Comments by "PNH 6000" (@PNH-sf4jz) on "Ukraine to Give Up Territory for NATO Membership?" video.

The Ukrainians do not have to give up territory and will not give up territory. We can be assured of that. In the true sense of the expression often used and misapplied by Terror-Russian and pro-Terror-Russian shills and trolls - "To the last Ukrainian", if that is what it takes. 🇺🇦 Better to die with honour than to be subjugated, subordinated, dominated and to live in servitude to the Terror-Russian political and military establishment. That country and their political and military power-base have clearly shown their intentions, and the outcome will be disastrous, for Ukraine and other countries, if the Terror-Russians are successful in achieving their stated or unstated goals and objectives. 🇺🇦 I believe that the Ukrainians are fully aware that the gradual attrition and erosion of Terror-Russian resources, hardware and equipment, serves Ukrainian purposes in saving Ukrainian lives and even more massive destruction. It is better that the counter-offensive proceeds slowly and is effective rather than creating a splash of blood with minimal gains. 🇺🇦 Victory for Ukraine 🇺🇦 Real Peace, Not Appeasement 🇺🇦
2
@mynameisnobody3931 Thank you very much for your reply and also the clarification. I believe that your summation about defences and protection of Ukraine are absolutely correct. That is for the protection of Ukraine, but other countries also. Since the Terror-Russians have clearly indicated through their political and military establishment and media presenters, that they intend "recovering" the independent countries that were once incorporated within the USSR. Cheers, PNH
2
@mynameisnobody3931 🇺🇦👍🇺🇦 Unlike the Terror-Russians, I believe in and have faith that the West {Free World} will be alongside Ukraine "for as long as it takes."
2
I disagree. The Terror-Russians have very clearlly stated that the objectivve of the Terror-Russian political and military establishment is to recover control of the countries that were formerly members of the USSR. 🇺🇦 Ceding any territory to the Terror-Russians will only encourage the Terror-Russians, since they will consider any such concessions as proof of the validity of their claims. Any land ceded to the Terror-Russians will then become a base for future military operations and offensives against Ukraine and other countries. 🇺🇦
1
Sounds more like you are supporting Terror-Russia. The shills and trolls are becoming tricky; they are now using ingratiation and passive aggressive styles to project their messages. 🇺🇦
1
As long as it is Moscow that the Ukrainians need to cede to Russia, I am all in favour. 🇺🇦
1
Absolutely agreed and supported.
1
@mynameisnobody3931 👍
1
The suggestion may have been deliberately made so that it could be clearly and unambiguously refuted by the NATO Defensive Alliance administration, as has occurred. In this way, a clear message is sent to Moscow and the rest of the Terror-Russian political and military establishment that the idea of ceding Ukrainian territory will not be counternanced by the NATO Alliance. In other words, the NATO Defensive Alliance member countries "will continue to support Ukraine, without concession, for as long as it takes". It is likely that the other ~20 countries, assisting and supporting Ukraine, will confirm that they also stand by these principles. 🇺🇦 I believe the message has been sent in this way, without the need for any direct contact with any of the Terror-Russian political or military establishment. In this way the message is more public and even stronger than would have been the case if it had been sent through political channels. 🇺🇦 The message may also have been sent in order to counter ideas circulating, that pressure may be exerted on Ukraine to cede territory in return for NATO Defensive Alliance membership. 🇺🇦
1
It may be ignorant to assume that America {the USA} has said anything about Ukraine ceding any territory. 🇺🇦 What I believe the NATO Defensive Alliance of countries has done is simply sent a clear and unambiguous message. 🇺🇦 Recently, there has been discussion about two possibilities. Those are: 1) That supporting countries, including those in the NATO Defensive alliance, may pressure Ukraine to cede territory in return for NATO membership. 2) The possibility that Russia may anticipate Ukraine to cede territory for membership of NATO in order to end the WAR, waged by Terror-Russia against Ukraine. 🇺🇦 The NATO Defensive Alliance have both proposed the possibility and demonstrated that they reject the idea that their support would diminish if Ukraine did not accede to the possibility of ceding territory, and have told Terror-Russia, clearly and unambiguously, that they would neither withdraw support for Ukraine, nor pressure Ukraine to make any such concession. All this without direct communication with Terror-Russia.
1
I do not agree. 🇺🇦 Your response may be understandable, though I do not necessarily believe that response is correct. By someone verbalising that suggestion, and then having the suggestion clearly and emphatically rejected, is a way of sending the message to Moscow that no such arraangement is considered acceptable to the NATO Defensive Alliance member countries. A way of sending the message in an indirect manner. 🇺🇦 That decision and message may well be adopted by other non-NATO Defensive Alliance member countries. 🇺🇦 The only other way of sending such a message would be through the normal diplomatic channels. Doing so, in this way, would imply that such a possibility may exist. Remembering, that when we volunteer the negative in negotiations, we are implying that the positive response is possible. 🇺🇦 By a senior person in the NATO Defensive Alliance bureaucracy making the suggestion and the suggestion then, being totally discounted by the NATO Defensive Alliance administration, the message has been sent to Terror-Russia without any direct discussion with the Terror-Russian political and military establishment. 🇺🇦
1
Yes it would be a tragedy. Recently, I saw a video of a Russian couple {husband and wife}, who were offered work, by the Russians, in the Donbas region, possibly Mariupol. The wife looked particularly dejected and unhappy. The husband was quite clear when he said that he estimated 70% of the population did not want the Russians to remain as occupiers of Ukrainian territory. He said, not 50% but 70% as if to be quite clear about his assessment. I was somewhat surprised because I thought the Russians had brought more Russian people from various occupations into Ukraine. Given that this was a Russian person speaking, it is possible that even 70% was a conservative estimate. 🇺🇦 It appears that the Terror-Russians, by their activities, have converted many of the bi-lingual {Russian & Ukrainian language speakers} to speak only Ukrainian. The treatment of the population, by the occupying Terror-Russians, seems to have alienated many of the people who are Russian language speakers also. 🇺🇦 Furthermore, with the number of Ukrainians, adults and children, transported to Russia, and many Russians brought from Russia into Ukraine, particularly in occupations such as teaching and administrative roles, the population numbers have been artificially weighted in favour of Russia. Hence the reason, in part, why the so-called "annexationn referendums" have not been recognised by any counntry other than North Korea. 🇺🇦 "In late September 2022, in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian-installed officials in Ukraine staged so-called referendums on the annexation of occupied territories of Ukraine by Russia.[1][2][3][4] They were widely described as sham referendums by commentators and denounced by various countries. Currently, the validity of the results of the referendums has only been accepted by North Korea, and no other sovereign state." Source: Wikipedia. "2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine" 🇺🇦
1
Agreed and supported. I have responded to this issue in more detail, but concerned YouTube will veto multiple posting of the same or similar message. 🇺🇦 It is a way of sending a message to the Terror-Russians indirectly, by floating the suggestion and then clearly stating that it is discarded. All without any direct communication with the Terror-Russians. 🇺🇦 Suggestions not made cannot be accepted, refuted, denied or discarded. Also, as in "whiteboarding", even discussion of unacceptable possibilities often elicits possibilities or considerations that may be valuable. 🇺🇦
1
By someone verbalising that suggestion, and then having the suggestion clearly and emphatically rejected, is a way of sending the message to Moscow that no such arraangement is considered acceptable to the NATO Defensive Alliance member countries. That decision and messgae may well be adopted by other non-NATO Defensive Alliance member countries. 🇺🇦 The only other way of sending such a message would be through the normal diplomatic channels. Doing so, in that way would imply that such a possibility may exist. Remembering, that when we volunteer the negative in negotiations, we are implying that the positive response is possible. 🇺🇦 By a senior person in the NATO Defensive Alliance bureaucracy making the suggestion and the suggestion then, being totally discounted by the NATO Defensive Alliance administration, the message has been sent to Terror-Russia without any direct discussion with the Terror-Russian political and military establishment. An effective way of sending a message without direct contact. 🇺🇦
1
Maybe that was why the suggestion was made. In order to clearly demonstrate, in case the Terror-Russians thought any differently, that the member countries of the NATO Defensive Alliance have considered and discarded the possibility of Terror-Russia gaining any of the Illegally occupied territories of Ukraine. 🇺🇦 By someone making the suggestion and having the suggestion clearly discarded, there is absolutely no room for any other possibility. 🇺🇦
1
@CosmicBrain21 👍🇺🇦
1
Exactly. Any concessions, including ceding of any of the Donbas region and, or Crimea, will simply encourage future military action by the Terror-Russians against Ukraine and other countries. 🇺🇦 If Terror-Russia were to retain contol of Crimea, they would have a stranglehold over the entrance to the Azov Sea, the major navigable River Dnipro, when the river locks are re-established, and the ports of and near to Odesa. This would effectively kill Ukraine's maritime access through the Black Sea and to the Azov Sea.
1
Absolutely. Acknowledged, agreed and supported. 🇺🇦 Victory for Ukraine 🇺🇦 Real Peace, Not Appeasement 🇺🇦
1
What I believe the NATO Defensive Alliance of countries has done is simply sent a clear and unambiguous message. 🇺🇦 Recently, there has been discussion about two possibilities. Those are: 1) That supporting countries, including those in the NATO Defensive alliance, may pressure Ukraine to cede territory in return for NATO membership. 2) The possibility that Russia may anticipate Ukraine to cede territory for membership of NATO in order to end the WAR, waged by Terror-Russia against Ukraine. 🇺🇦 The NATO Defensive Alliance have both proposed the possibility and demonstrated that they reject the idea that their support would diminish if Ukraine did not accede to the possibility of ceding territory, and have told Terror-Russia, clearly and unambiguously, that they would neither withdraw support for Ukraine, nor pressure Ukraine to make any such concession. All this without direct communication with Terror-Russia.
1
Though I have supported your comment, there are some aspects with which I do not agree. 🇺🇦 The implementation of what is known as the "Marshall Plan" in Europe, after the 2nd WW, was apparently very successful. The punitive measures imposed on Germany, after the 1st WW, were said to have contributed to and precipitated the 2nd WW. 🇺🇦 Consequently, it is my belief that engagement is preferable to isolation and rejection, which is likely to breed significantly negative national "tumours" in Russia that will lead to the development of future conflict within and outside its borders. 🇺🇦
1
Your response may be understandable, though I do not necessarily believe that response is correct. By someone verbalising that suggestion, and then having the suggestion clearly and emphatically rejected, is a way of sending the message to Moscow that no such arraangement is considered acceptable to the NATO Defensive Alliance member countries. That decision and messgae may well be adopted by other non-NATO Defensive Alliance member countries. 🇺🇦 The only other way of sending such a message would be through the normal diplomatic channels. Doing so, in this way, would imply that such a possibility may exist. Remembering, that when we volunteer the negative in negotiations, we are implying that the positive response is possible. 🇺🇦 By a senior person in the NATO Defensive Alliance bureaucracy making the suggestion and the suggestion then, being totally discounted by the NATO Defensive Alliance administration, the message has been sent to Terror-Russia without any direct discussion with the Terror-Russian political and military establishment. 🇺🇦
1