Russia's 'invasion and occupation' of Ukrainian territory.

[uls]

sa ngayon neither side wants nego

for ukraine, nego means giving up some territory but that's unacceptable for them

for russia there's no point in nego they can't trust the west

turned out the 2014 minsk agreement was a ruse

the west never intended to abide by it

it was only to buy time for ukraine to prepare for war

from now on russia cannot sign agreements with the west

[uls]

let's go back to why i posted this:

sa ngayon neither side wants nego

for ukraine, nego means giving up some territory but that's unacceptable for them

for russia there's no point in nego they can't trust the west

turned out the 2014 minsk agreement was a ruse

the west never intended to abide by it

it was only to buy time for ukraine to prepare for war

from now on russia cannot sign agreements with the west

that's in response to this:

General Milley: Russia-Ukraine war will end with negotiations



https://kyivindependent.com/news-fee...h-negotiations

my point is the minsk agreement was used to fool russia

so how can there be negotiations to end this war if russia can no longer make agreements with the west

[uls]

so my view is there will be no nego

russia will not nego

the west is unlikely to nego

the west is determined to escalate

[EQAddict]

so my view is there will be no nego

russia will not nego

the west is unlikely to nego

the west is determined to escalate

For once i agree with you.


There has to be a strategic defeat one way or another.

Kicking russia out of Ukraine isnt escalation though. Its survival .

Plain n simple.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tsikot Forums mobile app

[uls]

there are some US politicians calling for less support for ukraine so the US can focus on china

the latest one is republican senator Josh Hawley



but the biden white house is unlikely to wind down support for ukraine

[EQAddict]

let's go back to why i posted this:



that's in response to this:




my point is the minsk agreement was used to fool russia

so how can there be negotiations to end this war if russia can no longer make agreements with the west

Who fooled who?

Who invaded whom when they said they wouldnt?

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tsikot Forums mobile app

[tsupermario]

my point is the minsk agreement was used to fool russia

so how can there be negotiations to end this war if russia can no longer make agreements with the west

minsk agreement was used by russia to fool ukraine and the west

minsk agreement -> russia agrees to respect territorial integrity of ukraine

putin -> recognize independence of separatists states = no more minsk

crimea -> biggest land grab in europe since WW II

Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia -> annexed by russia, bigger than crimea

[tsupermario]

1. There are two Minsk Agreements, not just one. The first “Minsk Protocol” was signed on September 5, 2014. It mainly consists of a commitment to a ceasefire along the existing line of contact, which Russia never respected. By February 2015, fighting had intensified to a level that led to renewed calls for a ceasefire, and ultimately led to the second Minsk Agreement, signed on February 12, 2015. Even after this agreement, Russian-led forces kept fighting and took the town of Debaltseve six days later. The two agreements are cumulative, building on each other, rather than the second replacing the first. This is important in understanding the importance, reflected in the first agreement, of an immediate ceasefire and full monitoring by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), including on the Ukraine-Russia border, as fundamental to the subsequent package of agreements.

2. Russia is a Party to the Minsk Agreements. The original Minsk signatories are Russia, Ukraine, and the OSCE. Russia is a protagonist in the war in Ukraine and is fully obliged to follow the deal’s terms. Despite that, however, Russia untruthfully claims not to be a party and only a facilitator — and that the real agreements are between Ukraine and the so-called “separatists,” who call themselves the Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples’ Republics (LPR and DPR), but are in fact Russian supplied and directed.

3. The LPR and DPR are not recognized as legitimate entities under the Minsk Agreements. The signatures of the leaders of the so-called Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples’ Republics were added after they had already been signed by Ukraine, Russia, and the OSCE. They were not among the original signatories, and indeed Ukraine would not have signed had their signatures been part of the deal. There is nothing in the content or format of the Agreement that legitimizes these entities and they should not be treated as negotiating partners in any sense. Russia alone controls the forces occupying parts of eastern Ukraine.

4. Russia is in violation of the Minsk Agreements. The deals require a ceasefire, withdrawal of foreign military forces, disbanding of illegal armed groups, and returning control of the Ukrainian side of the international border with Russia to Ukraine, all of this under OSCE supervision. Russia has done none of this. It has regular military officers as well as intelligence operatives and unmarked “little green men” woven into the military forces in Eastern Ukraine. The LPR and DPR forces are by any definition “illegal armed groups,” that have not been disbanded. The ceasefire has barely been respected by the Russian side for more than a few days at a time.

5. Russian-led forces prevent the OSCE from accomplishing its mission in Donbas as spelled out in the Minsk Agreements. It is an unstated irony in Vienna — understood by every single diplomatic mission and member of the international staff — that Russia approves the mandate of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) in Ukraine when it votes in Vienna, but then blocks implementation of that same mission on the ground in Ukraine. Because Russia is a member of the OSCE, and the SMM wants to preserve what little access it has to the occupied territories, the mission is guarded in what it says about ceasefire violations and restrictions on its freedom of movement. Privately, however, they acknowledge that some 80% of such violations and restrictions come from the Russian-controlled side of the border, and those that occur on the Ukrainian side are largely for safety reasons (e.g., avoiding mined approaches to bridges.)

Don’t Let Russia Fool You About the Minsk Agreements - CEPA

[111prez]

Don’t Let Russia Fool You About the Minsk Agreements - CEPA

Hintayin mo at titirahin yang CEPA kasi Washinton, D.C., U.S.A. based ito

[uls]

[uls]

[tsupermario]

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel defended her legacy on Ukraine on Tuesday in her first major interview since leaving office.
She refused to apologize for her policies towards Moscow, but stressed there was no justification for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
"It's an objective breach of all international laws and of everything that allows us in Europe to live in peace at all. If we start going back through the centuries and arguing over which bit of territory should belong to whom, then we will only have war. That's not an option whatsoever."

Merkel on Putin
The former chancellor insisted she had not been naive in her dealings with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"Diplomacy isn't wrong just because it hasn't worked," she said. However, she never believed he could be won over by trade promises. "Military deterrence is the only language he understands," she said.
Merkel recalled a 2007 summit in the Russian resort of Sochi. Knowing Merkel's dislike of dogs, Putin famously encouraged his own dog to approach the German chancellor.
Putin told her that the collapse of the Soviet Union had been "the worst event of the 20th century." Merkel replied that for her, as someone who grew up in communist East Germany, the fall of the Berlin Wall meant she could live her life in freedom.
It was obvious already, she said, that there was a "great discrepancy."
Putin, she said, "hated" the Western model of democracy and wanted to "destroy" the European Union.

Merkel on opposition to Ukraine joining NATO
Merkel defended her opposition to Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO in 2008. At the time, NATO pledged that the two countries would join at some point in the future, but declined to trigger the "membership action plan" to let them join the alliance within five to 10 years.
…

"President Zelenskyy is bravely fighting against corruption, but at the time, Ukraine really was a country governed by oligarchs, and so there you can't just say 'ok tomorrow we'll take them into NATO,'" she said.
"It was not the Ukraine that we know from today. It was a Ukraine that was very, very divided politically," she said. "It was not a stable democracy. And when you accept a country into a NATO — and the Membership Action Plan is the clear precursor to that — you have to know that we are then prepared to really defend such a country if there is an attack."
"Secondly, I was very sure … that Putin is not going to just let that happen. From his perspective, that would be a declaration of war."

Merkel on the Minsk agreement
Merkel said the Minsk agreement — a 2014 deal she helped broker to ease the conflict between government forces and Russian-backed separatists — while not entirely palatable to the Ukrainians, bought important time for Ukraine.
"This agreement was commended, approved, welcomed by the EU. This agreement has been incorporated into a UN Security Council resolution, so it has the character of international law," she said.
"At the time, it brought calm and gave Ukraine, for example, a lot of time, seven years, to develop into what it is today."
Merkel conceded that there could have been a harsher response to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, but that serious steps had been taken. She cited Russia's exclusion from the Group of Eight (Leading Industrial Nations) and NATO's stipulation that members spend 2% of GDP on defense.
By the end of her chancellorship, it was clear that Russia was moving in the direction of conflict, she said.

https://www.dw.com/en/angela-merkel-...acy/a-62052345

[tsupermario]

While Russia’s role in arming separatist rebels and sending in ground forces to support the fighting has been widely documented by Western governments and investigative journalists, Moscow continues to deny its involvement in the conflict. “The No. 1 thing is that Russia refuses to acknowledge that it is a party to the Minsk agreements, and that it has obligations under the Minsk agreements, which it has never fulfilled,” Volker said. Despite being a signatory to the deal, Moscow insists that it’s up to the Ukrainian government and separatist leaders in the east to resolve the standoff.

The deal also does not include any guidance on the sequence in which the 13 points within it should be carried out. Moscow has insisted that local elections be held in the breakaway regions first, and that the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics be granted political autonomy. Ukrainian officials fear that this would cement Moscow’s leverage over the region, undermine the country’s sovereignty, and kneecap its aspirations of joining NATO or the European Union. Moscow has followed a similar model in Georgia, where it has sent troops to the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and recognized their independence.

Ukraine insists on regaining full control over its borders and for foreign fighters to withdraw before any elections are held in the Donbass. Any move by Kyiv to devolve power to the breakaway regions at this stage would likely be deeply unpopular and seen as capitulation to Moscow.
…

In short, because there are few other viable options for a path to peace. “Everybody keeps clinging to the Minsk agreements because at least they say, with Russia’s signature attached, that they respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. So, nobody wants to give that up,” Volker said.

Despite flaws in the deal, Ukraine has passed legislation to lay the groundwork to implement its obligations under the Minsk agreement. U.S. officials continue to see it as the best path forward and have urged Moscow to fulfill its obligations under the deal. “I think if you look back over the requirements established in the Minsk agreements, three agreements over the course of several months, it is a fair assessment to say that Ukraine has sought to move forward on most if not all of them, while Russia has made good on virtually none of its obligations under Minsk,” Blinken said earlier this month.

Andrii Zagorodniuk, Ukraine’s former minister of defense, said that he considered statements by Russian officials, urging the United States to pressure Ukraine to implement the Minsk agreement, to be part of a Russian disinformation play. “It creates the false assumption that whatever was agreed about before, is not delivered by Ukraine,” he said. “It just moves the responsibility from Russia for starting all of that to Ukraine. And that is exactly what they want to do.”

Ukraine and Russia's Minsk Agreement Is a Problematic Peace Plan

[uls]

translation: "now let's start a war in the east asian theater"

[tsupermario]

Putin says Minsk accords, which were meant to end war in eastern Ukraine, no longer exist

Natalie Musumeci and John Haltiwanger Feb 22, 2022, 12:55 PM

Alexei Nikolsky/Associated Press

Putin on Tuesday said that the Minsk accords "do not exist now."

The accords were ceasefire agreements meant to end fighting in eastern Ukraine.

By recognizing separatist territories as independent, Putin effectively scrapped the accords.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday said that the Minsk peace agreements — which sought to end the war in eastern Ukraine — no longer "exist," Russian state media reported.

"The Minsk agreements do not exist now," he said, according to a translation from AFP, one day after he formally recognized the independence of two Moscow-backed separatist regions in eastern Ukraine and ordered troops there.

The Russian president on Monday signed a decree recognizing the separatist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states.

"We signed agreements yesterday, and in these agreements with both the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic there are relevant clauses that say that we will provide these republics with appropriate, including military assistance," Putin said on Tuesday, according to Russian state media.

[uls]

zel laughing at putin (2019)

https://twitter.com/BrettHar123/stat...27783644819456


kunwari may agreement

niloloko lang nila si putin

they were never gonna follow it

[tsupermario]

russian playbook

After the 2008 war and subsequent Russian military occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the Russian government, along with four other UN member states, considers the territories sovereign independent states: the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia. Before Russian occupation, the unrecognized republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia did not completely control their respectively claimed territories. Russian military bases were established in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia does not allow the European Union Monitoring Mission to enter either Abkhazia or South Ossetia. Russia has signed agreements with the de facto civilian administrations of both territories to integrate them militarily and economically into Russia. Russian troops have started the process of demarcation (also known as "borderisation") along, and allegedly beyond, the border between the rest of Georgia and the self-declared Republic of South Ossetia.

Both Abkhazia and South Ossetia are widely recognized as integral parts of Georgia and together represent 20% of Georgia's internationally recognized territory. The Georgian "Law on Occupied Territories of Georgia", adopted in 2008, criminalizes and prosecutes entry into Abkhazia and South Ossetia from the Russian side without special permission and allows only economic activity in the two territories that are in accordance with it. Georgia and most other members of the international community including the United States, France, China, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Turkey, Japan, Israel, Australia, Italy, Brazil, Ukraine, the European Union, OSCE, and Council of Europe as well as the United Nations have recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia as occupied territories and have condemned the Russian military presence and actions there.

[uls]

after what merkel revealed

wala na kwenta ang agreements



tapos sasabihin mag negotiate to end this war

can russia trust the west again?

[tsupermario]

can russia trust the west again?

From 'Not Us' To 'Why Hide It?': How Russia Denied Its Crimea Invasion, Then Admitted It

February 26, 2019 17:00 GMT

Days later, during his first public comments on the events in Crimea, Russian President Vladimir Putin was asked directly whether Russian troops were blockading Ukrainian soldiers inside their bases on the peninsula.

Despite the clear evidence of Russian soldiers' role in these blockades over the previous days, Putin replied: "Those were local self-defense units." 

The Bloomberg reporter who asked the question noted that the armed men wore "uniforms strongly resembling Russian Army uniforms."

Putin responded: "Take a look at the post-Soviet states. There are many uniforms there that are similar. You can go to a store and buy any kind of uniform."

The same day, Ukrainian journalists published a video on YouTube in which one of several commandos deployed in Crimea said of himself and his colleagues: "We're Russians." 

Asked about videos in which the armed men in Crimea say they are Russian, Putin's defense minister, Sergei Shoigu, said: "It's complete nonsense," Russia's state-run news agency RIA Novosti reported at the time. Asked whether the men in unmarked uniforms in Crimea were Russian, Shoigu added, "Absolutely [not], are you kidding?" Russia’s state-run TASS news agency reported.
…

After weeks of denials, Russia gradually changed its tune following a March 16, 2014, secessionist referendum in Crimea that paved the way for Moscow's formal annexation of the peninsula two days later. The referendum was rejected as illegitimate by 100 members of the UN General Assembly.

Speaking to the BBC the day the annexation treaty was signed, Putin's spokesman still insisted that "servicemen from self-defense regiments of Crimea" were blocking "some" Ukrainian soldiers from leaving their posts. He appeared to concede that at least some Russian soldiers controlled the ground in Crimea, including the borders between the peninsula and the rest of Ukraine.

"It’s not all Russian forces. There are Russian forces that are increasing the security level for [the] Russian naval base. And from now on, I don’t know, because from now on, from today, starting from today, Crimea has joined the Russian Federation. And now, the situation is different there," Peskov said. 

Addressing senior security officials at the Kremlin 10 days later, Putin praised both the Black Sea Fleet "and other units stationed in Crimea" for avoiding bloodshed and ensuring "the referendum took place in a peaceful and free manner."

The following month, Putin said for the first time publicly that Russian troops were active on the peninsula ahead of the referendum -- though he suggested they were there only to provide backup for the locals.
…

Nearly a year after the annexation, Russia finally dropped all pretenses that its military wasn't involved in the seizure of Crimea. In a March 2015 documentary aired on state television, Putin said he told top security officials of his intent to take Crimea shortly after Yanukovych abandoned power.

"I said that the situation in Ukraine has unfolded in such a way that we are forced to begin the work of returning Crimea to Russia," Putin said in the documentary.
…

Putin had a high-profile opportunity to explain his turnaround regarding the identity of the armed men operating in Crimea.

In a testy interview with Putin last year, Austrian journalist Armin Wolf pressed the Russian president repeatedly on the "little green men" and Moscow's military activities in Crimea ahead of the annexation, though Putin sidestepped the issue of his contradictory statements.

Instead he denounced what he called an "armed coup d'etat" in Kyiv, saying that "our armed forces" allowed "the free expression of the will of the people living in Crimea." He also repeated his earlier assertion that Russia did not exceed its permitted troop levels under the bilateral agreement with Kyiv. 

At one point during the exchange, Wolf told Putin: "You later admitted that the Russian military was in Crimea, even though you had previously denied it."

Putin replied: "I did not deny anything. The Russian Army was always there."

From 'Not Us' To 'Why Hide It?': How Russia Denied Its Crimea Invasion, Then Admitted It

[uls]

^^^

are you a paid pro-west troll?