Limiting armament build is an understandable ask from their POV, especially with western politicians coming out and saying things like the peace talks were never serious and were generally used as a stalling tactic to basically get all those arms and training in place. Why would Russia not have that clause when between 2014-pre war, it saw deepening ties with NATO, with various advisers, various intel sharing and so on. It's conceivable Ukraine could use the deal as means to re-arm and basically get western supply chains in place for round 2. Ukraine doesn't have to be part of NATO to be pumped full of weapons again.
Populism and us using that populism to guide a country to a result we want is nothing new. They aren't mutually exclusive you get that right? All throughout the cold war we funded and backed right wing 'populists' across the globe while soviets backed their gorilla or rebel 'populists' and vice-versa.
If Jan 6th Trumpers which can be categorized as a populist movement, would have overthrown Biden, started jailing and killing Democrats, banned CNN and WAPO and so on, just because it was a populist movement, would that make it okay or?
15 million is an aggregate loss, including people that lived in Russian occupied territories. You do understand that not all people would claim refugee status or the millions that live in Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, etc wouldn't be getting captured in the refugee figures to Europe right? Ukraine had ~43MM pre-war inclusive of Crimea.
This is as of like 10 months ago. Since then Ukraine continues to lose people to emigration.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/however-war-ends-ukraines-diminished-population-will-hit-economy-years-2023-07-07/You implied twice that 15 plus million fled the country.
Now your moving the goalposts to an aggregate loss.
Regardless. Its almost day 900 of imminent Russian victory.