LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

Thanks. Didn't try to go for everything all at once. We are definitly in agreement.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

[quote=manning5]==========================

You pose many questions about the Ukraine situation. My first question is Who was the authority that decided the C**p was illegitimate? I am asking because I do not know. This is the key to my position at the moment, and that I don't know just how illegitimate the C**p was in some sense, I am at sea here. Without any further information, I would believe the change was final and established hence we have an i**********n in the Donbas that is no business of Russia. It is an internal matter of the Ukraine, hence Russia's invasion is pure aggression and very reprehensible. Also, how can Russia's invasion be justified in the court of world opinion, regardless of the internal strife in the Ukraine? I am sure that from the Russian view, any such change by C**p would be illegitimate, but how is it really? Are all c**ps deemed to be illegitimate, simply because the instigators are i**********nists? In some real sense, might makes right here. A new government is established and legitimized and recognized by other nations. How many nations recognized the new Ukraine government?.

***It seems thar Russia was supporting the separatists in the Ukraine heavily throughout 2014 with significant military assistance, and with deadly results for both the Ukraine military and the civilian population.
>>>The separatists didn't start right after the c**p. I would think that a Russian leaning leader of Ukraine in the beginning of 2014, got a lot of his support from the eastern Ukrainians. Politics is regional and ethnic, especially in that part of the world. The new leader and his administration started in on the eastern states with various levels of pressure including forbidding the use of the Russian language, etc. That was their language there. That is a very strong part of people's lives. They rebelled against this government they didn't support, that took away the leader they supported, and now was taking away their language, and suppressing and oppressing them. When and to what strength Russia supported them is debatable in the early days. Was Russia fighting back against the West or supporting ethnic Russian's cries for help. I think that in the early years of that r*******n it was more about helping defend their homes then Russia striking out.

At this point I want to bring out the Crimea situation. Russia took Crimea back right after the C**p of 2014. Why? Let's look at it from Russia's side because we have been told nothing but the West's point of view since 2014. Illegal, Russian invasion, yadda yadda yadda.

Russia had a navel military presence there from back in the USSR days and probably before that. They also had ports near there as their trading outlets to the West. They saw this illegal C**p and acted to defend their interests in their military/navel bases and their ports to the world. A complete West take over of Ukraine could evict their military and cut off their trade routes. But what is not seen by so many in the West is how this was one more step in surrounding the Russians on the Russians western edge, and a way of controlling them. The second most powerful country in the world with the largest supply of nuclear war heads having to say, 'Mother may I' to their former enemy who won't quit the Cold War, even after the USSR conceded and broke apart. Since about 1998 under Clinton, NATO broke its promise to Russia and Gorbachev, and started expanding NATO towards Russia in their former colonies. This move into Ukraine was a final straw and crossing the Red Line. And it was a West move into Ukraine. It was a threat to Russia's security and trade routes and access to the world. Russia moved instantly. And then they allowed a v**e in Crimea. Mostly ethnic Russian, they v**ed over 90% to go with Russia. Understandable.

Somehow the West feels a v**e of the people to join Russia is not legitimate, but an illegal C**p is legitimate. Explain that one to me, logically.

Gotta go for now. More later. Cheers
Logically Right

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

With many (if not most) of my OPs, that is the primary goal: To make one think.

manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

[quote=LogicallyRight]

==================

In my lexicon, the Ukraine government was legitimized by the western powers: US, UK, EU, UN, full stop. This cannot be simply dismissed, or else world agreements will fall or be ignored.

Yes, the West, including the US, was trying to bring the Ukraine into the fold, to the horror of Russia, who has been paranoid about NATO for many decades. They had legitimate worries about their Naval base in the Crimea, and moved to take it back from the Ukraine, which is their second of three aggressions against the Ukraine. A sheer land grab. That it made strategic sense to Russia by no means makes it legitimate internationally. The first aggression was their growing support militarily for the Russians in the Donbas. [The third aggression was their invasion that is ongoing now. Why Russia gets a pass after these aggressions is beyond me, and to me irrational.]

Also, the four regions of the east in the Ukraine are a real prize in themselves to Russia, both in terms of oil fields and manufacturing plants and the sk**led labor there, plus further securing their access to the sea. We must admit that these considerations were very high in the minds of the Russians, particularly Putin, and the serious unrest in the Donbas provided them an almost perfect excuse to intervene throughout 2014 until today. But not quite perfect since they must be tagged as the aggressors. Aggressive intervention is the watch phrase for it! Along with playing geopolitical games against the west.

Three aggressions! With a big payoff for the Russians under Putin.
I do not support aggressors, and welcome their defeat.

Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon

Radiance3

==================
David Brooks might be good for something else. His assessment of Joe Biden's performance is grossly incompetent and misleading. Not fit for any government system analyst to write reports how the government functions effectively.

Radiance3

================
Slimy Joe is paying off his debts to Ukraine. This continued aiding Zelensky. Remember the Burizma holdings wherein H****r was paid $83,000 per month without any knowledge or sk**ls about oil and gas production.

The Ukraine auditor was about to audit Burizma. Joe Biden called the guy, to stop the audit otherwise Ukraine won't receive the $1 billion from the US. Six hours later the audit was halted. And Biden was so proud and happy after receiving the message. H****r continued working for $83,000 per month.

That was bribery and is impeachable crime.

Rose42

That is why I like to read your posts

Ricktloml

And it is obvious

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

That doesn't really matter does it? It's the content that's important. I see true stuff on lots of left leaning sources, but the problem is the parts they decline to discuss, like the classified documents Biden has strewn all over the place, containing info related to Ukraine, China and Iran, all the while receiving money from those countries, much of it laundered thru his crooked son, H****r. What was it Joe gave them in return for all that l**t or rather, what were they paying him for?

He was always wanting to arm Ukraine but even being the point man on Ukraine as VP to Obama, Obama said no. Did old Joe go behind the big O's back and enrich himself in the process?? Did the big O know all about it and thus didn't endorse him or help his campaign???

Yes, some t***h from the left leaning but much is ignored, purposefully I think!

manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

=============================

That said, I see a ground war of great ferocity coming soon, as Rusia gathers up its war machine for a final assault on the Ukraine. The Russian military is known for massive assaults and accepting massive casualties to achieve its objectives. In the past they employed forces to the rear of their frontline troops whose sole purpose was to shoot to k**l any of their troops that tried to slink back from the fight. The western powers will try to support the Ukraine, but short of committing NATO troops and weapons to the battle, I see no way the Ukraine forces will even fight this new assault to a draw. So, I come to the position that we should support a peace offensive real soon now! Otherwise, there will be very unacceptable outcomes all around.

The problem with this peace offensive is that I believe Putin sees that he is winning and can capture virtually the entire eastern Ukraine in the next few months, perhaps in a spring offensive, and then sue for peace on his terms. We, well the current Ukraine government, will have to give up: Ukraine in NATO; the Donbas (all four regions); and the Crimea.

A further fear I have is that our Goofball Leader and his minions may stupidly throw us into the war. We lose here too, even as we look like winning conventionally, because of Russia's nuke power.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

I'll bet you a plug nickel that An offer to recognize the Donbas and Crimea as independent states, supported by Russia, would be met with agreement by Putin and just like Georgia, there would be no more efforts to move further than had been stated in the beginning; to free the donbas and Crimea of Ukraine corrupt abuse.

Hell, I'll bet you TWO plug nickels!!

Radiance3

================

Radiance3

============

manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

======================
Make it 4 plug nickels and you are on! But exactly what are we betting on? I see it as whether the 4 regions Russia claims plus Crimea become independent or part of Russia. I bet on all five of them becoming part of Russia. You are betting that all five become independent states. Is this correct? Partial results negate the bet.