Why did O'Rourke vote against the Ukraine Support Act?

[Big Abraham]

If you read the provisions of the bill, it's clear that it's more than just a generic support for "Ukraine's territorial integrity". The bill included specific provisions to greatly empower the President, the State Department, and the Defense Department to intervene in the country in order to 'stabilise' their economy and further enhance security operations with NATO, which is about the last thing that needed to be done.

If he doesn't adequately address this sort of nonsense on the campaign trail, IDK if I can vote for him in the primary.  Hashtag isolationism is the last thing America needs right now.

Not exactly sure how this equals isolationism, but I can assure you that non-intervention in the Ukraine is far superior to the belligerence that U.S. foreign policy has demonstrated since the Second World War

[Big Abraham]

If you read the provisions of the bill, it's clear that it's more than just a generic support for "Ukraine's territorial integrity". The bill included specific provisions to greatly empower the President, the State Department, and the Defense Department to intervene in the country in order to 'stabilise' their economy and further enhance security operations with NATO, which is about the last thing that needed to be done.

If he doesn't adequately address this sort of nonsense on the campaign trail, IDK if I can vote for him in the primary.  Hashtag isolationism is the last thing America needs right now.

Not exactly sure how this equals isolationism, but I can assure you that non-intervention in the Ukraine is far superior to the belligerence that U.S. foreign policy has demonstrated since the Second World War

Protecting The Ukraine from Russian aggression is exactly what we need to be doing.

Why?

[Big Abraham]

If you read the provisions of the bill, it's clear that it's more than just a generic support for "Ukraine's territorial integrity". The bill included specific provisions to greatly empower the President, the State Department, and the Defense Department to intervene in the country in order to 'stabilise' their economy and further enhance security operations with NATO, which is about the last thing that needed to be done.

If he doesn't adequately address this sort of nonsense on the campaign trail, IDK if I can vote for him in the primary.  Hashtag isolationism is the last thing America needs right now.

Not exactly sure how this equals isolationism, but I can assure you that non-intervention in the Ukraine is far superior to the belligerence that U.S. foreign policy has demonstrated since the Second World War

Protecting The Ukraine from Russian aggression is exactly what we need to be doing.

Why?

You circa 1938:

Person: "Protecting the Czechs from German aggression is exactly what we should be doing."

You: "Why?"

*All while thinking you are deep and just Question More*

Bruh, it's not about thinking I am deep. He asserted that protecting the Ukraine from Russian aggression is exactly what we need to be doing, and I asked him to back up that claim. Simple as that, really. Since the post I responded to gave my own reasons for why I would not have voted for the Ukraine Support Act (including that it includes intervenes in the Ukraine's economy and furthers American ties to NATO), and he didn't even attempt to give a rebuttal, I think I am justified in asking him why meddling in the Ukraine is any of our business.

And believe it or not, yeah, we shouldn't have "protected" Czechs from German aggression, either. You don't fight imperialism with more imperialism.

[Big Abraham]

If you read the provisions of the bill, it's clear that it's more than just a generic support for "Ukraine's territorial integrity". The bill included specific provisions to greatly empower the President, the State Department, and the Defense Department to intervene in the country in order to 'stabilise' their economy and further enhance security operations with NATO, which is about the last thing that needed to be done.

If he doesn't adequately address this sort of nonsense on the campaign trail, IDK if I can vote for him in the primary.  Hashtag isolationism is the last thing America needs right now.

Not exactly sure how this equals isolationism, but I can assure you that non-intervention in the Ukraine is far superior to the belligerence that U.S. foreign policy has demonstrated since the Second World War

Protecting The Ukraine from Russian aggression is exactly what we need to be doing.

Why?

You circa 1938:

Person: "Protecting the Czechs from German aggression is exactly what we should be doing."

You: "Why?"

*All while thinking you are deep and just Question More*

Bruh, it's not about thinking I am deep. He asserted that protecting the Ukraine from Russian aggression is exactly what we need to be doing, and I asked him to back up that claim. Simple as that, really. Since the post I responded to gave my own reasons for why I would not have voted for the Ukraine Support Act (including that it includes intervenes in the Ukraine's economy and furthers American ties to NATO), and he didn't even attempt to give a rebuttal, I think I am justified in asking him why meddling in the Ukraine is any of our business.

And believe it or not, yeah, we shouldn't have "protected" Czechs from German aggression, either. You don't fight imperialism with more imperialism.

First off, it's just 'Ukraine', thanks, and has been since 1917. Ironic to talk about 'imperialism' if you don't even understand the regional context enough to know why this is important. Secondly, in what world is sending a sovereign state the resources to defend itself 'imperialism'? Or is this just another case of self-described 'leftists' calling anything the West does 'imperialism'? There is a moral imperative to help other free peoples in need of defense against tyranny, and in this case it is very cut and dry, given the legitimate government of the country requested the aid to defend against foreign aggression.

The first line of the Wikipedia article on Ukraine says this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sometimes countries have different ways of referring to it and yours is not always the only correct in every context ever. Now, on to your main point. Once again, I must refer back to my original post which looked at the nature of the Ukraine Support Act more thoroughly. Bringing the United States closer to NATO, and in turn NATO closer to Eastern Europe and to do the Ukraine (even the historically Russian parts of it) is not only a violation of several historical agreements, but will objectively make the situation in Eastern Europe worse by bringing American red-lines to Russian borders (which is obvious by President Obama trying to economically and politically cut of Russia). This is the regional context, and it has a long history. The United States has shown itself to be the greatest threat to world peace by far, and when America brings her red-lines to Russia, it is absolutely an imperialist advance. Why do you think it would be anything else? The U.S. has a desire to maintain its hegemony, just as any other world power has done, hence military exercises in the Baltics, etc.

While we might have a "moral imperative" (whatever you think that means) to declare our support and promise refuge to victims of tyranny, to act as though this should extend much beyond this in the context of the Ukraine is foolish. I also find it very hypocritical for a nation like the United States to act like it has the "moral imperative" to do anything, considering Putin's annexation of the Crimea is child's play compared with the American invasion of Iraq, easily the greatest international crime of this century. At least the Crimea is historically Russian: what claim does the United States have to, for example, Guantanamo Bay?

Keeping Ukraine neutral is the best thing to be done. It keeps peace with Russia, and won't continue dangerous proxy wars.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah yes, because being against the above act must obviously mean I want to throw myself into the art of Putin. Well, say whatever you want about Putin—think he’s the worst monster since Hitler—the Russians are not going to accept the move of the Ukrainian government to join NATO, or even the European Community.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, but I will admit my initial response was argumentative in nature. If you don't want to get embroiled into a debate, we can agree to disagree and I won't push the matter any further

[Big Abraham]

The first line of the Wikipedia article on Ukraine says this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sometimes countries have different ways of referring to it and yours is not always the only correct in every context ever. Now, on to your main point. Once again, I must refer back to my original post which looked at the nature of the Ukraine Support Act more thoroughly. Bringing the United States closer to NATO, and in turn NATO closer to Eastern Europe and to do the Ukraine (even the historically Russian parts of it) is not only a violation of several historical agreements, but will objectively make the situation in Eastern Europe worse by bringing American red-lines to Russian borders (which is obvious by President Obama trying to economically and politically cut of Russia). This is the regional context, and it has a long history. The United States has shown itself to be the greatest threat to world peace by far, and when America brings her red-lines to Russia, it is absolutely an imperialist advance. Why do you think it would be anything else? The U.S. has a desire to maintain its hegemony, just as any other world power has done, hence military exercises in the Baltics, etc.

While we might have a "moral imperative" (whatever you think that means) to declare our support and promise refuge to victims of tyranny, to act as though this should extend much beyond this in the context of the Ukraine is foolish. I also find it very hypocritical for a nation like the United States to act like it has the "moral imperative" to do anything, considering Putin's annexation of the Crimea is child's play compared with the American invasion of Iraq, easily the greatest international crime of this century. At least the Crimea is historically Russian: what claim does the United States have to, for example, Guantanamo Bay?

Keeping Ukraine neutral is the best thing to be done. It keeps peace with Russia, and won't continue dangerous proxy wars.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah yes, because being against the above act must obviously mean I want to throw myself into the art of Putin. Well, say whatever you want about Putin—think he’s the worst monster since Hitler—the Russians are not going to accept the move of the Ukrainian government to join NATO, or even the European Community.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, but I will admit my initial response was argumentative in nature. If you don't want to get embroiled into a debate, we can agree to disagree and I won't push the matter any further

Fair enough - I appreciate your taking this in good faith, since a lot of people who I have the displeasure of dealing with on this issue don't bother.  The fundamental difference between our worldviews is (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that you appear to see this conflict as concerning countries rather than concerning people. From this perspective it is possible to see the entire Euromaidan as some sort of 'conversion' of Ukraine from a 'pro-Russian' state to a 'pro-Western' state and so an advance of 'the West' into 'Russian' territory. But 'Ukraine', like 'Russia' or 'America' is a construct, and is composed of people. In the Ukrainian case, the 'pro-Russian' attitude of the government led to measurably worse outcomes for individuals, with the result that a divided country was able to unite around removing that government. There is no reasonable reason to believe given the massive evidence of groundswell support that this was some sort of direct action incited by Western agents. Note that at this point, there was little support for EU or NATO accession among the population, and I would not have advocated for either of those things at that point.

This changed when the Russian government, which sees the world in much the same 'state-based' way, made the decision to reassert their perceived loss of influence by force - by invading Crimea directly and holding a blatantly illegitimate referendum, and by invading the Donbass under very flimsy pretexts. If this is not imperialism in the most literal sense of the word, I don't know what else it means, and a 'historical claim' has no bearing on it (as an aside, not that I support US control of Guantanamo Bay, but their control at least is legal by international treaty, which Russia's control of Crimea is not - but this is not immediately relevant). Here Russia's government, not any other actor, initiated this as an international dispute, rather than a domestic Ukrainian issue. At this point, as I believe you agreed, there is a moral reason to help them defend themselves against aggression.

If this supports or doesn't support 'U.S. hegemony' or represents 'American hypocrisy', seriously, what does it matter? In Eastern Europe, involvement of the U.S. and the EU brings demonstrably better outcomes in standard of living and personal liberty than the alternative - Russian hegemony. To oppose U.S. support to Ukraine on the grounds you do is taking the side of the autocratic and reactionary Russian government over the interest of the Ukrainian people, with the dubious value of spiting the American government, which has a minimal interest there regardless besides keeping Russia from further destabilizing the EU. Even if you have a terribly negative view of the U.S. government as it seems you do, I don't think it's hard to see that providing American help results in a better outcome for the Ukrainian people than the geopolitical alternatives you describe, which should be secondary.

Thank you for your well-tempered and level-headed response. I will try to respond to all your points as well as I can. First, while you’re certainly not wrong to assert that I prefer to take the view of “countries” rather than “individuals” in international relations (which I have good reason for doing so) when I referred to the advance of “the West” into “Russian” territory, I did not speak of the Euromaidan and did not have that event in mind. While certainly Western forces had a minor in the regime change, the revolution was largely an internal affair and only collaterally related to the bill I was describing. However, it is largely the fault of American military alliances for creating the Ukrainian crisis. Contrary to your analysis, which agrees with the prevailing wisdom in Western media, Putin did not annex the Crimea merely because he wants to restore the Russian Empire and simply used the ousting of Yanukovych as a pretext—he annexed it as a response to NATO enlargement and a larger strategy to integrate the Ukraine with the West, seeing there a strategic port, and has since worked to de-stabilise the region. Putin’s push-back, regardless of whether or not it was justified, should have come as no surprise, as America had been moving into Russia’s backyard and threatening its strategic interests, a point Putin and high-ranking Russian officials have made repeatedly. And now that the consequences are manifest, it would be very unwise for America to continue with its policies, which the Ukrainian Support Act did. I don’t know what level of support NATO or EEC accession has among the Ukrainian population (I haven’t seen any polls), but it is undoubtedly a policy of the current Ukrainian government, and the policies of the Obama administration at that time undoubtedly worked to further Ukrainian ties with NATO.

Though you present the Euromaidan in sanguine terms, describing a common people “uniting” to overthrow a pro-Russian government where outcomes for people were “measurably worse”, the revolution has done much to create instability in the Crimea and the Donbass, which continues to the present, and 57% of the population of the eastern provinces see the ousting of Yanukovych as an illegal coup. I don’t deny that the Russian annexation of Crimea was illegal under international law and is absolutely a case of Russian imperialism, no question. (As I should note, my mentioning of Russia’s “historical claim” was in contradistinction to American justification of their own occupations, which I take to have much weaker arguments.) And while I certainly would support a state policy granting refugee status to those dispossessed by Russian rule or the instability in the region, this does not mean America should meddle in the affairs of the Ukraine, as it was their meddling that led to the crisis in the first place. And while you take the view that the spreading of American values into the region will lead to objectively better conditions for individuals, despite your tacit admittance that it is a reflection of American hypocrisy and imperialism, I myself am more concerned about the loss of human life in the region by continuous proxy wars and a possible partition of the Ukraine. Peeling Kiev away from Moscow has been part of a larger effort to aid in this re-alignment and promote American values in the Ukraine, which includes funding pro-Western organisations, and the United States has already invested billions of dollars in the region, and furthering to economically intervene in the country was the explicit policy of the Ukrainian Support Act. It is possible to condemn Putin’s actions (as Kerry, the Congress, and the American state media did) and also advocate for the complete neutrality of Ukraine and the avoidance of Americans meddling in their affairs, for the sake of avoiding war. So yes, providing American help absolutely results in a worse outcome for the Ukrainian people.

Regarding the whole business of “Ukraine” versus “the Ukraine”, keep in mind that the term “the Ukraine” is the term I have more often been exposed to and is used very often in English sources, and I know that several European languages, like German for example, always use the definite article (der Ukraine). While the Ukrainians themselves may have dropped it (although the sources I have found only refer to it being dropped after independence from the Soviet Union, around 30 years ago), this doesn’t really seem to have caught on anywhere else, and to me seems in no way comparable to comparing Zimbabwe to Rhodesia, the latter being a term I haven’t seen in any printed contemporary sources.

[Big Abraham]

Thank you for your well-tempered and level-headed response. I will try to respond to all your points as well as I can. First, while you’re certainly not wrong to assert that I prefer to take the view of “countries” rather than “individuals” in international relations (which I have good reason for doing so) when I referred to the advance of “the West” into “Russian” territory, I did not speak of the Euromaidan and did not have that event in mind. While certainly Western forces had a minor in the regime change, the revolution was largely an internal affair and only collaterally related to the bill I was describing. However, it is largely the fault of American military alliances for creating the Ukrainian crisis. Contrary to your analysis, which agrees with the prevailing wisdom in Western media, Putin did not annex the Crimea merely because he wants to restore the Russian Empire and simply used the ousting of Yanukovych as a pretext—he annexed it as a response to NATO enlargement and a larger strategy to integrate the Ukraine with the West, seeing there a strategic port, and has since worked to de-stabilise the region. Putin’s push-back, regardless of whether or not it was justified, should have come as no surprise, as America had been moving into Russia’s backyard and threatening its strategic interests, a point Putin and high-ranking Russian officials have made repeatedly. And now that the consequences are manifest, it would be very unwise for America to continue with its policies, which the Ukrainian Support Act did. I don’t know what level of support NATO or EEC accession has among the Ukrainian population (I haven’t seen any polls), but it is undoubtedly a policy of the current Ukrainian government, and the policies of the Obama administration at that time undoubtedly worked to further Ukrainian ties with NATO.

Though you present the Euromaidan in sanguine terms, describing a common people “uniting” to overthrow a pro-Russian government where outcomes for people were “measurably worse”, the revolution has done much to create instability in the Crimea and the Donbass, which continues to the present, and 57% of the population of the eastern provinces see the ousting of Yanukovych as an illegal coup. I don’t deny that the Russian annexation of Crimea was illegal under international law and is absolutely a case of Russian imperialism, no question. (As I should note, my mentioning of Russia’s “historical claim” was in contradistinction to American justification of their own occupations, which I take to have much weaker arguments.) And while I certainly would support a state policy granting refugee status to those dispossessed by Russian rule or the instability in the region, this does not mean America should meddle in the affairs of the Ukraine, as it was their meddling that led to the crisis in the first place. And while you take the view that the spreading of American values into the region will lead to objectively better conditions for individuals, despite your tacit admittance that it is a reflection of American hypocrisy and imperialism, I myself am more concerned about the loss of human life in the region by continuous proxy wars and a possible partition of the Ukraine. Peeling Kiev away from Moscow has been part of a larger effort to aid in this re-alignment and promote American values in the Ukraine, which includes funding pro-Western organisations, and the United States has already invested billions of dollars in the region, and furthering to economically intervene in the country was the explicit policy of the Ukrainian Support Act. It is possible to condemn Putin’s actions (as Kerry, the Congress, and the American state media did) and also advocate for the complete neutrality of Ukraine and the avoidance of Americans meddling in their affairs, for the sake of avoiding war. So yes, providing American help absolutely results in a worse outcome for the Ukrainian people.

Regarding the whole business of “Ukraine” versus “the Ukraine”, keep in mind that the term “the Ukraine” is the term I have more often been exposed to and is used very often in English sources, and I know that several European languages, like German for example, always use the definite article (der Ukraine). While the Ukrainians themselves may have dropped it (although the sources I have found only refer to it being dropped after independence from the Soviet Union, around 30 years ago), this doesn’t really seem to have caught on anywhere else, and to me seems in no way comparable to comparing Zimbabwe to Rhodesia, the latter being a term I haven’t seen in any printed contemporary sources.

I agree with your analysis that Putin and the Russian foreign policy establishment sees NATO expansion as a threat, both because they have a 'country-based' view, and believe that Russia as a country has a 'right' to dominate the other peoples of Eastern Europe. In this case, and in the case of Donbass, it is my position that it is unfair to blame Western peoples or governments for not respecting this belief. The peoples of the Baltic States have every right to engage in collective defense should they choose to, especially given how their countries suffered in the past for not having it, and if the Russian government is irritated that they have lost their ability to meddle in those countries' affairs without consequence, that is their problem. Similarly, it is not the revolution which directly caused the instability in Donbass and Crimea, but the Russian government's decision to directly intervene (though in this case I assert that the greatest blame falls on the Yanukovych administration for escalating the situation with deadly force rather than making democratic concessions).

As far as outcomes go, after the Russian intervention, the damage has been done and it is too late for a 'neutral' Ukraine. It is very clear at this point that the Russian government intends to dominate Ukraine should it get its way. I agree that the war is a tragedy, and I have lost friends to it. But the blame for that falls on the Russian government, not the West or people who wanted a better life which conflicted with their geopolitical ambitions, and to back down now in the interests of peace in the abstract would result in a significantly worse outcome, to fall under an even worse autocracy than even existed before. The only way for Ukraine to avoid this is to resist it, which they have done and with which Western-provided aid helps. As far as American 'hypocrisy' or 'imperialism' is concerned, as I have said, it is not possible for a country to be 'hypocritical', because a concept cannot think for itself, and even if one could define actions of the American government elsewhere as 'imperialistic', Ukraine is not one of those cases. Further, even if you continue to take this view, I would argue that it is better to be 'hypocritical' in taking both positive and negative actions as opposed to being 'consistent' by refusing to take positive action.

Re: the name, the fact that use of 'the Ukraine' is still in publication has entirely to do with lack of popular knowledge in the West and is not relevant to the meaning of its usage. Were more newspapers to begin using the term 'Rhodesia', it would not change its connotations and ultimate meaning in context.

The situation in the eastern provinces of Ukraine was exacerbated as a result of the uprising, which is why solid majorities in the government-controlled east label it an illegal coup. These areas are linguistically, ethnically, and culturally more similar to Russia and identified with the previous government, hence the current ethnic divisions of the state. About the expansion of NATO, while it is true that Russia should not automatically feel entitled to having Eastern Europe under her sphere of influence, the fact of the matter is that NATO is not a neutral entity, it's a global expansion force run by the United States, and so Eastern Europe will either fall into the hands of the Americans or will remain under Russia's influence, and for historical reasons I'm more keen on the latter than the former. But that’s mostly an aside. Regardless of whether or not Putin finds it acceptable, we should find it unacceptable that Eastern Europe is coming under the dominion of the United States. Keep in mind that NATO's eastward expansion goes against multiple historical agreements. Upon the fall of the Berlin Wall, for example, President Bush reached a pact with Gorbachev which declared that NATO would not move "one more inch" to the east, then referring to East Germany. Thereafter, in 1990 the Russians graciously conceded all of Germany to a hostile military alliance whilst continuing to forbid NATO’s eastward expansion, which the U.S. initially agreed to. And then under President Obama, NATO dramatically increased its presence in the East in order to form a bulwark against supposed "Russian aggression" (and this was after NATO had already been extended all the way up to Russian borders under the Clinton administration). So in short, I’m not blaming Western nations for not respecting the beliefs of the Russians, I’m blaming Western nations for not respecting the agreements already made with the Russians and continuing to extend military and political domination into realms which do not concern them.

I would agree that damage has already been done in regards to a neutral Ukraine, but just because the powder keg has already been lit does not mean we should add fuel to that fire, and intervention there (especially by force of arms) is certainly adding fire. While I am not hostile to positive action everywhere and always, in the context of postwar American politics such actions almost unanimously take the approach of furthering American military and economy interests, and this case is certainly no different. If you take the lens, as I suspect you do, that domination of the Ukraine by American interests is still preferable to a pro-Russian Ukrainian government, despite the increased violence which will certainly arise (and has already arisen) as a result, then fine. At that point we’d just be having a debate about value judgements, which I never consider productive.

Re: the name, I absolutely think context matters when it comes to connotation and the intent of the publication or person using it. "The Ukraine" is the traditional name in most European languages, and so that has been carried on. So long as one acknowledges a Ukrainian nation-state, and is not using the traditional name to specifically slander the Ukrainians, I see no issue at all. At the end of the day words have only as much power and meaning as we give them, and I'm not too keen on language policing in order to make sure that any Ukrainians aren't offended. I am not using the definite article with ill intent and I doubt any journalists are either, and if for some reason or another Rhodesia continued to be used in the vernacular to refer to Zimbabwe out of habit and not spite, it wouldn't bother me and shouldn't bother anyone else in the slightest.

[Big Abraham]

The situation in the eastern provinces of Ukraine was exacerbated as a result of the uprising, which is why solid majorities in the government-controlled east label it an illegal coup. These areas are linguistically, ethnically, and culturally more similar to Russia and identified with the previous government, hence the current ethnic divisions of the state. About the expansion of NATO, while it is true that Russia should not automatically feel entitled to having Eastern Europe under her sphere of influence, the fact of the matter is that NATO is not a neutral entity, it's a global expansion force run by the United States, and so Eastern Europe will either fall into the hands of the Americans or will remain under Russia's influence, and for historical reasons I'm more keen on the latter than the former. But that’s mostly an aside. Regardless of whether or not Putin finds it acceptable, we should find it unacceptable that Eastern Europe is coming under the dominion of the United States. Keep in mind that NATO's eastward expansion goes against multiple historical agreements. Upon the fall of the Berlin Wall, for example, President Bush reached a pact with Gorbachev which declared that NATO would not move "one more inch" to the east, then referring to East Germany. Thereafter, in 1990 the Russians graciously conceded all of Germany to a hostile military alliance whilst continuing to forbid NATO’s eastward expansion, which the U.S. initially agreed to. And then under President Obama, NATO dramatically increased its presence in the East in order to form a bulwark against supposed "Russian aggression" (and this was after NATO had already been extended all the way up to Russian borders under the Clinton administration). So in short, I’m not blaming Western nations for not respecting the beliefs of the Russians, I’m blaming Western nations for not respecting the agreements already made with the Russians and continuing to extend military and political domination into realms which do not concern them.

I would agree that damage has already been done in regards to a neutral Ukraine, but just because the powder keg has already been lit does not mean we should add fuel to that fire, and intervention there (especially by force of arms) is certainly adding fire. While I am not hostile to positive action everywhere and always, in the context of postwar American politics such actions almost unanimously take the approach of furthering American military and economy interests, and this case is certainly no different. If you take the lens, as I suspect you do, that domination of the Ukraine by American interests is still preferable to a pro-Russian Ukrainian government, despite the increased violence which will certainly arise (and has already arisen) as a result, then fine. At that point we’d just be having a debate about value judgements, which I never consider productive.

Re: the name, I absolutely think context matters when it comes to connotation and the intent of the publication or person using it. "The Ukraine" is the traditional name in most European languages, and so that has been carried on. So long as one acknowledges a Ukrainian nation-state, and is not using the traditional name to specifically slander the Ukrainians, I see no issue at all. At the end of the day words have only as much power and meaning as we give them, and I'm not too keen on language policing in order to make sure that any Ukrainians aren't offended. I am not using the definite article with ill intent and I doubt any journalists are either, and if for some reason or another Rhodesia continued to be used in the vernacular to refer to Zimbabwe out of habit and not spite, it wouldn't bother me and shouldn't bother anyone else in the slightest.

I do think this is the case. Specifically, I think you have an extremely broad and unreasonably negative definition of what 'domination' of the United States entails in Eastern Europe, and do not empathize with the consequences of what you euphemistically call a 'pro-Russian government'. I have lived and traveled extensively in and studied academically both countries which you would classify as 'dominated' by the United States and 'under pro-Russian government', and the primary result of Western orientation has been greater prosperity, less corruption, and vastly more political freedom. If these are of less value to you than the geopolitical security of the Russian government, or do not see them as worth even the smallest price in blood, then I agree there is no path to consensus between us.

As a last word on this - how you want to use 'the Ukraine' in your personal life is your decision. However, if nothing else, I hope you will come away understanding that Ukrainians would prefer it not be used, because in context, it denigrates their statehood. If you choose not to respect this, it is your choice, but you must accept your unwillingness to do so will reflect poorly on their perception of your good faith in respecting Ukrainian independence - particularly given your other views. In this case, I do not feel this way given your willingness to engage honestly, but you should be forewarned if you ever discuss this issue with people close to it in the future.

That is fair. I appreciate you maintaining a reasonable dialogue with me on this subject which is no doubt very personal to you