Terms seem rather agreeable and a far sight better than any peace deal that would be signed today.
Why the fuck did they not sign this? It properly codifies security guarantees from the UNSC, only properly relinquishes Crimea, leaves the LNR/DNR up to diplomacy, and makes Russian an official language along with Ukraine (which captures the fact that some 34% of Ukrainians speak Russian).
Hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, millions fled from the country, Crimea still lost, Bakhmut lost, Avdiivka lost, and for what? To “prevent another war” despite more comprehensive security guarantees from the UNSC? To “bleed the Russians dry” despite being outproduced by the sheer industrial output of Soviet-era machinery in Russia? To “stand up for sovereignty” despite clearer and clearer signs of covert US intervention during and following Euromaidan?
Thanks for asking, it was around +10 degrees per Celsius this afternoon, which is quite warm for this time of the year. But there is a downside as there’s melting snow everywhere.
You know what also would have saved lives, and reduced tensions? Not going to war in the first place, the fact is that Putte was the one to attack and start this whole shitshow means that Russia is in the wrong, not Ukraine.
This profound analysis is a real gem of modern Western thought!
It’s also pretty silly because there are two NATO member nations closer to Moscow than Ukraine.
But hey, I can’t imagine why the people of all these democratic nations keep voting to join a mutual defense pact. It can’t be because of anything to do with fear of being invaded by the unstable dictator next door, after all, we know the world only exists of the US and Russia and no other people could possibly have a voice in their local government or matter in any way.
The terms that restrict the size of the Ukrainian military, bar Ukraine from receiving foreign assistance to rebuild its military, forbid it from seeking security guarantees from any country or bloc, … The terms that would have made it trivial for Russia to further invade at any point in the future?
Terms seem rather agreeable and a far sight better than any peace deal that would be signed today.
Why the fuck did they not sign this? It properly codifies security guarantees from the UNSC, only properly relinquishes Crimea, leaves the LNR/DNR up to diplomacy, and makes Russian an official language along with Ukraine (which captures the fact that some 34% of Ukrainians speak Russian).
Hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, millions fled from the country, Crimea still lost, Bakhmut lost, Avdiivka lost, and for what? To “prevent another war” despite more comprehensive security guarantees from the UNSC? To “bleed the Russians dry” despite being outproduced by the sheer industrial output of Soviet-era machinery in Russia? To “stand up for sovereignty” despite clearer and clearer signs of covert US intervention during and following Euromaidan?
What a fucking mess.
Removed by mod
Let’s be clear: your claim is that no fighting occurred before Russia’s invasion in 2022?
No? That is exactly why I didn’t enter a date in my post…
Putte did attack Crimea in 2014, that is what I consider the start of the current conflict.
Thanks for asking, it was around +10 degrees per Celsius this afternoon, which is quite warm for this time of the year. But there is a downside as there’s melting snow everywhere.
This profound analysis is a real gem of modern Western thought!
Not expanding NATO.
Removed by mod
It’s also pretty silly because there are two NATO member nations closer to Moscow than Ukraine.
But hey, I can’t imagine why the people of all these democratic nations keep voting to join a mutual defense pact. It can’t be because of anything to do with fear of being invaded by the unstable dictator next door, after all, we know the world only exists of the US and Russia and no other people could possibly have a voice in their local government or matter in any way.
The terms seem agreeable?
The terms that restrict the size of the Ukrainian military, bar Ukraine from receiving foreign assistance to rebuild its military, forbid it from seeking security guarantees from any country or bloc, … The terms that would have made it trivial for Russia to further invade at any point in the future?
Those terms seem agreeable?
Because any state is an apparatus of violence? Regardless whether it is Ukraine or Russia?