|
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. |
Reality is never that simple.
First, the narrative that Charap and Radchenko present highlights clearly that both Russians and Ukrainians thought the question of Ukrainian “alignment” was important. Would Ukraine be allowed to belong to Nato, or the European Union? Would Ukraine become a neutral country, and what might that mean for its ability to defend itself? Many of Ukraine’s strongest supporters in Washington and in eastern Europe have repeatedly argued that Nato expansion and the issue of Ukraine’s potential accession to the alliance had nothing to do with Russia’s choice to invade, which they typically attribute to cultural chauvinism or imperial delusions. Yet during the earliest concrete negotiations on this topic, both sides focused not on territorial settlements, but on the big picture postwar strategic questions. Clearly, they believed these questions were important.
Second, this history refutes the notion that neither Ukraine nor Russia is willing to negotiate, or to consider compromises in order to end this war. Some western supporters of Ukraine point to extreme statements by Russian elites to argue that there can be no negotiated end to this conflict – Russia will never be satisfied until it is victorious. Yet these early negotiations clearly disprove that point. Both sides presented their demands, and traded drafts back and forth with concessions on certain issues. Clearly, they never reached a final deal. But there were already visible concessions occurring during this process, from Russia’s suggestion that Crimea’s status might be open to negotiation, to the back and forth between the two sides on the size of a postwar Ukrainian army.
A third and more important point – particularly for those of us in the west – is that the history of the Istanbul negotiations does highlight the somewhat hollow nature of the “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” slogans so favoured by western policymakers. Bomb-throwers like Elon Musk are technically wrong when they claim that the west torpedoed a concrete peace agreement in spring 2022; they are right in a broader philosophical sense, however, that the scepticism of western leaders about Russian intentions, their commitment to aid Ukraine and their encouragement to Kyiv to fight on all added to the decision of the government to continue to fight rather than negotiate.
Charap and Radchenko’s history is not without its problems.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia
Russia was ready to end the war and withdraw its troops in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality just a few months after the invasion began and was refused partly because of ex-British PM Boris Johnson, who pressured Kyiv into continuing the fight, David Arahamiya, the leader of Ukraine’s ruling party confirmed in a recent interview, published on Friday, November 24th. (2023)
The lawmaker is not only leading the parliamentary faction of Zelensky’s Servant of the People party but was also appointed as the head of the Ukrainian delegation during the initial, tentative peace talks in March and April, hosted by Turkey.
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/official-johnson-forced-kyiv-to-refuse-russian-peace-deal/
But Putin and Zelensky surprised everyone with their mutual willingness to consider far-reaching concessions to end the war. They might well surprise everyone again in the future.
But on March 10, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, then in Antalya, Turkey, for a meeting with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, spoke of a “systematic, sustainable solution” for Ukraine, adding that the Ukrainians were “ready to discuss” guarantees it hoped to receive from NATO member states and Russia.
Although Ukraine would be permanently neutral under the proposed framework, Kyiv’s path to EU membership would be left open, and the guarantor states (including Russia) would explicitly “confirm their intention to facilitate Ukraine’s membership in the European Union.” This was nothing short of extraordinary: in 2013, Putin had put intense pressure on Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to back out of a mere association agreement with the EU. Now, Russia was agreeing to “facilitate” Ukraine’s full accession to the EU.
The United Kingdom took the lead. 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.”
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine?
You need an email to read the foreignaffairs article.
User was banned for this post.
|
United States43437 Posts
Boris Johnson is a clown and was not in charge of Ukraine.
|
On September 27 2024 05:25 zboh wrote:
Russia was ready to end the war and withdraw its troops in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality just a few months after the invasion began
Really? Then why did they opt for escalation instead?
In September 2022, Reuters reported that Putin's envoy on Ukraine Dmitry Kozak had struck a provisional deal that would satisfy Russia's demand for Ukraine to stay out of NATO, but the plan was rejected by Putin who preferred a full-scale military invasion.
Earlier talks also weren't very peaceful or friendly:
Russia's demands at the start of the invasion included recognition of Russia's annexation of Crimea, recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic as independent states, as well as "demilitarization" and "denazification" of Ukraine but did not clearly specify meaning of these postulates.
An editorial "What Russia Should Do with Ukraine", published in Russian state media, explained the "denazification" as complete eradication of Ukrainian national identity. Genocide scholar Eugene Finkel said the document was an admission of intent to commit genocide in Ukraine.
"Let us take your land and murder you and then we'll withdraw." - sounds like a very reasonable offer.
|
That Boris Johnson nonsense was already debunked in this thread numerous times.
Zboh, who do you think shot down MH17?
|
On September 27 2024 15:15 maybenexttime wrote:
That Boris Johnson nonsense was already debunked in this thread numerous times.
Very, very, very low standards of debunking
Zboh, who do you think shot down MH17?
You should ask the people that still dont know who blew up Nordstream, who shot down that transport plane with UKR POWs, who keeps bombing refugee camps in Gaza. Im sure they had all the facts a minute after it happened. And the kangaroo courts to prove it
|
On September 27 2024 17:02 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 15:15 maybenexttime wrote:
That Boris Johnson nonsense was already debunked in this thread numerous times. Very, very, very low standards of debunking You should ask the people that still dont know who blew up Nordstream, who shot down that transport plane with UKR POWs, who keeps bombing refugee camps in Gaza. Im sure they had all the facts a minute after it happened. And the kangaroo courts to prove it
Yes we do have very low standard in this discussion :D Nah he was asking who blew out the MH17, can't you read, high standard person who is known for not asking deflecting questions?
|
Yeah that'd be good, but he shouldn't have been so open about it.His attempted assassination a couple of weeks ago was by a pro-Ukraine lunatic who visited in 2022 and spent his time begging foreigners (in twitter videos) to join the foreign legion over there for Ukraine.Tried to join it himself but he was too old and senile.Even attended rallies in support of the well known neo-nazi Azov battalion.Many of these hardcore pro-Ukraine folks are completely nuts, would have been better to just play it down and just do what needs to be done after the election.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/ryan-routh-reported-suspect-trump-assassination-attempt-backed-ukraine-war-2024-09-16/
KYIV, Sept 16 (Reuters) - Ryan Routh, the reported suspect in an apparent assassination attempt on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, visited Kyiv in the summer of 2022 to encourage people to fight for Ukraine, he told a news outlet that year.
Videos posted on X also showed Routh attending events that month backing Ukraine, including a protest held in support of the Azov brigade, which took part in the particularly fierce battle for the southern city of Mariupol.
|
So the logic is.
Deranged guy that was pro Ukraine tried to kill Trump so Trump should logically stop supporting it?
Are you actually serious?
|
On September 27 2024 18:33 Velr wrote:
So the logic is.
Deranged guy that was pro Ukraine tried to kill Trump so Trump should logically stop supporting it?
Are you actually serious?
Multiple high ranking officials from Ukraine have directly involved themselves in swing states promoting the Democrat campaign. This is why the GOP is pissed, not because of the schizo loser
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On September 27 2024 04:58 zboh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 00:07 Simberto wrote:
Okay. So what was the point of that post? Just rambling off what is on your mind in some weird stream of consciousness form? I was answering to someone else. Try this then: Do you think that Ukraine is (now) in a better situation than Russia? Do you believe that Ukraine will be in a better situation than Russia in two years time? What facts do you have to sustain your believe?
"No"
Depending on US/ EU support for Ukraine and China support for Russia and all the things listed on the last 10 pages I give it a "probably yes"
Facts? There are no facts. It's predicting the future. There are certain directions though:
Harris seems to have the edge over Trump.
China does not want to alienate Western markets.
Russia is spending too much money they don't have.
|
On September 27 2024 18:44 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 18:33 Velr wrote:
So the logic is.
Deranged guy that was pro Ukraine tried to kill Trump so Trump should logically stop supporting it?
Are you actually serious? Multiple high ranking officials from Ukraine have directly involved themselves in swing states promoting the Democrat campaign. This is why the GOP is pissed, not because of the schizo loser
Yes?
That doesn't make Nettles post any more sane.
|
On September 27 2024 18:55 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 18:44 zeo wrote:On September 27 2024 18:33 Velr wrote:
So the logic is.
Deranged guy that was pro Ukraine tried to kill Trump so Trump should logically stop supporting it?
Are you actually serious? Multiple high ranking officials from Ukraine have directly involved themselves in swing states promoting the Democrat campaign. This is why the GOP is pissed, not because of the schizo loser Yes? That doesn't make Nettles post any more sane.
I dont think Nettles was implying what you understood. Deranged guy wanted to kill Trump because of Trumps anti-war rhetoric, the rhetoric didnt start because the dog guy tried to kill him.
Though I agree the post could have been more focused
|
On September 27 2024 18:48 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 04:58 zboh wrote:On September 27 2024 00:07 Simberto wrote:
Okay. So what was the point of that post? Just rambling off what is on your mind in some weird stream of consciousness form? I was answering to someone else. Try this then: Do you think that Ukraine is (now) in a better situation than Russia? Do you believe that Ukraine will be in a better situation than Russia in two years time? What facts do you have to sustain your believe? "No" Depending on US/ EU support for Ukraine and China support for Russia and all the things listed on the last 10 pages I give it a "probably yes" Facts? There are no facts. It's predicting the future. There are certain directions though: Harris seems to have the edge over Trump. China does not want to alienate Western markets. Russia is spending too much money they don't have.
This is starting to be confusing...
That "no" was responding/quoting someone else, about "composing a paragraph..."; that "try", too. The "points" are my uninformed opinion. (To you).
|
So, theguardian, foreignaffairs, europeanconservative and Arakhamia -the head of the Russian state propaganda- have been debunked after April 16, 2024; when the foreignaffairs article was published.
A quick outburst from a high horse is not debunking. We have some actual information about those talks that may not agree with our confirmation bias.
It is easier to refuse that information and every opinion about that information.
|
|
|
On September 27 2024 15:15 maybenexttime wrote:
That Boris Johnson nonsense was already debunked in this thread numerous times.
Zboh, who do you think shot down MH17?
The answer is 42.
|
On September 27 2024 19:13 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 18:55 Velr wrote:On September 27 2024 18:44 zeo wrote:On September 27 2024 18:33 Velr wrote:
So the logic is.
Deranged guy that was pro Ukraine tried to kill Trump so Trump should logically stop supporting it?
Are you actually serious? Multiple high ranking officials from Ukraine have directly involved themselves in swing states promoting the Democrat campaign. This is why the GOP is pissed, not because of the schizo loser Yes? That doesn't make Nettles post any more sane. I dont think Nettles was implying what you understood. Deranged guy wanted to kill Trump because of Trumps anti-war rhetoric, the rhetoric didnt start because the dog guy tried to kill him. Though I agree the post could have been more focused
I refuse to accept calling "surrender to Russia" the "anti-war" position.
|
On September 27 2024 20:38 zboh wrote:
So, theguardian, foreignaffairs, europeanconservative and Arakhamia -the head of the Russian state propaganda- have been debunked after April 16, 2024; when the foreignaffairs article was published.
A quick outburst from a high horse is not debunking. We have some actual information about those talks that may not agree with our confirmation bias.
It is easier to refuse that information and every opinion about that information.
What is even the narrative here? Boris told Ukraine that making a deal with Putin is a bad idea and Ukraine had to do what he said because... what?
How do you get from 'Boris had x opinion' to 'Boris forced Ukraine to keep fighting'. You need to bridge that gap for this to be worth anything.
|
On September 27 2024 21:12 zboh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 15:15 maybenexttime wrote:
That Boris Johnson nonsense was already debunked in this thread numerous times.
Zboh, who do you think shot down MH17? The answer is 42.
Hilarious digression; I was one day off from being on that plane. I was on that plane, flying the same route, the same passage, one day prior. Had I delayed my trip to Australia by one day, me and my 5 mates would not be here today. Sometimes it's easy to unfocus from the gritty truth by hiding behind vague lies, statistics and politics, and losing the respect for the people who perished. But the truth is a lot of innocent people died because of complete incompetence and lack of responsibilities. We don't know if Russian soldiers shot the plane down themselves, but they certainly facilitated it, which is just as bad.
|
On September 27 2024 21:46 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 20:38 zboh wrote:
So, theguardian, foreignaffairs, europeanconservative and Arakhamia -the head of the Russian state propaganda- have been debunked after April 16, 2024; when the foreignaffairs article was published.
A quick outburst from a high horse is not debunking. We have some actual information about those talks that may not agree with our confirmation bias.
It is easier to refuse that information and every opinion about that information. What is even the narrative here? Boris told Ukraine that making a deal with Putin is a bad idea and Ukraine had to do what he said because... what? How do you get from 'Boris had x opinion' to 'Boris forced Ukraine to keep fighting'. You need to bridge that gap for this to be worth anything.
What is your narrative then?
Where have you seen your "Boris forced"?
Where have you got your "Ukraine had to do" from?
Arakhamia 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.”
From that? From him?
I didn't published anything, just in case you haven't noticed.
On the other hand, I do have noticed confirmation bias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
