Comments by "irresistablejewel" (@irresistablejewel) on "Discussing Ukraine at the Republican Debate" video.

  1. Never seen a war she didn't like... while I don't know what America thinks it's doing in Eastern Europe, but until Ukraine remembers it was supposed to be neutral I don't see Russia stopping (up to and including nuclear war; just like America with Cuba). I'm guessing Trumps solution is to cut funding, as Russia isn't open to negotiation; the value of an "investment" (the Senate call it) may go up or down, I'd bet the arms industry is up in arms about funding going elsewhere. While all that farmland the Western interests bought is full of mines. It's not Putin it's the nationalists that are a danger; seems they're up for direct conflict with the West (not this war of attrition). Haley won't be going to war... and I'm not either.
    1
  2.  @arthurmiller-vl6sw  Yes when the USSR divided assets (early 90's); Ukraine was: neutral; sovereign; independent (all of these things). Actually they were Russian nuclear weapons, Ukraine kept nuclear power; charged Russia (high) gas tariffs and a leasing fee; it was still arguably more corrupt than Russia, but that held. Talk of joining NATO or EU doesn't sound like neutrality to me; sending "aid" (EU) and "investment" (America); doesn't look like charity; it may just be a Slavic thing, but some agreements are not open to negotiation. I don't make the rules in Eastern Europe; I see no value in American media opinion; it was a very plain choice for Ukraine, neutrality or war with Russia. It's time for Americans to stop trying to play the innocent party in this disaster. It looks to me like the America far-rights plan was to damage Europe (which they have done); try to get a return on this "investment" they talk about, while in my experience of Russia (early 90's) if a bunch of heavily armed people tell you it's neutrality or war, that is how it will go. I don't see Ukraine as being a great asset to the EU, application likely to get vetoed (various reasons: bankrupt; trouble with Russia; conflict expands); but NATO knew it was neutrality or war (still do). If you want to know who makes the rules in Eastern Europe, well it's not America (and let's leave it at that). If Russia didn't go to war, they would look weak; America signed that neutrality agreement too; their word is not worth the paper it's written on. I agree with Mearsheimer (who seems to know about Russia and China; how they do things; angers them). Russia will never stop, up to and including nuclear war, as previously agreed. If that's true; it should be a sobering thought; the Prof seems to believe Ukraine is winning, I don't; however winning is defined. I would say (from my experience of the mafia in Moscow) it's more the potentially fatal consequences of interfering in their (USSR) business. So it's not about: oil; money or grain; it's almost "Masonic" (so the Pentagon" should understand this); breach of trust carries fatal consequences. The short answer to your questions, there shouldn't have been talk of Ukraine joining NATO in 2007; careless talk costs lives (something grandstanding politicians better understand before talking to China); while if America did inspire regime change in Ukraine (2014); it was they who opened Pandora's Box. I quite like the Russians; I don't like war; they did make it clear to the West (but our leaders don't listen; even to us). Sorry to be so "wordy"; but the West's investment" in Ukraine, was not for charitable reasons and was highly provocative; looks like a very long term investment with no return. I assume Trumps solution is tell Ukraine sort it out, we are cutting funding. Job done.
    1