The last time Selenskyy said neutrality is on the table

31. Dezember 2022

was March 27th. Goog­le it.

Quo­te von Micha­el McFaul bei 1:19:00 in in fol­gen­der Munk Debate:

Bedeu­tet jetzt zwangs­läu­fig, dass der chro­no­lo­gi­scher Ablauf der Ereig­nis­se wie folgt aus­ge­se­hen hat:

Zelen­skyy und die Neutralität

Ers­te Erwähnung:

Febru­a­ry 25th - einen Tag nach der rus­si­schen Invasion:

Rea­dy to dis­cuss neu­tra­li­ty, says Volo­dym­yr Zelen­skyy after suf­fe­ring los­ses on Day 1 of Rus­si­an invasion

Das ist inter­es­sant da eine Sei­te in der Munk Deba­te die Auf­fas­sung ver­tre­ten hat, Russ­land habe die Neu­tra­li­tät der Ukrai­ne ja bereits defak­to “gehabt”.
Kann nicht ganz stimmen.

Nächs­te Erwähnung:

March 3rd - unmit­tel­bar nach der zwei­ten Gesprächs­run­de (rus­si­sche Quelle):

Rus­sia and Ukrai­ne held a second round of talks on Thurs­day aimed at stop­ping the esca­la­ting war. Rus­si­an Pre­si­dent Vla­di­mir Putin has war­ned Ukrai­ne that it must quick­ly accept the Kremlin’s demand for its “demi­li­ta­ri­sa­ti­on” and decla­re its­elf neu­tral – but will a neu­tral sta­tus of Ukrai­ne help to stop the war?, asks poli­ti­cal jour­na­list Dmi­try Skorobutov.

src: click
Selen­skyy hat die Neu­tra­li­tät als Bedin­gung noch nicht akzeptiert.

Die Neu­tra­li­tät der Ukrai­ne ist zu dem Zeit­punkt die Haupt­be­din­gung Russlands.

The princi­pal demand of Putin – a total neu­tra­li­ty of Ukrai­ne: no mem­bers­hip in NATO, no wea­pon, for­eign mili­ta­ry bases – not­hing which could threa­ten direct­ly or indi­rect­ly Rus­si­an secu­ri­ty, sta­bi­li­ty, and sovereignty.

Kon­text: March 8th


Zelen­sky appears to float sug­ges­ti­ons of a com­pro­mi­se, but U.S. offi­cials fear Putin could dou­ble down.

src: click

March 12th

U.S. rus­hing $200 mil­li­on in wea­pons for Ukraine’s defense

March 16th

Selen­skyy Speech in front of the US congress


Biden announ­ces $800 mil­li­on in mili­ta­ry aid for Ukraine

March 16th


Ukrai­ne and Rus­sia explo­re neu­tra­li­ty plan in peace talks

Fifteen-point draft deal would invol­ve Kyiv renoun­cing Nato ambi­ti­ons in return for secu­ri­ty guarantees

src: click

March 20th

US and NATO offi­cials strugg­le to deci­pher the sta­tus of peace nego­tia­ti­ons bet­ween Rus­sia and Ukrai­ne

March 20th

Andriy Zago­rod­nyuk, Mit­glied des Atlan­tic Coun­cils, ehe­ma­li­ger ukrai­ni­scher Ver­tei­di­gungs­mi­nis­ter - und die Per­son die 2019 CBC berich­tet hat man wol­le von den US Jave­lins und Stin­ger für den Don­bas, da sie dort kon­flikt­ent­schei­dend sind (und wo sie seit Okto­ber 2021 zum Ein­satz kamen), stellt bei Times Radio die Posi­ti­on der ukrai­ni­schen Regie­rung klar -

Good morning.

Good morning.

So in terms of of your assess­ment of how this war is pro­gres­sing, it’s clear that rus­si­ans are incre­a­singly taking lives, many civi­li­an lives but not fur­ther ground. How long do you think ukrai­ne can resist, can repel the rus­si­an invasion?

Ukrai­ne depends uh ukrai­ne you know is obvious­ly, you know, has a huge­ly moti­va­ted socie­ty and uh it has a very sub­stan­ti­al for­ce and uh par­ti­cu­lar­ly was with the for­eign you know with allied sup­port like par­ti­cu­lar­ly from the united sta­tes uh who com­mit­ted the sub­stan­ti­al funds, we can stand for long I mean that’s becau­se obvious­ly we don’t have any other choice, uh Putin deci­ded that he wants uh to make sure that the­re is no such coun­try as Ukrai­ne and of cour­se we will dis­agree so that’s why peop­le are deter­mi­ned to stand until we win as simp­le as that so what is Zelenskyy’s stra­te­gy to repel rus­si­an tro­ops, the stra­te­gy is, is qui­te strai­ght­for­ward becau­se we have are­as which rus­sia and rus­si­ans took tem­pora­ri­ly and our stra­te­gy is to not to allow him to take any fur­ther are­as and to coun­ter attack and free our land whe­re were the cur­r­ent­ly occu­p­ied by rus­si­an tro­ops. This isn’t this isn’t the lar­ge ter­ri­to­ries actual­ly uh but still signi­fi­cant and obvious­ly we need to get rid of them.

src: click

March 22th

Selen­skyj spricht vor der deut­schen und fran­zö­si­schen Presse

This is an important point. A com­pro­mi­se can be found in dia­log. For me any com­pro­mi­se is irrele­vant, becau­se, as you know this hat­red will be for every word. For every word. For every demand. For every cour­se. For every gua­ran­tor of secu­ri­ty. For ever­yo­ne. You under­stand, right? Time must pass. The­re­fo­re, if they want to end the war, they must agree one sei­ze fire, with­draw tro­ops, then pre­si­dents meet, agree, that tro­ops are with­drawn, and that the­re are cer­tain secu­ri­ty gua­ran­tors. Here you can find com­pro­mi­se. The­re are cer­tain gua­ran­tors of our secu­ri­ty. They must say tomor­row, that they are accep­t­ing Ukrai­ne into Nato, and not being unclear any­mo­re. Or say, we are not accep­t­ing it now. That is true. And they them­sel­ves under­stand, that they dont want to go with rus­sia. So they do not accept us. The ans­wer is very simp­le. We alrea­dy under­stand ever­ything. “We’re not accep­t­ing it” - becau­se they are afraid of rus­sia, thats all. And we need to calm down and say that. [Reac­tion was cau­sed by the jour­na­list initi­al­ly asking the ques­ti­on nod­ding affir­ma­tively, when Zelen­skyy went into the “So they do not accept us” part.] Say - we need other secu­ri­ty gua­ran­tees. The­re are Nato mem­ber sta­tes that want to be the gua­ran­tors of our secu­ri­ty, which unfor­tu­n­a­te­ly cant pro­vi­de us full mem­bers­hip in the alli­an­ce. But are rea­dy to do ever­ything that the alli­an­ce would have to do, if we were mem­bers of the alli­an­ce. And I think, thats a nor­mal com­pro­mi­se. Its a com­pro­mi­se for ever­yo­ne. For the west which does not know what to do with us in the Nato issue, for Ukrai­ne which wants secu­ri­ty gua­ran­tees, and for rus­sia, which does not want to let nato expand fur­ther, and says it has had such agree­ments with Nato coun­tries, with the west. And so, a com­pro­mi­se must be found in this. Becau­se, this will be the end of the war. For Rus­sia, this is not the end. The­re is this public let­ter. I dont know by whom, I dont remem­ber, by the minis­ter of for­eign affairs, or by the pre­si­dent of rus­sia. Stop tal­king to us with phra­ses like den­azi­fi­ca­ti­on etc. - we immedia­te­ly said, that this sounds like an ulti­ma­tum - and we do not tole­ra­te this. Becau­se as soon as we are accu­sed of nazism, by peop­le, who fol­low in the foots­teps of nazism, then we will not be able to tole­ra­te it. The­re­fo­re public rhe­to­ric can be anything, its the busi­ness of every sta­te in this world - but this will not be bin­ding rhetoric.

src: click.

March 27th

Selen­skyj spricht laut Micha­el McFaul bei den Munk Deba­tes das letz­te Mal von einer mög­li­chen Neu­tra­li­tät der Ukraine

Reu­ters an dem Tag: click

March 29th

Die Ukrai­ne for­dert zum ers­ten Mal schwe­re Waf­fen von den west­li­chen Ver­bün­de­ten “as the Rus­si­an mili­ta­ry [retre­ats from Kiev and] shifts its cam­pai­gn to focus on the east and south of Ukraine”

March 31st

Das Atlan­tic Coun­cil defi­niert erst­mals für die gesam­te west­li­che Öffent­lich­keit war­um der ver­ein­te Wes­ten jetzt schwe­re Waf­fen lie­fern müs­se: Da die Ukrai­ne sich sonst nicht ver­tei­di­gen könne.

April 1st

Ers­te Social Media Postings von But­cha erschei­nen um 8 Uhr abends Orts­zeit auf Telegram

Jetzt ist es aber laut Micha­el McFaul so, dass die Ukrai­ne die Neu­tra­li­tät bis zum 27. März ernst­haft ins Auge gefasst hat, und laut Clau­dia Major den Wil­len das in Ver­hand­lun­gen wei­ter zu ver­fol­gen erst nach Butscha ver­lo­ren hat.

Ich ertra­ge die­se Lügen nicht mehr.

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das Letzte.

Ich habe das damals gese­hen und nicht ver­kraf­tet, und als ich nicht mehr konn­te hat mich mei­ne Psy­cho­the­ra­peu­tin aus der Betreu­ung getreten.



Der Voll­stän­dig­keit halber:

What did Zelen­skyy say?
“Yes­ter­day I retur­ned from Bucha,” Zelen­skyy said during his address. “The­re is not a sin­gle crime they would not com­mit there.”

They kil­led ent­i­re fami­lies, adults and child­ren, and they tried to burn the bodies,” Zelen­skyy added.

He said, “The mas­sa­c­re in our city of Bucha is only one, unfor­tu­n­a­te­ly only one examp­le of what the occu­p­iers have been doing on our ter­ri­to­ry for the past 41 days.”

He urged full accoun­ta­bi­li­ty for Rus­si­an actions on Ukraine’s ter­ri­to­ry and said Russia’s goal was to turn Ukrai­ni­ans into “silent slaves.”

Zelen­skyy vor dem UN Sicher­heits­rat - April 5th

Many ask them­sel­ves how many Buchas the­re are yet. Nobo­dy knows it. We don’t have real know­ledge on what is going on in the south of our coun­try now or in other small towns around the coun­try. Or in the east of the coun­try,” Zelen­skyy said on Fri­day during an inter­view with BILD, which is owned by Axel Sprin­ger, Insider’s parent company. 

src: click - April 9th

Und danach gabs kei­ne öffent­li­che Debat­te über die Lie­fe­rung schwe­rer Waf­fen in Deutsch­land mehr.

edit: Komi­scher Zufall wie­der, Micha­el McFaul hat laut sei­nem clo­sing state­ment auf dem Weg zur Munk Deba­te Timo­thy Sny­ders “Bloo­d­lands” gele­sen… - und sich gedacht - wenn die Nato nicht stän­dig erwei­tert hät­te, wo hät­te das noch geendet!

Timo­thy Sny­der ist der Erfin­der des “Putins Grund für die Inva­si­on war Neo­ko­lo­nia­lis­mus” Nar­ra­ti­ves, der in die­sem Jahr eine Yale Pro­fes­sur bekom­men hat, nach­dem er mit die­sem Argu­ment in die Vic­tor Pin­chuk Foun­da­ti­on ein­ge­la­den wur­de. Heu­te fin­det Sny­der (ehe­mals IWM­Vi­en­na) mehr so auf MSNBC statt:

Pro­pa­gan­da hat aber immer noch nie­mand entdeckt.

edit: OT: DW hat vor exakt einer Woche Putin’s Wit­nes­ses (2018) in vol­ler Län­ge auf sei­nem You­tube Kanal wie­der online gestellt.

Habs vor Jah­ren bereits ein paar mal erwähnt. Soll­te man mal gese­hen haben.

Hinterlasse eine Antwort