Rossticus said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Peace talks would be detrimental to Zelinsky as the people who are in the Russian annexed area overwhelmingly think they are and want to be Russian.

I don't think Russia nor the people in the regions Russia annexed would accept not ceding territory.

---

Bearing in mind, of course, that Russia "annexed" regions that were far broader than the limited area within which there was any prior conflict and much of which had expressed no prior separatist sentiment at any point.

Additionally, considering the fact that much of the population of those areas have either fled into Europe or Western Ukraine, have been deported by Russia into Russia proper, as well as the active repopulation of certain areas with Russian citizens from within Russia, it seems somewhat skewed to hand over all of Russia's claimed areas of annexation based on their current occupancy one year after the fact instead of considering their original composition and known sentiments prior to the start of the war.

This seems less of a compromise and more "pay Russia's asking price".

To be clear, are you in favor of negotiation in good faith and a true mutual compromise or are you in favor of giving Russia whatever it takes to make them happy (to include lands that it's not clear they have the strategic ability to acquire) so as to encourage them to walk away with most of their original goals accomplished, and a clear W for their efforts?

---

GAC06 said:

---

Let's be honest, if we cut Ukraine loose tomorrow most of the "not another dime" folks would be spiking the football about how weak and fickle Brandon is.

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Peace talks would be detrimental to Zelinsky as the people who are in the Russian annexed area overwhelmingly think they are and want to be Russian.

I don't think Russia nor the people in the regions Russia annexed would accept not ceding territory.

---

Bearing in mind, of course, that Russia "annexed" regions that were far broader than the limited area within which there was any prior conflict and much of which had expressed no prior separatist sentiment at any point.

Additionally, considering the fact that much of the population of those areas have either fled into Europe or Western Ukraine, have been deported by Russia into Russia proper, as well as the active repopulation of certain areas with Russian citizens from within Russia, it seems somewhat skewed to hand over all of Russia's claimed areas of annexation based on their current occupancy one year after the fact instead of considering their original composition and known sentiments prior to the start of the war.

This seems less of a compromise and more "pay Russia's asking price".

To be clear, are you in favor of negotiation in good faith and a true mutual compromise or are you in favor of giving Russia whatever it takes to make them happy (to include lands that it's not clear they have the strategic ability to acquire) so as to encourage them to walk away with most of their original goals accomplished, and a clear W for their efforts?

---

I'm suggesting let the people who live in the area decide where they want to go and defend the people's choice.

Again this is the sensible thing to do now that we are involved. It's not that hard. That would be the correct thing to do and the true concession by either side.

We won't because the guys in power are in this for their own grift and they don't care about you, us, or Putin beyond him messing up their gravy train.

That said if there was a right way to sue for peace, let the people decide. Last I looked the area that sensibly wants to be Russian is being held up against their will by zelensky for his own party's economic desires.

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Peace talks would be detrimental to Zelinsky as the people who are in the Russian annexed area overwhelmingly think they are and want to be Russian.

I don't think Russia nor the people in the regions Russia annexed would accept not ceding territory.

---

Bearing in mind, of course, that Russia "annexed" regions that were far broader than the limited area within which there was any prior conflict and much of which had expressed no prior separatist sentiment at any point.

Additionally, considering the fact that much of the population of those areas have either fled into Europe or Western Ukraine, have been deported by Russia into Russia proper, as well as the active repopulation of certain areas with Russian citizens from within Russia, it seems somewhat skewed to hand over all of Russia's claimed areas of annexation based on their current occupancy one year after the fact instead of considering their original composition and known sentiments prior to the start of the war.

This seems less of a compromise and more "pay Russia's asking price".

To be clear, are you in favor of negotiation in good faith and a true mutual compromise or are you in favor of giving Russia whatever it takes to make them happy (to include lands that it's not clear they have the strategic ability to acquire) so as to encourage them to walk away with most of their original goals accomplished, and a clear W for their efforts?

---

I'm suggesting let the people who live in the area decide where they want to go and defend the people's choice.

Again this is the sensible thing to do now that we are involved. It's not that hard. That would be the correct thing to do and the true concession by either side.

We won't because the guys in power are in this for their own grift and they don't care about you, us, or Putin beyond him messing up their gravy train.

That said if there was a right way to sue for peace, let the people decide. Last I looked the area that sensibly wants to be Russian is being held up against their will by zelensky for his own party's economic desires.

---

Have a link to something showing the bolded point? They sure seem to be fighting hard for people who would allegedly rather be in Russia.

And regardless, if a bunch of counties in south Texas wake up one day and decide they want to be a part of Mexico should we just let them do that whenever they want?

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Peace talks would be detrimental to Zelinsky as the people who are in the Russian annexed area overwhelmingly think they are and want to be Russian.

I don't think Russia nor the people in the regions Russia annexed would accept not ceding territory.

---

Bearing in mind, of course, that Russia "annexed" regions that were far broader than the limited area within which there was any prior conflict and much of which had expressed no prior separatist sentiment at any point.

Additionally, considering the fact that much of the population of those areas have either fled into Europe or Western Ukraine, have been deported by Russia into Russia proper, as well as the active repopulation of certain areas with Russian citizens from within Russia, it seems somewhat skewed to hand over all of Russia's claimed areas of annexation based on their current occupancy one year after the fact instead of considering their original composition and known sentiments prior to the start of the war.

This seems less of a compromise and more "pay Russia's asking price".

To be clear, are you in favor of negotiation in good faith and a true mutual compromise or are you in favor of giving Russia whatever it takes to make them happy (to include lands that it's not clear they have the strategic ability to acquire) so as to encourage them to walk away with most of their original goals accomplished, and a clear W for their efforts?

---

I'm suggesting let the people who live in the area decide where they want to go and defend the people's choice.

Again this is the sensible thing to do now that we are involved. It's not that hard. That would be the correct thing to do and the true concession by either side.

We won't because the guys in power are in this for their own grift and they don't care about you, us, or Putin beyond him messing up their gravy train.

That said if there was a right way to sue for peace, let the people decide. Last I looked the area that sensibly wants to be Russian is being held up against their will by zelensky for his own party's economic desires.

---

Have a link to something showing the bolded point? They sure seem to be fighting hard for people who would allegedly rather be in Russia.

And regardless, if a bunch of counties in south Texas wake up one day and decide they want to be a part of Mexico should we just let them do that whenever they want?

---

See countless Ukrainian threads last year. If they don't then leave it up to the people. My opinion or ignorance on what they want doesn't change my suggestion.

And no they didn't fight that hard in those regions in the beginning.

We as in texas or the US? I think the people should decide their government and their allegiance. Don't you?

In your hypothetical, is the US a tyrannical government and is Mexico a more fitting option for freedom and self autonomy?

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Peace talks would be detrimental to Zelinsky as the people who are in the Russian annexed area overwhelmingly think they are and want to be Russian.

I don't think Russia nor the people in the regions Russia annexed would accept not ceding territory.

---

Bearing in mind, of course, that Russia "annexed" regions that were far broader than the limited area within which there was any prior conflict and much of which had expressed no prior separatist sentiment at any point.

Additionally, considering the fact that much of the population of those areas have either fled into Europe or Western Ukraine, have been deported by Russia into Russia proper, as well as the active repopulation of certain areas with Russian citizens from within Russia, it seems somewhat skewed to hand over all of Russia's claimed areas of annexation based on their current occupancy one year after the fact instead of considering their original composition and known sentiments prior to the start of the war.

This seems less of a compromise and more "pay Russia's asking price".

To be clear, are you in favor of negotiation in good faith and a true mutual compromise or are you in favor of giving Russia whatever it takes to make them happy (to include lands that it's not clear they have the strategic ability to acquire) so as to encourage them to walk away with most of their original goals accomplished, and a clear W for their efforts?

---

I'm suggesting let the people who live in the area decide where they want to go and defend the people's choice.

Again this is the sensible thing to do now that we are involved. It's not that hard. That would be the correct thing to do and the true concession by either side.

We won't because the guys in power are in this for their own grift and they don't care about you, us, or Putin beyond him messing up their gravy train.

That said if there was a right way to sue for peace, let the people decide. Last I looked the area that sensibly wants to be Russian is being held up against their will by zelensky for his own party's economic desires.

---

Have a link to something showing the bolded point? They sure seem to be fighting hard for people who would allegedly rather be in Russia.

And regardless, if a bunch of counties in south Texas wake up one day and decide they want to be a part of Mexico should we just let them do that whenever they want?

---

See countless Ukrainian threads last year. If they don't then leave it up to the people. My opinion or ignorance on what they want doesn't change my suggestion.

And no they didn't fight that hard in those regions in the beginning.

We as in texas or the US? I think the people should decide their government and their allegiance. Don't you?

In your hypothetical, is the US a tyrannical government and is Mexico a more fitting option for freedom and self autonomy?

---

Countless threads? Feel free to link even one that isn't just spouting Russian propaganda.

And implying that Ukraine is some horrible tyrannical government is pretty insane when they aren't the ones invading their neighbors for no reason and murdering thousands of civilians.

Finally, no, random citizens don't get to decide national borders. If they want to be a part of another country they can move there.

---

Quote:

---

I'm suggesting let the people who live in the area decide where they want to go and defend the people's choice.

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm suggesting let the people who live in the area decide where they want to go and defend the people's choice.

---

That was pretty much the status quo antebellum. The "ethnic Russian" areas of Ukraine were already under Russian occupation. The pretext for invasion was to stop nazi predations on the simple peace loving people in the Russian areas that only wanted to go on with their simple lives of dancing and togetherness.

What makes this set of decisions by Ukrainians any more important than the decisions made prior to the invasion?

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Peace talks would be detrimental to Zelinsky as the people who are in the Russian annexed area overwhelmingly think they are and want to be Russian.

I don't think Russia nor the people in the regions Russia annexed would accept not ceding territory.

---

Bearing in mind, of course, that Russia "annexed" regions that were far broader than the limited area within which there was any prior conflict and much of which had expressed no prior separatist sentiment at any point.

Additionally, considering the fact that much of the population of those areas have either fled into Europe or Western Ukraine, have been deported by Russia into Russia proper, as well as the active repopulation of certain areas with Russian citizens from within Russia, it seems somewhat skewed to hand over all of Russia's claimed areas of annexation based on their current occupancy one year after the fact instead of considering their original composition and known sentiments prior to the start of the war.

This seems less of a compromise and more "pay Russia's asking price".

To be clear, are you in favor of negotiation in good faith and a true mutual compromise or are you in favor of giving Russia whatever it takes to make them happy (to include lands that it's not clear they have the strategic ability to acquire) so as to encourage them to walk away with most of their original goals accomplished, and a clear W for their efforts?

---

I'm suggesting let the people who live in the area decide where they want to go and defend the people's choice.

Again this is the sensible thing to do now that we are involved. It's not that hard. That would be the correct thing to do and the true concession by either side.

We won't because the guys in power are in this for their own grift and they don't care about you, us, or Putin beyond him messing up their gravy train.

That said if there was a right way to sue for peace, let the people decide. Last I looked the area that sensibly wants to be Russian is being held up against their will by zelensky for his own party's economic desires.

---

Have a link to something showing the bolded point? They sure seem to be fighting hard for people who would allegedly rather be in Russia.

And regardless, if a bunch of counties in south Texas wake up one day and decide they want to be a part of Mexico should we just let them do that whenever they want?

---

See countless Ukrainian threads last year. If they don't then leave it up to the people. My opinion or ignorance on what they want doesn't change my suggestion.

And no they didn't fight that hard in those regions in the beginning.

We as in texas or the US? I think the people should decide their government and their allegiance. Don't you?

In your hypothetical, is the US a tyrannical government and is Mexico a more fitting option for freedom and self autonomy?

---

Countless threads? Feel free to link even one that isn't just spouting Russian propaganda.

And implying that Ukraine is some horrible tyrannical government is pretty insane when they aren't the ones invading their neighbors for no reason and murdering thousands of civilians.

Finally, no, random citizens don't get to decide national borders. If they want to be a part of another country they can move there.

---

I didn't mean to imply they were tyrannical. I was talking about your hypothetical.

And lol at your last point, King George.

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Peace talks would be detrimental to Zelinsky as the people who are in the Russian annexed area overwhelmingly think they are and want to be Russian.

I don't think Russia nor the people in the regions Russia annexed would accept not ceding territory.

---

Bearing in mind, of course, that Russia "annexed" regions that were far broader than the limited area within which there was any prior conflict and much of which had expressed no prior separatist sentiment at any point.

Additionally, considering the fact that much of the population of those areas have either fled into Europe or Western Ukraine, have been deported by Russia into Russia proper, as well as the active repopulation of certain areas with Russian citizens from within Russia, it seems somewhat skewed to hand over all of Russia's claimed areas of annexation based on their current occupancy one year after the fact instead of considering their original composition and known sentiments prior to the start of the war.

This seems less of a compromise and more "pay Russia's asking price".

To be clear, are you in favor of negotiation in good faith and a true mutual compromise or are you in favor of giving Russia whatever it takes to make them happy (to include lands that it's not clear they have the strategic ability to acquire) so as to encourage them to walk away with most of their original goals accomplished, and a clear W for their efforts?

---

I'm suggesting let the people who live in the area decide where they want to go and defend the people's choice.

Again this is the sensible thing to do now that we are involved. It's not that hard. That would be the correct thing to do and the true concession by either side.

We won't because the guys in power are in this for their own grift and they don't care about you, us, or Putin beyond him messing up their gravy train.

That said if there was a right way to sue for peace, let the people decide. Last I looked the area that sensibly wants to be Russian is being held up against their will by zelensky for his own party's economic desires.

---

Have a link to something showing the bolded point? They sure seem to be fighting hard for people who would allegedly rather be in Russia.

And regardless, if a bunch of counties in south Texas wake up one day and decide they want to be a part of Mexico should we just let them do that whenever they want?

---

See countless Ukrainian threads last year. If they don't then leave it up to the people. My opinion or ignorance on what they want doesn't change my suggestion.

And no they didn't fight that hard in those regions in the beginning.

We as in texas or the US? I think the people should decide their government and their allegiance. Don't you?

In your hypothetical, is the US a tyrannical government and is Mexico a more fitting option for freedom and self autonomy?

---

Countless threads? Feel free to link even one that isn't just spouting Russian propaganda.

And implying that Ukraine is some horrible tyrannical government is pretty insane when they aren't the ones invading their neighbors for no reason and murdering thousands of civilians.

Finally, no, random citizens don't get to decide national borders. If they want to be a part of another country they can move there.

---

I didn't mean to imply they were tyrannical. I was talking about your hypothetical.

And lol at your last point, King George.

---

You were clearly inferring that Ukraine was the tyrannical option in your analogy, but given that you couldn't process the difference between tanks driven by Ukrainians and tanks driven by American soldiers it's not surprising you'd come up with a non-sensical example.

---

We’re bombing Iranian drone factories supplying Russia now? Who is escalating and expanding the conflict? When does it become a World War? https://t.co/UWizRiQ2tN

— @amuse (@amuse) February 24, 2023

Quote:

---

Capabilities in this security assistance package include:

Additional ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS);
Additional 155mm artillery rounds;
Munitions for laser-guided rocket systems;
CyberLux K8 UAS;
Switchblade 600 UAS;
Altius-600 UAS;
Jump 20 UAS;
Counter-UAS and electronic warfare detection equipment;
Mine clearing equipment;
Secure communications support equipment;
Funding for training, maintenance, and sustainment.

Unlike Presidential Drawdown, USAI is an authority under which the United States procures capabilities rather than delivering equipment that is drawn down from DoD stocks. This announcement represents the beginning of a contracting process to provide additional capabilities to Ukraine's Armed Forces.

---

GAC06 said:

---

The article says Iran says it was an exercise and they blamed the previous actual attack on Israel. You don't have a great track record running with the stormtrooper twitter.

---

Breaking News: Iranian air defense activated after explosions are heard in Karaj. pic.twitter.com/7CBgtsDOvB

— Maine Republican Patriot Cory Reynolds (@RepublicanCoryR) February 24, 2023

GAC06 said:

---

They certainly might be lying. There's also nothing to suggest "we're bombing Iran"

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Good Lord.

A draft? For Ukraine? LOL

They've been kicking ass on their own.

How Putin hasn't gotten whacked yet, from within, is beyond me.

Everyone. And I mean EVERYONE is killable.

---

GAC06 said:

---

The history here says that according to Iran, Israel did this recently. Nordstream can un-poke it's head.

---

Rossticus said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Peace talks would be detrimental to Zelinsky as the people who are in the Russian annexed area overwhelmingly think they are and want to be Russian.

I don't think Russia nor the people in the regions Russia annexed would accept not ceding territory.

---

Bearing in mind, of course, that Russia "annexed" regions that were far broader than the limited area within which there was any prior conflict and much of which had expressed no prior separatist sentiment at any point.

Additionally, considering the fact that much of the population of those areas have either fled into Europe or Western Ukraine, have been deported by Russia into Russia proper, as well as the active repopulation of certain areas with Russian citizens from within Russia, it seems somewhat skewed to hand over all of Russia's claimed areas of annexation based on their current occupancy one year after the fact instead of considering their original composition and known sentiments prior to the start of the war.

This seems less of a compromise and more "pay Russia's asking price".

To be clear, are you in favor of negotiation in good faith and a true mutual compromise or are you in favor of giving Russia whatever it takes to make them happy (to include lands that it's not clear they have the strategic ability to acquire) so as to encourage them to walk away with most of their original goals accomplished, and a clear W for their efforts?

---

I'm suggesting let the people who live in the area decide where they want to go and defend the people's choice.

Again this is the sensible thing to do now that we are involved. It's not that hard. That would be the correct thing to do and the true concession by either side.

We won't because the guys in power are in this for their own grift and they don't care about you, us, or Putin beyond him messing up their gravy train.

That said if there was a right way to sue for peace, let the people decide. Last I looked the area that sensibly wants to be Russian is being held up against their will by zelensky for his own party's economic desires.

---

Have a link to something showing the bolded point? They sure seem to be fighting hard for people who would allegedly rather be in Russia.

And regardless, if a bunch of counties in south Texas wake up one day and decide they want to be a part of Mexico should we just let them do that whenever they want?

---

See countless Ukrainian threads last year. If they don't then leave it up to the people. My opinion or ignorance on what they want doesn't change my suggestion.

And no they didn't fight that hard in those regions in the beginning.

We as in texas or the US? I think the people should decide their government and their allegiance. Don't you?

In your hypothetical, is the US a tyrannical government and is Mexico a more fitting option for freedom and self autonomy?



Edit: I don't consider wiki to be a legit source, but they sure don't seem very pro Ukraine based on recent history:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_People%27s_Republic

Maybe the people just voted in a bunch of pro Russian yahoos by accident or they are subverting their elections?

---

This was addressed numerous times over the first 6 months of the war. Lots of threads and posts covering it. Going to keep it simple because I'm just tired of writing dissertations on this same issue. Prior to Russia seeding, supporting, supplying, training, etc a relatively small initial group of separatists in 2014 there was no broad movement for independence from Ukraine outside of areas containing a high volume of illegal Russian immigrants. Yes. Eastern Ukraine had Russian illegals. Not surprising.

Via direct Russian influence and support, the group expanded and, via violence, bribery, and other coercive means ensured that pro-Russian elements were installed in local and regional government positions. They also ensured that there was little choice as to where local allegiances would lie if you lived in that area. It's a poor area. People didn't have an option to pick up and leave. Most residents who weren't men of fighting age just tried to keep their heads down and keep living. Men of fighting age didn't have a lot of options if they wanted to remain alive and keep their families safe. Their "opinions" and "voting" practices were whatever kept them safe and off the radar.

Eventually, as we know, this all boiled over into direct conflict between the Russian backed contingent (which was also comprised of actual illegal Russian citizens and literal Russian military), local Ukrainian nationalist militias, and Ukrainian government. There was never some wholly organic movement of Ukrainians who wanted to join Russia out of desire for some greater liberty or escape from Ukrainian tyranny. Russia manufactured it, pitched a pretty story, and when things got ugly, as they do in conflict, they pointed fingers as justification of their narrative.

If you want to talk about negotiation of a portion of the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine where the MOST pro Russian concentration of residents lived (many being literal Russian citizens) in order to cease hostilities and save lives then I don't see that as being unreasonable.

Advocating for permitting Russia to annex an area of 4 oblasts nearly 1/3 the size of Texas (whose residents, outside of the Donbas conflict, literally never pushed to leave Ukraine) based on what a limited group of people supported in a limited border region due largely to Russian subversion and destabilization seems a bit much, unless your logic is that the greater good is to end the war at all costs, with the quickest way of doing so being to offer Russia a sweetheart deal that allows them to achieve, for all practical purposes, victory.

And if that's your logic then that's your logic. Just trying to hone in on the heart of your pov.

---

Quote:

---

That's my logic as we have no reason to be there and Ukraine is not a NATO country. To say that area is not ethnically Russian beyond the rest of Ukraine is silly and untrue. Not saying you said that but you are heavily implying the only people that want to be a part of Russia in the region are some separatists and they all love Ukraine, which isn't true nor verifiable one way or the other.

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

That's my logic as we have no reason to be there and Ukraine is not a NATO country. To say that area is not ethnically Russian beyond the rest of Ukraine is silly and untrue. Not saying you said that but you are heavily implying the only people that want to be a part of Russia in the region are some separatists and they all love Ukraine, which isn't true nor verifiable one way or the other.

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Calls for DEI with respect to those sent to front lines in Ukraine.

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Am I missing some kind of push to send troops to Ukraine? Why is this even a talking point?

---

GAC06 said:

---

When Russia attacked Ukraine, we were providing arms and had no troops or troops of a country we are bound by treaty to protect in combat. A year later, that's still the case. But omg the eScaLaTiOn.

Neat debate strategy there btw. Repeat Russian talking point. When someone finally counters, call them a liar. Good stuff.

---

Zergling Rush said:

---

BoDog said:

---

What is the cliff's notes version of these leaks-specifically what was said that is so damaging?

---

The US is spying on Zelensky.
There are at least 100 US, British, and French special forces operating in direct combat roles in Ukraine
The US is actively planning attacks for the Ukrainians
The US was supporting the protests against Netanyahu.
and some other stuff about our allies around the world....

In other words, someone decided that the Biden Admin needed to be a little more transparent on how they operate.

Just the small things that would get a former President impeached and likely removed from office, and maybe even hung.

It's (D)ifferent.



BTW this was likely espionage.....pick one - Russia, China, Saudi, or Israel.

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Am I missing some kind of push to send troops to Ukraine? Why is this even a talking point?

---

You can't be that naiive

---

Feel free to provide any information to the contrary.

---