Homesteading Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
18,196 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This is what a bombshell story in Ukrainska Pravda said at the time, but which was almost completely ignored in Western mainstream media:​
According Ukrainska Pravda sources close to Zelenskyy, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson, who appeared in the capital almost without warning, brought two simple messages. The first is that Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with.
And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they [the UK and US] are not. Johnson’s position was that the collective West, which back in February had suggested Zelenskyy should surrender and flee, now felt that Putin was not really as powerful as they had previously imagined, and that here was a chance to "press him."
...​
Former official at the US National Security Council Fiona Hill has co-authored a lengthy essay recounting key moments in Russia's war and Western efforts to aid Ukraine thus far.​
She let slip the following key confirmation in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)-run Foreign Affairs journal:​
According to multiple former senior U.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries. But as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated in a July interview with his country’s state media, this compromise is no longer an option.
This disclosure and confirmation from the US side - that there was a tentative agreement on the table for Russia-Ukraine peace is a huge revelation, again which will likely go largely missing from popular mainstream media coverage.​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42,495 Posts
It is no secret that NATO/WEF wants Ukraine to continue fighting.

Boris Johnson told them months ago they could not stop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,788 Posts
This is what a bombshell story in Ukrainska Pravda said at the time, but which was almost completely ignored in Western mainstream media:​

...​
Former official at the US National Security Council Fiona Hill has co-authored a lengthy essay recounting key moments in Russia's war and Western efforts to aid Ukraine thus far.​
She let slip the following key confirmation in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)-run Foreign Affairs journal:​

This disclosure and confirmation from the US side - that there was a tentative agreement on the table for Russia-Ukraine peace is a huge revelation, again which will likely go largely missing from popular mainstream media coverage.​
Even your thread title is incredibly misleading. Nowhere, in either of your articles, does it say that western coalition nations “sabotaged” any negotiations. First, Zelenskyy doesn’t need Boris Johnson’s permission to give away a third of his nation’s territory to Russia. Second, in fact, Zelenskyy doesn’t even need the west’s blessing. Russia wants to own at least the eastern third of Ukraine, but it also wants ultimate influence over the whole of Ukraine. If that’s what Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people want, they could sign that deal with Putin today, and the west wouldn’t get a say in the matter.

But, even more dishonestly on your part, you quoted the part about how the negotiations fell apart three days after Boris Johnson left Kiev, which was listed as “obstacle #2”. You completely left out what the article cited as the primary obstacle, so I’ll include it here since it somehow got stopped by your pro-Russian propaganda filter:
The first thing was the revelation of the atrocities, rapes, murders, massacres, looting, indiscriminate bombings and hundreds and thousands of other war crimes committed by Russian troops in the temporarily occupied Ukrainian territories…
And your selective omissions from the second article are even MORE blatantly dishonest. You provided the following quote, with the bolding emphasis yours, not from the article:
According to multiple former senior U.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries. But as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated in a July interview with his country’s state media, this compromise is no longer an option.


You conveniently cut the quote right there, but what followed was:
…this compromise is no longer an option. Even giving Russia all of the Donbas is not enough. “Now the geography is different,” Lavrov asserted, in describing Russia’s short-term military aims. “It’s also Kherson and the Zaporizhzhya regions and a number of other territories.” The goal is not negotiation, but Ukrainian capitulation.
You’ll note that I didn’t add any emphasis-bolding to make my point. My point didn’t need it. Lavrov’s quotes speak for themselves.

I know it’s important for you to make the west look like the instigators in this conflict, and make it look like Russia is in the right, but you really should stick to letting Russia create the propaganda, and go back to just parroting what they hand you. Your attempts at creating propaganda for them look even sillier than the crap their professional propagandists come up with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,788 Posts
It is no secret that NATO/WEF wants Ukraine to continue fighting.

Boris Johnson told them months ago they could not stop.
Agreed, but that’s not necessarily nefarious. Boris Johnson can tell Zelenskyy anything he wants, but that doesn’t mean Zelenskyy has to do it. If Zelenskyy hands Ukraine over to Putin, he would then operate under the sphere of influence and protection of Russia. He wouldn’t need the blessing of any western leader.

But, more to the point, of course NATO wants Ukraine to keep fighting. Putin has made Russia an enemy of the west, and Ukraine, with the support of NATO treasure and war materiel, is making Putin look like a fool. Ukraine is grinding Putin’s army down to the nubs, with no official direct NATO involvement. It’s not often that you can watch your arch nemesis get his nose broke by picking a fight with some smaller kid down to block with whom you only causally know. Of course you’re going to stand there and cheer on the smaller kid.
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
18,196 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Even your thread title is incredibly misleading. Nowhere, in either of your articles, does it say that western coalition nations “sabotaged” any negotiations. First, Zelenskyy doesn’t need Boris Johnson’s permission to give away a third of his nation’s territory to Russia. Second, in fact, Zelenskyy doesn’t even need the west’s blessing. Russia wants to own at least the eastern third of Ukraine, but it also wants ultimate influence over the whole of Ukraine. If that’s what Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people want, they could sign that deal with Putin today, and the west wouldn’t get a say in the matter.

But, even more dishonestly on your part, you quoted the part about how the negotiations fell apart three days after Boris Johnson left Kiev, which was listed as “obstacle #2”. You completely left out what the article cited as the primary obstacle, so I’ll include it here since it somehow got stopped by your pro-Russian propaganda filter:


And your selective omissions from the second article are even MORE blatantly dishonest. You provided the following quote, with the bolding emphasis yours, not from the article:


You conveniently cut the quote right there, but what followed was:

You’ll note that I didn’t add any emphasis-bolding to make my point. My point didn’t need it. Lavrov’s quotes speak for themselves.

I know it’s important for you to make the west look like the instigators in this conflict, and make it look like Russia is in the right, but you really should stick to letting Russia create the propaganda, and go back to just parroting what they hand you. Your attempts at creating propaganda for them look even sillier than the crap their professional propagandists come up with.
BS - None of the words were mine. I followed the standards for quoting the story. Did you notice the ... indicating that some information was not included, but is in the article?

The headline was not mine, but the article's. The bold was from the article.

The only bolding I made was had suggested Zelenskyy should surrender and flee and Fiona Hill and that was because they were both key items of information that I have never seen before.

Many people scan posts and don't read word for word, especially in a forum like this. Bolding key information is a courtesy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,788 Posts
BS - None of the words were mine. I followed the standards for quoting the story. Did you notice the ... indicating that some information was not included, but is in the article?

The headline was not mine, but the article's. The bold was from the article.

The only bolding I made was had suggested Zelenskyy should surrender and flee and Fiona Hill and that was because they were both key items of information that I have never seen before.

Many people scan posts and don't read word for word, especially in a forum like this. Bolding key information is a courtesy.
The title of the the thread WAS yours. Neither of those articles said, either in their headline or their text, that the west “sabotaged” any peace talks.

And, of course, providing selected quotes and even selective emphasis is normal when providing quotes. What is not normal, unless someone is trying to create propaganda, is to selectively end quotes in ways that make them appear to say something they are not. In both of your quotes, you chose to dodge directly adjacent text that countered the point you were trying to make.

In the first case, you wanted us to believe that the peace talks ended because Boris Johnson visited Zelenskyy. The article notes that Johnson left three days before, and implies that he might have said something to deter Zelenskyy from capitulating, but does not provide even any indication of what they think Johnson might have said. They DO, however, list “obstacle #1” as being Russian atrocities that were revealed right before the peace talks.

In the second case, you edited the quote where it might be made to look like it was western powers that were impeding the peace talks, but intentionally cut the quote where it provided a direct quote from Sergei Lavrov, saying that Russia was no longer OK with the deal because they wanted even more of Ukraine.

In the first case, Moon, the article says that your thread title was, AT BEST, a speculative, secondary cause of the negotiations breaking down and, in the second case, the article provides a direct quote from the Russians saying that THEY were no longer good with the deal.

Your post construction is the definition of spin, intellectual dishonesty, and malinformation. Fortunately, there’s a single word that encompasses that definition: Propaganda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,473 Posts
Even your thread title is incredibly misleading. Nowhere, in either of your articles, does it say that western coalition nations “sabotaged” any negotiations. First, Zelenskyy doesn’t need Boris Johnson’s permission to give away a third of his nation’s territory to Russia. Second, in fact, Zelenskyy doesn’t even need the west’s blessing. Russia wants to own at least the eastern third of Ukraine, but it also wants ultimate influence over the whole of Ukraine. If that’s what Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people want, they could sign that deal with Putin today, and the west wouldn’t get a say in the matter.

But, even more dishonestly on your part, you quoted the part about how the negotiations fell apart three days after Boris Johnson left Kiev, which was listed as “obstacle #2”. You completely left out what the article cited as the primary obstacle, so I’ll include it here since it somehow got stopped by your pro-Russian propaganda filter:


And your selective omissions from the second article are even MORE blatantly dishonest. You provided the following quote, with the bolding emphasis yours, not from the article:


You conveniently cut the quote right there, but what followed was:

You’ll note that I didn’t add any emphasis-bolding to make my point. My point didn’t need it. Lavrov’s quotes speak for themselves.

I know it’s important for you to make the west look like the instigators in this conflict, and make it look like Russia is in the right, but you really should stick to letting Russia create the propaganda, and go back to just parroting what they hand you. Your attempts at creating propaganda for them look even sillier than the crap their professional propagandists come up with.
Thank you. You more clearly stated the facts than I ever could. I have followed this war very closely from the beginning. Never have I seen anywhere that anyone blames the West for the continued war. Ukraine has said on many occasions the Russians can not be trusted to keep their end of the deal as evidenced by how many times they attacked fleeing citizens that supposedly had safe passage.

My last statement is why Zelinsky has said no to any compromise of their territory. In a month, in a year, in ten years, Russia will attack to take the rest of what they didn't get the first time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,788 Posts
Never have I seen anywhere that anyone blames the West for the continued war.
You must not have been following @MoonRiver ‘s posts on this topic. He’s spent the last seven months telling us how this war is the US’ fault, that Russia is just defending itself, and even how the Ukrainians should just give in now and give Putin what he wants, if they know what’s good for them.

Don’t worry if you’re missing out on the Russian propaganda side of this war. Moon’s catching every word of it and regurgitating it here for us… and reminding us that we’re the ones being fooled by swallowing propaganda.

Ukraine has said on many occasions the Russians can not be trusted to keep their end of the deal as evidenced by how many times they attacked fleeing citizens that supposedly had safe passage.
Well, I wouldn’t exactly call Zelenskyy a paragon of truth and transparency, but the underlying point is valid. Russia has been jockeying to steal parts of Ukraine since the day after Putin took office. There’s absolutely no good reason to believe that he will stop if he’s handed 1/3 of the country. Putin still needs to give back Crimea and pay for stealing it in the first place.

My last statement is why Zelinsky has said no to any compromise of their territory. In a month, in a year, in ten years, Russia will attack to take the rest of what they didn't get the first time.
Absolutely, and that’s the point to counter the laughable propaganda of a “point” made in the OP. It doesn’t matter if the west is pressuring Zelenskyy to stay in the fight. Zelenskyy has to anyway. If he’d given up Kiev, he would have been disappeared to the Russian interior and a puppet of Putin put in his place, at which point all of Ukraine would belong to Putin anyway.

The west has an interest in Ukraine keeping in the grind because they’re chewing up our enemy, and doing it with billions of dollars of our support. If Ukraine would have accepted that aid and then rolled over, our support would have been wasted and been handed over to Putin. As it is, those billions of dollars are smoke-checking tens of thousands of Commies, and neutering Russia’s military.

The Russian army was in bad shape when this started, much worse than we thought it was, but, by the time this is all over, they’ll be lucky to rank against Canada.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top