Intetesting how the article still uses the claim from the source, without commenting at all why this particular figure that supports the narrative is correct, but the other, that does not support it, is incorrect? Why link to a source you know can't be trusted? Why not simply use a reliable source instead?

The "deal" requires Ukraine to cede a colossal amount of territory before negotiations even begin. Even if the Ukrainian leadership was willing to give up all of that for peace, doing so here would not actually even buy them peace, only a start to negotiations that could collapse at any time. That's about as diplomatic an offer as Ukraine saying "pre-2014 borders and then we can talk."

What kind of logic is that? He is the one who started the war, as well as he can end it any time.

From one of the sources cited in the article: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/06/ukraine-public-opinion-russia-war?lang=en

Many Ukrainians may be open to negotiations in theory, but they overwhelmingly did not trust Russia to negotiate in good faith. Most Ukrainians (86 percent) believed that there is a medium or high risk that Russia will attack again even if there is a signed peace treaty, and even more (91 percent) believed that Russia’s motive to enter negotiations is to take time to prepare for a new attack. Even among those who supported negotiations with Russia, only 21 percent believed that signing a peace treaty would help Ukraine deter future Russian aggression.

Putin's problem is he burned all the trust the world had in him when he attacked Ukraine after saying he would not. If he is truly serious about peace, he first needs to rebuild that trust.