Last September, Fiona Hill and Angela Stent wrote this in Foreign Affairs: “According to multiple former senior U.S. officials, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement.”
In the end, of course, no such settlement was agreed. Which may be, at least in part, because Boris Johnson advised Zelensky not to sign it during his “surprise visit” to Kiev in early April.
As you may recall, one of Zelensky’s “close associates” told Ukrainska Pravda that Johnson was an “obstacle” to negotiations because he’d brought two simple messages: “Putin is a war criminal, he should be suppressed, not negotiated with. And secondly, if you are ready to sign any agreements on guarantees with him, then we are not. We can with you, but not with him, he will still abandon everyone.”
According to Roman Romanyuk, writing in Ukrainska Pravda:
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.
It should be noted that Romanyuk disagrees that Johnson’s visit was the main reason the deal fell through. In his view, concerns that “Ukrainian society might not accept such a deal” loomed larger. Others interpret the evidence differently.
Putin himself has claimed the West scuttled negotiations, noting in his September 21st speech that “after certain compromises were coordinated, Kiev was actually ordered to wreck all these agreements”.
Now, the former Israeli PM Naftali Bennett has lent credence to this view, claiming that the West “blocked” a draft peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. The revelation came in a long interview (in Hebrew) posted on Bennett’s YouTube channel.
Bennett’s words cannot be dismissed as mere speculation, given that he played a central role mediating between the two sides, after a request from Zelensky at the war’s outset.
In the interview, Bennett states that he believed Israel’s national interest would be served by a policy of neutrality, which is why he accepted the request to mediate. Toward this end, he sought to understand the interests of both sides.
“Putin’s perception,” he says, “was wait, when the wall came down, we reached an agreement with NATO that they wouldn’t expand … why are you introducing Ukraine into NATO?” Later in the interview, he states that “the war broke out because of the demand to join NATO”.
After a sequence of phone calls with the two leaders, Bennett flew to Moscow on March 7th. (Meanwhile, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators were holding talks at Gomel in Belarus.)
He says that Putin then “made two big concessions”. He promised not to “take out” Zelensky, and he “renounced disarmament of Ukraine”. The same day, Zelensky also “made a big concession” – he “relinquished joining NATO”. Describing these as “huge steps on each side”, Bennett’s impression was that “both sides very much want a ceasefire”.
According to the former Prime Minister, Putin was “very pragmatic”, and “so was Zelensky”. As an example of Putin’s pragmatism, he mentions that Putin “totally understood Zelensky’s political constraints”. Asked whether Putin is “gung ho to fight at all costs”, Bennett replies “no” because “he has goals to achieve”.
Regarding the various Western leaders involved, he says that “Boris Johnson adopted the aggressive line”, whereas “Macron and Scholz were more pragmatic”, and “Biden was both”.
Then we get to the most interesting part. “I think there was a legitimate decision by the West,” Bennett explains, “to keep striking Putin”, to take the “more aggressive approach”. “So they blocked it?” the interviewer asks. “Yes. They blocked it.”
Bennet’s account obviously comports closely with Romanyuk’s observation that the West felt there was a chance to “press” Putin.
One reason to be sceptical is that, insofar as Bennett’s mediation efforts ultimately failed, he has an incentive to blame outside forces (in this case, the West). For now, we can’t be sure exactly what happened. But the revelations are striking, consistent as they are with the earlier report in Ukrainska Pravda – down to the detail of Johnson being particularly hawkish.
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.
But.. but.. but.. think of Raytheon think of Northrop Grumman think of Boeing….think of the DNC finances. Without war how are we going to transfer $ trillions more from the plebs to the 0.001% (give or take the odd plandemic obviously)
‘Without war how are we going to transfer $ trillions more from the plebs to the 0.001%’
Greta Thunberg: “Hold my beer”
Neutrality is a (rare) smart move by Israel. They clearly know which way the wind is blowing. It’ll be interesting to see how and when the collective west forsake their little game and how they will attempt to save face while doing so.
Assuming there’s a war somewhere, every state whose troops aren’t participating in the fighting is a neutral state. Eg, during the first world war, US factories where busily manufacturing artillery shells for the Entente troops and US bankers were lending the French and British governments the money for buying these shells. Nevertheless, the USA was a neutral state until 1917.
The UK seems to find itself quite frequently on the hawkish side of things when it comes to overseas wars. 2 Iraq wars, Libya, Ukraine…
I wonder why. I know one thing, it’s not about justice or liberating oppressed peoples.
I never thought anyone could quite top Blair for being the most evil bastard ever to have lived (admittedly there’s quite a long list) but Johnson is creping closer.
I truly hope Hell awaits both and their ilk.
Anyone with half a brain knows this could have been stopped before it started.
Hundreds of thousands of young kids have died, been maimed and families devastated just for this.
Russia will not lose, no matter how hard the West spins it.
Absolutely bang on.
BJ’s whole character seems to be corrupted. His judgement is shot to pieces, in a way that makes me think that his brain cells have atrophied due to excess of alcohol.
recently, – representing whom?
what other explanation might there be for him taking such a destructive callous position(s)?
Unless he really did have a chip inserted into his brain during his intensive care episode…I know this is fanciful, but his behaviour has been appalling.
Why was he even in
People were so excited by Brexit they refused to see what Johnson really was. He wrote two speeches, one supporting Brexit, one supporting Remain and made the decision in the last minute, That tells you everything you need to know about the kind of person he is: 100% self serving opportunist.
What does lose mean? What does win mean?
The struggle for strategic dominance in this area has been going on since well before the seventeenth century.
The Romans had a crack at Crimea. The two headed eagle is a Byzantine emblem, the Eastern Roman empire, Czar/Caesar. Byzantium was originally hellenic, greek.
So Russia is aiming at huge swathes of Eastern Europe. Ukraine is a necessary land bridge to Moldova and Kaliningrad; beyond that, Poland.
Unsurprising then that Poland will shortly possess the most armoured divisions of any country other than the U.S., China and, oh yes, Russia…..
So, Zelensky’s was perfectly happy to capitulate, ie, sign over large parts of Ukrainian territory to Putin, but evil Boris Johnson interfered in the last minute and ordered him not to? Even assuming this was true — and this doesn’t exactly seem very likely — Zelensky would then have become the next Ukrainian president seeking asylum in Russia.
So…I’ll add him to the list of people who I am supposed to be sceptical about…
I’ll add him to the evidence I’m supposed to be sceptical about from Nuland and her part in the Coup…I’ll add it to the scepticism over Hunter and his dad, bio labs, Burisma etc…
I’ll add it to the mountains of evidence that the USA wanted Nordstream scuppered…
I’ll add him to Poroshenko Merkel and Hollande… all of whom have admitted the Minsk Accords were a bluff to get Ukraine fully armed for war….
Who am I not supposed to be sceptical about…? Oh that’s right..I have to take as gospel anything Elensky or out trustworthy media report? Got it….
‘…he has an incentive to blame outside forces (in this case, the West)’
Correct.
Given that intelligence intercepts from Moscow make it clear that Russia’s next objective after Ukraine was Moldova, the idea that Russia was ever interested in a negotiated settlement, other than for reasons of short term expediency, is unfortunately chimerical.
Regarding Ukraine, the Ukrainian President would certainly have known that he had no mandate for a negotiated settlement, confirmed by a survey conducted in mid-May where 82% said that “under no circumstance should Ukraine give up on any of its territory even if it leads to the continuation of the war and threatens its independence”.
https://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=ukr&cat=news&id=1120&page=1
Intelligence intercepts made by whom?
And it just doesn’t logically follow that because Russia has objectives in Moldova it wouldn’t be interested in a negotiated settlement with Ukraine.
It is not clear how the ‘FSB Outline of Operational Aims and Means dated 21 November 2021’ document was obtained but the fact that over one million Russians have emigrated since the invasion of Ukraine indicates that a sizeable opposition to Putin’s regime existed in Russia at least until early 2022
From this document, and others, we know that Russia has a brigade of troops in the breakaway region of Transnistria with the intention of imposing the Kremlin’s will on Moldova by force of arms. But without a land bridge to Moldova through Ukraine, the Russians would struggle to reinforce these units. So the FSB’s activities in Moldova confirm Putin’s ambitions regarding a broad imperial project.
And you are correct that, even if the Russian offensive in Donbas is ultimately defeated, Putin will continue to actively explore these methods of destabilisation on a broader front in order to expand economic and political cost to the West.
“in order to expand economic and cultural cost to the West”
English clearly isn’t your first language. What is?
If you can’t comprehend simple English, it clearly isn’t yours….but no-one has the slightest interest in whatever your first language might be, most particularly not me.
As we live in a fantasy..my guess is SMERSH….
You do seem to ‘live in a fantasy’
FSB strategic objective, Moldova, Nov. 2020:
‘The full restoration of the strategic partnership between Moldova and the Russian Federation’.
FSB Outline of Operational Aims and Means, 21 November 2021
11th Unit of the Department for Operational Information (Moldova)
Commander: Major General Dmitry Milyutin.
All of this information is readily available online within the public domain.