Current Affairs Ukraine

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Ask the head of the Ukrainian negotiating delegation at the talks, Pete:

‘Total Nonsense’ – Boris Johnson Denies Accusations of Sabotaging Ukraine Peace Deal

Peace talks between Russia and Ukraine took place during the early stages of the full-scale war, with negotiations held in Belarus and Turkey.

www.kyivpost.com

In fairness I think the decision to abandon peace talks with Russia was more in part to the brutality shown by invading Russian troops in the Kyiv region. In particular the atrocities of Bucha would have influenced Ukraines decision rather than anything that fat clown Boris could possibly have said.

 

[AndyC]

He has literally sold out the west (or at least tried to). What fux me most is he thinks he's being clever in doing so, what actually happened is he is another who got totally played by Vlad. Another who history will look back on as a dangerous fool.

Just because we don't moderate this Current Affairs page does not give anybody carte blanche to deliberately mis-spell bad and prohibited language !!!

@GrandOldTeam

 

[Blue 1]

Tucker Carlson is America's Lord Haw Haw.

Also a white supremacist turd who should be on fire.

 

[tsubaki]

This is the problem - you're taking words from Putin, a man who deliberately chooses every single word to confuse and mislead, then you're applying a fantastical scenario that hasn't been corroborated by a single credible person on earth to make the story fit.

There is no way on earth the Ukrainians would have made any decision without consulting the US, even if Boris had delivered some incredible Churchillian speech against signing it.

Of course Putin aims to mislead, but without relying on Russian information at all we know that Johnson did go there at that time and both he and Arahamiya say Johnson said something against the proposed deal (he now claims he just said it was a bad idea, Arahamiya says he told them to fight on).

It is a bit much to claim that is a fantastical scenario, especially given his lengthy record of telling untruths or overstating things for effect. Lets also not forget that at that time Johnson was in an awful lot of domestic trouble too; he announced he would stand down less than three months after that.

The US has always said (and had said by that point) they'll support Ukraine in what they want to do, so Johnson steering them (intentionally or unintentionally) in one direction could really have had a much greater effect than he intended.

 

[Mrk]

Of course Putin aims to mislead, but without relying on Russian information at all we know that Johnson did go there at that time and both he and Arahamiya say Johnson said something against the proposed deal (he now claims he just said it was a bad idea, Arahamiya says he told them to fight on).

It is a bit much to claim that is a fantastical scenario, especially given his lengthy record of telling untruths or overstating things for effect. Lets also not forget that at that time Johnson was in an awful lot of domestic trouble too; he announced he would stand down less than three months after that.

With all due respect, I maintain that this is fantastical: "but I can well see a scenario where some mistimed Churchill impression made an at that point desperate Zelensky". Firstly, that gives Johnson too much credit, he's not capable of such a thing. Secondly, it does a disservice to Zelensky, he's not that gullible.

Don't let your distain for Johnson (which I share) dent your ability to be objective here.

The US has always said (and had said by that point) they'll support Ukraine in what they want to do, so Johnson steering them (intentionally or unintentionally) in one direction could really have had a much greater effect than he intended.

The US will have been well aware of what Johnson did or did not say, so do you honestly think they'd sit back and let one man have so much influence on one potentially cataclysmic decision if they even had the slightest doubt that it was a mistake? Not in a million years.

In addition to all this, the elephant in the room that casts doubt over this entire theory is that when the proposed intervention by Johnson took place Ukraine was most definitely losing the war. They had managed to prevent the capture of Kyiv but everywhere else they were losing. Had this happened during or after the Kherson counteroffensive when it looked like Ukraine could actually push Russia back I'd be more inclined to believe it. And that's before we even consider the impact the Bucha massacre had on Ukraine's willingness to negotiate.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

There will be lots of analysis of Putin spin and Carlsons complicity, here's a starter.

5 lies and 1 truth from Putin’s interview with Tucker Carlson

Fact-checking the Russian president reveals inconsistencies (shocker!).

www.politico.eu

 

[tsubaki]

With all due respect, I maintain that this is fantastical: "but I can well see a scenario where some mistimed Churchill impression made an at that point desperate Zelensky". Firstly, that gives Johnson too much credit, he's not capable of such a thing. Secondly, it does a disservice to Zelensky, he's not that gullible.

Don't let your distain for Johnson (which I share) dent your ability to be objective here.


The US will have been well aware of what Johnson did or did not say, so do you honestly think they'd sit back and let one man have so much influence on one potentially cataclysmic decision if they even had the slightest doubt that it was a mistake? Not in a million years.

In addition to all this, the elephant in the room that casts doubt over this entire theory is that when the proposed intervention by Johnson took place Ukraine was most definitely losing the war. They had managed to prevent the capture of Kyiv but everywhere else they were losing. Had this happened during or after the Kherson counteroffensive when it looked like Ukraine could actually push Russia back I'd be more inclined to believe it. And that's before we even consider the impact the Bucha massacre had on Ukraine's willingness to negotiate.

I disagree, for two reasons.

Firstly (and most convincingly to me) there is the difference between what Johnson now claims he said and what other people in a position to know say that he said. He now says he only said little things, which given his history should be a sign to all of us that he said something rather more than that.

Secondly, as you imply in that second bit Zelensky was desperate when he went over there at the start of April 2022 - he was facing either owning an ignominious peace that may not last long anyway, or staring down the barrel of outright defeat and occupation. Either way looked like dooming him to removal from office and what would follow from that for his own personal safety.

Johnson offering, or sounding like he was offering, a better option would have been incredibly tempting, far more than it would have been after Kherson (when as you say things looked a lot better).

 

[Martin Alvito]

I disagree, for two reasons.

Firstly (and most convincingly to me) there is the difference between what Johnson now claims he said and what other people in a position to know say that he said. He now says he only said little things, which given his history should be a sign to all of us that he said something rather more than that.

Secondly, as you imply in that second bit Zelensky was desperate when he went over there at the start of April 2022 - he was facing either owning an ignominious peace that may not last long anyway, or staring down the barrel of outright defeat and occupation. Either way looked like dooming him to removal from office and what would follow from that for his own personal safety.

Johnson offering, or sounding like he was offering, a better option would have been incredibly tempting, far more than it would have been after Kherson (when as you say things looked a lot better).

I would just say that there's a long history of both allies emboldening a state to initiate or prolong a conflict, and allies throwing a spanner into the works. That's not always selfish and intentional. Sometimes, it just happens as a consequence of initiating an inadvertent shift in perceptions.

The claim merits investigation. Boris doesn't tell a new lie when the old one will do, and that's enough smoke to suggest it's worth running down.

The bad news is that, if true, many people will misinterpret the facts as a sign of Biden's weakness. Nothing could be further from the truth. Short of sending someone to No. 10 with a human-shaped dog muzzle, Biden had no ability to control how Boris fired from the hip. That would be like saying McConnell should be able to muzzle Trump. Never happening.

 

[Mrk]

I disagree, for two reasons.

Firstly (and most convincingly to me) there is the difference between what Johnson now claims he said and what other people in a position to know say that he said. He now says he only said little things, which given his history should be a sign to all of us that he said something rather more than that.

Secondly, as you imply in that second bit Zelensky was desperate when he went over there at the start of April 2022 - he was facing either owning an ignominious peace that may not last long anyway, or staring down the barrel of outright defeat and occupation. Either way looked like dooming him to removal from office and what would follow from that for his own personal safety.

Johnson offering, or sounding like he was offering, a better option would have been incredibly tempting, far more than it would have been after Kherson (when as you say things looked a lot better).

None of it really passes the smell test when you look at the facts:

• Putin has gone out of his way to mention this in an interview he knows will be broadcast to the West. Does that guarantee it is misinformation? No. But does it make it more likely than not? Without question.
• The USA would not have let Johnson sway Ukraine in that way unless they agreed. The idea that he and he alone was responsible for them walking away is almost as ludicrous as Putin's history lesson.
• Ukraine was losing at the time. If anything, it would have been in the wests favour for a peace deal to be signed, simply to buy time.
• Johnson (or the west) weren't offering or promising much at the time aside from 'support'. How likely is it that Zelensky would agree to walk away knowing that they were losing on the basis that they might get the military support they were desperate for at an unspecified time?
• The Bucha massacre had been uncovered a few days before which caused revulsion within Ukraine and undoubtably removed any remaining goodwill between Ukraine and Russia.

Is it possible that the west warned Zelensky that it wasn't a good deal and/or that their intelligence implied that Russia wouldn't stand by it? Maybe. But the claim that Johnson dared to or was allowed to unilaterally sway Ukraine in such a manner is the very definition of fanciful.

 

[Tennessee Blue Mike]

Here is the amount of aid provided through October 2023

How much aid the U.S. has sent to Ukraine, in 6 charts

Six graphics illustrate the extraordinary level of support the United States has provided Ukraine in its war against Russian invaders.

www.pbs.org

 

[neil999]

Amazing how Russia has become a trendy alt right thing...

 

[tsubaki]

None of it really passes the smell test when you look at the facts:

• Putin has gone out of his way to mention this in an interview he knows will be broadcast to the West. Does that guarantee it is misinformation? No. But does it make it more likely than not? Without question.
• The USA would not have let Johnson sway Ukraine in that way unless they agreed. The idea that he and he alone was responsible for them walking away is almost as ludicrous as Putin's history lesson.
• Ukraine was losing at the time. If anything, it would have been in the wests favour for a peace deal to be signed, simply to buy time.
• Johnson (or the west) weren't offering or promising much at the time aside from 'support'. How likely is it that Zelensky would agree to walk away knowing that they were losing on the basis that they might get the military support they were desperate for at an unspecified time?
• The Bucha massacre had been uncovered a few days before which caused revulsion within Ukraine and undoubtably removed any remaining goodwill between Ukraine and Russia.

Is it possible that the west warned Zelensky that it wasn't a good deal and/or that their intelligence implied that Russia wouldn't stand by it? Maybe. But the claim that Johnson dared to or was allowed to unilaterally sway Ukraine in such a manner is the very definition of fanciful.

This isn't the first time that this has been mentioned though, either by Putin or people from elsewhere (Fiona Hill mentioned it last year). In terms of disinformation, yes there is an aspect of that (certainly saying Johnson ordered them to fight on is wrong), but we really do not know what he said and what influence it had. I think there is quite a bit of evidence independent of Russia that suggests it was significant.

Also I think you are wrong to assume the USA would not have let Johnson do that unless they agreed - as I said earlier, the US had publicly said they would support Ukraine whatever they decided to do, and of course they (and we) were not really in a public position to reject them if they decided to fight on. If they had been annoyed at Johnson for it then we might expect that he would face consequences; of course he stepped down three months later after "his party turned on him".

I agree that Ukraine was in a fundamentally weak position at the time, but that is surely evidence that whatever Johnson said must have emboldened the Ukrainian government? As you say, up to that point there wasn't much in the way of meaningful support up to that point and it was very unlikely that they would kick the Russians out on their own.

Yet, after that meeting, they resolved to fight on. Is it really so fanciful to say that that decision might have been because of what he said during that meeting?

 

[tantavisiteler]

 

[peteblue]

The amount of MAGA aligned fools praising this interview and how 'calm and sensible' Putin sounded just shows what a state we are in at the moment.

People are so divided that they will support a murderous dictator like Putin for the sole reason of hating Biden and therefore his support of Ukraine.

Not just Biden, Boris as well. Putins useful idiots are alive and well……

 

[Rita_Poon]

We've crossed the rubicon here people.