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

[Steve_uk]

The agreement was ambiguous. Ukraine wanted control over its own borders, impossible without Russia's heft (which you now seem to acknowledge), then elections in the Donbas under the auspices of OSCE. - The specifics of this accusation of Russian bad faith re-Minsk 1 & 2 are easily rebutted, Steve. This is why I ask you constantly to put detail to your otherwise vague accusations of ambiguity. It always turns out that it is just the paid opinion of someone else rather than the result of your own critical thinking. Below this particular, so called ambiguity, is shown to have crystal clarity;


The Minsk II agreement, a "Package of measures for the Implementation of the Minsk agreements", was endorsed by the UN Security Council Resolution 2205. It is available here. The package includes clearly numbered tasks. An immediate ceasefire is task 1. The 'Launch of a dialogue' about legislation measures the Ukrainian parliament would have to take to recognize a special status for Donbas is step 4.  Step 9 is the reinstatement of full control of the state border by the government.

These clearly defined steps later proved to be the reason why the agreement was never fully implemented. The government of Ukraine insisted that step 9 should be taken before step 4. The governments of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics insisted on the original sequencing as giving up any control over the boarder with Russia, and the supplies coming through it, would have taken away their ability to defend themselves before the other steps, specifically the recognition of the special status of the Donbas republics, had been taken.


    This is how agreements work. An agreement that has gone through the rigorous procedures of negotiating the final draft to become an uncontested UNSC resolution especially so. 4 comes before 9. It isn't ambiguous and was agreed.
     Why do you think that the Ukrainian government should be able to insist on changing an agreement ratified by the Security Council? This is how agreements work. The order of steps isn't in a random order.

Step 1 was the ceasefire, which never materialized. https://jamestown.org/program/the-debacle-in-debaltseve/

[gringo]

Step 1 was the ceasefire, which never materialized. https://jamestown.org/program/the-debacle-in-debaltseve/

   You have previously claimed, as your example of ambiguity, that;
"The agreement was ambiguous. Ukraine wanted control over its own borders, impossible without Russia's heft (which you now seem to acknowledge), then elections in the Donbas under the auspices of OSCE.

    Instead of acknowledging that you were not in possession of the true facts and adjusting your opinion accordingly, you move the goalposts and double down on stupid. You were wrong to claim ambiguity over the order of those steps(agreed by both parties). You were wrong to claim that Russia/Ukraine demanded changes(as shown that was Ukraine). You have been wrong on everything you have claimed about Minsk. Where you have given specifics to your otherwise vague understanding-you are demonstrably wrong.
    The rest of your claims, such as "breaching diplomatic protocols" are so vague, and lacking in even any detail at all, that it is clear that your entire knowledge of Minsk is made up of media headlines.

    Item 1(immediate ceasefire), which you have belatedly brought up after having the previous ill thought through nonsense that you raised taken apart- I suspect that you will display the same lack of any real insight or depth of knowledge but fire away.
    You have brought up Item 1 (immediate ceasefire) so what are your thoughts? What is your point?

[Steve_uk]

   You have previously claimed, as your example of ambiguity, that;
"The agreement was ambiguous. Ukraine wanted control over its own borders, impossible without Russia's heft (which you now seem to acknowledge), then elections in the Donbas under the auspices of OSCE.

    Instead of acknowledging that you were not in possession of the true facts and adjusting your opinion accordingly, you move the goalposts and double down on stupid. You were wrong to claim ambiguity over the order of those steps(agreed by both parties). You were wrong to claim that Russia/Ukraine demanded changes(as shown that was Ukraine). You have been wrong on everything you have claimed about Minsk. Where you have given specifics to your otherwise vague understanding-you are demonstrably wrong.
    The rest of your claims, such as "breaching diplomatic protocols" are so vague, and lacking in even any detail at all, that it is clear that your entire knowledge of Minsk is made up of media headlines.

    Item 1(immediate ceasefire), which you have belatedly brought up after having the previous ill thought through nonsense that you raised taken apart- I suspect that you will display the same lack of any real insight or depth of knowledge but fire away.
    You have brought up Item 1 (immediate ceasefire) so what are your thoughts? What is your point?

What nonsense this all is. Read the comments by Vladislav Surkov: https://mobile.twitter.com/A_SHEKH0VTS0V/status/1626182171273703426

You might also care to read this: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/02/why-minsk-2-cannot-solve-ukraine-crisis

[gringo]

What nonsense this all is. Read the comments by Vladislav Surkov: https://mobile.twitter.com/A_SHEKH0VTS0V/status/1626182171273703426

You might also care to read this: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/02/why-minsk-2-cannot-solve-ukraine-crisis

    Steve, you are so far out of your depth that it is embarrassing. It has been proven that Ukraine and their sponsors not only breached the Minsk agreements but also that this was their intent all along. Helpfully they have even now admitted all of this publicly, unequivocally and unambiguously.
    Unless you can rebut or explain this, the debate on who breached Minsk is over. Your hatred of Russia is blinding you to any sense or reason. 
   

[Steve_uk]

    Steve, you are so far out of your depth that it is embarrassing. It has been proven that Ukraine and their sponsors not only breached the Minsk agreements but also that this was their intent all along. Helpfully they have even now admitted all of this publicly, unequivocally and unambiguously.
    Unless you can rebut or explain this, the debate on who breached Minsk is over. Your hatred of Russia is blinding you to any sense or reason. 
   

Not at all. It was the country of Tolstoy, Pushkin, Tchaikovsky and ballet. But it foundered on the shocking Stalin show trials and purges, the gulags, the placement of dissidents in mental institutions for no reason other than they thought differently, starving Ukrainian peasants, I could go on.

It is you now who fails to see the aggressor in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, in Crimea in the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic, which no other independent state will recognize. It is you who gives succour to a dictator in all but name, who at his age should know better than to create this horrific and unnecessary war.

[gringo]

Not at all. It was the country of Tolstoy, Pushkin, Tchaikovsky and ballet. But it foundered on the shocking Stalin show trials and purges, the gulags, the placement of dissidents in mental institutions for no reason other than they thought differently, starving Ukrainian peasants, I could go on.

It is you now who fails to see the aggressor in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, in Crimea in the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic, which no other independent state will recognize. It is you who gives succour to a dictator in all but name, who at his age should know better than to create this horrific and unnecessary war.

   You couldn't generate an independent thought if you tried. I am aware of the aggressor in all of the places that you mentioned. You, on the other hand, believe Russia(and probably Putin personally) is responsible for all conflicts everywhere, all of the time-just as instructed by your indoctrination over many years. You know nothing about any of them in any detail, as is usual with you, hence your need to list things rather than be able to discuss each one specifically.
    Which one do you want to pick?

[Steve_uk]

   You couldn't generate an independent thought if you tried. I am aware of the aggressor in all of the places that you mentioned. You, on the other hand, believe Russia(and probably Putin personally) is responsible for all conflicts everywhere, all of the time-just as instructed by your indoctrination over many years. You know nothing about any of them in any detail, as is usual with you, hence your need to list things rather than be able to discuss each one specifically.
    Which one do you want to pick?

Luhansk and Donetsk. There's no support for breaking up Ukraine as a state. https://web.archive.org/web/20140509001422/http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2014/05/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Ukraine-Russia-Report-FINAL-May-8-2014.pdf

[gringo]

    Steve, I started this thread specifically to point you to every time you bring up Minsk Agreements. You state as fact that Russia broke Minsk but never support your claims with anything substantive. Drive by comments, such as the one you just posted in the Kramatorsk thread, are deliberate distractions from whatever the subject at hand is. Your opportunity to explain how Russia broke the Minsk accords is here. You have failed dismally to do so. If you were objective and read through this thread with an open mind, then you would acknowledge the truth revealed by Merkel, Hollande, Zelensky et al- all of whom have admitted bad faith in the Minsk Agreements. Straight from the horses mouth. There is no doubt about who not only broke Minsk, but did so from day one and admitting they never intended to abide by the agreements but would use the time to re-arm and continue hostilities. A signed confession, as it were, but you still believe in their innocence.
     what evidence of that strength do you have to suggest that Russia are the destroyers of Minsk Accords. Did they confess too?

[Steve_uk]

    Steve, I started this thread specifically to point you to every time you bring up Minsk Agreements. You state as fact that Russia broke Minsk but never support your claims with anything substantive. Drive by comments, such as the one you just posted in the Kramatorsk thread, are deliberate distractions from whatever the subject at hand is. Your opportunity to explain how Russia broke the Minsk accords is here. You have failed dismally to do so. If you were objective and read through this thread with an open mind, then you would acknowledge the truth revealed by Merkel, Hollande, Zelensky et al- all of whom have admitted bad faith in the Minsk Agreements. Straight from the horses mouth. There is no doubt about who not only broke Minsk, but did so from day one and admitting they never intended to abide by the agreements but would use the time to re-arm and continue hostilities. A signed confession, as it were, but you still believe in their innocence.
     what evidence of that strength do you have to suggest that Russia are the destroyers of Minsk Accords. Did they confess too?

There may have been bad faith, pessimism. Russia had annexed Crimea sneakily, which you fail to acknowledge. If you'd read the link I posted you would see that Russia saw the Minsk Accords as a means to gain influence over a sovereign nation's territory without firing a shot, whereas Ukraine obviously wanted Russian influence removed from its own territory, and who could blame them?

[gringo]

There may have been bad faith, pessimism. Russia had annexed Crimea sneakily, which you fail to acknowledge. If you'd read the link I posted you would see that Russia saw the Minsk Accords as a means to gain influence over a sovereign nation's territory without firing a shot, whereas Ukraine obviously wanted Russian influence removed from its own territory, and who could blame them?

 Don't worry I am going to start a thread specifically about Crimea and its status.

     "There may have been bad faith", you say. There was admitted bad faith. There is no "may have been" about it. I read your link but it doesn't trump the actual evidence does it?
     Let's go through that evidence again for you, Steve.

1) The accords, which Russia had a part in negotiating and drafting, were taken to the UN Security Council by Russia and became UNSC resolution 2202.
2)  The accords made clear that Luhansk and Donetsk were part of Ukraine(remember that it was Russia that took them to the UNSC) but gave autonomy to both oblasts.
3)  Putin had already previously refused to incorporate Donetsk and Luhansk despite their voting for this.
4)  All 5 permanent members of the UNSC (the veto holders US, UK, France, China and Russia) voted for the Minsk Accords to become a UNSC resolution.
5)  The ones firing most of the shots were the Ukrainian military at their supposed own citizens as they had been doing since the 2014 Maidan coup.
6)  Since then Zelensky, Merkel, Hollande and others have openly confessed that they were signed in bad faith.
   Bearing in mind all of the above known and agreed facts, how do you come to the conclusion that It was all Putin's sneaky plan "as a means to gain influence over a sovereign nation's territory without firing a shot". The article you link fails to address this conundrum-perhaps you can?

[Steve_uk]

Don't worry I am going to start a thread specifically about Crimea and its status.

     "There may have been bad faith", you say. There was admitted bad faith. There is no "may have been" about it. I read your link but it doesn't trump the actual evidence does it?
     Let's go through that evidence again for you, Steve.

1) The accords, which Russia had a part in negotiating and drafting, were taken to the UN Security Council by Russia and became UNSC resolution 2202.
2)  The accords made clear that Luhansk and Donetsk were part of Ukraine(remember that it was Russia that took them to the UNSC) but gave autonomy to both oblasts.
3)  Putin had already previously refused to incorporate Donetsk and Luhansk despite their voting for this.
4)  All 5 permanent members of the UNSC (the veto holders US, UK, France, China and Russia) voted for the Minsk Accords to become a UNSC resolution.
5)  The ones firing most of the shots were the Ukrainian military at their supposed own citizens as they had been doing since the 2014 Maidan coup.
6)  Since then Zelensky, Merkel, Hollande and others have openly confessed that they were signed in bad faith.
   Bearing in mind all of the above known and agreed facts, how do you come to the conclusion that It was all Putin's sneaky plan "as a means to gain influence over a sovereign nation's territory without firing a shot". The article you link fails to address this conundrum-perhaps you can?

Mainly due to the ambiguity of the agreements. Ukraine stressed the complete removal of Russian influence (remember the downed airliner Flight 17?), whereas Russia wanted the two oblasts to have their own judiciary, police force and conclude agreements with foreign states (i.e.  Russia).

No sovereign state could possibly accept those terms for part of its territory.

[gringo]

Mainly due to the ambiguity of the agreements. Ukraine stressed the complete removal of Russian influence (remember the downed airliner Flight 17?), whereas Russia wanted the two oblasts to have their own judiciary, police force and conclude agreements with foreign states (i.e.  Russia).

No sovereign state could possibly accept those terms for part of its territory.

    There was no ambiguity. You use the phrase often but always fail to elucidate what exactly was ambiguous. Your phrase "Ukraine stressed the complete removal of Russian influence" is which point exactly of the Minsk Accords? I found this which is the opposite of what you say;

"- The state shall support socio-economic development of individual areas of Donetsk and
Luhansk regions;
- Assistance from the central government to cross-border cooperation between the individual
areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and regions of the Russian Federation;
- The creation of people's militia units [police] upon the decision of local councils in order to
maintain public order in individual areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions"

The above is from the Minsk 2 agreement which I have linked often enough. All of the above was negotiated, agreed, taken to the UNSC and made a resolution. If Ukraine could not possibly accept, "two oblasts to have their own judiciary, police force and conclude agreements with foreign states (i.e.  Russia).", then why did they negotiate and agree to exactly that and then have their western sponsors support it in the UNSC?
     MH17 is a separate issue and is just another one of your evidence free, drive by facts. The question above is the issue not MH17. Why did Ukraine negotiate and agree to something that you say they couldn't possibly accept?

[Steve_uk]

    There was no ambiguity. You use the phrase often but always fail to elucidate what exactly was ambiguous. Your phrase "Ukraine stressed the complete removal of Russian influence" is which point exactly of the Minsk Accords? I found this which is the opposite of what you say;

"- The state shall support socio-economic development of individual areas of Donetsk and
Luhansk regions;
- Assistance from the central government to cross-border cooperation between the individual
areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and regions of the Russian Federation;
- The creation of people's militia units [police] upon the decision of local councils in order to
maintain public order in individual areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions"

The above is from the Minsk 2 agreement which I have linked often enough. All of the above was negotiated, agreed, taken to the UNSC and made a resolution. If Ukraine could not possibly accept, "two oblasts to have their own judiciary, police force and conclude agreements with foreign states (i.e.  Russia).", then why did they negotiate and agree to exactly that and then have their western sponsors support it in the UNSC?
     MH17 is a separate issue and is just another one of your evidence free, drive by facts. The question above is the issue not MH17. Why did Ukraine negotiate and agree to something that you say they couldn't possibly accept?

To gain more time, just as Great Britain did when it allowed the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in 1938. As for Minsk, Ukraine took it to mean Russian troop withdrawal and free elections in the Donbas under OSCE/ODIHR auspices. Russia wanted to control Luhansk and Donetsk first, which would have meant sham elections and the disintegration of the Ukrainian state.

[gringo]

To gain more time, just as Great Britain did when it allowed the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in 1938. As for Minsk, Ukraine took it to mean Russian troop withdrawal and free elections in the Donbas under OSCE/ODIHR auspices. Russia wanted to control Luhansk and Donetsk first, which would have meant sham elections and the disintegration of the Ukrainian state.

   You are just making things up. Your "analysis" is nothing more than attempted "mind reading" or more accurately, "projection". There are no agreed facts just your claims of what What Ukraine and Russia wanted and meant. Show me in the agreements. I have demonstrated already that your claims are the opposite of the actual agreements which you now admit were signed in bad faith by the Ukrainians and supported in bad faith, by extension, by their Western sponsors.
     You have argued yourself back round to agreeing that Minsk was broken by Ukraine and its sponsors. I agree.

[Steve_uk]

  You are just making things up. Your "analysis" is nothing more than attempted "mind reading" or more accurately, "projection". There are no agreed facts just your claims of what What Ukraine and Russia wanted and meant. Show me in the agreements. I have demonstrated already that your claims are the opposite of the actual agreements which you now admit were signed in bad faith by the Ukrainians and supported in bad faith, by extension, by their Western sponsors.
     You have argued yourself back round to agreeing that Minsk was broken by Ukraine and its sponsors. I agree.

I suppose I'm making up the extra demands made by Russia on 13 May. You don't see your contradictions:  politicians demanding self-determination for oblasts on Ukrainian territory whilst playing lip service to democracy in Russia itself.

By the way gringo: if you ever have a meeting with Putin make sure it's on the ground floor.