OFF TOPIC > Russia/Ukraine/Nato
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:
--- Quote from: gringo on February 03, 2023, 12:07:AM --- 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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Steve_uk on February 03, 2023, 10:11:PM ---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..
--- End quote ---
"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:
--- Quote from: gringo on February 03, 2023, 10:59:PM --- "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.
--- End quote ---
I suppose equipping them with the armaments which brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 didn't count.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version