tbf, it wasn't
totally unsubstantiated.
The39thStep posted loads of links about the spring 2022 peace negotiations, which I did go through and read.
Having read them, my understanding is that:
As the initial invasion faltered, Kiev didn't fall as expected and Russian troops retreated, Russia did offer a peace deal.
The main points of the peace offer was that Russian troops would retreat to their positions before the Feb 2022 invasion (so keeping the post-2014 areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions); Ukraine would agree not to join NATO, would limit the size of its military and a few other things, like giving Russian and Ukrainian languages equal footing.
The negotiators and others quoted in the links (except Gerhard Schroeder, with his business links to Russia) felt that the offer was mainly to buy time for the Russian military to regroup before relaunching the invasion, so this meant the guarantees mattered, especially as with a newly limited military, Ukraine would be less able to defend itself.
Under the offer all guarantor states of the peace deal would have to unanimously agree to act. Russia wanted Belarus as their guarantor, who
just might have caused problems for a unanimous agreement. Ukraine specified Turkey as a guarantor. The US didn't want to be a guarantor as if, as expected, Russia did relaunch the invasion they would be expected to send US troops to directly fight Russian troops, something Biden wants to avoid.
After reaching this position, details of the Bucha massacre emerged, hardening Ukrainian attitudes, Western Governments offered support to Ukraine to enable them to fight (including Johnson bumbling into Kiev shouting
Fight! Feck! Gurls!, or whatever he said) and then Russia relaunched the invasion with more success in the south east and at that point the offer was dead on both sides.
It was an interesting delve into the peace negotiations, but there was nothing to suggest that it was a genuine attempt to end the war by Russia that was thrown in their face because of Western intervention.
So how did it come to be characterised as
Russia offered peace, but Johnson made them fight on?
I find it interesting how, from time to time, a new angle on How The West Are To Blame will surface. I previously had a dig into the 2021 US Ukraine Strategic Partnership, when that was supposed to be the cause of the war.
As with this, selective quoting, careful wording and a few missing key pieces of information did create the impression of something untoward, but a close look revealed it to be just a thing that happened rather than evidence of the West looking to make the war happen.
So how does this esoterica get turned into suggestions the West caused the war/wants it to continue? Where do those heavily edited videos in Tweets and specifically spun details come from? My suspicion is Russia.
'Russian Troll Farms' are so discussed they almost seem ridiculous, but they're real, most famously the Internet Research Agency, which ran between 2013 and 2023 (when it's founder Prigozhin had his unfortunate accident), which employed over 1000 people. They weren't the only one and the fake video of Danilov from last week shows there's still people out there doing the work.
It's completely sensible to try to look beyond the pro-Ukrainian view in the western media to gain a critical view of what's happening, but as soon as you look away from mainstream Western sources you find yourself presented with a pro-Russian version of events pumped out of Russia, looking to sow doubt, confusion and present a version of the world that is much more to the Russian state's taste. For those who are (quite rightly) critical of Western foreign policy it can be tempting to get sucked in. But its as important to look past the pro-Russian version of events as it is a simplistic pro-Ukrainian one, to try not to take sides, and just to try to understand what's going on.
I'd love to see peace as much as everyone else, but once war is unleashed it takes on its own logic and, whatever anyone wants, finding a way to make it stop is not easy. That's why starting wars is always a bad idea, whoever does it.
