So what is your argument, that we should go on fully with the war and send more soldiers to the front? Because we don't want to make any concession with Russia? Because we don't want to sympathize at least a little bit because that would make us "weak"? So we should go on and risk WW3?
"We" (americans) aren't doing anything to help, and are in fact withdrawing support. "We" honestly don't have much say in how the ones who actually fought against our supposed enemies should feel (to reverse a recent quote). Trump is kissing the ring so it's very clear we're already making consessions.
>So we should go on and risk WW3?
Well this is part of why your top comment was unpopular. Ukraine is not going to start WW3. Our inaction only accellerates the possibility since this was already winding down.
As others said, you are repeating Russian talking points. Blaming the one attacked for causing a mass scale war instead of the agressors or the spposed "allies" deciding to betray them and help the enemy.
My reply was just based on your question, the point being that your question originated in Russian propaganda. That it was based on dishonest reasoning by Putin. And that asking the question was helping Putin. Read a history book: anyone can give reasonable sounding justifications for invading a country. At the very least leaders need support for their wars, so nobody lets loose the dogs of war, saying "yeah I just want their stuff". In geopolitics, the truth is not always in the middle.
But if you're now asking me my personal opinion, should we "continue the war", then, yes I think we should continue to enable Ukraine to defend itself. So if Ukraine wants to send more soldiers to the front, to defend their nation, then yes we should support them. Note: that does not automatically mean sending American or European soldiers, but that was never on the table.
We should continue to support them because we engaged ourselves to support Ukraine in the 90's, when we forced them to hand over their nukes to Russia.
We should continue the war because as both recent and less recent history has borne out, allowing Russia to perform a landgrab will give the wrong ideas to other countries, ultimately resulting in geopolitical instability everywhere.
We should continue to allow Ukraine to defend itself because demonstrably, it is effective.
I have kids, and do not want WW3. But if after losing hundreds of thousands of men, during a three year war, Putin has not started a nuclear war; do you really think he will start one now? If anything, supporting Ukraine will prevent future conflict.
All of this is obvious for anyone who has performed even a cursory study of history. Which probably explains why you were downvoted.
Why is this Russian propaganda? The agreement was not official, but it did certainly seem to have happened. If you open up history books you should also understand that.
In fact I have read the history books (have you?). Yes it happened. Many things were said in fact during the negotiation. That generally happens during negotiations whilst people are trying to find a solution.
During scores of negotiations, over a period of months if not years, at one instance the phrase was uttered. Then it was retracted. It was never restated. It was not in the final agreement.
Does it mean that anything the Russians said at some point in time during the negotiations, even if it was retracted afterwards, should apply?
If you were negotiating a contract, do you think that sort of reasoning would fly? If so I have a bridge to sell you.
This is why it is propaganda. Because it is self-serving and disingenuous.
Are you sure that your original question was a sincere question?
