When people try to own you by trying to put words in your mouth.....foolish

At some point, somebody will have to that again:

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19149829

I'm afraid, though, that person is not yet born

One nice afternoon for topology: Alaska is a semi-enclave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclave_and_exclave You're using the term Mainland correctly.


Coming down from the heights of a proverbial Ivory Tower to the cesspool of ignorance which is the real world, Alaska is a US state. Most people sees it as integral part of the US regardless of words used in geography. If it is not an integral part of the US...that's a funny precedent.

US mainland? Well, that makes a huge difference, turns out that half a world away is 51 miles from the Russian mainland coast to US mainland coast.
I know you live in a very small world of your own but just 102 miles all the way around! LOL!

Maybe it's time to put on your bifocals and read what I said carefully.

The US mainland does not include Alaska. The mainland is AKA the lower 48, contiguous, continental USA. The tip of Russia closest to the USA is thousands and thousands of miles from Washington State.

Sorry, I was right, you were wrong. Take the L

Well, it did belong to Russia so I could understand if they had a claim...jk

It is an Integral part of the US but if you think Russia would invade Alaska then I think you have been brainwashed by weapons manufacturers who buy the politicians who spin this fable.

But let's say it's even feasible.

How does Russia move an army large enough to attempt a US conquest to the far east without severely compromising its western border where all their strategically and culturally important places as well as the majority of the civilian population are.

Assuming you get an army across the Sea....then what? This is one of the most remote, harsh, desolate areas in the US with basically, just forests, rivers, and mountainous terrain. The few towns in this area could be easily evacuated in advance of an invasion. They would have to leave by plane since this part of Alaska is not connected by road to the rest of Alaska.

Regarding "giving up" a territory. A tactical retreat to create killing fields is an old tactic. The impact to the civilian life is minimal in that area. The Russian soldiers whose boats were not torpedoed and made it ashore would be easy pickings as they'd be sitting ducks as the'd have nowhere to go.....again.....no roads to the main part of Alaska

Again, please come back to the real word and stop with these fantasy scenarios you have been spoonfed

Spin the definition as much as you like but half the world away you claim is still many thousands of miles short of reality.

Your post is moot, Russia's army is long defunct.
Nevertheless, Alaska ranks among the top 10 areas in the world for coal, copper, lead, coal, zinc, and silver so would be a tempting target.

Actually, the fantasy scenario was started by you when you showed complete lack of comprehension why the US is supporting Ukraine.




If you believe the US is supporting Ukraine, as you state, in order to prevent an attack on US soil, I have a bridge to sell you.

Just over 2,000 miles.

You seriously doing as the crow flies logic??

Everything Russia has in abundant supply and could not hope to excavate.

Add to that the new oil and gas resources in eastern Ukraine and around Crimea and its sitting on a liquid goldmine

No I used Great Circle Mapper.

I actually doubt a crow would fly in a straight line.

I merely said that there is no legitimate reason for the US to be involved in this war unless there was a serious threat of an invasion by the Russians….which there is not

There is no need for a US led NATO, Europe should be able to defend itself if necessary. Thank You

It doesn't matter what you used..
https://www.militarytimes.com/resize...32GVV3HKYA.gif

Half a world away is a figure of speech for a long way away and 2,000 miles ifs father than the distance form Moscow to Paris.

you and morton are trying to play word and grammar police (and badly failing at it) instead of making a sound counterargument because you don't have one.

If you want to make daft comparisons then 2k miles is much less than the US coast to coast.
The reality is Russia is just 55miles from the US so suck it up

Preventive care is cheaper and more efficient vs. curative care. The US has multiple very strong reasons to support Ukraine: it's morally the right thing to do, it solidifies the case that in the 21st century we don't just attack weaker neigthbors without repercussions just because we can and finally if they can isolate and weaken Russia, they will.

Exactly. If the US hadn't got involved in WW2 the world could have become a very different and darker place.

World hunger needs from $7B to $265B depending whom you ask, so may be comparable to Germany's budget. Every year.
That money needs to buy food that is not already earmarked for somebody's consumption. Good luck to the suckers who aren't part of any food relief program and would have to pay themselves inflated food prices.
That would make whole countries even more dependent and corrupt than they already are, isn't it a dream of many?

You sound like a typical neocon like Lindsey Graham.

So the cheap preventive care is Ukrainians dying by the 100s of thousands...got it

PS: Its not ok to attack a weaker neighbor in the 21st century, but attack a weaker country in the Middle East (Iraq), North Africa (Libya) or send troops to that country (Syria, Mali, Niger, etc....) and it's all ok as long as you have no direct border?? Please clarify, are those the rules now?