Replies

Some details:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09668136.2019.1684447

Briefly, the conflict in the Donbass, did not arise because of economic reasons and other allegations asserted by Moscow (Putin). Instead, Russia sought to pry the region away from Ukraine, after Russia had summarily invaded and seized the Crimea.

That, after Russia had earlier, during the second George W. Bush Administration, attempted to seize Georgia; *after which,* Bush pushed for more expansion of NATO.

Poland being part of NATO, was good. But the immediate border states around Russia as parts of the so-called “former USSR,” have never seemed to me, at least, to be NATO candidates - *because* of Russia’s history of “requiring” buffer states on Russia’s border.

Recently, I read that Russia keeps moving/nudging the “cease fire” line within Georgia.

And I expect Russia to try and cut off Ukraine’s access to the Black Sea.

Given that possibility, NATO will resist Russian expansion that threatens the Romanian border. (It would be smart of Russia, to not venture further in Moldova.)

I suspect that at least half of the Democrats’ insistance on “Russia, Russia, Russia,” was the party’s aim to disrupt likely negotiations between President Trump and Russia.

And in the other half of the Democrats’ insistance, therein, is the nature of the left to resent any movement of Russia - away from the Democrat Party Plantation.

The Party soldiers having fancied for decades, that they have loyally marched in lockstep with the Kremlin, the Democrat Party seeks a bitter divorce fight.