more Ukraine research and thoughts.

[Joseph Tracy]

1)What was wrong with the Minsk agreement?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_Protocol  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_Protocol>   Is absolute military and police control of the Donbass needed for peace in Ukraine? Why Nato?
2) Who is the aggressor?

1)
The Minsk agreement was a ceasefire agreement between the Donetsk and Luhansk also known as the Donbass one hand and the western side of Ukraine are the other. It created a line of separation on the border between those these two parts of Ukraine, released prisoners, called for the removal of foreign troops and mercenaries, and called for a constitutional reform recognizing the autonomous needs of the Donbass.
    There had been intense fighting and the Kiev government was losing; that was the key reason for them agreeing. It took a while for fighting to stop, with both sides accusing the other of infractions. 

Russia has always supported the fulfillment of this agreement in the provision against foreign troops (NATO) and has never pushed for breaking Ukraine in 2.

As Ukraine pushes to break the agreement by including Ukraine in NATO and sending military equipment of all kinds to Ukraine, Russia has responded by sending more military reinforcements to the border and asking for a written agreement on nonaggression from the US .  Russia continues to call for the Minsk agreement to be the basis for peaceful resolution and has made no effort to divide Ukraine other than ensuring the basic rights of ethnically Russian Ukrainians.

2)
This year the NATO general secretary Jens Stoltenberg said this. "In 2008 we unanimously decided that Ukraine in Georgia would become NATO members but we did not establish when exactly". This despite earlier agreements to stop further advancement of NATO into Russian border states. This seems to bring into question whether what has happened in Ukraine is truly spontaneous revolt. In 2014 there was military fighting between Ukraine and the Donbass and when Ukraine failed to subdue the Donbass region  and was in a weakened military position, there was an effort toward a cease-fire with different parties participating in the Minsk agreement arrived at between Ukraine and Lujansk/Donetsk.


Other factors: 
the largest industrial force in Europe is Germany and it wants more gas hence Nord stream 2. Germany also has a broad trade relation with Russia. Austria Switzerland in the US have all invested in the Nordstream pipeline . So far Germany has been reluctant to support a war but from US pressure has made vague threats to stop Nordstrom to if there is Russian aggression. But  what if the border crossing into the Russian speaking Dunboss comes from Western Ukraine.? Do US pressure against Nord stream 2 has failed because there is no practical alternative for the expansion of German industry. So Germany is a big factor and the politicians are pressured by the German industrialists on one side and the US on the other.

                Opinion

First off I want to say that I oppose the gas pipelines just as much as I oppose the tar sands pipelines in the United States. We don’t need to keep fueling  the fires on this overheated planet. And as you all know, I hate war, though I believe people do have a right to self defense. As far as I know everything I have said is accurate and the argument is mostly about motives; who wants what? In our last military offensive the US kept yelling about weapons of mass destruction and the threat from Iraq until we invaded and killed hundreds of thousands, most of whom never wanted a war,  living in a country that never attacked us. Same noise for Libya and Syria. Our cries of aggression by Russia ring hollow to many.

 There can be no positive outcome from a war in Ukraine which could easily spread out of control. The US has claimed spheres of influence since the absurd Monroe doctrine based on no constitutional principle. The fact is that Russia is not going to tolerate a military attempt to subdue the Donbass or allow NATO troops or missiles into Ukraine this seems reasonable and something the Ukraine government already agreed to in line 10 of the Minsk agreement. So I conclude where I started. What is wrong with the Minsk Agreement other than its exclusion of Nato or other foreign troops. 

Why are there no calls for de-escalation? Where is the active pursuit of peace advocated by Thich Nhat Hanh and so many of our best  moral leaders?