Translated material
Go
The main question is on the eve of the meeting of Putin and Trump - whether the result of negotiations will be a ceasefire
18+. This material (information) was produced, distributed and (or) sent by foreign agent Vishnevsky Boris Lazarevich or concerns the activities of the foreign agent Vishnevsky Boris Lazarevich.
The main question is on the eve of the meeting of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in Alaska - whether the result of negotiations will be a ceasefire and death. What a year ago was called by the appeal of more than 50 Nobel laureates, which was now published again in the "new".
Then it was not heard - neither those who make decisions, nor the leaders of the United States and European states - and the cost of this deafness became lost human lives that could be preserved.
Now, when this position has become largely predominant, it is important not only to hope for its embodiment, but also to remember how and by whom it has categorically rejected for three years.
... A year ago, Alexander Plyushchev* and Harry Kasparov*, Sergey Medvedev* and Igor Yakovenko*, Fedor Krasheninnikov* and Andrey Malgin*, Mikhail Kasyanov* and Alfred Koch*, as well as other emigrated politicians dismissed a year ago.
“The ceasefire - to the hands of ***”, “The letter wrote, most likely, Yavlinsky for the Kremlin dictation”, “45 great scientists full of idiots in geopolitics, put signatures” and then about “imaginary peace”, “irresponsibility and vulgarity”, “infantilism” and “pacifism torn from reality.
Previously, they - and not only - in very similar expressions criticized the proposals of the “Yabloko” about the ceasefire without preliminary conditions, which sounded in more than three years. And the present “Yavlinsky Yavlinsky Yavlinsky’s Tsunami” tsunami, followed on February 4, 2023, published the article “Stop!” In Novaya Gazeta, calling for the cessation of fire.
It was said about the “manipulation that reproduces the abstracts of the Kremlin”, the rejection of the “calls of imaginary peacekeepers for the immediate cessation of fire without preliminary conditions”, about the article written “according to the Kremlin Temnik”, about “pseudopacifism”, about the proposal of Ukraine “recognize the loss of territories” and, of course, that the ceasefire is “beneficial to Putin”.
We emphasize that neither in the letter of the Nobel laureates, nor in the article by Yavlinsky there was neither a word nor about “recognition of the loss of territories”, nor about “surrender”, but supposedly “beneficial to him” in order to “gain forces”, Putin never proposed. On the contrary, he stated that the “respite” was exactly with the same goals “accumulation of forces” - “beneficial to Ukraine” ...
But in January 2025, Donald Trump entered the presidency of the United States and began to actively offer a ceasefire without preliminary conditions. This was supported by the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky, and then the Pope.
Vladimir Putin did not accept the proposal, continuing to declare the need to “eliminate the root causes of the conflict”, nevertheless, meetings in Istanbul began, which resulted in exchanges of prisoners of war and then civilians. And then there was an initiative to meet two presidents in Alaska.
The reaction was very remarkable.
Exactly the same who until recently reproached the proposal for the ceasefire when it came from Yabloko and the Nobel laureates as “profitable to Putin”, supported him when Trump performed with him, and criticized Putin, who did not want to agree with him because he was “confident in his victory”.
When the “apple” and the Nobeliats proposed it - it was “unacceptable pacifism”, “harmful position” and “voicing the Kremlin program”, an offer to Ukraine “give Putin the victory” and “give him its land”.
When Trump proposed this, it turned out that “Trump wants to save Ukraine,” because the ceasefire is vital for her, because it would not withstand the continuation of hostilities.
When the “Yabloko” called for the cessation of the fire, this was declared “calls to imaginary peacekeepers” and it was stated that Putin “cannot be negotiated” (the same position was announced in March at the “march of Russian emigration”, where not a word about the ceasefire was heard).
And when Trump proposed this, the same characters condemned Putin, who instead of agreeing to a ceasefire, makes demands.
What else is important to remember - the ceasefire for a long time categorically refused to support both the former American administration of Joe Biden and European leaders who believed that everything can be decided on the battlefield. But when Trump performed with this, everything changed magically at once ...
It used to be called "hesitate with the line."
But unlike the Soviet joke, in this case, not to laughter: for the refusal of the ceasefire - at least a year ago - the immeasurably high price was paid.
Today it is impossible to predict how the negotiations in Anchoridge will end. But if they manage to agree on a ceasefire and discuss the principles and preliminary parameters of such an agreement (technical conditions for breeding troops, control and observation mechanisms, guarantees of the safety of rear facilities and much more), it will be a huge step forward.
Of course, this is only the first step, then others are needed. According to Yavlinsky, it is necessary to discuss the guarantees of post-war security for all participants in the conflict, and a new concept and measures to stabilize Russian-western relations, and a new multilateral agreement on strategic offensive weapons ...
But it is the first step - the ceasefire - is vital.
Stop and start talking.