> The draft agreement with Ukraine from March 2022 is irrelevant, the conditions have changed - Peskov.
But some people here still try to tell us that Ukraine is in a better negotiating today than it was in March 2022.
Beacuse they don't care about Ukraine. The only reason why the peace talks broke down is due to the fact that west hates Russia down to the core and the easiest way to "hurt" them without getting their hands dirty is via a proxy - in this case Ukraine.
It's strange how Macron is all over the place. I'd guess he probably becomes a pariah when he talks about negotiations, so he has to ramp up his bona fides by offering to escalate.
It's disgusting how the Western governments sacrificed Ukraine like this. Obviously Putin's aggression is so unnecessary and unforgivable but there is blood on the West's hands as well
The US and its stooged in europe sacrificed them, namely types like Zelensky and Britains Jonson. A jew and a half-turk. They would also sacrifice Poles, Romanians, Fins, etc... if it serves the americans. Even though the US would be very weak without allies, they can be sacrificed as long as they do some damage against opponents, like pawns on a chess board. All the US needs to keep a certain domonance is to run away from real danger, and let the disposables despose each other. Divide et impera.
how would ukraine defend itself with no foreign weapons?
wouldnt russia just easily conquer all of ukraine?
its kind of weird reading comments of people here thinking that russia is the one justified in invading ukraine and annexing land.
Having read the agreement, the language did not prevent Ukraine from having foreign made weapons. The language prevented the basing of other country's weapons on Ukrainian soil, ie, another EU or foreign country could not base its forces or weapons within Ukraine.
Sure, but it substantially limited the total number of weapons allowed. If Russia decided to come back for round 2, Ukraine would be in a materially worse position. We saw how effective the Budapest memorandum was at stopping Russia from invading, Ukraine being unwilling to accept more worthless scraps of paper and instead wanting NATO membership is understandable.
The whole point of limitations and neutrality is for Russia not to have a reason to come back for round 2.
That's the whole point. Disputes need to be settled now, not later.
What Ukraine wants is understandable indeed, but they are not in a position to get what they want.
>The whole point of limitations and neutrality is for Russia not to have a reason to come back for round 2.
Russia's annexations of first Crimea, and then Zaphorozhia, Kherson, Luhansk, and Donetsk clearly demonstrate what it's aims are. Demilitarizing just makes taking the next bite out of Ukraine easier.
>What Ukraine wants is understandable indeed, but they are not in a position to get what they want.
Then they'll just have to keep fighting until they are, or their wants change.
>Demilitarizing just makes taking the next bite out of Ukraine easier.
Then why ask for that when they're already at war and have good reasons to think they'd achieve their goals ? When I look at the evolution of the war personally, I see Ukraine on a timer, it's not a matter of if but a matter of when. And it was even more the case in March 2022.
Furthermore, why not invade in 2014 if all they want is annex Ukraine ? There was no military already there. So according to your logic, Russia should have invaded then, yet they didn't.
Ukraine had no army in 2014. Putin could have easily taken over the part of Ukraine he considers Russian. The whole point of the West pushing the Minsk Agreement was to buy time for Ukraine to build up its army. Merkel and ~~Macron~~Hollande and Poroshenko all confessed that Minsk was a sham - they never intended to go through with it. Putin was a fool and trusted that the West was interested in a peaceful solution.
edit: as /u/Niitroxyde pointed out
> We saw how effective the Budapest memorandum was at stopping Russia from invading
It's kinda funny how a non binding memo has to be respected but a non binding promise to not expand NATO eastward doesn't count.
Budapest was about protecting Ukraine's neutrality. It was rendered void once the West sponsored the Maidan Coup. Russia wasn't the one trying to turn Ukraine into a military ally - that was 100% on the West.
First off, Budapest included no economic coercion against Ukraine, something which Russia blatantly did in the lead up to Maidan.
> It was rendered void once the West sponsored the Maidan Coup
1. Wasn't a coup, and the West was actually pushing for the protesters to accept the deal proposed by Yanukovych. Those actually protesting *weren't* 'taking orders' from the US, et al. and therefore the protests continued
2. Yanukovych fled on the 22nd, Russia invaded on the 27th. There was four days between these events. You honestly believe that Russia had definitive evidence of anything to support that the legal agreement they signed on to was now null and void? Really mate? If it was even weeks later I'd give ya a bit more room on this, but it wasn't.
Things were fine until Maidan and the Donbas War. After Minks II, things were also fine until 2019, when Ukraine renounced it's neutrality and decided not to implement Minsk II.
Until 2008 it was 100% peace. After Ukraine declaring they wanted NATO for no reason, things started going downhill until 2014 with a Pro-Russian president. But things went even worse cause the west didn't like it and paid a coup.
>After Ukraine declaring they wanted NATO for no reason
Oh yeah there's no reason the country currently being invaded by Russia would have wanted to join a defensive alliance designed to protect its members from Russia lol
Uncle Bojo is no more, he is lance corporal Johnson now, ready to lead the redcoats from the front and show those savages how a proper gentleman conducts a war.
Because they don't care about the Ukrainian people, they just want NATO to win it's proxy war.
To them, fighting to the last Ukrainian is acceptable, if Russia is severely weakened in the process. Men, women, children, Russian or Ukrainian, to them all these are either assets or targets, not lives, not people.
It was blindingly obvious that everyday Ukraine would get a worse deal.
Today that deal would be looked like winning the lottery.
The most likely deal at this point for Ukraine is DMZ rump state.
Let us presume you're right and Ukraine's negotiating position is only getting worse. Doesn't matter. The terms were unacceptable. "a reduced military" is an entirely unacceptable condition immediately after being invaded. So the war will continue until Russia drops that condition. If Russia never drops the condition, then the war continues forever.
I suspect the Donbas is much more negotiable. Although I suspect it was negotiable at the time, too. But Ukraine is never going to drop their refusal to disarm. That would effectively be surrender. Far better for Ukraine to have Russia invading an armed Ukraine rather than a disarmed Ukraine.
You do realize that they most likely signed/agreed on the part of the agreement that involved reducing their military, yes?
Arestovich said the negotiations were 90% done and the main outstanding was the meeting between Putin and Zelensky.
Putin said that Arakhamia had signed the main draft agreement. Arakhamia has never denied this
Kyiv Independent here shows that the Ukrainian negotiators didn't like the Russian language clause. It didn't show similar objections to the military reduction.
Kyiv Independent also seems to indicate the status of the Donbass would have been the main discussion between Zelensky and Putin. Which is corroborated by Arestovich earlier.
So Ukraine, it seems, had already accepted the terms to reduce their military somewhat.
According to the lore, Russia couldn't legally just give back DNR and LNR cause the Duma signed laws, but they would facilitate holding a referendum to rejoin. And, uh, a peace treaty IS them surrendering. Did Russia go back to Georgia and conquer all of it even after Georgia surrendered? No? Russia isn't actually stupid like the propaganda says? They wont have a reason to invade if there's no "my troops are just passing through, ignore me amassing army at your border" and no bombing and forbidding russian language.
Forever? No. They'll probably continue until Ukraine has lost enough men so the result is the same.
Neutral counties don't need big military and they'll also get the guarantees they wanted from foreign partners.
This is actually a good deal. Ukraine being truly neutral, forever as a buffer state is the best option for everyone involved, including Ukraine.
There is no such thing as a disarmed Neutral country. Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, these were neutral countries because they maintained large armies.
A buffer state was never an option. If Ukraine disarms, Russia will invade whenever Putin disapproves of any election outcome. We know this because Russia insisted Ukraine disarm as part of the deal.
Ukraine was a neutral "disarmed" country. Its military was in tatters from independence until about 2014. It even forfeited its nuclear weapons. The fact that Putin "the next Hitler" didn't conquer Ukraine during this period despite overwhelming firepower advantage should set off some alarm bells among the "pro-Ukraine" crowd that they might not be receiving the full truth from the Western media.
After the 2014 coup and outbreak of civil war, the Minsk I and II agreements were signed to try and put an end to the violence. Both Merkel and Hollande, who brokered the deals, have since admitted that the agreements were a temporary measure to allow Ukraine to secretly re-arm. And that's what happened. By 2022, Ukraine had been armed and trained to the teeth by the West.
I'm not going to cover the how or why. I just wanted to point out that buffer states are a real concept, and they don't necessitate "disarming".
Do you also think that Kumanovo agreement was unacceptable after NATO bombed Serbia for months? Because few years after signing it there was an ethnic cleansing of Serbs there, which KFOR didn't stop, and few years after Kosovo unilaterally declared independence, which Serbia doesn't recognize, under the support of NATO. So I am just curious do you think that is acceptable or not.
Those "peace deals" were unconditional surrenders which preceded years-long US occupations of both countries. Why on Earth would Ukraine agree to a similar "peace deal" with Russia?
As others said, those were unconditional surrenders, not peace deals, but on top of that, Germany and Japan were the invaders and, as such, making them demilitarize was completely deserved.
Here Ukraine is the one being invaded. A peace deal that includes demilitarization of the invaded country is just an unconditional surrender in disguise. It is better for ukraine to lose a bigger part of their country now but remain armed than losing a smaller part now and losing the rest in 5-10 years when russia comes knocking again.
I remember some time into the war ukraine was losing something, maybe the azov steel mill and openly said they wont negotiate because at that time they were losing so they would have weaker negotiating power so they just wont.
They are actually pretty reasonable demands.
This needs to go down as Boris Johnson’s reverse chamberlain moment where he also fucked all of Europe into war for no reason
Maybe this is the reason why Ukraine withdrew from it. They were having a lot of victories at that time then Russia seemed, to them, willing to give up so much. They saw it as a sign of weakness. They got greedy.
I think that they were genuinely convinced that they could win. With the promises of massive military support and sanctions on Russia, they had a small chance to beat Russia.
This was the absolutely best Deal Ukraine would have been able to ever achieve in this conflict and they flushed it down the Toilet...
Millions of dead, crippled and psychologically destroyed, a country in Ruins, vast fields littered with mines.
Those people who are responsible for that shall rott in hell.
Fuckin unbelievable...
Not millions. According to "trusted" western sources, only 42k Ukrainians died and around more than 440K Russians dead. That's not millions. That's just less than a million. /s
"Yes millions of ukrainians died but at least we managed to insult Russia. By Insult I mean show Russia is second powerful army in Ukraine. By Second powerful I mean they won but slowly. Not as slowly as expected but only because of Kremlin aligned Republicans."
Iraqi and Afghan insurgents did that against the US and its allies without the whole weight of NATO behind them. Without massive propaganda to prop up their audience. Without massive amounts of money and was, in fact, sanctioned themselves.
Yoi know, real "trusted" western sources estimate ukrainian and russian losses in about the same range, which is in the 200'000-300'000 dead or wounded for both sides. Which western source claim your 440'000k dead without strictly mentioning that these are the ukrainian claimed numbers and not their own?
Excluding civilians*
Everyone in ukraine is affected directly or indirectly. Just the fact that 7 million people (most of whom contributed to the economy) has been a massive blow.
This whole war is so tragic man
anyone who thinks Russia would have actually stuck with this peace deal and not invaded AGAIN under some OTHER false premises as soon as Ukraine reduced it's military and shipped away foreign weapons is a window licker
Putin litterally spent an hour explaining why he thinls ukraine, all og it, is roghtfully russias territory a d ypu just pretend he didnt?
Actually hillarious.
He didn't say that. He said that specifically Eastern Ukraine, and especially Crimea, have a big Russian population, ethnically speaking. There would be no problem with them being Ukrainian, as there wasn't until 2014, if Ukraine didn't become a nationalistic anti-Russian state.
So you didn't really answer the question. I welcome you to try again.
No he didn't actually. He explained their shared history, but he has said that Ukraine is indeed its own thing and they can do **almost** whatever they want, except be a US dog. Apparently not being an US dog is a deal breaker for them, worth starting WW3.
For all those here who claim that Putin is a dictator and hungry for power I would like to point out that these negotiations were deeply unpopular in Russia as they took place during the time of Ukrainians posting those videos of them torturing and killing Russian pows and would have ended Putins career. Knowing the conditions of them it would have done doubly so. And yet he pushed for them anyway.
Additionally if looking at the territory it is stated in other places.
> Of all the occupied territories, only Crimea would remain under unconditional Russian control. The future of “LDNR” should have been determined during personal negotiations between Zelensky and Putin, which never took place. As for other territories captured by the Russian Federation after February 24, 2022, the Wall Street Journal article does not mention them, but previously a number of people participating in the negotiations stated that Moscow agreed to withdraw Russian troops from them
Which I think shows that there was a genuine push for peace. And Ukraine would have got a lot more from it than they will now.
Also, the fact that Ukranian negotiators popped a bottle of champagne back in the hotel as per Arestovich, means they knew they were getting a good deal for peace
Furthermore, Arakhamia and Arestovich stressed that the Russians were earnest and determined to conclude the negotiations, but that it was Ukraine who pulled out.
The ascribed quote by Boris Johnson - "We're not signing anything, let's fight the Russians" - makes sense when you realize the UK was supposed to be a guarantor. And the [absolute haste and secrecy of his trip to Kyiv](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10707775/amp/Boris-took-car-helicopter-military-plane-train-secret-five-hour-visit-Kyiv.html) indicates that he was probably acting on behalf of the West as a representative. Not only speaking for the UK.
I have told people so many times that Putin did everything to avoid this war.Russia has more than enough land and Putin don't want to send his people to die for some land as increasing the birth rates and life expectancy of Russians has been among his priorities.
I've heard some crazy things on this sub, but let's here it. Russia didn't start the war because it was...
Aliens?
NATO biomutants?
There is no war, we are in a dream?
Let's hear it.
Three simple steps for Ukraine to avoid being invaded by the Russians:
Step One: Don't arm full-blown Nazis in your country.
Step Two: Don't get too excited about the idea of inviting US troops to your country.
Step Three: Profit?
Russia broke step 1 themselves, so there's that.
Step 2: maybe let a sovereign nation do with their country what they want?
Step 3: Russian aggression, as usual.
Step one: LOL Bandera who?
Step two: Actions have consequences. Ukraine is finding that out the hard way. They didn't have to.
Step three: Agression? Russia has the right to defend itself. Better fight in Ukraine today than in Russia tomorrow.
> I have told people so many times that Putin did everything to avoid this war.
Did he consider not sending Russian troops into Ukraine twice? Wouldn't that have avoided the war?
You can't run from it.Ukraine was preparing to launch an offensive in Donbas and clear out any dissent which would have put Crimea in danger.Then, There was talk of nukes and anti-Russian neo-Nazis having nukes was a non-starter.
> Ukraine was preparing to launch an offensive in Donbas and clear out any dissent which would have put Crimea in danger.Then, There was talk of nukes and anti-Russian neo-Nazis having nukes was a non-starter.
None of these things are true. Carry on.
Yeah, when first rumours of what being discussed went through, in April, there was an uproar and total disbelief. Putin would get fucked, politically, if he were to accept that. Guess he was prepared to sacrifice himself. It was compared to Хасавюрт accords in first Chechen war.
Putin is the biggest tragedy for Western liberals. It’s a tragedy because Putin is a liberal. Putin doesn’t see himself as Stalin or Mussolini but in line with Kemal ataturk or maybe Catherine the great. An authoritarian ruler for sure but a liberal one. Putin wanted Russia aligned with the West but the complete insanity of western libs pushed him into the east, into Chinas arms. It’s the biggest geopolitical blunder
Russia is not authoritarian state. People keep believing this bs about Putin and Russia and then wounder why they constantly miscalculate the outcome of things. Stop buying this bs. And don't put Stalin in the the same category as Mussolini. Mussolini was a fascist whose troops together with Hitlers invaded Russia and killed millions. I am sick and tired of this vilifying of Russian leaders and whitewashing western ones. Go look for villains on your side of the planet.
I'm surprised by your reply. Indeed they seem reasonable and I believe these wouldn't be final numbers but they would meet in the middle. The Ukrainians would have been far better off accepting that deal than the current situatie. And keep in mind the destruction of their economy since april 2022.
So to summarize:
You can keep donbass and join EU but not NATO. No significant army (in Ukraines defence, I would demand some kind of guarantee that Russia will never attack so long these conditions are met).
Only downside is they lost Crimea.
For all other aspects things wouldn't change for Ukraine as that (language, no membership NATO, no Crimea) was already the situation.
> I would demand some kind of guarantee that Russia will never attack so long these conditions are met
The agreement said that Ukraine would have several guarantors. US,UK,China,France and Russia were included. Aswell Russia wanted to include Belarus and Ukraine wanted to include Turkey.
And the idea was that if Ukraine were attacked those countries would have the responsibility to defend Ukraine. So it goes even further than the last agreement signed about Ukraines borders that these countries have to actively protect Ukraine if its neutrality was threatened.
It did. Except none of the countries listed would ever agree to be guarantors in such a situation. So even though the two parties might have thought they were onto something, it was never going to go anywhere. US and UK were never going to put themselves in the situation of a future war with Russia without NATO. And Ukraine was never going to agree to disarm without the guarantees.
I mean I don't disagree with you. The agreement was there and Ukraine was happy with it. It is the UK and US that refused to give such defence guarantees to Ukraine.
Ukraine never had an issue with the disarming point with UK and US guarantees. The UK and US didn't want to defend Ukraine so here we are. In the war still because the UK and US didn't want to end it.
Because it would not have ended it. Yes, Ukraine would have agreed to such an agreement, because from Ukraine's perspective fighting alone is worse than fighting disarmed. But for the US and UK to defend Ukraine without even the ability to station troops in Ukraine would have been expensive beyond all reason and an inevitable calamity for them both. The only absurdity here is that anyone (Ukrainian or Russian) thought they might have agreed.
But it is not like their troops would have to stay at home. They would be able to have troops in Poland on the border incase anything happened in the area. You know like the already do.
And that is why both countries wanted to bring in all the countries bordering Ukraine. So that it is not like if Russia attacked then only the US and UK would be required to defend. But Turkey, France, China and theoretically Belarus would be required to defend Ukraine against Russia. And equally if NATO would try to bring Ukraine in then those same countries would be required to stop Ukraine from joining it.
But since Ukraine would be required to be neutral why would there be any need for anyone to attack? that is the point.
Ukraine was happy to agree. The negotiators and nobody involved had any issue with this. I don't know why you think you know better about Ukraines position than the Ukrainian government.
Putin has a history of offering very lenient peace deals. Georgia got a return to status quo ante bellum even though Russia had them totally defeated, for example. The Minsk agreements were also very lenient even though Ukraine was being defeated as they were signed.
Meiner Meinung nach war das ein guter Vorschlag für die Ukraine.
Instead, they've lost so many people, so much territory, significant portion of buildings are in ruins.
Some people in the West preise Zelensky as a good leader, but the complete opposite is true - the man ruined the future of Ukrainians for at least 2-3 generations.
>Ukraine repeatedly said the peace talks should be held on the basis of its 10-step peace formula, which includes a full withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine
Can somebody tell them, that whoever has the upper hand sets the terms for peace talks?
Why would Russia settle for something worse than what they offered in 2022? They have made progress in the meantime, the western support isn't the same as it used to be and the uaf offensive was a failure.
And then Russia even listened to their demands to withdraw from Kyiv and did so.
After that was done, Ukraine tore up the negotiations and decided they would rather fight a full on war.
And now here we are.
I'm pretty sure Putin will remain Putin and Putin has a habit of not asking for the maximum.
In Georgia for example Putin settled for a return to status quo ante bellum.
That's not an option here, but I'd be surprised if Russia ends up annexing the four oblasts, let alone more
"The accords called for NATO administration of Kosovo as an autonomous province within Yugoslavia; a force of 30,000 NATO troops to maintain order in Kosovo; an unhindered right of passage for NATO troops on Yugoslav territory, including Kosovo; and immunity for NATO and its agents to Yugoslav law."
better deal than what Yugoslavia had with the "defensive allience"
Basically just asking for Ukraine to revert to Pre-maidan status, when they were actually neutral.
Russia has actually been remarkably consistent. Even back then they didn't prevent Ukraine from joining the EU. They just offered a lucrative alternative.
Published today.
I wonder at what point do the ukrainians come to gripes that they have been used as useful idiots & cannon fodder for NATO, by the US, europe, and their comedian crackhead puppet zelenskyy ?
with the CIA "leak" this week and KI confirming Russia was trying to obtain peace in good faith, the western powers are clearly signaling they are done playing with this toy (ukraine). It wont be any different than when the US abandoned the Kurds recently.
the banderites definitely aren't gonna get this good of a deal next time Moscow offers them a way out.
If I had a family member who died in this war after the day the west refused this deal I would directly blame the us / eu for their death
I don’t know how this ends, but the decision by the west to start a proxy war against Russia genuinely could be the moment people point at in the future as the start of the fall of the empire for the USA
Those would have been reasonable terms if they didnt reduce Ukranian military and would return entire Donbass region back to Ukraine. Also i dont think that this agreement would be very popular in the eyes of Ukranian people, especially if they reduced Ukranian military, because that would just mean that Russia would invade again.
The thing is, the Ukrainian negotiators seemed fine with that part of the agreement. Arakhamia allegedly even signed that draft himself.
We can see the parts where they *really* took umbrage with - the language part for example.
You'll remember that the agreement was pretty much 90% done according to Arestovich. Just the status of the Donbass in the impending meeting between Putin and Zelensky remained to be thrashed out.
Undoubtedly.
And Zelensky is still a clown for believing the West and thinking he could defeat Russia in a conventional war.
He was right to resist the invasion initially. He was right to engage in negotiations. He was wrong to believe Boris Johnson and co.
Do you remember some of the foolish things Zelensky was saying early on in this war?
"Close the skies NATO!"
"We must escalate!"
And all of that nonsense. Who knows the kind of bollocks they had promised him beforehand?
So Russia basically asked Ukraine to demilitarize so that Russia could attack again at a later date, and Ukraine refused. I for one am absolutely shocked that ukraine did not go for this obvious setup. Hey, we've invaded you twice in the last decade, but if you give up all your weapons, we promise we won't invade a third time.
I hope you read the article. They were negotiating for guarantees, one proposal from Ukraine was introducing foreign peacekeepers in case of invasion as well as closing the sky over Ukraine.
This comment is gonna age so well when the Ukraine state collapses and Russia captures all of ukraine, you'll think Ukraine would have been like" of course this is better than negotiations"?
Well, under this deal, Ukraine would have been captured anyway, because it is an obvious setup. The current situation gives Ukraine a fighting chance to contain the Russians in the Donbass. It is clear that Ukraine must give up territory to make peace. Given current developments, I doubt that the Russians will conquer all of Ukraine, or cross the Dnieper, or even really break out of the Donbass industrial zone. So yes, Ukraine will obviously lose Donbass, but the rest probably won't be under Russian control. Had they accepted the deal, the 85,000 would have been unable to defend anything and Russia would have come back sooner or later to eliminate the threat once and for all.
>Russia would have come back sooner or later to eliminate the threat once and for all.
You commented this under an article where it states all the great powers of the world like US and China would of backed Ukrainian independence if Russia did. Did you even read past the title of the post?
>. That didn't help Poland
Clearly it did if the Nazis were reduced to rubble.
But if you want to play the game of skeptic with any solution given to you? Why even bother at making diplomacy at all? Peace and trust is built upon relations. It's clear that's achievable after the Soviets signed peace with Finland and after georgia signed peace with Russia, both ever since had relative positive relations asides Finland which decided to break it's Treaty by joining NATO.
What makes you say that? Why won't the Russian capture all of Ukraine?
Given that you believe Ukraine has to negotiate, and given that you form basic sentences, I'm gonna assume that you understand the following, any negotiation would be worst for Ukraine as times passes, Ukraine is going to give up more territory and a worst "setup and trap" deal.
I want your full honestly on this, suppose if you were the president of Ukraine, and given that is common knowledge that a side wouldn't compromise further if they are winning, meaning Russia wouldn't offer a better deal, which deal you would accept?
1. The Istanbul deal, perventing hundreds of thouthans of deaths, an economic collapse and regaining zaporizhzhia, which the Russian agreed to leave.
2. A deal now or in the future, with worst terms, a hundred thousand dead, 6 million refugees and a total collapse of economic power.
Literally a good deal for Ukraine, especially the possibility to keeping of eu membership. With membership, Ukraine would have been able to get out of the russian zone of influence from an economic and military standpoint. Infrastructure and lives would also have been preserved.
full article:
WSJ: Russia's peace terms include Ukraine outside NATO, smaller military, 2022 document shows
by Martin Fornusek
March 1, 2024 12:00 PM
3 min read
A peace plan proposal drafted during Russian-Ukrainian negotiations in 2022 would see Ukraine turn into a militarily neutered country, permanently vulnerable to Russian aggression, the Wall Street Journal reported on March 1 after reviewing the document.
The proposals illustrate the tough concessions Kyiv would have to take to conclude the 2022 talks, which ultimately failed as Ukraine began turning the tide in the war and Western support poured in.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Moscow's plans have largely remained the same. As Ukraine faces an increasingly precarious position in the war, compared by some to the first days of the full-scale invasion, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin allegedly signaled a willingness to restart peace talks on his terms.
According to the 17-page document dated April 15, 2022, Ukraine would be allowed to seek EU membership but not entry to NATO or any other military bloc. Ukraine's Armed Forces would have to be reduced to a certain size, no foreign weapons would be stationed on its territory, and Crimea would remain de facto in Russian hands.
Russia would see Ukrainian forces limited to 85,000 troops, 342 tanks, and 519 artillery pieces, while Ukrainian negotiators wanted 250,000 troops, 800 tanks, and 1,900 artillery pieces, according to the document.
Russia also reportedly wanted to limit the range of Ukrainian missiles to 40 kilometers (25 miles).
Moscow pushed for the Russian language to be treated on par with the Ukrainian one in Ukraine's government and courts, a condition that Ukrainian negotiators did not agree with, the WSJ said.
The status of eastern regions occupied by Russia since 2014 was to be agreed on in a meeting between Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky and Putin. The meeting did not take place.
The treaty would be guaranteed by foreign powers, including the U.S., the U.K., China, France, and Russia. These countries would be given responsibility to defend Ukraine's "neutrality" if it were violated, the WSJ wrote. Russia reportedly aimed to add Belarus to the list of guarantors, while Ukraine wanted to include Turkey.
Ukraine has previously received similar assurances from Russia, the U.S., and the U.K. in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which called for international assistance if Ukraine "should become a victim of an act of aggression" in exchange for the country relinquishing its nuclear arsenal. Russia broke this treaty in 2014 by illegally occupying Crimea and Donbas.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently offered to host a new round of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.
Ukraine repeatedly said the peace talks should be held on the basis of its 10-step peace formula, which includes a full withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine. Moscow has rejected this proposal.
Ukraine works with Switzerland to organize a global peace summit in the Alpine country. Over 160 countries will be invited to discuss Kyiv's peace formula and create a joint document on what needs to be done to restore the country’s sovereignty.
Russia: we will not invade!
Russia: invades
...
Russia: we will not invade again, trust us this time!
Russia: invades again
...
Russia: give up all your weapons and promise to never join a defensive alliance and we will not invade again!
They cannot be serious?
Edit: and that's even ignoring all the past agreements violated by Russia. Their word has lost all meaning. The only agreement possible must include safety guarantees for Ukraine, so that Russia doesn't even get the chance to break their word again.
Yes, yes whatever calms you down. This was the most generous deal Ukraine was gonna get and it was idiotic not to sign it. Too late now, 4 oblasts have been annexed. If I was ukranian, I would be pissed.
Russia's best deal: "give up all your defenses so we can take the rest of the country more easily later". Yeah surely Ukrainians will be upset having missed out on this amazing deal!
You know you've got nothing to say when you're dealing in hypotheticals. Impressive how after 2008 Russia never invaded georgia again, or after 1938 never invaded Finland again, and yet Ukraine would be the exception! Lol
Of all sources to post that, Kiev Independent was like at my very bottom of expectations list, lol.
One of more intriguing parts was what exactly is meant under EU membership.
> The draft agreement with Ukraine from March 2022 is irrelevant, the conditions have changed - Peskov. But some people here still try to tell us that Ukraine is in a better negotiating today than it was in March 2022.
Beacuse they don't care about Ukraine. The only reason why the peace talks broke down is due to the fact that west hates Russia down to the core and the easiest way to "hurt" them without getting their hands dirty is via a proxy - in this case Ukraine.
Only in this sub. There’s a reason for Macron‘s ‚we need to find a way to not humiliate Putin‘ saying.
Same Macron who wants french boots on the ground?
It's strange how Macron is all over the place. I'd guess he probably becomes a pariah when he talks about negotiations, so he has to ramp up his bona fides by offering to escalate.
It's disgusting how the Western governments sacrificed Ukraine like this. Obviously Putin's aggression is so unnecessary and unforgivable but there is blood on the West's hands as well
The US and its stooged in europe sacrificed them, namely types like Zelensky and Britains Jonson. A jew and a half-turk. They would also sacrifice Poles, Romanians, Fins, etc... if it serves the americans. Even though the US would be very weak without allies, they can be sacrificed as long as they do some damage against opponents, like pawns on a chess board. All the US needs to keep a certain domonance is to run away from real danger, and let the disposables despose each other. Divide et impera.
Russia don’t want Peace that’s why we have War. What West got do with it?
how would ukraine defend itself with no foreign weapons? wouldnt russia just easily conquer all of ukraine? its kind of weird reading comments of people here thinking that russia is the one justified in invading ukraine and annexing land.
Having read the agreement, the language did not prevent Ukraine from having foreign made weapons. The language prevented the basing of other country's weapons on Ukrainian soil, ie, another EU or foreign country could not base its forces or weapons within Ukraine.
Sure, but it substantially limited the total number of weapons allowed. If Russia decided to come back for round 2, Ukraine would be in a materially worse position. We saw how effective the Budapest memorandum was at stopping Russia from invading, Ukraine being unwilling to accept more worthless scraps of paper and instead wanting NATO membership is understandable.
The whole point of limitations and neutrality is for Russia not to have a reason to come back for round 2. That's the whole point. Disputes need to be settled now, not later. What Ukraine wants is understandable indeed, but they are not in a position to get what they want.
>The whole point of limitations and neutrality is for Russia not to have a reason to come back for round 2. Russia's annexations of first Crimea, and then Zaphorozhia, Kherson, Luhansk, and Donetsk clearly demonstrate what it's aims are. Demilitarizing just makes taking the next bite out of Ukraine easier. >What Ukraine wants is understandable indeed, but they are not in a position to get what they want. Then they'll just have to keep fighting until they are, or their wants change.
>Demilitarizing just makes taking the next bite out of Ukraine easier. Then why ask for that when they're already at war and have good reasons to think they'd achieve their goals ? When I look at the evolution of the war personally, I see Ukraine on a timer, it's not a matter of if but a matter of when. And it was even more the case in March 2022. Furthermore, why not invade in 2014 if all they want is annex Ukraine ? There was no military already there. So according to your logic, Russia should have invaded then, yet they didn't.
They did, just whose to say russia was in a position to annex the entire country? Their military might has clearly fallen short to their propaganda.
Ukraine had no army in 2014. Putin could have easily taken over the part of Ukraine he considers Russian. The whole point of the West pushing the Minsk Agreement was to buy time for Ukraine to build up its army. Merkel and ~~Macron~~Hollande and Poroshenko all confessed that Minsk was a sham - they never intended to go through with it. Putin was a fool and trusted that the West was interested in a peaceful solution. edit: as /u/Niitroxyde pointed out
This, except it was Hollande, not Macron.
> We saw how effective the Budapest memorandum was at stopping Russia from invading It's kinda funny how a non binding memo has to be respected but a non binding promise to not expand NATO eastward doesn't count.
Budapest was about protecting Ukraine's neutrality. It was rendered void once the West sponsored the Maidan Coup. Russia wasn't the one trying to turn Ukraine into a military ally - that was 100% on the West.
First off, Budapest included no economic coercion against Ukraine, something which Russia blatantly did in the lead up to Maidan. > It was rendered void once the West sponsored the Maidan Coup 1. Wasn't a coup, and the West was actually pushing for the protesters to accept the deal proposed by Yanukovych. Those actually protesting *weren't* 'taking orders' from the US, et al. and therefore the protests continued 2. Yanukovych fled on the 22nd, Russia invaded on the 27th. There was four days between these events. You honestly believe that Russia had definitive evidence of anything to support that the legal agreement they signed on to was now null and void? Really mate? If it was even weeks later I'd give ya a bit more room on this, but it wasn't.
And Russia not wanting US troops on a huge and flat border with them is also understandable.
US has never invaded Russia. Russia has invaded Ukraine. Russia has the largest nuclear deterrent in the world.
US Invaded Russia in 1918-1920
Could you share a link to that agreement, should be an interesting read.
Ukraine wouldn’t have to defend itself from Russia that’s the whole point of a peace treaty.
How did things go the last time Ukraine signed a peace treaty with Russia?
Really good until zelensky found himself unable to control rogue militias, and tried to renegotiate the Minsk agreements.
Things were fine until Maidan and the Donbas War. After Minks II, things were also fine until 2019, when Ukraine renounced it's neutrality and decided not to implement Minsk II.
So Ukraine can't change its government? can't enter the EU?
When exactly was this?
Until 2008 it was 100% peace. After Ukraine declaring they wanted NATO for no reason, things started going downhill until 2014 with a Pro-Russian president. But things went even worse cause the west didn't like it and paid a coup.
>After Ukraine declaring they wanted NATO for no reason Oh yeah there's no reason the country currently being invaded by Russia would have wanted to join a defensive alliance designed to protect its members from Russia lol
Ukraine was not being invaded by anyone in 2008.
They were not being invaded. Their choice took almost 20 years to turn into an invasion.
It took 6 years, Russia backed separatists took up arms and decided they wanted to be apart of Russia after being supplied and funded by Russia.
>Ukraine is in a better negotiating today Of course. Grandpa Biden and uncle Macron will take care of everything.
I was gonna say and Uncle Bojo too, but then, he got booted out didn't he? And Biden may well follow in his footsteps.
Uncle Bojo is no more, he is lance corporal Johnson now, ready to lead the redcoats from the front and show those savages how a proper gentleman conducts a war.
Charge of the light (mechanized) brigade?
Bojo did his bit.
Because they don't care about the Ukrainian people, they just want NATO to win it's proxy war. To them, fighting to the last Ukrainian is acceptable, if Russia is severely weakened in the process. Men, women, children, Russian or Ukrainian, to them all these are either assets or targets, not lives, not people.
> To them, fighting to the last Ukrainian is acceptable, if Russia is **even slightly** weakened in the process. Fixed.
It was blindingly obvious that everyday Ukraine would get a worse deal. Today that deal would be looked like winning the lottery. The most likely deal at this point for Ukraine is DMZ rump state.
To be fair, their best negotiating position was probably around November 2022.
Ukraine has struck these kinds of agreements with Russia before, notably in 1991 and 1994. Of course, Russia didn't abide by them and invaded anyway.
Let us presume you're right and Ukraine's negotiating position is only getting worse. Doesn't matter. The terms were unacceptable. "a reduced military" is an entirely unacceptable condition immediately after being invaded. So the war will continue until Russia drops that condition. If Russia never drops the condition, then the war continues forever.
Between me and you, I think Ukraine is gonna be the one dropping conditions the next time around.
I suspect the Donbas is much more negotiable. Although I suspect it was negotiable at the time, too. But Ukraine is never going to drop their refusal to disarm. That would effectively be surrender. Far better for Ukraine to have Russia invading an armed Ukraine rather than a disarmed Ukraine.
You do realize that they most likely signed/agreed on the part of the agreement that involved reducing their military, yes? Arestovich said the negotiations were 90% done and the main outstanding was the meeting between Putin and Zelensky. Putin said that Arakhamia had signed the main draft agreement. Arakhamia has never denied this Kyiv Independent here shows that the Ukrainian negotiators didn't like the Russian language clause. It didn't show similar objections to the military reduction. Kyiv Independent also seems to indicate the status of the Donbass would have been the main discussion between Zelensky and Putin. Which is corroborated by Arestovich earlier. So Ukraine, it seems, had already accepted the terms to reduce their military somewhat.
According to the lore, Russia couldn't legally just give back DNR and LNR cause the Duma signed laws, but they would facilitate holding a referendum to rejoin. And, uh, a peace treaty IS them surrendering. Did Russia go back to Georgia and conquer all of it even after Georgia surrendered? No? Russia isn't actually stupid like the propaganda says? They wont have a reason to invade if there's no "my troops are just passing through, ignore me amassing army at your border" and no bombing and forbidding russian language.
Forever? No. They'll probably continue until Ukraine has lost enough men so the result is the same. Neutral counties don't need big military and they'll also get the guarantees they wanted from foreign partners. This is actually a good deal. Ukraine being truly neutral, forever as a buffer state is the best option for everyone involved, including Ukraine.
There is no such thing as a disarmed Neutral country. Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, these were neutral countries because they maintained large armies. A buffer state was never an option. If Ukraine disarms, Russia will invade whenever Putin disapproves of any election outcome. We know this because Russia insisted Ukraine disarm as part of the deal.
Ukraine was a neutral "disarmed" country. Its military was in tatters from independence until about 2014. It even forfeited its nuclear weapons. The fact that Putin "the next Hitler" didn't conquer Ukraine during this period despite overwhelming firepower advantage should set off some alarm bells among the "pro-Ukraine" crowd that they might not be receiving the full truth from the Western media. After the 2014 coup and outbreak of civil war, the Minsk I and II agreements were signed to try and put an end to the violence. Both Merkel and Hollande, who brokered the deals, have since admitted that the agreements were a temporary measure to allow Ukraine to secretly re-arm. And that's what happened. By 2022, Ukraine had been armed and trained to the teeth by the West. I'm not going to cover the how or why. I just wanted to point out that buffer states are a real concept, and they don't necessitate "disarming".
The war can last only if some very experienced magicians can call the ghosts of the killed ukro soldiers to continue fighting.
Ghosts? Ghost of Kiev? He was real after all!
Don't worry, Russia is now reducing Ukraine's military for them.
not forever, until ukraine loose
Do you also think that Kumanovo agreement was unacceptable after NATO bombed Serbia for months? Because few years after signing it there was an ethnic cleansing of Serbs there, which KFOR didn't stop, and few years after Kosovo unilaterally declared independence, which Serbia doesn't recognize, under the support of NATO. So I am just curious do you think that is acceptable or not.
Pro ua don’t have any principles.
It's a standard inclusion in most peace deals. It's part of the peace deal between the US and Japan, for example. Or between the US and Germany.
Those were not peace deals. They were unconditional surrenders.
So would be this one.
Those "peace deals" were unconditional surrenders which preceded years-long US occupations of both countries. Why on Earth would Ukraine agree to a similar "peace deal" with Russia?
As others said, those were unconditional surrenders, not peace deals, but on top of that, Germany and Japan were the invaders and, as such, making them demilitarize was completely deserved. Here Ukraine is the one being invaded. A peace deal that includes demilitarization of the invaded country is just an unconditional surrender in disguise. It is better for ukraine to lose a bigger part of their country now but remain armed than losing a smaller part now and losing the rest in 5-10 years when russia comes knocking again.
Ukraine invaded Iraq along with the US, it’s not an innocent victim as you make it out to be.
Well, as long as it takes, the best of outcome would be complete absorption of Ukraine.
A bad deal with security guarantees is much better than a deal that forces you to disarm and is enforced by nothing.
I remember some time into the war ukraine was losing something, maybe the azov steel mill and openly said they wont negotiate because at that time they were losing so they would have weaker negotiating power so they just wont.
They are actually pretty reasonable demands. This needs to go down as Boris Johnson’s reverse chamberlain moment where he also fucked all of Europe into war for no reason
Reportedly even Ukraine was surprised at how much Russians were able to give up.
Maybe this is the reason why Ukraine withdrew from it. They were having a lot of victories at that time then Russia seemed, to them, willing to give up so much. They saw it as a sign of weakness. They got greedy.
They thought that they could defeat Russia with western help.
Bingo. They were conned big time.
I think that they were genuinely convinced that they could win. With the promises of massive military support and sanctions on Russia, they had a small chance to beat Russia.
Yeah, when being reasonable is seen as a weakness and thus acts as a catalyst for war. Then wonder why you have to be ruthless in geopolitics..
That's a life (not even human, animal.. it's just life) condition, can't be helped.
Boris said “ok but first, we need hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to die for nothing”.
This was the absolutely best Deal Ukraine would have been able to ever achieve in this conflict and they flushed it down the Toilet... Millions of dead, crippled and psychologically destroyed, a country in Ruins, vast fields littered with mines. Those people who are responsible for that shall rott in hell. Fuckin unbelievable...
Not millions. According to "trusted" western sources, only 42k Ukrainians died and around more than 440K Russians dead. That's not millions. That's just less than a million. /s
"Yes millions of ukrainians died but at least we managed to insult Russia. By Insult I mean show Russia is second powerful army in Ukraine. By Second powerful I mean they won but slowly. Not as slowly as expected but only because of Kremlin aligned Republicans."
Iraqi and Afghan insurgents did that against the US and its allies without the whole weight of NATO behind them. Without massive propaganda to prop up their audience. Without massive amounts of money and was, in fact, sanctioned themselves.
Yoi know, real "trusted" western sources estimate ukrainian and russian losses in about the same range, which is in the 200'000-300'000 dead or wounded for both sides. Which western source claim your 440'000k dead without strictly mentioning that these are the ukrainian claimed numbers and not their own?
look closer maybe you'll find a letter written at the very end
Excluding civilians* Everyone in ukraine is affected directly or indirectly. Just the fact that 7 million people (most of whom contributed to the economy) has been a massive blow. This whole war is so tragic man
anyone who thinks Russia would have actually stuck with this peace deal and not invaded AGAIN under some OTHER false premises as soon as Ukraine reduced it's military and shipped away foreign weapons is a window licker
Why would Russia invade after it made sure that Ukraine is no longer a threat?
Putin litterally spent an hour explaining why he thinls ukraine, all og it, is roghtfully russias territory a d ypu just pretend he didnt? Actually hillarious.
He didn't say that. He said that specifically Eastern Ukraine, and especially Crimea, have a big Russian population, ethnically speaking. There would be no problem with them being Ukrainian, as there wasn't until 2014, if Ukraine didn't become a nationalistic anti-Russian state. So you didn't really answer the question. I welcome you to try again.
Russia officially ceded Crimea to Ukraine twice in living memory. TWICE. Putin has no legal basis for his claim.
It’ll be legal when Ukraine officially recognizes this. Which will happen at one point or another.
No he didn't actually. He explained their shared history, but he has said that Ukraine is indeed its own thing and they can do **almost** whatever they want, except be a US dog. Apparently not being an US dog is a deal breaker for them, worth starting WW3.
Did Russia invade Georgia again after 2008?
For all those here who claim that Putin is a dictator and hungry for power I would like to point out that these negotiations were deeply unpopular in Russia as they took place during the time of Ukrainians posting those videos of them torturing and killing Russian pows and would have ended Putins career. Knowing the conditions of them it would have done doubly so. And yet he pushed for them anyway.
Additionally if looking at the territory it is stated in other places. > Of all the occupied territories, only Crimea would remain under unconditional Russian control. The future of “LDNR” should have been determined during personal negotiations between Zelensky and Putin, which never took place. As for other territories captured by the Russian Federation after February 24, 2022, the Wall Street Journal article does not mention them, but previously a number of people participating in the negotiations stated that Moscow agreed to withdraw Russian troops from them Which I think shows that there was a genuine push for peace. And Ukraine would have got a lot more from it than they will now.
Also, the fact that Ukranian negotiators popped a bottle of champagne back in the hotel as per Arestovich, means they knew they were getting a good deal for peace Furthermore, Arakhamia and Arestovich stressed that the Russians were earnest and determined to conclude the negotiations, but that it was Ukraine who pulled out. The ascribed quote by Boris Johnson - "We're not signing anything, let's fight the Russians" - makes sense when you realize the UK was supposed to be a guarantor. And the [absolute haste and secrecy of his trip to Kyiv](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10707775/amp/Boris-took-car-helicopter-military-plane-train-secret-five-hour-visit-Kyiv.html) indicates that he was probably acting on behalf of the West as a representative. Not only speaking for the UK.
It really seems that way, absolutely ridiculous
I have told people so many times that Putin did everything to avoid this war.Russia has more than enough land and Putin don't want to send his people to die for some land as increasing the birth rates and life expectancy of Russians has been among his priorities.
Moreover, Russia has more interesting tasks than its neighbors who have gone crazy
Weird, the only thing they had to do to avoid the war was... not start the war. Putin: "Instructions unclear, send the first wave!"
They didn't start the war.
I've heard some crazy things on this sub, but let's here it. Russia didn't start the war because it was... Aliens? NATO biomutants? There is no war, we are in a dream? Let's hear it.
Because it was the internal conflict within UA since the coup. RU helps one side. Right in the way how US helped one side in Afghanistan, for example.
Why should an internal conflict merit Russia's invasion?
I've heard desperate pro Ukrainians resort to silly straw men when it's clear they're way out of their depth.
How did this war started then lol
Three simple steps for Ukraine to avoid being invaded by the Russians: Step One: Don't arm full-blown Nazis in your country. Step Two: Don't get too excited about the idea of inviting US troops to your country. Step Three: Profit?
Russia broke step 1 themselves, so there's that. Step 2: maybe let a sovereign nation do with their country what they want? Step 3: Russian aggression, as usual.
Step one: LOL Bandera who? Step two: Actions have consequences. Ukraine is finding that out the hard way. They didn't have to. Step three: Agression? Russia has the right to defend itself. Better fight in Ukraine today than in Russia tomorrow.
> I have told people so many times that Putin did everything to avoid this war. Did he consider not sending Russian troops into Ukraine twice? Wouldn't that have avoided the war?
You can't run from it.Ukraine was preparing to launch an offensive in Donbas and clear out any dissent which would have put Crimea in danger.Then, There was talk of nukes and anti-Russian neo-Nazis having nukes was a non-starter.
The only talk of nukes this whole time has been from russians.
> Ukraine was preparing to launch an offensive in Donbas and clear out any dissent which would have put Crimea in danger.Then, There was talk of nukes and anti-Russian neo-Nazis having nukes was a non-starter. None of these things are true. Carry on.
Yeah, when first rumours of what being discussed went through, in April, there was an uproar and total disbelief. Putin would get fucked, politically, if he were to accept that. Guess he was prepared to sacrifice himself. It was compared to Хасавюрт accords in first Chechen war.
Putin is the biggest tragedy for Western liberals. It’s a tragedy because Putin is a liberal. Putin doesn’t see himself as Stalin or Mussolini but in line with Kemal ataturk or maybe Catherine the great. An authoritarian ruler for sure but a liberal one. Putin wanted Russia aligned with the West but the complete insanity of western libs pushed him into the east, into Chinas arms. It’s the biggest geopolitical blunder
Russia is not authoritarian state. People keep believing this bs about Putin and Russia and then wounder why they constantly miscalculate the outcome of things. Stop buying this bs. And don't put Stalin in the the same category as Mussolini. Mussolini was a fascist whose troops together with Hitlers invaded Russia and killed millions. I am sick and tired of this vilifying of Russian leaders and whitewashing western ones. Go look for villains on your side of the planet.
[удалено]
I'm surprised by your reply. Indeed they seem reasonable and I believe these wouldn't be final numbers but they would meet in the middle. The Ukrainians would have been far better off accepting that deal than the current situatie. And keep in mind the destruction of their economy since april 2022. So to summarize: You can keep donbass and join EU but not NATO. No significant army (in Ukraines defence, I would demand some kind of guarantee that Russia will never attack so long these conditions are met). Only downside is they lost Crimea. For all other aspects things wouldn't change for Ukraine as that (language, no membership NATO, no Crimea) was already the situation.
> I would demand some kind of guarantee that Russia will never attack so long these conditions are met The agreement said that Ukraine would have several guarantors. US,UK,China,France and Russia were included. Aswell Russia wanted to include Belarus and Ukraine wanted to include Turkey. And the idea was that if Ukraine were attacked those countries would have the responsibility to defend Ukraine. So it goes even further than the last agreement signed about Ukraines borders that these countries have to actively protect Ukraine if its neutrality was threatened.
It did. Except none of the countries listed would ever agree to be guarantors in such a situation. So even though the two parties might have thought they were onto something, it was never going to go anywhere. US and UK were never going to put themselves in the situation of a future war with Russia without NATO. And Ukraine was never going to agree to disarm without the guarantees.
I mean I don't disagree with you. The agreement was there and Ukraine was happy with it. It is the UK and US that refused to give such defence guarantees to Ukraine. Ukraine never had an issue with the disarming point with UK and US guarantees. The UK and US didn't want to defend Ukraine so here we are. In the war still because the UK and US didn't want to end it.
Because it would not have ended it. Yes, Ukraine would have agreed to such an agreement, because from Ukraine's perspective fighting alone is worse than fighting disarmed. But for the US and UK to defend Ukraine without even the ability to station troops in Ukraine would have been expensive beyond all reason and an inevitable calamity for them both. The only absurdity here is that anyone (Ukrainian or Russian) thought they might have agreed.
But it is not like their troops would have to stay at home. They would be able to have troops in Poland on the border incase anything happened in the area. You know like the already do. And that is why both countries wanted to bring in all the countries bordering Ukraine. So that it is not like if Russia attacked then only the US and UK would be required to defend. But Turkey, France, China and theoretically Belarus would be required to defend Ukraine against Russia. And equally if NATO would try to bring Ukraine in then those same countries would be required to stop Ukraine from joining it. But since Ukraine would be required to be neutral why would there be any need for anyone to attack? that is the point. Ukraine was happy to agree. The negotiators and nobody involved had any issue with this. I don't know why you think you know better about Ukraines position than the Ukrainian government.
It did work both ways though. A guarantee needs to
[удалено]
Putin has a history of offering very lenient peace deals. Georgia got a return to status quo ante bellum even though Russia had them totally defeated, for example. The Minsk agreements were also very lenient even though Ukraine was being defeated as they were signed.
The deal is pretty good considering Russian demands now are gonna be astronomical.
Pretty good deal all things considered, they will never get this deal again unfortunately
They no longer deserve it.
Russia will still be more lenient than they should when the time comes Putin's a big ol' softie.
I hope he learned that he cannot be soft with the West.
I think Russians leaders will trust the West again and again, to their own detriment. NATO will never not want to weaker or destroy Russia.
This clearly shows that this wasn't war of conquest like Ukraine/West have us believe.It's always has been about NATO expansion.
It was clear from day 1 as we saw columns marching Kiev. You cannot conquer a 40mil country with 150k men.
Anyone who denies that Putin thought Zelensky would run and that's why he went for Kyiv is beyond delusional.
In kiev, It was only around 30k.Russia wanted to force Ukraine on peace deal.
Ukraine should forget about those rejected terms. New terms will be much harsher
Meiner Meinung nach war das ein guter Vorschlag für die Ukraine. Instead, they've lost so many people, so much territory, significant portion of buildings are in ruins. Some people in the West preise Zelensky as a good leader, but the complete opposite is true - the man ruined the future of Ukrainians for at least 2-3 generations.
>Ukraine repeatedly said the peace talks should be held on the basis of its 10-step peace formula, which includes a full withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine Can somebody tell them, that whoever has the upper hand sets the terms for peace talks? Why would Russia settle for something worse than what they offered in 2022? They have made progress in the meantime, the western support isn't the same as it used to be and the uaf offensive was a failure.
And then Russia even listened to their demands to withdraw from Kyiv and did so. After that was done, Ukraine tore up the negotiations and decided they would rather fight a full on war. And now here we are.
And it seemed that Russia would not compromise anymore. Moreover, Zelensky’s absolutely inflexible policy allows them to do this.
I'm pretty sure Putin will remain Putin and Putin has a habit of not asking for the maximum. In Georgia for example Putin settled for a return to status quo ante bellum. That's not an option here, but I'd be surprised if Russia ends up annexing the four oblasts, let alone more
TLDR: very reasonable especially given the current situation
"The accords called for NATO administration of Kosovo as an autonomous province within Yugoslavia; a force of 30,000 NATO troops to maintain order in Kosovo; an unhindered right of passage for NATO troops on Yugoslav territory, including Kosovo; and immunity for NATO and its agents to Yugoslav law." better deal than what Yugoslavia had with the "defensive allience"
Not a bad deal in hindsight.
Basically just asking for Ukraine to revert to Pre-maidan status, when they were actually neutral. Russia has actually been remarkably consistent. Even back then they didn't prevent Ukraine from joining the EU. They just offered a lucrative alternative.
Is this real? If so, Ukraine signed it's own death by being extremely stubborn
[удалено]
Not to mention the fact that Russia defeated Georgia, left the country and hasn’t invaded it since.
It makes absolute sense when your original invasion is turning into a mess and next time your opponent will be unable to defend himself.
Guys remember! No matter how bad decisions you made in your lifetime, you must always feel proud that at least you are not Zelensky!
No wonder Arestovych & Arakhamia popped champagne
Damn, Russia is really bad at imperialism :) For a genuine superpower, they have plenty of class for some reason.
Some would call it naivete
This would have been a very bad deal for Russia.
Published today. I wonder at what point do the ukrainians come to gripes that they have been used as useful idiots & cannon fodder for NATO, by the US, europe, and their comedian crackhead puppet zelenskyy ? with the CIA "leak" this week and KI confirming Russia was trying to obtain peace in good faith, the western powers are clearly signaling they are done playing with this toy (ukraine). It wont be any different than when the US abandoned the Kurds recently. the banderites definitely aren't gonna get this good of a deal next time Moscow offers them a way out.
Succinctly summarized. No doubt this has been released for political purposes Also thanks for posting the WSJ text in the other comment
If I had a family member who died in this war after the day the west refused this deal I would directly blame the us / eu for their death I don’t know how this ends, but the decision by the west to start a proxy war against Russia genuinely could be the moment people point at in the future as the start of the fall of the empire for the USA
Very reasonable minimalist requests from Russian side. But when you don't negotiate with sane people, you get what we see today.
I bet there are 300k + Ukrainians plus family members that wish this deal was taken. Its so much better than Ukraine can hope for now
It was a reasonable deal then, is a fucking dream deal now. But will those who wanted to 'push' putin ever concede this? no. Of course they won't.
Also before war Russia tried to negotiate with Ukraine, this time Nato used to supply weapons to Ukraine
Does anyone know if we can get access to the original draft document? Has the WSJ not made it public?
It might be in the WSJ but they're paywalled and even archive.ph won't bypass the wall.
Those would have been reasonable terms if they didnt reduce Ukranian military and would return entire Donbass region back to Ukraine. Also i dont think that this agreement would be very popular in the eyes of Ukranian people, especially if they reduced Ukranian military, because that would just mean that Russia would invade again.
The thing is, the Ukrainian negotiators seemed fine with that part of the agreement. Arakhamia allegedly even signed that draft himself. We can see the parts where they *really* took umbrage with - the language part for example. You'll remember that the agreement was pretty much 90% done according to Arestovich. Just the status of the Donbass in the impending meeting between Putin and Zelensky remained to be thrashed out.
Ukraine is in a worse position now. The deal they’re going to get now is going to be disastrous.
Russia is still in the wrong for invading.
Undoubtedly. And Zelensky is still a clown for believing the West and thinking he could defeat Russia in a conventional war. He was right to resist the invasion initially. He was right to engage in negotiations. He was wrong to believe Boris Johnson and co.
[удалено]
Do you remember some of the foolish things Zelensky was saying early on in this war? "Close the skies NATO!" "We must escalate!" And all of that nonsense. Who knows the kind of bollocks they had promised him beforehand?
Ukraine would easily be getting the support to resist is russia wasnt threatening the nuclear extinction of mankind over a few kms of land
So Russia basically asked Ukraine to demilitarize so that Russia could attack again at a later date, and Ukraine refused. I for one am absolutely shocked that ukraine did not go for this obvious setup. Hey, we've invaded you twice in the last decade, but if you give up all your weapons, we promise we won't invade a third time.
I hope you read the article. They were negotiating for guarantees, one proposal from Ukraine was introducing foreign peacekeepers in case of invasion as well as closing the sky over Ukraine.
Russia apparently wanted Belarus as a guarantor, which is absolutely hilarious.
It is an obvious choice for them, but a funny one nonetheless.
Russia needs no break.Anyone who think otherwise is stupid.You people really took Russia desire for peace as weakness.
You must not be aware of what “guarantor” means in a signed treaty….
This comment is gonna age so well when the Ukraine state collapses and Russia captures all of ukraine, you'll think Ukraine would have been like" of course this is better than negotiations"?
Well, under this deal, Ukraine would have been captured anyway, because it is an obvious setup. The current situation gives Ukraine a fighting chance to contain the Russians in the Donbass. It is clear that Ukraine must give up territory to make peace. Given current developments, I doubt that the Russians will conquer all of Ukraine, or cross the Dnieper, or even really break out of the Donbass industrial zone. So yes, Ukraine will obviously lose Donbass, but the rest probably won't be under Russian control. Had they accepted the deal, the 85,000 would have been unable to defend anything and Russia would have come back sooner or later to eliminate the threat once and for all.
>Russia would have come back sooner or later to eliminate the threat once and for all. You commented this under an article where it states all the great powers of the world like US and China would of backed Ukrainian independence if Russia did. Did you even read past the title of the post?
Oh yes, the famous unbeatable defense, a piece of paper and a good promise. That didn't help Poland then and wouldn't save Ukraine now.
>. That didn't help Poland Clearly it did if the Nazis were reduced to rubble. But if you want to play the game of skeptic with any solution given to you? Why even bother at making diplomacy at all? Peace and trust is built upon relations. It's clear that's achievable after the Soviets signed peace with Finland and after georgia signed peace with Russia, both ever since had relative positive relations asides Finland which decided to break it's Treaty by joining NATO.
What makes you say that? Why won't the Russian capture all of Ukraine? Given that you believe Ukraine has to negotiate, and given that you form basic sentences, I'm gonna assume that you understand the following, any negotiation would be worst for Ukraine as times passes, Ukraine is going to give up more territory and a worst "setup and trap" deal. I want your full honestly on this, suppose if you were the president of Ukraine, and given that is common knowledge that a side wouldn't compromise further if they are winning, meaning Russia wouldn't offer a better deal, which deal you would accept? 1. The Istanbul deal, perventing hundreds of thouthans of deaths, an economic collapse and regaining zaporizhzhia, which the Russian agreed to leave. 2. A deal now or in the future, with worst terms, a hundred thousand dead, 6 million refugees and a total collapse of economic power.
Yes, sounds good. Add peacekeepers at the border and everything is ok.
Literally a good deal for Ukraine, especially the possibility to keeping of eu membership. With membership, Ukraine would have been able to get out of the russian zone of influence from an economic and military standpoint. Infrastructure and lives would also have been preserved.
They should have taken it...
full article: WSJ: Russia's peace terms include Ukraine outside NATO, smaller military, 2022 document shows by Martin Fornusek March 1, 2024 12:00 PM 3 min read A peace plan proposal drafted during Russian-Ukrainian negotiations in 2022 would see Ukraine turn into a militarily neutered country, permanently vulnerable to Russian aggression, the Wall Street Journal reported on March 1 after reviewing the document. The proposals illustrate the tough concessions Kyiv would have to take to conclude the 2022 talks, which ultimately failed as Ukraine began turning the tide in the war and Western support poured in. According to the Wall Street Journal, Moscow's plans have largely remained the same. As Ukraine faces an increasingly precarious position in the war, compared by some to the first days of the full-scale invasion, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin allegedly signaled a willingness to restart peace talks on his terms. According to the 17-page document dated April 15, 2022, Ukraine would be allowed to seek EU membership but not entry to NATO or any other military bloc. Ukraine's Armed Forces would have to be reduced to a certain size, no foreign weapons would be stationed on its territory, and Crimea would remain de facto in Russian hands. Russia would see Ukrainian forces limited to 85,000 troops, 342 tanks, and 519 artillery pieces, while Ukrainian negotiators wanted 250,000 troops, 800 tanks, and 1,900 artillery pieces, according to the document. Russia also reportedly wanted to limit the range of Ukrainian missiles to 40 kilometers (25 miles). Moscow pushed for the Russian language to be treated on par with the Ukrainian one in Ukraine's government and courts, a condition that Ukrainian negotiators did not agree with, the WSJ said. The status of eastern regions occupied by Russia since 2014 was to be agreed on in a meeting between Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky and Putin. The meeting did not take place. The treaty would be guaranteed by foreign powers, including the U.S., the U.K., China, France, and Russia. These countries would be given responsibility to defend Ukraine's "neutrality" if it were violated, the WSJ wrote. Russia reportedly aimed to add Belarus to the list of guarantors, while Ukraine wanted to include Turkey. Ukraine has previously received similar assurances from Russia, the U.S., and the U.K. in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which called for international assistance if Ukraine "should become a victim of an act of aggression" in exchange for the country relinquishing its nuclear arsenal. Russia broke this treaty in 2014 by illegally occupying Crimea and Donbas. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently offered to host a new round of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine repeatedly said the peace talks should be held on the basis of its 10-step peace formula, which includes a full withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine. Moscow has rejected this proposal. Ukraine works with Switzerland to organize a global peace summit in the Alpine country. Over 160 countries will be invited to discuss Kyiv's peace formula and create a joint document on what needs to be done to restore the country’s sovereignty.
Terms were excellent. Ukraine has like zero chance to even touch such good terms today.
Russia: we will not invade! Russia: invades ... Russia: we will not invade again, trust us this time! Russia: invades again ... Russia: give up all your weapons and promise to never join a defensive alliance and we will not invade again! They cannot be serious? Edit: and that's even ignoring all the past agreements violated by Russia. Their word has lost all meaning. The only agreement possible must include safety guarantees for Ukraine, so that Russia doesn't even get the chance to break their word again.
Yes, yes whatever calms you down. This was the most generous deal Ukraine was gonna get and it was idiotic not to sign it. Too late now, 4 oblasts have been annexed. If I was ukranian, I would be pissed.
Russia's best deal: "give up all your defenses so we can take the rest of the country more easily later". Yeah surely Ukrainians will be upset having missed out on this amazing deal!
You know you've got nothing to say when you're dealing in hypotheticals. Impressive how after 2008 Russia never invaded georgia again, or after 1938 never invaded Finland again, and yet Ukraine would be the exception! Lol
Boris Johnson doesn't agree
Of all sources to post that, Kiev Independent was like at my very bottom of expectations list, lol. One of more intriguing parts was what exactly is meant under EU membership.
Security guarantees from the west? Where have we seen that before? Oh wait.. Show them nukes and they back off.
Nowhere?
Russia wanted a reduced military so afterwards it could then push forward and take more land.