OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I'm texan. I was born in Tyler but moved to God's country at two months old.So there are some smart folks in Oklahoma! (But it's Texan not texan.)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm texan. I was born in Tyler but moved to God's country at two months old.So there are some smart folks in Oklahoma! (But it's Texan not texan.)
Because these are not in areas surrounded by "unaffiliated" regions defined back in the day as "colonies", "territories", "Indian Country", etc. These are borders of nations. Also, this would be more akin to Mass/Maine deciding in about 1801 that they wanted to be a part of the UK and the UK was stationed in Canada and had ammassed troops on the border and then moved troops into Mass/Maine.Why don't you just talk about the 13 British colonies that later declared independence? That's what you are describing.
Or Texas 1836
Well our little analogies to Ukraine are really side issues. The conflict is really US vs Russia, how the world chooses sides, and what a multi-polar globe will look like. Ukraine is only the current flashpoint.Because these are not in areas surrounded by "unaffiliated" regions defined back in the day as "colonies", "territories", "Indian Country", etc. These are borders of nations. Also, this would be more akin to Mass/Maine deciding in about 1801 that they wanted to be a part of the UK and the UK was stationed in Canada and had ammassed troops on the border and then moved troops into Mass/Maine.
They [Oklahoma Panhandle] were part of Texas before Texas let go of them so they could keep their slaves in 1850.
I'm texan. I was born in Tyler but moved to God's country at two months old.
I thought that was funny.Scholz calls these "difficult hours" as he strolls back to his excellent biergarten.
They are a minority in Ukraine. If a bunch of Latinos in South Texas wanted to be part of Mexico, we wouldn't move the border North even though they are a majority in South Texas. We would tell them to move to Mexico.
Asked due to complete ignorance, what portion of those two "states" are Russian or sympathetic to Russia.Wouldn't and shouldn't are two different things. There is a principle called subsidiarity, which you have appealed to before, which could also be described as popular sovereignty or localism. If a minority group wants to break off one political entity and become independent or combine with another, there are logical and moral reasons to support it.
For example there are counties in Eastern Washington, Oregon, and California who want to join Idaho. There is also the case of West Virginia during the Civil War. There is also the case of the 13 British colonies in 1776.
I am not saying Donbas should break off from Ukraine. I definitely think Russia is "bad" when/if they send troops in to "defend" Russians. But if the people in the Separatist areas really want to break free. I won't disagree with them. After the 2014 Maidan Revolution, the new Ukrainian government did discriminate against Russians in Donbas. Therefore there are real grievances they have against Ukraine. They could obviously move to Russia, but that is also difficult. They are poor moving into another poor area taking resources away. It is a recipe for failure.
Those sympathetic to Ukraine have hauled out years ago. But there may be others sympathetic to Ukraine who are in the portion of those states which is currently controlled by Ukraine. I would advise them to leave. Putin has stated that territory belongs to the two states. Either that or agree to be flexible and adapt.Asked due to complete ignorance, what portion of those two "states" are Russian or sympathetic to Russia.
Asked due to complete ignorance, what portion of those two "states" are Russian or sympathetic to Russia.
So does this count as a Russian invasion?
Kamala in Europe right now is so over her head. She's a deer in headlights. Sorry but you can't get on your knees to solve this problem.
Wouldn't and shouldn't are two different things. There is a principle called subsidiarity, which you have appealed to before, which could also be described as popular sovereignty or localism. If a minority group wants to break off one political entity and become independent or combine with another, there are logical and moral reasons to support it.
For example there are counties in Eastern Washington, Oregon, and California who want to join Idaho. There is also the case of West Virginia during the Civil War. There is also the case of the 13 British colonies in 1776.
I am not saying Donbas should break off from Ukraine. I definitely think Russia is "bad" when/if they send troops in to "defend" Russians. But if the people in the Separatist areas really want to break free. I won't disagree with them. After the 2014 Maidan Revolution, the new Ukrainian government did discriminate against Russians in Donbas. Therefore there are real grievances they have against Ukraine. They could obviously move to Russia, but that is also difficult. They are poor moving into another poor area taking resources away. It is a recipe for failure.
And lest you think I'm picking on Obama, here's something that also makes me shake my head:
Trump on Putin plan to recognize breakaway Ukraine regions: 'This is genius'
Borders obviously do move from time to time. However, even when that happens, the right way to do it is through the political process or in extreme cases, civil wars. When an outside agitator deploys or threatens to deploy military force to bully the nation into submission especially when there's likely a plan of annexation, I suspect the motives of the outside agitator.
Let's put it this way. If Putin's rationale is acceptable or moral, then we all owe Hitler an apology for giving him **** about taking Sudetenland. He pretty made the same case, and it had similar merit.
That said, the world didn't go to war for Germany taken the Sudetenland, correct? It riled up some feathers. Hitler gave his racial/historical justification for doing so, and Europe backed off. It wasn't until Germany attacked Poland that WW2 started. Isn't that correct?
Putin is the enemy. So is China.
That's right... but it was the domino's starting to fall. It led to the "peace in our time" decision making process. It was the hope that this is all Hitler/Putin wants decision making process. But to acquiesce is to confirm our weak spots. Our will.
I was probably too optimistic here.Putin wants Kiev to negotiate with Donetsk and Lugansk. I’m guessing as long as Ukraine doesn’t launch an attack he will be patient. But if Ukraine is stupid enough to an attack, Putin said weeks ago that Ukraine would be ended. I see no reason to doubt him.
I think there is truth and error on both sides. The people of Donbas do have reasonable grievances against the Ukrainian government. I do not support Russia moving forces into their area, officially, they already did unofficially. But both Ukraine and Russia have escalated the situation over time. If the US wasn't so involved with Ukraine, I don't think they would have escalated as much early on.
That said, the world didn't go to war for Germany taken the Sudetenland, correct? It riled up some feathers. Hitler gave his racial/historical justification for doing so, and Europe backed off. It wasn't until Germany attacked Poland that WW2 started. Isn't that correct?
So the question is do we really think that Russia is planning to attack Kiev? Are they going to attack the Baltics or Poland? They have allowed Georgia and Kazakhstan to exist as separate states more or less. There have been border disputes there too, but Russia hasn't tried to take them over. If we think Russia will stop with Donbas, that is an imperfect but acceptable situation. Much better that then start WW3. If Russia really is planning to retake all of the old Soviet states, then Europe needs to figure out what they think about that. The US can work with Europe. But I don't think a US lead war starting in Donbas is a great outcome either