Michael von der Schulenburg is a former UN Assistant Secretary-General, who worked for over 34 years for the United Nations

Hajo Funke is Professor Emeritus for political sciences of the Otto-Suhr-Institute/ Freie University Berlin

General (ret.) Harald Kujat was the highest ranging German officer of the Bundeswehr and at NATO
...
Just one month after the start of the Russian military intervention in Ukraine, Ukrainian and Russian negotiators had come very close to an agreement for a ceasefire and to an outline for a comprehensive peace solution to the conflict.
...
Contrary to Western interpretations, Ukraine and Russia agreed at the time that the planned NATO expansion was the reason for the war. They therefore focused their peace negotiations on Ukraine’s neutrality and its renunciation of NATO membership. In return, Ukraine would have retained its territorial integrity except for Crimea.

There is little doubt that these peace negotiations failed due to resistance from NATO and in particular from the USA and the UK. The reasons is that such a peace agreement would have been tantamount to a defeat for NATO, an end to NATO’s eastward expansion and thus an end to the dream of a unipolar world dominated by the USA.
...
The failure of the peace negotiations in March 2022 led to dangerous intensification of the war that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people...Not only Russia, but also NATO and the West bear a heavy share of the blame for this disaster.

Ukraine’s negotiating position today is far worse than it was in March 2022. Ukraine will now lose large parts of its territory.

The blocking of the peace negotiations at that time has harmed everyone: Russia and Europe – but above all the people of Ukraine, who are paying with their blood the price for the ambitions of the major powers and will probably get nothing in return.
...
However, instead of ending the war through negotiations as Ukrainian President Zelensky and his government appeared to have wanted, he ultimately bowed to pressures from some Western powers to abandon a negotiated solution. Western powers wanted this war to continue in the hope to break Russia.

...In the conversation in the Kremlin, Putin, Bennett [ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER] said, had made some substantial concessions, in particular, he had renounced his original wartime goal of demilitarizing Ukraine. … .In return, the Ukrainian president agreed to renounce joining NATO – a position he also repeated publicly a short time later.
...
In the interview, Bennett explained further: “I had the impression at the time that both sides were very interested in a ceasefire (…). According to Bennett, a cease-fire was within reach at that time, and both sides were prepared to make considerable concessions…. But Britain and the U.S., in particular, wanted this peace process to end and set their sights on a continuation of the war.” (Ibid)
...
Like Bennet, also he [former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder] came to the conclusion that the reason why these peace negotiations were abandoned was because the Americans obstructed them. He said: “At the peace negotiations in March 2022 in Istanbul with Rustem Umerov (then security advisor to Zelensky, now Ukrainian defense minister), the Ukrainians did not agree to peace because they were not allowed to. They first had to ask the Americans about everything they discussed,” and continued: “But at the end (of the peace negotiations) nothing happened. My impression was that nothing could happen because everything else was decided in Washington. That was fatal.”

The Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, who organized the Istanbul meeting at the time, had previously made similar comments. In an interview with CNN Turk on April 20, 2022, he said: “Some NATO states wanted the Ukraine conflict to continue in order to weaken Russia.”
...
But this initial support quickly turned sour, with NATO opposing any such negotiations before Russia doesn’t withdraws all its troops from Ukrainian territories. This, in fact, killed all negotiations. Michael von der Schulenburg, former UN Assistant Secretary-General (ASG) in UN peace missions, writes that “NATO had already decided at a special summit on March 24, 2022, not to support these peace negotiations (between Ukraine and Russia).” (Cf. Michael von der Schulenburg: UN Charter: Negotiations! In: Emma, March 6, 2023). The US president had flown in especially for this special summit to Brussels. Obviously, peace as negotiated by the Russian and Ukrainian negotiating delegations was not in the interest of some NATO countries.

AT FIRST ZELENSKY STICKS TO THE OUTCOME OF THE PEACE NEGOTIATIONS
 
“As late as March 27, 2022, Zelensky had shown the courage to defend the results of the Ukrainian-Russian peace negotiations in public before Russian journalists – and this despite the fact that NATO had already decided at a special summit on March 24, 2022, not to support these peace negotiations.” (Ibid)
...
The Washington Post reported April 5 that in NATO, continuing the war is preferred to a cease-fire and negotiated settlement: “[yellow=red,2,300]For some in NATO, it’s better for Ukrainians to keep fighting and dying[/glow] than to achieve a peace that comes too soon or at too high a price for Kiev and the rest of Europe.” Zelensky, he said, should “keep fighting until Russia is completely defeated.”

BORIS JOHNSON’S MESSAGE TO UKRAINIANS ON APRIL 9, 2022: WE MUST CONTINUE THE WAR

On April 9, 2022, Boris Johnson arrived unannounced in Kiev and told the Ukrainian president that the West was not ready to end the war. According to Britain’s Guardian on April 28, PM Johnson had “instructed” Ukrainian President Zelensky “not to make any concessions to Putin”:
...
Johnson brought two simple messages with him to Kiev. The first is that Putin is a war criminal; he should be pressured, not negotiated with. The second is that even if Ukraine is willing to sign some agreements with Putin on guarantees, but that the collective West is not.
...
Johnson took the position that the collective West, which as recently as February had suggested that Zelensky should surrender and flee, now feels that Putin is not really as powerful as they had previously imagined. Moreover, there is an opportunity to put pressure on him. And the West wants to take it.”

...
The Neue Züricher Zeitung (NZZ) reported on April 12 that the British government under Johnson is counting on a Ukrainian military victory. Conservative Member of the House of Commons Alicia Kearns said, “We’d rather arm the Ukrainians to the teeth than give Putin a success.” British Foreign Secretary (and later Prime Minister) Liz Truss professed in a keynote speech that “victory for Ukraine (…) is a strategic imperative for us all and therefore military support must be massively expanded”. Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins warned: “Liz Truss risks inflaming the war in Ukraine for her own ambitions.”
...
Following his second visit to Kiev on April 25, 2022, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the U.S. wants to use the opportunity to permanently weaken Russia militarily and economically in the wake of the Ukraine war. According to the New York Times, the U.S. government is no longer concerned with a fight over control of Ukraine, but with a fight against Moscow in the wake of a new Cold War.
...
In his announcement of the partial mobilization, Putin stated on September 21, 2022:

“I would like to make this public for the first time today. After the start of the special military operation, especially after the talks in Istanbul, the Kiev representatives expressed quite positive views on our proposals. These proposals were mainly about ensuring Russia’s security and interests. But a peaceful solution obviously did not suit the West, which is why Kiev, after agreeing on some compromises, was actually ordered to nullify all these agreements.”
...
This makes the Western intervention, which prevented an early end to the war, even more disastrous for Ukraine. Russia’s responsibility for the attack, which was contrary to international law, is not relativized by the fact that responsibility for the grave consequences that Ukraine’s Western supporters that ensued must also be attributed to the states that demanded the continuation of the war.

...
[...]

You need to learn to summarize. Putin demand was that Ukraine would not join NATO and Ruzzia would keep the illegally acquired territory - something difficult to see as a "win-win". And on top of that he also wants to impose conditions on NATO and the European countries. That's not a plan is a threat.

What is another obvious problem with this "plan"? There is nothing preventing Putin for annexing more land at will. The "West" cannot provide guarantees to a country that is effectively prevented from having the means to defend itself and from getting the protection of an alliance.

What type of deal is that then? What would prevent Putin from toppling the government of Ukraine at will or take new territories? Again, not a plan but a threat -"do as I say or else it will be worse"

The answer is "since Ukraine has to either fight or be under Moscow control, we fight and we s do it ASAP". Sorry if this was not the answer Putin was expecting, sorry if he thought the European Union would not help, US not get involved and the Ukrainians not willing to fight. A head of state that makes such as errors in judgement should not be in charge of a country. Well... except Ruzzia.

It does not resist even the most elementary analysis.

Because the Germans speak with one voice, and you just happen to have found the guy who speaks for them? And it happens that the origin of the comment is a Norwegian guy, involved in propaganda activities from Ruzzia.

I any case, again, irrelevant, the deal was a bogus, it imposed conditions on western democracies and it would only last until Putin felt like taking more land.

Economically, Putin should fail. If the US citizens are convinced that they should "do nothing" then is likely Ruzzia will have some type of success. Europe is one of the few allies of the US in the world, if US fails to support the price to pay would be felt for generations.

Ok, here's another Norwegian for you:

https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-boss-jens-stoltenberg-warns-of-bad-news-from-ukraine/

USA tried to replace Russian sphere of influence by destroying Russian one, employing nazis
to do that for them. So Russians battle it by fighting Nazis and protecting Russians

replacing a language is part of changing the spheres of influence

[...]

Why wouldn't the west sponsor neo-nazis to fight against Russia once again?