more Ukraine research and thoughts.

[Martin Dietze]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 22:07, Thomas Eckhardt <huebschraeuber at protonmail.com>
wrote:

> > After this blatant violation Minsk II was dead from day 1. Claiming that
> > Ukraine were to fulfil their part now - as Moscow does - is utter
> cynicism.
>
> This is a controversial claim.


No, it is the ony correct one. Minsk II was destroyed by Russia one day
after having been signed.



> As you surely know but inexplicably fail
> to mention, Debaltsevo was discussed in Minsk. Poroshenko did not admit
> that his troops were surrounded and therefore saw no reason for them to
> surrender:
>

He had no reason, because the agreement included an immediate ceasefire
which Moscow ignored a day later.



> As I understand it, Debaltsevo was therefore not included in the agreement.
>

It does not need to. It falls under the agreement as every other place in
the region. It was not excluded. Hence, see above.



> In any case, Minsk II is still valid, despite the events in Debaltsevo,
> and there can be no doubt that Ukraine has not fulfilled its obligations
> under the agreement. As you admit.
>

This is a twist worthy of Russia's propaganda factories. Once again, very
slowly:

1. Minsk II was signed.
2. All sides agreed on an immediate ceasefire, no further gains, both sides
stay where they are
3. Debaltsevo was under Ukrainian control then
4. Russia's proxies assisted by Russian troops started a vast offensive and
eventually took the city cynically violating Minsk in several ways:
- ceasefire ignored
- not stayed where they were
- massive involvement of regular Russian troops
- massive use of banned heavy weapons (including the TOS-1 flame thrower
launcher system burning everything to death in an area of square kilometers)
5. Hence: Minsk II was dead the day after its signing.

Russia now blames Ukraine to not fulfil a particular part of Minsk II, the
interpretation of which is controversial. Since Russia does not allow the
border to be secured and international organisations assert an election (if
it were to take place) to be carried out according to Ukrainian law (as
required by the agreement) - parties having the right to agitate even if
not "separatist", people having the right to vote freely and secretly - the
disputed part of the agreement cannot be implemented anyway.

But this is not even important anymore, because - see above - Minsk II had
already been so blatantly violated already on day one that now insisting on
one of the parties being the obstacle to implementing it is nothing but
hypocrisy. Welcome to Putin's kindom of miracles and fairy tales.

Sorry for sounding sarcastic, but us even discussing this here is nothing
less than grotesque.

Cheers,

m.