The Kraken said:

---

Umm...Russia recognized their own independence as well as Ukraine and Belarus way back in 1991. The borders are the same as the they were when they were all states of the Soviet Union. It would be the same as if the US agreed to split up and all 50 states became independent countries.

---

Okay, now Russia changed its mind. Putin was not the leader in 1991 and many in Russia and the Ukraine did not agree with this arrangement.

But it is incorrect to pretend Ukraine has been some millenials old sovereign suddenly invaded by Putin in 2022 for no reason.

You may not remember this, but the US split into two countries a little over a 150 years ago, then got back together. And our states have had their boundaries adjusted plenty of times. But reality is that it is a fool's errand to compare the two.

Again, you cannot easily (if at all) segregate Russia and Ukraine as their history is intertwined since the beginning of both "countries".

Vlad Putin posts on TexAgs? Spreadsheet updated.

TexasAggie73 said:

---

Old Army Ghost said:

---

TexasAggie73 said:

---

And what's to say that Russia will not try to get more land in the future

---

uh have you not paid any attention at all?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/us-forces-protect-ukraine-part-214010033.html

---

Just because Trump promised something today, doesn't meant the promise will be kept in the future. That's what governments do, promise one thing and do something else later.

---

Agreed I mean that's exactly what Russia did.

oh no said:

---

There are a lot of people in Kiev who want to rejoin Russia. I know some. Most of the people in Donbas already consider themselves Russian. This is not a conflict that should concern the American taxpayer so much when China and democrats are pushing us to the brink of communism. If Europe is worried about Russia compromising their corrupt money laundering puppet state, let it be their problem and not ours.

---

This is not true.

flown-the-coop said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

You know, Kiev was once the capital of Russia until the Mongols sacked it and it wound up in Moscow.

So whose land is it?

---

"Whose land is it?"

I've got Native Americans on line Juan.

---

It's our land because the Indians let us take it.

And Ukraine is Russian land, and if Ukraine want to keep their current separatist state than they have to fight for it.

Do you think the United Stars belongs to the first peoples? If so, which parts and which tribes?

---

Thank you for that history lesson, Mr. Putin...

Ag with kids said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

You know, Kiev was once the capital of Russia until the Mongols sacked it and it wound up in Moscow.

So whose land is it?

---

"Whose land is it?"

I've got Native Americans on line Juan.

---

It's our land because the Indians let us take it.

And Ukraine is Russian land, and if Ukraine want to keep their current separatist state than they have to fight for it.

Do you think the United Stars belongs to the first peoples? If so, which parts and which tribes?

---

Thank you for that history lesson, Mr. Putin...

---

Sorry a history lesson results in your ad hom. Noted.

Are you against learning about Russia (and more recently Ukraine) history?

Because you cannot even begin to understand these conflicts under Putin without history. Nor without a longer understanding of Putin.

BTW - Educating yourself on a topic and understanding the motives of a person does not make on that person or a fan of that person. I work to understand why Putin does what he does and how to react to him versus taking the Lindsey Graham approach to topics and just restating popular opinion.

flown-the-coop said:

---

doubledog said:

---

The concept of the unified Ukrainian state is relatively modern. Kievan Rus was the last "Ukrainian" state and that was in the 9th century. So whose land is it?

---

Actually that was the beginning of Russia, though I see you did put it in quotes.

Lots of people who are "pro most sovereign Ukraine" need to understand there is no concept of Ukrainian people throughout history, and the geographic area has been part of Russia when not occupied by other civilizations.

---

Bullcrap.

Hell, Ukrainians speak a different language than Russians - they even have different, albeit similar, alphabet.

The Russians even banned the language during Russification.

They're NOT RUSSIANS...

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

You know, Kiev was once the capital of Russia until the Mongols sacked it and it wound up in Moscow.

So whose land is it?

---

"Whose land is it?"

I've got Native Americans on line Juan.

---

It's our land because the Indians let us take it.

And Ukraine is Russian land, and if Ukraine want to keep their current separatist state than they have to fight for it.

Do you think the United Stars belongs to the first peoples? If so, which parts and which tribes?

---

Thank you for that history lesson, Mr. Putin...

---

Sorry a history lesson results in your ad hom. Noted.

Are you against learning about Russia (and more recently Ukraine) history?

Because you cannot even begin to understand these conflicts under Putin without history. Nor without a longer understanding of Putin.

BTW - Educating yourself on a topic and understanding the motives of a person does not make on that person or a fan of that person. I work to understand why Putin does what he does and how to react to him versus taking the Lindsey Graham approach to topics and just restating popular opinion.

---

Ukrainians are not Russians.

No matter how much Russian propaganda states that they are.

If you want to keep repeating Russian propaganda, feel free, but it won't make it correct.

Ag with kids said:

---

Ukrainians are not Russians.

No matter how much Russian propaganda states that they are.

If you want to keep repeating Russian propaganda, feel free, but it won't make it correct.

---

Really, cause the capital of Russia used to be in Kiev, before moving to Vladimir, then Moscow, then St Petersburg, then back to Moscow.

How is what I posted Russian propaganda when it is simply a FACTUAL account of the history of those peoples?

I simply think you do not want to learn history and instead want to fall on the tired, uninformed and simply simpleton excuse that anything you don't want to hear is propaganda.

Stay uninformed if you will. Glad those in the room for Trump have a better understanding than the average f16-er.

Rossticus said:

---

---

Sorry I forget only Slava Ukraine is welcome around here.

34 years and counting for Slava Ukraine! Sort of overshadows our 250th birthday next year.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

---

Sorry I forget only Slava Ukraine is welcome around here.

34 years and counting for Slava Ukraine! Sort of overshadows our 250th birthday next year.

---

What in the actual hell are you on about? Congratulations on having managed to convince yourself that you'd made a sufficiently logical point there to actually post it, though.

Rossticus said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

---

Sorry I forget only Slava Ukraine is welcome around here.

34 years and counting for Slava Ukraine! Sort of overshadows our 250th birthday next year.

---

What in the actual hell are you on about? Congratulations on having managed to convince yourself that you'd made a sufficiently logical point there to actually post it, though.

---

Congratulations on making no sense at all. Do you have a gif for that?

Isnt there a Slava Ukraine Most Sovereign Forever War Tactics and Strategy thread?

This one is about a Russian "land grab" over territory that for the better part of the past millennium has been under the domain of Moscow.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

---

Sorry I forget only Slava Ukraine is welcome around here.

34 years and counting for Slava Ukraine! Sort of overshadows our 250th birthday next year.

---

What in the actual hell are you on about? Congratulations on having managed to convince yourself that you'd made a sufficiently logical point there to actually post it, though.

---

Congratulations on making no sense at all. Do you have a gif for that?

Isnt there a Slava Ukraine Most Sovereign Forever War Tactics and Strategy thread?

This one is about a Russian "land grab" over territory that for the better part of the past millennium has been under the domain of Moscow.

---

And Russia voluntarily gave it up in 1991, so why is that relevant?

flown-the-coop said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

---

Sorry I forget only Slava Ukraine is welcome around here.

34 years and counting for Slava Ukraine! Sort of overshadows our 250th birthday next year.

---

What in the actual hell are you on about? Congratulations on having managed to convince yourself that you'd made a sufficiently logical point there to actually post it, though.

---

Congratulations on making no sense at all. Do you have a gif for that?

Isnt there a Slava Ukraine Most Sovereign Forever War Tactics and Strategy thread?

This one is about a Russian "land grab" over territory that for the better part of the past millennium has been under the domain of Moscow.

---

Until they legally acquiesced to Ukrainian independence. The "hurr durr, they used to be part of Russia" justification is illogical, immaterial, and frankly, ignorant resulting from that single fact.

But please, go ahead and tell me more about how modern international boundaries are acceptably subject to nullification because of historical empire, colonialism, and occupation.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

This one is about a Russian "land grab" over territory that for the better part of the past millennium has been under the domain of Moscow.

---

And Russia voluntarily gave it up in 1991, so why is that relevant?

---

Because they changed their mind.

Countries do have the right to change their mind over territories they control or wish to control.

In the United States, we called this Manifest Destiny and it was widely celebrated even until recent times.

Russia isn't going to concede much because a pro-Western Ukraine is viewed as an ideological existential threat to them.

Ukraine isn't going to concede much because this is an ideological existential threat to their country independence.

Europe is freaked out.

The EU is the United States' large global trading partner and military alliance, thus the U.S. can't just tell the EU to 'f*** off not our problem' because of impact on the U.S.'s own economic security. The 'f*** off' strategy only works if you truly believe the United States can bully Europe to do whatever it wants in trade, etc. while never offering a reassuring American security blanket in return. Good luck with trying to take that strategy as a POTUS.

So, this war will probably continue to go on for a long time.

Eff it. Bring back the Huns.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

---

Sorry I forget only Slava Ukraine is welcome around here.

34 years and counting for Slava Ukraine! Sort of overshadows our 250th birthday next year.

---

What in the actual hell are you on about? Congratulations on having managed to convince yourself that you'd made a sufficiently logical point there to actually post it, though.

---

Congratulations on making no sense at all. Do you have a gif for that?

---

Rossticus said:

---

Until they legally acquiesced to Ukrainian independence. The "hurr durr, they used to be part of Russia" justification is illogical, immaterial, and frankly, ignorant resulting from that single fact.

But please, go ahead and tell me more about how modern international boundaries are acceptably subject to nullification because of historical empire, colonialism, and occupation.

---

Because it happens all the flipping time is why it is relevant.

India-Pakistan over disputed Kashmir region going back to historical differences.

China-India-Tibet-Nepal over the years.

China and Hong Kong / Taiwan.

The "Stans" over the years.

The Arab states over the years.

Africa forever.

Under what law did Russia "acquiesce" to independent Ukraine? And you surmise somehow that discussing historical context of geopolitical issues is "Illogical, immaterial, and frankly ignorant"?

You be you and slava ukraine all you want to.

Some of us live in reality where understanding these issues is tantamount to resolving them.

And if you don't want to actually discuss background and context, well... there is a place for that. A nice safe sandbox you yourself carved out.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3274372/1

I am simply pointing to the broader issues at play that show quite clearly why this was never just about a couple of reasons Putin wanted to get his paws on or that Putin seeks to recreate a new Soviet Union. Those are simpleton takes. Have at it.

flown-the-coop said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

This one is about a Russian "land grab" over territory that for the better part of the past millennium has been under the domain of Moscow.

---

And Russia voluntarily gave it up in 1991, so why is that relevant?

---

Because they changed their mind.

Countries do have the right to change their mind over territories they control or wish to control.

In the United States, we called this Manifest Destiny and it was widely celebrated even until recent times.

---

Personally (and not like anyone on this board's opinion actually matters), I'd prefer we discourage countries from starting wars that will cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and not just chalk it up to "no big deal, guess they changed their mind". YMMV.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Personally (and not like anyone on this board's opinion actually matters), I'd prefer we discourage countries from starting wars that will cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and not just chalk it up to "no big deal, guess they changed their mind". YMMV.

---

Agree,

But you get the "no big deal, guess they just changed their mind" because you do not want to understand historical concepts.

Putin actually didn't change his mind. To him, he is correcting the error of a prior government of his homeland.

And if one wants to call Putin a war criminal land grabbing dictator for invading Ukraine, that is fine too.

Again, I have been quite clear, quite direct that I do not support nor condone Putin's action. But in the real world it is helpful to understand his perspective and motives if you want to reach any sort of compromise with Putin, or any of the millions upon millions of Russians who support him.

flown-the-coop said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Personally (and not like anyone on this board's opinion actually matters), I'd prefer we discourage countries from starting wars that will cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and not just chalk it up to "no big deal, guess they changed their mind". YMMV.

---

Agree,

But you get the "no big deal, guess they just changed their mind" because you do not want to understand historical concepts.

Putin actually didn't change his mind. To him, he is correcting the error of a prior government of his homeland.

And if one wants to call Putin a war criminal land grabbing dictator for invading Ukraine, that is fine too.

Again, I have been quite clear, quite direct that I do not support nor condone Putin's action. But in the real world it is helpful to understand his perspective and motives if you want to reach any sort of compromise with Putin, or any of the millions upon millions of Russians who support him.

---

Ok. This clarifies your thought process for me. I initially mistook you for justifying/rationalizing the war via historical context. I don't disagree with what you were saying, just in utilizing it in justifying and validating the path that Russia (or any similar path that other countries with similar pursuits might plot) has taken and might continue to take in the future.

Its the problem when some spout putin puppet and russia propaganda when someone provides "another perspective".

I am happy to discuss history of civilization with anyone.

Russia and Ukraine have histories that cannot be segregated neatly into different time periods, dynasties, political ideals, ethnicity of its residents.

Again, Vladimir the Great recognized this from the beginning, hence interviewing various religions and picking Eastern Orthodox Christianity over Islam and Catholicism based mostly on liking their "style", both in ways of worship and stylizing of their worship structures (churches and such).

Back to modern day, and I posited above that Putin - being the student of Russian history that he is - likely looks to the "great" Russian leaders to develop his own "strategy".

He was 48 when he was appointed by a drunken stand-in leader in the aftermath of the Soviet Union falling apart. And for 25 years he has kept a stranglehold and the 2nd most powerful country in the world. Like him or not, that makes him a formidable leader on the global stage.

Rossticus said:

---

Ok. This clarifies your thought process for me. I initially mistook you for justifying/rationalizing the war via historical context. I don't disagree with what you were saying, just in utilizing it in justifying and validating the path that Russia (or any similar path that other countries with similar pursuits might plot) has taken and might continue to take in the future.

---

I agree that in modern society it should not be an acceptable rationale for invading other countries, but it is oft the reason it happens. That and greed / need for resources.

Rossticus said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

---

Sorry I forget only Slava Ukraine is welcome around here.

34 years and counting for Slava Ukraine! Sort of overshadows our 250th birthday next year.

---

What in the actual hell are you on about? Congratulations on having managed to convince yourself that you'd made a sufficiently logical point there to actually post it, though.

---

Congratulations on making no sense at all. Do you have a gif for that?

Isnt there a Slava Ukraine Most Sovereign Forever War Tactics and Strategy thread?

This one is about a Russian "land grab" over territory that for the better part of the past millennium has been under the domain of Moscow.

---

Until they legally acquiesced to Ukrainian independence. The "hurr durr, they used to be part of Russia" justification is illogical, immaterial, and frankly, ignorant resulting from that single fact.

But please, go ahead and tell me more about how modern international boundaries are acceptably subject to nullification because of historical empire, colonialism, and occupation.

---

I don't think it makes much sense to characterize historical context as "hurr durr" unless your objective is to stick your head in the sand.

There will always be invaders.

Ukraine cannot win this on their own.
Ukraine has shown they have no capability to actually advance the front and gain their territory back
No other country owes them their soldiers blood to fight this war for them
Ukraine is only staying in this fight because of western help
Ukraine risks complete collapse if they keep just throwing men at a meat grinder
Europe really isn't interested in fighting Russia head on as they have continued to buy russian oil and gas this whole time.

Even if this is a 10 year ceasefire to build up troops, make sure you put those 10 years to good use then.

America got what it wanted out of the war. Degradation of Russia, testing new weapons platforms, intel on current platforms.

Build a DMZ zone, make the french blush with what you point towards russia, prepare for battle in 10 years.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

---

Sorry I forget only Slava Ukraine is welcome around here.

34 years and counting for Slava Ukraine! Sort of overshadows our 250th birthday next year.

---

What in the actual hell are you on about? Congratulations on having managed to convince yourself that you'd made a sufficiently logical point there to actually post it, though.

---

Congratulations on making no sense at all. Do you have a gif for that?

Isnt there a Slava Ukraine Most Sovereign Forever War Tactics and Strategy thread?

This one is about a Russian "land grab" over territory that for the better part of the past millennium has been under the domain of Moscow.

---

Until they legally acquiesced to Ukrainian independence. The "hurr durr, they used to be part of Russia" justification is illogical, immaterial, and frankly, ignorant resulting from that single fact.

But please, go ahead and tell me more about how modern international boundaries are acceptably subject to nullification because of historical empire, colonialism, and occupation.

---

I don't think it makes much sense to characterize historical context as "hurr durr" unless your objective is to stick your head in the sand.

---

You omitted the key. I said JUSTIFICATION.

It all depends on the historical elements at hand and whether it's used from a standpoint of understanding or a standpoint of justification and rationalization of an unacceptable act. You can understand Putin's goals and Russian feelings of ownership of and entitlement to Ukraine. You cannot, however, make a leap from this understanding to a legitimization and acceptance of Russia's aggression.

I support understanding and acknowledgement of what contributed to the Russian mindset which precipitated the current situation. I can't see the logical step to move past that into condoning, accepting, or justifying it.

Not happy to see Russia take a large portion of Ukraine by extreme destructive force and want to see it discouraged. War should be a last resort. I also think the only path to peace is for Ukraine to buy it by ceding territory it can't win back anyhow.


Frankly, if Russia had been competent and not criminally abusive and destructive in their initial pursuit of the war, Ukraine would be a Russian puppet protectorate like Belarus, but there would have been much less total harm done. Still it was Ukrainian's right to resist.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

Ok. This clarifies your thought process for me. I initially mistook you for justifying/rationalizing the war via historical context. I don't disagree with what you were saying, just in utilizing it in justifying and validating the path that Russia (or any similar path that other countries with similar pursuits might plot) has taken and might continue to take in the future.

---

greed / need for resources.

---

Humanity is nothing if not predictable and consistent

Rossticus said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

---

Sorry I forget only Slava Ukraine is welcome around here.

34 years and counting for Slava Ukraine! Sort of overshadows our 250th birthday next year.

---

What in the actual hell are you on about? Congratulations on having managed to convince yourself that you'd made a sufficiently logical point there to actually post it, though.

---

Congratulations on making no sense at all. Do you have a gif for that?

Isnt there a Slava Ukraine Most Sovereign Forever War Tactics and Strategy thread?

This one is about a Russian "land grab" over territory that for the better part of the past millennium has been under the domain of Moscow.

---

Until they legally acquiesced to Ukrainian independence. The "hurr durr, they used to be part of Russia" justification is illogical, immaterial, and frankly, ignorant resulting from that single fact.

But please, go ahead and tell me more about how modern international boundaries are acceptably subject to nullification because of historical empire, colonialism, and occupation.

---

I don't think it makes much sense to characterize historical context as "hurr durr" unless your objective is to stick your head in the sand.

---

Depends on the historical elements at hand and whether it's used from a standpoint of understanding or a standpoint of justification and rationalization of an unacceptable act. You can understand Putin's goals and Russian feelings of ownership of and entitlement to Ukraine. You cannot, however, make a leap from this understanding to a legitimization and acceptance of Russia's aggression.

I support understanding and acknowledgement of what contributed to the Russian mindset which precipitated the current situation. I can't see the logical step to move past that into condoning or accepting it.

---

You're venturing from objective facts into subjective opinion territory with the bolded portions. An opinion doesn't become a fact just because it's widely heldeven if the whole world agreed, it would still be an opinion, not an absolute truth. The historical context is universally true, it happened. How someone interprets that context is subjective.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

I don't care.

---

This times eleventy billion

2040huck said:

---

Would you be happy to see Ukraine give up some land to get a deal?

---

Yes.

But I am the resident 'Vlad' here.... apparently.

Ukraine's current government, the EU, and NATO members brought this on by launching a coup in 2014 against a democratically elected President.... The coup disenfranchised the far east of the country and the new Kiev regime military suppressed the people. That brought Russia into the war.

Victoria Nuland, Alexandra Chalupa, Alex Vindman, Eric Ciaramella, John Brennan, and Susan Rice were the puppeteers in the coup. The leaked Nuland phone calls reveal the truth - Nuland and her EU peers were even talking about installing Vitali Klitschko as the President of the new Ukrainian government... but they worried he might be a bit of a loose cannon..... so they installed others.

I have no problem calling Putin a tyrant. But I have a problem when people deny that the West was instrumental in the destabilization of Ukraine that ultimately gave Putin the political calculus he needed to wage the war in the first place.

The Kiev regime is illegitimate and has been since 2014. It seals it's own illegitimacy with every cancelled election. And it has sealed it's certain defeat in the war.

Hey now, don't steal my title, comrade!