Comments by "D. San" (@DSan-kl2yc) on "Trump renews attack on Zelensky and demands deal to end Ukraine war | BBC News" video.

@maryfowles807 You can win defensively by just not losing. Ukraine's goals are just to not lose first and foremost. The rest is just putting pressure on Russia to stop. That's why people try to help out with sanctions. And cheap oil prices
2
 @borderlandfilms7956 You're still spreading a line that gorbachevhimself said it wasn't true
2
 @miteshghadi3146 Russia is not winning. Russia isn't doing anything. It's stuck.
2
@cate9963 You can't stay neutral when someone keeps attacking you. Those people end your neutrality. Like saying you're going to stay out of a war and then you get invaded You can't stay out of something that happens to you
1
@raycuizon8226 Yes it will because they have to sell it pretty cheap Russia is not doing well. It's lost a lot of people It didn't have much people to begin with. And the only growth has been in the military. It's arguable how sustainable that is.
1
 @miteshghadi3146 That's not a good sign
1
@ALL.LLEGAL Russia and Putin started this war. That territory is Ukrainian. Look at what Russia did to Chechnya. The conflict in Ukraine was exacerbated by Russia but it wasn't against Russians. It was about Ukranians. In Ukranian territory.
1
 @GundalaPutraPetir500x flat out lie.
1
 @mimiruss8444 But they could have kept some of it and just used it like it wouldn't have been hard. They also could have sold the rest of it. The biggest fear was proliferation.
1
 @vanwaestel It doesn't exist except in the minds of gullible people
1
 @daleviker5884 There's suspicious thing to say. It was so unimportant that it isn't mentioned in anything. No deal mentions it.
1
 @jonpaul3868 which Ukraine inherited when that country stopped existing
1
@daleviker5884 well none of that is true. Regan was out of office. Gorbachev has said he made zero deals about expansion. Dems didn't do anything, Not sure why you're trying to rile up Republicans. And NATO didn't do anything since it didn't even accept Ukraine
1
 @FevenYohannes-u9p very rapey of you
1
@miteshghadi3146 Russia started a war and it hoped that it could end it fast enough that no one could do anything. But Russia took the risk of a broader war by attacking someone it recognized the territory of, someone they knew was allies with the US and who the US had agreed to give assurances to. Someone they knew was allied with the rest of Europe
1
 @ShamanMcLamie if the deal is equivalent to a Russian victory then it makes no sense. If the deal doesn't stop russia from invading then it makes no sense
1
 @user-dfdssgrhrawsewr bunch of lies. Russia doesn't accept that Ukraine people had a strong desire for democracy
1
@user-dfdssgrhrawsewr Just to correct some lies. Ukraine was not seized except in the donbas by any armed group. Crimea was not pro joining Russia. That wasn't a political discussion that was voted for by the legitimate government of Crimea. Ukraine's parliament had agreed to a friendship deal with EU. Their president was in Russia 's pocket The people protested and it grew. The president agreed to step down but then ran to Russia. The parliament then removed him from office and had an interim president. Within like 6 months they had elections. There was nothing legal about invading Crimea.
1
 @Noneofyourbusiness57817 Putin has the option to end it everyday and choose not to
1
@borderlandfilms7956 Article has "Oct 16 2014" as published date. RBTH: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.” M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it. Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object.
1