Changing borders over time

Note that Ukraine doesn’t even appear until around the Russian Revolution.

70 thoughts on “Borders

      1. So, your point is that it is okay for Russia to invade Ukraine and enslave its people because borders have been changed by war in the past? Is that about right?

        What you are actually doing is spreading Putin’s narrative that there is not really a Ukraine, just a little corner of Russia that talks funny. What is it with you people and fascist dictators? The logical extension of your social Darwinism – might makes right?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. From the Wiki on Ukraine

          “Ukraine first declared its independence with the invasion of Bolsheviks in late 1917. Following the conclusion of World War I and with the Peace of Riga, Ukraine was partitioned once again between Poland and the Bolshevik Russia. The Bolshevik-occupied portion of the territory became the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, with some boundary adjustments.”

          Ukraine, as a separate republic, was the creation of the Soviet Union, It was created to weaken the remnants of the Russian Empire within the Soviet Union.

          There is no historic legitimacy either way, so I would prefer we be guided by the preference of the people who live there.

          The people of the Crimea and Donbas overwhelmingly want to be Russian.

          Who are we to tell them they must be ruled by Keiv?


          1. “The people of the Crimea and Donbas overwhelmingly want to be Russian.”

            You have yet to justify that statement. My family, from those regions wanted to be FREE. Today’s Russia does not allow that. And that is why the MAJORITY of them left, or were disappeared into camps in Russia (Which has been reported numerous times by LEGITIMATE news sources.)

            Liked by 1 person

          2. I would agree that the people of the Donbas wanted to be independent republics. But after 10 years of trying they were unable to break free of Ukraine They were given the choice to be part of Russia or part of Ukraine, and the referendums show they choose to be Russian.

            That being the case, what justification is there for us to intervene to force them t accept domination by Ukraine?


          3. Those “referenda” were about as legitimate as The Great Pumpkin. If you believe otherwise, you are a fool. People displaced from the region so that only pro-Russian citizens remained? Yet it is all just fine in your “only elections are agree with are legitimate.”

            Supporting democracy has become the battle cry of the GOP since they nominated a charlatan to represent their party as its de facto leader. Intervention is what we did in Viet Nam. This AIN’T Viet Nam, Don.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Kinda childish, really, comparing our election to the dictator’s “referendum” in partially occupied oblasts with ballots delivered and collected by armed Russians.

            But it follows the path carved by the Big Lie.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. “How different are ballots delivered by soldiers and those delivered by your social worker or your child’s teacher?”

            Golly, that’s a tough one! Maybe the teacher is not the agent of a regime that will kill you if you do not conform? Could that be it?

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Any evidence that Russian soldiers killed anyone for voting wrong?

            Any evidence they even unsealed the ballots to see how people voted?

            Or are we to take your presumptions as evidence?


          7. “Or are we to take your presumptions as evidence?”

            Any evidence that the ballot is sealed when it is handed to the armed soldier? Or are we to take your presumptions as evidence?

            At polling places the ballots went into transparent boxes so the armed observers could see how you voted.


            If you do not understand the fear induced by armed men knocking on your door and demanding that you vote, the you are really and truly a dullard.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. There is something off about that picture but I’m not sure what.

            In any case, I can’t tell if the marking of the ballot is visible or not, but the clear boxes do let observers keep chain of custody assured.

            I also don’t know how the ballots taken to homes were handled. But the observers were satisfied.

            BTW, armed men can also be comforting, especially when the Ukrainians were launching attacks to stop people from voting.

            Remember, I am not claiming Putin is a good guy, what I assert is that there are no good guys on the field.


          9. “There is something off about that picture but I’m not sure what.”

            It is one of many such pictures. They used transparent ballot boxes and the ballot was simple and large. Easy for the armed poll watchers to see what you marked. Here is another one . . .


            And another . . .


            and another . . .


            Liked by 1 person

          10. Thanks, now I see what was off about that picture. In the other pictures, the ballots are folded, likely to hide the vote markings, while the guy in the first picture is dropping his in unfolded.

            There’s not enough there for me to know which was the standard practice, but a folded ballot would be private and the transparent box keeps the ballots visible. At least you can tell it’s not a shredder.


          11. You will just never admit we had a free and fair election.

            Oh, well. You join about 30 million folks who will never admit that Trump lost the election for them. How could he, must be deep state. Italian satellites, Republicans not suing state governments before finding they lost…anything but the truth.

            Oh, to answer your question about “how different”…no guns.

            Liked by 2 people

          12. “I would agree that the people of the Donbas wanted to be independent republics”

            What bullshit! Just how weak-minded are you?

            There was an illegal armed and violent MINORITY separatist movement in Donbas. It was instigated, reinforced and propped up by Russia as part of a land grab. There has NEVER been an ethnic Russian majority in Donbas. NEVER. Armed treasonous gangs propped up by foreign fascists do not get to draw the borders of democratic nations. Period.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. The people STILL there now are pro-Russian, but they were NOT the majority until the invasion. People either left out of fear or were “disappeared” into Russia.

            I just can’t fathom how you can be so obtuse when it comes to reality in Ukraine.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. Ukraine declared its independence in 1917. Uh, that was not the beginning of their nationhood or history. That goes back at least five centuries. The fact that they were conquered and enslaved by the Czars does not change the fact that they are – listen up – NOT RUSSIAN.

            “The people of the Crimea and Donbas overwhelmingly want to be Russian.”

            No, they don’t. You are again spreading a Russian LIE. And it does not matter if they do. Russia does not get to dismember a neighboring country whose borders THEY accepted when they got all of Ukraine’s nuclear weapons. Period.

            Liked by 1 person

          15. Legitimate elections, as the one held in this country in 2020, which you and your tribe have been bashing with fraud as compared to a trumped up referenda with a truly predetermined outcome is comparing apples to kumquats.


          16. “So, elections you don’t agree with don’t count, How Trumpian of you.”

            I am fine with the outcome of legal elections. The “elections” you keep referring to are not legal in any sense of the word.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. Prove that please. Can you show where courts ruled that they were illegal? Your opinion is your opinion, of course. Yet, opinion does not mean much unless it comes from a judicial ruling.

            That is an essential part of the rule of law.

            Remember that any changes to accommodate a national emergency like a pandemic are equally available to all voters. Or is that argument only valid when discussing onerous election rules that only affect minorities with “surgical precision” as stated in a NC case.

            You keep spreading the Big Lie as well as any denier, yet you say you are not.

            Liked by 2 people

          18. Those cases were mostly dismissed as ‘moot’ because they were filed too late, or lacking standing because harm could not be proven, and not lost on the merits. That’s why, the week of the election, I wrote that the election had been successfully stolen. The election MIGHT have been accurate, or it might have been stolen, but because of the way it was conducted we can never know as the chain of custody we rely on was bypassed.

            The law is clear, any high school graduate can read it and understand. The Constitution in black letter says that electors shall be chosen in the manner determined by the legislature. Unless the legislature of a state specifically authorizes emergency procedures to be implemented by the executive branch or local authorities, no change can be made absent action by the legislature.

            Any court that allows changes not authorized by the legislature has violated the Constitution, but because those cases were moot, they never were decided.

            The Big Lie, as you keep calling it, contends that the election could be reversed, I have not claimed that, I clearly wrote that by waiting to see the results before going to court, the GOP missed its chance at reversal.

            Continually misstating my position is a lie.


          19. Lacking standing is part of the rule of law. As is showing harm.

            If you want to eliminate those elements to suit your agenda, just say so.

            Whether the legislatures are the sole arbiters of electoral procedures will be taken up by SCOTUS in the independent legislature theory case this summer.

            As far as the Big Lie, you are most assuredly spreading it by saying that AZ, PA, WI etc., are illegal. I am obviously not misrepresenting what you just wrote.

            Liked by 2 people

          20. They were conducted illegally, but it can’t be reversed because the GOP waited until after the fact. Trumps claimed they could be ignored after the fact and alternate electors chosen by the legislatures. I have not supported that.

            I didn’t say anything about changing the law regarding standing or moot. But they are the reasons courts have not ruled on the legality of those elections.

            Do you have the case name of the SCOTUS hearing?



            Here is a good article that covers ISL and its
            implications. Essentially, proponents of ISL assert that the legislature is not beholden to review by the judiciary in matters of elections and redistricting.

            This is a total rejection of the balance of powers which is a key to our Constitution.

            The Big Lie is bolstered by those who argue like you do. Note that the 60 odd rejections by the courts of Trump’s lawsuits were mostly about fraud without any evidence. Later cases tried to bring in the legality of state emergency pandemic procedures.

            You may agree that the results were in fact final, but then you cast doubt just like any conspiracist. Can’t have it both ways. The Big Lie is not much on nuance.

            Liked by 2 people

          22. Interesting but completely irrelevant to the issue. From the US Constitution

            “Article II Executive Branch
            Section 1 Function and Selection
            Clause 2 Electors
            Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, ….”

            ONLY the legislature can determine how electors are chosen, In theory, a state legislature could delegate emergency powers to the executive branch, but the legislatures of those states did not do so.

            Absent such authorization elections not conducted by the most recent rules the legislature actually did establish were conducted unlawfully.


          23. “Legislature . . . ”

            You are being entirely too literal. Which you are NOT when you ignore the “well-regulated militia” portion of the Second Amendment.

            Legislatures do not have to legislate on every administrative decision. When they set up Election Commissions and other administrative bodies they have exercised their Constitutional authority. They do not have to vote on the location of every polling station or drop box or the form of an absentee ballot application. etc.

            You are entirely too eager to declare the election “illegal” on very flimsy grounds. That is the essence of the Big Lie. You should stop.

            Liked by 2 people

          24. The Constitution is clear.

            The Executive branch can only act where it is specifically authorized to do so.

            If the legislature authorized a specific agency to address emergencies that would be OK, but they didn’t.

            On the contrary, in 2020 we had county officials winging it with no legislative authority.


          25. “The Constitution is clear.”

            You are really confused. The United States Constitution does not determine how the states organize their governments or allocate their powers and responsibilities.


          26. Did you not even read the excerpt from Article II?

            The legislature decides how electors are chosen. A legislature COULD authorize some other agency to make changes in an emergency, but none of the affected states did so.

            The Constitution is clear, it does not change just because you find it inconvenient.


          27. Because you say so?

            States have laws instructing the rules to be followed by their election boards. Unless those instructions authorize the board to make changes, those boards must act within their limits.

            Virginia very recently changed its law to allow for early, in person voting. Would you support the Chesapeake registrar making a decision that was too much cost and work and changing the rules to Election day only?

            There is no difference in kind.


          28. I disagree. Until we determine what the somewhat vague wording really intended we are not going to solve the reach of the state legislatures.

            The article is most certainly relevant.

            Please note that the wording says “may” not “shall”. This gives the states a lot of leeway as to how literal this needs to be.

            Liked by 2 people

          29. The article does not apply at all to the US Constitution. It is not a matter of general States rights, it is a specific power delegated to the state legislatures in the Constitution.

            I don’t know why the left finds adhering to the Rule of Law so difficult.


          30. What you seem to miss is that the Big Lie is designed to create both distrust and chaos during election. It is not really the effort to illegally overturn the last election anymore. It is to mess with the upcoming ones.

            And you are part of the problem.

            Liked by 2 people

          31. That is why we have courts. The Constitution has been vague and open to interpretation since it was written.

            That is why we umpteen decisions from all levels of the judiciary.

            The rule of law has three parts. The legislature that proposes and passes laws. The president who approves or vetoes. The judiciary to settle disputes.

            When all three say yes, we have law.

            You apparently want to ignore the last since any decision you disagree with is not law.

            Liked by 1 person

          32. First, there is no need for the President to sign the Constitution, it was the basic law of the land when it was ratified, The Constitution was written to be understood by any literate man.

            There is nothing vague about Article II Section 1 clause 2, nor has there been any technological advance that would complicate its application.

            Electors are to be chosen in the manner prescribed by the legislature. There is absolutely no wiggle room other than a legislature authorizing some other part of government to make adjustments in an emergency.

            Elections have been held in blizzards, hurricanes and wars so there was nothing novel about COVID.

            You don’t get to ignore the law until every last legal strategy for not following it has been exhausted.


          33. Where do you get this stuff? DeSantis just allowed the hurricane struck counties to make some adjustments for obvious reasons.

            Of course, the three counties are heavily Republican, but who is counting?

            You want to toss out Florida’s election results this November now, or check to see if Republicans lost?

            If this is so clear cut to you, why are we going to court over these issues? Simple. Because that is how we settle our disputes and we do it in the bounds of legal procedures and standings.

            Rule of law don’t you know.

            Meanwhile you are denying the 2020 election every time you say the votes in the states that counted were illegal. Every time. Just like the Big Lie and also doing Trump’s bidding. It does not matter how you excuse it, you are doing your part to destroy our elections.

            Recall that virtually every state made accommodations, red and blue alike. But you are smearing on the Democrats because you have been told to do so.

            Get a grip. Or if you can’t do that, then at least have enough concern for our country to quit spreading distrust and untruths.


            Liked by 1 person

          34. Does Florida’s election law allow for such adjustments? If the legislature authorized it, OK, if not, NO.

            Many states, including Virginia, have made changes in their election law since 2020.


          35. BTW, I don’t do much because someone tells me to.

            But of course I spread distrust. Trust in government is insanity, no matter who is in office.


          36. “But of course I spread distrust. Trust in government is insanity, no matter who is in office.”

            This statement reeks if insanity. You really should get some help with your issues. IMHO.


          37. Spreading distrust is a self-fulfilling prophecy for the willing and the weak.

            LR, 2022

            Vietnam and Civil Rights tore this country apart. One was an egregious and the other shameful.

            We may never recover. Not because we couldn’t, but because Gingrich milked this to create short term political gain and long term national grievance.

            Liked by 1 person

          38. Vietnam and Civil Rights were both government problems

            What is it you think Gingrich did to make either worse? Unwinding the LBJ Great Society debacle was good for Civil Rights and Vietnam was long over in 1994


          39. Your position is stated clearly all of the time. The issue is you aren’t part of the GOP in those several states who went along with the changes and only decided to challenge them because their top of the ticket candidate lost. Yet thee were so many down-ballot GOP winners, it makes ZERO sense to say that the elections were in some way illegal.


          40. Even if that is so, and the results are accurate, the law was not followed.

            What is so hard about following the law? I obey lots of laws I don’t agree with.


          41. “I obey lots of laws I don’t agree with.”

            So, you are walking down the street and see an out-of-control bus careening toward you half off the road. Your only hope for escape is to dash across the street but you are well aware that jay walking is against the law. I guess you are screwed.


  1. Did I see that in the 1200 a big section of Russia was called “Kievan” Russia?

    Well that was not mentioned by Putin’s history lesson.

    In any case, it has been Ukraine for over a century now.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. The lesson I take from the video is that shifting borders have been the norm in Europe for 1,000 years. You might say there are no “natural nations” on the continent.

    There is no magic dirt you can point to and say, “This ought to be Germany,” or, “This ought to be Poland,” or, “This ought to be Ukraine.”


    1. “This ought to be Ukraine.”

      Of course borders are fluid in the aftermath of global upheaval. That is why they are defined by international agreement such as the agreements between Russia and Ukraine after the fall of the USSR including the agreement that Ukraine would turn over ALL its nuclear weapons in exchange for Russia respecting its sovereignty and its borders at the time.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Ukraine never had any nuclear weapons of its own. It agreed to return Soviet nuclear weapons to Russia.

        But apart from that, I’m sure every fixed border in Europe throughout history was recognized in some form of agreement. As the video illustrates, the borders continued to shift anyway.


        1. “Ukraine never had any nuclear weapons of its own. It agreed to return Soviet nuclear weapons to Russia.”

          Then Russia never had any nuclear weapons of its own, either.

          When it comes to nuclear weapons possession is 100% of the law. Ukraine had the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world when it left the USSR. Russia solemnly agreed to never use force or the threat of force against Ukraine in exchange for them. That is the history pure and simple. Why be such a silly fellow?

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “Russia solemnly agreed to never use force or the threat of force against Ukraine in exchange for them.”

          So what?


          1. “And then it un-recognized them. So what?”

            So, Russia is a genocidal, criminal regime. A regime that you people root for versus the democracy they are trying to exterminate. What does that make you?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. When you can’t find an ad hominem, you go for guilt by association,

            No one is ‘rooting for’ Putin, but we can still recognize the reality of the situation and look to our national interests.


          3. “No one is ‘rooting for’ Putin, but we can still recognize the reality of the situation and look to our national interests.”

            You are kidding yourself. You have been carrying water for Putin and condemning Ukraine from the first day of the invasion. And the “reality of the situation” is far from decided. The certain Russian victory you have been predicting is nowhere in sight.

            Our national interests will be best served if fascist aggression fails. Putin is a fascist aggressor. And an enemy of our country and of our values. If Ukraine wants to resist we should continue to help.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. The U.S./NATO alliance un-recognized the Minsk accords. By your logic that makes the U.S./NATO alliance genocidal and criminal.

            Since that logic is flawed, I reject it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s