As reported by German legacy media, which, in a bout of dishonesty, doesn't mention many incendiary remarks made by Mr. Melnyk, incl. calls to join the fight against Russia
Nov 20, 2022·edited Nov 20, 2022Liked by epimetheus
"I’ll just restrict myself to noting that Russia is not a signatory to the Minsk 1 or 2 agreements (they were members of the Trilateral Contact Group, but the agreements involve the Donetsk and Lugansk regions as well as the Kyiv government)."
so the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the
Minsk Agreements was not part of the minsk agreement?
yet it was signed by Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Ukraine, M. Yu. Zurabov...
Look, Jan, I don't condone what Russia is doing, but in the case of the Minsk I and II arrangements, the situation is crystal clear: both agreements deal with the Donetsk and Lugansk 'People's Republics' on the one side and the Kyiv gov't on the other side. Russia, France, and Germany are also mentioned as they would be something like the 'guarantors' of these arrangements that, at the time of their writing, would be something that affect intra-Ukrainian affairs.
Now, for the obvious problem there: Russia took over Crimea in 2014, which renders it quite weird, in all honesty, for Russia to co-sign the agreements, but then again, it's also a quite apt reflection of the 'realities on the ground'.
Now, in a strictly positivistic sense, yes, Russia is part and parcel of these agreements; so are France and Germany, and given the latters' unyielding support for Kyiv, well, I suppose that makes this all but 'even'.
I need to be more precise; I don't condone the Russian military intervention in Feb. 2022.
What happened with the Minsk I and II agreements, however, is something else; as is clearly evident from the linked UNSC text (the agreements were processed via the UNSC), the conflicting parties were (2, p. 2) 'the Ukrainian troops' and 'the armed formations from certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine'.
There's quite bit 'more' in these agreements, from the withdrawal of foreign troops from the entire territory of Ukraine (that would incl. NATO forces); there were no local elections in the Donbas, although the agreement envisioned it--note the fact that Ukrainian forces would assume control of the borders w/Russia on the day after these elections (that never happened in a way that involved Kyiv); Kyiv promised to reform its constitution (didn't happen either); Kyiv refused to resume pension payments to the Donbas residents.
I could go on.
I would like to offer my apologies if my ill-advised choice of words caused unwarranted consternation. I didn't mean to imply that Franco-German support for Kyiv would be equivalent to Russia seeking redress of grievances through force of arms.
What I meant by the Crimea reference is this: having Russia as a member of the Trilateral Contact Group (w/Germany and France) was a way to ensure that the Donbas regions were on board; it was, arguably, also an attempt to keep Russia from taking over other parts of Ukraine--let's not forget in this context that Donetsk and Lugansk also wanted to join Russia (like Crimea) back in 2014/15 and that, back then, the Kremlin refused.
Well, it's a fact that Russia's presence in the process is odd (see the above comment) as Moscow took over Crimea in 2014, but then again, Minsk I and II are, technically, something like implementation arrangements concerning the Donbas republics' autonomy within the Ukrainian state. So, as long as that is accepted as a 'premise', then the violation by Kyiv is quite obvious.
Nov 20, 2022·edited Nov 20, 2022Liked by epimetheus
I think I understand what you're getting at.
To me the situation is fairly obvious. NATO expanded 1000+km eastward in the 3 decades since promising not-to. Russia clearly drew the line at UKR (as many in Washington knew and warned - See the "Nyet means Nyet" cable from 2008). The result predicted and warned-of by the greybeards in Washington's foreign policy establishment was seperatist conflict in UKR, and eventually Russian intervention. Well now we've got it.
There's clearly a faction in DC (and NATO, and, and) that decided to *really* set fire to the situation in 2014. The de-facto (but not de-jure) NATOization of UKR. The DoD biolabs in UKR (WTF??)... there's no explanation based on a defensive posture there.
It's firestarting. And you can look at the names and networks of the actors, if you want.
The further east and south you go, the shorter the time for the "any and all debates about the Holocaust* and war crimes is equal to denialism and fascism"-narrative to have become internalised and endemic to a nations people.
People outside the old US-centric sphere of influence during the Cold War simply hasn't grown up with neither the factual information nor the emotional propagandistic misuse of the Holocaust to stifle debate about pretty much any issue - hence why it is so common among arab moslems to laud Hitler and nazism, Mein Kampf sometimes being the most best selling western book in some nations.
Or why you get mangas and similar combining the "sexy school girl chic"-aesthtic so popular in partsof Asia with Wehrmacht and SS uniforms... it's simply too culturally distant and irrelevant to them for them to have the same reaction europeans have been conditioned to have by rote.
And we know how dangerous it is to make a topic anathema.
*Meaning only the jews of course. Any mention of the millions of others, including germans deemed "unfit for life" murdered in accordance with nazi ideology is apparently right-wing anti-semitism, the logic being that it detracts attention from the plight of the jews, since they were specially targeted.
You do not want to know what descendants and relatives to the few surviving gypsies feel about that.
"I’ll just restrict myself to noting that Russia is not a signatory to the Minsk 1 or 2 agreements (they were members of the Trilateral Contact Group, but the agreements involve the Donetsk and Lugansk regions as well as the Kyiv government)."
so the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the
Minsk Agreements was not part of the minsk agreement?
yet it was signed by Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Ukraine, M. Yu. Zurabov...
Geschichtsrevisionismus oder nur einfache Luege?
Look, Jan, I don't condone what Russia is doing, but in the case of the Minsk I and II arrangements, the situation is crystal clear: both agreements deal with the Donetsk and Lugansk 'People's Republics' on the one side and the Kyiv gov't on the other side. Russia, France, and Germany are also mentioned as they would be something like the 'guarantors' of these arrangements that, at the time of their writing, would be something that affect intra-Ukrainian affairs.
Now, for the obvious problem there: Russia took over Crimea in 2014, which renders it quite weird, in all honesty, for Russia to co-sign the agreements, but then again, it's also a quite apt reflection of the 'realities on the ground'.
Now, in a strictly positivistic sense, yes, Russia is part and parcel of these agreements; so are France and Germany, and given the latters' unyielding support for Kyiv, well, I suppose that makes this all but 'even'.
france and germany were parties ?
obviously not, as nobody signed for these countries.
you say you do not condone what russia did, to immediately have it followed by the realisation that it reflects the realities on the ground. really?
and to state that germany's and france's support to kiev makes it even with the invasion of ukrain by russia is a gotspe..
I need to be more precise; I don't condone the Russian military intervention in Feb. 2022.
What happened with the Minsk I and II agreements, however, is something else; as is clearly evident from the linked UNSC text (the agreements were processed via the UNSC), the conflicting parties were (2, p. 2) 'the Ukrainian troops' and 'the armed formations from certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine'.
There's quite bit 'more' in these agreements, from the withdrawal of foreign troops from the entire territory of Ukraine (that would incl. NATO forces); there were no local elections in the Donbas, although the agreement envisioned it--note the fact that Ukrainian forces would assume control of the borders w/Russia on the day after these elections (that never happened in a way that involved Kyiv); Kyiv promised to reform its constitution (didn't happen either); Kyiv refused to resume pension payments to the Donbas residents.
I could go on.
I would like to offer my apologies if my ill-advised choice of words caused unwarranted consternation. I didn't mean to imply that Franco-German support for Kyiv would be equivalent to Russia seeking redress of grievances through force of arms.
What I meant by the Crimea reference is this: having Russia as a member of the Trilateral Contact Group (w/Germany and France) was a way to ensure that the Donbas regions were on board; it was, arguably, also an attempt to keep Russia from taking over other parts of Ukraine--let's not forget in this context that Donetsk and Lugansk also wanted to join Russia (like Crimea) back in 2014/15 and that, back then, the Kremlin refused.
Thank you for pointing out that it was Kiev that failed to honor Minsk 2.
The puppet parrots are completely silent on this point, as expected.
Well, it's a fact that Russia's presence in the process is odd (see the above comment) as Moscow took over Crimea in 2014, but then again, Minsk I and II are, technically, something like implementation arrangements concerning the Donbas republics' autonomy within the Ukrainian state. So, as long as that is accepted as a 'premise', then the violation by Kyiv is quite obvious.
I think I understand what you're getting at.
To me the situation is fairly obvious. NATO expanded 1000+km eastward in the 3 decades since promising not-to. Russia clearly drew the line at UKR (as many in Washington knew and warned - See the "Nyet means Nyet" cable from 2008). The result predicted and warned-of by the greybeards in Washington's foreign policy establishment was seperatist conflict in UKR, and eventually Russian intervention. Well now we've got it.
There's clearly a faction in DC (and NATO, and, and) that decided to *really* set fire to the situation in 2014. The de-facto (but not de-jure) NATOization of UKR. The DoD biolabs in UKR (WTF??)... there's no explanation based on a defensive posture there.
It's firestarting. And you can look at the names and networks of the actors, if you want.
Well, it's only natural isn't it?
The further east and south you go, the shorter the time for the "any and all debates about the Holocaust* and war crimes is equal to denialism and fascism"-narrative to have become internalised and endemic to a nations people.
People outside the old US-centric sphere of influence during the Cold War simply hasn't grown up with neither the factual information nor the emotional propagandistic misuse of the Holocaust to stifle debate about pretty much any issue - hence why it is so common among arab moslems to laud Hitler and nazism, Mein Kampf sometimes being the most best selling western book in some nations.
Or why you get mangas and similar combining the "sexy school girl chic"-aesthtic so popular in partsof Asia with Wehrmacht and SS uniforms... it's simply too culturally distant and irrelevant to them for them to have the same reaction europeans have been conditioned to have by rote.
And we know how dangerous it is to make a topic anathema.
*Meaning only the jews of course. Any mention of the millions of others, including germans deemed "unfit for life" murdered in accordance with nazi ideology is apparently right-wing anti-semitism, the logic being that it detracts attention from the plight of the jews, since they were specially targeted.
You do not want to know what descendants and relatives to the few surviving gypsies feel about that.