The demands of Russia were that Ukraine would basically be demilitarized, security would be monitored by Russia and China through the UN, and Ukraine would be prohibited from formally or informally being a part of NATO, and the prior existing Mink Accords would be followed.
If you want to claim that Russia can’t be trusted, etc, that’s a different argument. But the deal that was put forward, over a million lives ago, wasn’t about land captured.
“Security would be monitred by Russia and China” means that it would be monitored by the country who’s just invaded you and its ally which means capitulation.
That is arguably a far far far far worse deal, asking a country to demilitarize after being attacked in a war of pure aggression and greed, by a country that couldn’t give a shit about international law is insane. The only deal Ukraine should accept is all of their land back with unconditional surrender of the Russian military in every square inch of Ukrainian land.
As I said, that’s a different argument. But claiming that Russia was demanding land is just not the case.
in a war of pure aggression and greed
I don’t support Russia or Putin. But their aim has been blatantly to not have NATO on their border here, and to have a series of buffer states.
The only deal Ukraine should accept
Given neither one of us is fighting in the trenches, I don’t think either of us should be telling Ukrainian conscripts what they should or shouldn’t accept. It’s pretty morally repugnant to me to demand someone else fights and dies for something I won’t.
You do get, if they accepted that deal, that would effectively be the end of Ukraine the moment Russia regroups for another attack. What country would accept a deal that effectively hands all power to their enemy. That isn’t actually a deal, it’s another act of aggression. Sure, it’s not for us to decide. But you’re even more delusional if you think Ukrainians want to hand additional power to Russia. It seems like you’re accepting Russian propaganda as reality.
We usually have things called elections to find out what people want to do.
How many democratic countries in defensive wars (ones where they have skin in the game) have held elections mid-war? Nobody doubts Britain’s a democracy, but they suspended elections in WW2. And it’s not like Churchill became PM fresh off an election campaign himself.
so a worse deal than the talks I recall, okay. ill let you simmer on why demilitarizing while you are being invaded is a bad idea because I’m not explaining that to you
I don’t need you explaining anything to me? You’re claiming it was a land grab, and it wasn’t. Seems you should get a better idea of the subject before deciding you need to lecture others.
yeah and I was apparently wrong, so given your new information I have concluded that it is worse than my expectations.
do you really think that Ukraine not taking a deal that leaves them a complete sitting duck to a known greedy and aggressive country is the wrong play, or are you just trolling? regardless I’ll leave you to think on this, or just continue spreading your nonsense. get a grip
the deal was to give up land captured by the aggressor of the war, and we have seen how much russia respects their deals
Just one more appeasement bro
That wasn’t the deal.
https://www.understandingwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Fact20Sheet20Istanbul20Protocol20Draft20Agreement20of20April20152C2020222028129.pdf
The demands of Russia were that Ukraine would basically be demilitarized, security would be monitored by Russia and China through the UN, and Ukraine would be prohibited from formally or informally being a part of NATO, and the prior existing Mink Accords would be followed.
If you want to claim that Russia can’t be trusted, etc, that’s a different argument. But the deal that was put forward, over a million lives ago, wasn’t about land captured.
“Security would be monitred by Russia and China” means that it would be monitored by the country who’s just invaded you and its ally which means capitulation.
Again, if you want to say it’s a bad deal,it’s a different argument. Russia wasn’t demanding territory,and that’s what the poster was claiming.
That is arguably a far far far far worse deal, asking a country to demilitarize after being attacked in a war of pure aggression and greed, by a country that couldn’t give a shit about international law is insane. The only deal Ukraine should accept is all of their land back with unconditional surrender of the Russian military in every square inch of Ukrainian land.
As I said, that’s a different argument. But claiming that Russia was demanding land is just not the case.
I don’t support Russia or Putin. But their aim has been blatantly to not have NATO on their border here, and to have a series of buffer states.
Given neither one of us is fighting in the trenches, I don’t think either of us should be telling Ukrainian conscripts what they should or shouldn’t accept. It’s pretty morally repugnant to me to demand someone else fights and dies for something I won’t.
You do get, if they accepted that deal, that would effectively be the end of Ukraine the moment Russia regroups for another attack. What country would accept a deal that effectively hands all power to their enemy. That isn’t actually a deal, it’s another act of aggression. Sure, it’s not for us to decide. But you’re even more delusional if you think Ukrainians want to hand additional power to Russia. It seems like you’re accepting Russian propaganda as reality.
We usually have things called elections to find out what people want to do.
No, again, I just don’t call for wars I don’t fight in.
How many democratic countries in defensive wars (ones where they have skin in the game) have held elections mid-war? Nobody doubts Britain’s a democracy, but they suspended elections in WW2. And it’s not like Churchill became PM fresh off an election campaign himself.
Britain didn’t suspend elections in WWII, they used a parliamentary trick to avoid them.
They’re a monarchy. Without a constitution.
so a worse deal than the talks I recall, okay. ill let you simmer on why demilitarizing while you are being invaded is a bad idea because I’m not explaining that to you
I don’t need you explaining anything to me? You’re claiming it was a land grab, and it wasn’t. Seems you should get a better idea of the subject before deciding you need to lecture others.
yeah and I was apparently wrong, so given your new information I have concluded that it is worse than my expectations.
do you really think that Ukraine not taking a deal that leaves them a complete sitting duck to a known greedy and aggressive country is the wrong play, or are you just trolling? regardless I’ll leave you to think on this, or just continue spreading your nonsense. get a grip
Must be nice to decide that Ukraine has to keep fighting when you’re not one of the conscripts dying.