I live in the red dot on this map: This is Russia: My point is that give or take some "small" dot on the map, Russia already neighbors Europe and NATO and there's nothing that "Ukraine shouldn't join NATO or EU because we feel threatened" would change about that. Even giving up the whole fucking Europe wouldn't change shit about Russia feeling threatened about the rest of the world. So I'd say enough is enough. Ukraine could give up on the territories already occupied by Russia, like Romania gave up on Moldova without a single shot fired (initially, then a lot of shots fired in WW2). And the rest of Ukraine join EU and NATO. That will only move a few dots on the world map, shouldn't threaten nobody.
Ukraine must stay neutral like Austria. War was started and paid for by corrupt US bureaucrats. The displaced Ukraine population never wanted this war, their democracy was subverted by the US.
ukraine is not a country until 1991, it was a region. poles and russians fought over the region before and after mongols. i vacationed in romania back in 2009, nice quite place with nothing to see, other than churches and things. friends advised me not going to ukraine for no partiuclar reason so i didn't go.
You live in the Roman provence of Dacia then. Russia put about 80 percent of its population in the 20 percent that is pushed right up against the rest of Europe. If Russian leadership feels "encircled" or lacking in strategic depth, it's a consequence of their own population distribution rather than any external aggression. They have the space, they just don’t use it. If they don't move East pretty soon, China will have it.
>> You live in the Roman provence of Dacia then. Thanks for noticing. Modern Romanians are the ancestors of those Dacians (or Daci as we say) but not without a quirk. It took moving south of Danube for about 1000 years to ditch the migration wars following Roman collapse, before making it back to homeland, which in the last iteration of the 1000 years war, was occupied by the magyars. They still not 100% at peace with us occupying back our original place, with all the 20+ century effort to reconcile everyone. When Romania took Transylvania back at the end of WW1 they made great effort: - Not to have any genocide. Instances of how The State intervened you have in https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflictul_interetnic_de_la_Târgu_Mureș and https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineriada_din_ianuarie_1999. It takes for the state to become strong enough to handle these sort of conflicts though. - In the meantime, around 1918 an exhausted Hungary was asked "Do you want to put up with Romania invading a quarter of your country? Many of you wiill die but some of you might make it proudly back home" Democracy was a bad idea because the Austro-Hungarian soldiers voted overwhelmingly on "fuck it, let Romania take it". Apart from the official language being immediately changed de jure but not even now in practice for some regions from Hungarian to Romanian, nothing happened. Taxes continued to be collected (for a while less than before, to appease the population, then business as usual). Interethnic marriages continued to happen. Overall not much changed in the distribution of the population that wouldn't have changed anyway. It's not prehistory anymore.
It wasn't until I was in Romania a couple of years ago training Ukrainian snipers (many operating as partisan then territorial defence) in anti-materiel sniper techniques I twigged to to Rome - Romania connection. It's funny how you can see something your whole life and not put two and two together.