Source: <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/battle-for-ukraine/what-comes-next-in-ukraine/>

> 
> He seems to be performing quite well. Poroshenko’s role is **to reassure** the nationalists that there will be no sell out, while on the other hand making a deal with Russia, which at least to a certain extent will be a sell out. It’s a difficult political balance to keep. Poroshenko also has to be a bullish negotiator with Moscow and know that Moscow does not treat weak positions with respect.
> 
> 
> 

How would the meaning of the sentence change if I left out the **to** particle like this:

> 
> Poroshenko’s role is **reassure** the nationalists that there will be no sell out, while on the other hand making a deal with Russia, which at least to a certain extent will be a sell out.
> 
> 
> 

Would the meaning still be the same or is there some kind of little nuance that makes a big difference to the sentence if you change the infinitive form to its bare form without the to particle?

And now please take a look at these two sentences:

> 
> 1: The last thing the 'if' statement does is **break** the loop when a word is found". How can you explain this usage?
> 
> 
> 2: The location numbers on the map's eastern edge are 2, 5, and 8. If you divide any of those numbers by 3, you'll get a remainder of 2. So all you need to do is **use** the modulus operator to check for this, and you can tell whether or not the player is on the very eastern edge of the map.
> 
> 
> 

Are they correct? How do all these three sentences stack up against each other?