That is total horseshit. That "deal" which was never close to being signed would have both required Ukraine to almost entirely disarm and also allow Russia to veto any future military partnerships Ukraine might have including non-NATO ones.
It was a surrender on a timer doomed to fail just like Munich 1938 did.
It would inevitably have been violated just like the two Minsk agreements were, just like the Black Sea grain initiative was, just like the humanitarian ceasefires in Mariupol and Debaltseve were, just like Prigozhin's deal was - and a dozen others.
Ukrainian politicians have called the "UK pressure" narrative nonsense. Negotiations were called off because of what happened in Bucha + promises of arms supplies.
Your narrative is propaganda. Ukraine didn't want to sign that deal because it was a total shit deal made by someone who broke all their previous deals, and the West was giving them an opportunity for a better one.
It was a surrender on a timer doomed to fail just like Munich 1938 did.
It would inevitably have been violated just like the two Minsk agreements were, just like the Black Sea grain initiative was, just like the humanitarian ceasefires in Mariupol and Debaltseve were, just like Prigozhin's deal was - and a dozen others.
Ukrainian politicians have called the "UK pressure" narrative nonsense. Negotiations were called off because of what happened in Bucha + promises of arms supplies.
Your narrative is propaganda. Ukraine didn't want to sign that deal because it was a total shit deal made by someone who broke all their previous deals, and the West was giving them an opportunity for a better one.