Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
So AP let's see your arguments that go like this;
Let's measures the accuracy of your characterizations.

1. Russia is a nuclear power
Yes, I have stated this fact a number of times. In contrast, you seem to ignore this fact when advocating for continued escalation in confronting Russia or in building an achiveable policy capable of fulfilling U.S. interests.

and therefore "owns" central and eastern Europe
Incorrect. I have not stated that Russia "owns" eastern Europe. I have, however, stated that Russia, as a state, has material interests that it pursues with rational policy, and that these interests should be taken into account when the U.S. develops policy towards Russia.

because we the US have no what business interests to the tune of billions which also drives the US economy
Incorrect. I have stated that Ukraine's territorial integrity is not the exclusive nor most important U.S. interest in the world.

and we the US have never claimed that we are not somehow leading the western world nor are member of the Altantic Council/NATO
Incorrect. I have stated that Ukraine is not a NATO member and by implication, the U.S. has no security obligations towards Ukraine.

and oh by the way we signed a memorandum protecting the sovereignty of the Ukraine that now when we are called out on we what simply say it is not our problem
What material obligations does that memorandum impose upon the U.S. in this situation?

2. IS is not a threat to the US
That would be contrary to the opinion of many leading analysts in government and scholarship.

---a threat to the existing borders of four countries in the ME yes they are but it is not up to the US to settle that particular area
Settling that region's problems is one thing. Securing U.S. interests is another. And yes - the U.S. has to actively protect its interests in the region.

was it not you yourself that argued yes if we just appease and negotiate
Incorrect. I never said 'appease'. I said negotiate. It's fully possible to negotiate without 'appeasment'.

and understand the Russia desires to reinstate the Soviet Union this whole thing will simply disappear
Incorrect. I have said repeatedly that it is important to understand the material interests of the Russian state, and what policies they are pursuing to achieve them. Dismissing them out of hand is an error of the first order.

---you never have seemed to fully understand the ethnic nationalist imperialism that Putin and the elites around him have called into being---some would call it a new form of state fasicism
Incorrect. I have in fact pointed out that all of Russia's conflicts since 1991 have involved problems of ethnic nationalism (and normalizing borders and state building). I have also pointed out that Russia historically was and largely remains an imperial state that does not fully conform to the principles of Westphalian nation-statehood.

Also still awaiting your stated "negotiating solutions"---and my response was what---"negotiate what".
This has already been addressed more than once. Repeatedly asking the same question does not constitute an argument - it's actually a failure to undersand the argument.

Again go back and Google the terms invasion and what defines a declaration of war.
How many wars end with negotiated settlments and how many end with the annihilation of one of the belligerents?

You seem fixated on the idea that I am not aware that Russia has been pursuing acts of aggression of Ukraine. I've acknowledged this many pages ago. It's time to move the argument forward. You have left many questions unanswered about the preferable U.S. outcome, what policy options are available to achieve it, and how to compel Russia to terminate the conlfict.