Quote:

---

Neither the US nor Zelenskey / Ukraine wanted to work anything out and Putin saw an opportunity when 81 million ballots were cast for Peacemaker Joe.

---

Yes, by opportunity you mean roll 300,000 mechanized troops into a neighbor in an operation that required months of planning.

Where is he getting the $350b figure from? Our own .gov website is only showing $65b (source: https://www.state.gov/bureau-of-political-military-affairs/releases/2025/01/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine)

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Putin was forced to invade a sovereign nation because they might have joined a defensive alliance?

---

no what putin was afraid of was ukraine becoming part of nato and then nato putting nuclear missiles in ukraine. this is no different than if russia wanted to put nuclear missiles in say Cuba.

what i can assure you is we played a major hand in this and that has been somewhat admitted to by victoria nuland. she admitted that the minsk agreement was a ploy to buy time for ukraine to prepare for war.

this issue is not black and white.

---

And let's not forget the oil. It's always about the oil. Ukraine was playing with fire when they got in bed with Biden to undermine Russia's delivery to the European oil market.

There's so sovereignty and then there's pragmatism. If you're 1/10th the size of your neighbor: it's unwise to show yourself to be a threat their critical revenue stream.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Where is he getting the $350b figure from? Our own .gov website is only showing $65b (source: https://www.state.gov/bureau-of-political-military-affairs/releases/2025/01/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine)

---

Pretty much everything he said in that tweet was bull****

His quote was "should have never started it". It wasn't "he shouldn't have started it". It was the generic "you" implied to everyone.

Obviously he isn't blaming Z personally.

It was the warmongers like Graham who want NATO enlarged to surround Russia and eventually topple Russia so that we can get trillions more in government defense money from every country aligned with the West.

Whie much of that is true, still, what is our MSM's excuse for being such a one-sided partisan doormat where those divisions attempts succeed?

GAC06 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Where is he getting the $350b figure from? Our own .gov website is only showing $65b (source: https://www.state.gov/bureau-of-political-military-affairs/releases/2025/01/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine)

---

Pretty much everything he said in that tweet was bull****

---

The entire thing reads like it was lab created for Russian propaganda. He called ZELENSKY A DICTATOR?! But no mention of his pal Putin? Just indefensible.

Teslag said:

---

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I think at that time there was also a legitimate fear of nuclear proliferation and less nuclear states the better after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Our primary goal was disarmament at the time and consolidation was those weapons to Russia. In hindsight it was wrong but understandable.

---

Was it wrong though? I think it still goes to Biden. All we needed to do is prevent the invasion by saying clearly from that high ground "Again, remember Saddam? We are not allowing territorial invasions for entities we are protecting. We gave Ukraine a guarantee. Now if you are wanting a guarantee they will not join NATO, we will sign what you wish saying we will not vote for it, so it certainly can't happen with us not a member to it. Now back off your army."

And you do that NOT through the press, but behind the scenes. Like Cuban Missile Crisis.

---

The problem with this line of thinking is believing Russia's reason for invading was because of NATO. It was a land grab. You can't negotiate that away.

---

Even if you insist on a scenario where Russia wasn't concerned (do not buy it) my post above stands as the way to prevent an invasion for THAT `land grab' reason as well. We made the guarantee. We are responsible for not stopping it. Or in worst case, renouncing it. Instead, just conflicting messages- those usually lead to war.

---

The best way to stop it would have been to move faster with NATO membership after 2014 and had a position in Ukraine similar to what we have in Poland and Romania.

---

NO.

You are not getting it.Only preserving that Ukraine not be Russian or NATO had much hope of avoiding conflict. That was in our power. NATO was always their redline. Even Yeltsin's---he just didn't have to worry about it as much because the line was further west then.

F16 delivers again!

The Kraken said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

(Countries have every right to pursue and join whatever alliances they want. Nobody has the right to invade them because of it.)

---

What is this nonsense?

Where did you come up with this "right"? Who is responsible for enforcing this "right"?

If Canada formed an alliance with China you can bet America wouldn't hesitate to invade because of it.

---

Why would Canada want an alliance with China? Does China promote democracy and western values? Is the Chinese alliance strictly defensive and has been for nearly 80 years?

Does the US have a President who has suppressed the opposition and by default has made himself leader for life? Does the President consider Canada "not a country" and is actually US territory?

---

Do tell which European nations in NATO promote democracy?
Germany who is trying to block AFD from having power and even existing.
Germany or UK who can arrest you for "hate speech". Which means wrong think political speech?

rgvag11 said:

---

titan said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

titan said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If Trump is saying that, then he is obviously wrong.


(Countries have every right to pursue and join whatever alliances they want. Nobody has the right to invade them because of it.)

---

Ok what if China got Mexico or Canada to join in an alliance and starting basing troops in either ? Sorry but there is no way in hell we would we allow that. Our best defense is two big-ole oceans that are impossible to cross in war time given our navy. The potential to allow a peer adversary prebasing of troops and hardware renders your idea compromised. This is an example where you are wrong.

No way in hell would the US allow that. Cuba has been bad enough. But a ready made land route- not gonna happen.

---

THAT.

---

Ukraine was arming to attack Russia before Putin invaded Crimea?

When has NATO been the aggressor in its 76 year history?

---

2011 in Libya sure looks like that to the world, not to mention Iraq. Because NATO is us.

Try to see it from their perspective.

National military's do not take words and past as guide, they always calculate capability. We had scenarios for fighting the Royal Navy just before World War One. That late. Well after established friendship, let alone a bellicose rivalry.

---

"First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory."

-- Putin

Many people can see what he is trying to do. Some can not.

---

More problematic is those that can only see from their side's point of view.

From his, what he said, has proven basically correct. That's what we don't realize. The squandered opportunity after 1991 where we preferred to go toward China which had not even repented Tiannanmen Square and still hasn't.

His statement says what he is trying to do. True. Our task is to obstruct where can. This was not done in 2021.

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I think at that time there was also a legitimate fear of nuclear proliferation and less nuclear states the better after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Our primary goal was disarmament at the time and consolidation was those weapons to Russia. In hindsight it was wrong but understandable.

---

Was it wrong though? I think it still goes to Biden. All we needed to do is prevent the invasion by saying clearly from that high ground "Again, remember Saddam? We are not allowing territorial invasions for entities we are protecting. We gave Ukraine a guarantee. Now if you are wanting a guarantee they will not join NATO, we will sign what you wish saying we will not vote for it, so it certainly can't happen with us not a member to it. Now back off your army."

And you do that NOT through the press, but behind the scenes. Like Cuban Missile Crisis.

---

The problem with this line of thinking is believing Russia's reason for invading was because of NATO. It was a land grab. You can't negotiate that away.

---

Even if you insist on a scenario where Russia wasn't concerned (do not buy it) my post above stands as the way to prevent an invasion for THAT `land grab' reason as well. We made the guarantee. We are responsible for not stopping it. Or in worst case, renouncing it. Instead, just conflicting messages- those usually lead to war.

---

The best way to stop it would have been to move faster with NATO membership after 2014 and had a position in Ukraine similar to what we have in Poland and Romania.

---

NO.

You are not getting it.Only preserving that Ukraine not be Russian or NATO had much hope of avoiding conflict. That was in our power. NATO was always their redline. Even Yeltsin's---he just didn't have to worry about it as much because the line was further west then.

---

No, Titan

You are not getting it. There was no avoiding it. Not in Putin's lifetime and the rest of the hardliners. There is no red line that ever existed where they were NOT going to invade. Even if there were no NATO aspirations. This is a war of territory and resources and good ole fashioned imperial glory.

If Russia sees NATO as an existential threat, and that is something that I can buy, then if anything, that guarantees the Uke invasion. They need that land and more to seal and shorten their defensive borders against a pre-emptive NATO offensive.

Either way, this war was going to happen IMO. The only variable I see was the timing.

Who GAF about Ukraine or second world border skirmishes between trash countries? A lot of Americans are truly suffering and living paycheck to paycheck (or worse), and we are p*ssing away and mis-allocating hundreds of billions of our tax dollars on causes that do not affect us.

Sick of American citizens always getting the shaft no matter what. F Ukraine, F Russia. F Germany, F China, F Mexico, F Canada. F everybody but us.

Zero Americans can tell a difference bewteen the avg Ukrainian person of the average Russian person. They are the exact same f-ing thing for all intents and purposed. Why should I GAF if Russia wants a tiny sliver of Ukraine?

titan said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

titan said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

(Countries have every right to pursue and join whatever alliances they want. Nobody has the right to invade them because of it.)

---

What is this nonsense?

Where did you come up with this "right"? Who is responsible for enforcing this "right"?

If Canada formed an alliance with China you can bet America wouldn't hesitate to invade because of it.

---

Bingo. This is not about rights but about how nations predictably react when they have sufficient power and sense of security risk to do so. Diplomacy deals with reality, not as things should be. Thats for philosophers and priests.

That said, Ukraine is a special case. WE asked them to disarm their arsenal in 1994 in return for guarantees. WE should have told Russia BEFORE invading --- "you remember what happened to Saddam? We are not going to let you invade Ukraine, we have that 1994 pledge remember? So don't. And you can't say its our fault and act of war because we are telling you now and you know about the 1994 arrangement. So back off that mobilization and lets discuss things."

But the reason that didn't happen is because Biden's admin were crooks, theives, bad actors. They didn't want to prevent it. They didn't care, as long as their criminal enterprises and laundering in Ukraine could remain obscured and concealed.

---

I'd argue Ukraine shouldn't have ever agree to disarmament. I would wager that Ukraine likely only agreed because we paid off the right people to agree.
America should never be in the business of making countries weak because we will then "protect" them. It is a foolish and shortlived vision that is sold as being altruistic but in reality is at best a paper tiger.

---

Agree in principle and fully. However, since we did, to that degree, the situation now IS our FAULT. It was incumbent on us to make clear invading Ukraine was unacceptable, but we in turn would simply make sure NATO didn't happen even if Ukraine wants it --- by simply not voting for it.

And frankly, as a super hegemon, we had the means. OBidens were crooks and bad actors who had a good laundering and worse theft scheme going. They didn't want to expose that.

---

At the end of the day, I want our leaders to make the best decision on action based on the relative strength and abilities of our country. Regardless of what deals are signed or promises made. If it really was in our best interest to inhibit the power of Russia we would have gone all in.

Personally I think the war on Ukraine was as much a move at weakening western Europe as it was to take Ukraine. This became more evident in the entrenched means of warfare and little desire for ingenuity. The economic damage and perhaps incumbent political damage could be the real objective. If so, it would seem successful.

Biden wanted to protect his left wing western European buddies so he sought to intervene. But the American populace would never stomach real involvement. So it dragged on. The hope was with America banking it, eventually Russia would see their resources would be drained faster then that of western Europe's. But now with Trump he has no desire to prop up the ally "facists".

rgvag11 said:

---

titan said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

titan said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If Trump is saying that, then he is obviously wrong.


(Countries have every right to pursue and join whatever alliances they want. Nobody has the right to invade them because of it.)

---

Ok what if China got Mexico or Canada to join in an alliance and starting basing troops in either ? Sorry but there is no way in hell we would we allow that. Our best defense is two big-ole oceans that are impossible to cross in war time given our navy. The potential to allow a peer adversary prebasing of troops and hardware renders your idea compromised. This is an example where you are wrong.

No way in hell would the US allow that. Cuba has been bad enough. But a ready made land route- not gonna happen.

---

THAT.

---

Ukraine was arming to attack Russia before Putin invaded Crimea?

When has NATO been the aggressor in its 76 year history?

---

WHERE did ttu_85 says they were "arming to attack"?

---

It was implied, but okay. When did Ukraine and NATO enter into an agreement to start "prebasing of troops and hardware" in Ukraine?

ETA: I remember when it was all the rage to remind people that Trump authorized javelins to be placed in Ukraine. That was after Russia had already invaded.

---

Oh, no it wasn't implied at all. That post was purely a military hypothetical response to a general thought by atmAg using North America as an example. The Ukraine was never even mentioned. Maybe you should repeat high school.

Teslag said:

---

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I think at that time there was also a legitimate fear of nuclear proliferation and less nuclear states the better after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Our primary goal was disarmament at the time and consolidation was those weapons to Russia. In hindsight it was wrong but understandable.

---

Was it wrong though? I think it still goes to Biden. All we needed to do is prevent the invasion by saying clearly from that high ground "Again, remember Saddam? We are not allowing territorial invasions for entities we are protecting. We gave Ukraine a guarantee. Now if you are wanting a guarantee they will not join NATO, we will sign what you wish saying we will not vote for it, so it certainly can't happen with us not a member to it. Now back off your army."

And you do that NOT through the press, but behind the scenes. Like Cuban Missile Crisis.

---

The problem with this line of thinking is believing Russia's reason for invading was because of NATO. It was a land grab. You can't negotiate that away.

---

I doubt that the reasons are binary. It's not 100% one or the other, and it is hard to find where in the middle it is. And, there are no angels here, only demons.

One thing is for sure, this should be Europe's problem, not ours.

I believe Trump when he says a deal is coming. If he could help along the Abraham accords, this shouldn't be as heavy of a lift.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Who GAF about Ukraine or second world border skirmishes between trash countries? A lot of Americans are truly suffering and living paycheck to paycheck (or worse), and we are p*ssing away and mis-allocating hundreds of billions of our tax dollars.

Sick of American citizens always getting the shaft no matter what. F Ukraine, F Russia.

Zero Americans can tell a difference bewteen the avg Ukrainian person of the average Russian person. They are the exact same f-ing thing for all intents and purposed. Why should I GAF if Russia wants a tiny sliver of Ukraine?

---

Imagine a world, if you will, where both can happen. Take care of our own while still maintaining a strong presence in the world. Which leads to unimaginable boons.

Our status we enjoy today and we all benefit from, comes from our international relations and yes, even our security guarantees over the decades. It is how we have maintained our might to the level that have and is a cornerstone of our capitalistic society which is the engine making it all work.

And you sound like you are projecting tbh. Americans always have been culturally dull and is something I have never been able to defend on my travels to others.

GAC06 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Please show were Ukraine tried to join NATO prior to Putin's invasion of Crimea.

---

Tell me where wikipedia is wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#:~:text=Ukrainian%20President%20Volodymyr%20Zelenskyy%20was,any%20decisions%20on%20NATO%20membership.%22

I don't always trust wikipedia, so it is likely that they are wrong. Just tell me where.

---

Third sentence of your link.

"Although co-operating with NATO, Ukraine remained a neutral country. After it was attacked by Russia in 2014, Ukraine has increasingly sought NATO membership."

---

Keep reading. This didn't just start in 2014. It has been an escalation that started before that.

Let's cut to the chase. Behind all the arguments one way or the other is this.

a) What "should be" or is "right" really has nothing to do with international affairs. It shouldn't be the criteria unless one is willing to enforce them. At any point and place.

b) How many are willing to risk direct war with Russia for Ukraine rather than say, Britain or France, or even California (for isolationists).

It is very important to deter war before it starts. Positions must be clear before.

Once you blow that, and the Obama -Biden meddling in Ukraine and then sending conflicting messages implying no consequences, blew that.

So here we are. The terms remain as they were at the end of the 20th. Russia is not going to back down about the idea of Ukraine aligned with hostiles. We cannot avoid conflict if we insist on that.

Is that what we want?

Then I'd have twice the education than you.

nortex97 said:

---

Ukraine never actually controlled those nuclear weapons. Moscow had the launch codes etc. There's some mythology around that, just like everything involving Ukraine this century.

2014: these people have been going at it internally and with the Russian population for probably the better part of 30 years now.

Quote:

---

Clashes in the West

Then, on Saturday, violent clashes broke out in the western Ukrainian town of Mukachevo, allegedly over the control of cigarette-smuggling routes. Right Sektor paramilitaries sprayed police officers with bullets from a belt-fed machinegun, and police backed by Ukrainian government troops returned fire. Several deaths and multiple injuries were reported.

Tensions escalated on Monday with President Petro Poroshenko ordering national security forces to disarm "armed cells" of political movements. Meanwhile, the Right Sektor dispatched reinforcements to the area while other militiamen converged on the capital of Kiev.

While President Poroshenko and Right Sektor leader Dmitry Yarosh may succeed in tamping down this latest flare-up of hostilities, they may be only postponing the inevitable: a conflict between the US-backed authorities in Kiev and the neo-Nazis and other right-wing fighters who spearheaded last year's coup and have been at the front lines of the fighting against ethnic Russian rebels in the east.

The Ukrainian right-wing extremists feel they have carried the heaviest burden in the war against the ethnic Russians and resent the politicians living in the relative safety and comfort of Kiev. In March, Poroshenko also fired thuggish oligarch Igor Kolomoiskyas governor of the southeastern province of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. Kolomoisky had been the primary benefactor of the Right Sektor militias.
So, as has become apparent across Europe and even in Washington, the Ukraine crisis is spinning out of control, making the State Department's preferred narrative of the conflict that it's all Russian President Vladimir Putin's fault harder and harder to sell.

---

---

This is good information. Thanks. So we didn't really disarm them. Russia did.

Eliminatus said:

---

Americans always have been culturally dull and is something I have never been able to defend on my travels to others.

---

So, do you stick your pinky out when you sip that tea?

America exports more culture than any other country in the world.

BusterAg said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Please show were Ukraine tried to join NATO prior to Putin's invasion of Crimea.

---

Tell me where wikipedia is wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#:~:text=Ukrainian%20President%20Volodymyr%20Zelenskyy%20was,any%20decisions%20on%20NATO%20membership.%22

I don't always trust wikipedia, so it is likely that they are wrong. Just tell me where.

---

Third sentence of your link.

"Although co-operating with NATO, Ukraine remained a neutral country. After it was attacked by Russia in 2014, Ukraine has increasingly sought NATO membership."

---

Keep reading. This didn't just start in 2014. It has been an escalation that started before that.

---

Ukraine had a consistent policy of nonalignment until Russia invaded them in 2014.

Eli said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The best way to stop it would have been to move faster with NATO membership after 2014 and had a position in Ukraine similar to what we have in Poland and Romania.

---

NO.

You are not getting it.Only preserving that Ukraine not be Russian or NATO had much hope of avoiding conflict. That was in our power. NATO was always their redline. Even Yeltsin's---he just didn't have to worry about it as much because the line was further west then.

---

No, Titan

You are not getting it. There was no avoiding it. Not in Putin's lifetime and the rest of the hardliners. There is no red line that ever existed where they were NOT going to invade. Even if there were no NATO aspirations. This is a war of territory and resources and good ole fashioned imperial glory.

If Russia sees NATO as an existential threat, and that is something that I can buy, then if anything, that guarantees the Uke invasion. They need that land and more to seal and shorten their defensive borders against a pre-emptive NATO offensive.

Either way, this war was going to happen IMO. The only variable I see was the timing.

---

Actually your post as phrased can buy. It is possible it could not be avoided on the macro sense of the word. You may be right about all the italics. What is certain though, is only an enforced neutrality by our might of "neither A or B" had any prayer of succeeding. What you are saying is even that would not work. Less persuaded of that (because of the power curve) but you may be correct.

So that brings the next thing. Are we putting ourselves in the position of obstructing such `good ole fashioned moments" ?? (Not adverse to it,--- just asking) IF SO, should that not be the basis and go from there? Maybe cite Saddam 1990 precedent. But if so we should seek to end them and not play war profiteer and prolonger.

Ironically thanks to invading Ukraine to keep NATO off its borders, NATO is now closer than ever with Sweden and Finland joining because of it severely limiting their ability to project power into the Baltic and North seas and have access to the North Atlantic in winter.

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I think at that time there was also a legitimate fear of nuclear proliferation and less nuclear states the better after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Our primary goal was disarmament at the time and consolidation was those weapons to Russia. In hindsight it was wrong but understandable.

---

Was it wrong though? I think it still goes to Biden. All we needed to do is prevent the invasion by saying clearly from that high ground "Again, remember Saddam? We are not allowing territorial invasions for entities we are protecting. We gave Ukraine a guarantee. Now if you are wanting a guarantee they will not join NATO, we will sign what you wish saying we will not vote for it, so it certainly can't happen with us not a member to it. Now back off your army."

And you do that NOT through the press, but behind the scenes. Like Cuban Missile Crisis.

---

The problem with this line of thinking is believing Russia's reason for invading was because of NATO. It was a land grab. You can't negotiate that away.

---

Even if you insist on a scenario where Russia wasn't concerned (do not buy it) my post above stands as the way to prevent an invasion for THAT `land grab' reason as well. We made the guarantee. We are responsible for not stopping it. Or in worst case, renouncing it. Instead, just conflicting messages- those usually lead to war.

---

The best way to stop it would have been to move faster with NATO membership after 2014 and had a position in Ukraine similar to what we have in Poland and Romania.

---

NO.

You are not getting it.Only preserving that Ukraine not be Russian or NATO had much hope of avoiding conflict. That was in our power. NATO was always their redline. Even Yeltsin's---he just didn't have to worry about it as much because the line was further west then.

---

"The best way to calm a hothead is to fence them in with ultimatums."

It feels like hoe_math scaled into geopolitics. Male behavior creates The West, females flourishes within, female behavior subverts male control, female thinking screws up geopolitics because they refuse to understand the desires of masculine nations, men die in the ensuing conflicts.

Eliminatus said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Who GAF about Ukraine or second world border skirmishes between trash countries? A lot of Americans are truly suffering and living paycheck to paycheck (or worse), and we are p*ssing away and mis-allocating hundreds of billions of our tax dollars.

Sick of American citizens always getting the shaft no matter what. F Ukraine, F Russia.

Zero Americans can tell a difference bewteen the avg Ukrainian person of the average Russian person. They are the exact same f-ing thing for all intents and purposed. Why should I GAF if Russia wants a tiny sliver of Ukraine?

---

Imagine a world, if you will, where both can happen. Take care of our own while still maintaining a strong presence in the world. Which leads to unimaginable boons.

Our status we enjoy today and we all benefit from, comes from our international relations and yes, even our security guarantees over the decades. It is how we have maintained our might to the level that have and is a cornerstone of our capitalistic society which is the engine making it all work.

And you sound like you are projecting tbh. Americans always have been culturally dull and is something I have never been able to defend on my travels to others.

---

Maybe I am a little bittter because I have loved ones who have been feeling the crunch of this sh** economy, while TRILLIONS of tax dollars are currently missing...but I truly and wholeheartedly believe that it does not affect us in the slightest if Russia takes a tiny sliver of Ukraine. I do not see Russia as purely the villain, and Ukraine as purely noble and virtuous. They are both trash to me.

Cartels and China running fentanyl by the ton into our country, and a million other things, affect Americans. And these things need our attention for sure.

There is zero way 99% of Americans could tell the sifference between native Ukrainians and Russians...they're the same people. Don't worry about defending me to Ukrainians or Russians. I'd tell them to their face that I could not even begin to differentiate between the two. I do not care to know about their history either...I just have a hunch they're pretty much the same people. I am fine letting them engage in border wars that do not affect us in the slightest.

BusterAg said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Americans always have been culturally dull and is something I have never been able to defend on my travels to others.

---

So, do you stick your pinky out when you sip that tea?

America exports more culture than any other country in the world.

---

America does, Americans don't. HUGE distinction.

But yes, it is largely true. Your typical American I would say is ill traveled and ignorant to both world culture and events. I will always advocate that more Americans need to travel abroad, and not just on vacation either. It is enlightening in so many ways, the very least of which is appreciating what we have here more.

I do happen to like tea too. Though not sure about crumpets, not even sure what those are exactly if I am being truthful. Open to try though!

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

titan said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I think at that time there was also a legitimate fear of nuclear proliferation and less nuclear states the better after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Our primary goal was disarmament at the time and consolidation was those weapons to Russia. In hindsight it was wrong but understandable.

---

Was it wrong though? I think it still goes to Biden. All we needed to do is prevent the invasion by saying clearly from that high ground "Again, remember Saddam? We are not allowing territorial invasions for entities we are protecting. We gave Ukraine a guarantee. Now if you are wanting a guarantee they will not join NATO, we will sign what you wish saying we will not vote for it, so it certainly can't happen with us not a member to it. Now back off your army."

And you do that NOT through the press, but behind the scenes. Like Cuban Missile Crisis.

---

The problem with this line of thinking is believing Russia's reason for invading was because of NATO. It was a land grab. You can't negotiate that away.

---

Even if you insist on a scenario where Russia wasn't concerned (do not buy it) my post above stands as the way to prevent an invasion for THAT `land grab' reason as well. We made the guarantee. We are responsible for not stopping it. Or in worst case, renouncing it. Instead, just conflicting messages- those usually lead to war.

---

The best way to stop it would have been to move faster with NATO membership after 2014 and had a position in Ukraine similar to what we have in Poland and Romania.

---

NO.

You are not getting it.Only preserving that Ukraine not be Russian or NATO had much hope of avoiding conflict. That was in our power. NATO was always their redline. Even Yeltsin's---he just didn't have to worry about it as much because the line was further west then.

---

"The best way to calm a hothead is to fence them in with ultimatums."

It feels like hoe_math scaled into geopolitics. Male behavior creates The West, females flourishes within, female behavior subverts male control, female thinking screws up geopolitics because they refuse to understand the desires of masculine nations, men die in the ensuing conflicts.

---

More or less true. But the "ultimatums" have to be immediately enforced. "Do X and I will punch or shoot you." And that has to happen if you said it would.

(This brings to mind the Hamas deadline doesn't it)

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

Then Ukrainians once again peacefully revolted in 2014 in favor of pro-Western politics.

---

Fact check: false. Over 120 were killed in/among the USAID riots. Including police officers. None of the riot was organic to Ukrainians, it was staunched via the CIA/USAID, which is why Nuland herself was there (and John McCain).

---

Russia killed more of their own citizens than that in Ukraine yesterday by magnitudes of multiples. But don't worry, those "conscripted" soldiers kidnapped off the streets from minority groups and jails went peacefully to their deaths.

Maybe you should take that up with their "elected" president that's dictated power for 21 years. The fact anyone thinks there's a election problem in Ukraine without mentioning that is a joke.

ttu_85 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If Trump is saying that, then he is obviously wrong.


(Countries have every right to pursue and join whatever alliances they want. Nobody has the right to invade them because of it.)

---

Ok what if China got Mexico or Canada to join in an alliance and starting basing troops in either ? Sorry but there is no way in hell we would allow that. Our best defense is two big-ole oceans that are impossible to cross in war time given our navy. The potential to allow a peer adversary prebasing of troops and hardware renders your idea compromised. This is an example where you are wrong.

No way in hell would the US allow that. Cuba has been bad enough. But a ready made land route- not gonna happen.

---

It's wrong to compare the Cuban Missile Crisis to your scenario or what was happening in Ukraine. Russia was installing LIQUID FUELED rockets in Cuba. Which made them FIRST STRIKE ONLY. They were useless for a retaliatory strike since we'd just destroy them before they could be fueled. Of course, the USSR installing those in Cuba because we did it first in Turkey. We both removed them to de-escalate the situation. Notice how this didn't happen when Reagan installed Pershings in Germany? That's because those were solid fueled and were for retaliation rather than first strike only.

Finland has joined NATO. Does that mean that Russia would be right to invade them because of "escalation"? Of course not. The only reason Ukraine is "special" is because Russia considers Ukraine to be "theirs". It's not. Just like OBL had no right to 9/11 us because we allied with Saudi Arabia, Russia has no right to invade Ukraine because they RIGHTFULLY feared Russia and wanted allies.

texagbeliever said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ukraine never actually controlled those nuclear weapons. Moscow had the launch codes etc. There's some mythology around that, just like everything involving Ukraine this century.

2014: these people have been going at it internally and with the Russian population for probably the better part of 30 years now.

Quote:

---

Clashes in the West

Then, on Saturday, violent clashes broke out in the western Ukrainian town of Mukachevo, allegedly over the control of cigarette-smuggling routes. Right Sektor paramilitaries sprayed police officers with bullets from a belt-fed machinegun, and police backed by Ukrainian government troops returned fire. Several deaths and multiple injuries were reported.

Tensions escalated on Monday with President Petro Poroshenko ordering national security forces to disarm "armed cells" of political movements. Meanwhile, the Right Sektor dispatched reinforcements to the area while other militiamen converged on the capital of Kiev.

While President Poroshenko and Right Sektor leader Dmitry Yarosh may succeed in tamping down this latest flare-up of hostilities, they may be only postponing the inevitable: a conflict between the US-backed authorities in Kiev and the neo-Nazis and other right-wing fighters who spearheaded last year's coup and have been at the front lines of the fighting against ethnic Russian rebels in the east.

The Ukrainian right-wing extremists feel they have carried the heaviest burden in the war against the ethnic Russians and resent the politicians living in the relative safety and comfort of Kiev. In March, Poroshenko also fired thuggish oligarch Igor Kolomoiskyas governor of the southeastern province of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. Kolomoisky had been the primary benefactor of the Right Sektor militias.
So, as has become apparent across Europe and even in Washington, the Ukraine crisis is spinning out of control, making the State Department's preferred narrative of the conflict that it's all Russian President Vladimir Putin's fault harder and harder to sell.

---

---

This is good information. Thanks. So we didn't really disarm them. Russia did.

---

We just signed a security agreement to protect the from an invasion. Like Russia did.

Teslag said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

What exactly did Zelenskyy do to try and prevent the invasion? Did he negotiate anything with Putin? Did he ever speak to Putin? Did he ask for help from other nations?

---

You mean did he surrender before they invaded? No, he didn't do that. He doesn't and didn't owe Russia anything.

Putin wanted Ukraine to be a part of Russia. You can't negotiate that away.

And yes he asked for help. Trump was the first one to send him lethal aid prior to the invasion.

---

So nothing..

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Who GAF about Ukraine or second world border skirmishes between trash countries? A lot of Americans are truly suffering and living paycheck to paycheck (or worse), and we are p*ssing away and mis-allocating hundreds of billions of our tax dollars.

Sick of American citizens always getting the shaft no matter what. F Ukraine, F Russia.

Zero Americans can tell a difference bewteen the avg Ukrainian person of the average Russian person. They are the exact same f-ing thing for all intents and purposed. Why should I GAF if Russia wants a tiny sliver of Ukraine?

---

Imagine a world, if you will, where both can happen. Take care of our own while still maintaining a strong presence in the world. Which leads to unimaginable boons.

Our status we enjoy today and we all benefit from, comes from our international relations and yes, even our security guarantees over the decades. It is how we have maintained our might to the level that have and is a cornerstone of our capitalistic society which is the engine making it all work.

And you sound like you are projecting tbh. Americans always have been culturally dull and is something I have never been able to defend on my travels to others.

---

Maybe I am a little bittter because I have loved ones who have been feeling the crunch of this sh** economy, while TRILLIONS of tax dollars are currently missing...but I truly and wholeheartedly believe that it does not affect us in the slightest if Russia takes a tiny sliver of Ukraine. I do not see Russia as purely the villain, and Ukraine as purely noble and virtuous. They are both trash to me.

Cartels and China running fentanyl by the ton into our country, and a million other things, affect Americans. And these things need our attention for sure.

There is zero way 99% of Americans could tell the sifference between native Ukrainians and Russians...they're the same people. Don't worry about defending me to Ukrainians or Russians. I'd tell them to their face that I could not even begin to differentiate between the two. I do not care to know about their history either...I just have a hunch they're pretty much the same people. I am fine letting them engage in border wars.

---

Honestly, all of that is perfectly fine as an opinion.

I also know several feeling the crunch. And that includes myself. I am just saying that the "problem" of supporting Ukraine is not nearly the issue most think it is. I really don't. While the reverse is true. I don't see it as just a border skirmish. I see it as opening moves of maybe the last phases of preparatory work by Russia IF they ever do truly have a go against NATO. That path is WW3 and should be closed at every opportunity.

The "problem" I allude to above, is the way it has been shaped that supporting Ukraine = starving children in NC and crashing US job market, etc etc etc. It's not. It's just not. Even if every single penny of the Uke aid spent to date was waylaid by corruption it would still be a single digit percentage loss compared to everything else we have seen so far. And it hasn't been all lost to corruption. Not even close. And they payoff has been worth it IMO.