Russia has stated their position on Ukraine quite clearly. They want a binding agreement that Ukraine will not be part of NATO and not be a base for offensive weapons on their border, much as we did with Finland. If we don’t guarantee that, Russia will feel obligated to occupy the nation to preserve it as a buffer.
How is that different from our position on offensive weapons in Cuba, over which we nearly went to war 60 years ago?
This is not a partisan issue, repeated US Presidents have engaged in the same brinkmanship for a long time, but it is beginning to look like Russia is the reasonable player in this contest.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
When was the last time the US or NATO invaded Russia? Or threatened to?
Putin just wants to restore the glory of the USSR.
Perhaps Mexico has the right to take back Texas under the same line of thinking.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So, were we justified and blockading Cuba?
After all, the USSR had not invaded us.
Not everything is “My tribe good, your tribe bad”
LikeLike
I dont think the US has any “offensive” weapons along the Russian border so that argument is moot. We have purely defensive weapons of deterrence in NATO countries and they are under US control.. Secretly placing known “offensive” weapons in Cuba is a different kettle of fish. Cuba had no significance to Russian interests but being a pawn as a launch pad for communist aggression.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Back when the USSR had nuke missiles in Cuba, we had them in Turkey, a NATO member.
LikeLike
I agree. Ukraine is tremendously important to Russian interests and not terribly important to US interests. Us pushing hard on this seems very high-risk, low-reward.
Hard to blame Russia for wanting a large buffer state when the terms of German unification under western auspices was that NATO would not expand another inch east…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ukraine is an independent country. If Russia invades, is it not similar to Czechoslovakia and Poland in the 1930’s? Would Biden be accused of having a Chamberlain moment?
Having family from (and probably still) in Ukraine, I am quite concerned with the potential of what would happen if Putin’s forces were to invade. But does the US truly have a dog in this fight or are we just CONSIDERING playing the world’s policeman again?
Yeah, I am just a little conflicted on this one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Part of Ukraine is ethic Russian and was included in Ukraine during the rule by the USSR in order to break up the Russian tribalism.
I would be content to allow those parts of Ukraine who would prefer to be part of Russia go their way.
LikeLike
Funny. You would be content, but Ukrainian people might not be.
Well never get that server back if Putin take that nation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Which Ukranian people? The ones who would rather be part of Russia or the ones holding them against their will?
LikeLike
Pick one. You must know how the Ukrainian people feel about being invaded.
Probably like the Iraqis, the Vietnamese, the Afghans, Kuwaitis…
LikeLiked by 2 people
For that part of the Ukraine that wants to be part of Russia, they would look at it as being liberated, not invaded.
LikeLike
Ask those in Crimea who were not given the option how they feel about being invaded. The vote in Crimea was rigged to prevent those opposed to Russian rule to be heard.
LikeLike
The Crimean plebiscite was over 90% for returning to Russia,
But you Democrats are always claiming someone stole the election.
LikeLike
Not a claim, but a fact. You know, the truth. Something you once believed in. The 90% were the ones ALLOWED to have their votes counted.
As far as accusing Democrats of claiming a stolen election. Milk out the nose funny. It wasn’t Dems who held a “Stop the Steal rally on January 6th, then attacked the Capitol for the sole purpose of overturning the fairest, most transparent election ever.
But you keep going with your fantastical narrative. It proves how far those on the right have fallen.
LikeLike
Your sarcasm meter needs recalibrating.
The voter turnout in the Crimean Plebiscite was 83% so if there was voter suppression, they weren’t very good at it.
LikeLike
When you stop your hypocrisy, I’ll take a look at my sarcasm.
LikeLike
“ The March 16 referendum’s available choices did not include keeping the status quo of Crimea and Sevastopol as they were at the moment the referendum was held. The 1992 constitution accords greater powers to the Crimean parliament, including full sovereign powers to establish relations with other states; therefore, many Western and Ukrainian commentators argued that both provided referendum choices would result in de facto separation from Ukraine. The final date and ballot choices were set only ten days before the plebiscite was held. Before, during and after the plebiscite was proclaimed, the Crimean peninsula was host to Russian soldiers who managed to oversee public buildings and Ukrainian military installations.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
Sounds like a tails I win, heads you lose deal to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You missed the 83% turnout and 97% choice to be part of Russia.
It appears the Crimeans thought it was worth voting.
All Russia was really doing was winding back the intentional breakup of the Russian people by the USSR.
LikeLike
Didn’t miss it at all. The election was bogus. Russian military everywhere and no real choice at ballot box.
But you may have a point. People want rulers not leaders. Just look at today’s Republicans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, the Republicans, the party of mandates and market manipulation.
Sure.
LikeLike
I mean Republicans. The party that wants elections decided by anyone other than voters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, but Ukranians are NOT Russians. They fell under USSR rule and now people like you want to believe that they are Russian by choice.
LikeLike
Not all of the Ukraine, but the Crimea and the Donbas are most certainly ethnic Russian.
LikeLike
Funny how words actually used to mean something to Don.
LikeLike
Numbers mean something too.
83% turnout, 97% for joining Russia.
Do you really think that with such overwhelming support that a technical change in wording would have changed the outcome?
LikeLike
The ballot offered either join Russia now or in a few months. Some choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And yet they didn’t sit out the plebiscite.
If, as you claim, there was no choice offered, then why did 83% show up?
There is no amount of nit picking that cam overcome numbers like that
LikeLike
“There is no amount of nit picking that cam overcome numbers like that”
How about 7 million? 😇
LikeLike
To repeat Len, “Some choice”.
LikeLike
Let me see if I grasp this correctly.
You believed our elections was fraudulent based on lies, scant legal wrangling, FOX and political dyspepsia. Yet cameras, witnesses, Republican officials and multiple recounts and audits agree that it was the most fair, scrutinized and transparent in history.
Yet, you believe the results of an election in a country occupied by Putin’s military was cast in stone perfect.
Be honest now. Wouldn’t you prefer a Putin to rule us? It sure seems that way.
LikeLike
First, I don’t want anyone to rule us, being governed is sufficient.
And I did not say our elections were fraudulent, I said they were conducted, in several states, unlawfully in such a way that we will never know if they were fraudulent or not.
That would not be a problem if the results in those states had been 97% on one side, but when the results are only a tenth of a percent margin, those doubts are significant.
LikeLike
So you do doubt the election. Even with down ballot Republican gains.
Conspiracy by about a few thousand folks sworn to eternal secrecy? Clever weren’t they to make congress almost split for realism.
You say they were unlawful. No court or election officials in either party agrees with your conspiratorial view.
You are saying in effect that I don’t believe the election was rigged BUT it could’ve been.
That is a tap dance.
LikeLike
No, I am saying we can’t know if it was fraudulent because of the unlawful manner in which it was conducted.
That uncertainty will keep the issue alive forever. Many people will never accept Biden as legitimate, just as many still refuse to accept Bush won over Gore, even after recounts by the news media confirmed it.
It is simple fact that many states did not follow the law in conducting the election, citing the pandemic as an excuse. Those ad hoc changes allowed ballot harvesting to take place, and we can never know if that was conducted honestly or not.
So, maybe Biden really won. Probably so even. But the unlawful acts by partisan politicians have created enough doubt that a significant part of the country is convinced the election was tolen.
LikeLike
“ No, I am saying we can’t know if it was fraudulent because of the unlawful manner in which it was conducted.”
You are promoting the Big Lie by this tap dance.
The only person who pushed election fraud was Trump for 5 years. Based on no evidence. And you are saying “could be” based on your interpretation of the election laws.
Yes you are part of the problem.
LikeLike
No, you are reading what you want to see.
Making it impossible to put the issue at rest does more to perpetuate the conspiracy theories than anything else.
The manner in which ballots were collected in several states makes it impossible to determine if they were legitimate. Had the legally adopted procedures been followed and the results had been the same, there would be no doubt, but as it is, we can never be sure.
LikeLike
You just never give up on the idea do you.
The scrutiny by election officials has been extraordinary by any standards. Audits, not just recounts, have been conducted. Even the AZ partisan one that took two million ballots to hidden locations in another state couldn’t come up with any evidence other than Biden got more votes.
The legality of the pandemic changes has not been ruled illegal as per the rule of law for judiciary determination.
All this BS by your team has led to laws designed to try for minority party wins. This has been admitted to by Republicans, including Trump, that they can’t win without changing the rules and packing election offices with Big Lie adherents.
Biden’s win hung on a handful of Republicans with integrity who refused to cheat even though threatened directly by Trump. So they now have armed guards to protect them.
And now it is obvious that the last administration planned an extralegal overthrow of an election they lost by 8 million votes.
The point is you are spreading the Big Lie by saying “who knows”. Most of America know that the election was fair and transparent.
LikeLike
There have been adequate audits of the ballots that reached the polls.
The problem with ballot harvesting is that IF there is fraud, it happens before the ballots are in the possession of the election officials.
I have described here before the abuse of nursing home resident’s harvested ballots that affected a member of my family. Multiply that by millions of people who have died, moved, didn’t vote.
Maybe it was all on the up and up, Or maybe not, We’ll never know.
LikeLike
And who is doing this? How many people under whose central control? Any evidence of the necessary coordination? Who decided which down ballots would win? Why did Trump do better in some urban areas than before?
When you take the time to apply critical thinking you realize that the Big Lie is another Pizzagate that has gone viral. You want to believe that this massive effort is a nefarious conspiracy because that is what your silo tells you.
And you obviously cannot see this. But for those who prefer an autocracy to return our nation to some imaginary past it works.
LikeLike
Who is doing this?
The governors and election officials who abandoned the legal protections established by their legislatures that protected the integrity of the election.
It doesn’t matter if there was fraud or not, by making it possible to commit undetectable fraud on a mass scale, the confidence in the outcome was destroyed.
When you break the law in a manner that allows you to commit fraud, that is presumptive of the intent to commit fraud. Even if it isn’t there.
LikeLike
Again with the “break the lawl” whine.
In many of these cases, a Republican state government set the voting rules. I suppose you expected Democrats to sue if they lost and the suit would be based on the theory that such actions were illegal. What did come from one of the judges, Republican I recall, was that you can’t sue if you waited to see who won first. Especially if you approved the rules in the first place.
That excuse is bogus.
The goal of anyone actually interested in furthering the vitality of our nation wants fair, transparent and universal elections. Low turnouts, like primaries, are mostly with the extremes. High participation would balance the outcome as being more representative of the country.
What you seem to want is a small like-minded electorate. That, by any definition is an oligarchy.
Voting in America is not dependent upon your value based on some arbitrary measurement of financial success. Homeless, disabled, the poor all have a right to decide our governance even though they may not suit your “standards”.
A pandemic put a lid on participation. Some folks say that in person voting was not dangerous. Yet, some of those same people won’t get a shot because Bill Gates is chipping them. Yet they voted too.
The shame is you are perpetuating the Big Lie by effectively saying it might be true after all. That is the wimp route, but complicit nonetheless.
You were not on the moon when astronauts landed so you are dependent upon media and government for information. So it could be a staged lie?
Or does the fact that thousands of NASA employees and contractors have to be in on it too.
Same with the election.
LikeLike
The US Constitution, in plain black and white, says that Presidential Electors shall be chosen in the manner set BY THE LEGISLATURES.
Unless the legislatures empowered the state’s executive branch to make emergency changes without further action by the legislatures, any deviation from the law as passed by the legislature is unconstitutional.
It’s black letter law, there is no deviation because it seems like a good idea at the time.
LikeLike
So sue them. I know, that’s been tried and rejected by none less that a rabidly conservative SCOTUS.
LikeLike
The courts rejected the suits on issues such as standing, not on the merits.
LikeLike
So they followed the Rule of Law which is the basis for “standing”.
Apparently the supposed litigants did not follow the rule of law and they thought they could wing it after a loss.
So bottom line, nothing the states have done to make voting safer during a pandemic has been ruled illegal according to the rule of law.
In other words it is not Don’s rule, but the legal one we are stuck with. The Big Lie is just that.
LikeLike
Trump’s lawyers definitely did screw up by waiting until after the election to sue. Their case was valid but SCOTUS wasn’t going to give them a ‘do-over.’
Mixing Sydney Powell’s weird conspiracy cases in with the valid Constitutional matters didn’t help either.
But the Constitution was clearly violated.
LikeLike
Your opinion is noted.
LikeLike