"The West's complicity in the Ukraine war/ Proxy War" Topic

Here is an article by Michael von der Schulenburg
former UN Assistant Secretary-General, with proof of what many people have suspected to be the case since the conflict began.

Here is a short passage from it.
Even after the war broke out, NATO, especially the USA and UK, torpedoed all peace efforts. Already in the first week of March 2022, the then Prime Minister of Israel, Naftali Bennet, tried to mediate a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. According to his recent interview, Russia and Ukraine showed great interest in ending the war quickly and a ceasefire was in Bennet's words "within reach". But it did not come to it, because, as Bennet explained, "they (the US and UK) blocked a ceasefire, and I thought they were wrong".

"The more important peace efforts were the Ukrainian-Russian peace negotiations. In the third week of March 2022, just one month after the outbreak of the war, both sides had managed to settle on an outline for a comprehensive peace agreement".

Here is the full article

link

What peaceful result do you think could be negotiated?

The Ukrainians and Russia had reached agreement on what that was in 2022.

Did you even read the artical?

@Ned Ludd I watched an interview with Naftali Bennet months and months ago, it was stunning to hear that the Biden Admin deliberately blocked a Russian-Ukrainian peace deal to broaden and lengthen the war.

So what does Team Biden get out of it? Of what benefit to them is an expensive, deadly war?

@Editor in Chief Bill
Here's the peace deal the two sides had agreed upon before Team Biden and the UK killed it:

The more important peace efforts were the Ukrainian-Russian peace negotiations. In the third week of March 2022, just one month after the outbreak of the war, both sides had managed to settle on an outline for a comprehensive peace agreement: the Ukraine would agree not to join NATO and not to allow any military bases of foreign powers on its territory, while Russia would in return agree to recognize Ukraine's territorial integrity and to withdraw all Russian occupation troops. Special arrangements were foreseen for the Donbas and Crimea. A peace conference planned for 29 March 2022 in Istanbul, was intended to negotiate the remaining questions (such as security guarantees) in the hope of arriving at draft peace treaty. But then Ukraine withdrew from the peace negotiations under pressure from the USA and the UK. Turkish Foreign Minister Ηavuşoğlu would later say about the failed Istanbul peace conference: "some NATO countries wanted the war in Ukraine to continue in order to weaken Russia".

"So what does Team Biden get out of it? Of what benefit to them is an expensive, deadly war?"

can you not see the evidence, Ukraine is the 4th Reich and Spewtin had to carry on with the 2014 invasion to rid the world of the Nazi threat!!

The ludds of the world continue trying to justify their little hero invading a sovereign country because they rejected his attempt to turn it into a puppet state.

Tally Ho!

The ludds of the world continue trying to justify their little hero invading a sovereign country because they rejected his attempt to turn it into a puppet state.

Not at all. Nobody here (except maybe Cuprum??) supports Russia invading and annexing Ukraine. But a lot of people like me have questions about the conduct, funding, strategy and goals of the war. Frankly, it's not in our interests to keep such a destructive and destabilizing war going without an express policy goal in mind that's advantageous.

1. We know by the US government's and Ukrainian government's own admissions that billions of $$ in aid has been stolen, and some weapons intended for Ukraine have even shown up for sale elsewhere.

2. We don't see attainable goals -- what does victory look like?

3. We see lots of propaganda and misinformation about glorious Ukrainian victory and stupid Russians, yet we see that the war is devolving into a static attrition war similar to WW1 with heavy losses on both sides. And Ukraine has a smaller population and resources than Russia, even with Western support. So what's the truth? Read broadly, read between the lines I guess.

4. We don't know what the post-war goals are other than political-insider company Blackrock has been given a massive Ukraine reconstruction contract.

5. As history has shown, the longer a war drags on the more chance there is of it escalating and going in a direction you didn't anticipate. Pretty dangerous when one combatant has ICBMS and nukes.

So help me out here instead of tossing out strawman attacks.

"Putin, Bennett said, had made some substantial concessions; in particular, he had renounced his original wartime goal of demilitarizing Ukraine."

Helluva concession offered up in exchange for Russia retaining parts of the Donbas, a neutered and neutral Ukraine who renounces claims on the Crimea that was seized by Russia in 2014.

Yes, the west are the bad guys. The invader of the sovereign state is a victim of this whole affair. Much like he was a victim elsewhere. It's very telling that those that are most passionate about their distrust and fear of Russia are their closest neighbors.

When in 2021 Russia responded to NATO's decision to move ahead with Ukraine's NATO accession

I recall explicit rejection of Ukraine as a NATO partner prior to the war.

Ukraine and Georgia as sovereign nations have the right to do any darn thing they want as regards international relations. As neither could never represent anything remotely threatening to the Russian Federation, the idea that a preemptive war could in anyway be justified is ludicrous.

The idea that the Minsk Accords were intended to allow Ukraine to build a threatening military is equally ludicrous given their 2014 helplessness in face of the theft of Crimea. Only after the stalemated attempted theft of Luhansk and Donetsk did Ukraine begin any sort of serious military efforts.

As to the alleged veto of peace in March 2022, a return to the status quo ante that did not return the stolen areas of the Donbas at a minimum still rewards armed robbery.

Just having to agree not to join NATO alone would be a deal breaker, especially with the invader already in your country and utterly dishonest about…well, everything. Joining NATO was a card to be played as a deterrent, not discarded.

Giving Putin a deal might have happened in the last admin, or the one before. But yes, hotheads in the Pentagon saw opportunity. Enough of this guy's BS.
And every NATO country had a legitimate strategic concern about taking him out as he tried to gobble up more territory and resources. They already went through this once before. In fact the war brought NATO expansion as the breadth of Putin's war grew.

So Putin was exposed, his military was exposed. A disaster for him and Ukraine. Yes, it's a humanitarian nightmare refighting WW1. And the war crimes have been atrocious. Civilians murdered, almost from day one. POWs beheaded. Costly, uncertain, unclear.

We insist on destroying Hamas, but Putin's gang gets a deal? It may or may not be similar, I don't know. But it's my first thought on seeing this.

Immoral to pressure Ukraine to keep fighting? Maybe. But I think Putin has a vast lead on the immorality scoreboard.

+Tortorella

(Sorry, not willing to submit my own comments yet, I still feel too new here … it would appear "suspicious", much like when Ned "joined")

A remarkable article. It seems to start by accepting as fact every bit of Russia's revisionist propaganda and drawing the unsurprising conclusion that it is all the West's fault.

This is a really stupid story & always has been. There was literally nothing that the US or the UK could do if Ukraine and Russia agreed a ceasefire, then or now.

In fact, the article is even more stupid than the above & there is a really obvious falsehood. There is no world in which Ukraine was in a better position in March 2022 compared to now – Russia occupied far more of Ukraine then.

+1 Whirlwind.

I can't find too much on ECONOMY & POLITICS/meer.

So the conclusion reached is that

Michael von der Schulenburg, former UN Assistant Secretary-General, escaped East Germany in 1969, studied in Berlin, London and Paris and worked for over 34 years for the United Nations, and shortly the OSCE, in many countries in war or internal armed conflicts often involving fragile governments and armed non-state actors. These included long-term assignments in Haiti, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Sierra Leone and shorter assignments in Syria, the Balkan, Somalia, the Balkan, the Sahel, and Central Asia. In 2017, he published the book ‘On Building Peace – rescuing the Nation-State and saving the United Nations', AUP

Writes stupid articles.

"it would appear "suspicious", much like when Ned "joined"
In August 2012.

Sounds like to me just another Russian attempt to weaken Ukraine's resolve. They work on the weak minded.
Fortunately, most intelligent people see right though Russia's lies.

@Ned: I know when you started "posting", fella …

Just like will Hamas's attack on Israel, there is no other way to see Russia's invasion of the Ukraine other that wrong. So very, very wrong …

I don't know what is so hard to understand … the Ukraine does not want to be under Russia's control. Even holding on to parts of Ukraine, i.e. the Donbas, the land bridge to Crimea and Crimea. Is not going to fly with Ukraine. For good reasons.

Stopping the war with Russia and Ukraine makes no more sense than the IDF stopping the war with Hamas. In both cases nothing will be accomplished, especially with all the loses, if nothing changes. For the better. That means a lot of dead Hamas and Russians…

I agree with Legion (and many others above him).

Russia is (currently) literally spilling its guts in Ukraine. Especially in the Adviika region.

Why on Earth would Ukraine currently succumb to a "peace negotiation" proferred by an aggressive invader?

Russia invaded Ukraine.
It's that effing simple.

This is a really stupid story & always has been. There was literally nothing that the US or the UK could do if Ukraine and Russia agreed a ceasefire, then or now.

Wrong. If you watch the interview with Naftali Bennet, the Biden admin told Zelensky if he goes for a peace deal the US will cut off ALL aid to Ukraine.

In fact, the article is even more stupid than the above & there is a really obvious falsehood. There is no world in which Ukraine was in a better position in March 2022 compared to now – Russia occupied far more of Ukraine then.

Wrong again, because the price of peace was much lower then -- it wasn't yet an existential crisis for Putin. He screwed up, all his plans turned to shite and he wanted out as fast as he could in some face-saving way, and Ukraine didn't want to keep the war going either. We could have had peace then.

And I have yet to get a straight answer from the WarHawks here -- what does victory look like in Ukraine? For real, not some y answer about "holding Putin for warcrimes" -- give me real metrics!

We insist on destroying Hamas, but Putin's gang gets a deal? It may or may not be similar, I don't know. But it's my first thought on seeing this.

Does Hamas have nukes? No, I thought not. But Russia does. There's a limit to what you can do with Russia, there will be no unconditional victory. And what "deal" are you talking about? Hundreds of thousands of casualties, billons and billions of lost equipment and economic productivity? Such a deal.

Hamas doesn't have nukes. Israel has the power to force an unconditional victory.

What a fruckin' topsy turvy world that pushes Ukraine to keep fighting against their existential threat but also pushes Israel to *stop* fighting against their existential threat.

I don't know what is so hard to understand … the Ukraine does not want to be under Russia's control. Even holding on to parts of Ukraine, i.e. the Donbas, the land bridge to Crimea and Crimea. Is not going to fly with Ukraine. For good reasons.

HOW?!? Begeesus Criminy, all this armchair chest thumping is maddening. Of course Ukraine doesn't want to be under Russian control -- but the reality is that Ukraine will do what Ukraine is told to do or allowed to do. They have ZERO capacity to keep fighting without continued massive aid from the US and NATO. They have very little in the way of domestic arms manufacturing, or energy, or high tech. They are a dirt poor fringe wheat-farm state that borders Russia that was only of interest to the West as a convenient western money laundering tool until this war.

If Team Biden decides the war Ukraine should stop, it will stop. They can cut off aid, they can suspend weapons shipments, they hold Ukraine by the b8lls. So even if Ukraine wanted to stop the fighting, like it did in 2022, they can't if Team Biden squeezes their scr0tum a little hard -- like happened in 2022. Meanwhile we just let the war chug merrily down the tracks picking up steam, heading for the end of the line at full speed, while China hops on to bring their good buddy Putin into a new Axis Alliance and their little pal Iran kicks everything over in the Middle East to distract resources and attention.

SHM.

@SBminisguy:

Simple question:
Only requires a straightforward answer.

Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February, 2022.
What, in your mind/opinion, should Ukraine have done?

a) Surrendered/Relinquished?
b) Fought back?

@Swingfire

Easy. Fought back, which it did -- even thought Team Biden's first impulse was to cut and run and fly Zelensky out. And this, after Biden basically greenlit Putin's invasion by saying the US wouldn't react to a "minor incursion" by Russia into Ukraine.

Or have we forgotten that?

So having established that the invasion of Ukraine was a bad thing, and that Russia needed to be stopped -- what next? The only realistic what next is some kind of negotiated peace deal. Hoping that Putin will somehow just die is not a plan. Hoping for the fantasy of a popular Russian uprising is not a plan. Hoping a coup removes Putin is not a plan (though it looks like maybe the Wagner Group coup attempt has CIA fingerprints on it). Declaring that Putin will be tried for war crimes when nothing short of nuclear war could stir him from Moscow is not a plan.

What's the plan? What's the endgame, Swingfire?

@SBminisguy:

I haven't forgotten anything, but the implication is noted.

I don't agree with "you" that the next? (whatever that means?) step should have been a negotiated peace deal.

Define "next".
From when? When Russia was approaching Kiev? Well, that didn't work out, did it?

Or when Russia had been absolutely kicked in the and totally failed in its 3-day special whatever … "special needs operation?" and lost on pretty much every front?

Do you honestly believe that would have been the time to seek negotiations? From a position of operational strength?

And if so, says who?
Ukraine? No way!
US? Evidently not.
Europe? Absolutely not!

You?
Evidently…

I'm not convinced (which sounds arrogant, which is not my intention). But Ukraine is still fighting on almost 2 years later, and isn't "losing" in any context.

I guess "my" endgame would be to support and supply Ukraine as far as is necessary to retain its territory … here I start to dither… with exception of perhaps Donetsk and Luhansk, simply because AFAIK (which may be wrong) those provinces/prefectures have always/historically been Russian/anti-Ukrainian.

Crimeria should be Ukrainian, IMHO. Although a JV at the eastern entry point would be prefferable.

I have the feeling that I may have just shot myself in the foot?! LOL

Of course Ukraine doesn't want to be under Russian control -- but the reality is that Ukraine will do what Ukraine is told to do or allowed to do. They have ZERO capacity to keep fighting without continued massive aid from the US and NATO.

They must get US/NATO, etc. support/ assistance or they won't be able to push Russia off their territory. Russia will hold the land they have now in the Ukraine and claim victory. And use that land as a jumping off point for a future invasion of Ukraine.

What's the plan? What's the endgame,

Ukraine pushes the Russians off their territory. The US and Europe helps rebuild Ukraine. Fortify the border, send in UN troops to keep the peace. And continue to make Russia a pariah state. They don't deserve to be trade partners, etc. with Europe, etc.

Dammit, I did …

Russia has fought and stolen land from Chechnya, remember they fought a war, Russia lost and then waited a few years came back and conquered Chechnya? Past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior. So why would Ukraine want to negotiate a cease fire with Russia? It only works to let Russia build up forces again for another try. They have been nibbling away at Ukraine for 10 years, a cease fire or negotiated settlement won't stop that.

Russia has to be forced out of Ukraine all of it, return to the original borders Ukraine had when they became independent. Russia has to lose the war.

The West needs to send more military aid and Ukraine needs to put some of their own people in jail for corruption, maybe even harsher punishments than that.

When the US and the West dribble aid in that prolongs the war, look at Vietnam and Afghanistan. How would 2 million troops in either of those wars on the ground at one time have changed the dynamic? We fought just hard enough to avoid losing, but not hard enough to win.

Giving the Ukraine army a couple dozen tanks when we have 3,000 Abrams in storage is a nice start to give them operational experience but we need to give them a thousand Western tanks, and training, and ammo, and fuel. And then they can deliver major operational blows against the enemy.

The same enemy that has invaded and stolen territory from Georgia and Moldova. Ukraine is not in a vacuum, Putin attacks anyone who he thinks he can easily defeat.

Talk to people in Poland and the Baltic states, and Finland and Sweden and see how much they trust a negotiated settlement that leaves Putin in Ukraine is worth.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Define "next".
From when? When Russia was approaching Kiev? Well, that didn't work out, did it?

Or when Russia had been absolutely kicked in the Bleeped text and totally failed in its 3-day special whatever … "special needs operation?" and lost on pretty much every front?

Well, that's what was happening when the PM of Israel and the Foreign Minister of Turkey hammered out a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, yes? Would coulda shoulda -- Biden killed it.

I guess "my" endgame would be to support and supply Ukraine as far as is necessary to retain its territory … here I start to dither… with exception of perhaps Donetsk and Luhansk, simply because AFAIK (which may be wrong) those provinces/prefectures have always/historically been Russian/anti-Ukrainian.

…I have the feeling that I may have just shot myself in the foot?! LOL

No foot shooting required. It's someplace to start from. My own esteemed observation as a powerful and globally renowned arm-chair diplomat (that's sarcasm) is similar. Ukraine gets Eastern Ukraine back, Russia keeps Crimea.

Ukraine pushes the Russians off their territory. The US and Europe helps rebuild Ukraine. Fortify the border, send in UN troops to keep the peace. And continue to make Russia a pariah state. They don't deserve to be trade partners, etc. with Europe, etc.

Dunno how likely that is. If the US economy were solid instead of a bleeding mess, and we didn't have huge drains on the economy like Biden's support for mass unrestricted illegal immigration that has been estimate to cost the US economy directly and indirectly about $450 USD BILLION a year, we could keep footing the bill for Ukraine for many years to come, support a South Korea style DNZ and all that.

But as things get tougher at home, the public appetite for throwing hundreds of billions if $$ at Ukraine has already waned and dang near collapsed. Sure, the Establishment is beating on anyone who says we should reconsider, siccing the media on them and calling all dissenters "Putin Puppets." But that won't last forever, and ultimately if they overplay their hand what will happen is a sudden and TOTAL cessation of aid to Ukraine without any consideration of the consequences.

Make peace with that reality, and make plans for a tolerable peace and how to keep Ukraine going when US public support does the inevitable full 180 degree swing.

Dunno how likely that is. If the US economy were solid instead of a bleeding mess, and we didn't have huge drains on the economy like Biden's support for mass unrestricted illegal immigration that has been estimate to cost the US economy directly and indirectly about $450 USD USD BILLION a year,

Yes it is always about the $. USD And the US leadership has shot us in the foot so many times, we have no toes left.

The illegal aliens streaming across the Southern border by the millions in the past 3 years. Is one of the biggest mistakes along with shutting down the pipelines and putting too many restrictions on drilling & frakking. Has gone a long way to damaging the US more than any other time I can remember.

IMO with much better leadership, the A'stan debacle would not have happened. Emboldening Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Then Iran supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. to start another invasion of Israel.

A'stan has already gone back to the 15th Century but with AK-47s. And there is no bringing them back. 0 anyone can do … the thugs with the guns like it that way. "You can't free a fish from water." …

Again, Putin nor Iran respect nor fear the USA … The Ukraine maybe doomed just like A'stan. However, the IDF will take care of business … Regardless of some outside interference that keeps wanting a cease fire, etc. … Bibi won't let that happen …

@SBMinis

Yeah, that armchair can get mighty uncomfy lol

However, I still believe that it's a "great" idea to deplete Russia of its military forces while possible.

And yeah … that sounds horrible … Maybe that's me :)

However, I still believe that it's a "great" idea to deplete Russia of its military forces while possible.

I see the advantage in that -- but I think that's short term thinking. The war will lose US general support on the current path, so sure, inflict maximum pain while we can but at the end of the day US support for Ukraine will be tempered or even end. So plan for that, that's all I'm saying.

@Legion4, and certainly Iran doesn't fear the US since despite Iran puppeting waves of attacks on US soldiers, causing scores of casualties, the Biden Admin is now planning to send $10 USD BILLION to Iran.

1. The Budapest Memorandum of 1994. Russia agreed to "respect independence, sovereignty, and the existing borders of Ukraine" as well as "refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine". Breached by Russia invading Crimea in 2014.

2. The Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty of 1997. Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity and "reaffirmed the inviolability of the borders" between the two countries. Russia breached it in 2014.

3. The OSCE Istanbul Summit in 1999. Russia committed to withdrawing its troops from Moldova's Transdniestrian region and Georgia until the end of 2002. That never happened.

4. The 2008 Georgia ceasefire agreement following Russian aggression against the country. Russia agreed that "Russian military forces must withdraw to the lines prior to the start of hostilities". That never happened.

5. The Ilovaysk "Green Corridor" in August 2014 and other "humanitarian" death corridors. Russia pledged to let Ukrainian forces leave the encircled town of Ilovaysk in the east of Ukraine, but instead opened fire and killed 366 Ukrainian troops. In the following years, Russia attacked numerous humanitarian corridors in Syria.

6. The "Minsk" agreements of 2014 and 2015. Russia agreed to cease the fire in the east of Ukraine. There had been 200 rounds of talks and 20 attempts to enforce a ceasefire, all of which the Russian side promptly violated. On February 24th, 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

7. The 2022 Black Sea Grain Initiative. Russia pledged to "provide maximum assurances regarding a safe and secure environment for all vessels engaged in this initiative." It then hindered the initiative's operation for months before withdrawing unilaterally a year later.

Wrong. If you watch the interview with Naftali Bennet, the Biden admin told Zelensky if he goes for a peace deal the US will cut off ALL aid to Ukraine.

You see, that is why anyone can see why the article and you are dead wrong: Zelensky wouldn't need US aid if he was going to cut a deal; and the idea that the US and Europe would sanction Ukraine if it did is clearly laughable.

Wrong again, because the price of peace was much lower then -- it wasn't yet an existential crisis for Putin. He screwed up, all his plans turned to shite and he wanted out as fast as he could in some face-saving way, and Ukraine didn't want to keep the war going either. We could have had peace then.

No, you are obviously wrong again, the idea that Russia/Putin is relatively stronger now and in a position to demand a 'higher price', or that it is a more existential crisis now than then. You are painting pictures of things which not only aren't true, but literally couldn't be true.

Bennett's story at the time was wildly implausible and the motivated reasoning that keeps people running with it seems largely to do with internal US politics rather than anything else.

Tell me about the bleeding economy….it is, by most indicators, the strongest in the world. What other major power is better off? Who is better off? Why was there no recession? I am not trying to give credit or blame.

But there is a weirdness becoming apparent about how people view this economy. Things cost more, but nothing like the rest of the world. And we have major growth, investment, jobs consumer spending.

Yes, there are big issues, debt, waste, the border. Interest rates at 7%? We were happy with 10% in the Reagan years.

He screwed up, all his plans turned to shite and he wanted out as fast as he could in some face-saving way,

So if someone robs a bank we offer them a face-saving way out? Say giving back just some money? Theft is still theft and the victim should reasonably expect all the stolen lands returned.

it is, by most indicators, the strongest in the world.

It is, by a substantial margin, and thanks to President Xi and his determination to push party over economy, likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future.

Many of you miss the point.
A treaty to stop the conflict was agreed in early 2022 by ukrain and russia. The Us and eu stopped it happening. The US AND EU stopped a peace in ANOTHER country to KEEP the WAR GOING, they want death and destruction.. They saw an opportunity for war, but with someone else to do the dying, what a wonderful opportunity for them. They hoped to ruin russia militarily, economically and reputation wise. They f--- it up as usual.

There is so much BS propaganda fed in the west about this conflict.
The " I need ammo not a ride" quote for example, made up pipeline destroyed by russia made up. The list is endless.

The bottom line is. This is a proxy war desired by the us establishment paid for by the working people of the us and eu. The us are happy for this to be an endless war but that is their f---- up logic too. Russia will end the conflict one way or another the longer it gos on the worse for ukrain. The reason the russians pulled back in march 22 was because they thought they had a treaty ready to go. not because the ukrain drove them back.

It could all have been over in 2022 and the us and eu could be playing their pathetic sanctions game now whilst buying gas and oil from russia as they do now. How many more f--- ups has the us got in it before it destroys us all? This article will never be publicised on the msm, just like Angela Merkle's artical was kicked into the long grass.

No, you miss the point: there is literally nothing that the EU and US could do to force Ukraine to keep a war going it did not want to fight so the idea that there was a treaty that the EU – the EU! – stopped it is rubbish. They also called out Russia before the invasion so as to avoid the war . The only country that has ruined Russia's military, economic and reputation was Russia .

The bottom line:

This was a war desired by Russia. The reason the Russia pulled back in March 22 was because they were humiliatingly defeated, their invasion planning having been inept and arrogant: any gains they made were mostly from driving into empty countryside, not fighting. The idea that they would withdraw before a treaty was signed is so patently absurd that it is difficult to credit that anyone actually typed that. However, the falsity of the claim is easily seen by the number of destroyed and abandoned vehicles.

It could have been all over in 2022 if Russia had not invaded.
It could have been over in 2022 if Russia withdrew.
It can be over in 2023 if Russia withdraws. It is that simple.

The reason the article won't get publicized is because it is stupid, incorrect and immoral.

Well if the UN ever need a new secretary general you need to put your name forwards because that other dude is " stupid, incorrect and immoral" according to you. Its a good job the former Assistant Secretary-General not a member on tmp or people would post silly comments about him and get dog housed.

"This is a proxy war desired by the us establishment"

I see you are still eating the wax crayons, the only people who wanted this are the likes of you and little Spewtin. The Ukrainians will fight until theu have their freedom and the threat of being absorbed into a new Soviet Union is gone. They are not fighting because the West told them to, they are fighting for their freedom and independence. Of course Spewtin says they are Western led Nazis so it must be true.

"It could all have been over in 2022" If the Ukraine had agreed to become a puppet state of the new Soviet Union.

Tally Ho!

Sigh.

All this article does is provide you with facts from a person who has far more knowledge (may be even took part)
in what actually took place. If you don't like the facts that's your problem, they still remain.

All this article does is provide you with facts from a person who has far more knowledge (may be even took part)
in what actually took place. If you don't like the facts that's your problem, they still remain.

Well no, not even that, it doesn't provide any facts at all. It relies not on personal knowledge but on his interpretation of what Naftali Bennett said. But Bennett explained in more detail what he meant, which is not what is in that article – here gives a better summary: link

So that article fails on truth, logic and morality, hence a stiff and deserved ignoring. The proxy war lie is particularly stupid, since of course the US and European countries obviously and openly tried to stop the war from starting . And the actual complaint at the time was why was the US government doing this, raising tension and fear when Russia was 'obviously' not going to do it.-

"But Bennett explained in more detail what he meant, which is not what is in that article – here gives a better summary"

Yes, but Spewtin Good, Ukraine full of nazis and egged on by the evil west, spewtin said so, so it must be true!!!

Tally Ho!

Regarding Michael von der Schulenburg, he has a website where you can find more of his writings:

link

This website also contains his CV:

PDF link

According to it, he had a long career in various UN organisations and missions around the world between 1978 and 2012, though as far as I can tell these were all outside Europe. And though he was employed outside UN in OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe) that was as a Director for Management and Finance, rather than in an actual political role. After his retirement from UN in 2012, he seems to have provided on a few occasions some consulting to UN agencies.

As far as I can tell, he has not been working on Russia-Ukraine relations in any part of his working career, and I see no reason to assume that he has any specific insider information about the topic.

"The proxy war lie is particularly stupid, since of course the US and European countries obviously and openly tried to stop the war from starting"

Really? Thats not how it looked. At all.

Joint EU / NATO/ Ukraine exercises on the east bank of the Dnipro would have achieved that. All we got was diplomatic posturing and "look like things will be OK, followed by "oops, we were wrong"

Legion4, and certainly Iran doesn't fear the US since despite Iran puppeting waves of attacks on US soldiers, causing scores of casualties, the Biden Admin is now planning to send $10 USD USD BILLION to Iran.

Yes I saw that … how in the Hell anyone in their right mind would do such a stupid move. No … wait … they still think the can make a deal with Iran a fundamentalist islamic theocracy that chants "Death to America !"

All we got was diplomatic posturing and "look like things will be OK, followed by "oops, we were wrong"

Yep a lot of that is going around …

Neville Chamberlin thought he could stop a war and flat out had an agreement in Munich.

That worked well.

Putin is a win lose sort of man. He is not interested in anyhthing else.

"Well, that's what was happening when the PM of Israel and the Foreign Minister of Turkey hammered out a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, yes? Would coulda shoulda -- Biden killed it."

How are we supposed to believe your spin on things when you throw out such obvious falsehoods?
No deal had been hammered out in any detail.
To imply Israel and Turkey were actually working together is generous at most.
And as for your final statement:

"…In the interview, Bennett himself notes that it was not the US, France, or Germany that put an end to any peace talks. Rather, it was Russia slaughtering hundreds of civilians in a town outside the Ukrainian capital, a war crime discovered just about a month after the full-scale invasion began.

"The Bucha massacre, once that happened, I said: 'It's over,'" Bennett recalled."