If anybody actually read the text of the executive order, they would immediately see that, unlike Trump & co. claim, it actually does not rename the Gulf of Mexico:

rename as the ‘‘Gulf of America’’ the U.S. Continental Shelf area bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba in the area formerly named as the Gulf of Mexico

This “renames” as “Gulf of America” the part of Gulf of Mexico in US territorial waters. (Though how you can “rename” something which never had a specific name is unclear to me.) In other words, it is simply incorrect to label the entire gulf as Gulf of America even according to the text of the executive order. Instead, Gulf of America should be a sub-area in the northern part of the Gulf of Mexico.

Why not simply make the flight FREE*

(* Taxes and fees apply)

Keeping things at a standstill is nowhere near good, but it is still infinitely better than rewarding the aggressor by just handing them everything they would have ever wanted, especially when they are in no position to actually take it themselves in the foreseeable future if things continue like they have been.

For me, the most-used Proton service after email is their calendar. What privacy-friendly calendar alternatives are there that you can recommend?

4Ex

Chinese military is American?

Of course Russian army is a threat even when it is in Russia. Russian army in Russia has been a direct threat, recently, to Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine.

Unfortunately I need to go now so I cannot keep replying, but I thank you for the enlightening if adversarial discussion. I think we agree on certain principles, but disagree on some fundamental aspects of the situation. While neither side is entirely blameless, our main disagreement seems to stem from the question of who bears the main blame for the situation. You place the main blame on the US and NATO, whereas I place it on Russia. I would like to expand on that a little bit.

I am saying this in completely good faith, to explain where I’m coming from, and to hopefully help you understand my point of view a little better. I hope you take it in good faith as well.

Russia has always chosen to deal with its neighbors through demands, threats, and violence. As Russia has been a large, powerful country for a long time, its smaller neighbors are obviously terrified of Russia throwing around its weight and subjugating and oppressing them. This is not a new thing; it has gone on for centuries in different forms. Every time Russia has had its excuses. It has almost never been Russia’s fault; Russia has almost always been “provoked” into it by someone else, or that’s what they say. So any reasons they give for their invasions today ring equally hollow.

Russian aggression has consistently driven Russia’s neighbors away from Russia to the laps of those strong enough and willing to oppose Russia. For these countries, the strong Russia next door, willing to demand things and to use its military, is a far greater and more direct threat than any faraway power, no matter what evils that faraway power may commit elsewhere. It is Russian actions that have driven its neighbors to NATO and the US. Ukraine is not a US puppet, pushed into the war by US; instead, Ukrainian will to keep oppressive Russian influence away simply happens to align with US interests. Instead of the US using Ukraine, you could almost say that Ukraine is using the US as a tool to fend off Russian influence, which they do not want - and which they did not want even before any hypothetical CIA meddling, since they haven’t wanted it for centuries.

If Russia had instead chosen to build friendly cooperative relationships with its neighbors during its history, particularly after the Second World War, it is very unlikely that its neighbors would have felt the need to align themselves with “the West”. But Russia has consistently pushed everyone away, and then wonders why nobody likes them. To me, blaming the US for what is going on in Ukraine is a very historically myopic view of the complex situation, a situation dominated by Russia being not so nice to its neighbors throughout history. Sure, the US is not an angel. But for those who want to rid themselves from centuries of Russian oppression, the enemy of their enemy is something like a friend.

Many of the countries consider Russia untrustworthy if not outright hostile, like Russia considers NATO, so following Russian standards all the reason for an invasion would be there.

Lots of countries bordering Russia tolerate Russian military positions across the border without invading.

If the US manufactured this war, why does Putin keep at it? Why does he keep playing into US hands? Isn’t continuing this war what the US wants from him?

Then we don’t disagree.

Do we also agree that, as a hypothetical, even though both sides do things which are wrong, both sides can also sometimes do things which are good?

And, again as a hypothetical, do we agree that one of these good things is helping a third country which is the victim to one of the wrongs of the other country?

Such as the Soviet Union helping the Vietnamese fight off the Americans.

Or America helping Ukraine fight off Russia.

So do I understand your point correctly, that what NATO has done is wrong, and therefore what Russia is doing is also wrong?

NATO does not annex land. Russia does. I am not against willing countries joining their forces. I am against wars of conquest where one party subjugates the other or steals their land. Countries apply to join NATO, and many of those who want to join are not invited to join. Ukraine among them. What was the last time a country willingly joined Russia?

And I’m acknowledging the context you’re leaving out: that Russia has been an expansionist, imperialist oppressor country for centuries, and that the newest excuses are just that - excuses. Can’t you see how Putin is playing you, using your commendable anti-Nazi position to get you to unintentionally defend his imperialistic talking points?

And your argument was off the rails to begin with when you decided to defend Russian imperialism.

Sorry, I don’t have a script - not all of us are as professional at this as you - this is all my own amateur work, and something I’m quite passionate about, so I am glad it is getting so much recognition from you. It indeed seems that you are using the term in the Russian sense, as expected.

It’s an interesting “coup” when the government before and after the coup is the exact same, and only one official left the country of his own volition. When you say “nazis”, do you mean in the commonly understood sense of “fascist ultranationalists” or in the Russian sense of “anyone who has any grievances with Russia for any reason whatsoever”? There is no evidence of genocide in the Donbas other than that Russia said so. Why does Russia have to care about NATO at its borders, what’s the problem?

But this is exactly the kind of “did not” “did too” kind of slap fight I have little interest in because all of the points have been made a million times already.

Even if all of what Russia claims about Ukraine was true, none if it is justification for Russia to invade and annex parts of the country. All excuses for imperialist expansion.

A shame, really, that Russia has gone down this path. It could be a wealthy, flourishing, respected country if after the fall of the Soviet Union it had made friends instead of enemies, like most other post-Soviet states have done and are better off for it. But of course Russia couldn’t do that: Russian imperialism is forever.

The historical context is clear enough that there is no need to talk about any of it: the current events are a continuation of centuries of Russian expansionist imperialist aggression. Their excuses may change but the fact of Russian imperialism does not.

Nice job trying to pre-empt any criticism of your position because you know by your own admission that the role of the Minsk Agreements has been debunked repeatedly. That’s also why you didn’t mention them by name to begin with.

But no, I was not going to say that, because that would be engaging in a “did not” “did too” slap fight which will ultimately end up going nowhere. I prefer to take at face value whatever you guys claim, and then ask questions about the details of your position until we get somewhere where you’d have to admit that your position is inconsistent with itself, that you claim two or more contradictory things to be true at the same time. Usually at that point there is either no more reply or some crazy deflection.

So answer me this, if you can: Why did the violation of the Minsk Agreements make Putin decide to do a full-scale invasion of Ukraine instead of more negotiations to stop the fighting? Is peace not the ultimate and most important goal?

Can you provide a link to a page which shows the text of these agreements? Or maybe the Wikipedia pages of some of the specific agreements you are referring to?