I appreciate the detailed response. I think it is in error in several ways, but it offers the basis of a discussion.
Let me deal with your last point first because I think it is important and is a fatal mistake being made by the Trump wing of my party. My ideal of the relative outsider with a unique vison for the country was Ronald Reagan. He and the policies he promoted were what I. and I think most educated people, would define as actual conservatism. I call him a relative outsider, because he had already been a successful governor of one of the country's most diverse and populous states.
Because he was a successful politician in such an environment, he realized as president that he needed a mandate much greater than his conservative base. At that time, he too faced a intolerant self-destructive fringe in the party that valued purity over governance. One of his most famous quotes was, "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor." Even if somehow Trump is elected in a wave of anti-Biden sentiment, the party can not maintain a governing majority in congress without a broad mandate that includes most moderates, whatever their party.
I should add, Trump not only has a problem winning over moderates, he also has one with conservatives in his own party. Whatever Trump's movement and fiscal beliefs are, it isn't conservatism. Judging by his recent denunciation of not only Nikki Haley, but also her voters, I am no sure his self-indulgence allows him to even understand that.
The so called RINOs currently represent constituencies that reflect such a mandate far more than the purists like a Chip Roy or Matt Gaetz. No president can be successful without congressional support. If this party devolves into nothing more than the 35% who worship at the alter of Donald Trump, the republicans will never hold a mandate again.
With respect to Russian history and the notion that every Russian dictator "has moved to the west" since Stalin, that is simply not true. In fact, I would argue that sentence itself is self-refuting. I assume you would agree Malenkov doesn't count. Khrushchev was certainly less murderous than Stalin, but hardly what anyone would call an admirer of the capitalist system. In spite of the efforts at détente, during the Nixon administration, Brezhnev politically was as reactionary as Stalin. I think we can also safely leave Andropov and Chernenko out of this discussion. I believe Gorbachev did recognize the failings of the Communist system, though whether that was through a desire to be closer to a Western model or merely to survive the pending upheaval as the Soviet Union collapsed, I am unsure. And whatever Russia could have become in a post Soviet world, that was cut short by the dictator currently occupying the Kremlin.
Spheres of influence serve only those with the power to enforce them. We articulated the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. But it was 75 years later, during the Spanish American War, before we actually had the power to begin to enforce it. Fortunately, we still do.
The Russian Empire and Soviet Union have waxed and waned throughout its history with respect to its sphere of influence. Crimea, for instance, was never under Russian control until ceded by Turkey in 1783. There is certainly no ethnic bond between the Rus and the Tartars who still make up most of the Crimean population. Perhaps following your logic, it should be returned to Turkey rather than Russia, or maybe the Byzantines?
The same is true of the "buffer zone" Russia created in Eastern Europe following the Second World War. That sphere of influence existed solely because six million Red Army troops occupied the ground. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, everyone of those States immediately sought true independence. Russia no longer had the strength or will to hold them in bondage. The Ukraine is also one of those states, and with a history of actual independence not very different than Poland.
The notion that the CIA convinced the vast majority of the Crimean people to revolt against a government attempting the realign itself with Moscow is simply not true. It is a notion perpetuated in a lot of right wing sites like Revolver and Gateway Pundit, but the Ukrainian people "voted" overwhelmingly to chart their future with Western Europe. Undoubtedly many in government to include in CIA and State were pleased. However, most of the overly sophisticated savants in the Obama administration saw the Ukrainian people's actions as actually destabilizing - hardly actions that administration would encourage through its intelligence services.
No, Ukraine's desire for self-determination and alliance with the West is very real. It is a dream for which they continue to cast their votes every single day with their blood. Putin, far from "moving West," is doing everything in his power to destroy that dream and submerge Ukraine in the apathetic police state that is the modern Russian Empire.
Which portion of the Minsk accords did Ukraine actually violate? To save some time, there is no pledge anywhere in them preventing Ukraine from joining NATO or the EU. That is both a Russian propaganda claim and belief adopted among the American right wing.
Fortunately, both Finland and Sweden, long exercising a careful balancing act between the West and their periodically belligerent neighbor, see Putin and his goals for what they are. Their joining NATO, and becoming two of the chief supporters of Ukraine's fight for survival puts a lie to the appeasers in the West. Refusing to aid Ukraine is by definition supporting Russia's strategic goals. It is unfathomable to me, that I share a party with people who support that foreign policy position. Reagan, a true champion of America first, aggressively defended our national interests wherever threatened. I am certain he would be appalled at the notion of abandoning Ukraine.
