> Russia's negotiations to end the war started on literally day 2. And they involved absolutely no land concessions or anything like that
You've been there, right?
And do you know the meaning of the word "literally"?
Jeez, you russian clowns.
You've been there, right?
And do you know the meaning of the word "literally"?
Jeez, you russian clowns.
There's a somewhat reasonable timeline of the talks themselves, til their end here. [1] But the NYTimes is being a bit disingenuous. The early talks called for the recognition of the independence of Donbas, but under Ukraine. The contested regions were to be given a special status, probably akin to something like Chechnya under Russia or perhaps Puerto Rico under the US. So Ukraine would control these regions, but simultaneously they'd have a significant degree of autonomy and independence. In any case, by March even this issue had been withdrawn.
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/15/world/europe/...
> Then Ukraine chose to abruptly end the talks following the intervention of the West, allegedly Boris John in particular.
David Arkhamia said that after the Bucha massacre was uncovered, western governments stopped pressuring Ukraine into halting the war at any cost (including surrender). This was Boris Johnson's message too.
Russian propaganda put a spin on it, misrepresenting the "reduction of western pressure on Ukraine to surrender" as "western pressure on Ukraine to fight". This supports the overall propaganda narrative that Ukraine is resisting the Russian invasion only because they are forced to by foreign governments, and not because they want to be free, independent and, not live under the Russian boot.
That's all the substance there is behind this "Boris Johnson forced Ukraine to fight" story.