The claim
Sahra Wagenknecht claims in a video snippet: The West is not interested in ending the war in Ukraine, which is why Boris Johnson intervened with Volodymyr Zelensky to prevent a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine.
Our conclusion
There are no reliable sources for this claim. Wagenknecht only cites secondary sources. The origin of the claim, according to Ukrainska Pravda, was someone close to Zelensky.
So it's a rumor. But a rumor that fits very well with statements made by Boris Johnson, which he repeated several times after his visit to Kyiv: Putin is not trustworthy. And even after a “land for peace” deal, Putin would still be able to continue the war later.
In a nearly 20-minute YouTube video, Sahra Wagenknecht argues that the so-called “West” is to blame for continuing the war in Ukraine. Excerpts from this video went viral on social media. The core message: Boris Johnson went to Kyiv to intervene against an almost completely negotiated peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. Prime Minister Johnson is said to have said to Volodymyr Zelensky: The West is not yet ready for an end to the war. What is true about this claim?
A prevented peace agreement?
Sahra Wagenknecht assumes ( from 11:46 ) that “with a little goodwill and a willingness to compromise, the war could have been ended long ago, but the West has missed several opportunities to do so.” However, according to economist Jeffrey Sax, the USA has , “a negotiated solution prevented”. The contents of the “almost achieved peace agreement” of March 2022 were outlined in the magazine Foreign Affairs:
Afterwards, Russia and Ukraine agreed that Russia would withdraw from all areas conquered since February 24, 22, and in return Ukraine would forego joining NATO and receive security guarantees from various states.
Sahra Wagenknecht: “Looking into the catastrophe? “How the USA prevents peace” ( from 14:06 )
Wagenknecht quotes an interview that Jeffrey Sachs gave on October 9, 2022, which contains many, many false claims. However, Sachs never claims that Russia is ready to withdraw from the conquered territories. And in the above-mentioned article Ukraine's Best Chance for Peace from Foreign Affairs there is not a word that Russia was willing to do this - only that it would be a prerequisite for the treaty to hold: “To make this work, Moscow would have to withdraw from “Much, if not all, of the areas it has occupied since the invasion.”
After Turkey's mediation, peace in the form of this partially worked out treaty would be within reach. But then Boris Johnson's appearance - and everything was over.
The Johnson Claim
The video snippet, which has already been viewed almost 300,000 times on Facebook, begins at minute 14:55 of the longer YouTube video: The agreement [the peace agreement] failed not because of Russia, but because of an intervention by Boris Johnson with the backing of the USA. He traveled to Kyiv “to put pressure on Zelensky not to sign the agreement.” Now Wagenknecht quotes an online article from the Quincy Institute :
Yes, and the justification, it says, is that Johnson would have argued, firstly , that one should not negotiate with a war criminal like Putin. Well, that's neither new nor original. Much more interesting is the second reason that Johnson is said to have given : “The West isn't ready for the war to end.” The West is not ready for an end to the war. You have to let that melt in your mouth.
Sahra Wagenknecht: “Looking into the catastrophe? How the USA prevents peace” ( from 15:39 )
An attempt at text analysis
Over the years of her political career, Sahra Wagenknecht has earned a reputation for being an excellent rhetorician. It can therefore be assumed that she chose the words consciously. If you read the part of her spoken text just quoted, it is very clear that Wagenknecht does not say that, , Boris Johnson argued that one should not negotiate with a war criminal like Putin . And she didn't say either: The second reason that Johnson gave for breaking off the peace talks is much more interesting: “The West isn't ready for the war to end.” The West is not ready for an end to the war.
The first argument has often been repeated by Boris Johnson on other occasions: “Any such agreement or compromise [with Putin] would send a signal around the globe that violence pays, that violence trumps law” (Speech in the British Parliament, dated September 22, 2022 ). At the beginning of April, the then prime minister addressed the Russian population directly in a video to inform them about Russian war crimes under Putin:
By loading the video, you accept YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more
And the second argument that “the West” is not ready for an end to the war in Ukraine? This can be found neither before nor after Johnson's April visit to Ukraine. So where exactly does the claim come from?
The search for clues
Sahra Wagenknecht refers to an article by the US Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft . The sentence quoted reads like this in context:
The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's efforts to halt negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson's visit to Kiev in April, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two main reasons: Putin is impossible to negotiate with, and the West is unwilling to end the war.
Connor Echols: “Diplomacy Watch: Did Boris Johnson help stop a peace deal in Ukraine?” ( Responsable Statecraft, September 2, 2022 )
US Biden biographer Branko Marcetic's tweet:
By loading the tweet, you accept Twitter's privacy policy.
Learn more
The linked Ukrainian “pro-Western paper”, Ukrainska Pravda, writes:
According to UP sources close to Zelensky, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who appeared in the capital almost without warning, delivered two simple messages: The first is that Putin is a war criminal who needs to be put under pressure and with which not may be negotiated. And secondly – if Ukraine is ready to sign agreements on guarantees with him, they are not.
Johnson's position showed that the collective West, which had offered Zelensky to surrender and flee back in February, now felt that Putin was not as all-powerful as he was imagined and that there was now a chance to “put pressure” on him. Three days after Johnson's return to the United Kingdom, Putin went public and declared that negotiations with Ukraine had "reached an impasse."
Ukrainska Pravda on May 5, 2022, translation of the Ukrainian version of the text ( English version )
Ukrainska Pravda cites an unnamed source who is said to be close to the Ukrainian president. Was this person present at the conversation between Johnson and Zelensky? Is she trustworthy? We do not know it. There is a term for the quality of such claims: rumor. And the actual statement also allows for different interpretations. The most obvious one is that the “collective West” embodied by Boris Johnson is not ready to sign the agreement on security guarantees for Ukraine in its current form.
The English version of the sentence can also be read like this: “And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not.” The Quincy Institute has this statement in “the west isn't ready for the war to end” is distorted. And Sahra Wagenknecht translates the rumor with already distorted message into “The West is not ready for an end to the war”.
Old allegations, new video
As early as May 2022, Wagenknecht and her party colleague Sevim Dagdelen had made similar claims, which a ZDF fact check had already looked at in detail. Dagdelen in the Phoenix round on May 10, 2022 ( from 1:53 p.m. ): “It [the agreement] was pretty mature. But ultimately it led to British Prime Minister Johnson traveling there and saying: No, we want to fight to the last Ukrainian here. And I find it really cynical to want to fight to the last Ukrainian here, from London." This harsh claim was shared many times, including on Twitter - not always without harsh criticism:
By loading the tweet, you accept Twitter's privacy policy.
Learn more
ZDF later asked Sevim Dagdelen: “She did not quote Johnson verbatim,” she wrote in an email . Instead, she criticized as “cynical” the political maxim of the British and Americans to “fight to the last Ukrainian” and to thwart a possible negotiated solution between Kiev and Moscow.”
At a campaign event in May 2022, Sahra Wagenknecht claimed the following: The half-drafted agreement was “a document that could have ended the war. And then two things happened: Boris Johnson went to Kiev and made it clear publicly - this can be read - that he did not agree at all with Zelensky making such concessions. And then the USA, as the Washington Post reported, said that the USA would rather this war be decided on the battlefield, as they say recently. And that they don't try to negotiate a peace that also includes compromises with Russia. And since then we have been told that everything will be decided militarily.”
By loading the tweet, you accept Twitter's privacy policy.
Learn more
Can that be true?
The ZDF fact check looked at what was true about Wagenknecht's allegations that "the West had already negotiated a ceasefire and thus prevented peace": "In fact, there were initially rapprochements during the negotiations between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul at the end of March. For example, Ukraine made an offer to accept neutral status in return for security guarantees.” Russia, on the other hand, had announced that it would reduce troops around Kyiv and concentrate militarily on the east. However, the talks ended without concrete results, and no agreement was reached that was ready to be signed.
Shortly afterwards, Zelenskyj doubted The Ukrainian President's ideas about the agreement are recorded in Ukrainska Pravda : It would be better to have two separate documents. Security guarantees from those who are willing to provide such security guarantees. And a separate document with Russia. “Russia wants everything to be settled in one document, but people say, sorry, we saw what happened in Bucha, circumstances are changing.”
“After Butscha happened, the Ukrainians said: 'Now it is no longer possible to negotiate with the Russians,'” says defense expert Carlo Masala from the University of the Bundeswehr in Munich in an interview with ZDFheute. In his view, Butscha in particular “torpedoed” the peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, not any statements from the USA or Boris Johnson.
ZDF fact check : Is the West preventing peace in Ukraine?
And what about the Washington Post quoted by Wagenknecht again?
Some European countries, especially former communist countries with bitter memories of Russian invasions or occupations, are particularly nervous about the development of the conflict as they see themselves next on the Kremlin's target list. If Putin feels he benefited from the invasion by gaining territory, political concessions or other advantages, he could eventually be inspired to try the same against other neighbors, policymakers say. The Ukrainians are thus caught up in a broader fight on behalf of Europe, NATO leaders say. […]
Even a Ukrainian promise not to join NATO - a concession that Zelensky has publicly floated - could worry some neighbors. This leads to an unpleasant reality: For some in NATO, it is better for Ukrainians to continue fighting and dying than to achieve a peace that comes too soon or at too high a price for Kiev and the rest of Europe.
Article “NATO says Ukraine to decide on peace deal with Russia — within limits” by Michael Birnbaum and Missy Ryan, Washington Post on April 5, 2022
It is not clear from the text who exactly among the Eastern European NATO members are of this opinion. Only Latvian Defense Minister Artis Pabriks is quoted directly: "Russia must lose and criminals should be brought to justice." So no, the Washington Post doesn't say that "the US would rather this war be decided on the battlefield." as Wagenknecht had claimed.
CONCLUSION
There are no reliable sources to support the claim that the West is not interested in ending the Ukraine war. And that's why Boris Johnson intervened with Volodymyr Zelensky to prevent a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. Sahra Wagenknecht only cites secondary sources that falsify the original statement. The origin of the claim, according to Ukrainska Pravda, is said to be an unnamed person close to Zelensky. So it's a rumor.
But a rumor that fits very well with statements made by Boris Johnson, which he repeated several times after his visit to Kyiv: Putin is a war criminal and not trustworthy. Under a “land for peace” deal, Putin would still be able to continue the war later. In a speech in the British Parliament on September 22, 2022 , Johnson reiterated this view.
More on the topic: Do articles of the UN Charter authorize Russia to attack Ukraine?
Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )