|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On March 29 2022 00:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So this ends any ability for talks with Russia if is even remotely true.
I doubt it. It's too obvious. Also, Abramovich would be in exile now if things had escalated that much.
|
Looks like it's real. WSJ reporting it and I saw a tweet of Bellingcat confirming as well. That's insane. Poisoning your own people because they want to negotiate peace...
www.reuters.com
Edit: and confirmed by Abramovic:
A spokesperson for Roman Abramovich has confirmed the Russian oligarch was suspected to have been poisoned earlier this month after meeting to discuss peace talks with Ukrainian negotiators.
They would not confirm who else was targeted or what the source of the attack was.
Earlier, a report from the Wall Street Journal claimed three people who attended negotiations in Kyiv had experienced red eyes, constant and painful tearing, and peeling skin on their faces and hands.
Abramovich is said to be ok now as the incident happened several weeks ago, and he will continue with negotiations alongside those from Ukraine in an attempt to end the war.
Those close to Abramovich say he has been involved in several meetings, and is only working on behalf of himself after it was claimed he was asked to help.
www.bbc.com
|
What the hell is going on inside of Russia if this is true.
Envoy/negotiators should not be messed with. Unless you are in a total war/extermination situation it would make no sense to do this.
|
I think if putin wanted them dead, they wouldn't just have red eyes/peeling skin though
|
Too many red flags in this story
- no samples - no hospitalization - no confirmation from the Ukrainian negotiators
Maybe it's true, or maybe it's true that they believe they were poisoned but that was a wrong assumption, or maybe it's some Abramovich rehabilitation PR. It's too vague to draw any conclusions.
|
On March 29 2022 03:12 Erasme wrote: I think if putin wanted them dead, they wouldn't just have red eyes/peeling skin though
Dunno, i think we may be overestimating Putins competence at this point. A lot of people he poisoned have survived in the past few years.
|
On March 29 2022 03:14 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2022 03:12 Erasme wrote: I think if putin wanted them dead, they wouldn't just have red eyes/peeling skin though Dunno, i think we may be overestimating Putins competence at this point. A lot of people he poisoned have survived in the past few years. yeah and they were bedridden for weeks not just mild symptoms. We now know what Novichok looks like, it would be very easy for any decent laboratory to determine the used toxin's origin.
|
Ukrainian officials poured cold water on the report. Asked about the suspected poisoning, Ukrainian negotiator Mykhailo Podolyak said "there is a lot of speculation, various conspiracy theories". Rustem Umerov, another member of the negotiating team, urged people not to trust "unverified information".
Citing intelligence, a U.S. official blamed an "environmental" reason for the sickening of Abramovich and the negotiators, "E.g., not poisoning.". The official spoke on condition of anonymity and did not elaborate further. read more https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-billionaire-abramovich-ukrainian-peace-negotiators-hit-by-suspected-2022-03-28/
I would say it is sometimes worth waiting a bit when jumping on news...
|
On March 29 2022 03:50 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +Ukrainian officials poured cold water on the report. Asked about the suspected poisoning, Ukrainian negotiator Mykhailo Podolyak said "there is a lot of speculation, various conspiracy theories". Rustem Umerov, another member of the negotiating team, urged people not to trust "unverified information".
Citing intelligence, a U.S. official blamed an "environmental" reason for the sickening of Abramovich and the negotiators, "E.g., not poisoning.". The official spoke on condition of anonymity and did not elaborate further. read more https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-billionaire-abramovich-ukrainian-peace-negotiators-hit-by-suspected-2022-03-28/I would say it is sometimes worth waiting a bit when jumping on news...
So the media made up yet another story to stirr up war instead of peace. Color me shocked.
|
|
On March 29 2022 04:02 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2022 03:50 mahrgell wrote:Ukrainian officials poured cold water on the report. Asked about the suspected poisoning, Ukrainian negotiator Mykhailo Podolyak said "there is a lot of speculation, various conspiracy theories". Rustem Umerov, another member of the negotiating team, urged people not to trust "unverified information".
Citing intelligence, a U.S. official blamed an "environmental" reason for the sickening of Abramovich and the negotiators, "E.g., not poisoning.". The official spoke on condition of anonymity and did not elaborate further. read more https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-billionaire-abramovich-ukrainian-peace-negotiators-hit-by-suspected-2022-03-28/I would say it is sometimes worth waiting a bit when jumping on news... So the media made up yet another story to stirr up war instead of peace. Color me shocked.
a) That war was stirred by someone else b) who is "the media"?
So no, that wasn't the takeaway. It was just that in the age of twitter journalism it pays to simply let things hang out there for a few hours before evaluating them. In a way I would say, it pays to let "the media" verify the things on twitter
|
I'm really not a fan of this "publish now, fix later" strategy that even the most competent media outlets are employing. So many times I see a story be debunked or heavily scaled down within the first hour only for the initial headline to keep getting referenced by people for weeks. The corrections never have the same reach, it's irresponsible.
|
|
|
On March 29 2022 04:23 Dan HH wrote: I'm really not a fan of this "publish now, fix later" strategy that even the most competent media outlets are employing. So many times I see a story be debunked or heavily scaled down within the first hour only for the initial headline to keep getting referenced by people for weeks. The corrections never have the same reach, it's irresponsible.
Exactly. And it's not some twitter journos, it's major media outlets reporting without any verification. Was lunching with parents and saw on tv (cnn) that Putin poisoned Abramovich and ukr negotiators. They will never issue a tv correction of the same lenght and scope of the news, if they even bother with it at all (older people get their news exclusively from tv)
|
An update on the peace talks according to the Financial Times.
Russia is no longer requesting Ukraine be “denazified” and is prepared to let Kyiv join the EU if it remains military non-aligned as part of ongoing ceasefire negotiations, according to four people briefed on the discussions.
Moscow and Kyiv are discussing a pause in hostilities as part of a possible deal that would involve Ukraine abandoning its drive for Nato membership in exchange for security guarantees and the prospect to join the EU, the people said under the condition of anonymity because the matter is not yet finalised.
The draft ceasefire document does not contain any discussion of three of Russia’s initial core demands — “denazification”, “demilitarisation”, and legal protection for the Russian language in Ukraine — the people added.
Envoys from both sides are to meet in Istanbul on Tuesday in a fourth round of peace talks designed to end president Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The concessions on Russia’s side come as its month-long ground offensive has largely stalled as a result of fiercer Ukrainian resistance than expected and Russian operational deficiencies.
But Ukraine and its western backers remain sceptical of Putin’s intentions, worrying that the Russian president could be using the talks as a smokescreen to replenish his exhausted forces and plan a fresh offensive.
David Arakhamia, head of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky’s party in parliament and a member of Kyiv’s negotiating team, told the FT the parties were close to agreement on the security guarantees and Ukraine’s EU bid but urged caution about prospects for a breakthrough.
“All the issues” have been “on the table since the beginning” of negotiations but “lots of points — like in every single item there are unresolved points”, Arakhamia said.
Another person briefed on the talks said Ukraine was concerned that Russia was shifting its position almost day by day, both in terms of military pressure and on demands like Kyiv’s “demilitarisation.”
Russia “can’t and won’t talk about progress” because “it could only harm the negotiating process”, Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesman, was quoted by Interfax on Monday. “For now, unfortunately, we cannot speak of any significant achievements and breakthroughs”, he added.
As part of the agreement under consideration, Ukraine would also refrain from developing nuclear weapons, or hosting foreign military bases in addition to abandoning its pursuit of Nato membership.
In exchange, Ukraine would get what Arakhamia called “wording close to Nato’s Article 5” — whereby the alliances’ members must come to each others’ aid if one is attacked — for security guarantees from countries including Russia, the US, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, China, Italy, Poland, Israel, and Turkey.
Any prospective agreement, however, would have to be agreed with the guarantors and ratified by their parliaments, Zelensky said on Sunday.
The prospective guarantors have yet to agree to uphold Ukraine’s security, the people said. “We do not have any rejections so far,” Arakhamia said.
Ukraine would put the deal to a referendum in several months’ time before changing its constitution, said Zelensky — a process that could require at least a year.
“The only resolved [issue] is the type of international guarantees Ukraine is looking for, but . . . we still have to get the approval from the guarantors otherwise the deal will never fly,” Arakhamia said.
The draft communiqué under consideration leaves the biggest sticking point — Ukraine’s attempts to reclaim territory seized by Russia since 2014 — to be settled in a tentative future discussion by Putin and Zelensky, the people said.
Moscow, Arakhamia said, was demanding that Ukraine recognise Russia’s control over the Crimean peninsula, which Moscow annexed in 2014, as well as two territories run by Russian-backed separatists in the eastern Donbas region.
“We will never recognise any kind of borders except as they are in our Declaration of Independence,” Arakhamia said. “This is the most critical point.”
For now, Ukraine was prepared to discuss some humanitarian issues, such as restoring Crimea’s water supply and pledging never to try to retake the peninsula by force, the people said.
If a ceasefire holds, Ukraine and Russia’s foreign ministers would then meet to draft separate documents to finalise the security guarantees and further agreements on social issues such as protection of the Russian language in Ukraine. This would then be followed by attempts to arrange a meeting between Putin and Zelensky, although Peskov on Monday said there had been “no movement” on arranging such an encounter.
Source
|
|
While what StealthBlue posted last sounds all nice and all, one question I've been wondering about the last few days is... who is going to pay for Ukraine's reconstruction (if that's the right word to use)? I doubt Russia would want that unless they're promised something. Crowdfunding a.k.a donations from all around the world sounds nice and possible at this time, but if Russia doesn't chip in, it will probably leave some bad mark on future generations. E.g. things could heat up again in the future, decades of russophobia, etc.... Take it as "I'm sorry" kind of donation from Russia. Then again, we're talking about current Kremlin so I don't know how feasible that is, possibly not much under Putin.
Judging by 1944-1989(1991), Ukraine will probably not get "I'm sorry" just like we in the east never received a sorry. And how did that end up? It ended up in a lot of countries joining NATO for protection. Rightfully so if I may add.
Also assuming if Kremlin isn't lying yet again about peace and good intentions which is a big IF already. If anything, this conflict has definitely been eye opening for the west. Some countries were too naive to think they can trade with and get along with Kremlin just like that.
|
That is a problem, and the answer sadly isn't easy. The logical solution would be to force Putin to pay reparations in a "you broke it, you pay for it" way. But you can not really force a nuclear power to do something like that, and even if you could, one must wonder if it would be the best course of action. Some parallels to WW1 and Versailles might apply here.
I guess Ukraines biggest chance for rebuilding after the war is western nations sponsoring that rebuilding as an extended way to make sure that such a blatant war is not acceptable, and the world stands against it.
But that also sucks, because ultimately all of this is so fucking pointless. None of the stuff that is currently being destroyed needs to be destroyed, the whole war is so absurdly idiotic. There is such a huge waste of human life and goods, for nothing. And the fact that Russia is also being hit hard doesn't make it better either. Putin could just not have invaded in February, and the world would be a better place for everyone, including Putin and Russia. It is so stupid.
But i also think it is a bit early to talk about "after the war" yet, when no one really sees any way out of the war.
|
On March 29 2022 04:45 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2022 04:30 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 29 2022 04:23 Dan HH wrote: I'm really not a fan of this "publish now, fix later" strategy that even the most competent media outlets are employing. So many times I see a story be debunked or heavily scaled down within the first hour only for the initial headline to keep getting referenced by people for weeks. The corrections never have the same reach, it's irresponsible. Exactly. And it's not some twitter journos, it's major media outlets reporting without any verification. Was lunching with parents and saw on tv (cnn) that Putin poisoned Abramovich and ukr negotiators. They will never issue a tv correction of the same lenght and scope of the news, if they even bother with it at all (older people get their news exclusively from tv) Can you site any of this?
That old people, in greater proportion than younger people, watch tv instead of browsing the internet for news? This is common knowledge or at least common sense.
https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/
+ Show Spoiler +But demographics speak to the fragility behind those TV numbers. While solid majorities of both those ages 50-64 (72%) and those 65+ (85%) often get news on TV, far smaller shares of younger adults do so (45% of those 30-49 and 27% of those 18-29). Alternatively, the two younger groups of adults are much more likely than older adults to turn to online platforms for news – 50% of 18- to 29-year-olds and 49% of those ages 30-49 often do so.
|
|
|
|