Maggot impressed with Russia making "a big concession"

[Tiger]

Nothing you've said justifies or legitimizes Russia's seizure of Crimea.

Still, this message - Post #8 - does tell us more about who and what you are.

First, I didn't say anything about the moral or political justification regarding Russia's annexation of Crimea. I simply stated the obvious (see my post #22 for clarification).

As far as Crimea, it's historically been part of Russia since the reign of Empress Catherine the Great, who annexed the peninsula in 1783 after a series of victories over the Ottomans. This incorporation solidified Crimea's status as a vital and integral region of the Russian Empire. Over the next century and a half, Crimea was settled and administered as part of Russia: its ports were developed for the Black Sea Fleet, its cities grew with Russian-speaking populations, and its economy integrated with the imperial core. The people of Crimea, like those in the Donbas region, spoke Russian as their primary language.

In 1954, Ukrainian-born Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic—officially to commemorate the 300th anniversary of Ukraine’s union with Russia. At the time, this administrative move was largely symbolic within a single USSR; few imagined that the republics' borders would one day become international frontiers. Throughout the Soviet period, Crimea remained culturally and linguistically Russian: the majority of its residents spoke Russian, and its institutions answered to Moscow’s ministries. Only after the USSR’s collapse did Khrushchev’s “gift” take on geopolitical consequence, when an independent Ukraine inherited the peninsula.

 

[Tiger]

Ummm… 2014 most definitely did involve shooting.

You're conflating the Donbas region and Crimea. After Obama’s coup, Oleksandr Turchynov was installed as acting president.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 was largely conducted without a significant armed battle. Unmarked troops—often referred to as the "Little Green Men"—swiftly took control of key facilities on the peninsula, and the subsequent referendum on joining Russia was organized under conditions that involved minimal fighting. While some isolated incidents may have occurred, the overall process was bloodless compared to a full-scale armed conflict. The annexation was achieved through rapid military occupation and a politically controversial referendum rather than through traditional battle lines or high-intensity combat.

In contrast, Oleksandr Turchynov ordered military attacks against the rebellious Donbas region, igniting a shooting civil war. Turchynov didn’t order a military response to Crimea but instead sent a “strongly worded letter.”

 

[Questerr]

You're conflating the Donbas region and Crimea. After Obama’s coup, Oleksandr Turchynov was installed as acting president.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 was largely conducted without a significant armed battle. Unmarked troops—often referred to as the "Little Green Men"—swiftly took control of key facilities on the peninsula, and the subsequent referendum on joining Russia was organized under conditions that involved minimal fighting. While some isolated incidents may have occurred, the overall process was bloodless compared to a full-scale armed conflict. The annexation was achieved through rapid military occupation and a politically controversial referendum rather than through traditional battle lines or high-intensity combat.

In contrast, Oleksandr Turchynov ordered military attacks against the rebellious Donbas region, igniting a shooting civil war. Turchynov didn’t order a military response to Crimea but instead sent a “strongly worded letter.”

Except 2014 wasn't just the seizure of Crimea. Russia tried to seize Odessa and the Ukrainian Black Sea coast and was violently repulsed.

 

[Tiger]

So let's cut to the chase. It's all Zelinsky's fault and Putin is a victim.

What complete horseshit. And that "election" you referred to was, similarly, complete horseshit and rigged.

Please don’t attribute your thoughts to me. I’ve never said that “it’s all Zelenskyy’s fault.” I simply pointed out the intuitively obvious fact that both are sawed-off little dictators resisting President Trump’s efforts to end this stupid war. The only difference between the two sawed-off little dictators (besides Zelenskyy being an insolent ingrate who believes he can dictate to America) is that dictator Putin has a good tailor, while Zelenskyy insists on dressing like a high school kid who just rolled out of bed.

As for Crimea, the fact is Ukraine didn’t do anything to prevent Russia from annexing it beyond writing a strongly worded letter. Whether you believe the election was legitimate or not, it’s absurd for Zelenskyy to now assert that he will refuse a ceasefire over a territory his government effectively wrote off eight years ago.

And Zelinsky is no dictator. At all. He's earned the support of the vast majority of his people.

How can you believe such nonsense?

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it most likely is a duck. As far as the insolent petty tyrant Zelenskyy, how can you not call him a dictator?

Regarding your claim that he's "earned the support of the vast majority of his people," the Bohemian Corporal he's apparently using as a model for war strategy was also popular in Germany—especially after the Enabling Act was implemented.

Here are the facts of how he's a dictator.
• He's in the 6th year of a 5 year term,
• Declared Martial Law on 24 Feb 2022,
• Banned elections, yet has refused to form a unity government.
• Banned opposition political parties (11 in total)
• Banned media organizations that questioned his decisions and/or refused to publish party propaganda,
• Forcibly combined TV media into one state-run platform called “United News.”
• Censored multiple journalist, including arresting US Citizen Gonzalo Lira who died in Zelensky's prison system (was he murdered?).
• Bans Churches like Mao and Stalin did and seizes Church property without court hearings,
• Incorporated the private neo-Nazi militia (the Azov Battalion) into the national army

And innocent country was invaded.

Full stop. End of story. And no revisionist history is going to change that fact.

Who is denying that Russia invaded Ukraine? That doesn’t mean Ukraine is an “innocent” nation. Well before Obama and his color revolution dominatrix, Victoria Nuland, orchestrated their 2014 coup, Ukraine was known as one of the most corrupt nations in the world. Since then, numerous legitimate reports have detailed Ukrainians embezzling our aid and converting it into personal wealth.

The sad reality is that Zelenskyy is an insolent dictator who wrongly believes he can continue to demand that America fund his war while our European allies give Putin more money (via energy purchases) than they provide in aid.

That said, there’s no way Ukraine will ever defeat Russia or forcibly eject Russian troops from pre-2014 Ukrainian borders. The war will eventually end—either through an armistice (like Korea) or with Zelenskyy following the path of the Bohemian Corporal, with Kyiv falling like Berlin in 1945.

Full stop. End of story. And despite the delusions of grandeur of warmongering neocons, nothing is going to change that fact. The only question is: how many Ukrainians and Russians must die before this farce finally comes to an end?

 

[Tiger]

Except 2014 wasn't just the seizure of Crimea. Russia tried to seize Odessa and the Ukrainian Black Sea coast and was violently repulsed.

That's why I prefaced my statement, "As for Crimea"

It's also the reason that criticized the insolent tyrant who apparently has no desire to end the bloodshed...

 

[Surrealistik]

When the war began, I was a serious hawk on Ukraine’s side, advocating for them to get back all of their territory, including Crimea. But it’s been three years. Besides some air/missile strikes and a handful of special forces raids, Ukraine hasn’t been able to set foot in Crimea. They aren’t going to retake it.

Russia solidly holding Ukraine for three years during high intensity warfare with no serious contention of their ownership of it is what legitimizes that ownership.

Ukraine isn’t going to get their 2014 borders back. They likely aren’t even going to get the Donbas back, but they could get Russia to agree to withdraw from the other areas of Ukraine they are occupying.

The thing is that a full on Russian military defeat was never going to happen; an effective collapse of Russia's economy, or at least its ability to bankroll its extremely costly war that has resulted in record deficits, stagflation, depletion of its sovereign wealth fund and currency reserves and core inflation well into the low to mid 20s and climbing is at least attainable; all the more so with oil prices going abyssal lately.

Vanquishing Russia is a grinding marathon, not a sprint, and so long as Ukraine is willing to fight, I'm happy to support them, including their maximalist aims.

 

[Bullseye]

Yeah really. They get to invade a completely innocent nation which posed no risk to them and now Maggot's proposal is that they get to keep the land they usurped and pay no price for their shameless aggression and savagery.

And Ukraine gets no security assurance, has to agree to give an aggressor land they took over by FORCE and cannot ever join NATO.

And Russia's "big concession?" They'll "stop the war!"

Wow, impressive negotiating there. The "art of the deal" my ass.

Are they done negotiating? Maybe think first; try to restrain your Donaldementia.

OMG, you have to be kidding me.

"Asked what concessions Russia was offering on Thursday, Trump replied, “stopping the war,” suggesting that not “taking the whole country” is a “pretty big concession.”

US allies express alarm at Trump’s plan to let Russia keep most of the land it seized from Ukraine

Loading…

www.cnn.com

 

[Questerr]

The thing is that a full on Russian military defeat was never going to happen; an effective collapse of Russia's economy, or at least its ability to bankroll its extremely costly war that has resulted in record deficits, stagflation, depletion of its sovereign wealth fund and currency reserves and core inflation well into the low to mid 20s and climbing is at least attainable; all the more so with oil prices going abyssal lately.

Vanquishing Russia is a grinding marathon, not a sprint, and so long as Ukraine is willing to fight, I'm happy to support them, including their maximalist aims.

The problem with that grind is that Ukraine is going to lose enough of its population that it will no longer be able to function as a nation.

 

[Surrealistik]

The problem with that grind is that Ukraine is going to lose enough of its population that it will no longer be able to function as a nation.

That seems fairly unlikely; Ukrainian losses have not been quite that severe. More than 3 years into this conflict and their war dead are, by most credible estimates, in the range of 60-80k, or ~23k / YR on average.

While several more years of this is not going to do their demography any favours to be sure, it is not beyond the pale of recovery, while Russia is comparably facing a fiscal and economic crunch over the same time period that will go from awful to untenable. Moreover, I trust in Ukraine's discretion to sue for peace should the price of continued resistance become too high. Per the most recent polling, a supermajority of Ukrainians remain in favour of continuing the war if the alternative is territorial concessions.

 

[Roadvirus]

The problem with that grind is that Ukraine is going to lose enough of its population that it will no longer be able to function as a nation.

Russia's not going to be doing any better demographically.

 

[Questerr]

Russia's not going to be doing any better demographically.

How does that help Ukraine?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

If Zelensky and Ukraine could have "liberated" the entire country, they would have done that, too.

Conveniently ignoring the fact that the much smaller Ukrainian military has been able hold off a purportedly much larger, better trained and equipped Russian military invasion for more than three years, killing Russians at a rate of roughly 4 for every 1 Ukrainian killed, and costing Russia, with a GDP lower than at least 3 U.S. states, hundreds of billions of dollars.

In the words of the late General Schwarzkopf, “he is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational art, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he a soldier. Other than that, he's a great military man.”

Scratch out “military man” and insert “Russian leader”, and you have Putin.

They didn't even fire a shot when they allowed Crimea to waltz out the door, and now claim foul...

A gross and personally shameful mischaracterization of the history of Putin’s illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

First, I didn't say anything about the moral or political justification regarding Russia's annexation of Crimea. I simply stated the obvious (see my post #22 for clarification).

As far as Crimea, it's historically been part of Russia since the reign of Empress Catherine the Great, who annexed the peninsula in 1783 after a series of victories over the Ottomans. This incorporation solidified Crimea's status as a vital and integral region of the Russian Empire. Over the next century and a half, Crimea was settled and administered as part of Russia: its ports were developed for the Black Sea Fleet, its cities grew with Russian-speaking populations, and its economy integrated with the imperial core. The people of Crimea, like those in the Donbas region, spoke Russian as their primary language.

In 1954, Ukrainian-born Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic—officially to commemorate the 300th anniversary of Ukraine’s union with Russia. At the time, this administrative move was largely symbolic within a single USSR; few imagined that the republics' borders would one day become international frontiers. Throughout the Soviet period, Crimea remained culturally and linguistically Russian: the majority of its residents spoke Russian, and its institutions answered to Moscow’s ministries. Only after the USSR’s collapse did Khrushchev’s “gift” take on geopolitical consequence, when an independent Ukraine inherited the peninsula.

Your personalized review of Ukraine’s history isn’t relevant to the only fact that actually matters; the country’s sovereignty.

Putin had no right to invade in ‘14 and no right to invade again in ‘22. There is no legitimate argument otherwise.

 

[markdc]

Yeah really. They get to invade a completely innocent nation which posed no risk to them and now Maggot's proposal is that they get to keep the land they usurped and pay no price for their shameless aggression and savagery.

And Ukraine gets no security assurance, has to agree to give an aggressor land they took over by FORCE and cannot ever join NATO.

And Russia's "big concession?" They'll "stop the war!"

Wow, impressive negotiating there. The "art of the deal" my ass.

OMG, you have to be kidding me.

"Asked what concessions Russia was offering on Thursday, Trump replied, “stopping the war,” suggesting that not “taking the whole country” is a “pretty big concession.”

US allies express alarm at Trump’s plan to let Russia keep most of the land it seized from Ukraine

Loading…

www.cnn.com

Hitler made a big concession during World War II. He blew his brains out.

Mark

 

[Tiger]

Conveniently ignoring the fact that the much smaller Ukrainian military has been able hold off a purportedly much larger, better trained and equipped Russian military invasion for more than three years, killing Russians at a rate of roughly 4 for every 1 Ukrainian killed, and costing Russia, with a GDP lower than at least 3 U.S. states, hundreds of billions of dollars.

There are several reasons this war didn’t end in the first few weeks and devolved into trench warfare. Recall that Putin attempted a “thunder run”—a rapid assault reminiscent of the U.S. Army’s tactics—to seize Kyiv. Ukrainian soldiers, armed with the Javelin anti-tank and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles provided by President Trump, fought valiantly to blunt that assault.

In contrast, Russian conscripts—many ill-prepared and unsure why they were sent—were neither motivated nor convinced of their mission. Their equipment suffered chronic neglect; photos show Russian missile systems even shedding tires from dry-rotted, Chinese-made rubber.

Russian commanders, much like Field Marshal Montgomery during Market Garden, placed naïve faith in a single, rapid thrust. Montgomery assumed his armored units could sweep through a narrow corridor to seize Arnhem—a gamble that ultimately failed. Similarly, Russian leaders banked on one “thunder run” down a single road to take Kyiv, a strategy that proved just as ill-fated.

Moreover, Ukraine once innovated by using drones to drop shells on Russian tanks. But that era is over now that Russia has developed and deployed effective countermeasures. As a result, the war has regressed into trench warfare reminiscent of World War I. Russia is slaughtering its own troops (and, now, allegedly, North Korean and perhaps Chinese Communist troops), while Ukraine is losing a generation of its men in a conflict that should have ended long ago.

Ultimately, Russia’s larger size and manufacturing base have turned this into a war of attrition—and one that Ukraine simply can’t win.

In the words of the late General Schwarzkopf, “he is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational art, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he a soldier. Other than that, he's a great military man.”

Scratch out “military man” and insert “Russian leader”, and you have Putin.

Likewise, Gen. Schwarzkopf's statement applies to the insolent dictator, Zelenskyy. The semi-successful comic has never served in the military. He's now transformed to the mirror image of Putin -- a little dictator, albeit unlike Putin, he doesn't know a good tailor.

Scratch out “military man” and insert “Ukrainian leader”, and you have Zelenskyy.

A gross and personally shameful mischaracterization of the history of Putin’s illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea.

You can call my statement a "gross and personally shameful mischaracterization," but it’s also accurate. Ukraine never sent its military into Crimea to challenge Russia’s annexation. It simply observed what happened, stamped its feet, yelled, and sent a "strongly worded letter" in response. In essence, Ukraine’s reaction to Putin’s annexation was no different than France’s when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in violation of the Treaty of Versailles—and the French just drank their wine while watching it unfold.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

There are several reasons this war didn’t end in the first few weeks and devolved into trench warfare. Recall that Putin attempted a “thunder run”—a rapid assault reminiscent of the U.S. Army’s tactics—to seize Kyiv. Ukrainian soldiers, armed with the Javelin anti-tank and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles provided by President Trump, fought valiantly to blunt that assault.

In contrast, Russian conscripts—many ill-prepared and unsure why they were sent—were neither motivated nor convinced of their mission. Their equipment suffered chronic neglect; photos show Russian missile systems even shedding tires from dry-rotted, Chinese-made rubber.

Russian commanders, much like Field Marshal Montgomery during Market Garden, placed naïve faith in a single, rapid thrust. Montgomery assumed his armored units could sweep through a narrow corridor to seize Arnhem—a gamble that ultimately failed. Similarly, Russian leaders banked on one “thunder run” down a single road to take Kyiv, a strategy that proved just as ill-fated.

Moreover, Ukraine once innovated by using drones to drop shells on Russian tanks. But that era is over now that Russia has developed and deployed effective countermeasures. As a result, the war has regressed into trench warfare reminiscent of World War I. Russia is slaughtering its own troops (and, now, allegedly, North Korean and perhaps Chinese Communist troops), while Ukraine is losing a generation of its men in a conflict that should have ended long ago.

Ultimately, Russia’s larger size and manufacturing base have turned this into a war of attrition—and one that Ukraine simply can’t win.

Irrelevant to the point of your obvious false equivalence of Putin’s illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea in ‘14 with his invasion of Ukraine beginning in ‘22.

Likewise, Gen. Schwarzkopf's statement applies to the insolent dictator, Zelenskyy. The semi-successful comic has never served in the military. He's now transformed to the mirror image of Putin -- a little dictator, albeit unlike Putin, he doesn't know a good tailor.

Scratch out “military man” and insert “Ukrainian leader”, and you have Zelenskyy.

Tucker Carlson would applaud you for this ^ ridiculous horse shit!

And since when did rebuking a slandering, arrogant person of inferior office become insolence?

You can call my statement a "gross and personally shameful mischaracterization," but it’s also accurate. Ukraine never sent its military into Crimea to challenge Russia’s annexation. It simply observed what happened, stamped its feet, yelled, and sent a "strongly worded letter" in response. In essence, Ukraine’s reaction to Putin’s annexation was no different than France’s when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in violation of the Treaty of Versailles—and the French just drank their wine while watching it unfold.

The small elements of “truth” in your comparison between ‘14 and ‘22 are greatly overshadowed by the significant differences.

 

[Tiger]

Irrelevant to the point of your obvious false equivalence of Putin’s illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea in ‘14 with his invasion of Ukraine beginning in ‘22.

I was responding to your claim of "the much smaller Ukrainian military has been able hold off a purportedly much larger, better trained and equipped Russian military invasion for more than three year." You also didn't raise the issue of why Ukraine didn't fight to keep Crimea in 2014, yet are now trying to somehow make it an issue in my response to your post.

Tucker Carlson would applaud you for this ^ ridiculous horse shit!

And since when did rebuking a slandering, arrogant person of inferior office become insolence?

First, when did the office of the President of the United States become an "inferior office?" Second, when the little dictator of Ukraine is disrespectful in the White House—earning his unique place in history as the only foreign leader to be kicked out—and shows ingratitude for the billions of dollars in financial and military aid provided to Ukraine, calling him 'insolent' is an apt description.

The small elements of “truth” in your comparison between ‘14 and ‘22 are greatly overshadowed by the significant differences.

The simple truth is that Ukraine did nothing militarily in 2014 in response to Crimea’s vote to join Russia or Russia’s subsequent annexation. Now, Zelensky is demanding its return before he’ll even consider a ceasefire.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I was responding to your claim of "the much smaller Ukrainian military has been able hold off a purportedly much larger, better trained and equipped Russian military invasion for more than three year." You also didn't raise the issue of why Ukraine didn't fight to keep Crimea in 2014, yet are now trying to somehow make it an issue in my response to your post.

I find it difficult to accept that, considering your demonstrated knowledge of conditions in Ukraine in ‘14 and ‘22, you see any similarities in the stability of Ukraine’s government and it’s capabilities to defend it’s sovereignty during two virtually entirely different scenarios, which only leaves me to conclude that your argument is entirely disingenuous.

First, when did the office of the President of the United States become an "inferior office?"

I was referring to VP Vance’s verbal attacks against Zelensky prior to, and his initiating the 2/28 Oval Office argument.

Second, when the little dictator of Ukraine is disrespectful in the White House—

Zelensky was first disrespected by Vance. He had every right, regardless of location, to defend himself.

earning his unique place in history as the only foreign leader to be kicked out—

Better to be asked to leave than to allow himself to be disrespected by the uber obsequious couch ****ing inferior office holding VP.

American history will call it a win for Zelensky.

and shows ingratitude for the billions of dollars in financial and military aid provided to Ukraine, calling him 'insolent' is an apt description.

More blatant @Tiger dishonesty.

Even while being attacked by Traitor Trump and CF Vance, Zelensky repeatedly stated his gratitude for U.S. military aid provided by the 1st Traitor Trump term and President Biden.

The simple truth is that Ukraine did nothing militarily in 2014 in response to Crimea’s vote to join Russia or Russia’s subsequent annexation.

The “incomplete truth”.

Now, Zelensky is demanding its return before he’ll even consider a ceasefire.

Lie.

Zelensky has not demanded that Russia relinquish control of Crimea to the Ukrainian government as a condition to any ceasefire agreement.