Why Did US Torpedo The April Ukraine War Negotiated Settlement?

TFP Editor ^ | September 10, 2022 | TFP Editor

[Poison Pill]

This whole site has become anti American.

[The Sons of Liberty]

Why Did US Torpedo The April Ukraine War Negotiated Settlement?

No cash in it for Hunter and "The Big Guy"?

[hopefullamerican]

So you want to ban anyone who might have a different opinion or viewpoint on some issue in this country??? Dictatorships ban speech they don’t like...and Americans believe in free speech and the open exchange of ideas whether or not we agree with those ideas.

I am as conservative and pro American as anyone but I don’t try and ban people or silence them because I don’t like their views. Remember that banning and silencing can happen as well to those who seek to utilize those techniques.

[discostu]

He didn’t really say anything that’s not true. America has a solid history of breaking treaties. We really shouldn’t be trusted.

[JimRed]

Most Americans are unaware because it went largely unreported.

[JimRed]

Ukraine gave up its nukes based on promises by Slick Willie Clinton. You see how that worked out.

[Poison Pill]

Right! I mean it’s not like the anti Americans on this site are Giuliani supporters or anything.

[hopefullamerican]

LOL...just what does giuliani have to do with anything..??? And just how do we spot those evil anti-Americans anyway?? Do they have a double scarlet AA on their chests...:)

[Political Junkie Too]

Because the Big Guy hadn't gotten control of the Burisma documents yet?

-PJ

[Kazan]

Because the Biden regime wanted this war. Our political elite and oligarchs have been a fortune in Ukraine. They wanted to do the same in Russia by causing a regime change. Plus, the defense industry is also being enriched by this war and by stirring up hatred for Russia.

[SoConPubbie]

Because the Putin has a history of not keeping his word.

Zelensky and the Government of Ukraine have a history of not keeping their word, and have not seen a lie yet they are unwilling to commit!

[SoConPubbie]

Bunch of Hoooie - the Russians would settle for nothing less than all of Ukraine, and the Ukrainian people would settle for nothing less then their entire country back including Crimea. In fact, the Ukrainian people have said they’d rather be nuked than under Russian control again

And if The Ukraine gets what they want, all those Ukrainians in East Ukraine that want nothing to do with the Government of Ukraine, and want their Independence, will get nothing but more persecution, more shelling, etc.

[BlackbirdSST]

Can we ban these anti-American trolls? FR is a conservative, pro-American site. It should have no place for people who hate America. There are plenty of leftist sites for that.

Moron much? Don't answer that. I've read your posting history noob. Let's just say, you have all the markings of a leftist infiltrator. Ban this!

[yuleeyahoo]

It must be disinformation because it didn’t come from the official Globalist mouth pieces collectively known as the MSM?

The same MSM which has never, ever lied to you repeatedly about everything that is important?

[GreenLanternCorps]

Well they’re now kicking Russian behind all over NE Ukraine.

[Widget Jr]

There was no settlement agreement offered.
No one trust Russia to keep its word.
This is old news.

Other than that, there was no reason to reject the plan.
Which did not exist.

[Hiddigeigei]

"How do some of you miss the truth so easily?"
People believe what they want to believe.

[MalPearce]

Clue in headline:

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/04/25/putin-drops-peace-talks-in-favor-of-ukraine-land-grab-ft-a77475

Of course the first response will be to declare it Western fake news, so I've unpicked the salient bits.

• The sinking of the Moskva combined with Zelenskyy accusing Russia of war crimes over Mariupol and Bucha led to Putin telling the European Council President Charles Michel that he was personally pulling the plug on a meeting / negotiation with Zelenskyy because Ukraine was unwilling to compromise. (See also https://www.politico.eu/article/charles-michel-vladimir-putin-time-day-90-minute-phone-call/)
  
  Fake News? DEFINITELY NOT. In fact, the Kremlin itself (see  http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/68260)  confirmed this: Putin's statement to Michel was: “Such a possibility depends, in particular, on concrete results in the ongoing negotiations between Russian and Ukrainian representatives, during which the Ukrainian side is showing inconsistency and is not ready to seek mutually acceptable solutions.”
   
• A top Russian general said (publicly) that the second phase of the operation would involve taking control of east and ALL of south Ukraine to provide a land corridor to annexed Crimea - and to Transnistria, where of course Russian speakers are being "oppressed". Of course Zelenskyy capitalised on it: “This only confirms what I have said many times: the Russian invasion of Ukraine was intended only as a beginning, then they want to capture other countries!”
  
  Fake News? PARTIALLY. Although there's nothing factually inaccurate in the reporting, the General's comments were very easily spun to Ukraine's advantage due to Russian officials refusing to confirm or deny the general's statement on war aims. Several Russian sources, including Peskov himself, acknowledged that General Minnekayev did attend a gathering of arms industry representatives in Yekaterinburg, and did say that their next military aim would be to seize Ukraine’s entire southern coast, and he DID mention taking action in Transnistria too. (This was very soon afterthe proposals for a peace deal had been drafted for discussion, and before Boris' visit.) However, Peskov refused to confirm or deny if the opinion was accurate. (see https://thedispatch.com/p/its-not-just-ukraine and https://thehill.com/policy/international/3460606-russian-official-says-country-wants-full-control-of-southern-ukraine/)
  
  My conclusion: Although Peskov could confirm that the general spoke, it's clear why he was unable to confirm or deny the position - coming mere days after Ukraine had been offered "Russia withdraw from all Ukraine except for breakaway Donbas and Crimea"  any open admission that this was indeed an ongoing war aim would've proved they were planning to break their own peace deal. But, if he'd refuted the general's statement about the war aim that would've pissed off some hardliners appearing daily on Rossyia 1 - people who seemed absolutely convinced that taking ALL of Ukraine was the real mission. The wisest thing to do was just leave it hanging, and change the subject.
   
• "Ukraine would pass on future NATO membership, pledging neutrality between Russia and NATO. " Russia was demanding Ukraine pass on NATO membership in the negotiations.
  
  Fake News? PARTIALLY. Yes, the peace proposal included this and it is an agreed fact on both sides. However, Russian propagandists conveniently fail to report the fact that Zelenskyy had agreed to this already, as a PRECURSOR to the negotiations. In fact Z's words in March had been the reason the talks went as far as they did:

  "It is clear that Ukraine is not a member of NATO. We understand that. We are adequate people... For years, we have heard about the supposedly open door, but we have also heard that we should not enter, and this is true and we must admit it."
  
  My Conclusion: Russia can't claim the high ground for a peace proposition that came from Ukraine in the first place, nor can it really argue that there was ever any realistic prospect of Ukraine joining NATO so the whole thing never was anything more than virtue signalling. As even Z acknowledged, the "open door" was never anything more than a diplomatic ploy and Russia damned well knew that. The bad faith actor there was the USA, in making a claim it knew would only ever be honored if Russia decided to stop throwing massive toddler hissy fits every time a country that used to be in the Soviet Union decided it would quite like to be part of a mutual defense treaty with most of Europe, the UK, and the USA instead of signing up for Russia's rather crappy second-rate alternative.

• "Donbas and Crimea would undergo political transition based on self-determination to be recognized by both combatants. Ukraine security would be guaranteed by neighboring countries but no foreign troops would enter Ukraine. "
  
  Fake News? PARTIALLY. Yes, the peace proposal included this and it is an agreed fact on both sides. However, Russian viewpoints seem oblivious to why this is so problematic.
  
  My Conclusion: Russia was demanding two things - the first (self-determination) was within Ukraine's constitution but only if their independence recognitions by Russia were revoked - and the agreement said nothing to that effect. Ukraine stuck to the rigid terms of Budapest - the 1991 borders MUST be respected, and by recognizing the breakaway regions Russia violated a far more significant agreement than Minsk 1 or 2.
  The second was unacceptable because Russia doesn't think that Russian troops OR Wagner OR Chechen OR other mercs serving Moscow are "foreign". All the time Putin insists that Ukraine should not even think of itself as being capable of independence from Russia, this clause is a poisoned chalice. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see how Russia would loophole round it: it could park its tanks in Kyiv or Donbass and just said, "What's the problem? Russian tanks are not "foreign" when they're on Little Russian land!" So a worded condition that stopped Ukraine hosting foreign troops but didn't stop Russia interpreting "foreign" as "not Russian" was completely unacceptable .

[MalPearce]

Also, I guess you haven’t noticed that when Trump was extremely forthright with Russia about attacking them if certain circumstances arose, he was applauded.

When anybody else does it, it’s “poking the bear” and is unacceptable.

Putin always has responded to blunt arguments from strong positions, and always has regarded diplomatic couching as a sign of weakness.

So it is rather ironic that people who want Trump to give it to Putin straight, have a complete cow when any other leader has the stones to do it.

Boris was quite right to lay it on the line - the ball was entirely in Russia’s court. It could either rein in its lunatics on TV and in the senior military ranks, and CONFIRM it had a limited mission, and walk away with face saved...

Or it could allow its empire-building kill-crazies to keep calling for a full scale war against NATO, guaranteeing that NATO would step up.

Please, Putinards, make your damned minds up. Either Germany was wrong to laugh at Trump when he said they needed to stand up to Putin, or Trump was wrong and they should’ve just caved into Putin’s every demands.

It’s true with Germany on energy, and it is true of NATO with defence.

If Russia KEEPS threatening to do something, you cannot just continue to just laugh it off indefinitely. That only pisses Russia off even more because they interpret as us STILL not taking them seriously.

Russia overstepped the line between shooting its mouth off and getting apathetic responses, and proving it really was going to go off the reservation. It WANTS to be taken seriously. The one thing Russia cannot stand is being laughed at.

[SoConPubbie]

Maybe, for right now.

Hard to know since the Left-Wing, Soros backed and supporting Press, haven't shown any predilection to the truth in any of their reporting on the Ukraine conflict.

And yet, the idea that the Ukrainians maybe temporarily winning in your mind makes it all OK, right?