26. November 2023

Deutsch­spra­chi­ger Medien!

Ist das genial!

Wir von den deutsch­spra­chi­gen Medi­en wis­sen ja nicht was im Ver­trag steht.
Wir von den deutsch­spra­chi­gen Medi­en wis­sen ja nicht was das über­haupt soll.
Wir von den deutsch­spra­chi­gen Medi­en haben ja nur die letz­te Sei­te gesehen.
Gut da gabs Trup­pen­auf­stel­lun­gen, aber das kann ja alles bedeuten.
Und wenn wir das regie­rungs­fi­nan­zier­te DW sind, ver­ges­sen wir damals im Bei­trag schon mal über­haupt zu erwäh­nen, was Putin da in die Kame­ra hält. Auch wenn wirs fast 15 Sekun­den lang zeigen…

Enter Ukrain­s­ka Pravda:

Head of Ukraine’s lea­ding par­ty claims Rus­sia pro­po­sed “peace” in exchan­ge for neutrality

Davyd Arak­ha­mi­ia, lea­der of the Ser­vant of the Peop­le fac­tion who led the Ukrai­ni­an dele­ga­ti­on at “peace” talks with the Rus­si­ans in Bela­rus and Tür­ki­ye in 2022, said that the Rus­si­an dele­ga­ti­on pro­mi­sed Kyiv peace in exchan­ge for refu­sing to join NATO, but the Ukrai­ni­ans did not belie­ve them. 

src: click

Thats the fluff version.

Here is the in depth one:

[Auto gene­ra­ted sub­tit­les trans­la­ted by you­tube and ChatGPT 3.5 - both used to crea­te the final ver­si­on of this transcript.]

Nata­li­ia Mosei­chuk: What were they wil­ling to do if they lea­ve all the­se things here… 

Davyd Arak­ha­mi­ia: We need to under­stand, in words they were wil­ling to do a lot of things in words we unders­tood, that ever­yo­ne has their own game, each side has their own game, well so this game direct­ly depen­deds on suc­ces­ses or fail­u­res on the front. Well in words they said that - ever­ything. We are going home whe­re you were, the­re - take it all and then in detail, that we will wait until you accept ever­ything, becau­se we can under­stand how you act. You will sign some­thing and then we will lea­ve, you will say that it is a shame­ful mat­ter and do not­hing - and they always bla­med you for not ful­fil­ling this Minsk agree­ment. You signed and rati­fied it, but you don’t imple­ment it and des­pi­te the pre­sence of inter­na­tio­nal gua­ran­tees, it does­n’t work so we can talk to you, but only when tanks are stan­ding out­side the par­lia­ment. Conditionally.

Nata­li­ia Mosei­chuk: And look, Putin show­ed a docu­ment - and during the nego­tia­ti­ons with the Afri­can dele­ga­ti­on, he demons­tra­ted it, clai­ming that it was a draft of a peace­ful agree­ment with Ukrai­ne. And sup­po­sed­ly, this docu­ment was crea­ted in Istan­bul. This docu­ment was cal­led the agree­ment on Ukraine’s per­ma­nent neu­tra­li­ty and secu­ri­ty gua­ran­tees. Putin said that the­re were 18 arti­cles, and I quo­te “ever­ything was spe­ci­fied, from mili­ta­ry equip­ment to the per­son­nel of the Ukrai­ni­an armed for­ces”. He said that the­re was the signa­tu­re of the head of the dele­ga­ti­on, so Putin clai­med. Why did­n’t he make this docu­ment public? 

Davyd Arak­ha­mi­ia: You paid atten­ti­on. [GERMAN SPEAKING MEDIA ANYONE? SOMEONE WANT TO PITCH IN HERE? MAYBE?] Why do you think that if he had the docu­ment, he would have made it public? 

Nata­li­ia Mosei­chuk: The goal of the Ukrai­ni­an dele­ga­ti­on was to delay the pro­cess, while the goal of the Rus­si­an dele­ga­ti­on was…?

Davyd Arak­ha­mi­ia: The goal of the Rus­si­an dele­ga­ti­on in my opi­ni­on was to show that they real­ly, real­ly hoped until almost the end that they would pres­su­re us to sign the agree­ment so that we would take neu­tra­li­ty. This was the big­gest thing for them, for them to be rea­dy to end the war. If we, let’s take Fin­land as an examp­le, they once had neu­tra­li­ty and made a com­mit­ment that they will not join NATO. Except for one point, well actual­ly the key point was this -- ever­ything else the­re was cos­me­tic poli­ti­cal sea­so­nings like den­azi­fi­ca­ti­on of the Russian-speaking popu­la­ti­on and blah-blah-blah.

Nata­li­ia Mosei­chuk: Why did Ukrai­ne not agree to this point?

Davyd Arak­ha­mi­ia: Well first of all in order to agree to this point, you need to chan­ge the con­sti­tu­ti­on, our path to NATO is writ­ten in the Con­sti­tu­ti­on. Second­ly the­re is no trust and the­re was no trust that the Rus­si­ans would do it. This could only be done if the­re were secu­ri­ty gua­ran­tees. [Nafta­li Ben­nett saw that dif­fer­ent­ly.] Well, we could­n’t just sign some­thing - and then they would have retrea­ted and ever­yo­ne would have taken a breath and then they would have come back more pre­pa­red - becau­se they actual­ly ent­e­red unpre­pa­red [! ah, unpre­pa­red AND unpro­vo­ked! Gre­at!], yes, to such resis­tance. The­re­fo­re this could only work when the­re is a hund­red per­cent cer­tain­ty, that this will not hap­pen again. And the­re is no such cer­tain­ty anymore.

Moreo­ver, when we retur­ned from Istan­bul, Boris John­son came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all and “let’s just fight”.

Nata­li­ia Mosei­chuk: Am I under­stan­ding cor­rect­ly that the arri­val of Boris John­son was like a fire truck that flew in alrea­dy? When I say this - its com­ing not from mys­elf, I say it on behalf of tho­se peop­le who are cur­r­ent­ly oppo­sing the poli­ti­cal power in Ukrai­ne, from inter­nal peop­le who said that you could alrea­dy have signed the­se treache­rous agree­ments on the neu­tral sta­tus of Ukrai­ne, but as soon as John­son arri­ved, he said “no agree­ments at all”?

Davyd Arak­ha­mi­ia: Thats what only peop­le who want to twist any event the­re say in poli­ti­cal [not audi­ble, but only one word] - in order for us to be able to sign, look - no, I could­n’t sign it, nor any mem­ber of the dele­ga­ti­on. We don’t even have the legal right to sign anything, right? So, it would only theo­re­ti­cal­ly be pos­si­ble, if the­re was a mee­ting bet­ween Zelen­sky and Putin, theo­re­ti­cal­ly sign some­thing after­wards. Then it would have to be rati­fied in par­lia­ment. So when peop­le say this, they are only say­ing it to an unpre­pa­red rea­der or view­er or listener.

Nata­li­ia Mosei­chuk: How much was this pro­cess, Bela­rus and Istan­bul, to what extent was this pro­cess influ­en­ced by Washing­ton, Lon­don, War­saw, by Berlin…

Davyd Arak­ha­mi­ia: Not at all. It was not con­trol­led, but it was done by agree­ment, so they unders­tood that we had a group immedia­te­ly crea­ted, a group of secu­ri­ty advi­sors of the­se coun­tries, our part­ners, but we gave them infor­ma­ti­on in a mea­su­red way - from a legal point of view, a litt­le bit of infor­ma­ti­on so that it would not spill out -- you see that ever­ything went dis­creet­ly, becau­se what we were doing was dosing it. So they knew ever­ything, espe­cial­ly when we were draf­ting some docu­ments, they had access to all docu­ments and we con­sul­ted with them of cour­se, becau­se we unders­tood that we could not win the war our­sel­ves so we defi­ni­te­ly need them. They were hap­py to con­sult with us and they actual­ly and advi­sed us not to go with any ephe­me­ral secu­ri­ty gua­ran­tees, that could not be given at that time at all, and they say, it’s just an attempt to somehow claim that we suc­cess­ful­ly accom­plis­hed it. I belie­ve that if on a ten-point sca­le, eight points, we defi­ni­te­ly suc­cee­ded. So we did it in such a way that they went with it, they rela­xed a litt­le, and then ever­ything shifted com­ple­te­ly in the mili­ta­ry direction.

Ah, what a reli­ef to hear that, isnt it?

REMEMBER THE IMPORTANCE OF BUTCHA?! Thats But­cher and not Buc­ca? Remem­ber when the BBC for­get to men­ti­on 1000 Rus­si­an sol­di­ers kil­led in their docu­men­ta­ry?

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das abso­lut gro­tesk und abar­tigst Allerletzte.

Dar­aus erge­ben sich min­des­tens fünf Lügen die alle deutsch­spra­chi­gen Qua­li­täts­me­di­en zu Kriegs­be­ginn pro­pa­giert haben. Nur damit wir uns verstehen.

Bonus: NATO at this sta­ge of cour­se was not invol­ved in no way at all, an’ this is NOT a pro­xy war:

Davyd Arak­ha­mi­ia: And he [Lukas­hen­ko] then said that we will not fight with Ukrai­ne, he said. He can’t. He honest­ly said, I can’t [not] allow them to use my infra­st­ruc­tu­re and not cross the bor­der of Ukrai­ne through Bela­rus, or launch mis­si­les, but I gua­ran­tee that no Bela­ru­si­an sol­dier will cross the bor­der of Ukrai­ne. We did­n’t belie­ve it and the­re were many pro­vo­ca­ti­ons that were thrown at us, some hea­vy ones said that dis­gui­sed Bela­ru­si­an sol­di­ers were figh­t­ing, but then -

Nata­li­ia Mosei­chuk: It was never confirmed. 

Davyd Arak­ha­mi­ia: Well, you have to give credit whe­re credit is due, the word of Gry­go­ro­vych still holds. He deman­ded some­thing from Ukrai­ne, he did­n’t demand anything at all, he offe­red his ser­vices as a media­tor. He then we agreed to meet at the Belarus-Ukraine bor­der, we agreed to meet in the Bia­lo­wie­za Forest, yes, he said, this is my Fazen­da or some­thing, he has hun­ting esta­tes the­re. And he says come the­re and we went. 

Well, the logistics were so dif­fi­cult. We went by train first to Poland, then from Poland we boar­ded the­se Black­hawk NATO heli­co­p­ters to a mili­ta­ry base in Bela­rus. It seems that it was one of only a few times when NATO heli­co­p­ters lan­ded on the ter­ri­to­ry of Bela­rus… And then trans­fer­red to Bela­ru­si­an mili­ta­ry heli­co­p­ters and then lan­ded there.

They were ner­vous, Lukas­hen­ko gave each mem­ber of the dele­ga­ti­on two or three body­guards. So the­re were three times more body­guards than negotiators.

The goal of the­se nego­tia­ti­ons was to crea­te a sen­se of suc­cess in the initi­al phase.

He said that you need to make them feel that they can talk to us. Becau­se if you remem­ber, in the first few mon­ths, the Rus­si­ans pushed the mes­sa­ge that the Zelen­sky government was ille­gi­ti­ma­te, after the Mai­dan, after the coup, and so on. And after the second Ses­si­on it seems Putin came out on TV and said that we reco­gni­ze Zelen­skys government as legi­ti­ma­te and we will nego­tia­te with it. 

Nata­li­ia Mosei­chuk: So this pha­se was successful. 

Davyd Arak­ha­mi­ia: Yeah, this was the first goal and the second goal was to buy time. So we were basi­cal­ly buil­ding a smokescreen.

Ah, the good old, board some polish NATO Black­hawks to fly into Bela­rus for your first dis­cus­sions with the Rus­si­an dele­ga­ti­on move.

Not a pro­xy war at all! NATO? What NATO? This was a logistics pro­blem, you see - one that only could be over­co­me by first riding into Poland, then boar­ding NATO black hawk heli­co­p­ters, and then…

Well, then the CIA and the MI6 had to crea­te their own depart­ments wit­hin the ukrai­ni­an secret sevice of cour­se. And then the Ukrai­ne had to crea­te a war con­sul­tancy panel fil­led with NATO experts to con­sult with, even befo­re any nego­tia­ti­ons, and then…

All of the mili­ta­ry equip­ment had to come from the west of cour­se.. But pro­xy war? Which pro­xy war?

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das abso­lut gro­tesk und abar­tigst Allerletzte.

edit: ChatGPT 3.5 trans­la­ted auto­ge­ne­ra­ted sub­tit­les, use them in com­bi­na­ti­on with the goog­le auto trans­la­ted ones to have a second trans­la­ted version:


Oh, and by the way - all of this is ukrai­ni­an “Lets not hold elec­tions this year! marketing.”

Why? Pre­sen­ta­ti­on, pre­sen­ta­ti­on, presentation.

Bildschirmfoto 2023 11 26 um 08 56 20
Lets inst­ruct a child to thumbs up:
Bildschirmfoto 2023 11 26 um 08 56 37
Bildschirmfoto 2023 11 26 um 08 56 47

Das ist was die Ukrai­ne zu Gesicht bekommt, wäh­rend der Stan­dard die Öster­rei­cher mit “größ­ter rus­si­scher Rake­ten­an­griff bis­her über­haupt” zuscheisst, damit sie mehr Geld geben.

Damit die Ukrai­ner dann auf den zwei­ten ein­ge­streu­ten Gesprächs­punkt [den im Intro gefea­tur­ten Haupt­ge­sprächs­punkt] bes­ser reagieren…

Bildschirmfoto 2023 11 26 um 08 57 36
Bildschirmfoto 2023 11 26 um 09 01 08
Bildschirmfoto 2023 11 26 um 09 01 15

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das abso­lut gro­tesk und abar­tigst Allerletzte.

edit: Es gibt aber natür­lich auch wie­der gute Nach­rich­ten. Am sel­ben Tag:

Kei­ne Angst, ist nur ZDF heu­te, die haben eine Tref­fer­quo­te von “auch ein blin­des Huhn.…”.

edit: Kon­text:

Hinterlasse eine Antwort