Poll of the week: Should Ukraine accept the terms of Putin's ceasefire agreement?
Vladimir Putin laid out his demands for both a ceasefire and ending the war in Ukraine in a meeting between the countries in Istanbul on Monday.
As part of the demands, Russia would see that Ukraine curbs the size of its military and recognises Russian as an official language.
This week we asked readers: Should Ukraine accept the terms of Putin's ceasefire agreement? A resounding 92 per cent of more than 20,000 respondents said no.
Telegraph readers reasoned that what Putin had put forward were not terms for peace but 'demands for complete capitulation and subjugation'. Here's why you are against a ceasefire on Putin's terms.
'These are not terms for peace'
For many readers, agreeing to terms that include international recognition of Russian sovereignty over four eastern regions of Ukraine would undermine the bravery and determination of Ukrainians, who have fought against Russia's invasion. Indeed, countless readers say the West should continue to bolster Ukraine's military efforts.
John Hughes, for example, believes the West needs 'to reward the Ukrainians for their incredible tenacity and flood the country with as much and as potent weaponry as possible, as quickly as possible.'
Likewise, reader Hel Han says 'the West must back Ukraine to the hilt with weapons and political support', or the alternative 'is bleak'.
And Damian McDonald says: 'The West and Trump in particular should put an end to this farce once and for all. Arm Ukraine to the hilt and let them finish the job!'
'These are not terms for peace,' Stephen Bell asserts. 'They are demands for complete capitulation and subjugation. Time to stop listening to Putin and apply the severest sanctions.'
'The Russians are embarrassed and stalling for time'
Many readers perceive Putin's peace terms appear to be an act of desperation, and indicate that Russia is backed into a corner.
Mr Hughes believes that 'the Russians are embarrassed and stalling for more time'.
Nick Matthews speculates it is 'negotiation tactics 101' on Russia's part. 'Make the most ludicrous demands in the hope that you can negotiate down to something that suits you,' he explains, and suggests: 'Ukraine should reply in kind.'
Similarly, Hel Han suggests 'Russia seems to be in an increasingly tenuous situation regarding making any demands.'
The reader requests that 'the arbitrators of the peace talks need to remind them that they are in no position whatsoever to make any demands.
'Russia is the aggressor and must withdraw and pay massive reparations.'
'Ukraine should be granted Nato membership'
In response to Putin's demands, readers also questioned Russia's opposition to Ukraine joining Nato, a decision that lies with Ukraine and Nato members.
'It seems to me that Ukraine has made concessions while Russia has made none,' an anonymous reader says.
'If the invasion was all about the expansion of Nato, and Ukraine cannot join, why is that not enough concession?'
Reader Bernie Thompson is unsurprised 'at the intransigence of Putin and his henchmen'.
He argues: 'They should be granted Nato membership. This is the only language that Putin is prepared to understand, even if he says he doesn't.'
He continues that as 'Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum in 2014, Ukraine should have the nukes that they surrendered returned to them.'
Donald Trump, the US president, previously said Ukraine joining Nato was 'not on the table'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
Deadly Russian strikes condemned as 'savage' - as dozens more injured in Ukrainian city
At least four people have been killed in the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv after a series of Russian attacks. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described one of the attacks as a "savage killing", saying dozens of people had been injured. It comes after Kyiv embarrassed Moscow when it launched a daring drone raid deep inside Russia last weekend, destroying dozens of bombers. Meanwhile, attempted US-led peace talks between the two appear to be floundering. During the attacks on Saturday, Kharkiv mayor Ihor Terekhov said: "Kharkiv is currently experiencing the most powerful attack in the entire time of the full-scale war." The first wave of the Russian strike was a large drone-and-missile attack in the early hours of Saturday morning. Nightly attacks from Moscow have become a routine part of the conflict. At least three people died and 21 others were injured. There are reports that some people remain trapped underneath the rubble. Then, in the afternoon, Russia dropped aerial bombs on the city centre, killing at least one person and wounding more. Ukraine and Russia also accused one another of trying to sabotage a planned prisoner exchange. Residents reckon with Russian strikes As emergency workers fought fires at the attack sites in Kharkiv, residents had to deal with the fallout of strikes that could have claimed their lives. Alina Belous tried to extinguish flames with buckets of water to rescue a young girl trapped inside a burning building, as she called out for help. "We were trying to put it out ourselves with our buckets, together with our neighbours," she said. "Then the rescuers arrived and started helping us put out the fire, but there was smoke and they worried that we couldn't stay there. "When the ceiling started falling off, they took us out." Vadym Ihnachenko said he initially thought it was a neighbouring building going up in flames - not his own. He was forced to flee after seeing smoke coming from his building's roof. Diplomatic efforts stall Several other areas in Ukraine were also hit, including the regions of Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk, Odesa, and the city of Ternopil, Ukrainian foreign minister Andriy Sybiha said. Russia acknowledged the attacks, but not the deaths, saying it had targeted military sites, while pictures show apartment blocks on fire. The regional governor, Oleh Syniehubov, said children were among those injured in the first attack. While a US-led diplomatic push for peace has led to two rounds of direct peace talks between delegations from Russia and Ukraine, they delivered no significant breakthroughs. Later on Saturday, Russia and Ukraine also accused each other of endangering plans to swap 6,000 bodies of soldiers killed in action.
BreakingNews.ie
2 hours ago
- BreakingNews.ie
'Putin shouldn't have a veto': TD says triple lock debated must avoid misinformation
Fine Gael TD Catherine Callaghan has said the current debate over changes to Ireland's triple lock needs to be grounded in facts and not misinformation. Ms Callaghan is a member of the Oireachtas Committee on Defence and National Security. Advertisement Ms Callaghan, a TD for Carlow-Kilkenny and a former member of the Defence Forces who served in Lebanon, has said that under the current triple lock system, countries like Russia and leaders like Vladamir Putin have the power to veto Ireland's participation in peacekeeping. 'We don't believe that Putin or others should have a veto on whether our troops can be deployed on peacekeeping missions. 'Currently members of the UN Security Council bind Ireland's hands on peacekeeping missions, when these are decisions that should be made by our Government and the Dáil." Ms Callaghan pointed to the fact that no new peacekeeping missions have been approved by the UN Security Council since 2014. Advertisement "This has meant that Irish peacekeepers have in some instances been delayed from engaging in missions to disrupt human smuggling and trafficking and maritime drug seizure operations," she added. 'This shows the absolute need to reform the UN Security Council which Ireland will continue to push for, but with that unlikely in the immediate future, we need to act in our own interests as an independent country in accordance with International Law and the UN Charter. 'In recent days, I have heard opponents of the proposals currently being examined by the Oireachtas Committee on Defence and National Security claim the UN General Assembly can approve peacekeeping missions and there is no need for a green light from the UN Security Council. 'But this is simply not the reality of how the system has worked over the last seven decades. While the General Assembly can make recommendations about deployments, it cannot compel countries to act. Advertisement 'Only once in history has the General Assembly invoked a Resolution to recommend a peacekeeping operation - and that was nearly 70 years ago when it established the first UN Emergency Force in the Middle East in 1956." Ms Callaghan is a member of the Oireachtas Committee on Defence and National Security. Ms Callaghan added: 'The context back then was absolutely unique where it had the consent of the parties involved - Egypt, France, Israel, and the UK - and the recommendation was in line with the priorities of four of the permanent members of the Security Council. 'The reality for the last nearly 70 years has been that every Defence Forces peacekeeping deployment has only ever taken place on the basis of a Security Council mandate. This underscores the rationale for removing the Putin veto." Ireland Neutrality 'completely unaffected' by triple lock... Read More She said removing the triple lock has "nothing whatsoever to do with military neutrality". Advertisement 'We value our neutrality and we are remaining militarily neutral. Ireland was militarily neutral for decades before the advent of the term 'triple lock' around the time of the Nice and Lisbon Treaty debates and it will continue to be neutral if these changes are passed through the Oireachtas and become law.' In an interview with in April, Minister of State Neale Richmond said: "Ireland's triple lock mechanism for deploying troops abroad is an archaic tool that is hindering our ability to be a global force for good whilst surrendering our sovereign decision making to the veto powers of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. "Given a UN mandate can be vetoed by any of the five permanent Security Council members, we are effectively giving the likes of Russia and China a veto of where and when we send our own troops."
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Donald Trump was wrong – Ukraine still holds some cards
Donald Trump has been shown to be wrong, wrong and wrong again about Vladimir Putin. He was wrong again when he was asked if Ukraine's ' Spiderweb ' drone strikes against Russian bombers had changed his view of the cards the Ukrainians have: 'They gave Putin a reason to go and bomb the hell out of them,' he said. This is the same logic to which President Trump has cleaved from the start: that the Ukrainian people provoked the full-scale invasion of their country by wanting to be an independent nation facing to the west. It seemed that Mr Trump had been briefly disabused of the notion that Mr Putin wanted peace when the Russian president ignored several long telephone conversations with him and continued to bombard Ukraine, causing significant civilian casualties. ' He has gone absolutely crazy,' Mr Trump said last month. ' Needlessly killing a lot of people.' But Mr Trump responded to this month's Russian bombardment, described by the mayor of Kharkiv as the ' most powerful attack since the start of the full-scale war', by blaming the Ukrainians for giving Mr Putin a reason for intensifying the summer offensive. Any other United States president would have recognised that Mr Putin is gearing up for the summer fighting season, as Sam Kiley, our world affairs editor, reports, and would be doing so even if he had not been humiliated by Ukraine's audacious remote-control attacks on airfields thousands of miles away in different parts of Russia. Any other US president would have congratulated Volodymyr Zelensky on the attacks, which will go down in the history of special operations warfare as a brilliantly executed surprise. It turns out that when Mr Trump shamefully told Mr Zelensky in the Oval Office, ' You don't have the cards,' he was mistaken. Mr Zelensky still has the support of most of the free world. European leaders have signalled their willingness to step up whether or not Mr Trump goes through with his threat to step back from America's responsibility as a defender of freedom. The Ukrainian people remain united in their determination to defend themselves. Operation Spiderweb proved that they can take the fight deep into Russian territory, while having no territorial ambitions beyond seeking to preserve their own borders. Mr Zelensky has also exposed Mr Putin for what he really is. The Ukrainian president has given the Russian leader every chance for peace. He has been prepared to compromise on territory and alliances in a way that no leader of a sovereign nation should be asked to do. And yet Mr Putin presses on, making it abundantly clear, even to Mr Trump, that it is the Kremlin that is the obstacle to peace. Even if Mr Trump's apparent taking of sides with Mr Putin against the Ukrainian people were a cunning plan to soothe the paranoid mystical nationalism of Mr Putin and his cronies, it has not worked. Mr Putin has made it clear that he will be satisfied by nothing less than the subjugation of the whole of Ukraine by force of arms. In which case, he must be resisted. Mr Trump is right about one thing: that war is a terrible thing. But a peace built on surrender to an imperialist dictator would be no peace at all. The Ukrainian people must continue to fight, and all the nations of the world that believe in freedom, democracy and national self-determination must continue to help to defend them.
