It will always be a bad deal for Ukraine. This has never been about Ukraine, it as been about who will control their resources Russia, NATO Europe or the US. For that last two years Europe and the US have assumed they were on the same team and Trump is simply decided in might make more sense for us to side with Russia.
There was no future where the Ukraine was not exploited by fossil fuel companies and only propaganda separates which is the "good" side to control these and which is the "bad".
I'm genuinely surprised by the mass naivete surrounding this war.
As far as the US and allies are concerned, this is very simply a war for the protection of Ukraine's sovereignty. Now that the US changed into a wannabe imperialistic nation, the picture is not so clear.
> this is very simply a war for the protection of Ukraine's sovereignty
This is objectively not true. The US government absolutely participated in over throwing the existing pro-Russian government around 2014. The US does not fight wars for "moral principles" like sovereignty, they do it so they can maintain control over fossil fuel resources.
This war, like all wars, is a war of different wealthy individual and organization to control resources. All other views are propaganda generated to gather support for the loss of human life in the interest of oligarchs across the globe.
> Now that the US changed into a wannabe imperialistic nation,
I'm not sure I know anyone who has paid attention to global politics since WWII who would not describe the US as an "imperialistic nation". If you earnestly believe this is some new turn in US history you have a lot of catching up to do on our involvement in overthrowing governments around the globe to maintain US friendly leadership in counteries that control key strategic resources.
>The US government absolutely participated in over throwing the existing pro-Russian government around 2014.
This is explicitly Russian propaganda. There is no evidence of this. Euromaidan happened because Ukrainians wanted to get closer to Europe, which is why they voted for people who said they would get closer to Europe, and then aggressively erupted into protest when that leader went to Russia and came back with a 180 degree different plan.
Your comment deflects to reasons for the war. It does not address the core argument that it really wasn't a peace deal and that Russia commonly violates ceasefires. What good is a ceasefire when you know that Russia will violate it?
Doesn't sound like a deal (good or bad) at all. It's a paper prop for Trump to wave around and exchange for a gold star from Putin.
This war started in the early 2010s as fossil fuel reserves were discovered all over Ukraine and Russian and US policy makers both rushed to gain control over them.
I'm surprised that people don't remember, but the US did support far right Ukrainian groups that did have Nazi sympathies in 2014. I remember because I had Ukrainian friends that where terrified at the types of people the US government was enabling.
There are no "good guys" in this conflict. It's two (well more than that) powerful groups of people with an interest in controlling fossil fuel resource in the regional. All other narrative around this are pure propaganda designed to get you to support the murder of Ukrainians in the interests of oligarchs around the world.
Trump wants all of their mineral resources for a flimsy ceasefire. With no concessions from Russia.
It's a bad deal. Would you fold because people would die when your sovereignty is threatened?