- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why can’t Russia just have Eastern Ukraine? It’s not even really “Ukrainian”
Posted on 12/12/25 at 6:32 am to _Hurricane_
Posted on 12/12/25 at 6:32 am to _Hurricane_
Why can't Mexico have southern Texas? Its not really Texas. Why can't Mexico have southern Cal? No really, why can't they have all of California. I'll give them California if they leave Texas alone.
2
Posted on 12/12/25 at 6:50 am to uziyourillusion
Mexico can certainly try, might not work out so well but they can try
Posted on 12/12/25 at 6:53 am to _Hurricane_
quote:
Why can’t Russia just have Eastern Ukraine? It’s not even really “Ukrainian”
Russia can’t “just have Eastern Ukraine” because the war never has been about territory, it’s about washing US taxpayer money through an enormous grift and seeing it quietly return to politicians and companies that must export war to survive and thrive.
It could just as easily been Peru and Bolivia, and probably will be when this grift runs out.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 7:00 am to _Hurricane_
quote:
Why can’t Russia just have Eastern Ukraine? It’s not even really “Ukrainian”
They will...... and the longer Zylenski holds out, the more land and lives Ukraine will lose.
There is no way out of this for Ukraine other than to sign a peace deal.
Neither the EU nor NATO will do anything more than they have already.
Hopefully, Trump backs away and washes his hands of this entire mess.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 7:02 am to _Hurricane_
quote:
Why can’t Russia just have Eastern Ukraine? It’s not even really “Ukrainian”
On a similar note, why can't Russia return the Karelian Isthmus, Viipuri, and the Petsamo region to Finland since it's not really Russian? I mean, if we're going to go into historical boundaries and cultural/ethnic regions, that portion of land ought to rightfully be return to Finland.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 7:58 am to _Hurricane_
quote:
Why can’t Russia just have Eastern Ukraine?
Because that's not all they want. They don't want all of Western Europe, but they do want to secure the Polish and Bessarabian Gaps, which means taking Ukraine in its entirety. Eastern Poland and the Baltics wouldn't be safe either. Russia already has defacto control of Moldova through Transnistria, but it's likely that they would occupy all of it and possibly even a small part of Romania if they could. Putin hasn't done this much damage to Russia to only walk away with Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk.
This post was edited on 12/12/25 at 9:01 am
Posted on 12/12/25 at 8:24 am to uziyourillusion
Dumb take.
Pro-Russian portion in the east and the rest of Ukraine have been having skirmishes forever. That is a big reason for the invasion. Couple that with US involvement in forcing a govt change and we make it worse. Way to simplify an argument.
Pro-Russian portion in the east and the rest of Ukraine have been having skirmishes forever. That is a big reason for the invasion. Couple that with US involvement in forcing a govt change and we make it worse. Way to simplify an argument.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 8:47 am to CitizenK
quote:
Consider that that area voted overwhelmingly to leave the USSR/Russia.
States voted? You mean, they no longer wanted to be communist?
No way.
It was their way out of communism.
It was like when people voted for EWE instead of David Duke.
It’s not like they were voting for EWE as much as they were voting against a klansman.
As for the OP, my take from the beginning has been an East / West Ukraine divided by the Dneiper River.
In this way, East Ukraine is still a buffer state, and West Ukraine can now be run by the Biden’s.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 8:54 am to _Hurricane_
They can have it. And they will get it. That's the START point for any negotiations that happen.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 8:55 am to uziyourillusion
quote:
I guess large swaths of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas should go back to Mexico under this flimsy justification.
If Mexico had the ability to come take it, then you'd be correct. But since they dont, it's not an apples to apples comparison. Not even close.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 8:58 am to _Hurricane_
From an idealists point of view, I do not agree with you. But we don't live in an idealist world.
Too many people cannot see the world as it is, and remain stuck on seeing it the way they think it ought to be.
The eastern portion of Ukraine will belong to Russia. The only question is when it becomes officially recognized and how much of the eastern portion they will get. The longer this drags on, the more land Ukraine will cede, IMO.
Too many people cannot see the world as it is, and remain stuck on seeing it the way they think it ought to be.
The eastern portion of Ukraine will belong to Russia. The only question is when it becomes officially recognized and how much of the eastern portion they will get. The longer this drags on, the more land Ukraine will cede, IMO.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 9:00 am to OccamsStubble
Wrong. It IS about territory. Or at least some of it is.
Russia is going to get a land bridge connected the Russian mainland with Crimea. There is no doubt about that.
Russia used the excuse of liberating eastern Ukraine as justification for the invasion. And they'll go ahead and take that too while theyre there.
Russia is going to get a land bridge connected the Russian mainland with Crimea. There is no doubt about that.
Russia used the excuse of liberating eastern Ukraine as justification for the invasion. And they'll go ahead and take that too while theyre there.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 9:16 am to deuceiswild
I don't care who controls any of Ukraine. For a good part of my life Ukraine was part of the USSR. We were fine here and that's when the USSR was a legitimate global power.
Just play the long game like China and forget about Russia. The demographics are so bad it will barely exist in 50 years.
Eastern Ukraine belong to Russia until someone can force them out. The Ukranians aren't capable.
Do we really want Americans dying over a couple hundred miles of eastern Ukraine ? And risk nuclear war? Give me a break.
Best of luck to Ukraine in their fight but it doesn't have anything to do with us. It's not 1938 no matter how much the Ukraine bros wish it were.
It's a cripple fight, they can go at it forever if they choose.
Just play the long game like China and forget about Russia. The demographics are so bad it will barely exist in 50 years.
Eastern Ukraine belong to Russia until someone can force them out. The Ukranians aren't capable.
Do we really want Americans dying over a couple hundred miles of eastern Ukraine ? And risk nuclear war? Give me a break.
Best of luck to Ukraine in their fight but it doesn't have anything to do with us. It's not 1938 no matter how much the Ukraine bros wish it were.
It's a cripple fight, they can go at it forever if they choose.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 10:24 am to John McClane
quote:
John McClane
I still love your username.
quote:
add in the fact that most of the folks in that region are culturally and ethnically Russian.
This is the point I've been trying to get across from the beginning. US meddling in large part led to this war, and the eastern third of Ukraine is overwhelmingly Russia-sympathetic. They aren't even very pro-US at all because they know our interventionism and international officious propensities contributed to this war in no small part.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 10:27 am to _Hurricane_
The people in the region you are discussing are (for the most part) ethnic Ukrainians who are also Russophones
Why? For much of history, Poland and Russia occupied the land belonging to the ethnic Ukrainians. The Polish mostly let the Ukrainians keep their language and culture, while the Russians made every possible effort to suppress them.
Why? For much of history, Poland and Russia occupied the land belonging to the ethnic Ukrainians. The Polish mostly let the Ukrainians keep their language and culture, while the Russians made every possible effort to suppress them.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 10:46 am to HagaDaga
Did you have fun creating your strawman and babbling about it?
Try reading what I actually wrote, and if you feel the need to reply, then respond to what I actually wrote instead of what you make up.
Try reading what I actually wrote, and if you feel the need to reply, then respond to what I actually wrote instead of what you make up.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 10:48 am to _Hurricane_
quote:
Why should we spend money and let more die to prevent Russia taking over historically and ethnically Russian territory?
Because that sets a terrible precedent. Not only that, people will die even without US intervention.
Any area with any Russian population of note suddenly becomes at risk. It’s a terrible way of viewing geopolitics and it won’t lead to peace either.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 10:49 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
The people in the region you are discussing are (for the most part) ethnic Ukrainians who are also Russophones
Nope. They voted to join Russia a few years ago
Posted on 12/12/25 at 10:50 am to _Hurricane_
Russians are a minority in Ukraine except in Crimea where they exiled virtually everyone else. After Stalin liquidated and starved to death millions of Ukrainians, he tried to Russify it.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News