In a scaled-back formulation of its war goals, Russia said on Friday that the first phase of its military operation was mostly complete and it would focus on completely "liberating" Ukraine's breakaway eastern Donbass region.
How do you differentiate what should be taken seriously in that speech (or any of Putin’s public comments), when half of it is blatant lying? E.g. (all emphases mine)
The point here is that he said the same thing that’s being said now. So, clearly there hasn’t been a change in position. If anything, the position hardened with Rudskoi saying that they were not considering storming cities previously, but now that’s on the table.
Not to mention that this very speech includes elements that explicitly claim Putin’s position to be way larger that what you’re claiming. For instance
That’s literally been the position all along.
Yes. We should understand that Ukraine being in NATO would mean that Russia could not attack it any more. In accordance to North Atlantic Treaty, members don’t have to support a country in the event of a military conflict, but more specifically in the event that somebody attacks them. Like Russia has so plainly done.
Thing is that Ukraine was never going to be admitted to NATO as Zelensky admitted recently being plainly told in private. The west led Ukraine up the garden path and left them to hang when things finally escalated into an open war. Plenty of western experts have said that admitting Ukraine into NATO would be a red line for Russia since the 90s. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
deleted by creator
The point here is that he said the same thing that’s being said now. So, clearly there hasn’t been a change in position. If anything, the position hardened with Rudskoi saying that they were not considering storming cities previously, but now that’s on the table.
That’s literally been the position all along.
Thing is that Ukraine was never going to be admitted to NATO as Zelensky admitted recently being plainly told in private. The west led Ukraine up the garden path and left them to hang when things finally escalated into an open war. Plenty of western experts have said that admitting Ukraine into NATO would be a red line for Russia since the 90s. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Academics, such as John Mearsheimer, gave talks explaining why NATO actions would ultimately lead to conflict this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.