They have a right to whatever they can achieve on their own. They were never really a sovereign nation for any length of time in their entire history. Let's not even contemplate the onslaught of WWIII. After all, you loved the first two so much, the third should give you a permanent orgasm.
We both know that won't happen - the democrats (that you support) are all in on turning the USA into a third world sh*thole - just like the progressives in France:If you want to do something about those who request asylum, change the law...
Poland was part of a military alliance with Britain and France.
What intervention preceded the Russian invasion of 2014? Handing out cookies to protesters in Kyiv?
You seem to think our efforts to help Ukraine have stopped us from doing anything else. Kinda useless allegation. In fact, Biden has a number of balls in the air....studen loans, illegal immigration, the election coming next year, the economy, conflict with China...
Oh yeah, he isn't done weaponizing the DoJ and arming the 800,000 new IRS agents...
Czechoslovakia was part of the Little Entente. Poland had a non-aggression treaty with the USSR and security guarantees from Britain and France. NATO expansion into Ukraine was a dead letter until Putin invaded, with the intent of annexation (not realizing how weak his military really was and that he would end up losing the war badly).
Seems to me the defeat of Russian imperialism (the citadel of world reaction) by an oppressed nation fighting to preserve its autonomy means a setback for the world’s warmongers (the same way the anti colonial rebellions during and after WWII helped keep the war hawks at bay until they were able to reverse their fortunes with the antilabor defeats of the last few decades). If you don’t back Putin, why do you identify the defeat of his regime with disaster rather than accurately seeing it as the swiftest route to a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia? Since Ukraine is kicking Russia’s ass, it is clear that any peace on Russia’s terms would mean a long, bloody series of battles to reverse the fortune of the war.
Not the country invading? Ukraine’s governments … those of Kravchuk, Kuchma, Yanukovych, Yushchenko, Poroshenko, and Zelenskyy alike … have sought NATO membership for Ukraine, but NATO never showed much interest (which made it a non-starter) until Russia invaded to overturn the popular rebellion and force their chosen strongman back on an unwilling nation.
The U.S. is rich because of an economy strengthened immensely by immigration, not racial demographics. Your long italicized excerpt is from 2004 … at any rate, it’s interesting that when Russia tries to help its favorite candidate win the U.S. election, you cast a friendly eye on their efforts, but when the U.S. tries to unite opposition forces in the former USSR against the personal rule of a strongman, suddenly that in itself is grounds for Russia to invade.
Your Guardian article is from 2004
So if I take your logic to 1776...the colonies had rights to what they could achieve on their own. The French should not have butted in.
Milosevic was under indictment for war crimes...gee...why did he lose the election?
No shit? You mean we were meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs way back then? LOL!
LOL! And what, ended up like Canada? You lefties looooved "woke" Canada and hated America's racist founders.
Meaning 20 years ago isn't even worth the reply.
As you said, they can have what they can achieve. Right? So the French should not have sent weapons and surely should not have sent troops. Or did you mean to limit that to Ukraine?
