To assert that Moscow wanted Ukraine as a "client state" but imply by omission that Brussels/Washington did not want Ukraine as a "client state" is simply disingenuous and disregards the entire political history of Ukraine since 1991.
Among who, the USSR? It makes perfect sense that a nation seeking independence from the most corrupt European country would retain oligarchs that abuse their power. Plus, compared to other socialist republics like Hoxha's Albania, Ukraine had economic and political stability in spades.
The war truly could have been avoided (multiple times, even in the first week after Russia invaded) but Ukrainian "leadership" succumbed to foreign (US/UK) pressure.
This is a myth and is easily debunked. But unfortunately your use of square quotes here signals an intent to discourage reasoned discussion on the topic.
Nuland's interview this week: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/nuland-ukraine-peace-deal/
A leader does not sacrifice a million of their people on behalf of foreign interests, when relatively modest, peaceful concessions could be made that avoid war in the short- and long-term. It's offensive to call such wanton disregard for countrymen as "leadership".
The highest estimates (from anything resembling reliable sources) point to an upper bound of 200k (likely closer to 150k) deaths on the Ukrainian side as of the current moment.
Which is of course a horrendous number, but the question here is: why are you intentionally providing us with number that is at least 5x of even the highest of reliable estimates we have for the real number for the losses that Russia has inflicted upon Ukraine so far?
When relatively modest, peaceful concessions could be made
The very article you linked to indicates that the redline concessions demanded by the Russian side would have been neither modest, nor peaceful. This (in addition to Russian atrocities on the ground, and Russia's rapidly deteriorating performance on the battleground at the time) were why Ukraine (very rationally) chose not to take the bait that was offered to them.
Basically the article is putting a severe and misleading spin on what Nuland actually did say. And it seems you are uncritically accepting this spin at face value.
1. Putin invaded the first time, even if he hid it behind "little green men". Putin invaded a second time, even though he claimed it was "just training exercises" right up to the moment that Russian troops crossed the border. Why would anyone sane expect that Russia would be satisfied with the "relatively modest" concessions Putin demanded? It would have been another "peace in our time". And just like last time, the time of peace would not have been long.
2. The GP talks about violations of the Minsk Accords, as if only one side was violating them. That is... a very highly biased view of events.
And sorry, but no amount of condescension will convince me (or anyone) that Ukraine is better off today in 2024 than they were in early 2022 when, as Nuland implied, US/UK sabotaged the peace talks at the start of the war. As a national leader, Zelensky acted extremely irrationally. As an agent of foreign powers, he performed well.
On top of that -- when politely confronted for having done so, rather than simply acknowledge what (up until then) might have been charitably dismissed as a mistake -- you doubled down on these purely invented numbers.
It's flame bait, and against site guidelines, which instruct us that comments be "more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive".
I won't be engaging further with your new, single-purpose user account.
Please show a single instance where Ukraine made any significant concrete effort to implment the Minsk accords, for instance.
If we want to play "woulda coulda shoulda", Ukraine arguably could have avoided this by not letting Russia repatriate Soviet weapons that could be used as deterrence. Ukraine used to have ICBMs that could strike deep into Russia, an obvious deterrent had they not been forced to give them up.
The reality of life is that in many situations you don't have a good option and a bad one, but rather a bad one and a terrible one. So demonstrating one choice is bad does not make the other inherently better. And when you're a small power stuck between two giants, this is the name of the game. See: Switzerland managing to remain neutral throughout both WW1 and WW2. A tiny little power pissing off both the Allied and Axis powers, leaving them standing completely alone? Clearly a bad decision, but also clearly the best decision. Same here.
Poland should defend its interests AND its political sovereignty. Ukraine failed at both long before Feb 2022 despite numerous opportunities to recover.