Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "It's an Existential Threat! | Dmitri Trenin and Anatol Lieven" video.

@barrylane1055 This doesn't paint a full picture. Ukraine, as one of the most corrupt countries in Europe, couldn't have reasonably been trusted to conduct the vote as it has a vested interest in the result. The OSCE isn't a great contender either since it has lied about the state of "free and fair" elections in the past (most notably, under US pressure, lying about Yeltsin's re-election in 1996). So for that section of the accords to be honored, a neutral party would need to have been involved. I think those pieces of the accords should have been written differently to begin with, and although I do blame Russia for signing onto those terms, I also wouldn't trust a someone that stands to gain from tilting an election from overseeing it. Not even mentioning that members of the Right Sector said on record at the time that they wouldn't honor the agreement and continue fighting in spite of Kiev's agreement. It was Kiev's responsibility to subdue them if it really wanted to push the progress forward. But it didn't, despite being aware of their activities. It's a lack of trust on both sides. You're right that the accords never had a chance, but the blame is more equally spread than you think.
3
You also put the onus solely on Russia for reforming its "rotten elite" when the oligarchs who comprise it were a product of American policy both internally within Russia, and externally towards it: Refusing to commit to their own stated plan ("shock therapy") after sending Treasury economists to Moscow by refusing to divest loans like it did for Poland, implementing the Loans for Shares scheme which directly created the oligarchs, allowing them to launder money into Western banks. The list goes on. The West is blaming Russia for not going along with its solution, and then additionally wants to blame it for the problem, which it also helped create?? Unreal.
1
@lalobetancort452 Do you think that no side in any war should ever accept anything less than total victory? Because if so England and France would still be fighting today. It's not appeasement, it's called compromise. If you fundamentally don't believe in the concept of negotiation then I don't know what to tell you
1