He’s under strict orders not to quote Putin. That would blow his cover.
Some more demographic maps for you…
Largest ethnicity in Ukraine’s cities and raions, according to 2001 census:
Ethnic Ukrainians in Ukraine by raions (2001 census):
Interesting.
Some maps are keyed differently and give other impressions. But these are accurate.
It is surprising how the politics are different East to West in the country. Voting trends. But that does happen in a lot of countries.
Hey, KK, care to explain how the US/NATO forced Russian soldiers to castrate a Ukrainian soldier?
It ocurs to me the Party wasted 50 cents on you.
And they’ll enjoy that hard-fought independence, as did the grateful residents of Warsaw Pact countries under the benevolent sponsorship of the Soviet Union.
You’re doing a masterful job explaining the benefits of Russia’s Greater Eastern Europe Co-Prosperity Sphere.
If true, and it may be. It is terrible and a crime.
But I don’t tend to talk about those types of incidents. Though I do if they are at a large scale. Anyone could fill pages full of such events which may have happened on either side. A lot of them not real.
In general I consider professional soldiers worthy of respect. But any profession can have bad apples. And in war, people can become lesser than they themselves ever thought they could be.
Actually I think it all round a massive waste. Even if Russia takes over some portion of Ukraine. It will be an ongoing waste. The actual conditions that folks in that taken land will experience may not change all that much. Except of course for how ruined a lot the land is. It will take a long time for recovery.
Argle bargle I don’t wanna talk about that.
Argle bargle both sides.
Argle bargle a few bad apples.
Argle bargle war is bad.
You’re not very good at this are you? Are you in a training program before they let you run some accounts on Facebook/Twitter?
I’ll have to up my game and include argument winners like Argle bargle in my arsenal.
Maybe also retort Fuck Off and such more often.
I think the real issue is that you are attempting to defend the indefensible.
He’d be overcharging even at two bits.
I am not defending.
I state my opinions of why the war may have started. I don’t defend why it started. A lot high level people in governments on many sides also point to those reasons why it started. They are not defending it either.
Talking about why things are happening, what is happening, what may happen. Is not defending. I may not like what a particular fact means in what it may cause. But it remains a fact. Or at least it has been presented as such with some evidence to make it plausible.
You guys even start fantasizing about me being some professional propagandist. Though many of you may just be jabbing me with that as sarcasm.
This war as most of them has far reaching complex effect. I speculate on what some of them might be. I may of course be wrong. Totally or in some part. Maybe right in some part.
I don’t demand that you agree. You all have your own opinions.
And then the rest of us observe that “your” opinions transparently parrot the Putin party line (underneath some hilariously transparent superficial camouflage about the fully justified war being poorly strategized in execution), and cordially invite you to eat shit.
Professional? Naw. If anyone is paying you, you are conning them much better than you are conning us.
I actually present what many in the U.S. government and military have said. Also other governments and military. For many years. And many other professionals in the field of foreign affairs. They gave warnings that such a war might happen. They pointed out reasons why it would. It does happen that Putin also said the same things. Makes sense that he also would say it, because he is Prez of Russia, and the others were studying the situation.
This article happens to name and quote some people who said these things past and present. Many more important people have said the same things. A search can find a large number of folks who warned of this. They were not then or now defending war.
Some people from congress, etc. Security folks. Military.
I am parroting them too.
June 26, 1997
Dear Mr. President,
We, the undersigned, believe that the current U.S.led effort to expand NATO, the focus of the recent Helsinki and Paris Summits, is a policy error of historic proportions. We believe that NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability for the following reasons:
In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement, and galvanize resistance in the Duma to the START II and III treaties; In Europe, NATO expansion will draw a new line of division between the “ins” and the “outs,” foster instability, and ultimately diminish the sense of security of those countries which are not included;
In NATO, expansion, which the Alliance has indicated is open-ended, will inevitably degrade NATO’s ability to carry out its primary mission and will involve U.S. security guarantees to countries with serious border and national minority problems, and unevenly developed systems of democratic government;
In the U.S., NATO expansion will trigger an extended debate over its indeterminate, but certainly high, cost and will call into question the U.S. commitment to the Alliance, traditionally and rightly regarded as a centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy.
Because of these serious objections, and in the absence of any reason for rapid decision, we strongly urge that the NATO expansion process be suspended while alternative actions are pursued. These include:
—opening the economic and political doors of the European Union to Central and Eastern Europe;
—developing an enhanced Partnership for Peace program;
—supporting a cooperative NATO-Russian relationship; and
—continuing the arms reduction and transparency process, particularly with respect to nuclear weapons and materials, the major threat to U.S. security, and with respect to conventional military forces in Europe.
Russia does not now pose a threat to its western neighbors and the nations of Central and Eastern Europe are not in danger. For this reason, and the others cited above, we believe that NATO expansion is neither necessary nor desirable and that this ill-conceived policy can and should be put on hold.
Sincerely,
| George Bunn | Townsend Hoopes | Sam Nunn |
|---|---|---|
| Robert Bowie | Gordon Humphrey | Herbert S. Okun |
| Bill Bradley | Fred Ikle | W.K.H. Panofsky |
| David Calleo | Bennett Johnston | Christian Patte |
| Richard T. Davies | Carl Kaysen | Richard Pipes |
| Jonathan Dean | Spurgeon Keeny | Robert E. Pursley |
| Paul Doty | James Leonard | George Rathjens |
| Susan Eisenhower | Edward Luttwak | Stanley Resor |
| David M. Evans | Michael Mandelbaum | John Rhinelander |
| David Fischer | Jack F. Matlock Jr. | John J. Shanahan |
| Raymond Garthoff | C. William Maynes | Marshall Shulman |
| Morton H. Halperin | Richard McCormack | John Steinbruner |
| Owen Harries | David McGiffert | Stansfield Turner |
| Gary Hart | Robert McNamara | Richard Viets |
| Arthur Hartman | Jack Mendelsohn | Paul Warnke |
| Mark Hatfield | Philip Merrill | James D. Watkins |
| John P. Holdren | Paul H. Nitze |
25 year old political opinions from a list of mostly dead people. Thank you for that trip down memory lane.
Those who wanted Ukraine to join NATO have been proven correct. Russia wanted to swallow them up, and was likely to try to swallow them up, and being in NATO almost certainly would have prevented this.
Russia has shown itself to have imperial ambitions, and Putin’s own words and actions demonstrate that he is a wannabe conqueror of his neighbors.
OK, you’re not ‘defending’ Russia. You’re only justifying their actions.
And at least once, citing a far-Right conspiracy site.
Q.E.D.
I will try and find some of the many more recent ones.
That may have happened. But hard to know where the road not taken would have led.
Not really. Predicting that X action is very likely to lead to Y result and then X is done and Y does actually result, does not justify the result. It may justify the prediction. I do think the prediction was justified. But cannot say it is the 100% cause. Not in such complex a situation. But A high percentage.