All Russian negotiations rely on the agreement for Ukrane to give up a part of invaded lands. That is not going to happen, especially after Crimea in 2014. Russia has no claim to the lands and any negotiations that require them are a joke.
If Russia is not stopped no agreement will be final, it's all about the ambition to rebuild the Soviet Union and "compromise" won't do it.
Of course NATO will not directly engage in this war (as sad as it is), that would result in WWIII. It is convieniet for NATO nations that the conflict is in Ukrane, but that does not change the fact Ukrane needs and is getting support indirectly, because NATO has an interest in Ukrane winning.
Comparing that to China's "priority" for infrastructure in the original post is at best unfair. And while arms racing in general is not a good thing, the original post lumps that together with support for Ukrane. That is the message I take issue with.
Comparing that to China’s “priority” for infrastructure in the original post is at best unfair. And while arms racing in general is not a good thing, the original post lumps that together with support for Ukrane. That is the message I take issue with.
Okay, that's a fair point.
If Russia is not stopped no agreement will be final, it’s all about the ambition to rebuild the Soviet Union and “compromise” won’t do it.
But what evidence do you have to support this? We have a short and long term history to look at showing NATO going back on their promises, lying, sowing chaos. Russia by comparison has been reliable. Isn't the fair thing then to try to make the compromise survive as long as possible? Because the alternative to compromise is people dying. Even if it's none of your friends, surely you don't want Russians dying either, right?
All Russian negotiations rely on the agreement for Ukrane to give up a part of invaded lands. That is not going to happen, especially after Crimea in 2014. Russia has no claim to the lands and any negotiations that require them are a joke.
What are you even talking about? Seriously what part of terms agreed by Ukraine you didn't understand? Please for the love of god actualy read about the stuff you're commenting before replying, thank you.
All Russian negotiations rely on the agreement for Ukrane to give up a part of invaded lands. That is not going to happen, especially after Crimea in 2014. Russia has no claim to the lands and any negotiations that require them are a joke.
If Russia is not stopped no agreement will be final, it's all about the ambition to rebuild the Soviet Union and "compromise" won't do it.
Of course NATO will not directly engage in this war (as sad as it is), that would result in WWIII. It is convieniet for NATO nations that the conflict is in Ukrane, but that does not change the fact Ukrane needs and is getting support indirectly, because NATO has an interest in Ukrane winning.
Comparing that to China's "priority" for infrastructure in the original post is at best unfair. And while arms racing in general is not a good thing, the original post lumps that together with support for Ukrane. That is the message I take issue with.
Okay, that's a fair point.
But what evidence do you have to support this? We have a short and long term history to look at showing NATO going back on their promises, lying, sowing chaos. Russia by comparison has been reliable. Isn't the fair thing then to try to make the compromise survive as long as possible? Because the alternative to compromise is people dying. Even if it's none of your friends, surely you don't want Russians dying either, right?
What are you even talking about? Seriously what part of terms agreed by Ukraine you didn't understand? Please for the love of god actualy read about the stuff you're commenting before replying, thank you.