more Ukraine research and thoughts.

[Mark Kohut]

I'll write this: the incorrect argument, not always fact-based, runs
parallel with Russian propaganda.

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 5:57 PM Hübschräuber via Pynchon-l <
pynchon-l at waste.org> wrote:

> I have no problems at all with sarcasm or the grotesque. Thank you for
> elaborating on your point of view.
>
> If you don't mind: Please cut out the "Russian propaganda" bit. It is the
> lowest form of political discourse. I don't call you a NATO or State
> Department troll either.
>
> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com/) Secure Email.
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> Martin Dietze <mdietze at gmail.com> schrieb am Mittwoch, 26. Januar 2022 um
> 23:15:
>
> > 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.
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>