Remember that in the 1990's the US put Ukraine under pressure to give up its nuclear arsenal (2nd in the world at the time) against promises that its sovereignty and independence would be respected (Budapest memorandums). Who is going to believe the US now?
Imagine if Mexico tried to join BRICS or the Warsaw pact back when it existed. You can see the realpolitik logic here. If you want stability and peace for the Ukrainian people, do a deal. Ukraine wasn't in play but for NATO expansion eastward. Now it is, and it is the fault of the United States that this situation was created.
US politicians crow about what a great deal for them the Ukraine war is since others are fighting and dying to fight USA's enemy*. Very blood thirsty.
* The enemy of the USA ruling class, I personally don't harbor any animosity towards Russia though I dislike their form of government—a form that resulted from US attacks on the post-Soviet political economy.
So, Russia bears no responsibility for its own government, which is somehow manufactured by the US? OK, that's a new one on me.
The reality is that Russia had had NATO countries on its borders (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) for years before it invaded Georgia and Ukraine. And two years ago Finland joined as well. Russia did nothing to prevent this.
NATO is a defensive alliance. The only thing it threatens is Russia's imperialism and expansionism.
Russia broke countless agreements where it recognized Ukraine's borders and independence, so Russia's signature is now worthless.
The war could stop tomorrow if Russia stopped the aggression it started. But Putin has consistently made it clear he wants all of Ukraine. Here's a recent example: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-the-whole-uk...
Everyone knows how Russia treats the peoples of lands it conquers: torture, executions, deportations etc. No country could accept these terms. It would amount to national suicide. For this reason Ukrainians have to choice but to keep fighting.
Apparently, many Ukrainian men would. Or maybe they'd seen it like a mere change in upper management, initially. Otherwise the Ukrainian government would not have felt it necessary to forbid them from leaving the country or to press/force them into military service.
(And, frankly, the people affected are the only ones whose opinion should matter in this situation.)
> Bleeding to repel the Russian invasion, you mean
It's always easy to spill other people's statistical blood from the other side of the planet.
NATO isnt powerful enough/motivated enough to help Ukraine fight off Russia despite pledging unlimited support in March 2022 (now proven to be a hollow lie).
There was nothing logical about Ukraine's decision to reject neutrality and to try and set itself up as a NATO military bulwark along Russia's most vulnerable border.
They were always calibrated to be refused and there is a reason for that: NATO expansion is a red herring that Russia wants to use as an excuse for the invasion.
> There was nothing logical about Ukraine's decision to reject neutrality and to try and set itself up as a NATO military bulwark along Russia's most vulnerable border.
Ukraine has been neutral, and in fact quite friendly to Russia, both according to its Constitution and popular polls, up until the point Russia annexed a piece of its land and invaded another piece in 2014. By doing that Russia has shown that no promise of neutrality can save Ukraine from its tanks. I am surprised that some people are still talking about neutrality in good faith in 2025.
