Ukraine Crisis

[phyllo]

Ah, you're looking for a simple cause which implicates the US, rather than a complex history of territorial ambitions and grievances that go back centuries.

[Age]

You expect them to defend themselves with one hand tied behind their backs?

It's either that or run the risk of Russia getting desperate at some point and using nukes on Ukraine and maybe starting Armageddon. Which is better. Losing some land or everyone losing EVERYTHING? This is an existential fight for Putin. If he faces losing lock, stock, and barrel, then we could be looking at a nuclear escalation on Putin's part. In all appearances, Ukraine cannot defeat Russia. It's probably hopeless to seek victory over Russia. So what do you see as the answer? To fight forever as Ukraine's manpower is drained to 0? What do you hope to accomplish that is actually accomplishable?

What are 7 long range missiles fired at Russia supposed to accomplish other than to possibly provoke Russia to use its nukes? What does Ukraine hope to accomplish firing missiles into Russia?

So, "gary childress's" VIEWS IS, If ANY one IS BULLIED BY another one with bigger weapons or more arsenal, then 'the former' SHOULD JUST GIVE UP.

Which sounds some thing EXACTLY like one FROM WITHIN the "united states of america" would SAY and CLAIM TO EVERY one ELSE in 'the world'.

[Age]

Seems like the most rational approach for a deal maker would be for the US to form an economic alliance with Russia, likely based on energy, in exchange for deep concessions concerning Ukraine beginning with ending the war and returning those who were enslaved back into their country, then helping with the rebuilding.

This would require the US to engineer a big boost to the Russian economy in exchange for big nuclear concessions from Russia, military nukes being about all they have in the way of strength, other than throwing infantry into the meatgrinder.

In the meantime, just say that the current POTUS is a whacko as everyone can see, as is his handlers, so don't take those longer range missiles too seriously. Cooler heads see they will soon be gone, but Putin is raising his finger by mentioning the word nuclear, which is saying back off.

But a lot will need to be offered for him to back off himself.

Whoever arranges that will have the Nobel Peace Prize, unless it's an American Republican.

And, WHO is going to put a deal together to get the MOST DANGEROUS people in the world at the 'current moment' to REDUCE their weapons and nuclear weapons?

[Age]

You can go back much further than that ... to czarist Russia. Ukraine and Russia have a long history.

During the Tsarist era, Ukrainian lands, part of the Russian Empire, experienced policies of Russification, cultural suppression, and limited political participation, with the Tsarist regime actively promoting the elimination of Ukrainian peculiarities.
Here's a more detailed look at Tsarist Ukraine:
Key Features of Tsarist Rule in Ukraine:

Russification:
The Tsarist regime implemented policies aimed at suppressing Ukrainian culture and language, promoting Russian language and culture instead.
The Valuev Circular of 1863, for example, banned the publication of Ukrainian-language literature.
The Russian Orthodox Church became an important vehicle for Russification policies.

Limited Political Participation:
Ukrainians had limited political rights and representation within the Tsarist Empire.

Cossack Hetmanate:
A Cossack state, known as the Cossack Hetmanate or Zaporizhian Host, under Russian protection existed from 1648 to 1764, but was later absorbed into the Russian Empire.

Economic Dependence:
The Ukrainian economy was largely agrarian, with a focus on agriculture, and the Tsarist regime exploited Ukrainian lands for resources and labor.

Religious Policies:
The Tsarist regime promoted the absorption of Ukrainians from the Uniate Church into the Russian Orthodox Church.

Suppression of Ukrainian Identity:
The Tsarist regime actively suppressed Ukrainian national aspirations and identity, viewing Ukraine as a part of a larger Russian identity.

Cossacks:
Cossacks, who were important in Ukrainian history, were used by the Tsarist regime for police service and border guards.

Revolution and Independence:
The Russian Revolution of 1917 led to the collapse of the Tsarist regime and the rise of new political forces in Ukraine, including those advocating for Ukrainian independence.

Post-Revolution Ukraine:
After the Russian Revolution, Ukraine briefly gained independence in 1918, but was later incorporated into the Soviet Union as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1922.

(AI Overview)

That is all very nice AI, but what is the most pertaining cause of the present-day crisis? It is the American war machine wanting to occupy Ukraine on Russia's border. Something it promised never to do to get Russia to agree to the unification of Germany. Since 1990 it has been never-ending lies and an ever encroachment of Russia's border. How would America react if Russia or China set up in Canada on the American border? Come on guys, it's not brain surgery.

WHY can some NOT SEE what others CLEARLY CAN?

The ANSWER, by the way, IS BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.

[Gary Childress]

You expect them to defend themselves with one hand tied behind their backs?

It's either that or run the risk of Russia getting desperate at some point and using nukes on Ukraine and maybe starting Armageddon. Which is better. Losing some land or everyone losing EVERYTHING? This is an existential fight for Putin. If he faces losing lock, stock, and barrel, then we could be looking at a nuclear escalation on Putin's part. In all appearances, Ukraine cannot defeat Russia. It's probably hopeless to seek victory over Russia. So what do you see as the answer? To fight forever as Ukraine's manpower is drained to 0? What do you hope to accomplish that is actually accomplishable?

What are 7 long range missiles fired at Russia supposed to accomplish other than to possibly provoke Russia to use its nukes? What does Ukraine hope to accomplish firing missiles into Russia?

So, "gary childress's" VIEWS IS, If ANY one IS BULLIED BY another one with bigger weapons or more arsenal, then 'the former' SHOULD JUST GIVE UP.

Which sounds some thing EXACTLY like one FROM WITHIN the "united states of america" would SAY and CLAIM TO EVERY one ELSE in 'the world'.

I don't like seeing people fight to the death in a hopeless battle of attrition against an enemy that they probably cannot defeat. Is there something wrong with that, Age? And if there is, what EXACTLY is wrong with that?

[Age]

It's either that or run the risk of Russia getting desperate at some point and using nukes on Ukraine and maybe starting Armageddon. Which is better. Losing some land or everyone losing EVERYTHING? This is an existential fight for Putin. If he faces losing lock, stock, and barrel, then we could be looking at a nuclear escalation on Putin's part. In all appearances, Ukraine cannot defeat Russia. It's probably hopeless to seek victory over Russia. So what do you see as the answer? To fight forever as Ukraine's manpower is drained to 0? What do you hope to accomplish that is actually accomplishable?

What are 7 long range missiles fired at Russia supposed to accomplish other than to possibly provoke Russia to use its nukes? What does Ukraine hope to accomplish firing missiles into Russia?

So, "gary childress's" VIEWS IS, If ANY one IS BULLIED BY another one with bigger weapons or more arsenal, then 'the former' SHOULD JUST GIVE UP.

Which sounds some thing EXACTLY like one FROM WITHIN the "united states of america" would SAY and CLAIM TO EVERY one ELSE in 'the world'.

I don't like seeing people fight to the death in a hopeless battle of attrition against an enemy that they probably cannot defeat. Is there something wrong with that, Age? And if there is, what EXACTLY is wrong with that?

From my perspective there is absolutely NOTHING Wrong with you not like seeing people fight to their deaths. BUT claiming that the ones being ATTACKED should just SURRENDER and HAND OVER their things is very EASY for you to SAY and WANT when you come from the very country who has done the MOST ATTACKING and the MOST TAKING OVER.

NOW, what would be better to HAVE OCCURRED is from the VERY BEGINNING you adult human beings NEVER EVER EVEN STARTED ATTACKING and/or ADVANCING towards other people and other lands.

you can NEVER EVER 'justify' the TAKING OVER of people's and/nor lands, and you SAYING or CLAIMING that some should just GIVE UP, is you 'trying to' 'justify' what could NEVER be 'justified'.

[Gary Childress]

So, "gary childress's" VIEWS IS, If ANY one IS BULLIED BY another one with bigger weapons or more arsenal, then 'the former' SHOULD JUST GIVE UP.

Which sounds some thing EXACTLY like one FROM WITHIN the "united states of america" would SAY and CLAIM TO EVERY one ELSE in 'the world'.

I don't like seeing people fight to the death in a hopeless battle of attrition against an enemy that they probably cannot defeat. Is there something wrong with that, Age? And if there is, what EXACTLY is wrong with that?

From my perspective there is absolutely NOTHING Wrong with you not like seeing people fight to their deaths. BUT claiming that the ones being ATTACKED should just SURRENDER and HAND OVER their things is very EASY for you to SAY and WANT when you come from the very country who has done the MOST ATTACKING and the MOST TAKING OVER.

NOW, what would be better to HAVE OCCURRED is from the VERY BEGINNING you adult human beings NEVER EVER EVEN STARTED ATTACKING and/or ADVANCING towards other people and other lands.

you can NEVER EVER 'justify' the TAKING OVER of people's and/nor lands, and you SAYING or CLAIMING that some should just GIVE UP, is you 'trying to' 'justify' what could NEVER be 'justified'.

Age, I'm no more a proponent of America's foreign wars than you are. There is no need to preach to me about America's wars.

[Age]

I don't like seeing people fight to the death in a hopeless battle of attrition against an enemy that they probably cannot defeat. Is there something wrong with that, Age? And if there is, what EXACTLY is wrong with that?

From my perspective there is absolutely NOTHING Wrong with you not like seeing people fight to their deaths. BUT claiming that the ones being ATTACKED should just SURRENDER and HAND OVER their things is very EASY for you to SAY and WANT when you come from the very country who has done the MOST ATTACKING and the MOST TAKING OVER.

NOW, what would be better to HAVE OCCURRED is from the VERY BEGINNING you adult human beings NEVER EVER EVEN STARTED ATTACKING and/or ADVANCING towards other people and other lands.

you can NEVER EVER 'justify' the TAKING OVER of people's and/nor lands, and you SAYING or CLAIMING that some should just GIVE UP, is you 'trying to' 'justify' what could NEVER be 'justified'.

Age, I'm no more a proponent of America's foreign wars than you are. There is no need to preach to me about America's wars.

But I was NOT.

I was just POINTING OUT that it is VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLE for 'those' who on the "side" of the BULLYING and/or ATTACKING countries to TELL 'others' that they should just GIVE UP.

And, this I DID without POINTING OUT the "leader" who is INSISTING ON the GIVING UP is ALSO WANTING TO TAKE CONTROL OVER parts of 'the lands' in 'that country'. Which, OBVIOUSLY, makes FAR WORSE this CONSISTENT 'JUST GIVE UP' IDEA, and ATTITUDE.

Also, I could have MENTIONED that if ANY individual one or ANY people, are being ATTACKED, and/or BULLIED, then it would be BEST IF the WHOLE 'rest of the world' STUCK UP FOR 'them', ANYWAY.

[popeye1945]

Ah, you're looking for a simple cause which implicates the US, rather than a complex history of territorial ambitions and grievances that go back centuries.

Just read some history is a process, where things don't come into reality in a flash from nowhere.

[seeds]

Welcome to the Cuban Missile Crisis redux?

Speaking of the "Cuban Missile Crisis,"...

...It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that at least part of the reason for the start of the Ukraine/Russia conflict was because of the imminent possibility that Ukraine was going to join NATO.

According to Wiki:

Ukraine-NATO ties gradually strengthened during the 1990s and 2000s, and Ukraine aimed to eventually join the alliance...

...At the June 2021 Brussels summit, NATO leaders reiterated the statement made at the 2008 Bucharest summit that Ukraine would eventually join NATO. In late 2021, there was another massive Russian military buildup around Ukraine. Russia's Foreign Ministry demanded that Ukraine be forbidden from ever joining NATO.

And the point is that if you are going to "poke the Russian bear" by literally bumping into its body,...

...then to understand Russia's response, all you have to do is harken back to the "Cuban Missile Crisis" and then imagine how America would respond if, say, China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and North Korea formed an International Alliance of Communist Countries (IACC) and was attempting to get a willing Mexico (or a willing Canada) to join their alliance.

In other words, if America was pretty much willing to participate in a nuclear Armageddon with the Soviet Union because of the Soviet Union's relationship with a sovereign island nation that exists 90 miles away from America's nearest border (Key West, Florida),...

...then just imagine what America's warmongering boneheads would be willing to do if America's avowed enemies were trying to gain a foothold in territories that literally touch our southern or northern borders?

Again, if you're going to poke a bear (especially a mother bear), then don't be surprised if she tries to protect her cubs.
_______

[popeye1945]

Welcome to the Cuban Missile Crisis redux?

Speaking of the "Cuban Missile Crisis,"...

...It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that at least part of the reason for the start of the Ukraine/Russia conflict was because of the imminent possibility that Ukraine was going to join NATO.

According to Wiki:

Ukraine-NATO ties gradually strengthened during the 1990s and 2000s, and Ukraine aimed to eventually join the alliance...

...At the June 2021 Brussels summit, NATO leaders reiterated the statement made at the 2008 Bucharest summit that Ukraine would eventually join NATO. In late 2021, there was another massive Russian military buildup around Ukraine. Russia's Foreign Ministry demanded that Ukraine be forbidden from ever joining NATO.

And the point is that if you are going to "poke the Russian bear" by literally bumping into its body,...

...then to understand Russia's response, all you have to do is harken back to the "Cuban Missile Crisis" and then imagine how America would respond if, say, China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and North Korea formed an International Alliance of Communist Countries (IACC) and was attempting to get a willing Mexico (or a willing Canada) to join their alliance.

In other words, if America was pretty much willing to participate in a nuclear Armageddon with the Soviet Union because of the Soviet Union's relationship with a sovereign island nation that exists 90 miles away from America's nearest border (Key West, Florida),...

...then just imagine what America's warmongering boneheads would be willing to do if America's avowed enemies were trying to gain a foothold in territories that literally touch our southern or northern borders?

Again, if you're going to poke a bear (especially a mother bear), then don't be surprised if she tries to protect her cubs.
_______

EXCELLENT SEEDS! I wonder how it is that so many people don't get it.

[Dubious]

Welcome to the Cuban Missile Crisis redux?

Speaking of the "Cuban Missile Crisis,"...

...It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that at least part of the reason for the start of the Ukraine/Russia conflict was because of the imminent possibility that Ukraine was going to join NATO.

According to Wiki:

Ukraine-NATO ties gradually strengthened during the 1990s and 2000s, and Ukraine aimed to eventually join the alliance...

...At the June 2021 Brussels summit, NATO leaders reiterated the statement made at the 2008 Bucharest summit that Ukraine would eventually join NATO. In late 2021, there was another massive Russian military buildup around Ukraine. Russia's Foreign Ministry demanded that Ukraine be forbidden from ever joining NATO.

And the point is that if you are going to "poke the Russian bear" by literally bumping into its body,...

...then to understand Russia's response, all you have to do is harken back to the "Cuban Missile Crisis" and then imagine how America would respond if, say, China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and North Korea formed an International Alliance of Communist Countries (IACC) and was attempting to get a willing Mexico (or a willing Canada) to join their alliance.

In other words, if America was pretty much willing to participate in a nuclear Armageddon with the Soviet Union because of the Soviet Union's relationship with a sovereign island nation that exists 90 miles away from America's nearest border (Key West, Florida),...

...then just imagine what America's warmongering boneheads would be willing to do if America's avowed enemies were trying to gain a foothold in territories that literally touch our southern or northern borders?

Again, if you're going to poke a bear (especially a mother bear), then don't be surprised if she tries to protect her cubs.
_______

I wonder if this scenario, as posted, is somewhat equivalent to Canada and Mexico having to consider the necessity of reinforcing their defence operations, in short, their military as a bulwark against the now far less friendly more threatening power in their midst. The Europeans especially, though separated by the Atlantic, have become belatedly aware of being on their own since the U.S. has virtually switched allegiances from Europe to Russia. If Russia felt threatened by having a NATO country bordering it which obviously never had the insane intention of invading Russia, what about the actual threats the U.S. has made against Canada and Greenland to incorporate them!

It would seem that America is striving to become the Russia of the West ready to apply its power in getting what it wants...unless something stops it from happening.

[seeds]

It would seem that America is striving to become the Russia of the West ready to apply its power in getting what it wants...unless something stops it from happening.

One can only hope that if the petulant pusbag in the "Whitey House" orders some sort of military invasion of Canada, or Mexico, or Greenland, or any of our other allies,...

...again, one would hope that the members of the military would refuse the orders and instead invade the "Whitey House" in order to surgically remove America's painful hemorrhoid along with its stinking cluster of clinging dingleberries.

However, seeing how the talking hemorrhoid might actually be the freakin' Antichrist, fate may have something else in mind.
_______

[Gary Childress]

It would seem that America is striving to become the Russia of the West ready to apply its power in getting what it wants...unless something stops it from happening.

One can only hope that if the petulant pusbag in the "Whitey House" orders some sort of military invasion of Canada, or Mexico, or Greenland, or any of our other allies,...

...again, one would hope that the members of the military would refuse the orders and instead invade the "Whitey House" in order to surgically remove America's painful hemorrhoid along with its stinking cluster of clinging dingleberries.

However, seeing how the talking hemorrhoid might actually be the freakin' Antichrist, fate may have something else in mind.
_______

I wonder if Christians who voted for the "Anti-Christ" will be forgiven and go to Heaven or will God hold them accountable for their poor choice of leaders?

[seeds]

_______

Notes: KIV
_______