Russia and Ukraine Came to Peace Terms in April... Then Boris Johnson Intervened.
Of all people, it was Fiona Hill who revealed the details.
Fiona Hill – the shrill, Trump impeachment witness, alongside World Economic Forum grandee Angela Stent – gave something rather inconvenient away in their latest article for Foreign Affairs magazine. I have archived it here, for the non-subscribers like me.
Entitled “The World Putin Wants,” the pair of neoliberal regime bootlickers somehow manage to spend around 5,000 words introducing little new to the conversation about Russia and Ukraine, and predictably leaving critical context out of what is predominantly a “Russian man bad” argument.
Examples of this include:
Referring to 14,000 deaths in Donbas without indicating that these were predominantly pro-Russian deaths at the hands of Ukrainians;
Euphemizing the history of Neo-Nazi Stepan Bandera, claiming he simply “fought with the Germans against Soviet forces,” when in reality he was a key Hitler collaborator;
Incorrectly claiming Putin threatened to “fight to the last Ukrainian”. He actually said the West was prepared to fight to the last Ukrainian – a point that Hill and Stent have had to awkwardly correct since publication.
Keep reading below, free. But please drop me your e-mail for future updates.
These so-called “Russia experts” manage, however, to slip a bombshell revelation halfway into their article. A revelation that should make aghast everyone suffering the gas price rises and food shortages the globalists blame on Vladimir Putin. They claim:
“According to multiple former senior U.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
Sounds like there was nearly a peace. And unless you’re a lobbyist for a major defense contractor, peace is good, right? As I wrote in my Newsweek article in January: “To reach what everyone wants, the answer is more elegant than war. The answer is to pursue peace and diplomacy with the end goal of bringing Russia to the table and using her as a bulwark against China.”
To stress the point: the aforementioned negotiated settlement would have seen Russia withdraw to its February 23rd position i.e. out of Ukraine entirely.
Instead, while Ukraine has gained some territory back in the north, the nation is now almost entirely cut off from the Black Sea in the south:
So what happened in April that stalled the peace?
Enter Boris Johnson, outgoing buffoon of a Prime Minister potentially better described as, in fact, a lobbyist for major defense contractors. Perhaps he is perfectly described as first lady to his wife Carrie Symonds – a meddling, unaccountable operative at the heart of the British government, as I have previously discussed at length.
It is Symonds's climate change obsession that has landed Britons with hefty energy bills in 2022 (far worse than those experienced across the Atlantic Ocean). Symonds demanded her husband pursue a “net zero” carbon policy which has led to energy shortages and price gouging. “Putin’s tax hike” actually belongs to Symonds. And her approach to foreign affairs has fared no better.
A graduate of the Clinton Global Initiative’s Oceana project, Symonds pushed Johnson to a full-throated defense of Ukraine, even when his premiership was on the rocks. She figured her husband acting the statesman on the ground in Kiev would shore up his position in the United Kingdom. Having known her personally, she was always this poorly calculating and naive. Boris would be removed from office a few short months later.
But it was the April 9th trip in particular that may have scuttled the peace negotiations, as Johnson pledged 120 new, armored vehicles alongside anti-ship missile systems.
“This is in addition to the £100 million worth of high-grade military equipment announced yesterday, including more Starstreak anti-aircraft missiles, another 800 anti-tank missiles, and high-tech loitering munitions for precision strikes,” the government’s press release announced.
“The Prime Minister also confirmed further economic support, guaranteeing an additional $500m [£385m] in World Bank lending to Ukraine, taking our total loan guarantee to up to $1 billion. This comes alongside the £394m the UK has provided in grant aid, and will help ensure the continued running of vital humanitarian services for Ukrainians.”
In one fell swoop, the British Prime Minister kept the war going.
Think of the costs since April. They say Russia is spending $900 million per day. The United States has pledged around $55 billion of its citizens’ money, and that number will doubtlessly rise over the next few months. And these numbers don’t even take into account the economic impact the war is having across the globe. Lest we forget, tens of thousands of people are also dead as a result of the conflict. Every death and penny spent since should be lumped at Boris Johnson’s door.
And none of this is to say “Putin was right,” for the zero-sum, Ukraine-flag-in-bio Twitter commentators who may end up in the comments section below.
My position on Euromaidan, having been there at the time, and the provocations persistently made by the European Union, NATO, and others are well documented.
This doesn’t “excuse” a war. It is in fact possible to hold a neutral, realist position, especially when the West’s perspective is hardly rooted in morality.
Philosophically, we should be far more inclined to adopt a pro-Western, jingoistic position in Ukraine’s favor if our national interests weren’t currently best represented by the transgender flag. But this is the world they have made, and these are the choices we are presented.
In such circumstances the very best we can do is be conscientious objectors. The hippy peaceniks of our time. While Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (yes, really), Joseph Robinette Biden (also, really), and the evil comic-book character-named Ursula von der Leyen pursue their “Great Reset” through the apparatus of a civilization-ending conflict.
The worse, I fear, is yet to come.
Natalie Winters contributed research.