Putin says there is a way to organize talks with Ukraine, but Kyiv not willing

The fuhrer that violated at least four international agreements to invade Ukraine insists in legality. Cute.

*on legality

The lack of legitimacy, and how that will influence a future government observing any agreement, are serious concerns.

This is Kyiv's problem and not Moscow's as they won't sign any dud agreement. Moscow will laugh it out of the room.

Are you of the impression a memorandum is a treaty (or that anyone ratified it)?

Zelenskyy said last week that the decree, signed after Russia unilaterally annexed four Ukrainian regions, only barred negotiations with Ukrainian groups outside his authority and was aimed at blocking talks with separatists.

These people view themselves and their land as Russian now.

JJEToday  07:00 am JST

Are you of the impression a memorandum is a treaty (or that anyone ratified it)?

It's written down and signed which is more than some things russia P&Ms about. Also there are the other three violations including of the UN Charter.

Trump wants to negotiate without Ukraine anyways. Shameful but it is what it is.

A memorandum is not a formal diplomatic treaty - nor did any party move to ratify it.

Relevant but moot point as any tertiary agreement was voided by the foreign financed, violent neo-fascist coup of an elected government, which violated constitutional neutrality.

JJE

The lack of legitimacy, and how that will influence a future government observing any agreement, are serious concerns.

There is no lack of legitimacy.

This is Kyiv's problem and not Moscow's as they won't sign any dud agreement. Moscow will laugh it out of the room.

It's not a problem.

Putin told Russian state television that negotiations with Ukraine were complicated by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's "illegitimacy" in remaining in power beyond his mandate with no authority to sign documents.

Putin's aim is to use "peace talks" to try to destabilize Ukraine with any means he can.

It's not going to work.

JJE.

Relevant but moot point as any tertiary agreement was voided by the foreign financed, violent neo-fascist coup of an elected government, which violated constitutional neutrality.

This is false. There was no coup.

Watched the interview. Appeared to be in the back of his Aurus limo while on the move.

The reporter is a senior one, as the article mentions.

Vladimir Vladimirovich means exactly what he said. This isn't some offhand chatter, but rather a serious issue that are a major obstacle to even thinking about commencing negotiations of any settlement, which realistically won't happen for months down the track.

Kyiv regime must take the opportunity to peace talks to President Putin before it's too late..

Thanks Mister Putin..

JJE

Vladimir Vladimirovich means exactly what he said. This isn't some offhand chatter, but rather a serious issue that are a major obstacle to even thinking about commencing negotiations of any settlement, which realistically won't happen for months down the track.

Nah, he's just trying to sow discord in Ukraine. He knows that Zelensky has full legitimacy.

And, I believe, he is stalling for time. Putin doesn't want peace, he wants political control of Ukraine.

He doesn't want Trump to punish Russia for not commencing peace talks.

TokyoLiving

Kyiv regime must take the opportunity to peace talks to President Putin before it's too late..

> Thanks Mister Putin..

It's Putin who is stalling, not Zelenskyy.

The fuhrer that violated at least four international agreements to invade Ukraine insists in legality. Cute.

https://tenor.com/view/crying-gif-19237791

LOOOOOL

If you watch the full interview, he also called into question the sovereignty of the current iteration of the state of Ukraine - noting that they it is entirely reliant on foreign arms and money, meaning no independent political direction and has basically sold off its mineral wealth to its patrons, and as such, it really lacks the aforementioned quality.

These will be important considerations when possible future negotiations cover areas of the former state of Ukraine that have not decided their future status, unlike those that have (mentioned in the last paragraph). That's assuming the initial massive hurdle of sorting out this glaring lack of legitimacy can be sorted out.

JJE

If you watch the full interview, he also called into question the sovereignty of the current iteration of the state of Ukraine - noting that they it is entirely reliant on foreign arms and money, meaning no independent political direction and has basically sold off its mineral wealth to its patrons, and as such, it really lacks the aforementioned quality.

And so is Putin entirely reliant on foreign arms, money and soldiers from North Korea. So should Zelenskyy question the sovereignty of Russia?

These will be important considerations when possible future negotiations cover areas of the former state of Ukraine that have not decided their future status, unlike those that have (mentioned in the last paragraph). That's assuming the initial massive hurdle of sorting out this glaring lack of legitimacy can be sorted out.

There is absolutely no lack of legitimacy.

It's Zelensky who is the one out there begging for arms and cash from all and sundry, not Putin.

Same thing for every issue from the economy to sovereign decision making: one is a proxy, the other isn't.

Moscow - and hardly just Putin - are having trouble taking the leadership in Kyiv seriously, let alone engaging them as a decent, sovereign, proper government that is remotely capable of making their own independent decisions, let alone sensible ones at that. This basic fact makes the overall validity of a deal even more spurious.

JJE

It's Zelensky who is the one out there begging for arms and cash from all and sundry, not Putin.

Except for when Putin begged North Korea for missiles, artillery and troops.

Same thing for every issue from the economy to sovereign decision making: one is a proxy, the other isn't.

Neither is a proxy.

Moscow - and hardly just Putin - are having trouble taking the leadership in Kyiv seriously, let alone engaging them as a decent, sovereign, proper government that is remotely capable of making their own independent decisions, let alone sensible ones at that. This basic fact makes the overall validity of a deal even more spurious.

Incorrect. Moscow knows that Zelensky and Ukraine are legitimate, but they are trying to question it to destabilize it.

JJEToday  07:06 am JST

A memorandum is not a formal diplomatic treaty - nor did any party move to ratify it.

More a legitimate treaty than the alleged comment James Baker comment. It is signed by the aggressor state.

If you watch the full interview, he also called into question the sovereignty of the current iteration of the state of Ukraine - noting that they it is entirely reliant on foreign arms and money, meaning no independent political direction and has basically sold off its mineral wealth to its patrons, and as such, it really lacks the aforementioned quality.

These will be important considerations when possible future negotiations cover areas of the former state of Ukraine that have not decided their future status, unlike those that have (mentioned in the last paragraph). That's assuming the initial massive hurdle of sorting out this glaring lack of legitimacy can be sorted out.

Yes, we do know the indicted war criminal has issues with the 100% UN recognition of Ukraine.

Same thing for every issue from the economy to sovereign decision making: one is a proxy, the other isn't.

russia is clearly a proxy of China by such definitions. russia would have been folded up and gone home by now without their support.

Moscow - and hardly just Putin

Yes I imagine there are a few other war criminals with similar views.

are having trouble taking the leadership in Kyiv seriously, let alone engaging them as a decent, sovereign, proper government that is remotely capable of making their own independent decisions, let alone sensible ones at that. This basic fact makes the overall validity of a deal even more spurious.

russia will have to suck it up or put another million russians on the chopping block.

As we all know the main responsible for this full scale disaster is the big US industrial military complex, the same one that President Dwight Eisenhower warned against in 1961.

The truth is Ukrainians continue to suffer the consequences of this massacre, and the conflict is a dangerous, unwinnable proxy war undertaken by Washington against Russia.

Majority of Ukrainians want peace negotiations to start, and praising the big US industrial military complex for then sake of more profits in Wall Street will make things worse in terms of human lives on the battleground

Fos

As we all know the main responsible for this full scale disaster is the big US industrial military complex, the same one that President Dwight Eisenhower warned against in 1961.

This is a war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine. The US aren't involved.

The truth is Ukrainians continue to suffer the consequences of this massacre, and the conflict is a dangerous, unwinnable proxy war undertaken by Washington against Russia.

So are you saying that Trump is attacking Russia?

There was no coup

Once again, you seem to use the manuals from the US military dispatches, changing dates and adjusting history facts, and to what aim if I might ask?

As we all know the US State department disinformation has a track record of promoting manipulative narratives. Get the good old print books out: the ground for this conflict was prepared by US securocrats in the 1990s when Russia was emerging from the dissolution of the USSR, and the problem was the eastward expansion of NATO, and Russia’s exclusion from this process. Already in 1997 Biden mocked Moscow’s protests against NATO expansion by saying that Russia would have to embrace China and Iran if it kept being intransigent.

A reminder that since the start of the war in Ukraine the US stock markets rose to all time high.

Not a surprise the top 5 weapons manufacturers in the world are all Americans. 

Humans lives come first, ahead of whatever economic interests Washington might have

Fos

There was no coup

Once again, you seem to use the manuals from the US military dispatches, changing dates and adjusting history facts, and to what aim if I might ask?

Providing an accurate accounting of history. If you think I am wrong cite your sources.

Here is a New York Times investigation, a year after, that provides a good commentary:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukraine-leader-was-defeated-even-before-he-was-ousted.html?referrer&_r=3

An investigation by The New York Times into the final hours of Mr. Yanukovych’s rule — based on interviews with prominent players, including former commanders of the Berkut riot police and other security units, telephone records and other documents — shows that the president was not so much overthrown as cast adrift by his own allies, and that Western officials were just as surprised by the meltdown as anyone else.

FosToday 10:19 am JST

As we all know the main responsible for this full scale disaster is the big US industrial military complex, the same one that President Dwight Eisenhower warned against in 1961.

The truth is Ukrainians continue to suffer the consequences of this massacre, and the conflict is a dangerous, unwinnable proxy war undertaken by Washington against Russia.

No amount of gaslighting will make this at all believable.

Majority of Ukrainians want peace negotiations to start, and praising the big US industrial military complex for then sake of more profits in Wall Street will make things worse in terms of human lives on the battleground

They are waiting for Putin to come to the negotiating table. Best to explore ways to speed him up.

FosToday 12:25 pm JST

A reminder that since the start of the war in Ukraine the US stock markets rose to all time high.

Irrelevant because weapons manufacturers are only 1% of US gdp.

Not a surprise the top 5 weapons manufacturers in the world are all Americans.

And the next 5 are Chinese.

Fos

As we all know the US State department disinformation has a track record of promoting manipulative narratives. Get the good old print books out: the ground for this conflict was prepared by US securocrats in the 1990s when Russia was emerging from the dissolution of the USSR, and the problem was the eastward expansion of NATO, and Russia’s exclusion from this process.

Untrue. In June 1994, Russia became the first country to join NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP), a programme of practical bilateral cooperation between NATO and partner countries.

Russia became the first country to join NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP)

Still quoting the US manual of disinformation with the military dispatches, it seems :)

It is a pity you don't mention the two countries were suspended from the PfP when it was clear that the aim was the NATO objectives, i.e. the enlargement in Eastern Europe. The truth is Ukrainians continue to suffer the consequences of this massacre, and the aim of the proxy war undertaken by Washington against Russia was mainly to please the Wall Street warlords.

Praising the big US industrial military complex will make things worse.

Putin said in a state broadcast TV interview on Tuesday. He argued that because of canceled elections Zelensky's legitimacy has expired, and this means he "does not have the right to sign anything."

Putin further explained in the Tuesday interview, "Negotiations factually began immediately after the start of the Special Military Operation. Initially, we told the Ukrainian leadership at the time that the people of the Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republics don't want to be part of Ukraine. Leave these territories, and that's it, that's where it ends. No fighting, no war."

He argued that because of canceled elections Zelensky's legitimacy has expired

And don’t forget what the leader of the Servant of the People's Political Party of Ukraine, David Arakhamia, said to the media. In the Spring of 2022 Russian and Ukrainian delegations were on the verge of negotiating an end to the conflict, assuring Ukraine's military non-alignment and protection of rights of Russian speakers. 

A text was on the table in Istanbul, almost ready to be signed, revealed Arakhamia. However, during his visit to Kiev, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and later the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken pressured the Ukrainian side 'not to sign anything' and 'just keep on fighting’.

The inside story of Russia and Ukraine’s ‘peace’ talks

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-offered-end-war-if-ukraine-dropped-nato-bid-kyiv-official-1847373

Let’s not forget also since the outbreak of war in Ukraine and disruptions in pipeline flows from Russia, the United States has increased LNG sales to Europe by 140 percent. A product which is three times the price of the cleaner option from Moscow.

Fos

No amount of gaslighting will make this at all believable.

Your strong statement about gaslighting, Colin, gives me a sense of "deja vu" coming from the top brass in America. Excuse my French :)

“Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions”.

That's your GOP lying to you again.

I might remind you, that you have not offered any sources for proving that there was a coup.

FizzBit

Putin said in a state broadcast TV interview on Tuesday. He argued that because of canceled elections Zelensky's legitimacy has expired, and this means he "does not have the right to sign anything."

They can't have elections due to Russia's war. They aren't constitutional.

Putin further explained in the Tuesday interview, "Negotiations factually began immediately after the start of the Special Military Operation. Initially, we told the Ukrainian leadership at the time that the people of the Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republics don't want to be part of Ukraine. Leave these territories, and that's it, that's where it ends. No fighting, no war."

Yeah, Putin is lying. The offer that Putin gave required Zylenskyy stepping down and Putin installing a puppet president, Russian as the official language, Ukraine to reduce their armed forces to 50,000.

It was a very bad deal, so Zylenskyy walked away.

Fos

Russia became the first country to join NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP)

Still quoting the US manual of disinformation with the military dispatches, it seems :)

It's factual. It's part of history.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/4/pdf/2003-NATO-Russia_en.pdf

It is a pity you don't mention the two countries were suspended from the PfP when it was clear that the aim was the NATO objectives, i.e. the enlargement in Eastern Europe.

Eastern Europe hasn't been enlarged. NATO is a defensive alliance and countries are joining because of Putin's wars. The invasion of Ukraine pushed Sweden and Finland to join NATO. Putin has been acting like a bully in the region, no wonder countries want to join.

NATO’s founding treaty – signed in 1949 by the 12 original members and by every country that has joined since – includes a clear provision that opens NATO’s door to “any other European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.” This has never changed. No treaty signed by NATO Allies and Russia ever included provisions that NATO cannot take on new members. Decisions on NATO membership are taken by consensus among all Allies.

Praising the big US industrial military complex will make things worse.

Who's doing that? Not me. And I don't praise the North Korean Military Industrial Complex, but it is driving Putin's war.

It's factual. It's part of history

If there had been no decision in April 2008 to expand Nato into Ukraine the situation in Europe today and the situation regarding the European Russia relations would look fundamentally different and we would have a peaceful Europe.

The catastrophic decision by George W. Bush and Condolezza Rice to expand Nato was totally ill conceived: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0epyHOz-Pbs

History books again:

Nato is the Acronym of North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Georgia that you named earlier is South on the Black Sea, nothing to do with North Atlantic. Ukraine is in Eastern Europe and not even part of EU.

Fos

History books again:

Nato is the Acronym of North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Georgia that you named earlier is South on the Black Sea, nothing to do with North Atlantic.

So? Who cares? Is Turkey in the North Atlantic? No. But it is part NATO since 1952.

Ukraine is in Eastern Europe and not even part of EU.

Sure. But it wants to join the EU.

Fos

It's factual. It's part of history

If there had been no decision in April 2008 to expand Nato into Ukraine the situation in Europe today and the situation regarding the European Russia relations would look fundamentally different and we would have a peaceful Europe.

That makes no sense because NATO is a defensive alliance, the more members that join, the more peace.