Putin: We Want an Istanbul II Peace Agreement With Ukraine, Peace Between Israel and Iran

Check and mate, globalists.

Putin was at another Shadow Patriot Orthodox Antifa Values BRICS summit the other day when he decided to confirm and reconfirm the Kremlin’s terms for Ukraine’s surrender. Here:

The draft agreement on the settlement in Ukraine, developed during the negotiation process in Istanbul, is the foundation, said Russian President Vladimir Putin during a meeting with the heads of leading media outlets of the BRICS member countries. The head of state noted that calls for negotiations are coming from different parts of the world, but Kyiv, according to him, has forbidden itself to conduct a dialogue, RIA Novosti writes.

Does no one pay attention to this? This is just ridiculous. So, but the most important thing is the basis. The basis is the draft document developed during the Istanbul negotiation process, Putin said.

In September, the president said that Ukraine and its Western allies are seeking to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia and for this they abandoned the agreements reached in Istanbul in 2022. Then the parties agreed on almost all the parameters of a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Putin recalled that Moscow did not refuse a peaceful dialogue, which should be built on the basis of the agreed documents.

The President also noted at a meeting with the heads of the BRICS media that Kyiv's statements about nuclear weapons are another provocation. He added that Moscow will not allow nuclear weapons to appear in Ukraine. According to the President, any step to create such weapons will receive an appropriate response.

And now let us remind ourselves what are the key points in the Istanbul agreement signed by Putin and his officials and Kiev’s officials several weeks into the Kremlin’s SMO. The signing of this agreement was what led to Putin pulling troops out of the partial encirclement of Kiev and leaving behind lots of military equipment for Kiev to pick up. Remember that?

So, next, let’s see if we can’t remember what was contained in the Istanbul agreement.

I covered all of the speculation and leaks extensively over the years on this blog. I think this post in particular summarizes most of it rather well.

But hey, if you don’t believe me, we can just consult AI on the topic.

On Crimea:

The leaked documents from the Istanbul negotiations indicate that the status of Crimea was a contentious issue. Here are the key points regarding Crimea:

1. Postponement of Discussions: The negotiations included a provision to delay discussions on Crimea for a period of 10 to 15 years. During this time, Ukraine would not attempt to retake Crimea by military means, effectively leaving it under Russian control without formal recognition from Ukraine.

2. Non-Recognition Clause: By April 15, both sides agreed to exclude Crimea from the treaty discussions, meaning that while it would remain occupied by Russia, Ukraine would not recognize it as part of Russia in the agreement.

3. Separate Treatment: The issues surrounding Crimea and Sevastopol were to be treated separately from other territorial disputes, particularly regarding the Donbas region.

4. Russian Demands: Initially, Russia sought recognition of Crimea as part of its territory, which was a significant sticking point in negotiations. However, the final drafts indicated a mutual understanding to set aside this issue temporarily.

5. Security Guarantees: Ukraine proposed that security guarantees would apply after a Russian withdrawal from its territory, excluding Crimea and the occupied Donbas areas.

On Donbass:

The leaked documents regarding the Istanbul Agreement indicate that the status of the Donbass territories, specifically Donetsk and Luhansk, was a significant topic of discussion. Here are the key points:

1. Autonomous Status: There was an agreement in principle that the Donetsk and Luhansk regions could be granted a special or "autonomous" status within Ukraine. This meant that while these territories would remain part of Ukraine, they would have a degree of self-governance.

2. Consultation Period: The discussions included a provision for a 10- to 15-year consultation period regarding the status of Crimea and potentially similar arrangements for Donbass, during which Ukraine would not attempt to retake these regions by force.

3. Recognition of Independence: Some proposals suggested that Ukraine would need to recognize the independence of the self-declared Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR), which had been established by Russian-backed separatists. This recognition would involve changes to Ukrainian national legislation.

4. Contentious Definitions: The term "autonomous" was contentious, as interpretations varied between the parties. Russia aimed for significant influence over the governance of these regions, whereas Ukraine wanted to ensure that any autonomy did not equate to independence or separation from Ukraine.

5. Sticking Points: The discussions around Donbass were complicated by Russia's insistence on recognizing its annexation of Crimea and its demands for permanent neutrality from Ukraine, which were major sticking points in the negotiations.

On demilitarization:

The leaked documents regarding the Istanbul Agreement reveal several key points about arms limitations on the territory of Ukraine:

1. Demilitarization Proposals: The agreement included provisions for limiting the size and capabilities of the Ukrainian armed forces. Russia sought to impose caps on the number of tanks, artillery, warships, and combat aircraft that Ukraine could possess.

2. Troop Numbers: Ukraine proposed maintaining a peacetime army of 250,000 soldiers, while Russia insisted on a maximum of 85,000. This significant discrepancy highlighted the challenges in reaching a consensus on military capacity.

3. Tank Limitations: Ukraine aimed to retain 800 tanks, whereas Russia would allow only 342. This limitation was part of broader efforts to demilitarize Ukraine's military capabilities.

4. Missile Range Restrictions: A major point of contention was the range of missiles. Ukraine sought a range of 280 kilometers (approximately 174 miles), which would allow strikes across Crimea, while Russia wanted to restrict this to just 40 kilometers (about 25 miles).

5. Permanent Neutrality: The agreement proposed that Ukraine would adopt a status of permanent neutrality, which would include not joining NATO or allowing foreign military bases on its territory. However, this neutrality was to be balanced with security guarantees from various countries.

6. Consultation for Military Exercises: Any international military exercises in Ukraine would require consent from the guarantor states, further limiting Ukraine's military autonomy.

On Ukraine joining the West:

The leaked documents from the Istanbul Agreement negotiations between Russia and Ukraine indicate that both EU and NATO membership were significant points of contention:

1. NATO Membership: Ukraine expressed a desire to join NATO, but the negotiations revealed that Russia strongly opposed this. The agreement included discussions on Ukraine's commitment to not joining NATO as part of the neutrality clause, which was a major demand from Russia.

2. EU Membership: While Ukraine sought closer ties with the European Union, the leaked documents did not indicate a formal agreement on EU membership during the negotiations. However, Ukraine's aspirations for EU integration were acknowledged, and discussions included potential pathways for cooperation.

3. Security Guarantees: Ukraine was looking for security guarantees from NATO and other Western countries, which would serve as a counterbalance to Russian aggression. The negotiations suggested that these guarantees would be essential for Ukraine's security framework moving forward.

4. Neutral Status: The proposed neutral status for Ukraine was intended to prevent it from joining military alliances like NATO while still allowing for cooperation with Western nations.

On denazification:

The leaked documents from the Istanbul negotiations reveal significant insights into Russia's demands regarding "denazification" in Ukraine:

1. Definition Shift: Initially, Russian President Vladimir Putin characterized the invasion as aimed at the "denazification" of Ukraine, which was interpreted as a goal to dismantle the Ukrainian government and replace it with a pro-Russian regime. However, this definition evolved during negotiations.

2. Legal Changes: Russian negotiators sought specific legal changes, including the repeal of Ukrainian laws that promoted national identity and language. They wanted Russian to be declared an official language and aimed to eliminate laws they referred to as promoting "nazification" and "heroization of Nazism."

3. Ukrainian Rejection: Ukraine firmly rejected these demands, arguing that they were unrelated to the treaty's subject matter. Ukrainian officials emphasized that such conditions were unacceptable and not part of any legitimate peace agreement.

4. Cultural Implications: The Russian demands implied a broader cultural and political influence over Ukraine, aiming to undermine its national identity and sovereignty.

So in summary:

• Crimea to be re-leased from Kiev, not formally recognized as part of Russia, but defacto recognized in the sense that Kiev will no longer pursue military actions against Crimea

• LDNR is to continue being part of Ukraine, but with more political autonomy for the local leadership there (Donbass mafia clan regaining political immunity in Ukrainian politics)

• Ukraine will limit its armed forces to the same size as Russia’s army (at the time) and no nukes, preferably

• Kiev can join the EU, but not NATO

• New hate speech laws to be passed banning Holocaust denial, revision of WWII official historical propaganda (claiming that USSR allied with Germany first not allowed, the Suvorov “Icebreaker” thesis not allowed, memory of pro-German volunteer divisions from Eastern Europe not allowed)

I am also sure that there were also more terms and conditions that were not leaked relating to the restoration of the personal assets of Moscow’s favored oligarchs like Medvedchuk and their political immunity guaranteed to them in future elections.

But that about covers it.

This is what Putin wanted to accomplish with his SMO, essentially. It isn’t very impressive, and, as I have covered on this blog before, it is a treasonous proposal from a Russian patriot perspective. That is, even when it was first proposed and accepted by Putin, it was treasonous because it reaffirmed Ukrainian sovereignty and the legitimacy of the Kievan government and its aspirations to join the West and its claims on Donbass. But now, after the ~100k Russian + LDNR + auxiliary deaths in this war it looks even worse. These men died for nothing, essentially, if Putin gets his way and Istanbul II is implemented. It would be a grotesque betrayal.

Luckily, Kiev and Washington have no interest in ending the war any time soon.

This is easily proven by the fact that they spiked the latest round of negotiations by invading Kursk.

Zelensky needs this war because it keeps him in power. Some recent speculation on this:

I am still inclined to believe that the evil clown does possess some minimal, close to zero, subjectivity [capacity to act on his own].

But he invests all of its meager potential in continuing the slaughter as the only way to maintain his presence on the crest of the wave.

He has something that is interesting to his elders.

And he periodically shows it off, saving himself from elimination by them.

I think, purely hypothetically, that Zelensky has some mechanism for handing over the country to individuals who will immediately sell everything, in exchange for guarantees of personal safety and the opportunity to evacuate to a neutral country, like the UAE.

This is the mechanism he periodically shows off to his elders, thereby excluding the possibility of his elimination and replacement with a more compliant puppet.

It is obvious that the clown does not suit the owners one hundred percent, and if he were a puppet, he would not behave like this, just as if he did not have an ace up his sleeve, even if it was a drawn one, he would have been pacified long ago.

There is some element of bullshit in the scheme of the West-Ukraine fusion, there is something that allows the clown to push his line a little and irritate his owners, while depriving them of the opportunity to simply slap him down.

He is too stubborn for an ordinary colonial official.

At the same time, I cannot believe that his brain, dried out by coke, is so sharp that he is really capable of playing on the contradictions of the largest beneficiaries of today's world order - the British and the Americans.

This is a virtuoso game that people from the US do not know how to play.

There is some element of bullshit in the scheme of governing the Ukro-Puerto Rico.

As I have explained before, Zelensky has no natural power base in Ukraine.

But Washington is too afraid of someone other than Zelensky taking power who does have a power base. If the old rulers of Ukraine come back to power — the oligarchs of Donbass — they will simply cut a deal with Moscow, like they’ve always done. If the military takes control (Soviet generals all of them) they will scale back the war. If the “Neo-Nazis” or Banderaites take control, they would clash with the foreigners who rule in Kiev now.

Ideally, they’d be able to put another Zelensky-type creature into power.

That is, someone with no natural base of support to lean on who would be entirely dependent on Western instructions and aid and spooks to maintain power. But Zelensky understands that once his purpose has been fulfilled, he will be thrown away and used as a scapegoat for all the crimes and stealing that occurred under his reign. This is the West’s standard MO. They put puppet-leaders into power, and then they ritually depose them. Zelensky’s ethnicity might spare him actual execution and he might just get an exile sentence. To avoid this, Zelensky makes it difficult for his handlers by foiling their attempts to circumvent him.

In other words, perhaps the Kursk incursion was a Zelensky play that wasn’t approved of by Washington. This is what the Germans were saying for a bit. Hard to believe, but, if the negotiations going on with Moscow at the time were a Washington initiative, then Zelensky spiked the effort with his invasion.

If I had to guess, Washington has at least two factions or two heads, but like a hydra.

One faction, the ostensibly pro-Putin one, tries to reassure Moscow that they’re still friends and that he needs to show restraint while they deal with the Nuland-type crazies in power now and get them to cool down. That’s the Macgregor, Burns, Carlson, Sachs, Mearsheimer, Luttwak and other “Old Guard” types. They want to use Russia against China and Iran down the line.

And the other faction wants to totally dismember Russia and these are the people who actually call most of the shots. We call them the neocons which is a bit of a misnomer because actually all factions of the Deep State are simply various forms of neocons, really. There are no fundamental differences in ideological worldview (or ethnic background) among the Trotskyites who rule the West (and Russia).

Me, I think that this supposed internal disagreement is a ploy in and of itself.

I don’t think that there is an actual split in the Western Deep State. But I believe Putin is being led to believe that there is. He mistakes the two bickering heads of the same hydra for two totally different creatures. He thinks that if he can provide one head with what it wants (cheap resources, neoliberal austerity policies, nationalists in prison), it will spare him from the other head.

Who knows though.

I freely admit where I enter purely speculative territory.

…

Meanwhile, the UAF still occupy the same lines in Kursk as they did almost two months ago now. Gerasimov claims that 20k+ Ukrainians have died in the invasion so far, but no one can point to any actual battles that occurred in which the UAF clashed with the Russian army.

A conundrum for sure.

…

And in that same BRICS conference, Putin confirmed that he maintained close ties with top Israeli officials and would be willing to continue mediating between Iran and Israel. Here:

Russia is ready to help seek compromises between arch-foes Israel and Iran, Russian President Vladimir Putin says, saying these would be difficult but possible.

“We are in contact with Israel, we are in contact with Iran. We have quite trusting relations. And we would very much like this endless exchange of blows to be stopped at some point. And for such ways to resolve the situation to be found that would satisfy both sides,” Putin tells reporters.

“The answer to this question always lies in the search for compromises. Are they possible in this situation or not? I think so. No matter how difficult it may be, but in my opinion, it is possible.”

Israel has decapitated the leadership of Iran’s allies Hamas and Hezbollah in recent weeks, and Iran fired missiles into Israel on October 1. The region is now braced for Israel’s response.

Putin says Russia was willing to get involved if both sides wanted that.

“If this is in demand, we are ready to do everything in our power in contact with both sides to help find these compromises,” he says.

Suspiciously, Putin and Mishustin and Shoigu all met recently with top Iranian leaders over the past month. This culminated in the expensive fireworks show over Israel that ended up hitting absolutely NOTHING of any strategic value. Astute observers (myself) were quick to point out that Tehran’s rocket barrage was an identical tactic used by Shoigu and his MoD to act like they were seriously enforcing the Kremlin’s red lines and punishing Kiev for escalation. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Like Iran’s strikes, Russia’s strikes were largely ineffective and deliberately so. The true target of the strikes was Russians and non-Russian pro-Russians who were fooled by the PR move. And it is the same story for these Iranian strikes.

Hopefully, the war against Lebanon, Syria and Iran will escalate and divert Western resources away from Donbass and Kursk. Israel is expanding into Syria now and conducting its own version of an “SMO” to create a “demilitarized buffer zone”. Here:

Since October 1, Israel has been conducting a ground operation against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon while conducting airstrikes. Despite its losses, Hezbollah has been fighting Israeli troops on the ground and launching rockets across the border.

Israel plans to create a buffer zone in Lebanon and Syria, a Turkish newspaper Hürriyet wrote on Wednesday, citing sources.

"Israel is doing everything to shift the fire from Lebanon to Syria. It is attacking Tartus, Hama, Homs, Aleppo, Dara and even the capital Damascus. It has moved its tanks into Syrian territory. Israel will not be satisfied with this," the newspaper said.

Israel wants to take control of the territory up to the Litani River and create a buffer zone both in Lebanon and inside Syria, as per the outlet.

And yet ZAnon assured us that Putin had saved Syria from Israel-ISIS?

What gives!

You know, the Israelies seem to be reading from the same script-writers as Putin in terms of talking points. This should make sense, seeing as Putin’s script-writers for 20 years were literally Israelis. And Putin got his whole “denazification of Europe” line from his close friend and Holocaustism activist Moshe Kantor. Speaking as a pro news-reader, let me tell you that once you read enough of what these politicians say in their speeches, you can’t help but notice these similarities. And the whole purpose of ZAnon and other Operation Trust type psyops is to convince you not to notice that the world’s top politicians are all reading from the same script.

Also: for years I have speculated that US-Israel war with Iran is the only way in which Putin somehow manages to wriggle his way out of this catastrophe with some manner of political face left intact.

I think that the war in the Middle East is a foregone conclusion at this point, especially once Trump is put into power by Bibi. And Iran will not put up much of a fight, but the will be bloodied mercilessly regardless.

A quick overview of the situation as I see it:

Lebanon:

What is left of Hezbollah is doggedly holding on in South Lebanon for now, but let us see how long this lasts with no one rearming and resupplying them.

Furthermore, Lebanese groups that aren’t part of Hezbollah like the Christians and Sunnis will side with Israel once/if Hezbollah is beaten. So, Israel will have plenty of collaborators in Lebanon.

So, let’s see if this pans out.

Syria:

Maybe the remnants of Assad’s army will do better against the IDF if it comes to that. The Israelis still want Assad gone, from what I can tell, even though he was initially a Western spook puppet like all the other leaders of Arab countries.

Syria is not a real country anymore in any meaningful sense and is already split between Turkish occupied territories, Kurdish occupied territories, American/ISIS occupied territories, and Israeli occupied territories (which will only expand).

Iran:

Iran is filled with treasonous minority groups that will side with Israel/America and destabilize the country from within. Putting aside that the current government is owned by the Israelis, you still have the sizeable Arab populations who hate the Persians, the Pashtuns who hate the Persians, and the Azeris/Turks who hate the Persians.

Iran has no allies to speak of.

These other countries surrounding it will be used as a battering ram against Iran, should it come to a full invasion.

Should this occur, I will open a second blog and title it Swarthland Chronicles and start raising funds to learn Farsi so that I can read what Iranian conspiracy theorists are writing about on Telegram. I don’t even know how I’d feel about such a development so let me know what you think in the comments below.

And start liking and sharing my stuff again, please.

Thanks!