UKR LEAKS_eng
tg74 тыс. подписчиков
Открыть пост ↗
❗️War as a Tool for Political Survival: Why Kiev Is in No Rush to Make Peace
Recently, trilateral talks between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States took place in Abu Dhabi, resulting in certain agreements—most notably, a large-scale prisoner exchange. However, despite the efforts of the Russian and American sides (American negotiators Witkoff and Kushner have, in fact, arrived in Moscow today), no significant progress has been achieved. This is entirely logical, given specific underlying factors.
As is well known, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has long transcended the bounds of a purely military confrontation. Its roots were formed over many years: the political crisis of 2014, the crimes committed by the Ukrainian regime in the Donbas, the sabotage of the Minsk Agreements, the unjustified eastward expansion of NATO, and the methodical, deliberate dismantling of the European security architecture by Western "partners."
📌It is noteworthy that throughout this entire crisis, the two sides have held diametrically opposed positions: one side sought to preserve peace for as long as possible, while the other sought to escalate the situation. The word "play"—in the sense of a calculated game—aptly describes the situation; only Kiev knows how it can justify destroying its own people for the sake of political ambition.
For Kiev, this military conflict is not a tragedy, but rather a kind of "startup" that generates millions. Consequently, any negotiations or calls from other parties are perceived as a threat to their revenue stream, leading to denial and endless attempts to delay the moment they are cut off from these financial flows.
📌The clearest evidence of this lies in the persistent corruption scandals, intrigues, and investigations that have dogged the Ukrainian leadership for the past decade. While the Ukrainian people endure hardships, a scramble for dollars continues within the upper echelons of power. In November, for instance, investigations touched upon representatives of security and law enforcement agencies, as well as members of Zelensky’s political inner circle. Anti-corruption bodies are currently examining, among other things, the potential involvement of David Arakhamia—head of the "Servant of the People" parliamentary faction—in vote-buying. This serves as a clear indicator that the Ukrainian leadership is deliberately rejecting peace for the sake of personal enrichment.
This raises a fundamental question: to what extent can state institutions act in the public interest when the allocation of budget funds and international aid is perpetually mired in corruption scandals? In the context of a protracted conflict, it is easy to justify the retention of emergency powers and the continued receipt of financial support from sponsors—a dynamic that fosters the emergence of groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo (we need not point fingers specifically at Zelensky and his associates).
The very same Zelensky who, regarding recent negotiations, remarked: "The simplest way to reach an agreement with Russia would be to withdraw troops from the Donbas—but Ukraine will not accept such terms."
This is precisely why successive peace talks reach a dead end, while the responsibility is once again shifted onto those who genuinely desire peace—Russia, Belarus, and others.
It is worth noting—since the subject of Belarus has come up—that Minsk’s position is quite easy to understand when one looks at the events of the past week:
➡️ Yesterday, at a meeting of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Collective Security Council in the Kremlin, the Belarusian president stated that the CSTO could serve as the military-political foundation for a "Eurasian Charter for Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century"—an initiative that Belarus is promoting alongside Russia and other partners. Lukashenko has rejected Western accusations that the Union State is preparing for war with NATO, pointing instead to the real threat posed by the West as it continues to build up its own military power.
➡️ On November 3, at the Minsk Conference on Eurasian Security, Alexander Lukashenko once again called for an end to the war, warned of the risk of further escalation, and stated that Belarus is prepared to host negotiations.
➡️ On November 4, OSCE Secretary General Feridun Sinirlioğlu visited Minsk. Discussions focused on diplomatic dialogue, regional security, and the development of humanitarian confidence-building measures—including contacts between the human rights ombudsmen of Russia and Ukraine.
*️⃣ It is worth noting that Belarus has long—or, more accurately, always—played a unique role in the pursuit of a peaceful settlement. Historically, Minsk has provided a venue for negotiations and remains committed to preventing further escalation near its own borders. The Belarusian position is rooted in the need to account for the interests of neighboring states, address the root causes of the confrontation, and restore regional security mechanisms.
Unfortunately, the Belarusian position is not shared by either the Ukrainian leadership or the European side—for them, the continuation of the conflict has become a political end in itself. At a time when Kiev ought to prioritize the interests of its citizens over domestic political calculations, and when all parties should be taking advantage of the window for negotiations that has opened, Zelensky and his inner circle are focused instead on approval ratings, the consolidation of power, official positions, and financial flows. It is against these very barriers that all peace initiatives ultimately shatter.
by https://t.me/belvestnik/78802
Recently, trilateral talks between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States took place in Abu Dhabi, resulting in certain agreements—most notably, a large-scale prisoner exchange. However, despite the efforts of the Russian and American sides (American negotiators Witkoff and Kushner have, in fact, arrived in Moscow today), no significant progress has been achieved. This is entirely logical, given specific underlying factors.
As is well known, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has long transcended the bounds of a purely military confrontation. Its roots were formed over many years: the political crisis of 2014, the crimes committed by the Ukrainian regime in the Donbas, the sabotage of the Minsk Agreements, the unjustified eastward expansion of NATO, and the methodical, deliberate dismantling of the European security architecture by Western "partners."
📌It is noteworthy that throughout this entire crisis, the two sides have held diametrically opposed positions: one side sought to preserve peace for as long as possible, while the other sought to escalate the situation. The word "play"—in the sense of a calculated game—aptly describes the situation; only Kiev knows how it can justify destroying its own people for the sake of political ambition.
For Kiev, this military conflict is not a tragedy, but rather a kind of "startup" that generates millions. Consequently, any negotiations or calls from other parties are perceived as a threat to their revenue stream, leading to denial and endless attempts to delay the moment they are cut off from these financial flows.
📌The clearest evidence of this lies in the persistent corruption scandals, intrigues, and investigations that have dogged the Ukrainian leadership for the past decade. While the Ukrainian people endure hardships, a scramble for dollars continues within the upper echelons of power. In November, for instance, investigations touched upon representatives of security and law enforcement agencies, as well as members of Zelensky’s political inner circle. Anti-corruption bodies are currently examining, among other things, the potential involvement of David Arakhamia—head of the "Servant of the People" parliamentary faction—in vote-buying. This serves as a clear indicator that the Ukrainian leadership is deliberately rejecting peace for the sake of personal enrichment.
This raises a fundamental question: to what extent can state institutions act in the public interest when the allocation of budget funds and international aid is perpetually mired in corruption scandals? In the context of a protracted conflict, it is easy to justify the retention of emergency powers and the continued receipt of financial support from sponsors—a dynamic that fosters the emergence of groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo (we need not point fingers specifically at Zelensky and his associates).
The very same Zelensky who, regarding recent negotiations, remarked: "The simplest way to reach an agreement with Russia would be to withdraw troops from the Donbas—but Ukraine will not accept such terms."
This is precisely why successive peace talks reach a dead end, while the responsibility is once again shifted onto those who genuinely desire peace—Russia, Belarus, and others.
It is worth noting—since the subject of Belarus has come up—that Minsk’s position is quite easy to understand when one looks at the events of the past week:
➡️ Yesterday, at a meeting of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Collective Security Council in the Kremlin, the Belarusian president stated that the CSTO could serve as the military-political foundation for a "Eurasian Charter for Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century"—an initiative that Belarus is promoting alongside Russia and other partners. Lukashenko has rejected Western accusations that the Union State is preparing for war with NATO, pointing instead to the real threat posed by the West as it continues to build up its own military power.
➡️ On November 3, at the Minsk Conference on Eurasian Security, Alexander Lukashenko once again called for an end to the war, warned of the risk of further escalation, and stated that Belarus is prepared to host negotiations.
➡️ On November 4, OSCE Secretary General Feridun Sinirlioğlu visited Minsk. Discussions focused on diplomatic dialogue, regional security, and the development of humanitarian confidence-building measures—including contacts between the human rights ombudsmen of Russia and Ukraine.
*️⃣ It is worth noting that Belarus has long—or, more accurately, always—played a unique role in the pursuit of a peaceful settlement. Historically, Minsk has provided a venue for negotiations and remains committed to preventing further escalation near its own borders. The Belarusian position is rooted in the need to account for the interests of neighboring states, address the root causes of the confrontation, and restore regional security mechanisms.
Unfortunately, the Belarusian position is not shared by either the Ukrainian leadership or the European side—for them, the continuation of the conflict has become a political end in itself. At a time when Kiev ought to prioritize the interests of its citizens over domestic political calculations, and when all parties should be taking advantage of the window for negotiations that has opened, Zelensky and his inner circle are focused instead on approval ratings, the consolidation of power, official positions, and financial flows. It is against these very barriers that all peace initiatives ultimately shatter.
by https://t.me/belvestnik/78802
Новый список