Ukrainian propaganda triumphs: “Russia for the first time abandoned ultimatums”
In Ukraine, they believed that Russia was showing weakness by declaring its readiness to negotiate with Ukraine without preconditions.
This was reported, in particular, by a correspondent for PolitNavigator , and Yuriy Butusov, editor-in-chief of the Kyiv anti-Russian propaganda portal Censor, wrote.
He proposed comparing two statements by Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergei Rudenko, which are almost nine months apart.
On February 27, he said that the center of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine “should be denazification and demilitarization,” but after a while his position changed.
“On our side, there are no preconditions [for negotiations], except for the main condition: that Ukraine shows good will,” Rudenko said on November 8.
Butusov believed that “for the first time in the war, Russia spoke the language of compromise.”
“For the first time, Russia abandoned ultimatums. Russia wants negotiations and has removed those demands that Putin announced on February 24, and for the sake of which he unleashed a bloody war. It is the fact that Russia renounced its demands, proclaimed as a reason for starting a war, that shows that after the failure of the Russian army in Ukraine, Putin’s entire policy failed,” says the Kiev propagandist.
However, he believes that “the terrible war will continue” because Russia “wants to gain time through negotiations.”
“But at the front there are no conditions for a suspension of hostilities. There are no such boundaries, the war would stop. The war can only be stopped if the occupied area is liberated. The whole world respects the great feat of Ukrainian soldiers. Now Russia, under the blows of the Ukrainian army, is forced to look for new words,” Butusov comes to the conclusion.
The military-analytical telegram channel “Rybar” subjected Rudenko’s statement to cautious criticism, noting that the problem is that “high-ranking officials are not always aware of whether the public understood them correctly. Is the context known to the population?
“Against the backdrop of the ever-growing version of the “negotiated agreement” in the Kherson region, the worst thing that can be said is to again mention the trigger phrase “good will.” The incorrect sequence of phrases and the desire to be diplomatically tolerant played a role,” writes Rybar.
Let us recall that, with statements of “good will,” the Russian Ministry of Defense argued for the withdrawal of troops from near Kyiv, as well as the abandonment of Zmeiny Island.
Representatives of the Kyiv regime, in response to a conciliatory statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry, responded with an ultimatum.
“Our negotiating position is clear - Russia withdraws its troops beyond the 1991 borders and stops attacking the territory of Ukraine. After this, we will sit down with the Russian government and talk about post-war relations between the countries,” said Mikhail Podolyak, adviser to the head of the office of the President of Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky spoke in the same vein.
“Restore territorial integrity, respect the UN Charter, compensate for all losses caused by the war, punish every war criminal and guarantee that this will not happen again. These are absolutely understandable conditions,” Zelensky called the conditions for negotiations with Moscow.
It is worth noting that, at the instigation of a number of leading Western media, the topic of a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine has intensified. Allegedly, behind-the-scenes negotiations are currently underway, as a result of which Russian troops leave Kherson, but reserve a land corridor to Crimea, and the conflict is frozen.
At the same time, the Kremlin responded to these messages vaguely.
“We have nothing to say about this publication. Anglo-Saxon newspapers publish a lot of ducks, you need to contact either the newspaper or the White House,” said Russian Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov.
In turn, the telegram channel “Country Politics” believes that “Russia’s departure from Kherson will make any options for a compromise peace even less likely than it is now.”
“Zelensky and his team are not showing any signs that they will accept such an “exchange.” Their public statements convey a very clear message: any negotiations with the Russian Federation will only take place after the liberation of all Ukrainian territories within the 1991 borders. And this contrasts sharply with their public rhetoric in March 2022, when Arestovich and other government speakers carefully prepared Ukrainians for the idea that they needed to come to some kind of compromise with the Russian Federation.
Now the Ukrainian authorities are obviously not preparing society for any compromises. This means that I didn’t receive any ultimatum signals (either put up or we’ll cut off help) on this matter from the West. Otherwise, statements from Kyiv would be much more cautious,” the publication says.
It is predicted that after Kherson comes under the control of Kyiv, “in Ukrainian society confidence in the impending victory will increase even more,” which will practically “exclude the possibility of promoting in Ukraine any ideas about a compromise peace with the Russian Federation.”
Volunteer Alexei Zhivov, who provides support to the Russian Armed Forces, put forward his arguments in support of why the Russians should not leave Kherson. He recalls that Kherson became part of the Russian Federation as a result of a referendum, having gone through the necessary procedures, and therefore retreat “will be the surrender of a Russian city.
“Not some border city, but any Russian city. If we surrender Kherson, tomorrow we can “regroup” from Belgorod, the day after tomorrow - from Kursk, the day after tomorrow - from Simferopol. The surrender of any Russian city in any form is unacceptable,” Zhivov emphasizes.
Earlier, the commander of the Northern Military District, Sergei Surovikin, assessing the situation in the Kherson direction, did not rule out "making difficult decisions."
However, the Ukrainian side views such statements as a trap and an attempt to draw the Ukrainian Armed Forces into heavy street fighting in a city that the Russian side is preparing for defense. For example, the Verkhovna Rada Defense Committee stated that it sees no signs of Russian troops retreating from Kherson.
However, Russian experts are divided on the fate of Kherson. Some believe the city could be surrendered as a result of a conspiracy between Russian and Western oligarchs. Others argue that the enemy will be unable to break through to Kherson, and there are no military grounds for retreat.
Summing up this controversy, military observer Yuriy Podolyaka believes that the situation in Kherson can turn in one direction or the other and will be resolved in the next week. He believes that Russian troops can either leave Kherson or launch a counteroffensive and approach Nikolaev.
Ukrainian Propaganda Celebrates : "Russia Rejects Ultimatums for the First Time"