• Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    9 days ago

    What evidence? I see zero reference to any evidence other than the word in the title. Nonsense. Reading the NYT article (which should have been the actual article not this blog post BS) the closest you get to anything Western related for breaking the negotiations is their advice that the initial tentative agreements ‘were tantamount to capitulation’. Negotiations proceeded long after that point and 2 key issues with them are attributed to their breakdown:

    1. Putin’s micromanaging of his negotiation team led the Ukranian side to doubt the negotiations were anything but a stall tactic, and

    2. A deal-breaking Russian amendment to Ukraine’s Article 5-esque ‘guarantors will come to the aid of Ukraine if they are attacked again in the future’ which essentially gave Russia a veto.

    ;tldr the only evidence provided by this blog post BS is for Russia not negotiating in good faith, and definitively being the one that spoiled the talks with a garbage ally defence veto amendment which strongly indicated they had every intention of doing all this again anyways no matter what the agreement said (their SOP.

    • Old_Geezer@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      38
      ·
      9 days ago

      the only evidence provided by this blog post BS is for Russia not negotiating in good faith, and definitively being the one that spoiled the talks with a garbage ally defence veto amendment which strongly indicated they had every intention of doing all this again anyways no matter what the agreement said (their SOP

      Where did you find this in the article? You NAFOs certainly have little intelligence. How much are you paid to be a shill for the US Deep State?