Ok, I guess your argument may be that it wasn't part of an official treaty right? But regardless, if china or Russia struck a military alliance with just one of Mexico, Cuba, Guatamala, Venezuela etc etc right now, let alone all of them, we wouldn't even have time to talk about it.

No, the FACTS are that Ukraine has a sovereign right to join any alliance, as recognized by the Russian Federation when it reaffirmed the Helsinki Final Act in 1995 and signed and ratified the Russia-Ukraine Friendship TREATY in 1997. The 1990 talks limited NATO in eastern Germany and no where else

I'm not arguing with any of that. But, unfortunately, none of it seems to matter in the real world, where we are, right now.

When you claim the US promised to not expand NATO, etc., you are denying exactly that. The US never promised to limit NATO membership by excluding countries east of Germany. Not in writing, not verbally, not at all. How do we know? Because the US signed the opposite promise in 1990.

What does this even mean? They signed something confirming an intention to expand a military alliance as far east as possible??

Those utterly ignorant of the 1990 negotiations and the agreements produced by those negotiations should not be making claims about them, "Dave". The culmination of the 1990 talks was the signing of the Paris Charter, which explicitly reaffirms the Helsinki Final Act. Which includes:

Mate, if that shit meant anything to Russia or the US, theyd mention it. But it doesn't. None of it does anymore. Especially if you are a nuclear superpower

It means a lot to the 55 members of the OSCE which are neither Russia nor Ukraine. It is why most of them have sent billions of $ of aid to Ukraine and those not in NATO are joining NATO. It also means that Russia cannot be trusted to honor any agreement, so it shall remain a pariah for decades.

What does that group even stand for? Look at the list of countries involved and two are fighting each other before you get past the letter A

Thank you for demonstrating your lack the requisite knowledge to make a meaningful comment on any aspect of Russia's wars of aggression since 1991, "Dave". The war will continue until Russia leaves Ukraine. Until that happy day, your fellow Russians will be maimed and killed by the thousands.

It matters to the other 55 members of the OSCE which are neither Russia nor Ukraine. Most of them are placing sanctions on Russia and sending aid to Ukraine. American, German, British, French, Dutch, Polish, and Czech weapons kill Russians in Ukraine every day, which means it matters.

(And, yes, the list of countries sending weapons is much longer, but there is a character limit)

As many, if not more, Ukrainians are being killed at the same time though, every one of those days. Polls are suggesting support for the war has collapsed

Well, "Dave", outside of Russian propaganda, the consensus estimate is that Russia is losing men at least three times the rate of Ukraine. How's queuing for gasoline working for you?

That's great news, thanks. But you miss my point. Any 'consensus estimate' of attrition, still doesn't respect the human cost of every one on each side. And if you think your math tells you it's worth millions more dead before discussing concessions, because you think there's a military win...mad

Rewarding Russian aggression only encourages more Russian aggression. Effective concessions to Russia would require Russia to be trusted to honor its word, which is laughable. Giving Russia land today so they can re-arm and invade again for more land in 3-5 years is madness, "Dave".

In 3 years, Russia have managed to secure territory that had been contested for years previously. Do a deal now, save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Russia controlled more of Ukraine in March of 2022 than it does now. Since 2022 Russia's real economy has descended into a depression while the Kremlin throws away the national savings on a war it cannot win. Those drone strikes will continue to get worse, "Dave". Good luck finding gas tomorrow.

Why is it so important to let Ukraine join NATO if you think Russia have no worries invading NATO countries after Ukraine ?

Russia has proven itself to be utterly untrustworthy. As a result, it will be excluded from western commerce while nations organize for their collective defense against the Russian pariah state. Russia has caused its own strategic encirclement.

This is a stupid analogy. If Russia made an alliance with Mexico, we wouldn't have invaded (before Trump anyway; with him, who the f knows what he'll say or do); we'd entice them economically. And if we couldn't this would be because we suck. NATO is a voluntary alliance; Russia is why it's needed.

Ok, what about, let's say Cuba? What about that example?

Are you saying that the Bay of Pigs was good policy? I'm not going to defend every stupid or immoral thing the US has done in the past -- and I certainly don't buy that such things justify Russia's atrocities.

No, that wasn't what I was saying at all.