What does Putin want (and whatabout it)

paulsurovell said:

Clearly the Pope's views stem from his intellectual and moral framework. Clearly the Pope is using that framework to address contemporary events, including the politics of governments and military alliances. Clearly the Pope is advocating an end to the war through negotiations.

The problem remains what it always has been -- Putin has shown no sign of being interested in good faith negotiations.

Probably the closest to some negotiated settlement we came was back in March, when Ukraine and Russia were in talks and there were reports of possible progress. However, the signals from Putin didn't give optimists much to stand on. The recent reporting  further underlines that.

The fact is that there has never been any real sign from Putin -- the only person that actually matters in all these discussions about negotiations -- that he supports negotiations. Sure, he's at time allowed talks to happen, but absent any concrete sign from Putin himself, those talks are just talks, with no reason to believe they were going anywhere. It's a bit like how during the Trump admin it didn't really matter what the WH chief of staff or anyone else at the WH might say as it could (and often was) upended by a late-night tweet. The only person who reliably speaks for Russia is Putin, and Putin has given no sign that he's open to anything short of Russian military victory.

If we acknowledge that Ukraine has the right to self-defense -- as the pope does -- then that unfortunately does not leave much room currently for negotiations, as absent a Russia willing to compromise Ukraine's options are capitulation or continued fighting.

nan said:

jamie said:

omg Nan again fawning over the words of vlad.  Where was his comments on his operation to decimate Ukraine?

What fawning?    I'm just trying to wake some of you up. 

 I was showing the real meeting between Putin and Erdogan, not as presented by the West.  They are going to coordinate and expand the use of the Mir card. Some other projects also.  Putin got a lot of work done at this meeting with other countries. The rest of the world is moving on without us and all you can do is focus on keeping a dangerous proxy war going until all the Ukrainians are dead,  Europe is a third world country and the US is wrecked beyond repair. 

Neocon foreign policy has no off-ramp and it does not end well.

I am not happy that the US is going down the toilet since this is where I live. At least it won't be a big shock for me as it will be for some of my MOL friends who think American exceptionalism is alive and eternally well.  

There's that tic again.

Anyway, this is quite delusional.

What exactly is going to happen to Europe and America, and what's your timeline?

(We can leave causes to another post.)

I find all the speculation about Russia's great new friendships and alignments to be interesting. There are many variations on the old adage that "Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, only permanent interests".

So, we may conclude that whatever the policies of China or India or Turkey are Iran, they have nothing to do with anything resembling real concern for Russia.

For India, I think it is primarily discounted oil.

Turkey - well, Erdogan likes to have irons in all the fires. Turkey and Russia are on different sides in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. And Turkey is a supplier of some of Ukraine's most useful weapons. Historically, Turkey and Russia have been in conflict more often than not. I suspect that Erdogan is more than happy to see Putin suffering these setbacks. And, last, but certainly not least, I think Erdogan wants NATO to kowtow to him a little bit sometimes.

Iran - well, Iran needs allies. That's easy.  But Iran also needs trade relationships with countries that have money.

China - cheap energy. A partner against democracies. A distraction for NATO. China wants a peaceful border with Russia. They have some historical territorial conflicts, but they haven't fought over this for around 50 years. I do notice that China has been somewhat restrained in terms of helping Russia.

And the West - well, the West has a lot of money. And if India, for example, ever had to chose between the U.S. / Europe and Russia, she would drop Russia. With China, it is more complicated because of Taiwan, but China needs to keep her economy humming along and good trade relations with the West are part of that.

And what do Russians think. I suspect that when tempers cool and the dust settles bit, many Russians will be unhappy that they have become China's bitch.

None of this translates directly into a win for the West, of course. And the next year will be economically difficult for the West. But anybody who believes that everything is coming up roses for Putin internationally is just plain nuts.

tjohn said:

I find all the speculation about Russia's great new friendships and alignments to be interesting. There are many variations on the old adage that "Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, only permanent interests".

So, we may conclude that whatever the policies of China or India or Turkey are Iran, they have nothing to do with anything resembling real concern for Russia.

For India, I think it is primarily discounted oil.

Turkey - well, Erdogan likes to have irons in all the fires. Turkey and Russia are on different sides in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. And Turkey is a supplier of some of Ukraine's most useful weapons. Historically, Turkey and Russia have been in conflict more often than not. I suspect that Erdogan is more than happy to see Putin suffering these setbacks. And, last, but certainly not least, I think Erdogan wants NATO to kowtow to him a little bit sometimes.

Iran - well, Iran needs allies. That's easy.  But Iran also needs trade relationships with countries that have money.

China - cheap energy. A partner against democracies. A distraction for NATO. China wants a peaceful border with Russia. They have some historical territorial conflicts, but they haven't fought over this for around 50 years. I do notice that China has been somewhat restrained in terms of helping Russia.

And the West - well, the West has a lot of money. And if India, for example, ever had to chose between the U.S. / Europe and Russia, she would drop Russia. With China, it is more complicated because of Taiwan, but China needs to keep her economy humming along and good trade relations with the West are part of that.

And what do Russians think. I suspect that when tempers cool and the dust settles bit, many Russians will be unhappy that they have become China's bitch.

None of this translates directly into a win for the West, of course. And the next year will be economically difficult for the West. But anybody who believes that everything is coming up roses for Putin internationally is just plain nuts.

Russia has the ability to make things worse for everyone. Russia does not have the ability to make things better for itself at everyone else's expense.

PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

Clearly the Pope's views stem from his intellectual and moral framework. Clearly the Pope is using that framework to address contemporary events, including the politics of governments and military alliances. Clearly the Pope is advocating an end to the war through negotiations.

The problem remains what it always has been -- Putin has shown no sign of being interested in good faith negotiations.

Probably the closest to some negotiated settlement we came was back in March, when Ukraine and Russia were in talks and there were reports of possible progress. However, the signals from Putin didn't give optimists much to stand on. The recent reporting  further underlines that.

The fact is that there has never been any real sign from Putin -- the only person that actually matters in all these discussions about negotiations -- that he supports negotiations. Sure, he's at time allowed talks to happen, but absent any concrete sign from Putin himself, those talks are just talks, with no reason to believe they were going anywhere. It's a bit like how during the Trump admin it didn't really matter what the WH chief of staff or anyone else at the WH might say as it could (and often was) upended by a late-night tweet. The only person who reliably speaks for Russia is Putin, and Putin has given no sign that he's open to anything short of Russian military victory.

If we acknowledge that Ukraine has the right to self-defense -- as the pope does -- then that unfortunately does not leave much room currently for negotiations, as absent a Russia willing to compromise Ukraine's options are capitulation or continued fighting.

I think that reports of a negotiated deal that was sabotaged by Boris Johnson (on behalf of the US and NATO) are credible.  I think negotiations going forward will be dictated by the battlefield and will be much less favorable for Ukraine -- involving some form of autonomy/independence for all of Donbas, Kherson and possibly Zaporizhzhia and of course guarantees for neutrality.

So I don't disagree with you entirely on your skepticism of whether Putin wants to negotiate. It's always been on his terms, but the terms were initially reasonable and harmless, but have gotten increasingly worse for Ukraine.

The goals of defeating Russia on the military and economic battlefields are illusions, stemming from the West's sense of superiority and egocentrism that have driven NATO expansion, and all the illegal wars and military interventions since World War 2. The American Century and world domination by the West are over. The sooner we accept that the more lives and property will be saved and the sooner the world can unite to fight the existential threat of Climate Change.

EU Updates:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/most-slovaks-want-russia-to-win-ukraine-war/

https://news.yahoo.com/hungary-orban-praises-russia-blasts-083800804.html

https://www.dw.com/en/grains-of-truth-polish-farmers-irate-over-ukrainian-imports/a-62629948

https://odessa-journal.com/bulgarian-farmers-are-protesting-against-the-import-of-cheap-grain-from-ukraine/

paulsurovell said:

I think that reports of a negotiated deal that was sabotaged by Boris Johnson (on behalf of the US and NATO) are credible.  I think negotiations going forward will be dictated by the battlefield and will be much less favorable for Ukraine -- involving some form of autonomy/independence for all of Donbas, Kherson and possibly Zaporizhzhia and of course guarantees for neutrality.

So I don't disagree with you entirely on your skepticism of whether Putin wants to negotiate. It's always been on his terms, but the terms were initially reasonable and harmless, but have gotten increasingly worse for Ukraine.

The goals of defeating Russia on the military and economic battlefields are illusions, stemming from the West's sense of superiority and egocentrism that have driven NATO expansion, and all the illegal wars and military interventions since World War 2. The American Century and world domination by the West are over. The sooner we accept that the more lives and property will be saved and the sooner the world can unite to fight the existential threat of Climate Change.

For Johnson to sabotage a deal there had to have been something to sabotage in the first place. As I've repeatedly noted, there was nothing coming from Putin at that time supporting the claim that there was a deal to be had.

Nor is there any basis to support your claim that Putin initially offered term that were reasonable and harmless. When did Putin offer to meet with Zelensky prior to invading? What terms did he offer?

Putin's terms have always been "give me what I want for free, or I'll take what I want by force." All he's ever offered is threats and grievances -- never has he offered to bind himself to any kind of guarantees respecting any Ukrainian interests.

Also, since you bring up NATO expansion again, perhaps this will finally be the time you engage with the actual history where the Eastern European countries demanded to be let into NATO, rather than continuing with this fake history of NATO pushing eastward? Given all of Russia's illegal wars and military interventions since World War 2, can you honestly say that Eastern Europeans are wrong to fear Russia?

This is for Paul and Nan- if the Russian soldiers on the front or having a morale issue what would you tell them is the reason to fight further

What reason is there to fight at all?  What metric will show when they have achieved their goal?

jamie said:

This is for Paul and Nan- if the Russian soldiers on the front or having a morale issue what would you tell them is the reason to fight further

What reason is there to fight at all?  What metric will show when they have achieved their goal?

Putin's listed many goals and many grievances. You'll notice what he's never done is said anything like "and if my concerns are addressed, I guarantee to respect Ukrainian sovereignty."

Putin has a list of demands and a list of threats. In return, he promises nothing. Americans safely here may try to fill that silence in with hope; Ukrainians don't have that luxury.

PVW said:

jamie said:

This is for Paul and Nan- if the Russian soldiers on the front or having a morale issue what would you tell them is the reason to fight further

What reason is there to fight at all?  What metric will show when they have achieved their goal?

Putin's listed many goals and many grievances. You'll notice what he's never done is said anything like "and if my concerns are addressed, I guarantee to respect Ukrainian sovereignty."

Putin has a list of demands and a list of threats. In return, he promises nothing. Americans safely here may try to fill that silence in with hope; Ukrainians don't have that luxury.

Putin will never say that because he knows that Ukraine has no sovereignty.  He knows who he is really at war with and he's said it many times.  This was the final straw for him trying to get along with the west and now he's moved on to form alliances with the rest of the world.  Most of the world is on his side. 

This was a HUGE mistake and missed opportunity for us.  We could have worked with the Russians on climate change or just hung out with them.  The whole "Hate the Russians" thing was invented by NATO and filtered through Russiagate.  It's just a construct created to justify NATO expansion and make bank for the war profiteers.  No wonder they had Zelensky heading the bill at the weapons conference.  I'm surprised they did not have him jumping out of a cake. 

I saw what you wrote defending the undefendable Boris Johnson and it's not based on reality.  There was a peace deal and things were going well.  Putin was quite willing to negotiate in the beginning. That phony baloney article from Reuters was made up specifically to hide that--the people of Europe are mad as hornets, as they should be.  Johnson and the West stopped the peace process because the whole proxy war was specifically done to get Putin and they thought the sanctions would easily take him down.  They did not expect the boomerang.  That's what you call failed leadership. They did not expect the de-industrialization of Europe.  They did not expect the gas to be turned off. They did not expect the Mir card. The decline of the dollar. They think everyone needs and depends on us and that is a neocon wet dream transformed into an Edvard Munch nightmare.

Everyone knows his painting "The Scream," so I thought I'd post another.  This one is called "Anxiety."

nan said:

Putin will never say that because he knows that Ukraine has no sovereignty.  He knows who he is really at war with and he's said it many times.  This was the final straw for him trying to get along with the west and now he's moved on to form alliances with the rest of the world.  Most of the world is on his side. 

This was a HUGE mistake and missed opportunity for us.  We could have worked with the Russians on climate change or just hung out with them.  The whole "Hate the Russians" thing was invented by NATO and filtered through Russiagate.  It's just a construct created to justify NATO expansion and make bank for the war profiteers.  No wonder they had Zelensky heading the bill at the weapons conference.  I'm surprised they did not have him jumping out of a cake. 

I saw what you wrote defending the undefendable Boris Johnson and it's not based on reality.  There was a peace deal and things were going well.  Putin was quite willing to negotiate in the beginning. That phony baloney article from Reuters was made up specifically to hide that--the people of Europe are mad as hornets, as they should be.  Johnson and the West stopped the peace process because the whole proxy war was specifically done to get Putin and they thought the sanctions would easily take him down.  They did not expect the boomerang.  That's what you call failed leadership. They did not expect the de-industrialization of Europe.  They did not expect the gas to be turned off. They did not expect the Mir card.  They think everyone needs and depends on us and that is a neocon wet dream transformed into an Edvard Munch nightmare.

Everyone knows his painting "The Scream," so I thought I'd post another.  This one is called "Anxiety."

And again - you refuse to say that Vlad is at all responsible for invading and decimating a country and it's people - why do you ignore this?  This is a million times bigger then the previous claim of genocide.

You're so naïve to think that Vlad cares about any peace deal.  Like I said - he has to get dealt with at home - and it sounds like it's starting to happen.  

It' all about the reunification to the motherland!  Period.

He's happy that he has many defenders like yourself to blame the West - but at home his propaganda is returning Ukraine to where it belongs.  The propaganda outside of Russia is precisely what you are saying on an hourly basis here.

And to repeat - Russian are good people and they deserve better than Vlad - he's the sole reason why we're in this mess.  

What's amazing is there's more bragging and normalization about the nazi wagner group in their media:

https://ria.ru/20220918/vagner-1817721783.html

Used to be Vlad's shadow army - now it's fully out in the open that these are his guys.

jamie said:

nan said:

Putin will never say that because he knows that Ukraine has no sovereignty.  He knows who he is really at war with and he's said it many times.  This was the final straw for him trying to get along with the west and now he's moved on to form alliances with the rest of the world.  Most of the world is on his side. 

This was a HUGE mistake and missed opportunity for us.  We could have worked with the Russians on climate change or just hung out with them.  The whole "Hate the Russians" thing was invented by NATO and filtered through Russiagate.  It's just a construct created to justify NATO expansion and make bank for the war profiteers.  No wonder they had Zelensky heading the bill at the weapons conference.  I'm surprised they did not have him jumping out of a cake. 

I saw what you wrote defending the undefendable Boris Johnson and it's not based on reality.  There was a peace deal and things were going well.  Putin was quite willing to negotiate in the beginning. That phony baloney article from Reuters was made up specifically to hide that--the people of Europe are mad as hornets, as they should be.  Johnson and the West stopped the peace process because the whole proxy war was specifically done to get Putin and they thought the sanctions would easily take him down.  They did not expect the boomerang.  That's what you call failed leadership. They did not expect the de-industrialization of Europe.  They did not expect the gas to be turned off. They did not expect the Mir card.  They think everyone needs and depends on us and that is a neocon wet dream transformed into an Edvard Munch nightmare.

Everyone knows his painting "The Scream," so I thought I'd post another.  This one is called "Anxiety."

And again - you refuse to say that Vlad is at all responsible for invading and decimating a country and it's people - why do you ignore this?  This is a million times bigger then the previous claim of genocide.

You're so naïve to think that Vlad cares about any peace deal.  Like I said - he has to get dealt with at home - and it sounds like it's starting to happen.  

It' all about the reunification to the motherland!  Period.

He's happy that he has many defenders like yourself to blame the West - but at home his propaganda is returning Ukraine to where it belongs.  The propaganda outside of Russia is precisely what you are saying on an hourly basis here.

And to repeat - Russian are good people and they deserve better than Vlad - he's the sole reason why we're in this mess.  

He should not have invaded.  War is always wrong unless it is a case of self-defense.   However, Putin does have some grounds for saying it was self-defense.  The West was after him.  

To say he is the sole reason we are in this mess is to not understand the most important factors. 

nan said:

He should not have invaded.  War is always wrong unless it is a case of self-defense.   However, Putin does have some grounds for saying it was self-defense.  The West was after him.  

To say he is the sole reason we are in this mess is to not understand the most important factors. 

every time you say he shouldn't have invaded, you give an excuse for him invading.

every. time.

that's not much of an anti-war stance.

PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

I think that reports of a negotiated deal that was sabotaged by Boris Johnson (on behalf of the US and NATO) are credible.  I think negotiations going forward will be dictated by the battlefield and will be much less favorable for Ukraine -- involving some form of autonomy/independence for all of Donbas, Kherson and possibly Zaporizhzhia and of course guarantees for neutrality.

So I don't disagree with you entirely on your skepticism of whether Putin wants to negotiate. It's always been on his terms, but the terms were initially reasonable and harmless, but have gotten increasingly worse for Ukraine.

The goals of defeating Russia on the military and economic battlefields are illusions, stemming from the West's sense of superiority and egocentrism that have driven NATO expansion, and all the illegal wars and military interventions since World War 2. The American Century and world domination by the West are over. The sooner we accept that the more lives and property will be saved and the sooner the world can unite to fight the existential threat of Climate Change.

For Johnson to sabotage a deal there had to have been something to sabotage in the first place. As I've repeatedly noted, there was nothing coming from Putin at that time supporting the claim that there was a deal to be had.

Nor is there any basis to support your claim that Putin initially offered term that were reasonable and harmless. When did Putin offer to meet with Zelensky prior to invading? What terms did he offer?

Putin's terms have always been "give me what I want for free, or I'll take what I want by force." All he's ever offered is threats and grievances -- never has he offered to bind himself to any kind of guarantees respecting any Ukrainian interests.

Also, since you bring up NATO expansion again, perhaps this will finally be the time you engage with the actual history where the Eastern European countries demanded to be let into NATO, rather than continuing with this fake history of NATO pushing eastward? Given all of Russia's illegal wars and military interventions since World War 2, can you honestly say that Eastern Europeans are wrong to fear Russia?

I've posted this before, but since you've apparently forgotten, here's the link to the report in Foreign Affairs by Fiona Hill and Angela Stent on the tentative deal reached by Russia and Ukraine in April 2022 (see screenshot below):

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/world-putin-wants-fiona-hill-angela-stent?utm_campaign=tw_daily_soc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter_posts

And here's the link to Ukrainska Pravda for Boris Johnson's visit to Ukraine to scuttle the deal (screenshot below):

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/

And finally, for the umpteenth time, Russia never tried to block NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. However, for 30 years it has warned that NATO expansion into Ukraine was considered an existential threat and implied it would go to war to stop it.

nan said:

He should not have invaded.  War is always wrong unless it is a case of self-defense.   However, Putin does have some grounds for saying it was self-defense.  The West was after him.  

It's called Putin paranoia - I guess it's contagious.

I think people within russia will be challenging the actions of one man.

Also - there are so many articles on their army - economy not doing so great - but I refrain from posting anything because the truth is always somewhere in the middle.  But I don't agree that everything in russia is as peachy as you're making it.

drummerboy said:

nan said:

He should not have invaded.  War is always wrong unless it is a case of self-defense.   However, Putin does have some grounds for saying it was self-defense.  The West was after him.  

To say he is the sole reason we are in this mess is to not understand the most important factors. 

every time you say he shouldn't have invaded, you give an excuse for him invading.

every. time.

that's not much of an anti-war stance.

The US and NATO bear responsibility for the invasion and for the failure of a compromise negotiated settlement in April (see my last post). An anti-war stance should be based on the truth, not on Western government war propaganda.

Nice sentiment from Natasha in March from Moscow.  She recently posted that she was able to leave Russia and is in Georgia now:

paulsurovell said:

The US and NATO bear responsibility for the invasion and for the failure of a compromise negotiated settlement in April (see my last post). An anti-war stance should be based on the truth, not on Western government war propaganda.

sez you (and your other apologists)

nan 

 However, Putin does have some grounds for saying it was self-defense.  The West was after him.  

Jimmy Jones told his flock the CIA and FBI were after him… repeatedly… 

PVW said:

The problem remains what it always has been -- Putin has shown no sign of being interested in good faith negotiations.

Probably the closest to some negotiated settlement we came was back in March, when Ukraine and Russia were in talks and there were reports of possible progress. However, the signals from Putin didn't give optimists much to stand on. The recent reporting  further underlines that.

The fact is that there has never been any real sign from Putin -- the only person that actually matters in all these discussions about negotiations -- that he supports negotiations. Sure, he's at time allowed talks to happen, but absent any concrete sign from Putin himself, those talks are just talks, with no reason to believe they were going anywhere. It's a bit like how during the Trump admin it didn't really matter what the WH chief of staff or anyone else at the WH might say as it could (and often was) upended by a late-night tweet. The only person who reliably speaks for Russia is Putin, and Putin has given no sign that he's open to anything short of Russian military victory.

If we acknowledge that Ukraine has the right to self-defense -- as the pope does -- then that unfortunately does not leave much room currently for negotiations, as absent a Russia willing to compromise Ukraine's options are capitulation or continued fighting.

The best evidence that Putin has no interest in negotiation is the invasion itself.  

PVW said:

For Johnson to sabotage a deal there had to have been something to sabotage in the first place. As I've repeatedly noted, there was nothing coming from Putin at that time supporting the claim that there was a deal to be had.

Nor is there any basis to support your claim that Putin initially offered term that were reasonable and harmless. When did Putin offer to meet with Zelensky prior to invading? What terms did he offer?

Putin's terms have always been "give me what I want for free, or I'll take what I want by force." All he's ever offered is threats and grievances -- never has he offered to bind himself to any kind of guarantees respecting any Ukrainian interests.

There's no support for the theory that Putin was ready to talk peace, after he had launched an invasion and at a time when he had inflicted significant damage on Ukraine and its people.

For that theory to have any basis, there would have to be evidence that Putin had put some sort of "security guaranties" on the table prior to his invasion, as an alternative to Ukraine feeling that it needed NATO membership to be secure from invasion.  There's no evidence that Putin did that.

nan said:

He should not have invaded.  War is always wrong unless it is a case of self-defense.   However, Putin does have some grounds for saying it was self-defense.  The West was after him.  

To say he is the sole reason we are in this mess is to not understand the most important factors. 

That's a George Zimmerman "self defense" claim.

paulsurovell said:

I've posted this before, but since you've apparently forgotten, here's the link to the report in Foreign Affairs by Fiona Hill and Angela Stent on the tentative deal reached by Russia and Ukraine in April 2022 (see screenshot below):

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/world-putin-wants-fiona-hill-angela-stent?utm_campaign=tw_daily_soc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter_posts

And here's the link to Ukrainska Pravda for Boris Johnson's visit to Ukraine to scuttle the deal (screenshot below):

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/

And finally, for the umpteenth time, Russia never tried to block NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. However, for 30 years it has warned that NATO expansion into Ukraine was considered an existential threat and implied it would go to war to stop it.

The Fiona HIll report has nothing to do with the speculation about Boris Johnson.  It's misused as a way to imply that there's any substance behind the report that there was a deal that Johnson scuttled.

The theory that there was a deal is a hypothetical, and not even the best one that could be drawn from the available evidence.

Now, while Paul writes that Russia "warned that NATO expansion into Ukraine was considered an existential threat and implied it would go to war to stop it", under the deal being discussed in the Spring, "Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and in return receive security guarantees from a number of countries."

Putin didn't put a deal like that "on the table" when he made the choice to invade.  That's a strong indication that he had other reasons for invading.

paulsurovell said:

The US and NATO bear responsibility for the invasion and for the failure of a compromise negotiated settlement in April (see my last post). An anti-war stance should be based on the truth, not on Western government war propaganda.

There are no facts which support the claim that the US and NATO bear responsibility for the invasion.

(See my last post)

paulsurovell said:

I've posted this before, but since you've apparently forgotten, here's the link to the report in Foreign Affairs by Fiona Hill and Angela Stent on the tentative deal reached by Russia and Ukraine in April 2022 (see screenshot below):

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/world-putin-wants-fiona-hill-angela-stent?utm_campaign=tw_daily_soc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter_posts

And here's the link to Ukrainska Pravda for Boris Johnson's visit to Ukraine to scuttle the deal (screenshot below):

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/

And finally, for the umpteenth time, Russia never tried to block NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. However, for 30 years it has warned that NATO expansion into Ukraine was considered an existential threat and implied it would go to war to stop it.

I'm afraid it's you who are being forgetful, as my post you are replying to was referencing my earlier post which was explicitly addressing that supposed tentative agreement. 

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/what-does-putin-want-and-whatbout-it?page=next&limit=5850#discussion-replies-3594623

You did not reply to the substance of that post, simply dismissed it as being an example of "the West's False Narrative about Russia", which I confess was a disappointing reply from you -- I expect that from Nan, but usually you're better at actually engaging with substance rather than simply hoping that by repeating things you'll make them true.

But hope springs eternal -- I'll repost, and perhaps this time around you'll actually have something substantive to say. (hint -- it'll be more convincing the more you cite facts rather than interpretation. For instance, in my timeline Johnson clearly arrives after the hopes for a deal are fizzling out; a stronger argument from you would show that timeline to be wrong. Or, perhaps there's some actual words from Putin supporting the apparent deal -- I find Putin's silence significant, so if you have reporting of Putin actually weighing in that would counter my argument to some degree).

---

Any deal was tentative indeed.

On March 29, NYT reported that Peace Talks Produce Signs of Progress, but No End to War Is in Sight

The offer to declare a permanent neutral status, Ukrainian officials in Istanbul said, means it would neither join the NATO alliance nor host foreign troops — a scenario that Mr. Putin used as one of the justifications for his invasion.

Ukrainian officials envision an arrangement in which a diverse group of countries — potentially including the United States, Germany, Turkey and China — would commit, if Ukraine were attacked, to providing it with military assistance and to imposing a no-fly zone if necessary. It was not clear that any of those countries had signed on to such guarantees

...

Ukraine also signaled readiness to consider concessions related to the parts of its territory already occupied by Russia. It proposed a 15-year negotiating process for Crimea, the Ukrainian peninsula seized by Russia in 2014, and said it was ready to rule out trying to retake it by force. Questions surrounding the eastern Donbas region, Ukrainian officials said, could be discussed at a possible meeting between Mr. Putin and Mr. Zelensky.

Was Russia open to signing an agreement where the United States would impose and enforce a no-fly-zone against Russia should it attack Ukraine? And how seriously was Russia taking the proposal to discuss the status of the eastern Donbas, while at that very moment it was preparing for its large assault on the region?

And what did Putin -- the only one on the Russian side who actually matters for any negotiations, think about all this?

Mr. Putin himself has not commented on what the Kremlin calls a “special military operation” in Ukraine since March 18. Tatiana Stanovaya, founder of the France-based political analysis firm R. Politik, noted that much of what Ukraine proposed on Tuesday would be a nonstarter for Mr. Putin, such as the idea that there would be a 15-year negotiating process about the status of Crimea — something that Mr. Putin, who annexed the Ukrainian peninsula in 2014, says is nonnegotiable.

Not just Putin -- the mood in Moscow generally didn't seem particularly enthused with the idea of peace:

The positive language from the negotiators clashed markedly with hard-line rhetoric coming out of Moscow, where supporters of the war decried Mr. Medinsky’s diplomacy as bordering on traitorous.

...

And Mr. Peskov, the Kremlin’s spokesman, was far more cautious than Mr. Medinsky in his comments earlier Wednesday. He said that Ukraine’s willingness to put some proposals in writing was a “positive factor,” but that there was little progress to report otherwise.

“We do not see anything very promising or any breakthroughs,” Mr. Peskov told reporters. “Very, very long work is ahead.”

On April 3, the atrocities in Bucha came to light. That clearly made it far more difficult for Ukraine, which unlike Putin has to actually sell any agreement to its voting public, to continue negotiating.

Johnson doesn't arrive until April 9. In your telling he single handedly stops any agreement, but what exactly had Russia offered in return? We saw Ukraine offering concessions. The Russian negotiator was hopeful, but nothing from Putin giving grounds for such hope.

When one considers the months long attempt at diplomacy with Russia before its invasion, and how it turned out Putin was never serious about negotiations at all but merely buying time, that further undermines the idea that Russia was on the verge of agreeing to anything at the beginning of April.

It's a pleasant little fantasy that Russia is now, or ever was, interested in peace, but none of their actions support such a dream.

nohero said:

There are no facts which support the claim that the US and NATO bear responsibility for the invasion.

(See my last post)

Everything being the fault of the US/NATO is a viewpoint that makes the world neat and tidy, but the real world is far messier with harder questions.

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/what-does-putin-want-and-whatbout-it?page=next&limit=6390#discussion-replies-3596790

Fiona Hill's thoughts on Paz and Zaz...

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/28/world-war-iii-already-there-00012340

Fiona Hill: Putin is usually more cynical and calculated than he came across in his most recent speeches. There’s evident visceral emotion in things that he said in the past few weeks justifying the war in Ukraine. The pretext is completely flimsy and almost nonsensical for anybody who’s not in the echo chamber or the bubble of propaganda in Russia itself. I mean, demanding to the Ukrainian military that they essentially overthrow their own government or lay down their arms and surrender because they are being commanded by a bunch of drug-addled Nazi fascists? There’s just no sense to that. It beggars the imagination.

Looks like there's an urgency for referendums now in the LPR:

https://ria.ru/20220919/lnr-1817912316.html

Andrey Turchak , Secretary of the General Council of United Russia , reported to RIA Novosti that the liberated territories of the LPR and DPR, as well as the Kherson region , will become part of Russia . The same applies to the Zaporizhzhia region , where a referendum should be held as soon as the situation allows.

Ukraine has become a terrorist state:

https://ria.ru/20220919/ukraina-1817684563.html

The other day, the VSE officers took away from Kupyansk a whole group of students from Sri Lanka. Well, we all know how the local Nazis treat black people. What will happen to these students? Aren't they being used to organize another bloody fake like the one that was concocted in Bucha ?