Poll of the week: Should Ukraine accept the terms of Putin's ceasefire agreement?

Yahoo

a day ago

Please build for 7am Friday - World News - thank you
--
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 kerbs 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 over 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.
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 states: '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.'
Many readers perceive Putin's peace terms appear to be an act of desperation, and indicate that Russia is backed into a corner.
John Hughes, for instance, 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,' they conclude.
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.
They continue: 'If the invasion was all about the expansion of Nato, and Ukraine cannot join, why is that not enough concession?'
Reader Bernie Thompson, meanwhile, is firstly unsurprised 'at the intransigence of Putin and his henchmen.'
Mr Thompson 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.'
The US President Donald Trump previously said Ukraine joining Nato was 'not on the table'.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.