[dralley]

That is total horseshit. That "deal" which was never close to being signed would have both required Ukraine to almost entirely disarm and also allow Russia to veto any future military partnerships Ukraine might have including non-NATO ones.

It was a surrender on a timer doomed to fail just like Munich 1938 did.

It would inevitably have been violated just like the two Minsk agreements were, just like the Black Sea grain initiative was, just like the humanitarian ceasefires in Mariupol and Debaltseve were, just like Prigozhin's deal was - and a dozen others.

Ukrainian politicians have called the "UK pressure" narrative nonsense. Negotiations were called off because of what happened in Bucha + promises of arms supplies.

Your narrative is propaganda. Ukraine didn't want to sign that deal because it was a total shit deal made by someone who broke all their previous deals, and the West was giving them an opportunity for a better one.

[WgaqPdNr7PGLGVW]

> would have both required Ukraine to almost entirely disarm and also allow Russia to veto any future military partnerships Ukraine might have including non-NATO ones.

Ukraine now faces almost total destruction because they didn't take the deal.

It should be a clear lesson to other countries - don't be belligerent with your much stronger neighbors.

The US and Europe getting involved simply increased the death and destruction.

I'm not saying it is fair or right or just. It simply is.

[arandomusername]

And now there 100s thousands of Ukrainians dead. The deal was not favourable for Ukraine because unfortunately they are facing against a stronger opponent and no country wanted to back Ukraine militarily wise.

> Black Sea grain initiative was

Citation needed. As far as I'm aware it was just not renewed.

As per Minsk, Ukraine also violated it. There were a lot of violations from both sides. It was not an agreement that would have worked long term.

https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/5...

> Ukrainian politicians have called the "UK pressure" narrative nonsense

Which are as worthy source as Russian politicians.

> promises of arms supplies

From US and UK? Aka pressure from them?

> Your narrative is propaganda

Your narrative is propaganda.

> and the West was giving them an opportunity for a better one.

Where is that deal? So far a lot of Ukrainians have lost their lives for what exactly?

And again, do you support Trump's demand for ceasefire?

[dralley]

>Citation needed. As far as I'm aware it was just not renewed.

There were violations. They used the "inspections" process to continually delay & block ships from going to Ukrainian ports.

"Ukrainian Deputy Renovation Minister Yuriy Vaskov accused Russia of a "gross violation" of the agreement. All ships are inspected by a joint team of Russian, Ukrainian, Turkish and U.N. inspectors, but Vaskov said the Russian inspectors had refused to inspect ships bound for Pivdennyi since April 29."

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ukraine-says-rus...

And then of course it wasn't renewed, followed up by immediate missile strikes on Ukraine's grain infrastructure over the following couple of days. Which does speak in some sense to Russia's willingness to do deals and hold them. (That didn't end up working out for them as expected, because Ukraine subsequently sank half of what remained of their Black Sea Fleet).

I notice you don't address all the other deals they violated either.

> Which are as worthy source as Russian politicians.

What source do you consider credible? Random tankies on twitter? Nobody who was actually involved in those discussions gives that narrative any credence.

>Where is that deal? So far a lot of Ukrainians have lost their lives for what exactly?

Ukrainians decide what deal they're willing to accept, not you.

>And again, do you support Trump's demand for ceasefire?

No, because Trump isn't trying to make Russia sacrifice anything, he's just trying to force Ukraine into submission. Which, by the way, will not work.

[arandomusername]

Fair enough on the black sea deal.

> What source do you consider credible? Random tankies on twitter? Nobody who was actually involved in those discussions gives that narrative any credence.

Reputable news sources, ideally multiple different sources that say the same thing. Ukrainian politicians will not say anything that would potentially harm their war effort.

> Ukrainians decide what deal they're willing to accept, not you.

They can do it without my aid then.

> No, because Trump isn't trying to make Russia sacrifice anything, he's just trying to force Ukraine into submission. Which, by the way, will not work.

So, what's the end goal, as far as you see?