GrundlButter

That does seem like a troubling situation. I do imagine that there are likely quite a few people who took those positions with good intentions, but when the new ruler comes to town and asks who wants power, it does seem obvious that there are strings attached. In this case, the deal was indeed to become a traitor in exchange for power/position, but I'm sure many were signing up just to survive.

You're right, there are probably good people that are going to be harmed alongside the bad, and I don't think there is a perfect solution. I would say it needs to get talked about as we get closer to a peace deal, it's truly regrettable that Russia decided to create this problem, maybe they could also work towards a solution for these citizens they forced into this role.

Edit: purely hypothetical, but one thought comes to mind. A compromise might be acceptable if they were given the choice to either retain their Ukrainian citizenship, but lose their position, or to defect to Russia. Though, once again this realm of decision making lies entirely in the hands of the victor of the war.

Are you talking about the current war, or do you mean that they were there before Russia took Crimea in 2014?

If you mean they were there after 2014, what does that matter, it was still stolen land at that time.

If they were there before 2014, I would agree that some form of a path towards citizenship should be made, but again that is Ukraine's prerogative.

Edit: Reading your second article, that is exactly what Ukraine is proposing, expelling Russians who moved to annexed land after 2014. What about that seems unreasonable? They took a gamble and moved to a conflicted territory, maybe they were led to believe it was their right, but it doesn't change the reality that it wasn't.

That honestly sounds like a reasonable way to position Baltic/border states, but wouldn't it rely on the willingness of all of those countries? And since the Baltic states are already NATO, I don't see a lot of likelihood for them to leave for a strategically weaker alliance.

You're right about that common fear on article 5, I'm hoping it will never be tested haha.

There's nothing stopping Ukraine from accepting them as citizens. But that is Ukraine's decision to make, seeing as it's their country. And yes, if they decide that illegal settlers should be kicked out, hell, why were they there to begin with?

I'm honestly not entirely sure what you're getting at there, are you suggesting that they should join Russia and be a part of the federation instead of retaining their independence?

Haha, right you are. It just goes to show how silly this "historic border" talk is as a justification for land grabs. Why would the argument exist for giving up Crimea if it also didn't come with the other historic borders. Did Russia even offer their portion of historical lands? Rude lol.

I imagine roughly how America ended the Vietnam war. Russia would have to initiate some willingness to stop the war with favorable conditions, and then talks could start. That's actually right there in the articles you linked with BoJo in them.

It'd likely take nothing less than ceasefire without conditions, returning all occupied Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. And if Russia doesn't like that, I'd love to see people start talking about historical borders again and we can joke about restoring the empire of Kiev.

And then, just like the Vietnam war, they can strut around saying they didn't lose the war, they just agreed on favorable terms.

Edit: Actually, I may even be a bit too pessimistic here. There's a low, but still possible chance that the tucker interview could be that message. I invite nothing less but the opportunity for Putin to publicly surrender. It would be a great thing.

I think at this point you might have been treated as hostile for the perceived tone in which you started your questioning. Though healthy skepticism is a good thing, you might have gone about it in a different way and got better results.

As an outside observer I would say that your hostility was met with hostility. You often get what you give, which is a good reason to be critical of your own writing. You can do better next time, please try.

Yeah, it seems very unlikely at this point. I was just interested in your perspective.

Hang in there, hope it ends up getting a bit more sane over the next few years.

Hypothetical, obviously, but how would you feel if we let Texas secede but offered relocation assistance for folks that want to flee the state?

They had her on. The opening act had someone asking her a question, "what was the cause of the civil war again, and does it start with an s and end with lavery?". I think she said yes, and things would have gone a lot better if she answered it that way the first time.

She's skating on thin ice, if she admits to any more conservative failings she'll be a RINO for good.

Oh he'll settle with the bank that ends up buying his sub prime debt. If you owe the bank 13 thousand it's your problem. If you owe the bank 13 billion, it's their problem.