European politicians and commentators who allow themselves to discuss the status of Ukraine, forget one simple thing

Ukraine can be any kind of country is decentralized, neutral, nonaligned, even federated - but in order to start a discussion about all of this, the aggressor needs to free its territory. Is this still someone still unclear?

European politicians and commentators who allow themselves to discuss the status of Ukraine, forget one simple thing: Russia attacked it in a neutral country. Ukraine was not in NATO and not claimed membership in the CSTO. The only thing that ensured its territorial integrity from the point of view of international law is a bilateral agreement (including Russia) and the Budapest Memorandum.

Both didn't work. Neutral status was a fiction. And then there is a simple question to anyone who is even a little bit versed in politics: why a neutral country that was attacked and occupied part of its territory, must accept the Declaration of neutrality as security guarantees? Neutral Switzerland has done exactly that on its borders, nobody attempts - this is the meaning of status. And the modern Ukraine is anti-Switzerland, the real shame of Europe. What happened with us is proof of the collapse of international law and European guarantees. And if international law does not restore today - tomorrow we move into the world of aggressive permissiveness.

If you have already not moved.

Vitaly Portnikov, Espresso.TV