The Ukraine war. (Yes, we'll mind our manners)

[LOL_Man]

Yeah, no.

The anti-war position is not pro-enemy; your accusations are merely a way for you dismiss the argument. The only thing you are dismissing with that line of "tinking" is yourselves.

Your "position" directly aids the 3 biggest global adversaries of the United States.

How is it possible to be "anti-war" while supporting an invading army? You want Ukraine to give Russia all or part of their country, strengthen the Russia-China alliance, and virtually guarantee further Russian aggression in Europe aided by their new Chinese alliance while also emboldening Chinese ambitions on Taiwan in return.

Russian victory means a stronger alliance with China. More Chinese weaponry into Russia. A much stronger alliance between the two while a Russian defeat takes out Putin and virtually destroys the Russia-Chinese alliance and maybe even has a more pro-Western Russia emerge from the ruins of Putin. China gives the Russians more stability and aide in exchange for a guaranteed source of oil for the Chinese... the one thing we currently can hang over their heads in any conventional war with us. These are critical pieces. Absolutely critical.

Every meaningful understandable foreign policy objective points towards defeating Russia in Ukraine as critical to global stability and continued United States dominance.

Yet here you lackeys are. As ignorant in this thread as you are in all the others. You'd think by sheer chance you could get one right in one thread somewhere, but it sure isn't this one.

 

[SDC888]

Your "position" directly aids the 3 biggest global adversaries of the United States.

How is it possible to be "anti-war" while supporting an invading army? You want Ukraine to give Russia all or part of their country, strengthen the Russia-China alliance, and virtually guarantee further Russian aggression in Europe aided by their new Chinese alliance while also emboldening Chinese ambitions on Taiwan in return.

Russian victory means a stronger alliance with China. More Chinese weaponry into Russia. A much stronger alliance between the two while a Russian defeat takes out Putin and virtually destroys the Russia-Chinese alliance and maybe even has a more pro-Western Russia emerge from the ruins of Putin. China gives the Russians more stability and aide in exchange for a guaranteed source of oil for the Chinese... the one thing we currently can hang over their heads in any conventional war with us. These are critical pieces. Absolutely critical.

Every meaningful understandable foreign policy objective points towards defeating Russia in Ukraine as critical to global stability and continued United States dominance.

Yet here you lackeys are. As ignorant in this thread as you are in all the others. You'd think by sheer chance you could get one right in one thread somewhere, but it sure isn't this one.

That's a strawman argument, and speculative, but yeah: it's win/win for us, lose/lose for them.

That doesn't make it the best course of action.

And it's win/win for China too.

What's certainly the case is that you in the pro-war camp can't make your "argument" without ad-hominems and strawmen.

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

That's a strawman argument, and speculative, but yeah: it's win/win for us, lose/lose for them.

That doesn't make it the best course of action.

And it's win/win for China too.

And Americans do not want a powerful China. The CCP has shown their immaturity and bullying nature as a secondary power.

 

[LOL_Man]

That's a strawman argument, and speculative, but yeah: it's win/win for us, lose/lose for them.

That doesn't make it the best course of action.

And it's win/win for China too.

Is Russia and Putin stronger or weaker by winning in Ukraine and getting concessions for lets say a land bridge to Crimea at a minimum, Putin staying in power, the alliance with China growing stronger, advanced Chinese weaponry pouring into Russia, and a guaranteed source of cheap oil to the Chinese in return. Plus Russian support for any Chinese aggression on Taiwan which all results in a stronger Russia in Europe and a stronger China in the South China Sea.

You literally have to be incapable of rational thought to think we are better off with Russia winning in Ukraine than losing.

 

[SDC888]

Russia and China are natural enemies, not allies.

 

[SDC888]

Is Russia and Putin stronger or weaker by winning in Ukraine and getting concessions for lets say a land bridge to Crimea at a minimum, Putin staying in power, the alliance with China growing stronger, advanced Chinese weaponry pouring into Russia, and a guaranteed source of cheap oil to the Chinese in return. Plus Russian support for any Chinese aggression on Taiwan which all results in a stronger Russia in Europe and a stronger China in the South China Sea.

You literally have to be incapable of rational thought to think we are better off with Russia winning in Ukraine than losing.

I never said we are better off wit them winning than we are them losing.

I hope they lose. I'm pretty sure they won't.

 

[LOL_Man]

And Americans do not want a powerful China. The CCP has shown their immaturity and bullying nature as a secondary power.

So you guys really think China is weaker with a Russian win in Ukraine?

Interesting, but it makes all your other positions a little easier to understand.

 

[LOL_Man]

Russia and China are natural enemies, not allies.

So you're just delusional at this point? Gotcha.

Russia and China Unveil a Pact Against America and the West

In their matching mauve ties, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping last week declared a “new era” in the global order and, at least in the short term, endorsed their respective territorial ambitions in Ukraine and Taiwan. The world’s two most powerful autocrats unveiled a sweeping long-term agreement that also challenges the United States as a global power, nato as a cornerstone of international security, and liberal democracy as a model for the world. “Friendship between the two States has no limits,” they vowed in the communiqué, released after the two leaders met on the eve of the Beijing Winter Olympics. “There are no ‘forbidden’ areas of cooperation.”

Agreements between Moscow and Beijing, including the Treaty of Friendship of 2001, have traditionally been laden with lofty, if vague, rhetoric that faded into forgotten history. But the new and detailed five-thousand-word agreement is more than a collection of the usual tropes, Robert Daly, the director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States, at the Wilson Center, in Washington, told me. Although it falls short of a formal alliance, like nato, the agreement reflects a more elaborate show of solidarity than anytime in the past. “This is a pledge to stand shoulder to shoulder against America and the West, ideologically as well as militarily,” Daly said. “This statement might be looked back on as the beginning of Cold War Two.” The timing and clarity of the communiqué—amid tensions on Russia’s border with Europe and China’s aggression around Taiwan—will “give historians the kind of specific event that they often focus on.”

 

[SDC888]

So you're just delusional at this point? Gotcha.

Russia and China Unveil a Pact Against America and the West

In their matching mauve ties, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping last week declared a “new era” in the global order and, at least in the short term, endorsed their respective territorial ambitions in Ukraine and Taiwan. The world’s two most powerful autocrats unveiled a sweeping long-term agreement that also challenges the United States as a global power, nato as a cornerstone of international security, and liberal democracy as a model for the world. “Friendship between the two States has no limits,” they vowed in the communiqué, released after the two leaders met on the eve of the Beijing Winter Olympics. “There are no ‘forbidden’ areas of cooperation.”

Agreements between Moscow and Beijing, including the Treaty of Friendship of 2001, have traditionally been laden with lofty, if vague, rhetoric that faded into forgotten history. But the new and detailed five-thousand-word agreement is more than a collection of the usual tropes, Robert Daly, the director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States, at the Wilson Center, in Washington, told me. Although it falls short of a formal alliance, like nato, the agreement reflects a more elaborate show of solidarity than anytime in the past. “This is a pledge to stand shoulder to shoulder against America and the West, ideologically as well as militarily,” Daly said. “This statement might be looked back on as the beginning of Cold War Two.” The timing and clarity of the communiqué—amid tensions on Russia’s border with Europe and China’s aggression around Taiwan—will “give historians the kind of specific event that they often focus on.”

China is using Russia, and Russia is using China.

We are using Ukraine.

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

So you guys really think China is weaker with a Russian win in Ukraine?

Interesting, but it makes all your other positions a little easier to understand.

Hmm no. I was saying the opposite. China is leaning on Russia to build their Belt and Road / New Silk Road Initiative.

 

[LOL_Man]

China is using Russia, and Russia is using China.

We are using Ukraine.

Well of course. That pretty much sums up foreign policy.

We have our interests and they have theirs.

The question is, does your position support their objectives (Russia/China) or ours? ANSWER THAT QUESTION DIRECTLY.

But I know, you can't.

 

[SDC888]

Well of course. That pretty much sums up foreign policy.

We have our interests and they have theirs.

The question is, does your position support their objectives (Russia/China) or ours? ANSWER THAT QUESTION DIRECTLY.

But I know, you can't.

Sure I can.

The anti-war position is not pro-enemy.

It's literally as nonsensical and asinine as claiming being anti-iraq war was being pro-Jihadi John.

 

[LOL_Man]

So you couldn't answer it. Of course.

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

China is using Russia, and Russia is using China.

We are using Ukraine.

Right. Friends is not what I’d call their alliance. More like a alliance out of mutual benefit, as both feel encircled by the West (Russia by the Baltics, Poland, Ukraine and China by Korea, Japan, the Philippines.)

 

[The-Hack]

As for the UN I cant cite any Security councul resolutions

The implication (or explicit claim) of most threads by those opposed to our material support of Ukraine, is the claim of a moral equivalence between our actions of the last 20 years and Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

This is a false equivalency.

If you do not like the UN, has any broadly based, international body, or recognized moral authority condemned our ventures in Iraq, Afganistan, etc. as most have condemned the actions of Russia in Ukraine?

The World Court?

The Vatican?

The Dalai Lama?

If your reflexive answer is that all “Western” bodies/authorities are corrupt, then you need to get on a plane and head to “the other side.”

And this is not as much pointed at you, Castle, as I do not think you have held Russia blameless in this war, but some have.

 

[The-Hack]

That's a strawman argument,

Using a lazy, “bumper-stickerish” claim that another’s argument is a “straw man” is a tacit admission that it can not be substantively refuted.

 

[WildcatofNati]

The implication (or explicit claim) of most threads by those opposed to our material support of Ukraine, is the claim of a moral equivalence between our actions of the last 20 years and Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

This is a false equivalency.

If you do not like the UN, has any broadly based, international body, or recognized moral authority condemned our ventures in Iraq, Afganistan, etc. as most have condemned the actions of Russia in Ukraine?

The World Court?

The Vatican?

The Dalai Lama?

If your reflexive answer is that all “Western” bodies/authorities are corrupt, then you need to get on a plane and head to “the other side.”

And this is not as much pointed at you, Castle, as I do not think you have held Russia blameless in this war, but some have.

As a matter of fact, Pope John Paul II and the Vatican indeed opposed Iraq. The UN was generally opposed; Annan certainly was. For better or worse, Mandela is considered a "recognized moral authority". He was adamantly opposed. It goes on and on and on.

 

[SDC888]

So you couldn't answer it. Of course.

I answered it forthrightly, you just don't like the answer. You especially don't like the irrationality of it laid so bare before you.

Anti-war is not pro-enemy: conflation of the two is a non sequitur if I'm being charitable, divisive/evasive propagandist if I'm telling you why they said it.

Using a lazy, “bumper-stickerish” claim that another’s argument is a “straw man” is a tacit admission that it can not be substantively refuted.

No.

It's a straw man argument which doesn't need to be substantively refuted. There is no genuine argument you in the pro-war camp can make which cannot be substantively refuted, hence your reliance on such tactics.

You don't want substantive debate, just bluster and bloviation.

 

[The-Hack]

As a matter of fact, Pope John Paul II and the Vatican indeed opposed Iraq. The UN was generally opposed; Annan certainly was. For better or worse, Mandela is considered a "recognized moral authority". He was adamantly opposed. It goes on and on and on.

Then I must declare that “a strawman argument!” 🤠

 

[CastleRubric]

The implication (or explicit claim) of most threads by those opposed to our material support of Ukraine, is the claim of a moral equivalence between our actions of the last 20 years and Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

This is a false equivalency.

If you do not like the UN, has any broadly based, international body, or recognized moral authority condemned our ventures in Iraq, Afganistan, etc. as most have condemned the actions of Russia in Ukraine?

The World Court?

The Vatican?

The Dalai Lama?

If your reflexive answer is that all “Western” bodies/authorities are corrupt, then you need to get on a plane and head to “the other side.”

And this is not as much pointed at you, Castle, as I do not think you have held Russia blameless in this war, but some have.

I hear you, Hack--Stan -- feel zero "gotcha" vibes fm you & truly appreciate the conversation

I am MORE than happy to have discourse here lead to new knowledge or a correction to some aspect of my views (convictions notwithstanding)

Also - this is a good example of why i would like to meet you as well


You ask if i can point to an organization or authority that has condemned the US/Western actions similar to the condemnation leveled at Russia --

I can not

But I think you're overlooking or downplaying the fact that The USA has been a particularly powerful and important sponsor to the types of agencies that are often viewed as objective voices in such affairs

The UN has needed US (et al) membership dues flowing their way so they have an operating budget

The US has the power (along with the UK, France, China & Russia) - to single handedly prevent the UN fm taking any military intervention action through the UNSC

NATO & the powers within Europe NEEDED US military might parked in Europe after WW2 ended - the Soviet threat was real & the US material/financial role in NATO raised that alliance to a genuine counter-threat to Warsaw

So -- I'm challenging the notion that the UN , WHO or NATO are legitimate sources where we can find objective and unbiased evaluations on who the good guys are and who the bad guys
are ---

How often do we see organizations freely criticize or condemn their principle benefactors?

It DOES sometimes happen but not when the organization is in a position of dependency & weakness to the stakeholder : member that keeps their cushy , ineffective jobs available

There HAVE been notable libertarian type criticisms of the US' role post 9/11 --->> and there USED TO BE excellent criticism from sound thinkers within the "traditional left"
(pushing back against "Bushs Wars, Patriot Act type encroachments, Rumsfield links to profit with electronic voting machines, birth of the 'neo con' preemptive war tactics-- etc)

So there HAVE been external criticisms with merit

But Lets talk about our own direct observation of whats happened since (roughly) 2001

Broadly speaking - can you point to a nation that we invaded or liberated after 9/11 that benefited fm our military actions?

You really HAVE to acknowledge that we are responsible for an ENORMOUSLY HIGHER QUANTITY of military campaigns - dropping a LOT more munitions on more people and destroying more infrastructure than Russia has -- right?

Finally --
Separate fm all those details

Do you really believe that its critical for US military intervention within UKR - to protect - (?) Europe? NATO?? the world?

It HAS to be us?

 

[CastleRubric]

As a matter of fact, Pope John Paul II and the Vatican indeed opposed Iraq. The UN was generally opposed; Annan certainly was. For better or worse, Mandela is considered a "recognized moral authority". He was adamantly opposed. It goes on and on and on.

The Uranium / WMD presentations that included General Powell seemed solid --
then turned into an embarrassment

Powell acknowledged the data given wasn't true but stated he had been misled

That may be true

But there WAS fairly widespread disdain and reproach against the US rampaging repeatedly in the ME

It was often couched as criticism against Bush
or others - and a lot of truth was contained in those arguments

I didn't see that until years later

 

[The-Hack]

Broadly speaking - can you point to a nation that we invaded or liberated after 9/11 that benefited fm our military actions?

I tend not to follow these places closely, but I googled Iraq. They still have some form of a Constitutional system, so I suppose that is of benefit.

I get you on the UN, but they have pounded us and Israel into 2 to 150 type votes in the past. We have a veto on Security Counsel matters, but not all votes of conscience.

 

[CastleRubric]

I tend not to follow these places closely, but I googled Iraq. They still have some form of a Constitutional system, so I suppose that is of benefit.

I get you on the UN, but they have pounded us and Israel into 2 to 150 type votes in the past. We have a veto on Security Counsel matters, but not all votes of conscience.

Agreed on the "vote not equating to moral clout" thing --

Our status as the only viable option for a
stable reserve currency has also historically diverted serious criticism & push back IMo

Hey sarge...

I JUST got back home fm visiting BellCo
Family --

Whats the best way for us to take our convo offline & swap #s - set up a lunch or walk or coffee or something equally not-weird and likely wonderful?

I will be on UK campus tomorrow at 11 for my processing/screening by UK

wanna get food?

 

[LOL_Man]

 

[The-Hack]

Do you really believe that its critical for US military intervention within UKR - to protect - (?) Europe? NATO?? the world?

You have suggested we have sinned.

Assuming the worst of your opinion about
our sins is true, how much latitude does that give Russia for similar or worse sins?

Why does it?

We can go on all day about the degree of importance for our support of Ukraine . . . we “assured” them of such support upon their gain of independence.

In writing.

Can you cite what constitutes “US military intervention within Ukraine?”

Do you think we have boots on the ground, there?

 

[The-Hack]

I will be on UK campus tomorrow at 11 for my processing/screening by UK

I could make room on about any Wednesday.

 

[LOL_Man]

Suggesting an equivalency between the United States and Russia is disgusting on its face and needs no defense.

 

[The-Hack]

THE WAR WITHIN THE WAR:

RUSSIA INTENTIONALLY SENDING WAGNER TROOPS TO THEIR SLAUGHTER IN BAKHMUT:

Russia-Ukraine war: Xi to visit Russia as early as next week; Moscow says it could agree to shorter Black Sea grain deal – as it happened

China’s president planning to visit Moscow soon and also speak to Zelenskiy; hopes for possible grain deal extension but Russia wants 60-day limit

amp.theguardian.com

Even allowing for wartime propaganda, Ukraine has the defensive advantage in Bakhmut, with estimates of 4 to 7 times the death rate for the human waves sent by Russia, attacking dug in forces.

Why lose so many at such a rate?

Maybe Putin wants them dead!

“

Wagner forces sent to die in Bakhmut: ISW​

The conflict between Russian Ministry of Defence and Wagner Group financier Yevgeny Prigozhin has likely reached a climax as thousands of fighters have died fighting in Bakhmut.
According to the Institute for Study of War (ISW) analysis, the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) is “currently prioritizing eliminating Wagner on the battlefields in Bakhmut” which it concludes is slowing its advance in the area.
It said the conflict began when Prigozhin ran a “relentless defamation” campaign against senior figures in the Russian military, including Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu and Chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov.
Now that the group has failed to show progress it is believed Russian MoD officials are “seizing the opportunity to deliberately expend both elite and convict Wagner forces in Bakhmut in an effort to weaken Prigozhin and derail his ambitions for greater influence in the Kremlin.”


Well, you sure hate to see it . . . .

 

[The-Hack]

Meanwhile, the founder of Wagner stakes a curious claim on the future:

“He added that Wagner ‘will begin to reboot’ and start hiring once Bakhmut is captured, adding he wanted to turn his private military company into an ‘army with an ideology’ that would fight for justice in Russia.”

If I’m Putin, the last thing I want is a privately funded “army with an ideology fighting for justice in Russia.”

Putin suffering ‘extremely heavy casualties’ in Bakhmut ‘killing zone’ – latest

Russia’s elite ‘left relatively unscathed’ by mass casualties, UK intelligence suggests

www.independent.co.uk

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Your "position" directly aids the 3 biggest global adversaries of the United States.

How is it possible to be "anti-war" while supporting an invading army? You want Ukraine to give Russia all or part of their country, strengthen the Russia-China alliance, and virtually guarantee further Russian aggression in Europe aided by their new Chinese alliance while also emboldening Chinese ambitions on Taiwan in return.

Russian victory means a stronger alliance with China. More Chinese weaponry into Russia. A much stronger alliance between the two while a Russian defeat takes out Putin and virtually destroys the Russia-Chinese alliance and maybe even has a more pro-Western Russia emerge from the ruins of Putin. China gives the Russians more stability and aide in exchange for a guaranteed source of oil for the Chinese... the one thing we currently can hang over their heads in any conventional war with us. These are critical pieces. Absolutely critical.

Every meaningful understandable foreign policy objective points towards defeating Russia in Ukraine as critical to global stability and continued United States dominance.

Yet here you lackeys are. As ignorant in this thread as you are in all the others. You'd think by sheer chance you could get one right in one thread somewhere, but it sure isn't this one.

No, see, there is the problem. SCD actually sees the problem and solution while we war hawks are woefully ignorant. We would do well to try (its impossible to achieve) to be as spot on the issues as SCD. His greatness brings tears to my eyes. He's the MJ of military and political understanding.

 

[SDC888]

No, see, there is the problem. SCD actually sees the problem and solution while we war hawks are woefully ignorant. We would do well to try (its impossible to achieve) to be as spot on the issues as SCD. His greatness brings tears to my eyes. He's the MJ of military and political understanding.

I was telling you a year ago that those were some of the reasons the war was being fought in the first place.

 

[vhcat70]

Anyone understand this:

"Russia’s mounting casualties are reflected in a loss of government control over the country’s information sphere, the Institute for the Study of War said. The think tank said Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova confirmed “infighting in the Kremlin inner circle” and that the Kremlin has effectively ceded control over the country’s information space, with Putin unable to readily regain control.

The ISW saw Zakharova’s comments, made at a forum on the “practical and technological aspects of information and cognitive warfare in modern realities” in Moscow, as “noteworthy” and in line with the think tank’s long standing assessments about the “deteriorating Kremlin regime and information space control dynamics.”

What does it mean?

Russian advance stalls in Ukraine's Bakhmut, think tank says

A leading think tank says Russia’s advance seems to have stalled in Moscow’s campaign...

www.beaumontenterprise.com

 

[Glenn's take]

I definitely get the enemy of my enemy is my friend vibe from Vlad so there is that.

 

[bcw1029]

THE WAR WITHIN THE WAR:

RUSSIA INTENTIONALLY SENDING WAGNER TROOPS TO THEIR SLAUGHTER IN BAKHMUT:

Russia-Ukraine war: Xi to visit Russia as early as next week; Moscow says it could agree to shorter Black Sea grain deal – as it happened

China’s president planning to visit Moscow soon and also speak to Zelenskiy; hopes for possible grain deal extension but Russia wants 60-day limit

amp.theguardian.com

Even allowing for wartime propaganda, Ukraine has the defensive advantage in Bakhmut, with estimates of 4 to 7 times the death rate for the human waves sent by Russia, attacking dug in forces.

Why lose so many at such a rate?

Maybe Putin wants them dead!

“

Wagner forces sent to die in Bakhmut: ISW​

The conflict between Russian Ministry of Defence and Wagner Group financier Yevgeny Prigozhin has likely reached a climax as thousands of fighters have died fighting in Bakhmut.
According to the Institute for Study of War (ISW) analysis, the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) is “currently prioritizing eliminating Wagner on the battlefields in Bakhmut” which it concludes is slowing its advance in the area.
It said the conflict began when Prigozhin ran a “relentless defamation” campaign against senior figures in the Russian military, including Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu and Chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov.
Now that the group has failed to show progress it is believed Russian MoD officials are “seizing the opportunity to deliberately expend both elite and convict Wagner forces in Bakhmut in an effort to weaken Prigozhin and derail his ambitions for greater influence in the Kremlin.”


Well, you sure hate to see it . . . .

Not sure if accurate, but some sources have stated that had 45K troops pre-Bakhmut and since trying to storm the city, now down to 7K. Meat for the meat grinder.

 

[SDC888]

Anyone understand this:

"Russia’s mounting casualties are reflected in a loss of government control over the country’s information sphere, the Institute for the Study of War said. The think tank said Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova confirmed “infighting in the Kremlin inner circle” and that the Kremlin has effectively ceded control over the country’s information space, with Putin unable to readily regain control.

The ISW saw Zakharova’s comments, made at a forum on the “practical and technological aspects of information and cognitive warfare in modern realities” in Moscow, as “noteworthy” and in line with the think tank’s long standing assessments about the “deteriorating Kremlin regime and information space control dynamics.”

What does it mean?

Russian advance stalls in Ukraine's Bakhmut, think tank says

A leading think tank says Russia’s advance seems to have stalled in Moscow’s campaign...

www.beaumontenterprise.com

It means that regime change plan is working, that the thinktanks are telling you it is.

So keep up the $upport.

 

[Bill Cosby]

I wonder how rich Zelensky is going to get letting Xi broker a peace deal.

 

[Spica Orbit]

America's Fabric of Lies

 

[Spica Orbit]

Bakhmut

 

[JumperJack]

Suggesting an equivalency between the United States and Russia is disgusting on its face and needs no defense.

Such conceit. Our government ceased to represent our values long, long ago.

 

[JumperJack]

You have suggested we have sinned.

Assuming the worst of your opinion about
our sins is true, how much latitude does that give Russia for similar or worse sins?

Why does it?

We can go on all day about the degree of importance for our support of Ukraine . . . we “assured” them of such support upon their gain of independence.

In writing.

Can you cite what constitutes “US military intervention within Ukraine?”

Do you think we have boots on the ground, there?

“Assurances” is diplomatic nicety. There’s no treaty and nothing binding. We are choosing this.