This is a inaccurate statement. The question has been asked ok then what could be an agreed upon accepted peace treat to bring the fighting to an end.
The only answer I have seen is Z needs to surrender right now no discussion of what would be a workable settlement.
The topic has been offered with various suggested concessions from each.
Yet the only settlement responded to was complete surrender by Ukraine to Russia now.
Who exactly being unwilling to negotiate or discuss reasonable terms.
I don’t see it coming from Ukraine supporters by in large but from those who support Russian position.
This is what that is not surprising.
Obreid, I remember that we have already thought about that, so I have a little to add. In your opinion, was Chamberlain a Nazi supporter? When him - and not only him - said that was opportune to accept some German requests, to not humiliate Germany, that Germany had some reasons resulting by the Versailles treaty, does he was a Nazi supporter? That kind of behaviour was called "Appeasement". In the 90s, it was called "real politik". Our Occidental behaviour toward the appeasement, having forgotten what war is and knowing that it was unable to avoid the war, today is the exactly contray: 0 tollerance, 0 comprension, 0 disposition to compromise. But I ask you: do you really think that act with 0 tollerance, it could be enough to avoid a war, just because it is the contrary of the appeacement? We will never know for sure, but the more likely scenario if UK had declared war in the occasion of Anschluss, it would be that the war would have started earlier and for sure. With the great "corollary" that today it would not so sure (like it is) that the guilty of the war was 100% to Germany and Italy. Thik about it... how many are the casualities of the WWII? 60.000.000? Now, maybe we would say: "60.000.000 deads just because UK didn't want the annexation of Austria to Germany, when Austrians are actual German"...
One of the things that I find more worrying today, is that today, Chaberlain would be surely considered as pro-Nazi! We are marginalizing whosoever has carefully positions: this is not historically the right way to avoid a war.
So, what would be an acceptable peace treat? We have already thought about that, as I said. When Putin has said: "that the more time passes, the more will be difficult for Ukraine to deal less hard terms", it had said simly the true. It is unrealistic to think that the terms, now, could be the same of 23 February. I don't say that Ukraine should surrender. At the moment, what Ukraine can do for a peace, is to recognaze to Russia, what Russia has conquered and assure the neutrality: these could be the bases of a peace talk. Whatever other position which doen't start for that, it will simply extend the duration of the war and, probably, the terms that Ukraine can treat, untill the complete defeat, that is eventually the equivalent of the complete surrendere, but after a massive destruction. It's simple. The ONLY way to not accept that (moreaover for an uncertain result), it is likely a major war, as I said in another topic that you have read, that is likely to be nuclear and with massive destruction in Europe.