Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Like the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Norway, Ireland, Belgium, Iceland, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Belarus, Italy, Hungary, Norway, and Bosnia? All of Europe was pretty much part of someone else's empire prior to WW1. Ukraine is no different or less legitimate than those countries.

I find Ukraine's entire region annoying but it is an important buffer. I definitely wouldn't bring them into NATO because it's impossible to defend geographically but they grow a lot ofnfood and the Black Sea has a lot of natural gas so it has important natural resources. They have a right to exist and the naive Neville Chamberlain-esque attitude you are showing is bad strategic judgement.

You say this like their food and their natural gas is somehow yours to manage and mind.

It's theira to mind not Russia's. Thoae two things are the reason why Russia wants to take them over.


But since we're talking about a grand re-organization of Russia's post WWI borders, should Konigsburg go back to Germany? Should Moldova go back to Romania? Murmansk to Finland? Chechnya? Sakhalin and the Kuriles to Japan?

Carry on - why stop there? (I should note that no sane country would want Chechnya, you know).

Poland should give Silesia, Pomerania and 80% of East Prussia back to Germany and thank Mr. Stalin for his generous gift. It should also apologize to the ethnic German population of these areas who were expelled over three months. I mean say what you want about USSR and Konigsberg, but it did give the Germans six years to "repatriate".

Lithuania should return its capital Vilnius to Poland, and Klaipeda to Germany, again with thanks to Mr. Stalin.

Romania, the ungrateful child that supported the Nazis, still received the gift of Transylvania (formerly Hungary). Justice now!

Bulgaria helped itself to South Dobruja, formerly Romania. Tsk, tsk.

And now to Ukraine, this proud, freedom-lovin' country. To restore justice post-WW2, it should return its western part (Lvov, Ternopol and Ivano-Frankovsk) to Poland, who owned them 1939. Also, return Chernovitsy to Romania, who owned these lands till 1940. Also, return Zakarpatye to Hungary and Slovakia, who owned them till 1945. I mean honestly, say what you want about USSR's iron boot, but Ukraine made out like a bandit land-wise. Is it going to return these lands to their rightful owners or keep enjoyin' USSR's gifts?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Like the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Norway, Ireland, Belgium, Iceland, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Belarus, Italy, Hungary, Norway, and Bosnia? All of Europe was pretty much part of someone else's empire prior to WW1. Ukraine is no different or less legitimate than those countries.

I find Ukraine's entire region annoying but it is an important buffer. I definitely wouldn't bring them into NATO because it's impossible to defend geographically but they grow a lot ofnfood and the Black Sea has a lot of natural gas so it has important natural resources. They have a right to exist and the naive Neville Chamberlain-esque attitude you are showing is bad strategic judgement.

You say this like their food and their natural gas is somehow yours to manage and mind.

It's theira to mind not Russia's. Thoae two things are the reason why Russia wants to take them over.


But since we're talking about a grand re-organization of Russia's post WWI borders, should Konigsburg go back to Germany? Should Moldova go back to Romania? Murmansk to Finland? Chechnya? Sakhalin and the Kuriles to Japan?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Like the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Norway, Ireland, Belgium, Iceland, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Belarus, Italy, Hungary, Norway, and Bosnia? All of Europe was pretty much part of someone else's empire prior to WW1. Ukraine is no different or less legitimate than those countries.

I find Ukraine's entire region annoying but it is an important buffer. I definitely wouldn't bring them into NATO because it's impossible to defend geographically but they grow a lot ofnfood and the Black Sea has a lot of natural gas so it has important natural resources. They have a right to exist and the naive Neville Chamberlain-esque attitude you are showing is bad strategic judgement.

You say this like their food and their natural gas is somehow yours to manage and mind.

It's theira to mind not Russia's. Thoae two things are the reason why Russia wants to take them over.


But since we're talking about a grand re-organization of Russia's post WWI borders, should Konigsburg go back to Germany? Should Moldova go back to Romania? Murmansk to Finland? Chechnya? Sakhalin and the Kuriles to Japan?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Like the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Norway, Ireland, Belgium, Iceland, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Belarus, Italy, Hungary, Norway, and Bosnia? All of Europe was pretty much part of someone else's empire prior to WW1. Ukraine is no different or less legitimate than those countries.

I find Ukraine's entire region annoying but it is an important buffer. I definitely wouldn't bring them into NATO because it's impossible to defend geographically but they grow a lot ofnfood and the Black Sea has a lot of natural gas so it has important natural resources. They have a right to exist and the naive Neville Chamberlain-esque attitude you are showing is bad strategic judgement.

You say this like their food and their natural gas is somehow yours to manage and mind.

Anonymous wrote:

Like the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Norway, Ireland, Belgium, Iceland, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Belarus, Italy, Hungary, Norway, and Bosnia? All of Europe was pretty much part of someone else's empire prior to WW1. Ukraine is no different or less legitimate than those countries.

I find Ukraine's entire region annoying but it is an important buffer. I definitely wouldn't bring them into NATO because it's impossible to defend geographically but they grow a lot ofnfood and the Black Sea has a lot of natural gas so it has important natural resources. They have a right to exist and the naive Neville Chamberlain-esque attitude you are showing is bad strategic judgement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the Russian troops advance I am good with a NATO alliance providing air support.

We need to give it up on Nordstream 2. All the parties to the actual agreement want that to happen. It's not ideal, but as demonstrated by Russian troops at the border of Ukraine we have much bigger fish to fry. If we let Putin take Ukraine we have massive problems in the area. Europe cares, but Europe can't do it on its own.

Why do WE have a massive problem in the area? Exactly what is our interest in a tiny country with a failing economy that's just as authoritarian and corrupt as Russia?

Look. There is something the world doesn't understand, and it's that there is really no such thing as independent Ukraine. There is no real history of sovereignty in the Ukraine outside of the last 20-30 years, and there is also the truth that independence is the lot of the strong and the rich. There is no such thing as independence for small, weak, poor countries. They have to have a patron and depend on someone. The only difference is in how much they enjoy the relationship. If they do, it's called strategic collaboration, if they don't, it's oppression. So keep that in mind as you discuss "independent" Ukraine.

1. Ukraine is not a tiny country. It is the 2nd largest by area in Europe. It has over 50 million people.
2. The Ruthenians/Kievan Rus have a long and well documented history dating back to the 9th century. It has always been separate from the Muscovites (ie: Russians).

Please tell us when there was a formally recognized independent country of Ukraine with all the normal accoutrements of a normal country before 1993. Bonus points for the exact location of its borders.

Kievan Rus was defeated by the Mongols and Ruthenia was part of the Polish-Lithuanian and then the Austro-Hungarian empires just like most of Europe. It was always a separate area. Even the Soviets considered it a separate Roublic and it had it's own seat at the UN. Even the Church considers it separate. And just for fun, because you're a Russian puppet, Moscow historically was nothing more than a vassal to Kiev. Now Moldova, on the other hand, is an artificial Soviet creation.

NP. Come off it. You did a great summary of a Wikipedia entry. Ukraine exists only because the Soviets created it. It was always part of someone else’s empire or kingdom. Regardless of its origins, the place is a hot mess. Hopefully they and their mafioso leadership finds the wherewithal to defend their country. There’s nothing of value in supporting them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Europeans aren’t interested in Ukraine so why should we be? Ukraine’s not worth one American life or penny.

Today Ukraine. Tomorrow NATO countries. We will let Ukraine go and respond after with sanctions and troops in neighboring NATO countries. Lots of troops. Some will move from Germany but a lot from the US. Putin can win then by just moving his troops away. But if he doesn't then there will be a mistake and a war. When this happens the Chinese will move on Taiwan. There is a lot going on.

Is it yours to let go though?

Anonymous wrote:

Kievan Rus was defeated by the Mongols and Ruthenia was part of the Polish-Lithuanian and then the Austro-Hungarian empires just like most of Europe. It was always a separate area. Even the Soviets considered it a separate Roublic and it had it's own seat at the UN. Even the Church considers it separate. And just for fun, because you're a Russian puppet, Moscow historically was nothing more than a vassal to Kiev. Now Moldova, on the other hand, is an artificial Soviet creation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the Russian troops advance I am good with a NATO alliance providing air support.

We need to give it up on Nordstream 2. All the parties to the actual agreement want that to happen. It's not ideal, but as demonstrated by Russian troops at the border of Ukraine we have much bigger fish to fry. If we let Putin take Ukraine we have massive problems in the area. Europe cares, but Europe can't do it on its own.

Why do WE have a massive problem in the area? Exactly what is our interest in a tiny country with a failing economy that's just as authoritarian and corrupt as Russia?

Look. There is something the world doesn't understand, and it's that there is really no such thing as independent Ukraine. There is no real history of sovereignty in the Ukraine outside of the last 20-30 years, and there is also the truth that independence is the lot of the strong and the rich. There is no such thing as independence for small, weak, poor countries. They have to have a patron and depend on someone. The only difference is in how much they enjoy the relationship. If they do, it's called strategic collaboration, if they don't, it's oppression. So keep that in mind as you discuss "independent" Ukraine.

1. Ukraine is not a tiny country. It is the 2nd largest by area in Europe. It has over 50 million people.
2. The Ruthenians/Kievan Rus have a long and well documented history dating back to the 9th century. It has always been separate from the Muscovites (ie: Russians).

Please tell us when there was a formally recognized independent country of Ukraine with all the normal accoutrements of a normal country before 1993. Bonus points for the exact location of its borders.

Kievan Rus was defeated by the Mongols and Ruthenia was part of the Polish-Lithuanian and then the Austro-Hungarian empires just like most of Europe. It was always a separate area. Even the Soviets considered it a separate Roublic and it had it's own seat at the UN. Even the Church considers it separate. And just for fun, because you're a Russian puppet, Moscow historically was nothing more than a vassal to Kiev. Now Moldova, on the other hand, is an artificial Soviet creation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank god the US has an 80 year old who is in clear mental decline behind the wheel.

Our choice was that or a 78 year old in clear kental decline + syphilis + a lifelong aversion to reading that's financially endebted to Russia.


The senile old man that ised to read is better than the senile old man that never read. At least there's a baseline to erode from.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the Russian troops advance I am good with a NATO alliance providing air support.

We need to give it up on Nordstream 2. All the parties to the actual agreement want that to happen. It's not ideal, but as demonstrated by Russian troops at the border of Ukraine we have much bigger fish to fry. If we let Putin take Ukraine we have massive problems in the area. Europe cares, but Europe can't do it on its own.

Why do WE have a massive problem in the area? Exactly what is our interest in a tiny country with a failing economy that's just as authoritarian and corrupt as Russia?

Look. There is something the world doesn't understand, and it's that there is really no such thing as independent Ukraine. There is no real history of sovereignty in the Ukraine outside of the last 20-30 years, and there is also the truth that independence is the lot of the strong and the rich. There is no such thing as independence for small, weak, poor countries. They have to have a patron and depend on someone. The only difference is in how much they enjoy the relationship. If they do, it's called strategic collaboration, if they don't, it's oppression. So keep that in mind as you discuss "independent" Ukraine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the Russian troops advance I am good with a NATO alliance providing air support.

We need to give it up on Nordstream 2. All the parties to the actual agreement want that to happen. It's not ideal, but as demonstrated by Russian troops at the border of Ukraine we have much bigger fish to fry. If we let Putin take Ukraine we have massive problems in the area. Europe cares, but Europe can't do it on its own.

Why do WE have a massive problem in the area? Exactly what is our interest in a tiny country with a failing economy that's just as authoritarian and corrupt as Russia?

Look. There is something the world doesn't understand, and it's that there is really no such thing as independent Ukraine. There is no real history of sovereignty in the Ukraine outside of the last 20-30 years, and there is also the truth that independence is the lot of the strong and the rich. There is no such thing as independence for small, weak, poor countries. They have to have a patron and depend on someone. The only difference is in how much they enjoy the relationship. If they do, it's called strategic collaboration, if they don't, it's oppression. So keep that in mind as you discuss "independent" Ukraine.

1. Ukraine is not a tiny country. It is the 2nd largest by area in Europe. It has over 50 million people.
2. The Ruthenians/Kievan Rus have a long and well documented history dating back to the 9th century. It has always been separate from the Muscovites (ie: Russians).

Please tell us when there was a formally recognized independent country of Ukraine with all the normal accoutrements of a normal country before 1993. Bonus points for the exact location of its borders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the Russian troops advance I am good with a NATO alliance providing air support.

We need to give it up on Nordstream 2. All the parties to the actual agreement want that to happen. It's not ideal, but as demonstrated by Russian troops at the border of Ukraine we have much bigger fish to fry. If we let Putin take Ukraine we have massive problems in the area. Europe cares, but Europe can't do it on its own.

Why do WE have a massive problem in the area? Exactly what is our interest in a tiny country with a failing economy that's just as authoritarian and corrupt as Russia?

Look. There is something the world doesn't understand, and it's that there is really no such thing as independent Ukraine. There is no real history of sovereignty in the Ukraine outside of the last 20-30 years, and there is also the truth that independence is the lot of the strong and the rich. There is no such thing as independence for small, weak, poor countries. They have to have a patron and depend on someone. The only difference is in how much they enjoy the relationship. If they do, it's called strategic collaboration, if they don't, it's oppression. So keep that in mind as you discuss "independent" Ukraine.

1. Ukraine is not a tiny country. It is the 2nd largest by area in Europe. It has over 50 million people.
2. The Ruthenians/Kievan Rus have a long and well documented history dating back to the 9th century. It has always been separate from the Muscovites (ie: Russians).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Europeans aren’t interested in Ukraine so why should we be? Ukraine’s not worth one American life or penny.

Today Ukraine. Tomorrow NATO countries. We will let Ukraine go and respond after with sanctions and troops in neighboring NATO countries. Lots of troops. Some will move from Germany but a lot from the US. Putin can win then by just moving his troops away. But if he doesn't then there will be a mistake and a war. When this happens the Chinese will move on Taiwan. There is a lot going on.