81
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml 46 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

https://www.aaronmate.net/p/ukraines-top-negotiator-confirms

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/

https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-warns-against-bad-peace-ukraine/

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/ukraine-russia-war-peace-diplomacy/tnamp/?espv=1

Even though the West denies it, Russia has produced the signed draft agreement with genuine Ukrainian signatures.

Explanation:

The SMO began on February 24. Russia was not aiming to conquer territory but to force Ukraine to accept neutrality, recognize Crimea as Russian and allow autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk. They occupied positions in the 2 regions, took Kherson (outside Crimea) and surrounded major cities like Mariupol and Kharkhov. They also drove straight for Kiev with little regard for securing territory. This led to logistical issues for Russian forces, but despite them, they were clearly beating back the Ukrainian army (which was at its peak).

Within a few days, Russia invited Ukraine to peace talks. They first occured in Belarus. Russia made their demands as mentioned and Ukraine demanded that Russia retreats from Ukraine, including Crimea and publicly denied peace negotiations.

To cover their asses for denying peace in a war they were clearly losing, Ukraine started accusing Russia of warcrimes, specifically that it was kidnapping children and massacring civilians like in Bucha (claims which the Western press was eager to support). The UN did an investigation and preliminary results show there was no case for warcrimes. The ICC (which is different to the ICJ) proclaimed Ukrainian claims were right and that was that.

Meanwhile, the Russians continued advancing. By March 6, Russian forces secured the Kiev airport and established lines of logistical supply for the forces around Kiev. This rattled Zelensky and negotiations resumed in Turkey.

Weird things started happening then like rumours about Ukrainian officials being interrogated by Ukrainian intelligence services (infiltrated and controlled by fascists) and finally one of the negotiators being shot dead and then accused of being a spy. This was accompanied by an intense PR campaign by Right Sector and other Ukrainian fascists to stop negotiations and return to the fight.

Despite this, the Ukrainian and Russian foreign minister met on March 10 and some progress was made. By March 16 leaks from both sides were saying that peace was close. In the meantime, Russian forces retreated from around Kiev, and also completely left the Sumy region. For the first time since the SMO started, no further advances were being made. And Ukraine did not claim this as a victory on the battlefield (not through official channels anyway), indicating this was an agreement reached during negotiations.

Boris Johnson then spoke to the G7 and said that "Ukraine needs to be supported so it is not forced to accept a Russian peace deal".

He then flew to Kiev and met with Zelensky, where as Ukrainian retired officials are telling us now, he convinced Zelensky to walk away from negotiations and he promised the West would "support Ukraine all the way".

So despite peace being so close, Ukraine cancelled the deal by the end of March, and walked away from negotiations. Which is why Ukraine seems so demanding when it comes to aid being provided by the West. Because it was promised to them. Also why Zelensky seems so arrogant when invited to NATO conferences. Because he understood that by declining Russian peace, Ukraine would be protected by NATO. Meanwhile, this is also the time when the fighting started getting more intense, and for the first time in the SMO, the Russian army started advancing with an actual formed frontline.

Last June, when Putin met with African leaders he published the draft of the peace deal which apparently was signed by the Ukrainian foreign minister and other negotiators. . The peace deal said that Russia would retreat from all territory taken after February 23, Ukraine would commit to having further talks regarding Crimea and autonomy of Donetsk and Luhansk. Ukraine would enshrine neutrality in its constitution. Russia would provide some aid for rebuilding areas damaged by war. This is the most generous peace deal Ukraine could ever hope for. And they walked away from it at the behest of the West, which spent 8 years arming Ukraine and financing the fascists taking over, so this war could happen.

[-] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 7 months ago

Thank you for the explanation. It makes more sense now.

[-] OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml 22 points 7 months ago

Just to point out that you can actually understand what Russian geopolitical strategic goals are from the way their military is deployed and operates on the battlefield:

  • Want to force Ukraine into a quick peace: Rapid mechanized groups make a bee-line for Kiev, some key areas are surrounded. Accept equipment losses from poor logistics but get to besiege the enemy capital while preventing escape of government from it. Then retreat from areas you can't hold long-term anyway, as a show of good faith. Western media interpreted this as "Ukrainian army fighting bravely and beating back the Russians who are doing stupid maneuvers and losing (abandoning due to lack of fuel/repair parts) tanks by the hundreds"

  • Want to occupy Donetsk and Luhansk: Forces regroup and form a solid offensive line. Surround major population centers and cut off logistics for Ukrainian forces. Then when enemy ammo, food and water is low, open relief corridors for civilians and let Ukrainian soldiers use them to escape. Then move in the town/city and take it with reduced resistance, causing minimal damage to population and infrastructure. At this point, Ukraine starts pumping out "war zone reports" that are staged to paint Russian soldiers as barbaric and also hide the fact that the Ukrainian army can not hold onto towns. On the other hand, people of Donetsk and Luhansk welcome them as heroes and the rebuilding begins. Guess which story the Western media chose to propagate.

  • Want to incorporate Kherson, Zhaporyzhia, Donetsk and Luhansk into Russia: Russian forces understand that they are in danger of overextending their lines. They pause advances and start preparing defenses on the front and behind it. They shift troop concentrations to the areas under control that they plan on annexing into Russia. Meanwhile, they make small-scale attacks across the frontline to probe for weaknesses and keep Ukrainian forces on the defensive. They organize the civilian administration of the 4 areas they control and start rebuilding everything. The population supports them and approves the referenda to join the Russian Federation. Ukraine fails to disrupt this process as they are kept on the defensive. Western media chose to portray this as "fake referenda done at gun-point" and that Ukrainian forces are regrouping for major offensives. Which happen in winter and push Russian forces back from Kharkov and Izium. The Russians didn't like this, but they had predicted it might happen, during their troop movements, as they prioritized keeping the 4 new Russian regions safe, by paying with reduced security in an area meant to be a buffer zone.

  • Want to drain Ukrainian manpower and equipment (denazify Ukraine): After liberating Luhansk and most of Donetsk, Ukrainian resistance became much stiffer, while serious NATO aid is arriving, which allowed the Ukrainian victory at Kharkov and Izium. Russia no longer cares about occupying more land. They make offensive and defensive plans that are designed to cause losses to Ukrainian forces instead. They draw Ukrainian forces into badly-defended positions they can't retreat from, then pummel them. That's how Bakhmut, Mariupol, Avdeevka, and the Verbove-Robotyne defense to the vaunted Ukrainian counteroffensive became such disasters for Ukraine. Surround positions, pummel areas surrounding the positions with artillery to cut off supplies, make Ukrainian government commit politically to fighting in these places, then move in and focus on killing/wounding/capturing Ukrainian soldiers instead of taking territory quickly. Out in the open let the front-lines remain static, map them out using drones, satellites and recon, then pummel anything that moves with artillery and air forces. Increase artillery shell and drone production to levels where you can overwhelm Ukrainian artillery and armored forces every time they try to be active anywhere near the front line. The result is that now, the Ukrainian army is torn to pieces, with some estimates showing between 1 and 2 million Ukrainian losses (dead, wounded, captured). This has also caused Western support to wane. Even Western media are coming to realize what is going to happen.

  • Putin declares that all the lands up to Kiev were historically part of Russia (the future): Now that Ukrainian forces are mostly irrelevant, Russians have the strategic initiative. They've already began probing attacks all along the front line which are succeeding in pushing the Ukrainians back. A major offensive is probably coming in the summer, which will possibly see Russia capturing Odessa, Dnipro and Slaviansk/Kramatorsk. Russia will then likely launch offensives into Sumy, Poltava, Kharkov and Cherkasy.

[-] cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 7 months ago

Do you have any links about the UN investigation showing there were no Russian war crimes?

[-] OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Sorry, that was not what I meant. That's my bad. I mean the report fails to establish Russian war crimes.

Although, I should say a new UN report has come out recently which I did not read yet.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:d033ebd3-aef1-443e-9810-36667d08a9a5

This is the original UN report. It investigated civilian deaths in 4 areas.

While they document these deaths and they try to accuse Russian forces of being responsible for them, they admit there's not enough evidence except for a few cases. For example, read paragraphs 30-32 on Bucha, where they say their evidence relies only on the testimonies of Ukrainian intelligence services, Ukrainian armed forces and AP journalists embedded with the Azov battalion (which they don't say but was the first to enter the town after the Russian withdrawal)

This is the Russian reaction to the report:

https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1831500/

Further investigation on the Mariupol hospital incident also indicates that eyewitness testimonies were cooked up: https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/03/testimony-mariupol-hospital-ukrainian-deceptions-media-malpractice/

Several forensics academics came out against the methods of the UN report and they were blasted by media: https://thegrayzone.com/2022/08/21/bbc-antiwar-academics-uk-intel/

this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
81 points (96.6% liked)

World News

2307 readers
91 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS