Daniel Davis in his most recent podcast moots the possibility that Ukraine is engaged in a complex operation. [1] They have gone along with or even persuaded the US negotiators to propose this 30 day ceasefire but, at the same time, by their large-scale drone attack on Moscow last night, which killed civilians, (side point; notice how the Western media is quick to accuse Russia of targeting civilians but somehow Zelensky gets a free pass when his drones hit apartment buildings and supermarkets), deliberately sabotaged any possibility of Moscow accepting it. This view, which is only mooted by Davis, not put forwards as a definite line, is, however, supported by Zelensky now saying that he expects “strong steps” in terms of more support for Ukraine and sanctions if Russia does not agree to the ceasefire. In other words; this was the idea all along. It is not the US stringing Moscow along, but Kiev stringing the US along. The whole thing is an operation to extract more support from the US. (I have always disagreed with the view that the US was driving Kiev. I have always thought that to some extent Kiev has been driving the US; see my last post about possible reasons why Western politicians might allow themselves to become avid supporters of a fascistic coup regime). You think this is unlikely? It is now accepted that the Nord Stream sabotage was a Ukrainian operation. That is how much the powers in Kiev care about the West. (Once they got as far as making the connection all the investigations e.g. by Sweden were abruptly shut down). Still; I am not asserting this either. Just raising it as a possibility.
The liberal media is going to work to create the necessary narrative around this ceasefire proposal. This is from the New York Times:
Still, the broader Ukrainian skepticism is informed by history: Russia violated two previous cease-fires, reached in 2014 and 2015, and denied an intention to invade just days before doing so in 2022. [2]
To which one can only reply “lying bastards”. They say this, despite one of the European sponsors of Minsk having since openly admitted/claimed that she signed it in bad faith in order to buy Ukraine time to arm. [3] This, must, of course, be the very real fear in Moscow now; what is being proposed is Minsk 3, and here we go again. Given the background drumbeat from Starmer and others about some kind of Euro-Ukraine “peacekeeping” army we can see why this “ceasefire” proposal might be treated cautiously by the Kremlin. During the Minsk period (which the New York Times manages to make ‘two’ out of) there was an OSCE monitoring mission along the line of contact in Ukraine. Though there was a certain amount of obfuscation by the OSCE monitoring mission, the evidence was, on balance clear; both sides were violating the ceasefire. [4] It may also be that there was a specific moment when Russia supported the rebels and thus contributed to the breakdown of Minsk 1. However; the main point about Minsk is that Kiev did nothing to implement the agreements. And, of course, the Western media simply ‘forgets’ the moment in 2019 when Zelensky did, as per his election promise, genuinely try to implement Minsk – only to be blocked by the Azov battalion. [5] In late 2021 politicians in Ukraine supported by the Western media and Western think-tanks [6], and at one point, I noticed the foreign minister of a Baltic country, were openly selling the line that “Minsk was agreed under fire so it doesn’t count”. This had the appearance of a coordinated Western intelligence operation. (The Integrity Initiative or similar). The testable historical reality is that while both sides were responsible for violations the wholescale refusal to implement the Minsk agreements falls entirely on the side of Kiev and even the German sponsor who, in the end, openly repudiated them! But the liberal media is of course shamelessly lying to their publics that the problem is that Russia can’t be trusted because it was Russia who violated the Minsk agreements. This lie is then used to “justify” the “porcupine Ukraine” strategy of Ursula von der Leyen and others.
As for “denied an intention to invade just days before doing so in 2022” – I could see this one coming. When the US attacked Iraq in 2003 we were told that their forces were in the region on a training exercise. There is nothing of note here. When countries carry out military operations/attacks/invasions they usually do something like this; a standard part of military operations. Do these journalists really believe that this somehow proves Russia’s special mendacity? I find that hard to believe, but maybe they have duped themselves. (As anyone who has ever need to lie knows if you want to be believed the first person you need to convince with the lie is yourself).
Over in the Guardian I saw the US podcaster “Judge Napolitano” described as a “far right blogger”. The Guardian is upset that he was granted an interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. They need to undermine this since talking to Russia has become a complete no-no. In fact Judge Napolitano is, in his political orientation, a US isolationist. He believes that the US should stay out of foreign wars altogether and focus on developments at home. Of course, for liberal interventionists, that is the ones responsible for a never-ending series of catastrophic failed democracy by bombing operations the world over, such a view is a heresy. The point here is that even listening to Russia has become a forbidden thing. And yet; I don’t suppose any conflict ever got resolved without at some point sincerely listening to the other side.
Notes
- https://podcast.ru/e/312k7yli_FR
- https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/world/europe/ukraine-russia-cease-fire-skepticism.html
- https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-russia-may-have-make-ukraine-deal-one-day-partners-cheated-past-2022-12-09/
- https://newobs.wordpress.com/2022/02/20/the-attacks-by-the-dnr-and-lnr-more-fake-news-in-the-guardian/ – follow the Craig Murray link as well
- More menacingly, several Ukrainian nationalist militias, including the Azov Battalion that was then fighting in the Luhansk region of Donbas, compromises necessary … they preferred to fight than give one centimetre.’ The threat of a nationalist Maidan implacably opposed to any kind of compromise with the Kremlin had destroyed Zelensky’s attempt to bring peace in 2019 – and would remain a major threat to any future negotiated peace in the endgame of the 2022 war”. Matthews, Owen. Overreach: The Inside Story of Putin and Russia’s War Against Ukraine (p. 149). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition.
- See: “The Minsk Protocol: a Menace to Ukraine’s Future” and “It was seven years ago that the Minsk Protocol was half-signed by Ukraine, at gunpoint. ” https://cepa.org/article/the-minsk-protocol-a-menace-to-ukraines-future/ Center for European Policy Analysis and: “In short, implementation of the Minsk Agreements would violate Ukrainian law and most probably provoke mass protests comparable with the Euromaidan of 2013–2014 …” https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/implementing-minsk-agreements-would-pose-russian-trojan-horse-ukraine-there-third-way Wilson Centre and “How Ukraine can escape the trap of the Minsk Protocols … In fact, the Minsk Agreements are illegitimate and, the documents were signed under duress and due to ongoing military aggression.” EuroMaidan Press : https://euromaidanpress.com/2021/09/13/how-ukraine-can-escape-the-trap-of-the-minsk-protocols-and-return-to-international-law/