Which would ultimately yield a better outcome for Ukraine and US?

The Biden admin told Zelensky to walk away from the Minsk agreements, then Kamala went around lobbying for Ukraine to join NATO. This was the line in sand for Putin. He invaded shortly after.

People who acknowledge provocation aren't justifying or excusing the invasion. They aren't "pro-Putin", they are just aware of the actual events leading to the geopolitical situation we are in now.

Libs are on some virtue signaling feel good campaign with their head in sand, and RINOS are cashing in on the war machine.

In a few months to year, the war will likely be over with an agreement to forfeit the Donbas region. This could have been done without tragic bloodshed, destruction, and billions of US taxpayer funds. The only winners in the end will be defense contractors.

It's a simple question, no one is asking. None of the Ukraine cheerleaders even know what the Minsk Agreements are. Zelensky is going to go back to the table with less leverage and get a worse deal. Another total F up by the left.

RT and Tass said it so it's true

Who is saying Ukriane unilaterally violated anything?

Under Biden, the US and UK essentially called Putins bluff. So of course they have to back Zelensky when they are the ones who pulled him out of negotiations with Russia. The US also broke prior promises about not expanding NATO.

My point with this thread is that a deal should have been the priority BEFORE the war, not AFTER.

Why do Americans care so much about Russian speaking east Ukraine? Is it bc for 6 years they were brainwashed to hate Putin for stealing the 2016 election?

This idea that Putin is going to continue advancing onward thru the rest of Ukraine and Europe like Hitler is ridiculous. It's like the Iraq has WMDs nonsense.

Teslag said:

---

The problem is you are revising history. NATO is and always was a red herring. Russia wanted Ukraine to be part of Russia so they engaged in a simple land grab to take ALL of Ukraine. Ukraine's only provocation was existing.

---

You believe Russia is executing a strategy to take "ALL" of Ukraine?

We will soon see an end to the war and it won't include ALL of Ukraine.

Even IF you were right, hypothetically, how would that negatively impact the US?

With China and Taiwan there are semiconductor issues we have to monitor. Once those supply chain issues are resolved, is the left going to hate on Xi Jinping like Putin? Why not?

Let the EU fund Ukraine support and we can fund the geopolitical interests on our own continent. No need to ignite nuke threats.

BlueTaze said:

---

The US also broke prior promises about not expanding NATO.

---

Where did the US make any promises about not expanding NATO? Russia kept demanding that, but the US and NATO never agreed to anything like that.

jacketman03 said:

---

Where are the receipts on Biden telling Ukraine to pull out of the Minsk Agreements and Harris cheerleading for Ukraine in NATO, because those things just didn't happen.

Russia continually violated the Minsk Agreements from 2014 until they invaded in 2022, and Harris was pretty clear in statements prior to the invasion that Ukraine isn't in NATO and NATO wasn't offering membership to Ukraine.

---

Good luck with those - these talking points just get regurgitated by the isolationist far right twitter bots until people actually start believing them.

BlueTaze said:

---

Who is saying Ukriane unilaterally violated anything?

Under Biden, the US and UK essentially called Putins bluff. So of course they have to back Zelensky when they are the ones who pulled him out of negotiations with Russia. The US also broke prior promises about not expanding NATO.

My point with this thread is that a deal should have been the priority BEFORE the war, not AFTER.

Why do Americans care so much about Russian speaking east Ukraine? Is it bc for 6 years they were brainwashed to hate Putin for stealing the 2016 election?

This idea that Putin is going to continue advancing onward thru the rest of Ukraine and Europe like Hitler is ridiculous. It's like the Iraq has WMDs nonsense.

---

If Russia only cared about a sliver of eastern Ukraine then they could have militarily secured it 2 years ago and ceased their "special operation". This whole thing would already be over.

Yet they attempted a decap strike on Kyiv at the beginning of the war, they constitutionally annexed almost 1/3 of Ukraine (most of which they don't control), they continue to try and take the entire Black Sea coastline, continue and try to take Kharkiv, continue to push for more territory. Tell me about how this is all just about a little. It of eastern Ukraine.

They want control of Ukraine's resources. Thinking that this is merely about Donbas is vast oversimplification. Short of an agreement that would have made Ukraine a helpless Russian puppet, or the Biden admin and/or Europe displaying some testicular fortitude, Putin was going to try his hand at this.

When it comes to promises, the only promise on paper is the one where both Russia and the US promised to ensure Ukraine's territorial integrity if they ceded the nuclear weapons they controlled. Russia completely crawfished on that when they took Crimea and deliberately fomented the issues in eastern Ukraine. This all happened long before any NATO talk, which means Russia doesn't have a leg to stand on where "promises" are concerned.

jacketman03 said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

The US also broke prior promises about not expanding NATO.

---

Where did the US make any promises about not expanding NATO? Russia kept demanding that, but the US and NATO never agreed to anything like that.

---

Correct there were no formal agreements, but after the breakup of Soviet Union, the GH Bush admin made compromises behind the scenes about NATO expansion. No NATO troops in East Germany, and no further expansion east. Since then, every POTUS has expanded NATO east.

There is no doubt that NATO expansion is the primary concern of Putin. There is no doubt the West was/is lobbying to bring Ukraine into NATO.

So why don't yall just say it. You want Ukraine to join NATO, so we can see who follows thru with nuke threats first, us or them?

BlueTaze said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

The US also broke prior promises about not expanding NATO.

---

Where did the US make any promises about not expanding NATO? Russia kept demanding that, but the US and NATO never agreed to anything like that.

---

Correct there were no formal agreements, but after the breakup of Soviet Union, the GH Bush admin made compromises behind the scenes about NATO expansion. No NATO troops in East Germany, and no further expansion east. Since then, every POTUS has expanded NATO east.

There is no doubt that NATO expansion is the primary concern of Putin. There is no doubt the West was/is lobbying to bring Ukraine into NATO.

So why don't yall just say it. You want Ukraine to join NATO, so we can see who follows thru with nuke threats first, us or them?

---

There's plenty of doubt. And plenty of facts to support that doubt. Just because you're entrenched in thinking that way doesn't make it ironclad. Much to the contrary, it's quite porous.

And no. Joining NATO is unnecessary. There are plenty of ways that allow Ukraine to be militarily secure AND economically/politically self-determining which don't involve joining NATO.

Quote:

---

People who acknowledge provocation aren't justifying or excusing the invasion. They aren't "pro-Putin", they are just aware of the actual events leading to the geopolitical situation we are in now.

---

BlueTaze said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

The US also broke prior promises about not expanding NATO.

---

Where did the US make any promises about not expanding NATO? Russia kept demanding that, but the US and NATO never agreed to anything like that.

---

Correct there were no formal agreements, but after the breakup of Soviet Union, the GH Bush admin made compromises behind the scenes about NATO expansion. No NATO troops in East Germany, and no further expansion east. Since then, every POTUS has expanded NATO east.

There is no doubt that NATO expansion is the primary concern of Putin. There is no doubt the West was/is lobbying to bring Ukraine into NATO.

So why don't yall just say it. You want Ukraine to join NATO, so we can see who follows thru with nuke threats first, us or them?

---

Putin is not suicidal, so nothing we do increases any threat of eventual nukes. Ukraine in NATO after the invasion is over ends the threat of any future invasions. Everyone who actually wants peace there should want Ukraine in NATO.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

People who acknowledge provocation aren't justifying or excusing the invasion. They aren't "pro-Putin", they are just aware of the actual events leading to the geopolitical situation we are in now.

---

---

And yet those same people excuse and justify Russian provocation. The double standards are interesting.

So wait, where there agreements or not? Show me a non-Russian source saying that these secret promises were made

jacketman03 said:

---

Where are the receipts on Biden telling Ukraine to pull out of the Minsk Agreements and Harris cheerleading for Ukraine in NATO, because those things just didn't happen.

---

In April of 2022, Boris Johnson visited Kiev and urged Zelensky to end negotiations. Perhaps you think that happend against the wishes of the Biden admin. It happend with prior non-Trump admins also. GWB cheerleaded for Ukraine to join NATO.

Here is one example Kamala cheerleading for Ukraine to join NATO. Many other receipts with her and Blinken exist. Keep denying it happened.

April 2022 is notably after February 2022, so that CANNOT be a provocation for an invasion in February 2022.

And nowhere in that video did Harris encourage using joining NATO, so you're 0 for 2.

Whenever Boris went over there. Look it up. It happened. It's not really disputed. Only thing to dispute is whether Boris acted unilaterally or with US blessing. So make your arguement there.

Maybe you can spell check me too, sorry I got a date wrong. My point stands.

US admins are on record for supporting Ukraine to join NATO prior to the war. It happened, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

Quote:

---

but after the breakup of Soviet Union, the GH Bush admin made compromises behind the scenes about NATO expansion.

---

This is Russian fiction. Gorbachev was there and said it never happened.

BlueTaze said:

---

Whenever Boris went over there. Look it up. It happened. It's not really disputed. Only thing to dispute is whether Boris acted unilaterally or with US blessing. So make your arguement there.

---

What does this have to do with the Minsk agreements?

The Minsk agreements were subject to the negotiations that broke down right before Putin invaded.

Had Boris Johnson not gone over to pull the plug on those negotiations, the invasion might have been prevented.

Again, whatever agreements could have been made then, prior to war, will be weighed against the agreement to end the war. It's doubtful the deal will be any better after billions spent and 100s of thousand dead. That's the point.

You guys think Trump is going to back Ukraine joining NATO? Is that how you think it ends?

jacketman03 said:

---

So wait, where there agreements or not? Show me a non-Russian source saying that these secret promises were made

---

For you and Tslag

https://millercenter.org/president/bush/foreign-affairs

BlueTaze said:

---

The Minsk agreements were subject to the negotiations that broke down right before Putin invaded.

Had Boris Johnson not gone over to pull the plug on those negotiations, the invasion might have been prevented.

Again, whatever agreements could have been made then, prior to war, will be weighed against the agreement to end the war. It's doubtful the deal will be any better after billions spent and 100s of thousand dead. That's the point.

You guys think Trump is going to back Ukraine joining NATO? Is that how you think it ends?

---

Did you miss the part where Boris went after the invasion started?

Quote:

---

Had Boris Johnson not gone over to pull the plug on those negotiations, the invasion might have been prevented.

---

Johnson supposedly pulled the plug on negotiations 2 months AFTER the invasion began.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

WOW ! This no longer comes up on simple Google search.

LINK

Biden admits he used his Vice Presidential powers to get Prosecutor in Ukraine fired, to help his son.

Ok, stand corrected, it was at the onset of the invasion when Boris pulled the plug on a peace deal to end the full scale war that ensued.

How about those vids of Kamala and Bush cheerleading for NATO expansion into Ukraine?

BlueTaze said:

---

Ok, stand corrected, it was at the onset of the invasion when Boris pulled the plug on a peace deal to end the full scale war that ensued.

How about those vids of Kamala and Bush cheerleading for NATO expansion into Ukraine?

---

Russia PROPOSED a peace deal. There was no agreement and it was essentially a negotiated victory that completely cornholed Ukraine and practically made them a Russian province. Nobody pulled the plug on anything because it was so one sided that it made no sense for Ukraine to turn down western assistance in favor of it. Unless you're saying that merely offing Ukraine an alternative was tantamount to "tanking the peace deal".

BlueTaze said:

---

Ok, stand corrected, it was at the onset of the invasion when Boris pulled the plug on a peace deal to end the full scale war that ensued.

How about those vids of Kamala and Bush cheerleading for NATO expansion into Ukraine?

---

That wasn't a peace deal. It was surrender. And if Ukraine had taken it they never would have retaken Kherson Karkiv and tons of other cities and towns later that summer.

Had Boris not intervened more than a million Ukrainians would currently be Russians.

Ok, it was a peace deal that benefited Russia.

Will the new peace deal that ends the war under Trump be better than the one at the onset of the war that Biden/Boris walked away from?

Again, if the war ends without Ukriane joining NATO I don't see how it could be any better.

How many Ukrianians have died since then? How many billions have been spent? How much infrastructure destruction etc.

That's the point of the thread.