more Ukraine research and thoughts.

[Joseph Tracy]

The point is that both parties agreed to the core ideas, including that there would be no foreign troops in Ukraine. No Nato.  That and normal citizen rights for Donetsk/ Luhansk is still the core stated goal of eastern Ukraine and Putin. We have no stated comitments, have refused even a clear written statement requested by Russia. 
     Unfortunately , agression toward the Russian border in Ukraine was Nato’s Goal since  2008, despite the earlier promises of Baker and other nations in Nato. I don’t understand why people are so adament to foster this aggression that the US would never tolerate as we know from the Cuban crisis, and why the basic concepts of the Misk Protocols cannot serve as a basis for peaceable resolution. I think Ukraine will be the biggest loser in a conflict  if such a battle can be contained. War is completely unnecessary.   Russia and the ethnic Russians of Ukraine have every reason to be as suspicious of the US as the US or Ukraine is of Russia. IMO more so, since we are the ones who break agreements such as the one with Iran, or the one about not one inch eastward, and it is the US with the record of foreign aggression in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and several countries in Africa. Personally  I think Biden’ threats against Russia are threats to Ukraine. They will pay a greater price than Russia unless we all pay the same ultimate price. 

As to what is grotesque, war is grotesque. And it is not only the Russians misbehaving as you would have it.  What gets reported here about Ukraine  is as distorted as most of our war news.  

Is Ukraine really threatened by Russia, has Russia attacked other former soviet states?  Have they gone to war over Nato advancement eastward? Why would they start now. They want trade, They want to sell their gas. And winters will be hard in Europe without it. 

Yes American/Nato occupation comes with money while it lasts, soldiers blow their money, lucrative agreements are struck with local government, but in the long run the cost is dear. 

> On Jan 26, 2022, at 5:15 PM, Martin Dietze <mdietze at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>