The war in Ukraine could have been prevented practically at the last minute - and with it the danger of a nuclear world war, which Western politicians are currently either wantonly or thoughtlessly promoting with hysterical war cries.
This is proven by documents that can be accessed at any time on the Russian Foreign Ministry website. (As long as this source of information is not also blocked by the defenders of freedom of expression in Brussels.)
Accordingly, Russia presented two papers to representatives of the United States and NATO at a meeting on December 15, 2021 in Moscow: the draft treaty between the USA and Russia on mutual security guarantees and a corresponding agreement between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty.
Many of the Russian proposals would have been difficult for the West to digest - such as the withdrawal of all nuclear weapons from Europe and American troops from the new NATO states. Likewise, abandoning any expansion of NATO would have met with resistance. Russia also wanted to ban any military activity on the territory of Ukraine, other Eastern European states or the Caucasus.
In general, Moscow wanted to establish regular communication and agreements between both sides - be it via a red telephone or via the instrument of the NATO-Russia Council. Basically, the draft contract says: “The parties reaffirm that they do not view each other as opponents.” What a difference from today's war rhetoric.
People in the Kremlin were not so ignorant as to assume that the USA and its allies would adopt the Russian draft treaty one-to-one. A Moscow press release explicitly stated that it was hoped that Washington would view the proposal as a “starting point” for “serious discussions… in the near future.” The matter is of “critical importance for maintaining peace and stability”.
The USA and NATO rejected the offer of talks and the draft contract at the time, apparently without further examination. Instead, the rhetoric was intensified at the Munich Security Conference at the beginning of 2022, not least by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who called for his country to arm itself with nuclear weapons.
On February 24, 2022, Russian troops invaded Ukraine.
We document the original English version from the Russian Foreign Ministry as well as the German translation verbatim.
Agreement on measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation and NATO member states
The Russian Federation and the Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), hereinafter referred to as the Parties, reaffirm their commitment to improving relations and deepening mutual understanding,
Recognizing that an effective response to current security challenges and threats in our interdependent world requires joint efforts,
Determined to prevent dangerous military activities and thereby reduce the possibility of incidents between their armed forces,
Noting that the security interests of each Party require better multilateral cooperation, greater political and military stability and predictability,
and reaffirming its commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Final Act of the 1975 Helsinki Conference on Cooperation in Europe, the Constitutive Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the Russian Federation and NATO of 1997 , the Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security of 1994, the European Security Charter of 1999 and the Rome Declaration “Relations: a new quality” signed in 2002 by the Heads of State and Government of the Russian Federation and NATO member states, are as follows agreed:
Article 1
The contracting parties shall be guided in their relations by the principles of cooperation, equal and indivisible security. They do not strengthen their security through international organizations, military alliances or coalitions at the expense of the security of the other contracting parties.
The Parties shall settle all international disputes in their mutual relations by peaceful means and shall refrain from the use or threat of force in accordance with the purposes of the United Nations.
The Parties shall not create conditions or situations that constitute or could be perceived as a threat to the national security of the other Parties.
The Parties shall exercise restraint in the military planning and conduct of exercises in order to reduce the risks of potentially dangerous situations in accordance with international law, including those contained in intergovernmental agreements on the prevention of incidents at sea outside territorial waters and in intergovernmental agreements on the prevention of dangerous situations military activities.
Article 2
To address questions and resolve problems, the Parties shall use the mechanisms of urgent bilateral or multilateral consultations, including the Council.
The parties regularly and voluntarily exchange assessments of current threats and security challenges, inform each other about maneuvers and the main provisions of their military doctrines. All existing mechanisms and instruments for confidence-building measures will be used to ensure the transparency and predictability of military activities.
Telephone hotlines will be set up to maintain emergency contact between the contracting parties.
Article 3
The parties reiterate that they do not see each other as opponents.
The Parties shall maintain dialogue and interaction with a view to improving mechanisms to prevent incidents on and over the high seas (mainly in the Baltic and Black Seas).
Article 4
The Russian Federation and all Contracting Parties that were Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of May 27, 1997 shall not transfer military forces and weapons to the territory of any other State in Europe in addition to the armed forces of all Contracting Parties stationed in that territory on May 27, 1997 ; such transfers may be made in exceptional circumstances to eliminate a threat to the security of one or more Contracting Parties.
Article 5
The Parties shall not deploy medium- and short-range land-based missiles in areas that enable them to reach the territory of the other Parties.
Article 6
All member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization undertake to refrain from any further expansion of NATO, including Ukraine and other states.
Article 7
The Parties that are member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization do not carry out military activities in the territory of Ukraine, as well as in other states in Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus and Central Asia.
In order to avoid incidents, the Russian Federation and the parties that are member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will conduct exercises or other military activities above the brigade level in a zone of agreed width and configuration on either side of the border line of the Russian states that are in a military alliance with it , as well as the parties that are member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Article 8
This Agreement does not affect the primary responsibility of the United Nations Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security, nor the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 9
This Agreement shall enter into force upon the deposit of the instruments of ratification by which more than half of the signatory States express their consent to be bound by the Agreement. For a State which has deposited its instrument of ratification at a later date, this Agreement shall come into force upon its deposit.
Any Party to this Agreement may withdraw from this Agreement by giving notice to the Depositary. The Agreement will terminate upon receipt of such notice by the Depositary.
This Agreement is drawn up in Russian, English and French, each text being equally authentic, and will be deposited in the archives of the Government of...
Done at [the city...] on the [XX] day of [XX] two thousand and [XX].
Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees
The United States of America and the Russian Federation, hereinafter referred to as the “Parties”,
guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the 1970 Declaration on the Principles of International Law Concerning Cooperation between States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation of 1975 and the Regulations the 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, the 1999 European Security Charter and the Agreement between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Russian Federation on mutual relations, cooperation and security,
Recalling the inadmissibility of the threat or use of force in a manner inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international relations in general,
Supporting the role of the United Nations Security Council, which has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security,
Recognizing that joint efforts are required to respond effectively to modern security challenges and threats in a globalized and interdependent world,
whereas the principle of non-interference in internal affairs must be strictly adhered to, including refraining from supporting any organization, group or individual calling for an unconstitutional transfer of power, as well as any actions aimed at changing the political or social conditions of the contracting parties,
Recognizing the need to establish additional effective and rapidly deployable cooperation mechanisms or to improve existing ones to resolve disputes through constructive dialogue based on mutual respect and recognition of each other's security interests and concerns and responses to security challenges and threats,
Aiming to avoid any military confrontation or armed conflict between the Parties, and Aware that a direct military clash between the Parties involving nuclear weapons would have far-reaching consequences,
Reaffirming the fact that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be waged, and recognizing that every effort must be made to prevent the threat of such a war between States possessing nuclear weapons,
Reaffirming their obligations under the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Danger of the Breakout of Nuclear War of September 30, 1971, the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Incidents on and Over the High Seas of May 25, 1972, the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Establishment of Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers of September 15, 1987 and the Agreement between America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities of June 12, 1989,
have agreed as follows:
Article 1
The Parties shall cooperate on the basis of the principles of indivisible, equal and undiminished security and shall not, to this end, take any action or participate in or support any activity that affects the security of the other Party;
shall not implement security measures decided by each Party individually or within the framework of an international organization that could affect the core security interests of the other Party.
Article 2
The Parties shall endeavor to ensure that all international organizations, military alliances and coalitions to which at least one of the Parties participates adopt the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 3
The Parties shall not use the territories of other States to prepare or carry out an armed attack against the other Party or other security interests of the other Party.
Article 4
The United States of America undertakes to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and to refuse accession to the states of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The United States of America does not establish military bases in the territory of the states of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for military activities, or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.
Article 5
The Parties shall refrain from stationing their armed forces and military equipment, including within the framework of international organizations and coalitions, in areas where such stationing could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security, with the exception of the national territories of the Parties.
The Contracting Parties shall refrain from flying heavy bombers with nuclear or non-nuclear weapons or from using surface warships, including within the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in areas outside national airspace and national territorial waters to attack targets in the territory of the other Contracting Party.
The Parties shall maintain dialogue and cooperate to improve mechanisms to prevent dangerous military activities on and over the high seas, the maximum approach distance between warships and aircraft.
Article 6
The Parties undertake not to deploy ground-based intermediate-range missiles and short-range missiles outside their national territories from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the other Party.
Article 7
The Parties shall refrain from stationing nuclear weapons outside their national territories and shall return to their national territory any weapons already stationed outside their territory at the time of entry into force of the Treaty. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for the stationing of nuclear weapons in their national territories.
The Parties shall not train military and civilian personnel from non-nuclear weapon countries for the use of nuclear weapons. The Parties shall not conduct maneuvers involving scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons.
Article 8
The Treaty shall enter into force on the date on which the last written notification of the conclusion of the Parties' domestic negotiations regarding its entry into force is received.
Created in two originals, each in English and Russian, both texts being equally authentic.
For the United States
of America For the Russian Federation
romton says: To all those who call Russia a war criminal.
Why there will no longer be a Ukrainian Donbass is based on the fact
that the residents of Donbass have experienced or seen too many war
crimes firsthand.
https://freedert.online/meinung/193580-donezk-ganz-russland-vereint-in-trauer/
I hereby accuse you of complicity and intentional deception, because
without you and your work this would never have been possible to this
extent.
romton says: It seems to me that at least since Hollande and Merkel admitted that
these NATO states only used the Minsk agreements to stall Russia and arm
Ukraine (against whom?), Russia's intervention is also considered a
preventive intervention under international law is justified against a
future war of aggression.
The Ukrainian attacks on the Russian-speaking population in Donbass,
which left 15,000 dead, also justify Russia's intervention under
international law.
romton says: How the Ukrainians suddenly became "consumables" as part of a "NATO mission" in the fight against Russian statehood?
A summary of the political history from 1991 that led to:
https://freedert.online/meinung/198572-ukraine-konflikt-kaum-licht-am-tunnel/
Eslangt says: Mr. Koydl, you specifically leave out one question, namely: why did Putin start the war if, according to you, based on dubious propagandistic facts, he wants/wanted peace? Things rarely fit together in your articles.
222degrees said: The core of the conflict is the geostrategic circumstances and simulation games of the USA and Russia. Everything else are secondary problems, conflicts, etc. (e.g. democracy, to the West). For example, the USA installed nuclear missiles in Great Britain, Italy and Turkey in the late 1950s. The Russian counteraction occurred in Cuba in 1962. The Russian draft discussed here primarily addresses the USA and secondarily NATO. According to nuclear power interests, geostrategy is to be classified far ahead of international law
Diabolo says: Mr. Köppel and Koydl:
Both of them simply cannot be helped. How
one can follow Putin's and Russia's policies so one-sidedly for months
is more than a mystery. Daily bombings without regard for the worst
kind of losses in a country recognized by the UN, which is also wisely
left unmentioned, shows an arrogance + arrogance that crosses the line
of audacity + stupidity. Quality journalism looks different!
uwe-br says: There is a long history of war. The Minsk agreements had not been implemented, especially by Ukraine. Ukraine and its president were ONLY negative in the German media until February 2022. Then 180 degree U-turn. Corruption, suspension of minority rights (Russians...), Panama files, elimination of opposition (sounds familiar), oligarch system, media curtailment, etc. Of course the war remains contrary to international law - unfortunately not the only one.
liberty says: Sensational journalistic excellence... Koydl finds the ultimate, well-founded clue and concludes crystal clear that the war could have been prevented. Really now? Do I have to log in to TikTok again to get more content posts?
biscuit says: I have no idea whether these suggestions actually existed. If so, you wonder why. In the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, Russia guaranteed Ukraine's independence and sovereignty. Russia promised to "refrain from threats or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine." In the NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997, the modalities of NATO's eastern expansion were regulated in detail, and NATO embarrassingly held out until February 2022 to it.
the other part says: Yes, but the key NATO member USA blatantly violated the spirit of mutual obligations for the first time in 2014 when it promoted the violent change of government in Kiev as part of the Maidan riots, which replaced the democratically legitimized, moderate and, of course, pro-Russian government with a nationalist one , partly replaced by a Nazi revisionist and pro-Western government. In d. Episode collapsed, presumably. from D. USA more desired, at least. but approved civil war.
info-bohm says: We know from experience that Russia comes/has come with tanks when the b population did not agree with the leader appointed by Russia.
uwe-br says: Sure and the USA are pure angels of peace. Who dropped the atomic bombs on innocent people in Japan? And the USA's wars were not always sanctioned by international law. In addition, the USA has been involved in Ukraine via the CIA since the beginning (article in Merkur June 2022). The Russians had at least liberated Berlin and D., withdrew as agreed, and the USA maintains its largest non-U.S. military base in Germany. One-sidedness doesn't get you anywhere.
uwe-br says: What you write is partly correct. Russia was promised by the USA and
Germany that NATO's sphere of influence would not expand beyond the
territory of the former GDR.
As you write yourself: 1994 - but it's
2024 and a lot has happened in the meantime, not just in the NATO area.
The USA has been operating in Ukraine for YEARS and NATO membership has
already been an issue. Merkel and Macron spoke out against this.
biscuit says: I have no idea whether these suggestions actually existed. Be that
as it may, Article 7 of the first treaty: “The Contracting Parties that
are members of (...NATO) shall not carry out military activities in the
territory of Ukraine, as well as in other states in Eastern Europe, the
South Caucasus and Central Asia.”
This means that Russia would have been expressly allowed to continue carrying out “military activities”. That's what it did.
Great suggestion. It is incomprehensible that NATO said no. If.
the other part says: Of course there were these draft treaties from Russia, which were expressly intended as a basis for negotiations with the USA and NATO. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg publicly confirmed the submission of the drafts and their immediate rejection by NATO: https://www.telepolis.de/ features/The-unprovoked-war-when-Stoltenberg-and-Co-tell-the-truth- about-the-NATO-expansion-9314024.html
putin the terrible sagt: (1) Peace angel and historian Koydl should also, within the scope of the diversity of opinions, report on the corresponding draft treaty under the PTT Peace Proposal. Its first 3 articles are: Article 1: The Russian Federation renounces Russism. Article 2: The United States of America renounces the annihilation of the Russian Federation. ...
uwe-br says: Putin, on whom everything is focused, called for a peace order in the Bundestag D's in 2001 and asked for support in the difficult democratization of Russia. At that time, then-Chancellor Schröder also became private friends with Putin. Instead, Russia was fobbed off with the slogans of “change through trade” and the decades of reliable Energy deliveries are welcome (so that Merkel, who has missed out, doesn't have to do anything herself), of course. without passing it on to private individuals.
carstenmenger said: President Putin gave a historic speech in the German Bundestag in 2001 with clear signals of peace. Who ignored that? The West! And here primarily the Washington Empire and the pathetic henchmen in Brussels and many European capitals. Portraying Putin as a villain is completely disingenuous. I can think of completely different ones, e.g. B. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon because of the Vietnam War.
March said: Is this name the same gentleman who
1) bombed the civilian population and hospitals of Ukraine
2) who kidnaps Ukrainian children to Russia
3) who steals Ukraine's cultural assets?
4I who rapes Ukrainian women?
5) which contaminates Ukraine with hundreds of thousands of mines?
6) who steals Ukrainian wheat?
7) who poisons, imprisons or kills any domestic political opponents?
8) who has flowers for Navalny arrested and imprisoned?
Is that this gentleman?
the other part says: Guys, it's not about Putin being a moral angel. This is about tough, rational realpolitik. Putin is the head of state and government of a nuclear-armed great power that sees itself under threat and behaves in a very rational and understandable way. The integration of Ukraine into a foreign military alliance has been clearly stated as an unacceptable "red line". Several times and in increasingly more insistent form. The USA and “their” Zelensky continued to integrate and provoke.
carstenmenger said: @mars: 1) Evidence, look at Washington's warfare and Russia's! 2) is an allegation without evidence, 3) evidence, 4) In the Odessa Trade Union House, Ukra fascists raped a pregnant woman! 5) The British delivered uranium ammunition, please inform us about it and the consequences of this, 6) Russia delivered free wheat to African countries from its own production, 7) Claim without evidence that Navalny was allegedly poisoned by the British, as with Skripal, 8) Navalny
romton says: 8) These are not arrests after a crime, but rather taking people away to determine personal details in order to issue a fine. Participation in unauthorized rallies is not a criminal offense in Russia and, according to Russian law, does not result in criminal proceedings but rather a fine.
romton says: 1) Ukraine does this weekly in Donbass
2) Where the Ukrainian children are in Russia and how they can pick up
their relatives during the war has been published on the Russian embassy
websites and shared with the press for months.
3) I thought Ukraine was already doing that itself.
7) The Ukrainian secret service itself admitted this several times and threatened and carried it out?
romton says: 5) Are we referring here to the mines that regularly go down in Donesk and Lughansk, far behind the front, in residential areas and are supposed to and do injure or kill civilians, or those in the combat zones?
Contamination??? - I think they will probably be defused by the victors, i.e. the Russians, both the Russians and the others.
The Russian-speaking ex-Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine will probably be more upset about the Ukrainian faces.
uwe-br says: There are 23 years in between, Russia was kicked out of various committees, there were Minsk agreements that were not implemented, especially by Ukraine. Putin aka Russia have always emphasized where the security interests lie. Neither side has sole responsibility for morale. Until February 2022, Ukraine was only negatively featured in the German media. Then turn around 180 degrees. Back then, Putin was fobbed off with lukewarm slogans of “change through trade.” The USA has been involved for years
uwe-br says: At the time, Putin was applauded for his speech by ALL parties in the Bundestag. He also asked for support for the very difficult democratization of Russia. Schröder, damn. Chancellor became friends with Putin. Instead, RUS was fobbed off with lukewarm slogans of “change through trade” and people happily made use of the cheap and reliable ones for years. Deliveries from Russia without passing this on to private consumers in Germany. PS: who blew up the pipelines?
AKA says: Taking documents available on the Russian Foreign Ministry's website at face value cannot be topped in terms of naivety and bad journalism!!! Due to your constant praise of the Russian side, I'm starting to think that you, Mr. Koydl, are on their payroll!! I can't believe you believe such nonsense. Very bad cinema!
the other part says: If these documents were not true, the Russian government would expose itself to unnecessary political risk, as Washington or Brussels could immediately expose this by publishing what they believe to be the actual wording, thus easily dealing a serious propaganda blow to Moscow. The fact that there are no such revelations speaks for the credibility of the documents.
putin the terrible sagt: (2) ... Article 3: The Russian Federation undertakes to immediately hand over all Russian citizens who have been accused by a national or international court of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
kurt hugi said: Interesting and solid research. Draft contracts, in black and white, are there to be negotiated and compromises to be worked out. This requires smart and experienced people. With imperialist behavior, all rights and all credibility are unrestrainedly trampled on. You can see this in the woke German "politics", their MSM propaganda chaotics in the US entourage.
Socrates9Zico10 says: Similar statements have already been hidden in the German media. Putin and Zelenskiy were close to a peace agreement in early 2022. The then British Prime Minister Johnson strictly rejected this as a negotiator for the USA/GB/NATO! What actually speaks against a demilitarized, neutral Ukraine that conducts peaceful trade with all its neighbors on an equal basis? What would the USA do if Russia were to march on the USA's doorstep in Cuba, as it did in 1962?
biscuit says: A counter-proposal to the Russian “peace treaty”:
- Reduction of the Russian armed forces to 80,000 men and 300 tanks
- Russia gives up nuclear weapons
- Neutrality + ban on arms deliveries from abroad
- The Russian regions will receive greater autonomy
- Deputinization of Russia
- Belgorod and Rostov Oblasts go to Ukraine
- The USA, China and Ukraine guarantee Russia's security
And it is peace.
Socrates9Zico10 says: It would be very nice if it worked like that. But the USA would never go along with it in the same way, the Americans will never disarm voluntarily. The USA always wants to be No. 1 in the world and has been playing global gendarme for decades. The USA has started countless wars and military conflicts and has a hand in everything up to 20,000 km from its borders! That's why the Russians can never "get naked" like that!
the other part says: These are of course completely unrealistic conditions and unacceptable for both the USA and the Russian Federation. No nuclear-armed territorial power would sign something like that. This is all, with all due respect, nonsense. What is being discussed here has nothing to do with real geopolitics.
biscuit says: I agree with you, this is stupid stuff. But no more absurd than the “peace treaty” that Russia is said to have submitted to Ukraine. And which is said to have been so beneficial for Ukraine, as we constantly read here.
romton says: Supposedly means - no idea what was agreed - and yet you know that it is absurd and can be compared to the stupid stuff here.
Wow - so experts from two states, with the help of other states, worked out a peace treaty that just had to be ratified - and here one person thinks, because they don't know anything about it, that it was wrong and others write stupid stuff. Now is that witty?
romton says: How big are the autonomy of the autonomous Russian republics, which are supposed to get bigger - does the writer have any idea about this?
Even Chechnya seems to be very happy with this and, due to its autonomy, is sending entire battalions of volunteers to the front in Donbass to defend their homeland as part of Russia against the West's claims to hegemony and intrigues and fascism. You really have no idea about Russia and the Russians.
miggeli1 said: The USA doesn't want wars in Europe. For the USA, Europe is the largest market in the world in terms of purchasing power. There is not yet a larger market in China and not yet 500 million buyers. This is often overlooked by war gurgles because it does not fit into their thinking .Russia is an insignificant market for US products, not even 3x larger than Switzerland. Which defense industry benefits the most is still an open question. So far, Europe is delivering more.
Eliza Chr. says: Why? You should take a break! You probably won't find this in the Baz. They always want to be informed, but obviously don't know the history since the 2014 coup. Find out about Donbass, where Russians live and which has been shelled by the UKR since 2014. The UKR shot 15,000 civilians and over 1,000 children there. That was one point, the other point lies with NATO, which - despite the Minsk Treaty - was getting closer and closer to Russia, etc.!
gowestandy says: Interesting article, but not very critical. Why? Peace treaties with unilateral disarmament (no nuclear weapons stationed in the West and more) - the Kremlin laughs... We're just doing a few military exercises on the border with Ukraine, Russia said. Then the sudden attack. Putin is a patient planner - he has time for it, as he will still be in office for a long time.
the other part says: It's just a first negotiation proposal. Of course it's unbalanced at first. The actual negotiations and expert discussions then involve fine-tuning all the details. However, these were harshly rejected by Washington and Brussels. Instead, bunkered CIA bases were built along the Russian border, Ukrainians were trained in NATO weapons and the brutal artillery shelling of pro-Russian eastern Ukraine by the western Ukrainian army continued.
romton says: I think what is meant is not peace treaties, but the peace treaty proposal between the USA and Russia shown above?!
Since only these 2 states are involved and the same contractual rules
would apply to both, it is difficult to see any real one-sidedness in
this - otherwise the stationing of Russian nuclear weapons and other
things in Cuba, Mexico, Brazil, or on a platform would be balanced in
international waters off the coast of Washington.
gerd mueller says: So Russia wanted countries that were not yet NATO members to be
allowed to become one, even though in the NATO-Russia Founding Act it
had recognized the sovereign right of all European countries to freely
choose their defense, including the alliance.
An imperialist attitude with first class and second class countries could hardly be expressed more clearly.
The fact that so many countries wanted to join NATO is primarily due to their experiences with Russia and the Soviet Union.
freelancer said: NATO is not and never has been a defensive alliance. You still haven't figured out the Meccano.
March said: And they still don't want to understand that the world can live without Putin, but Putin needs the world not to be chemically analyzed for a fortnight.
Rahu says: Well, according to Putin, he had asked Clinton back then whether Russia could join NATO... but they didn't want to. Better everyone else in Europe that you can control... https://nypost.com/2024/02/08/news/putin-says-bill-clinton-told-him-russia-could-join-nato-before -pulling-back-hours-later/
romton says: It is not stated in the founding act that the former Soviet republics can freely choose their defense alliance and join NATO.
But it does say: "The participation in conflict prevention by the
contracting parties under the umbrella and responsibility of the UN
Security Council.
In order to achieve these goals, the NATO-Russia Council was created and abolished by NATO.
Maybe read what it actually says!!!
FOR / AGAINST says: Ukrainian right-wing radicals are increasingly threatening the West with violence and anarchy if European countries do not help Maidan Ukraine to the extent that Kiev would like. Do you have to take this seriously?
Peter Meier-Schlittler says: Worthy Pro/Con. If the Ukrainian population - not right-wing radicals, as you write - vent their displeasure against the West, I would understand that: their country has been abused in the most insidious way for geopolitical power games by the so-called "values West" for many years: many young people People had to lose their lives because of this and the fertile soils of Ukraine were largely destroyed/contaminated.
2standards said: Who wasn't surprised when the Soviets withdrew from the Eastern Bloc? There must certainly be something behind it. Yes, exactly, the trick: Not one inch eastwards...
gerd mueller says: The statement "Not one inch eastwards" only applied to German
unification because the Warsaw Pact still existed at that time. As far
as Germany is concerned, Germany itself and NATO have complied.
Russia then voluntarily signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which softened this statement.
2standards said: Lies over lies? But maybe the US archives are lying too? https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
FOR / AGAINST says: That's exactly how it was. Exactly the truth. The behavior of
Western politics and the MSM was revealing over 2 years ago. The West
has done everything to ensure that this escalation occurs. Hence the
immediate suspension and blocking of RT and other media. Likewise the
anti-democratic laws (sedition, approval of an alleged war of
aggression, etc.) to suppress freedom of expression.
Even back then, everything that was being said about Russia was not credible.
FOR / AGAINST says: And we have such absolutely important institutions like WELTWOCHE to thank for the fact that this truth is published and is not suppressed and denied, as the MSM always do. BRAVO!!! This is OUALITY JOURNALIS! This is DEMOCRACY! Thanks to all!!!!
March said: Bravo, thanks to WW we finally have Pravda in German in Switzerland. We've been waiting for this for a long time.
am.s says: The umpteenth article according to the pattern: Putin and Kremlin write, Koydl, Köppel and Weltwoche print without reflection. That's called "the other view"....
March said: Anyone who denies these facts closes their eyes to reality;
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1761396283439231243
foarmbruster says: Peace-loving Russia was hounded into its wars by the warmongering West:
Armed conflict in Transnistria (1990-1992).
War in South Ossetia (1991-1993).
War in Abkhazia (1992-1993).
First Chechen War (1994-1996).
Second Chechen War (1999 - 2009).
Russo-Georgian War (2008
Occupation of Crimea (2014 — to date).
War in Donbass (2014 — to date).
Military operation in Syria (2015 — to date).
War against Ukraine (2022 – present).
March said: So that you no longer have to wonder, I would be happy to help you out;
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_Milit%C3%A4roperationen_Russlands_und_der_Sowjetunion
gray says: Exciting documentary that shows that you don't really have the year numbers under control.
Transnistria, Ossetia, Abkhazia, Georgia started when the USSR still existed and contributed significantly to its collapse.
The USA and its vassals hoped to trigger similar tensions through the sanctions and are therefore abusing the UA as a pawn. The latter is not part of the documentary but my opinion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTQL4pK47Ds
Eliza Chr. says: The nonsense they are writing down here can be seen very clearly in: 'War in Donbass (2014-today)... If you haven't even checked that NOT the Russians, but the UKRAINE ITSELF has been shelling the Donbass since 2014 and UP TO the war You are to be pitied for having shot over 15,000 civilians and over 1,000 children and for shooting at and murdering Russians to this day. Here are the biggest warmongers: https://de.rt.com/international/171496-studie-us-kriege-nach-911/
stay soft: Koydl, as so often, leaves out important things in favor of Russia.
Ukraine: Ukraine should be completely disarmed, only the police should
be allowed to have simple weapons. The same applied to other states...
etc etc. Germany should also have foregone weapons that would reach as
far as Moscow...
At that point, as is well known, Russia had already deployed its troops
against Ukraine... and Crimea had already been conquered.
corse36 says: bly, luckily the WW reader has you and you clarify and add what is missing. Apply to be a journalist in WW.
Kateso says: Without words! But wait... it's in our hands.!
kurt hugi said: It is tragically significant that neither traffic lights nor the
Union advocate peace. There is also no element of peace negotiations
included in the T. Carlson interview with Putin.
What failures we
have in the EU and especially in Germany: They want, once again, war and
destruction to follow the interests of the USA. Like dachshunds to
their boss.
Thomas Binder says: From his impressive speech in German in the Bundestag in 2001 to the draft of a treaty between the USA and Russia on mutual security guarantees 12/2021: Putin stretched the deceitful West ("NATO will not expand an inch against Russia.") again and again without success held out his hand until it finally lifted the lid in February 2022.
cah said: THAT is EXACTLY what makes Putin special.
I witnessed his speech of the century (!) in 2001.
Putin gave ~90% of his speech in GERMAN. (!)
The Bundestag applauded for several minutes.
Then the enthusiastic Germans were told off by the Americans and the enthusiasm was over.
But Putin is still making his offers TODAY!!
No one needs to come to me about “Monster” Putin anymore.
Russia would be the IDEAL catalyst for a modern, prosperous EURASIA, from Lisbon to Beijing.
!!!
firewood rental says: PRESIDENT W. PUTIN is currently the
most brilliant, most honest and finally
the most victorious current general. In the
Unlike the West, he doesn't have it
necessary to cultivate untruth. Because
He has been giving his goal for over twenty years
known and can be more the longer
USA-style feet on the long ones
Lay down on the table and watch how they do it
highly decorated strategist of the USA
PENTAGON war gambling institute
Deal with errors one at a time.
Russia doesn't care at all
more.
kurt hugi said: The sanctions against Russia have caused emergencies there. From this, Russia will become much stronger with its resources. The West has already lost in every respect. The amateurish officer chatter that was listened to about Taurus provided evidence of incompetence, a lack of care and a lack of any responsibility. What is particularly bad is that the Federal Council is literally drowning Switzerland's image and neutrality by obeying sanctions.
March said: Greetings from the Arctic Wolf;
Alexei Navalny,
Anna Politkovskaya,
Alexandraer Litvinenko,
Natalya Estemirova,
Ravil Maganov,
Sergei Yushenkov,
Boris Nemtsov,
Yuri Shenkochikhin,
Zelimkhan Khangoshvili
Dr. Fu Manchu says: You have to give Koydl one thing: he is unshakable in his blind loyalty to the short dictator.
stay soft: The West cannot decide for countries like Ukraine to be completely disarmed, as Russia has demanded. The West would have given Russia the OK to force these countries to disarm... And why should Germany give up long-range weapons, but Russia was allowed to keep them? Why should 5 countries be (forcibly) disarmed, how do you think that NATO and Russia have the right to force this on these countries?
Mad Maxl said: Apparently you still don't get it. The USA provoked this war and they are also leading it covertly.
The Ukrainians were used for US interests, Zelensky is a US puppet.
The Ukrainian people did not want and do not want war against Russia.
No more weapons for Zelensky, negotiate the status quo, build a neutral
Ukraine without NATO / EU and US interference and the war will be over
faster than you think!
Alpensturm1776 says: Thanks to Mr. Koydl and Köppel. Unfortunately, it takes courage these days to publish the other side and it reminds me of Orwell's quote: "In times of universal deception, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
kurt hugi said: That's exactly how it is. Universal deception is terror against truth and reality, paid for by suffering and deprived citizens.
Charlie Brown 1968 says: ☮Hopefully the truth will lead us to peace 🕊
As the XVI once
said. President of the USA, Abraham Lincoln: "It is possible to fool
all people some of the time and some people all the time, but never all
people all the time."
doelf says: Was Russia, the world's largest country, threatened, or did it have other intentions?
Aladin says: Russia's close and diverse ties to the West prevent it from being fully recognized. Not a lack of awareness on Russia's part, but rather a pompous one-sided rejection. The proposed agreement puts it this way: "... to deepen mutual understanding".... This means that there are shortcomings here. Russia has not yet managed to overcome them. Worse still, the USA and NATO reiterated their intransigence. They showed themselves unwilling to enter into a contract and therefore extremely hostile.
Human Tom says: Thank you very much for this article including research.
Of
course, we know that the mass and system media (MSM) such as NZZ, Tagi
etc. have no interest in publishing such topics. The “West”, led by the
USA, absolutely wants a WW3 in order to introduce a new currency cycle
and a new world order by 2030 at the latest.
All the more big thanks to WW, that's what I call truly unbiased quality journalism!
stay soft: Was published a long time ago. But only Putinists see this as a serious plan. Ukraine and other countries should have been completely disarmed according to Russian demands. How can the West impose such a thing on an independent country? Only Putinists like you can demand something like that. Why should the EU, especially Germany, have given up long-range weapons, but not Russia? It's interesting how little you Putinists pay attention to the independence of other states
fhaslinger64@gmail.com sagt: Isn't it the case that since the fall of the Berlin Wall - 30 years - NATO has expanded further and further east to the R border. There are also missile bases with target R in this area today! Did the UKR not want to sign a peace with R and was dissuaded by Boris! R is a nuclear power so please make arrangements!
Dr. Fu Manchu says: "Isn't it the case that since the fall of the Berlin Wall - 30 years
ago - NATO has expanded further and further east to the R border."
Because the Eastern Europeans wanted that, and for good reason.
“There are also missile bases with target R in this area today!”
Where?
"The UKR didn't want to sign a peace with R and was dissuaded from doing so by Boris!"
No. Unless you mean a Boris in the Russian army.
romton says: The fact that affairs of other states should also be regulated in a peace treaty between Ukraine and Russia makes no sense and I would describe it as a deliberate hoax and was never communicated in this way by Israel and Turkey as negotiating partners.
A link to the leaked peace treaty via the Berliner Zeitung https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik-gesellschaft/draft-zu-friedensvertrag-zwischen-russland-und-ukraine-geleakt-li.2193798
imre.pukhely sagt: Yes, Kremlin propagandist Koydl: poor provoked Vova just wants peace!
He's so misunderstood... he just wants to cuddle and be loved by the
evil, evil West...
That's why he's now bombing Ukrainian hospitals and homes.
Alpensturm1776 says: Propaganda or not. He said several times in the Tucker Carlson interview that he was open to peace negotiations. The West says no, like a small, defiant child, because NATO does not want to be told that it can spread its nuclear weapons into Putin's front yard. It is time for us peace-loving citizens to take the reins in the West and throw out the warmongers.
Dr. Fu Manchu says: @Alpensturm: I know it's no use, but I'll try again: WHAT should Putin negotiate about? With the sham referendums, Putin has turned the annexed Ukrainian territories into Russian territory (even if no sensible person recognizes this). He can't give a square meter of it back, otherwise he'll sit there in poisoned underpants or do flying exercises from the 5th floor. When Putin says “negotiations,” he means acceptance of his maximum demands.
Alpensturm1776 says: So if I lived in a part of the country where the other part of the country bombed me for 8 years with 14,000 dead civilians, just because I didn't want to be ruled by an installed Western puppet after the Maidan coup, then I would also be in favor of a referendum Vote for separation. I know they call it a sham referendum, even though almost all residents in Donbas are ethnic Russians and that "no sane person" recognizes that, but my arguments speak for themselves.
Fat said: Koydl would do well as Putin's values representative and Kremlin journalist. Reporting can hardly be more one-sided than what he does.
dave said: Why does W.Koydl describe the statements made by Western politicians about Putin's nuclear threats as “hysterical war cries”? In doing so, he is only playing into the hands of Putin's propaganda rhetoric. Instead of presenting NATO's arguments on the Russian demands of Dec. 21...he only comments on the Russian view. In fact, the extortionist demonstration on the border with Ukraine began in the summer of 2021. A martial threatening backdrop with unfulfillable demands...
stay soft: When Russia threatens to destroy the West with nuclear weapons, Koydl never had a problem with that... A little tip: find out more about the gentleman's family, you can see why he is so politically close to Russia...
FOR / AGAINST says: Maybe it would be a lot more interesting to find out more about your family, bly. Would you like that?
stay soft: You see the pro-Russian faction here, making threats against the families of people whose opinions they don't like.
If
a journalist has a family relationship with certain politicians, then
they should be allowed to make this public, as it could influence their
judgment. If the law then makes it so that the families are liable for
the journalist's texts and can end up in prison for many years,
shouldn't that have an influence?
Fat said: Yes of course, now the West is to blame for the whole mess that Putin's gang has caused. Cecenia was probably not bombed twice by the Russians. Navalny, Anna Politkovskaya, Boris Nemtsov died for sure ... “just like that”. It's better not to believe such fake documents. The Russians are masters at publishing and denigrating what and who they want.
a.meister says: What is that supposed to be? Nothing new... logically this paper was not a basis for discussion, like when Claus Weselsky would demand 100% more wages for a 1 hour week. NATO has never been and is not a threat to Russia. And another comment about how much Putin's signature is worth was seen in 2014.
a.meister says: Right-wing fairy tale, the people wanted to open up to the West and the EU and not a puppet government from Russia. You should leave your bubble for a while.
Alpensturm1776 says: Keep dreaming. NATO waged an unprovoked war of aggression against Libya in 2011. The country is now in ruins. NATO is not a defensive alliance, otherwise it would have had to be dissolved after the collapse of the Soviet Union. That was her "raison d'être". NATO is the European arm of the US Army and is used against the other superpower, Russia.
Dr. Fu Manchu says: The United States and its allies intervened in Libya in accordance with UN Resolution 1973 to bring about a ceasefire in the civil war and stop the slaughter of civilians. Opinions can be divided about the meaning of this intervention, but 'unprovoked war of aggression' is simply wrong.
Alpensturm1776 says: Libya did not attack any NATO country and was bombed back into the Stone Age by NATO. UN resolution or not. This was an unprovoked war of aggression. And when you write about "slaughtering civilians," you probably mean the defense against the so-called "Arab Spring," which was nothing more than one of those CIA color revolutions like in Ukraine, Georgia and Kazakhstan. NATO is the European arm of the US Army and it only brings us problems.
romton says: Excerpt from the 1973 resolution: "In addition, the resolution
authorizes its member states to establish a no-fly zone over Libya and
to take "all necessary measures for the protection of the population".
However, any occupation of Libyan territory in any form by a foreign
power was ruled out."
So the NATO countries did not act in concert at all and bombed a
prosperous welfare state and the hopes of Africa into the ground.
a.meister says: This is all about Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine.
In addition, there was previously the UN Resolution 1973 in Libya, and no, it was not NATO. So don't go around half-knowing.
Alpensturm1776 says: In my opinion, the UN cannot legitimize wars of aggression. What you are doing here is self-deception because reality is too ugly to face. We are not the good guys in this whole story. Self-deception is currently “en vogue” in the so-called value West. But you too will wake up at some point.
romton says: Yes, this resolution exists - but its content in no way corresponds to what the NATO states made of it - what is this nonsense and this framing?
"In addition, the resolution authorizes its member states to establish a no-fly zone over Libya and to take "all necessary measures to protect the population." However, any occupation of Libyan territory in any form by a foreign power has been ruled out."
critical thinker says: If, according to your logic, NATO poses no threat to Russia, then why does the bloc still exist, even after the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact? why is the NATO bloc expanding further east, right into Russia's backyard? The West promised Russia that it would not expand a millimeter to the east since German reunification. NATO is not a good Samaritan organization, but an aggressive military bloc of the USA.
a.meister says: "The West promised Russia that it would not expand a millimeter to
the East since German reunification. 》 another fairy tale. Show us the
link to the treaty between "the West" and Russia.
Did Russia already exist? But no matter they can't find a treaty with the USSR either.
Alpensturm1776 says: That's the dilemma. The Soviets/Russians believed the Americans' word back then and you know that very well. Hence the smug request to show the link to the contract, which does not exist in written form. However, there are film documents and oral contracts also apply.
a.meister says: Is there the spoken word burned on film? Immediately go public with it. To write down again.
1. There is no promise to Russia, no agreement that NATO has given to stop growing.
2.
The Soviet Union no longer exists, even if there had been treaties
(which there aren't), they would be invalid. 3. Russia recognized
Ukraine including Crimea.
222degrees said: The core of the conflict is the geostrategic circumstances and simulation games of the USA and Russia. Everything else are secondary problems, conflicts, etc. (e.g. democracy, to the West). For example, the USA installed nuclear missiles in Great Britain, Italy and Turkey in the late 1950s. The Russian counteraction occurred in Cuba in 1962. The Russian draft discussed here primarily addresses the USA and secondarily NATO. According to nuclear power interests, geostrategy is to be classified far ahead of international law
Michel says: It is clear to me that a demand for the withdrawal of all nuclear weapons from NATO Europe was unacceptable. But the other way around: Assuming there were nuclear missiles in Mexico or another Latin American country (and the USA hadn't already started a third World War when they were stationed) - wouldn't the Americans demand exactly the same thing from the Russians? Similar mind games can be played with other Russian demands. It's worth it, it broadens your perspective...
Klim Samgin says: Just a reminder Cuba crisis. It turned out that the USA had already stationed some in Turkey.
ww_dieanderesicht says: This is really true quality journalism, you simply adopt the Kremlin's propaganda 1:1, but Weltwoche probably has no other choice. It's sad to see how low people can fall even in Switzerland and become an instrument of dictators. For example, where are the reports that in Russia even the name 'Nawalany' is now classified as extremist?
ants said: Turn on your brain, human. These are negotiation templates, draft
contracts that were presented to the other side. If you believe that
this is war propaganda, then you can only be described as stupid, as you
are obviously intellectually unable to view and evaluate statements and
their content in the correct context.
With that in mind, think about it again and look at the whole thing from different perspectives.
ww_dieanderesicht says: By whom were these fragments checked for authenticity and completeness, probably by the Russian censorship and the KGB?
stay soft: Russia's demands included, among other things, other countries that were neither part of NATO, Russia nor the EU. including Ukraine. To impose something, for example the complete abandonment of our own military. Only you Putinists can see something like that as OK
hatomune said: BLY seems to be drilling with the thin board week after week - there's no learning! Read the Minsk Treaties! They were great for Ukraine. It remains as a state. Just neutral! But otherwise everything was great! Merkel and Holland lied and cheated on Putin and Johnson made the actor's mouth water: Off to war - Ukraine will become a power. Would you like another example?
stay soft: According to Minsk, Ukraine would NOT have had to hand over all of its weapons to Russia. But that's what Putin is demanding in this proposal. Likewise, other Baltic states should completely forego a military. It is hardly surprising that you and the other Putinists would like to enforce this by force of arms. The fact that NATO refuses to force something like this on other countries is actually a good thing. Just not for you Putinists.
why not say: It would be good if you knew the truth from both sides, everything should be done honestly, from all sides, I'm already waiting for it.👈 Sh.... they all built it and that's exactly what interests me.👈 What The fact is that Putin is absolutely committed to peace and tries to get along with everyone, bravo 🔥 What you read here with this contract...🙋🙋🙋🔥
ww_dieanderesicht says: Anyone who is focused on peace does not need to invade another country and bring death, hardship and misery to hundreds of thousands
hatomune said: WW - doesn't see anything different, but wrong and biased! Ukraine Nazis have invaded their OWN but Russian-speaking and Russian-thinking country for eight years since 2014 and have bombed and left thousands of dead. Count the dead in GAZA - especially women and children and compare with the war in Ukraine. Russia tries to kill as few civilians as possible. When Taurus comes, things will be bad. Western weapons are years back.
stay soft: Putin wanted to use this “peace bill” to force 7 countries to forgo their military. All weapons should be handed over to Russia... By the way, countries that, according to Putin, actually belong to the Russian Empire, whose right to exist Putin doubts... So you think that if NATO, together with Russia, had forced these countries to do so by force of arms, all weapons would be Putin's Would that be a good thing? To deprive autonomous countries of their right to defense, their autonomy... Putin is h
Kateso says: I'm sorry for Navalny and I don't wish death on anyone. But you have to see the other side of the coin. Naval was also a racist in many ways and it is not justified to celebrate him as a hero now.
pillow sagt: NATO and the Americans did not want peace, but wanted war in Europe by any means possible. I seriously wonder about the usefulness of the UN when American, English and French soldiers are stationed in Ukraine and are fighting against Russia. Russia was and is being deliberately defamed and provoked by NATO. NATO and Cassis are a group of criminals who should be indicted in The Hague. The West and the inactive UN bear responsibility for every additional death.
Klim Samgin says: Everything is true but I would say the USA and its vassals. And the UN, like all other similar organizations, is now a branch of the USA. And here also more precisely. The ruling class, which is predominantly at home in the USA.
Alpensturm1776 says: The UK is the secret puller in the USA. They never accepted the revolution. Instead of armies, they are present there with the central bank and corrupt secret services. Everything is based on secrecy. John F. Kennedy already knew this in his famous speech before he was publicly executed: "The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society..."
why not say: True. Things would probably look different now if Trump were president, I hope he comes back soon, I think that's the key. It's not for nothing that I'm a fan of PuT. It's just inside me 🙋🙋🙋Hey guys and I would like to see Russia and the USA, there's definitely a lot to discover... 🔥🔥🔥
DanielS says: Let's not kid ourselves anymore, the "values West" wanted war and the "values West" gets its war. The year 2024 will go down in history as the year of the great escalation with which Europe was destroyed once again. If you can't admit it to yourself yet, you should start doing it, it makes the whole thing a little easier. And let's always remember that the Donbass "was worth it"...
fhaslinger64@gmail.com sagt: That was yesterday and failure to do so cost many people their lives! A peace agreement must be negotiated immediately today! The points raised by the Russians must also be "worked through" and a modus operandi for the future must be determined that gives both parties the security of shaping the future in peace. I demand this human right!
Klim Samgin says: A wolf will never negotiate with the sheep and if he does he just takes a break because he is not that hungry.
MiG-63 said: Hello! It is no longer the Soviet Union, but Russia, the largest country in the world with a super-duper amount of territory in which x races and religions live together peacefully (according to various CIA campaigns, for example in the Caucasus). Red-green never forgives the Russians for voluntarily abandoning communism.
gray says: Didn't President Putin's statement: "If there is no negotiated solution, then there will be a military one" come from the same period?
"On February 22, 2022 we woke up in a completely different world." and various other cracks in the Worthless Western™ lie structure.
..."we gonna seize their yachts, and their ilicit gotten gains, we gonna give'em a hard time." (Joe Biden)
singin says: The headline is enough and actually tells us everything! It is not Putin who is the aggressor, but the left-wing (Democratic) Americans as well as the Red-Greens and even those in the FDP in DE and F, who have been agitating against Russia and Putin for two years. They are to blame for this dangerous world situation that is leading up to WW3.
desi said: Thank you for reporting on Russia's activities before the war. I followed this at the time and found it frightening with the nonchalance with which the West brushed off these suggestions in a very short space of time, like an annoying fly. And it was treated with thunderous silence in the German-speaking media. It's still sad that it took so long before this was hopefully picked up by other media.
john london says: I am also convinced that this war could have been prevented by 'intelligent' politicians and skillful diplomacy. Fortunately, Russia has the most outstanding diplomat of our time in Sergei Viktorovic Lavrov. It's hard to imagine what would happen if Russia acted just as 'headlessly' as the Western states. We would probably hide in caves again.
dave said: The “most outstanding diplomat” is one of the biggest liars in international politics…whenever he spouts his Kremlin propaganda at conferences, he disappears without listening to his colleagues. He can't stand the laughter of the other foreign ministers... his foreign visits only take place to friendly dictatorships like Venezuela, Nicaragua or North Korea...
March said: Koydl once again turns out to be Putin's mouthpiece and thus excuses
the outrageous thing; THE GENOCIDE OF THE UKRAINIAN POPULATION BY
PUTIN.
So the victim is Putin, the perpetrator is the West.
Albert Eisenring said: It's not about perpetrators and victims. Because looking for someone to blame only divides and incites people.
It's all about actions and how everyone can contribute to making actions more humane - no matter which side they are on.
This is exactly what Wolfgang Koydl's educational contribution makes an extraordinary contribution to - thank you very much!
FOR / AGAINST says: Mars: Your agitation against Koydl fizzles out, but it is no less serious in terms of the threat against the person in question. The genocide against the Ukrainian population that you claim does not exist and will not occur. It cheapens propaganda from you.
d.nikles said: We are living in a historic time and we are witnessing the last puzzle returning to its original place! Evil is now showing its full face and people are increasingly recognizing the lies. We will realize that all of world history cannot be as we have learned it. It will be interesting and I'm looking forward to it. Long live Putin and Trump!
singin says: @nikles: So we really don't have to look forward to that. Evil shows its face, that's true! But many have not yet recognized where evil really lies - not where you always want to put it. It is the friendly faces of the "good and nice left" who constantly want to make us believe that the friendly, left-controlled West stands for good, in that everything that is to the right of the left is evil. This distortion is the true face of evil.
WMLM says: Is this really true? If so, then our Federal Council should comment on it. Nothing can be expected from the MSM in this regard.
Ice 2 drue says: Anyone who is informed outside the MSM knows this. Putin literally said in December: “We will present a treaty to our Western partners and we want a quick response”... so this could have been understood as the absolute last ultimatum and of course the West has it rejected and from then on you knew it was going to happen
familie_benn said: This is quality journalism! Weltwoche makes an incredibly valuable contribution to balanced reporting. I'm impressed, thank you very much.
pen2 says: Contributions from a Russian propagandist and copies of RT, that's supposed to be quality journalism? You are redefining the term!
AKA says: Taking documents from the Russian website at face value hurts tremendously and is the complete opposite of quality journalism!!!
You must log in to post a comment.
Don't have a comment account yet? here for free Register .
Oops! Wir konnten Ihr Formular nicht lokalisieren.
Oops! Wir konnten Ihr Formular nicht lokalisieren.
Oops! Wir konnten Ihr Formular nicht lokalisieren.
Oops! Wir konnten Ihr Formular nicht lokalisieren.
Wolfgang Koydl 
michael 
redtable 
anscho 
mariowolf 
uncle fritz 
am-Schül-sini-Meinig 
witch.ruth 
Domingo 
gpc 
makumuc 
hannelore.goeppl 
manfredbergmann 
kostas 
Sagt axis 
mr. inbetween 
rzahler 
husum2017 
Geronimo 
shampoo 
Bischi49 
prophecy 
de balli 
reining 
mthopeic 
😢◕‿◕😢 
coccinella393 
Grumpy 
Hello Bella Hello 
Johann-Thomas Trattner 
mainfranke 
This is quality journalism! Weltwoche makes an incredibly valuable contribution to balanced reporting. I'm impressed, thank you very much.
The next resounding slap in the face for the “values West”.
Is this really true? If so, then our Federal Council should comment on it. Nothing can be expected from the MSM in this regard.