I claimed no such thing. In fact, the opposite formed the basis for the point I was making. Ahem.

So, you got me on my sweeping generalization but Finland is still not Ukraine when it comes to how Russia has viewed the expansion of NATO and why that expansion to Moscow through Ukraine has been so important to the US.

Let me try one more time.

If you are content to fall flat on your face, who am I to deny you?

Finland and Ukraine both share a border with Russia. So far, so good. But, THAT right there is where the similarity ends, my friend.

Totally incorrect (again).

* Finland and Ukraine are both sovereign European nations formerly belonging to the Russian Empire.

* Finland and Ukraine are both smaller nations bordering the larger -- Soviet Union and Russian Federation, respectively... ("where the similarity ends, according to you) -- who also claimed that both smaller nations posed potential threats.

* Finland and Ukraine were both attacked by the Soviets/Russians preceded by failed attempts at negotiation.

* The armed forces of Finland and Ukraine were both outnumbered greatly by the Soviets/Russians who underestimated both of the smaller nations ability at resistance.

I could go on with more similarities, but that'll do for starters. If anyone thinks the border is "where the similarities end," then they're simply uninformed, underinformed, and/or misinformed.

Look up some history on the relationship between Russia and Finland and then compare and contrast with what you find out about the historical relationship between Ukraine and Russia.

I don't need to look it up; however, you have a desperate need to look it up or you can continue posting misinformation... you decide.

You'll forgive if I don't stick around for your, ah, analysis.

Incorrect. I'm not very forgiving when someone obviously underinformed attempts to school me on something for which they're providing patently obvious misinformation, and I'm not bloody likely to post an "analysis" when someone is in desperate need of simple facts before they could even begin to understand any sort of "analysis" by me or anyone else on this forum with an obvious grasp of the verifiable historical facts. :)

Let me try one more time.

Finland and Ukraine both share a border with Russia. So far, so good. But, THAT right there is where the similarity ends, my friend.

Look up some history on the relationship between Russia and Finland and then compare and contrast with what you find out about the historical relationship between Ukraine and Russia.

You'll forgive if I don't stick around for your, ah, analysis. :)

WRONG! The paramount concern is NOT NATO on Russia's border but rather NATO in Ukraine. Finland is most decidedly not Ukraine - not in this context or in any other.

~ Elizabeth Miller

*
I thought you were more of a student of history than that awkward comment demonstrates ...

No one has to be a "student of history" to know that Ukraine is on Russia's border. It wasn't me who made the asinine distinction (without a dang bit of difference) that "NATO on Russia's border" and "NATO in Ukraine" were somehow two wholly different things; that was you.

MtnCaddy also made an excellent point about Finland joining NATO that apparently (seemingly) went sailing right over your head to the point you felt you needed to do some elementary-school level explaining to him (the Ukrainian), and you're calling me awkward!?. Nice bit of projection you got there.

Since you missed MtnCaddy's entire point about Finland (which he obviously knows isn't Ukraine), now please fill the board with more right-wing and Russian talking points, and while you're at it, explain to everyone here why you're not also blaming the United States for pushing Finland and Sweden into the arms of NATO. Maybe you'll actually learn something in the process. :)

I thought you were more of a student of history than that awkward comment demonstrates ...

WRONG! The paramount concern is NOT NATO on Russia's border but rather NATO in Ukraine. Finland is most decidedly not Ukraine - not in this context or in any other.

WRONG! The paramount concern is NOT NATO on Russia's border but rather democracy in Russia... what Putin admittedly perceives is part of Russia, of course. You also seem blissfully unaware that "NATO in Ukraine" fits the definition of "NATO on Russia's border" to everyone except Vladimir Putin and (apparently) Elizabeth Miller of Canada/NATO. :)

That last bit hurt.

Resistance is futile... might as well surrender and have something left of your dignity here on this blog. Heh.

I can fully understand why Ukrainians would be slow to compromise and how difficult it would be for them to settle for anything less than the complete territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Crimea.

It's patently obvious that you definitely cannot.

My point all along since the beginning of Putin's war is that Ukraine was in a far better position before the Russian invasion last year to, eventually, regain control over all of its territory.

According to Putin, "its territory" does not (and never did) exist and is part of Russia. That's the part you seem unable to grasp.

I am talking about Zelensky's choice in the years leading up this freaking stupid and unnecessary war, particularly in following the very bad advice he's been getting over that time period from the neo-conservative element in the US government and I include Biden in that cabal.

And, yes, the goal of controlling all of one's internationally recognized sovereign land is, of course, a reasonable aspiration. What makes that goal illusory in the current context is obvious and should go without saying but you and I have both said it, many times.

and the goal of controlling all one's internationally recognized sovereign land is not illusory, it's a reasonable aspiration for any nationality to hold.

my suspicion is that to some extent the point for putin is not to admit that he was wrong.

I think that is a big part of it! Putin and Biden both - and Zelensky, too - chose very, very unwisely and it is hard for all of them to entertain that obvious conclusion. And, so ... they operate on illusory goals. Which only makes negotiation and compromise even more difficult to contemplate, let alone activate.

If NATO on Russia’s border is the paramount concern of the Kremlin then they’d pack up and go home now that Finland has joined NATO, right?

WRONG! The paramount concern is NOT NATO on Russia's border but rather NATO in Ukraine. Finland is most decidedly not Ukraine - not in this context or in any other.

"all" are probably not quite as concerned about it as ukranians are. for them it's existential in a way that anyone who has never had someone attempt to eradicate their national identity will never understand. therefore, they are probably going to be slower to compromise on that goal than i would, and a heck of a lot slower than you.

That last bit hurt.

I can fully understand why Ukrainians would be slow to compromise and how difficult it would be for them to settle for anything less than the complete territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Crimea.

My point all along since the beginning of Putin's war is that Ukraine was in a far better position before the Russian invasion last year to, eventually, regain control over all of its territory. Far too little was done by Ukraine and the US/NATO to make that path possible and too much was done by them all to ensure that war was inevitable. Which has also been my point all along.

What really angers me is how the US and its NATO allies have been using Ukraine for decades leading up to the present crisis and essentially sacrificing it and its people on the altar of weakening Russia at all costs.

Putin's unwise choice to start this war has, ironically, made Ukraine's potential membership in NATO more likely than it has ever been. Which, of course, doesn't equate to very likely. Even if NATO membership is in the cards for Ukraine at some point, the question now is, what will be left of Ukraine to take up that membership.

Given the last year and a half, and despite how I feel about how and why Ukraine ended up in this existential fight, don't presume I would begrudge Ukraine for being too slow or too compliant in compromising to end this war because I certainly would not begrudge them one iota!

please see my earlier comment about tempering expectations. the goal of recapturing all sovereign territory, while valid, may eventually need to bow to realpolitik.

right now, putin's not entertaining anything that might be called a reasonable starting point (as evidenced by his response to the african delegation that liz mentioned). if and when russia decides they've bled enough and are ready to see reason, most of crimea and a sliver of donbas will probably need to be either let go or demilitarized.

JL

Ukraine will get all it’s territory back. The Russians historically have never fought a war without half a million casualties, minimum, so all we have to do is keep Ukraine supplied and upgraded and we’ll plant that number and more.

Russia has lost about half the territory they initially seized from Ukraine (remember the Battle of Kiev?) Sanctions are not only shutting down Russian oil and gas production (dependent on Western technology) but it’s ability to make the sophisticated weapons platforms required in this 21st century war environment (dependent on Western chips etc.)

Ukraine’s truck bomb took out the rail line across the Kerch straight. That means supplies have to go via their ever dwindling truck fleet across the bridge or via the land bridge between Donbas and Kherson. It appears that Ukraine is attacking up and down the front, probing for weaknesses which they’ll exploit with all the hardware we’ve sent them. The moment Ukraine reaches the Sea of Azov it’ll leave Russia unable to adequately supply the western half of the front.

If NATO on Russia’s border is the paramount concern of the Kremlin then they’d pack up and go home now that Finland has joined NATO, right? Otherwise what’s the point of continuing the invasion?

"all" are probably not quite as concerned about it as ukranians are. for them it's existential in a way that anyone who has never had someone attempt to eradicate their national identity will never understand. therefore, they are probably going to be slower to compromise on that goal than i would, and a heck of a lot slower than you.

JL

I sure do hope that the African leaders who traveled to Kiev and Moscow didn't receive any threats from the richer countries, veiled or otherwise, for their peace initiative efforts in support of their national interests.

True, that. Another question is just how much of Ukraine will there be left to join NATO, should that membership ever happen.

Zelensky told them that there can be no negotiations until all Russian troops depart his country, including from Crimea.

I think by now it is clear that this is a question for all concerned.

nato expansion was in no way, shape or form a true threat to which putin felt compelled to respond, but served as a convenient pretext to do what he had always intended to do in the event that the ukraine government became free from his direct control.

NATO expansion is more than a mere pretext.

only to everyone not named vladimir putin

Does anyone really think Ukraine will regain control over all of the territory it had before the annexation of Crimea?

that's a question to ask ukranians, since it's THEIR stated goal.

The game in the US/NATO/West has become one of lowering expectations as to what Ukraine is capable of accomplishing.

perhaps so. but if so, that's still a shit-ton better than where expectations stood on day one of the invasion. having rebounded from that point, it seems only prudent to fight the urge to overreact in the opposite direction.

The game in the US/NATO/West has become one of lowering expectations as to what Ukraine is capable of accomplishing. We shall see how this current counteroffensive plays out but it is not off to a good start.

that's a broken link.it's here

How many more years will the US be funding the destruction of Ukraine?

C’mon Elizabeth, I thought you were done apologizing for Putin. It’s like the next thing I know you’ll be blaming January 6th on Joe Biden — makes no damned sense.

Here is Peter Zeihan’s Russia Grab which sums up the whole shebang in 3:05. Be prepared to discuss!

As Trump is arraigned, Republicans honor the insurrectionists

Matt Gaetz, Empty Greene, and other House Republicans held a fake hearing in a meeting room at the Capitol visitor center which was all dressed up to appear as though it was an actual committee room.

He [Gaetz] impersonated a chairman — “you are recognized,” “thank you for your testimony,” “I’ll recognize myself [for] questions,” “her time has expired” — and the others played along (“thank you for the opportunity to testify,” “I yield back”). Gaetz said testimony could be used “for the official record [of the] House” or for “work in the Judiciary Committee, upon which I serve, or the Oversight Committee.”

*
Empty Greene stated they had a "constitutional duty" to overturn the election, and other right-wing nuts made multiple claims framing the rioters as the victims.

So, to recap: The right-wing nuts who asked for pardons from Trump for their role in January 6 have chosen to cast themselves and the rioters as the actual victims. Is anyone else seeing a pattern here? Rhetorical question.

Interestingly, before he makes the proclamation, Trump asks, "Are you ready? Are you ready?" It's one of his signature moves that lets you know whatever follows it is going to be an absolute bullshit con... very much like his perpetual promising to deliver something/anything in "two weeks."