Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You had earlier stated Russia was 'Grabbing up territory', so I was hoping you were going to show me where they were doing this. What you have provided was a list of wars involving Russia. Things such as giving military equipment to an African nation, providing support for Syria, etc etc. None of these noted events are land grabs.
The list you provided doesn't show Russia gobbling up land in the modern era after 1991, aside from what it is currently doing in Ukraine. Until you show me, I'm disputing your point regarding Russia 'grabbing territory' in the post 1991 era. The list shows Russia intervening in wars/battles close to it's borders. That is a lot different than grabbing land, and the US would be on shaky ground to harshly criticize interventions, given our own history in recent decades.
You knew exactly what I meant but decided to lead with Africa equipment and Syria to dishonestly drag me right out of the gate.
How about trying to have an honest discussion?
It's ok to disagree with how I phrased things without resulting to that garbage.
Bottom line is that many of the NATO joiners all did so out of fear after regional Russian military action and then we have to hear how Russia is then justified because of NATO expansion.
Sweden and Finland didn't go running for NATO after Syria started getting Russian support.
The list you provided doesn't show Russia gobbling up land in the modern era after 1991, aside from what it is currently doing in Ukraine. Until you show me, I'm disputing your point regarding Russia 'grabbing territory' in the post 1991 era. The list shows Russia intervening in wars/battles close to it's borders. That is a lot different than grabbing land, and the US would be on shaky ground to harshly criticize interventions, given our own history in recent decades.
It depends on how you define "land grab". Aside from Ukraine, there's Transnistria, a narrow strip of land in eastern Moldova bordering on Russia, that now claims to be an independent nation (which most countries don't recognize). There's Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia, both originally territories of Georgia. Granted, Russia hasn't gone so far in those instances, as to force referendums on the residents, regarding joining Russia. But no one's fooled by their thinly veiled attempts to support "self-determination" for ethnic groups inside other countries.
If Russia's so keen on ethnic self-determination, why don't they let the Buryats join Mongolia? Why not allow Yakutia to become independent, which it almost did in 1990-91?
And the story isn't over. Russia's actions in Ukraine have triggered reactions in a number of countries neighboring it to the west.
Putin drawing lines on a map is roughly as effective as Trump using a Sharpie to modify a hurricane prediction. It only fools those already convinced.
Putin invaded, annexed, and still controls Crimea after 7 years. Now he has invaded and annexed four more Ukrainian territories. What Putin wants, he takes, and we let him keep it. That is called, success.
It's more like the US drawing lines and daring Putin to cross the line, which he does every time. So we just draw another line and dare him to cross that. Which of course he will.
The aid package that was just passed for Ukraine is so much worse than was notated in an earlier thread. I read today that an additional $12 billion dollars is going to Ukraine.
"The bill approved Thursday, with some exceptions, keeps spending at federal agencies at current levels through mid-December. The most notable of those exceptions is the more than $12 billion that will be provided to aid Ukraine, on top of more than $50 billion provided in two previous bills. The money will go to provide training, equipment and logistics support for the Ukraine military, help Ukraine's government provide basic services to its citizens and replenish U.S. weapons systems and munitions."
Earlier I commented that I did not support giving billions to Ukraine and would rather see that money go to the improvement of U.S. citizens lives and many here seemed to disagree, thinking this money is improving our lives somehow.
Russia is not a threat to the U.S., so I disagree and am disgusted by both sides of the aisle flooding money to Ukraine. if you read the above snippet from the article, you will see that some of that money is going to provide basic services for Ukraine citizens. What about our citizens? Every week i see people sleeping on the sidewalk, senior citizens do not have coverage for eye care, hearing care and dental care in their Medicare package and 1 in 5 children go hungry in the U.S....Several cities don't have access to clean drinking water, most recently in Jackson, Mississippi. (After reading more carefully looks like $20 million is going to Jackson, Mississippi for improvement to infrastructure related to water-waste treatment which is good to know)
No argument will convince me that sending billions to Ukraine is our financial goal right now and a good use of money.
Not only that. Now he can declare total mobilization to protect "Russian" territory.
Yeah, but is he going to do that? He’ll be pushed into another corner soon. Ukrainian forces will not think twice about continuing their offensives to retake towns and this will continue. Putin has to act but he knows he doesn’t have many options.
TurkSteam, which runs under the Black Sea to Turkey, has the capacity to deliver 33 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas a year. Turkey consumes half of it and the remainder is destined for the Balkans and Central Europe, especially Serbia and Hungary.
TurkStream lies 3 kilometers below the sea in waters with high seismic activity. Specialized ships regularly monitor the pipeline for damage and quickly make repairs. The equipment needed to monitor and repair the pipeline is largely imported from the West.
Quote:
A shutdown of TurkStream due to damage could severely impact Hungary, one of the EU countries most dependent on Russian gas imports. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been the most vocal opponent of EU sanctions on Russia, undermining the bloc's united front against the Kremlin.
Putin invaded, annexed, and still controls Crimea after 7 years. Now he has invaded and annexed four more Ukrainian territories. What Putin wants, he takes, and we let him keep it. That is called, success.
It's more like the US drawing lines and daring Putin to cross the line, which he does every time. So we just draw another line and dare him to cross that. Which of course he will.
Except, this time, unlike Crimea, we are pushing back and hard. The Ukrainians, with US backing, are showing very clearly how dysfunctional the Russian military is. Time will tell, put I think Putin crossed one line too many this time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
