Jeremy Bamber Forum
OFF TOPIC => Russia/Ukraine/Nato => Topic started by: 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.
-
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/
-
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.
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..
-
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..
"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.
-
"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.
I suppose equipping them with the armaments which brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 didn't count.
-
I suppose equipping them with the armaments which brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 didn't count.
You may believe this. The behaviour of the West and the show trial in Holland doesn't convince anyone outside of the West. It is, regardless, nothing to do with Minsk 2.
MH17 was brought down on 17 July 2014.
Minsk 2 was signed 6 months or so later in 2015.
How can Russia have broken an agreement 6 months before it even existed?
Try again. You have still failed to point out how Russia breached Minsk 2. You're just throwing shit at the wall now. MH17!?
Ukraine breaches with NATO help and encouragement are well documented and admitted.
-
With the following established (broken down into bullet points to establish timeline);
1.) 5 September 2014 Minsk 1 accords agreed and signed
2.) January 2015, agreement breaks completely. Ukrainian army and NATO troops? defeated and surrounded at Debaltseve.
3.) Feb. 12th 2015 Minsk 2 accords signed.
4.) At Russia's insistence, Minsk 2 was taken to the Security Council to become UNSC resolution 2202. Given the non observance by Ukraine/NATO of previous agreement, Russia made sure to give it the status of binding law.
5.) Ceasefire breaches and pulling back of heavy artillery etc. to be overseen and recorded by OSCE.
6.) Ukraine continue to shell civilian areas in Donetsk and Luhansk. All observed and recorded by OSCE.
7.) Breaches of the ceasefire from the republics are much fewer and nearly always in response to the shelling of civilian areas. Observed and recorded by OSCE.
8.) Since Minsk 2 was signed the Ukraine government and the guarantors for Ukraine (French and German governments) have all stated unequivocally and unambiguously that they only signed them to buy time to re-arm in order to attack the republics in the future.
9.) In the weeks leading to 24th Feb, the Ukrainians had amassed troops and equipment, increased shelling by magnitudes(all observed independently by OSCE) and by all appearances were getting ready to invade.
10.) Russia launch SMO under Responsibility to Protect doctrine under Article 51 of the UN charter.
In the Western view, all of the above has to be ignored.
Then Putin woke up on the 24th February 2022 and completely unprovoked, with no justification whatsoever, decided to invade Ukraine :-[ :o
-
You may believe this. The behaviour of the West and the show trial in Holland doesn't convince anyone outside of the West. It is, regardless, nothing to do with Minsk 2.
MH17 was brought down on 17 July 2014.
Minsk 2 was signed 6 months or so later in 2015.
How can Russia have broken an agreement 6 months before it even existed?
Try again. You have still failed to point out how Russia breached Minsk 2. You're just throwing shit at the wall now. MH17!?
Ukraine breaches with NATO help and encouragement are well documented and admitted.
Well apparently Russia breached diplomatic protocol by releasing confidential correspondence with French and German negotiators. My point about Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 is that armaments were being smuggled into Eastern Ukraine from Russia. https://youtu.be/8pU3KluWRkg
-
Well apparently Russia breached diplomatic protocol by releasing confidential correspondence with French and German negotiators. My point about Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 is that armaments were being smuggled into Eastern Ukraine from Russia. https://youtu.be/8pU3KluWRkg
The language that you use is indicative of your trained bias. Smuggled armaments? We supply, Russia smuggle.
What does Russia "breached diplomatic protocol" supposedly mean? Russia have been assiduous in observing "the forms". They make sure that their actions are within International Law and the UN Charter. Putin, as a Trained lawyer of Int'l law, is always aware of this.
It isn't Russia or China who refer to a vague "International Rules Based Order". Why do you think Western Leaders speak of "rules based order" rather than Int'l law? The UN Charter is the only "rules based order" and is trampled on by the West. None of the western aggression since WW2 is justified and tramples Int'l law with impunity. Russia always clearly lay out their case in law, that you don't know it is indicative only of your limited information.
China, Russia, Iran and any other country that you believe to be in breach of "diplomatic protocols" are above criticism from any NATO/EU state who trashed the Vienna conventions on Diplomatic Immunity with their breaching of Embassies and Presidential jets over the last 10 years or so-very publicly. Your blindness to any and all crimes of the West renders your opinion worthless. No objectivity at all.
-
The language that you use is indicative of your trained bias. Smuggled armaments? We supply, Russia smuggle.
What does Russia "breached diplomatic protocol" supposedly mean? Russia have been assiduous in observing "the forms". They make sure that their actions are within International Law and the UN Charter. Putin, as a Trained lawyer of Int'l law, is always aware of this.
It isn't Russia or China who refer to a vague "International Rules Based Order". Why do you think Western Leaders speak of "rules based order" rather than Int'l law? The UN Charter is the only "rules based order" and is trampled on by the West. None of the western aggression since WW2 is justified and tramples Int'l law with impunity. Russia always clearly lay out their case in law, that you don't know it is indicative only of your limited information.
China, Russia, Iran and any other country that you believe to be in breach of "diplomatic protocols" are above criticism from any NATO/EU state who trashed the Vienna conventions on Diplomatic Immunity with their breaching of Embassies and Presidential jets over the last 10 years or so-very publicly. Your blindness to any and all crimes of the West renders your opinion worthless. No objectivity at all.
I take my information from several sources. https://cepa.org/article/dont-let-russia-fool-you-about-the-minsk-agreements/
-
I take my information from several sources. https://cepa.org/article/dont-let-russia-fool-you-about-the-minsk-agreements/
Absolutely nothing in that article challenges the facts laid out above. The usual opinion that the agreements were ambiguous and blah blah, without stating any ambiguities. Here are a few non ambiguous facts. It is now publicly and unequivocally admitted that Ukraine and its sponsors had no intent of abiding by Minsk 2 (UNSC resolution 2202). They breached it, unambiguously, from day one by admitting to using the time to re-arm when Minsk 2 calls for the opposite. The Ukrainian government never spoke to the representatives of the republics, as they were obligated to. Didn't recognise the leaders despite being made, unambiguosly, aware of and recognising them as such by signing Minsk 2.
There is no way that a draft resolution passes the Security Council without veto if it is as ambiguous as claimed. the process of passing UNSC resolutions is laborious and often leads to changes in the drafting to iron out ambiguities. The veto wielding power of the Permanent 5 ensures that resolutions cannot be rushed through without scrutiny. Those who make silly un-evidenced claims such as this have no idea of the power structures at work in the Security Council work and why it matters. None of these ambiguities will ever be explained, it is a convenient shield to hide behind knowing that the Ukraine/NATO position is indefensible.
The facts are clear-and I will re-iterate them before we move on to 24/02/22 and the legal case for the Russian SMO/invasion;
1) Minsk 2 agreements breached openly and admittedly by Ukraine and its sponsors.
2) Instead of negotiating with republics leaders-they refused to.
3) Spent 8 years rearming and continuing to use their military to shell civilian areas leading to thousands of civilian deaths(all observed and recorded independently).
4) Amassed hundreds of thousands of soldiers and heavy equipment to use against the populations of Donetsk and Lugansk in obvious preparation for invasion.(observed and recorded independently)
All of the above is known and not reasonably disputed. All that NATO apologists have in return is vague calls to some alleged but unspecified ambiguity. The admission that they intended to breach them from the start and were simply buying time is not addressed. It is a pathetic response and anyone with any intellectual integrity should and would demand a better response than this. It is unsupportable for anyone with even a shred of credibility.
CEPA is a Washington DC based think-tank literally aligned with NATO and US State Dept(from their own about us page) and is not a source varied from your others. You don't even know who these people and organisations that you link to are. What NATO say. What US State Dept says is all you have linked to.
"I take my information from several sources." - You think that you do. In reality you read the same sources in several different places. You would recognise this if you looked at who your sources were.
Do you have any defence, beyond vague mutterings about ambiguity, to the egregious and admitted breaches of Minsk 2 by Ukraine and its Western sponsors and their lack of intent to ever abide by its terms? Not a link to an article that doesn't give one. Spell it out yourself. That you don't is telling. There is no defence for you to articulate.
-
Moving seamlessly on ???
With the trashing of Minsk 2 by NATO proxy Ukraine, independently observed and recorded shelling of civilian areas, Ukrainian troops amassing in preparation to invade and "cleanse" the local population- Russia had a stark choice.
On 21/02/23 Putin recognised the sovereignty and independence of the two breakaway republics after a vote in the Russian Duma requesting this. Putin recognised the self declared independence of the two republics.
With all diplomatic solutions exhausted and Ukrainian armed forces killing their own "wrong" civilians- Russia, acting under Article 51 of the UN charter and the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, pre-empted the Ukrainian aggression.
From playing a role in negotiating the agreements, taking those same agreements to the Security Council, ensuring independent observation, attempting to force Kiev and their sponsors to abide by and fulfil Minsk 2 agreement- Russia did everything possible, through the correct legal and diplomatic channels to prevent hostilities.
Only then did they invoke Article 51 and R2P.
The ROW understands this. Only information starved Westerners are ignorant of these facts. Everyone outside of the West understands that NATO provoked Russia via their proxy Ukraine.
The ROW also remembers NATO using the R2P doctrine under Article 51 of the UN Charter. NATO didn't bother with any of the legalities that Russia did, as shown above, over a number of years.
No Security Council resolutions, no independent observations. A few media reports was basically the grounds for NATO acting under R2P.
Despite your training telling you otherwise, a more balanced and objective view understands the difference between the legality of actions taken by NATO and Russia.
Russia have legal justification for all Russian troops deployed outside Russia.
What is the legal justification for NATO troops in Syria? Ukraine? Are they co-belligerents or not?
The Rest of The World is well aware of who the bullies are. It isn't Russia that they want bringing down. Russia don't sanction, bully and threaten them.
-
Article 51 of UN Charter copied below and the R2P (Responsibility to protect doctrine) below that;
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Responsibility to Protect
At the 2005 United Nations World Summit, world leaders came together in historic agreement to unanimously endorse R2P, acknowledging that state sovereignty entails a responsibility to protect populations from mass atrocity crimes.
From the UN below;
The responsibility to protect embodies a political commitment to end the worst forms of violence and persecution. It seeks to narrow the gap between Member States’ pre-existing obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law and the reality faced by populations at risk of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
-
In the Real-Politik of the world-of course Russia knew from Day 1 what Ukraine and the collective west would do. They were under no illusions that going through correct procedures, negotiations and diplomacy could possibly solve the issues. All governments of the collective West are, to quote Lavrov, "agreement incapable". They made sure that they were also prepared. But the "forms must be obeyed". It demonstrates to the ROW that Russia/China et al. keep their word whilst no agreement with the West is worth the paper it is written on. Minsk 2 could have been fulfilled-autonomy within a federal Ukraine for the oblasts and no Russian intervention.
Russia knew that Ukraine/NATO would break Minsk 2. They drew them into demonstrating to the world that they were agreement incapable.
This is unreported in Western media.
-
I doubt the West will ever recognize Crimea and four other regions of Ukraine as Russian territory. https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/09/1129102
It's all Western propaganda, isn't it..https://www.hrw.org/europe/central-asia/ukraine
-
I doubt the West will ever recognize Crimea and four other regions of Ukraine as Russian territory. https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/09/1129102
It's all Western propaganda, isn't it..https://www.hrw.org/europe/central-asia/ukraine
The World is moving on, Steve. Nobody gives a fuck what the West recognises.
It is noticeable that on a thread devoted entirely to a subject, that you have brought up many times in the "Russia" thread, that you have had no rebuttal to the facts supporting the legality of the Russian SMO under R2P doctrine.
You and David have raised Russia's alleged breaches of Minsk 2 (it is why I started the thread) many times without being able to articulate them. Just the accusation that Russia "broke" the Minsk agreements in a non specified way. I have laid out the timeline of the agreements and details of how and when they were breached by the Ukraine regime - on behalf of their sponsors.
How the actions that Russia had taken over the previous 8 years via diplomatic channels and by taking agreements to the Security Council meant that they had the responsibility to act when they did. Their actions have always followed the correct legal procedures and made the breaches by Ukraine a matter of official record.
You have had the opportunity to challenge the above and to inform us of the alleged breaches of "Minsk 2" by Russia. You have pathetically but predictably failed to offer a single rebuttal to the above or a single instance of, "Russia breaking Minsk 2" on a thread devoted to that subject. This, despite making countless vague "drive by" accusations on "Russia " thread.
Out of your depth.
-
No I already mentioned the diplomatic leaks by Russia. Additionally Russia claimed not to have forces in Donbas, when it incited the insurgency all along. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-are-minsk-agreements-ukraine-conflict-2022-02-21/
-
No I already mentioned the diplomatic leaks by Russia. Additionally Russia claimed not to have forces in Donbas, when it incited the insurgency all along. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-are-minsk-agreements-ukraine-conflict-2022-02-21/
Well apparently Russia breached diplomatic protocol by releasing confidential correspondence with French and German negotiators. -Steve
Apparently! You need to do better than that. You also need to then tell how this "apparent breach" of "diplomatic protocol" broke the Minsk agreements You haven't said anything just vague innuendo.
The second part of your comment is just your un-evidenced biased opinion and irrelevant. It is evidence of nothing but your gullibility. The Minsk agreements override any notion of who instigated events and your opinion on this issue is irrelevant to the subject. Minsk is the road map to a solution. Arguments about the instigator are of no relevance to the matter.
Everyone who wants to know already knows who has been doing the provoking.
-
Well apparently Russia breached diplomatic protocol by releasing confidential correspondence with French and German negotiators. -Steve
Apparently! You need to do better than that. You also need to then tell how this "apparent breach" of "diplomatic protocol" broke the Minsk agreements You haven't said anything just vague innuendo.
The second part of your comment is just your un-evidenced biased opinion and irrelevant. It is evidence of nothing but your gullibility. The Minsk agreements override any notion of who instigated events and your opinion on this issue is irrelevant to the subject. Minsk is the road map to a solution. Arguments about the instigator are of no relevance to the matter.
Everyone who wants to know already knows who has been doing the provoking.
The road became a blind alley. Donbas was offered autonomy, not union with Russia. Don't you understand that Kiev could never accept de facto annexation by Russia?
-
The road became a blind alley. Donbas was offered autonomy, not union with Russia. Don't you understand that Kiev could never accept de facto annexation by Russia?
The "road" was a blind alley because of the admissions by Ukraine, German and French leaders of their bad faith from day one. You won't address this. It renders everything that you say redundant. Blaming Russia despite unequivocal admissions and evidence that Russia abided by Minsk whilst Ukraine and sponsors acted in admitted bad faith from the start.
You are ignoring the equivalent of a signed confession. You have zero credibility and seem to not understand your own incoherent argument.
-
The "road" was a blind alley because of the admissions by Ukraine, German and French leaders of their bad faith from day one. You won't address this. It renders everything that you say redundant. Blaming Russia despite unequivocal admissions and evidence that Russia abided by Minsk whilst Ukraine and sponsors acted in admitted bad faith from the start.
You are ignoring the equivalent of a signed confession. You have zero credibility and seem to not understand your own incoherent argument.
You know full well Russia was fomenting unrest amongst a minority of Russian speakers living in Donbas, an integral part of the Ukrainian state. https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/russia-is-not-a-party-to-the-minsk-agreement#
-
You know full well Russia was fomenting unrest amongst a minority of Russian speakers living in Donbas, an integral part of the Ukrainian state. https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/russia-is-not-a-party-to-the-minsk-agreement#
Steve-Neither I nor you "know full well Russia was fomenting unrest amongst a minority of Russian speakers". What are known full well are the steps that I have laid out in this thread and that you have failed to challenge. What I have laid out is an undisputed record of agreements, breaches and the presentation of these facts over 8 years by Russia to the UNSC.
Your link, again, offers nothing and you are unable to articulate any rebuttal to those facts. Were NATO fomenting any unrest? UK, US - anyone else, do you think, fomenting unrest?
You have nothing to say as you demonstrate time and again. How did Russia break Minsk. You are still nowhere near attempting this question. You have told us often that Russia broke Minsk 2. When asked to elaborate you never have. I started a thread specifically for the cases for the failure of Minsk 2 to be explained. You still have no answers. Your bias and impartiality obscure your thinking. Instead of addressing the inconsistencies in your position- you run from them and change the subject.
Here is your opportunity, Steve, to clearly and coherently explain how Russia broke the Minsk agreements making their R2P claim illegitimate. That would make their operation illegal. You have posted nothing to challenge this.
You don't even really understand the debate that you are in.
-
Steve-Neither I nor you "know full well Russia was fomenting unrest amongst a minority of Russian speakers". What are known full well are the steps that I have laid out in this thread and that you have failed to challenge. What I have laid out is an undisputed record of agreements, breaches and the presentation of these facts over 8 years by Russia to the UNSC.
Your link, again, offers nothing and you are unable to articulate any rebuttal to those facts. Were NATO fomenting any unrest? UK, US - anyone else, do you think, fomenting unrest?
You have nothing to say as you demonstrate time and again. How did Russia break Minsk. You are still nowhere near attempting this question. You have told us often that Russia broke Minsk 2. When asked to elaborate you never have. I started a thread specifically for the cases for the failure of Minsk 2 to be explained. You still have no answers. Your bias and impartiality obscure your thinking. Instead of addressing the inconsistencies in your position- you run from them and change the subject.
Here is your opportunity, Steve, to clearly and coherently explain how Russia broke the Minsk agreements making their R2P claim illegitimate. That would make their operation illegal. You have posted nothing to challenge this.
You don't even really understand the debate that you are in.
I told you previously about breaking diplomatic protocol. Russia demaded further concessions on 13 May 2015, to which no self-respecting independent government could acquiesce. Russia was not party to Minsk 2 officially (though if you think Mikhail Zubarov wasn't Putin's puppet then I'm a Dutchman), so I don't know why you continue banging on about it. The ceasefire had broken down, which rendered the agreement null and void.
-
I told you previously about breaking diplomatic protocol. Russia demaded further concessions on 13 May 2015, to which no self-respecting independent government could acquiesce. Russia was not party to Minsk 2 officially (though if you think Mikhail Zubarov wasn't Putin's puppet then I'm a Dutchman), so I don't know why you continue banging on about it. The ceasefire had broken down, which rendered the agreement null and void.
And I asked you how Russia had broken "diplomatic protocol" to which you had no answer. Just some vague unspecified "thing".
We need to know how, specifically, Russia "breached protocol", as I have spelt out how Minsk 2 was broken by Ukraine + sponsors. What were these further concessions-how did they break Minsk? The admission of bad faith from the beginning by Ukraine, France and Germany cannot be ignored or hand-waved away. It is a signed confession that they are the aggressors. Your failure to address or understand this most important and telling fact of all, renders your apologia worthless.
The elephant in the room, Steve, is that Ukraine and their sponsors have admitted that they broke Minsk. Blaming Russia, given what is admitted and known, is a ridiculous and indefensible position-which explains why you can't and just offer vague innuendo.
The reason I "bang on about it" is because you and David constantly bring up Minsk agreements only to claim that Russia broke them. When asked to specify how, neither of you ever do, instead you quickly change the subject. Nor have you on this thread.
Now hopefully, you will stop, "banging on about it" every other page on the Russia thread before refusing to discuss further. In future I will just link you to this thread every time you raise Minsk-to demonstrate that you know nothing about it despite raising the subject countless times. And how far out of your depth you are.
-
And I asked you how Russia had broken "diplomatic protocol" to which you had no answer. Just some vague unspecified "thing".
We need to know how, specifically, Russia "breached protocol", as I have spelt out how Minsk 2 was broken by Ukraine + sponsors. What were these further concessions-how did they break Minsk? The admission of bad faith from the beginning by Ukraine, France and Germany cannot be ignored or hand-waved away. It is a signed confession that they are the aggressors. Your failure to address or understand this most important and telling fact of all, renders your apologia worthless.
The elephant in the room, Steve, is that Ukraine and their sponsors have admitted that they broke Minsk. Blaming Russia, given what is admitted and known, is a ridiculous and indefensible position-which explains why you can't and just offer vague innuendo.
The reason I "bang on about it" is because you and David constantly bring up Minsk agreements only to claim that Russia broke them. When asked to specify how, neither of you ever do, instead you quickly change the subject. Nor have you on this thread.
Now hopefully, you will stop, "banging on about it" every other page on the Russia thread before refusing to discuss further. In future I will just link you to this thread every time you raise Minsk-to demonstrate that you know nothing about it despite raising the subject countless times. And how far out of your depth you are.
Maybe you don't understand diplomacy or confidentiality. France and Germany complained this had been breached. I don't have the details, and why would I? As for the further demands, they were for Donetsk and Luhansk to control the border between the Donbas and Russia, the right to conclude agreements between foreign states, their own charters overriding the President of Ukraine, the right to decide their own budgets, to introduce states of emergency and hold their own elections and referendums, and compel Ukraine to write a neutrality clause into its constitution.
It seems you don't know as much as you thought after all.
-
The reason I "bang on about it" is because you and David constantly bring up Minsk agreements
I have never brought up the Minsk agreements.
-
Maybe you don't understand diplomacy or confidentiality. France and Germany complained this had been breached. I don't have the details, and why would I? As for the further demands, they were for Donetsk and Luhansk to control the border between the Donbas and Russia, the right to conclude agreements between foreign states, their own charters overriding the President of Ukraine, the right to decide their own budgets, to introduce states of emergency and hold their own elections and referendums, and compel Ukraine to write a neutrality clause into its constitution.
It seems you don't know as much as you thought after all.
You don't have the details. Of course you don't. There are no details because there is no credible accusation.
The supposed "extra demands" are nothing of the sort and a straight up lie. Russia could not make these "demands". The negotiations that were meant to be started by the Ukrainian government were never started. How could Russia make extra demands? The "demands" that you list are the starting point of negotiations by the republics representatives. It is how negotiations work. The Ukrainians failed to put forward anything by way of negotiation or even recognise the leaders as specified in Minsk 2. Ukraine were already admittedly ignoring the whole agreement.
So you don't know what these protocol breaches are but believe them anyway without even knowing what they are?!
Your accusation about Russian demands lacks any substance whatsoever. How, specifically, Russia broke an agreement it wasn't party to- that the other side have already admitted nullifying by their non compliance and bad faith from day one.
All that you have written is unsupported by anything and you are unable to enlighten us. So, perhaps I do know as much as I think I do. I can, at least, coherently put my case forward.
You're nowhere near that.
-
You don't have the details. Of course you don't. There are no details because there is no credible accusation.
The supposed "extra demands" are nothing of the sort and a straight up lie. Russia could not make these "demands". The negotiations that were meant to be started by the Ukrainian government were never started. How could Russia make extra demands? The "demands" that you list are the starting point of negotiations by the republics representatives. It is how negotiations work. The Ukrainians failed to put forward anything by way of negotiation or even recognise the leaders as specified in Minsk 2. Ukraine were already admittedly ignoring the whole agreement.
So you don't know what these protocol breaches are but believe them anyway without even knowing what they are?!
Your accusation about Russian demands lacks any substance whatsoever. How, specifically, Russia broke an agreement it wasn't party to- that the other side have already admitted nullifying by their non compliance and bad faith from day one.
All that you have written is unsupported by anything and you are unable to enlighten us. So, perhaps I do know as much as I think I do. I can, at least, coherently put my case forward.
You're nowhere near that.
Yes and I still look like Kurt Cobain.
-
Yes and I still look like Kurt Cobain.
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.
-
https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/ukraine-destroyed-the-minsk-agreements# (https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/ukraine-destroyed-the-minsk-agreements#)
-
I think Gringo is having a Tankie meltdown :-\
-
"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 (https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/minsk-agreements-were-attempt-to-gain-time-for-ukraine)
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYAvwBhtnAg
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYAvwBhtnAg
What is there to negotiate?
-
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 :-[
-
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
-
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."
-
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 ???
-
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 :-[
-
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.
-
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/
-
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?
-
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
-
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, 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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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, 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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Yes you are making up the extra demands made by Russia. You have raised them earlier in the thread and not surprisingly failed to be able to name these demands or any breach of protocol that you alleged. The unnamed breach of protocol supposedly alleged by France and Germany, who interestingly are also the guarantors of Minsk 2 and who admitted to bad faith from day one. An undefined breach of protocol, you say? alleged by Germany and France who pissed and shat and then set on fire any protocol from day one by their own admission, you say? An undefined allegation from such admittedly duplicitous actors is worth less than nothing.
The supposed extra demands that you describe are in the Minsk Agreements. I posted them earlier. You have nothing but hot air and fail to understand that you yourself with your contradictory posts have admitted that the fault lies entirely with Ukraine?NATO for the failure of Minsk. Signing them to buy time, which you now admit, is the smoking gun, Steve. Now you're just crying about Putin/Russia, you aren't making any coherent case.