How NATO forgot about its promise not to expand to Eastern Europe.

How NATO forgot about its promise not to expand to Eastern Europe and what did it lead to.. The Ukraine was credited with the arrogation of many habitats including eastern Moldova, Polish Galicia, and part of Romania in 1945 as well as the Crimea after WW2.

The ukraine also retained all these territories after the disintegration of the Soviet Union so fundamentaly, Ukraine is, in Eastern Europe, a concept, a notion, construction land, an artificial form of state, encompassing the various ethnicities and their former territories..

These diverse areas of varying ethnicities soon became a place of enmity, disorganization, conflict and chaos.. a bit like when the globalists went to Yugoslavia post Tito..

The agreement between the newly created Russian Federation and the USA was for the Russian Federation to withdraw its troops from the former east Germany to allow for the reunification of Germany and from the former communist countries of the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and allow them to gain self determination. However, the agreement was a commitment that NATO will not expand to the East, the mentioned countries, including Romania and Ukraine, will provide the fender, becoming the buffer zone between NATO and the Russian Federation. Russia has actually adhered to the agreement whereas the west defaulted multiple times on this agreement.

Also after the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine found itself in the position of being the third largest nuclear power in the world. It possessed more nuclear weapons than the United Kingdom, France and China combined... around 1900 nuclear warheads were transferred to Russian territory for destruction between 1994 and 1996. In exchange for the renunciation of the nuclear arsenal, Russia, the USA and the UK pledged, through the Budapest Memorandum: To respect independence, sovereignty and borders of the Ukraine... again Russia adhered to the agreement..

What should Ukraine have done if it had decent leaders? It would have maintained a status of neutrality between the two nuclear powers. To become similar to a Switzerland.

It would have benefited both from economic relations with Russia.. much of the economy interconnected with Russia anyway.. and from openness to the EU economy. Being a market of 45 million inhabitants, with the second largest territory after Russia, rich in resources, it met all the conditions to become a desirable economic partner for any country... but what did Ukraine do? Its leaders revelled in the corruption brought to them by western globalists..

Putin demanded: 'Give us back the territories that did not belong to you, which we gave you as a gift because you did not enter the USSR with them.'.. And with a lightning operation he took back Crimea, Donbas and Luhansk. Putin must have thought: 'You didn't like being neutral? Did you really need The EU? Did pedojoe embolden you?' This was probably Putin’s thinking...

Biden was Obama's vice president at the time. He directly supported and maintained the EU. After that, Hunter, his son, settled in Ukraine and did a colossal business. And when the chief prosecutor opened a criminal case. We know from before the election theft Biden called the puppet president they had appointed to change this prosecutor.

The Ukraine isn't our war, its an private arrangement, let them sort out the mess they created.. in fact, I can't even bring myself to feel any patriotism for NATO even if Russia annexes its former territories.. After all, these parasites in charge have changed our world so much in the last 2 years without any consideration whatsoever for what happens to the populations.