https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine | Archived
At the first meeting, the Russians presented a set of harsh conditions, effectively demanding Ukraine’s capitulation. This was a nonstarter. But as Moscow’s position on the battlefield continued to deteriorate, its positions at the negotiating table became less demanding. So on March 3 and March 7, the parties held a second and third round of talks […]
Regarding territorial issues, parts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Donbass would remain under Russian control
Moscow ostensibly wanted Kiev to slash the size of its army to 85,000 people, while Ukraine insisted on retaining a strength of 250,000.
Edit: Replaced “reporter” with “politician” in the post title
Edit2: Changed title from “microphone cut” to “segment cut short” in the title
I think these democracies do not exist (democracy is impossible in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which is necessarily a class made up of a minority of citizens). Democracy is real. These just aren’t democracies. That’s a big, important point, not a semantic difference.
Mostly I don’t have big problems with the rest of your reply. However, that’s not what “reactionary” means. It doesn’t refer to reacting to something in general, it refers to being antirevolutionary (working for the preservation of the current order - in fact usually for a return to a previous order, often made up - in reaction to revolutionary change). I agree that this can be applied to European liberals in this case, though.
My main issue is that I think the amount of assistance Russia provides the European far right is exaggerated. I think Russia could completely ignore them and it would probably not significantly impact their progression.