In der allseits beliebten Rubrik: “Wauzi will nur spielen.”
Nato schickt Sonderbeauftragten nach Kiew und Nato baut zivile Präsenz weiter au
Die Nato baut ihre zivile Präsenz in der von Russland angegriffenen Ukraine aus. Wie ein Sprecher bestätigte, haben die 32 Bündnisstaaten beschlossen, eine Art Sonderbeauftragten in die Hauptstadt Kiew zu entsenden. Der ranghohe Beamte soll dort die politische und praktische Unterstützung des Bündnisses steuern.
Hintergrund ist insbesondere, dass die Nato beim Gipfeltreffen in der kommenden Woche in Washington den Startschuss für einen neuen Einsatz zur Koordinierung von Waffenlieferungen und Ausbildungsaktivitäten für die ukrainischen Streitkräfte geben will. Das Hauptquartier dafür soll in Wiesbaden in Deutschland aufgebaut werden.
Wer den neuen Nato-Posten in Kiew bekommen soll, war aus dem Bündnis zunächst nicht zu erfahren. Weitere Details werde man nach der offiziellen Auswahl kommunizieren, hieß es. Zuerst hatte das “Wall Street Journal” über die Pläne berichtet.
Die Nato hat bereits seit knapp einem Jahrzehnt eine offizielle Vertretung in Kiew, die auch ein seit Ende der 90er-Jahre existierendes Verbindungsbüro und ein Informations- und Dokumentationszentrum steuert. Sie kümmert sich unter anderem um Kontakte mit ukrainischen Ministerien und Behörden und soll den politischen Dialog und die praktische Zusammenarbeit zwischen der Nato fördern. Zudem berät sie Behörden über Aktivitäten zur Unterstützung der Nato -Ukraine-Partnerschaft und Reformen im Sicherheits- und Verteidigungssektor. Auch dafür soll es künftig mehr Personal geben.
Die NATO baut also jetzt “ihre zivile Präsenz” in der Ukraine aus, während die Ukraine gleichzeitig “militärisch so sehr an die NATO Standards herangeführt werden soll, dass ein Beitritt, dann im Schnell verfahren passieren kann und nicht über die üblichen langwierigen Prozederes erfolgen muss.” Die dauern ja auch so lang…
Point 5: Ukraine has to join Nato - otherwise we can not be sure Russia wont attack Ukraine again!
For that to happen, Ukraine has to be closely brought up to Nato standards, so that “WHENTHETIMEISRIGHT” in a Moment of weakness for russia, when Turkey can be convinced as well, the actual joining process can happen without the normal path of action, in a quicktrack fashion, within a few weeks. “This is the only way to just and permanent peace.”
Aber das passiere ja nur (“Hintergrund”, laut Standard), da die NATO jetzt von der Ramstein Kontaktgruppe die militärische Leitung des Ukrainekriegs übernimmt (Anti-Trump Maßnahme), wofür das Headquarter in Wiesbaden in Deutschland bleiben soll.
Dont worry, Der Standard is just a bit lost in his own narrative.
Wann spricht Selenksyj eigentlich das erste Mal von “russischen Ultimaten”?
“Die Ukraine kann kein russisches Ultimatum akzeptieren”
Die Ukraine werde Städte wie Mariupol, Charkiw und Kiew nicht kampflos übergeben, erklärt Präsident Selenskyj. Bei einer Verhandlungslösung will er die Bevölkerung über jeden Kompromiss mit Russland abstimmen lassen.
Von BR24 Redaktion
Über dieses Thema berichtet: BR24 am 21.03.2022 um 18:30 Uhr.
Die Ukraine wird sich nach den Worten ihres Staatschefs Wolodymyr Selenskyj nicht auf “russische Ultimaten” zur Beendigung des Krieges einlassen. “Die Ukraine kann kein russisches Ultimatum akzeptieren”, sagte Selenskyj der Nachrichten-Website Suspilne.
Moskau wolle unter anderem die “Übergabe” der Städte Mariupol, Charkiw und Kiew durch die Ukraine erreichen, sagte Selenskyj. Dem könnten aber “weder die Menschen in Charkiw noch die in Mariupol oder Kiew noch ich, der Präsident”, nachkommen. In der Nacht zum Montag hatte die Ukraine ein Ultimatum Russlands zur Kapitulation in der belagerten Hafenstadt Mariupol zurückgewiesen.
Heute ist diese Phrase (“Ultimaten”) in der ukrainischen Propaganda wieder sehr gefragt - wenn man z.B. Katrin Eigendorf (der Intellekt auf zwei Beinen, drei Paletten, neben einer Haubitze, oder wahlweise auch in einem Interviewpanel) vorlügen muss “wie die Ukraine Frieden erreichen will”.
Also erst mal in dem sie noch vier oder mehr Jahre Aufreibungskrieg führt - natürlich.
Ich mein, so viel steht außer Frage - fragen sie doch Gustav Gressel -
Dann aber auch sehr in dem sie bereits im Bürgenstock Endkommunique verankert, dass man nur mit Russland verhandle, wenn Russland die territoriale Integrität der Ukraine in den Grenzen von 1991 akzeptiert, UND die vollständige Souveränität der Ukraine - eine Armee beliebiger Größe, zur Befreiung der Krim aufrechtzuerhalten -
was natürlich NIEUNDUNTERKEINENUMSTÄNDENEINUKRAINISCHESULTIMATUMDARSTELLT…
Also dass die Ukraine das ins Bürgenstock Kommunique aufgenommen hat um damit ihre (seit 2022 bestehende) Position (wir laden Russland erst ein, wenn Russland zustimmt auf der Basis einer Friedensformel zu verhandeln die die territoriale Integrität der Ukraine in den Grenzen von 1991, sowie die von der Ukraine frei wählbare Größe und Ausrichtung (“Wir erobern jetzt die Krim zurück!”) ihres Militärs als Vorbedingungen beinhaltet) international (von 78 Staaten) legitimiert zu bekommen, sag jetzt nicht ich, sagt die von US-AID finanzierte European Pravda, die die Fassungen des Bürgenstock Kommuniques vom 28. Mai und 9. Juni vergleichen konnte:
Ukraine Peace Summit turns hard on Russia. How leaders amended the final decision under criticism
THURSDAY, 13 JUNE 2024 — SERGIYSYDORENKO, EUROPEANPRAVDA
Harsh criticism of the agreed draft resolution of the Peace Summit, voiced both in Ukraine and by Ukraine’s allies, forced the organisers to make concessions. Switzerland, which is organising the Global Peace Summit, sent a radically revised document to all capitals of the participating countries, correcting key issues highlighted by European Pravda.
The updated draft is entirely acceptable for Ukraine. It explicitly calls the war “Russian aggression.” Loopholes that could have paved the way for territorial concessions from Ukraine were removed from the text. Several states that had planned to attend the Peace Summit in Switzerland have decided not to go there after the draft decision was changed in favour of Ukraine.
European Pravda has learned the details of the negotiations and the decision that will be adopted this weekend.
Behind the scenes of the Peace Summit
The timeline of these events is crucial: it shows how urgent the changes that occurred over the past week were.
The idea to hold the Peace Summit in Switzerland was agreed upon at the beginning of the year. On 10 April, Switzerland announced the agreed date and location for the summit. Leaders of about 160 countries, four international organisations (UN, EU, Council of Europe, OSCE), the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch were invited to the Bürgenstock Alpine Spa. It was predetermined that Russia would not be present at the first Peace Summit, which Ukraine demanded in the first place.
Both Kyiv and Bern aimed to adopt a decision following the summit. However, the wording needed to be agreed upon by all participants.
Preparation for this document started more than two months ago. European Pravda has the April draft of the joint communiqué, where the summit dates were still tentative. That document was prepared in Kyiv and was entirely acceptable for Ukraine, adhering to the important red lines for Ukrainian society.
However, Switzerland persuaded Ukraine to soften it as much as possible, considering the wishes of all participants. On 28 May, a compromise version was sent from Bern to all capitals, and initially, Kyiv had to agree to it.
Everything changed when the public learned that this draft was dangerous for Ukraine.
The discussion began with an article by European Pravda, published on 5 June. The next day, on 6 June, Kyiv was forced to make public statements asserting that “Ukraine will not retreat from the Peace Formula.” This fueled discussions in the capitals of Ukraine’s allies, which were also not thrilled with the wording of the Swiss document. At least a few of them contacted Bern with a proposal to revise the joint statement.
On 9 June, Switzerland had sent a completely new draft to all countries. Amending the communiqué took mere days, not months as before.
What has changed
The summit’s decision remains unchanged in format and structure. This is a two-page document dedicated to three issues: nuclear security, food security and the prisoners of war. Key issues that lay outside these points have been addressed though.
Russian Aggression
– Old wording: The May draft decision of the Peace Summit did not mention the word “aggression,” meaning the international crime where Russia is the perpetrator and Ukraine the victim.
– New wording: This has been amended. The joint communiqué now refers to “the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine”.
Territorial Integrity and the UN Charter
– Old wording: the previous summit decision version created a legal window to include Ukraine abandoning part of its territory in the conditions of “sustainable peace with Russia”, if necessary.
– New wording: the new draft decision clearly states that the basis for sustainable peace will be only “a solution based on the principle of respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states”. [Crimea back to Ukraine, and no neutrality that includes “limitation on military forces”]
Alternative Peace Formulas
– Old wording: the previous draft blurred the meaning of the Peace Formula and opened up space for international discussion of all alternative visions of peace, such as the Chinese-Brazilian one, which envisages a halt to the strengthening of Ukraine’s Armed Forces and a cessation of hostilities.
– New wording: the new wording states that only peace proposals that comply with international law (i.e. an unconditional return of the 1991 borders, unless revised by Ukraine itself) and the UN Charter (in particular, Ukraine’s unconditional [no force limitation] right to continue repelling Russian aggression and liberating the occupied territories) will be taken into account.
Involvement of Russia
– Old wording: the earlier version turned Russia from an aggressor into a participant in peace talks, requiring only vague “confidence-building measures” on nuclear and food security.
– New wording: this section has been rewritten from scratch. The Swiss agreed not to mention Russia at all in the provision on peace talks, instead referring to “all parties”. There is no longer a weakened requirement for “confidence-building measures”, but instead “specific actions” are required. And most importantly, the references to a “second peace summit” that hinted at a commitment to invite Russia to participate have been removed.
Food Security
– New addition: The updated document includes the statement that “attacks on merchant ships in ports and along the entire route, as well as against civilian ports and civilian port infrastructure, are unacceptable”. This falls under the global food security section but applies to all civilian vessels, including container ships or those exporting Ukrainian metals. Continued attacks would block Russia’s participation in peace initiatives.
These significant changes ensure that the new draft of the summit decision is more acceptable to Ukraine, reinforcing its territorial integrity, addressing Russian aggression accurately and maintaining stringent conditions on peace negotiations involving Russia.
The document is acceptable for Ukraine
The Joint Communiqué on a Peace Framework in its new version aligns with Ukraine’s interests. Although there are still minor remarks, the main dangers have been addressed. Currently, the draft is not yet final: there is still a possibility of point changes on 13-14 June. However, European Pravda’s sources are inclined to believe that the updated content of the decision will remain.
Realistic expectations are necessary. This summit will not lead to a breakthrough or end the war. Ukraine is merely taking one of the first steps on a long path. However, it is crucial that this step is in the right direction and does not create new problems.
The higher ambition of the document came at a cost:
several countries have declined to participate in the summit. As of 5 June, Switzerland officially announced that it had “received more than 80 confirmations of attendance at the level of heads of states and governments”, and the total number of confirmed attendees, as reported by officials, exceeded 100. However, in the following days, this phrase had to be removed from the event’s website, and now it reads that “around 90 states have confirmed their participation in the Summit on Peace in Ukraine, most of them at head of state or government level”.
Sources of European Pravda reported that, in reality, about 15 countries have “paused” their attendance. In addition, the number of those who have signalled a demotion from the presidential or prime ministerial level to the level of ministers or even their deputies is in the dozens.
Although it is obvious that due to the recent changes, the summit will be attended by fewer states than initially anticipated by Bankova Street [where the Ukrainian President’s Office is located] eight days ago, it is better to have a summit of like-minded people than to make concessions on issues that are critical for the state.
Dann überzeugt man den blonden Intelligenzbolzen vom ZDF natürlich, dass es sehr wichtig sein wird, jetzt noch weitere Friedensformelkonferenzen abzuhalten, in denen man “Einen Frieden vorbereitet, der nicht mehr von Russischen Ultimaten beeinflusst wird” - bestätigt als Kuleba heute noch mal kurz (siehe Video), dass Russland erst zu Verhandlungen eingeladen wird - wenn es die Vorbedingungen akzeptiert, die seiner Kapitulation gleichkommen…
Und an der Stelle braucht man sie dann wieder, die Phrase, dass die Ukraine keine russischen Ultimaten akzeptieren könne, und deshalb Friedensformelgipfel abhält, zu denen sie Russland sicher auch ganz bald einladen wird.
Nachdem sie die von der Schweiz reinformulierte Zusage, dass Russland zum nächsten Friendensformelgipfel geladen werden soll (Vorversion vom 28. Mai 2024), ansatzlos aus dem Kommunique entfernen hat lassen. Und jetzt auf ihre Vorbedingungen pocht, die Russland anerkennen muss, bevor es auf einen weiteren Gipfel geladen werden kann.
Die wegen denen 15 Staaten (2,2 Milliarden Menschen) ihre Unterschrift unter dem Kommuniquee verweigert haben. Schreibt die European Pravda. Die von USAID finanziert wird.
Achja, Selenskyj wollte im März 2022, natürlich auch die komplette ukrainische Bevölkerung über alle Konzessionen, die Russland in Verhandlungen fordert und fordern könnte abstimmen lassen.
Nur eine Präsidentenwahl im März 2024 ist sich dann wegen des Krieges leider doch nicht ausgegangen.
Warum ich das poste - nun - das ZDF verarscht jetzt die deutsche Bevölkerung auf der gesamten Breite durch.
Die Ukraine will Frieden erreichen, in dem sie militärisch gewinnt, selbst Ultimaten in die Endkommuniques ihrer Friedensformelkonferenzen einbaut (und zwar solche Klescher, dass 15 Staaten (2,2+ Milliarden Menschen) nach der Änderung das Abschluss-Kommuniquees dieses nicht mehr unterzeichnen, und mehr als zwei Dutzend Staaten die Ebene der Teilname auf Ministerialebene runterstufen), gleichzeitig über unsere Journalismuspreisträgerin Katrin Eigendorf “wir müssen auch mit Russland toll und schwer verhandeln, später dann, wenn sie die Krim zurückgegeben haben” Propaganda in der deutschen Bevölkerung streut, und behauptet man arbeite parallel aber an einem sehr wesentlichen Friedensprozess -- der bereits zwei Kernpunkte beinhaltet, denen Russland nur bei einer schweren Niederlage zustimmen würde.
Vergleiche:
Gerhard Mangott am 10. Mai 2024 in einem Interview mit dem Youtube Kanal vakuum https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psp2zjOgpMk (bitte vetten, ich habe keine Ahnung, wer die sind -) folgendes fest:
Bei 49:56 in:
Gerhard Mangott: “Beide Kriegsparteien betonen allerdings immer dass sie zu Verhandlungen bereit wären nur stellen sie dafür Vorbedingung die für die jeweils andere Seite nicht akzeptabel sind. Die ukrainische Führung sagt wir verhandeln mit Russland aber erst wenn alle russischen Soldaten ukrainisches Territorium verlassen haben, einschließlich der Krim na das wäre gleichbedeutend mit einer desaströsen Kriegsniederlage Russlands - worüber sollte dann noch verhandelt werden und Selenski hat auch gesagt wir sprechen nicht mit Vladimir Putin sondern wir sprechen mit dem nächsten Führer Russlands und das kann dauern und die Ukraine hat dann im Herbst 2022 eine Friedensformel vorgelegt so nennt sie diesen zehn Punkte Plan in dem sie fordert eben Rückzug der russischen Truppen aus dem gesamten Gebiet der Ukraine, Reparationen Russlands an die Ukraine und Andung von Kriegsverbrechen im zivilen und militärischen Bereich. Das sind aus ukrainischer Sicht alles völlig nachvollziehbare Forderungen die Ukraine muss nur sich klar sein so eine Friedensformel die ja gewissermaßen ein Diktatfrieden wäre die ist nur umsetzbar wenn die wenn die Ukraine diesen Krieg vollständig gewinnt - und danach sieht es nun wirklich nicht aus. Russland wiederum sagt ja wir sind bereit zu Verhandlungen aber man betont die ukrainische Führung müsse - wie man das so formuliert die Realitäten am Boden anerkennen nämlich dass die vier Regionen Cherson, Saporisia, Donezk und Luhansk Teil Russlands seien, russisches Staatsgebiet seien und das ist für die Ukraine wieder nicht akzeptabel. Man will dort keine territorialen Zugeständnisse machen, auch die überwiegende Mehrheit der ukrainischen Bevölkerung will das nicht, lehnt dieses Konzept Land für Frieden ab - so sind wir ein in einer Situation wo eben nicht verhandelt wird, sondern weiter gekämpft wird und da gibt es eben manche die sagen es wird sich am Stellungskrieg auch mit neuer westlicher Militär- und Finanzhilfe nicht wesentlich etwas verändern schon gar nicht zu Gunsten der Ukraine und deswegen müssen man nach einer politischen Lösung suchen und es gibt andere sowohl Politiker als auch Kollegen und Kolleginnen die sagen der Westen müsse der Ukraine nur genug Waffen liefern und alle möglichen Waffen liefern dann könne die Ukraine diesen Krieg gewinnen und das ist der Widerstreit dieser beiden Lager und derzeit ist noch immer das Lager dass die letzte Option befürhwortet nämlich eine all in Versorgung der Ukraine mit Waffen und Munition durch den Westen um diesen Krieg zu gewinnen ob das möglich ist daran haben aber viele Militärexperten Zweifel.“
Mehr kann man die Öffentlichkeit wirklich nicht mehr verarschen.
Ah, doch noch - man kann die Anführungszeichen von Ultimaten wegnehmen, die sie im März 2022 bei BR24 noch hatten - weil Ultimaten ja jetzt Teil der ukrainischen “so will die Ukraine zum Frieden kommen” Erzählung sind.
Und damit wichtig.
Und was für die Ukraine wichtig ist, ist natürlich wahr.
Das macht der deutschsprachige Journalismus doch gerne.
Und die Katrin Eigendorf kanns dann ja einfach für die die den Scheiss nicht mehr aushalten mitglauben, nicht?
Dazu vielleicht noch ein Journalismus-Preis, und ein neues Buch, mit einer kleinen Vernissage…?
Diese Gesellschaft ist das absolut grotesk und abartigst Allerletzte.
Ich mein irgendwie müssen sie (also Hyperbole Media, an die das ZDF die Produktion ausgelagert hat) ja das “es ist an Russland gescheitert “Emotions-Narrativ”” etabliert bekommen und das war dann im Video kurz vor Ende genau der richtige Satz dafür…! [Was jetzt nicht bedeutet, dass das russische Narrativ richtig ist - nur die Begründung von ZDFheute ist… Entscheiden sie selbst.]
ZDFheute am 24.06.2024:
Neben all diesen offenen Punkten [im Vorvertrag, soweit waren sie in der Berichterstattung sauber, also 14 Minuten - keine Probleme mit dem Format] gab es außerdem eine wachsende Skepsis auf ukrainischer Seite, wie ernsthaft die Russen überhaupt an einer Lösung interessiert waren.
“We didn’t know if Putin was serious,” said the former senior U.S. official. “We couldn’t tell, on either side of the fence, whether these people who were talking were empowered.”
One Ukrainian negotiator said he believed the negotiations were a bluff on Mr. Putin’s part, but two others described them as serious.”
So schien die russische Delegation z.B selbst gar keinen engen Kontakt zu Putin zu haben - auch sollen ausgehandelte Kompromisse nach Vorlage im Kreml vom russischen Präsidenten abgelehnt worden sein. Sollten diese Verhandlung vielleicht doch eher nur als Ablenkungsmanöver dienen?
But Mr. Zelensky, visiting Bucha on April 4, said the talks would go on, even as Russia dismissed the Bucha atrocities as a staged “provocation.”
“Colleagues, I spoke to RA,” Ukraine’s lead negotiator, Davyd Arakhamia, wrote on April 10 in a WhatsApp message to the Ukrainian team. “He spoke yesterday for an hour and a half with his boss.”
“RA” was Roman Abramovich, the Russian billionaire who played a behind-the-scenes role in the talks. His “boss,” Mr. Putin, was urging the negotiators to concentrate on the key issues and work through them quickly, Mr. Arakhamia wrote. (A member of the WhatsApp group showed that message and others to reporters for The Times.)
A spokesperson for Mr Abramovich said his role “was limited to introducing representatives from both parties to each other” and that following that initial stage, he “was not involved in the process.”
Mr. Arakhamia’s message suggested that Mr. Putin was micromanaging not only Russia’s invasion, but also its peace talks. At another point, Russia’s lead negotiator, Mr. Medinsky, interrupted a video conference by claiming that Mr. Putin was phoning him directly.”
“The boss is calling,” Mr. Medinsky said, according to two Ukrainian negotiators.
Mr. Putin’s involvement and intentions during the 2022 talks were subjects of debate in Kyiv and Washington, Ukrainian and American officials said. Was he truly interested in a deal? Or was he merely trying to bog Ukraine down while his troops regrouped?
“We didn’t know if Putin was serious,” said the former senior U.S. official. “We couldn’t tell, on either side of the fence, whether these people who were talking were empowered.”
One Ukrainian negotiator said he believed the negotiations were a bluff on Mr. Putin’s part, but two others described them as serious.
Gustav Gressel: Im Grunde wollten sie dass die Ukraine kapituliert. Sie haben gesehen dass sie doch stärker ist als sie gedacht haben, und deshalb haben sie gemeint: “Wir lassen Selenski einen Vertrag unterschreiben, der formell ein Waffenstillstand ist, aber informell die Voraussetzungen für eine Machtübernahme durch Russland schafft [bei einem darauffolgenden Angriff im Jahre Schnee, dank geringer Armeegröße in den Verhandlungspositionen Russlands, auch wenn laut ZDF Heute die Sicherheitsgarantien ja noch garnicht fertig verhandelt waren…] indem er die Ukraine in eine sehr aussichtslose Position manövriert und wie die Russen gesehen haben, dass das sich Selenskij nicht drauf einlässt, hat man die Verhandlungen noch fortgesetzt.
17. Mai 2022 Gespräche beendet - Oleksij Danilow (bis März 2024 Sekretär des Nationalen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungsrats der Ukraine): “Ein Abkommen mit Russland ist unmöglich, nur eine Kapitulation kann akzeptiert werden”
Und ZDFheute widerspricht damit Sabine Adler (langjährige Ost Europa Expertin Deutschlandfunk) am 04. April 2024:
[…] und Johnson hat in der Tat gesagt er findet Verhandlungen überhaupt nicht gut. Die Verhandlungen wurden zunächst auf Eis gelegt und dann passierte im September etwas nämlich es es geschah die Einverleibung nicht nur von den sogenannten Volksrepubliken Lugansk und Donetzk in die Russische Föderation sondern auch Cherson und Saporischschja, die noch nicht mal erobert waren und sie wissen es vielleicht oder sie wissen es nicht - was einverleibt wird hat Verfassungsrang in Russland das heißt also das ist nicht irgendwas, was da beschlossen wurde und gefeiert wurde, sondern das war der damit ist der schriftliche verfassungsmäßige Auftrag diese Gebiete zu erobern, zu erobern und da hat ZelenskiJ nicht die Friedensgespräche abgebrochen sondern er hat gesagt mit Putin verhandle ich nicht mehr!”
Gut, deutschsprachiger Journalismus, was will man machen. Quellenbelege liefern? Sie haben doch nur den Gustav Gressel gefragt, und der hatte das noch so in Erinnerung.….….….…!
Da haben sie daraus dann einen “Background Check” (Format) gemacht, net woar?
Diese Gesellschaft ist das absolut grotesk und abartigst Allerletzte.
20th of June 2024 (Nicht vom Trump thumbnail schocken lassen. :), Kurt Volker war ehemaliger U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine und U.S. Ambassador to NATO in 2008-2009):
Kurt Volker: “Almost all of the Allies leave aside Germany, the US and Hungary, all of the other allies support an invitation for Ukraine to join NATO at the Washington Summit, be an invitation to start accession talks. This is what was in the Rasmusen/Jermak working group paper which I was a part of recommending this approach for NATO, but the US is not in favor of that right now, the Biden Administration is not, nor is Germany - and of course Hungary is a special case we don’t have to go into that. Um but he [Biden, when publicly stating (against US policy) the Ukraine should not be part of Nato] was probably thinking about the pressure that they’re under now. But in my view and again this is just me I’m a private citizen I’m not representing the US government but I don’t see a way that you have a permanent peace in Europe - let alone Ukraine, but a permanent peace in Europe unless Ukraine is a part of NATO. We have to have clear lines, we have to have an absence of gray zones where Putin is tempted to start a war - uh we have to bring Ukraine into NATO as part of the strategy for restoring peace in Europe.”
Context:
Alina Polyakova (President and CEO of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA): I think that signals to me that there is growing agreement that the only way that we can manage Russia is by going back to the Cold War era strategy of containment, that begins first, defeating Russia in Ukraine and second, reestablishing deterance by denial in Europe that means hardening the Eastern flank first and foremost. Third hardening the soft targets of Russian influence across the globe - uh influence operations in the information space, cyber operations that the Russians have become very sophisticated at, pushing back against Russia’s use of PMC’s [private military contractors] to prop up authoritarian governments across the globe and undermine democratic leadership - and fourth, undermining Russian dominance in its former empire, because as long as we have so-called grey zone States a horrible term but, non-allied states that are not part of NATO that are not part of the EU in the European continentthis is what provides fodder for Russian aggression so Moldova is very much under threat as we speak, certainly Bellarus has already become a vassel state of Russia and then we have of course Georgia and the other countries of the Caucasus as well.
[…]
And Russia will come back for NATO.
Hanno Pevkur, Minister of Defence of the Republic of Estonia (30.05.2023):
“What Russia wants to achieve, the political goals, let’s be honest - and they, these political goals of Russia have never changed, they want to have a grey-zone between Russia and NATO, they want to have a control over this grey-zone and this is what they want to achieve. And they want to have some “security guarantees” for themselves, sorry this is not the Free World and this is what Ukraine is fighting for at the moment, that they are fighting for - the Free World and rule-based world and this is why we support Ukraine so this is obvious and then this is why we can never accept this approach of Russia, looking at international law.”
See: [Great and impartial] Friends of Ukraine Roundtable #2
Vlad Vexler of course also widely known for publicaly ridiculing Chomsky -
[Only legit, with great and impartial blue skies over yellow sunflowerfield background.]
Because Chomsky stated that Selenskyj was open to peace negotiations, which obviously wasnt true because according to Vlad Vexler Selenskyj was fighting for the mere survival of Ukraine. Except that it was. (See NYT as of June 15th 2024).
With Vlad Vexler you then get presented this in this way:
Putin’s actions are destroying Russia’s future and increasingly odds that Russia may not exist at all and there isn’t even a more striking Omission in that argument and that is - Ukrainian agency since 2014! Ukraine has come together in a Civic Bond powered by anti-colonial sentiment and it’s only an ungrounded newspaper clipping approach to political understanding that could lead Norm Chomsky to say that Ukraine wants peace more than weapons.
For reference, the Interview Vlad Vexler quotes Chomsky from (and underlies with sinister music) was held in May 2022 - when according to Simon Shuster - you know - that Simon Shuster:
Simon Shuster is a senior correspondent at TIME. He covers international affairs, with a focus on Russia and Ukraine.
Selenkyjs view still was that the Ukraine needed to talk to Putin - to prevent a wider war.
“He also said at the time, days after the Butscha massacre was discovered in early April of 2022, he suggested that Putin might not be fully aware of the warcrimes that his soldiers are committing. And we still need to talk to Putin.
Quite quickly, but certainly over the course of the next weeks that followed, his views, evolved partly under the influence of his advisors. You know this is -- like any administration there are different opinions, and they were discussing what to do, what should be our position in terms of negotiations and -- the possibility of talking to Putin. Is he a monster, is he a statesmen, what is he?! A dictator. And their views evolved quite quickly [but certainly over the course of the next weeks], to the point where I think by the start of summer certainly Selenskyj had decided, that - NO, it is not possible to talk to Putin. (and thats 81 days after Butscha, which became known on April the 1st 2022.)”
src: click (Simon Shuster at the Atlantic Council)
Where at 3min20 in there exists this wonderful passage:
Sprecher: “Seit der Besetzung der Krim 2014 bittet die Ukraine die USA ihr Javelin Panzer-Abwehrraketen zu liefern. Präsident Obama lehnt zuerst ab, weil er eine Eskalation der Spannungen mit Russland befürchtet. Nun [20.06.2017] legt Poroschenenko Trump seinen Wunsch vor.”
[Context: This was the aformentioned “wish” in November of 2019, six months after the Poroschenko presidency, in the early stages of the Selenskyj presidency:
24.11.2019
The aid, including counter-artillery battery radar, night-vision gear and patrol boats, has since [in the later parts of the Trump administration] been unfrozen and is making a real difference to Ukrainian forces fighting Russian-backed separatists in eastern districts.
But it is the Javelin which appears to be a game-changer, Ukraine’s defence minister told CBC News.
“In certain areas, they can make a critical difference,” said Andriy Zagorodnyuk.
Fiona Hill: “Poroschenko schwitzte buchstäblich und wirkte sehr nervös. ich erinnere mich genau an seinen Gesichtsausdruck als er hereinkam - er war sehr beklommen denn für ihn stand viel auf dem Spiel.”
Poroschenko: “Damals gab es bereits die russische Besatzung. Die Krim war besetzt und der Donbas war besetzt.”
H. R. McMaster (National Security Advisor, Trump): “Der Präsident nahm Poroschenko sehr freundlich auf. Er war ein erfolgreicher Geschäftsmann genau wie Trump und auf der Ebene verstanden sie sich.”
Poroschenko: “Ich sagte: Mr President wir brauchen tödliche Waffen. Javelin ist eine sehr wirksame Panzerabwehrrakete.”
H. R. McMaster: “Präsident Poroschenko gelang es Trump die Auswirkungen der russischen Besatzung auf die Ukraine darzulegen. Präsident Trump erkannte die Bedrohung und die Notwendigkeit der Abschreckung”
Poroschenko: “Als ich das Oval Office verließ, war ich wie beflügelt, denn Präsident Trump hatte mir das Javelin System zugesagt. Das war ein großartiger Tag.”
Sprecher: “Doch die Realität sieht anders aus. Als er zwei Wochen später zum G20 Gipfel anreist, hat Trump den Vertrag noch immer nicht unterzeichnet hier soll er Putin erstmals persönlich begegnen.”
Fiona Hill: “Wir erhielten Hinweise von der russischen Delegation, dass Präsident Putin Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine, vor allem Javelin Raketen sehr kritisch sehen würde.”
John Kelly (Secretary of Homeland Security, Trump): “Der Präsident war sich der Tatsache bewusst dass eine Unterstützung der Ukraine Russland verärgern würde und er wollte wohl oder übel gute Beziehungen zu Putin aufbauen.”
John Kelly: “Trump hegte die trügerische Hoffnung gute persönliche Beziehungen zu Putin seine Haltung mäßigen würden.”
Sprecher: “Das nationale Sicherheitsteam versucht Trump zu überzeugen sein Versprechen an Poroschenko zu halten.”
John Kelly: “Ich machte klar, solange es keinen Angriff gegen die Souveränität der Ukraine gab, werde kein russischer Panzer von Javelin Raketen getroffen und auch kein russischer Soldat von Munition aus den USA.”
H. R. McMaster: “Mein Argument war dass Schwäche Russland provoziert ich glaube Russland hat die Ukraine 2014 angegriffen weil Putin glaubte die Amerikaner würden ohnehin nicht reagieren, deswegen war es wichtig die Verteidigungsfähigkeit der Ukraine die Abschreckung zu stärken. Trump stimmte zu.”
Sprecher: “Ende 2017 gibt Trump den Befehl zur Lieferung tödlicher Waffen [Javelins, the Gamechanger in the Donbas] an die Ukraine.”
Andrej Kelin (former Ambasador of the Russian Federation to the UK): “Aus unserer Sicht hatte Trump mit dieser Entscheidung eine rote Linie überschritten, er wurde dazu überredet Javelin Raketen zu liefern und das war nur der Anfang der Aufrüstung der Ukraine. Der Anfang eines sehr gefährlichen Wegs.”
John Bolton (National Security Advisor): “Putin betrachteten die Lieferung schwerer Waffen an die Ukraine als Bedrohung. Er hielt die Ukraine für ein illegales Staatsgebilde das der Sowjetunion dass Russland zu Unrecht entrissen worden war. Der Zerfall der Sowjetunion war für Putin die größte geopolitische Katastrophe des 20 Jahrhunderts.”
Chomsky of course being the intellectual that then promptly finds out through literary analysis - and promptly also makes public - that this concession -
John Kelly: “Ich machte klar, solange es keinen Angriff gegen die Souveränität der Ukraine gab, werde kein russischer Panzer von jevelin Raketen getroffen und auch kein russischer Soldat von Munition aus den USA.”
- was violated by Ukraine in November of 2021 (or slightly earlier), trying to free the Donbas - referencing this article:
Ukrainian Troops Have Been Firing American-Made Javelin Missiles At Russian-Backed Forces
The disclosure that Ukrainian troops have been employing Javelin missiles in combat comes as fears grow that Russian could launch a new invasion.
JOSEPHTREVITHICK
POSTEDONNOV 22, 2021 6:18 PMEST
The head of Ukraine’s top military intelligence agency has confirmed, for what appears to be the first time, that Ukrainian troops in the country’s eastern Donbass region have fired American-made Javelin anti-tank missiles at Russian or Russian-supported forces. These missiles, along with other advanced weapons that the Ukrainian military has acquired in recent years, such as Turkish Bayraktar TB2 armed drones, would be important factors in the outcome of any future major military confrontation with Russia. Fears are growing that the Kremlin could at least be prepared to launch a new, large-scale invasion of eastern Ukraine as early as January.
Ukrainian Brigadier General Kyrylo Budanov talked about the operational use of Javelins as part of a recent interview with Military Times, which he conducted through an interpreter. Budanov, who runs the Chief Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, also known by its Ukrainian acronym GURMOU, used the opportunity to call for more help from the U.S. government as he sounded like the alarm about the Kremlin’s unusual deployments of large numbers of military units to areas opposite Russia’s borders with Ukraine in recent weeks.
The second big deployment of russian army units on the ukrainian border happens from Oktober to mid November 2021. US delivered Javelins were likely used in Donbas, by the Ukraine, starting from October 2021.
The US then promptly covers this up and two months later allows the Ukraine to distribute Javelins throughout Ukraine more freely - and use them - even without an official Russian invasion being underway (but that was a change from their previous position, that was only implemented in december of 2021):
04. 12. 2021 (Politico) - Can Ukraine deploy U.S.-made weapons against the Russians?
There are no geographic restrictions on the deployment of the missiles, which means Ukrainian forces can transport, distribute and use them any time.
As Russia amasses the highest number of troops on Ukraine’s border since 2014, the question for Kyiv now becomes: Is it time to start putting U.S.-made weapons in the field?
Ukraine purchased 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles and 37 launchers from the U.S. in 2018 for approximately $47 million, and the State Department approved the sale of a second batch of 150 missiles and 10 launch units in late 2019. But with them came a variety of restrictions on their usage, including that they be stored in western Ukraine, far from the front lines.
The Javelin is a shoulder-fired missile that uses infrared guidance to target and destroy an enemy tank from up to 3 miles away. Former President Donald Trump first approved the sale of the weapon to Ukraine after his predecessor, former President Barack Obama, refused the request, due to fears that providing lethal aid to Kyiv would provoke Moscow.
Wess Mitchell, who served as the Trump administration’s top State Department official overseeing European and Eurasian affairs, noted that the Javelins and other lethal weapons are designed not for first use but to deter Moscow from encroaching on Ukrainian territory.
But while Washington urges Kyiv to use the Javelins only for defensive purposes and requires that the weapons be stored in a secure facility away from the conflict, there are no geographic restrictions on the actual deployment of the missiles, U.S. officials said, which means that Ukrainian forces can transport, distribute and use them at any time.
“Javelins are defensive weapons and the United States expects Ukraine to deploy them responsibly and strategically when needed for defensive purposes,” said Pentagon spokesperson Mike Howard.
If the Javelins were to be moved, it doesn’t necessarily mean they’d be used — in Kyiv’s estimation, the threshold for actually firing the weapons has not yet been met, according to two Ukrainians familiar with the discussions. The red line, they said, would be if Russian tanks crossed over into Ukrainian territory.
The current Russian movement in Eastern Europe is exactly the kind of scenario the Javelin sale was designed to counter, said two former senior U.S. defense officials familiar with the agreement.
But while Washington urges Kyiv to use the Javelins only for defensive purposes and requires that the weapons be stored in a secure facility away from the conflict
- but also this was in play at that time:
John Kelly: “Ich machte klar, solange es keinen Angriff gegen die Souveränität der Ukraine gab, werde kein russischer Panzer von jevelin Raketen getroffen und auch kein russischer Soldat von Munition aus den USA.”
So ARTE of course doesnt catch this. But Chomsky does.
So then he gets publicly character assassinated by Vlad Vexler, whom ARTE then also promptly features in their “Truth and Propaganda” Documentary.
As that doesnt work, Chomsky now really gets on the US Propaganda shitlist, getting essentially the shouting down by an idiot treatment - by a Radio Free Europe/Radio liberty employee:
You know - Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the only us american broadcaster that is publicly funded by the US government and strangely enough is only broadcasting abroad - but in the past months, also strangely enough finally had secured enough funding to also expand to romania:
22th of June 2024 here at 24 min in:
Jamie Fly (Former Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty CEO):
“I think it’s important uh context, historical context for the US Romanian relationship, when I was president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, we returned uh to Romania, relaunched our Romanian language service - I had many occasions where I was able to visit uh Bucharest and the thing I think Americans need to understand is Romanians LOVE Freedom uh and it’s uh now in their uh DNA uh and that was an important bond given the work of Radio Free Europe uh during the Communist era, and it was - I had this experience in many countries I operated in, but Romania was perhaps the most fervent. When I went to Romania as president of Radio Free Europe, people would describe to me with tears in their eyes the role that American Broadcasting played during a very dark uh period and uh were always asking us to do more there and I was excited that we were able to to return during my tenure um so and I think that relates to why Romania [!] now has staked out such a clear leadership role uh in the region,advancing uh the values that uh us programming certainly represented during that time so it’s it’s great to be uh with you, so maybe I’ll start broadly just with the state of the US Romania uh relationship which you kind of touched on at the end but I was struck by your note that US engagement needs to be basically reliable, predictable and not to get partisan or - not to say make you say anything too undiplomatic but um the US is always distracted uh and even though the US is very engaged uh in support of Ukraine right now, China is uh a growing challenge drawing attention.”
So then Chomsky and I get a stroke.
Chomsky for real, and recovering:
Noam Chomsky Leaves Hospital After Suffering Stroke
The world-renowned linguist and dissident Noam Chomsky was discharged from a São Paulo hospital in Brazil on Tuesday as he continues to recover from a stroke last year that impacted his ability to speak. His wife Valeria recently told a newspaper in Brazil that the 95-year-old Chomsky still follows the news and raises his left arm in anger when he sees images of Israel’s war on Gaza. False reports that Chomsky had died went viral online on Tuesday.
The University Vienna is currently booking the full ukrainian “Art and Propaganda” package (they actually will organize everything, you just book them via your local embassy) for its students, to make sure all minds are primed to think the right way, and everyone still claps, when
good old, not at all political propagandist Maria Mezentseva from great Servant of the People party -
tells your average austrian university audience, that - quote:
“The peace formula which president Selenskyj initiated already in 2022, you know already the amount of the warcrimes, according to the prosecutor general office and the data we are getting weekly - we are talking about 130.000 registered warcrimes. And it means not only you know damaged properties or unfortunately related sexual violence crime. Amongst victims, by the way there are children, boys and girls - which is absolutely devastating.
And this proves to us, that only in unified efforts we can defeat the Evil. The Evil which influenced our energy system - our common food security. Our daily life. Our peace. On the subcontinent of Europe. And affected the project which europeans have been building for 75 years.
I truly believe that only together, “alles zusammen”, only like this we can defeat, the highest crime, which is the crime of aggression, by establishing international tribunal for this particular crime. Because everything we are talking about in terms of war crimes, daily committed by russian army - this has a beginning, and it began with the first invasion into Ukraine in 2014. Invasion into Georgia in 2008. In the nineties this was Moldova - we dont want this list to continue.
Therefore I highly salute also the decision of the austrian govenrment to join this special register for warcrimes, where Ukrainians - the victims, can receive for material and non material losses the compensations. And this is extremely important friends, because we are all united in the understanding, that russia has to pay. Not austrian tax payers! Not french colleagues, not Germans, not australians, or americans - but russian funds and frozen assets should serve that purpose.
Thank you very much, for bringing this issue via photographs, via images of ukrainian daily life - and thank you very much for activities of your embassy - here in Kiev and elsewere in the regions, also in my home city Charkiew, which itself and the region of Charkiew is under daily shelling, thats why we call for more support for civilians. It means air defense, you know - that this is not directly lets say an address to Austria, but also to many, many allies - where Austria helps us to lobby this important issues to protect energy infrastructure, to education facilities -- so finally children in Charkiew will come up from underground schools in metro stations, and be able to study offline.
Dear friends, I’m sure todays evening will bring you a little bit closer to the emotions we feel daily. I salute you from the capitol Kiev, where we continue to conduct our parliamentary session, I want to thank the ambassador, and I want to thank of course to the organizers, und Vielen Dank für Universität and all the guests who have gathered today.
I promise to practice my german more and next time to conduct my speech in german.
Noch einmal vielen Dank für alles - sie machen für unsere Leuten und Kinder. So about children, and that would be my last -- uhmn red line.
Thank you so much for supporting the initiative to bring kids back, the civilians and war prisonors who are kept since 2014 by russia illegaly -- is devastating. The children stories are even more devastating.
I would like to thank you for raising the voice for this 19.000 children who are kept in russia and in Belarus illegally.
Thank you for supporting this initiatives to bring this childrens back. I’m sure the number of 500 of them who already returned back home will increase, but we should make it together with responsible organizations like UN and ICRC.
Noch einmal vielen Dank, it was a big honor to speak in front of you.”
Just your usual, very normal photoart-agent for a brother and sister duo organizing a photo exhibition in the University of Vienna, I’d say.
Propaganda (weniger Inhalt, aber FORM!) hat ja wieder niemand entdeckt.
Am Allerwenigsten das gesamte versammelte Rektorat.
Ich stell mir da jetzt vor, wie das ein Jus, oder ein IR Professor in ner Vorlesung aufarbeitet - ohne über den Propaganda Anteil zu stolpern…
Das schafft auch nur mehr ein gelernter Österreicher.
edit: Oh großartige Neuigkeiten! Die Österreichisch Ukrainische Gesellschaft hat ein Buch zum Selbstkostenpreis herausgebracht, das bereits in den Oberstufen von österreichischen Gymnasien verteilt und behandelt wird! Manchmal hat man aber auch einfach Glück als neuer Schulbuchverlag…
edit2: Auch wunderschön: “Herr Prosecutor General, ich weiß nicht ob sie noch zwei Minuten haben, aber wie sehen sie eigentlich ihre Rolle in der Ukrainischen Gesellschaft, mehr so “emotional stabilisierend”, oder --?” “Yes thank you for this very important question. We have 10 more minutes. I will try to answer important question.” -- then the Prosecutor General starts reading the answer from the screen in front of him… (Eye movement.)
Gut werden sie an dieser Stelle sagen - dann ist es eigentlich an der Zeit nochmal vier Jahre Krieg im Detail zu planen - nicht?
Danke Gustav - übernimm du dich mal - ehm, sorry, übernimm du das mal.
Formerly the rulers were the leaders. They laid out the course of history, by the simple process of doing what they wanted. And if nowadays the successors of the rulers, those whose position or ability gives them power, can no longer do what they want without the approval of the masses, they find in propaganda a tool which is increasingly powerful in gaining that approval. Therefore, propaganda is here to stay.
It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind. The American government and numerous patriotic agencies developed a technique which, to most persons accustomed to bidding for public acceptance, was new. They not only appealed to the individual by means of every approach-visual, graphic, and auditory-to support the national endeavor, but they also secured the cooperation of the key men in every group -persons whose mere word carried authority to hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers. They thus automatically gained the support of fraternal, religious, commercial, patriotic, social and local groups whose members took their opinions from their accustomed leaders and spokesmen, or from the periodical publications which they were accustomed to read and believe.At the same time, the manipulators of patriotic opinion made use of the mental cliches and the emotional habits of the public to produce mass reactions against the alleged atrocities, the terror and the tyranny of the enemy. It was only natural, after the war ended, that intelligent persons should ask themselves whether it was not possible to apply a similar technique to the problems of peace.
(Propaganda - Edward Bernays, 1928, Liverlight, first edition, Chapter II - The new Propaganda)
Gut, Propaganda hat natürlich wieder niemand entdeckt.
So - we need to get back all Ukrainian territories, because after Butscha, there is no way the peace talks could have continued. Right?
Sure, if you like to hold on to your self delusions and fairytales…
So…
1.
But Mr. Zelensky, visiting Bucha on April 4, said the talks would go on, even as Russia dismissed the Bucha atrocities as a staged “provocation.”
“He also said at the time, days after the Butscha massacre was discovered in early April of 2022, he suggested that Putin might not be fully aware of the warcrimes that his soldiers are committing. And we still need to talk to Putin.
Quite quickly, but certainly over the course of the next weeks that followed, his views, evolved partly under the influence of his advisors. You know this is -- like any administration there are different opinions, and they were discussing what to do, what should be our position in terms of negotiations and -- the possibility of talking to Putin. Is he a monster, is he a statesmen, what is he?! A dictator. And their views evolved quite quickly [but certainly over the course of the next weeks], to the point where I think by the start of summer certainly Selenskyj had decided, that - NO, it is not possible to talk to Putin.”
src: click (Simon Shuster at the Atlantic Council)
You know - that Simon Shuster:
Simon Shuster is a senior correspondent at TIME. He covers international affairs, with a focus on Russia and Ukraine.
Amid all the pressure to root out corruption, I assumed, perhaps naively, that officials in Ukraine would think twice before taking a bribe or pocketing state funds. But when I made this point to a top presidential adviser in early October, he asked me to turn off my audio recorder so he could speak more freely. “Simon, you’re mistaken,” he says. “People are stealing like there’s no tomorrow.”
Even the firing of the Defense Minister did not make officials “feel any fear,” he adds, because the purge took too long to materialize. The President was warned in February that corruption had grown rife inside the ministry, but he dithered for more than six months, giving his allies multiple chances to deal with the problems quietly or explain them away. By the time he acted ahead of his U.S. visit, “it was too late,” says another senior presidential adviser.
[…]
Amid all the pressure to root out corruption, I assumed, perhaps naively, that officials in Ukraine would think twice before taking a bribe or pocketing state funds. But when I made this point to a top presidential adviser in early October, he asked me to turn off my audio recorder so he could speak more freely. “Simon, you’re mistaken,” he says. “People are stealing like there’s no tomorrow.”
Even the firing of the Defense Minister did not make officials “feel any fear,” he adds, because the purge took too long to materialize. The President was warned in February that corruption had grown rife inside the ministry, but he dithered for more than six months, giving his allies multiple chances to deal with the problems quietly or explain them away. By the time he acted ahead of his U.S. visit, “it was too late,” says another senior presidential adviser.
[…] Safari by russian soldiers against human civilians, against civilians - it’s unspeakable. And I was committed even before the Bucha massacre, by the way it’s - the right spelling is butcher not bucca, I was committed to prosecuting all russian atrocities and war criminals, and to doing everything that I could as foreign minister to bring them to account, but now - uh I will be doing it until my last breath.”
So - you see, … when nobody at the time actually used the argument that it was “Butcha that was the reason why - we have to stop peace negotiations, to drive out the last russian from our country - before we can think about talks, because Butcha is how all Russian soldiers behave in Ukraine!” (or any part of that - at all). And everyone actually stated the complete opposite in public speeches on the record.
(Leaving out that little gem of a “you better dont tell the public nugget” --
Which then lead to secondary lies - when ukrainians hosted a Gregor Gysi visit, where when asked about why there were so many burned out tanks in Bucha - when the Russians supposedly left “on their own” his ukrainian guide told Gysi - that those would have been “Wagner Forces”… Something no one ever said, stated, repeated, indicated, or even hinted at -- in any other instance ever - before or after. What luck for Gysi to get told something no one else has ever publicly stated, during his visit in Butcha - when he probably asked a bit too much.… (It likely was BS on part of the guide, but it left an impression on Gysi - which Claudia Major did her utmost best to instantly burry under some “yeah - but thats not even important anymore” BS - live in the Spiegel TV Interview Studio. Fun times… src: click)
While it was actually Selenskyj himself stating on the record that -
“He also said at the time, days after the Butscha massacre was discovered in early April of 2022, he suggested that Putin might not be fully aware of the warcrimes that his soldiers are committing. And we still need to talk to Putin.”
an opinion which then changed “by the start of Summer for sure” (thats 1st of April 2022 (the Bucha massacre becomes known) plus 81 days until the 21th of June (start of summer in that year)), “partly under the influence of his advisers”
over the course of the next weeks that followed, his views, evolved partly under the influence of his advisors.
src: click (Simon Shuster at the Atlantic Council)
-- that opinion, gets completely wiped from the wider public record - to just establish the OPPOSITE as being the actual reason, why Ukraine NEEDEDTOBREAKOFF peace talks with russia.
Its because of Butscha, right?!
Two months ago - from me writing this now, Sabine Adler (longstanding East Europe Expert, Deutschlandfunk - und Experte dem die deutschen Medien vertrauen!), actually put this out there (at 1:20:00 in):
“Sabine Adler: Also die die Ukraine ist in Friedensgespräche gegangen, noch im Februar. [Bonus, Putin asked for them to be established on the second day of the war. Fun.] Diese Friedensgespräche haben angefangen in Gomel, da hat man sich mehrfach getroffen und die das Angebot der Ukraine durch Selenskij hat gelautet - Verzicht auf Natomitgliedschaft, Neutralität und Ausklammerung der Krim, das war also ein riesen Zugeständnis was im im Übrigen für Selenskij ein großes Risiko war, weil er gegen die eigene Verfassung verstoßen hat, in der Verfassung steht die Natoitgliedschaft als Verfassungsziel - er ist damit reingegangen, weil er dieses weitere Töten auf jeden Fall verhindern wollte. Diese Verhandlungen haben ungefähr geführt, sind gelaufen zunächst in Weißruss- in Belarus und dann in der Tat in der Türkei, dazwischen wissen Sie was Anfang April war? Butscha! Irpin! Berdjansk. All diese Geschichten waren da und da haben die Ukra da haben -- bitte das ist der
[Einwurf des Fragestellers]
Sabine Adler: Genau lassen Sie mich kurz no jetzt bin ich jetzt mal, sie wollten jetzt ihr Statement und ich wieder - ich sage jetzt etwas auf ihr Statement. Und Butscha und Irpin und all das was da deutlich geworden ist, hat für die Ukraine - es unmöglich gemacht zunächst weiter zu verhandeln das heißt also und Butscha war Anfang April und Boris Boris Johnson war Mitte oder Ende April [09th of April so eight days after Butscha] in Kiev nur mal das dazu dann hat man weiter dann hat man gesagt und und diese, diese Angebote die die ihnen gemacht hat, haben die russischen Unterhändler jeweils entgegengenommen und sie haben gesagt ja das ist etwas ganz vorsichtig vorsichtig das nehmen wir mit, das können wir mal so weitergeben - da sind sie sofort zurückgefiffen worden als sie nur diese relativ neutrale Kommentierung gemacht haben! [Yeah, the NYT states, that Putin told the head of his delegation to quickly bring the peace agreement further along at that time and not stall, and that the ukrainian delegation lead knew about that - but yeah… Why not invent absolute bullshit instead?]. Dann Ende April [9th of April] da sagen sie ist Johnson - sie verorten den sehr viel weiter früher [yeah and you 20 days later you absolut complete and utter…] war Johnson in in in Kiev und Johnson hat in der Tat gesagt er findet Verhandlungen überhaupt nicht gut. Die Verhandlungen wurden zunächst auf Eis gelegt und dann passierte im September etwas nämlich es es geschah die Einverleibung nicht nur von den sogenannten Volksrepubliken Lugansk und Donetzk in die Russische Föderation sondern auch Cherson und Saporischschja, die noch nicht mal erobert waren und sie wissen es vielleicht oder sie wissen es nicht - was einverleibt wird hat Verfassungsrang in Russland das heißt also das ist nicht irgendwas, was da beschlossen wurde und gefeiert wurde, sondern das war der damit ist der schriftliche verfassungsmäßige Auftrag diese Gebiete zu erobern, zu erobern und da hat ZelenskiJ nicht die Friedensgespräche abgebrochen sondern er hat gesagt mit Putin verhandle ich nicht mehr!”
Even there - no mention of “we need to break off the peace talks and get back all Ukrainian territories, because after Butscha, there is no way peace talks could have continued” but actually the opposite.
We will not mention for a minute that the actual order of events at the time was:
- 29th of March 2022: Presidential adviser of Selesnkyj demands “heavy weapons to drive all russians out of Ukraine” at a Conference in Istanbul
Ukrainian presidential adviser calls for heavier weaponry from the West as Russia shifts military focus
“Our partners must finally understand that the ‘Afghanization’ they want and the long-lasting exhausting conflict for Russia will not happen,” Podolyak said. “Russia will leave all Ukrainian territories except the south and east. And will try to dig in there, put in air defense and sharply reduce the loss of its equipment and personnel.”
Similar to the month-earlier version, the April 15 draft includes text in red highlighting issues in dispute. But such markings are almost entirely absent from the treaty’s first pages, where points of agreement emerged.
Negotiators agreed that Ukraine would declare itself permanently neutral, though it would be allowed to join the European Union.
Much of the treaty would “not apply” to Crimea and another to-be-determined swath of Ukraine — meaning that Kyiv would accept Russian occupation of part of its territory without recognizing Russian sovereignty over it.
But crucial sticking points remained.
[…]
The biggest problem, however, came in Article 5. It stated that, in the event of another armed attack on Ukraine, the “guarantor states” that would sign the treaty — Great Britain, China, Russia, the United States and France — would come to Ukraine’s defense.
To the Ukrainians’ dismay, there was a crucial departure from what Ukrainian negotiators said was discussed in Istanbul. Russia inserted a clause saying that all guarantor states, including Russia, had to approve the response if Ukraine were attacked. In effect, Moscow could invade Ukraine again and then veto any military intervention on Ukraine’s behalf — a seemingly absurd condition that Kyiv quickly identified as a dealbreaker.
Russia tried to secure a veto on Ukraine’s security guarantees by inserting a clause requiring unanimous consent.
“The Guarantor States and Ukraine agree that in the event of an armed attack on Ukraine, each of the Guarantor States … on the basis of a decision agreed upon by all Guarantor States, will provide … assistance to Ukraine, as a permanently neutral state under attack…”
With that change, a member of the Ukrainian negotiating team said, “we had no interest in continuing the talks.”
SOWITH A BUNCHOFCRICIALSTICKINGPOINTSREMAINING - THISISTHEPOINTWHEREUKRAINIANNEGOTIATORSDECIDED - NO, NOMORE - THATATTEMPTATSLIPPINGIN A VETOISTHHAAAAAABREEEEAKINGPOINT! NOMOREPEACETALKS!
THENCHRONOLOGICALLYTHISHAPPENS:
Davyd Arakhamiia: 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.
Then the Ukraine starts attacking again. Because the weapons arrived. Being successfull in Cherson (Offensive: 27. Juli 2022 – 11. November 2022).
Then the the Ukraine starts attacking again. being VERY successfull in Charkiew (6. September 2022 – 2. Oktober 2022).
Then on 30th of September 2022 Putin declares Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts annexed.
And then Selenskyj still doesnt officially break off the peace negotiations, they just continue ghosting every meeting of it since the end of April, so Selenskyj can remain “the PEACE president” - in all of fucking public dialog in german media. HORRAYHORRAY. --
Sorry - we forget all of that of course --
and still believe, that the Ukraine
HADTOSTOPNEGOTIATIONS, BECAUSETHEYSAWHOWTHERUSSIANSOLDIERBEHAVEDINHISNATURALHABITATINBUTCHA! WHICHIS A BLUEPRINTFORHOWTHERUSSIANBEHAVESINTHEENTIRETYOFUKRAINE! -
Even though Selenskyj stated this - after Butscha -
“He also said at the time, days after the Butscha massacre was discovered in early April of 2022, he suggested that Putin might not be fully aware of the warcrimes that his soldiers are committing. And we still need to talk to Putin.
src: click (Simon Shuster at the Atlantic Council)
And it took the ukrainian propaganda department until the start of summer (thats 81 days after Butscha) for the public messaging to change.
Even though - 14 days after Butcha (15th of April), the Ukrianian delegation knew that it didnt want to continue negotiations, because of Russias demand for a veto, which was the ACTUAL dealbreaker (new western Propaganda line, why not…)
Even though Davyd Arakhamiia clearly stated
Davyd Arakhamiia: Yeah, this was the first goal and the second goal was to buy time. So we were basically building a smokescreen.
Even though Selenskyj still didnt break off Peace talks “officially” after on 30th of September 2022 Putin declares Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts annexed.
Quote:
Und dann passierte im September etwas nämlich es es geschah die Einverleibung nicht nur von den sogenannten Volksrepubliken Lugansk und Donetzk in die Russische Föderation sondern auch Cherson und Saporischschja, die noch nicht mal erobert waren und sie wissen es vielleicht oder sie wissen es nicht - was einverleibt wird hat Verfassungsrang in Russland das heißt also das ist nicht irgendwas, was da beschlossen wurde und gefeiert wurde, sondern das war der damit ist der schriftliche verfassungsmäßige Auftrag diese Gebiete zu erobern, zu erobern und da hat ZelenskiJ nicht die Friedensgespräche abgebrochen sondern er hat gesagt mit Putin verhandle ich nicht mehr!”
src: click
(Sabine Adler longstanding East Europe Expert, Deutschlandfunk on the 5th of April 2024)
ANDYOUFUCKINGBELIEVETHIS?!
YOUFUCKINGASSININEFUCKINGIDIOTS,
YOU --
Diese Gesellschaft ist das absolut grotesk und abartigst ALLERLETZTE.
And then we treat everyone who knows that - like an absolute fucking Putin apologist, tool, idiot, leper, …
BECAUSEYOUFUCKINGATEUPTHATPROPAGANDALIKE A FUCKINGKIPFERLATBREAKFAST - you utter, utter, scumm.
Achja, und da Kaiser Franz Joseph is ja in den Krieg - weil sie seinen Sohn getötet haben - net woa?
Great to finally get a grasp on the wider publics - utter, utter intelligence.
Gut, Propaganda hat jetzt aber leider wieder niemand entdeckt.
Und die Geschichte mit den signalenden US (“US and NATO officials struggle to decipher the status of peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine”), die am 20. März 2022 “plötzlich nicht mehr gewusst haben wo die Ukraine steht” (hatte da doch der Präsident Selensky verlautbart eine “neutrale Ukraine” sei etwas worüber er nachdenke), worauf am selben Tag (!) der ehemalige ukrainische Verteidigungsminister Zagorodnyuk, jetzt Atlantic Council Mitglied, bei Times Radio vorsprechen und die ukrainische Position erläutern musste:
The draft included limits on the size of the Ukrainian armed forces and the number of tanks, artillery batteries, warships and combat aircraft the country could have in its arsenal. The Ukrainians were prepared to accept such caps, but sought much higher limits.
A former senior U.S. official who was briefed on the negotiations, noting how Russian forces were being repelled across northern Ukraine, said Mr. Putin seemed to be “salivating” at the deal.
American officials were alarmed at the terms. In meetings with their Ukrainian counterparts, the senior official recalled, “We quietly said, ‘You understand this is unilateral disarmament, right?’”
Leaders in Poland — early and strong supporters of Ukraine — feared that Germany or France might try to persuade the Ukrainians to accept Russia’s terms, according to a European diplomat, and wanted to prevent that from happening.
To that end, when Poland’s president, Andrzej Duda, met with NATO leaders in Brussels on March 24, he held up the March 17 text, said the diplomat, who was present.
“Which of you would sign it?” Mr. Duda asked his counterparts, the diplomat said.
None of the NATO leaders spoke up.
A Breakthrough in Istanbul?
A few days later, on March 29, Russia and Ukraine’s representatives met at an Istanbul palace on the Bosporus. To some, the talks felt like a breakthrough driven by Russia’s battlefield struggles.
After each military setback, a member of Ukraine’s negotiating team said, Mr. Putin “reduced his demands.”
In Istanbul, the Russians seemed to endorse Ukraine’s model of neutrality and security guarantees and put less emphasis on their territorial demands. Afterward, Mr. Medinsky, Russia’s lead negotiator, said Ukraine’s offer of neutrality meant it was “ready to fulfill those principal demands that Russia insisted on for all the past years.”
Ukraine summarized the proposed deal in a two-page document it called the Istanbul Communiqué, which it never published. The status of Crimea was to be decided over a 10- or 15-year period, with Ukraine promising not to try to retake the peninsula by force; Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Putin would meet in person to finalize a peace treaty and strike a deal on how much Ukrainian territory Russia would continue to occupy.
The communiqué, provided to The Times by a Ukrainian negotiator, described a mechanism in which other countries would intervene militarily if Ukraine were attacked again — a concept that the Ukrainians pointedly designated as Article 5, a reference to the mutual defense agreement in Article 5 of the NATO treaty.
In early April, after Russia withdrew from the outskirts of Kyiv, images of massacred civilians in the suburb of Bucha, some with their hands tied with white cloth, shocked the world. For Ukrainians, the idea that their country could strike a compromise with Russia seemed more remote than ever.
But Mr. Zelensky, visiting Bucha on April 4, said the talks would go on, even as Russia dismissed the Bucha atrocities as a staged “provocation.”
“Colleagues, I spoke to RA,” Ukraine’s lead negotiator, Davyd Arakhamia, wrote on April 10 in a WhatsApp message to the Ukrainian team. “He spoke yesterday for an hour and a half with his boss.”
“RA” was Roman Abramovich, the Russian billionaire who played a behind-the-scenes role in the talks. His “boss,” Mr. Putin, was urging the negotiators to concentrate on the key issues and work through them quickly, Mr. Arakhamia wrote. (A member of the WhatsApp group showed that message and others to reporters for The Times.)
BUTTHENOHNO!
Mr. Putin’s involvement and intentions during the 2022 talks were subjects of debate in Kyiv and Washington, Ukrainian and American officials said. Was he truly interested in a deal? Or was he merely trying to bog Ukraine down while his troops regrouped?
“We didn’t know if Putin was serious,” said the former senior U.S. official. “We couldn’t tell, on either side of the fence, whether these people who were talking were empowered.”
One Ukrainian negotiator said he believed the negotiations were a bluff on Mr. Putin’s part, but two others described them as serious.
Much of the treaty would “not apply” to Crimea and another to-be-determined swath of Ukraine — meaning that Kyiv would accept Russian occupation of part of its territory without recognizing Russian sovereignty over it.
But crucial sticking points remained. Russia wanted the firing range of Ukraine’s missiles to be limited to 25 miles, while Ukraine wanted 174 miles — enough to hit targets across Crimea. Russia still wanted Ukraine to repeal laws related to language and national identity, and to pull back Ukrainian troops as part of a cease-fire.
The biggest problem, however, came in Article 5. It stated that, in the event of another armed attack on Ukraine, the “guarantor states” that would sign the treaty — Great Britain, China, Russia, the United States and France — would come to Ukraine’s defense.
To the Ukrainians’ dismay, there was a crucial departure from what Ukrainian negotiators said was discussed in Istanbul. Russia inserted a clause saying that all guarantor states, including Russia, had to approve the response if Ukraine were attacked. In effect, Moscow could invade Ukraine again and then veto any military intervention on Ukraine’s behalf — a seemingly absurd condition that Kyiv quickly identified as a dealbreaker.
Russia tried to secure a veto on Ukraine’s security guarantees by inserting a clause requiring unanimous consent.
With that change, a member of the Ukrainian negotiating team said, “we had no interest in continuing the talks.”
- Russia was going into Ukraine to conquer it entirely and then more
Additional information: 190.000 to 220.000 troops arent enough to conquer OR hold any major city in the Ukraine - much less the entirety of Ukraine. See Mearsheimer/Kathie Halper video below. In which the first references the following paragraph from a Wall Street Journal article, published on the 2nd of June 2024:
“Of course, Putin still wants Kharkiv,” Oleh Synehubov, the head of the military administration for the region—which is also called Kharkiv—said of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Synehubov noted that Russia has deployed only a fraction of the troops needed to storm the city, which he estimated could require up to half a million soldiers.
(Kharkiv, back before the russian invasion had about half the population of Kiev.)
So then the argument extends:
- This isnt about “territory” (“conquering all of it and more”) this is about keeping Ukraine a sovereign state - see Paula Dobriansky, Former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs; Senior Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Vice Chair, Atlantic Council Scowcroft Center for Strategy & Security -- in the following Open to Debate (former Intelligence Squared) debate:
starting at 30:28 in
- The in depth argument here goes as follows. When Putin invaded Ukraine - we saw leaflets being dropped in regions east of Kiev that were telling Ukrainian troops to stand down, because the government in Kiew (military) would not exist anymore - so any resistance to the invasion “would be entirely futile, because it already “was over””, furthermore, the intent of the russian “attack on Kiev” would have been the same as with the takeover of Crimea 2014, namely to disrupt public life, make the standing ukrainian government flee, or be killed (allegedly the US did take out several russian assassination units in Kiev within the first three days) - and then let the government be taken over, or revolted against by essentially Ukrainian Kremlin puppets.
Which leads to
- Russia wasnt about to “conquer Ukraine” it was about to attempt a military coup and takeover - using a shock and awe strategy, much like the one they used in Crimea before. That either would have cemented a russia friendly leadership in Kiev, or wider advances in the east amongst the resulting chaos. (220.000 troops (and only half of those in the Kiev area) still being not nearly enough to occupy a Kiev (population of 3 million) that was resisting its occupiers.)
Which then conflicts with “thats imperial russia wanting to conquer several countries, so Putin gets his russian empire back -- because there positively was no conquering attempt (in the classical sense) going on -- because russia had far to few troops for that in its army at the time, and in the field -- see:
- The “additional countries russia wanted to take over” were Georgia and Moldowa (land bridge to transnistria). Poland, Estonia, and Lithuania, were loosing their sh*t because of Kaliningrad, but they all were Nato countries you wouldnt invade with an army of 190.000 people, which had about half of its troops busy in the east of Ukraine at that point.
That then let to the “things werent going remotely to plan” scenario --
where two tracks of peace conferences were put into place - where russia could be “pressed back down” to the following demands:
- Neutral Ukraine
- Crimea thats not talked about for many years
- security guaranties by the west/troop size limits that would allow Ukraine to defend itself in the future
Where the point of contention where all of that broke were the security guaranties. Or as western Propaganda likes to put it “Putin demanded such a low troop count on the ukrainian military, that on a subsequent attack he would have been able to conquer it anyhow” - so “because of that Ukraine had to ghost russia, and then drop the negotiations”. In actuallity by then Ukraine was in the middle of their own offensive so.…..
Those two points he brought up in the interview with the ukrainian broadcaster were never refuted by Davyd Arakhamiia. He only tried to put “Let’s fight” - so his recalling of a Boris Johnson statement into a slightly different context afterwards (Johnson would have said this to him in a meeting about “how to best get the russians out of Ukraine”).
So, so far - we have two quintesential lies on part of western propaganda --
1. That Putin was out there to conquer back his very own great russia. (Which is a lie, because the attack was designed as a Shock and awe quick toppling of the Ukrainian government - so was the takeover in Georgia (influence operation) leaving only Moldova for a military takeover - IF Putin dindt want to challenge Nato with an army of 190.000 people which then also would have had to hold Ukraine against its will - a job that would require roughly 400.000+ men, if you were an occupying force.
2. The Ukraine needs its “national sovereignty” to survive. So this is the Ukraine cant become a neutral country argument - because the Ukraine has to be able to decide the strength of its military on its own - to be able to survive a second russian attack in the Future. That is a lie, because this could also be solved with security guaranties -- which the Ukraine has very bad experiences with. (The Ukraine essentially gave up its nuclear weapons, as a prerequisite for becoming an independent state, and got “security guaranties” by the US, the UK and a few other countries, in return - that were designed not be worth all that much, because of how they were phrased.) A neutral Ukraine would be possible - if we solved the security guaranties issue.
With the second remaining issue in that case being russian political influence that in a neutral Ukraine would still remain active.
Around those two lies, all of the western framing is build around. The “ukraine has to decide on its own” framing, the “nato has an open door policy, and every country must be able to decide on its own, if it wants to enter nato” framing, the Putin wants to get back a greater russia framing, because he thinks like a tsar (thats also framing), the Putin is crazy framing (the Ukrainians are Nazis Narrative was active in Crimea, shortly before the takeover, because it shocked populations into complacency - that was the main aim of the russia Propaganda push through its media outlets in Crimea -- so as it was active back in 2014 - of course that narrative was used for the fullscale attack on Ukraine as well -- again, as about half of russias initial forces were active in the east. (So populations would have asked why - and the “Nazis” narrative was already in place since 2014 (and proved very useful back then).))
While internally in the deciding bodies the argument is actually as follows:
At 35min in:
Alina Polyakova (President and CEO of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA): I think that signals to me that there is growing agreement that the only way that we can manage Russia is by going back to the Cold War era strategy of containment, that begins first, defeating Russia in Ukraine and second, reestablishing deterance by denial in Europe that means hardening the Eastern flank first and foremost. Third hardening the soft targets of Russian influence across the globe - uh influence operations in the information space, cyber operations that the Russians have become very sophisticated at, pushing back against Russia’s use of PMC’s [private military contractors] to prop up authoritarian governments across the globe and undermine democratic leadership - and fourth, undermining Russian dominance in its former empire, because as long as we have so-called grey zone States a horrible term but, non-allied states that are not part of NATO that are not part of the EU in the European continentthis is what provides fodder for Russian aggression so Moldova is very much under threat as we speak, certainly Bellarus has already become a vassel state of Russia and then we have of course Georgia and the other countries of the Caucasus as well.
[…]
And Russia will come back for NATO.
Hanno Pevkur, Minister of Defence of the Republic of Estonia (30.05.2023):
“What Russia wants to achieve, the political goals, let’s be honest - and they, these political goals of Russia have never changed, they want to have a grey-zone between Russia and NATO, they want to have a control over this grey-zone and this is what they want to achieve. And they want to have some “security guarantees” for themselves, sorry this is not the Free World and this is what Ukraine is fighting for at the moment, that they are fighting for - the Free World and rule-based world and this is why we support Ukraine so this is obvious and then this is why we can never accept this approach of Russia, looking at international law.”
src:
(at 43:50 in)
or:
Paula Dobriansky, Former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs; Senior Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Vice Chair, Atlantic Council Scowcroft Center for Strategy & Security
But by the way that’s not - forgive me - that’s not the point. The point here is also not about seizing of territory too, I’d like to say that here it’s about a sovereign country’s political future, its own right to make its choices. Putin has outright said that Ukraine doesn’t exist as a country - he has said that over and over and over so it’s not just about territory, it is also about sovereign country political choices and an invasion that actually started back in 2014 and right up to the present.
So that Ukraine has to remain a sovereign country (to decide on its own military strenght, to never be politically influenced by russia ever again (only by creditors.. 😉 ) then also extents to whats happening right now -
here are the changes from the draft of the Bürgenstock conference that Switzerland provided to all invited states on the 28th of May compared to the final draft --
Here is what Sitzerland had put in there initially and what the Ukraine has lobbied to replace it with:
2. Territorial Integrity and the UN Charter
– Old wording: the previous summit decision version created a legal window to include Ukraine abandoning part of its territory in the conditions of “sustainable peace with Russia”, if necessary.
– New wording: the new draft decision clearly states that the basis for sustainable peace will be only “a solution based on the principle of respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states”.
– Old wording: the previous draft blurred the meaning of the Peace Formula and opened up space for international discussion of all alternative visions of peace, such as the Chinese-Brazilian one, which envisages a halt to the strengthening of Ukraine’s Armed Forces and a cessation of hostilities.
– New wording: the new wording states that only peace proposals that comply with international law (i.e. an unconditional return of the 1991 borders, unless revised by Ukraine itself) and the UN Charter (in particular, Ukraine’s unconditional right to continue repelling Russian aggression and liberating the occupied territories) will be taken into account.
Those are now points that are active in the final communique that 78 countries signed at Bürgenstock - and according to Sergiy Sydorenko (Ukrainian Journalist, sponsored by USAID), same source article, also the main reason, that 15 countries refused to sign, and more than two dozen of countries downgraded their participation from Presidential/Ministerial level to ministers or even their deputies.
With he final gag being the following:
Viktoria Kirner vor 14 Stunden
Ukraine: Ein Land des globalen Südens könnte zweiten Friedensgipfel ausrichten
Die Ukraine ist der Ansicht, dass ein zweites Gipfeltreffen, bei dem Kiews Vorschläge für einen Frieden mit Russland erörtert werden sollen, von einem Land des globalen Südens ausgerichtet werden könnte, wie ein hochrangiger Beamter der Nachrichtenagentur Interfax-Ukraine am Freitag sagte. Das berichtet die Nachrichtenagentur Reuters.
Mehr als 90 Länder nahmen letzte Woche am ersten Gipfel in der Schweiz teil, da die Ukraine eine breite Unterstützung für ihren Plan zur Beendigung des Krieges sucht.
Moskau, das nicht eingeladen war, bezeichnete das Ergebnis des Gipfels - ein Kommuniqué, das von den meisten Teilnehmern unterzeichnet, aber insbesondere von Indien, Brasilien und Saudi-Arabien abgelehnt wurde - als “nahezu null”.
“Wir haben mehrere Länder [die sich als Gastgeber anbieten], und ich kann mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit sagen, dass ein solcher Gipfel in einem der Länder des globalen Südens stattfinden könnte”, wurde der Präsidentenberater Ihor Zhovkva von Interfax-Ukraine zitiert.
Die Ukraine wolle, dass der nächste Gipfel vor Ende des Jahres einberufen werde, sagte er und fügte hinzu, dass Russland eingeladen werden könne, wenn es bereit sei, den von der Ukraine vorgelegten Fahrplan zu berücksichtigen und keine Ultimaten zu stellen.
There are now ongoing “Peace conferences” - twice a year - with changing host states. Where the Ukraine will always invite their “guardian states”, based on the Bürgenstock Communiquee (and Selenskyjs 10 point peace formula), where the Ukraine - currently states, at this very minute, it will only ever invite Russia, if russia agrees to the “Peace formula framework” established at Bürgenstock -- which in itself already includes that it has to be based on “the principle of respect for the territorial integrity” and “sovereignty of all states”.
With the first one being the stand in for “the Ukraine needs Crimea and the Donbas back, before we can invite Russia to our peace formula conference”, and the second part “sovereignty of all states” being the stand in for:
3. Alternative Peace Formulas
– Old wording: the previous draft blurred the meaning of the Peace Formula and opened up space for international discussion of all alternative visions of peace, such as the Chinese-Brazilian one, which envisages a halt to the strengthening of Ukraine’s Armed Forces and a cessation of hostilities.
– New wording: the new wording states that only peace proposals that comply with international law (i.e. an unconditional return of the 1991 borders, unless revised by Ukraine itself) and the UN Charter (in particular, Ukraine’s unconditional right to continue repelling Russian aggression and liberating the occupied territories) will be taken into account.
“We need to be allowed to decide how large our army is, and what its aim/goal is in the future.”
And only if russia agrees to that framework, it can be invited to the next “peace conference”.
Die Ukraine wolle, dass der nächste Gipfel vor Ende des Jahres einberufen werde, sagte er und fügte hinzu, dass Russland eingeladen werden könne, wenn es bereit sei, den von der Ukraine vorgelegten Fahrplan zu berücksichtigen und keine Ultimaten zu stellen.
To ensure this, the Ukraine insisted on removing the following passage from the original draft of the final communiquee Switzerland sent out to all attending states on the 28th of May - entirely:
4. Involvement of Russia
– Old wording: the earlier version turned Russia from an aggressor into a participant in peace talks, requiring only vague “confidence-building measures” on nuclear and food security.
– New wording: this section has been rewritten from scratch. The Swiss agreed not to mention Russia at all in the provision on peace talks, instead referring to “all parties”. There is no longer a weakened requirement for “confidence-building measures”, but instead “specific actions” are required. And most importantly, the references to a “second peace summit” that hinted at a commitment to invite Russia to participate have been removed.
(If only 78 countries out of 193 UN countries signed and the talked about points at those conferences still remain points from Selenskyjs 10 Point peace formula, which now only become more controversial (internatinal tribunals requested, reperation payments requested, crimea and donbas back already part of the “global peace summit framework” (territorial integrity), we decide how big our military is already part of the “global peace summit” framework, the last russian soldier has to leave Ukraine -- all having to be agreed on by Russia -- BEFORE Russia can be invited.…)
see also:
Ukrainian ambassador to estonia in the following Podcast on the 12th of June, nine hours after Andrij Jermak stated “we want to invite russia to the second peace formula conference” for the first time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_782Vs76ask at 16:20 min. in -
„So Russia may be invited for the next - for the second peace summit, but — before we should agree on the framework of this negotiation process and on joint international plan for peace in Ukraine. ONLY at this stage, russia can be invited, and can be part of this process.“
-- if you need a second source…
Well thats easy…
As the western two quintessential propaganda lies
2. Ukraine NEEDS to stay politically sovereign - which in the final Bürgenstock communiquee - as a phrase - was a stand in for “Ukraine needs to be able to decide what size of military it has, and for what purpose”
Become more and more obvious over time (because Russia will not able to conquer other european states anymore) ---
more and more of the public will demand peace talks.
And for that we already have the “global peace formula framework” in which russia has to agree to “territorial integrity and Ukraine’s unconditional right to continue repelling Russian aggression and liberating the occupied territories (sovereignty) has been written in, which russia HASTOAGREETO, to even be invited.
And so the two quintessential western propaganda lies can continue for another two years.
“Peace conferences” being held with changed out host countries, twice a year. Until russia succumbs to the western - sorry “Global Peace Formula Framework” demands.
Wertegesellschaft. Kennen sie sich aus.
But the public will be strung along by the single out thats left - and that is, that if you dont do it exactly that way --
RUSSIAWILLCOMEFORNATOCOUNTRIES.
Which is and always was threat inflation, and therefore western propaganda. Why is it less likely that “russia will do it again” - well, this is a war of attrition which loses russia people at the rate of 800 per day on a good day (thats over the entire border). And second -- have you checked the demographic charts for russia recently? In five years time only 8% of their male population is capable of being drafted anymore.
8% only counting males is 11 million people, 2/3 (thats the germany in WW2 rate, which had 13 million soldiers with a standing population of 40 million males) of which you need to keep the economy going - that leaves you with 3.7 million potential soldiers.
Against Poland with a population of 37 million (2.4 mio males in the same drafting bracket) with Nato allies? Straight into WW3?
Oh yeah - I forgot - this is because of the western rule of law that has to be uphold, for about 3-4 more years, then the current rate of attrition will make sure russia will be unable to mount an additional attack over the next 10 years… (Not because of people, but because of the current attrition rate on military equipment (current production rates already accounted for).)
And on top of this - China looks at all this and then tells russia, yes - sure, go ahead and attack our second largest export market, so our first largest export market gets drawn into a war as well.
Diese Webseite verwendet Cookies um die Nutzungserfahrung für seine Besucher zu verbessern. Bitte informiere dich bei Gelegenheit darüber wie sich Cookies auf deine Privatsphäre im Web auswirken.
