Comparing that to China’s “priority” for infrastructure in the original post is at best unfair. And while arms racing in general is not a good thing, the original post lumps that together with support for Ukrane. That is the message I take issue with.

Okay, that's a fair point.

If Russia is not stopped no agreement will be final, it’s all about the ambition to rebuild the Soviet Union and “compromise” won’t do it.

But what evidence do you have to support this? We have a short and long term history to look at showing NATO going back on their promises, lying, sowing chaos. Russia by comparison has been reliable. Isn't the fair thing then to try to make the compromise survive as long as possible? Because the alternative to compromise is people dying. Even if it's none of your friends, surely you don't want Russians dying either, right?