Minsk Accords-who broke them-why does it matter?

[gringo]

    The proponents of the "Russian aggression" narrative-as one of their trained talking points-often state unequivocally that, "Russia broke the Minsk agreements". If asked to venture further into this narrative, there is nothing-beyond repeating the same mantra and mumbling something about "unprovoked invasion" and cretinous statements about perceived Russian imperial ambitions. Nothing on the details of how Russia broke the agreements.
    Critics of NATO, in contrast, will point out the transgressions by Ukraine/NATO in full.
    This is the reason why it is never discussed further. The blame for the whole mess lies wholly with NATO aggression. When the Minsk agreements and their aftermath are examined-it is impossible to conclude anything other than NATO (using Ukraine as their proxy) had no intent ever to fulfil the Minsk agreements, broke them from Day 1 then armed and prepared for 8 years to attack and "re-take" the territories of Donetsk and Luhansk. To be followed by their wet dream of conquering Crimea.

     First of all, it is important to understand both what the Minsk agreements contain and no less importantly why they came about.

     Minsk 1 and 2 differ very little. Minsk 2 came about because of the failure of the first agreement. Russia, given the failure of Minsk 1 to bring peace, insisted that Minsk 2 be made into a United Nations Security Council Resolution. This cemented the status of Minsk 2 as legally binding with the uncontested decision of the Security Council. I have touched on this subject before. Why would US, UK and France(also guarantors) as veto wielding Security Council members agree to a resolution, that they have since admitted having no intention of observing?
     The answer is Debaltseve. More about that in the next post. But it is an important question that requires answering. Why did not one of UK, US or France use their veto? If they had no intention of observing UNSC 2202, why not negotiate a wording that they would observe, as is always the case with weighty matters such as UNSC Resolutions. The level of deceit that they are willing to use at what is basically the world's highest legal authority is staggering. That many in the West are unperturbed by this duplicity, publicly admitted, shows how out of touch with the world they are.

     The agreement calls for ceasefire, pulling back of heavy artillery to agreed distances from the Line of Control. This was to be observed and overseen by the OSCE(Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe).
      The agreement also orders negotiations on the autonomous status of the republics, between the Ukraine government and Leaders of the republics, giving the republics autonomy but within the borders of a federal Ukraine. The Ukrainian government did none of the things demanded in the UNSC resolution.
     The agreement is between the Ukrainian government and the Leaders of the Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. Russia are not a party to the agreement. They, along with France and Germany, were guarantors. Russia are not a party and have no obligations. It is they who insisted(at the barrel of a gun) that it be made binding. When and how have they ever broken Minsk 2?
     This is why it is never articulated how Russia have violated Minsk. Nor will it be articulated in reply to this. They didn't and couldn't violate an agreement that they are not party to nor have any obligations to. It was also brought to the SC by Russia. They have shown their adherence from day 1.
     In contrast to the other guarantors-Russia have consistently called on the Ukrainian government to observe their obligations under Minsk. Ceasefire violations during the near 7 year stand off after Minsk 2, were massively and disproportionately from the Ukrainian side. This is documented by the OSCE and not arguable.
     We also now know that NATO have used this time to arm and prepare Ukrainian forces for an attack on the breakaway republics. The President of France at the time, Francois Hollande, has admitted as has Angela Merkel, then PM of Germany, that they had no intention of abiding by Minsk 2 and agreed only to "buy time" for their eventual armed assault. This has been publicly stated, unambiguously.
     In the week before the "unprovoked Russian invasion" the shelling of civilian areas increased by magnitudes. Again observed and recorded by the OSCE. There was a massive build up of Ukrainian armed forces, again observed and recorded by the OSCE and all media for that matter.
     The Russian build up of forces on the borders was a response to this build up. There is no dispute as to which came first. The increased shelling of civilian areas and troop build up is recorded.
    Given the obvious duplicity of Ukraine government and its owners/sponsors-the obvious preparations for invasion in breach of UNSC- Russia acted under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine.
    Ukraine and it's sponsors have admitted they broke Minsk 2 from the start-had no intention of fulfilling it- and used it only to buy time. This is not Russian disinformation. These are the admitted facts.
    How is it not obvious that Ukraine/NATO are responsible? Their public admissions can lead to no other reasonable conclusion. This is why 87% of the world population are behind Russia. Only indoctrinated western publics believe the drivel being spouted in the West. It is why we need to censor. The rest of the world has a more objective view of the world than pampered westerners.

[gringo]

The EU was forced to agree to a revised form of the September ceasefire, including the memorandum of the 19th of that month.   US policy is failing, or rather succeeding in producing an unstable situation, precisely what most of European decision makers want to avoid.  Even EU Atlanticists are not in it for the whole wild ride, and their Trans-Atlantic sensibilities are still based upon general notions of wealth creation and regional stability.

Evidence of this was the impending doom of thousands of UAF fighters, as leaked information indicated a number of these may be from NATO countries, and Merkel and Hollande were right in knowing that they had better get clarification on this matter directly from the Russian head of state.

Indeed, this is why European leaders called the meeting, and rushed to Minsk.

     The above is from the article liked below. Why three veto wielding Permanent Members of the Security Council(UK, US, France) openly lied to the most important legal authority in the world. A legal authority that they, as with all of the permanent 5, are the supposed main upholders.

https://www.greanvillepost.com/2015/02/21/the-beautiful-truth-about-minsk-ii-the-debaltsevo-debacle/

[Steve_uk]

    The proponents of the "Russian aggression" narrative-as one of their trained talking points-often state unequivocally that, "Russia broke the Minsk agreements". If asked to venture further into this narrative, there is nothing-beyond repeating the same mantra and mumbling something about "unprovoked invasion" and cretinous statements about perceived Russian imperial ambitions. Nothing on the details of how Russia broke the agreements.
    Critics of NATO, in contrast, will point out the transgressions by Ukraine/NATO in full.
    This is the reason why it is never discussed further. The blame for the whole mess lies wholly with NATO aggression. When the Minsk agreements and their aftermath are examined-it is impossible to conclude anything other than NATO (using Ukraine as their proxy) had no intent ever to fulfil the Minsk agreements, broke them from Day 1 then armed and prepared for 8 years to attack and "re-take" the territories of Donetsk and Luhansk. To be followed by their wet dream of conquering Crimea.

     First of all, it is important to understand both what the Minsk agreements contain and no less importantly why they came about.

     Minsk 1 and 2 differ very little. Minsk 2 came about because of the failure of the first agreement. Russia, given the failure of Minsk 1 to bring peace, insisted that Minsk 2 be made into a United Nations Security Council Resolution. This cemented the status of Minsk 2 as legally binding with the uncontested decision of the Security Council. I have touched on this subject before. Why would US, UK and France(also guarantors) as veto wielding Security Council members agree to a resolution, that they have since admitted having no intention of observing?
     The answer is Debaltseve. More about that in the next post. But it is an important question that requires answering. Why did not one of UK, US or France use their veto? If they had no intention of observing UNSC 2202, why not negotiate a wording that they would observe, as is always the case with weighty matters such as UNSC Resolutions. The level of deceit that they are willing to use at what is basically the world's highest legal authority is staggering. That many in the West are unperturbed by this duplicity, publicly admitted, shows how out of touch with the world they are.

     The agreement calls for ceasefire, pulling back of heavy artillery to agreed distances from the Line of Control. This was to be observed and overseen by the OSCE(Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe).
      The agreement also orders negotiations on the autonomous status of the republics, between the Ukraine government and Leaders of the republics, giving the republics autonomy but within the borders of a federal Ukraine. The Ukrainian government did none of the things demanded in the UNSC resolution.
     The agreement is between the Ukrainian government and the Leaders of the Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. Russia are not a party to the agreement. They, along with France and Germany, were guarantors. Russia are not a party and have no obligations. It is they who insisted(at the barrel of a gun) that it be made binding. When and how have they ever broken Minsk 2?
     This is why it is never articulated how Russia have violated Minsk. Nor will it be articulated in reply to this. They didn't and couldn't violate an agreement that they are not party to nor have any obligations to. It was also brought to the SC by Russia. They have shown their adherence from day 1.
     In contrast to the other guarantors-Russia have consistently called on the Ukrainian government to observe their obligations under Minsk. Ceasefire violations during the near 7 year stand off after Minsk 2, were massively and disproportionately from the Ukrainian side. This is documented by the OSCE and not arguable.
     We also now know that NATO have used this time to arm and prepare Ukrainian forces for an attack on the breakaway republics. The President of France at the time, Francois Hollande, has admitted as has Angela Merkel, then PM of Germany, that they had no intention of abiding by Minsk 2 and agreed only to "buy time" for their eventual armed assault. This has been publicly stated, unambiguously.
     In the week before the "unprovoked Russian invasion" the shelling of civilian areas increased by magnitudes. Again observed and recorded by the OSCE. There was a massive build up of Ukrainian armed forces, again observed and recorded by the OSCE and all media for that matter.
     The Russian build up of forces on the borders was a response to this build up. There is no dispute as to which came first. The increased shelling of civilian areas and troop build up is recorded.
    Given the obvious duplicity of Ukraine government and its owners/sponsors-the obvious preparations for invasion in breach of UNSC- Russia acted under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine.
    Ukraine and it's sponsors have admitted they broke Minsk 2 from the start-had no intention of fulfilling it- and used it only to buy time. This is not Russian disinformation. These are the admitted facts.
    How is it not obvious that Ukraine/NATO are responsible? Their public admissions can lead to no other reasonable conclusion. This is why 87% of the world population are behind Russia. Only indoctrinated western publics believe the drivel being spouted in the West. It is why we need to censor. The rest of the world has a more objective view of the world than pampered westerners.

You asked me in a previous post to explain the ambiguity of the Minsk agreements. Ukraine believed it had the right to control its own territory and grant autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk. Russia, egging-on the ringleaders, wanted to establish two semi-independent states controlled by Putin. You think the latter played no part in the Minsk agreements: don't make me laugh..

[gringo]

You asked me in a previous post to explain the ambiguity of the Minsk agreements. Ukraine believed it had the right to control its own territory and grant autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk. Russia, egging-on the ringleaders, wanted to establish two semi-independent states controlled by Putin. You think the latter played no part in the Minsk agreements: don't make me laugh..

   "Ukraine believed it had the the right to control its own territory"-Nothing ambiguous there, Steve. All agree that the Minsk agreements allowed for autonomous status for the republics within  a Federal Ukraine.
    Claiming that Russia, "were egging on the ringleaders, wanting to establish two semi-independent states controlled by Putin", is demonstrably untrue. Putin had already refused to incorporate Donetsk and Luhansk into Russia. He preferred that they remained part of Ukraine-but with autonomy as specified in the Minsk Accords that he and Russia insisted was made into a UNSC resolution. This course of action betrays your claim.
    Where do you get the notion that I "think that Putin played no part in the Minsk agreements". What makes you project this thought onto me? I have said that Russia are not parties to and nor do they have any obligations under Minsk agreements. This is undeniably true, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
    The part that Russia played in the Minsk agreements has been laid out above. Playing their part in negotiations, taking agreement to UNSC etc.
     How does any of what you have said justify Ukrainian shelling of their citizens (all observed), their actual public admittance that they have breached Minsk deliberately from the start, never intended to abide by the UNSC resolution 2202 and the obvious invasion preparations?
    This is admitted and not disputed. You have offered nothing in return of how Russia breached Minsk 2. Ukraine breached it from the start. That is why Russia needed to act to protect the population of Donetsk and Luhansk from being attacked by their own countries armed forces.

[Steve_uk]

   "Ukraine believed it had the the right to control its own territory"-Nothing ambiguous there, Steve. All agree that the Minsk agreements allowed for autonomous status for the republics within  a Federal Ukraine.
    Claiming that Russia, "were egging on the ringleaders, wanting to establish two semi-independent states controlled by Putin", is demonstrably untrue. Putin had already refused to incorporate Donetsk and Luhansk into Russia. He preferred that they remained part of Ukraine-but with autonomy as specified in the Minsk Accords that he and Russia insisted was made into a UNSC resolution. This course of action betrays your claim.
    Where do you get the notion that I "think that Putin played no part in the Minsk agreements". What makes you project this thought onto me? I have said that Russia are not parties to and nor do they have any obligations under Minsk agreements. This is undeniably true, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
    The part that Russia played in the Minsk agreements has been laid out above. Playing their part in negotiations, taking agreement to UNSC etc.
     How does any of what you have said justify Ukrainian shelling of their citizens (all observed), their actual public admittance that they have breached Minsk deliberately from the start, never intended to abide by the UNSC resolution 2202 and the obvious invasion preparations?
    This is admitted and not disputed. You have offered nothing in return of how Russia breached Minsk 2. Ukraine breached it from the start. That is why Russia needed to act to protect the population of Donetsk and Luhansk from being attacked by their own countries armed forces.

I suppose equipping them with the armaments which brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 didn't count.

[gringo]

I suppose equipping them with the armaments which brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 didn't count.

   You may believe this. The behaviour of the West and the show trial in Holland doesn't convince anyone outside of the West. It is, regardless, nothing to do with Minsk 2.
    MH17 was brought down on 17 July 2014.
    Minsk 2 was signed 6 months or so later in 2015.
    How can Russia have broken an agreement 6 months before it even existed?
    Try again. You have still failed to point out how Russia breached Minsk 2. You're just throwing shit at the wall now. MH17!?
    Ukraine breaches with NATO help and encouragement are well documented and admitted.

[gringo]

     With the following established (broken down into bullet points to establish timeline);

1.)   5 September 2014 Minsk 1 accords agreed and signed
2.)   January 2015, agreement breaks completely. Ukrainian army and NATO troops? defeated and surrounded at Debaltseve.
3.)   Feb. 12th 2015 Minsk 2 accords signed.
4.)   At Russia's insistence, Minsk 2 was taken to the Security Council to become UNSC resolution 2202. Given the non observance by Ukraine/NATO of previous agreement, Russia made sure to give it the status of binding law.
5.)   Ceasefire breaches and pulling back of heavy artillery etc. to be overseen and recorded by OSCE.
6.)   Ukraine continue to shell civilian areas in Donetsk and Luhansk. All observed and recorded by OSCE.
7.)   Breaches of the ceasefire from the republics are much fewer and nearly always in response to the shelling of civilian areas. Observed and recorded by OSCE.
8.)   Since Minsk 2 was signed the Ukraine government and the guarantors for Ukraine (French and German governments) have all stated unequivocally and unambiguously that they only signed them to buy time to re-arm in order to attack the republics in the future.
9.)   In the weeks leading to 24th Feb, the Ukrainians had amassed troops and equipment, increased shelling by magnitudes(all observed independently by OSCE) and by all appearances were getting ready to invade.
10.)  Russia launch SMO under Responsibility to Protect doctrine under Article 51 of the UN charter.

    In the Western view, all of the above has to be ignored.
    Then Putin woke up on the 24th February 2022 and completely unprovoked, with no justification whatsoever, decided to invade Ukraine

[Steve_uk]

   You may believe this. The behaviour of the West and the show trial in Holland doesn't convince anyone outside of the West. It is, regardless, nothing to do with Minsk 2.
    MH17 was brought down on 17 July 2014.
    Minsk 2 was signed 6 months or so later in 2015.
    How can Russia have broken an agreement 6 months before it even existed?
    Try again. You have still failed to point out how Russia breached Minsk 2. You're just throwing shit at the wall now. MH17!?
    Ukraine breaches with NATO help and encouragement are well documented and admitted.

Well apparently Russia breached diplomatic protocol by releasing confidential correspondence with French and German negotiators. My point about Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 is that armaments were being smuggled into Eastern Ukraine from Russia. https://youtu.be/8pU3KluWRkg

[gringo]

Well apparently Russia breached diplomatic protocol by releasing confidential correspondence with French and German negotiators. My point about Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 is that armaments were being smuggled into Eastern Ukraine from Russia. https://youtu.be/8pU3KluWRkg

   The language that you use is indicative of your trained bias. Smuggled armaments? We supply, Russia smuggle.
    What does Russia "breached diplomatic protocol" supposedly mean? Russia have been assiduous in observing "the forms". They make sure that their actions are within International Law and the UN Charter. Putin, as a Trained lawyer of Int'l law, is always aware of this.
    It isn't Russia or China who refer to a vague "International Rules Based Order". Why do you think Western Leaders speak of "rules based order" rather than Int'l law? The UN Charter is the only "rules based order" and is trampled on by the West. None of the western aggression since WW2 is justified and tramples Int'l law with impunity. Russia always clearly lay out their case in law, that you don't know it is indicative only of your limited information.
    China, Russia, Iran and any other country that you believe to be in breach of "diplomatic protocols" are above criticism from any NATO/EU state who trashed the Vienna conventions on Diplomatic Immunity with their breaching of Embassies and Presidential jets over the last 10 years or so-very publicly. Your blindness to any and all crimes of the West renders your opinion worthless. No objectivity at all.

[Steve_uk]

   The language that you use is indicative of your trained bias. Smuggled armaments? We supply, Russia smuggle.
    What does Russia "breached diplomatic protocol" supposedly mean? Russia have been assiduous in observing "the forms". They make sure that their actions are within International Law and the UN Charter. Putin, as a Trained lawyer of Int'l law, is always aware of this.
    It isn't Russia or China who refer to a vague "International Rules Based Order". Why do you think Western Leaders speak of "rules based order" rather than Int'l law? The UN Charter is the only "rules based order" and is trampled on by the West. None of the western aggression since WW2 is justified and tramples Int'l law with impunity. Russia always clearly lay out their case in law, that you don't know it is indicative only of your limited information.
    China, Russia, Iran and any other country that you believe to be in breach of "diplomatic protocols" are above criticism from any NATO/EU state who trashed the Vienna conventions on Diplomatic Immunity with their breaching of Embassies and Presidential jets over the last 10 years or so-very publicly. Your blindness to any and all crimes of the West renders your opinion worthless. No objectivity at all.

I take my information from several sources. https://cepa.org/article/dont-let-russia-fool-you-about-the-minsk-agreements/

[gringo]

I take my information from several sources. https://cepa.org/article/dont-let-russia-fool-you-about-the-minsk-agreements/

    Absolutely nothing in that article challenges the facts laid out above. The usual opinion that the agreements were ambiguous and blah blah, without stating any ambiguities. Here are a few non ambiguous facts. It is now publicly and unequivocally admitted that Ukraine and its sponsors had no intent of abiding by Minsk 2 (UNSC resolution 2202). They breached it, unambiguously, from day one by admitting to using the time to re-arm when Minsk 2 calls for the opposite. The Ukrainian government never spoke to the representatives of the republics, as they were obligated to. Didn't recognise the leaders despite being made, unambiguosly, aware of and recognising them as such by signing Minsk 2.
     There is no way that a draft resolution passes the Security Council without veto if it is as ambiguous as claimed. the process of passing UNSC resolutions is laborious and often leads to changes in the drafting to iron out ambiguities. The veto wielding power of the Permanent 5 ensures that resolutions cannot be rushed through without scrutiny. Those who make silly un-evidenced claims such as this have no idea of the power structures at work in the Security Council work and why it matters. None of these ambiguities will ever be explained, it is a convenient shield to hide behind knowing that the Ukraine/NATO position is indefensible.
    The facts are clear-and I will re-iterate them before we move on to 24/02/22 and the legal case for the Russian SMO/invasion;

 1) Minsk 2 agreements breached openly and admittedly by Ukraine and its sponsors.
 2) Instead of negotiating with republics leaders-they refused to.
 3) Spent 8 years rearming and continuing to use their military to shell civilian areas leading to thousands of civilian deaths(all observed and recorded independently).
 4) Amassed hundreds of thousands of soldiers and heavy equipment to use against the populations of Donetsk and Lugansk in obvious preparation for invasion.(observed and recorded independently)

    All of the above is known and not reasonably disputed. All that NATO apologists have in return is vague calls to some alleged but unspecified ambiguity. The admission that they intended to breach them from the start and were simply buying time is not addressed. It is a pathetic response and anyone with any intellectual integrity should and would demand a better response than this. It is unsupportable for anyone with even a shred of credibility.
    CEPA is a Washington DC based think-tank literally aligned with NATO and US State Dept(from their own about us page) and is not a source varied from your others. You don't even know who these people and organisations that you link to are. What NATO say. What US State Dept says is all you have linked to.
    "I take my information from several sources." - You think that you do. In reality you read the same sources in several different places. You would recognise this if you looked at who your sources were.
     Do you have any defence, beyond vague mutterings about ambiguity, to the egregious and admitted breaches of Minsk 2 by Ukraine and its Western sponsors and their lack of intent to ever abide by its terms? Not a link to an article that doesn't give one. Spell it out yourself. That you don't is telling. There is no defence for you to articulate.
   

[gringo]

    Moving seamlessly on

    With the trashing of Minsk 2 by NATO proxy Ukraine, independently observed and recorded shelling of civilian areas, Ukrainian troops amassing in preparation to invade and "cleanse" the local population- Russia had a stark choice.
    On 21/02/23 Putin recognised the sovereignty and independence of the two breakaway republics after a vote in the Russian Duma requesting this. Putin recognised the self declared independence of the two republics.
    With all diplomatic solutions exhausted and Ukrainian armed forces killing their own "wrong" civilians- Russia, acting under Article 51 of the UN charter and the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, pre-empted the Ukrainian aggression.
     From playing a role in negotiating the agreements, taking those same agreements to the Security Council, ensuring independent observation, attempting to force Kiev and their sponsors to abide by and fulfil Minsk 2 agreement- Russia did everything possible, through the correct legal and diplomatic channels to prevent hostilities.
     Only then did they invoke Article 51 and R2P.
     The ROW understands this. Only information starved Westerners are ignorant of these facts. Everyone outside of the West understands that NATO provoked Russia via their proxy Ukraine.

     The ROW also remembers NATO using the R2P doctrine under Article 51 of the UN Charter. NATO didn't bother with any of the legalities that Russia did, as shown above, over a number of years.
    No Security Council resolutions, no independent observations. A few media reports was basically the grounds for NATO acting under R2P.
    Despite your training telling you otherwise, a more balanced and objective view understands the difference between the legality of actions taken by NATO and Russia.
    Russia have legal justification for all Russian troops deployed outside Russia.
    What is the legal justification for NATO troops in Syria? Ukraine? Are they co-belligerents or not?
    The Rest of The World is well aware of who the bullies are. It isn't Russia that they want bringing down. Russia don't sanction, bully and threaten them.
   

[gringo]

    Article 51 of UN Charter copied below and the R2P (Responsibility to protect doctrine) below that;

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


   Responsibility to Protect

   At the 2005 United Nations World Summit, world leaders came together in historic agreement to unanimously endorse R2P, acknowledging that state sovereignty entails a responsibility to protect populations from mass atrocity crimes.

   From the UN below;

The responsibility to protect embodies a political commitment to end the worst forms of violence and persecution. It seeks to narrow the gap between Member States’ pre-existing obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law and the reality faced by populations at risk of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

[gringo]

    In the Real-Politik of the world-of course Russia knew from Day 1 what Ukraine and the collective west would do. They were under no illusions that going through correct procedures, negotiations and diplomacy could possibly solve the issues. All governments of the collective West are, to quote Lavrov, "agreement incapable".  They made sure that they were also prepared. But the "forms must be obeyed". It demonstrates to the ROW that Russia/China et al. keep their word whilst no agreement with the West is worth the paper it is written on. Minsk 2 could have been fulfilled-autonomy within a federal Ukraine for the oblasts and no Russian intervention.
    Russia knew that Ukraine/NATO would break Minsk 2. They drew them into demonstrating to the world that they were agreement incapable. 
     This is unreported in Western media.

[Steve_uk]

I doubt the West will ever recognize Crimea and four other regions of Ukraine as Russian territory. https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/09/1129102

It's all Western propaganda, isn't it..https://www.hrw.org/europe/central-asia/ukraine