What's the most realistic solution to Russia-Ukraine crisis?

[StephanieBaldwin]

Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?

[Gary Childress]

Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?

Clearly, at the very least, Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO. I think if that condition can be satisfactorily met in writing as some kind of guarantee, then that would bring Russia closer to the bargaining table.

[Age]

Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?

1. Why do you believe that "vladimir putin" would not honor its agreement?

2. Do you believe that the "other side" has honored their agreement?

3. Is it a possibility, to you, that it is because the "other side" has not honored their agreement why "vladimir putin" decided to do what it did, here?

See, 'the solution' to what you call the "russia-ukraine crisis" is if the so-called "west" had honored its agreement and stopped moving eastwards, then this whole crisis, here, would not have begun, in the first place.

However, because the "west" did not honor their agreement, previously, how could they be trusted ever again?

Putting trust back into "vladimir putin" is what would be the most realistic solution, here.

So, what could the "west" do that could and would put trust back in "vladimir putin"?

[Age]

Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?

Clearly, at the very least, Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO.

Why, to you, 'the people' of 'the country' "ukraine" can not choose who they want to become a member of nor with?

How about if instead of 'the people' of 'a country' not be allowed to choose who they want to become a 'member' with, or not, the people of the "north atlantic treaty organization" just honor their agreement, by just stopping to get other countries into that organization. They had already agreed to not allow that country into that organization, so continually advancing "eastwards" was always only going to cause more friction, cause distrust, and eventually lead to infighting, and warring.

If you keep 'poking the bear', as some say, then it will eventually attack, obviously.

I think if that condition can be satisfactorily met in writing as some kind of guarantee, then that would bring Russia closer to the bargaining table.

But, was 'that' not 'the guarantee', or 'agreement', previously? Or, a similar version, if not?

[Impenitent]

Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?

nuclear powers don't get invaded

if Ukraine had nukes...

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?

Clearly, at the very least, Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO.

Why, to you, 'the people' of 'the country' "ukraine" can not choose who they want to become a member of nor with?

How about if instead of 'the people' of 'a country' not be allowed to choose who they want to become a 'member' with, or not, the people of the "north atlantic treaty organization" just honor their agreement, by just stopping to get other countries into that organization. They had already agreed to not allow that country into that organization, so continually advancing "eastwards" was always only going to cause more friction, cause distrust, and eventually lead to infighting, and warring.

If you keep 'poking the bear', as some say, then it will eventually attack, obviously.

I think if that condition can be satisfactorily met in writing as some kind of guarantee, then that would bring Russia closer to the bargaining table.

But, was 'that' not 'the guarantee', or 'agreement', previously? Or, a similar version, if not?

So what exactly are you disagreeing with in my statement above, Age? Or are you in agreement with my statement above?

[Age]

Clearly, at the very least, Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO.

Why, to you, 'the people' of 'the country' "ukraine" can not choose who they want to become a member of nor with?

How about if instead of 'the people' of 'a country' not be allowed to choose who they want to become a 'member' with, or not, the people of the "north atlantic treaty organization" just honor their agreement, by just stopping to get other countries into that organization. They had already agreed to not allow that country into that organization, so continually advancing "eastwards" was always only going to cause more friction, cause distrust, and eventually lead to infighting, and warring.

If you keep 'poking the bear', as some say, then it will eventually attack, obviously.

I think if that condition can be satisfactorily met in writing as some kind of guarantee, then that would bring Russia closer to the bargaining table.

But, was 'that' not 'the guarantee', or 'agreement', previously? Or, a similar version, if not?

So what exactly are you disagreeing with in my statement above, Age? Or are you in agreement with my statement above?

Why when I reply to you "gary childress" you automatically assume that I am disagreeing with you?

Just for information, some times when I reply to you posters, here, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I just ask questions, for clarity sake, so that if and when clarifying answers are provided, then I could use those answers to better back up and support my exact same viewpoint.

Me asking clarifying questions in regards to obtaining further clarification, elaboration, and/or for challenging sake, is done when I have the exact same view, or just about the exact same view.

For example, my first question, to you, above, here, was not because I disagree with you in any way, but because 'the way' you wrote it it could be interpreted that the people living in "ukraine" could not possibly choose in 'what way' they want 'that country' to go.

It would be best if the people of any country can choose, absolutely, freely 'whatever way' they want that country to go without the fear nor intimidation from any person, nor people, from any other country, but obviously in that 'whatever way' is chosen does not effect the people, of other countries, negatively.

And, I was just pointing out that if 'the people' of 'that organization' had not broken their previous agreement and would just stop 'trying to' get 'the people' of "ukraine" to join 'that organization', in the beginning, then the 'current' crises would not have even begun.

Do you believe I am disagreeing with your statement above?

If yes, then where, when, and how, exactly?

[Age]

Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?

nuclear powers don't get invaded

if Ukraine had nukes...

-Imp

But, countries with, supposedly, 'weapons of mass destruction' do, right?

By the way, what is the difference in actual 'destruction' made from weapons of 'mass destruction' from just 'nuclear weapons'?

Is the 'destruction' not as 'massive' in size? Or, something else, exactly?

[Age]

Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?

nuclear powers don't get invaded

if Ukraine had nukes...

-Imp

Oh, I forgot to ask, Does "Israel" have 'nuclear powers'?

If yes, then does "israel" get invaded by bombs, weapons, and/or rocket launchers?

If yes, then will you elaborate on what you actually meant above, here?

[Gary Childress]

Why, to you, 'the people' of 'the country' "ukraine" can not choose who they want to become a member of nor with?

How about if instead of 'the people' of 'a country' not be allowed to choose who they want to become a 'member' with, or not, the people of the "north atlantic treaty organization" just honor their agreement, by just stopping to get other countries into that organization. They had already agreed to not allow that country into that organization, so continually advancing "eastwards" was always only going to cause more friction, cause distrust, and eventually lead to infighting, and warring.

If you keep 'poking the bear', as some say, then it will eventually attack, obviously.



But, was 'that' not 'the guarantee', or 'agreement', previously? Or, a similar version, if not?

So what exactly are you disagreeing with in my statement above, Age? Or are you in agreement with my statement above?

Why when I reply to you "gary childress" you automatically assume that I am disagreeing with you?

Just for information, some times when I reply to you posters, here, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I just ask questions, for clarity sake, so that if and when clarifying answers are provided, then I could use those answers to better back up and support my exact same viewpoint.

Me asking clarifying questions in regards to obtaining further clarification, elaboration, and/or for challenging sake, is done when I have the exact same view, or just about the exact same view.

For example, my first question, to you, above, here, was not because I disagree with you in any way, but because 'the way' you wrote it it could be interpreted that the people living in "ukraine" could not possibly choose in 'what way' they want 'that country' to go.

It would be best if the people of any country can choose, absolutely, freely 'whatever way' they want that country to go without the fear nor intimidation from any person, nor people, from any other country, but obviously in that 'whatever way' is chosen does not effect the people, of other countries, negatively.

And, I was just pointing out that if 'the people' of 'that organization' had not broken their previous agreement and would just stop 'trying to' get 'the people' of "ukraine" to join 'that organization', in the beginning, then the 'current' crises would not have even begun.

Do you believe I am disagreeing with your statement above?

If yes, then where, when, and how, exactly?

I apologize Age. I didn't realize they were clarifying questions because it doesn't really matter whether or not I believe the people of Ukraine have a right to join whatever organization they want. That concern is overridden by the fact that the Russian leadership sees it as a threat to their security and that NATO had said it was not going to expand eastward. In the name of peace, it is probably necessary to revoke any such invitation to Ukraine. No more needs to be said in my opinion.

[Age]

So what exactly are you disagreeing with in my statement above, Age? Or are you in agreement with my statement above?

Why when I reply to you "gary childress" you automatically assume that I am disagreeing with you?

Just for information, some times when I reply to you posters, here, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I just ask questions, for clarity sake, so that if and when clarifying answers are provided, then I could use those answers to better back up and support my exact same viewpoint.

Me asking clarifying questions in regards to obtaining further clarification, elaboration, and/or for challenging sake, is done when I have the exact same view, or just about the exact same view.

For example, my first question, to you, above, here, was not because I disagree with you in any way, but because 'the way' you wrote it it could be interpreted that the people living in "ukraine" could not possibly choose in 'what way' they want 'that country' to go.

It would be best if the people of any country can choose, absolutely, freely 'whatever way' they want that country to go without the fear nor intimidation from any person, nor people, from any other country, but obviously in that 'whatever way' is chosen does not effect the people, of other countries, negatively.

And, I was just pointing out that if 'the people' of 'that organization' had not broken their previous agreement and would just stop 'trying to' get 'the people' of "ukraine" to join 'that organization', in the beginning, then the 'current' crises would not have even begun.

Do you believe I am disagreeing with your statement above?

If yes, then where, when, and how, exactly?

I apologize Age. I didn't realize they were clarifying questions because it doesn't really matter whether or not I believe the people of Ukraine have a right to join whatever organization they want.

For information, absolutely every sentence I write with a question mark at the end is for 'clarification'. I have explained 'this' previously, but that never means that you have had to seen it, so maybe you did not realize 'this' earlier but now you will hopefully always remember from now on.

By the way, what you believe, or not, here, had no bearing on any thing, here, nor was I even asking absolutely any thing about your belief, here.

I just asked, to you, 'Why they could not choose what they wanted?'

That concern is overridden by the fact that the Russian leadership sees it as a threat to their security

And so too would every other so-called "leader" of any other country, and especially more so if the "other side" had already agreed to not encroach any closer.

and that NATO had said it was not going to expand eastward. In the name of peace,

So, how can 'they' 'now' be trusted again, when 'they' have already shown to break 'an agreement' in which they had already made?

it is probably necessary to revoke any such invitation to Ukraine.

Why do you say and claim that it was 'an invitation' to "ukraine"?

I think you find that it is far more likely that the people from the "north atlantic treaty organization" just kept encroaching "eastward" without necessarily being 'invited'.

Some might suggest that you are sounding like you are 'trying to' blame 'the people' of "ukraine" for this 'current' crisis, here.

No more needs to be said in my opinion.

Okay.

But I am pretty sure more needs to said, and understood, here. That is; if peace and harmony is really what you people want and desire, here.

[Gary Childress]

Why when I reply to you "gary childress" you automatically assume that I am disagreeing with you?

Just for information, some times when I reply to you posters, here, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I just ask questions, for clarity sake, so that if and when clarifying answers are provided, then I could use those answers to better back up and support my exact same viewpoint.

Me asking clarifying questions in regards to obtaining further clarification, elaboration, and/or for challenging sake, is done when I have the exact same view, or just about the exact same view.

For example, my first question, to you, above, here, was not because I disagree with you in any way, but because 'the way' you wrote it it could be interpreted that the people living in "ukraine" could not possibly choose in 'what way' they want 'that country' to go.

It would be best if the people of any country can choose, absolutely, freely 'whatever way' they want that country to go without the fear nor intimidation from any person, nor people, from any other country, but obviously in that 'whatever way' is chosen does not effect the people, of other countries, negatively.

And, I was just pointing out that if 'the people' of 'that organization' had not broken their previous agreement and would just stop 'trying to' get 'the people' of "ukraine" to join 'that organization', in the beginning, then the 'current' crises would not have even begun.

Do you believe I am disagreeing with your statement above?

If yes, then where, when, and how, exactly?

I apologize Age. I didn't realize they were clarifying questions because it doesn't really matter whether or not I believe the people of Ukraine have a right to join whatever organization they want.

For information, absolutely every sentence I write with a question mark at the end is for 'clarification'. I have explained 'this' previously, but that never means that you have had to seen it, so maybe you did not realize 'this' earlier but now you will hopefully always remember from now on.

By the way, what you believe, or not, here, had no bearing on any thing, here, nor was I even asking absolutely any thing about your belief, here.

I just asked, to you, 'Why they could not choose what they wanted?'

That concern is overridden by the fact that the Russian leadership sees it as a threat to their security

And so too would every other so-called "leader" of any other country, and especially more so if the "other side" had already agreed to not encroach any closer.

and that NATO had said it was not going to expand eastward. In the name of peace,

So, how can 'they' 'now' be trusted again, when 'they' have already shown to break 'an agreement' in which they had already made?

it is probably necessary to revoke any such invitation to Ukraine.

Why do you say and claim that it was 'an invitation' to "ukraine"?

I think you find that it is far more likely that the people from the "north atlantic treaty organization" just kept encroaching "eastward" without necessarily being 'invited'.

Some might suggest that you are sounding like you are 'trying to' blame 'the people' of "ukraine" for this 'current' crisis, here.

No more needs to be said in my opinion.

Okay.

But I am pretty sure more needs to said, and understood, here. That is; if peace and harmony is really what you people want and desire, here.

What more needs to be said and understood for there to be peace and harmony?

[Impenitent]

Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?

nuclear powers don't get invaded

if Ukraine had nukes...

-Imp

Oh, I forgot to ask, Does "Israel" have 'nuclear powers'?

If yes, then does "israel" get invaded by bombs, weapons, and/or rocket launchers?

If yes, then will you elaborate on what you actually meant above, here?

unofficially they do

I was thinking "invaded" like large incursions of land troops after formal declarations of war by nations...

Israel is constantly swatting flies

-Imp

[Impenitent]

Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?

nuclear powers don't get invaded

if Ukraine had nukes...

-Imp

But, countries with, supposedly, 'weapons of mass destruction' do, right?

By the way, what is the difference in actual 'destruction' made from weapons of 'mass destruction' from just 'nuclear weapons'?

Is the 'destruction' not as 'massive' in size? Or, something else, exactly?

the US "supposedly" disposed of all our chemical or biological weapons...

VX is fun stuff

-Imp

[Age]

I apologize Age. I didn't realize they were clarifying questions because it doesn't really matter whether or not I believe the people of Ukraine have a right to join whatever organization they want.

For information, absolutely every sentence I write with a question mark at the end is for 'clarification'. I have explained 'this' previously, but that never means that you have had to seen it, so maybe you did not realize 'this' earlier but now you will hopefully always remember from now on.

By the way, what you believe, or not, here, had no bearing on any thing, here, nor was I even asking absolutely any thing about your belief, here.

I just asked, to you, 'Why they could not choose what they wanted?'

That concern is overridden by the fact that the Russian leadership sees it as a threat to their security

And so too would every other so-called "leader" of any other country, and especially more so if the "other side" had already agreed to not encroach any closer.

and that NATO had said it was not going to expand eastward. In the name of peace,

So, how can 'they' 'now' be trusted again, when 'they' have already shown to break 'an agreement' in which they had already made?

it is probably necessary to revoke any such invitation to Ukraine.

Why do you say and claim that it was 'an invitation' to "ukraine"?

I think you find that it is far more likely that the people from the "north atlantic treaty organization" just kept encroaching "eastward" without necessarily being 'invited'.

Some might suggest that you are sounding like you are 'trying to' blame 'the people' of "ukraine" for this 'current' crisis, here.

No more needs to be said in my opinion.

Okay.

But I am pretty sure more needs to said, and understood, here. That is; if peace and harmony is really what you people want and desire, here.

What more needs to be said and understood for there to be peace and harmony?

Plenty, like for example, if one really did want to live in peace and harmony, then they would have to first be open and admit the Wrong that they do, then they would need to be honest, while they are seeking out help in order to change for the better, and then just keep speaking absolutely openly and honestly in the quest for them to change for the better. Then, while doing 'this', you will start to 'understand' far, far more, here.