Alik Bahshi
Putin's Appeasement
Trump seems to have kept his promise to stop the war between the victim of aggression - Ukraine and the aggressor - Russia, which annexed part of Ukrainian territory. The main thing is not just to stop it, but to formalize its result with a peace treaty between the victim and the aggressor, a more accurate definition of which is appeasement. Something like this has already happened once, known as Chamberlain's appeasement. It's a pity that F. Roosevelt did not think to do the same in 1941-1942, in principle, he had a chance to negotiate with the fascist Hitler about peace and get ahead of Trump in peacekeeping, saving millions of lives, leaving behind the Holocaust, and in the case of Ukraine, Putin's assertion about the non-existence of the Ukrainian people as such.
By the way, in 1994, Armenia and Azerbaijan also signed an agreement, not about peace, but about a ceasefire, which was temporary, that is, fundamentally different from the agreement proposed by Trump after his meeting with the fascist Putin in Alaska. (1,2)
1. Trump's deal with Conscience.
https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/138677.html2. Hitler's ghost is haunting Europe.
https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/38049.html08/19/2025
Explain how Russia was the aggressor including refutation of their counterarguments. The focus of contention is of course the claim by Russia that Ukraine was sending troops to their border area. Is a build-up of troops by one's border is generally considered by military strategists to be an action of aggression towards another country? How does that apply to this specific situation? I have yet to see a clear statement of facts that leads to a definite conclusion, but I'm confident you can offer the best available case.