nortex97 said:

---

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

---

I prefer Vice Tsar.

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

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.

---

Coup? What coup? The Ukrainian Parliament voted to remove Yanukovych from office.

RDV-1992 said:

---

Based on the situation they are currently in, they will need to buy peace. That probably means land to Russia.

Edited to add: it doesn't matter if I'm happy or not. What matters is if the Ukrainians will accept the outcome.

They aren't winning without foreign boots on the ground. I'm opposed to direct US intervention. So I think that ending it somehow is the best thing for us.

---

The Ukraine only needs to outlast Russia. Russia, on the other hand, is out to take land.

eric76 said:

---

RDV-1992 said:

---

Based on the situation they are currently in, they will need to buy peace. That probably means land to Russia.

Edited to add: it doesn't matter if I'm happy or not. What matters is if the Ukrainians will accept the outcome.

They aren't winning without foreign boots on the ground. I'm opposed to direct US intervention. So I think that ending it somehow is the best thing for us.

---

The Ukraine only needs to outlast Russia. Russia, on the other hand, is out to take land.

---

Ukraine is bleeding faster than Russia is. And they had less to start with. Their stand has been remarkable. Courageous. But they are slowly being chipped away village by village. IMO they are on borrowed time.

The best resolution for them is a peace with a security arrangement with the EU, who will be their best partner moving forward.

93MarineHorn said:

---

Burpelson said:

---

Can you imagine FDR and Ike taking questions as to what part of France or Poland should go to Hitler.

---

Just after Germany's UCONDITIONAL surrender, the US and it's allies allowed the Soviet Union to take over East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria without firing a shot. We condemned 10's of millions of people to suffer under communism for 50 years even though we had nukes and they didn't. Are you ashamed?

---

Patton and Churchill were correct. Thank you Ronald Reagan.

93MarineHorn said:

---

army01 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

army01 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Burpelson said:

---

If Ukraine did give land that would not be the end of it, Putin would see the weekness and continue. Putin wants the Russian dynasty of old, and he is not going to stop!!

---

He will stop. Russia is weak.

---

Russia is weak, but giving them the land they want will help them continue to grow economically. Putin should not be rewarded for this.

---

Whats your solution to stopping the war?

---

We take him out back and beat the **** out of him?

---

You want the US to go to war with Russia? Or is this just bluster because you have no argument?

---

I said it tongue in cheek. I am not a strategist. Do I think we go to war with them, no. Do I think we provide support that enables them to further fall into financial hardship -- absolutely.

I am 100% against Russia expanding. It's obvious that the former soviet KGB agent is trying to get the band back together. The only halfway positive to something like this would be the innovation and ingenuity it would hopefully drive us towards, but I fear that if we start walking that path, we might end up losing Cold War 2.0.

Zelensky loves tf out of this war, the dude is crushing his bank account.

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.

---

BTW, it was Ukraine even during the Soviet era.


Notice that Russia and Ukraine are not the same country?

Ukraine was an SSR, just like Latvia or Estonia or Belarus, none of which were RUSSIAN.

They didn't break off from RUSSIA in 1991, they declared independence from the USSR.

Even the Russians during the entire Soviet period knew they weren't Russian.

Hell, using your brilliant logic, the Irish are actually English, since the English controlled their country for a long time.

Ok buddy. You believe whatever you want.

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

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.

---

Don't leave out the fact that Yanakovitch (sp?) tried to make Ukraine a vassal state of Russia when the people and the parliament overwhelmingly wanted greater alignment with the EU...

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ok buddy. You believe whatever you want.

---

I will.

And you believe Putin.

Not sure we want to base today's history on the 13th century. Putin is an ass.

Kyiv, currently the capital of Ukraine, was indeed the first capital of what is now known as Russia. It served as the capital of the medieval state of Kievan Rus', which is considered the ancestor of both modern Russia and Ukraine. 9-13 century.

Ag with kids said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ok buddy. You believe whatever you want.

---

I will.

And you believe Putin.

---

I am knowledgeable the historical record, you are not.

Again, believe in whatever you want to believe. I'll stick to the facts. Sorry if that bothers you.

FWIW, on the Russian side it is Khrushchev who is heavily criticized for his decision to hand Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR.

Quote:

---

Historians have a very simple explanation to Nikita Khrushchev's generosity. He came to power after the death of Joseph Stalin, unmasked his cult and condemned repressions. However, Khrushchev was involved in a number of repression-related affairs before. He was conducting a struggle against "people's enemies" when he served as the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Ukrainian Communist Party from 1938 to 1947 to win the support of the Ukrainian leadership. That is why he gave the resort peninsula on the Black Sea coast to the republic.

---

Even then, in other words, it was a bit of a power consolidation move, which is what communists did/do.

Quote:

---

While Khrushchev was ethnically Russian, he fell in love with Ukraine. There is a definite proof of that, which is the transfer of the Crimean Peninsula's regional management from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) to the Ukrainian SSR, which happened under Khrushchev.

"It was somewhat symbolic, somewhat trying to reshuffle the centralized system and also, full disclosure, Nikita Khrushchev was very fond of Ukraine, so I think to some degree it was also a personal gesture toward his favorite republic. He was ethnically Russian, but he really felt great affinity with Ukraine," said Nina Khrushcheva,the great-granddaughter of the former Soviet leader.

The Crimea's transfer to Ukraine was a controversial move, angering many including Putin in the Russian establishment. "In 1954, the Crimean Region of the RSFSR was given to the Ukrainian SSR, in gross violation of legal norms that were in force at the time," Putin said of Khrushchev's act, which the latter described as a "symbolic gesture".

Khrushchev was also known for his de-Stalinisation policy of the Soviets. As part of de-Stalinisation, he also opposed Stalin's Russification policy, allowing its criticism in communist power circles. In 1953, the Ukrainian Communist Party openly criticised Stalin's Russification policy. Stalin, a Georgian, was not an ethnic Russian.

---

And the history of course goes back much further. It all falls in the 'not our problem' bucket though.

I watch Great Courses for my "entertainment" and going back through the "Understanding Russia". Russia (for that matter Eastern Europe and Central Asia) have very complicated histories.

The barriers of mountains along with vast plains of fertile land and lush rivers have meant the near constant fighting in the area for centuries. Current Ukraine and Poland being prime examples of hard to defend territories.

Not sure if some folks would on here are anti cartography or feel inherently threatened by the prospect of a map changing, but they do change.

You do a good job of presenting it without bias and I believe this board, but certainly I do, appreciate that.

Thx. I haven't listened to those in a while (used to in the car on CD's from the library). Will try to check that out sometime. It gets so arcane though as I don't know the maps off the top of my head I doubt I will get thru it.

The Kraken said:

---

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

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.

---

Coup? What coup? The Ukrainian Parliament voted to remove Yanukovych from office.

---

And then Zelenskyy was elected in a landslide in 2019. They would have had another election but then Russia decided to invade.

.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

The Kraken said:

---

Coup? What coup? The Ukrainian Parliament voted to remove Yanukovych from office.

---

And then Zelenskyy was elected in a landslide in 2019. They would have had another election but then Russia decided to invade.

---

On a 'wiping out corruption and make peace with Russians in the East' platform.

Which he attempted to do. Putin wasn't interested and it takes two to accomplish that. But you already knew that.

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.

---

In a situation like this the history of the people and their language will have an impact on how modern lines will be drawn.

That's just a fact. Whether we like it or not.

flown-the-coop said:

---

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.

---

Russian isn't the 2nd most powerful country in the world. That's ridiculous. It has the GDP of Italy. It's navy isn't that big. It's army is large but technologically deficient. It does have one of the best natural resources of all countries in the world i'll give you that.

But there are 15 or 20 countries more 'powerful' than Russia when you look at GDP, financial strength, population, access to oceans, vital technology, natural allies and their relative strength and natural resources. Who would argue that Russia is more powerful than China? No one. Japan? UK? France? Germany?

And before you go there there are 8 countries that have nukes. The number of nukes doesnt really matter...the use of a dozen nukes destroys most of the world rendering them all the same.

WestAustinAg said:

---

And before you go there there are 8 countries that have nukes. The number of nukes doesnt really matter...the use of a dozen nukes destroys most of the world rendering them all the same.

---

Umm what?

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ok buddy. You believe whatever you want.

---

I will.

And you believe Putin.

---

I am knowledgeable the historical record, you are not.

Again, believe in whatever you want to believe. I'll stick to the facts. Sorry if that bothers you.

---

You do understand that Ukraine was not part of Russia during the entire period of the USSR and they have a different language and alphabet, then...

Doesn't sound very Russian to me...

flown-the-coop said:

---

I watch Great Courses for my "entertainment" and going back through the "Understanding Russia". Russia (for that matter Eastern Europe and Central Asia) have very complicated histories.

The barriers of mountains along with vast plains of fertile land and lush rivers have meant the near constant fighting in the area for centuries. Current Ukraine and Poland being prime examples of hard to defend territories.

Not sure if some folks would on here are anti cartography or feel inherently threatened by the prospect of a map changing, but they do change.

You do a good job of presenting it without bias and I believe this board, but certainly I do, appreciate that.

---

He quoted Pravda...

Yep...without bias...

WestAustinAg 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.

---

In a situation like this the history of the people and their language will have an impact on how modern lines will be drawn.

That's just a fact. Whether we like it or not.

---

Yep, and that's why Ukraine had separate boundaries from Russia. Because they were Ukrainian, not Russian.

Ag with kids said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ok buddy. You believe whatever you want.

---

I will.

And you believe Putin.

---

I am knowledgeable the historical record, you are not.

Again, believe in whatever you want to believe. I'll stick to the facts. Sorry if that bothers you.

---

You do understand that Ukraine was not part of Russia during the entire period of the USSR and they have a different language and alphabet, then...

Doesn't sound very Russian to me...

---

China has over 200 hundred distinct languages and multiple alphabets. Over 22 OFFICIALLY recognized languages in India. Should they all separate out? Ukraine itself has many predominantly spoken languages.

Perhaps (another) history lesson is in order...

Quote:

---

From the 14th to the 18th century, portions of Ukraine were ruled by Lithuania, Poland, and Russia. In addition, Cossacks controlled a largely self-governing territory known as the Hetmanate. Most of Ukraine fell to Russian rule in the 18th century.

In the aftermath of World War I and the Russian Revolution of 1917, most of the Ukrainian region became a republic of the Soviet Union, though parts of western Ukraine were divided between Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia.

---

You have been misled if you think there has always been this little ol poor Ukraine most sovereign country that mean ol Putin woke up one day and decided to rape, pillage and conquer.