Just a normal wednesday conversation

12. Juni 2024

Mode­ra­tor: “Then there’s going to be next week in Switz­er­land this what’s cal­led a peace sum­mit. Russia’s not invi­ted. China’s not atten­ding. Is it, what how would you label it?”

Ana­sta­si­ya Shapoch­ki­na (Lec­tu­rer in geo­po­li­tics at Sci­ence Po and Pre­si­dent of Eas­tern Cir­cles): “First of all, this thing that’s - I think the peace sum­mit is desi­gned by the - as far as I under­stand - by the Ukrai­ni­an diplo­ma­tic estab­lish­ment as a, as as a way to regroup as many nati­ons as pos­si­ble behind the peace plan of Pre­si­dent Selen­skyj and it’s a way to also test the diplo­ma­tic effort of the last two and a half years, to see if Ukrai­ne can actual­ly gather as a sign of sup­port, inter­na­tio­nal sup­port, not just wes­tern part­ners but also as many as pos­si­ble part­ners from the glo­bal south and thus showing and making peop­le show --”

Mode­ra­tor: “As we’­re spea­king the Ukrai­ni­an pre­si­dent has taken a quick trip away from Euro­pe to Sau­di Ara­bia, he’s met with the Crown Prince there.” 

Ana­sta­si­ya Shapoch­ki­na: “Not very logi­cal, but exact­ly see, like in terms of geo­gra­phy - very logi­cal in terms of the peace pro­cess, exact­ly - becau­se of cour­se Sau­di Ara­bia as a cru­cial Regio­nal actor anti-iran actor, while Iran being ali­gned with Rus­sia, Sau­di Ara­bia is tra­di­tio­nal­ly ali­gned eit­her with the US or against against Iran, at least more recent­ly, and this is a cru­cial play­er who can influ­ence other coun­tries in the regi­on, becau­se what Ukrai­ne is aiming at at the peace Sum­mit is not just qua­li­ty but also quan­ti­ty and aiming to kind of make it as an alter­na­ti­ve to the UN Gene­ral Assem­bly Gathe­rings and votings whe­re Rus­sia is very hea­vi­ly pre­sent and influ­en­cing as an alter­na­ti­ve kind of gathe­ring - to show how, much sup­port it can actual­ly gar­ner and this is going to be a real test, I think - to Ukrai­ni­an diplo­ma­cy, real­ly just to show for it -- howe­ver of cour­se whe­ther about peace we’­re going to see any bre­akthroughs, I do not expect to see any actu­al bre­akthroughs about peace. It’s not about peace nego­tia­ti­ons it’s about the sup­port for Ukrai­ne, diplo­ma­tic sup­port and then behind diplo­ma­tic sup­port, coun­tries like Sau­di Ara­bia of cour­se can play a much grea­ter role about which I expect them to be more circumspect.”

Mode­ra­tor: “Eliza­beth Braw, uh Selen­skyj very bad­ly wan­ted Joe Biden to attend, it’s not going to hap­pen - ins­tead he’s going to send his vice pre­si­dent Kami­la Har­ris - why, why does he, why has Ukraine’s pre­si­dent inves­ted so much poli­ti­cal capi­tal in this uh sum­mit next week in Switzerland?”

Eliza­beth Braw: “Well as as was just said it’s it’s an effort to show that the coun­tries sup­por­ting Ukrai­ne in this war are not just Wes­tern coun­tries and and uh from my own expe­ri­ence for examp­le -- when I when I talk to Indian audi­en­ces I always hear, well you know the West should­n’t tell us what posi­ti­on to tell about, to to take on Ukrai­ne and we deci­de for our­sel­ves -- so it’s important for for Selen­skyj to be able to show that sup­port for Ukrai­ne is not just a wes­tern thing, it’s not just a wes­tern dic­ta­ted thing - and that real­ly mat­ters bey­ond diplo­ma­tic ges­tu­res, becau­se a num­ber of non-western coun­tries uh have essen­ti­al­ly remai­ned on the side­li­nes and while being on the side­li­nes, have also uh direct­ly or indi­rect­ly been sup­por­ting uh the Rus­si­an eco­no­my, by con­ti­nuing to to tra­de with Rus­sia -- becau­se they haven’t impo­sed sanc­tions they essen­ti­al­ly uh not only con­ti­nue to tra­de with Rus­sia but under­mi­ne Wes­tern sanc­tions and and they would say well it’s up to us whom we tra­de with but that uh essen­ti­al­ly, well it strength- streng­t­hens Rus­sia wea­kens Ukrai­ne even as their diplo­ma­tic pos­tu­re is that they are neu­tral, so that as many of the­se coun­tries as Selin­skyj can, can con­vin­ce to publicly side with Ukrai­ne in some fashion uh - the bet­ter it is for for for for Ukrai­ne in this war regard­less of the out­co­me of of any talks at at this peace sum­mit or any­whe­re else.”

Mode­ra­tor: “Gul­li­ver Gragg, Selen­skyj -- how’s it being felt whe­re you are, the the fact that he’s he’s gone off on you know for all the­se for all the­se sum­mi­try uh the uh..

Gul­li­ver Gragg: “The­re have been some oppo­si­ti­on voices cri­ti­ci­zing him for being away from the coun­try for such a long time, he was in Sin­g­a­po­re the Phil­ip­pi­nes and he came back for one day, then he went to Swe­den then of cour­se Fran­ce, Ger­ma­ny now the­se but the­se are all real­ly very important mee­tings, and I think that you know there’s a broad under­stan­ding um of what the idea of this so-called peace sum­mit um in Switz­er­land is, and I think even Ukrai­ni­ans who are cri­ti­cal of Selen­skyj and his team on a num­ber of issu­es, aren’t real­ly um sug­ges­ting that this isn’t fun­da­ment­al­ly a good idea - becau­se, clear­ly - the idea of brea­king the Rus­si­an Nar­ra­ti­ve of Rus­sia and the rest ver­sus uh the west - by showing that Ukraine’s got a lot of coun­tries from the rest of the world on its side as well - is, is not a bad idea in its­elf, but um the way things are going with the pre­pa­ra­ti­ons of it um it does­n’t look that good - I mean ear­lier ukrai­ni­ans were say­ing that if they had a hund­red coun­tries taking part they’d call it a suc­cess, and they were expec­ting at least Joe Biden to be the­re, they were expec­ting the Chi­ne­se to be repre­sen­ted albeit at a lower level -- the chi­ne­se aren’t com­ing they’­re, put­ting for­ward a dif­fe­rent pro­po­sal, Joe Biden’s not com­ing and it loo­ks like fal­ling well short of the um tar­get of 100 coun­tries so um - you know, we’ll see what hap­pen hap­pens in Switz­er­land um -- we’ll see whe­ther or not the­re is a final decla­ra­ti­on at the uh at the end of this sum­mit, I mean I think that if the­re is - the ukrai­ni­ans will feel that they’­ve got some­thing to work with going for­ward - if the­re isn’t, then some peop­le in Ukrai­ne may be say­ing that the Selen­skyj team mana­ged it bad­ly, and um flop­ped it.”

Mode­ra­tor “Selen­skyj has had the Midas touch sin­ce uh, at least on the world sta­ge uh sin­ce Febru­a­ry uh of 2022, but from what we’­ve just tal­ked about so far in this dis­cus­sion - Shi­na, this cabi­net shake up ahead of a big con­fe­rence, whe­re you’­re try­ing to con­vin­ce peop­le that you’­re a good coun­try to invest in. The fact that they’­re not going to get as many par­ti­ci­pants in this peace sum­mit next week as they would have lik­ed -- is Selen­skyj losing the magic the the midas touch?”

Eliza­beth Braw: “Yeah, I think that the­re is the­re kind of dif­fe­rent um ways of see­ing it right, we see this as this is what’s on the sur­face so to say this is the what’s, what’s going on now on the other hand when you fix a big tar­get and you announ­ce it -- that’s that loo­ks very good, but also it’s a tar­get for yourself, it means that even if you fall short of it - it may still be good for you, becau­se it depends who are the peop­le who are actual­ly going to show up, who would­n’t have shown up in the gene­ral assem­bly of the UN -- if the big regio­nal play­ers hea­vy weights like Sau­di Ara­bia are brought on board - etc, etc. I don’t know if the­re was a rea­listic expec­ta­ti­on that Biden is going to actual­ly again come to Euro­pe - In such a short time even given his phy­si­cal con­di­ti­on honestly -- ”

Gul­li­ver Gragg: “He has to be at the G7 right?
Aint it --”

Mode­ra­tor “Yeah, let’s talk about that. Befo­re Bür­gen­stock in Switz­er­land, there’s a G7 Sum­mit in Ita­ly uh he’s he’s alrea­dy boar­ded the Air For­ce One and he’s com­ing back to Europe!”

Eliza­beth Braw: “*inter­rup­t­ing* -- that did­n’t work, that did­n’t work at all, then then then they blew it - but but just to say that for me even if they fall short of the expec­ta­ti­on alrea­dy that we have to see how many peop­le do they mana­ge to g - to gar­ner and whe­ther whe­ther it’s going to be a suc­cess­ful exer­cise -- in gene­ral the exer­cise is a com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on exer­cise. Nobo­dy expects any result from the sum­mit, in sen­se of peace decisi­ons, some -- the decisi­ons about the pro­gress in the war, what’s going to hap­pen to the future, what’s going to hap­pen to secu­ri­ty of euro­pe --- it is inde­ed a pure­ly image-, com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on exer­cise and in that way - may­be would may­be -- it’s a mes­sa­ge in---including from by the US that - bet­ter con­cen­tra­te your efforts, on some­thing that can actual­ly yield results - like for examp­le recon­struc­tion mee­tings, or the uh the recon­struc­tion sum­mit in Ber­lin - or the Washing­ton Sum­mit hope­ful­ly - hope­ful­ly leads also results that’s the big one also, we for­got so…”

Mode­ra­tor “Eliza­beth Braw, did you hear that, there’s a fourth sum­mit - we did­n’t men­ti­on it yet it’s the NATO Sum­mit taking place uh actual­ly it’s due to begin the day after the second round of uh french legis­la­ti­ve elec­tions - we’ll know then if the far right’s in power or not in this coun­try, uh is that the big one?”

Eliza­beth Braw: “Well it is the big one as as far as NATO is con­cer­ned, but it’s not going, it’s not going to to lead any bre­akthroughs when it comes to the Ukrai­ne war and and sin­ce we are also dis­cus­sing peop­le who, who will not be at various Sum­mits -- the Washing­ton Sum­mit will be just a few days after the UK elec­tions, so it’s uh it’s who will par­ti­ci­pa­te from the UK government is is still shrou­ded in mys­te­ry - and we may not know until the day of of the sum­mit [doesnt mat­ter much all par­ties are pro Ukrai­ne] this day - the sum­mit begins who will repre­sent the UK but um the Washing­ton Sum­mit real­ly is about NATO its­elf and yes, the­re will be various uh over­tures to Ukrai­ne -- shows of sup­port, but this is about uh decisi­ons uh about NATO intern­al­ly how to to, how the alli­an­ce should be set up - it’s it’s much less about Ukrai­ne, but I think that the the - what has chan­ged in the­se past two years is that Selen­skyj has beco­me a regu­lar guest at various gathe­rings at which Ukrai­ne would not have been invi­ted to -- which Ukrai­ne would not have been invi­ted two and a half years ago, and he’s he’s invi­ted as essen­ti­al­ly as a star guest and a spe­cial guest uh and not as a full par­ti­ci­pant - but it’s it’s it is striking, becau­se Ukrai­ne is always the that addi­tio­nal guest that is invi­ted and and then when it comes to to Selen­skyj lo-- losing his midas touch, that was always going to hap­pen -- it was going to be uh tren­dy and and uh important, right -- at the begin­ning of the war for ever­y­bo­dy to to sup­port Ukrai­ne and they wan­ted to -- they felt very pas­sio­na­te­ly about it, it was always the case that, that pas­si­on was going to wane after a while and it has waned by the fact that he is con­ti­nuing the­se uh uh the­se con­stant visits to the West - is both a sign of the fact that he’s invi­ted to the west and other coun­tries, is both a sign of the fact that he’s still invi­ted -- still wel­co­me and of the fact that the­se coun­tries feel that is still the­re is, still a via­ble case for sup­por­ting Ukrai­ne - if they did­n’t think that was the­re was anything more they could do he would not be invited.”

Sum­ma­ry: “Whats he doing?” “Well, Idk - it seems like hes still get­ting sup­port, so let him.”

More Hanna Shelest

12. Juni 2024

More Andriy Zago­rod­nyuk (that guy)

Also more Kof­man, but yeah thats… nor­mal. Expected. 😉

edit: Also - I for­got how much of diplo­ma­cy at the “top level” is not­hing but an intel­lec­tu­al mar­vel… *rol­leyes*

And the pro­pa­gan­da game alrea­dy con­ti­nues, becau­se only nine hours after Andrij Jer­mak sta­ted, that rus­sia would be invi­ted to the next peace sum­mit, the ukrai­ni­an ambassa­dor to Esto­nia is alrea­dy back­tracking on that state­ment. I in the video abo­ve at around 16:30 min in - he sta­tes, that rus­sia could may­be be invi­ted to the next ukrai­ni­an peace (for­mua­la) sum­mit, but only if rus­sia would “agree on the frame­work of this nego­tia­ti­on pro­cess”, which still con­tains - “rus­sia lea­ves Ukrai­ne ent­i­re­ly”, “rus­sia pays repa­ra­ti­ons, “peop­le reson­si­ble for warcri­mes get punis­hed by inter­na­tio­nal law tri­bu­nals” - becau­se the frame­work still is the 10 point peace formula.

This is so fuck­ing stu­pid and hideous.

Befo­re we can sit tog­e­ther to talk about peace, you have to accept defeat.

Of cour­se, if you screen the Car­ne­gie Endow­ment video up top -- the mes­sa­ge of the actu­al peop­le respon­si­ble for signa­ling ukrai­ni­an action to public insti­tu­ti­ons in the wes­tern world, are deli­vering you pro­lon­ged war scenarios.

Also - accord­ing to Masym Kono­nen­ko abo­ve, the Ukrai­ni­an peace sum­mit also has a new tag­li­ne, which is “If you want peace, you have to pre­pa­re for war.” It is true! (Always lik­ed that phra­sing of ukrai­ni­an offi­cials. I did.)

So - as always:

Pro­pa­gan­da hat natür­lich wie­der nie­mand entdeckt.

Must be hard to always pick liars…

12. Juni 2024

… to edu­ca­te your paying stu­dents. (Well, its their par­ents that are paying, so…)

First: Vasyl Khymy­nets (Ambassa­dor of Ukrai­ne to the Repu­blic of Austria)

At 14 min in:

We dont decli­ne a poli­ti­cal pro­cess. And this poli­ti­cal pro­cess envi­sa­ges envol­ve­ment of the ent­i­re world. So far, it deals not only with the war in Ukrai­ne, it deals with the chal­len­ge for glo­bal secu­ri­ty archi­tec­tu­re. This archi­tec­tu­re is to be based on princi­ples and rules. We dont invent not­hing new! [with the 10 point Selen­skyj peace formula]” 

*cough**cough**cough**coughingfit*

From a time when the peace for­mu­la still con­tai­ned 5 points (Selen­skyj spe­ci­fies them in the Gene­ral Deba­te of the 77th ses­si­on of the UN Gene­ral Assem­bly), which were then expan­ded to ten so that three less pro­ble­ma­tic ones can now be nego­tia­ted in Bür­gen­stock in order to - as NHK Japan sta­tes so beau­ti­ful­ly - “Ukrai­ni­an Pre­si­dent Volo­dym­yr Zelen­skyy expects the peace sum­mit to be a frame­work that will give his coun­try an upper hand in ending the war.” - so from that time, the first five points of Selenskyj’s peace for­mu­la, reci­ted by Selen­skyj hims­elf in the form of a pure hate tira­de (and yes, I’m far from joking - ):

(For your under­stan­ding, the­se points still remain part of Selensky’s peace for­mu­la as of today. Its just that no one wants to touch them:

It [the first draft of the joint state­ment for the end of the Bür­gen­stock sum­mit] falls short of men­tio­ning the with­dra­wal of Rus­si­an for­ces from Ukrai­ne and the res­to­ra­ti­on of Ukraine’s ter­ri­to­ri­al inte­gri­ty [both being inte­gral points in Selen­sky­js 10 point peace formula].

[…]

Diplo­ma­tic sources say that the with­dra­wal of Rus­si­an tro­ops AND OTHER THINGS THAT UKRAINE HAVE BEEN CALLING FOR were drop­ped from the draft becau­se it took into con­si­de­ra­ti­on some emer­ging nati­ons in Asia and Midd­le East that main­tain ties with Russia.

(NHK Japan, 11th of June 2024))

Selen­sky­js Friedensformel

Vasyl Khymy­nets (Ambassa­dor of Ukrai­ne to the Repu­blic of Aus­tria) bei 19 min in:

Last but not least, why was rus­sia not invi­ted? The ans­wer is obvious, becau­se it is an aggres­sor, inter­na­tio­nal­ly reco­gni­zed. Becau­se rus­sia is boy­cot­ting and thwar­ting all con­struc­ti­ve endea­vours. We can wit­ness it in the UN and other inter­na­tio­nal orga­niz­a­ti­ons. [Yeah, may­be also look at the US in the secu­ri­ty coun­cil, once in a while - just may­be… US hono­r­able guest of se peace for­mu­la sum­mit of cour­se.]. A glo­bal sum­mit doesnt need boy­cot­ting an quir­rels. A sum­mit needs con­struc­ti­ve dis­cus­sion for glo­bal peace and secu­ri­ty in the future. Dear Friends, I can assu­re you, the sum­mit will take place defi­ni­te­ly. As of today the­re are more than 100 coun­tries [80 actual­ly (as of the 10th of june 2024) - see press con­fe­rence that I’m refe­ring to below] wil­ling to par­ti­ci­pa­te and it will bring tan­gi­ble outcomes.”

Whe­re to begin.… Do we have a Ukrai­ni­an NGO offi­cial that refu­tes both of this points in a two minu­te state­ment, in an inter­view with Fran­ce 24? Well yes we do…

Fran­ce 24, May 13th 2024:

39:33 in this Video:

Mode­ra­tor: A mon­th from now the Posh Swiss Resort of Ber­gen­stock is due to host a peace con­fe­rence for Ukrai­ne 160 Nati­ons uh invi­ted uh what’s going to be the idea, Han­na Shelest?

Han­na She­lest: Of that uh of that at a time when uh we tal­ked ear­lier in our con­ver­sa­ti­on about the chal­len­ges Ukrai­ne faces in this War uh what what are you expec­ting from uh from this con­fe­rence next mon­th this con­fe­rence is not about the peace in Ukrai­ne it is much big­ger becau­se it is about the peace for­mu­la whe­re 10 points are ever­ything from the uh ter­ri­to­ri­al Inte­gri­ty to the Jus­ti­ce to food secu­ri­ty and nuclear secu­ri­ty tho­se ques­ti­ons that the Rus­si­an aggres­si­on against Ukrai­ne rai­sed and demons­tra­ted that the cur­rent un sys­tem is defi­ni­te­ly fai­led in many ques­ti­ons that’s why Ukrai­ne mana­ged to gather so many Nati­ons for the pre­vious like in Mal­ta the­re were more than 80 coun­tries pre­sen­ted becau­se they’­re try­ing to set a cer­tain may­be not new rules but at least to under­stand what to do when the nuclear uh Power for examp­le is threa­tening non-nuclear power 

Mode­ra­tor: So wait, this is not at all going to be about figu­ring out a way to end fighting?

Han­na She­lest: No, this is first of all about set­ting the posi­ti­on of the Civi­li­zed world against Rus­sia, so if we would return back to the second world War that’s some­thing like a tech run con­fe­rence, whe­re the Nati­ons star­ted to think how they will live after the war - what should be done, yes the­re are some ques­ti­ons that are respon­ding to the time­ly… like for examp­le return of kid­nap­ped kids the­re are more than 20,000 of them kid­nap­ped by Rus­sia but still uh a lot of of the ques­ti­ons dis­cus­sed that is about how the world and Euro­pe should look after the hos­ti­li­ties are over what are you expecting.

Dr. Han­na She­lest is the Secu­ri­ty Stu­dies Pro­gram Direc­tor Editor-in-Chief of UA: Ukrai­ne Ana­ly­ti­ca and Head of the Board of the NGO “Pro­mo­ti­on of Inter­cul­tu­ral Coope­ra­ti­on”. *cough**cough*

But that might be a litt­le thin… Do we have more peop­le refu­ting the­se points? Well yes of cour­se we do…

Fran­ce 24 again dif­fe­rent Panel from 29th of May, 2024 at 34:40 min. in:

Fran­ce 24’s Gul­li­ver Cragg [Bri­tish Jour­na­list, Cor­re­spon­dent for Fran­ce 24 in Kyiv, Ukrai­ne, also covering Poland, Bela­rus & Hun­ga­ry.] am 29. Mai 2024:

Gul­li­ver Cragg: [It’s abso­lute­ly not clear that Joe Biden will attend that sum­mit I think the latest signals from the United Sta­tes were more um along the lines of repre­sen­ta­ti­on at a lower level than the pre­si­dent -- a lot of heads of sta­te though in Euro­pe in par­ti­cu­lar, heads of government, have said that they will attend.] Let’s be clear, it’s not real­ly a peace Sum­mit the ukrai­ni­ans are cal­ling it a peace sum­mit - and they’­ve got an argu­ment for cal­ling it that becau­se, basi­cal­ly they think the­re will never be real peace unless we get the Rus­si­ans to with­draw from our ter­ri­to­ry and they want to get as many coun­tries as pos­si­ble on board with more or less that line. I think that the­re will be nego­tia­ti­ons at this sum­mit and the final com­mu­ni­que might be some­thing rather dif­fe­rent, but it’s about uh Ukrai­ne showing how many coun­tries in the world sup­port its sum­mit and that’s why it’s cru­cial­ly important - real­ly for its most important ally the United Sta­tes to be repre­sen­ted at a high level but unfor­tu­n­a­te­ly I’m not sure that it loo­ks like happening.

And a litt­le later, same source:

Gul­li­ver Cragg: With Ukrai­ne uh I mean it does­n’t look like in in a way on the sur­face of things it does­n’t look like a gre­at idea for Ukrai­ne to hold this sum­mit and call it a peace sum­mit and then you know - be disap­poin­ted by not having as as many peop­le atten­ded as they kind of - build it as, but …

Mode­ra­tor: That said, Gul­li­ver, if I may Gul­li­ver, Vlo­di­mir Zel­sen­skyy is going to have a chan­ce to make his pitch in per­son next week, he’s been invi­ted to com­me­mo­ra­ti­ons of D-Day that Joe Biden will be attending - 

Gul­li­ver Cragg: Yes and by the way the­re are a lot of rumors in Ukrai­ne at the moment that um some­thing will be announ­ced about um French Ukrai­ni­an uh coope­ra­ti­on mee­ting in Nor­man­dy [Fran­zö­sisch Ukrai­ni­sches Sicher­heits­ab­kom­men inco­m­ing!], but just going back to the sum­mit in Switz­er­land - some peop­le are still arguing that it’s actual­ly a pret­ty cle­ver um you know trick [!!!] on the behalf of the Ukrai­ni­an diplo­ma­cy [!] to basi­cal­ly have a peace plan that’s cur­r­ent­ly being labe­led the Zelin­skyy for­mu­la which he actual­ly out­lined in late 2022 - you know, which is basi­cal­ly “peace can only be achie­ved if the Rus­si­ans pull all their for­ces out of Ukrai­ne” for that sort of plan that Ukraine’s allies have signed up to being no lon­ger the Zelin­skyy for­mu­la - but a for­mu­la that has as many coun­tries as pos­si­ble have signed up to and it’s a way of sort of sho­ring up their alli­an­ces and making their case which is - you know des­pi­te ever­ything uh that uh that Geor­ge [?] has been say­ing you know, is is that it’s hard to ima­gi­ne any kind of peace - if Ukrai­ne does­n’t win this war, des­pi­te the fact that it loo­ks so hard for that to be achie­ved at the cur­rent sta­te of things.

src: click

Also: NHK Japan yes­ter­day on “this sum­mit will pro­du­ce tan­gi­ble outcomes”:

Cant tell that to the public…

Also, on why Rus­sia wasnt invi­ted, Andrii Yer­mak (Head of the Office of the Pre­si­dent of Ukrai­ne) at the Vic­tor Pin­chuk Foun­da­ti­on finan­ced Yes Con­fe­rence on the 10th of Sep­tem­ber 2023, at 14 min. in:

Fareed Zaka­ria: “At what point does someo­ne have to enga­ge with the rus­si­ans in this pro­cess? You said Sau­di Ara­bia [pre­vious host of Pre­si­dent Selen­skyj glo­rious peace sum­mit (third or forth, befo­re the one in Bür­gen­stock was reframed as “the first one” of cour­se - more on that later…)] was hel­pful in the pri­so­ner exchan­ge, becau­se they have good rela­ti­ons with rus­sia. Do you need other such inter­me­di­a­ries to act to s- Becau­se at some point the rus­si­ans have to be invol­ved to pro­du­ce a sei­ze fire, to pro­du­ce some of tho­se goals [refers to goals in Selen­sky­js by then 10 point peace formula]”

Andrii Yer­mak: “No, Fareed, I dont belie­ve in media­ti­on. Its enough media­ti­on in our past histo­ry. It’s not work. In what I belie­ve. I belie­ve first of all, and now I posi­ti­on strong an very clear that - we’­re not just thin­king about any nego­tia­ti­ons, till the last Rus­si­an sol­di­ers in our land. But the peace­ful for­mu­la! It’s built in such a way, it’s 10 points - and the last points is a theo­re­ti­cal con­fir­ma­ti­on of the end of the war - but befo­re it’s necessa­ry to make uh the -- this very hard job, by each nine points which you can see and lis­ten and of cour­se in the last - the second peace­ful sum­mit after [the geni­us that is Andrii Yer­mak try­ing to say “second to last” - what a geni­us] when we can be able to rea­li­ze ever­ything which descri­bed in nine points [befo­re] -- yes of cour­se [then] it will be some pos­si­bi­li­ty to meet [Rus­sia] and to meet not just bet­ween Rus­sia and Ukrai­ne [but] to meet this all coun­tries who will be par­ti­ci­pa­te who will be the guar­di­ans on this way -- who will be gua­ran­tors that we are juri­di­cal­ly fixed, that this war it’s ended Ukrai­ne [gets] back all our ter­ri­to­ry. Ukrai­ne recei­ved all the com­pen­sa­ti­on for all the­se dama­ges and all the­se peop­le who is made the­se cri­mes who will recei­ved full responsibility!”

Fareed Zaka­ria: “Uhm. [*fal­ling off the chair*]”

[Applau­se]

And on the via­bi­li­ty of the four points Andrii Yer­mak (Head of the Office of the Pre­si­dent of Ukrai­ne) men­ti­ons last - plea­se refer back to:

NHK Japan yes­ter­day on “will this sum­mit pro­du­ce tan­gi­ble outcomes?”.

But ok…

So far the Diplo­ma­ti­sche Aka­de­mie Wien, only fea­tured one liar -- can we make this two wit­hin the same panel?

Well of cour­se we can!

Must be tough to book so many liars - does the Öster­rei­chisch Ame­ri­ka­ni­sche Gesell­schaft help with the booking?

Enter: Guna Japi­na (Ambassa­dor of Lat­via to the Repu­blic of Austria)

at 01:06:00 in:

Guna Japi­na: “Yeah… About nego­tia­ti­ons with rus­sia, sor­ry, but what would you like to nego­tia­te about [Peace(summit)?] with rus­sia right now, at this par­ti­cu­lar sta­ge. Yes. Yes. And may­be may I rephra­se your ques­ti­on in my under­stan­ding: “Why is rus­sia not the­re in Bür­gen­stock?” Becau­se rus­sia did not want to be in Bür­gen­stock. Yeah! And this is actual­ly a very clear posi­ti­on. What is the atti­tu­de of the aggres­sor in this par­ti­cu­lar sta­ge [not the second to last Selen­skyj Peace For­mu­la sum­mit - not qui­te yet, …]?”

Well… Who should pro­per Jour­na­lists ask about this, if not the (com­ple­te­ly lying) Ambassa­dor of Lat­via, that the Diplo­ma­ti­sche Aka­de­mie Wien just had to invi­te, onto the same panel as the Ukra­ni­an Ambassa­dor to Aus­tria that was lying to the atten­de­es in the Öster­rei­chis­he Diplo­ma­ti­sche Aka­de­mie before?

Well… Cer­tain­ly not to the Ukrai­ni­an Ambassa­dor to Ger­ma­ny, when spea­king to the ZDF on April the 18th…

Deut­scher Bot­schaf­ter der Ukrai­ne Olek­sij Make­jew am 18. April 2024 bei ZDF heu­te Live, bei 35:30 in:

Bot­schaf­ter der Ukrai­ne in Deutsch­land, Olek­sij Make­jew: “Wir haben es klar gemacht dass die­se, die­se ers­te Run­de nicht zusam­men mit Russ­land geführt wird damit wir auch eine star­ke Unter­stüt­zung von Part­ner bekom­men. Eigent­lich um die­sen Krieg zu been­den braucht man nur das rus­si­sche Wort und das Han­deln. Russ­land kann die­sen Krieg stop­pen in dem Russ­land ihre Kräf­te von den besitz­ten Gebie­ten zurück­zieht und hört auf uns täg­lich zu beschie­ßen, aber lei­der kommt die­ses das Recht der Ukrai­ne auf Exis­tenz wird von von rus­si­scher Füh­rung und rus­si­sche Bevöl­ke­rung über­haupt nicht aner­kannt. Russ­land will uns als Nati­on ver­nich­ten und da kön­nen wir nur kön­nen wir uns nur wehren.“

src: click

Becau­se, as we know by now - ambassa­dors lie. All the time.

So whom to ask… Hm.…

Enter:

VBS DDPS Pres­se­kon­fe­renz zum Frie­den in der Ukrai­ne: Stand der Vor­be­rei­tun­gen und Sicher­heits­vor­keh­run­gen (10th of June 2024)

At 34:40 min in:

PK Spre­cher: “Herr Binner”

David Bin­ner: “Ja, David Bin­ner, NZZ. Prä­si­dent Selenskjy hat eine Betei­li­gung Russ­lands von Beginn an eigent­lich impli­zit aus­ge­schlos­sen. Nach­dem er hier war, hat er ja gesagt, dass er nur Län­der dabei haben möch­te, die die Sou­ve­rä­ni­tät der Ukrai­ne auch respek­tie­ren. Mei­ne Fra­ge wäre -- haben sie das, also den Ein­be­zug Russ­lands auch über die mitt­le­re Frist, haben sie das mit ihm bespro­chen, als er - als er hier war - und wenn ja, was war da der Plan?

Igna­zio Cas­sis: “Ja, dan­ke. Der ers­te Regie­rungs­ver­tre­ter mit dem ich nach dem Besuch Prä­si­dent Selen­skyj in Bern gespro­chen habe, war der Außen­mi­nis­ter Russ­land Ser­gei Lav­rov am 19 Janu­ar in New York - und das war bewusst so gewollt von mir. Und ich habe dar­über natür­lich Prä­si­dent Selenskjy eine Woche vor­her hier in Bern infor­miert - und ich habe ihm auch ganz klar gesagt, dass ein Frie­dens­pro­zess nur unter Betei­li­gung der invol­vier­ten Par­tei­en geht. Das sieht er auch. Grund­sätz­lich ist die Posi­ti­on die ich in jenen Moment und das muss man gut beto­nen bekom­men habe war - es wird ein inklu­si­ver Pro­zess, aber nicht zur Stun­de Null [AT THAT STAGE, AT THAT STAGE, AT THAT STAGE, AT THAT STAGE, AT THAT STAGE - sor­ry the record got stuck, five times alrea­dy…] wir müs­sen es star­ten [as the fifth coun­try hol­ding a Selen­sky peace for­mu­la sum­mit?] und dann schau­en wir auf den Weg viel­leicht bei einer zwei­te Kon­fe­renz in einem ande­re Land, das mög­lich sei. Ich sage das in jenen Moment, weil auch die­se Posi­tio­nie­rung schwankt, über die Zeit, äh von allen Sei­ten. [FRIEDENSKONFERENZ!] Des­halb ist die Nichtt­ein­la­dung Russ­land [!] eine Kom­bi­na­ti­on von zwei Ele­men­ten. Auf die eine Sei­te die Kün­di­gung, die kla­re Stel­lung­nah­me Russ­land, bevor über­haupt die Ein­la­dun­gen aus­ge­sandt wor­den [Janu­a­ry 19th!] wir wer­den nicht teil­neh­men, wir sind nicht inter­es­siert - wir wol­len nicht ein­ge­la­den wer­den [more on that later, the­re was a rea­son given…] und auf die ande­re Sei­te die Posi­tio­nie­rung Ukrai­ne wir sind nicht bereit zur Stun­de Null Russ­land am Bord zu haben. [Fifth such Peace For­mu­la Con­fe­rence… *cough**cough*] ähm, in die­sem Span­nungs­feld fand unse­res Reaching Out Akti­on und wir haben selbst­ver­ständ­lich nicht allei­ne und eigen­stän­dig ver­sucht Ein­fluss zu haben, auf die zwei Par­tei­en, son­dern durch die Mit­hil­fe und Unter­stüt­zung wich­ti­ger und mäch­ti­ger Län­dern der Welt - und trotz­dem ist für die Stun­de Null die Rech­nung nicht auf­ge­gan­gen. Noch nicht. Wir haben gesagt wir kämp­fen bis am Vor­abend der Kon­fe­renz, aber heu­te ist - sieht es so aus, dass, dass es so sein wird.”

At 47min in:

PK Spre­cher: “Herr Ste­fan Lanz, 20 Minu­ten [Sen­de­for­mat heißt so].”

Ste­fan Lanz: “Viel­leicht wur­de ein Teil mei­ner Fra­ge schon in Fran­zö­sisch oder Ita­lie­nisch beant­wor­tet dar­um viel­leicht noch mal für dum­mies, hät­te nicht die Schweiz ein­fach Russ­land ein­la­den müs­sen, damit dann Russ­land in der Ver­ant­wor­tung gewe­sen wäre abzu­leh­nen und nicht zu kom­men. Wäre das diplo­ma­tisch nicht geschick­ter gewe­sen, vielleicht? 

Igna­zio Cas­sis: “Ja dan­ke für die Fra­ge, tat­säch­lich, die die die die [thats a four­count of “die”] Gemü­ter natür­lich bewegt und ich ver­ste­he es auch. Es hat auch unse­re bewegt für für für [thats a three count on “für”] wochen­lang bis wir einen Ent­scheid getrof­fen haben. Ja das wäre eine Mög­lich­keit natür­lich - nur das Pro­blem ist, dass die Ableh­nung Russ­land bereits im Vor­feld bereits die bevor die Ein­la­dun­gen aus­ge­sandt wur­den und das man­gel­ne Inter­es­se das der Außen­mi­nis­ter Lav­rov mir sel­ber sag­te, in Janu­ar, in dem er er mein­te, es sei ohne­hin eine pro-ukrainische Ver­an­stal­tung und nicht einen äh genui­nen Ver­such einen Frie­dens­pro­zess auf­zu­glei­sen [NEIN! Dazu viel­leicht noch Kurz der Stan­dard vom 10.06.20024: “Es ist zwar das ers­te der­ar­tig hoch­ran­gi­ge inter­na­tio­na­le Tref­fen zum The­ma Frie­den in der Ukrai­ne, aber es geht nicht um Frie­dens­ver­hand­lun­gen.”] das hät­ten wir dann natür­lich eine Ableh­nung Russ­land erwar­ten kön­nen [SO THEY DINDT ASK. Ah. Aha. Oh. Uh. Eh.. Aaah.] Oder? [Got to love the swiss “Oder?!”] Das Pro­blem ist, wäre kei­ne Ableh­nung gekom­men, son­dern eine Annah­me, das wäre inkom­pa­ti­bel gewe­sen mit mit der Ukrai­ne - mit der Posi­ti­on der Ukrai­ne in dem Moment [AT THAT STAGE, AT THAT STAGE, AT THAT STAGE, sor­ry the record got stuck…] und aus aus die­sem Dilem­ma konn­ten wir nicht raus­neh­men [sic! raus­kom­men]. Wir haben natür­lich ande­re Wege, das ist die ers­te äh vol die ers­te Voll­zug den man sich vor­stel­len kann [not the first Peace For­mu­la sum­mit, but the fifth, nice save!] aber die Diplo­ma­tie ist krea­tiv und man hat vie­le ande­re Wege gesucht, aber lei­der bis jetzt ist es uns nicht gelun­gen die Tür etwas [auf] zu machen, so dass es bei­de Sei­ten es ertra­gen können.”

PK Spre­cher: “Frau Rin.” 

Frau Rin: “Die Schweiz hat­te ja von Anfang an eben gesagt eigent­lich sei es das Ziel Russ­land an Bord zu holen. Jetzt wenn ich sie rich­tig ver­ste­he hat die Ukrai­ne so ein biss­chen gedroht sich zurück­zu­zie­hen, wenn Russ­land dabei wäre - wäre das nicht ein Punkt gewe­sen den man vor der Annah­me die­ser Orga­ni­sa­ti­on mit der Ukrai­ne hät­te klä­ren müs­sen, dass sie sich eben bereit erklärt auch zu kom­men, wenn Russ­land dabei ist?”

Igna­zio Cas­sis: “Nein, nein - wir haben das glei­che zu Beginn gesagt wie jetzt. Das Ziel ist Russ­land am Bord zu holen. Wir haben für den Frie­dens­pro­zess gesagt - die Kon­fe­renz ist der Start­punkt eines Frie­dens­pro­zess [aber kei­ne Frie­dens­kon­fe­renz]. Russ­land muss im Frie­dens­pro­zess an Bord sein, ob sie das war unser Wunsch, idea­ler­wei­se auch am Start - an der Eröff­nung die­ses Frie­dens­pro­zess [SHIT FUCK, its not the first, its the fifth peace for­mu­la sum­mit without rus­sia -- but the Ukrai­ne reframed that as well] wir wün­schen uns, wir haben das Ziel in Bür­gen­stock einen Frie­dens­pro­zess zu eröffnen.

Das wird dann Wochen Mona­te dau­ern ob über­haupt Erfolg sein wird - wird die Zukunft zei­gen, aber es ist klar, dass in die­sem Pro­zess Russ­land am Bord sein muss. Dar­über sind alle ein­ver­stan­den, die Fra­ge ist ab wel­chem Zeit­punkt ab welch Moment darf sie dabei sein. [See And­reii Yer­mak, second to last peace for­mu­la sum­mit, when all coun­tries agree rus­sia has to move out of Ukrai­ne, pay repa­ra­ti­ons, honor the ter­ri­to­ri­al inte­gri­ty of Ukrai­ne… Bür­gen­stock only was the fifth such sum­mit without rus­sia, I mean --- ] äh und hier diver­gie­ren die Meinungen.”

French Jour­na­list befo­re that: Ah… Look that one up yourself…

Hard to be the Diplo­ma­ti­sche Aka­de­mie Wien. All you ever get to edu­ca­te your Stu­dents seem to be com­ple­te and utter liars…

Oh, and your Mode­ra­tor pro­ved VERY PARTICULAR at picking Sli­do ques­ti­ons to ask the lying ambassa­dors - he just wouldnt and wouldnt pick the two most upvo­ted… I won­der why… Ah - look it up yourselves.…

Grü­ße an die Öster­rei­chisch Ame­ri­ka­ni­sche Gesell­schaft bitte.

PS: Of cour­se Switz­er­land (Bern) also was very suc­cess­ful in han­ding over gre­at, asto­nis­hing Selen­skyj peace for­mu­la sum­mit to the sixth poten­ti­al host for such a summit:

Cas­sis bestä­tigt, dass Ver­hand­lun­gen über eine mög­li­che Nach­fol­ge­kon­fe­renz in vol­lem Gang sei­en. Details woll­te Cas­sis kei­ne ver­ra­ten. Nur so viel, dass der in der Schweiz ange­stos­se­ne Frie­dens­pro­zess «aus­ser­halb der west­li­chen Welt» fort­ge­führt wer­den sol­le, in einem Land des soge­nann­ten glo­ba­len Südens oder aber in der ara­bi­schen Welt.

«Gemein­sa­me Interessen»

Cas­sis hat­te am ver­gan­ge­nen Don­ners­tag mit dem sau­di­schen Aus­sen­mi­nis­ter, Prinz Fai­sal bin Far­han, tele­fo­niert und dabei über «gemein­sa­me Inter­es­sen» gespro­chen, wie das sau­di­sche Aus­sen­mi­nis­te­ri­um auf X ver­lau­ten liess. Der FDP-Aussenpolitiker Hans-Peter Port­mann sagt, dass er jüngst sehr gute Signa­le erhal­ten habe. Der Zür­cher Natio­nal­rat hat erst vor kur­zem eine par­la­men­ta­ri­sche Freund­schafts­grup­pe Schweiz - Sau­di­ara­bi­en ins Leben geru­fen. Ver­tre­ter des Schura-Rats, eines bera­ten­den Gre­mi­ums des sau­di­schen Königs, haben wäh­rend der Som­mer­ses­si­on das Bun­des­haus besucht.

Ob die Schweiz bei all­fäl­li­gen Frie­dens­ver­hand­lun­gen in Riad noch eine Rol­le spielt, ist der­zeit eben­falls Teil von Gesprä­chen. Könn­te sie bera­tend mit­hel­fen, einen Neu­tra­li­täts­sta­tus für die Ukrai­ne zu ent­wer­fen? Die Ant­wor­ten auf sol­che und ähn­li­che Fra­gen schei­nen der­zeit noch in wei­ter Fer­ne zu lie­gen. Die sau­di­sche Bot­schaft in Bern lässt ent­spre­chen­de Anfra­gen seit Tagen unbe­ant­wor­tet. Kommt dazu: Aus Sicht Russ­lands hat die Eid­ge­nos­sen­schaft ihre Glaub­wür­dig­keit als neu­tra­ler Staat ohne­hin ver­lo­ren, nach­dem die Schweiz sich den EU-Sanktionen ange­schlos­sen hatte.

Die zustän­di­gen Bun­des­rä­te Amherd und Cas­sis hof­fen nun, dass am Wochen­en­de auf dem Bür­gen­stock der Fahr­plan für den wei­te­ren Ver­lauf der Frie­dens­be­mü­hun­gen fest­ge­legt wer­den kann. Die Schluss­erklä­rung dazu ist der­zeit eben­falls in der Ver­nehm­las­sung. Ziel sei es, die­se am Sonn­tag ein­stim­mig zu ver­ab­schie­den. Der Mit­ein­be­zug Russ­lands war von Beginn an umstritten.

src: click (NZZ)

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das abso­lut gro­tesk und abar­tigst Allerletzte.

edit:

Oh for fucks sake…

08.34 Uhr: Kiew hofft auf Teil­nah­me Russ­lands an zwei­ter Ukraine-Konferenz

Kiew wünscht sich eine Teil­nah­me Russ­lands an einer zwei­ten Frie­dens­kon­fe­renz zur Ukrai­ne. Kurz vor Beginn des ers­ten Gip­fels in der Schweiz am Wochen­en­de sag­te der Lei­ter des ukrai­ni­schen Prä­si­di­al­am­tes, Andrij Jer­mak, per Video­schal­te aus Ber­lin: “Wir suchen nach der Mög­lich­keit, auf dem zwei­ten Gip­fel einen Ver­tre­ter Russ­lands ein­zu­la­den und die­sen gemein­sa­men Plan gemein­sam vor­zu­stel­len”, so Jermak.

Die Frie­dens­kon­fe­renz in der Schweiz im Luxus-Resort Bür­gen­stock fin­det im Anschluss an ein Tref­fen der Staats- und Regie­rungs­chefs der G7-Gruppe Ende die­ser Woche in Süd­ita­li­en statt, bei dem auch der ukrai­ni­sche Prä­si­dent Wolo­dym­yr Selen­skyj zu Gast sein wird. Selen­skyj wird dann am Sams­tag wei­ter in die Schweiz rei­sen. Das Tref­fen wur­de auf Bit­te der Ukrai­ne hin orga­ni­siert. Kiew erhofft sich davon brei­te inter­na­tio­na­le Unter­stüt­zung für sei­ne Bedin­gun­gen für ein Ende des Krie­ges gegen Russ­land. Mos­kau hat­te im Vor­feld kund­ge­tan, nicht an einer Teil­nah­me inter­es­siert zu sein und wur­de ent­spre­chend nicht eingeladen.

src: click

Hur­ra. Die­se Aus­le­gung ist falsch und tendenziös.

Mit Russ­land habe man am 19. Jän­ner gespro­chen, jetzt haben wir den 12 Juni. Russ­land hat am 19. Jän­ner “kund­ge­tan nicht an einer Teil­nah­me inter­es­siert zu sein, da es sich um eine Unter­stüt­zungs­ver­an­stal­tung der Ukrai­ne han­deln würde”.

Die Schweiz hat dar­auf hin “auf diplo­ma­ti­schem Weg” immer wie­der eine Ein­la­dung Russ­lands “ver­sucht” - da die Schweiz zuvor ver­laut­bart hat, man wür­de auch Russ­land laden wol­len -- eine Ein­la­dung ist dann aber nicht erfolgt - und als Grund wur­de von Cas­sis ange­ge­ben, dass:

Das Pro­blem ist, wäre kei­ne Ableh­nung gekom­men, son­dern eine Annah­me, das wäre inkom­pa­ti­bel gewe­sen mit mit der Ukrai­ne - mit der Posi­ti­on der Ukrai­ne in dem Moment [AT THAT STAGE, AT THAT STAGE, AT THAT STAGE, sor­ry the record got stuck…] und aus aus die­sem Dilem­ma konn­ten wir nicht raus­neh­men [sic! rauskommen]. 

Die­ses “Dilem­ma” hat heu­te - um 8 Uhr Früh, Andrij Jer­mak auf­ge­löst, aller­dings LEIDER erst für die nächs­te Frie­dens­for­mel­kon­fe­renz. Was will man machen…

Immer­hin, “am nächs­ten Gip­fel” soll Russ­land dann auch gela­den wer­den dür­fen, das ist tat­säch­lich was Neu­es. Der Plat­ten­hän­ger ist damit behoben.

Jetzt hoff ich ja ganz stark, ich bin - voll die­ser Hoff­nung - nicht von Pro­pa­gan­da beeinflußt…

Der BR Redak­teur kann lei­der nicht sinn­erfas­send lesen, respek­ti­ve PKs kon­su­mie­ren, was will man machen…

edit: Also - I for­got how much of diplo­ma­cy at the “top level” is not­hing but an intel­lec­tu­al mar­vel… *rol­leyes*

And the pro­pa­gan­da game alrea­dy con­ti­nues, becau­se only nine hours after Andrij Jer­mak sta­ted, that rus­sia would be invi­ted to the next peace sum­mit, the ukrai­ni­an ambassa­dor to Esto­nia is alrea­dy back­tracking on that state­ment. I in the video abo­ve at around 16:30 min in - he sta­tes, that rus­sia could may­be be invi­ted to the next ukrai­ni­an peace (for­mua­la) sum­mit, but only if rus­sia would “agree on the frame­work of this nego­tia­ti­on pro­cess”, which still con­tains - “rus­sia lea­ves Ukrai­ne ent­i­re­ly”, “rus­sia pays repa­ra­ti­ons, “peop­le reson­si­ble for warcri­mes get punis­hed by inter­na­tio­nal law tri­bu­nals” - becau­se the frame­work still is the 10 point peace formula.

This is so fuck­ing stu­pid and hideous.

Befo­re we can sit tog­e­ther to talk about peace, you have to accept defeat.

Of cour­se, if you screen the Car­ne­gie Endow­ment video lin­ked here -- the mes­sa­ge of the actu­al peop­le respon­si­ble for signa­ling ukrai­ni­an action to public insti­tu­ti­ons in the wes­tern world, are deli­vering you pro­lon­ged war scenarios.

Also - accord­ing to Masym Kono­nen­ko abo­ve, the Ukrai­ni­an peace sum­mit also has a new tag­li­ne, which is “If you want peace, you have to pre­pa­re for war.” It is true! (Always lik­ed that phra­sing of ukrai­ni­an offi­cials. I did.)

So - as always:

Pro­pa­gan­da hat natür­lich wie­der nie­mand entdeckt.

Kyiv post Interview partner cant understand why a PR snippet from 2003 isnt mentioned

11. Juni 2024

- by any ana­lyst - to under­line Putins ter­ri­to­ri­al claims/ambitions towards ukrai­ni­an territory…

Dr. And­rei Illa­ri­o­nov, a Seni­or Poli­cy Advi­ser during Putin’s ear­ly peri­od as Pre­si­dent is frank in what strengths Putin pos­ses­ses and why the West so often gets him wrong.

src: click

Lets play a litt­le game…

Can you? 😉

Pre­si­dent Vla­di­mir Putin chai­red a mee­ting in Yeisk on the Rus­si­an military-diplomatic pre­sence in the Black Sea-Azov region

Sep­tem­ber 17, 2003 18:00 Krasno­dar Region
Pre­si­dent Putin at Yeisk airport.

Mr Putin descri­bed the Azov-Black Sea basin as a zone of Rus­si­an stra­te­gic inte­rests. The Black Sea pro­vi­des Rus­sia with direct access to key glo­bal trans­por­ta­ti­on rou­tes, inclu­ding ener­gy rou­tes, Pre­si­dent Putin stressed.

Howe­ver, the pro­blems of navi­ga­ti­on and the bor­der regime in the regi­on have not been final­ly sett­led. In par­ti­cu­lar, com­pli­ca­ted and pain­sta­king work is nee­ded tog­e­ther with Ukrai­ni­an experts to defi­ne the final legal sta­tus of the Sea of Azov and the Krech Strait. The Pre­si­dent said he dis­cus­sed the topic during his mee­ting with his Ukrai­ni­an coun­ter­part today.

Com­pli­ca­ti­ons also ari­se with set­ting the rules of navi­ga­ti­on in the Black Sea straits. The Rus­si­an lea­der men­tio­ned Turkey’s attempts to limit the pas­sa­ge of for­eign ships, abo­ve all oil tan­kers, through the Bos­pho­rus and the Dar­da­nel­les to the Aege­an. The­re were objec­ti­ve rea­sons for that, he said, but the­re was also a wish to put pres­su­re on rivals. The Pre­si­dent stres­sed that the princi­ples of navi­ga­ti­on in that key area must com­ply with exis­ting inter­na­tio­nal legal norms and asked the For­eign Minis­try to keep the deve­lo­p­ment of the situa­ti­on around the straits under clo­se watch.

The Pre­si­dent cal­led for a tho­rough ana­ly­sis of the real advan­ta­ges of working with the Black Sea Eco­no­mic Coope­ra­ti­on Orga­ni­sa­ti­on and deter­mi­ning the tac­tics and stra­te­gy of Rus­si­an par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on in its work.

Military-political sta­bi­li­ty in the Black Sea regi­on can only be ensu­red if the­re is an effec­ti­ve sys­tem of con­fi­dence and secu­ri­ty mea­su­res, the Rus­si­an lea­der said, stres­sing that such a sys­tem has been put in place in the Black Sea basin with acti­ve Rus­si­an participation.

Mr Putin spo­ke in favour of moder­ni­sing the Rus­si­an Black Sea Fleet and its base, stres­sing that this work must be con­duc­ted joint­ly with Russia’s clo­sest part­ner, Ukraine.

Com­pre­hen­si­ve deve­lo­p­ment of the Rus­si­an land and sea bor­der was a serious pro­blem awai­t­ing solu­ti­on, the Pre­si­dent said. He pro­po­sed hol­ding a mee­ting of the Rus­si­an Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil to dis­cuss the issue.

For­eign Minis­ter Igor Iva­nov, Defence Minis­ter Ser­gei Iva­nov, Direc­tor of the Federal Secu­ri­ty Ser­vice Niko­lai Patrus­hev, Chief of the Rus­si­an Armed For­ces Gene­ral Staff Ana­to­ly Kvash­nin, Depu­ty Chief of Staff of the Pre­si­den­ti­al Exe­cu­ti­ve Office Alex­an­der Abra­mov, the Pre­si­den­ti­al Envoy to the Sou­thern Federal District Vik­tor Kazants­ev, the Gover­nor of the Krano­dar Regi­on Alex­an­der Tka­ch­yov, First Depu­ty For­eign Minis­ter Vyaches­lav Trub­nikov, First Depu­ty FSB Direc­tor and head of the Bor­der Ser­vice Vla­di­mir Pro­ni­chev, Air For­ce Commander-in-Chief Vla­di­mir Mikhai­l­ov, Chief Naval Com­man­der Vla­di­mir Kuroy­e­dov and Russia’s Ambassa­dor to Ukrai­ne Vik­tor Cher­no­myr­din all took part in the meeting.

src: click (en.kremlin.ru) (archive.org ent­ry from 2017 (no ear­lier one available))

Grü­ße an die diplo­ma­ti­sche Aka­de­mie Wien, bit­te. Grüße!

Why not - Brzezinski…?

Spä­te Erkenntnis

Moderator im Krisenmodus

11. Juni 2024

Der gela­de­ne Exper­te bei Phoe­nix spricht alle Pro­pa­gan­da­nara­ti­ve Selen­sky­js expli­zit als “Nar­ra­ti­ve für die Öffent­lich­keit” an.

Plat­ziert, dass Selen­skyj den Mau­er­fall erwäh­ne, aber selbst eine Mau­er baue. (Der Mode­ra­tor: Eine ideo­lo­gi­sche, nicht? Nur, eine ideologische!)

Spricht an, dass - auch wenn die Zuse­her damit nicht ein­ver­stan­den sein, Deutsch­land Kon­tak­te zu Russ­land hal­ten müs­se - und der Wunsch Selen­ky­js daher uner­füllt blei­ben wür­de. (Mode­ra­tor: Aber er hat immer nur Putin gesagt, nicht Russ­land, nur Putin!)

Spricht offen an “Selen­skyj hat Meis­ter und Mar­ga­ri­ta von Bul­ga­kow sicher sehr inten­siv gele­sen, dort gehe es auch um den “Kampf gegen das Böse””.

Das Gan­ze mit einem öster­rei­chi­schen Akzent…

Der Mode­ra­tor ver­suchts ein­zu­fan­gen, wo mög­lich - ist damit aber nicht sehr erfolgreich…

Habe die Ehre… Ob der Herr noch mal von Phoe­nix gela­den wird?

edit: Hier der CV des Exper­ten: click