Ukraine-The End Game-What happens next?

[gringo]

"What a clown

"No, Russia did not present its case to any international tribunal or formally to the UN before launching the invasion on February 24, 2022.

What happened in the lead-up: In the days and weeks before the invasion, Russia engaged in diplomatic discussions and made public statements about its security concerns, but did not pursue formal international legal channels:

No ICJ application: Russia didn't file any case at the International Court of Justice regarding alleged genocide or threats to Russian speakers

No formal UN complaint: Russia didn't submit a formal complaint to the UN Security Council or request authorization for military action.

No Article 51 notification: Under the UN Charter, states invoking self-defence are supposed to "immediately" report measures to the Security Council - Russia only did this after the invasion began

The UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly (141-5) to condemn the invasion as violating international law. "

     The above is David's response from the Venezuela thread where he erroneously equates "US Grand Jury Charges" with international law and then digs an even deeper hole by making demonstrably false claims. How is it possible to claim that Russia didn't present it's case formally to the UN when "Minsk 2" is a UNSC resolution? OSCE observers were sent to the front lines to observe and record any breaches of Minsk 2. These facts are surely not disputed. It is also beyond dispute that Ukraine and their guarantors(France and Germany) never intended to honour Minsk 2 and in fact breached it from day one because they have publicly admitted this. Knowing the above and understanding that these inconvenient facts cannot be ignored away blows something of a gaping hole in your claim of no formal presentation to the UN.
     Your talk of the "days and weeks before the invasion", ignores the years leading up to the Article 51 declaration of self defence. Minsk 2 is 2015, David. Minsk 2 is also the only relevant agreement when discussing the so called invasion. Ukraine and their NATO sponsors breached it from day one and admitted agreeing to it only in order to buy time to rearm whilst having no intention of abiding by its terms despite the unanimous vote in the UNSC which made it agreed international law. It is the only relevant document but ignored by NATO shills such as David.
      The immediate notification of Article 51(self defence) to the UN is also established fact so why make false claims that are so easily debunked? Linked below, David, if you are interested;

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3959647?ln=en&v=pdf

     Notice the date, David, 24 February 2022. Same date as the SMO started. Seems an immediate notification to me and surely everybody else. I will address your misunderstanding regarding the ICJ in the next post. Suffice to say, for now, that it is as false and ill informed as the rest of your bizarre post.

[Steve_uk]

"What a clown

"No, Russia did not present its case to any international tribunal or formally to the UN before launching the invasion on February 24, 2022.

What happened in the lead-up: In the days and weeks before the invasion, Russia engaged in diplomatic discussions and made public statements about its security concerns, but did not pursue formal international legal channels:

No ICJ application: Russia didn't file any case at the International Court of Justice regarding alleged genocide or threats to Russian speakers

No formal UN complaint: Russia didn't submit a formal complaint to the UN Security Council or request authorization for military action.

No Article 51 notification: Under the UN Charter, states invoking self-defence are supposed to "immediately" report measures to the Security Council - Russia only did this after the invasion began

The UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly (141-5) to condemn the invasion as violating international law. "

     The above is David's response from the Venezuela thread where he erroneously equates "US Grand Jury Charges" with international law and then digs an even deeper hole by making demonstrably false claims. How is it possible to claim that Russia didn't present it's case formally to the UN when "Minsk 2" is a UNSC resolution? OSCE observers were sent to the front lines to observe and record any breaches of Minsk 2. These facts are surely not disputed. It is also beyond dispute that Ukraine and their guarantors(France and Germany) never intended to honour Minsk 2 and in fact breached it from day one because they have publicly admitted this. Knowing the above and understanding that these inconvenient facts cannot be ignored away blows something of a gaping hole in your claim of no formal presentation to the UN.
     Your talk of the "days and weeks before the invasion", ignores the years leading up to the Article 51 declaration of self defence. Minsk 2 is 2015, David. Minsk 2 is also the only relevant agreement when discussing the so called invasion. Ukraine and their NATO sponsors breached it from day one and admitted agreeing to it only in order to buy time to rearm whilst having no intention of abiding by its terms despite the unanimous vote in the UNSC which made it agreed international law. It is the only relevant document but ignored by NATO shills such as David.
      The immediate notification of Article 51(self defence) to the UN is also established fact so why make false claims that are so easily debunked? Linked below, David, if you are interested;

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3959647?ln=en&v=pdf

     Notice the date, David, 24 February 2022. Same date as the SMO started. Seems an immediate notification to me and surely everybody else. I will address your misunderstanding regarding the ICJ in the next post. Suffice to say, for now, that it is as false and ill informed as the rest of your bizarre post.

If you can bully Ukraine into relinquishing part of its territory without firing a shot then why not try diplomacy? https://www.eiir.eu/international-law/international-law-studies/the-minsk-ii-agreement-interpretation-enforcement-and-other-considerations/

This coming from a man who hasn't won a fair election since 2000.

[gringo]

If you can bully Ukraine into relinquishing part of its territory without firing a shot then why not try diplomacy? https://www.eiir.eu/international-law/international-law-studies/the-minsk-ii-agreement-interpretation-enforcement-and-other-considerations/

This coming from a man who hasn't won a fair election since 2000.

   Putin has more democratic legitimacy than any Western leader and those parts of Ukraine that are historically Russian will also join Russia when hostilities cease and plebiscites are held. Odessa and the rest of the South and East of Ukraine will all vote to join Russia and Putin will win elections there too. The claim in the article you linked that "Minsk 2" was "created hastily" is historically illiterate. There is little wonder you are so poorly informed when your sources of information make such bold, unevidenced claims. It is a UNSC resolution, which means it has been pored over and anything but "hastily produced" before being voted on in the Security Council. It was passed unanimously without objection by the Security council including the UK, US and France. The whole article you posted is based on entirely false premises, such as the above, and everything that flows from this false premise is worthless.
     If Minsk 2 was hastily produced and "ambiguous and convoluted", then why did it pass the Security Council without objection or veto? The western sponsors admitted their perfidy publicly, yet you still repeat their misrepresentations. Surely it would have been vetoed if the agreement had so many problems. The Western powers are not shy in using their veto power in the UNSC as everyone is aware. Your claims regarding "Minsk 2" stand no scrutiny and you have given no scrutiny before repeating them.
     The admitted sabotage of "Minsk 2" by the West and Ukraine has made a military solution inevitable. Your bias prevents you from seeing the truth.
     

[gringo]

     https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2202.pdf

   For the umpteenth time, linked above is the Minsk 2 aqreement (UNSC res 2202) for you to read, Steve, which you clearly never have despite it being posted many times over the years of these threads. Read it and get back to me about the so called ambiguities. Don't divert onto another subject, tell me the specifics of these ambiguities and we can see if they stand up to scrutiny. I have read the article you linked and that doesn't stand any scrutiny so you will have to do much better than that.

     

[Steve_uk]

     https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2202.pdf

   For the umpteenth time, linked above is the Minsk 2 aqreement (UNSC res 2202) for you to read, Steve, which you clearly never have despite it being posted many times over the years of these threads. Read it and get back to me about the so called ambiguities. Don't divert onto another subject, tell me the specifics of these ambiguities and we can see if they stand up to scrutiny. I have read the article you linked and that doesn't stand any scrutiny so you will have to do much better than that.

   

But Poroshenko couldn't get it through his parliament. Why no mention of Russia in Minsk 2, when Putin's dirty hands were all over it? https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/05/minsk-conundrum-western-policy-and-russias-war-eastern-ukraine-0/minsk-2-agreement

I agree it was foolish of the West to agree to it. I don't understand why they signed.

[David1819]

     The above is David's response from the Venezuela thread where he erroneously equates "US Grand Jury Charges" with international law and then digs an even deeper hole by making demonstrably false claims. How is it possible to claim that Russia didn't present it's case formally to the UN when "Minsk 2" is a UNSC resolution? OSCE observers were sent to the front lines to observe and record any breaches of Minsk 2. These facts are surely not disputed. It is also beyond dispute that Ukraine and their guarantors(France and Germany) never intended to honour Minsk 2 and in fact breached it from day one because they have publicly admitted this. Knowing the above and understanding that these inconvenient facts cannot be ignored away blows something of a gaping hole in your claim of no formal presentation to the UN.
     Your talk of the "days and weeks before the invasion", ignores the years leading up to the Article 51 declaration of self defence. Minsk 2 is 2015, David. Minsk 2 is also the only relevant agreement when discussing the so called invasion. Ukraine and their NATO sponsors breached it from day one and admitted agreeing to it only in order to buy time to rearm whilst having no intention of abiding by its terms despite the unanimous vote in the UNSC which made it agreed international law. It is the only relevant document but ignored by NATO shills such as David.
      The immediate notification of Article 51(self defence) to the UN is also established fact so why make false claims that are so easily debunked? Linked below, David, if you are interested;

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3959647?ln=en&v=pdf

     Notice the date, David, 24 February 2022. Same date as the SMO started. Seems an immediate notification to me and surely everybody else. I will address your misunderstanding regarding the ICJ in the next post. Suffice to say, for now, that it is as false and ill informed as the rest of your bizarre post.

The clown show continues.


From Claude 4.5

"I'll provide a more comprehensive analysis of the Minsk II agreements and Russia's attempted justification.

## The Minsk II Agreement in Detail

**Background and Context:**
Minsk II (officially the "Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements") was signed on February 12, 2015, after the first Minsk Protocol (September 2014) collapsed. It was negotiated in the "Normandy Format" - Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany - following severe fighting and the separatist capture of Donetsk airport.

**Key provisions included:**
1. Immediate comprehensive ceasefire
2. Withdrawal of heavy weapons creating a buffer zone
3. OSCE monitoring and verification
4. Dialogue on local elections in Donetsk and Luhansk under Ukrainian law
5. Constitutional reform in Ukraine to decentralize power and grant "special status" to certain Donbas areas
6. Amnesty and prisoner exchange
7. Ukraine regaining control of its border with Russia *after* local elections
8. Withdrawal of all foreign armed formations and military equipment
9. Economic reconstruction of Donbas

**Crucially, the sequence mattered:** Ukraine was supposed to implement constitutional reforms first, then elections would be held in separatist areas, and only after that would Ukraine regain its border.

## Russia's Arguments Based on Minsk II

**Putin's core claims:**

1. **Ukraine's alleged refusal to implement:** Russia argued Ukraine never seriously intended to implement constitutional reforms granting special status to Donbas. Ukrainian officials openly stated Minsk II was "dead" or unfeasible by 2020-2021.

2. **The "Steinmeier formula" dispute:** A 2019 proposal that elections could trigger special status, but disagreement over whether elections should happen before or after Ukraine regained the border made this unworkable.

3. **Continued warfare:** Russia claimed Ukraine continued military operations in Donbas in violation of the ceasefire, with increased shelling in February 2022 immediately before the invasion.

4. **Western complicity:** After the invasion, former leaders Angela Merkel (December 2022) and François Hollande (2022-2023) gave interviews suggesting Minsk II was partly designed to buy time to strengthen Ukraine militarily. Russia seized on these statements as proof the West never intended a good-faith settlement.

5. **Genocide justification link:** Russia argued that Ukraine's failure to implement Minsk II, combined with ongoing military action, constituted part of a broader pattern of persecution and "genocide" against Russian speakers - making the agreements' collapse evidence of Ukraine's aggressive intent.

**Putin's specific framing:**
In his February 21, 2022 speech (three days before the invasion), Putin declared Minsk II "no longer exists" and that there was "nothing to implement." He argued this left Russia with no peaceful option to protect Russian speakers in Donbas.

## Why This Fails as Legal Justification

**1. No right to unilateral military enforcement:**

International law provides no mechanism for one party to a political agreement to enforce it through military invasion. The UN Charter's Article 2(4) prohibits the "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

Even if Ukraine completely failed to implement Minsk II, the remedies would be:
- Return to negotiations
- International mediation
- UN Security Council involvement
- International arbitration
- Economic or diplomatic pressure

**Not military invasion.**

**2. Russia was also in breach:**

The agreements required:
- Withdrawal of "foreign armed formations" - but Russia continued supporting separatists with personnel and weapons (documented by OSCE monitors, Ukraine, and Western intelligence)
- Border control to return to Ukraine - never happened
- Ceasefire - violated by both sides continuously

Russia can't claim Ukraine's breach justified invasion when Russia itself never withdrew its forces and support as required.

**3. The Article 51 self-defence claim doesn't work:**

Russia invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter (collective self-defence at the request of Donetsk and Luhansk). But this requires:

a) **An armed attack on a state:** Donetsk and Luhansk were not recognized states (except by Russia, just days before). You can't claim collective self-defence with non-state entities.

b) **Imminence and necessity:** Even accepting Russia's claims of increased shelling (disputed in scale and responsibility), the response must be necessary and proportionate. A full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine, including Kyiv, goes far beyond defending Donbas.

c) **Immediate reporting to UN Security Council:** Article 51 requires states to "immediately" report defensive measures. Russia only notified after the invasion began.

**4. The "genocide" claim was unsupported:**

Russia linked Minsk's failure to alleged genocide, but:
- No international body found evidence of genocide
- The ICJ explicitly rejected this claim in March 2022
- The scale of casualties in Donbas (13,000-14,000 deaths from 2014-2021 on both sides, per UN) didn't meet the legal definition of genocide
- Russia never presented evidence to any international tribunal *before* invading

**5. Recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk:**

Russia recognized the "republics" on February 21, 2022, and signed "mutual assistance" treaties with them. But:
- This violated Ukraine's territorial integrity
- You can't create the legal basis for intervention through your own illegal recognition
- The UN didn't recognize these entities, making Russia's "collective self-defence" claim invalid under international law

## Counter-Arguments and Complexities

**Ukraine's position:**
- Constitutional reform was impossible while Russia occupied territory and controlled the separatists
- Elections couldn't be "free and fair" under separatist/Russian control
- Russia's continued military presence made implementation impossible
- The sequence (reform before border control) would lock in Russian influence permanently

**Western perspective:**
- Both sides violated the ceasefire
- Russia's continued military involvement was the core problem
- Ukraine's reluctance was understandable given Russia's bad faith
- The agreement was always fragile and probably unworkable

**Russia's political (not legal) argument:**
Putin argued that the West's "confession" (Merkel/Hollande statements) that Minsk II was a delaying tactic proved:
- Negotiations were pointless
- The West was preparing Ukraine for war against Russia
- Russia had no option but preemptive action

**The problem:** Even if this is true (disputed), it still doesn't create a legal right to invade. International law doesn't permit "preventive" wars because you fear future threats or believe negotiations failed due to bad faith.

## International Legal Consensus

**The ICJ ruling (March 2022):**
The International Court of Justice found:
- Russia's genocide claims didn't provide a legal basis for military action
- Ordered Russia to immediately suspend military operations
- Found prima facie evidence Russia violated the UN Charter

**UN General Assembly (March 2022):**
Voted 141-5 condemning the invasion as violating international law and the UN Charter.

**Legal scholars' consensus:**
Overwhelmingly reject Russia's justifications, noting:
- No exception to Article 2(4) for failed peace agreements
- Self-defence cannot be invoked to resolve political disputes
- The invasion violated fundamental principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity

## Conclusion

**From a legal standpoint:** Minsk II's failure, even complete failure by Ukraine, does not justify Russia's invasion under any recognized principle of international law. The proper remedies for a failed diplomatic agreement are renewed negotiations, mediation, or international arbitration - not military force.

**From Russia's political standpoint:** The Kremlin views Minsk II's collapse as evidence that the West and Ukraine never intended a peaceful settlement, making military action "necessary" to protect Russian interests and Russian speakers in Ukraine.

**The fundamental gap:** Russia is making a political/strategic argument ("we had no other choice") but attempting to dress it in legal language (Article 51, genocide, treaty violations). International law doesn't recognize political necessity or strategic concerns as justifications for violating another state's territorial integrity.


I'll provide a more comprehensive analysis of the Minsk II agreements and Russia's attempted justification.

## The Minsk II Agreement in Detail

**Background and Context:**
Minsk II (officially the "Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements") was signed on February 12, 2015, after the first Minsk Protocol (September 2014) collapsed. It was negotiated in the "Normandy Format" - Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany - following severe fighting and the separatist capture of Donetsk airport.

**Key provisions included:**
1. Immediate comprehensive ceasefire
2. Withdrawal of heavy weapons creating a buffer zone
3. OSCE monitoring and verification
4. Dialogue on local elections in Donetsk and Luhansk under Ukrainian law
5. Constitutional reform in Ukraine to decentralize power and grant "special status" to certain Donbas areas
6. Amnesty and prisoner exchange
7. Ukraine regaining control of its border with Russia *after* local elections
8. Withdrawal of all foreign armed formations and military equipment
9. Economic reconstruction of Donbas

**Crucially, the sequence mattered:** Ukraine was supposed to implement constitutional reforms first, then elections would be held in separatist areas, and only after that would Ukraine regain its border.

## Russia's Arguments Based on Minsk II

**Putin's core claims:**

1. **Ukraine's alleged refusal to implement:** Russia argued Ukraine never seriously intended to implement constitutional reforms granting special status to Donbas. Ukrainian officials openly stated Minsk II was "dead" or unfeasible by 2020-2021.

2. **The "Steinmeier formula" dispute:** A 2019 proposal that elections could trigger special status, but disagreement over whether elections should happen before or after Ukraine regained the border made this unworkable.

3. **Continued warfare:** Russia claimed Ukraine continued military operations in Donbas in violation of the ceasefire, with increased shelling in February 2022 immediately before the invasion.

4. **Western complicity:** After the invasion, former leaders Angela Merkel (December 2022) and François Hollande (2022-2023) gave interviews suggesting Minsk II was partly designed to buy time to strengthen Ukraine militarily. Russia seized on these statements as proof the West never intended a good-faith settlement.

5. **Genocide justification link:** Russia argued that Ukraine's failure to implement Minsk II, combined with ongoing military action, constituted part of a broader pattern of persecution and "genocide" against Russian speakers - making the agreements' collapse evidence of Ukraine's aggressive intent.

**Putin's specific framing:**
In his February 21, 2022 speech (three days before the invasion), Putin declared Minsk II "no longer exists" and that there was "nothing to implement." He argued this left Russia with no peaceful option to protect Russian speakers in Donbas.

## Why This Fails as Legal Justification

**1. No right to unilateral military enforcement:**

International law provides no mechanism for one party to a political agreement to enforce it through military invasion. The UN Charter's Article 2(4) prohibits the "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

Even if Ukraine completely failed to implement Minsk II, the remedies would be:
- Return to negotiations
- International mediation
- UN Security Council involvement
- International arbitration
- Economic or diplomatic pressure

**Not military invasion.**

**2. Russia was also in breach:**

The agreements required:
- Withdrawal of "foreign armed formations" - but Russia continued supporting separatists with personnel and weapons (documented by OSCE monitors, Ukraine, and Western intelligence)
- Border control to return to Ukraine - never happened
- Ceasefire - violated by both sides continuously

Russia can't claim Ukraine's breach justified invasion when Russia itself never withdrew its forces and support as required.

**3. The Article 51 self-defence claim doesn't work:**

Russia invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter (collective self-defence at the request of Donetsk and Luhansk). But this requires:

a) **An armed attack on a state:** Donetsk and Luhansk were not recognized states (except by Russia, just days before). You can't claim collective self-defence with non-state entities.

b) **Imminence and necessity:** Even accepting Russia's claims of increased shelling (disputed in scale and responsibility), the response must be necessary and proportionate. A full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine, including Kyiv, goes far beyond defending Donbas.

c) **Immediate reporting to UN Security Council:** Article 51 requires states to "immediately" report defensive measures. Russia only notified after the invasion began.

**4. The "genocide" claim was unsupported:**

Russia linked Minsk's failure to alleged genocide, but:
- No international body found evidence of genocide
- The ICJ explicitly rejected this claim in March 2022
- The scale of casualties in Donbas (13,000-14,000 deaths from 2014-2021 on both sides, per UN) didn't meet the legal definition of genocide
- Russia never presented evidence to any international tribunal *before* invading

**5. Recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk:**

Russia recognized the "republics" on February 21, 2022, and signed "mutual assistance" treaties with them. But:
- This violated Ukraine's territorial integrity
- You can't create the legal basis for intervention through your own illegal recognition
- The UN didn't recognize these entities, making Russia's "collective self-defence" claim invalid under international law

## Counter-Arguments and Complexities

**Ukraine's position:**
- Constitutional reform was impossible while Russia occupied territory and controlled the separatists
- Elections couldn't be "free and fair" under separatist/Russian control
- Russia's continued military presence made implementation impossible
- The sequence (reform before border control) would lock in Russian influence permanently

**Western perspective:**
- Both sides violated the ceasefire
- Russia's continued military involvement was the core problem
- Ukraine's reluctance was understandable given Russia's bad faith
- The agreement was always fragile and probably unworkable

**Russia's political (not legal) argument:**
Putin argued that the West's "confession" (Merkel/Hollande statements) that Minsk II was a delaying tactic proved:
- Negotiations were pointless
- The West was preparing Ukraine for war against Russia
- Russia had no option but preemptive action

**The problem:** Even if this is true (disputed), it still doesn't create a legal right to invade. International law doesn't permit "preventive" wars because you fear future threats or believe negotiations failed due to bad faith.

## International Legal Consensus

**The ICJ ruling (March 2022):**
The International Court of Justice found:
- Russia's genocide claims didn't provide a legal basis for military action
- Ordered Russia to immediately suspend military operations
- Found prima facie evidence Russia violated the UN Charter

**UN General Assembly (March 2022):**
Voted 141-5 condemning the invasion as violating international law and the UN Charter.

**Legal scholars' consensus:**
Overwhelmingly reject Russia's justifications, noting:
- No exception to Article 2(4) for failed peace agreements
- Self-defence cannot be invoked to resolve political disputes
- The invasion violated fundamental principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity

## Conclusion

**From a legal standpoint:** Minsk II's failure, even complete failure by Ukraine, does not justify Russia's invasion under any recognized principle of international law. The proper remedies for a failed diplomatic agreement are renewed negotiations, mediation, or international arbitration - not military force.

**From Russia's political standpoint:** The Kremlin views Minsk II's collapse as evidence that the West and Ukraine never intended a peaceful settlement, making military action "necessary" to protect Russian interests and Russian speakers in Ukraine.

**The fundamental gap:** Russia is making a political/strategic argument ("we had no other choice") but attempting to dress it in legal language (Article 51, genocide, treaty violations). International law doesn't recognize political necessity or strategic concerns as justifications for violating another state's territorial integrity.

The Minsk agreements were meant to prevent war, not to provide a pretext for one."