Ron DeSantis on Ukraine

What's with that?

"Muscovy?"

I'm wondering where that particular talking point came from. It's like when I woke up one morning and Kiev suddenly became Kyiv. Who made that decision?

 

• 
  3 reasons DeSantis's poll numbers are sliding

 

Why does Ukraine want to change Russia's name to Muscovy ...

Firstpost
https://www.firstpost.com › explainers › ukraine-name...


2 days ago — Russia was initially known as Muscovy and was a much smaller state than it is today. In 1721, Peter the Great, a Russian monarch who ruled the ...


Moscow fumes as Ukraine considers changing Russia's ...

The Hill
https://thehill.com › policy › international › 3896712-...


6 days ago — The petition notes that the name “Muscovy” was “used in European and some Asian languages” and appeared “on many historical maps of the 16th- ...

 

Please see #527.

 

You realize that has nothing to do with my inquiry?

 

???

That article is about the slide of DeSantis relative to Trump, another Ukraine skeptic, not the rise of the neocon candidates.

 

DeSantis looks less credible than he did. Coincidence that the slide is simultaneous with his ill-chosen words about Ukraine?

 

You asked why the term "Muscovy" is in circulation. I explained that for you.

 

Ugh...



It's a slide against Trump!

 

Yes. They're in a race to the bottom.

 

I think we've already established you don't understand.

 

DeSantis is moving backwards. Trump is moving backwards.
Both are good for the country.

 

I've already apologized.

 

He simply stated that Ukraine is not a top national priority, and it isn't. The American People firmly agree with DeSantis on this point.

The West’s economic sanctions damaged the U.S. and European economies while turning the Russian ruble into one of the international system’s strongest currencies.

https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=RUB

1 year ago, 1 dollar bought 114 Rub
Today, 1 dollar only buys 77 Rub

Biden claimed that his actions would reduce the Ruble to Rubble, instead, the Dollar has lost a THIRD of its value against the Ruble, in just a year.



'Biden’s policy of forcibly pushing NATO to Russia’s borders forged a strong commonality of security and trade interests between Moscow and Beijing that is attracting strategic partners in South Asia like India, and partners like Brazil in Latin America. The global economic implications for the emerging Russo-Chinese axis and their planned industrial revolution for some 3.9 billion people in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are profound.'

Biden's a complete **** Up.

 

Nonsense.

 

Some of my GOP colleagues have lost their moral compass on Ukraine
Opinion by Chris Sununu

 

Even if they do, Crimea and Donbas are part of the Ukraine, therefore all of the Ukraine gets a Democratic say about those regions.

What, the people of New Hampshire get to join Canada just because they can come up with a simple majority?

 

What if the English colonies want to form their own government, the US?

 

that is literally not one version. That is the facts. Ukrainian government had a referendum with then-President Viktor Yanukovych who was overseeing the Euromaidan protocol with the EU for a free trade agreement. Most of the populace wanted that. And the EU was more than willing for that. No mention of NATO at that time. But when the documents were to be signed, after all the negotiations, agreements, etc, he then refused because Moscow made it clear through public statements that they did not want that to happen. And from there, the revolution, again, started when he was ousted a second time. First in the Orange Revolution of 2010 and then in the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution. And from there, Russia has always tried to punish Ukraine for that decision.

The are three reasons why the US is supporting Ukraine. We have always supported a nation that wants to determine its own fate and not be bullied by a strategic enemy in the process. Second is the wheat production and soybean oil, which Ukraine controls a significant world supply and why Russia wants it. And third, our national security interests in Europe with Europe, generally, as a staunch ally historically from the Iron Curtain and the Iron Veil of Russian politics.

 

Rediculous how. Do you honesty think if those countries are invaded in the same manner that Ukraine was in 2022, and Trump was President, he would agree to go to war with Russia? You have got to be kidding me. Trump has always maintained his entire public life he was against war. He was against it in 1992 in Iraq and in 2003, in Libya, and elsewhere, unless he gets what he wants. And that is verified by his own statements, namely, we should control the oil in Iraq once we invaded Iraq in 2003 and why US troops were sent to Syria, not for peace, but to protect US oil interests there, and why he threw the Kurds under the bus initially but had to backtrack a little, but made little effort to do so.

 

What makes you think they wanted to form their "own government" and not be a proxy government by Russia?

 

I was questioning your contention that:

Russia isn't going to invade the Baltics. It's great that you've gone back to the drawing board and come up with even more reasons to court war with a nuclear armed power, but those are about as bad as your idea of Russia invading NATO countries. Anyway, good luck with the war.

 

So your problem with Trump is that he's anti war? Well Russia certainly missed their chance to invade Germany, France, and the UK during Trump's term!

Frankly, I mostly agree with him on those wars, with the exception of the Gulf War. I did think that was sufficiently in the US national interest to organize the type of coalition that was put together to force Saddam out of Kuwait. Those other wars...meh.

 

The Baltics are NATO countries.

 

That's a bit extreme, dontcha think. Still, I do disagree with him on that point, as I think preventing nations from that sort of naked aggression is something that needs to be done. The world was once a place of near constant warfare as this country, that country, and the other one was trying to expand their territory and whatnot. It was the way of the world, and I don't look back in time with my 21st Century perspective and wag my finger at people just doing what people of their time did.

But today things have changed, for the better, but vigilance is still required, at least as long as evil men like pooteen, Rocket Man, and that xi dude from the CCP exist and have power.

I'm not unrealistic enough to think I'm ever going to find a politician that I agree with about 100% of all potential issues of importance. It's like the Gipper said, a guy who agrees with you 80% of the time is not a 20% enemy.