1. Can we clarify whether the mentioning of purchasing Javelin missiles by Zelenskyy was a REQUEST, or a PROMISE?
I would be interested if someone has some backlog of talks on this subject with Ukraine, as I either haven't followed it sufficiently or else such things are not reported on in such a way as someone like me could see them without too much trouble. IMO however the main means of determining this is to look at (a) the U.S. semi-recent history in the Ukraine to determine what their objectives have been, and (b) to look at their general objectives with various countries re: selling arms.
For (a) my suggestion would be that the U.S. has been consistenly trying to wrest the Ukraine area away from Russian influence in various ways, and that a move towards selling to them and arming them would further these goals. A lot of foreign policy PR in the last 5 years (more during Obama's admin than now, though) has been about the Russian threat to Ukraine and how more of a buffer zone is needed to keep Russia at bay. The sabre rattling (which I used to talk about more but not as much lately) is often centered around the Eastern European arena. This battle is also about oil sales and cutting off Russia from customers. For (b) my observation has been that the U.S. will happily sell to anyone not currently threatening their interests, and it would be out of character for the military industrial complex to consider such sales to be doing others a favor. My best guess is that, by observation, armanent sales are what the U.S. tries to get others to do, not something they're lining up for and being refused.
2. Why is NATO trying to encircle Russia? Who is behind this?
Whoaa big question! To discuss this you need to include all of the following topics:
-Global arms sales and how to ensure business is always drummed up.
-Gloabl oil sales and who is competing with whom in the Europe/Asian sphere.
-Part of this assessment requires a specific look at the Iran/Saudi antagonsim and where the material (not religous)
conflict lies.
-International banking interests and who is competing for market dominance.
-This one item is so bad that it alone could derail the entire ability to approach the question.
-Is it Western bloc (American banks, JP Morgan, Goldman-Sachs, London interests, etc) against the Eastern bloc?
-Is it IMF vs BRICS?
-Is it certain factions within each region against other factions within that same region? Or maybe USA vs Europe?
-Is it a conflict over
types of banking systems, e.g. private owned vs state controlled?
-Local necessities by government to create narratives for their own populations.
-To what extent to exterior events serve as a means to create local narratives, and to what extent is their cooperation
between nations on using public events for local purposes?
-Just for example, it is possible in this way to view the Cold War as having been at least partially a cooperative
event, where the exterior conflict could be used to establish policy with each faction's own people and to justify
moves that would otherwise not be accepted.
-Even now it's worth asking how much of sabre rattling is real, vs how much is theatre agreed upon by both sides.
-To what extent are certain coalitions also a force for narrative creation?
This all would help us to ask a basic question - what is NATO, anyhow? What is it realistically for, and what does it accomplish? Ironically Trump asked these questions although I'm not sure he had a clear thought in his head about it. Maybe he was just repeating something he heard. It does have to be answered before answering why NATO might have certain goals, such as strangling Russia, and not others, such as peaceful relations and cooperation. Maybe the latter are not possible for some reason, but that requires defining its function and goals first.