Those who refuse to learn from History...

[alang1216]

Your post #12
If anyone did it was more likely Trump than Obama.

You didn't provide the whole quote. It was: Obama never told Putin to take Crimea. If anyone did it was more likely Trump than Obama. Nothing to do with sanctions and very possible considering how close Trump and Putin were.

You are calling for the US to support Ukraine (war mongering) Ukraine is NOT a US ally. Ukraine is NOT a NATO member. The US has no mutual defense treaty with Ukraine and the US is not the world's police force--that is what the UN is supposed to do and is not. The US nor any of our possessions or protectorates have been attacked. It is not our war. If you want to support Ukraine, be my guest. Leave my tax dollars and military equipment out of it.

Ukraine is a democracy and a natural ally of the US. The US tried to stay out of WWII, how did that work out?

Sucks to live in a democracy and not be able to tell everyone what to do. Maybe you'd be more at home in Russia since you seem comfortable with autocratic rule.

 

[Concerned American]

You didn't provide the whole quote. It was: Obama never told Putin to take Crimea. If anyone did it was more likely Trump than Obama. Nothing to do with sanctions and very possible considering how close Trump and Putin were.


Ukraine is a democracy and a natural ally of the US. The US tried to stay out of WWII, how did that work out?

Sucks to live in a democracy and not be able to tell everyone what to do. Maybe you'd be more at home in Russia since you seem comfortable with autocratic rule.

This is not WWII. Ukraine is a FAR CRY from being a democracy--and aside from our own gov't is corrupt as hell--Biden's dealings with Ukraine over the years prove that, but you choose to ignore those. Trump knew more about diplomacy than Obama or Biden ever did. It is not about appeasement as your heeeroes did with the Iranians--it is about keeping your nose out of others business until they show that they are a threat. Natural ally? LMAO, WTF is a natural ally. We have allies and we have agreements with every one. Natural ally! Take it down the road. Autocratic rule? Like the last two years of democrat congress, democrat senate, democrat in the WH? Like that. Look around you moron. The dumpster fire we are living is due to YOUR autocratic rule.

 

[alang1216]

This is not WWII. Ukraine is a FAR CRY from being a democracy--and aside from our own gov't is corrupt as hell--Biden's dealings with Ukraine over the years prove that, but you choose to ignore those. Trump knew more about diplomacy than Obama or Biden ever did. It is not about appeasement as your heeeroes did with the Iranians--it is about keeping your nose out of others business until they show that they are a threat. Natural ally? LMAO, WTF is a natural ally. We have allies and we have agreements with every one. Natural ally! Take it down the road. Autocratic rule? Like the last two years of democrat congress, democrat senate, democrat in the WH? Like that. Look around you moron. The dumpster fire we are living is due to YOUR autocratic rule.

Let me know when you return to planet Earth, we'll do lunch.

 

[Concerned American]

Let me know when you return to planet Earth, we'll do lunch.

Not likely. I prefer to associate with people who have some connection to reality. BTW, Russia and China have historically kept each other at arms length--they don't trust each other and tolerate their mutual border. Now due to Biden's actions in Ukraine, they have formed an alliance. Yeah, Biden did that.

 

[ESay]

What can be said from history is that it seems that Germany loosing the WWI was the biggest tragedy for Europe.

 

[José]

This war is the definitive triumph of human stupidity and to add insult to injury it was extremely easy to avoid. America and her allies could very well have stated in 1991, 95, 2000, etc... that taking into consideration the demographics, the ethnic makeup of Ukraine and Belarus those two nations would never be absorbed by the West's military and economic structures.

They could have stated (and they would be 100% correct) that they took this decision having the best interests of Ukraine and Belarus in mind, that they were doing it to avoid the political fragmentation, at best, or a civil war, at worst, in those countries.

They should have imposed a neutral status on Ukraine and Belarus, a kind of forced Finlandization of both nations, to save them from the destruction we see in Ukraine. It's not the end of the world Finland enjoyed peace and prosperity from the end of WWII to the turn of the century as an economically and militarily neutral nation.

Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but maybe Belarus wouldn't even need to have a dictator backed by Russia if America and her allies had imposed a neutral status on them 30 years ago.

How hard would that be?

It would have cost them peanuts.

If even as neutral nations Russia eventually invaded Ukraine or Belarus russian imperialism and colonialism (that was very much real and active in the past) would be scandalously exposed for the whole world to see.

 

[ESay]

This war is the definitive triumph of human stupidity and to add insult to injury it was extremely easy to avoid. America and her allies could very well have stated in 1991, 95, 2000, etc... that taking into consideration the demographics, the ethnic makeup of Ukraine and Belarus those two nations would never be absorbed by the West's military and economic structures.

They could have stated (and they would be 100% correct) that they took this decision having the best interests of Ukraine and Belarus in mind, that they were doing it to avoid the political fragmentation, at best, or a civil war, at worst, in those countries.

They should have imposed a neutral status on Ukraine and Belarus, a kind of forced Finlandization of both nations, to save them from the destruction we see in Ukraine. It's not the end of the world Finland enjoyed peace and prosperity from the end of WWII to the turn of the century as an economically and militarily neutral nation.

Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but maybe Belarus wouldn't even need to have a russian backed dictator if America and her allies had imposed a neutral status on them 30 years ago.

How hard would that be?

It would have cost them peanuts.

If even as neutral nations Russia eventually invaded Ukraine or Belarus russian imperialism and colonialism (that was very much real and active in the past) would be scandalously exposed for the whole world to see.

Politically, Ukraine was divided on half. One half wanted integration into European structures, the other half wanted a closer cooperation with Rusdia.

A civil unrest, in one or another form, was inevitable in Ukraine.

 

[konradv]

Politically, Ukraine was divided on half. One half wanted integration into European structures, the other half wanted a closer cooperation with Rusdia.

A civil unrest, in one or another form, was inevitable in Ukraine.

But instead we got an invasion, short-circuiting the democratic process.

 

[ESay]

But instead we got an invasion, short-circuiting the democratic process.

Well, that can't be called a democratic process per se. One part of the society must accept the rules of the other.

 

[konradv]

Well, that can't be called a democratic process per se. One part of the society must accept the rules of the other.

What can’t be called a democratic process? War rarely is. Democracy doesn’t mean one part accepting the rules of another, that’s fascism and much closer to the Russian system.

 

[ESay]

What can’t be called a democratic process? War rarely is. Democracy doesn’t mean one part accepting the rules of another, that’s fascism and much closer to the Russian system.

As I said above, Ukraine politically was divided on two parts - pro-Western and pro-Russian. Similarly, the elites there were also divided between these lines.

The desires and views of one part were unacceptable for the other. Their goals were mutually exclusive.

There were only two options - divide the country on two or one group taking the whole power excluding the other group.

 

[konradv]

As I said above, Ukraine politically was divided on two parts - pro-Western and pro-Russian. Similarly, the elites there were also divided between these lines.

The desires and views of one part were unacceptable for the other. Their goals were mutually exclusive.

There were only two options - divide the country on two or one group taking the whole power excluding the other group.

Which needs to be done democratically, not because Putin decided to invade.

 

[ESay]

Which needs to be done democratically, not because Putin decided to invade.

The chance to decide it democratically had been lost in 2004. When this political division resulted in so called Orange Revolution.

Since then, the civil confrontation only gained momentum and resulted in the Euromaidan, foreign meddling, annexation of Crimea, and the war in Donbass.

 

[para bellum]

This war is the definitive triumph of human stupidity and to add insult to injury it was extremely easy to avoid. America and her allies could very well have stated in 1991, 95, 2000, etc... that taking into consideration the demographics, the ethnic makeup of Ukraine and Belarus those two nations would never be absorbed by the West's military and economic structures.

No one was absorbed. The door is open. Both the EU and NATO, countries can join and they can leave.

They could have stated (and they would be 100% correct) that they took this decision having the best interests of Ukraine and Belarus in mind, that they were doing it to avoid the political fragmentation, at best, or a civil war, at worst, in those countries.

They should have imposed a neutral status on Ukraine and Belarus, a kind of forced Finlandization of both nations, to save them from the destruction we see in Ukraine. It's not the end of the world Finland enjoyed peace and prosperity from the end of WWII to the turn of the century as an economically and militarily neutral nation.

Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but maybe Belarus wouldn't even need to have a dictator backed by Russia if America and her allies had imposed a neutral status on them 30 years ago.

How hard would that be?

It would have cost them peanuts.

If even as neutral nations Russia eventually invaded Ukraine or Belarus russian imperialism and colonialism (that was very much real and active in the past) would be scandalously exposed for the whole world to see.

We don't have the right to impose anything on a sovereign nation Only exceptions are self-defense or UNSC authorization.

It's Putin's zero-sum worldview that is the problem. Ukraine or NATO has never threatened Russia- the threat to Putin is not military.

The threat to Putin is that having successful democracies on his borders challenges his autocratic rule in Russia. NATO is the boogeyman he uses as the excuse to destabilize neighboring countries, and prevent them from becoming more democratic.

Dictatorships are always unstable without an external enemy, and when one does not exist it must be invented. The "hostile and decadence west" that Putin has to protect Russians from isn't a threat to the elites and their families- the kids all go to school in western countries, and live there permanently and have multi-million dollar luxury apartments. And they jet around the world and post tik-toks from posh hotels and beaches, etc.

 

[toomuchtime_]

As I said above, Ukraine politically was divided on two parts - pro-Western and pro-Russian. Similarly, the elites there were also divided between these lines.

The desires and views of one part were unacceptable for the other. Their goals were mutually exclusive.

There were only two options - divide the country on two or one group taking the whole power excluding the other group.

Neither are viable options. Even in the most pro-Russian parts of Ukraine, district by district at least 50% of the people were pro Ukraine, not pro-Russian, and there is no evidence that the majority of pro-Russian Ukrainians wanted to go to war with their neighbors over this issue.

Ukraine is divided, but so is the US, UK, France, Germany, and all the other democracies of any size. The difference between Ukraine and the other democracies is Russia's determination to control Ukraine, first by waging and proxy war and when that failed, by invading. Without the Russian invasions, Ukrainians would be fighting political battles at the polls for control of their country, not military battles in the streets where they live.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The chance to decide it democratically had been lost in 2004. When this political division resulted in so called Orange Revolution.

Since then, the civil confrontation only gained momentum and resulted in the Euromaidan, foreign meddling, annexation of Crimea, and the war in Donbass.

There's meddling and then there's meddling; only Russia launched a proxy war against Ukraine and then invaded and stole Crimea. If not for Russia's actions Ukrainians would have fought their battles at the polls just as other democracies do.

 

[ESay]

Neither are viable options. Even in the most pro-Russian parts of Ukraine, district by district at least 50% of the people were pro Ukraine, not pro-Russian, and there is no evidence that the majority of pro-Russian Ukrainians wanted to go to war with their neighbors over this issue.

Ukraine is divided, but so is the US, UK, France, Germany, and all the other democracies of any size. The difference between Ukraine and the other democracies is Russia's determination to control Ukraine, first by waging and proxy war and when that failed, by invading. Without the Russian invasions, Ukrainians would be fighting political battles at the polls for control of their country, not military battles in the streets where they live.

Yes, I agree with that. Russia was doing their best to make these divisions more acute. Divide and rule, sort of. But they are too stupid and corrupt to do it properly.

 

[konradv]

The chance to decide it democratically had been lost in 2004. When this political division resulted in so called Orange Revolution.

Since then, the civil confrontation only gained momentum and resulted in the Euromaidan, foreign meddling, annexation of Crimea, and the war in Donbass

That’s not for Putin to decide and certainly not for anyone non-Ukrainian to state as a fait accompli.

 

[José]

It's Putin's zero-sum worldview that is the problem. Ukraine or NATO has never threatened Russia- the threat to Putin is not military.

The threat to Putin is that having successful democracies on
his borders challenges his autocratic rule in Russia.

Para bellum's grandfather or even his father were probably "normal" US citizens that considered the mass immigration of non-whites to the US as a calamity, a national tragedy and a disgrace.

That's why politicians like Ted Kennedy who sponsored the 1965 Immigration Act that opened America's gates to millions of non-whites had to lie to the american people repeating over and over that the law would not alter the demographic makeup of the country.

Fast forward 60 years and now you have his grandson, para bellum, the result of 6 decades of multiracialist indoctrination, a real multiracialist zombie who considers the indescribable insanity of destroying the US white majority and the genocide of white americans as the most natural thing in the world as long as the country holds regular elections every 4 years or so.

"DEMOCRACY!! ELECTIONS!! FREE PRESS!!"

"But, para bellum, the national identity of America as a white country is being destroyed and white americans are being subjected to a process of genocide by miscegenation!!"

"WHO CARES? GENOCIDE AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE
US EUROPEAN-WHITE IDENTITY ARE NOT IMPORTANT!!

WE HAVE DEMOCRACY, ELECTIONS, FREE PRESS!!"

It's unbelievable.

Surreal.

 

[para bellum]

Para bellum's grandfather or even his father were probably "normal" US citizens that considered the mass immigration of non-whites to the US as a calamity, a national tragedy and a disgrace.

I never heard either one even talk about "mass immigration", go figure.

You're right about one thing, my grandfather lived in a time where racism was socially acceptable, and he was pretty racist by today's standards. My father less so, but he came of age in the era of segregation, and still carried some of that baggage.

In my family, my generation moved beyond that. I'm just not interested in passing judgment on people based on characteristics beyond their control.

My opinion of someone is based on how they treat other people. There are good people and there are bad people, but I'm not a mind reader who can look at someone and know what's in their heart. I need more information than the color of their skin, or they speak a different language than me.

Your post says nothing about me Jose, but it says a lot about you...