Huh?
Posted on 04/28/2025 11:33:56 AM PDT by marcusmaximus
Why would Russia want a ceasefire when they are “beating the hell out of Ukraine” to quote the president.
Because no one can really support Ukraine, right? Sorry, but there are here that do. And just to make it official, no, I am not a bot. You can see my posting history that goes back years.
President Trump offered Russia the opportunity to join the civilized world.
No - because you give the exact same silly reply to everyone.
I am just responding to the same silly lies that are used to justify the Russian invasion.
Donetsk and Luhansk are Ukrainian territories. Why should they not want to restore order there? And why should it be a concern for Russia?
Donetsk and Lugansk are part of the Russian Federation, with consent of the people that live there, AND WILL NEVER be part of Ukraine as long as you're breathing.
Don't like that fact? I'll be happy to do the equivalent of rub your face between a pair of Biden's adult diapers.
And, before Ukraine keeps harassing the people that live there, Russia can, as far as I am concerned, turn what's left of Ukraine into mushroom cloud (after fair warning to masses to evacuate).
They used to be Ukrainian territory.
But, like senator Kennedy said and no doubt you support, we need to turn Russians into fish food. Or like Graham said, as long as we are killing Russians, its worth every penney.
I say go for it. See what happens and i can tell you what will happen.
Send a full bore force into Ukraine and you’ll get your wish. Hundreds of US troops comming home in body bags.
Or, the vaporization of entire cities worldwide.
So go for it if you pricks are so fond of war. Go for it. Then dont whine when it doesnt turn out the way you think.
Huh?
Those maps only show which Russian rulers were ruling over the Ukrainian population. You could make a similar map supporting England’s claim to rule Ireland. With the exception of Crimea all the oblasts in Ukraine have majority Ukrainian populations. This is what should matter.
And by the way, that map is wrong. The area that it shows was given by Lenin to Ukraine in 1922 was actually part of the Ukrainian state that declared independence in 1917 and recognized by Russia in 1918. Ukraine was then conquered by the Bolsheviks but it was not reincorporated into Russia. Rather, Ukraine and Russia were recognized as two of the constituent states of the new Soviet Union. When Ukraine regained its independence in 1991 all of the oblasts, including Crimea, voted for independence with the new independent state and was recognized by Russia.
And what Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Lithuania, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, and Ireland? The age of empires is over. The historical rule of the Russian Tsar gives no rights to modern Russia. Ukrainians are not Russians, and Ukraine is not part of Russia. Russia recognized this in 1918 and again in 1991. They need to accept it now.
That's an acknowledged issue, but fixing it requiees action in Washington DC, and that's independent of conditions local to those labs.
Thus, any movement vis-a-vis NATO should be ultimately towards its elimination.
If your plan embraces NATO to destroy it, then I’m all for it.
My own sense of it is that we've done an abysmal job managing NATO, and that has been the genesis of much of the derision of NATO that you yourself echo. I think if we managed NATO well, and I think that necessarily demands flushing all the accursed NeoCons out of it, we could make NATO work for us, and be more effective in a broader global sense. I don't really think the problem is the existence of NATO, per se, but -- what's the old song lyric? -- "It's in the way that you use it," and because of the existence of this corrupted Washington Deep State, our resulting (mis?)use of NATO has been a reflection of that corruption.
If this present Administration is successful in reversing and rooting out not only that corruption, but the mechanisms that have fostered and sustained it, then I think keeping NATO as a lever of US influence might be a reasonable move, WITH, of course, Trump's standing caveat that the other Member states pay their share.
If, however, Trump can't overcome the entrenched bad actors and really get a great deal of progress toward blowing the corruption out of FedGov, then -- yeah, I'm with you -- we shouldn't leave NATO there as a tool for that corruption to use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.