“It was the best deal we could have had.” Two years later, a Ukrainian negotiator is still bitter: unveiled by the German daily Die Welt, in an article spotted by Le Figaro on Monday, the deal could have ended the war just weeks after the Russian invasion.
Yeah, at the cost of Russia keeping the parts they invaded. And the deal wouldn’t be worth even the paper it’s written on, given that Ukraine signed a similar agreement back in 1994, yet here we are today with Russia violating it.
Giving up land to an invader was ever acceptable? LOL
Last I checked, Ukraine has given up a lot of land since that deal was on the table. And the trend is that there might be no Ukraine left at all. But yeah, real funny stuff otherwise.
They’d already given the entire state to the control of the USA. Its oligarchs own much of its land now. They’re selling the rest of it for pennies.
Great bargains to be had! Everything must go! https://privatization.gov.ua/en/
I’m hearing this argument over and over again, yet for some reason no one can explain whether giving up land to an invader is always unacceptable, or are there some exceptions? Maybe it’s how long ago the land was taken?
I suspect it’s the latter, and this time period is greater than 10 years (because Crimea is still “rightfully Ukrainian”, right?), but less than a few hundred years (because all the other invaded territories now “rightfully belong to the invader”.
You do understand that almost every piece of land on this planet, that belongs to country A, was conquered from another country B (or from a tribe B if we go long enough into the history, or from family B if go even further, or from some other entity if we go even further)?
Should Poland invade Ukraine to retake Lviv?
Should Finland invade Russia to retake Karelia?
Should Mexico invade USA to retake California?
Should every country in Europe invade every other country in Europe because they all hold some territories that belonged to a different country some time back?
