Taken and translated from the Serbian version of Sputnik, the Facebook post twists the truth and spreads several pieces of disinformation. To begin with, it quotes a former Japanese diplomat, whose views by no means reflect the official position of Japan. During the entire Russo-Ukrainian War, Japan has had a decisive position on the support for Ukraine. Secondly, it is not true that only Putin and Russia are making ceasefire proposals, while Zelensky and Ukraine are rejecting them. Documents from two years of failed negotiations indicate the complexity and changes in negotiations over the course of the conflict. Finally, it is stated that there is a risk of Ukraine being divided like Korea after World War II, but in three parts: one part would belong to Ukraine, one to Russia and one to Western Europe. This is unreasonable, since neither the Western-European countries nor the European Union have any claim to appropriate the Ukrainian parts to themselves.
We analyze a post on Facebook, published in the Serbian version of Sputnik:
“JAPAN HAS WARNED THE WEST ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN WITH UKRAINE IF NEGOTIATIONS DO NOT START SOON
Ukraine could be divided into three parts if peace talks are not started, Kazuhiko Togo, former head of the Europe and Asia Department in Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told Sputnik.
‘The refusal of the United States and Great Britain to negotiate with Russia on Ukraine could lead to the disintegration of Ukraine into three parts. In the next three months, Russia could advance as far as it can, and make sure that Ukraine never rises again, either under Harris or Trump. Ukraine could then disintegrate into three parts: the eastern part will go to Russia, the western part to Western Europe, and in the middle there will be a small Ukraine with Kyiv.’ says Togo.
The former diplomat claims that Ukraine and the western countries should not ignore the peace proposals of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
‘The peace proposals that Putin presented in the middle of July are even sharper than those he talked about in his interview with Tucker Carlson. Putin makes these peace proposals, but Biden and Zelensky say that there is nothing to discuss here, and that Ukraine’s goal is the 1991 borders. This is absurd, since Ukraine itself rejected the Istanbul agreements, under which it almost received this.’ explained the former Japanese diplomat
Togo said that the peace proposals must be taken seriously.
‘These words must be taken seriously. Now is the chance to begin negotiations. If it comes to dividing Ukraine into three parts, then the situation and conditions that exist now will seem like a sweet dream.’ says the expert.”
First of all, we need to clarify that the post was originally published by the Russian news agency RIA Novosti. The Serbian version of Sputnik republished it, although it didn’t specify the source. The English version of Russia Today (RT) also published the same post with the same quotes, and there, it is noted that it was taken from RIA Novosti. What is interesting is that no posts about the interview with Kazuhiko Togo can be found on RIA Novosti’s website, nor on the Russian version of RT, which suggests that the post was likely intended for a foreign audience.
Secondly, according to his biography, former diplomat Kazuhiko Togo, was indeed head of the Department of the Soviet Union within the Bureau of European and Asian Affairs for four years (1988 to 1992). However, he was not the head of the entire bureau, but specifically of the Department of the Soviet Union.
Furthermore, the Facebook post that we are reviewing and the text itself contain other issues, such as the titles. Both the Facebook post and the post by Sputnik are classic examples of spinner click-bait titles.
“JAPAN HAS WARNED THE WEST ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN WITH UKRAINE IF NEGOTIATIONS DO NOT START SOON,” –states the Facebook post
“Take Russia seriously: Japan predicts total collapse of Ukraine if it does not start negotiations,” –is the title of Sputnik’s post
It cannot be said that Japan (referring to the official position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the government) or the Japanese (as a whole nation) are warning or predicting anything. No matter how prominent the figure is or how familiar they are with the matter. In any case, the post represent one person’s stance and it would be wrong to present it as the official position of the Japanese government or of the Japanese people. On the contrary, Japan’s position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine is very clear.
On the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan’s website, you can find detailed information on when and how much aid Japan has provided to Ukraine over the past two years. Additionally, the site shows how often the foreign ministers of Japan and Ukraine have met-the last meeting was in the middle of April of this year.
“Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, Ms. Kamikawa Yoko emphasized that Japan would continue to demonstrate at every opportunity that our unity in support for Ukraine is unwavering, mentioning that Ukraine has also been a key thematic area in Prime Minister Kishida’s visit to the United States last week and at the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting.” says the official announcement of the event (on the 18th of April, 2024)
The post further suggest that Russia is the one presenting ready-made peace treaties at the negotiating table, which the U.S. and Britain reject on behalf of Ukraine. In reality, the truth is much more complex.
First of all, according to some documents and communiqués reviewed by The New York Times, Ukraine and Russia had completely opposite stances on the concessions they are willing to make during the negotiations. And it can also be seen how their attitudes have changed over the course of several negotiations.
Secondly, as reported by BBC, Ukraine rejected the proposal in the June negotiations because it called for the complete withdrawal of the Ukrainian army from the occupied territories. In the same post, Andrii Yermak, head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenski, stated for BBC that there would be “no compromise on independence, sovereignty or territorial integrity,” during the “Summit on Peace in Ukraine” held in July of this year, in Switzerland.
Thirdly, related to this, it was also mentioned that the former British Prime Minster Boris Johnson sabotaged the negotiations at the very beginning of the war. However, that is also not completely true, as stated in The Guardian’s column:
“ […] indeed, there was no deal ready to be signed between Russia and Ukraine. The two sides hadn’t agreed on territorial issues, or on levels of military armaments permitted after the war. Ukraine’s position during the negotiations necessitated security guarantees that western states were hesitant to provide. And there were domestic political questions inside Ukraine related to Russian demands about ‘denazification’ to contend with.“
In Guardian’s column, Adam Smith, a Democrat from United States House of Representatives, says:
“I’ve heard this phrase-‘nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine’. Forgive me. That is a ridiculous thing for any US diplomat or person in US policy to say. We got partners all over the world and, yes, we listen to them, but when we’re footing the bill, when we are spending so much money over there, we have a say.” This suggests that American diplomats are involved and have a stake in the whole process, but that doesn’t mean they’re in complete control of the process or want the war to go on at all costs.
The last contentious part is the idea that Ukraine can be disintegrated into three parts, more specifically, that the “western part would go to Western Europe.” Firstly, it is unreasonable to say that any part would be assigned to Western Europe, since it is only a geographical location-there is no administrative or political entity called Western Europe. If it refers to some of the Western European countries that border Ukraine, it is also unreasonable. Not only because no country has such pretensions, but also because that would mean the appropriation or annexation of parts of Ukraine.
However, this does not entirely rule out the possibility of Ukraine facing disintegration. Analysts for the American CNBC write that there is a risk that Ukraine will accept territorial claims to annex parts to Russia or that there will be a division of the state into two parts through other mechanisms-as is the case with Korea and Sudan.
Therefore, in view of the above facts, we assess the fact-checked post as untrue. The official position of the Japanese government is very clear. They are allies of Ukraine, which means that the position of a former diplomat does not reflect the position of a state. The turbulence of the negotiation process cannot be so easily blamed exclusively on the United States, Britain or Ukraine, because by setting ultimatums, the negotiations cannot progress. And, the disintegration of Ukraine into three parts is unrealistic because there is no third party involved that would want to get the “western part” of Ukraine, as the post claims.
