Russia also has reason not to trust Ukraine and NATO after the Minsk agreement was violated.
And why would Russia back down? They’re winning. NATO is the one who destroyed negotiations and then lost the conflict; so it will have to be Ukraine and NATO who “back down”.
I can’t imagine the entitlement to think the winner of a conflict needs to “back down now” for negotiations.
Let’s try fixing your comment:
> Ukraine is Ukraine, and the thing preventing the situation from reaching a diplomatic ending, which again is how all wars end, is that NATO can’t bring itself to back down now, and everything else is just excuses from the land of fiction that only work when applied unilaterally.
You're going to need some reliable evidence for this and an explanation of what the solution actually was, as well as why the Ukranians aren't making more of this.
That's super, super, super unrealistic, as Russia has not indicated at any time they're willing to vacate Crimea.
Which is the absolute baseline for Russia to do.
Without that, anything Russia is claiming is really just a delaying tactic to let them prepare/re-equip for their next invasion wave.
Furthermore the US even had to help Russia itself with the dismantling and disposing of some weapons over the years. It was in nobody’s interest for yet another country to have nukes when poverty and corruption would have almost certainly led to “losing” them or losing them one way or another.
You’ve commented on the historical territory out of the blue, I don’t see the parent commenter mentioning that. Keep in my mind that Ukraine possesses territory they gained after WW2 as part of the Soviet Union and there’s no indication that they want to return it. Opening up these old territorial disputes is not a good idea.
In general trying to present Ukraine as fundamentally different from Russia as far as corruption or trustworthiness goes when they were both part of the Soviet Union and very close until 2014 is dubious and not supported by facts.
The Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine agrees to divest itself of nukes in exchange from formal guarantees of territorial integrity from Russia, is hardly irrelevant here.
* as a way to show that a country should never give up its nukes. But they were forced and incentivized to give them up.
* as a way of showing Russia won’t honor its agreements. But this is inconclusive. On one hand, Russia did invade Ukraine, but didn’t invade Kazakhstan or Belarus (other signatories which also gave up their nukes). And the agreement is not an official treaty, is not legally binding and doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism.
At the end of the day, Russia will probably respect an official treaty if the incentives and disincentives are right. Much like China or the US IMO.
Sure. Russia later reneged on the incentives by invading Ukraine (repeatedly!). Thus, relevant.
> But this is inconclusive. On one hand, Russia did invade Ukraine, but didn’t invade Kazakhstan or Belarus.
"What about all the murders I didn't do?" isn't a great defense.
> And the agreement is not an official treaty, is not legally binding and doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism.
Cool, then they can stop whining about the supposed NATO "agreement" not to expand, which was not an official treaty, not legally binding, and doesn't have an enforcement mechanism.
The nuclear stuff is also relevant because, again, nuclear disarmament was exchange for security (read: territory) guarantees. In this respect the issue of who can be trusted is clear.
Regarding your final point about both countries having corruption and being very close, sure. I don’t think I follow the point though. One country has invaded the other with an army after promising not to do so. That’s what is relevant here, not black markets or mafia or just a culture of cynicism and corruption. If Ukraine wanted to change and stop doing things the old way in 2014 then that’s good I guess.
Also it’s bonkers that someone thinks Ukraine is untrustworthy this situation. Didn’t they give up all their nuclear weapons in a signed treaty under the guarantee that Russia promised to respect their territorial integrity? Doesn’t Russia now posses territory that’s “historically” German or Japanese, and expects that territory to be respected as Russian, regardless of the history? Ukraine is Ukraine, and the thing preventing the situation from reaching a diplomatic ending, which again is how all wars end, is that Russia can’t bring itself to back down now, and everything else is just excuses from the land of fiction that only work when applied unilaterally.