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.
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.