We don't understand each other's positions because we're working from different versions of events and perspectives, but I'll briefly clarify.

US economists and politicians assisted Russia with transitioning to a capitalist economy and were on good terms until NATO expanded. Yeltsin objected in the 90s and Putin persistently objects, yet US-NATO ignore their opposition. A peace treaty that incorporates Russia's concerns and Eastern Europe's safety by assuring military aid in the case of a violent conflict provides security without threatening or provoking Russia, but the US insists on NATO's presence.

What I don't understand is if NATO's intention is to maintain peace, why does it continue expanding when Russia's reaction is always the same? If you wanted to evade conflicts would you persist with a strategy that perpetually fails?

Ukrainians wanted peace - not a wartorn country. NATO still hasn't accepted or denied the request, yet has no intentions of offering membership. So, Ukraine can't join NATO, yet endures the war it hoped to evade.

I blame Russia, the UK, the EU, and the US governments, and Zelensky for failing to protect Ukrainians from the horrors of war. The US knew that ignoring Putin's pre-war concerns would result in violence, yet decided negotiating with Putin was worse than war. The US didn't force Russia to invade, but it could have done more stop it from happening, and there's nothing wrong with expecting more from our government.

Governments should do whatever it takes to avoid deadly conflicts, and compromising is not a weakness. The US has the power and influence to create positive change, yet chooses to waste them on wars for oil and sustaining enemies.

The US' response to Putin's pre-war terms are public, and negotiations between the US, Russia, and Zelensky should resume immediately, but ending the war doesn't seem to interest anyone.