Ukraine Crisis II: Electric Boogaloo

[Alaizia]

You think an armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine is inevitable?

I think the occupation of Kiev by Russian forces and the forcible establishment of a Russian puppet government there is inevitable.

That.....would make an armed conflict. I don't want to consider the possibility of the Russians go this far.

[Saiwania]

I love how everyone assumes we're going on some imperialistic shopping spree.
"Holy shit, those Russians just stole back land that was stolen from them, we better watch out or we'll be next hurr durr!"

Ukraine did not "steal" Crimea from Russia, it was given to them as a gift because Nikita Khrushchev never anticipated that the USSR would eventually collapse or that Ukraine or the other Soviet republics could become independent. Russia and Ukraine were apart of the same country at the time, so it didn't matter to him. Just because one ill fated decision wound up backfiring does not mean Ukraine can be faulted for that.

It would be more like stealing if Ukraine actually managed to take Crimea from Russia by force and win in a war over said territory. It is in fact Russia that is "stealing" Crimea given that it was not ceded back to Russia voluntarily via diplomacy or purchase.

[Miyager]

I love how everyone assumes we're going on some imperialistic shopping spree.

"Holy shit, those Russians just stole back land that was stolen from them, we better watch out or we'll be next hurr durr!"

When was Crimea stolen from Russia? What type of logic is that?

[The balkens]

I love how everyone assumes we're going on some imperialistic shopping spree.

"Holy shit, those Russians just stole back land that was stolen from them, we better watch out or we'll be next hurr durr!"

When was Crimea stolen from Russia? What type of logic is that?

Putins, Russian fanboys and RT.

[Aterna]

I love how everyone assumes we're going on some imperialistic shopping spree.

"Holy shit, those Russians just stole back land that was stolen from them, we better watch out or we'll be next hurr durr!"

And can you prove you're not on a shopping spree? Without the aid of the KG-er, FSB or Russia Today? No?


Stolen? Oh Zeus, here we go. Did you know that the Native Americans "stole" North America from the Red Paint People? Does that justify American aggression against the Native Americans? Of course not. Does that actually matter? Well, no. Because we could all go back in time and claim that so-and-so stole our land and thus we should take it back in a hundred years. Yet the way humanity makes "progress" is by forgiving what happened in the past and striving for the future. Not by "re-taking" land that will be "re-taken" back in fifty years by Ukrainians or Tartars or whomever else claims that piece of land.


You do realize that the Russian government is using the "stolen" argument because the entire land grab was to gain full control over a warm-water port, don't you?
(EDIT) Also, if Russia is the "good guy" in this situation, why does your government keep saying that the Russian troops without markings are self-defense forces? Why hide the fact?

[Tahar Joblis]

I love how everyone assumes we're going on some imperialistic shopping spree.

"Holy shit, those Russians just stole back land that was stolen from them, we better watch out or we'll be next hurr durr!"

Stolen? You seem to be one of the masses that buys into the Kremlin's idea that somehow Crimea has been Russian since the dawn of time. And that the Ukrainians "stole" it even if it was historically part of a Ukrainian administered part of the Russian Empire? Crimea has only been "Russian", i.e part of the administrative unit of Russia itself, essentially during the entire period that Stalin was in power in the Soviet Union. Before that, it was part of the Ukraine and after, it was part of the Ukraine.

So don't come in here and make bullshit claims about the land that are merely the fiction of Russian state media. That shit doesn't fly.

This. As I pointed out, the 32 years from 1922-1954 (aka "Stalin's Big Boogie-time") are the exception within Crimean history as part of "Russia," and the 1954-1991 status as part of the Ukrainian part of the greater Russian empire is in line with the 1783-1917 status of Crimea as part of the Ukrainian part of the greater Russian empire, right alongside Ukraine.

If you claim that Crimea was stolen from Russia, we can expect you to claim that other pieces of the former Russian Empire and/or USSR were "stolen from Russia."

[Lemanrussland]

I love how everyone assumes we're going on some imperialistic shopping spree.

"Holy shit, those Russians just stole back land that was stolen from them, we better watch out or we'll be next hurr durr!"

And can you prove you're not on a shopping spree? Without the aid of the KG-er, FSB or Russia Today? No?


Stolen? Oh Zeus, here we go. Did you know that the Native Americans "stole" North America from the Red Paint People? Does that justify American aggression against the Native Americans? Of course not. Does that actually matter? Well, no. Because we could all go back in time and claim that so-and-so stole our land and thus we should take it back in a hundred years. Yet the way humanity makes "progress" is by forgiving what happened in the past and striving for the future. Not by "re-taking" land that will be "re-taken" back in fifty years by Ukrainians or Tartars or whomever else claims that piece of land.


You do realize that the Russian government is using the "stolen" argument because the entire land grab was to gain full control over a warm-water port, don't you?

Well, retain control of a warm water port, in case of a Ukrainian reorientation towards the West. They already had a lease on the naval base at Sevastapol until 2017.

The usefulness of Sevastopol is also limited by it's vulnerability to blockade from the Bosphorus.

[The Gaelic Kingdoms of Britain]

I say let the Russians have Crimea. Ukraine isn't going to do anything more than it already is (lest it be curb-stomped by Russia), America isn't going to do anything (Because we're not willing, nobody here is going to want to die over some small spit of land in East Europe), and the EU, who is probably the only one outside of Ukraine that SHOULD do anything, won't, because they are not willing, for similar reasons as I listed for the U.S.

Overall, Crimea by itself isn't worth doing anything serious over, and nothing really suggests that Russia is going to do anything more, aside from some colourful imaginings on the part of some Cold-War wet dreamers.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Stolen? You seem to be one of the masses that buys into the Kremlin's idea that somehow Crimea has been Russian since the dawn of time. And that the Ukrainians "stole" it even if it was historically part of a Ukrainian administered part of the Russian Empire? Crimea has only been "Russian", i.e part of the administrative unit of Russia itself, essentially during the entire period that Stalin was in power in the Soviet Union. Before that, it was part of the Ukraine and after, it was part of the Ukraine.

So don't come in here and make bullshit claims about the land that are merely the fiction of Russian state media. That shit doesn't fly.

This. As I pointed out, the 32 years from 1922-1954 (aka "Stalin's Big Boogie-time") are the exception within Crimean history as part of "Russia," and the 1954-1991 status as part of the Ukrainian part of the greater Russian empire is in line with the 1783-1917 status of Crimea as part of the Ukrainian part of the greater Russian empire, right alongside Ukraine.

If you claim that Crimea was stolen from Russia, we can expect you to claim that other pieces of the former Russian Empire and/or USSR were "stolen from Russia."

I can't seem to find it, but some dude on Russian TV was pushing exactly that with specific regard to Alaska. (Edit: Pardon, apparently it was the Russian representative to the Council of Europe one 'Roman Kokorev'. Though, to be fair, he also included the Baltics, Finland, Poland, and Moldova, not just Alaska as Russian claims.)

It seems to be the new primary argument Russia is using, since 'We need to protect the Russians there!' was too obviously bullshit.
I guess it's probably a good thing in the end. It sure makes the Nazi parallels a lot more obvious to anyone not mind-molded by Russian media.

[Occupied Deutschland]

...
Overall, Crimea by itself isn't worth doing anything serious over, and nothing really suggests that Russia is going to do anything more, aside from some colourful imaginings on the part of some Cold-War wet dreamers.

I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.

[Hyosong]

I think the occupation of Kiev by Russian forces and the forcible establishment of a Russian puppet government there is inevitable.

The Cold War called. It says it wants its paranoia back.

[Aterna]

The usefulness of Sevastopol is also limited by it's vulnerability to blockade from the Bosphorus.

Yes, but Russia doesn't necessarily care about the Mediterranean at this point in time. The base is useful for control of the Black Sea-which is the body of water that Russia does not want to become a Western pond.

[The Gaelic Kingdoms of Britain]

...
Overall, Crimea by itself isn't worth doing anything serious over, and nothing really suggests that Russia is going to do anything more, aside from some colourful imaginings on the part of some Cold-War wet dreamers.

I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.

So, you're suggesting military action against Russia? Does that really seem like a good idea? I think I can speak for Americans here that we're pretty sick of overseas war as it is with the whole Afghan/Iraq debacle, so we're definitely not getting involved, and frankly I would stand against the U.S getting involved militarily.

Frankly, if anyone should get involved militarily, it should be the EU, and not the U.S. This all started because of Ukrainians wanting to join the EU or whatever, and I'm sure they can handle it without America holding their hand.

[Natalia Poklonskaya]

I love how everyone assumes we're going on some imperialistic shopping spree.

"Holy shit, those Russians just stole back land that was stolen from them, we better watch out or we'll be next hurr durr!"

Stolen? You seem to be one of the masses that buys into the Kremlin's idea that somehow Crimea has been Russian since the dawn of time. And that the Ukrainians "stole" it even if it was historically part of a Ukrainian administered part of the Russian Empire? Crimea has only been "Russian", i.e part of the administrative unit of Russia itself, essentially during the entire period that Stalin was in power in the Soviet Union. Before that, it was part of the Ukraine and after, it was part of the Ukraine.

So don't come in here and make bullshit claims about the land that are merely the fiction of Russian state media. That shit doesn't fly.

Except it's been Russian land since Catherine the Great conquered the Crimean Khanate, and it's been ethnically Russian since the early days of the Soviet Union, then Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine for no reason at all, and when Russia and Ukraine left the USSR, it should've been Russian, but no, Yeltsin being the dumbfuck he was, was too busy trying to sell Russian Karelia to the Finns. Because you know, money, so why not?

Even if it isn't Russian land, which it is, the majority wants to be a part of Russia. Just like Kosovo, which I'm sure you and the other Western hypocrites support, claiming it's "perfectly legal" while Crimea isn't. Apparently something is only illegal if Russia is involved.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I think the occupation of Kiev by Russian forces and the forcible establishment of a Russian puppet government there is inevitable.

The Cold War called. It says it wants its paranoia back.

I used to be an adventurer like you not think Russia was a major international problem.
Then I took an arrow to the knee Ukraine took a 'local-Crimean self-defense force that's totally not Russian soldiers withour identifying marks even if they have modern Russian weaponry, ride in Russian trucks with Russian license plates on them that identify them as coming from military districts inside Russia, and have Russian BTRs' to the Crimea.
Not to mention the evidence of similar events occurring during the LAST major Russian military deployment in Georgia.

[Miyager]

Stolen? You seem to be one of the masses that buys into the Kremlin's idea that somehow Crimea has been Russian since the dawn of time. And that the Ukrainians "stole" it even if it was historically part of a Ukrainian administered part of the Russian Empire? Crimea has only been "Russian", i.e part of the administrative unit of Russia itself, essentially during the entire period that Stalin was in power in the Soviet Union. Before that, it was part of the Ukraine and after, it was part of the Ukraine.

So don't come in here and make bullshit claims about the land that are merely the fiction of Russian state media. That shit doesn't fly.

Except it's been Russian land since Catherine the Great conquered the Crimean Khanate, and it's been ethnically Russian since the early days of the Soviet Union, then Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine for no reason at all, and when Russia and Ukraine left the USSR, it should've been Russian, but no, Yeltsin being the dumbfuck he was, was too busy trying to sell Russian Karelia to the Finns. Because you know, money, so why not?

Even if it isn't Russian land, which it is, the majority wants to be a part of Russia. Just like Kosovo, which I'm sure you and the other Western hypocrites support, claiming it's "perfectly legal" while Crimea isn't. Apparently something is only illegal if Russia is involved.

So it's settled. Karelia should return to Finland since it was stolen from them, Abrene can go back to Lativa since it was stolen from them, Petsori and Ivangorod can go back to Estonia, and Kaliningrad can go back to Germany. Since those places were stolen from their previous owners using the same logic.

And all we need to do is hold a bullshit referendum with 123% turnout and 97% in favor despite only 40% being in favor when polled about it less than a month before.

[Lemanrussland]

The usefulness of Sevastopol is also limited by it's vulnerability to blockade from the Bosphorus.

Yes, but Russia doesn't necessarily care about the Mediterranean at this point in time. The base is useful for control of the Black Sea-which is the body of water that Russia does not want to become a Western pond.

That is a good point. Maintaining control over the Black Sea is probably just as strategically important as preventing the expansion of Western supranational organizations past the Dnieper River and Pinsk Marshes, in the eyes the Russian administration.

[Lemanrussland]

The Cold War called. It says it wants its paranoia back.

I used to be an adventurer like you not think Russia was a major international problem.
Then I took an arrow to the knee Ukraine took a 'local-Crimean self-defense force that's totally not Russian soldiers withour identifying marks even if they have modern Russian weaponry, ride in Russian trucks with Russian license plates on them that identify them as coming from military districts inside Russia, and have Russian BTRs' to the Crimea.
Not to mention the evidence of similar events occurring during the LAST major Russian military deployment in Georgia.

Nevermind the physical characteristics of the "militia". There is direct evidence of Russian troops being moved from their bases in Russia, to ports on the Russian Black Sea coast, being moved by ship to Crimea, and then driving away from ports in Crimea. If that is not conclusive evidence, I'm really not sure what is (besides the holy, infallible word of Putin and Russian military officials, of course).

[Breadknife]

[Snipped: Picture of Chamberlain with a bit of paper as a critique of "appeasement"]

So, you're suggesting military action against Russia? Does that really seem like a good idea?

Maybe what's being suggested is that we go "Oh... ok then..." to the Russians, meanwhile set to building up our armed forces ready for the next western War Leader(s)...

How about linking it up to http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/UK- ... story.html (to quote one pretty obscure source of something quoted in all the other usual suspects)?


(Darnit, I think I replied to the wrong message. However, possibly satirical point still stands.)

[New Nassrau]

...
Overall, Crimea by itself isn't worth doing anything serious over, and nothing really suggests that Russia is going to do anything more, aside from some colourful imaginings on the part of some Cold-War wet dreamers.

I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.

I have been thinking this whole time about comparisons between Chamberlain and the crimea situation

[Lemanrussland]

Ukraine has apparently closed the Crimean border, which is a effectively a tacit admission of Russian operational control of the peninsula. I doubt they will be getting Crimea back at this point.

[Alien Space Bats]

I think the occupation of Kiev by Russian forces and the forcible establishment of a Russian puppet government there is inevitable.

The Cold War called. It says it wants its paranoia back.

Tell you what: If Russia hasn't moved into the Ukraine by the end of summer, I'll admit that I was mistaken..

The question is, if they have, will you?

[Saiwania]

Except it's been Russian land since Catherine the Great conquered the Crimean Khanate, and it's been ethnically Russian since the early days of the Soviet Union, then Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine for no reason at all, and when Russia and Ukraine left the USSR, it should've been Russian, but no, Yeltsin being the dumbfuck he was, was too busy trying to sell Russian Karelia to the Finns. Because you know, money, so why not?

Even if it isn't Russian land, which it is, the majority wants to be a part of Russia. Just like Kosovo, which I'm sure you and the other Western hypocrites support, claiming it's "perfectly legal" while Crimea isn't. Apparently something is only illegal if Russia is involved.

None of that matters, the fact is that Ukraine never stole the land in question from Russia. I don't dispute that Crimea is now controlled by Russia but just admit that Russia is the one stealing from Ukraine in this case. One bad decision backfiring is not a justifiable excuse for revanchism. This land transfer was won by force and not diplomacy or purchase.

[Tahar Joblis]

Stolen? You seem to be one of the masses that buys into the Kremlin's idea that somehow Crimea has been Russian since the dawn of time. And that the Ukrainians "stole" it even if it was historically part of a Ukrainian administered part of the Russian Empire? Crimea has only been "Russian", i.e part of the administrative unit of Russia itself, essentially during the entire period that Stalin was in power in the Soviet Union. Before that, it was part of the Ukraine and after, it was part of the Ukraine.

So don't come in here and make bullshit claims about the land that are merely the fiction of Russian state media. That shit doesn't fly.

Except it's been Russian land since Catherine the Great conquered the Crimean Khanate,

And promptly made part of "New Russia," almost all of which lies within the modern-day Ukrainian borders and which was predominantly ethnically Ukrainian. Of course, "New Russia" was too big and awkward, so it was divided, with Crimea going into Taurida, which was ... *drumroll* predominantly ethnically Ukrainian and today falls entirely within Ukrainian borders.

and it's been ethnically Russian since the early days of the Soviet Union,

Since Stalin decided that starving, killing, and relocating Tatars was a good idea. Not exactly the best advertisement, and there are other regions of former Soviet republics that are outside Russia (but have an ethnic Russian plurality) and other regions within Russia which have a non-Russian ethnic plurality.

If you want Russia to be the ethnically Russian state, start lobbying for the separation of Chechnya from Russian authority.

then Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine for no reason at all,

Khruschev put it in the Ukrainian SSR because Crimea's food, water, electricity, etc all came from the Ukrainian SSR, and Crimea had been traditionally part of the same administrative unit as various parts of the Ukrainian SSR. There happened to be a local plurality of ethnic Russians, thanks to Stalin, but as I said above, Crimea had always been considered part of Ukrainian territory except when it was trying to be independent (as happened during the Russian Civil War) and when Stalin was actively trying to de-Tatarize it.

and when Russia and Ukraine left the USSR, it should've been Russian

Why? For 164 years, it had been part of either the Novorossiysk or Taurida governates, both of which were essentially subsumed into the Ukrainian SSR. It is geographically in a position to be entirely dependent on Ukrainian goodwill, and had been part of the Ukrainian SSR for thirty seven years (longer than it had ever been part of a non-Ukrainian administrative unit).

, but no, Yeltsin being the dumbfuck he was, was too busy trying to sell Russian Karelia to the Finns. Because you know, money, so why not?

Even if it isn't Russian land, which it is, the majority wants to be a part of Russia. Just like Kosovo, which I'm sure you and the other Western hypocrites support, claiming it's "perfectly legal" while Crimea isn't. Apparently something is only illegal if Russia is involved.

Not according to this survey, conducted in May of 2013.

Before people started fleeing from Crimea (this has been happening) and getting pushed off their land (this is now happening to Tatars), only 60% of Crimeans identified themselves as ethnically Russian, and not even ethnic Russians showed majority support for rejoining Russia.

The referendum didn't even include the option of staying a Ukrainian autonomous state. It was not conducted in secret; it was conducted at gunpoint by pro-Russian (in many cases, actually Russian) forces. The results are no more commanding than those of the Nazis' post-Anschluss referendum, which reported marginally less believable results.

[Shofercia]

And here we have the real reason that ASB is trying to portray Putin as Hitleresque: much like the Republican claim "if we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here", it's the spread of mass hysteria. "Wake up! Them Russkies are coming! Baltics are next! And then Poland! And Germany! Yeehaw!" It's nothing except basic and utterly pathetic fear mongering. And that's why you need the Hitler comparison. That's what I'm saying. BTW, it's not like these tactics bug the US very much, at least not when it's done to a government that wasn't couped-in with US funding: http://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omid ... ents-show/

Except you know DAMNED well that I wasn't singing this song eighteen months ago, when Governor Romney told the U.S. that Russia was America's foremost "geopolitical foe"; as you'll recall, I was in favor of the "reset" of relations with Russia, and even eight months ago, in the wake of the gas attack on the Ghouta suburb of Damascus, I was willing to see Russia as simply a nation with interests that differed from those of the U.S. and whose voice therefore needed to be taken into account before the world could set upon a common solution to the problem of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal.

No, it was specifically Russia's actions in THIS affair that convinced me that Russia is drunk with nationalism — that it has essentially come down with the "German disease". The false-flag invasion of the Crimea, Russian-backed coup in Simferopol and the call from the puppet government installed there for annexation, the rigged plebiscite showing 95+% approval for annexation, all to produce a fait accompli.

So you have it exactly backwards: I don't "need" to find some kind of parallel between Putin's actions and those of Hitler in order to whip up anti-Russian hysteria; I have no axe to grind against Russia, whether you believe that fact or not. No, it's the opposite: I see the parallels between Russia's behavior and that of Germany in the 1930's, and draw the concomitant conclusions.

Whereas you desperately seek to avoid seeing any kind of parallel at all between the two countries or their behavior, or — when trapped — hide behind the silly idea that unless we can EXACTLY equate Putin with Hitler, we absolutely must not draw ANY kind of comparison between Russia and today and Germany back then WHATSOEVER.

Which, when you think about it, is like saying that it's not kosher to observe that contemporary American helmets look like German helmets of the 1940's — unless, of course, we are prepared to embrace the comparison totus porkus and declare that America is Nazi Germany reborn.

Or, to put it simply, that we have to be idiots: We have to either utterly ignore history or abuse the fuck out of it; there is no middle ground.

To that, I say: "Bullshit".

ASB, you're presenting the viewpoint of stereotypical Democrat i.e. member of the Democratic Party. You knew that it wasn't hard to beat Bush on Russia, (I mean it's very hard to fuck up as badly as Bush did with Iraq, and with Georgia, if we're to talk about Russia,) and the reset with Russia showed Americans that Democrats, as a party, are better at Foreign Policy than Republicans. And that's true, provided that we're talking about Nixon, Reagan and Bush Squared, as opposed to the Ike Republicans. The reset wasn't embarrassing to the Democrats; on the contrary, Obama got a treaty out of it, one that benefits America first and foremost, although it also benefits Russia. As for Syria, (there was a lot more to it than just Ghouta,) the American public was unwilling to fight after Iraq; that's the hand that Bush dealt to Obama, and Russia offered a nice exit for the Democrats. Here, again, we see Russia's actions benefiting the Democratic Party. As long as Putin continued to help out the Democrats, you supported Putin.

The only time that you sided with Russia when it didn't really help the Dems, (although it hurt the Reps,) was during the Ossetian War, and that was when Putin had no choice. It's not like anyone with a brain, (sorry Bush,) would've expected a different reaction from Russia when Saakashvili mercilessly shelled the Russian Peacekeeping Base, (legitimately stationed in the region,) along with Russian civilians, with rocket launchers and dana howitzers, when a similar event ignited the Caucasian Region in 1988. They were going to get it.

But THIS IS DIFFERENT. Unlike Syria, which, let's face it, stemmed from Bush's Iraq fuck up much more than Obama's screw up with the Arab Spring, the events in Ukraine stemmed from Nuland's role, and she's a Democrat. They were compounded by the events in Kosovo, which was Clinton's fuck up. He's a Democrat. Obamacare, could've gone better, to put it mildly. Economy's still slumping Worldwide. Not Obama's fault, at least not for the most part, but he'll get the blame. Domestic issues are generally going to divide Americans. But in FP, until Crimea, the Dems held a clear edge over the Reps, in part because Kosovo was forgotten.

And this radical reaction shows you missing the basics. For instance, this part: the call from the puppet government installed there for annexation

Except it's not. The Legislature didn't really change. 93 out of 100 legislators came from parties who supported annexation with Russia, and that's enough to legally replace the executive, should the need arise. Soyuz, (5 legislators,) are very much pro-Russian. How do I know this? Their very own ideology says "pro-Russian". Russian Unity, (3 legislators,) wants unity with Russia. It's in the name. Commies, (5 legislators,) are going to be pro union with Russia, since they want greater social rights. With the exception of Party of Regions, the Russians have the opposition beat, 13 to 7. The Party of Regions controls 80 seats. They're the big ones. Their leader, Party Chairman, Konstantinov, openly, utterly and fully supported Union with Russia.

When 93 legislators come from parties that want union with Russia, elected in 2010, sorry, but that's just not a couped-in government. In terms the referendum, again, that would've been lower, had the large sections of the Crimean Tatars and others not boycotted the referendum. However, blowout referendums are possible: https://scontent-a-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hph ... 7870_n.jpg

On the other hand, my party ain't the ones being made to look hypocritical with their FP. It's one of the benefits of being non-partisan. Kerry voted for the Iraq War, and now he's criticizing Crimea? Wasn't he also dubbed a flip-flopper? Since you're usually pro-Democrat, you might have some issues with that.

I'm not saying "don't ever compare Putin to Hitler", I'm just saying that this comparison makes very little sense to me. Hitler also used Blitzkrieg tactics. So where were Stormin-Norman's comparison to Hitler? Americans had a war started over phony pretenses, at least to an extent, i.e. Baby Incubators, and used Blitzkrieg. It's absent. The reason that the Putin-Hitler comparison is needed, at least IMHO, from a Democratic perspective, is because the voters are just sick and tired of foreign interventions, the Democrats are likely to retain the presidency, and the voters need to be energized to intervene, else it'll be the Democrats who will eventually look weak when it comes to Foreign Policy. Basic propaganda. You didn't simply compare a few tactics; you went on to claim that "if we don't stop them in Ukraine, they'll go to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, etc!" That's exactly like saying "if we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here!" a constant, Republican, talking point.