As I noted in a previous article, the former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett revealed in a recent interview that in March of last year Western leaders blocked a draft peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.
There seems to be some disagreement over exactly what he said, as the interview was in Hebrew. Based on the English subtitles on YouTube, I quoted him as saying, “They blocked it.” But others insist he said, “They broke off negotiations.” Either way, he clearly implied that the West stymied negotiations that might have led to a peace deal.
What’s more telling is the reason he gave as to why the West did so, namely “to keep smashing Putin”. This tallies closely with Roman Romanyuk’s account of why Western leaders opposed negotiations in April:
Behind this visit and Johnson’s words lies much more than a simple reluctance to engage in agreements with Russia. The collective West, which back in February suggested that Zelenskyi surrender and run away, now felt that Putin is actually not as all-powerful as they imagined him to be. Moreover, right now there was a chance to “press him”. And the West wants to use it.
As Caitlin Johnstone points out, it also lines up with what the Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on April 20th last year:
Following the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting, it was the impression that … there are those within the NATO member states that want the war to continue, let the war continue and Russia gets weaker. They don’t care much about the situation in Ukraine.
So we now have a NATO Foreign Minister, a journalist with sources “close to Zelensky” and a former Israeli PM all saying that Western leaders opposed a peace deal because they wanted to “weaken”, “press” or “smash” Putin.
These seem like newsworthy revelations, don’t they? Not according to the mainstream media.
I checked whether the revelations have been mentioned by any of the following outlets: the BBC, CNN, the Times, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal. With the exception of one op-ed in the New York Times which quoted Cavusoglu’s statement, they’ve been completely ignored.
The point here isn’t that there definitely would have been a peace deal if not for the actions of Western leaders. We can’t know that. The point is: there’s credible evidence that Western leaders stymied negotiations which might have led to a peace deal because they wanted to weaken Russia.
With the exception of Tucker Carlson and a few lesser-known outlets, why hasn’t the media covered this? One of the current headlines on the BBC News homepage is ‘Rihanna reveals pregnancy at Super Bowl show’. Which is more newsworthy: Rihanna’s personal life, or the revelation that Western leaders may have sabotaged peace? I’m reminded of this meme:
A few days ago, in fact, a BBC Ukraine journalist got up and hugged Zelensky at a press conference. However much you support a particular cause, as a journalist you’re supposed to show a modicum of impartiality. Based on this incident, I wouldn’t expect any dramatic shifts in coverage.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Russian hybrid warfare theory has long called for the integration of information campaigns and military operations, with information operations sometimes taking precedence over kinetic activity.
Any request for negotiations should be understood in that context…not to be taken seriously……and their signature on any negotiated treaty similarly.
Forget negotiations. Neither side takes that idea seriously.
As noted in the article:
The point is, in fact, that negotiations could not lead to and never will lead to a serious long term peace deal.
Both sides are ‘Soviets’, East and West Soviets and the situation is only ever going to be similar to North and South Korea.
Let us not forget that the struggle for strategic dominance in this region has been going on for well over a millennium, as far back as the Roman Empire and beyond.
And the real elephant in the room is the motivation that led us to sign the Budapest Memorandum guaranteeing Ukraine’s territorial integrity in 1994.
We signed that so that Ukraine would give up nuclear weapons.
Whatever the (temporary) endpoint of today’s conflict, what do all the smaller protagonists in these long territorial struggles, with the exception of Ukraine, have in common? Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, for example?
They have obtained nuclear weapons.
So, now that it is clear to Ukraine that international guarantees are meaningless, what will be Ukraine’s No.1 goal……
That is where the Wests feebleness, pusillanimity, has taken us….to a future of far greater peril.
Oh, and by the way, Ukraine will want Britain to patrol the border between Ukraine and Russia whenever hostilities (temporarily) cease. Yes, the Britain that is reducing the size of its army, can deploy into the field one Brigade (5,000 men) only.
That border is 1200 miles long so that works out at about 4 men per mile. They are going to need a lot of spare pairs of boots. Use vehicles, you say. Well those will have to be well armoured…so, tanks. We will have 120 of those, so one tank to cover ten miles, with a gun that has a range of only one mile and no reserves, no depth.
That is where we are as a country, a complete joke. We have been for some time.
That great liberation of Kuwait in 1991? That wasn’t really us, was it. Our soldiers, in some cases, were equipped with armoured vehicles manufactured in the 50s, armed with machine guns manufactured in WW2
Time to get real. If we wish for peace, we must prepare for war.
I ain’t fighting for no bloody corrupt government, nor their mates.
But yes, si vis pacem…
It seems to me that there’s been more debate on this site about why we’re doing what we’re doing than there has been in Parliament or in the legacy media. Whatever your views, that can’t be healthy.
There is likewise no debate, for example, regarding our signature of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which, in similar fashion to the Budapest Memorandum (which we failed to uphold in 2014), we failed to uphold in 2013, or the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, despite several subsequent ‘proliferations’.
So.. if the Russians ever wanted to actually enter into negotiations, how would you know?
Or are we to assume that you know what you are talking about and Russians NEVER want to negotiate?
Russians always want to negotiate but may or may not abide by what has been agreed depending on what they perceive to be in their best national interests.
How can we ever know our adversaries intentions? That is why we spend £3Bn annually on the Foreign Office…..
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky admitted on Thursday that he had previously told German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron that the Minsk agreements were “impossible”, and he did not plan on implementing them.
A short while ago, both Merkel and Macron admitted that the Minsk agreements were brokered in order to buy time to build up Ukraine’s military strength – and were not intended to be implemented.
Zalensky was elected on a ‘peace ticket’, originally. How untold wealth can change a man (I wonder where it came from?)
Lavrov is one of the few people speaking any sense these days. I can see nothing but blunt honesty and a measure of despair in the Russian position.
https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/zelensky-admits-he-never-intended-to-implement-minsk-agreeme
Is it despair that has led to 300,000 young men having been recently conscripted, Iranian operators licensed to operate drones over the front line, billions poured into munitions, hypersonic missiles, new tanks, aeroplanes….or maybe something else……..?
I need to know..is it despair?
Then read RIA Novosti:
‘The collective West itself is the designer, source and sponsor of Ukrainian Nazism….’
‘Ukrainism is an artificial anti-Russian construction….’
‘….this operation itself is understood as a military victory over the Kiev regime, the liberation of territories from armed supporters of the Nazis’
‘The “Catholic province” (Western Ukraine as part of five regions) is unlikely to become part of the pro-Russian territories.’
‘It will remain hostile to Russia, but forcibly neutral and demilitarized Ukraine with formally banned Nazism. The haters of Russia will go there. The threat of an immediate continuation of the military operation in case of non-compliance with the listed requirements will be the the guarantee of the preservation of this residual Ukraine in a neutral state.’
‘…lustration, publication of the names of accomplices of the Nazi regime, involving them in forced labor to restore the destroyed infrastructure as punishment for Nazi activities (from among those who will not be subject to the death penalty or imprisonment)’
‘….not just the Bandera version of Nazi Ukraine will be eradicated, but including, and above all, Western totalitarianism’
RIA Novosti 04 April 2022
Russia are slowly advancing on all fronts.
Ukraine should seek peace talks now before they lose anymore men, equipment and territory.
The people of Crimea and the Donbass overwhelmingly do not want to be part of Ukraine and Ukraine should give up those areas for the sake of peace.
Russia were justified in their actions against Ukraine with the precedents set by US/Nato interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya etc. etc.
The media have shown themselves to be a mere propaganda arm of Western governments desire to weaken Russia, China and any other country that dares to stand up against the interests of US hegemony, their Unipolar world and the petro-dollar.
“Russia were justified in their actions against Ukraine with the precedents set by US/Nato interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya etc. etc.”
I would argue they have a stronger legal footing on R2P basis than NATO had on at least 3 of those invasions.
I quite agree.
Yesterday, I spoke to a normie friend, who watches and reads German MSM for at least 4 hours a day and as such considers himself to be very well informed, and I asked him whether he had heard or read about the Cochrane report on masks, the Bennett story or the Sy Hersh one.
I drew a total blank on each one.
Reg. the Bennet one he was only willing to accept an agreement anyway if it had resulted in Russia withdrawing even from the Crimea, and not willing at all to grasp the significant chance for peace or the West’s responsibility for the deaths since then, reg. Sy Hersh, he was mumbling about Russian bots and arguing that Germany already wanted to do without Russian gas anyway at the time.
Lesson learned (again): You cannot reason with fanatics.
Least of all with those who consider themselves to be ‘well informed’ as of their chosen echo chamber.
I’m not going to do a full-length critique of your points, but there’s some valuable context here which might be helpful to readers.
However, there’s been a fundamental contradiction in your writing on this topic, which is that on the one hand you say that Putin might use nukes to achieve his territorial ambitions, while at the same time you say or at least imply that he’s potentially willing to negotiate in good faith in order to achieve a peaceful resolution (which would of course involve ceding territory). Those things are mutually exclusive, but they’re tied together by yourself (and others like Jordan Peterson) as if that should be persuasive, rather than being what it is, which is dangerously naive and would greatly increase the risk of future Russian and other state aggression in the world (through further nuclear blackmail), besides being incredibly bad for those Ukrainians left under his rule.
The hidden premise of your articles is that negotiations, even with genocidal maniacs who have repeatedly and openly stated their mad policies and backed them up with force, must be a good thing. Never mind what Zelenskyy and Ukraine choose to do, can you see that there could be any downside at all to negotiations? It seems to me that your arguments, such as they are, amount to the modern equivalent of unilateral disarmament.
I’d also note that your articles have mirrored Russian propaganda in almost every particular since the full-scale invasion began. Are you at all aware of that fact?
Are you at all aware that your articles have mirrored Ukrainian propaganda.
I have always been completely open about the fact that I fully support Ukraine, and I write factual articles, largely countering Kremlin talking points. And if your username “For a fist full of roubles” is anything to go by, I appreciate your honesty in admitting you’re a paid Kremlin agent.
I am sorry Ian, you are contradicting yourself. You claim factuality but repeat propaganda. You make a similar faulty assumption about my user name. The only roubles I have had are ones my son left at home after a visit to Rostov some years ago (see picture).
…yes..it’s quite …well I want to say pathetic..but, I will be kinder and I will go with naive.
So Putin is a mad genocidal maniac…man..yeah, whatever.. as opposed to the lovely fluffy bunnies who committed various countries to “shock and awe” and the ensuing civilian atrocities I suppose?
oh..and why does Western aggression, which let’s face it, is by far the most prolific, never seem to make these people think it will lead to further state aggression…even as we are watching exhibit A?
‘Whataboutery’ is not an argument.
Mr Ron’s articles are always illustrated, supported, by referenced information, facts.
I see none of those in your comments.
You never see anything you don’t want to. Your partisan feelings toward Ukraine don’t allow you to…
And when you stop conversations with ‘what about ism ’, it’s you that has no arguments to make. It’s on a par with stopping conversations with ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’…and I notice only pro-Ukrainian’s use it..presumably because you have to….
There is nothing wrong with pointing out the faults in someone’s arguments…why are Putin’s actions considered to be one thing..always bad and always wrong…when exactly the same actions committed by a country you support are seen as entirely different, and not bad and not wrong? Its a perfectly good question, but one I don’t think you ever want to answer because there are no countries here who malign Russia, who have a safe moral footing….and no doubt you see the faults in your own arguments….
It’s the kind of question adults ask of each other….it’s not the Disney Ukraine debate that is beloved of the MSM….
Comparing Putin’s actions to those of the USA on the international stage is very interesting but simply not relevant.
‘What about the USA?’ does not exculpate Putin in any way, shape or form. Two ‘wrongs’, as you very well know, cannot make a ‘right’….
I have been extremely critical of the U.S.A. when run by Clinton whose actions regarding Kosovo may very well have emboldened Putin in his expansionism.
That is an argument worth making, if supported by research….but you have not made it….or done any research….
Putin followed International Law to the letter.
Without referencing the particular laws in question, that comment has no point or meaning.
I don’t see how it’s a contradiction to point to the risk of nuclear war while also calling for negotiations. I agree there’s a case for not giving into nuclear blackmail, but there’s also a case for minimising the risk of nuclear war. If there was zero risk of nuclear war, the case for negotiations would be weaker, all else being equal.
Of course there are downsides to negotiations. But there are also downsides to war. Most commentators (including those who are more hawkish than me) believe this war will end with negotiations. The disagreement is over whether it’s better to negotiate now, or later – when Ukraine’s bargaining position may or may not have improved.
That’s an interesting elision. I think you mean “the risk of Putin starting a nuclear war”. Nuclear wars don’t just start themselves. And of course Putin’s continued threats of nuclear war are contradictory to the notion of Putin wanting to enter into good-faith negotiations. Throughout, you’ve minimised or excluded from discussion the fact that this is Putin’s war, started by him and continued by him over many years. Sure, you’ll pay lip service to the fact he started it and it’s bad, but you’ve come up with all kinds of excuses along the way.
I didn’t ask about the downsides of war. You’re dodging the question. You’ve also dodged the question of whether you are aware that your articles have mirrored Kremlin propaganda from the start. Further to that, I know you’ve worked for RT, but are there any ongoing connections?
The only context in which I have heard Putin refer to nuclear war is in response to a first strike by the West.
This is true. See my comment above.
Frankly a disgusting as well as a lame response.
You should be chucked for slandering a fellow contributor.
I’m sure with your track record you could find plenty of organisations eager to add to their monotheistic hatred of the big bad Russian.
Strange response. I haven’t slandered anyone, I’m simply asking a reasonable question.
Many reporters have contacts in governments around the world. To give one instance, Dom Nicholls for the Telegraph is an ex-army officer and has contacts in the British defence establishment, and notes such contacts in his reporting on Ukraine. There’s nothing illegal, immoral or even unprofessional about that, if those contacts and any related interests are disclosed; in fact, if Noah has contacts in the Russian government, then that could be an asset in reporting on these issues. So I think my question is perfectly reasonable and fair, given the history and context, and I think an answer is requisite: especially, by the way, given that Noah has (for instance) made insinuations against the Kyiv Independent and by extension its staff and reporters.
So if Noah, as a public figure who has made imputations and accusations in the course of his reporting on this issue, is unable or unwilling to respond to a straightforward and unambiguous question touching upon his own journalistic integrity, then I and perhaps others may be entitled to draw inferences.
..there are several independent journalist ACTUALLY in Donbass…I presume because they are not pro-Ukrainian all the time, they are not to be be,I ever….I think they know more than your mate, who has a mate, who’s cat knew his mother…grow up!
“To be trusted….”
You know it is possible to genuinely disagree with your positions without being a Russian lackey.
Throwing around accusations to try and win arguments through guilt-by-association is pretty low.
You are very quick to hector. It is not a good quality.
‘I and perhaps others may be entitled to draw inferences’ is most certainly not hectoring. Hectoring would be, for example, telling someone to ‘grow up’; as you say, not a good quality.
…as we can’t see any Kremlin propaganda..because it’s banned!,,(…and you pose as a free speech advocate…LOL) …how can we possibly be
repeating it? Maybe it’s just that exactly like the Covid Con, one makes a lot more sense than the other?
The greatest risk of nuclear war now comes from Ukraine. The Budapest Memorandum guaranteeing Ukraine’s territorial integrity was signed in order to persuade Ukraine to give up its stores of nuclear warheads.
The lesson from the perfidy of those signatories is that Ukraine, like North Korea, Pakistan. Israel, Iran (so Saudi, UAE….), will now stop at nothing in order to obtain nuclear weapons.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions (supported by little except weakness, pusillanimity)
One of the Key points of the Memorandum that USA lawyers insisted upon is that it DID NOT use the word GUARANTEE…
They were at pains to use the word ASSURANCE and they explained that this was specifically because the word guarantee carried with it the implication of the use of military force in assisting its non-nuclear partners if attacked by an aggressor…which they did not want….
You also never mention that part of the Memorandum, article 3, which forbade the signatories to use economic sanctions on the countries involved….which the USA imposed, illegally and against the ‘assurances’ on Belarus in 2013….
So in fact..America were, of course, the first to break the memorandums guarantees….but I know they’re only doing it for good reasons….and none of it matters coz Putin bad……
Semantics.
‘1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE [Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe] Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine…..
4. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.’
Budapest Memorandum 1994
3. Commitment (Collins Dictionary)
If you make a commitment to do something, you promise that you will do it.
We made a commitment to keep working together.
They made a commitment to peace.
Synonyms: pledge, promise, guarantee, undertaking
Article 3 of the Budapest Memorandum?
‘3. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.’
Nothing to do with Belarus, which is not a party to the Budapest Memorandum.
Buck up!
Yet again..NOT semantics….the Americans were at pains to only use the word assurance…
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three substantially identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non- proliferation etc etc…
Just Google it if you are confused?
Okay. I get it. You are struggling with the English language (and quoting from that impeachable resource: wikipedia).
Assurance:
‘Synonyms: promise, statement, guarantee, commitment’
Collins Dictionary
Three agreements, yes, but only one of them concerning Ukraine.
Has the USA breached its ‘assurances’ in an entirely separate memorandum with regard to Belarus? No idea and no interest since that country is, effectively, once more a satellite state of Russia; simply not relevant to a discussion relating to the Budapest Memorandum that specifically relates to Ukraine, signed by Ukraine, UK, USA, Russia.
I must take this opportunity to say that I find your articles and comments completely ‘unsceptical’ and I cannot imagine how you have assumed such prominence on this website. You clearly do not know any Russians, nor do you look at the plentiful counter-narratives out there.
Regarding your initial point about nuclear war, Putin has gone to enormous lengths to be clear about non first-use of nuclear weapons. There is no nuclear blackmail – merely a crystal clear threat to assorted Western figures who have begun to think that a limited nuclear war might be ‘winnable’. After all, the sceptical narrative reads that this is a proxy war initiated by the United States to weaken, degrade, and ultimately break up Russia – together with its vast resources. There is plenty of evidence for this, and when one studies the activities of the USA, currently de-stabilising countries all around the borders of Russia and (elsewhere too) this looks to be remarkably typical American activity. They have form.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=russia+threatens+to+nuke+britain
Putin has so far only implied nuclear strikes, eg, on February 2nd, when he stated that Russia had the means to reply to Germany providing MBTs to Ukrainian forces and that this reply would not be limited to tank technology. Obviously, that’s necessary because the staunch antifascists governing Germany on behalf of the USA are really all Naziz directly continuing Hitler’s policies towards Russia.
[German source: https://www.infranken.de/welt/ukraine-krieg-russen-naehern-sich-nato-gebiet-mit-kampfflugzeugen-melnyk-stellt-neue-forderung-art-5395708, entry for 02/02/2023]
…”Former Putin Advisor”…wow..yep that is definitive evidence if ever I saw it!!
These are various second- and third-line people from Russia (there’s also a Russian MP among them) who have openly threatened others with use of nuclear weapons. And that’s all this comment is about: Peaceful Russia being threatened with use of nuclear weapons by evil NATO is laughable.
You do remember Elensky killing two innocent Polish people, stating it was the Russians what dun it….and asking for NATO to join in and bomb Russia?
You must also be aware that in the last week he has been bleating to anyone who will listen that Russia fired rockets over Romanian airspace and that NATO must join in and bomb Russia? Even as Romania say it isn’t true?
When you can point out the hundreds of Russian nuclear and military bases surrounding America and Europe like a noose…then you can tell me it’s laughable…
This was about Russian politicians threatening others more-or-less openly with nuclear strikes. Which has happened repeatedly since the war in Ukraine began. It’s not about something else, whatever something else may be. It’s especially not about Whatever Biden supports must be opposed … ! The world is not just a theatre for staging US domestic politics dramas.
This is still as ludicrous as the first iteration of it: Assuming there were peace talks, the two parties negotiating there would have been Ukraine and Russia. Regardless of which outside parties may have wanted what, the responsibilty for any actions rests with Zelensky and Putin. Maybe Zelensky was a credulous fool ready to surrender unconditionally to Putin’s demands just to end the terrible Russian threat and got talked into behaving like someone with a spine by disingenious NATO officials. But this doesn’t make him any less responsible.
FWIW my opinion from day one (and by that I mean circa 2014 or maybe even 1945) is that this will end only when the USA says so. And that will be when either :-
It’s so sad to behold the MSM and most of Europe being the USA’s lap dogs in this totally unnecessary war – and even sadder to see such loss of life and misery.
Still, as far as the US is concerned it’s just another step to try and ensure the continuation of their failing hegemony.
I enjoy these Ukraine/Russia pieces, but mostly for the comments.
It reminds me of peak Covid when all the comments sections were a pitched battle between the sceptics vs the official narrative lapdogs/trolls/77th.
The assumption that there are only two positions on this issue, the US one and the Russian one, and that everybody has to chose one of them, is wrong.
Indeed. My position is that they’re all corrupt motherf*ckers.
…they are..the end game is always power and money…Plus Ca Change…?!
I see that TrickyRicky is leading the nation in a minutes silence at 11.00 on Friday 24th February 2023, to mark one year from the start of the Ukraine war.
Will this be an annual event with a follow up music fest of remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/national-moment-of-silence-to-mark-one-year-of-russian-invasion-of-ukraine
It was either a minutes silence or have everyone stand on their doorstep banging pans.
It totally devalues the silent tribute to those people who died for this country.
I honour the conscientious objectors
An interesting account in German of Ukie corruption in the defense ministry by a former insider, Maxim Goldarb.
Allegedly, Poroschenko’s DM got himself a bottle of Pétrus for 5k for lunch each day.
https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=93755
That’s the leader of an outlawed communist and pro-Russian party. In other words, these are the successors of the guys who controlled Ukraine while the USSR still existed. Minus the example with the $5000/ bottle wine, he also doesn’t really have anything to say, just generic accusations.
Remind me again which parties haven’t been outlawed now?
I have no idea and it’s not really relevant: This (the Goldarb text) is a partisan political standpoint and not independent information.
Zelensky’s like a Far East Communist Dictator sending his own people to the slaughter.
*****
Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near Everyman Cinema & play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
………
Thank you for this article, Mr Carl – long overdue, and we should start to ask those responsible for the conflict to accept responsibility for the devastation it is causing. If the motivation all along was to crush Putin, can anyone blame him for what he is doing?
The PM has declared there will be a minute’s silence on the anniversary of the Russian invasion.
At the time the silence is to start, I think I might need to go outside and bang a saucepan.
Our globalist-appointed foreign midget PM can f@ck right off.
Yes to that.
Of course he has…it’s the way of the Disney-war…more important to virtue signal than actually talk peace and save real lives….
I will pass on that like the vast majority will…didn’t they try a ‘let’s all switch the heating down tomorrow” thing? Didn’t do that either!
I think I might find some Tchaikovsky or Beethoven to play at the appointed time….
Definitely Tchaikovsky
LOL….yes as soon as I pressed the button I thought..Beethoven!??? beloved by Nazis (and not Russian…)?? Busted!! LOL!
The fundamental point is that it really, really doesn’t matter to us – and by “us” I mean indigenous inhabitants of the British Isles – which bits are ruled from Moscow and which from Kiev.
(Have you noticed that people who spell it Kyiv don’t spell it Moskva?)
Yes, the reality is I don’t know anyone who really gives a crap…or talks about it or who cares….it’s totally meaningless to them..it might as well be some skirmish in Africa…sad but true….
Of course the reality is that it doesn’t matter to the UK or USA or Europe that it’s Ukraine, it just happens to be the country the USA and it’s vassals can use because of its position on the Russia’s border….
here it’s ukrainian flags everywhere , haven’t seen a single russian flag maybe i should get some, am in the minority again and still surrounded by maskoids
Of course they are ignoring it…because it doesn’t fit in with the agenda. It makes the West and Ukraine look bad…it makes Russia look better..and that would never do.
Of course billions of people, in the global south, who make up the vast majority of the global population and who have no problems with Russia, will have a very different idea as to what has occurred here….they will see it for what it really is, the lies and deception of the West….and they will be right.