|
How The U.S. (And UK) Sabotaged Peace In Ukraine
The Washington Post provides another of those lame flattering portraits of the Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelinski:
A year in the trenches has hardened Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky came into office thinking peace with Putin was possible. He now believes victory is the only answer.
The piece is contradicting itself in certain manners but it also provides new evidence that the U.S. had set out to sabotage the Minsk agreement.
The headline is of course wrong. Zelenski has not been in the trenches but continued his pampered life near a bunker in Kiev. It is not Zelenski's 'hardening' that prevents peace negotiations with Russia but the blockage of any negotiation attempts by the U.S. government.
But first a look at the contradiction:
Not long after Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, a year ago this week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky found himself in a safe room beneath Kyiv’s government complex with the voice of the Belarusian president booming over the phone.
Alexander Lukashenko, one of the Kremlin’s key allies, was inviting a delegation of officials to Minsk to negotiate an end to the war that Russia had launched just three days earlier, according to Andriy Sybiha, the deputy head of Ukraine’s presidential office, who was in the room for the call.
Zelensky was incensed at the invitation to another negotiation — recalling talks over the conflict in Ukraine’s east, known as “Minsk 1” and “Minsk 2,” that took place in the Belarusian capital in 2014 and 2015 — in which Kyiv was forced to make concessions to the Kremlin under the threat of battlefield losses.
“There will be no Minsk,” Zelensky said, according to Sybiha. “There will be no Minsk 3.”
The claim is that Zelenski was rejecting negotiations. But that claim is false and contradicted by the following events. Many paragraphs later we learn:
Zelensky remained adamant that Ukraine would not enter another Minsk-type negotiation with Russia, but emissaries from the Ukrainian government still held talks with the Russians in Belarus and Turkey throughout March, until the discovery of Russian atrocities in the Kyiv suburb of Bucha. When Zelensky visited Bucha on April 4, he looked visibly stricken, telling reporters it was “very difficult to talk when you see what they have done here.” Arakhamia said he called the leader of the Russian negotiating team and explained that Ukraine could no longer participate in any negotiations. “How can I fly in and sit down at a table and speak to them?” Arakhamia said. “I simply don’t understand.”
That is fake history. Whatever happened in Bucha did not stop Zelenski from negotiating with Russia. As the BBC reported on April 4 2022:
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has said peace talks will continue with Russia despite accusing Moscow of war crimes and genocide.
Mr Zelensky was speaking in Bucha, near the capital Kyiv, where bodies of civilians were found strewn on the streets after Russian troops withdrew. … Responding to a question from the BBC on whether it was still possible to talk peace with Russia, Mr Zelensky said: "Yes, because Ukraine must have peace. We are in Europe in the 21st Century. We will continue efforts diplomatically and militarily."
It was only days later, after a phone call and then a visit by the British prime minister Boris Johnson, that the Ukraine ended the negotiations with Russia. The Ukrainian Pravda reported in May 2022:
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 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."
Three days after Johnson left for Britain, Putin went public and said talks with Ukraine "had turned into a dead end".
Boris Johnson made his unannounced visit to Kiev on April 9 2022.
The Ukrainian Pravda account has been confirmed by Fiona Hill, Russia specialist in the National Security Council under the Trump administration. In a piece for Foreign Affairs Fiona Hill and Angela Stent wrote in August 2022:
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.
In an interview with an Israeli outlet (vid), former prime minister of Israel Naftali Bennett, who was personally deeply involved in the negotiation process, also alleged that the 'West' blocked them:
Reports at the time reflect Bennet’s comments and said Russia and Ukraine were softening their positions. Citing Israeli officials, Axios reported on March 8 that Putin’s “proposal is difficult for Zelensky to accept but not as extreme as they anticipated. They said the proposal doesn’t include regime change in Kyiv and allows Ukraine to keep its sovereignty.”
Discussing how Western leaders felt about his mediation efforts, Bennett said then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson took an “aggressive line” while French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz were more “pragmatic.” Bennett said President Biden adopted “both” positions.
But ultimately, the Western leaders opposed Bennet’s efforts. “I’ll say this in the broad sense. I think there was a legitimate decision by the West to keep striking Putin and not [negotiate],” Bennett said.
When asked if the Western powers “blocked” the mediation efforts, Bennet said,
"Basically, yes. They blocked it, and I thought they were wrong."
Again, the end of the negotiations between Russian and Ukraine in early April 2022 had nothing to with Bucha, but was caused by 'Western', the U.S. and UK's, unwillingness to support a peace agreement.
Washington's resistance against any Ukrainian agreement with Russia can also be seen in an anecdote the Washington Post piece provides from Zelenski's first year as president:
William B. Taylor Jr., the top official at the U.S. Embassy at the time, recalled finding Zelensky in his office in the summer of 2019 expressing curiosity about the “Steinmeier Formula,” an interpretation of the Minsk accords named after Germany’s former foreign minister that the Ukrainian president hoped might lead to a deal with the Kremlin.
“No one knows what it is,” Taylor recalled replying. “Steinmeier doesn’t know what it is.”
Zelensky, according to Taylor, grabbed his phone and pointed to a document explaining the formulation, thinking that somewhere in the details of the legalese a workable compromise with Moscow might be found.
“It’s a terrible idea,” Taylor replied, though Zelensky went on to endorse it in the coming months, trying to land a face-to-face with Putin.
The Steinmeier formula determined the sequencing of the steps the Ukrainian government and the Donbas authorities had to take under the Minsk agreements:
Specifically, Steinmeier's formula calls for elections to be held in the separatist-held territories under Ukrainian legislation and the supervision of the OSCE. If the OSCE judges the balloting to be free and fair, then a special self-governing status for the territories will be initiated and Ukraine will be returned control of its easternmost border.
The formula was vocalized and had not been put to paper until it was signed on October 1 by representatives of Ukraine, Russia, the separatist territories of Luhansk and Donetsk, and the OSCE in Minsk.
It was a simple and clear agreement. But the top U.S. envoy in Ukraine tried to prevent Zelenski from implementing it.
Multiple times along the line of events the Ukraine had tried to come to peace with Russia. Each time we know of the 'West', i.e. the U.S. and UK, successfully sabotaged the peace efforts.
Here is a classic version of the statement about “military-technical measures” from Sergey Lavrov, on January 14, 2022, as reported by Tass:
https://tass.com/defense/1388331
Top diplomat explains how Russia sees its military-technical response to security threats
“Military-technical measures imply the deployment of military hardware,” Sergey Lavrov said
MOSCOW, January 14. /TASS/. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has explained what Russia means by saying that it may take military-technical measures in case of a real security threat.
“Military-technical measures imply the deployment of military hardware, it is obvious. And when we make decisions about these or those steps, we always know what we mean and what we are getting prepared for,” he told a news conference on the results of the Russian foreign ministry’s activities in 2021 on Friday.
The minister recalled that drills have recently been conducted in Russia’s western regions. “Now, a snap check has kicked off at our country’s eastern borders. These are our domestic affairs, our decisions. And, naturally, when hardware and manpower are pulled to our borders, and, notably, these are not the forces of those countries where it is taking place, but the Americans are deploying tens of thousands of their troops and the Britons are deploying hundreds, thousands of items of military hardware, we want to know what these vehicles are going to do in the Baltic countries, in Poland, in other countries, which can resolve problems on Russia’s territory by means of certain types of weapons,” Lavrov stressed.
The Russian top diplomat warned against trying to find “any hidden meaning” in this respect. “We have always been only responding to threats to Russia’s security,” he added.
Russian-US and Russian-NATO talks on security guarantees were held earlier this week. On Monday, Geneva hosted Russian-US consultations on these matters. On Thursday, a Russia-NATO Council meeting was held in Brussels, and a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council was held in Vienna on Thursday.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko said earlier that Russia has “a set of military-technical measures” that would be used in case of a real threat to the country’s security.
And here is the Grushko reference, from January 17, 2022, also reported by Tass:
https://tass.com/politics/1389307
NATO knows which measures Russia can take if its initiatives are turned down — diplomat
On December 17, the Russian foreign ministry released two Russian draft agreements on security guarantees for the United States and NATO
MOSCOW, January 17. /TASS/. NATO knows perfectly well which military-technical measures Russia may take if it turns down Russia’s security guarantees initiatives, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko said in an interview with the Kommersant daily that came out on Monday.
“We are threatening no one. We are warning. Our position is absolutely clear and predictable. We have worded it quite clearly and now are waiting for a similarly honest response,” he said. “NATO knows perfectly well what kind of military-technical measures may follow from Russia. We make no secret of our possibilities and are acting very transparently.”
According to the senior diplomat, concrete measures will depend on the military potentials that could be used against Russia’s interests. Moscow, in his words, will make a decision on continuing dialogue on its security guarantees with NATO and the United States after it receives “written answers to its written proposals.” “We will make up our mind then,” he added.
On December 17, the Russian foreign ministry released two Russian draft agreements on security guarantees for the United States and NATO. One of the things Russia insists on is a guarantee from NATO that it will not expand any further eastwards and that Ukraine will not be admitted to the alliance. Apart from that, Russia insists on a ban on the deployment of serious offensive weapons, including nuclear arms.
The Russian-US consultations on security guarantees were held in Geneva on Monday. On January 12, a meeting of the Russia-NATO Council was held in Brussels and the OSCE Permanent Council gathered for a meeting in Vienna on the following day.
And from December 22, 2021, we hear from Peskov:
Russia expects US to shape clear proposals on security guarantees, says Kremlin
https://tass.com/world/1379189
Reporters also asked to specify what Russian President Vladimir Putin meant when he spoke about Russia’s readiness to take adequate military-technical measures, if Western countries continued to pursue a clearly aggressive policy.
“This is a whole set of measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation and mutually deterring parity,” Peskov explained, but declined to elaborate.
And Putin himself in the Moscow Times, December 21, 2021:
Putin Warns of ‘Military-Technical’ Response to Western ‘Aggression’
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/12/21/putin-warns-of-military-technical-response-to-western-aggression-a75891
“If our Western colleagues continue the obviously aggressive stance, we will take appropriate retaliatory military-technical measures and react harshly to unfriendly steps,” Putin said at a Defense Ministry board meeting, according to the state-run TASS news agency.
He did not specify which “military-technical” measures would be taken.
The Russian president stressed that Moscow “doesn’t want armed conflicts or bloodshed” and that it “has every right” to take what he views as steps that ensure the country’s security and sovereignty.
And on February 17, just seven days before the start of the SMO, Russia reiterated the same phrase, clearly referring to the upcoming invasion:
Official Russian response to the American written response to Russian claims on security guarantees in Europe
https://thesaker.is/official-russian-response-to-the-american-written-response-to-russian-claims-on-security-guarantees-in-europe/
The growing military activity of the United States and NATO directly at the Russian borders is alarming, while our “red lines” and fundamental security interests, as well as Russia’s sovereign right to protect them, continue to be ignored. Ultimatum demands to withdraw troops from certain areas on Russian territory, accompanied by threats of tougher sanctions, are unacceptable and undermine the prospects of reaching real agreements.
In the absence of the readiness of the American side to agree on firm, legally binding guarantees of ensuring our security by the United States and its allies, Russia will be forced to respond, including through the implementation of military-technical measures….
To de-escalate the situation around Ukraine, it is fundamentally important to take the following steps. This is forcing Kiev to implement a set of measures, stopping the supply of weapons to Ukraine, withdrawing all Western advisers and instructors from there, the refusal of NATO countries from any joint exercises with the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the withdrawal of all foreign weapons previously supplied to Kiev outside Ukrainian territory….
It was fixed that the United States takes the Russian approach as a basis, which provides for the mutual settlement of counter-concerns in the context of the previously existing INF Treaty. The variant proposed by the American side of the development of our idea of mutual verification measures in relation to the Aegis Ashore complexes in Romania and Poland, as well as some facilities in the European part of Russia, can be further taken into consideration….
Clearly Russia’s concerns involved those Aegis Ashore installations – this has been known for a long time. Russia expected those same Aegis Ashore installations to be installed in Ukraine eventually. Also note that the list of requirements specific to Ukraine amount to basically “de-militarizing” Ukraine as well as preventing Ukraine from having anything to do with Western military assistance.
All this was refused, so Russia again reiterated its intention to use “military-technical measures” just a week before the war started.
Clearly, then, the SMO is at least part of those “military-technical measures.”
It remains to extrapolate how the further development of those measures will be implemented in Ukraine. The only way I can see which insures that Ukraine remains a “buffer” between Russia and NATO which provides a real military deterrent to NATO encroachment is to install a Military District in Ukraine with strategic weapons to counter those Aegis Ashore installations.
It’s that simple.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Feb 22 2023 13:09 utc | 13
|