Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Again, the issue is Ukraine v. Russia. and there simply is no comparison when it comes to Christianity. It is night and day.

.

---

Its such a myopic argument

It's NOT a religious war so it does not fundamentally matter to the conflict at hand.

The conflict is over issues of land, spheres of influence, geo-political concerns…even ethnic issues….not religion

(PS as I have show you…with actual polls…their rates of religious attendance are very similar to other orthodox countries

"Only 12 percent of Orthodox Ukrainians report attending church weekly, and this mirrors trends in other parts of Eastern Europe, where religious behavior such as daily prayer and worship attendance is reportedly low compared to the number of followers"

"In Russia just 6 percent of the population…. go to church several times a month")

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2014/02/10/russians-return-to-religion-but-not-to-church/

https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/pw_193-mapping_religious_landscape_ukraine.pdf

---

You're working very hard to lump together Ukraine and Russian Christianity, but there is zero comparison.

---

And you are working hard to pretend Ukraine is some kind of highly religious Christian nation

It's got all the problems of drugs, abortion, prostitution, and corruption that Russia has…and the ultra low rates of weekly church attendance as other Eastern European orthodox majority countries in its area.

[People born in Ukraine accounted for 10.2% (n = 2,338) of all HIV diagnoses reported in EU/EEA countries in 2022]

[Ukraine that was one of the most popular European destinations for sex tourism before the Russian invasion in 2022. According to the Public Health Center run by the Ukrainian government, prostitution was widespread in the country with about 63,000 sex workers before the invasion. According to the Ukrainian Institute for Social Studies, before the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis in 2014, the largest number of sex workers were in the Kyiv Oblast (about 10 thousand),

Often, underage girls are forced into the world of prostitution. Most often, such girls come from the poorest strata of society. Many of them do not have their own families or their families are socially problematic their parents are addicted to alcohol or drugs. In 2016, about 10% of victims of human trafficking in Ukraine were of adolescent age. About 10% of the teenage population who lived on the streets without their families provided sexual services to other men in exchange for money or food.]

[First, it's necessary to be precise about the scale of the problem. Because corruption is hidden, estimating its scale is always problematic. According to the most widely cited source-the annual ranking of corruption by Transparency International (TI)-Ukraine has scored poorly for decades. As late as 2016, amid major anti-corruption reforms, TI's survey still judged Ukraine to be as corrupt as Russia.]

---

I fail to see how whether they are religious or not plays into their right to self-govern…

---

Don't the people in Donbas and Crimea get to self-govern?

They don't want to be part of Ukraine…Kyiv disagreed and send into troops sparking off the Donbas war

Leading to this greater Russo-Ukraine war

You again act like Moscow woke up one day and said "wez gonna take all Ukraine"

This conflict has been in the making since the Orange revolution in 2005

Religion has nothing to do with it..its the geo-political struggle between east and west forces inside the county

---

Here we go again…

Seccession is a no-no...

---

Secession is literally how Texas became a country

Secession is literally how the USA became independent

---

In the modern era, secession is a no-no..

---

For the record…

We just helped South Sudan break off from Sudan in 2011

And helped East Timor break off from Indonesia in 2002

---

And none of that applies to Ukraine. Russia just invaded to take what it wanted. There was no serious secessionist effort there. Without Russian sponsorship, there was no conflict at all. The Russian meddling that happened there is the kind of stuff you have to resist most firmly.

---

"Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face."

That's not Pravda; it's what our own people said behind closed doors. It was true then and remained true when events played out as predicted. Your denials only prove that you have no real concern for Ukraine.

---

In response to the Ukrainian legislature voting to move toward joining EU, Russia first bribes the pro-Russian president to veto the EU bill he'd campaigned promising to sign, which destabilizes the Ukraine government, prompting a popular uprising which drives that leader into exile. Russia meanwhile is filling the Donbas up with Little Green Men, prompting outbreak of insurgency. Then, Russia invades Crimea. Next, Russia annexes both in an illegal plebiscite. Finally, observing all the instability and with an abundance of caution about future strife, Russia decides to invade Ukraine to forestall a deeper crisis (than it has already created).

And STILL you blame us for all of it.

LOL that's not mud in those mudpies you're making......

---

Referring to the Russian economic proposal as a "bribe" is colonial arrogance at its finest. In your mind it was illegitimate for Putin to even make a competing offer, much less for Yanukovych to consider accepting it. So we refused to negotiate, and instead supported a coup, which as noted above was what actually prompted the insurgency. Crimea was annexed with the overwhelming support of its people, but of course you're wrong about the Donbas. It wasn't annexed until almost a decade later, after the failure of the Minsk plan and the refusal of any further talks by the West.

---

Quote:

---

That prompted a popular uprising. After several days of instructing his police to shoot unarmed protestors

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

It confirms what's in the Nation article, with the addition of a straw man and a lot of opinion. No one is saying the West exercised technical veto power. As pointed out above, that is a vacuous argument. Did the West effectively shut down negotiations? Absolutely. Even mainstream American media have had to admit as much.

---

Wrong on both accounts.

First, several posters (and many right wing influencers) have repeatedly claimed that we would not allow Ukraine to settle and/or we forced them to fight. No nuance, just that clear. And it's false.

Second, we did not "effectively" shut down negotiations. Negotiations continued. Putin refused to meet with Zelensky despite repeated Zelensky requests. From the start until now, Ukraine 100% has had the discretion to decide to fight or settle. Mainstream media have admitted nothing of the sort.

Supporting Ukraine and not pleading with to settle is nowhere near "effectively shutting down negotiations."

---

You've unknowingly hit on a crucial point: Putin indeed refused to meet with Zelensky until negotiations were in the final stage. It was at that point that Boris Johnson intervened. I need hardly point out that saying "don't negotiate with criminals" is a far cry from "not pleading hard enough" to settle. I mean, really.

Your analysis is another example of the danger in believing one's own propaganda. The problem with Ukraine exercising its own discretion is that the Russians know the West instigated the conflict. You're free to deny it to your heart's content. Zelensky doesn't have that luxury.

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

It confirms what's in the Nation article, with the addition of a straw man and a lot of opinion. No one is saying the West exercised technical veto power. As pointed out above, that is a vacuous argument. Did the West effectively shut down negotiations? Absolutely. Even mainstream American media have had to admit as much.

---

Wrong on both accounts.

First, several posters (and many right wing influencers) have repeatedly claimed that we would not allow Ukraine to settle and/or we forced them to fight. No nuance, just that clear. And it's false.

Second, we did not "effectively" shut down negotiations. Negotiations continued. Putin refused to meet with Zelensky despite repeated Zelensky requests. From the start until now, Ukraine 100% has had the discretion to decide to fight or settle. Mainstream media have admitted nothing of the sort.

Supporting Ukraine and not pleading with to settle is nowhere near "effectively shutting down negotiations."

---

You've unknowingly hit on a crucial point: Putin indeed refused to meet with Zelensky until negotiations were in the final stage. It was at that point that Boris Johnson intervened. I need hardly point out that saying "don't negotiate with criminals" is a far cry from "not pleading hard enough" to settle. I mean, really.

Your analysis is another example of the danger in believing one's own propaganda. The problem with Ukraine exercising its own discretion is that the Russians know the West instigated the conflict. You're free to deny it to your heart's content. Zelensky doesn't have that luxury.

---

He refused to meet with Zelensky, period. And, finally, when the parties got pretty close, Putin ordered the horrific war crimes. He thought that would create the leverage needed to push the deal over the line. Instead. It hardened Ukraine's resolve. Had he met with Zelensky before that, there may have been a formal agreement.

As to final your final point, you're conflating issues. Correct, I reject the argument that we instigated anything. But even if we did, that has no bearing on what happened in post-invasion negotiations. Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

It confirms what's in the Nation article, with the addition of a straw man and a lot of opinion. No one is saying the West exercised technical veto power. As pointed out above, that is a vacuous argument. Did the West effectively shut down negotiations? Absolutely. Even mainstream American media have had to admit as much.

---

Wrong on both accounts.

First, several posters (and many right wing influencers) have repeatedly claimed that we would not allow Ukraine to settle and/or we forced them to fight. No nuance, just that clear. And it's false.

Second, we did not "effectively" shut down negotiations. Negotiations continued. Putin refused to meet with Zelensky despite repeated Zelensky requests. From the start until now, Ukraine 100% has had the discretion to decide to fight or settle. Mainstream media have admitted nothing of the sort.

Supporting Ukraine and not pleading with to settle is nowhere near "effectively shutting down negotiations."

---

Your analysis is another example of the danger in believing one's own propaganda. The problem with Ukraine exercising its own discretion is that the Russians know the West instigated the conflict. You're free to deny it to your heart's content. Zelensky doesn't have that luxury.

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

It confirms what's in the Nation article, with the addition of a straw man and a lot of opinion. No one is saying the West exercised technical veto power. As pointed out above, that is a vacuous argument. Did the West effectively shut down negotiations? Absolutely. Even mainstream American media have had to admit as much.

---

Wrong on both accounts.

First, several posters (and many right wing influencers) have repeatedly claimed that we would not allow Ukraine to settle and/or we forced them to fight. No nuance, just that clear. And it's false.

Second, we did not "effectively" shut down negotiations. Negotiations continued. Putin refused to meet with Zelensky despite repeated Zelensky requests. From the start until now, Ukraine 100% has had the discretion to decide to fight or settle. Mainstream media have admitted nothing of the sort.

Supporting Ukraine and not pleading with to settle is nowhere near "effectively shutting down negotiations."

---

You've unknowingly hit on a crucial point: Putin indeed refused to meet with Zelensky until negotiations were in the final stage. It was at that point that Boris Johnson intervened. I need hardly point out that saying "don't negotiate with criminals" is a far cry from "not pleading hard enough" to settle. I mean, really.

Your analysis is another example of the danger in believing one's own propaganda. The problem with Ukraine exercising its own discretion is that the Russians know the West instigated the conflict. You're free to deny it to your heart's content. Zelensky doesn't have that luxury.

---

He refused to meet with Zelensky, period. And, finally, when the parties got pretty close, Putin ordered the horrific war crimes. He thought that would create the leverage needed to push the deal over the line. Instead. It hardened Ukraine's resolve. Had he met with Zelensky before that, there may have been a formal agreement.

As to final your final point, you're conflating issues. Correct, I reject the argument that we instigated anything. But even if we did, that has no bearing on what happened in post-invasion negotiations. Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Putin did not refuse to meet, period. He refused to meet until the deal was close to final.

The alleged war crimes are completely irrelevant, except as a pretext to end negotiations.

The West's involvement has everything to do with post-invasion talks. It would be hard enough for Russia to trust a deal we claimed to support. With our opposition it's basically impossible.

---

If you knew anything about the negotiations you'd know that Russia wanted us to be part of the deal.

Bucha, a pretext? Nice.

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Yet here you are, vatnik shill, pumping that Russian propaganda you are always on your knees for.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

It confirms what's in the Nation article, with the addition of a straw man and a lot of opinion. No one is saying the West exercised technical veto power. As pointed out above, that is a vacuous argument. Did the West effectively shut down negotiations? Absolutely. Even mainstream American media have had to admit as much.

---

Wrong on both accounts.

First, several posters (and many right wing influencers) have repeatedly claimed that we would not allow Ukraine to settle and/or we forced them to fight. No nuance, just that clear. And it's false.

Second, we did not "effectively" shut down negotiations. Negotiations continued. Putin refused to meet with Zelensky despite repeated Zelensky requests. From the start until now, Ukraine 100% has had the discretion to decide to fight or settle. Mainstream media have admitted nothing of the sort.

Supporting Ukraine and not pleading with to settle is nowhere near "effectively shutting down negotiations."

---

You've unknowingly hit on a crucial point: Putin indeed refused to meet with Zelensky until negotiations were in the final stage. It was at that point that Boris Johnson intervened. I need hardly point out that saying "don't negotiate with criminals" is a far cry from "not pleading hard enough" to settle. I mean, really.

Your analysis is another example of the danger in believing one's own propaganda. The problem with Ukraine exercising its own discretion is that the Russians know the West instigated the conflict. You're free to deny it to your heart's content. Zelensky doesn't have that luxury.

---

He refused to meet with Zelensky, period. And, finally, when the parties got pretty close, Putin ordered the horrific war crimes. He thought that would create the leverage needed to push the deal over the line. Instead. It hardened Ukraine's resolve. Had he met with Zelensky before that, there may have been a formal agreement.

As to final your final point, you're conflating issues. Correct, I reject the argument that we instigated anything. But even if we did, that has no bearing on what happened in post-invasion negotiations. Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Putin did not refuse to meet, period. He refused to meet until the deal was close to final.

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

It confirms what's in the Nation article, with the addition of a straw man and a lot of opinion. No one is saying the West exercised technical veto power. As pointed out above, that is a vacuous argument. Did the West effectively shut down negotiations? Absolutely. Even mainstream American media have had to admit as much.

---

Wrong on both accounts.

First, several posters (and many right wing influencers) have repeatedly claimed that we would not allow Ukraine to settle and/or we forced them to fight. No nuance, just that clear. And it's false.

Second, we did not "effectively" shut down negotiations. Negotiations continued. Putin refused to meet with Zelensky despite repeated Zelensky requests. From the start until now, Ukraine 100% has had the discretion to decide to fight or settle. Mainstream media have admitted nothing of the sort.

Supporting Ukraine and not pleading with to settle is nowhere near "effectively shutting down negotiations."

---

You've unknowingly hit on a crucial point: Putin indeed refused to meet with Zelensky until negotiations were in the final stage. It was at that point that Boris Johnson intervened. I need hardly point out that saying "don't negotiate with criminals" is a far cry from "not pleading hard enough" to settle. I mean, really.

Your analysis is another example of the danger in believing one's own propaganda. The problem with Ukraine exercising its own discretion is that the Russians know the West instigated the conflict. You're free to deny it to your heart's content. Zelensky doesn't have that luxury.

---

He refused to meet with Zelensky, period. And, finally, when the parties got pretty close, Putin ordered the horrific war crimes. He thought that would create the leverage needed to push the deal over the line. Instead. It hardened Ukraine's resolve. Had he met with Zelensky before that, there may have been a formal agreement.

As to final your final point, you're conflating issues. Correct, I reject the argument that we instigated anything. But even if we did, that has no bearing on what happened in post-invasion negotiations. Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Putin did not refuse to meet, period. He refused to meet until the deal was close to final.

The alleged war crimes are completely irrelevant, except as a pretext to end negotiations.

The West's involvement has everything to do with post-invasion talks. It would be hard enough for Russia to trust a deal we claimed to support. With our opposition it's basically impossible.

---

If you knew anything about the negotiations you'd know that Russia wanted us to be part of the deal.

Bucha, a pretext? Nice.

---

Of course Russia wanted us to be part of the deal. That's what I'm saying. There was little that Ukraine could do without our support.

The fact that Bucha was cited as a reason to end negotiations is telling. It's another version of the Western talking point that you don't negotiate with criminals. If you're really concerned about war crimes, you want to end the war sooner rather than later. I understand that may not be satisfying emotionally, but emotions aren't supposed to govern when the stakes are this high.

---

As you know (at least I assume you do) negotiations did not end. Putin just ordered Bucha (and others) at the worst possible time. It goes without saying that trust is major issue in any negotiation. Totally understandable to me how something as horrific as Bucha would seriously undermine trust. That massacre in addition to Ukraine performing well on the battlefield slowed real momentum that had been building.

Of course, there were still major roadblocks to settlement, not the least of which was one of the keys to the deal that I'm guessing you, Red, and Reality would have never supported - that the U.S. agree to take military action directly against Russia if Russia violated the agreement.

Look, I've said all along - and the best reporting confirmed - that both sides share blame in the failed negotiations. My main point is that your narratives on the negotiations - that (1) the U.S. actually or effectively tubed a deal and (2) Russia had offered simply taking over parts of the east - are pure fiction.

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

It confirms what's in the Nation article, with the addition of a straw man and a lot of opinion. No one is saying the West exercised technical veto power. As pointed out above, that is a vacuous argument. Did the West effectively shut down negotiations? Absolutely. Even mainstream American media have had to admit as much.

---

Wrong on both accounts.

First, several posters (and many right wing influencers) have repeatedly claimed that we would not allow Ukraine to settle and/or we forced them to fight. No nuance, just that clear. And it's false.

Second, we did not "effectively" shut down negotiations. Negotiations continued. Putin refused to meet with Zelensky despite repeated Zelensky requests. From the start until now, Ukraine 100% has had the discretion to decide to fight or settle. Mainstream media have admitted nothing of the sort.

Supporting Ukraine and not pleading with to settle is nowhere near "effectively shutting down negotiations."

---

You've unknowingly hit on a crucial point: Putin indeed refused to meet with Zelensky until negotiations were in the final stage. It was at that point that Boris Johnson intervened. I need hardly point out that saying "don't negotiate with criminals" is a far cry from "not pleading hard enough" to settle. I mean, really.

Your analysis is another example of the danger in believing one's own propaganda. The problem with Ukraine exercising its own discretion is that the Russians know the West instigated the conflict. You're free to deny it to your heart's content. Zelensky doesn't have that luxury.

---

He refused to meet with Zelensky, period. And, finally, when the parties got pretty close, Putin ordered the horrific war crimes. He thought that would create the leverage needed to push the deal over the line. Instead. It hardened Ukraine's resolve. Had he met with Zelensky before that, there may have been a formal agreement.

As to final your final point, you're conflating issues. Correct, I reject the argument that we instigated anything. But even if we did, that has no bearing on what happened in post-invasion negotiations. Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Putin did not refuse to meet, period. He refused to meet until the deal was close to final.

---

You've resorted to arguing semantics. Putin's own spokesperson, Peskov, said Putin didn't refuse to meet "in principle," but never confirmed he would in fact do so, and stated that IF such a meeting took place, it would only occur after a written agreement favorable to Russia and meeting its demands was completed.

I believe it was you who previously argued that demanding the other side meet a list of demands wasn't a true good faith negotiation. Remember?

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

It confirms what's in the Nation article, with the addition of a straw man and a lot of opinion. No one is saying the West exercised technical veto power. As pointed out above, that is a vacuous argument. Did the West effectively shut down negotiations? Absolutely. Even mainstream American media have had to admit as much.

---

Wrong on both accounts.

First, several posters (and many right wing influencers) have repeatedly claimed that we would not allow Ukraine to settle and/or we forced them to fight. No nuance, just that clear. And it's false.

Second, we did not "effectively" shut down negotiations. Negotiations continued. Putin refused to meet with Zelensky despite repeated Zelensky requests. From the start until now, Ukraine 100% has had the discretion to decide to fight or settle. Mainstream media have admitted nothing of the sort.

Supporting Ukraine and not pleading with to settle is nowhere near "effectively shutting down negotiations."

---

You've unknowingly hit on a crucial point: Putin indeed refused to meet with Zelensky until negotiations were in the final stage. It was at that point that Boris Johnson intervened. I need hardly point out that saying "don't negotiate with criminals" is a far cry from "not pleading hard enough" to settle. I mean, really.

Your analysis is another example of the danger in believing one's own propaganda. The problem with Ukraine exercising its own discretion is that the Russians know the West instigated the conflict. You're free to deny it to your heart's content. Zelensky doesn't have that luxury.

---

He refused to meet with Zelensky, period. And, finally, when the parties got pretty close, Putin ordered the horrific war crimes. He thought that would create the leverage needed to push the deal over the line. Instead. It hardened Ukraine's resolve. Had he met with Zelensky before that, there may have been a formal agreement.

As to final your final point, you're conflating issues. Correct, I reject the argument that we instigated anything. But even if we did, that has no bearing on what happened in post-invasion negotiations. Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Putin did not refuse to meet, period. He refused to meet until the deal was close to final.

The alleged war crimes are completely irrelevant, except as a pretext to end negotiations.

The West's involvement has everything to do with post-invasion talks. It would be hard enough for Russia to trust a deal we claimed to support. With our opposition it's basically impossible.

---

If you knew anything about the negotiations you'd know that Russia wanted us to be part of the deal.

Bucha, a pretext? Nice.

---

Of course Russia wanted us to be part of the deal. That's what I'm saying. There was little that Ukraine could do without our support.

The fact that Bucha was cited as a reason to end negotiations is telling. It's another version of the Western talking point that you don't negotiate with criminals. If you're really concerned about war crimes, you want to end the war sooner rather than later. I understand that may not be satisfying emotionally, but emotions aren't supposed to govern when the stakes are this high.

---

So the way to end war crimes is to roll over to the party committing war crimes?

Hmmm.

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

sombear said:

---

Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Speaking of Ukraine and calls, how about that call from Brandon to Ukraine demanding that Viktor Shokin get fired and the probe into Burisma end. Yeah, Ukraine's government is independent alright.

---

It's quite ironic . . . y'all scream about Ukrainian corruption but object when a corrupt prosecutor is canned.

And what this has to do with Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations I have no idea, except to say conspiracists love to piece together unrelated issues. I'm waiting for someone to tie in the JFK assassination and Iraq.

---

The propensity of conservatives to so easily buy conspiracy theories is a concerning trend.

---

It's both sides of course but I agree. I blame twitter …. The most troubling aspect to me (and no, this is not a passive aggressive shot at the pro-Russia folks b/c we can set that issue aside, and it's still true) is so many on my side (conservative) virtually always give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-American side and always give the benefit of the doubt to the narrative that supports their own opinions. There is too little objective analysis.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

sombear said:

---

Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Speaking of Ukraine and calls, how about that call from Brandon to Ukraine demanding that Viktor Shokin get fired and the probe into Burisma end. Yeah, Ukraine's government is independent alright.

---

It's quite ironic . . . y'all scream about Ukrainian corruption but object when a corrupt prosecutor is canned.

And what this has to do with Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations I have no idea, except to say conspiracists love to piece together unrelated issues. I'm waiting for someone to tie in the JFK assassination and Iraq.

---

The propensity of conservatives to so easily buy conspiracy theories is a concerning trend.

---

It's both sides of course but I agree. I blame twitter …. The most troubling aspect to me (and no, this is not a passive aggressive shot at the pro-Russia folks b/c we can set that issue aside, and it's still true) is so many on my side (conservative) virtually always give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-American side and always give the benefit of the doubt to the narrative that supports their own opinions. There is too little objective analysis.

---

It's hard to give America the benefit of the doubt when you know the history of our covert wars. Like many Americans you are in deep denial on that subject.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

It confirms what's in the Nation article, with the addition of a straw man and a lot of opinion. No one is saying the West exercised technical veto power. As pointed out above, that is a vacuous argument. Did the West effectively shut down negotiations? Absolutely. Even mainstream American media have had to admit as much.

---

Wrong on both accounts.

First, several posters (and many right wing influencers) have repeatedly claimed that we would not allow Ukraine to settle and/or we forced them to fight. No nuance, just that clear. And it's false.

Second, we did not "effectively" shut down negotiations. Negotiations continued. Putin refused to meet with Zelensky despite repeated Zelensky requests. From the start until now, Ukraine 100% has had the discretion to decide to fight or settle. Mainstream media have admitted nothing of the sort.

Supporting Ukraine and not pleading with to settle is nowhere near "effectively shutting down negotiations."

---

You've unknowingly hit on a crucial point: Putin indeed refused to meet with Zelensky until negotiations were in the final stage. It was at that point that Boris Johnson intervened. I need hardly point out that saying "don't negotiate with criminals" is a far cry from "not pleading hard enough" to settle. I mean, really.

Your analysis is another example of the danger in believing one's own propaganda. The problem with Ukraine exercising its own discretion is that the Russians know the West instigated the conflict. You're free to deny it to your heart's content. Zelensky doesn't have that luxury.

---

He refused to meet with Zelensky, period. And, finally, when the parties got pretty close, Putin ordered the horrific war crimes. He thought that would create the leverage needed to push the deal over the line. Instead. It hardened Ukraine's resolve. Had he met with Zelensky before that, there may have been a formal agreement.

As to final your final point, you're conflating issues. Correct, I reject the argument that we instigated anything. But even if we did, that has no bearing on what happened in post-invasion negotiations. Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Putin did not refuse to meet, period. He refused to meet until the deal was close to final.

---

You've resorted to arguing semantics. Putin's own spokesperson, Peskov, said Putin didn't refuse to meet "in principle," but never confirmed he would in fact do so, and stated that IF such a meeting took place, it would only occur after a written agreement favorable to Russia and meeting its demands was completed.

I believe it was you who previously argued that demanding the other side meet a list of demands wasn't a true good faith negotiation. Remember?

---

Russia set no preconditions. There were seven rounds of talks, after which Putin announced that he was ready to meet with Zelensky. It was then that the UK intervened.

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

sombear said:

---

Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Speaking of Ukraine and calls, how about that call from Brandon to Ukraine demanding that Viktor Shokin get fired and the probe into Burisma end. Yeah, Ukraine's government is independent alright.

---

It's quite ironic . . . y'all scream about Ukrainian corruption but object when a corrupt prosecutor is canned.

And what this has to do with Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations I have no idea, except to say conspiracists love to piece together unrelated issues. I'm waiting for someone to tie in the JFK assassination and Iraq.

---

The propensity of conservatives to so easily buy conspiracy theories is a concerning trend.

---

It's both sides of course but I agree. I blame twitter …. The most troubling aspect to me (and no, this is not a passive aggressive shot at the pro-Russia folks b/c we can set that issue aside, and it's still true) is so many on my side (conservative) virtually always give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-American side and always give the benefit of the doubt to the narrative that supports their own opinions. There is too little objective analysis.

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

That prompted a popular uprising. After several days of instructing his police to shoot unarmed protestors

---

Pure fiction.

"the analysis shows that the farright organizations and football ultras played a key role in political violence such as attempting to seize the presidential administration and the parliament. It reveals involvement of the Right Sector in violent clashes with the Berkut special police force during the highly publicized dispersal of Maidan protesters on November 30, 2013. The Right Sector and Svoboda had crucial roles in the violent overthrow of the Yanukovych government, in particular, in the Maidan massacre of the protesters and the police."

Link

Victoria Nuland, the State Department, and the CIA set all of that up.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

sombear said:

---

Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Speaking of Ukraine and calls, how about that call from Brandon to Ukraine demanding that Viktor Shokin get fired and the probe into Burisma end. Yeah, Ukraine's government is independent alright.

---

It's quite ironic . . . y'all scream about Ukrainian corruption but object when a corrupt prosecutor is canned.

And what this has to do with Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations I have no idea, except to say conspiracists love to piece together unrelated issues. I'm waiting for someone to tie in the JFK assassination and Iraq.

---

The propensity of conservatives to so easily buy conspiracy theories is a concerning trend.

---

It's both sides of course but I agree. I blame twitter …. The most troubling aspect to me (and no, this is not a passive aggressive shot at the pro-Russia folks b/c we can set that issue aside, and it's still true) is so many on my side (conservative) virtually always give the benefit of the doubt to the anti-American side and always give the benefit of the doubt to the narrative that supports their own opinions. There is too little objective analysis.

---

Psyops proved this long ago. But we've democratized the info sphere so much via social media that it easily consumes millions into chambers of affirmation bias requiring nothing more than volume approval (likes, reposts, comments). The concept of influencer isn't just some innocuous quasi-career of millennials. It's the greatest impact and core purpose of venues like Meta and X, and has become a primary battleground for information warfare.

With the advancements in AI, the ability to meld some facts with fiction (a classic disinformation technique) into seemingly logical narratives en masse and intertwined into invented support material makes this even more problematic. "You won't know who to trust" is already in play and is the real casualty of all of this, and why the battle lines of internal debate continue to get fiercer.

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

What really happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia

---

Thanks for confirming.

---

Not really.

---

Sam has trouble reading objectively. This confirms exactly what I said, and as I've posted multiple times, the Foreign Affairs article is by far the best sourced and most detailed analysis of the negotiations.

One can argue the west should have tried harder to convince Ukraine to settle. One cannot argue that the west did not allow it or had some crazy veto power.

Folks like Sam cannot accept this fact because it undermines their primary narrative that all of this somehow is our fault.

---

It confirms what's in the Nation article, with the addition of a straw man and a lot of opinion. No one is saying the West exercised technical veto power. As pointed out above, that is a vacuous argument. Did the West effectively shut down negotiations? Absolutely. Even mainstream American media have had to admit as much.

---

Wrong on both accounts.

First, several posters (and many right wing influencers) have repeatedly claimed that we would not allow Ukraine to settle and/or we forced them to fight. No nuance, just that clear. And it's false.

Second, we did not "effectively" shut down negotiations. Negotiations continued. Putin refused to meet with Zelensky despite repeated Zelensky requests. From the start until now, Ukraine 100% has had the discretion to decide to fight or settle. Mainstream media have admitted nothing of the sort.

Supporting Ukraine and not pleading with to settle is nowhere near "effectively shutting down negotiations."

---

You've unknowingly hit on a crucial point: Putin indeed refused to meet with Zelensky until negotiations were in the final stage. It was at that point that Boris Johnson intervened. I need hardly point out that saying "don't negotiate with criminals" is a far cry from "not pleading hard enough" to settle. I mean, really.

Your analysis is another example of the danger in believing one's own propaganda. The problem with Ukraine exercising its own discretion is that the Russians know the West instigated the conflict. You're free to deny it to your heart's content. Zelensky doesn't have that luxury.

---

He refused to meet with Zelensky, period. And, finally, when the parties got pretty close, Putin ordered the horrific war crimes. He thought that would create the leverage needed to push the deal over the line. Instead. It hardened Ukraine's resolve. Had he met with Zelensky before that, there may have been a formal agreement.

As to final your final point, you're conflating issues. Correct, I reject the argument that we instigated anything. But even if we did, that has no bearing on what happened in post-invasion negotiations. Ukraine made the call. Ukraine still is making the call.

---

Putin did not refuse to meet, period. He refused to meet until the deal was close to final.

---

You've resorted to arguing semantics. Putin's own spokesperson, Peskov, said Putin didn't refuse to meet "in principle," but never confirmed he would in fact do so, and stated that IF such a meeting took place, it would only occur after a written agreement favorable to Russia and meeting its demands was completed.

I believe it was you who previously argued that demanding the other side meet a list of demands wasn't a true good faith negotiation. Remember?

---

Russia set no preconditions. There were seven rounds of talks, after which Putin announced that he was ready to meet with Zelensky. It was then that the UK intervened.

---

No, it was then then Ukraine discovered Bucha and other war crimes. And, by the way, talks continued. There have even been recent talks. But neither side has moved an inch.

---