Confirmation the West vetoed Ukraine peace deal

Summary

El guion del video revela una discusión sobre las negociaciones de paz entre Ucrania y Rusia, durante las cuales se sugiere que el ex primer ministro británico, Boris Johnson, intervino para evitar un acuerdo. Se menciona que Victoria Nuland, una alta funcionaria estadounidense, confirmó que hubo discusiones de paz, pero que se desistió debido a las condiciones impuestas por Rusia que limitarían la capacidad militar de Ucrania. La narrativa cuestiona las justificaciones dadas para no firmar el acuerdo y critica la postura de Estados Unidos y Reino Unido de permitir que Ucrania sea utilizada para amenazar a Rusia con sistemas de armas avanzados.

Takeaways

• 😐 La posibilidad de un acuerdo de paz entre Ucrania y Rusia se discutió durante meses, pero finalmente no se materializó debido a la intervención de figuras políticas como el ex primer ministro británico Boris Johnson.
• 🗣️ El ex primer ministro israelí Naftali Bennett y el representante ucraniano Arami confirmaron la cercanía a un acuerdo y la influencia de Johnson en la decisión de no firmar.
• 🔍 Se revela que el presidente ruso Putin tenía como principal condición la neutralidad de Ucrania y limitaciones en los sistemas de armas que podría tener este país después de un acuerdo.
• 🚫 No había restricciones similares para Rusia, lo que llevó a cuestionamientos sobre la equidad del acuerdo y a su eventual desintegración.
• 🌐 El bloqueo del acuerdo por parte de Occidente se justifica en la necesidad de preservar la capacidad de Ucrania para albergar sistemas de armas estadounidenses cerca de las fronteras rusas.
• 🗣️ Se cuestiona la narrativa propagada por medios y figuras políticas que descartan la posibilidad de un acuerdo de paz y la implicación de Estados Unidos en la prevención de dicho acuerdo.
• 🔥 La admisión de Victoria Nuland, una alta funcionaria estadounidense, refuerza la teoría de que Estados Unidos bloqueó el acuerdo por intereses estratégicos y militares.
• 🛡️ Existe un debate sobre la provisión de sistemas de armas avanzados a Ucrania, con preocupaciones sobre su mantenimiento y la estrategia detrás de su uso.
• ✈️ Se sugiere que Estados Unidos podría estar considerando la autorización de ataques de larga distancia con armas estadounidenses dentro de Rusia, lo que podría escalar la tensión y el conflicto.
• 🏛️ La neutralidad de Ucrania, un punto clave en las negociaciones, es vista como una solución viable para evitar conflictos futuros y respetar los derechos de sus ciudadanos rusohablantes.

Q & A

¿Qué confirmación se hace sobre las discusiones de paz entre Ucrania y Rusia según Victoria Nuland?

Victoria Nuland confirma que hubo discusiones de paz cercanas a una conclusión satisfactoria, pero que no se materializaron debido a la intervención del entonces Primer Ministro británico, Boris Johnson.

¿Qué reveló el ex Primer Ministro israelí Nala Benet sobre las negociaciones de paz?

Nala Benet afirmó que estaban cerca de un acuerdo de paz, pero que Boris Johnson intervino para evitar que los ucranianos firmaran el acuerdo.

¿Cuál fue la condición clave de Rusia en las negociaciones de paz según el guion?

La condición clave de Rusia era que Ucrania se limitara en los tipos de sistemas de armas que podría tener después de la firma del acuerdo, lo que basicamente neutralizaría a Ucrania como fuerza militar.

¿Por qué se cuestionó el acuerdo de paz dentro y fuera de Ucrania?

Se cuestionó el acuerdo porque no había restricciones similares para Rusia, como retirarse, tener una zona de amortiguamiento o limitaciones en su fuerza militar frente a Ucrania.

¿Qué argumentos se usaron inicialmente para justificar la negativa del acuerdo de paz?

Inicialmente, se argumentó que la negativa se debía a las presuntas atrocidades rusas en Buca y la indignación de Ucrania por no poder hacer paz con Rusia bajo esas circunstancias.

¿Cómo respondió Zalinski a las presuntas atrocidades en Buca y su relación con la paz?

Zalinski afirmó que, a pesar de las presuntas atrocidades, era aún más importante alcanzar la paz para prevenir más atrocidades.

¿Qué reveló la publicación de un borrador de un tratado de paz entre Ucrania y Rusia en The New York Times?

El borrador reveló que Rusia había querido incluir una cláusula que permitiría a Rusia invadir Ucrania cuando quisiera, lo que fue utilizado como una excusa para no firmar el tratado.

¿Qué cambio se observa en la narrativa con la declaración de Victoria Nuland sobre las negociaciones de paz?

Victoria Nuland admite que Estados Unidos bloqueó el tratado porque quería preservar el derecho de Ucrania para albergar sistemas de armas avanzadas de Estados Unidos en su territorio.

¿Qué implicaciones tiene la decisión de Estados Unidos de no permitir que Ucrania declare su neutralidad?

La decisión de Estados Unidos de no permitir la neutralidad de Ucrania implica que se busca preservar la capacidad de Ucrania para amenazar a Rusia con sistemas de armas estadounidenses.

¿Qué pasos se siguen después de que Estados Unidos inicialmente descarta ciertas opciones militares para Ucrania?

Después de que Estados Unidos inicialmente descarte opciones como ataques directos o municiones de clúster, se sigue un patrón donde Tony Blinken indica que están considerando esas opciones y eventualmente se autorizan.

¿Qué sugiere la declaración de Tony Blinken sobre la posibilidad de autorizar ataques de larga distancia con armas estadounidenses a Ucrania?

La declaración de Tony Blinken sugiere que está considerando la autorización de ataques de larga distancia con armas estadounidenses a Ucrania, lo que podría ser un paso adicional en la escalada de la guerra.

Outlines

00:00

😥 Interferencia en las negociaciones de paz entre Ucrania y Rusia

Este párrafo describe las discusiones de paz que tuvieron lugar entre Ucrania y Rusia, y cómo la interferencia de Boris Johnson, según la narrativa, impidió que se firmara un acuerdo. Se menciona que Victoria Nuland confirmó que hubo intentos de paz, pero que la condición clave de Rusia, limitar el tipo de sistemas de armas que Ucrania podría tener después del acuerdo, resultaría en la neutralización militar de Ucrania. Además, no había restricciones similares para Rusia. La narrativa cuestiona la legitimidad de la interferencia y el motivo detrás de la oposición a un posible acuerdo de paz.

05:02

🔍 La verdad detrás de la oposición a un tratado de paz

Este párrafo explora las razones detrás de la oposición a un tratado de paz, según la perspectiva de Victoria Nuland. Se argumenta que la oposición no se debió a atrocidades cometidas por Rusia, sino a la demanda de Rusia de limitar los sistemas de armas en Ucrania, lo que permitiría a Ucrania ser utilizada como plataforma para amenazar a Rusia con sistemas de armas estadounidenses. La narrativa critica la actitud de los Estados Unidos y Reino Unido de querer preservar el derecho de Ucrania para albergar sistemas de armas avanzados, y cómo esto ha llevado a la prolongación del conflicto.

10:03

🚀 Autorización de ataques a largo alcance a Ucrania

Este párrafo habla sobre la posibilidad de que Estados Unidos autorice a Ucrania realizar ataques a largo alcance con sistemas de armas estadounidenses. Se menciona que la aprobación de tales ataques seguiría un patrón previo de rechazo inicial seguido por autorización. Además, se discute la ironía de que Estados Unidos use la acusación de que Irán ha enviado misiles a Rusia como justificación para enviar armas de largo alcance a Ucrania, mientras que Estados Unidos es el principal proveedor de armas a larga distancia. La narrativa critica la decisión de prolongar el conflicto y la sacrificación de vidas ucranianas para mantener la capacidad de amenazar a Rusia con sistemas de armas avanzados.

Keywords

💡peace deal

Un 'peace deal' es un acuerdo entre dos o más partes en conflicto para poner fin a la hostilidad y establecer condiciones para la paz y la reconciliación. En el vídeo, se discute cómo se habló de un posible acuerdo de paz entre Ucrania y Rusia, pero se sugiere que la intervención de terceros, como el Reino Unido y los Estados Unidos, impidió que se firmara. El término se relaciona directamente con el tema central del vídeo, que es la búsqueda de la paz y las negociaciones fallidas.

💡Victoria Nuland

Victoria Nuland es una funcionaria estadounidense que ha desempeñado varios roles en la política exterior de EE. UU. En el guion, se menciona que Nuland confirmó la cercanía de un acuerdo de paz y luego se detalla cómo se desmanteló. Su nombre se relaciona con la narrativa del vídeo sobre la influencia de EE. UU. en los esfuerzos de paz en Ucrania.

💡Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson, anteriormente Primer Ministro del Reino Unido, se menciona en el vídeo como una figura clave que interferió en las negociaciones de paz entre Ucrania y Rusia. Se sugiere que su intervención ayudó a detener un posible acuerdo. El término está relacionado con la crítica al papel de Occidente en la política de seguridad de Ucrania.

💡Putin

Vladimir Putin, el Presidente de Rusia, se menciona en el contexto de las negociaciones de paz y las condiciones que Rusia ponía en la mesa. El vídeo sugiere que las demandas de Rusia eran razonables y centradas en la neutralidad de Ucrania. El término 'Putin' se vincula con la postura de Rusia en el conflicto y las acusaciones de que buscaba imponer condiciones que limitaran la soberanía ucraniana.

💡neutrality

La 'neutralidad' se refiere a la posición de un país de no alinearse con ninguna potencia o bloque político-militar. En el vídeo, se discute cómo la neutralidad de Ucrania era una demanda clave de Rusia en las negociaciones y cómo la oposición a esta neutralidad podría haber contribuido a la colusión del acuerdo. Este concepto es central para entender las aspiraciones de Rusia y las tensiones en el conflicto.

💡The Gray Zone

The Gray Zone parece ser una plataforma o programa que ha estado siguiendo y discutiendo el potencial acuerdo de paz desde el principio. En el vídeo, se menciona cómo esta plataforma ha sido crítica de la narrativa occidental y ha sido desafiada por otras voces progresistas. El término representa un punto de vista alternativo en el debate sobre la guerra en Ucrania.

💡propaganda

La 'propaganda' se refiere a la difusión de información selectiva o distorsionada para influenciar las opiniones públicas o justificar acciones políticas. En el vídeo, se sugiere que la narrativa de que EE. UU. impidió un acuerdo de paz se desliza por debajo de la propaganda que sostiene la guerra como una lucha justa. El término se relaciona con la crítica a la manipulación de la información en el contexto del conflicto.

💡escalation

La 'escalada' hace referencia al aumento de la intensidad o gravedad de un conflicto. En el vídeo, se discute cómo las decisiones de suministrar armas a Ucrania y permitir ataques desde el territorio ucraniano a Rusia podrían ser una escalada en la guerra. Este término es crucial para entender las implicaciones de las acciones militares y políticas actuales.

💡long-range missile strikes

Los 'lanceamientos de misiles de largo alcance' son una capacidad militar que permite atacar objetivos a grandes distancias. En el vídeo, se menciona la posibilidad de que EE. UU. autorice a Ucrania realizar ataques de largo alcance con armas estadounidenses. Este término es relevante para discutir la escalada de la guerra y las consecuencias de proporcionar ciertos tipos de armas.

💡Zalinski

Volodimir Zelensky, a menudo referido simplemente como Zalinski en el guion, es el Presidente de Ucrania. Se sugiere que su administración estaba cerca de un acuerdo de paz antes de que terceros intervinieran. El término está relacionado con la crítica a la influencia externa en las decisiones de paz de Ucrania y la presión sobre su líder para continuar la guerra.

Highlights

Aaron discusses the possibility of a peace deal and the role of international figures in its potential collapse.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Nala Benet's account of peace negotiations being close to a successful end.

Ukrainian representative Arami's confirmation of advice from Boris Johnson to halt peace negotiations.

The revelation that Putin's main condition for a peace deal involved limiting Ukraine's military capabilities.

Critique of the narrative that the West did not interfere with peace talks between Ukraine and Russia.

Victoria Nuland's confirmation of Western involvement in the peace deal's failure.

The claim that Russia's main demand was Ukrainian neutrality, which was dismissed by Western powers.

Discussion on the propaganda narrative that sustains the proxy war and its impact on peace talks.

Analysis of the reasons behind the US blocking the peace deal, including the desire to maintain military presence near Russia's borders.

Criticism of the US and UK for prioritizing military strategy over a potential peace deal.

The admission by high-level officials that the US opposed the peace deal due to concerns over Ukraine's military limitations.

The implications of Ukraine's neutrality and the historical context of its relations with Russia.

Concerns over the escalation of the conflict and the potential for Ukraine to receive long-range missile strikes with US weapons.

The pattern of US officials initially ruling out certain military support and later authorizing it.

The irony of the US complaining about other countries sending weapons to Russia while it itself is a major supplier.

The potential authorization of long-range strikes by the US, signaling a significant escalation in the conflict.

The underlying reasons for the conflict, including the rights of ethnic Russians in Ukraine and the geopolitical dynamics.

Transcripts

Aaron there could have been a peace deal

there were certainly peace discussions

you've been talking about this for

months and months and

months and now you have confirmation

from none other than Victoria nuland

there was a story first told by former

Israeli Prime Minister Nal Benet that

start was a story first told by former

Israeli Prime Minister Nala Benet that

that boss siid were really close to the

end to the the successful end of the of

the negotiations and then prime minister

Boris Johnson interfered and

stopped uh ukrainians prevented

ukrainians from from signing signing the

deal and then uh Ukrainian

representative arami kind of confirmed

it that yes he said in in an interview

that there was some kind of advice from

Boris Johnson to uh to stop negotiating

and to win this war militarily where is

the myth where where is the truth

relatively late in the

game um the ukrainians began asking for

advice uh on where this thing was going

and it became clear to us uh clear to

the Brits clear to

others that Putin's main condition was

buried in an Annex uh to this document

that they were working on and it

included limits on the precise kinds of

Weapons Systems that Ukraine could have

after the deal such that Ukraine would

basically be neutered as a military

force and there were no similar

constraints on Russia Russia wasn't

required to pull back Russia wasn't

wasn't required to have a buffer zone

from the Ukrainian border wasn't

required to have the same constraints on

its military facing Ukraine um

and so uh people inside Ukraine and

people outside Ukraine started asking

questions about whether this was a good

deal and it was at that point that it

that it fell

apart people inside and people outside

yeah yeah this is an extraordinary

statement for many reasons first of all

this is not news to people who watch The

Gray Zone we've been talking about this

from the start uh and of course uh we

we've been attacked uh for saying that

the US stood in the way of a peace deal

people like Progressive proxy Warriors

like former Bernie Sanders adviser Matt

D has called us out for saying that the

US stood in the way of a peace deal and

mocked the idea that the US did some

Progressive Outlets have published

articles basically dismissing this as

basically as Russian disinformation um

here's Novara media Novar there we go

yeah no the West no the West didn't halt

Ukraine's peace talks with Russia okay

yeah um well I I doubt even Victoria

nulan confirming that actually the West

did Will get them to issue a retraction

because because the facts don't matter

listen we've had so many officials admit

this now uh the top Ukrainian negotiator

said that all Russia wanted was

basically Ukrainian neutrality that was

their main demand another Ukrainian

negotiator said that Russia made a very

real compromise he said Putin did

everything possible to make peace the

admissions of all these people does

nothing to put a dent in the propaganda

narrative because the claim that there

was a peace deal undermines The

Narrative needed to sustain the proxy

war so it just all this gets buried um

but what's so this is just more evidence

for those who uh didn't need it because

we all know that this was the truth but

anyway what I think is really

significant here is I do think for the

first time we've gotten a high level

official to admit the actual reason why

the deal didn't go through previously

we've gotten a bunch of excuses remember

when the deal first collapsed and then

news of it came out that Boris Johnson

came over and told zalinski not to reach

the deal uh with Russia the EXC we got

was that this was because of the alleged

Russian atrocities in bcha and Ukraine

was so upset that they had they could

not make peace with Russia who would

carry out such horrific crimes now

there's plenty of reasons to question

that argument uh namely the fact that

even after the alleged uh atrocities

Creed up by Russia emerged zalinsky said

himself this is all more reason why we

have to make peace is to prevent more

atrocities now I'm not even weighing in

on what actually happened in bcha not

something I've looked into and even if

for all true as zinski said the way to

prevent more atrocities is stopping the

war so that claim never really uh

withstood scrutiny um and then you had

another excuse which emerged recently

which this was in the New York Times

article that came out uh recently which

for the first time actually published a

draft of a Ukrainian Russian peace

treaty it was very detailed and the

excuse we got then was that Russia tried

to insert a clause at the last minute

that would basically allow Russia to

insert to invade Ukraine at will and as

we've talked about before here on the

gry zone and I've written about that

also doesn't withstand scrutiny because

the whole deal was premised on uh peace

and no country being allowed to invade

Ukraine and basically Ukraine uh

Ukrainian officials and proxy Warriors

basically took some language that Russia

wanted about a joint consensus on how to

respond to Future aggression and they

tried to paint that as Putin trying to

sneak in some clouds about being able to

invade Ukraine but it just as we've

discussed that also didn't hold well now

we get Newan saying a brand new thing

notice how she doesn't mention bua she

doesn't mention this clause about Russia

being able to invade Ukraine she said

it's because Russia wanted limits on

what weapon systems could be placed in

Ukraine

no yes so you mean that you that Russia

after seeing Ukraine go through a coup

in which the US helped overthrow a

government calling for neutrality uh and

seeing that um there were that coup

government uh had a war on the donbas

because they didn't want to respect the

autonomous rights of ethnic Russian

ukrainians there after all this Russia

didn't want to have Ukraine basically

hosting Advanced us weapon systems right

on its borders uh so that's basically

Newan admitting that the US blocked this

treaty or opposed it because they want

to preserve the right of Ukraine to

basically be used to threaten Russia

with us weapon systems so I think

actually we're getting refreshingly for

the first time a candid admission as to

why the US blocked this deal what also

shows how she ex exists with within this

politically hermetic chamber where

there's no understanding of why anyone

would see any problem with placing heavy

weapons

yeah brought there from thousands of

miles away on a powerful country's

border to threaten that country yeah I

mean she doesn't she she she thought she

was like actually just laying to rest

why anyone would think that that peace

deal might have been a legitimate decent

offer because the thing that no one in

Washington or especially London or

Brussels in the realm of Queen Ursula

vand will accept is that Ukraine should

be neutral is that ukrainians had it

better when they were neutral uh and

they that that means they also can't

accept the internal dynamics of

Ukraine Sergey

lavro foreign minister of Russia

recently said that this is isn't about

territory it's not about us and our

desire to have territory it's about the

abreg of the rights of some 35% of

ukrainians who speak Russia who had

their rights completely erased after the

maidon coup which is correct and you can

see like what what's been happening

there Russian language stripped as an

official language not taught in schools

anymore the worship of Bandera the uh

jailing of Russians speaking critics of

the of the government The Disappearance

of hundreds of them hundreds of Human

Rights activist from the donbass just

killings of people across the donbass

all of that is not respected as a

grievance by Victoria Newland or anyone

in Washington I don't even think there's

an understanding of it um and so a war

is taking place to bring things back to

that point and it never will

and all we hear are calls for

escalation and it looks like uh Ukraine

actually will likely get its latest

request uh from the Biden Administration

which is for long range missile strikes

with us weapons into Russia it's not

simply saying oh should they have this

weapon system or that weapon system

there are a lot of things that go into

it do they know how to use it and some

of these sophisticated systems take

training and that's one of the other

things we've done can they they maintain

it because if you give them something

that falls apart in seven days because

it can't be maintained that doesn't do a

lot of good and then is it part of a

coherent strategy to achieve a very

clear objective all of those things have

to go into these decisions but what I

can tell you is we've adapted and

adjusted every step along the way we'll

continue to do that so not ruling out at

this stage we we don't we never rule out

but when we when we rule in we want to

make sure it's it's it's done in such a

way that it can advance what the

ukrainians are trying to

achieve uh how do you interpret that and

by the way I got a hard stop in about

two or three minutes okay well this is

follows the pattern first the US

actually does rule out certain steps

they did rule out attack thems they did

rule out cluster Munitions they did rule

out letting Ukraine use Us weapons to

strike across the border and every time

this is always the pattern Tony blank

comes along and says actually okay we're

not ruling it out now we're considering

it and then it gets authorized so this

is the latest step in the escalation lad

so if we're going by established pattern

so far I think this is Blink and

signaling that yes this permission will

be granted to Ukraine for long range

strikes and there's a quote circulating

from Mike McCall the chair of the house

Foreign Affairs committee saying that

blinkin told him that he's going to give

this authorization so I mean we'll see I

mean like you never know but uh if we're

going by established pattern I think

it's there there's a lot of reasons to

think that actually yes Biden is going

to authorize or whoever is making the

decision is going to authorize this step

I shouldn't say Biden anymore because

who knows knows what he's actually doing

and you know the irony they're

using allegations that Iran has sent uh

exported ballistic missiles to Russia as

justification for sending long-range

weapons to the ukrainians which can

strike Moscow Iran has denied this I

don't know what the case is but it's

it's so funny to hear the US complain

about North Korea or Iran uh sending

weapons to Russia when the US is the

like just so far outpaces anyone in

shipping weapons thousands of miles

away yeah well and the fact that that

allegation is being made that's a pretty

good sign that that as as you say will

be used as a pretext to let Ukraine uh

launch these long range strikes it's

just unbelievable especially in light of

Nan's admission that all this could have

been avoided had the US and UK just let

its client in keev reach a peace deal

that it negotiated itself with Russia

which was pretty simple one it was to

for Ukraine to declare neutrality which

is not a radical demand it was enshrined

in Ukraine's founding Constitution uh in

exchange Russia would withdraw to the

pre-invasion lines uh the status of

Crimea and donbas would be worked out

directly between Putin and zalinski and

especially given that you have many

elements of the alter nationalist

movement inside Ukraine who don't even

want the donbas because it has all these

ethic Russians who want to speak Russian

and want closer ties with Russia I mean

like the fact that the us basically

ordered zinsky to continue this war and

sacrifice his country how many hundreds

of thousands of people have died just so

Victoria Nan can sit there with a smirk

on her face now and say what a wonderful

thing it is that we block this deal

because it would have prevented Ukraine

from hosting advanc us weapon systems

inside its territory it's uh it's

unbelievable it's unbelievable and this

is why Dick Cheney is supporting the

Democrats this is why the McCain family

whose McCain Institute has actually

cashed in on Ron sales of Javelin

missiles to

Ukraine this is supporting kamla Harris

this is why the neocons have come home

to the Democratic party this is why

[Music]