Jakub Kumoch reveals the backstage of the negotiations. Russia did not want peace, only the capitulation of Ukraine

Russia did not want peace, only the capitulation of Ukraine. Jakub Kumoch, former Secretary of State of President Andrzej Duda, who accompanied the Ukrainian delegation to negotiations with Russia in Belarus and Turkey in the spring of 2022, told the newspaper The Polish Times. The Introduction

- That negotiations were a dead end. Moscow did not want a lasting peace - this is how Jakub Kumoch says about the backstage negotiations between Ukraine and Russia in the spring of 2022. Today he is the ambassador of the Republic of Poland to China, in 2022 he is the Secretary of State of President Andrzej Duda and was responsible for creating Polish policy towards Ukraine.

It was the Ukrainian authorities who asked the Polish side in the spring of 2022 to transport its delegation to Belarus, where meetings of Russian and Ukrainian negotiators were held.

The Polish diplomat is straightening the message from the Western media that at that time it was close to peace, only the Ukrainian side broke the negotiations. According to Kumocha, it was Moscow from the beginning that was not intended to bring peace, all she wanted was the capitulation of Ukraine.

Jakub Kumoch reveals to us in an interview for the first time some conversations, describes the situations, fragments of documents from that time, those that he can reveal.

Let us call it mildly: singularly. It was a draft with the comments of both sides. The document was clearly prepared before the Russian invasion and by the Russians. He provided, among other things, the recognition of the annexation of Crimea, the so-called independence of the eastern regions of Ukraine, the reduction of the size of the Ukrainian army, bilingualism, the ban on joining NATO, perpetual neutrality, etc. There were also purely demeaning elements, such as a commitment to denazification or the introduction of the Great Patriotic War, as the Russians call their contribution to World War II. Things that A State never imposes on State B. Meanwhile, Russia has brought in the entire list of laws that Ukraine is to change. It began with the Constitution.

You both are wrong. Russia has every right to protect itself, just as any other nation has that right. When you show aggressive behavior to a nation then you have that right to defend against that aggression.

The fact that you choose to ignore that the CIA fomented a revolution to execute a coup d'état of the sitting president of Ukraine as not being a direct threat against Russia, means you are either stupid, or completely dishonest.

Which ever is the reality is unimportant, because the end result is the same. You are willing to overlook the actions that prompted the resulting reaction taken.

Furthermore, you ignore all of the attempts Putin made for 8 years to produce a peaceful solution yo allay Russia's real & justified fears. Minsk Accords 1 & 2 were signed but were never implemented. As Angele Merkle was leaving office, or shortly thereafter, she admitted that the Minsk Agreements were just signed to buy time to build up, arm & train Ukraine's military.

But then you poo-po that obvious, that they had every intention to wage a proxy war against Russia using Ukraine as the battlefield, and the Ukrainians as the fodder to wage that proxy war.

Either you have no ability to see the obvious or you supported the proxy war all along, Hoe evil the both of you are, because even with our backing it was a mismatch fight. Russia had the advantage in spades with logistics, production of military equipment, arms & munitions factory facilities in place & operating. All that was need was to ramp up the production schedule.

Meanwhile Ukraine had very little if any of that going for them. They had to wait until they received what was needed to wage war. The logistics of these deliveries were against them as well. The much vaunted financial attack on Russia was a bust. It had little effect right from the start, because Russia had a year to make other arrangements, and they did. So, perhaps the initial reality of the sanctions & financial attack had some effect, but not nearly the knockout effect that they had assumed would take place.

What, I am trying to convey is that this was all planned, but as is always the case with Biden & the leftists in control, they have no clue about how to wage a war, and they assumed many things that were flat out wrong. Gee what a surprise. Well, things didn't go as planned. Whatever transpires now falls upon those who supported to follow this stupid administration, even after seeing his disaster in Afghanistan where he left several vulnerable people who were our allies to flap in the wind fending for themselves.

Both of you are as incompetent as is Joseph Robinette Biden.

Robert "Russia has every right to protect itself"

And that "protecting itself" involved invading Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 AFTER their requests to join NATO were rejected by NATO?

Let's put it clearly - there was no CIA sponsored revolution. The majority of Ukrainians did not want to be part of the Rusyski Mir (the Kremlin world) - not all, but the majority.

Putin did not "make attempts for 8 years to produce a peaceful solution" - he kept a frozen conflict. Can you name ONE "attempt for a peaceful solution"?

Don’t Let Russia Fool You About the Minsk Agreements
CEPA
Kurt Volker
December 16, 2021
https://cepa.org/dont-let-russia-fool-you-about-the-minsk-agreements/

[Excerpt:]

1. There are two Minsk Agreements, not just one. The first “Minsk Protocol” was signed on September 5, 2014. It mainly consists of a commitment to a ceasefire along the existing line of contact, which Russia never respected. By February 2015, fighting had intensified to a level that led to renewed calls for a ceasefire, and ultimately led to the second Minsk Agreement, signed on February 12, 2015. Even after this agreement, Russian-led forces kept fighting and took the town of Debaltseve six days later. The two agreements are cumulative, building on each other, rather than the second replacing the first. This is important in understanding the importance, reflected in the first agreement, of an immediate ceasefire and full monitoring by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), including on the Ukraine-Russia border, as fundamental to the subsequent package of agreements.

2. Russia is a Party to the Minsk Agreements. The original Minsk signatories are Russia, Ukraine, and the OSCE. Russia is a protagonist in the war in Ukraine and is fully obliged to follow the deal’s terms. Despite that, however, Russia untruthfully claims not to be a party and only a facilitator — and that the real agreements are between Ukraine and the so-called “separatists,” who call themselves the Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples’ Republics (LPR and DPR), but are in fact Russian supplied and directed.

3. The LPR and DPR are not recognized as legitimate entities under the Minsk Agreements. The signatures of the leaders of the so-called Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples’ Republics were added after they had already been signed by Ukraine, Russia, and the OSCE. They were not among the original signatories, and indeed Ukraine would not have signed had their signatures been part of the deal. There is nothing in the content or format of the Agreement that legitimizes these entities and they should not be treated as negotiating partners in any sense. Russia alone controls the forces occupying parts of eastern Ukraine.

4. Russia is in violation of the Minsk Agreements. The deals require a ceasefire, withdrawal of foreign military forces, disbanding of illegal armed groups, and returning control of the Ukrainian side of the international border with Russia to Ukraine, all of this under OSCE supervision. Russia has done none of this. It has regular military officers as well as intelligence operatives and unmarked “little green men” woven into the military forces in Eastern Ukraine. The LPR and DPR forces are by any definition “illegal armed groups,” that have not been disbanded. The ceasefire has barely been respected by the Russian side for more than a few days at a time.

5. Russian-led forces prevent the OSCE from accomplishing its mission in Donbas as spelled out in the Minsk Agreements. It is an unstated irony in Vienna — understood by every single diplomatic mission and member of the international staff — that Russia approves the mandate of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) in Ukraine when it votes in Vienna, but then blocks implementation of that same mission on the ground in Ukraine. Because Russia is a member of the OSCE, and the SMM wants to preserve what little access it has to the occupied territories, the mission is guarded in what it says about ceasefire violations and restrictions on its freedom of movement. Privately, however, they acknowledge that some 80% of such violations and restrictions come from the Russian-controlled side of the border, and those that occur on the Ukrainian side are largely for safety reasons (e.g., avoiding mined approaches to bridges.)

6. Ukraine has implemented as much of Minsk as can reasonably be done while Russia still occupies its territory. The agreements require political measures on Ukraine’s side, including a special status for the region, an amnesty for those who committed crimes as part of the conflict, local elections, and some form of decentralization under the Ukrainian constitution. But the form of these measures is not specified, and Ukraine has already passed legislation addressing every point. It has passed – and extended with renewals – legislation on special status and amnesty, and already has legislation on the books governing local elections. It has passed constitutional amendments. The Minsk Agreements do not require Ukraine to grant autonomy to Donbas, or to become a federalized state. It is Russia’s unique interpretation that the measures passed by Ukraine are somehow insufficient, even though the agreements do not specify what details should be included, and Ukraine has already complied with what is actually specified to the degree it can.

What is lacking in Ukraine’s passage of these political measures is not the legislation per se, but implementation — which Russia itself prevents by continuing to occupy the territory. For example, international legal norms would never recognize the results of elections held under conditions of occupation, yet that is exactly what Russia seeks by demanding local elections before it relinquishes control. Moreover, the elections would not be for positions in the illegitimate LPR and DPR “governments” established under Russian occupation, but for the legitimate city councils, mayors, and oblast administrations that exist under Ukrainian law. Who would vote in such elections? Ukrainian law says all displaced citizens should vote. But would Russian occupation authorities allow this? These are matters for resolution under international supervision – not for Russia to dictate terms.

Finland is not the close proximity to the the heart of Russian that the Ukrainian border with Russia is. Even mentioning the distance from Kiev is disingenuous at best but the border is, and that is why Russia has come in and seized that area to create at least somewhat of a buffer zone, and it puts combat troops closer to Kiev as well.

However, Russia stated in 2008 that Russia considered expansion into either Ukraine or Georgia as red lines in their opinion. So, to try to expand into there was as obvious of an in your face Russia threat to their national security as could have possibly been conceived.

You also know the Poland has no border with Russia, only the western borders of Ukraine & Belarus.

Russia has a nuclear policy of no first strike launch. Do you know who doesn't have that, the U.S.

So, Russia has moved nuclear weapons into Belarus to launch towards targets in western Europe, and has brought them to Cuba to launch against the U.S should the The U.S. launch nuclear weapons at Russia.

Keep poking the bear and there will be no incentive left to show restraint, because I for one do not trust Biden or whomever is in control in this administration, to show restraint. I honestly believe they believe they could survive a nuclear confrontation, and to heck with all of the peons who will be left naked to face he full brunt of a nuclear confrontation. You will be amongst us who are left naked to the attacks.

Stop the insanity, and use your voice to demand honest negotiations to peace. Nut you see, not doing this from the get-go, has now placed Russia in the driver's seat with a negotiation advantage. do not continue the ramping up of escalation of this conflict, for it will not end well for humanity at all. To do otherwise is utter insanity.

And that "protecting itself" involved invading Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 AFTER their requests to join NATO were rejected by NATO?

No, Putin's request was to Clinton in his administration. so that would have been in 1999, because that is when Putin came to power in Russia after Yeltsin had stepped down. So, it was long before 2008.

In 2008 the President of Georgia had asked Putin to come in & help quell a rebellion that had broken out. To my knowledge they are still there.

Your major problem is that you slurp up the propaganda & never question what you are being told.

The following is from Jacques Baud of the Swiss strategic intelligence who was with NATO in 2014. I present this instead of going through it all yet one more time:

The military situation in Ukraine, as seen by an ex-member of the Swiss strategic intelligence

I have little faith that you will actually read, & I doubt without reservation that you will accept it as well.

The following is Col. Richard Black speaking on various military engagements:

Col. Richard Black: U.S. Leading World to Nuclear War

You probably will not watch this either, and if you do will dismiss it because you have been successfully brainwashed to believe what the world press tells you, while ignoring anything that deviates from that narrative.

Just for the record, I am a proud American, but there have been too many presidents that have been working to destroy this nation to create a One World Government. The only two presidents in my lifetime that were not intent in destroying this nation were Ronald Reagan, & Donald John Trump. I was fooled by both daddy & son Bush presidencies because they were Republicans. I am no longer a Republican enthusiast. Instead I want to capture the Republican arty just like the communists captured the Democrat Party.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.