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)
Incidentally, this is further proof of what I have said – that we are dealing not with ordinary radicals but with neo-Nazis. Our people can freely express their opinions of what they like or do not like about our actions in Ukraine.
Only professional servicemen – officers and contract soldiers – are taking part in this operation. There are no conscripts, and we are not planning to get them involved.
They called us from the government, from Kiev and spoke with our military: “Provide humanitarian corridors so that people can leave.” Of course, our people responded instantly and even suspended hostilities.
We note the presence of militants from the Middle East and some European countries there. We know about them, we hear them in the air. They are using so-called Jihad mobiles – they stuff cars with explosives and drive them towards the troops.
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
Therefore, one of our key demands is demilitarisation. In other words, we are helping people, residents of Donbass to achieve a neutral status and demilitarisation of the country because we must understand clearly what weapons are there, where they are deployed and who controls them.
And then this gem, the biggest lie of all:
It has been getting worse lately. Suddenly, there has been renewed talk about admitting Ukraine to NATO. Actually, it has been on for a long time, but has intensified lately. Do you understand what this could lead to or even can still lead to? If Ukraine is a NATO country, then in accordance with the North Atlantic Treaty, all other members must support that country in the event of a military conflict.
No one is recognising Crimea as a part of Russia, except for you and me. They carry out military operations in Donbass, and they will also move into Crimea, and we will have to fight with the entire NATO organisation. Do you see what that means?
Are the consequences clear enough? I think that everyone understands.
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.
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.
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)
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
And then this gem, the biggest lie of all:
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.
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.