O/T:- Ukraine [Incorporating 'Congrats to Russia' thread]

[andy6025]

Yes. Apparently you hadn't read the article as it disagreed with your assertion. The talks where nowhere near an agreement because Ukraine can no longer trust Russia. That's in the article you linked.

It was also mentioned in the original article I posted… which you said was a blatant lie.

[Jampie]

It was also mentioned in the original article I posted… which you said was a blatant lie.

Yes, it's a lie that Ukraine and Russia were ever 'close' to a peace agreement after this war started. Why not just stop trying to spread this lie?

[andy6025]

Yes, it's a lie that Ukraine and Russia were ever 'close' to a peace agreement after this war started. Why not just stop trying to spread this lie?

It seems that some rather prominent westerners and Ukrainians disagree with you. You’ve gone so far as to call the chief Ukrainian negotiator a Russian agent in order to deny this story. I have to admit that your take on this is truly fascinating, and it’s a position I hadn’t really considered before.

[Jampie]

It seems that some rather prominent westerners and Ukrainians disagree with you.

This is a dishonest and misleading statement. A tiny minority of not particularly prominent westerners and Ukrainians have suggested this, and the overwhelming majority know it's nonsense.

Ukraine and Russia have at no point since the invasion began been anywhere close to a ceasefire, for the obvious reason that Ukraine no longer trusts Russia's word on anything, least of all ceasefires which they consistently breach.

You’ve gone so far as to call the chief Ukrainian negotiator a Russian agent in order to deny this story.

This is a lie. I did not call him a russian agent. You asked me what I thought, I examined the issue and came to no particular conclusion.

As usual, you have peddled Russian propaganda (the article you posted lists RT dot com as a source which is a putin propaganda site), have been caught out yet again and are now lying about what *I've* said.

You are arguing in bad faith as you've done from the get-go. This "discussion" would be a lot more productive if you stopped.

[i961pie]

It seems that some rather prominent westerners and Ukrainians disagree with you. You’ve gone so far as to call the chief Ukrainian negotiator a Russian agent in order to deny this story. I have to admit that your take on this is truly fascinating, and it’s a position I hadn’t really considered before.

That was a party political broadcast by The Kremlin Alliance party😜

[andy6025]

This is a dishonest and misleading statement. A tiny minority of not particularly prominent westerners and Ukrainians have suggested this, and the overwhelming majority know it's nonsense.

Ukraine and Russia have at no point since the invasion began been anywhere close to a ceasefire, for the obvious reason that Ukraine no longer trusts Russia's word on anything, least of all ceasefires which they consistently breach.



This is a lie. I did not call him a russian agent. You asked me what I thought, I examined the issue and came to no particular conclusion.

As usual, you have peddled Russian propaganda (the article you posted lists RT dot com as a source which is a putin propaganda site), have been caught out yet again and are now lying about what *I've* said.

You are arguing in bad faith as you've done from the get-go. This "discussion" would be a lot more productive if you stopped.

Your comments on the Ukrainian negotiator were as follows:

“the guy is russian born and was widely condemned for proposing to re-open the crimea canal after Russia illegally siezed Crimea. Which side is he on do you reckon? I don't know but I would regard what he's saying with some suspicion.”

I get that you don’t know if he’s up or down and suspect that he’s a Russian agent, but as far as the reporting of his comments, you can see his interview here which, were accurately reported by the RT article that you dismiss as “propaganda”. In it he says that Russia had Ukrainian neutrality vis-a-vis NATO as their primary negotiating objective.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0G_j-7gLnWU


Even Zalensky himself says that Ukraine’s NATO status was the principle negotiating point for Russia, and that Ukraine was ready to accept neutral status. In the video linked to the article below, dated March 22, 2022, he is shown saying,

“Security guarantees and neutrality, non-nuclear status of our state. We are ready to go for it. This is the most important point. It was the main point for the Russian Federation as far as I can remember. And if I remember correctly this is why they started the war… I understand it’s impossible to force Russia completely from Ukrainian territory. It would lead to World War Three. I understand it and that is why I am talking about a compromise. Go back to where it all began. And then we will try to solve the Donbas issue, the complicated Donbas issue.”

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ts-2022-03-27/

Moreover, the New York Times, on March 29th reports that the Ukrainian delegation made proposals to the Russian delegation. They write,

“After three hours of talks in Istanbul, Ukrainian officials said their country was ready to declare itself permanently neutral — forsaking the prospect of joining NATO, a key Russian demand — and discuss Russian territorial claims in exchange for “security guarantees” from a group of other nations. An aide to Ukraine’s president called the Russian delegation “constructive,” while Russia said it would “drastically” scale back its military activity around Kyiv to “increase mutual trust.”…

It goes on:

The offer to declare a permanent neutral status, Ukrainian officials in Istanbul said, means it would neither join the NATO alliance nor host foreign troops — a scenario that Mr. Putin used as one of the justifications for his invasion.
Ukrainian officials envision an arrangement in which a diverse group of countries — potentially including the United States, Germany, Turkey and China — would commit, if Ukraine were attacked, to providing it with military assistance and to imposing a no-fly zone if necessary. It was not clear that any of those countries had signed on to such guarantees.”

Moreover, the Russian delegation was likewise optimistic. The NYT article continues:

“Vladimir Medinsky, the head of Russia’s delegation, said that he viewed Ukraine’s proposals as “a constructive step in the search for a compromise.”
“If the treaty is worked out quickly and the required compromise is found, the possibility of making peace will be much closer,” Mr. Medinsky said.

These are all accurately depicted in the report assembled by the prominent Germans that I originally posted. To save you some clicks, here is the link again.

https://braveneweurope.com/michael-v...ce-for-ukraine

I think all of these documents speak for themselves and need no commentary from me. But you may argue with them at will.

[andy6025]

Link to the New York Times article, dated March 29, 2022. Archived version to skirt paywall:

https://archive.is/EPH6a

[i961pie]

Link to the New York Times article, dated March 29, 2022. Archived version to skirt paywall:

https://archive.is/EPH6a

I would give up if I were you, you aren’t convincing anyone.

[andy6025]

I would give up if I were you, you aren’t convincing anyone.

Convincing anyone of what? I just showed Zelensky and his negotiator’s own words, and their comments quoted and paraphrased in the New York Times. If you don’t believe them, then I suppose everyone is a Russian agent.

[Jampie]

None of that is evidence they were close to a deal.

They were not and were never close to a deal.