromise national interest, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” You literal ass cancer.

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) March 3, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bingo

“Europe is going to have to pay
to defend itself!” 💥 pic.twitter.com/wrNA0FsRYp

— AGNEWSLIVE (@AMErikaNGIRLLL) March 2, 2025

---

You're looking at the newest signs of NATO's disintegration and still not getting it. Europe paying more means Europe having more independence.

---

What's wrong with Europe having more independence, when it means we are relieved of some of the financial burden of paying a disproportionate share of their defense? Why would we NOT want other Nato members to be capable of bearing a greater share of their own defense?

---

Because part of the reason for having NATO is to keep the Europeans in line with US policy and to keep them from fighting each other. I agree they should have more independence and that we have to adjust to a multi-polar world (who are you and what have you done with whiterock, by the way?) but I'm saying it may not look like you think it will.

---

"Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down" those were the words of Nato's first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, when explaining the aims behind the new military alliance

Doc Holliday said:

---

Washington warned against “inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others," as they compromise national interest, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” You literal ass cancer.

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) March 3, 2025

---

Kristol is such a strange guy

What does he mean by the America of Lincoln? I suppose he does not even know

He would hate that America and hate that kind of President

Lincoln was basically a pro-tariff, pro-expansion, American nationalist....who had little interest in Europe

Heck he even nearly went to war with the UK (and France)

[During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln came very close to going to war with Great Britain and France, primarily due to the "Trent Affair" where a Union captain captured Confederate diplomats on a British ship, causing a major diplomatic crisis that threatened to draw the European powers into the conflict]

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Virtually every Euro country has considered and hotly debated applying to NATO.

---

And virtually every one eventually ended up joining. That's why this whole line of argument is basically meaningless. The fact that there was debate in no way means that it wasn't a genuine concern for the Russians.

---

Why should anyone give a tinker's damn about Russian concerns....other than the several of you who insist Russia is some pure, white, Christian Mecca.

---

Because it could cost us an assload of money, go on too long, get a lot of young men killed and potential lead to NATO/Western troops on the ground.

I wish it was as simple as giving Ukraine money and they 100% will defeat Russia, but that's not the case. There's a lot of ways this could go very wrong.

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Virtually every Euro country has considered and hotly debated applying to NATO.

---

And virtually every one eventually ended up joining. That's why this whole line of argument is basically meaningless. The fact that there was debate in no way means that it wasn't a genuine concern for the Russians.

---

Why should anyone give a tinker's damn about Russian concerns....other than the several of you who insist Russia is some pure, white, Christian Mecca.

---

Because it could cost us an assload of money, go on too long, get a lot of young men killed and potential lead to NATO/Western troops on the ground.

I wish it was as simple as giving Ukraine money and they 100% will defeat Russia, but that's not the case. There's a lot of ways this could go very wrong.

---

Don't disagree. Perhaps Russia needs to tamper down their ambitions a bit too and stop rolling tanks into their neighboring countries and using the NATO Invasion Bogeyman as their excuse.

---

I don't think Russia was justified invading whatsoever.

I'm not looking at this situation in regard to who is right or wrong. I'm looking at it based on who has leverage/power.

What is the ultimate goal at hand? Do we want peace or do we want war?

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Virtually every Euro country has considered and hotly debated applying to NATO.

---

And virtually every one eventually ended up joining. That's why this whole line of argument is basically meaningless. The fact that there was debate in no way means that it wasn't a genuine concern for the Russians.

---

Why should anyone give a tinker's damn about Russian concerns....other than the several of you who insist Russia is some pure, white, Christian Mecca.

---

Because it could cost us an assload of money, go on too long, get a lot of young men killed and potential lead to NATO/Western troops on the ground.

I wish it was as simple as giving Ukraine money and they 100% will defeat Russia, but that's not the case. There's a lot of ways this could go very wrong.

---

Don't disagree. Perhaps Russia needs to tamper down their ambitions a bit too and stop rolling tanks into their neighboring countries and using the NATO Invasion Bogeyman as their excuse.

---

So its neighbors should then care what Russia thinks....

DC might not care....but Georgia lost a war and two whole provinces

Ukraine just lost 20% of its territory, 100k men, and about a trillion dollars in damage

Its pretty obvious Russia does not consider NATO expansion a made up bogeyman....they are deadly serious about the idea

trey3216 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

And Rada formally put the issue to bed shortly after, and the public was 80% opposed until Russia invaded.

---

The Euromaidan protestors in Kyiv with their pro-EU and pro-NATO signs did not get the message.

And right after they took power they put NATO aspirations into the Constitution

Not sure why you keep working on this hobby horse idea that joining NATO was not something the pro-Western parties were pushing for in Ukraine.

It was something they had been advocating for 20 years

[The July 1 vote came exactly eight years after the then President, Leonid Kuchma, (President from July 1994 to January 2005) issued a decree that first announced Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He followed this with two failed attempts to obtain a Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Prague 2002 and Istanbul 2004 NATO summits. Parliament's approval of a 2003 law on national security that enshrined Ukraine's desire for NATO membership was voted for overwhelming]

I would also love to see that poll that you claim shows 80% of Ukrainians did not want to join NATO....I would be shocked if it was even 60%

https://jamestown.org/program/ukraine-closes-road-to-nato-membership/

---

Virtually every Euro country has considered and hotly debated applying to NATO.

---

And virtually every one eventually ended up joining. That's why this whole line of argument is basically meaningless. The fact that there was debate in no way means that it wasn't a genuine concern for the Russians.

---

Why should anyone give a tinker's damn about Russian concerns....other than the several of you who insist Russia is some pure, white, Christian Mecca.

---

Because it could cost us an assload of money, go on too long, get a lot of young men killed and potential lead to NATO/Western troops on the ground.

I wish it was as simple as giving Ukraine money and they 100% will defeat Russia, but that's not the case. There's a lot of ways this could go very wrong.

---

Don't disagree. Perhaps Russia needs to tamper down their ambitions a bit too and stop rolling tanks into their neighboring countries and using the NATO Invasion Bogeyman as their excuse.

---

So its neighbors should then care what Russia thinks....

DC might not care....but Georgia lost a war and two whole provinces

Ukraine just lost 20% of its territory, 100k men, and about a trillion dollars in damage

Its pretty obvious Russia does not consider NATO expansion a made up bogeyman....they are deadly serious about the idea

---

They are deadly serious about absorbing as much of the old Russian Empire/Soviet Empire back into the fold of the Russian Federation.

---

Lets say you are correct

(vs say them just trying to dominate their sphere of influence and keep NATO away from their borders)

The USA somehow survived for its entire history not having Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, or the central asian stans inside our alliance network

Moscow as dominated or directly controlled those areas since the 1800s (or much earlier)

Why should the American people care....and why should risk a potential nuclear war with them over those lands?

Trump slams Zelensky for saying the end of Russia's war on Ukraine 'is still very, very far away'

Assassin said:

---

Trump slams Zelensky for saying the end of Russia's war on Ukraine 'is still very, very far away'

---

A more accurate headline would be "Trump slams Zelensky for stating the obvious."