POLL: Only 26% of Americans want US heavily involved in Ukraine war

Post Millenial ^

[Tench_Coxe]

Nearly one year after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, public support for the role the United States is playing in supplying weapons and funds to the eastern European nation has declined among both Democrats and Republicans alike.

[ought-six]

I know you are a Russian, and that English is not your native language, so your awkward diction is forgivable. I will thus respond to what I THINK you are saying.

You said: “Ukraine itself of cause (course?) is not considered any existential threat. But backed by NATO it may.”

Only if Russia attacks NATO.

“If NATO soldiers will involve then even more.”

It is not an existential threat to Russia to repel Russia from Ukraine. It is merely restoring the 2013 status quo, with which Russia apparently had no problem for over twenty years.

“And if they will be a moment when the use of tactical nuke will get great tactical gain and save lifes of Russian soldiers then commanders will use them 100%.”

Ah, so there does NOT have to be an existential threat to Russia before Russia resorts to the use of nukes.

“Especially they are already there on a tips of Iskander and Kinzhal missiles.”

So, you admit that Russia has already introduced nuclear weapons into the Ukrainian theater but just hasn’t launched them yet.

“The use of tactic battlefield low-yield nukes will be open practice very soon. Like using artillary and tactic missiles.”

It will be open practice for Russia to use them, because you are admitting that Russia cannot win a war without resorting to nukes (unless it wars against some small and defenseless and hapless third-world country).

“And Russia uses them will create the needed precedent for other countries. I guess China for one will thank Russia.”

Again, you admit Russia will resort to using nukes even if it faces no real threat.

Is there any wonder that former Soviet republics and former Soviet satellite states rushed to join NATO as soon as they were rid of the Soviet (Russian) boot on their necks? NO ONE trusts Russia. Russia’s history of abuse towards its neighbors will not soon be forgotten. It’s funny, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine actually made NATO stronger!

You mentioned China. I suggest to you that China will employ first-use of nukes against Russia before any Western country would.

[ought-six]

“When you have the President of the United States and his Secretary of Defense stating on the public record that there needs to be regime change and that our objective in Ukraine is to weaken the Russian military, it is a stated policy. You can try walking it back, but it is closing the barn door after the horse has left. The Russians got the message loud and clear.”

Ah, so NOW you believe whatever comes out of Biden’s mouth? Even though his idiotic comment was quickly walked back. So, you must believe Biden was a star football player bound for the Naval Academy but changed his mind at the last minute because Roger Staubach was there.

“And the new hobby horse is Russia has committed crimes against humanity. Putin and his ilk are war criminals. So how can you negotiate an end to this war with war criminals?”

We did it with Saddam Hussein in 1991.

“The Iranian Revolution was the real catalyst that emboldened militant Islamic Fundamentalism as a real threat to national governments that strayed from Islamic governance.”

I guess you never heard of the Muslim Brotherhood. Unfortunately, King Farouk and Abdel Nasser are not around for comment, both of whom were targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood. And that was many years before the Iranian Revolution.

“That was the plan in a proxy war. You weaken the enemy thru surrogates.”

Exactly! Which is what I said earlier on this very thread.

“The US is being led by one of the most incompetent, inexperienced national security teams in our history. We are being led by idiots who lie to us daily. The ignominious, botched exit from Afghanistan should have been a wake-up call. We are in deep kimchi.”

I fully agree with your last comment.

[ought-six]

“If you have a modicum of knowledge about history, you know that war can occur when there are miscalculations about the enemy’s intentions.”

I’ve studied history my whole life. My university degree is in history.

“You shouldn’t ascribe your own values, intentions, etc. to the enemy.”

I don’t.

“We almost had a nuclear war over the Cuban missile crisis because the Soviets did not believe our red line. Fortunately, both sides blinked and the Soviets were given a face saving exit with our withdrawal of missiles from Turkey.”

I remember the Cuban Missile Crisis very well. In any event, our Jupiter missiles were obsolete for the intended mission, but the propulsion system was the model for our space program.

“The Russians have drawn red lines over the entry of Ukraine into NATO and the status of Crimea.”

Ukraine is not going to become a NATO member, and everyone
— including Putin — knows it. Crimea was illegally annexed by Russia. Only a handful of countries — all Russian toadies — recognize Crimea as part of Russia today.

“As we continue to escalate our involvement in Ukraine, we run the risk of crossing these red lines.”

No, we don’t. As I said before, Ukraine is not going to become a member of NATO. Putin knows that. As for Crimea, there is little chance Ukraine will get it back, so any settlement would have to recognize that. But the other parts of Ukraine that Russia has illegally annexed are a different story. So, your two “red lines” will not be crossed.

“Russia cannot lose this war.”

Of course it can. Every war can be lost. But, perhaps you meant that Putin’s ego can’t afford to lose this war.

“If it believes its strategic interests are being threatened, it will raise the ante.”

As would any nation.

“We are already at war economically with Russia now.”

Yeah? So what? We have sanctions against a lot of countries and a lot of entities. In that sense, we are at war economically with China. Do you recommend that the US “surrender” that economic war with China?

“Who blew up the NordStream pipelines?”

I have no idea. Present the evidence in a court of law and if the defendant party is found guilty it should accept the consequences as set down by the court.

“Take a look at what Biden said we wouldn’t do in terms of the kinds of weapons.”

Conditions dictate the measures. A year ago is a long time ago; much has changed. Only a fool would restrict himself in that respect.

“There has been a definite escalation on our side.”

As the Soviets escalated in Korea and Vietnam. It’s how the game is played. You know that; you’re not naiive.

“What happens if the coming Russian offensive is
successful?”

That depends on “how” successful.

“To what extent will we go to prevent a Ukrainian defeat. F-16s? US advisors?”

No, we won’t put US boots on the ground in Ukraine in combat roles nor will we put US helmets in the air above Ukraine in combat roles. And I would very much oppose us doing it. Advisors? As long as they do not actively engage in combat operations, advisors are just that: advisors. We are already giving the Ukrainians intel, etc.

Let me ask you this: There are stories floating around that Putin is planning to launch operations against Moldova. If true, are you okay with that, as you seem to be okay with Russia’s aggression against Ukraine?

[ought-six]

Yeah, but do you subscribe or agree with those tenets of neoconservatism I identified earlier? Yes or no?

[ought-six]

“Russia will do whatever is necessary to preserve Crimea as a part of Russia. Crimea is as much a part of Russia as is Moscow.”

Then you don’t know the history of Russia.

[ought-six]

“No, those values don’t define neoconservatives, quite the opposite.”

It specifically states that they do. I know you don’t want to admit it, because you don’t want to see one of your slanders taken away.

[nickfrost1]

“And if they will be a moment when the use of tactical nuke will get great tactical gain and save lifes of Russian soldiers then commanders will use them 100%.”

Ah, so there does NOT have to be an existential threat to Russia before Russia resorts to the use of nukes.===

First off what is an existencial treat Russia will decide not you.

And you don’t understand the doctrine. It is about usage of Strategic Nuclear Forces right away. Meaning she will not use a townbuster warheads at first place of course. That what they say in a doctrine. It is about not all nukes but only big ones like 100KT and more. Got now?

But those low-yield shells like 1Kt or less and strictly on a battlefield or near front line why not? It just like any other explosives but stronger. And not against anything around but against hardened targets or targets of big value and so on.

And using this warheads will counter the NATO superiority in numbers.

DO you remember how during Cold War 1 NATO responded on Soviet Union numbers superiority in troops and tanks? They deployed more nuke missiles. Remember Pershing missiles?

SO similar way here. Now NATO has number superiority so Russia must react accordingly.

[kabar]

It is not an existential threat to Russia to repel Russia from Ukraine. It is merely restoring the 2013 status quo, with which Russia apparently had no problem for over twenty years.

In 2014 NATO and the US led by Victoria Nuland engineered a coup of the duly-elected, pro-Russian government of Ukraine. This spawned the separatist movement in the Donbas and triggered an unopposed Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea. Theree has been an ongoing shooting war in Ukraine since 2014. The same team that gave us the 2014 coup is back in charge. Did that contribute to Putin's decision to invade Ukraine a second time?

Is there any wonder that former Soviet republics and former Soviet satellite states rushed to join NATO as soon as they were rid of the Soviet (Russian) boot on their necks? NO ONE trusts Russia. Russia’s history of abuse towards its neighbors will not soon be forgotten.

No doubt they wanted to join NATO. The US becomes the guarantor of their sovereignty up to and including nuclear war. NATO expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union was a huge mistake. George Kennan said in 1997, that "expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking."

NATO expansion from 1986 until today

It’s funny, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine actually made NATO stronger!

NATO is a paper tiger without the US. The war in Ukraine has devastated the economies of NATO members and they have depleted their war reserves. The US has supplied more money and weapons to Ukraine than all the rest of NATO members combined. Let's see how many NATO countries live up to their pledges to spend more on defense. It will mean cuts to their welfare states and higher taxes. They are already under great pressure to fund benefits due to an aging population and smaller workforce.

In Germany the public is losing confidence in NATO and fear being drawn into a direct conflict with Russia. Poll: Less Than Half of Germans Support Defending NATO Allies (Feb 9, 2023)

"A new opinion poll has revealed that two-thirds of German citizens now fear being drawn into a direct military conflict with the Russian Federation, with only 45% saying that they want Germany to come to the aid of another NATO member state if it were attacked."

"The polling data, which also indicates the German population fears war and inflation more than all other issues facing the country, emerges from the results of the “Security Report 2023,” carried out by the Allensbach Institute on behalf of the Center for Strategy and Higher Leadership, the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reports."

"The security report’s results, among several other things, revealed that 85% of Germans worry about the Russo-Ukrainian war, while 86% have deep concerns over the country’s record- high inflation."

"The fear that the Federal Republic could be pulled into a war with Russia is widespread, at 63%, up from the 37% recorded in last year’s security report. Additionally, nearly half of the survey respondents (47%) reported feeling personally threatened by Germany’s participation in the Russo-Ukrainian war via its continued weapons deliveries—which now include the state-of-the-art Leopard 2 tanks—to Ukraine."

"Against the backdrop of the current geopolitical situation, the survey asked expressly how Germany’s NATO alliance obligation ought to be handled in the event of an outbreak of war affecting another NATO country."

"To this question, a minority of 45% of Germans favor getting involved militarily, in accordance with Article 5 of the NATO alliance treaty, in the event of an attack on an ally. In the eastern German states, this figure drops to a mere 30%. As for the entire country, 35% of those surveyed said it is better to “keep out of it” if a fellow NATO ally is attacked. One in five remained undecided on this issue.

"Reacting to Germany’s apparent lack of commitment to its NATO allies, Klaus Schweinsberg from the Center for Strategy and Higher Leader, the co-editor of the security report, said: “The fact that there is no clear commitment among the Germans to the alliance’s obligations in NATO is frightening.”

I watch the German news everyday along with my German wife. It is clear that support for this proxy war is waning among the German public. There are over 1 million Ukrainian refugees in the country along with tens of thousands of Afghans and other foreigners seeking asylum in Germany. Housing resources are stretched thin and Germans are suffering from the influx of refugees. My wife's friends and relatives believe that the US has ulterior motives in cutting off cheap energy from Russia so that the US can make Germany dependent on US energy at higher prices. This hurts the competitiveness of German industry and could result in offshoring to countries with cheaper energy.

NATO members Hungary and Turkey are not abiding by the sanctions on Russia. Other NATO countries are tapped out when it comes to sending money and arms to Ukraine.

Sweden and Finland entry into NATO: What exactly does the US gain with the entry of these two countries? It just increases our liability to defend the sovereignty of Europe using our nuclear umbrella. We, the American people, are the guarantors of their sovereignty up to and including nuclear war. It's a great deal for Sweden and Finland. They get the insurance policy and we pay the premiums.

[kabar]

Ah, so NOW you believe whatever comes out of Biden’s mouth? Even though his idiotic comment was quickly walked back. So, you must believe Biden was a star football player bound for the Naval Academy but changed his mind at the last minute because Roger Staubach was there.

He is the selected President of the United States and Commander in Chief. When he addresses the crowds in Warsaw and promises to defend every inch of NATO soil, should they believe him? When should we believe him and when shouldn't we believe him? Do the Russians believe him?

We did it with Saddam Hussein in 1991.

We captured Saddam Hussein and he was executed. I spent five years in Riyadh including during the entirety of Desert Shield/Storm.

I guess you never heard of the Muslim Brotherhood. Unfortunately, King Farouk and Abdel Nasser are not around for comment, both of whom were targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood. And that was many years before the Iranian Revolution.

Isolated incidents. You left out the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981 by by members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. That was post Khomeini.

[kabar]

Ukraine is not going to become a NATO member, and everyone — including Putin — knows it.

Somebody needs to tell NATO, the US State Department and DOD that Ukraine is not going to become a member of NATO. NATO has been training Ukrainian military forces for many years. On June 12, 2020 NATO recognized Ukraine as Enhanced Opportunities Partner.

"As a NATO partner, Ukraine has provided troops to Allied operations, including in Afghanistan and Kosovo, as well as to the NATO Response Force and NATO exercises. Allies highly value these significant contributions, which demonstrate Ukraine’s commitment to Euro-Atlantic security."

"As an Enhanced Opportunities Partner, Ukraine will benefit from tailor-made opportunities to help sustain such contributions. This includes enhanced access to interoperability programmes and exercises, and more sharing of information, including lessons learned."

On November 10, 2021 The US signed the U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership Among other things it stipulated that:

"Guided by the April 3, 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration of the NATO North Atlantic Council and as reaffirmed in the June 14, 2021 Brussels Summit Communique of the NATO North Atlantic Council, the United States supports Ukraine’s right to decide its own future foreign policy course free from outside interference, including with respect to Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO."

Crimea was illegally annexed by Russia. Only a handful of countries — all Russian toadies — recognize Crimea as part of Russia today.

So why didn't Obama /Biden do anything about it? Or NATO? Life went on with Russia. No real sanctions. Trade and commerce continued. Ukraine made no effort to liberate it in contrast to the Donbas, which they shelled regularly.

No, we won’t put US boots on the ground in Ukraine in combat roles nor will we put US helmets in the air above Ukraine in combat roles. And I would very much oppose us doing it. Advisors? As long as they do not actively engage in combat operations, advisors are just that: advisors. We are already giving the Ukrainians intel, etc.

I wouldn't be so sure. We started in Vietnam giving weapons and stationing advisors who then got involved in combat. First we said no tanks. Now jets are being discussed if not provided by us, then other NATO members. This is how incremental escalations work. All of sudden you are in direct confrontation with the Russians. You know we have contractors in Ukraine maintaining weapons and training personnel. Real time intelligence is being provided for targeting. It seems highly unlikely we wouldn't already have boots/intel people on the ground in Ukraine.

Let me ask you this: There are stories floating around that Putin is planning to launch operations against Moldova. If true, are you okay with that, as you seem to be okay with Russia’s aggression against Ukraine?

I am not OK with it, but Moldova is not part of NATO. The Russians already occupy a portion of Moldova. Russian peacekeepers occupy a mainly Russian-speaking breakaway sliver of territory called Transdniestria since 1992, while political power in the capital Chisinau has oscillated for years between pro-Russian and pro-Western political parties.

We should stay out of it.

[kabar]

No, I am strongly opposed to the neocons. Endless wars are weakening this country. We are the world’s biggest debtor nation. Soon debt servicing costs will exceed the amount we spend on defense.

[rbmillerjr]

Well, for once the American people are getting their way.

Sending weapons is not being heavily involved.

[kabar]

Yes, I do, which is why I made the statement. If you want a good primer on Ukraine, check out this article by Jack Matlock, our last ambassador to the Soviet Union. He is a career foreign service officer with extensive experience in the region. He is a voice of reason.

Ukraine: Tragedy of a Nation Divided

As for the Crimea, it is likely to be a de facto part of Russia for the foreseeable future, whether or not the West recognizes that as “legal.” For decades, the U.S. and most of its Western allies refused to recognize the incorporation of the three Baltic countries in the Soviet Union. This eventually was an important factor in their liberation. However, the Crimea is quite different in one key respect: most of its people, being Russian, prefer to be in Russia. In fact, one can argue that it is in the political interest of Ukrainian nationalists to have Crimea in Russia. Without the votes from Crimea, Viktor Yanukovich would never have been elected president.

Regardless of what you or I think, Putin believes Crimea is an intrinsic part of Russia. He said so in his July 2021 article ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“

[ought-six]

“First off what is an existencial treat Russia will decide not you.”

To sentient human beings, an existential threat is a direct threat to continued existence. But, I suppose to Russia an existential threat could be nothing more than a fart in its general direction.

“And you don’t understand the doctrine.”

Oh, I very much understand the doctrine. It addresses first use of NUCLEAR weapons, tactical AND strategic. There are different criteria to their respective use.

“Meaning she will not use a townbuster warheads at first place of course.”

Your comment is just shy of being coherent. But I assume that is due to your unfamiliarity with the English language.
But I commend you for trying to converse intelligently in a language not your own.

What I THINK you are saying is that Russia will not use a strategic nuclear weapon in a first-strike attack. I think Russia knows it would be a suicidal act to do so.

“It is about not all nukes but only big ones like 100KT and more. Got now?”

You’re wrong. This article addresses that:

addreshttps://www.reuters.com/world/what-is-russias-policy-tactical-nuclear-weapons-2022-10-17/

“But those low-yield shells like 1Kt or less and strictly on a battlefield or near front line why not? It just like any other explosives but stronger.”

How naïve you are. It is a WMD, the use of which in Ukraine would be a profound escalation, and condemned worldwide, ESPECIALLY since there is no existential threat to Russia from Ukraine.

“DO you remember how during Cold War 1 NATO responded on Soviet Union numbers superiority in troops and tanks? They deployed more nuke missiles. Remember Pershing missiles?”

I remember them very well. But the key word there is DEPLOYED. There is a light-year’s difference between DEPLOYED and LAUNCHED or FIRED or USED.

“SO similar way here. Now NATO has number superiority so Russia must react accordingly.”

I repeat my comment in the sentence above: There is a light-year’s difference between DEPLOYED and LAUNCHED or FIRED or USED.

[ought-six]

“We captured Saddam Hussein and he was executed.”

My God, you don’t know history. I specifically said 1991, which was Desert Storm. That ended with a negotiated settlement which left Saddam Hussein in power. Saddam Hussein was captured in Gulf War II, some twelve years later, and executed three years after that.

“Isolated incidents. You left out the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981 by by members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. That was post Khomeini.”

Isolated incidents? One of them toppled Farouk’s reign! And, I didn’t forget about Sadat; I was pointing out to you some instances of Islamic Fundamentalism that changed or affected national governments BEFORE the 1979 Iranian Revolution, after you had said that it was because of the 1979 Iranian Revolution that Islamic Fundamentalist movements began to affect national governments.

[nickfrost1]

I repeat my comment in the sentence above: There is a light-year’s difference between DEPLOYED and LAUNCHED or FIRED or USED.==

Yeah yeah very infamous western hypocrisy here))). Deployed but never launched that is what say me? Laughable.

And it is just total lie. If weapon is deployed then it must be launched for sure or else no sense to deploy it.

Don’t try to dupe because you will fail.

Again don’t post me an article of Reuters or any western sources. They ALL lie all day long. If you want to prove your point to do it using your own wit and common sense.

[kabar]

My God, you don’t know history. I specifically said 1991, which was Desert Storm. That ended with a negotiated settlement which left Saddam Hussein in power. Saddam Hussein was captured in Gulf War II, some twelve years later, and executed three years after that.

I was there in 1991, including traveling to Kuwait a day after the war ended. I flew over and drove thru the burning oil fields. Eventually, Saddam received the ultimate justice. I didn't say it happened in 1991. What he did in Kuwait was a war crime. He paid the price. No such fate awaits Putin.

Isolated incidents? One of them toppled Farouk’s reign! And, I didn’t forget about Sadat; I was pointing out to you some instances of Islamic Fundamentalism that changed or affected national governments BEFORE the 1979 Iranian Revolution, after you had said that it was because of the 1979 Iranian Revolution that Islamic Fundamentalist movements began to affect national governments.

Militant Islamic fundamentalism did not become an international threat until Iran. bin Laden's two landmark fatwas, 1996 and 1998, laid the gauntlet down against the West. The 1996 fatwa was entitled, "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." OBL was emboldened by the Russian defeat in Afghanistan in 1989 and the humiliation of America in Iran with the 444 day hostage crisis beginning in 1979.

[ought-six]

“Somebody needs to tell NATO, the US State Department and DOD that Ukraine is not going to become a member of NATO.”

My God, but you are naïve. You clearly don’t know what it takes to become a NATO member. It is a lengthy and detailed process, during which the nation seeking membership must meet certain criteria and fulfill certain requirements, after which the candidate must be accepted UNANIMOUSLY by the full NATO membership. One of those criteria is that the candidate country cannot be engaged in hostilities at the time of consideration. So, right off the bat Ukraine is ineligible. Then there is the unanimous vote: Ukraine has NO chance of getting a unanimous vote. For instance, Turkey and Hungary would be definite no votes. Then, Zelensky himself has said that Ukraine membership in NATO is not going to be pursued.

Do you have even the vaguest idea what a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner is? It is a country that will work with NATO under certain circumstances and conditions.

Here, this is for your reading pleasure:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/51288.htm

”On November 10, 2021 The US signed the U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership.”

A bilateral agreement between the US and Ukraine. NATO wasn’t involved.

“So why didn’t Obama /Biden do anything about it (Russia’s invasion of and “annexation of Crimea”)? Or NATO? Life went on with Russia. No real sanctions. Trade and commerce continued. Ukraine made no effort to liberate it in contrast to the Donbas, which they shelled regularly.”

Ever the bluffers (remember their “red line” in Syria?), Obama/Biden sent Ukraine blankets and MREs. Ukraine did not have the wherewithal to try to get Crimea back, but it did have the means to combat the civil war in the Donbas. And, are you seriously trying to argue that it was only Ukraine that shelled the Donbas? Because so did the Russian-backed separatists and, yes, even Russian forces in eastern Ukraine.

“You know we have contractors in Ukraine maintaining weapons and training personnel.”

Yes, there are contractors there. There are contractors anywhere there is money to be made. Those contractors come from all over, from multiple countries and interests. As for training, the vast majority of training takes place in Europe and North America.

“I am not OK with it, but Moldova is not part of NATO. The Russians already occupy a portion of Moldova. Russian peacekeepers occupy a mainly Russian-speaking breakaway sliver of territory called Transdniestria since 1992, while political power in the capital Chisinau has oscillated for years between pro-Russian and pro-Western political parties.”

So, a Russian-backed coup is now under way in Moldova. Will you condemn that, as you have condemned the “coup” by the Obama administration in 2014 in Ukraine? Or, is the coup in Moldova okay because Russia is doing it, and is trying to “rescue” native Russians there (does that excuse sound familiar yet)?

Moldova wants to join the EU. Russia opposes that. Russia stirs up separatist shit wherever it can, just as the Soviet Union before it.

Look at a map. Russia’s intermediate goal vis-à-vis NATO is to break NATO’s soft underbelly, and the road goes through Ukraine and Moldova to Romania, which has a pro-Russia Serbia on its west, and a weak Bulgaria to its south; and Bulgaria has pro-Russia Serbia and non-aligned Macedonia to its west. If Russia remains true to its usual behavior, you will see soon pro-Russia and separatist unrest in Romania and Bulgaria and Albania, and in the Balkans in general with the possible exception of Croatia. Russia wants to restore the hegemony of the Soviet Union. But, its hardest nut to crack in that regard would be in the north, in Poland, and I think Russia will forego that and concentrate on the three Baltic states.

Russia is expansionist, and historically has been.

[ought-six]

“No, I am strongly opposed to the neocons.”

Then you are strongly opposed to yourself.

[ought-six]

“However, the Crimea is quite different in one key respect: most of its people, being Russian, prefer to be in Russia.”

Then they can move to Russia, but they can’t take Ukrainian territory with them.

The Ukrainian constitution addresses these things: Any and all referenda for autonomy or independence must be put to a vote of all Ukrainians, and not just those in in the subject areas. Which makes sense, because separation would affect all Ukrainians.