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

[David1819]

I think Gringo is having a Tankie meltdown 

[David1819]

"Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, actively trying to legitimise Russia’s military actions. This narrative claims that the West and Ukraine are responsible for the war, because Kyiv did not implement the Minsk agreements.

Before the invasion, Russia was a party to the Minsk agreements, and these are the most recent formal documents in which Russia has affirmed Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Russia has however not delivered on its side of the implementation of the Minsk agreements. The Russian side and its proxies have failed to implement a ceasefire, withdraw all heavy weapons, implement all-for-all political prisoner exchange, or ensure delivery of humanitarian assistance based on an international mechanism. On the contrary, Russia has been strengthening the illegal armed formations in eastern Ukraine. Russia also did not allow for unfettered access to the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission monitors, including to the Ukraine-Russia border, where the (very limited) monitoring mission was discontinued due to a Russian veto in summer 2021.

Without the full implementation of the ceasefire, the withdrawal of heavy weapons as well as permission for the full access to all territories for the OSCE monitoring mission, it is difficult to discuss the implementation of the political parts of Minsk II. Nevertheless, Ukraine implemented as much of the Minsk agreements as can reasonably be done while not having control over the territory and addressed every point. It has passed – and extended with renewals – legislation on special status and amnesty (2014), and prepared draft legislation on local elections (2014). Ukraine passed constitutional amendments to provide more autonomy to the territories currently outside its control (2015).

The US and EU did not aim to escalate relations with Russia and were not preparing for military conflict. Western nations have always been calling for solving all problems with Russia in a peaceful and diplomatic manner. Moscow’s overall aggressive policy has led to a tougher and better-balanced policy towards it by the West."

https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/minsk-agreements-were-attempt-to-gain-time-for-ukraine

[gringo]

    The lie at the start of the article makes everything it says redundant;

Before the invasion, Russia was a party to the Minsk agreements, and these are the most recent formal documents in which Russia has affirmed Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Russia has however not delivered on its side of the implementation of the Minsk agreements. The Russian side and its proxies have failed to implement a ceasefire, withdraw all heavy weapons, implement all-for-all political prisoner exchange, or ensure delivery of humanitarian assistance based on an international mechanism.

   It is not an arguable point that Russia are not party to the agreement. Read it. I have posted the link numerous times. It is also an UNSC resolution. You can't break an agreement that you are not party to and have no obligations under. This is simple.
   Also, when one of the parties to the agreement and its sponsors, have declared publicly that they were never going to abide by its terms, were just buying time to re-arm and broke it deliberately from day one- well you don't get to make accusations later about the alleged bad faith of others with any credibility.
    Minsk agreement linked below again, for the hard of reading and thinking. Have a look, David, and in your next reply you can point out the bits that Russia broke of the agreement that they aren't party to.

https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/UA_150212_MinskAgreement_en.pdf

[Steve_uk]

    The lie at the start of the article makes everything it says redundant;

Before the invasion, Russia was a party to the Minsk agreements, and these are the most recent formal documents in which Russia has affirmed Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Russia has however not delivered on its side of the implementation of the Minsk agreements. The Russian side and its proxies have failed to implement a ceasefire, withdraw all heavy weapons, implement all-for-all political prisoner exchange, or ensure delivery of humanitarian assistance based on an international mechanism.

   It is not an arguable point that Russia are not party to the agreement. Read it. I have posted the link numerous times. It is also an UNSC resolution. You can't break an agreement that you are not party to and have no obligations under. This is simple.
   Also, when one of the parties to the agreement and its sponsors, have declared publicly that they were never going to abide by its terms, were just buying time to re-arm and broke it deliberately from day one- well you don't get to make accusations later about the alleged bad faith of others with any credibility.
    Minsk agreement linked below again, for the hard of reading and thinking. Have a look, David, and in your next reply you can point out the bits that Russia broke of the agreement that they aren't party to.

https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/UA_150212_MinskAgreement_en.pdf

It's naive in the extreme to think that Russia was an innocent and neutral bystander in the Minsk agreements, that is Minsk, the capital of Belarus, and you insult members' intelligence by constantly asserting that this is so.

[Steve_uk]

    Snide comments, such as the above, don't change facts. Russia are not a party to the Minsk agreements. It isn't even an arguable point, but is all that you have. To dispute this just shows that you have nothing.
   

It was a self-deprecating comment. Russia's ambassador to Ukraine was present. Do you think he had full autonomy and wasn't bound to report back to Putin?

[gringo]

It's naive in the extreme to think that Russia was an innocent and neutral bystander in the Minsk agreements, that is Minsk, the capital of Belarus, and you insult members' intelligence by constantly asserting that this is so.

   It is dishonest of you to put words into my mouth. Russia helped draft and then took the agreements to the UNSC. I have stated this quite clearly. The parties to the agreement are;
    1) Ukraine government
    2) Leaders of the breakaway republics

   There are no 3 or 4. The only parties that could break the agreement are 1 or 2. There are no other options. 1(Ukraine gov) admit entering agreement in bad faith and breaking it from the start.
    The Guarantors for Ukraine (France & Germany) have also admitted that they only acted as guarantors as a means to buy time for future aggression. Do you believe that Ukraine, Germany, France, NATO are "innocent and neutral bystanders"?
    What do you consider the Ukraine/NATO role in this? Do you honestly believe that "Russia invaded" with no provocations?
    Why and how do you think Minsk was agreed in the first place? What do you think led to it becoming a Security Council resolution? When you delve and understand the answers to those questions then you would also understand who broke them. The answers to those questions peel back the RealPolitik of everyone's role in this.
    Start at Debaltseve and things become clearer.
    I have stated previously that Russia were under no illusions that Minsk 2 would be successful. They knew it would be ignored and broken immediately. You perhaps should wonder how Russia got Ukraine and their NATO sponsors to agree to the Russian led and drafted agreement and to then allow it to pass without veto at the UNSC.
    Russia were demonstrating to the ROW that the West were and are "agreement incapable". The "forms must be obeyed". I don't claim that Russia are "an innocent and neutral bystander in the Minsk agreements", whatever that means. I understand Russia's role as well as NATO's. You have a wildly distorted view of Russia's role only.
    Minsk 2 was everything Russia wanted. They drafted it and held a metaphorical gun to NATO's head to  ensure NATO/Ukraine agreement. Why would Russia breach an agreement drafted to suit exactly what they wanted?
    What happened to make Ukraine/NATO agree to this?

[Steve_uk]

   It is dishonest of you to put words into my mouth. Russia helped draft and then took the agreements to the UNSC. I have stated this quite clearly. The parties to the agreement are;
    1) Ukraine government
    2) Leaders of the breakaway republics

   There are no 3 or 4. The only parties that could break the agreement are 1 or 2. There are no other options. 1(Ukraine gov) admit entering agreement in bad faith and breaking it from the start.
    The Guarantors for Ukraine (France & Germany) have also admitted that they only acted as guarantors as a means to buy time for future aggression. Do you believe that Ukraine, Germany, France, NATO are "innocent and neutral bystanders"?
    What do you consider the Ukraine/NATO role in this? Do you honestly believe that "Russia invaded" with no provocations?
    Why and how do you think Minsk was agreed in the first place? What do you think led to it becoming a Security Council resolution? When you delve and understand the answers to those questions then you would also understand who broke them. The answers to those questions peel back the RealPolitik of everyone's role in this.
    Start at Debaltseve and things become clearer.
    I have stated previously that Russia were under no illusions that Minsk 2 would be successful. They knew it would be ignored and broken immediately. You perhaps should wonder how Russia got Ukraine and their NATO sponsors to agree to the Russian led and drafted agreement and to then allow it to pass without veto at the UNSC.
    Russia were demonstrating to the ROW that the West were and are "agreement incapable". The "forms must be obeyed". I don't claim that Russia are "an innocent and neutral bystander in the Minsk agreements", whatever that means. I understand Russia's role as well as NATO's. You have a wildly distorted view of Russia's role only.
    Minsk 2 was everything Russia wanted. They drafted it and held a metaphorical gun to NATO's head to  ensure NATO/Ukraine agreement. Why would Russia breach an agreement drafted to suit exactly what they wanted?
    What happened to make Ukraine/NATO agree to this?

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. As the link posted by David shows, the Russian speakers did not want the break up of the Ukrainian state. Putin and his henchmen had become accustomed to winning fraudulent elections in Russia: they believed they could rig elections likewise in Donbas.

[nugnug]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYAvwBhtnAg

[Steve_uk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYAvwBhtnAg

What is there to negotiate?

[gringo]

    There is nothing to negotiate, because Ukraine/NATO are non agreement capable having broke every agreement that they are party to. It is openly admitted by all now that the agreements were signed in bad faith and ignored from the start.
     Given your repeated failure to acknowledge that the debate on who broke Minsk 1 & 2 is over, it seems fair to assume that you also are posting in bad faith. Ukraine, NATO leaders(including Stoltenberg yesterday), have all delivered their un-coerced confessions of bad faith from the start. How do you carry on in denial after that. Public confessions of bad faith. How can you be so blind? Your bias and lack of any objectivity even allows you to ignore public confessions

     

[Steve_uk]

    There is nothing to negotiate, because Ukraine/NATO are non agreement capable having broke every agreement that they are party to. It is openly admitted by all now that the agreements were signed in bad faith and ignored from the start.
     Given your repeated failure to acknowledge that the debate on who broke Minsk 1 & 2 is over, it seems fair to assume that you also are posting in bad faith. Ukraine, NATO leaders(including Stoltenberg yesterday), have all delivered their un-coerced confessions of bad faith from the start. How do you carry on in denial after that. Public confessions of bad faith. How can you be so blind? Your bias and lack of any objectivity even allows you to ignore public confessions

     

Even the leftie on LBC supports my position. Can you believe it..https://youtu.be/uSarD9OnvA0

[David1819]

I just asked chatGPT who broke the Minsk accords. Please note that chatGPT is unaware of events after 2021.

Its response was -

"The Minsk Accords refer to two agreements, Minsk I and Minsk II, that were designed to resolve the conflict in Eastern Ukraine between the Ukrainian government and separatists backed by Russia. Both agreements were signed in Minsk, Belarus, in 2014 and 2015 respectively.

It is difficult to determine who broke the Minsk Accords because both sides have accused each other of failing to implement the agreements. The accords were aimed at establishing a ceasefire, withdrawing heavy weapons from the front lines, exchanging prisoners, and establishing a framework for political dialogue and constitutional reform in Ukraine.

However, despite the signing of the accords, the conflict has continued with sporadic outbreaks of violence, and both sides have accused each other of violating the ceasefire and failing to fully implement the agreements. The situation remains unresolved, and the conflict continues to be a source of tension between Ukraine and Russia."

[gringo]

I just asked chatGPT who broke the Minsk accords. Please note that chatGPT is unaware of events after 2021.

Its response was -

"The Minsk Accords refer to two agreements, Minsk I and Minsk II, that were designed to resolve the conflict in Eastern Ukraine between the Ukrainian government and separatists backed by Russia. Both agreements were signed in Minsk, Belarus, in 2014 and 2015 respectively.

It is difficult to determine who broke the Minsk Accords because both sides have accused each other of failing to implement the agreements. The accords were aimed at establishing a ceasefire, withdrawing heavy weapons from the front lines, exchanging prisoners, and establishing a framework for political dialogue and constitutional reform in Ukraine.

However, despite the signing of the accords, the conflict has continued with sporadic outbreaks of violence, and both sides have accused each other of violating the ceasefire and failing to fully implement the agreements. The situation remains unresolved, and the conflict continues to be a source of tension between Ukraine and Russia."

   You asked chatGDP? You asked a chatbot? and then you posted a chatbot reply? Do you always ask software designed to simulate human chat before posting your "opinions"? It would explain a lot

[gringo]

I just asked chatGPT who broke the Minsk accords. Please note that chatGPT is unaware of events after 2021.

Its response was -

"The Minsk Accords refer to two agreements, Minsk I and Minsk II, that were designed to resolve the conflict in Eastern Ukraine between the Ukrainian government and separatists backed by Russia. Both agreements were signed in Minsk, Belarus, in 2014 and 2015 respectively.

It is difficult to determine who broke the Minsk Accords because both sides have accused each other of failing to implement the agreements. The accords were aimed at establishing a ceasefire, withdrawing heavy weapons from the front lines, exchanging prisoners, and establishing a framework for political dialogue and constitutional reform in Ukraine.

However, despite the signing of the accords, the conflict has continued with sporadic outbreaks of violence, and both sides have accused each other of violating the ceasefire and failing to fully implement the agreements. The situation remains unresolved, and the conflict continues to be a source of tension between Ukraine and Russia."

   And the debate is over. We have signed confessions

[gringo]

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.