US has no good options in Ukraine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

You don't know that. Not at all, that the existence of NATO prevented another World War in Europe. Nobody knows anything of the kind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

You don't know that. Not at all, that the existence of NATO prevented another World War in Europe. Nobody knows anything of the kind.

DP

NATO most certainly has mitigated against it - why do you think Putin is so threatened by NATO? and why his poodle in training as world dictator (Trump) did every thing in his power to undermine it (Bolton said Trump would have withdrawn US altogether if he had won a second term in office and Putin was waiting for that).

[Anonymous]

I am heartened that a large majority of Americans - both democratic and Republican - agree with bans on Russian oil even if it means higher prices, which we are already seeing.

Well done Americans!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

You don't know that. Not at all, that the existence of NATO prevented another World War in Europe. Nobody knows anything of the kind.

DP

NATO most certainly has mitigated against it - why do you think Putin is so threatened by NATO? and why his poodle in training as world dictator (Trump) did every thing in his power to undermine it (Bolton said Trump would have withdrawn US altogether if he had won a second term in office and Putin was waiting for that).

How, exactly? By what scientific method can one arrive at the conclusion that NATO has reduced (or increased) the risk of WW3? Have you created a clone of this planet, identical in all respects, except that beginning in 1991 the clone branched down a different historical path in which NATO was less expansive? If you have done that, then yes, perhaps we can arrive at some solid conclusions, although I would argue that the role played by randomness would require the creation of many identical clones, so that we can arrive at a probability distribution of outcomes.

You don't "know" what impact NATO has had on the risk of war. Knowing something with certainty -- like knowing that 2 + 2 = 4, or knowing that water is composed of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom -- requires a means of validation. There is no way to validate anybody's opinion on this issue. You are entitled to an opinion -- but that is all it is. It is not a fact.

[Anonymous]

If the war doesn’t go well for the Russians, will Putin use tactical nuclear weapons? By using them on one small city, will the rest of the country be compelled to surrender immediately? They may be no less dangerous than shelling a city to ruins, but scarier. This is a very possible outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the war doesn’t go well for the Russians, will Putin use tactical nuclear weapons? By using them on one small city, will the rest of the country be compelled to surrender immediately? They may be no less dangerous than shelling a city to ruins, but scarier. This is a very possible outcome.

If Putin uses nukes then Russia is glass. I dont think murder-suicide is how Russia wants to go out. I also think the whole nuke discussion is a scare tactic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the war doesn’t go well for the Russians, will Putin use tactical nuclear weapons? By using them on one small city, will the rest of the country be compelled to surrender immediately? They may be no less dangerous than shelling a city to ruins, but scarier. This is a very possible outcome.

If Putin uses nukes then Russia is glass. I dont think murder-suicide is how Russia wants to go out. I also think the whole nuke discussion is a scare tactic.

Yep. The Russians will kill him, which is the best scenario anyway.

[Anonymous]

If Russia used tactical nukes on Ukraine, no one will retaliate on Ukraine’s behalf with nuclear or conventional weapons. That would escalate things beyond control. More sanctions, yes.

Tactical nukes can do less damage than the fire bombing of Tokyo. Plus the Russian philosophy of escalating, to deescalate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am heartened that a large majority of Americans - both democratic and Republican - agree with bans on Russian oil even if it means higher prices, which we are already seeing.

Well done Americans!

You mean the same Quinnipiac poll that showed the majority of Republicans and Independents would stay and fight if in the same position as Ukrainians, while the majority of Democrats would leave? The one people were rubbishing?

That same poll asks about "higher gasoline prices" but doesn't specify how high. If the situation stays as it is, we'll see what those answers look like in a few weeks when Americans get a better sense of just how high those increases are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the war doesn’t go well for the Russians, will Putin use tactical nuclear weapons? By using them on one small city, will the rest of the country be compelled to surrender immediately? They may be no less dangerous than shelling a city to ruins, but scarier. This is a very possible outcome.

If Putin uses nukes then Russia is glass. I dont think murder-suicide is how Russia wants to go out. I also think the whole nuke discussion is a scare tactic.

Ukraine is directly upwind of Russia's biggest population centers. I hope they have a shitload of iodine pills ready to distribute. Oh wait, instead Putin will lie and just let his own people die from the fallout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Big Russia lacked the power to attack tiny Georgia prior to 2008? You really have thought about this deeply, haven't you?

All you are doing is speculating. That is all that any of us can do when it comes to reading Putin's mind.

The facts are not clear, in my view, as to whether the West's actions are motivating Putin to act, or whether we are responding to Putin's actions. It is a circle the feeds back on itself, round and round.

In regard to the latest chapter of this saga, the fact is that a US-Ukraine strategic partnership was signed on Nov 10, 2021, just prior to Putin's build up of troops on Ukraine's border. I think it is plausible that this partnership agreement motivated Putin's invasion of Ukraine. I'm not excusing Putin's actions. I'm just trying to make some guesses as to his logic. I don't believe by the idea that is trying to rebuild the USSR. I think he views his moves as a kind of pro-active form of defense against the West. But, just like you, I can't read his mind (although you seem to believe you have direct access to his thoughts).

Good lord, again the ignorance about Russia is astounding. No one has to guess at what Vladimir Putin is thinking. In July of 2021, he wrote an extensive treatise about what he thinks about the history of Russia and the lands that formerly were a part of Russia. The TL;DR version - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia are one people who have been evilly separated by others. Belarus and Ukraine must return to Russia in order to exercise their true sovereignty. (Never mind what the people of those countries have voted to do.).

Please note that Putin declines to talk about the historical aspects that explain why Ukraine will never willingly be a part of Russia again - just one example is the Holodomor - the deliberate starvation of millions of Ukrainians by Stalin during the period of forced collectivization.

You can read his delusional and self-serving account of history here - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

And before you agree with it, please read

http://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/vladimir-putins-revisionist-history-of-russia-and-ukraine/amp

and

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/01/28/putin-russia-ukraine-myths/

Each of which is by a noted scholar of Ukrainian history.

I think a lot of you guys could better spend your time reading books instead of posting on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am heartened that a large majority of Americans - both democratic and Republican - agree with bans on Russian oil even if it means higher prices, which we are already seeing.

Well done Americans!

Now America needs to increase domestic oil production.

Drill baby. Drill!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise

I agree with you, but we are the minority opinion.

I think the optimal approach -- that is, the approach that would have been most likely to produce a lasting peace -- would have been to leave any countries that directly border Russia out of NATO and out of any NATO discussions. These areas should have been a neutral area in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military equipment.
The US has the luxury of having two large oceans that act as natural insulation against enemy attack. This makes it more difficult, I think, for Americans to understand the concerns of countries that must rub shoulders with opposing powers.

I think this strategic agreement between the US and Ukraine -- signed on Nov 10, 2021 -- was as boneheaded move that was likely the precipitating event that led Putin to invade Ukraine:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=us+strategic+partnership+ukraine+nov+10

It was foolish to make this sort of agreement public. If we wished to help Ukraine militarily, we should have worked at it quietly, out of public view.

That sounds great, but Putin has proven that he has no respect for international agreements Russia has made. Just read the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, where, in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union, Russia committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country. How's that working out?

If the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia weren't in NATO, you better believe that Russian tanks would be there now.

And look at a map. On the border of Poland and Lithuania there's a strategic strip of land called the Suwalski Gap, which could connect Belarus to Russia's port of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. Don't think Putin wants that? Why won't he try? Because it's in NATO territory. NATO is serving its purpose of preventing another World War.

Ah, so our "sh%t" doesn't smell, but Putin's does? We also have ripped up agreements and tossed them into the wastebasket when it has suited our purposes. The American Indians were on the receiving end of this.

I do not think having Ukraine armed with nukes would have been the optimal approach to achieve stability. A better approach, IMO, would be a neutral zone in which neither NATO nor Russia operate.

By your logic, the safest security arrangement for the planet would be for all countries to have nukes. I think this would be a terrifying "security" arrangement that would ultimately lead to the end of us all.

There's our old friend whataboutism.

My logic is that Putin broke Russia's agreement to honor Ukraine's sovereignty, not that the agreement was wrong. NATO's mutual defense framework has worked for 80 years to prevent another World War in Europe. The existence of NATO and its expansion into former Soviet states is NOT why Putin invaded Ukraine. But it has, so far, prevented him from going further.
And considering the performance of the Russian military in Ukraine, he'd be a moron to try a NATO country.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can only guess. You are guessing. I am guessing.

You believe that NATO has held Putin in check, while I believe that NATO's expansion towards Russia's borders has been a contributing factor to Putin's posture against the West. You cannot read Putin's mind, nor can I. We can only guess.

My reading of history since 2008 is that Putin's aggressive moves have always come on the heals of discussions about NATO expansion. In this latest case, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement on Nov 10, 2021 to enhance the military cooperation between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, Putin began the build-up on the border of Ukraine.

I can concede that your view might be right, but it is impossible to know for certain.

That's a really contrived excuse for Putin to have. Did NATO invade Russian territory? No. Credibly threaten to? No. But the threat of Russia invading its neighbors is very real, proven in 2008 with Georgia, 2014 with Crimea, etc. Really, the only reason NATO even exists at all is because the threat that Russia poses to the west. And that reasoning is completely validated by Putin's attempted conquest of Ukraine.

In each of the cases you cite -- Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 -- there were precipitating actions taken by the West that could have been a factor in Putin's decision. The sequence of events does matter for making guesses about Putin's motives.

Why didn't Putin make any aggressive moves prior to 2008? What was special about 2008 that caused him to move against Georgia? Or did he just roll out of bed that day and decide that it was a good day for an invasion?

I can't believe i have to state the obvious. He had no money, he had not consolidated power yet. He started doing that when he got a war chest.

Big Russia lacked the power to attack tiny Georgia prior to 2008? You really have thought about this deeply, haven't you?

All you are doing is speculating. That is all that any of us can do when it comes to reading Putin's mind.

The facts are not clear, in my view, as to whether the West's actions are motivating Putin to act, or whether we are responding to Putin's actions. It is a circle the feeds back on itself, round and round.

In regard to the latest chapter of this saga, the fact is that a US-Ukraine strategic partnership was signed on Nov 10, 2021, just prior to Putin's build up of troops on Ukraine's border. I think it is plausible that this partnership agreement motivated Putin's invasion of Ukraine. I'm not excusing Putin's actions. I'm just trying to make some guesses as to his logic. I don't believe by the idea that is trying to rebuild the USSR. I think he views his moves as a kind of pro-active form of defense against the West. But, just like you, I can't read his mind (although you seem to believe you have direct access to his thoughts).

Good lord, again the ignorance about Russia is astounding. No one has to guess at what Vladimir Putin is thinking. In July of 2021, he wrote an extensive treatise about what he thinks about the history of Russia and the lands that formerly were a part of Russia. The TL;DR version - Belarus, Ukraine and Russia are one people who have been evilly separated by others. Belarus and Ukraine must return to Russia in order to exercise their true sovereignty. (Never mind what the people of those countries have voted to do.).

Please note that Putin declines to talk about the historical aspects that explain why Ukraine will never willingly be a part of Russia again - just one example is the Holodomor - the deliberate starvation of millions of Ukrainians by Stalin during the period of forced collectivization.

You can read his delusional and self-serving account of history here - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

And before you agree with it, please read

http://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/vladimir-putins-revisionist-history-of-russia-and-ukraine/amp

and

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/01/28/putin-russia-ukraine-myths/

Each of which is by a noted scholar of Ukrainian history.

I think a lot of you guys could better spend your time reading books instead of posting on DCUM.

What is a little famine amongst friends?

[Anonymous]

PLEASE USE THE REPORT BUTTON FOR ALL REVISIONIST COMMENTS, INCLUDING THOSE WHO SEEK TO BLAME ANYONE ELSE BUT PUTIN FOR THE UKRAINE WAR.


Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am heartened that a large majority of Americans - both democratic and Republican - agree with bans on Russian oil even if it means higher prices, which we are already seeing.

Well done Americans!

What other options are there?