Putin's war against Ukraine has always been an information war.

Before the start of hostilities, the focus was on Russian deception maneuvers and American unmasking tactics.

At some point, myths began to be formed about the actual operators and profiteers of the war, in which critics of America and friends of Russia on both sides of the Atlantic actively participated.

Here, too, the shots are fired in a certain way.

The arsenal of disinformation is inexhaustible.

Fiona Hill and Angela Stent are feeling it right now.

Majid Sattar

Political correspondent for North America based in Washington.

  • Follow I follow

The two authors wrote an essay entitled “The World Putins Wants” for the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs magazine last year.

Subtitle: "How distortions about the past feed delusions about the future".

Hill works at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank with a more left-liberal orientation.

The British-American scientist has worked for several American presidents - most recently for Donald Trump.

She was responsible for the Russia dossier in the National Security Council and worked closely with security adviser John Bolton.

She's what Washington calls a Russia hawk.

Angela Stent is Professor Emeritus at Georgetown University and Colleague Hills at Brookings.

She is also a proven Russia specialist.

She, too, worked for the government under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

It was fairly certain that the article in the journal published by the Council on Foreign Relations, which appeared a good six months after the start of the aggressive war, would receive a great deal of attention.

The magazine often provides background information and drafts concepts that are partly based on discussions with members of the government and then in turn influence the debates in the White House, in the State Department or in the Pentagon.

In this case, however, the reception was different from what the authors wanted.

Kujat and Wagenknecht jump up

In essence, it is about a passage in which the Russian calculation is discussed with a view to negotiations.

It is worth noting that the section begins by noting that despite calls from some for a negotiated settlement that includes territorial concessions from Kyiv, Putin does not seem interested in a compromise that preserves Ukraine as a sovereign, independent state.

Then: “According to several senior former US officials with whom we spoke, in April 2022 Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appear to have tentatively agreed on outlines of a negotiated interim agreement: Russia would retreat to the February 23 position when it controlled parts of the Donbass and all of Crimea.

And in return, Ukraine would promise

This passage has developed a remarkable life of its own.

Hill and Stent have unwittingly become key witnesses to the Russian narrative that the West prevented the signing of the agreement – ​​and thus an end to the war.

Linguistically, this is done quickly: You only have to do without “outlines”, “provisional” and “transition” and ignore the political context, namely the question of whether Putin would have really felt obliged to such an agreement between his negotiators – and you have the basis laid to denounce the West.

The article has made an amazing career.

He is cited by left-wing critics of America in the United States as well as by German apologists for Russia.