We are taking Greenland one way or the other

It's disgusting that you think profit is a good reason to continue supporting a war that's killed 500,000 people.

The US has ZERO geopolitical interest in supporting Ukraine.

Russia would be useful against the real enemy which is China. Ukraine is geopolitically useless.

Yet you can't point to a single fact that supports your position.

The Budapest Memo is available online. Show me.

It's disgusting that you think not supporting the hard working Trump voters in 38 American states.

Besides that your geopolitical knowledge is as useless as anything else you are saying.

Trump wants peace.

Ukraine wants security guarantees before it will accept peace.

The mineral deal gives the US which has ZERO stake in what happens to Ukraine a reason to care what happens to Ukraine.

The US congress has given $175 billion to Ukraine. In addition to that the CIA and special forces and all the other American assets that are involved in Ukraine by the thousands need to be paid.

Yet your side can't point to anything I've said that's incorrect. You just whine and squeal like children.

Greenland is small potatoes. First, the US should annex the Sudetenland.

nonsense. ukraine was its own area since 1917. claimed independence then. was its own separate SSR under the USSR. and was given independence in 1991 with the same borders as the SSR -- including crimea, donbas, and everything else you invaded.

you can't do this anymore than russia could reclaim alaska or mexico could demand the gadsden purchase back.

not. your. sh*t. do you have trouble reading a map? aren't you the borders are sacrosanct people?

He has the authority to nominate a replacement that needs to be confirmed by the Senate. He has not done that. He does not have the authority to fire her.

The idea that Russia and Ukraine agreed on what the border would be 1991 is ahistorical nonsense.

The border between Russia and Ukraine was not officially demarcated as of the coup in 2014.

Russia and Ukraine signed a treaty on the border in 2003 which deferred the actual demarcation of the border to a future treaty.

The border has been in dispute since 1991.

Semantics.

Replacing her is firing her.

Those who support Ukraine want the war to end....and that means Russia withdraws back to to Russia. That would end the bloodshed. Since Russia isn't interested in peace, then they will have to be defeated. If Ukraine is forced to surrender, Russia will realize how weak they were this time and regroup and rearm for their next imperial conquest. Appeasement will only lead to more bloodshed in the future.

sorry but we're talking about 2 different things here. (1) a memo that says "we will pull our nukes from there and not invade or take it over" -- something akin to UN ideas of sovereignty and not using force on your neighbors -- and (2) an active commitment to the defense of ukraine. you're in NATO and if invaded we will all fight with you. a formal alliance.

(1) is not what the diplomacy/IR community understands as a security guarantee. USSR was not allying with ukraine, and not agreeing to have its back against invasion.

having, as you said, already had promises made promises broken by russia -- (1) and ceasefires since then -- ukraine wants something like (2) -- an actual security guarantee. peacekeepers, resident troops, or an alliance.

suggesting we USA gave ukraine a security guarantee in 1994 is wrong. wrong. wrong. we promised not to take the place over in the name of nonproliferation with the russians. which, let's be honest, was really russia promising not to invade.

last, since you seem confused, countries are allowed in the use of their sovereignty to join alliances or even host bases on their soil. that's their choice how to use their country. you seem to have that confused with russia exercising some sort of might-makes-right idea it controls both its country and its neighbors. which is at odds with the UN and rule based order. modern global politics.

you want to go back to wrestling over the planet, have at it, but don't pretend we promised things we didn't. that basically sounds like lame pro-russia excuse making. if we'd actually agreed to defend ukraine we'd have been there since 1994. if we'd actually brought them in NATO either this fight happens decades ago -- because they don't want NATO up to the border -- or it never happens -- because they know ukraine is in an alliance.

georgia and ukraine have gotten this precisely because they are nextdoor to russia and owed no alliances or security gurantees. and in the situation of georgia stupid people let russians serve as peacekeepers for a russian war.

Semantics.

Replacing her is firing her.

Explain why Russia would give up the land.

Explain how Ukraine is going to defeat them.

Tough talk is worthless of you can't back it up.

Europe does not have a functional military. Even if it did it could not supply it for more than a month or two.

it's odd for the self-framed "heirs of reagan" to not get it but within a century ago the russians rolled tanks to berlin. and then rolled them back to central europe when the commie bloc countries started considering a Third Way in the 60s.

what is basically happening here is when oil was cheap and the soviets/russians broke (a factor people miss in the end of the commie bloc), we failed to consolidate eastern europe, which generally save belarus wants to be independent. russia now wants a bunch of client states all around its borders. those countries generally did not sign up for it.

that a small minority of colonized ex-soviets were dropped in these countries during the USSR (while they sent many locals to siberia) does not give russia the right to run poland, latvia, lithuania, ukraine, on and on. any more than mexico can run the united states because it has some heritage folks and dual citizens here.

to be blunt, it's a nazi argument and it's funny y'all fall for it.

but then the actual history is america firster lindbergh was a nazi sympathizer and churchill needed 2 labour votes on the war cabinet to outvote his fellow tories who wanted to send diplomats to negotiate UK surrender.

you're being transactional and silly. if the US was in a war with canada -- since your party seems so eager -- and canada had part of maine -- do you think for a second we'd just stop the war before the exhaustion point and hand them half of maine?

let's be real. even an inch of maine?

you're full of crap.

you're wanting to wash your hands of it and this is your lame excuse. take your L. give up your land. assume they won't start a third war without any guarantees.

are you 12?

You actually think the US has zero stake ?
How ignorant are you ?
Firstly the United States signed an agreement to protect Ukrainian sovereignty and borders in 1994 in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.

Secondly Russia is the single greatest geopolitical threat to the United States.
Thirdly Russia will not stop at Ukraine. If Russia were allowed to continue, they would eventually attack a NATO country at which time the US will be obligated to join the roof.
Fourthly it is in the interest of the United States to keep Europe stable because the EU is a major trading partner of the US
Fifthly it is in the interests of the US to stop another refugee crisis from occurring in Georgia or Moldova or any other country that Russia might attack after they take over Ukraine. "
Sixthly a russian victory in Ukraine will embolden other countries to launch similar invasions. China will invade Taiwan which is directly against American interests as Taiwan is the source of 50% of semi-conductors used in America.

And I laugh at the idea that trump wants peace. He just wants Ukraine to capitulate. If he wants peace then why hasn't he made any demands to Russia,

Canada does not have the military power to keep an inch of US territory. Just like Ukraine doesn't have the ability to keep an inch of Russia in the long run.

Your analogy demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of the situation in Ukraine.

Your posts are all over the place. Are you mentally ill or trolling?

misleading bs. does russia pay you? i give you independence along the lines of your SSR. we both know generally where the lines are but there are some specific disagreements about this point or that island.

are you seriously suggesting it is then "not invasion" or "there wasn't a border" if i take land that was not in dispute at the talks?

to underline how full of crap you are, there is a treaty and LEASE for the russian naval base in crimea. why do i have to rent something from you if it's mine?

how much was your last russian paycheck ivan?