"You claim to be opposed to the war even as you cheer Russia's (few) successes and pine for more."

Only in the sense that I want the US neoconservatives who started it to get a blood-nose themselves.
I oppose the US foreign policy of threats, blackmail, regime change and military intervention.
- Beyond that if an agreement could be reached that would stop the fighting today I'd support it.

It's you that supports a NATO base in Crimea and wants to destabilise the whole entire world dragging us all kicking and screaming to WWIII.
- And you probably support destroying our own country by dragging us kicking and screaming into a war with China as well.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China
US Hegemony and Its Perils - 20 February 2023
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjbxw/202302/t20230220_11027664.html

This is what you support:

Since becoming the world's most powerful country after the two world wars and the Cold War, the United States has acted more boldly to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, pursue, maintain and abuse hegemony, advance subversion and infiltration, and willfully wage wars, bringing harm to the international community.

The United States has developed a hegemonic playbook to stage "color revolutions," instigate regional disputes, and even directly launch wars under the guise of promoting democracy, freedom and human rights. Clinging to the Cold War mentality, the United States has ramped up bloc politics and stoked conflict and confrontation. It has overstretched the concept of national security, abused export controls and forced unilateral sanctions upon others. It has taken a selective approach to international law and rules, utilizing or discarding them as it sees fit, and has sought to impose rules that serve its own interests in the name of upholding a "rules-based international order."

This is what you oppose:

"Countries need to respect each other and treat each other as equals. Big countries should behave in a manner befitting their status and take the lead in pursuing a new model of state-to-state relations featuring dialogue and partnership, not confrontation or alliance. China opposes all forms of hegemonism and power politics, and rejects interference in other countries' internal affairs. The United States must conduct serious soul-searching. It must critically examine what it has done, let go of its arrogance and prejudice, and quit its hegemonic, domineering and bullying practices."

AC wrote: " if an agreement could be reached that would stop the fighting today I'd support it."

So you'd urge an agreement that established the status quo ante bellum? Yeah sure.

"It's you that supports a NATO base in Crimea"

Nowhere have I said anything of the sort. When you have to fabricate opinions to try to make points, you've already lost the argument (and the plot).

Not that you care, but I'd favour:
* an establishment of the status quo ante bellum
* with the option of Ukraine joining, if it wished, the EU,
* with Russian guarantees that they'd stop supporting their contrived rebellion in the Donbass,
*that allowed Russia to retain Crimea,
*that guaranteed Ukraine unfettered access to the Black Sea and
* that barred Ukraine from joining NATO for a period of 20 years except where Russia broke any of the other provisions, whereupon NATO membership would be open to Ukraine if it and NATO agreed.
*lifted all anti-Russian sanctions
*that offered the Donbass regions a degree of autonomy within Ukraine and compensation for those Russians in that region who wanted to move to Russia.

But none of that will happen. Putin has bet the farm on victory and anything less will be unacceptable to him.

"Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China" says "...Countries need to respect each other and treat each other as equals. Big countries should behave in a manner befitting their status and take the lead in pursuing a new model of state-to-state relations featuring dialogue and partnership, not confrontation or alliance. China opposes all forms of hegemonism and power politics, and rejects interference in other countries' internal affairs."

Well Tibet and Taiwan will be relieved to hear that. </sarc>

Really, AC, is there no anti-US drivel that you won't fall for?

Why not let Russia back into Cuba so it can pull out of Ukraine ?

Exactly Indy...

Hi, mhaze
"Well Tibet and Taiwan will be relieved to hear that."
- Maybe if the West stopped trying to stage coloured revolutions everywhere and forment civil unrest and robbing nations wealth the world might have some chance of actually getting along.

Taiwan, will probably see that the US is too reckless and can't realistically defend them anyway, and the KMT opposition will try to work closer with China instead.

Taiwan’s KMT hopes for elections boost after China trip
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/20/taiwans-kmt-hopes-for-elections-boost-after-china-trip

Regards your last comment.
Firstly I wonder how many people in this world are actually able to understand the concept of 'the bigger picture' it seems by your comments that you do not.

"So you'd urge an agreement that established the status quo ante bellum?"
Of course not, accept the military situation as it exists on the ground.
Russia agreeing to pull out now would create a political situation that would lead to Putin's ousting which was what the west wanted all along.
It's not a viable solution.

As for negotiations, which is a positive eventuality since Ukraine has changed its constitution to ensure that negotiations are illegal while Putin remains in power...

* an establishment of the status quo ante bellum
- Not going to happen, this would mean citizens now under Russian control would fall back under Ukrainian control only to face reprisals, and lead to a political crisis and Putins ousting, western objectives all along.
Can you see the bigger picture? do you even give a crap about these people or are you busy looking at lines on the map?
* with the option of Ukraine joining, if it wished, the EU,
- Agreed
* with Russian guarantees that they'd stop supporting their contrived rebellion in the Donbass,
- Not going to happen unless Ukraine cedes the territory previously stated
*that allowed Russia to retain Crimea,
- Agreed
*that guaranteed Ukraine unfettered access to the Black Sea and
- Agreed
* that barred Ukraine from joining NATO for a period of 20 years except where Russia broke any of the other provisions, whereupon NATO membership would be open to Ukraine if it and NATO agreed.
- No NATO membership ever, it just brings up back to the beginning and puts US into the Black Sea - and what happens if Ukraine breaks the provisions, which they would?
*lifted all anti-Russian sanctions
- Agreed
*that offered the Donbass regions a degree of autonomy within Ukraine and compensation for those Russians in that region who wanted to move to Russia.
- No deal, we already tried that it was called the Minsk agreements and the Kiev regime backed by the US has no intention of honouring it.
Ukraine has lost the right to rule over these people it has bombed.

My provisions
- Discussions of war crimes prosecutions by either side
Yes or No?

- But fun to negotiate.