The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[swerve]

That's not what I said.

"Whether the west cleverly tricked Soviet leadership by implying this without actually promising, and then simply turned around and ignored all that, or whether there was in fact an agreement, "

Neither of those is true.

Remember that Russians didn't agree on what "the west" was supposed to have promised. Gorbachev didn't even agree with himself. Claiming that things said by a few politicians & officials of two NATO countries during discussions of the possible future status of the DDR within a united Germany, vis-a-vis the Warsaw Pact & the USSR, were solid commitments to refusing to allow former members of the former Warsaw Pact (after that had ceased to exist) & former republics of the former USSR (after that had dissolved itself) to join NATO, however much they wanted to, doesn't make sense to me. Nobody was expecting the USSR to fall apart. You may not remember, but after it did, there were serious suggestions (including from within Russia) that Russia might join NATO. How can Russians talk about joining NATO, then complain that NATO expansion is a breach of a promise to Russia?

Context, context, context. Russian claims that they were lied to are dishonest. There was no NATO agreement not to expand. A handful of officials from two countries can't make policy for the whole alliance. Do Russians really think there's some monolithic thing called "the west" that moves in unison, & that anything any member of any western government or senior official says binds every western country? That's so obviously wrong that I'm astonished that you seem to agree with it.

It all boils down to this: Russia made a solemn agreement to not only recognise, but to protect, Ukraine's independence & territorial integrity. Russia broke that agreement, blatantly & deliberately. The western signatories, to their shame, didn't act to protect Ukraine in 2014, but tried to get an agreement limiting the damage. A series of agreements was made at Minsk & widely broken, especially by the Donbas separatists, who launched a series of successful attacks when there was supposed to be a ceasefire. Complaining that they were broken by one side, & one side only, & that side was Ukraine & the west, is silly. There are elements of them (special status for Donetsk & Luhansk) that could be salvaged, but given the February 2022 invasion, they cannot be considered to have any continuing meaning. Putin wiped them out. Everything has to start again.

 

[vonnoobie]

This goes both ways. The west committed to NATO non-expansion. We now know that was a lie. Minsk Accords 1 and 2 were lies. The grain deal that Russia just ended was also a lie. The real issue is that the gap in the positions of the sides is such that no real negotiations are possible.

Where exactly was it ever stated NATO would not expand? Mink 1 and 2 fell apart through actions on both sides, and how was the grain deal a lie? o.0

 

[vikingatespam]

This goes both ways. The west is committed to NATO non-expansion. We now know that was a lie. Minsk Accords 1 and 2 were lies. The grain deal that Russia just ended was also a lie. The real issue is that the gap in the positions of the sides is such that no real negotiations are possible.

Regardless of whether there was a promise not to expand NATO (I have heard both sides of that), NATO has never been an offensive threat to RU, and was mostly dormant and atrophying before the invasion of UKR. Putin understands this very well, which is why he didnt really give a damn about the additional of FIN and SWE to NATO.

Putin can end this ghastly war tomorrow. Just withdraw to the 2022 borders and its over. Unfortunately, we know thats not going to happen.

 

[John Fedup]

Regardless of whether there was a promise not to expand NATO (I have heard both sides of that), NATO has never been an offensive threat to RU, and was mostly dormant and atrophying before the invasion of UKR. Putin understands this very well, which is why he didnt really give a damn about the additional of FIN and SWE to NATO.

Putin can end this ghastly war tomorrow. Just withdraw to the 2022 borders and its over. Unfortunately, we know thats not going to happen.

No it won’t end because if he comes up with nothing for this horrible $hitshow, he will be done in and the vermin in waiting will be worse.

 

[Feanor]

Where exactly was it ever stated NATO would not expand?

There are entire articles devoted to it. Swerve's point about it not being a binding agreement is likely valid. But it didn't help.

Mink 1 and 2 fell apart through actions on both sides,

They both fell apart because fundamentally and substantively Ukraine had no interest or desire to implement them. Read the agreements. There was no scenario where Ukarine's leadership was willing to follow through on what those agreements contained. Ukrainian presidents on two occasions made a serious attempt to follow through. One was Poroshenko in 2016 and the other Zelensky fairly early into his term. Both were immediately sabotaged by their own government. Both ran into issues with right wing "volunteers" not being willing to follow the separation of forces agreement and neither had a snowball's chance in hell of getting the Rada to accept the autonomous status for the LDNR.

and how was the grain deal a lie? o.0

None of portions that benefited Russia were ever implemented. Russian agricultural exports were still essentially halted.

Regardless of whether there was a promise not to expand NATO (I have heard both sides of that), NATO has never been an offensive threat to RU, and was mostly dormant and atrophying before the invasion of UKR. Putin understands this very well, which is why he didnt really give a damn about the additional of FIN and SWE to NATO.

Putin can end this ghastly war tomorrow. Just withdraw to the 2022 borders and its over. Unfortunately, we know thats not going to happen.

No he can't. Ukraine wants the '91 borders, not the '22 borders. That means returning Crimea, a massive betrayal of the people who live there, not to mention the population still in the LDNR. It would also likely topple what domestic legitimacy Putin has left.

No it won’t end because if he comes up with nothing for this horrible $hitshow, he will be done in and the vermin in waiting will be worse.

Vermin would be nice. Monsters would be bad.

 

[Feanor]

That's not what I said.

"Whether the west cleverly tricked Soviet leadership by implying this without actually promising, and then simply turned around and ignored all that, or whether there was in fact an agreement, "

Neither of those is true.

Remember that Russians didn't agree on what "the west" was supposed to have promised. Gorbachev didn't even agree with himself. Claiming that things said by a few politicians & officials of two NATO countries during discussions of the possible future status of the DDR within a united Germany, vis-a-vis the Warsaw Pact & the USSR, were solid commitments to refusing to allow former members of the former Warsaw Pact (after that had ceased to exist) & former republics of the former USSR (after that had dissolved itself) to join NATO, however much they wanted to, doesn't make sense to me. Nobody was expecting the USSR to fall apart. You may not remember, but after it did, there were serious suggestions (including from within Russia) that Russia might join NATO. How can Russians talk about joining NATO, then complain that NATO expansion is a breach of a promise to Russia?

Well sure. First representations are made about NATO non-expansion, we'll leave the exact nature aside for a moment. Then a bunch of NATO expansion takes place in the late '90s and early 2000's. And then in iirc 2003 Russia decides that since there is this powerful military alliance on its doorstep maybe joining makes sense and statements are made to that effect. I don't see the contradiction. Do you?

Context, context, context. Russian claims that they were lied to are dishonest. There was no NATO agreement not to expand. A handful of officials from two countries can't make policy for the whole alliance. Do Russians really think there's some monolithic thing called "the west" that moves in unison, & that anything any member of any western government or senior official says binds every western country? That's so obviously wrong that I'm astonished that you seem to agree with it.

If the US had simply vetoed expansion, there is no expansion. It doesn't require a monolithic west. Just one firm "no".

It all boils down to this: Russia made a solemn agreement to not only recognise, but to protect, Ukraine's independence & territorial integrity. Russia broke that agreement, blatantly & deliberately. The western signatories, to their shame, didn't act to protect Ukraine in 2014, but tried to get an agreement limiting the damage. A series of agreements was made at Minsk & widely broken, especially by the Donbas separatists, who launched a series of successful attacks when there was supposed to be a ceasefire. Complaining that they were broken by one side, & one side only, & that side was Ukraine & the west, is silly.

The agreement went well beyond a ceasefire. One side wanted to see the agreement implemented in its entirety. The other didn't. There is a clear reason for those "successful" attacks. It was because the initial agreement was won by force of arms and the only leverage Russia and the rebels had, in the absence of any willingness on the part of the west to pressure Ukraine, was to use force of arms. Again consider the agreements and look at the implementation or lack thereof. As soon as time came to implement any of the political pieces that actually mattered, Ukraine simply wouldn't. On the subject of ceasefire violations, if you look at the social media presence of LDNR-related figures, typically from the lower level, they are full of complaints that they would take fire from the Ukrainian side, but wouldn't be allowed to return fire. The Minsk Accords were, for all intents and purposes, a political settlement that confirmed Russia's military victory in the '14-'15 campaigns. The problem is that Ukraine had no intention of fullfilling them, and the west had no intention of forcing them to. To present this as "both sides did some wrong" is fundamentally misleading. One side wanted them to work and one didn't.

There are elements of them (special status for Donetsk & Luhansk) that could be salvaged, but given the February 2022 invasion, they cannot be considered to have any continuing meaning. Putin wiped them out. Everything has to start again.

Of course he did. That was the point. The '22 invasion was an attempt to toss all the pieces off the board and use overwhelming force to alter the outcome. But it doesn't mean that you can quietly ignore the implications of the Minsk Accords for any future deals between Russia and the West. Let's say Putin and Zelensky sign a peace deal on the current line of contact, recognizing territory based on who holds what, added with full return of refugees and an eventual referendum (on some timeline) over the future of the territories in question, and Russia paying out 1.5 trillion in war damages over a span of 10 years, with all sanctions lifted. This would require ratification in the Rada. Who is to say that Ukraine, having fought to a standstill and been bled white, won't use the break to rest, refuse to ratify anything, pocket the first reparation payments, and meanwhile re-arm at the rapid rate in preparation for round 2? A reasonable observer might say "Duh! That's exactly what they should do!" And another observer might say "Now, wait. Ukraine doesn't want the war either, they're negotiating in good faith and look, France and Germany are parties to the agreement, and even the US supports it. Surely Ukraine and their western backers can be trusted." No. No they can not. And how they handled the Minsk accords is the reason why.

My fundamental question remains unanswered. If Ukraine, France, and Germany, weren't bound by the Minsk Accords, then why would they feel themselves bound by any future treaty that they're ultimately not too happy with?

And by the way, the attempt to claim that it was both sides breaking it that sank it falls apart when you consider that Merkel admitted they were only a tactic to help Ukraine prepare for war. They were signed in bad faith from the beginning.

 

[Feanor]

So you are by your reasoning putting responsibility for them falling apart squarely on Ukraine's shoulders.. LPR/DPR broke as many promises/agreements as Ukraine did. Blame lies on both sides, Not one or the other.

I think I addressed this point above already. I don't want to go around in a circle. One side wanted the Minsk Accords to work and one didn't (and had openly stated so). One side was ready to take the political steps necessary, and one was absolutely unwilling to do so (remember both times the primary obstacle after separation of sides, even if incomplete, exchange of POWs, was that Ukraine had to pass certain laws, this is where the Minsk Accords broke down each time). One side openly admitted the entire deal was an attempt to buy time, thus essentially showing that the negotiations were in bad faith. That's the side at fault in my eyes.

At various time leading up to and during the grain deal Russia literally put in its own bans on exporting Russian agriculture, Russia has actually exported record amounts, and sanctions dont apply to Russian agriculture.... Exactly what is Russia expecting?

Rossel'khozbank was not granted SWIFT access, despite this being one of the conditions. Russian companies foreign assets connected to production of fertilizers remained frozen, the ammonia pipeline from Tolyatti to Odessa remained halted, and in fact was destroyed in one section (allegedly by Ukraine) during this deal, ship insurance restrictions and port access for Russian ships carrying fertilizer and agricultural products remained in effect. Russia managed to increase exports despite these restrictions. This is not surprising, Russia is economically in a somewhat desperate situation. But it doesn't change the fact that the deal was not kept both in letter and in spirit.

You can flip flop all you want but at the end of the day Russia is destroying another civilization and Ukraine/NATO is trying to stop it. There is a good reason every East European country wants to be in NATO...You know, to not get exterminated.

Do you have any evidence that Russia is trying to exterminate Ukraine? Or that Ukraine is even "another civilization" (whatever that means?)? As far as I can tell this is a conventional war between two European countries initiated by Russia in a bid to undo the unfavourable stalemate due to the utter unwillingness of Ukraine to implement Minsk 1 or 2. Russia is the aggressor, this much is not in dispute. But what do you mean by the term extermination?

 

[2007yellow430]

I think I addressed this point above already. I don't want to go around in a circle. One side wanted the Minsk Accords to work and one didn't (and had openly stated so). One side was ready to take the political steps necessary, and one was absolutely unwilling to do so (remember both times the primary obstacle after separation of sides, even if incomplete, exchange of POWs, was that Ukraine had to pass certain laws, this is where the Minsk Accords broke down each time). One side openly admitted the entire deal was an attempt to buy time, thus essentially showing that the negotiations were in bad faith. That's the side at fault in my eyes.



Rossel'khozbank was not granted SWIFT access, despite this being one of the conditions. Russian companies foreign assets connected to production of fertilizers remained frozen, the ammonia pipeline from Tolyatti to Odessa remained halted, and in fact was destroyed in one section (allegedly by Ukraine) during this deal, ship insurance restrictions and port access for Russian ships carrying fertilizer and agricultural products remained in effect. Russia managed to increase exports despite these restrictions. This is not surprising, Russia is economically in a somewhat desperate situation. But it doesn't change the fact that the deal was not kept both in letter and in spirit.



Do you have any evidence that Russia is trying to exterminate Ukraine? Or that Ukraine is even "another civilization" (whatever that means?)? As far as I can tell this is a conventional war between two European countries initiated by Russia in a bid to undo the unfavourable stalemate due to the utter unwillingness of Ukraine to implement Minsk 1 or 2. Russia is the aggressor, this much is not in dispute. But what do you mean by the term extermination?

I maybe wrong, but wasn’t the Minsk Agreement the result of Russia taking Crimea? If so no blame upon the Ukraine. Russia had already violated its promises when it got the Ukraine’s nukes. Too bad Obama didn’t act then.

 

[Feanor]

I maybe wrong, but wasn’t the Minsk Agreement the result of Russia taking Crimea? If so no blame upon the Ukraine. Russia had already violated its promises when it got the Ukraine’s nukes. Too bad Obama didn’t act then.

The Minsk Accords were a diplomatic attempt to resolve the Donbass War of '14-'15 (Minsk 1 in '14, Minsk 2 in '15). They were not directly connected to Crimea, nor do I believe they resolved that dispute in any way. However the Accords took place well after the annexation of Crimea from a chronological standpoint. Not sure what you mean by "Ukraine's nukes".

 

[2007yellow430]

The Minsk Accords were a diplomatic attempt to resolve the Donbass War of '14-'15 (Minsk 1 in '14, Minsk 2 in '15). They were not directly connected to Crimea, nor do I believe they resolved that dispute in any way. However the Accords took place well after the annexation of Crimea from a chronological standpoint. Not sure what you mean by "Ukraine's nukes".

those were the nukes left in the Ukraine after the Soviet Union dissolved. As I recall, some time subsequent to the fall, those nukes were given to Russia before the Crimea was taken, There was an agreement, between Russia, Ukraine, the USA and I think, Germany that guaranteed Ukrainian sovereignty and boarders. That agreement predated any action by Russia regarding Crimea and the attack against Ukraine.

Art

 

[Feanor]

those were the nukes left in the Ukraine after the Soviet Union dissolved. As I recall, some time subsequent to the fall, those nukes were given to Russia before the Crimea was taken, There was an agreement, between Russia, Ukraine, the USA and I think, Germany that guaranteed Ukrainian sovereignty and boarders. That agreement predated any action by Russia regarding Crimea and the attack against Ukraine.

Art

Sorry, yes. Thanks for clarifying. Ukraine's nukes were handed over to Russia back in the '90s. Most of Ukraine's bombers were scrapped, a few were traded to Russia in exchange for natural gas debt forgiveness. That having been said, I don't believe Ukraine could have retained a credible nuclear arsenal and made any reasonable use of it.

 

[Ananda]

That having been said, I don't believe Ukraine could have retained a credible nuclear arsenal and made any reasonable use of it.

There's much talk especially in West not only in Media pundits, even politicians that saying Ukrainian should keep their nuclear in the 90's to keep their borders integrity. Forgetting it was the Western and not only Russian that push Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Kazakhstan to give the Soviet Nuclear arsenal in their border to begin with.

Ukrainian even in 90's is much broke then Russia economically. They're selling everything in whole sale discount, and I remember talk from our Marines brass in media that saying they got bunch USSR made amphibious armour from Ukrainian Arsenal, cheaper then brand new Toyota Land Cruiser. This is the kind of government that no Western especially US want to have Nuclear arsenal to begin with.

It is even more on Western/US interest to help Russian collecting all Soviet Nukes from those Ex USSR Republics. Now seems some in the West forgot about that. Those Republics too broke anyway not only to operating those nukes as you say, let alone proper guarding them. Those Nukes will only give North Korea or Iran or even some Rich Gulf Kingdoms head start in Nuclear proliferation.

 

[2007yellow430]

There's much talk especially in West not only in Media pundits, even politicians that saying Ukrainian should keep their nuclear in the 90's to keep their borders integrity. Forgetting it was the Western and not only Russian that push Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Kazakhstan to give the Soviet Nuclear arsenal in their border to begin with.

Ukrainian even in 90's is much broke then Russia economically. They're selling everything in whole sale discount, and I remember talk from our Marines brass in media that saying they got bunch USSR made amphibious armour from Ukrainian Arsenal, cheaper then brand new Toyota Land Cruiser. This is the kind of government that no Western especially US want to have Nuclear arsenal to begin with.

It is even more on Western/US interest to help Russian collecting all Soviet Nukes from those Ex USSR Republics. Now seems some in the West forgot about that. Those Republics too broke anyway not only to operating those nukes as you say, let alone proper guarding them. Those Nukes will only give North Korea or Iran or even some Rich Gulf Kingdoms head start in Nuclear proliferation.

You may be right, but it isn’t the nukes. It’s Russia breaking the signed guarantee, along with the USA and several European countries. That’s the issue. Forget the subsequent deals. Russia broke the deal. Obama (who I thought was a great President) didn’t do anything, other than useless sanctions. That’s the issue.

Art

 

[Ananda]

It’s Russia breaking the signed guarantee, along with the USA and several European countries

That's the arguments that backing forth as we already see not only in this forum (this thread and Russian thread), but also on online and mainstream medias. Yes Putin invade, however the circumstances and momentum that make him invade is what that not going to be find the common ground between Russia and Ukrainian/West. Even the rest of the world, which make others (outside both side) in this world mostly just sitting in fences and watch.

For me, that's part of Geopolitical interaction. Everything just part of interest at the moment of time. This war is just part of that cycle, and going to be decided when the interests of geopolitics reach some kind of stalemate or one side capitulation. The last ones, become less likely as time goes by.

 

[ImperatorOrbis]

Do you have any evidence that Russia is trying to exterminate Ukraine? Or that Ukraine is even "another civilization" (whatever that means?)? As far as I can tell this is a conventional war between two European countries initiated by Russia in a bid to undo the unfavourable stalemate due to the utter unwillingness of Ukraine to implement Minsk 1 or 2. Russia is the aggressor, this much is not in dispute. But what do you mean by the term extermination?

The evidence is mass abduction of children, rusification of Crimea and other occupied territories, many prominent Russian talk hosts talking about obliterating Ukrainians, bombing civilians to spread terror and historical Russian policies like Holodomor and more rusification (east Prussia, Tatars, Circasia Moldova, Belaruss, ...)

By extermination I mean gradualy replacing Ukrainan language and culture with Russian one.
And I am fairly certain this is a war of Putins and other Russians wet dream of trying to reestablish the glorious Russian empire/Soviet union.

EDIT: Where are you getting the Minsk accords anyway? Russia leadership has never mention them as the reason for invasion. It was always denazification or that Putins historical lesson of how Ukraine is Russia.

 

[KipPotapych]

The evidence is mass abduction of children, rusification of Crimea and other occupied territories, many prominent Russian talk hosts talking about obliterating Ukrainians and historical Russian policies like Holodomor and more rusification (east Prussia, Tatars, Circasia,...)

By extermination I mean gradualy replacing Ukrainan language and culture with Russian one.
And I am fairly certain this is a war of Putins and other Russians wet dream of trying to reestablish the glorious Russian empire/Soviet union.

This argument of “Crimean Russification” is pretty tiring. Are there more “ethnic” Russians there than there were in 2014? The answer is obvious - yes. It has been a part of Russia for nearly a decade, a bridge connecting the mainland and Crimea itself, etc. Frankly, it is nonsense. Even Wikipedia will tell you what you are saying in this regard is not true. Also, it might be a surprise to you, but Russia does not have Soviet type policies where the government dictates where people will relocate and make their lives. People are free to pack at any time and move wherever they want to, inside or outside of Russia, including Crimea (you can put it under either of the options to your liking).

Here is an excerpt from a report by the BBG from April 2014 (sorry, couldn’t paste and copy the text on the phone for whatever reason, so a snap shot):

Source: https://www.usagm.gov/wp-content/media/2014/06/Ukraine-research-brief.pdf

The reason there was “nothing” (as some say) done in 2014’s annexation of Crimea is because, most importantly, in my opinion, that would be beyond hypocritical. Of course, that would be in addition to the fact that there was nothing that could be done because preparedness of the Ukrainian military was in the dumpster (surely a lot has been done since, in big part thanks to the infamous Minsk Agreements). I don’t want to look for sources at the moment and state anything without, but try to look up how much of the Ukrainian military personnel simply stayed and flipped sides vs how many left to serve Ukraine.

Here is what Obama had to say on the subject in June of this year:

“Ukraine of that time was not the Ukraine that we’re talking about today,” Obama said in an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “There’s a reason there was not an armed invasion of Crimea, because Crimea was full of a lot of Russian speakers, and there was some sympathy to the views that Russia was representing.”

Western allies did not provide Ukraine with any material support to fight Russia or object to the annexation beyond economic or diplomatic means, the former president argued.

Instead, Russia claimed Crimea as a rightful part of the country given that a majority of the population in the region was ethnically Russian and spoke Russian, a view that had some understanding in Europe, Obama said.

“Part of what happened was, both myself and also [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel, who I give enormous credit for, had to pull in a lot of other Europeans kicking and screaming to impose the sanctions that we did and to prevent Putin from continuing through the Donbass and through the rest of Ukraine,” he added.

Sorry, the source is The Hill (not unreliable, but…), but they are quoting the man and I don’t have time at the moment, so almost the first search result Google provided: Obama defends 2014 Crimea response: ‘We challenged Putin with the tools we had at the time’

The sooner you guys move on from this, the better for everyone, in my opinion. In other words, there was never a predominant (if any, comparatively speaking) Ukrainian language or culture in Crimea. This is a fact and arguing against is simply trolling and a waste of time. Anyone paying attention should also had noticed that no one is currently denying that Crimea will remain to be a part of Russia and (not wisely, in my opinion) is used as “bait” in future negations. Unless, of course, Ukraine completely defeats Russia, which is not even close to a realistic scenario.

Another important note to take, according to the man in charge of the US at the time himself, as quoted above, Russia could have rolled “through the Donbas and through the rest of Ukraine” back then (easily, of course, with full participation of the Russian forces). In (large) part, Minsk Agreements prevented that. You do the math, so to speak.

 

[swerve]

Sorry, yes. Thanks for clarifying. Ukraine's nukes were handed over to Russia back in the '90s. Most of Ukraine's bombers were scrapped, a few were traded to Russia in exchange for natural gas debt forgiveness. That having been said, I don't believe Ukraine could have retained a credible nuclear arsenal and made any reasonable use of it.

True. But that doesn't excuse Russia's breaking of the agreement.

Everything comes down to that. The only unequivocal, unforced, written agreement is the one in which Russia & a couple of western countries agree to recognise & protect Ukraine's independence & territorial integrity within its 1991 borders.

Russia broke that agreement. Nobody else. The Minsk accords were a reaction to Russia's breaking of its promises. After that breach, Ukrainians didn't trust Russia to keep its word. Do you blame them? The basic problem here is that breach. Everything goes back to it. You can cavil about Ukrainian non-acceptance of agreements, but from their point of view those agreements were made with a knife to their throat, & they don't feel they're valid.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Minsk Accords were a diplomatic attempt to resolve the Donbass War of '14-'15 (Minsk 1 in '14, Minsk 2 in '15). They were not directly connected to Crimea, nor do I believe they resolved that dispute in any way. However the Accords took place well after the annexation of Crimea from a chronological standpoint.

• "The Minsk agreements of September 2014 and February 2015, which sought to end Russia’s war in eastern Ukraine, rest on two irreconcilable interpretations of Ukraine’s sovereignty – what could be called the ‘Minsk conundrum’: is Ukraine sovereign, as Ukrainians insist, or should its sovereignty be limited, as Russia demands?
• Ukraine sees the agreements as instruments with which to re-establish its sovereignty in line with the following sequence: a ceasefire; a Russian withdrawal from eastern Ukraine; return of the Russia/Ukraine border to Ukrainian control; free and fair elections in the Donbas region; and a limited devolution of power to Russia’s proxy regimes, which would be reintegrated and resubordinated to the authorities in Kyiv. Ukraine would be able to make its own domestic and foreign policy choices.
• Russia sees the Minsk agreements as tools with which to break Ukraine’s sovereignty. Its interpretation reverses key elements in the sequence of actions: elections in occupied Donbas would take place before Ukraine had reclaimed control of the border; this would be followed by comprehensive autonomy for Russia’s proxy regimes, crippling the central authorities in Kyiv. Ukraine would be unable to govern itself effectively or orient itself towards the West.
• These contradictory provisions are testimony to a stunning failure of Russian foreign policy. In 2014 Russia launched a campaign of violent subversion to compel Ukraine to ‘federalize’ its political system. Belying Russian expectations, Ukrainians fought back en masse, forcing Russia to resort to increasingly open military intervention. Russia inflicted crushing defeats on Ukrainian forces, yet was unwilling to pay the price that further high-intensity war would have exacted.
• Western views on how to implement the Minsk agreements are imprecise and inconsistent. One prevalent view is that implementation means finding a mid-point between the Russian and Ukrainian positions. However, attempts to do so have failed – heaping pressure on Ukraine, risking political instability in Kyiv, and not leading to any discernible change in Russian policy. Instead of trying to resolve an unresolvable contradiction, Western policymakers should acknowledge the starkness of the Minsk conundrum.
• An alternative approach would make the defence of Ukraine’s sovereignty the unambiguous premise of Western policy. It would view the Minsk and Normandy processes mainly as conflict management tools. In line with the priority attached to upholding Ukraine’s sovereignty, Western governments would meanwhile maintain support for long-term political and economic reform in Ukraine, using the EU/Ukraine Association Agreement as the anchor.
• This approach would also encourage the authorities in Kyiv to engage more inclusively with those living in occupied Donbas. Yet it would proceed from the assumption that the region should not be legally reincorporated into Ukraine for the foreseeable future. Finally, this approach would logically entail a lengthy stand-off with Russia over Ukraine – a prospect that many decision-makers in the West would find troubling and unnerving."

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/05/minsk-conundrum-western-policy-and-russias-war-eastern-ukraine

​

@Feanor With respect, I think that your interpretation of the Minsk Accords has some problems. Let's start with the quote above:
"The Minsk agreements rest on two irreconcilable interpretations of Ukraine’s sovereignty: is Ukraine sovereign, as Ukrainians insist, or should its sovereignty be limited, as Russia demands?"

Clearly Russia had viewed these accords through the lens of it's Novorossiya project, which:

"Novorossiya did not begin life as a secessionist imaginary but as an aspirational regional identity in reaction to the parliament of Soviet Ukraine proclaiming itself sovereign in the summer of 1990. After Ukraine became an independent state, only a few marginal groups within Ukraine and Russia clung to the idea of Novorossiya as a primordial imperial region. The idea persisted on the political margins within both states until the spring of 2014. The governance crisis precipitated by the Euromaidan protests created a moment of opportunity for a cross-border network of pro-Russia activists to seize power in the Donbas and beyond in southeast Ukraine."​

Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin were stunned by the Ukrainian Supreme Soviet decision on 16/7/1990 to issue a Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine and even then US President George HW Bush, had advised Kravchuk who was the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR, that Ukrainian independence wasn't acceptable because Bush believed that the USSR as whole should remain, but without the CPSU. Bush's weakness was that he had formed a good relationship with Gorbachev and was sympathetic towards him. He wanted Gorbachev to remain as the head of any subsequent political entity that replaced the USSR. So any accusations of US encouragement for Ukrainian independence in 1990 are false. Bsh only acceded to Ukrainian independence when it was a fait accompli in 1991. Of course Yeltsin removed Gorbachev as USSR Head of State and had Gorbachev sign two decrees; dissolving the USSR, and his resignation as Head Of State. It was Yeltsin's intention to form an independent Russia that retained the territory of the USSR including Ukraine, but got rid of the troublesome Baltic States. Ukraines independence was a blow to Yeltsin and many Russian nationalists. However it was Ukraine's inalienable right to determine its own future. It had already had its independence from Russia in 1917 -21 with the Ukrainian Soviet War which ended with Soviet victory after the Peace of Riga that resulted in the splitting of then Ukrainian territory between Soviet Russia and Poland.

WRT to the alleged promises regarding NATO expansion eastward. Any such agreement would have to be fully supported and approved by all NATO members. There is no record of any such action at all and basing a whole argument purely on hearsay evidence is not valid nor logical. This claim has been a significant core to Russian propaganda and anyone repeating such a fallacy is spreading a lie. Yes there has been lots written on it, but it's all conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda, so it doesn't hold water. Russia interfered in internal Ukrainian matters right from Ukrainian independence, but more so when Putin became president. It was behind the secessionist movements in eastern Ukraine and it supplied and supported the movements especially from 2014, with the so called little green men traipsing about eastern Ukraine. It's illegal occupation and annexation of Ukraine, which is sovereign Ukrainian territory, during the same year is illegal under international law and the UN Charter. It was an act of wanton aggression and war. Claims that Crimea is historical Russian territory, regardless of the 1991 Ukrainian independence are complete rubbish and Russian propaganda. Crimea isn't Russian because it was invaded and colonised by Russia, IIRC late 18th / early 19th centuries, and the current ethnic Russian population is the result of ethnic cleansing because of Stalin deporting the Crimean Tartars from their traditional territory. There are no legal or moral grounds to support the proposition that Crimea is traditional holy Russian territory.

So let's start dealing in facts rather than the lies and conspiracy theories being propagated by Moscow.

 

[vikingatespam]

Yes Putin invade, however the circumstances and momentum that make him invade is what that not going to be find the common ground between Russia and Ukrainian/West.

How does one find common ground when the apparent motivations of Putins were either to:

- install a RU friendly puppet (a UKR Lukashenko)
- completely absorb UKR into RU

Putin did not invade because of biolabs, Nazis, or concerns of LPR/DPR citizens. This invasion was solely to put the RU stamp down on a UKR which had shown an increasing turn to the west.

 

[Ananda]

- install a RU friendly puppet (a UKR Lukashenko)
- completely absorb UKR into RU

The other side say that what Ukraine and West want is:

1. Destroy any Russian Ethnics identity and political will in East-South Ukraine,
2. Step by step put Western military under pretences closing toward Russian border. Choke and destabilize Russia.

What I wrote above will be call by many in West as Russian propaganda and lies. What you wrote if looking on Russian Telegram or Chinese Weibos and Medias will also be call Ukrainian and Western lies and propaganda.

So at this point finding common ground is can be call close to null. That's why I say common ground can only potentially be achieve if either one side capitulate or long stalemate happen and force both side to exhaustion. The first one so far seemingly day to day is not going to happen. That's left the second one. How long this happen? Can be next six months, next year, or next two years.

West so sure that by six months Russia will be crumbling economically thus reach exhaustion and capitulate by end of the year. This is talk on Western media and politicians as justification for what they call sweeping embargoes to Russia.

Russian sure that Ukrainian will not last much longer due to exhaustion on man power. West will not going to bear more cost on continuing support corrupt regime in Kyiv. At least that's what you are going to read if reading Russian telegram and media.

Each sides supporters will say others dreaming, and other sides will lose steams soon enough. For me most likely both sides loosing steams and reach stalemate and that's where common ground can be achieved.

Will see whose right, as now can still goes either way.