In hindsight, Russia’s hyperbolic rhetoric preceding these talks was arguably misdirected, and it would have been better for those officials such as Medvedev to trust Russia’s partners like India instead of doubting their intentions.
it is not ethical to exclude one party in a conflict of 2 states..russia had to be invited in any talks concerning ukraine ..because it defeats the object of peace ..
Hungary supports the points contained therein, but is against the way in which Western support for Ukraine risks escalating the conflict to the point of World War III.
It's principled criticism of those methods was widely misinterpreted by friends and foes alike as supposedly signaling support for Russia but that was never the case.
Orban has repeatedly condemned Russia for intervening and Hungary has voted against it at the UNGA, but both aren't often reported by Mainstream and Alternative Media.
There’s no advantage to Hungary in further antagonising the United States or Europe by being difficult over the conflict in Ukraine more generally, or by not attending the Lausanne ‘peace conference’ particularly.
As a smallish country with little influence in the councils of Europe they need to duck and weave a bit to ensure that their interests are taken into account, without pushing their agenda to the point of seriously ticking off the big players.
I agree that the event itself wasn't respectful of Russia, but Russia's approach towards it in terms of rhetoric about the attendees (ex: fellow BRICS partners India, Brazil, South Africa, etc.) was different this time and a lot harsher, which I don't think was necessary in hindsight.
Maybe from pundits but I haven’t heard anything official that sounded remotely harsh. In fact, after Serbia and Hungary not only attended but SIGNED the useless communique, Peskov stated that this does not change the relationship between them and Russia.
I showed in the text how Medvedev claimed that all those who attend are taking Kiev's side against Russia and added a link elsewhere in the comments about how another official considered it a "trial" against his country, both of which didn't pan out.
Medvedev doesn’t count. He’s always been extreme - that’s his role.
There wasn’t much difference in the reaction from the Russian state as a whole. After 2 years and all the damming facts against the west, if you go along with the narrative - then yes - it is a “test”.
Even then, as I stated earlier, Peskov said (in reference primarily to Serbia and Hungary) that signing doesn’t change the relationship.
You're entitled to feel that way, but when Medvedev says that all the participants are taking Ukraine's side against Russia and this guy below describes the entire event as a "trial" of Russia -- neither of which turned out to be true -- then it's veritably the case that Russia was espousing hyberbolic rhetoric that it in hindsight should have eschewed:
There are other examples as well, but I felt that listing them all might give off the wrong vibe and falsely suggest that I'm dunking on Russia, which is why I only shared Medvedev's example, which I'd earlier written about which in my opinion is the most egregious.
it is not ethical to exclude one party in a conflict of 2 states..russia had to be invited in any talks concerning ukraine ..because it defeats the object of peace ..
thoughts on why hungary signed onto the statement?
Hungary supports the points contained therein, but is against the way in which Western support for Ukraine risks escalating the conflict to the point of World War III.
It's principled criticism of those methods was widely misinterpreted by friends and foes alike as supposedly signaling support for Russia but that was never the case.
Orban has repeatedly condemned Russia for intervening and Hungary has voted against it at the UNGA, but both aren't often reported by Mainstream and Alternative Media.
There’s no advantage to Hungary in further antagonising the United States or Europe by being difficult over the conflict in Ukraine more generally, or by not attending the Lausanne ‘peace conference’ particularly.
As a smallish country with little influence in the councils of Europe they need to duck and weave a bit to ensure that their interests are taken into account, without pushing their agenda to the point of seriously ticking off the big players.
Principles don’t really come into the equation.
thank you. it would be interesting to understand this condemnation given they must be keenly aware of all that predated it. thank you again
How do have a conference to mediate peace between two parties and only invite one of them to participate in the talks that shape the outcome?
It was ridiculous from the start and Russia had it right.
I agree that the event itself wasn't respectful of Russia, but Russia's approach towards it in terms of rhetoric about the attendees (ex: fellow BRICS partners India, Brazil, South Africa, etc.) was different this time and a lot harsher, which I don't think was necessary in hindsight.
How?
Maybe from pundits but I haven’t heard anything official that sounded remotely harsh. In fact, after Serbia and Hungary not only attended but SIGNED the useless communique, Peskov stated that this does not change the relationship between them and Russia.
I showed in the text how Medvedev claimed that all those who attend are taking Kiev's side against Russia and added a link elsewhere in the comments about how another official considered it a "trial" against his country, both of which didn't pan out.
Medvedev doesn’t count. He’s always been extreme - that’s his role.
There wasn’t much difference in the reaction from the Russian state as a whole. After 2 years and all the damming facts against the west, if you go along with the narrative - then yes - it is a “test”.
Even then, as I stated earlier, Peskov said (in reference primarily to Serbia and Hungary) that signing doesn’t change the relationship.
You’re wrong here.
Making up a narrative to generate clicks. So long.
You're entitled to feel that way, but when Medvedev says that all the participants are taking Ukraine's side against Russia and this guy below describes the entire event as a "trial" of Russia -- neither of which turned out to be true -- then it's veritably the case that Russia was espousing hyberbolic rhetoric that it in hindsight should have eschewed:
https://tass.com/politics/1804081
There are other examples as well, but I felt that listing them all might give off the wrong vibe and falsely suggest that I'm dunking on Russia, which is why I only shared Medvedev's example, which I'd earlier written about which in my opinion is the most egregious.