Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday met with African leaders in St. Petersburg and displayed a document that he said was a draft treaty on Ukrainian neutrality that was drawn up during negotiations in Istanbul in March 2022.
“As you know, a string of talks between Russia and Ukraine took place in Turkey so as to work out both the confidence-building measures you mentioned and to draw up the text of the agreement,” Putin told the African delegation, according to TASS.
“We did not discuss with the Ukrainian side that this treaty would be classified, but we have never presented it, nor commented on it. This draft agreement was initialed by the head of the Kiev negotiation team. He put his signature there. Here it is,” he added.
According to RT, the treaty, titled “Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees for Ukraine,” required Ukraine to enshrine “permanent neutrality” in its constitution. The US, Britain, Russia, China, and France are listed as guarantors. Since the treaty was a draft, it indicates that it wasn’t finalized and more details needed to be worked out.
Putin’s claim reflects an article published in Foreign Affairs last year that cited multiple former senior US officials who said Russia and Ukraine tentatively agreed on a peace deal in April 2022. They said the agreement would have involved a Ukrainian promise not to join NATO in exchange for a Russian withdrawal to the pre-invasion lines, and Ukraine would have received security guarantees from several countries.
Russian and Ukrainian officials met face-to-face in Istanbul on March 29, 2022, which was followed up with virtual consultations. After the meeting, Russia’s lead negotiator described the talks as “constructive,” and the Russian Defense Ministry announced it would “drastically” reduce military activity near the northern cities of Kyiv and Chernihiv, which led to a full Russian withdrawal from the north.
Putin said after the Russian withdrawal, Ukraine abandoned the treaty. “After we pulled our troops away from Kiev — as we had promised to do — the Kiev authorities … tossed [their commitments] into the dustbin of history,” he said. “They abandoned everything.”
Ukraine accused Russian troops of intentionally killing civilians in the northern areas it withdrew from, most notably in the Kyiv suburb of Bucha. But if Putin’s account is true, Western pressure could have also led to Ukraine scuttling the treaty.
Then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson visited Kyiv on April 9, 2022, a few days after Russia completed its withdrawal from the north. According to a report from Ukrainska Pravda, Johnson urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky not to negotiate with Russia and that even if Ukraine was ready to sign a deal with Putin, Kyiv’s Western backers were not.
The Ukrainska Pravda report said at the time, Russia was ready for a Putin-Zelensky meeting, but two factors stopped it from happening: the discovery of dead Ukrainian civilians and Johnson’s visit.
Then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennet was trying to mediate between Putin and Zelensky in March 2022 and gave a similar account of the West’s position. He said the US and its allies “blocked” his mediation effort and that he thought there was a “legitimate decision by the West to keep striking Putin” and not negotiate.
After peace talks were scuttled in April 2022, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said he expected the conflict to end after the Istanbul talks but then realized some countries in NATO wanted to prolong the war to “weaken” Russia. A few days after Cavusoglu’s comments, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin admitted that one of the US’s goals in supporting Ukraine is to see Russia “weakened.”
As the war has dragged on, the Biden administration has come out explicitly against a ceasefire. Secretary of State Antony Blinken outlined the position earlier this month and said the US would continue building up Ukraine’s military rather than push for peace.
The African leaders who met with Putin on Saturday traveled to Russia and Ukraine to push for peace talks and an end to the war, but the chances of new negotiations between the warring sides are slim. The delegation included the presidents of Comoros, Senegal, South Africa, and Zambia, the prime minister of Egypt, and the foreign ministers of the Republic of Congo and Uganda.
The African delegation was in Ukraine on Friday, but Zelensky did not seem open to their proposals and reiterated his position that peace talks can’t happen until a full Russian withdrawal. In Moscow, the Kremlin said that the peace initiative presented by the African delegation “is very difficult to implement, difficult to compare positions.”
“Putin Shows African Leaders Draft Treaty on Ukrainian Neutrality from March 2022 -A delegation of African leaders traveled to Russia and Ukraine to urge for a ceasefire and negotiations”
Ukraine agreed to a treaty and then reneged. Most corrupt criminals in the world cannot be trusted.
The only way to end this is to eliminate Ukraine and all Ukrainians who are part of Western Ukraine’s fascists.
Not true, it was a draft treaty even the article you are commenting on says so
No one agrees to the draft, furthermore the details needing to be worked out were the status of the LPR and DPR plus Crimea – so not small issues.
Say what you want about the draft. But Putin at least demonstrated to the Africans an effort to curb the upcoming war, that Zelenskyy and the gang dismissed that placed them in much more of a worst conditions now than a year ago.
Sure the Ukrainians are currently in a worse condition then a year ago, but so are the Russians.
Ukraine has already lost the war, and Moscow is in the process of defeating NATO. Crimea River.
The Russians are in a much much better position militarily, financially, politically.
Yes, and that is the goal after all. Weaken Russia. Good to see you and Austin see eye to eye.
Me Austin and a significant majority in most of Europe outside Russia.
Which means you, Lloyd and most of Europe are ok with the continued destruction of Ukraine, along with the continued dying of Ukrainians, as long as Russia is weakened? Got it.
We are only OK with that as long as it is the desire of Ukraine to continue their fight against the ethnic cleansing and mass murder they have been promised on Russian state TV.
I think may of us wish we could do much more to support then, but as we are in NATO there are limits to what we can do without endangering conflagration. That said if the Ukrainians have to agree to terms we will continue to do what we can to make Russia regret their land grab.
You seem to be for wars of territorial conquest so for far more wars – but then I already knew that.
“Sure the Ukrainians are currently in a worse condition then a year ago, but so are the Russians.”
This is what you said. Now, you can try to justify it with more bullshit about the Ukrainians being willing to die but your words say otherwise. You are concerned only about weakening Russia, your words. I even gave you a chance to backtrack but instead you said this:
“Me Austin and a significant majority in most of Europe outside Russia.”
And then you try to wiggle your way out with more bullshit:
“You seem to be for wars of territorial conquest so for far more wars – but then I already knew that.”
I’m not for any wars. When I see the sky is black outside during the day, I say it’s going to rain. I might not want it to rain, but that doesn’t mean it won’t rain. Same with my observation of the Ukraine/Russia war. I didn’t want it to happen, but that didn’t mean it wasn’t going to.
How so?
No you wrote:
And that is indeed our goal in the west, we cannot have regime change in Russia as a goal nor to beat the Russian army in the field – that is not goals we can pursue independent of Ukraine – so our goal has to be a goal we can achieve even if Ukraine decides to agree to Putin’s terms.
Yes but you apparently have failed to recognize what that means for the goals of the west.
Good to hear then maybe you can get on board with the goal of preventing the SMO from becoming an example to follow – that involves weakening Russia as I have agreed with Austin has to be our goal.
How So?
You didn’t say a damn thing about Ukrainians dying for a cause until I called you on it. Not a damn thing. And the rest of your comment is more of the same. There was no talk about any consideration for the loss of Ukrainian lives, just about weakening Russia. Now you try to add to what you actually said. Nice try. You said what you said, own up to it.
Why would I, that is not relevant to the goals of the countries sanctioning Russia nor is it our place to decide what price they are supposed to be willing to pay.
Simply because that is all that is relevant to this debate to the extend that it is relevant for me pass judgement on.
No I stand by what I said, I’m trying to explain to you what that means. You seem to be laboring under some idea that I’m supposed to pass judgement on how many lives Ukraine should be willing to sacrifice for their independence – that to me is a domestic issue for Ukraine to decide.
If you want me to pass that kind of value judgement on the behalf of other countries – the first I would say is that the Russians should immediately withdraw from Ukraine as they are paying with the lives and health of far too many of their soldiers to make their country poorer and in the process killing the Russians they ostentatiously wanted to save in the Donbas.
But I do not make that kind of judgements as it is not for for me to decide for other countries.
You said what you said. There was no hidden meaning. You even said you agreed with Lloyd Austin. But sure, it’s up to Ukraine to decide how many lives they want to waste but that doesn’t mean you give a rat’s ass about them as you so eloquently stated.
Yes and I stand by it, I as opposed to Biden do not think the west should have goals in this conflict that require us to take action that could be seen as an attack on Russia. So yes I very much agree with Austin in that our goal is to weaken Russia, and I see nothing wrong with that.
First point I respect the fallen and I am more concerned than you for the soldiers that have made the ultimate sacrifice – you are the one with the language issues.
Second point – I care to the degree that I do not want their sacrifice to be wasted (you do) and I want to make the Russians pay through the nose until they will be as anti militaristic as the Germans were after WWII.
Third point what the hell is your problem with me allowing the people of the nation at war to be the ones that decide how many men they are willing to sacrifice to avoid being ethnically cleansed by the Russians?
“Yes and I stand by it, I as opposed to Biden do not think the west should have goals in this conflict that require us to take action that could be seen as an attack on Russia. So yes I very much agree with Austin in that our goal is to weaken Russia, and I see nothing wrong with that.”
Keep trying. You knew damn well what I was talking about when I compared you to Lloyd Austin. He certainly doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Ukrainian deaths. So maybe you should have elaborated back then. Your only comment then was to agree with me. So, spare me the attempt at explaining the hidden meaning that must have been between the lines.
“First point I respect the fallen and I am more concerned than you for the soldiers that have made the ultimate sacrifice – you are the one with the language issues.”
You said what you said. You didn’t add on until you realized you said what you said.
“Second point – I care to the degree that I do not want their sacrifice to be wasted (you do) and I want to make the Russians pay through the nose until they will be as anti militaristic as the Germans were after WWII.”
How very John McCain of you. He used to be ok with the idea that more people dying would make those who have already died to not have died in vain too. Great logic if you want war to go on forever. And adding on the comparison to WW2 was a nice touch.
“Third point what the hell is your problem with me allowing the people of the nation at war to be the ones that decide how many men they are willing to sacrifice to avoid being ethnically cleansed by the Russians?”
You see, this wasn’t what you originally said. You agreeing with the cold-hearted bastard Austin is what started this conversation. And like I said, Austin doesn’t care about Ukraine being destroyed or Ukrainian deaths. But I guess I just couldn’t read between the lines to understand what you were saying.
No for two reasons – I’m not very well informed about Lloyd Austin (I’m a Dane) and I do not know what you are trying to imply when you refer to him.
Do you have links that shows that he cares not at all about them – what little I’ve seen he has argued for depriving them of assistance but maybe I have missed something or maybe you are interpreting his actions differently from what someone who is pro Ukraine in this would see them.
No – I face complaints about elaborating and wasting space as it is, if you want to get a specific view across then maybe avoid relying upon tropes that are not commonly shared across pro Ukraine and pro Russian communities.
There is no hidden meaning it is exactly what it is – you are the one reading things into it which was not written.
I replied to Analyzer’s comment:
With the observation:
To which you replied with:
A comment apparently heavily loaded with hidden meanings about Lloyd Austin’s alleged indifference to Ukrainian losses (a thing I have not heard him accused of by anyone remotely in tune with the US policy on the SMO).
I happen to agree with Mr. Austin that our goal should be to weaken Russia – we cannot have a much more activist goal without risking a shooting war between Russia and NATO.
It only adds up like that in a very pro Russia forum, it does not add up like that in a pro Ukrainian one.
I happen to believe that the decision to keep on fighting or lay down their arms belong to the fighting nations – you do not.
I believe that if Ukraine decides to accept terms then that is their business, we in the west have our goal and that remains i.e. to weaken Russia.
Thus I’m not for a forever war, I’m for the Ukrainians and the Russians deciding when they want to end the war. I only want forever sanctions – I want the sanctions to last until Russia becomes pacifist. You seem to have a very hard time reading and understanding a fairly simple point.
Yet you did not bother to put that hidden part i.e. that Lloyd Austin is a cold-hearted bastard who is indifferent to Ukrainian suffering in words, so why do you expect me to think like you about him, from my perspective he cares a lot about Ukrainian suffering so my comments do not read at all like you read them.
In short it is you who have used a hidden agreement that we are all supposed to share i.e. that Lloyd Austin is a cold-hearted bastard who is indifferent to Ukrainian suffering – to think you have trapped me into admitting that I (too) am a cold-hearted bastard who is indifferent to Ukrainian suffering – but in reality that is not what has happened at all – all you have shown is that we do not share a view on what Lloyd Austin attitude to Ukrainian suffering is.
You’re unreal man. Almost comical. Now you’re on to not knowing anything about a man that’s been mentioned hundreds of times in the very articles you comment on. You also like to use the “Dane” card when needed. But it’s just all about you and me having different ideas on how an ex-general fresh from a job on the board at Raytheon might feel about Ukrainian suffering. I’m guessing not a whole hell of a lot. You don’t get to be generals that way and why would the MIC want to hire you if you’re not good for business? So you’re right, you and him probably do see eye to eye.
I know about the man, only I do not read the attitudes into his actions that you do – can you actually link or quote the places where you believe that it is being established that Lloyd Austin is indifferent to Ukrainian deaths – otherwise accept the point that it is not an objective fact.
No only when it is relevant, you may be in possession of prior knowledge about Lloyd Austin that I’m not aware of – a pretty fair point, if it turns out that the man has a past in some evil organization, i.e. I’m judging only on his actions since the SMO.
And there we have it – you know what Lloyd Austin did before the SMO – I did not – NB I’m still not willing to accept that these facts are indicative that he is indifferent to Ukrainian deaths mind you.
It would if you had any evidence that he as a general was indifferent to the casualties in units under his command – otherwise all you have is that he was a general and taking the kind of jobs an ex-general gets offered – that is not proof that he is indifferent to the deaths of Ukrainian soldiers.
You are just a very prejudiced person – generals can and very often are not at all indifferent to the suffering of their troops and the troops fighting for their side – if they are not they very seldom get to be very good at what they are doing.
You mistake the need to be able to sacrifice some soldiers to achieve goals for the notion that the person taking the decisions being indifferent to the deaths the decision causes – that is often how it is in Russia I grant you, and that is likely why Russian soldiers fight so poorly, because if their losses are caused by indifference there is no guarantee that it is to serve a higher purpose, while when commanded by a good general they would know that it was to achieve a higher goal.
So I understand where you are coming from – the Russian world, or a world where there are no higher goals.
He’s a fucking general. He kissed ass to get the top. He worked for Raytheon. They’re in the business of killing people. I don’t need any god damn links. Every general is a piece of shit. The evil organization he belonged to was the US Army. He spent his life doing evil. Prejudice? Guilty. He’s a piece of shit. Or do I repeat myself. This is antiwar.com. Generals aren’t antiwar. They’re cold hearted bastards.
“You mistake the need to be able to sacrifice some soldiers to achieve goals for the notion that the person taking the decisions being indifferent to the deaths the decision causes – that is often how it is in Russia I grant you, and that is likely why Russian soldiers fight so poorly, because if their losses are caused by indifference there is no guarantee that it is to serve a higher purpose, while when commanded by a good general they would know that it was to achieve a higher goal.”
What a load of bullshit. There are NO “good” generals. Their job is war.
“So I understand where you are coming from – the Russian world, or a world where there are no higher goals.”
Man, fuck you. You don’t understand shit.
You have very low standards of proof and poor ethics – almost all generals would be guilty by your standards – some of us just have higher standards.
He’s a general. That’s all the proof I need. And not “almost”, ALL.
As I said very low standards of law – guilty before any proof of anything has been provided other than a job title.
No wonder you are so fond of the Russians.
He’s guilty of being a general.
I don’t like Russian generals either. Not a one. Nor have said a kind word about anyone in their government. I don’t have a problem with the average Russian though. Same thing with the Ukrainians. Probably apply to you people in Denmark too. Should I go on?
That you do not like Russian generals wither does not entail that you say that anyone that agrees with a former Russian general’s vies necessarily implies that that such a person has a disregard for human life. So yes by all means go on explain how you arrive at the conclusion that me agreeing with one of Lloyd’s expression necessarily leads to you concluding anything about my attitude towards Ukrainian losses.
Wow, it really bothers you that I think you and Lloyd think the same way. Good. And it seems you’re now trying to distance yourself from Lloyd instead of defending him.
No it does not bother me at all – as it perfectly demonstrates the standards for justice you embrace, and for the record I’m not distancing me from Lloyd – not defending him either, just not interested enough to bother researching him beyond the thing he said I agreed with.
Sure it does. That’s why you can’t let it go. And no need to research. He’s a fucking general.
Here is the problem you have. Everything the West told us about the Siege of Kiev, and what you have told us, is a fabrication, a lie. Putin just tabled the evidence.
But Russia is the aggressor right? Its all just big lies after big lies. And you support every lie they have told.
US/NATO is fighting an illegal aggressive war against Russia……The Supreme International Crime according to Nuremberg and the Hague.
One has to ask exactly what is your interest here? War or Peace because as i see it you are all for war and the destruction of Ukraine as a nation in an attempt to destroy Russia. illegal aggressive war.
1) How is this relevant here?
2) What lies have I been told you?
3) what evidence has Putin tabled?
Even the Russians acknowledge that they started the SMO – they were provoked, but they do not claim that the Ukrainians started invading Russia.
Care to provide any evidence of the US/NATO actually having units fighting in the war – if not they cannot be violating the laws of fighting aggressive war.
It is fairly simple I want to prevent a new world order where wars of territorial conquest is the new norm.
Allowing such wars to happen without applying sanctions to the countries doing the land annexation will cause far more wars in the future and lead to nuclear proliferation.
US ran a coup in Kiev and placed Nazi’s in power. Its that simple, the last thing you want to do is prevent a new world order where wars of territorial conquest is the new norm because that is what the current world order does. The one you are so hell bent on protecting.
If the US did this why were they so eager to hold elections fast, moreover if it is so easy to make a coup why did the Russians not do the instead of the SMO?
Name me but three countries that have annexed territory as a result of a war they started. Israel is the only country I can think of which gets close (though they were attacked) and that has lewd to more wars.
You clown. If you’re referring to the ‘67 war, it was ISRAHELL who initiated.
Not to mention attempting to destroy an American ship in order to blame it on Egypt.
Yes and yes you are right the Israeli justification for the war was to put it mildly not OK!
So Israel is indeed the very example not to follow if peace is what you want.
That just not practical even Albert speer and Karl doentz came through WW2 alive and well as did millions of German supporters, concentration camp workers, soldiers including ss Russia in fact released most German POWs soon after the wars ending.
You won’t ever have any peace trying to wipe out people who you don’t like.
America waged war against sunni Iraq from the start sunni’s were under constant killing which created a hatred so deep isis was born. Even to this day Americans fear the jails of isis. One soldier commented “these people would rip off my head with their bare hands”
Isis still attacks daily in Iraq. That’s the result of trying to kill off everything you hate. Germans experienced this in nations they brutally occupied people fought to the bitter end.
Russia has two choices destroy the entire world or make due with Ukrainians. I surmise the world is headed for destruction.
Actually, Russia has carefully avoided the kind of destructive warfare that the US waged against Afghanistan and Iraq. Russia seems well aware that Ukraine will be its neighbor after the war is over, and that the Ukrainian people are the real victims in all this. So I think we agree.
“Ukraine would have received security guarantees from several countries.”
I would have to believe that Ukraine in not signing the peace treaty it got the same security guarantees it did if it had signed it. Otherwise quite dumb on them. Not sure what those were. Troops? Or what they are doing now by sending weapons? But even those were slow steps.
Well, as Lavrov has pointed out, the US regime is not “agreement capable.” It can’t be trusted to keep its word.
And the same is true of the Russian regime. When it decided it wanted some pieces of Ukraine, agreements both formal (Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty) and informal (Budapest Memorandum) went right in the shitter. So it’s doubtful that the Ukrainians trusted any “security guarantees” waved around by the Russian side.
Under international law the sovereign state of Ukraine ceased to exist in 2014 after the illegal seizure of power.
This one act cancelled all agreements. You of course put it more crudely than me…..agreements both formal (Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty) and informal (Budapest Memorandum) went right in the shitter.
“Under international law the sovereign state of Ukraine ceased to exist in 2014 after the illegal seizure of power.”
By all means enlighten me by pointing to the specific provision of whatever body of “international law” you claim causes states to cease to exist in that way.
The UN, the ICC, the Hague etc etc etc. They all have conventions on coups and illegal wars.
There is a myriad of documents in these organisations on the legitimacy of governments under international law.
In other words, you have no earthly idea what “international law” says, and just assume that if you use the words, other people who also have no earthly idea what “international law” says will assume you do and agree with you that it says “anything Russia wants, Russia must get.”
Self-determination is a core principle of international law.
What makes you believe that people of Donbass and other eastern regions of Ukraine, who elected according to Ukrainian Constitution, Yanukovich as their president, must recognize as legal the unconstitutional change of their president for other person?
As the legal power in Kiev after the unconstitutional change in 2014 stopped to exist, they had the right for self-determination. DNR and LNR republics appeared on the political map without violation of international law and Russia, according to the international law, had right to recognize them as the independent states. 6 months later, also without violation of international law, after the referendum, those two republics were reunited with Russia. The other regions, who elected in 2010 Yanukovich as president of Ukraine, have the same right. New Kiev regime has no legal right to rule over those territories. The only possible legal exit from the situation is the referendum and self-determination of the regions of former Ukrainian state.
“What makes you believe that people of Donbass and other eastern regions of Ukraine, who elected according to Ukrainian Constitution, Yanukovich as their president, must recognize as legal the unconstitutional change of their president for other person?”
What makes you believe that I believe any such nonsense? I supported the Donbas secession. I opposed the Kyiv regime’s attempt to forcibly prevent that secession. I oppose US/NATO/EU intervention on behalf of Ukraine in the current war.
All I did was ask Doom Sternz to actually cite any “international law” supporting his claims. Which he couldn’t do. Can you?
Yanukovych abandoned his post and fled to Russia. He recorded a resignation and was then voted out of office by 328 of the 450 members of parliament. (He retracted it later but what’s done was done.)
You can try to contort it to match your emotions but those are the facts.
Why would I contort this in any way? The deal that was brokered to hold democratic elections which was signed and stuck to by e.g. the leaders that are mentioned in the Nuland talk. The issue is as I said that the people on the street did not stick to it.
I think you might’ve misunderstood what I wrote. (I was responding to the people who believe there was a coup.)
In December of 2013, Ukraine was set to sign an economic agreement with Europe. Putin convinced the pro-Russian Yanukovych to cancel that deal and sign an economic agreement with Russia. The Ukrainian people did not want that and they started the Maiden protests. Ukrainian security forces opened up on the protestors — which caused more protests. Yanukovych abdicated and fled the country for what he said was his safety. He resigned.
There. Was. No. Coup.
(And drink because they invoked Nuland!)
Was/is Nuland a figment of everyone’s imagination? Don’t call it a coup if you like but if you’re saying there was no US involvement, then you’re just a willful idiot. The longer this war goes the more history is ignored or it’s being completely revised. Nuland’s been a player for a long time. Keep pretending otherwise.
Drink!
And
There. Was. No. Coup.
So, willful idiot it is.
My bad – I somehow read your comment as a reply to one of mine, it makes much more sense to me now!
“The Ukrainian people did not want that and they started the Maiden protests.”
Says who? Victoria Nuland said in a speech that the U.S. spent $5 Billion getting Ukraine ready for Democracy, meaning her kind of Democracy where she gets to pick who the leaders will be. The people who voted for Yanukovych certainly did not like her guy, Yats, and were not involved in Victoria’s coup. As I recall Yats didn’t last long.
A look at a map of Ukraine’s election of Yanukovych shows where he won the election. The U.S. disenfranchised those voters with a paid for coup.
I’ll use your question against you. Who says?
I’ll use your question against you. Says who?
Says the votes in Crimea and the Donbas regions after the coup.
Votes cast under duress from FSB/GRU AK-47s you mean?
Exactly Obama needed to ethnically cleanse millions of Voters from the Donbass to ensure his rabidly racist brutal Nazi’s could stay in power. The Donbass who voted 90% for Yanuchovych needed to be removed or his coup d’etat would be immediately voted out of power.
Its not that Obama wanted to murder them all, if they fled for their lives to Russia it achieved the same goal. Hence the Antiterrorist Operation in the Donbass to remove them all and hence the Right Sector and other Nazi paramilitary organisations were enlisted to carry out the mass murder.
The people in the Maidan did not represent the majority of voters in Ukraine.
Nov 2013 (pre-Maidan!): Ukraine Deputy has proof of USA staging civil war in Ukraine”.
“I opposed the Kyiv regime’s attempt to forcibly prevent that secession” – Minsk Agreements were not about secession, it was about reunification Donbass with Ukraine. Kiev regime and US leadership were not interested in peaceful reunification of Donbass with Ukraine, they wanted a military conflict. That is the problem. Kremlin was okay with both secession and reunification providing it is done peacefully. US and NATO wanted the war. Putin wasted a lot of time to persuade Donbass leaders to agree to reunite with Ukraine. In the end they signed Minsk Agreement but it were Kiev, US and NATO who sabotaged this agreement because US wanted nothing less than a war. That is the truth.
Yes, I know that the Minsk accords called for the Donbas to remain part of Ukraine with certain self-rule aspects (e.g. us of Russian language).
I never gave much credence to them, since none of the three signatories seemed to have any intention of implementing them. From the beginning, before Minsk, I thought that Kyiv should just let them go and either be independent or, if they wanted to be part of Russia and Russia wanted them, become part of Russia.
I don’t agree that none of the three signatories had any intention of implementing the agreement. It is true only for those signatories who are subordinated to US oligarchy. Though Donbass republics didn’t liked it, under Kremlin’s pressure they accepted it and were ready to return into Ukraine as autonomic republics with guarantee for their security. Putin had no interest in destabilizing Ukraine. On the contrary, 8 years he tried to stop the military confrontation and squeeze Donbass back into Ukraine. His only concern was not to allow US military infrastructure on Ukrainian territory and to have Ukraine as a normal neutral neighbor.
The Kremlin and the separatists refused safe access to election monitors to prepare for the referenda required by the accords.
Then complained that Ukraine not having held the referenda meant Ukraine wasn’t following the accords.
Each of the three parties entered into the Minsk accords for the sole and express purpose of buying time to improve their positions, which they then proceeded to do.
They were supposed to organize the local elections, not referendum. According to Minsk Agreements, it should be done after Ukrainian military moved their heavy artillery 50 km from the line, which Ukraine never did. Also, before those local elections, Ukrainian parliament was obliged to adapt Ukrainian legislation to the new situation, which Ukrainian parliament never did. You may read Minsk Agreements text, everything is described there. Ukraine did absolutely nothing. Ukrainian president Poroshenko talked before TV cameras that he has no intention whatsoever to comply with Minsk Agreements.
Again wishful thinking if you think a coup occurs and nothing legally changes.
A coup did occur and parliament was illegally brought to an end through violent means.
I am not an expert on International Law and i am not going to pretend i am. Suffice to say that i have read enough on international law to know what i have stated is correct.
Its stunning to me that you would argue otherwise. You just hate Russia so much, but not racist at all.
Obama Openly Admits ‘Brokering Power Transition’ In Ukraine.
Ukraine on Fire | Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt phone call.
“Its stunning to me that you would argue otherwise.”
It would be, if I had.
All I did was ask you to cite the supposed “international law” you believe was violated. And you couldn’t.
Still lying that I “hate Russia,” huh? That all you got?
You do know what that deal to transition power was? I only ask because there was no secret about it and absolutely nothing wrong in the deal, the only problem was that the protesters on the streets did not accept the deal!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_settlement_of_political_crisis_in_Ukraine
https://www.bbc.com/russian/rolling_news/2014/02/140221_rn_yanukovich_preliminary_elections
Wikipedia?
Seriously?
🙄
I think I’ve said it before – look to the sources if you have doubts about the content – did you?
Single best and most reliable information source on the planet. Every edit can be scrutinized, every claim can be disputed, every source can be checked.
Thanks for putting up those videos!
With Obama’s comments and Nuland’s discussion with Pyatt we can clearly see that Obama had placed in power Nazi’s who took over the Rada illegally through unmitigated brutality.
The Right Sector and the SNPU (CIA changed the name to Svoboda) openly neo Nazi paramilitary and organisations then set about ethnicly cleansing the Donbass to ensure that they could remain in power. Obama needed millions of ethnic Russians removed so he could change the balance of power in Ukraine.
Obama had brokered a transition in power before the legally elected government had been removed from power. Yanukovych eventually fled (days after Obama’s Coup D’etat) for his life to Russia as the Nazi’s that Obama had placed in power were going to kill him.
Obama must go before the Hague to answer for his many many crimes against humanity.
Putin was ready to give back to Ukraine all Zaporozhie and Kherson oblatsts and those fools declined the proposition. Now Zaporozhie and Kherson, according to Russian Constitution, are parts of Russian Federation. It means, Russia will never give them back to Ukraine.
The defeat of Ukrainian/NATO army will unavoidably lead to losing more lands. No one makes secret in Moscow that Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnepropetrovsk and Kharkov oblasts also should reunite with Russia.
“Now Zaporozhie and Kherson, according to Russian Constitution, are parts of Russian Federation. It means, Russia will never give them back to Ukraine.”
No, it means, Putin is going to be very embarrassed and domestically undermined by having no choice except to give them back to Ukraine.
OK ill bite, why would Putin go against Russian law? Why does he have no choice?
As i see it Biden is the one who has no choice but to gift Zaporozhia, Kherson, Donetsk and Luhansk to Russia.
My evidence is…..he already has.
This Offensive by the Nazi Banderites in Zaporozhia is failing. They cant even get to the first line of defense, for 2 weeks now they are stuck in the security zone, what Russia is calling a “meat grinder”.
“why would Putin go against Russian law? Why does he have no choice?”
Russian law is irrelevant to whether the Russian forces can fully take and perpetually hold Zaporozhia and Kherson.
Sixteen months of trying says they can’t.
Hell, they haven’t even fully secured Donetsk and Luhansk yet, although they can probably do that, giving Putin the fig leaf of a partial “victory,” after more blood and sacrifice.
I dont think you know Russia at all. Putin is very careful to ensure he operates entirely within Russian law and International law.
Moscow is fighting a war of attrition and wining. understood…..wishful thinking on your part is why.
https://news.yahoo.com/kremlin-officials-turn-heavy-drinking-162524873.html
Hahaha. Maybe you should join them!
i predict that the west will never get their hands on Crimea again
Contemporary historical facts can be disputed – difficult to verify. We all have our own versions of history: what we want it to be, what we want the future to be. A cold, logical look at the past shows that every empire eventually gets the war it is trying to avoid; today, everyone wants to avoid another world war – the conclusion is clear. Paradoxically, if we do not accept the logical inevitability of this we will never prevent nuclear Armageddon.
https://patternofhistory.wordpress.com/
Who believe this jack a$$ dictator?
The same one who looked at the international community in the eyes and stated firmly and seriously that he would not invade Ukraine and that it was all a western hysteria.
Same guy now wants to sell me his side of the story.
Did you read the article Don?
Just in case you haven’t:
“Putin’s claim reflects an article published in Foreign Affairs last year that cited multiple former senior US officials who said Russia and Ukraine tentatively agreed on a peace deal in April 2022. They said the agreement would have involved a Ukrainian promise not to join NATO in exchange for a Russian withdrawal to the pre-invasion lines, and Ukraine would have received security guarantees from several countries.”
“After peace talks were scuttled in April 2022, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said he expected the conflict to end after the Istanbul talks but then realized some countries in NATO wanted to prolong the war to “weaken” Russia. A few days after Cavusoglu’s comments, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin admitted that one of the US’s goals in supporting Ukraine is to see Russia “weakened.”
“Then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennet was trying to mediate between Putin and Zelensky in March 2022 and gave a similar account of the West’s position. He said the US and its allies “blocked” his mediation effort and that he thought there was a “legitimate decision by the West to keep striking Putin” and not negotiate.”
So much for Ukraine being a “sovereign nation” in leaders of the West’s eyes. Your “backers” aren’t willing to negotiate, even if YOU are.
The key move in the Neocon Nazis’ master strategy (from Brzezinski’s “Grande Chessboard”) is the capture of Ukraine. If they give up this piece, they lose the game and that’s the end of Nazi ascendancy. This is life and death for Nuland & co.
Nato in Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia; however, Ukraine is of no interest to the US’s national security. Russian missiles in Mexico or Canada would be a threat to US national security. Nevertheless, a strategic defeat of Nato becomes an existential threat to the US’s global hegemony. Thus, the US, which has pushed this war on Russia, is now facing an existential threat because of its own deviousness.
Yes, imperialist aggression, pure & simple, gone wrong.
My take away from this, and other, discussions, is as follows.
Russia has mostly neutralized the US advantage in the information war. Partly because Ukraine is currently not taking over Crimea over the depleted and demoralized Russian troops that fight with shovels. The US narratives on the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, including US officials cheering when they first got the news, seems to have changed a lot of people against the US.
The US-Russia conflict is a bare knuckle brawl that is military mostly in Ukraine, economic, and diplomatic. A full spectrum battle. There is a decent probability that a full spectrum battle with China will be added to this. We certainly live in interesting times.
That draft peace treaty is gone and for the west, not even labeled as “history.” Gone With The Wind. When a global nuclear war starts, no one cares why we’re dying–we will just die. We may care how we die. Mine hopefully quick, although probably very painful. There’s nothing we can do. Victoria Nuland wants it, like Churchill wanted WWI and WWII, and will not stop until it happens. The west is “woke” but not really awake as the Deep$hitState operatives ej@culate slime, arguing like they’re selecting a beauty contestant. It’s not funny. It’s sad but more importantly, painful and ugly. (Sarcasm alert)
It’s interesting in that I’ve always firmly believed those who pursue nuclear war advantages have a survival suite in a bunker somewhere safe from the hell on earth the rest of us will perish in. They throw stones from a glass house and then run to a brick shelter.
This is obviously information Nuland has access too, the exact survial rates after a nuclear holocaust. She fully understands the pretense and danger in her pursuits. Yet she moves forward unflinchingly bringing the world to the brink of annilation with each passing day and escalation.
“The Ukrainska Pravda report said at the time, Russia was ready for a Putin-Zelensky meeting, but two factors stopped it from happening: the discovery of dead Ukrainian civilians and Johnson’s visit.”
This is not true. Russia had already rejected the peace treaty on April 7, 2 days before Johnson’s visit, with Putin declaring the talks at a “dead end” and Lavrov saying it was rejected because Ukraine had deviated in an unspecified manner from the deal.
I posted this at Moon of Alabama yesterday analyzing the timeline. Here is my post in full as posted yesterday afternoon in response to another comment:
Posted by: Lex | Jun 18 2023 15:43 utc | 29
“A neutral and effectively demilitarized Ukraine would have achieved almost all of what Putin wanted when this started.”
“Almost” isn’t all. Also, Putin has never stated explicitly what Russia wanted. He merely stated the pre-conditions for what Russia wants, i.e., demilitarization and de-Nazification, in other words, no Ukraine military and no Ukraine regime. How do we imagine that leaving Zelensky in power would have achieved either of those outcomes, not to mention how those “security guarantees” BY THE US would have been “honored”.
I submit that this draft proposal would have been enhanced by Russia with many more requirements which would have been unacceptable – and proved unacceptable – to the West.
If I’m not incorrect, also, no one has seen the full document in all
its details. Also recall that this was a draft treaty, open to rejection
by either side.
If you go back and look at the reports at the time, such a deal was
not so clear cut as has been represented by everyone subsequently:
March 16…
Ukraine and Russia explore neutrality plan in peace talks
https://www.ft.com/content/7b341e46-d375-4817-be67-802b7fa77ef1
March 16…
Ukraine rejects Russian neutrality proposals, says peace deal must offer security
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2022/03/16/Ukraine-rejects-Russian-neutrality-proposals-says-peace-deal-must-offer-security-
March 29…
Ukraine Proposes Neutral Status With Guarantees, and Zelensky Seeks More Western Help
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-and-russia-hold-talks-as-zelensky-criticizes-west-on-sanctions-arms-11648549561
April 3…
Draft Russia-Ukraine peace deal not ready to be discussed by leaders: Moscow
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/russia-ukraine-war/draft-russia-ukraine-peace-deal-not-ready-to-be-discussed-by-leaders-moscow/2554183
April 6…
Russia lists ‘goodwill gesture’ for talks, has a condition to end Ukraine war
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/ukraine-russia-lists-goodwill-gesture-for-talks-but-has-a-condition-to-end-war-101649239938256.html
April 6…
Russia’s Envoy to U.S. Says Ukraine War Crime Claims Threaten Peace Talks
https://www.newsweek.com/russias-envoy-us-says-ukraine-war-crime-claims-threaten-peace-talks-1695775
April 6…
Russian attacks on Ukraine civilians stall peace talks, says Turkish mediator
https://www.ft.com/content/c41c7ef0-e03a-4963-8793-e8931ba29e39
April 7…
Russia says Ukraine presented ‘unacceptable’ draft peace deal
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-ukraine-presented-unacceptable-draft-peace-deal-2022-04-07/
April 11…
Russia will not pause military operation in Ukraine for peace talks
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-will-not-pause-military-operation-ukraine-peace-talks-2022-04-11/
April 12…
Vladimir Putin says peace talks with Ukraine at ‘dead end’
https://www.ft.com/content/6f6f74ae-56bd-45e7-ad40-51a87775f1a6
April 14…
Kremlin lacks information about Russia-Ukraine peace talks
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/russia-ukraine-war/kremlin-lacks-information-about-russia-ukraine-peace-talks/2563589
And when did Boris Johnson visit Ukraine? April 9th… But it was
April 7 that Lavrov said the Ukraine position had deviated from the proposed peace deal…
So the conventional wisdom that Boris Johnson’s visit derailed the peace process is simply incorrect.
Now we have Putin declaring that the peace talks were successful? Is he referring to the 15-point draft proposal which was presented in March? Or is he referring to whatever the Ukrainians agreed to in early April – before April 7 when Lavrov declared the Ukrainians had deviated from that agreement?
Does anyone know? HAS ANYONE SEEN THE DOCUMENTS?
[NOTE: We now know that is the former draft in March.]
But this is all irrelevant because primarily Ukraine neutrality does
absolutely nothing to counter the Aegis Ashore installations in Poland
and Romania, which Putin has equally established on several occasions as
his primary concern from NATO. Ray McGovern, in his speech to the
Boston peace group, explicitly laid that out.
I suggest everyone review McGovern’s speech:
If the Missile Fits, Beware: Ray McGovern on US missile site in Romania and Poland
THIS is why there is a Ukraine war going on.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Jun 18 2023 20:46 utc | 88
Here is a post I just made to MoA responding to Alexander Mercouris discussion of this issue:
Rus Says Ukr Offensive Attacks Fail; Disastrous Ukr Losses; Reports Rus Destroyed Key Ukr HQ
In negotiations, the two parties always start with maximalist demands they know will not be met. Thus, to say that “almost” all demands were met is a solid basis for an agreement.
De-Nazification doesn’t mean no Ukrainian regime or government. That’s absurd. Without a government in Kyiv, there would be nobody to negotiate with. When Azov was defeated in Mariupol, the Russians said that de-Nazification had been achieved. Nobody in Moscow imagines that the nationalists in Galicia will ever change their attitude. The Russians simply try to prevent the Banderites and Washington from dictating Kyiv’s policies.
What demilitarization means was clearly outlined in the text Putin cited. Thus, there was an understanding on the basic issues of demilitarization and neutrality that would have satisfied the Russians. How to remove the Banderites from the levers of power so that the majority of the Ukrainian people can have their say is an internal matter, but the status of N@zi criminals as national heroes of Ukraine would probably have to be revised. The West can hardly come out publicly as defender of N@zi criminals.
The Aegis Ashore installations in Poland and Romania cannot be part of an agreement between Russia and Ukraine. If Ukraine has given up its sovereignty to the US, then an agreement between Moscow and Washington will include issues just as the Aegis systems and a new European security architecture. It’s up to Ukraine to decide if it has the sovereignty to decide its own future or if it wants to be a play ball in the US’s geopolitical games.
Lavrov was right to say that Ukraine deviated from the peace plan when it used the Bucha false flag massacre to abort the peace talks.
The big news from the African peace delegation in Russia was Putin showing the previous signed peace treaty agreement that lead to the withdrawal of Russian troops from Kiev.
So everything the West told us about the Siege of Kiev is a fabrication, a pack of lies. Its all just big lies after big lies.
Do you and the people upvoting you, have trouble reading?
It was a draft deal, that means not finally agreed upon and naturally not signed!
And just how dumb would the Russians have to be to withdraw from Kyiv if they did so relying on a draft deal?