> Can you explain why those terms are unacceptable?

It's obvious. The people want to be free to control their own destiny.

"stop attacking yourself with my army" is not exactly a philosophical slam dunk.

Indeed, and the same goes for Russia, my friend.

As far as I can tell, Russia is fully prepared for any possible consequences.

Ah, now I get it. So Russia is just liberating Ukraine from being used by West. How noble.

Could you remind me why Ukraine as a sovereign country should not have the freedom to make their own choice whose pawns (if anyones) they want to be?

No - Russia is defending the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics where Ukrainian nationalists have killed over 14,000 men, women, and children over the past eight years by shelling civilian areas.

The agreed upon diplomatic solution was the Minsk agreements, which Ukraine completely disregarded.

edit: HN is preventing me from replying to any more posts for an unspecified amount of time. We love our liberal values, don't we folks?

Don't change the topic. You were the one claiming that requesting Ukraine stay neutral is not unreasonable (implying that it is fine to attack another country if they do not abide to the request).

Why Ukraine should not have the freedom to choose?

I never said they shouldn’t have the freedom to choose. Never mind that they didn’t- the US literally just sponsored a color revolution there in 2014. But don’t expect Russia to not react if their security is threatened.

Pathetic. You implied it is not unreasonable to attack another country and require "neutrality", which by definition means you think you are entitled to deny another sovereign country their freedom to choose.

Just in case you are too deep in russian misinfo bubble, your dear leader is currently preparing himself and his country for the largest humiliation since WW2 by threatening security of other countries. Just because you have a few nukes does not change the fact that you are currently a failed developing country deluding themselves to think they can play the big leagues.

Where was Libya or Yugoslavia’s “freedom to choose” when NATO invaded? Russia has no reason to believe that NATO will behave peacefully as it expands ever eastward.

We are not talking about NATO. We are talking about your claim that other sovereign countries should not have the freedom to choose who they play chess with.

I mean, you have all the freedom to make yourself more lucrative voluntary chess playing companion than NATO, nobody is denying that. Instead you choose to be a failed developing totalitarian country bullying and attacking its neighbours and you wonder why they want to join NATO?

Where did I claim that? What does “freedom” mean to you? Freedom from consequences?

Ugh. One of the reasons the Minsk agreements failed is because Russia said it's not a related party and as such, it doesn't apply to them.

So it's Russia that completely disregarded Minsk II agreements.

So that’s why Ukraine couldn’t honor the ceasefire for eight years?

I don't even know what you're talking about.

Russia created a gray zone war in the first place. Support in that area for Russia was reduced from 54% to 14% over the following 8 years.

That's one of the reasons they invaded instead of continueing the gray zone conflict.

If you are suggesting that Ukraine is at fault, you are ignoring basic facts.

You don’t know what I’m talking about? The continual shelling of civilian areas in Donetsk and Lugansk by Ukraine for the past eight years.

Yeah, support for Russia in these areas is so low that they were celebrating in the streets when Russia announced their recognition and people fled into Russia when Ukraine escalated hostilities.

Anyone who knows the history of the relationships between Russia and all of its neighbors understands that no such terms can be accepted.

Russia did not grow to its huge size by being a nice neighbor.

For many centuries, the Russian Empire, then its successor, the Soviet Union, have continuously threatened their neighbors, issued ultimatums to them and launched unprovoked attacks against them.

Every time when Russia or the Soviet Union gave an ultimatum to some neighbor, there were plenty of voices that insisted that any Russian demands must be satisfied in order to not anger the great neighbor, so that Russia would not have reasons for further aggressive behavior.

Every time when these supposedly wise voices have been listened and the Russian demands have been accepted, that has only strengthened Russia and weakened the neighbor.

The consequences were always that later Russia came with even more shameless demands or it just attacked and occupied partially or totally the neighbor.

There is no indication that Putin will ever behave in a different manner than his ancestors, so there is no rational reason to believe that accepting any Russian demands can guarantee that they will stop at that, instead of demanding even more later.

For decades, or maybe centuries, there was a joke that circulated in all neighbor countries of Russia:

Where are the frontiers of Russia ? Wherever they want ...

“No foreign weapons” means Russia can just come back in whenever they feel like it.

They already can do that.

But now Russia brings foreign weapons to Ukraine, right?

Putin literally asked the ukrainian armed forces to putsch against Zelenskyy yesterday.[1]

The whole "reason" of the russian invasion is the pretext of a "de-nazifikation" of the ukrainian government (which is a *insane* claim).

It appears very strange to me to think that Putin will accept anything other than a total regime change.

[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/putin-calls-on-ukraine-milit...

Ukraine put Stepan Bandera on a postage stamp. How does that happen without Nazis in the government?

Not from Ukraine, so I can't answer the questions. But it seems to me that Putin lies a lot. So who knows what the acctual terms he wants is?

What’s an example?

You mean besides the one where he said he wasn't planning an invasion? Use Google and I'm sure you can find some. I have to say, you really must be enjoying the kool-aid. Every leader tells lies. If you really can't think of an example of Putin lying, then I feel sorry for your naivety or complete and utter pathological denial.