Don’t mind responding, I have blocked you.

Childish behavior. But I understand, it is hard to argue any further on something you have been told being your absolute truth, especially with someone who isn’t a mere “putin-shill” making idiotic claims. But I don’t care, I will still answer for those who read the thread, and possibly you when you matured from this behavior.

Please read this article (from Foreign Affairs, not Sputnik), especially the part where it goes:

Already on March 30, Johnson seemed disinclined toward diplomacy, stating that instead “we should continue to intensify sanctions with a rolling program until every single one of [Putin’s] troops is out of Ukraine.” On April 9, Johnson turned up in Kyiv —the first foreign leader to visit after the Russian withdrawal from the capital. He reportedly told Zelensky that he thought that “any deal with Putin was going to be pretty sordid.” Any deal, he recalled saying, “would be some victory for him: if you give him anything, he’ll just keep it, bank it, and then prepare for his next assault.” In the 2023 interview, Arakhamia ruffled some feathers by seeming to hold Johnson responsible for the outcome. “When we returned from Istanbul,” he said, “Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we won’t sign anything at all with [the Russians]—and let’s just keep fighting.” Since then, Putin has repeatedly used Arakhamia’s remarks to blame the West for the collapse of the talks and demonstrate Ukraine’s subordination to its supporters. Notwithstanding Putin’s manipulative spin, Arakhamia was pointing to a real problem: the communiqué described a multilateral framework that would require Western willingness to engage diplomatically with Russia and consider a genuine security guarantee for Ukraine. Neither was a priority for the United States and its allies at the time.

This basically answers to all your non-points backed by buzz-sentences that the mainstream western press printed in your brain. We had a choice, we chose to fight over peace (no, i stand corrected, our leaders did. The vast majority of people, maybe removing the UK and the baltics, would have and still would pick peace over a war at the expense of our economies and Ukranian people).

Ukraine wanted to cooperate more with the west

Ukraine had democratically elected a filo-russian president (the majority of ukranians voted for him), who had no interest in joining the EU. We helped overthrow that government because we did not like it. Also what “cooperation” are you talking about? Bringing our nuclear missiles under an anti-russian alliance is not really matter of economic cooperation.

Russia is attempting an outright genocide on Ukraine

I am glad to know genocide is a word that can be used so loosely when it comes to throwing it at what you perceive is your enemy. Putin did the same when addressing the repression of the donbas indipendence movements in eastern ukraine. You and him go hand in hand when it comes to using words properly.