Tuesday 7th of January 2025
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

provocative blinken's bullshit and half-truths....

Washington supplied “a lot of weapons”to Ukraine in the months before the hostilities between Moscow and Kiev began in February 2022, outgoing US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has admitted. [WE KNEW THIS].

The top diplomat made the remarks while speaking on the New York Times’ ‘The Interview’ podcast, aired on Saturday. The US saw the conflict between Russia and Ukraine “coming”and wanted to get Kiev “prepared” for it, according to Blinken. 

“Starting in September and then again in December, we quietly got a lot of weapons to Ukraine to make sure that they had in hand what they needed to defend themselves – things like Stingers, Javelins that they could use,” he said.

The weaponry has proven “instrumental” in “preventing Russia from taking Kiev,” as well as “rolling over the country, erasing it from the map,” Blinken asserted. 

[GUSNOTE: THIS IS BULLSHIT... NOTHING TO DO WITH "INSTRUMENTAL DEFENCES" AND BLINKEN WOULD KNOW THIS.

RUSSIA DID NOT TAKE KIEV BECAUSE OF AN AGREEMENT MADE DURING THE NEGOTIATION FOR PEACE IN APRIL 2022 THAT DEMANDED RUSSIAN TROOPS TO RETREAT BEFORE THE FINAL SIGNATURES, AFTER THE FINAL PEACE AGREEMENT HAD BEEN INITIALED BY THE DELEGATES.

THIS PEACE AGREEMENT GOT SCUTTLED BY BORIS JOHNSON WHO TOLD ZELENSKY NOT TO SIGN ANYTHING, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICANS.

LIKE THE MINSK AGREEMENTS, THE WEST WAS BULLSHITTING PUTIN — AND WE THINK HE KNEW THAT... SO, THE RUSSIANS HAD TO WIN ON THE BATTLEFIELD... AND THEY ARE... WITH UKRAINE LOSING FAR-FAR MORE THAN SHOULD IT HAD STUCK TO THE 2022 AGREEMENT...]

The intentions ascribed to Moscow by the top US diplomat, however, sharply contrast with the goals of the military operation repeatedly articulated by Russia’s leadership. The original aims included demilitarization and denazification of the country, as well as Kiev accepting a neutral status and abandoning its aspirations to join NATO. 

Over time, the list was somewhat expanded in the wake of the incorporation of the four formerly Ukrainian regions of Kherson and Zaporozhye, as well as the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, into Russia. Moscow has repeatedly said any potential negotiations with Kiev would require it to accept the “realities on the ground,” as well as to withdraw troops from the new Russian territories.

Blinken’s remarks received a poor reception in Moscow. Senior Russian diplomat Rodion Miroshnik suggested the revelations somewhat undermined the usual narrative about the supposedly “unprovoked Russian aggression.”

“Pumping [Ukraine] with weapons for an attack on Donbass and Russia, isn’t that a pretext for the special military operation?” Miroshnik said in a Telegram post.

https://www.rt.com/news/610447-us-ukraine-blinken-weapons/

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

HYPOCRISY ISN’T ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SINS.

HENCE ITS POPULARITY IN THE ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS…

 

 

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME BORIS...

make a deal....

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

HYPOCRISY ISN’T ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SINS.

HENCE ITS POPULARITY IN THE ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS…

 

 

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME HIMSELF.

unfortunately....

 

Angela Merkel’s Revelation: The Minsk Agreements Were Not Intended To Be Pursued

Ricardo Martins


The EU was born as a peace project. Is it still so? The former German Chancellor reveals in an interview and in her Memoirs that Europe preferred conflict to peace with Russia.

 

The Minsk Agreements: A Tactical Pause, Not a Path to Peace

The former German chancellor Angela Merkel sparked controversy with her candid reflections on the Minsk agreements. These accords were ostensibly negotiated to de-escalate tensions in Ukraine after Russia’s accession of Crimea in 2014 as a result of a referendum by its residents and the subsequent outbreak of hostilities by the Ukrainian army and the Azov Battalion against ethnic Russians in the Donbas and Donetsk regions.A Europe that, while officially advocating peace, frequently prioritised U.S. interests over genuine reconciliation

In an interview and in her memoirs titled Freedom, Merkel stated that the agreements were not genuinely pursued as a path to peace with Russia but rather as a strategic delay tactic, buying Ukraine time to strengthen its military and prepare for an inevitable confrontation.

Her statements highlight deeper underlying tensions within the European Union, particularly among member states like the Baltic nations and Poland, who viewed Russia’s actions as an existential threat. This perspective helps explain why efforts for peace were limited, and why many in the EU tacitly or openly preferred to prepare for conflict rather than seek reconciliation.

The Minsk agreements—Minsk I in 2014 and Minsk II in 2015—were brokered under the Normandy Format with the involvement of Germany, France, Ukraine, and Russia. These agreements called for an immediate ceasefire in Donbas and Donetsk, withdrawal of heavy weaponry, granting autonomy for these regions in eastern Ukraine, and constitutional reforms in Ukraine to ensure the autonomy of these regions. If the agreements had been implemented, they would have saved the lives of 14,000 Russian ethnics in Donbas and Donetsk, and certainly, they would have avoided Russian special operation in Ukraine.

However, Merkel’s remarks suggest that these agreements were never fully intended to resolve the conflict. Instead, they were a way to “freeze” the situation, allowing Ukraine to rebuild its military capacity and align itself more closely with NATO and the West. This approach mirrored a broader strategy within the EU that saw Russia’s actions, such as the accession of Crimea, not as isolated incidents but as part of a larger pattern of aggression.

Baltic and Eastern European Perspectives: Security over Diplomacy

For the Baltic States—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—Russia’s accession of Crimea and its support for people in eastern Ukraine were seen as dire warnings. These countries, which share borders and historical tensions with Russia, viewed any peace deal as a potential opportunity for Russia to consolidate its gains and prepare for further expansion.

The Baltic States, are deeply rooted in Russophobia. As a result, they prioritise strengthening NATO and bolstering their defences over engaging in diplomacy, which they perceive as a tool Russia has exploited for strategic advantage. Additionally, there is a persistent mistrust of European institutions, viewed as incapable of guaranteeing their security. Consequently, they place greater reliance on the United States through NATO and favour purchasing American defence equipment over European alternatives.

This is the stance held by the EU Foreign Affairs Chief, Kaja Kallas, the former Prime Minister of Estonia, who is hindering a diplomatic solution in Ukraine. This makes her unfit for the role, as she is driven by deep Russophobia and is little inclined toward diplomacy.

EU’s General Stance: Divided but Increasingly Hawkish

Within the broader EU, member states were divided over how to handle Russia. Western European countries like Germany and France initially pursued dialogue and diplomacy, partly due to their economic ties with Russia. However, Merkel’s remarks suggest even these efforts were tempered by a recognition that peace with Russia might only be temporary.

By contrast, Eastern European members like Poland and the Baltics were vocal advocates for a tougher stance. Their influence grew as Russia’s actions in Ukraine escalated, pushing the EU toward a more unified, confrontational approach.

The Militarization of Ukraine was pursued as the EU and NATO believed that a stronger Ukraine was essential to deter future Russian aggression. This focus on military preparedness left little room for genuine peace efforts. As a result, the U.S. did not respond to Putin’s letters and security guarantee requests.

Further, there was the question of strategic interests. For many EU members, particularly the Baltics and Poland, a weakened Russia was viewed as essential for regional stability. Consequently, the West and NATO members were accused of unnecessarily prolonging the war. A former U.S. Senator famously remarked, “We will fight until the last Ukrainian,” underscoring the approach of continued military engagement.

The peace agreement reached in Istanbul in April 2022 was reportedly rejected by Western powers. Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, acting on behalf of U.S. President Joe Biden, hurried to Kyiv to dissuade President Zelensky from signing the deal, assuring him of full Western support to defeat Russia.

Merkel’s Legacy and the Fallout of Her Comments

Merkel’s acknowledgement that the Minsk agreements were merely a strategic delay has sparked debates about the sincerity of European diplomacy. Her remarks have also undermined Europe’s moral narrative, exposing the calculated realpolitik behind decisions often framed as efforts towards peace. While Merkel defended her actions as necessary to protect Ukraine and Europe, they raised uncomfortable questions about the EU’s commitment to its proclaimed values of diplomacy and conflict resolution.

At the time, the guarantors of the Minsk agreements—France and Germany—still held significant diplomatic clout on the international stage. Today, however, these nations have become diplomatic dwarfs, rendered increasingly irrelevant by their subservience to U.S. interests—a dependency deepened by the war in Ukraine. This decline is also compounded by the West’s hypocrisy and double standards, which have eroded its legitimacy on the global stage.

In sum, Merkel’s comments highlight a Europe that, while officially advocating peace, frequently prioritised U.S. interests over genuine reconciliation. For the Baltics and other Eastern European nations, their warmongering approach underscores the challenges of pursuing balanced diplomacy in an era of resurgent great-power rivalry.

 

Ricardo Martins ‒PhD in Sociology, specializing in policies, European and world politics and geopolitics

 

https://journal-neo.su/2025/01/04/angela-merkels-revelation-the-minsk-agreements-were-not-intended-to-be-pursued/

 

IN SHORT, THE EU HAS BEEN CONDEMNED TO FIGHT RUSSIA ON BEHALF OF THE UNITES STATES. AMERICA HAS VOWED TO DESTROY RUSSIA, SINCE 1917....

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

HYPOCRISY ISN’T ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SINS.

HENCE ITS POPULARITY IN THE ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS…

 

 

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME AMERICA.