Nuland has finally admitted that the Ukraine-Russia peace deal, nearly finalized in spring 2022, fell apart because of the US, UK, and other Western governments.
You're viewing a single thread.
Surprised pikachu What? Ukraine did not trust Russia to not attack them again, after being attacked by Russia?
Russia has a trust-problem. If they are serious about wanting peace they should work on it.
To your knowledge, what was the reason Russia invaded Ukraine?
How is that relevant? Maybe it was because Ukraine is a nazi-fascist-baby-eating-puppy-kicking nation? It would make it even crazier for them to trust Russia not to attack them again, and even more important for Russia to build trust with others.
It's relevant because understanding the root cause of the war is critical to defending your mind from the propaganda you're being constantly subjected to.
Up to a week before the invasion Ukraine was threatening to install nukes and minimise Russia's response time. This is a security threat that no state can tolerate. You know full well that the USA wouldn't tolerate anything remotely similar.
This war was started by the USA overthrowing Ukraine's democracy in 2014 and installing a puppet Banderite Nazi government designed to be a proxy for NATO to threaten Russia. The US believed they could take over Russia again and loot and pillage it like they did in the 90s. They lost control of it with the Iraq war, when Putin refused to help them murder a million plus Iraqis. He was supposed to be their tame, controlled dictator of the place that they were selling off to their oligarchs for pennies.
This was all well understood and known before the massive propaganda avalanche after the 2022 invasion (that Russia tried to avoid for the 8 years prior). Absurd repetition of the "Unprovoked" invasion, reinventing history to spin a yarn about Russia just deciding to invade to steal land etc.
Most people think they're immune to propaganda, or that it's just not happening to them, it happens to people in foreign countries.
Here's the news before the invasion:
Forbes - Ukraine Deradicalized Its Extremist Troops. Now They Might Be Preparing A Counteroffensive
The Hill - Congress bans arms to Ukraine militia linked to neo-Nazis
Years of the Western (BBC) Media Admitting to Extremism Among Azov Military Units:
BBC - Outside Source, (March 23, 2022)
BBC - Torch-lit march in Kiev by Ukraine's far-right Svoboda Party (2014)
BBC - Neo-Nazi threat in new Ukraine: NEWSNIGHT (2014)
BBC - Ukraine conflict: 'White power' warrior from Sweden (2014)
BBC - Ukraine underplays role of far right in conflict (2014)
BBC - Ukraine's most-feared volunteers (2015)
BBC - The far-right group threatening to overthrow Ukraine's government - Newsnight (2015)
BBC - Ukraine: On patrol with the far-right National Militia - BBC Newsnight (2018)
BBC - Ukraine coat of arms in UK anti-terror list furore 2020
BBC - Behind Belarusian 'far-right mercenary' claims (2021)
Al Jazeera - Ukrainian fighters grease bullets against Chechens with pig fat (2022)
The Hill - The reality of neo-Nazis in Ukraine is far from Kremlin propaganda (2017)
These are all western sources. This was real reporting. I think the question you have to answer is were they lying then? Or are they lying now?
No, that is disinformation. Show me the original interview where Merkel said that.
Show me the original interview where Merkel said that.
Merkel: Das setzt aber voraus, auch zu sagen, was genau die Alternativen damals waren. Die 2008 diskutierte Einleitung eines Nato-Beitritts der Ukraine und Georgiens hielt ich für falsch. Weder brachten die Länder die nötigen Voraussetzungen dafür mit, noch war zu Ende gedacht, welche Folgen ein solcher Beschluss gehabt hätte, sowohl mit Blick auf Russlands Handeln gegen Georgien und die Ukraine als auch auf die Nato und ihre Beistandsregeln. Und das Minsker Abkommen 2014 war der Versuch, der Ukraine Zeit zu geben. Anm. d. Red.: Unter dem Minsker Abkommen versteht man eine Reihe von Vereinbarungen für die selbst ernannten Republiken Donezk und Luhansk, die sich unter russischem Einfluss von der Ukraine losgesagt hatten. Ziel war, über einen Waffenstillstand Zeit zu gewinnen, um später zu einem Frieden zwischen Russland und der Ukraine zu kommen. Sie hat diese Zeit hat auch genutzt, um stärker zu werden, wie man heute sieht.
(Translated): Merkel: But that requires saying what exactly the alternatives were at the time. I thought the idea of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO, which was discussed in 2008, was wrong. The countries did not have the necessary prerequisites for this, nor had the consequences of such a decision been fully considered, both with regard to Russia's actions against Georgia and Ukraine and to NATO and its mutual assistance rules. And the Minsk Agreement in 2014 was an attempt to give Ukraine time. Editor's note: The Minsk Agreement is a series of agreements for the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, which had broken away from Ukraine under Russian influence. The aim was to gain time through a ceasefire in order to later achieve peace between Russia and Ukraine. It also used this time to become stronger, as we can see today.
Exactly. She said to give Ukraine time to mature for an entry to NATO. Not to prepare for war with Russia. That is disinformation.
Ziel war, über einen Waffenstillstand Zeit zu gewinnen, um später zu einem Frieden zwischen Russland und der Ukraine zu kommen. Sie hat diese Zeit hat auch genutzt, um stärker zu werden, wie man heute sieht.
Maybe read the rest. Macht deine Position weniger peinlich.
I'm german, let me translate: "The goal was to achieve peace between Russia and Ukraine via a ceasefire. She (Ukraine is meant here) also used this time to get stronger (considering the context here being military conflict, it means stronger in the military sense.), as can be seen today."
time to mature
You mean "time to become stronger" i.e. prepare for war and not implement minsk II (why would you want to "become stronger" if not prepare for war; it's in contradiction with implementing minsk)
She doesn’t say anything about „stronger.“
FYI I got some lightly used straws for sale if you need more of them to grasp at
You're just splitting hairs. They used the Minsk peace negotiations to buy time to prepare for war, "to become stronger"... and not for actual peace. This is a fact that you have to accept.
Later Hollande corroborated the admission.
"Yes, Angela Merkel is right on this point. Since 2014, Ukraine has strengthened its military posture. Indeed, the Ukrainian army was completely different from that of 2014. It was better trained and equipped. It is the merit of the Minsk agreements to have given the Ukrainian army this opportunity."
The "merit" of peace agreements to prepare for war.
Russia literally never entered any war without serious provocation beforehand.
It took Georgia killing peacekeeping forces for Russia to march in. It took 8 years of ethnic cleansing in Dinbas before Russia intervened in Ukraine.
8 years? Ethnic cleansing in Donbas started in 2008? Do you have some source for that? I don't remember even Russia claiming such a thing. Why did Russia support Yanukovych if he did such things?
2014, escalation into war started 2022. By that point, one million people had fled to Russia.
If you then remember the rethoric of the Ukr government and soldiers in Donbas how they want to get rid of the russians... ethnic cleansing is the term that fits.
You claimed:
It took 8 years of ethnic cleansing in Dinbas before Russia intervened in Ukraine.
Russia intervened in Ukraine in 2014. 2014 - 8 = 2008, so ethnic cleansing must have happened between 2008 and 2014 according to you.
This smirking troll shit you're doing right now where you pretend not to know what people are talking about to make a point is doing the opposite of what you want it to.
They are working on it by eliminating the fighting capacity of the AFU. At this point the only peace Ukraine will see is one where it unconditionally surrenders.
I'm sure the tens of thousand of dead russian troops and all those displaced russian families prefer that to just gaining trust with others, resulting in the end of support for Ukraine and a quick surrender. Apparently getting people killed is better than doing everything you can to end end the conflict.
Apparently getting people killed is better than doing everything you can to end end the conflict.
Apparently in the mind of the west, Ukraine and Zelensky in particular it is..
Those talking points don't feel humiliating to say in the context of the interview you're replying under?
Do you have human feelings?
Russia literally did everything possible to try and avoid this conflict for 8 years prior. Ending the conflict without achieving the objectives would be sheer idiocy as anybody who is not a complete imbecile would understand.
Russia literally did everything possible to try and avoid this conflict for 8 years prior.
War is a business for everyone not just for the US. World leaders seek money and wealth and war grants it
The difference is that the military industrial complex in the west is privately owned, which creates the perverse incentive for profit from war. Meanwhile, Russian military industry is predominantly state owned and operating it is a cost for the state.
cost for the s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶ people
Rich people get richer peasants get poorer, i don't see much difference.
The difference is pretty clear from the number of wars US and Russia have been involved in actually.
You don't have to chose one. Side with people and not with the rulers
Nowhere did I say that you have to choose one. Russia is a capitalist state that mirrors the west in many of the worst ways. However, it's a well documented fact that Russia did in fact try to avoid this war.
Although true. The root is that no super power likes another super power or its proxies on their borders. Russia does not and stated as such for decades. Hell, China literally helps fund the NK government and puts up with it, so it does not have SK, and its American bases on its south border. The USA put an embargo on Cuba for over 60 years because they put Russian weapons 90kms from Florida and Cuba would not capitulate. So much for the Cubans and the USA's hypocrisy to memory hole this fact.
Yet somehow many Americans are so blind to not understand that Russia does not want Ukraine as an USA puppet next to them, which they would be. They see it as a clear and present danger --whether others see it or care, does not matter-- just like how the USA saw Cuba. I think we can all agree that Putin is a despot but to not see and understand of just how obvious Super power Geopolitics works or only see the one side of the issue because it is convinient is quite the statement on USA propaganda and the ongoing push for expanding of the Monroe Doctrine as status quo. Operation Condor comes to mind.
Super powers actually care little about smaller countries if they so not fit or push their specific geopolitical interests. No exceptions. Despite the real loses of human life, to the American government the Russia/Ukraine conflict is a but proxy war meant to weaken Russia for its own geopolitical goals. Some politicians stated as such already, despite the previous humanitarian PR. Calling any of this so-called Russia propanda as a way of side stepping by some, does not make it any less correct. Sadly.
Everything except building trust, it seems.
And who said anything about not achieving objectives? Unless the objective is to get people, both Russians and Ukrainians killed, I guess.
"Building trust" is an abstraction that covers many many activities. The fact that Russia did many things that could have built trust but didn't is completely lost on you, so you have no ability to question WHY trust wasn't built as a result of the actions taken. Because if you DID question why, you would see that Ukraine's transition to a right-wing Euro-centric government entailed it being Russophobic and part of the European project to dominate Russia.
Building trust from whom, pretty much everybody outside west is on Russia's side:
The global majority understands why this war happened and the role the west played in creating the conditions for the war, as well as the role it plays in perpetuating it today.
The objective is to ensure that Ukraine never becomes a threat to Russia and that NATO expansion stops. that's the objective that is being achieved.
Quite a lot of non-western countries on that list, including the global south.
And yet as links I provided clearly show vast majority of the global south supports Russia. You keep on coping though.
Your links actualy don't show that the "vast majority" spports Russia. And the reason is simple: because they don't. As can also clearly be seen in e.g. UN votes: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/24/un-tells-russia-to-leave-ukraine-how-did-countries-vote.
I see reading comprehension isn't your strong point, but that should be no surprise at this point.
These findings have caused some surprise and even anger in the West. It’s difficult for Western thought leaders to comprehend that two-thirds of the world’s population is just not lining up with the West in this conflict. However, I believe there are five reasons why the Global South is not taking the West’s side. I discuss these reasons in the short essay below.
Over the past year the number of countries actively condemning Russia has fallen from 131 to 122, as some emerging economies have shifted to a neutral position. This US- and EU-led bloc, which represents about 36% of the global population, has exhibited a strong level of collaboration on sanctions, as well as solid military and economic support to Ukraine.
U.S. officials point out that 141 of 193 countries at the United Nations voted to condemn Russia after the invasion and that 143 voted in October to censure the Kremlin’s announced annexation of parts of Ukraine. But only 33 countries have imposed sanctions on Russia, and a similar number are sending lethal aid to Ukraine.
The reality of the situation is that the west finds itself completely isolated.
that NATO expansion stops. that’s the objective that is being achieved.
Remind me again how many member states NATO had before the invasion, and how many it has now?
Sweden and Finnland, both already being de facto NATO members beforehand... You're not too informed baout this international politic thingy, aren't you?
There is no such thing as "de facto" NATO member. There are NATO partners, which certainly is not at all the same thing. There was essentially no chance of either country joining NATO as the local support was low. Until Russia invaded Ukraine.
Buddy, if some organisation exists that has members, there will always exist "de facto" members (ones that support the organisation to a large extent, but are not also de jure members), de jure members (members that don't do anything) and both (the rest).
The organisation can make PR about how it has "partners" and the like, but that does not change a thing.
Why would anyome become the member of anything if you can just be a "de facto" member snd freeload? Why did so many things change, including e.g the signing of DCAs after becoming a member if it somehow does not matter?
NATO does not care too much about non-members, as can be seen by e.g. the non-support for Ukraine. NATO is not a charity. NATO look after itself and its own interests., not the interests of some nebulous "de facto" members that in reality does not exist. This is also why the Finns and Swedes changed their minds about NATO (going from overwhelmingly negative to overwhelmingly positive) so quickly: they realized that being a "de facto" member means nothing. Not even being a NATO partner means much. The only thing that matters is actual membership. Russia managed to show that very clearly, and Finland and Sweden got the message.
The question is which states, but having no clue regarding the subject you're opining on it's not surprising that you wouldn't understand that. Maybe if you spent your time actually learning things instead of trolling then you'd understand the strategic importance of Ukraine. Maybe go read up on WW2 sometime and see which path the nazis took to Russia then.
Russia was building trust for years beforehand. Putin spoke twice in the Bundestag for example, the goal was a free trade zone from Lisabon to Wladiwostok. Russia also asked to join NATO. It got declined both times. Even when the coup happened in Ukraine, Russia attempted multiple diplomatic initiatives to deescalate the situation.
Do you know who always escalated? Who was always pushing for conflict? Hint: It wasn't Russia.
what does this reply have to do with the article or the admission contained therein besides having vaguely associated topic metadata tags, you bot?
Really, the takeaway here is: “who gives a shit?”
When they say “undermined peace talks” they mean “supported Ukraine so they had an option other than unconditional surrender.”
We’re supposed to believe that after Putin got what he wanted in 2014 that he’ll just stop after he gets what he wants this time?
No.
Fuck Russia, fuck Putin, and fuck these bootlickers trying to frame Russia as anything other than authoritarian.