Sorry to say, NATO membership is just the carrot on the stick that the US uses to lead Ukraine around.

Do you really believe the US considers Ukraine a "true ally"? All the evidence shows that Ukraine is just another useful tool to weaken Russia. US Senators admit this reality from the Senate floor.

Not everyone wants this conflict to end, some are getting very rich.

Of course, any deal that relies simply on Putin's word isn't worth the paper its printed on.

Well-designed peace deals never rely on honor. They rely on mutual benefit, verification, with agreed-upon punishments for failure.

Yes of course Putin wants as much land as he can get.

I'm also saying that, if the deal had been reached in spring 2022, Ukraine would control more territory than it currently controls now. And there would be at least 100,000 more Ukrainians alive that wouldnt have been sacrificed to Putin's meat grinder. Thousands of murdered Ukrainian civilians would still be alive.

Or if you'd like me to be more specific, the US and the UK.

I have no idea what could have given you that silly idea. I'm being realistic about the issues that go along with US military support.

The US is treating Ukraine the same way it treated Afghanistan during the Soviet war. Afghanistan, just like Ukraine, was the victim of an unjust invasion. We (the US) supported the opposition to the Soviets, and we handed them billions in weapons. We were on the right side.

But we also sabotaged peace deals to prolong the war. We increased the ferocity and brutality of the fighting. We meddled in local politics, choosing winners and losers. This pattern did not end well for the people of Afghanistan, and I fear a similar fate for the people of Ukraine.

So you're saying the west is providing enough weapons to keep the conflict going, but not providing the weapons Ukraine says it needs to win the war? Hmmm

You would know what I'm talking about if you actually read the sources I linked to.

If I am spreading lies, it is because I believed those lies when I read them in reputable publications like The New York Times and The Nation.

Do you have a source for those "Putin demands"? That is news to me and I'd love to read more.

In the 2022 talks, many people negotiated in good faith, including President Zelenskyy. You can find many quotes from Zelenskyy praising the progress made in these negotiations. Do you think Zelenskyy is extremely naive and unrealistic, or is he a Russian puppet too?

So how do you feel about the US and UK ending the peace talks? You seem to be avoiding the subject here.

I do not want Ukraine to surrender, that is stupid.

Every war ends with talking to your enemy, this war will be no different. The sooner Ukraine and Russia can come to a negotiated settlement, the sooner the Ukrainian people will know peace.

According to the New York Times, the initial Russian demands were

Ukrainian recognition of its annexation of Crimea in 2014, permanent Ukrainian neutrality, and autonomy for the ethnic Russian provinces, or oblasts, in eastern and southeastern Ukraine

In return, Ukrainian demands were

Russia be held accountable for war atrocities, withdraw from all captured Ukraine territory, including Crimea, and pay reparations.

As negotiations progressed, both sides made concessions over the status of Crimea, the allowed positions of Russian troops, and the status of Ukraine in regards to NATO and its nuclear nonproliferation.

Then, the west put its finger on the scale and ended the negotiations.

Are you responding to the wrong person? The Russian invasion of Ukraine is horrible and unjustified; I disagree with nothing you said.

What I am pointing out is the US and Western interest in the conflict. The US does not support Ukraine for moral reasons, it supports Ukraine for profit.

The US has an interest in extending the war. For example, the closest Ukraine has come to peace were the talks during spring of 2022. The influence of the US, and specifically Boris Johnson, ended those talks.

Whenever someone is convicted of criminal export and trade sanction violations they are subject to 20 years in prison.

It's not disinformation to point out the role the US and UK played in shutting down every peace talk in this conflict.

Yes none of the current sanctions regimes constitute a complete embargo. That does not change the underlying logic that they are enforced by violence.

Thankfully Iran's interests align with ethics in this case.

If any tanker tried to defy US sanctions on Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, or Russia it would be sunk the same way.

Good.

Iran and the Houthis are doing what every ethical nation should be doing: enforcing a trade embargo on Israel for the crime of genocide.

The military industrial complex is committed to fight to the last Ukrainian. Its simply good for business.

You're right, and none of that gives me hope that Harris will pivot.

The re-elect Harris campaign will start on January 20th, and the political reality you just described will still exist.

Changing stances on Israel's genocide will take leadership, which is something we haven't seen from the Harris campaign. It is not Harris leading a campaign on principle, it is the polls leading the Harris campaign, just as you described it.

Those suburban moderates' views can be changed, they just have never been exposed to an opposing message. The news says Israel is the good guys and Hamas is the bad guys; only those on the fringes say otherwise. If Harris would show leadership and take a principled stance on the side of humanity, she could bring most of these low information moderate voters with her.