It’s adorable that you want my attention and all but.. you’re not interested in debating things, so.. that’s boring and I’ll just move along
I never said Russia was right to be in Ukraine. You must be thinking of another discussion with a different poster
Now you are slip sliding.
Quote me where I said Russia was right to be in Ukraine, or anything remotely insinuating it.
Fair enough. Your implication is that you believe this specific instance doesn't pass the risk/reward test. Are you saying then that the risk of standing up to Russia is too great, or that the reward for defending Ukraine is too meager, or both?
first of all, i can't speak for Mr. Friscus of course, but i can say this since it's my own beliefs:
Agreed. It’s not worth the risk in this specific scenario, and this kind of stuff happens all over the world and we don’t hear about it. There’s been a specific campaign to exaggerate just how horrific and evil Russia is by the Democrats.. Conservatives don’t support Russia either but they don’t make them out to be Nazi Germany, and they don’t want to buy Russian oil like Biden does. Conservatives also largely don’t gleefully support the Ukraine, as they aren’t some beacon of morality either. Sometimes two dirty countries have to have local wars and settle it. I remember when the Democrat party was about not getting involved in war.. nowadays they are the Warhawks (probably because the global companies who profit from war are leftist)
Also fair enough. I don't agree with you, but I respect your opinion.
I think the difference here is that Crimea has been a disputed territory since the Soviet Union fell. It’s not like Ukraine was some foreign nation Russia invaded. There’s pro-Russia factions in Ukraine, Republics of Crimea have risen and fallen.. it’s very messy, which is why it’s difficult to justify going full Democrat Warhawk here.
So you think the Ukrainians should have left the Russian stooge in power when he didn't represent the wishes of the majority of the Ukrainian population.
I totally disagree.
Putin loved the USSR. He wants to bring it back together under Russian supremacy.
Looking at his involvement with the Ukraine, you can see it's been going on for 20 years.
Russia–Ukraine relations - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"In 2002, the Russian Government participated in financing the construction of the Khmelnytskyi and the Rivne Nuclear Power Plants."
Kuchma was the Ukrainian president from 1994 to 2005. The guy was pro-Russian and pro-Putin in the last 5-6 years of his presidency. Though this isn't full on Putinism, it was more a pragmatic political choice. He supported a pro-EU candidate to replace him as president.
That president was Viktor Yushchenko, a former Prime Minister of Kuchma's.
And guess what, Yushchenko was POISONED. A familiar tactic of Putin's.
It's pretty obvious that Putin had something to do with it. Three of the men at the dinner where he was poisoned are in Russia and Russia refused to extradite these men.
Didn't work, Yushchenko became president and wanted to join the EU and NATO. Not hard to see why. Those former USSR countries that joined the EU are rich. While those that didn't, Belarus and the Ukraine especially, but also Georgia, and other -stan countries and Armenia, are all under Russia's thumb.
Then there was a gas conflict, in 2009. Russia withdrew from a missile warning agreement, and the Ukraine supported Georgia against Russia in the 2008 attack on Georgia.
After this a pro-Russian president from the Donbas region. Then it went all anti-Russia from there, because... well, after the pro-Russian president was kicked out, the Russians then invaded the Crimea and the east of the Ukraine....
Putin had been trying to get his own people in place in the Ukraine, when it failed he used it as a pretext to take over parts of the Ukraine.
You say the Ukraine was taken from Putin. Er... excuse me, the Ukraine was not Putin's in the first place. Anyone who acts like it was and then claims it's NATO's fault that the Ukraine did not want to be Russian is ludicrous.
