"Or are you trying to imply the deal was "we will defend you as long as you don't get attacked, but if you get attacked the deal is off""
When the attacker is as part of an agreement yeah pretty sure it’s null and void…
Discussion
What do you mean?
What do you mean?
Stop wasting my time if you can't explain your points. Trolling doesn't make you cool
I made my point… you under no circumstances give up weapons for peace as you get neither afterwards…
Why don’t you stop eating people’s time…
Well, that's what they're effectively telling Ukraine to do, again. They have built resilient fortresses along the border to the Russian-controlled lands, that Russia hasn't been able to take. They call those areas "the meatgrinder", if you get the drift, and it's nearly stopped the advancement.
So, Russia is trying to get them to give those fortresses up by treaty, in exchange for Russia pinky-swearing that it will be friendly and nice to them, forever, in exchange.
But Ukraine did that last time, and the whole Russian-pinky-swear treaty thing didn't really work out well for them. Now, everyone screams at them, that they are war-mongers, but if Russia mows them over, 5 minutes after they abandon the fortresses, those same people will be like, Oh, nobody could have seen that coming... Woops.