You couldn't be more wrong about me.
I believe in democracy and reject the idea that our leaders must do undemocratic or anti-liberal things to save our democracy.
Then stop believing in Russia and start believing in Ukraine.
Contrary to your accusations, I do have sympathy towards the plight of Ukrainians but I prefer a ceasefire as soon as possible, even if it means they don't regain all their territory, over a years long war where thousands more are killed and we end up with the same result, a stalemate...
In think you fear that the war in Ukraine won't be a stalemate. I think you fear that Ukraine will win it's freedom.
* * * * *
Russia claims that the U. S. broke it’s promise not to expand NATO beyond Germany in its negotiations with Russia regarding Germany. These talks had nothing to do with Ukraine. The subsequent written treaty signed in 1990 did not address the expansion of NATO.
The verbal promise by the U. S. in 1990 seems common sense. East of Germany were all territories controlled by the Soviet Union. So, naturally, the U. S. did not think that NATO would expand into these areas.
In the modern world, spoken agreements mean nothing. Only written agreements count. This way, countries know, beyond a doubt, what they are agreeing to. And don’t discover, possibly because of some misstatement by a junior negotiator, that they “promised” something that they had no idea was promised when the treaty was signed.
But let’s ignore all that, and pretend that not expanding NATO was a deal that was promised in 1990, even though it was never written down and signed as part of the treaty.
Question: Why would a treaty between the U. S. and the Soviet Union in 1990, allow Russia to break its treaty with Ukraine in 1994? In exchange for a promise to never be invaded by Russia, Ukraine gave its nuclear missiles to Russia. Even though the missiles, as is, could not be used to defend itself from Russia attack, the Ukrainians could have used the bomb itself, or at least the nuclear weapon itself, to construct a bomb it could use. If nothing else, if Ukraine was not able to figure out how to do this, the possession of these materials would likely have protected Ukraine from an all-out attack, like the one launched in 2022. Because Russia could not be certain of what Ukraine did possess.
Ukraine did not break any agreement with Russia.
Ukraine did not cause the expansion of NATO
Ukraine, under pressure from Russia, refused to attempt to join NATO.
Even after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, Ukraine still did not request to join NATO.
Question: So why should a false claim of the U. S. braking it’s 1990 treaty with Russia justify Russia breaking its agreement with Ukraine in 1994? Question: If this is sufficient justification, why couldn’t Russia use Germany’s breaking of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 in 1941 as a justification for breaking it’s 1994 treaty with Ukraine? I think the lesson here is that there must not be a negotiated peace made with Russia in the current Ukraine war. Because it used the false claim of the U. S. breaking its treaty 1990 with the Soviet Union to justify its invasion of Ukraine in 2014. And the same justification for its renewed invasion of Ukraine in 2022. And, if we negotiated peace with Russia in 2023, Russia would use the same justification to invade Ukraine again in the future.
Negotiating with countries that break their word again and again, that invade countries again and again, after promising no more invasions after each previous invasion made successful with the latest agreement, is futile. After this pattern was followed enough times with Nazi Germany, the west stopped negotiating with Nazi Germany. Because it was clearly futile. The same is true with Russia today.
Question: If we do what others claim is only ‘sensible’ and negotiate a settlement where Russia gets to keep all it’s gains of 2014 and some of it’s gains from 2022, what’s to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine again based on the false claim that the U. S. broke the 1990 treaty? Question: If we roll back NATO back to it’s 1990 boundaries, what is to prevent Russia from attacking Finland, the Baltic States, Poland and Ukraine in the future? All areas that used to be occupied, and oppressed, by Russia in the past? * * * * *
On a separate question, why should Ukraine join NATO?
In 1994, Ukraine gave up its nuclear missiles in exchange for a written promise made in a treaty, from Russia, never to invade Ukraine.
Through 1994, despite the growing danger, Ukraine gave in to Russian threats and did not attempt to join NATO.
In 2014, Russia invaded Ukraine, even though Ukraine never broke its agreement.
During 2014 through 2022, despite the now very clear danger, Ukraine gave in to Russian threats and did not attempt to join NATO.
In 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine again, clearly trying to take its capital in a bid to control all of Ukraine.
So, guess what? Ukraine is done with backing down from Russian threats. Ukraine is done with relying on Russian promises. Ukraine is using the only option it has left. Force. And consistently, Ukraine is proving to be more valiant, more humane, more intelligent than the Russians. Clearly superior to the Russians in every way except in quantity, which has not prevented the Ukrainians from having much more success than the Russians in the last 12 months. Another advance like the ones the Ukrainians made in September of 2022 east of Kharkiv, could advance the Ukrainians to the Sea of Azov which would cut the Crimean Land Bridge. And this summer, unlike last, the Ukrainians have much more Western equipment, tanks, longer range missiles, and their best troops have received NATO training. We the new Russian recruits got a minimum of training from Belarus.
The Russians are really dug in? Better than the French were in 1940 with the Maginot Line in Sedan? We will see how well this works out.
