By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Steve Witkoff, a U.S. envoy involved in Russia-Ukraine peace efforts, sparked controversy by claiming residents of Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories support Russian rule, citing disputed referendums. This statement drew sharp criticism from Ukrainian officials, including calls for his removal from negotiations. While some Ukrainian lawmakers expressed concern, others emphasized that Witkoff’s views don’t necessarily reflect official U.S. policy. Despite the criticism, the ongoing peace talks, involving separate U.S. discussions with both Ukraine and Russia, continue to progress.
Read the original article here
Ukrainian MPs have rightly condemned Witkoff’s statements on the occupied territories as “absolutely unacceptable.” His remarks, essentially rehashed Kremlin talking points dressed in English, demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of the situation and a disturbing willingness to parrot Russian propaganda. The MPs’ diplomatic responses, while measured, could have been far stronger, directly addressing the falsehoods and explaining why such statements are detrimental to any meaningful ceasefire negotiations.
The fact that these statements are being made, and amplified, highlights a concerning trend. The suggestion that the US has become a propaganda arm of Russia is alarming, but the evidence strongly points in that direction. By presenting Ukraine’s justifiable rejection of these claims as unreasonable, a false narrative is being constructed – one that might resonate with certain audiences, but that lacks any basis in reality.
This carefully crafted alternative narrative isn’t just designed for domestic consumption within the US. It aims to justify abandoning Ukraine to its fate. The underlying implication is that the US no longer values its European allies, prioritizing instead a vision of a Russia-dominated Europe that would allow for unchecked US expansion into Canada and Greenland. This calculated weakening of Europe through dependence on US weaponry is now coming to haunt the continent. Years of lobbying for US arms over European self-sufficiency have left Europe vulnerable and struggling to catch up.
Witkoff’s interview itself was peculiar. Its rambling nature, combined with a seemingly fundamental lack of understanding of Ukrainian history and geography, raises serious questions about the credibility of his pronouncements. The idea that Ukraine, with its long and distinct history, had no borders before its inclusion in the USSR is simply wrong.
The historical record is clear. Ukraine’s borders, while certainly modified over time, existed long before the USSR, and were subsequently reaffirmed through multiple agreements and international recognitions – including the crucial post-Soviet era agreements signed with Russia and the United States themselves. Putin’s own acknowledgement of these borders further underlines the utter disregard for truth exhibited by those who perpetuate these falsehoods. The very existence of these signed agreements is routinely ignored or outright denied.
The deeply flawed “annexation elections” held in the four occupied regions of Ukraine, where results like 98% and 99% in favor of joining Russia were reported, are nothing short of a farce. Witkoff’s repackaging of these sham elections as legitimate demonstrates a shocking willingness to engage in outright lies. The blatant disregard for factual accuracy is astounding, suggesting a deliberate effort to obfuscate reality and deceive the public. This is not merely a case of inaccurate reporting; it’s a calculated act of propaganda.
The historical context that places Ukraine’s origins and its long, separate existence prior to Russian interference is often ignored by those echoing the Kremlin’s line. This is not merely a question of border disputes. At the heart of the matter lies a deeply rooted Russian nationalist myth which claims that Kyiv was the ancient capital of Russia. This myth fuels the intense anger and desire to assert control over Ukraine, denying its very existence as a separate nation. In reality, references to Ukraine as a distinct entity on historical maps predate any reference to Russia as a unified nation. The narrative that modern Ukraine only existed after the 1920s, or even 1991, is a carefully constructed falsehood aimed at undermining Ukrainian sovereignty. Only the US administration, in its current trajectory, appears to embrace this revisionist, pro-Russian historical interpretation.
In conclusion, Witkoff’s statements are not merely inaccurate or misleading; they are a dangerous betrayal of truth and a clear attempt to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty. The fact that such statements are being made, and seemingly given credence, underscores the profound challenges faced by Ukraine in its struggle for survival and its fight for international recognition of its borders and its independent existence. The international community must call out these lies for what they are, and resist the insidious attempts to rewrite history and normalize the aggression against Ukraine.