My question on Ukraine

[Craig234]

As I understand, Ukraine is split badly into one side that is very pro-Russia, and the other very pro-west/anti-Russia. As we saw in our own civil war, that is a recipe for instability; Ukraine has had leaders on both sides, and either way it's going to be a problem for the other side.

So, there's a long-standing problem demanding to be addressed somehow.

One option would be for the country to split. Countries have split over smaller differences. I don't know the merits of the options well enough to support that or any solution to the issue.

But I suspect that 'both sides' outside the country might have been 'greedy' - the west wanting a 'pro-western' ruler over the whole country for its own benefit, and Putin wanting a pro-Russia ruler over the whole country for his, which both sides have had sometimes.

My question is, in the months and years of 'diplomacy' over the issue, especially the recent negotiations, why haven't I heard a word about any option like is being pushed now at the point of the guns, to have the pro-Russia side split off?

The time for that option was in peaceful diplomatic discussions, not during an invasion that tends to override issues of 'what's right'. Why did all the reports on the negotiations only talk about 'invasion or not invasion' and punishments, and not about this option before the invasion?

 

[noonereal]

Who the hell splits a country? That is not a rational approach . What happened when the deplorables tried it?

Good grief man.

 

[Warcok]

The overwhelming majority of ukrainians support being independent

 

[noonereal]

The overwhelming majority of ukrainians support being independent

Yes, its well over 80%.

We are not nearly as united as is Ukraine.

 

[jnug]

As I understand, Ukraine is split badly into one side that is very pro-Russia, and the other very pro-west/anti-Russia. As we saw in our own civil war, that is a recipe for instability; Ukraine has had leaders on both sides, and either way it's going to be a problem for the other side.

So, there's a long-standing problem demanding to be addressed somehow.

One option would be for the country to split. Countries have split over smaller differences. I don't know the merits of the options well enough to support that or any solution to the issue.

But I suspect that 'both sides' outside the country might have been 'greedy' - the west wanting a 'pro-western' ruler over the whole country for its own benefit, and Putin wanting a pro-Russia ruler over the whole country for his, which both sides have had sometimes.

My question is, in the months and years of 'diplomacy' over the issue, especially the recent negotiations, why haven't I heard a word about any option like is being pushed now at the point of the guns, to have the pro-Russia side split off?

The time for that option was in peaceful diplomatic discussions, not during an invasion that tends to override issues of 'what's right'. Why did all the reports on the negotiations only talk about 'invasion or not invasion' and punishments, and not about this option before the invasion

Actually that is a false narrative in bold above. The preponderance of Ukrainians whether ethnic Russians or some other form of Slavic DO NOT want to be subjugated to Russia. Its that simple.

Russia has been sending Intelligence officers into Ukraine for years trying to stir up trouble and at least in East Ukraine they has had some success. But even with that since Ukrainians are well aware of Russian efforts to rob them financially and economically and install Russia-crats to run the country and since they were in the Soviet Union, they simply want no part of Russia. They threw the Russia-crats out of office and are desperately trying to maintain their sovereignty and move closer to the west. It really is not more complicated than that.

 

[Linc]

The overwhelming majority of ukrainians support being independent

The overwhelming majority of trump supporters support what vlad the invader is doing.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I'm glad that Russia did not support the insurrectionists and the South, physically, back in January.

 

[XDU]

As I understand, Ukraine is split badly into one side that is very pro-Russia, and the other very pro-west/anti-Russia. As we saw in our own civil war, that is a recipe for instability; Ukraine has had leaders on both sides, and either way it's going to be a problem for the other side.

So, there's a long-standing problem demanding to be addressed somehow.

One option would be for the country to split. Countries have split over smaller differences. I don't know the merits of the options well enough to support that or any solution to the issue.

But I suspect that 'both sides' outside the country might have been 'greedy' - the west wanting a 'pro-western' ruler over the whole country for its own benefit, and Putin wanting a pro-Russia ruler over the whole country for his, which both sides have had sometimes.

My question is, in the months and years of 'diplomacy' over the issue, especially the recent negotiations, why haven't I heard a word about any option like is being pushed now at the point of the guns, to have the pro-Russia side split off?

The time for that option was in peaceful diplomatic discussions, not during an invasion that tends to override issues of 'what's right'. Why did all the reports on the negotiations only talk about 'invasion or not invasion' and punishments, and not about this option before the invasion?

Ukraine isn't about being pro or anti-west.

It's about tax policy:

U.S. considering controlling exports to Russia if there is an invasion of Ukraine

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/u-s-considering-controlling-exports-to-russia-if-there-is-an-invasion-of-ukraine/ar-AAT6wio?ocid=msedgntp A big goal of this move is to keep new iphones out of Russia. In my opinion, this is a big deal. Russians love love love love their iphones. There is no...

debatepolitics.com

U.S. considering controlling exports to Russia if there is an invasion of Ukraine

"considering" it....LMAO.:LOL::ROFLMAO::giggle:

debatepolitics.com

 

[Craig234]

Here's a good article I was just reading on the topic. Sorry there's a paywall.

The Ukraine Crisis: What to Know About Why Russia Attacked

Here’s why Ukraine’s importance extends far beyond its borders.

www.nytimes.com

I think some of my info was a bit outdated, in that the country's split has been shifting more than I'd learned toward the west. The article mentions that in 2001, half of the country supported having left the USSR; but today, over 80% are pro-west and over 50% support joining NATO.

So there is a pro-Russia side of the country but it's become smaller than I'd realized. That doesn't totally change my comments but is an adjustment to them.

The article is good at laying out some of the more complicated parts of the issue and how each side views it.

Something I haven't seen mentioned is the possibility of the US seeing this situation as an opportunity to weaken Russia whatever the merits of opposing Putin's aggression. I'm surprised I haven't seen partisan accusations yet about Biden's policy being corrupted by his desire to punish Putin for supporting trump.

 

[Warcok]

The overwhelming majority of trump supporters support what vlad the invader is doing.

Is it 5 o'clock already?

 

[XDU]

Here's a good article I was just reading on the topic. Sorry there's a paywall.

The Ukraine Crisis: What to Know About Why Russia Attacked

Here’s why Ukraine’s importance extends far beyond its borders.

www.nytimes.com

I think some of my info was a bit outdated, in that the country's split has been shifting more than I'd learned toward the west. The article mentions that in 2001, half of the country supported having left the USSR; but today, over 80% are pro-west and over 50% support joining NATO.

So there is a pro-Russia side of the country but it's become smaller than I'd realized. That doesn't totally change my comments but is an adjustment to them.

The article is good at laying out some of the more complicated parts of the issue and how each side views it.

Something I haven't seen mentioned is the possibility of the US seeing this situation as an opportunity to weaken Russia whatever the merits of opposing Putin's aggression. I'm surprised I haven't seen partisan accusations yet about Biden's policy being corrupted by his desire to punish Putin for supporting trump.

The communist party in Ukraine overwhelmingly supported independence after the coup attempt in 1991, so it's not clear how that's the priority.

 

[XDU]

What needs to be prioritized is the motivation behind Euromaiden which dealt with corruption over social spending policies and how that interacted with tax policy.

Reforming that corruption was under dispute when Ukraine was considering whether to join the E.U.