The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming

I'm texan. I was born in Tyler but moved to God's country at two months old.

 

Because these are not in areas surrounded by "unaffiliated" regions defined back in the day as "colonies", "territories", "Indian Country", etc. These are borders of nations. Also, this would be more akin to Mass/Maine deciding in about 1801 that they wanted to be a part of the UK and the UK was stationed in Canada and had ammassed troops on the border and then moved troops into Mass/Maine.

 

Well our little analogies to Ukraine are really side issues. The conflict is really US vs Russia, how the world chooses sides, and what a multi-polar globe will look like. Ukraine is only the current flashpoint.

Just as important is how the Canadian conflict plays out, whose side the US government backs, and will they try similar tactics here.

 

Last comment about Texas in a Russia thread, but it's not quite that. Texas was annexed in 1845 with no borders clearly defined! The annexation language said "the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas" as a slave state. That means they could have slaves above the Missouri Compromise as there were no partial slave states. (Surely an abolitionist in the 1840s would say it the other way, but Texans clearly had slaves after statehood.) Whatever that language covered geographically, it was intended to not piss off Mexico more but didn't work so the Mexican-American War begin in 1846.

The Compromise of 1850 was mostly to deal with land won from that war. Clearly defining Texas' borders was also a goal of the 1850 Compromise. Since Texas was already a state, the federal government could not shrink the borders of Texas. The Texas Legislature had to start the process and was very interested in getting rid of its $10 million debt from it's fight for independence and near decade as a nation. Abolitionists insisted the Texas border stop at 36.5 degrees to clearly extend the Missouri Compromise. Funnily enough, the new Utah and New Mexico territories from the 1850 Compromise were allowed to decide slave or free for themselves, meaning the 36.5 degree parallel north stopped after Texas (heading west).

I didn't say they were all smart.

 

The Kremlin is looking to add a new dish to its dinner menu:



Chicken Kiev

 

Oil prices surge, markets shudder after Germany suspends Nord Stream 2 pipeline

NordStream II Pipeline "on ice" per the Germans.

Scholz calls these "difficult hours" as he strolls back to his excellent biergarten.

 

I thought that was funny.

 

Wouldn't and shouldn't are two different things. There is a principle called subsidiarity, which you have appealed to before, which could also be described as popular sovereignty or localism. If a minority group wants to break off one political entity and become independent or combine with another, there are logical and moral reasons to support it.

For example there are counties in Eastern Washington, Oregon, and California who want to join Idaho. There is also the case of West Virginia during the Civil War. There is also the case of the 13 British colonies in 1776.

I am not saying Donbas should break off from Ukraine. I definitely think Russia is "bad" when/if they send troops in to "defend" Russians. But if the people in the Separatist areas really want to break free. I won't disagree with them. After the 2014 Maidan Revolution, the new Ukrainian government did discriminate against Russians in Donbas. Therefore there are real grievances they have against Ukraine. They could obviously move to Russia, but that is also difficult. They are poor moving into another poor area taking resources away. It is a recipe for failure.

 

Asked due to complete ignorance, what portion of those two "states" are Russian or sympathetic to Russia.

 

Those sympathetic to Ukraine have hauled out years ago. But there may be others sympathetic to Ukraine who are in the portion of those states which is currently controlled by Ukraine. I would advise them to leave. Putin has stated that territory belongs to the two states. Either that or agree to be flexible and adapt.

 

Roughly the areas Separatists control. I expect the boundaries don't completely represent where the "Russians" live or what areas are majority "Russian". But there are portions that are a large majority of Russian speakers. I think like 95%. I might be wrong on the number.

 

So does this count as a Russian invasion?

 

So how about an orchestrated (among the Allies) dumping of Rubles and crashing their currency? Don’t know if that could be pulled off. Bring in Soros as a consultant.

 

I would say whenever the Russsian army is in Donbas we can count it as an invasion.

Has that happened yet?

 

Interesting. Shouldn't this be a consideration when forming an opinion?

 

Kamala in Europe right now is so over her head. She's a deer in headlights. Sorry but you can't get on your knees to solve this problem.

 

Long ago, my Dad, a political science professor, told me that Russia would always be a major threat because they had as many nuclear warheads as us...

I remember the following exchange between Obama and Mitt Romney and thought Obama was wrong.



Now CNN (CNN!) is declaring it to be so.
It's time to admit it: Mitt Romney was right about Russia - CNNPolitics

And lest you think I'm picking on Obama, here's something that also makes me shake my head:

Trump on Putin plan to recognize breakaway Ukraine regions: 'This is genius'

 

I'm not sure that's true. Diplomatically and militarily, she has no chance in hell, but if Vladimir Putin has Willie Brown's tastes, her presence may very well work. I'm at least willing to reserve judgment.

 

Borders obviously do move from time to time. However, even when that happens, the right way to do it is through the political process or in extreme cases, civil wars. When an outside agitator deploys or threatens to deploy military force to bully the nation into submission especially when there's likely a plan of annexation, I suspect the motives of the outside agitator.

Let's put it this way. If Putin's rationale is acceptable or moral, then we all owe Hitler an apology for giving him **** about taking Sudetenland. He pretty made the same case, and it had similar merit.

 

The leftist media is having a field day by using just a portion of the comments AND the failure to note the sarcasm that existed in the interview Trump gave...

Trump IS correct in his statement that this would not have occurred on his watch. There is a reason that Putin waited five years. He KNEW Biden was spineless and ineffective, especially after watching him surrender Bagram AND leave Americans behind in Afghanistan.

 

I think there is truth and error on both sides. The people of Donbas do have reasonable grievances against the Ukrainian government. I do not support Russia moving forces into their area, officially, they already did unofficially. But both Ukraine and Russia have escalated the situation over time. If the US wasn't so involved with Ukraine, I don't think they would have escalated as much early on.

I am not supporting Hitler's actions in any way. I also think the racial justification that Russia is using is poor. Claiming a state is the true protector of any race or nation is very problematic. It would lead to violence all over the world today. It has in the past too.

That said, the world didn't go to war for Germany taken the Sudetenland, correct? It riled up some feathers. Hitler gave his racial/historical justification for doing so, and Europe backed off. It wasn't until Germany attacked Poland that WW2 started. Isn't that correct?

So the question is do we really think that Russia is planning to attack Kiev? Are they going to attack the Baltics or Poland? They have allowed Georgia and Kazakhstan to exist as separate states more or less. There have been border disputes there too, but Russia hasn't tried to take them over. If we think Russia will stop with Donbas, that is an imperfect but acceptable situation. Much better that then start WW3. If Russia really is planning to retake all of the old Soviet states, then Europe needs to figure out what they think about that. The US can work with Europe. But I don't think a US lead war starting in Donbas is a great outcome either.

The US isn't innocent in all this build up going back to at least 1991 and proceeding until today. I prefer Ukraine determine their own destiny. But if Russia wants them as a puppet, I don't think a better situation is for the US to make Ukraine their puppet. I think it is better to stay out of the situation and let the balance of powers equilibrate to place of stability without the US. Because it take our money and our lives to tip the scales in the other direction. US citizens don't live healthier or wealthier lives if the US has to keep the peace on the Asian continent.

 

It's real simple man:

Putin is the enemy. So is China. We have a mixed response in this country as to our attitude towards these two rogue superpowers. Trump's is unacceptable to me. He should just STFU if his public response is indicative of his beliefs. It's not helpful. TV networks, the NBA (talking to you LeBron, Pop and Steve Kerr) and all our multinational corporations abandon their domestic "woke" attitudes when it comes to China all because of money. Obama totally blew his assessment of Russia in an attempt to make himself look modern. Liberals of course will ignore this because they can't handle reality. Biden is hapless.

Trump should go away.
Liberals need to grow up.
Biden should never have been elected.

When the country is solely obsessed with self (social and cultural standing), then reality, in the presence of a foreign policy situation that doesn't care one bit about defunding the police or abolishing ICE, will flush out the real leaders and the activist obsessed charlatans.

Who is in charge? Right now, I have no idea.

 

Putin wants Kiev to negotiate with Donetsk and Lugansk. I’m guessing as long as Ukraine doesn’t launch an attack he will be patient. But if Ukraine is stupid enough to an attack, Putin said weeks ago that Ukraine would be ended. I see no reason to doubt him.

 

That's right... but it was the domino's starting to fall. It led to the "peace in our time" decision making process. It was the hope that this is all Hitler/Putin wants decision making process. But to acquiesce is to confirm our weak spots. Our will.

Putin knows we don't want all out war. Think WMD. They have them. Russia could also over-run Europe I would think but he knows France and England have warheads. It's a stare-down now. Or it could be.

People drunk with power can't be trusted. Where does Putin blink? If their response to the ice skating debacle along with the overall response to cheating (PED's) is indicative of their mind-set, then we know they won't back down easily on the world stage. Pride (along with oil & gas) is their power.

 

So is the neoliberal regime in control of the US and headed by Biden and the leftist bureaucratic state. You know all the liberal you write about so much? This basically your enemies fighting each other. But the fight itself will hurt you and me more than Putin or China ever could.

 

Yes. But the important thing is to understand what Putin wants. You don't go to war because something similar happened 80 years ago.

The fact is the US and NATO have been pushing against Russia since 1998. George Kennan, our greatest expert on Russia, said just that at the time. The people running things today are very stupid people. We need to rediscover the wisdom of preceding generations.

 

I was probably too optimistic here.
The situation is about to quickly escalate, probably in the next days | The Vineyard of the Saker

Yesterday Putin gave a quite amazing (and short) press conference. Not only did he declare that Russia recognizes the LDNR Republics in their own, legal, borders (i.e. the full Donetsk and Lugansk regions), he also listed the four steps needed to be taken by the Ukraine to avoid a direct, unilateral, Russian action:

• The Ukraine must recognize Crimea and Sevastopol as Russian territory
• The Ukraine must officially renounce joining NATO
• The Ukraine must negotiate a settlement with the LDNR Republics
• The Ukraine must be demilitarized and declared neutral

This is clearly an ultimatum, but this time, to the authorities in Kiev.

In plain English this means this:

• Putin has demanded that the Ukronazi forces immediately stop their attacks
• The LDNR has demanded that the Ukronazi forces immediately withdraw from all the territories the LDNR claims, and Russia recognizes, as belonging to the LDNR

Some LDNR official have offered this: stop the shelling, move at least your heavy force away from the LOC as you are supposed to under the ceasefire agreements and we won’t move our forces in. In other words, if the Ukies move out, the LDNR forces will stay out, but the territory vacated by the Ukies will become legally LDNR’s.

Since there is exactly zero chance that the Nazis in Kiev will accept, what does that tell you about the next move by the LDNR and, possibly, Russia?

(Much more in the analysis via the link).

 

What action by the US, if not taken, would have kept this from happening?

You're right. We didn't go to war over the Sudetenland, but did the West make the right decision? At the time, it looked like they did. War was averted for a little while, and we had what looked like a peace deal.

But what ended up being the real consequences? First, we massively provoked Hitler by showing him that he could basically push us around at will. Second, we enabled Hitler to put the Wehrmacht into a geographic position to easily crush the rest of Czechoslovakia. They were defenseless. Third, we gave Germany even more time to build its military, which was happening at breakneck speed. Fourth, we completely screwed an ally and drove it into the arms of the Stalin, who wasn't stupid and naive enough to be a party to the Munich Agreement, and after the war, they (and the rest of Eastern Europe) were very untrusting of the West and therefore put up little resistance to the post-war Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. So yes, we didn't go to war over the Sudetenland, but by every serious measure, not only was it a bad decision, it ended up being catastrophic on a massive level.

And do remember that a similar ******** reason was raised to attack Poland. The only reason we went to war after the invasion of Poland is that we finally figured out that Hitler wasn't going to stop. By the time they happened, the Wehrmacht (which was supposed to be very limited in size under prior treaties that no one had the balls to enforce) was a massive, full-blown killing machine that was damn near unstoppable. Had we not been so weak, it almost surely would have saved tens of millions of lives.

Do I think they're going to attack Kiev? Well, if what Mus is saying is true, Russia is demanding that Ukraine renounce NATO and demilitarize. They would be insane to do either. Russia sent troops into their territory. If Putin truly doesn't want Ukraine to join NATO, he just gave them about the biggest reason imaginable to try to join. They're going to press harder than ever and sure as hell aren't going to demilitarize. That would be national suicide.

I'm not for going to war right now, but it's not hard to see where this is going in the long term. It's not going to end with these provinces, and it's not going to end with Ukraine. We need to be ready.

 

Musburgers boy is going to go up to the line that the world draws. We need to just put all oligarchs on banned lists to never come off.

 

The Vindmans of the world are back in business. They got what what they wanted, a potential war. Gotta love that Industrial Military Complex.