Maoo

Yea, even those were in no way reasonable.

They're very reasonable, especially as a starting point for negotiations.

1. Ukraine haw a very serious Nazi problem that liberals everywhere recognized right up until it became inconvenient for the war narrative. The Nazi problem is part and parcel of the civil war and failure to abide by Minsk II, as those Nazis were the tip of the spear against ethnic Ruasians in Donbas. Disempowering and jailing Nazi war criminals shouldn't be controversial.

2. Russia wants to prevent encirclement and to treat Ukraine as a neutral buffer. Given NATO's advancements despite the fall of the Soviet Union, this demand is already a half-measure. Ukraine being militarized and used as a Western forward military base is not something Western countries would tolerate if the roles were reversed.

3. Ukraine isn't joining NATO anyways, not anytime soon at least. This is a formalization of the aforementioned neutrality.

4. Independence of Luhansk and Donesk is a demand that says, "you couldn't abide Minsk II and that leaves this as the only option". Ukraine and their Western masters had nearly a decade to democratically deal with the breakaway states per their own agreements and chose to instead ramp up a civil war targeting ethnic Russians right on Russia's border. The failure od the status quo ans the West's ability to follow their own rules is the proximal issue Russia is reacting to.

5. Ukraine isn't getting Crimea back. This is a formalization that would simply amount to normalizing relations in peacetime.

Those terms are obviously so Russia can keep conquered territories while removing Ukraine's ability to defend itself so Russia can take the whole thing in a few years.

Russia could take the whole thing any time they wanted to, lol. They have complete air superiority and a much more powerful arsenal and manpower and tactics. They could do the American thing - the NATO thing - and destroy the rest of the country, targeting Kyiv and civilian infrastructure en masse. Instead, they are choosing a war of attrition that achieves many of their objectives without just rolling over the whole country.

Neutrality is far safer for Ukrainians and always was. A neutral Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded by Russia in the first place.

Also there was no ethnic cleansing, no idea where you're getting that.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Like... at all. It's been going on since 2013/2014. Please educate yourself on the derussification efforts undertaken by Ukraine targeted at ethnic Russians as well as their ruthless targeting of the Donbas.

The baltics joined NATO like 15 years ago and Ukraine's application was denied so there's none of that either

None of what?

And even if both were true those terms mean annexation for Ukraine in the future so in no way acceptable.

Ukraine is already not a sovereign state, lol. Their political leadership was chosen by Nuland et al behind closed doors as part of Euromaidan. Neutrality would actually be the most sovereign they have any chance of being, toyed with through economic courtship rather than couped and destroyed.

And again, Russia can annex Ukraine wherever it wants to. Most of it, at least. Poland would probably claim Western Ukraine for itself with various bullshit excuses.

You are confused and are including open demands Russia made of the US / NATO prior to the invasion. Russia has not demanded that Ukraine somehow de-NATOify Baltic countries.

Russia's initial negotiation demands were things like this:

• Denazification.
• Demilitarization.
• No application to NATO.
• Independence for Luhansk and Donetsk.
• Recognition of Crimea as Russian territory.

These are in no way insane demands given the context of NATO encirclement, the civil war and ethnic cleansing at their doorstep, and the fact that Russia is obviously never giving up Crimea. It is also... the lead-in to negotiations, which Ukraine started balking at around the same time reports came out about Western prevention of Ukraine participating.

I don't see any of that, personally.

Any chance the liberal in your head is editoriakizing some straw men?

Ethnic cleansings in those territories are a fabricated casus beli for Russia 'green man'

The ethnic cleansing was and is part of official Ukrainian policy. Do you think the sneaky Rooskies infiltrated and forced Kyiv to drop Russian as an official language, one that could be learned and used in schools in Donbas? Did they cleverly rename the streets to Bandyerite fascist names? Did they create the Azov Batallikn, Righy Sector, etc - the Ukrainian fascist groups weaponized against the ethnic Russian civilians of Donbas and now directly incorporated into the government and armed forces? Did Russia secretly create the entire Kyiv side of the civil war that heavily targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure on the Donbas side?

Cool to learn, I didn't know that.

You should do more listening to hexbears because that sounds nothing like us.

Russia repeatedly made peace talk attempts early on. Western powers that actually call those shots rebuffed them. Boris Johnson himself intervened, allegedly.

The answer to the real question, which is why Russia isn't unilaterally ending the war, is that its objectives have not been met and/or the status quo is acceptable to them. The former is the exact same as saying why Russia invaded in the first place.

So why do Western powers want this was to go to the last Ukrainian? NATO military tactics that assume air dominance without the air dominance. Zero expectation of a win, despite the propaganda.

Ok, I will not be defending those actions of NATO

You'll just ignore their relevance to why NATO approaching your doorstep is, in fact, hostile and aggressive.

NATO was literally created to oppose the USSR and the left in Europe generally, and did not disband after the fall of the USSR, instead taking up further aggression and at greater range, and keeping a very clear encirclement position around Russia. The bases got larger, the spending increased, and membership was sought to undermine any countries stepping out of line of the American-imposed order.

non hostile sovereign state

Non-hostility is when you do ethnic cleansing against the ethnicity the neighboring country is named after, engage in a war right by the borders to support that ethnic ckeansing, violate your treaties to end that war, and cozy up your coup government to the military organization intended to encircle that country, an org that regularly engages in aggression.

The Balts were immediately used as forward positions for NATO and were allowed to keep their state programs and industry. Belarus got the same treatment as Russia.

You should probably know the answer to your own snarky questions before you ask them.

Siri, what's imperialism?

I don't have the time for the classic tankie "reply with a wall of text and deflections"

This is literally a deflection to avoid dealing with the (inconvenient) basic facts you should've learned before having any opinion on this topic in the first place.