OFF TOPIC > Russia/Ukraine/Nato
Minsk Accords-who broke them-why does it matter?
Steve_uk:
--- Quote from: gringo on July 03, 2023, 07:08:PM --- 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?
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Steve_uk on July 03, 2023, 07:30:PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: gringo on July 03, 2023, 08:05:PM --- 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?
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Steve_uk on July 03, 2023, 08:26:PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: gringo on July 03, 2023, 08:51:PM --- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version