Bro, cut it out

A neutral Ukraine would NOT mean ending Ukraine's existence but it's too late now.

Negotiations before the war were literally proposed by Russia but NATO rejected.

Demands are always high so there's plenty room to maneuver and it def isn't a reason to not even enter negotiations, that is called unwillingness to negotiate.

i am not going to dwell much further on this but as has pointed out, at the very least Article 4 meant that under this russian proposal the west would have to ditch poland (joined in 1999), and this was never going to happen (and i agree, we should not agree to article 4) as this would "weaken" the west position and undermine western leadership. no point dwelling on this ok. Poland is basically the front line, we cant drop them and russia has had 20 years to get over it.

Article 1: the parties should not strengthen their security at the expense of Russia’s security;
Article 2: the parties will use multilateral consultations and the NATO-Russia Council to address points of conflict;
Article 3: the parties reaffirm that they do not consider each other as adversaries and maintain a dialogue;
Article 4: the parties shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other states in Europe in addition to any forces that were deployed as of May 27, 1997;
Article 5: the parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles adjacent to the other parties;
Article 6: all member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States;
Article 7: the parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia; and
Article 8: the agreement shall not be interpreted as affecting the primary responsibility of the Security Council of the United Nations for maintaining international peace and security.

======

try not to respond to the other Article's

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 11 2023 04:26am

I've stated before such things would never happen okay...

This is an example of high demands that will not be met but a neutral Ukraine and even recognition of Crimea being Russian isn't that bad at all if you consider the situation we're in right now.

NATO didn't even enter negotiations which is a fact and they should've as any professional organization would when you're dealing with an opponent that has 6K nukes in store.

/

hey you dont have to convince me. only article 4 is a problem for me. it was the US putting missiles in turkey that led to the cuban missile crises, yet you can buy new books published in 2022 about the cuban missile crisis that make no mention of turkey. de-escalation is nowhere near the table unfortunately, anywhere right now. (this conflict / other conflicts). ultimately what is happening in ukraine is a symptom of a change in the geopolitical status quo.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 11 2023 04:32am

My main point is that NATO simply refused to negotiate. Like I pointed out above, they should've negotiated, the stakes were too high.

I wouldn't be surprised that when this is all over we're gonna see hearings and all that on why that decision was made back then.

no, we wont. sorry!

Ok so this will be fought out on the battlefield.

Thread can be closed now

Russian demands left zero room for NATO to negotiate. Accepting almost any of those terms would have essentially been Russia dictating how the alliance operates i.e. non negotiable.
Not to mention Russian troops massing at the Ukraine border before December 2021.
This was a clear disingenuous act by Russia to appear like they would negotiate. The decision to invade Ukraine was made long before then. Acting as though they would negotiate served only as a pretext and pillar of the narrative.

Russia had zero intention of negotiating at all.

Its not a false flag exactly like the US claims about Iraqi WMD's. But its essentially two sides of the same coin.

Outside of the West or Russian audiences. There are a lot of countries who may align with Russia/authoritarianism, as long they appear to be the defender/victim. That's Putin's motivation for creating a context of defense.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Jan 11 2023 04:51am

Look at Iraq. Tony Blair knowingly entered the war on false pretenses and under his watch they committed war crimes. he was not held to account. because iraq bad. therefore the same bush will apply to this war.

this war will be fought on the battle field until either ukraine wins or russia does something that makes the west change its mind.

nato expansion is a key strategic aim of the US and therefore this also was a big nono.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 11 2023 04:54am

Blair, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton all the worst war criminals of the 21st Century. Putin joined the club and the Saudi's want in.

The fact that Blair then went to be special envoy for the United Nations in Israel/Palestine tells you everything you need to know. Preaching peace and selling weapons.
Thought that he solved the troubles in Ireland and then believed he was a messiah. Fucking hate that guy

Paradox is that Blair is also my first name ^^



Makes sense from a military standpoint and also a ideological standpoint. "The West" is not only countries in western Europe or the US. Its similar systems that include (to a varying degree obviously) individual liberty, human rights and democracy.
I don't see any authoritarian dictatorships in NATO

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Jan 11 2023 05:05am