Anonymous
03/30/2022 15:16
Subject: Re:US has no good options in Ukraine
Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?
Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?
Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?
That’s not an acceptable resolution. If Russia gets to keep any of Ukraine, Ukraine would need to fortify and militarize the border against the next invasion. Russia has to be kicked all the way out of Ukraine, including out of Crimea.
Anonymous
Anonymous
03/30/2022 15:15
Subject: Re:US has no good options in Ukraine
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?
Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?
Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?
Huh? Ukraine was neutral.
Putin tried to take Kyiv. You're blaming Ukraine for ... not giving Putin Kyiv? That doesn't seem like it would have been good for Ukraine.
Ukraine was not neutral. Ukraine was trending strongly towards the West.
On Nov 10, 2021, Ukraine signed a strategic partnership with the USA to strengthen the military and economic partnership of the two countries. The agreement specifically mentions Ukraine's aspirations to join NATO.
"Neutrality" means, in Putin's view, that Ukraine must promise to never join NATO.
Ukraine is a free, independent, sovereign nation. It can make whatever agreements it wants, with whoever it wants. Russia's invasion is unjustifiable, criminal, illegal, and unprovoked.
Anonymous
03/30/2022 15:11
Subject: Re:US has no good options in Ukraine
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?
Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?
Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?
I have similar questions. Is this going to just go back to what it was before? Who won? Nobody. I also wonder if Ukrainian war didn't get as much western support and all the weapons...would have it ended the same way but earlier without so many casualties, massive destruction and horrendous humanitarian crisis in places like Mariupol? All that this created is millions of displaced refugees.
What Russia did in the eastern part of Ukraine was to remove the people there, send them east into Russia (never to be seen again), and replace them with Russians. The same would have happened to the rest of Ukraine if Putin had succeeded in taking the country. I suppose by that measure, the new inhabitants would be happy.
Anonymous
03/30/2022 15:11
Subject: US has no good options in Ukraine
russia annexed crimea and occupied donbas from a neutral Ukraine in 2014. Going back to “neutrality” i.e. 2013 status minus crimea, donbas, and whatever other lands russia occupies is not a win. It’s still a major win for putin that will further legitimize him and build support for him in russia. It’s also a countdown to next invasion.
Anonymous
03/30/2022 15:09
Subject: Re:US has no good options in Ukraine
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?
Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?
Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?
I have similar questions. Is this going to just go back to what it was before? Who won? Nobody. I also wonder if Ukrainian war didn't get as much western support and all the weapons...would have it ended the same way but earlier without so many casualties, massive destruction and horrendous humanitarian crisis in places like Mariupol? All that this created is millions of displaced refugees.
If Ukraine didn't get western support, Russia would have won and massacred even more of their people than they already have.
Anonymous
03/30/2022 15:01
Subject: Re:US has no good options in Ukraine
Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?
Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?
Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?
I have similar questions. Is this going to just go back to what it was before? Who won? Nobody. I also wonder if Ukrainian war didn't get as much western support and all the weapons...would have it ended the same way but earlier without so many casualties, massive destruction and horrendous humanitarian crisis in places like Mariupol? All that this created is millions of displaced refugees.
Anonymous
03/30/2022 14:53
Subject: Re:US has no good options in Ukraine
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?
Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?
Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?
Huh? Ukraine was neutral.
Putin tried to take Kyiv. You're blaming Ukraine for ... not giving Putin Kyiv? That doesn't seem like it would have been good for Ukraine.
Ukraine was not neutral. Ukraine was trending strongly towards the West.
On Nov 10, 2021, Ukraine signed a strategic partnership with the USA to strengthen the military and economic partnership of the two countries. The agreement specifically mentions Ukraine's aspirations to join NATO.
"Neutrality" means, in Putin's view, that Ukraine must promise to never join NATO.
No, the "strategic partnership" was just a reaffirmation of the existing relationship. The US has literally been training the Ukrainian army and supplying them for decades. Already. This isn't new.
After Zelenskyy's election, he entered into the international sphere during Trump's impeachment proceedings. After that, he wasn't especially popular because he was seen as too soft and too conciliatory towards Russia.
It was only after the invasion that he became beloved and admired by Ukraine and the world.
If the US has been supporting the Ukrainian military for decades, then is it fair to describe Ukraine as "neutral"?
Anonymous
03/30/2022 14:47
Subject: Re:US has no good options in Ukraine
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?
Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?
Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?
Huh? Ukraine was neutral.
Putin tried to take Kyiv. You're blaming Ukraine for ... not giving Putin Kyiv? That doesn't seem like it would have been good for Ukraine.
Ukraine was not neutral. Ukraine was trending strongly towards the West.
On Nov 10, 2021, Ukraine signed a strategic partnership with the USA to strengthen the military and economic partnership of the two countries. The agreement specifically mentions Ukraine's aspirations to join NATO.
"Neutrality" means, in Putin's view, that Ukraine must promise to never join NATO.
No, the "strategic partnership" was just a reaffirmation of the existing relationship. The US has literally been training the Ukrainian army and supplying them for decades. Already. This isn't new.
After Zelenskyy's election, he entered into the international sphere during Trump's impeachment proceedings. After that, he wasn't especially popular because he was seen as too soft and too conciliatory towards Russia.
It was only after the invasion that he became beloved and admired by Ukraine and the world.
Anonymous
03/30/2022 14:44
Subject: Re:US has no good options in Ukraine
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?
Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?
Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?
Huh? Ukraine was neutral.
Putin tried to take Kyiv. You're blaming Ukraine for ... not giving Putin Kyiv? That doesn't seem like it would have been good for Ukraine.
Ukraine was not neutral. Ukraine was trending strongly towards the West.
On Nov 10, 2021, Ukraine signed a strategic partnership with the USA to strengthen the military and economic partnership of the two countries. The agreement specifically mentions Ukraine's aspirations to join NATO.
"Neutrality" means, in Putin's view, that Ukraine must promise to never join NATO.
Anonymous
03/30/2022 14:44
Subject: Re:US has no good options in Ukraine
Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?
Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?
Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?
Lol wow is this from Fox News or Putin?
Anonymous
03/30/2022 14:28
Subject: Re:US has no good options in Ukraine
Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?
Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?
Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?
Huh? Ukraine was neutral.
Putin tried to take Kyiv. You're blaming Ukraine for ... not giving Putin Kyiv? That doesn't seem like it would have been good for Ukraine.
Anonymous
03/30/2022 14:27
Subject: Re:US has no good options in Ukraine
Anonymous wrote:If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?
Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?
Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?
Putin would have eventually launched an invasion. That's the whole reason why they wanted to join in the first place. It wasn't for hits and giggles.
Anonymous
03/30/2022 14:21
Subject: Re:US has no good options in Ukraine
If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?
Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?
Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?
Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?
Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?
Anonymous
03/30/2022 07:28
Subject: US has no good options in Ukraine
Vatican just converted millions of euros into rubles to send for gas payment