Comments by "dark room ambience" (@DarkRoomAmbience) on "Putin Waves "Peace Deal", Claims Ukraine Bowed To Western Pressure After Russia's Kyiv Pullout" video.

Zelensky offered to meet with Putin one-on-one before the invasion. Putin refused. The US met with Russian officials pleading them not to invade. They invaded. A month into the war Macron met with Putin begging for peace negotiations, Putin refused. Two months into the war the UN Secretary met with Putin and tried to negotiate a peace deal, Putin refused. Two months into the war the Austrian President met with Putin seeking a peace settlement, Putin refused. 3 months into the war Ukraine offered to drop their bid to join NATO if they are guaranteed security, Putin refused. Ukraine said to Russia if they illegally annex Ukraine's lands they will refuse any peace deal, Russia illegally annexed Ukraine's lands. Ukraine have offered a 10-point peace plan, which includes simple provisions such as dont bomb our energy infrastructure, Russia refused. Russia have refused every single peace offer, every single peace deal, every single offer to negotiate. They dont want peace, they want Ukraine.
27
@lherisknowledge4fun The Minsk agreements is complicated but Ill do my best to simplify the main points that were the object of contention. Ill first list all the violations Russia committed in the Minsk, then explain why the agreement was unworkable for Ukraine. * Russia violated the ceasefire agreement by continuing to support and arm separatist groups in Eastern Ukraine * Russia failed to withdraw its heavy weapons from eastern Ukraine, as required by the Minsk agreements * Russia did not take adequate steps to ensure that the border was under Ukrainian control, allowing for the continued flow of weapons, fighters and supplies to the separatists * The agreements called for the disarmament of all illegal groups and the withdrawal of foreign armed formations and mercenaries from Ukrainian territory, Russia did not disarm the separatist groups and did not prevent the influx of foreign fighters and weapons into Ukraine * The Minsk agreements outline a political settlement process that included the restoration of Ukrainian constitutional order, local elections and the granting of a special status to certain regions. Russia obstructed the implementation of these political provisions and did not pressure the separatists to comply * The agreements emphasized the need for humanitarian access to the conflict areas. Russia did not facilitate the full and unhindered access for humanitarian organizations to provide assistance to civilians in need The Minsk agreements were initially signed by Russia, Ukraine and the OSCE. Russia, being a key player in the Ukrainian conflict, had a clear responsibility to abide by the terms of the deal. Nevertheless, Russia dishonestly denied being a party to the agreements and falsely presented itself as a mere facilitator. It claimed that the actual agreements were between Ukraine and the "separatists" known as the LPR and DPR. However, these groups were, in reality, supplied and controlled by Russia. The LPR and DPR were not recognized as legitimate entities under the Minsk Agreements. The leaders of the so-called Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples' Republics had added their signatures after Ukraine, Russia and the OSCE had already signed the agreements. They were not original signatories and if their signatures had been part of the deal, Ukraine would not have signed. The content and format of the Agreement did not provide legitimacy to these entities and they should not have been treated as negotiating partners in any sense. Russia alone controlled the forces that occupied parts of eastern Ukraine. Ukraine had implemented the Minsk Agreements to the extent possible, considering Russia's continued occupation of its territory. The agreements entail political measures on Ukraine's part, including granting special status to the region, amnesty for those involved in the conflict, local elections and some form of decentralization within the Ukrainian constitution. Ukraine had taken legislative action to address each requirement, passing and extending laws on special status, amnesty, local elections and constitutional amendments. The Minsk Agreements did not stipulate the specific details of these measures and Ukraine had complied with the explicit requirements to the best of its ability. The main obstacle laid in the implementation of those political measures, which Russia hindered by maintaining control over the territory. Russia demanded local elections before relinquishing control which was problematic, as elections held under occupation would not be recognized under international legal norms. Furthermore, those elections would be for legitimate positions under Ukrainian law, not for the illegitimate "governments" established by Russia's occupation, which Russia "created" and demanded. There wasnt any legal and constitutional framework for elections for made up positions created by Russia. The voting eligibility of displaced citizens, as defined by Ukrainian law, raised concerns regarding the involvement of Russian occupation authorities. These matters required resolution under international supervision, rather than being dictated by Russia. tltr; Ukraine were willing to grant the LPR and DPR autonomy under the Ukraine constitution, but only AFTER the national assembly voted to join NATO, which Russia did not want. Russia wanted Ukraine to grant autonomy to the LPR and DPR BEFORE Ukraine voted to join NATO because then the LPR and DPR can vote against it, which they would still have the power to do (which is why Russia originally never wanted the LPR and DPR to join Russia, it would forfeit its veto in the national assembly). Understanding this fact fully well, Ukraine did no grant autonomy before its vote to join NATO, which at that point Russia knew the jig was up, so they cancelled the Minsk Agreements and decided to invade.
3
@mrjerzheel There was no coup in Ukraine. Millions of Ukranians protested in the streets which were sparked by the decision of President Viktor Yanukovych to abandon an association agreement with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Russia. The protests quickly grew into a mass movement demanding Yanukovych's resignation and eventually led to his resignation and new elections. Protests arent coups. Revolutions arent coups. Only Russia calls it a coup because their lackey was forced to resign.
1
Putin is lying. Anyone who believes that Russia withdrawing troops from Kyiv was a "goodwill" gesture is insane.
1
@JohnAkaSB No, Russia pulled out of Kyiv because they were losing 1000s of troops every day and it was understood that it would be impossible to capture Kyiv, so they withdrew, and said it was a "goodwill gesture" hence the memes about Russia retreating as "goodwill gestures". It was an excuse to hide their obvious failure.
1
@linkmeforfun Russia claimed that the agreement was that Ukraine would give up Crimea and Donbas (which wasn't and still isnt fully occupied), Ukraine remains neutral and has a limit to its military. But what does Ukraine get? No security guarantees, no ability to defend itself if Russia chooses to invade again and the loss of territory that Russia hasn't even fully occupied yet. No country would see that as a reasonable or rational agreement. Ukraines security assurances means the west guaranteeing its security, which Russia does not and will not accept. So the agreement is an unworkable fantasy for Ukraine. Think about it from Ukraines perspective, all counties require security in one form or another, directly or indirectly, the agreement basically strips them of their security, would you or any rational person accept that? Its absurd. Putin waves a piece of paper and says "Ukraine agreed to give us everything we wanted and then reneged" is laughable
1