If you are referring to the Minsk agreement, the Kiev government was supposed to stop attacking the Donbas and allow them to be independent within Ukraine. The western Ukrainians continued to shell them and killed over 14,000 citizens. So it was Ukraine who broke the agreement.
> If you are referring to the Minsk agreement, the Kiev government was supposed to stop attacking the Donbas and allow them to be independent within Ukraine. The western Ukrainians continued to shell them and killed over 14,000 citizens. So it was Ukraine who broke the agreement.
Im referring to the Budapest memorandum, where Ukraine gave up thousands of nuclear weapons and their long range strike capability in exchange for security guarantees from multiple states (including Russia). These guarantees were the following.
> Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[7]
> Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.
> Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
> Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory.
>Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[8][9]
This all happened in 1994, Russia violated this agreement when they initially invaded Ukraine in 2014.
So I once again ask, why should Ukraine believe any agreement with Russia will last, when they already had one that had them giving up their nuclear deterrence and Russia just decided one day that it didn't matter?.
Something else happened first in 2014: a coup to replace the elected president with a NATO-friendly one that talked about NATO nukes.
It was also largely led by fascists which were later absorbed into the official state army, most famously the Azov Battalion. It also involved the murder of trade unionists in Odesa and the beginning of the cleansing of ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
There are no good states involved in any of this. None of them care about the majority of people in any of the involved territories, who would benefit only from peace.
> There are no good states involved in any of this. None of them care about the majority of people in any of the involved territories, who would benefit only from peace.
I think the state that invaded is the bad one, after all, they are the ones who solely took action that has resulted in many thousands of Ukrainian civilians, including children dying.
But honestly? your response is just more evidence that peace cannot be had with an agreement, you just unilaterally ignored that Russia promised they would not invade.
So why again should Ukraine trust anything Russia puts in agreement they will throw out whenever its convenient again?.
Asking for NATO nukes and killing ethnic Russians is breaching the same agreement later breached by invasion. Why would anyone trust the Ukrainian state either?
And yet states that don’t trust each either enough to be at war still manage to negotiate peace, historically. The US preventing negotiation just prolongs this war that benefits the US.
> Somehow you end up arguing for more Ukrainians and Russians to die.
Your lack of a response to any of my points makes me thing you have no answers.
Why did you spew blatantly false information and not even bother to try and back it up?.
For what its worth im all for less Ukrainians and Russians dying Unfortunately for now the Russian government is insistent that only happens by more Russians temporarily dying.
