https://unofficialbird.com/bidetmarxman/status/1621452328569307142#m
Somewhat overshadowed by yesterday’s “Chinese spy balloon” hysteria was the revelation that the CIA has recently been trying to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine that involves offering 20% of Ukraine to Russia.
Both Kyiv and Moscow rejected the deal but it does raise an interesting question: why might “high-ranking German foreign politicians” have leaked this?
One possibility is that a faction within the German government is rebelling against the continued subjugation of the German economy for the furtherance of US geopolitical objectives.
If so, the leaking of the US-backed deal can be seen as an attempt to embarrass the Biden admin by exposing the vast chasm between their public rhetoric and their private actions and intentions.
Leaking this attempted deal would also perfectly highlight the fantasy of Ukraine as a sovereign state, when a country on the other side of the world supplies all the weapons to extend the conflict while also drawing up the terms of your surrender.
:this:
Funnily enough, a few hours after the Newsweek article was published, the White House issued a statement calling the existence of the offer “not accurate”.
As the old saying goes, never believe anything until it has been officially denied!
Which 20%? Crimea and the Donbas?
I’m anti-Putin (seriously, Putin is a total gangster), but how can anyone say Crimea and the Donbas belong to Kiev?
Because it “sticks it” to Russia to have them be Ukranian, thats at least what the majority of people outside Ukraine think IMO.
Theres no real further thoughts beyond being anti-Russia, wether that be just purely hatred for Russia or some kind of reflexive liberal concern over how horrible it would be for the inhabitants if the areas become Russian/Russian-aligned.
Because Ukraine had them at the arbitrary point in time that we decided to count these things from, which makes taking them from the Ukraine illegal. Liberals will understand and feel an analogy to property rights very well.
In this conflict the western liberal-conservative ideology has determined that the private property analogy is the sole guiding principle for territorial disputes. This doesn’t mean that it is applied the same to other disputes though, like Kosovo or Taiwan where other principles are applied. It is a typical example of the fascist ability to hold conflicting views, solely based on what helps the supremacy of fascists at the moment. Ukraine owning Crimea benefits the evil empire so therefore the talking classes of the empire believes that sovereign states can never be deprived of their territory. At the same time China having no right in Taiwan benefits the evil empire so therefore the talking classes of the empire will believe in the right to secession.
NZZ is chuddy as hell, i wouldn’t rule out they simply made this up. The US can easily afford the aid for Ukraine, the IMC loves this situation, gas companies obviously love selling their product to Germany at inflated prices, European NATO allies that were reluctant to increase military spending now go head over heels to build up their armies, there’s no relevant political pressure in the US to end the war beyond some bickering from “i oppose supporting the current thing” chuds that never reaches the same traction as other culture war issues.
So why would AmeriKKKa want peace?
Newsweek is literally run by fascists, highly suspect source.
all american media is run by fascists, and all western media is a highly suspect source.
In 1977, journalist Carl Bernstein revealed deep CIA connections with the big business media. More than 400 reporters collaborated with the CIA, with the consent of their bosses.
the entire US media ecosystem are tools of the bourgeoisie. if newsweek says the sky is blue and I quote them saying the sky is blue because I agree that the sky is blue, I shouldn’t have to hunt down rachel maddow saying it instead.
In fact, a marxist anti-american news source I read quoted newsweek when they pointed out that most of the global south is not on NATO’s side in this war. Newsweek in turn was quoting diplomats, who in turn were looking at UN votes. Just because that piece of information, whose source was a UN vote, passed through a dogshit source like newsweek, doesn’t make it wrong
I wonder how hard Putin laughed at the offer
Maybe, maybe not?
Yeah, this war is costly on terms of money and manpower, but if Putin really views Ukraine as essential to Russia’s potential to be independent from the west and a tenet of a multipolar world, then the stakes may as well be existential for him.
It may look like a de-escalation or detente, but cynically could be viewed as an invitation to the less overt hostilities, and it may not seem worth it to the party who already felt as though Ukraine abused diplomatic resolutions before, namely in regards to Minsk II.
Wasn’t there supposed to be a deal in which part of the terms is that Ukraine cannot join NATO, but can get protection from them, both Russia and Ukraine were ready to accept it, but Boris Johnson destroyed it?
Is it?
Russia will be dragged into another war if the US starts one with China. It’s not a good deal if it’s only a temporary reprieve before a nuclear world war.
If the US and China get into a war everyone will die so everything would be pointless anyway. That’s not going to happen though
If this comes true, I’m fantasizing so hard about the liberal cope that would come from Russia getting everything it wants out of this war. Libs are going to say that things would have been different if :pete-eat: had been running things, that we should have deployed the whole fucking US and NATO military in Ukraine, and there will be an entire genre of movies for the next twenty years about the bazinga brigades going to fight for freedom in Ukraine but getting backstabbed by the (((corrupt globalist elites))) in the USA.
