Cool spam bro how many chans did you post this in today?
"Boris Johnson arrived in Kiev and said that we won't sign anything with them at all, and let's just fight" - Davyd Arakhamia
Abhazian russian top manager government worker about negotiations with russians and Boris Johnsons directives from United Kingdom, in 2022.
Full interview on ukrainian:
Wiki of Arahamia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davyd_Arakhamia
Only 2 yesterday.
They banning me constantly everywhere pretending to make rus patriot from me.
But this is fucking insane, blaming ME on boards where everybody post gore and lolis for saying that my own government want to killing me and a lot of people are in this concentration camp hunted without allow to leave this madness.
And some stupid american niggers would say that I must be thatnkful for donations/
NOT THANKFUL AT ALL
I RECEIVE ZERO AMOUNT OF ANYKIND HELP
I had create it first as post for arguments for my position in other thread, they ban me on a day because of hoholian mod on welferie in Bavaria. After I create separete thread or so.
Everywhere I go and meet hohols they always are stich in the ass to make my life awful.
'We' are like niggers, niggers hate niggers, hohols hate hohols and doing shit for each other, because they don't want other tribes to know how shitty hoholians actually are.
I WILL MAKE WORLD KNOW THAT HOHOLS ARE WHITE NIGGERS SHIT
There is a minority but large segment of society that want to fight. They are militarized with still strong will to go on. Those who don't want to fight are placid, unorganized, and can't resist to them.
Even if Zelensky wanted couldn't make peace, because this group is the greatest and most active supporter of his regime, and they would just coup him.
Funnily enough in Russia it's the same. There is this new-ish, so called "imperialist", strata of society who not just wants the war, but says Putin was holding back and they should have strike more hard, and Russia can fight even harder. And Putin couldn't make peace without the danger this group upturning his regime.
Thing is both societies were apoliticized in the Communism. They learnt if they just care about their own private lives, and "leave politics to politicians" then they'll be fine, they won't get harassed by the govt. So only a minor group politically active in the society and this group gives all the cadres the system works with. Noone really to balance out their voice. They are the support the govt. has in society. And they can make it or break it.
>And Putin couldn't make peace without the danger of this group upturning his regime.
There is no force in Russia capable of overthrowing him even if he signs peace deal tomorrow.
He has that option and he was trying to make peace since the beginning of the conflict.
About Zelenskiy he is probably already burnt all the bridges, his decisions had catastrophic consequences, so he has no other options but to keep rolling with it.
>Putin was holding back and they should have strike more hard
He is criticized for postponing escalation and then still having to take that escalation later anyway. For instance, he could've started the infrastructure war from day one, but it was delayed for — what, a year or so?
Apparently he still wanted some kind of diplomatic solution.
So it's better to have your country in ruins, millions dead, kidnapping on the streets then signing a peace which "cripples" you?
Do you really believe a 25m country can somehow end up in a better shape after a fight with its 10 times bigger nuclear power neighbour?
The only sane option Ukraine had is to make peace because it simply has no power or resources to compete.
I find the premise that Russia would invade Ukraine in any circumstances is a false one. It's not a fact. Perhaps we disagree on this because we judge the causes of the war differently. Why do you think Russia attacked Ukraine?
Boris Johnson's intervention is not the first time the West acted to stop a peace deal to be signed. On the 2022 February 25th both sides expressed they are ready to make peace, they approached each other via Switzerland and they were planning the talks in Bern on the 26th. Then on the 27th von der Leyen and Borrell announced to give assistance to Ukraine in worth of €450+50 million with the promise of another €4,5 billion, and suddenly no more willingness to talk on behalf of Kiev. That is until summer for things weren't going any better, which led to Istanbul.
This is a consistent behaviour of the Western powers.
Putin is not a lone tyrant, he rules with the help of a clique. I think Russians are so used to have him on the top they can't consider him gone.
In the first year of the conflict there was still a possibility to end it.
>postponing escalation
>Apparently he still wanted some kind of diplomatic solution.
Yes this is why some Western analysts consider him a moderate. Compared to whoever can replace him. And those who are active and loud supporter of his regime are all more radical. And noone else is there just the quiet masses who think it's better not to draw attention to themselves.
So since we are talking about what Putin said, here are the two most relevant speeches he gave on the telly:
2022 February 21:
-redacted-
2022 February 24:
-redacted-
The two together is about one and a half hours... I suffered through them. And made notes too. The videos are "hand translated" by an American prof (Phd in international relations) who knows Russian, so it's not ML crap.
Yes, in both videos says the territories were part of Russia historically, but the reason to launch the "defense" (as he called it) is different.
tl;dr
1. NATO expansion (security reason #1)
2. prevention of an attack against Russia itself (security reason #2)
3. genocide of the Russian minority in the Donbass
Long version:
He spends a long time to describe how relations deteriorated between Ukraine and Russia. He points at US foreign policy as the main reason. He talks about NATO expansion towards east and the creation of NATO military infrastructure in Ukraine, about the frequent exercises there, the various US basings (air and naval), etc.
He points out their disregard of their own promises that NATO won't expand, the rejections of Russia's propositions.
He notes the possible speed of attacks by various missile systems from Ukraine, and the possible reach of them.
He talks about the radicalization of Ukraine, the growing influence of militant nationalists who he frequently refers to as neo-Nazis. How the West helped to nurture anti-Russian sentiments, and how the prosecution of the Russian ethnics begin and intensified. He says radicals kept the Donbass under siege, they planned to bring the war to Crimea, and they declared claims on other Russian territories.
He says Kiev had/have plans of acquiring nuclear weapons as well.
Furthermore he lists the various agreements and treaties NATO violated, and the unwillingness of Kiev to implement the Minks Agreement which could have solved the issue in the Donbass and preserved Ukraine's territorial unity.
He talks a lot more about various stuff, like the support of terrorist organizations and attacks against the citizens of the Russian Federation and stuff.
In the first video he declares of the recognition of the independent people's republics in the Donbass, in the second he announces the launch of the SMO, citing the collective defense of Article 51 of UN Charter.
So what we can conclude is that there was a possible way to avoid all this:
1. keeping Ukraine neutral
2. keeping the right of ethnicities intact.
Tho I'm not posting to support his claims or justify their actions, but I can tell the second was 100% violated by Kiev since one of the hot topics of current talks about Ukraine's EU membership is the rights of the ethnic minorities in Ukraine. This wasn't a problem prior to 2014, their rights were covered by the norms of any country in Europe.
>However i dont see how any of this gives Putin the permission to start a war.
Well that depends.
Those who subscribe to Realism in case of international relations they'd say all the states to whatever they can get away with. They don't need permission because noone to get permission from. "Stop me bro." States care about their power and security and they act to grow both. Preemptive strikes are bread and butter of this, part of security. They don't say that it's right or wrong, they say it's just is.
Liberalists will say that we should aspire for more, we should create rules to stop abuse. We should cooperate and form institutions and norms. See UN. According to them no wars should be fought, all illegal, except if we counter something illegal. This is why US seeks justifications like "they have weapons of mass destructions", "they killed civilians", "war criminals" etc. For example if European states wanted to wage war against Israel they could justify it with the genocide in Gaza.
Constructivism is fairly the same as Realism. Except the tales we tell about ourselves and the world around us, about others matter. States act because they have an image of themselves, about who they are, and who are others. Like the US has this image of the defender of democracy, like some Justice League, and they fight against nazism, communism, terrorism... While politicians can be cynical many people see the world like this.
cont.
Cutting the chase:
If we subscribe to Realism or Constructivism Putin don't need any permission (only reasons differ). He does say that they launch the SMO preemptively to prevent a conflict that bound to be much worse to Russia. What US led NATO is doing since the fall of the SU leads to this direction. NATO expansion to the east, arming Ukraine, radicalizing Ukraine, and launch an attack from here - only the last step remained. He refers to WWII and the attack of Germany, when the SU decided to ignore the signs.
But he also adheres to Liberalist norms. He refers to the genocide of the past 8 years in the Donbass, what they tried to stop peacfully, and failed. No other options left, but to cite Article 51 of the UN Charter. They also made formal agreements with the representatives of the people in the Donbass. So their move has formal support, adhering to international norms and structures. (This is why so important for Ukraine and the West to present Russia as violators of human rights and war criminal. Or was, little mention of this for couple of years now.)
Sidenote.
What I find interesting in his speeches that he shows all the signs of all the views of international relations. But Russia's general foreign politics very much belongs to the Liberalist one. They treat their position in the UN security council seriously. They treat UN seriously - just see the difference between how Trump addressed the UN, and how Lavrov does it. They build the organizations with the Central Asian countries, they build the BRICS. I think main reason is the globalization of trade and relations, but also because the Containment of the SU was an important factor for it's collapse and loss in the Cold War.
>NATO expansion to the east
NATO did not force the countries to join. The countries were fed up by Russia and applied.
Now the Russian Invasion into Ukraine demonstrates why Russia is Dangerous. Like a self fulfilling prophecy.
NATO also did not force Russia to invade Ukraine. That was Putins decision.
The west has one terrible weapon...Hollywood. Everybody actually believes the garbage that Hollywood produces, so they believe the West is so amazing by watching all the fake stories Hollywood cranks out, so they join NATO and ally with the West only to find out they have been lied to but at that point its too late.
Russia's own problems stem from its incompetence and drunkedness, mainly from their own version of postwar baby boomers. That german invented communism did a number on that country, look what its doing to the USA now. Kids can't even read whats on the protest signs they're holding up.
Do you imply that the launch of war in 2022 was motivated countries in the 90s to apply for NATO membership? Noone was worried about Russia back then. When heard or talked about eastern danger it was about the Ukrainian mafia.
There was a good relationship between the Western powers that be and Russia in those times. Looked like a full rapprochement for a while.
>NATO did not force the countries to join.
NATO declared they won't expand "an inch". They could have said: sorry, we won't take new members. Ex-Eastern Bloc countries could form their own military alliance.
While they weren't "forced" it is not impossible to manipulate them.
I give you an example.
Here in the history books of he communism, and I talk specifically about primary and secondary school books, when it came to Hungarian history these books said that Hungarians of old times did everything because of class struggle. This was the Marxist way of explaining historical processes, either the bourgeois oppressed the working class or the working class fought for its right and beat the bourgeois back. So they explained the motivations of Hungarians on the same basis no matter the era or the place.
After we dropped communism in 1989-90 textbooks changed. Suddenly Hungarians did everything because they saw how backwards they are and they wanted to catch up to the West and join them. I dunno how it is at the moment but this was true for the history books used to teach kids in the 90s and early 2000s. A generation of voters were groomed to believe this is their historical heritage that all those smart Hungarians of the past 1000 years pass on to them.
Ofc some Hungarian officials decided about what the kids have to learn. But was that their own idea? They had no interest in pushing this message, and surely it isn't more true than class struggle. So it's not like a "oh we found the ultimate truth and everyone has to know about it" situation. They were more than likely that they were told that they have to influence the public opinion to arrange their application of membership in Western organizations. Because the West wanted these countries. They wanted to secure these countries for themselves.
Russia(when it was USSR) withdrew it's military from half of Europe without a single shot fired.
This is clear sign of it's intention of peace in Europe, then you know what happened after.
Dozens of wars and coups initiated by NATO members effectively overthrowing governments, installing puppet regimes and expanding NATO influence across the globe.
You can justify it in any way you want but that's the fact and it shows real intention.
So who got fed up with whom in the end?
>NATO went from 16 members at the end of the Cold War to 32 members today — exactly doubling in size. Russia has consistently cited this eastward expansion, particularly the 2004 wave and the prospect of Ukraine joining, as a core security grievance behind its increasingly aggressive posture and ultimately the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
It is always important. It shows the consistency of Western intentions that they created a situation where Russia was forced to start a war (or suffer a worse situation) and Westerners keep the war going, intervening to prevent peace.
>so important now? Is it because Russia is getting its ass kicked
Do you want to say that previously Russia kicked Ukraine's ass but now you see the tables turned? Because from all the people who say that Ukraine finally is winning never acknowledged that Ukraine previously was losing. Like the Ukrainian govt. talking about taking back land from the Russians which they never acknowledged as lost.
This is the situation now btw:
Ukraine took back considerable amount of land In Dnipro oblast, and some in Zap. But the liberation of Kupiansk failed for example. In the direction where most matters: Donetsk Russia still advances. Comparing to these areas: Dnipro was lightly occupied and not fortified by the Russians, on the other hand all Donetsk is the most fortified place on Earth since 1945. So a magnitude difference in effort to take in them.
Btw Ukraine notoriously underreports Russian advances in Kostyantinivka and Lyman (in the latter Russians can just waltz around, geolocations prove it).
So what Ukraine wins now is the optics war again, like with Kursk.
What actually is going for Ukraine is the medium range drone strikes on the Russian supply lines. But even these are overstated and suffer from the problem that they don't really help in the main direction: Donetsk. They just report how Crimea has run out of ammo. Like they could flip Crimea.
Even the strategic drone strikes are optical wins. They are embarrassing for Russia sure, but nothing they can't take like a sponge.
I did watch 2000 meters to Andriivka. And it's horrifying that everyone in that movie are dead or maimed by today.
I'm not saying they should just give up. What I'm saying the West does only so much to keep the war going. And this just keeps Ukrainians dying.
That defensive narrative doesn’t work.
It can be applied both ways.
Russia is defending itself from NATO expansion, Donbas is defending itself from a coup regime, the USA was defending itself in Iraq after 9/11, Israel is defending itself in Gaza, and so on.
Also, as >>362240 said, it’s only "kicking Russia’s ass" in your propaganda outlets.
And it has always been like that, to be honest, it has been "winning" since the beginning of the conflict, as far as I remember.
> Why is the Istanbul meeting so important now?
It's has always been. It shows what the Ukrainian regime is: it is not expressing the will of the Ukrainian people, it’s just a puppet controlled by the EU. And, shamefully enough, even figures like Boris Johnson have more influence than the fate of Ukraine when decisions are being made.
The OP of this thread is Ukrainian and he understands that clearly, I wonder why you can not see it.
>Russia was forced to start a war
Sorry i had to stop reading there.
You are playing the didnt do nuffin here.
>Russia is defending itself from NATO expansion
Did NATO launch a three day special military operation into Russia? No? Good.
So no fuel crisis in Russia.
Crimea has plenty ressources, no one leaving.
So much winning, getting tired of it.
States do two things: raise power and security. With growing power they can raise security, and with better security they can project more power.
There are states A, B, and C.
A and B are great powers, C is a small state in between.
A and B reached a point where they can only raise their power by taking C and taking C would guarantee more security against the other.
So both states eyeing each other if the other is taking steps to acquire C in some ways. If they see the other does something they have to act to take it for themselves.
Now state A throughout the years worked hard to get C into its sphere of influence, this reached to a point where they created a client out of C, and started the buildup of WMDs there so they can achieve first strike capabilities against B, so in a future conflict they could paralyze B, and defeat it with ease.
So B had no choice but before this happening to attack C, to guarantee its future security, even on the cost that they'll viewed as the aggressor.
This is called Realpolitik.
>excuse
That is an explanation, this is how Realpolitik works. The world doesn't care about just or right or whatever you are looking for. Things happen and things are what they are.
If you want just then the 8 years of genocide committed by the Ukrainian govt against the Russian minority ought to be enough.
In a just world there would be some country which intervene in Gaza. Or in case of any genocide wherever.
If we don't care about genocide then why a Russian attack on Ukraine would matter?
If you want just why don't you ask the UK that why they don't support Ukraine in earnest? Their GPD is many times larger than Ukraine's, they could pay the whole thing each year if they wanted. They could give all their weapons with aircraft carriers and nukes to Ukraine, noone can stop them. France and Germany ditto. They don't actually need any common EU agreement on anything. US has thousands of Abrams mothballed just rusting away. Meanwhile there are still Ukrainian soldiers without adequate footwear. Or nightvision/infrared equipment.
>Things happen and things are what they are.
So lets see what the things are:
Putin started the invasion war into Ukraine.
No fluff, no lame excuses, just Putins decision to start a war.
Perhaps he thought it's gonna be a fun little adventure, a few days, a week max. Doesnt matter now, because his decision turned out to be very idiotic.
Now Putin admits there is a fuel crisis in Russia. So it is not only optical. A sponge can only take so much.
Lol and he has the audacity to call it terrorist attacks. He started this war against Ukraine and is now crying, that they defend themselves and finally found a way to hurt him where he cant deny.
And amidst this russian embarrassment, suddenly Istanbul 2022 comes up.
>Look guys, there was a possible peace with russia but the others didnt like it
Well how about Putin didnt start the war in the first place? Then we didnt even need Istanbul.
It's more than likely wasn't just Putin deciding. Russia is not a one man dictatorship. And they had reasons. As several times in this thread we went through this. Attacking Ukraine was a reaction.
Western propagandists - such as yourself - want to cut all the events that built up until that point. They have many reasons, one of which is trying to hide their own role in the destruction, impoverishment of Ukraine. One typical sign of this role is the constant intervention when it comes to peace talks.
He means the Ukrainian strategic attacks causing local shortages, and people either have to queue a lot or visit further gas stations.
Russia is not running out of fuel anytime soon, except it looks shitawful in the media (Ukrainian/Western optics warfare).
Western and Ukrainian media will tell us, that surely now the Russian people will rise and remove the tyrannical government of Putin. They told us the same when Prigozhin did his little ride.
Of course as many times before they are lying. The angry voices in Russia wants Kremlin to be tougher in the war on Ukraine. They think they would have finished by now if Russia fought this war in earnest.
You know there would not be peace talks necessary if Putin didnt start the war, but I see your point. You play the didnt do nuffin all day.
Also you admit, that Putin is just a little boy that has no will on its own, just a little boy that simplys reacts to his surroundings.
>local shortages
If you say this, then everything is fine.
I'd say it is emberassing that Putin cant even defend homeland mother Russia.
Edit: Also regarding the peace talks..didnt Selenski invite Putin to peace talks around 1-2 weeks ago? Putin refused. The great peaceful Peacemaster Putin refused the Peace talks.
How can this happen? He is so peaceful.
>Putin has never and will never admit that,
How can you say that? Are you from the future? Ah it is your very big wish. Russia stronk!
>Ukraine strong, Russia weak, Ukraine winning, Russia losing, "world" supports Ukraine, hates Russia, blah blah blah.
Looks like he's addressing Ukrainians or their allies not Putin.
>Ukraine proposes ending this war through direct engagement between us — and you.
>Other agreed participants could join the bilateral track to be established between us.
>We believe Europe should be part of this process
>We also believe that the United States must be part of the process.
Me and you, direct engagement... But also Europe... and USA... and in Arab countries.
>You know that the United States has the capability to monitor a ceasefire
Direct participant of the conflict on the side of Ukraine will monitor the ceasefire, reasonable.
>It is a fact of Russian history that you know well: when Russia grows tired, change comes.
Is he waiting for it or afraid of it, not sure.
>Ukraine is ready for a full ceasefire for the duration of the negotiations. This is standard practice, and current developments around Iran only reinforce that point. An attempt to establish real silence is the best way to begin talking to one another. We believe it would not simply be an attempt, but a real ceasefire — if that is what you want.
That's the whole reason behind this.
Putin been through that like 10 times already.
He's just trying to buy time to regroup.
This is what Minsk was all about. (Funnily enough he mentioned it).
And what about the law? Will he break it or what?
Pretty solid proposal, concrete bullet points, totally not a PR stunt.
