Should we still be backing Ukraine?

[Bobby_2021]

17 hours ago, martins name said:

Can you paint a single scenario of how NATO expansion could plausibly pose a military threat to Russia? Keep in mind that Russia has nukes.

I can give you many scenarios if you have the empathy to relate to them.

1. Cuban Missile Crisis

The United States was scared the shit out their pants when the Soviet Union deployed nuclear missiles in Cuba, in response to the US deploying missiles in Turkey and Italy. US had to negotiate with the USSR to get the missiles out of Cuba.  You could easily argue that the United States were far advanced than USSR being a nuclear power with deterrent capabilities. 

This is a scenario of the of "Soviet expansion" being threatening to the US. Two nuclear power getting closer leading to rising tensions risking a nuclear war is not a good idea. 

2. Iraq war.

The bush administration was scared for the peace and security of the United States and they set out to Iraq to seek the destruction of their WMDs. There was not even a proof that there were any such weapons at all. But the United States was threatened, and they invaded. 

Even America had nukes, so why did they invade? 

If the US can be threatened with imaginary WMDs halfway across the globe, and then invade them, why do you think that Russia's fear of Ukraine joining NATO and hosting nuclear weapons is delusional?

Note that by the time there are nuclear weapons in the Ukraine, it is too late. The world might go into a full-blown nuclear war. So, Putin did the preemptive strike no not let NATO ever come there in the first place. 

As far as Russia is concerned, NATO is the biggest nuclear power and sharing border with them will not lead to anything good. 

Russians will also have aspirations of security just like the US. They might be forced to invade and make bad decisions in lieu of watching the slow demise Infront of their eyes. 

17 hours ago, martins name said:

Different American presidents have different policies toward NATO expansion.

When Clinton says he is expanding NATO to promote peace and stability in Europe, you take that at face value.

But when Putin says he invaded Ukraine to prevent NATO expansion, you hesitate to believe him. Why? 

 

[BlueOak]

51 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

But when Putin says he invaded Ukraine to prevent NATO expansion, you hesitate to believe him. Why? 

 

Because wars are fought for 20 different reasons, not one.

I've listed them many times, let's do a few again, bearing in mind that this was before the war started.

• Answering the Russian population crisis, and trying to gain 40 million new people.
• Russia has long discussed its border concerns. With less population, there are fewer people to guard its vast border, so it seeks to shorten it.
• Putin's 8 wars to rebuild the USSR, and his regrets about its fall, plus his KGB training dogma framing his worldview.
• This is just part of a pattern for decades or centuries of Russia trying to destabilize, meddle, and take over Eastern Europe, they've managed to help turn the world more into an extreme rightwing version of itself. (With many others assisting.).
• The cultivation of a fascist government in Russia. Fascists require an enemy to fight to sustain themselves.
• Gaining control over its gas connections to Europe in Ukraine.
• Gaining control of the Black Sea ports, to stop Turkey from expanding its sphere of influence. In a non-globalized world, Turkey is central, its geographic connections make it a powerhouse. We are moving to a less globalized or cooperative world, and you can see Turkey testing Greece, Syria, and central Asia.
• Stopping Ukraine from drawing closer to the EU.
• Gaining control of Ukraine's gas supplies to stop it from replacing Russia, especially as it drew closer to the EU.
• Removing a democratic government or the attempts to build one in a former Soviet state. This might encourage others to do the same, the cultures are very similar.
• Answering the coup against the Russian proxy government in Ukraine is something both sides want to ignore.
• NATO before this conflict appeared weak, and on its last legs, Putin saw it as the time to strike. Some countries are still are acting cowed, but less these days.
• A way for a dictator to cling to power.
• A way for a dictator to do whatever he wants to the population. Killing off his competition. Structuring society as he wants.

That's a few to get us started. The most important reason Russia started this war was to take over global trade, and thus dominate the planet in a zero-sum game:

In BRICS attempts to replace NATO, this is a multi-faceted war. Both in banking, trade, economics, culture, and politics but also on the ground: Iran vs Israel - Russia vs Ukraine, and China vs Taiwan. In different stages of hostilities, I am not guaranteeing China actively mobilize (but it's likely), I am saying their industries and BRICS as a whole are helping the other two fight their conflicts. Yes, India is not neutral in this either, I've seen many people in India cheering on these conflicts, probably because they can do so from relative safety. To paraphrase Sadhguru, war is the worst thing in the world when it's happening to you, but from afar, it's a spectacle. 

In the long term, China is and will take over more of Russia, which is not a terrible ending for the West in this conflict. Russia becomes a long border for the West to China and a proxy for the leading BRICS powers.

Oh and if that's not enough, you can always just listen to Putin himself talking about Russia's territory, with claims extending back to the 9th century, and this constant distortion. Touched on below.

Edited April 9 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

Russia's infiltration of the US government.

[Bobby_2021]

20 hours ago, martins name said:

 

 

I like this video even though it paints a simplistic picture somewhat. 

1. Gorbachev was sort of manipulated or led to believe, to put it nicely, that the NATO would not expand eastwards. The western leaders including the leadership of NATO knew that they were not going to keep their promise. This would have made more sense once you find that Clinton pushed for the expansion despite republicans opposing it, after discussing it with the executives from the Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

They were well aware that NATO expansion was in the cards but did not reveal that to Gorbachev. So, it is totally normal for Russia to feel betrayed.

The narrator of the video knows a lot of stuff that he is intentionally hiding.  There was no ambiguity or lack of clarity into what the Gorbachev heard. The western leader lied so that they could get over with the reunification with Germany. 

2. The narrator admits that the Russian invasion of Georgia was indeed due to the opening the membership to NATO. So he is aware that Putin could use invasion as a response to NATO membership invitation to countries. Putin did not trust the west enough to bank on their promise of not letting Ukraine NATO. 

 That is if Ukraine had no plans to join NATO at all. But Putin did not perceive it like that at all. 

Of course, I am not justifying the Ukraine war as if anybody doing anything is giving the license to kill and invade sovereign countries.  Putin is the only one at fault for starting this bloody war. Nothing could justify it. It is just that NATO should be blamed for creating the environment that they know would definitely result in an invasion. 

3. IF NATO expansion is not the cause of the war, then what is the cause of the war for real? It could be geopolitical advantages, but it again seems unlikely that Putin is willing to pay such a huge price for natural resources.  

Edited April 9 by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

@BlueOak I agree that there could be multiple reasons for wars. But I would like to see the same kind of scrutiny for the rhetoric when western leaders say it. 

The west also wants to secure global trade for themselves, but they do it in the name of democracy and freedom, so people do not take it seriously.  

I want both of them to be judged on the same standards.

[BlueOak]

13 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

@BlueOak I agree that there could be multiple reasons for wars. But I would like to see the same kind of scrutiny for the rhetoric when western leaders say it. 

The west also wants to secure global trade for themselves, but they do it in the name of democracy and freedom, so people do not take it seriously.  

I want both of them to be judged on the same standards.

I appreciate that, and I would like the same, I am in full agreement.

I have realised though we need to talk about both sides more when making our points. This is why I brought up India to you. Like my own country, you'll find people hungry for conflict, especially at the start. Mostly because they are not near the front line, we live in places a great distance from it, so our people can afford that kind of language.

It is understandably very difficult for the average person to take a life. Its even more difficult to kill someone unless they are a monster. So what countries have to do, is make their enemies monsters and terrible threats. Whenever you hear this pattern, you can understand it's always an exaggeration. Most people would rather be safe, employed, and well fed than live in a war zone. The few that want war, quickly realise this too when they experience it.

Despite that war does turn some men into the monsters that you see, using their worst instincts. NATO is not a monster, and nor is Russia. There are some people in these countries far from front lines that either profit from war: America, or stay in power from War: Russia. Its not just Putin, or Biden, its the way the upper echelons of those countries are structured. Money from politics in America, and Ruling by Fear of the Enemy in Russia. Both of these things are cultivated and used to govern in each country.

[Bobby_2021]

2 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Yes, India is not neutral in this either, I've seen many people in India cheering on these conflicts, probably because they can do so from relative safety. To paraphrase Sadhguru, war is the worst thing in the world when it's happening to you, but from afar, it's a spectacle. 

India is mostly neutral, officially. People have all sorts of biases and attachments which they scream out on social media. But the government is going with a neutral stance overall. 

[martins name]

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

1. Cuban Missile Crisis

Ukraine is not getting nukes. That's the big difference. America is even a big reason why Ukraine doesn't have nukes today. Budapest Memorandum. 

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

2. Iraq war.

Again, Ukraine is not getting nukes. The Iraq war was mostly about punishing the Middle East for 9/11. NATO countries don't get gifted nukes. Nothing is stopping NATO countries now from covertly shipping Ukraine nukes today. They don't, because they don't want to. NATO expansion doesn't change their ability or will to ship nukes.

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

When Clinton says he is expanding NATO to promote peace and stability in Europe, you take that at face value.

But when Putin says he invaded Ukraine to prevent NATO expansion, you hesitate to believe him. Why? 

I don't think Putin has said that preventing NATO expansion is the whole reason for the war. There are other reasons which concern me. Mainly Putin's belief that the Maidan was orchestrated by the US and Putin has told Obama that he thought Obama wanted to overthrow him with another color revolution. This is what the first video I linked is about 'The American Origins of Putins Madness'. Putin's idiotic, wrongful paranoia about this would be enough to trigger him to invade Ukraine without the threat of NATO expansion. 

Big picture I think G.W Bush's saber-rattling about NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine was idiotic. Not immoral, just idiotic. Putin's invasion of Georgia proved that.

I'm a Swede and am perfectly able to empathize with Putin. I believed Miershimer's POV at first. But then I've come to reason. 

I believe the main reason for Putin's invasion is the Maidan revolution as I've mentioned. It's possible that the fifth wave of NATO expansions triggered Putin to believe this conspiracy but it's no guarantee and I'm leaning towards not. 

Again you haven't pained a picture of how NATO expansion could threaten Russia militarily. No one on the Miershimer side has to my knowledge. Because it doesn't exist. 

I'm arguing that NATO expansion into Ukraine wouldn't have been immoral. But again I wouldn't have done it because it's idiotic.
 

48 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

1. Gorbachev was sort of manipulated or led to believe, to put it nicely, that the NATO would not expand eastward

If Garbachev wanted this to be binding forever he would have had to get it written. He knew this and he didn't. I don't buy that this would then be binding after the Soviet Union collapsed. The verbal agreement was in my view an agreement about the political and security landscape of that time.

[Bobby_2021]

8 minutes ago, martins name said:

If Garbachev wanted this to be binding forever he would have had to get it written. He knew this and he didn't. I don't buy that this would then be binding after the Soviet Union collapsed. The verbal agreement was in my view an agreement about the political and security landscape of that time.

International agreements, even if it is written in paper as no value as long as the parties involved do not intend to honor it. Gorbachev did not have enough negotiating power, at the time and he was a pretty chill dude and good friend with Clinton. It was a time when a great war ended and no one was under threat from any enemy. For him, verbal promise was enough. He went to back to Russia believing that he did get a promise to not expand NATO East. That is what he thought in his mind. 

But none of this change the fact that he was lied to. He did not care. But that might not have been the attitudes of people that came after him, like Putin and Bush, who were more conservative and authoritarian and waged wars accross the globe.   

15 minutes ago, martins name said:

Ukraine is not getting nukes. That's the big difference. America is even a big reason why Ukraine doesn't have nukes today. Budapest Memorandum. 

Ukraine not having nukes is what got them invaded today. America will not allow Ukraine to have nukes. But there could be American controlled nukes in Ukraine. 

When America says Ukraine should pursue freedom, what means is the Ukraine should have freedom to follow American way of life. The y should not have the freedom to follow the Russian way of life. 

They favor democracy when the democratically elected candidate favors the west. 

There is a reason why the people of Taiwan prefer to maintain the status quo as opposed to complete autonomy. Even the United States do not recognize Taiwan as a state. They need to appear neutral so as not provoke the big guy.  That is what Putin also wanted: Ukraine should be neutral, if not pro Russian. This was a reasonable thing to ask for. 

Just do not give membership to Ukraine to anything European. This is too much to ask for from the west, apparently. 

33 minutes ago, martins name said:

Again you haven't pained a picture of how NATO expansion could threaten Russia militarily. No one on the Miershimer side has to my knowledge. Because it doesn't exist. 

I do not have a scenario to give you. What I am saying is that do not need one, to be frank.

US certainly did not need one to go on with invasion of Iraq. Why would you hold Russia to a different standard?  

This is what I do not get. You think Western security interests are normal and Russian security interests are evil. 

The point is to stop NATO from ever having a sliver of chance to take advantage of Ukraine. So I the scenario that I am trying to give you is the scenario they do not want to see happening. 

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, martins name said:

Again, Ukraine is not getting nukes. . NATO countries don't get gifted nukes. Nothing is stopping NATO countries now from covertly shipping Ukraine nukes today. They don't, because they don't want to. NATO expansion doesn't change their ability or will to ship nukes.

But they still get advanced weapons from the US. And if a conventional war breaks out, it will be a full-blown nuclear war like we never saw before. 

NATO membership is nuclear protection without having developed nukes on your own. 

Tensions between the countries are normal thing to have, believe it or not. Getting NATO into the scenario turns the matter into a potential nuclear escalation which we absolutely cannot tolerate at any cost. 

Quote

The Iraq war was mostly about punishing the Middle East for 9/11

So, it wasn't about the security? Like Bush said. You cannot play both sides. Should I take what the western leader says at face value or not?  

Edited April 9 by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

@BlueOak @martins name

 

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

@BlueOak @martins name

 

Russia is risking a nuclear war for control and resources, mostly control. I can see from their perspective how other countries don't have voices or agency, that its up to Russia and America to decide the fate of the world. Like a dictator would think. To Russia, nobody else matters but what America and Russia want or will.

In democratic countries, they choose who they ally with. More than one voice can speak. NATO isn't one voice, its many.

I'm fed up with people saying there would be no war without treaties, for example, NATO is a treaty. The treaties have stopped the major powers going to war directly. If Russia were continuing to invade or push their power into Europe, we'd just have had a major war in Europe again, like every other century. 

If we keep ripping up the treaties, and old rules, we'll be back to fighting large wars across the globe again, not regional ones, and that is a completely different level of devastation that you in India and me in the UK won't be spared from. At the moment, we just feel it in our quality of life and our economic output. If the larger powers go back to war directly, we'd see devastation on the streets, or the deaths of those we know.

And by larger powers, I don't just mean Russia and America. Please try to see other countries, unlike what these videos are capable of doing. For example, France is considering using troops to help Ukraine in some capacity, (probably not directly), the Russians are not happy, which means two nuclear powers are closer to war. They are likely doing this in part because Russia messed around and took over some of their colonies in Africa, Note that I am not pro-colonial for anyone reading, but I knew France would eventually react either in Africa or in Ukraine.
 

Russia's response: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/in-rare-call-russian-defense-minister-warns-french-counterpart-against-sending-troops-to-ukraine/ar-BB1l25uZ

Britan's response: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/britain-must-send-troops-to-ukraine-or-risk-becoming-a-lost-nation-if-macron-intervenes/ar-BB1ljWSr

This is the kind of movement that would be happening independently without NATO where everyone acts completely independently. It's closer to Eastern Europe's position. As another note, I think it'll be to secure areas and not fight directly on the front; if they went, it'd be in the rear or providing support in an allied country.

As you can see Europe is closer to war with Russia than America is, so PLEASE reference Europe as the focal point of understanding this conflict. If people can't take Eastern Europe as the focal point at least they can look a bit closer by not just saying America all the time to me, or NATO (which isn't a country making decisions), its the countries within NATO.

Edited April 9 by BlueOak

[Bobby_2021]

The best way to understand the matter is to compare it with a scenario where the united states did succeed with correct policy.

Taiwan - China.

Taiwan was always under the threats of being annexed by China. If Taiwan pursued aggressive "freedom" movement then they would have been a bloody war already. 

They refused to have autonomy with most of the world not even recognizing Taiwan as an independent state capable of governing itself. Even the united states honors the one China policy, at least in theory.

It's a policy of strategic ambiguity and maintenance of status quo. Don't go into favouring either the west or the east while maintaining relationships with both.

This is exactly what Putin wanted of Ukraine. Not to mention that Putin wasn't even explicitly interested in annexing Ukraine from the beginning.

You can sell weapons as much as you want. Do trade as much as you want. But don't give away your allegiance to either side. 

NATO was perhaps not going to get Ukraine into NATO in the shortwhile. But they definitely wanted to get them in the long term. Putin didn't like it. 

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

The best way to understand the matter is to compare it with a scenario where the united states did succeed with correct policy.

Taiwan - China.

Taiwan was always under the threats of being annexed by China. If Taiwan pursued aggressive "freedom" movement then they would have been a bloody war already. 

They refused to have autonomy with most of the world not even recognizing Taiwan as an independent state capable of governing itself. Even the united states honors the one China policy, at least in theory.

It's a policy of strategic ambiguity and maintenance of status quo. Don't go into favouring either the west or the east while maintaining relationships with both.

This is exactly what Putin wanted of Ukraine. Not to mention that Putin wasn't even explicitly interested in annexing Ukraine from the beginning.

You can sell weapons as much as you want. Do trade as much as you want. But don't give away your allegiance to either side. 

NATO was perhaps not going to get Ukraine into NATO in the shortwhile. But they definitely wanted to get them in the long term. Putin didn't like it. 

Putin wanted Ukraine to be back in a Russian Empire, a new USSR. Russia has fought 8 wars to get pro Russian governments in former USSR territories or annex them outright. Part of what caused this war, was the democratic coup in Ukraine.

You mentioned Ukraine which is good, thank you for that, and you recognize that Ukraine couldn't be in NATO. I'll add while Russia held Crimea, it blanket stopped any chance of Ukraine joining. Nor did many member states want Ukraine in NATO before these hostilities started, they were afraid of seeing war in Europe, so it was unlikely to happen, but I agree not impossible. Now it is very likely they will join the EU and possibly NATO.

Then you mention America and China.

Which takes us away from Eastern Europe unfortunately, I understand the global tensions; I mention them a lot myself too so sure 

I can see how you can compare Chinese annexation, which they have done all over China, to America's or now Russia's 'liberations'. They are similar in nature for different flawed goals.

Unlike Tibet, or East Turkestan, it's the water that stops China from invading, not some higher moral compass. The losses they'd incur do not guarantee victory in landings by sea, which are very difficult when the enemy is prepared for you. The larger number of aircraft carriers, American bases, and their allies within reach. China has more patience than Russia, not their leader so much, but the government. China's trade wing of the party is sensible enough to realize they will influence Taiwan eventually over time. Not quick enough for any one dictator's ego trip, but eventually given their growth, size, and how democratic elections can at any time produce a result that favors a particular government.

Xi Jinping has a very clear and often stated  One China Principle, which in part inspired Russia to do the same.

Quote

The One China principle is the position held by the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that there is only one sovereign state under the name China, with the PRC serving as the sole legitimate government of that China, and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. It is opposed to the idea that there are two states holding the name "China", the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC); as well as the idea that China and Taiwan form two separate countries.

That's not ambiguity at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_China

The America position is as you describe, but not China's.

Edited April 9 by BlueOak

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

Putin wanted Ukraine to be back in a Russian Empire, a new USSR. Russia has fought 8 wars to get pro Russian governments in former USSR territories or annex them outright. Part of what caused this war, was the democratic coup in Ukraine.

Putin being a romantic lover of the lost glory of the USSR is a western creation. Creating such an empire is too unsustainable. Putin is not dumb enough to not see it. For former Soviet Republics having, pro-Russian governments, absolutely yes. That is the ideal case for Putin. But them being neutral was good enough. 

What do you mean a "democratic coup". It was a coup that overthrew a democratically elected minister. A big bias from the west is assuming anyone who isn't pro-western must be anti-democratic. They also run the same propaganda in India. Modi must be anti-democratic, even though he came to power from winning elections alone. 

In reality, the west wants power, not democracy. 

Putin wanted a seamless free flow of trade and harmony between the former soviet republics and a pro-western president would block this. The encroachment of NATO is the problem, not per say of Ukraine joining NATO. Of course, in the long run, it would end up in Ukraine joining NATO. 

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

You mentioned Ukraine which is good, thank you for that, and you recognize that Ukraine couldn't be in NATO. I'll add while Russia held Crimea, it blanket stopped any chance of Ukraine joining. Nor did many member states want Ukraine in NATO before these hostilities started, they were afraid of seeing war in Europe, so it was unlikely to happen, but I agree not impossible. Now it is very likely they will join the EU and possibly NATO

Nah Putin has won the strategic war. Ukraine as a country is doomed. NATO would never dare to touch Russia for threats of nuclear escalation, and you do not want to do that. 

Listen, you cannot isolate and pretend to not take into account the interest of a country as big as Russia. IF you corner them, they know to fight back real hard. 

Also, what Putin really hates is a western sphere of influence which is slowly creeping over Ukraine, of which getting NATO membership is the final ritual. It is not going to change anything even if Ukraine was not planning on joining NATO. Russia's plan is to avoid that exact scenario and it seems he did well to succeed in it.

Anyways the United States was indeed expecting Ukraine to join NATO in the name of FREEDOM. in NOV 2021

https://www.state.gov/u-s-ukraine-charter-on-strategic-partnership/

Quote

Guided by the April 3, 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration of the NATO North Atlantic Council and as reaffirmed in the June 14, 2021 Brussels Summit Communique of the NATO North Atlantic Council, the United States supports Ukraine’s right to decide its own future foreign policy course free from outside interference, including with respect to Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO.

The exact same Bucharest summit that led to the invasion of Georgia, also led to Ukraine war. The only difference was that US was inviting Ukraine to join while they also had a pro-western president. 

So, the idea that Ukraine would never be joining NATO anyway is pretty baseless. 

There were plenty of executives in the CIA that warned of this outcome. The video goes into the details.

It is even more impressive when Mearsheimer literally predicted the invasion of Ukraine right from 2015.  

That is an impressive prediction. He saw it coming. So, you might want to take him more seriously. 

[Bobby_2021]

2 hours ago, BlueOak said:

That's not ambiguity at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_China

The America position is as you describe, but not China's.

I was talking about the policy of America. Of course, China does not have any ambiguity. 

America also honors a one China policy. But it does not tell you the government who is controlling the whole of China, agreeing in principle with both China and Taiwan. Genius if you ask me. 

The United States, deepening its ties with Taiwan might end up creating a mess like in Ukraine. At this point, it seems like taking over Taiwan is an impossibility. 

[Bobby_2021]

16 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Anyways the United States was indeed expecting Ukraine to join NATO in the name of FREEDOM. in NOV 2021

https://www.state.gov/u-s-ukraine-charter-on-strategic-partnership/

Quote

Guided by the April 3, 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration of the NATO North Atlantic Council and as reaffirmed in the June 14, 2021 Brussels Summit Communique of the NATO North Atlantic Council, the United States supports Ukraine’s right to decide its own future foreign policy course free from outside interference, including with respect to Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO.

The exact same Bucharest summit that led to the invasion of Georgia, also led to Ukraine war. The only difference was that US was inviting Ukraine to join while they also had a pro-western president. 

So, the idea that Ukraine would never be joining NATO anyway is pretty baseless. 

Russian foreign minister tried to talk them out of this less than 2-3 months before the invasion.

https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-at-a-press-availability-13/

Quote

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  First of all, there is no change; there will be no change.  Second, we reiterate the – that principle.  Of course, it is for NATO, not the United States unilaterally, to discuss the “Open Door” policy.  These are decisions that NATO makes as an Alliance, not the United States unilaterally.  But from our perspective, I can’t be more clear:  NATO’s door is open, remains open, and that is our commitment.

Quote

QUESTION:– when you say that there are core principles that you’re committed to and to uphold and defend, does that mean that in this document you told the Russians point blank in writing that “no” is the answer to their demand for a formal bar on the expansion of NATO, the permanent exclusion of Ukraine, and the withdrawal of certain forces and equipment from Eastern Europe?  Is that what this says?  Can – is there anything different in this document than what we have heard publicly over the course of the last couple weeks?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Again, without going into the specifics of the document, I can tell you that it reiterates what we’ve said publicly for many weeks and, in a sense, for many years: that we will uphold the principle of NATO’s open door, and that’s, as I’ve said repeatedly in recent weeks, a commitment that we’re bound to.  And so the document, as I said, makes very clear some of the basic principles that we are standing by, committed to, and will uphold, much of which has been stated in public, including by me in recent days and weeks.  And that goes to NATO’s “Open Door” policy.

"Open Door" 

Edited April 9 by Bobby_2021

[Hardkill]

Even if Ukraine ends up losing this war, it's still better for the country to keep fighting to continually wear down as much of Russia's resources as possible. Even if Russia wins this war, the longer this war goes on the weaker Russia will become in the long-run.

[Bobby_2021]

4 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Even if Ukraine ends up losing this war, it's still better for the country to keep fighting to continually wear down as much of Russia's resources as possible. Even if Russia wins this war, the longer this war goes on the weaker Russia will become in the long-run.

These "resources" are people who have lives just like us. They also have families, jobs and children.

Enough of making men spill blood just to sell western weapons. You guys have profited enough.

Give up the land to Russia. Stop the bloodshed. Learn from the past. No more stupid policy making. 

[enchanted]

Ukraine got rid of its nuclear weapons in exchange for protection. We have no choice but to protect Ukraine.