Post B0Unf02WOBBvtIMk88 by osma@mas.to
(DIR) More posts by osma@mas.to
(DIR) Post #B0UnesZCAoZeiJaiwq by osma@mas.to
2025-11-22T06:20:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I've read several analysis of the 28 point "peace plan" and so far, this one has been best. But it still leaves certain key points unsaid. Will try to add to it. https://agora.echelon.pl/objects/9b10ef26-92d4-4f01-a258-551fb1c596bd
(DIR) Post #B0UnetsNIzVgm5ZYTw by osma@mas.to
2025-11-22T06:23:26Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
First of all, any agreement has the following:1. Parties2. Objective3. TermsThis one does not. It refers to many stakeholders, but is extremely vague on who the parties are. It does not state the objective. And it is a mishmash of conflicting terms.
(DIR) Post #B0Unf02WOBBvtIMk88 by osma@mas.to
2025-11-22T06:26:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
It starts by making a passive-mode statement that Ukraine's sovereignty "will be confirmed". By whom? For what purpose? Ukraine is sovereign.It then continues to make several demands on matters a sovereign nation is, well, sovereign about.
(DIR) Post #B0Unf5uEZu7y5KXD2u by osma@mas.to
2025-11-22T06:29:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
The next point is, by simple language structure, clearly two Russian sentences directly translated to English. It also claims a "full and comprehensive" agreement involving 30 nations in two sentences.
(DIR) Post #B0UnfBfv82F7yfsrZI by osma@mas.to
2025-11-22T06:32:55Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
It continously mixes US role as sometimes party, sometimes mediator, sometimes guarantor, other times the only named party who receives "profits" of reconstruction. This is precisely why agreements clearly define their parties and objectives.
(DIR) Post #B0UnfH9WlNtexwm4uW by osma@mas.to
2025-11-22T06:34:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
It makes claims on behalf of others, starting obviously with Ukraine, but also NATO and the European Union. This is why it's not even a plan - barely a concept of a plan. A bad concept, at that. These kinds of things aren't simple to negotiate.
(DIR) Post #B0UnfQ7NQkWYlspzJA by osma@mas.to
2025-11-22T06:38:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Enough has been said about the territorial points and the limitation of Ukraine's army size by others. I'll just remind that no such demands are made regarding Russia. Who wrote this, you think?
(DIR) Post #B0UnfW7b6qGXOIzFU8 by osma@mas.to
2025-11-22T06:41:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Point 22 is curious enough to copy verbatim:After future territorial arrangements are agreed, both Russia and Ukraine commit not to alter them by force. Any security guarantees will not apply if this obligation is violated.That there makes the whole "plan" null and void the moment Russia violates the border again.
(DIR) Post #B0UnfcN3sGCUm0GgQC by osma@mas.to
2025-11-22T06:44:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
The terms declare full amnesty of all war crimes, nullifying the Geneva Conventions as well as the founding principles of the United Nations. It's no surprise both Putin and Trump would think this is just fine and dandy, but that just does not fly in face of international justice.
(DIR) Post #B0UnfhfgAT41DC17dQ by osma@mas.to
2025-11-22T06:46:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
The whole thing is also proposed to be both "legally binding" (under what law?) and monitored by a "Peace Council chaired by President Donald J. Trump."And what about when the esteemed Orange One no longer is in a position to chair anything?
(DIR) Post #B0UnfmmFBUHn307w3s by osma@mas.to
2025-11-22T06:49:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
There are a number of items in the whole thing which are not for either Ukraine nor Russia to agree on. Trump's pressure is again on Ukraine to agree to this, with none applied to Russia. But fortunately, there's enough there, especially in the details of the territorial concessions and the education and society parts that it will be again Putin who will not agree.