Ceasefire in Ukraine

With the full power of NATO behind them? Absolutely.

And they would have beaten Russia?

Ok.

I think that there could have been if the West had stepped up and supported Ukraine with what they needed when they needed it (not a year or 2 down the line). Our policy of dither and delay has led to where we are. We should have given Ukraine everything it needed in Autumn 2022 to allow them to continue their very successful counteroffensive.

@Igotjellydo you think there’s a military conclusion to the war?

eg how long would conscripts fight until it was over?

Ah yes, the "you must be a Russian bot" and personal attacks tropes.

The basic fundamental requirements of a successful win win negotiation - ie the only type which works long term - are that there is goodwill between the parties and that you fully understand exactly the position of both parties - in fact in this situation there are a LOT of stakeholders so it is a question of understanding fully the position of all parties, and that all sides understand eachother, and that you are able to communicate effectively with all sides and find an agreed pathway through it all.

If there is no goodwill and if you are not at all interested in what the other side(s) want()s, and you refuse to give any credence to anything they say or even to explore formerly not considered perceptions and solutions, there is no possiblity of negotiation. And to take that to its logical conclusion, in this situation, it means war. It is one or the other. Take your choice.

Ah yes the old “you want war” trope. Frankly of folk like you are negotiating god help us all. Anyway I won’t be engaging you any further as you clearly only see the Russian one side.

Huh

Nobody wants war

Putin could stop the war he started at any time.

I understand where you are coming from - you want war - you want to continue with fighting until Russia is beaten, even if that means Ukraine and other countries will be destroyed. Even though the only winners will be the bankers and insurers. You simply say "it is all lies" and you want us all to shout and scream what you say, but most of us are parents who do not want to lose children or cannot afford right not to feed children. Most people want the armed conflict to stop. I worked as a negotiator for years and I explained the issues you'd need to cover off upthread to get a ceasefire. it wouldn't be easy but I think that there is a way forward which would satisfy all the stakeholders - Ukrainian and Russian - and bring peace. And even Merkel is now saying to get agreement it is necessary to understand where the other side is coming from.

But if you want war, that is your prerogative.

Not just a Russian version - the OSCE version (though the linked CEPA article said that what OSCE said officially was different from what it said in private and therefore taking that to its logical conclusion, what OSCE said officially was not true... NB I am not saying this, the article said that), an ex NATO person set out what happened referencing a number of different sources, if you look at all the sources you will see some Ukrainian sources, different analyses of the Minsk accords and the obligations, different ways of presenting events... To get an effective ceasefire we'd need to get some consensus on what happened when, as well as agreement on a lot of other issues.

More than one version, a Russian version?

There are 2 versions, the truth and Russian lies. Hope that helps.Why are you bending over backwards to excuse the side who have consistently lied and shown that their word is worth nothing?

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/03/19/7503638/index.amp

duncin, if you read upthread you will some discussion around this. it seems that there is more than one version of events relating to who broke ceasefires when.

i wondered what you thought, and you answered - which is fine - I can't see any reference to rail networks though? it sounds like as ever there are two very different versions of events and while this continues there won't be ceasefire. full stop. the same things happened in relation to Minsk. so really negotiations need to focus on getting some common ground of fact first. and both sides - yours and their's - need to commit to this. otherwise, c'est la guerre, as the french say.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-zelensky-ceasefire-trump-ukraine-russia-war-b2717749.html

And it would seem the Belgorod incident was simply Russian propaganda https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-denies-russian-claims-of-a-thwarted-attempt-to-invade-russias-belgorod-heres-what-we-know/

I don’t think it’s at all relevant because Russia broke the “ceasefire” first. https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-donald-trump-vladimir-putin-ukraine-partial-ceasefire-broken/ And being mindful that this is a ceasefire agreed over the heads of Ukraine and intended to mostly benefit Putin.

Are you laughing while crying, or crying while laughing?

Or shall we answer a posters question directly?

If you want to also ask a question about rail networks, that is fine, but I for one haven't seen the news on that, I only saw the news re Belgorod. So if you could link your news source we will all know what you are talking about.

And in the meantime, what is your answer to my questions? Is this "black flag" do you think? Or do you not want to answer?

😂😂😂

Do you regard what just happened in Belgorod as "black flag"?

Shall we flip that around and ask what’s happening with Russia attacking rail networks which by the way is actually within scope of the ceasefire…

Can anyone explain what just happened in Belgorod, did Ukraine attack after the ceasefire was agreed, or while waiting for it to be confirmed? I know the ceasefire is in relation to energy only, and so I assume Ukraine saw the attacks as bonafide, but I am genuinely confused as I thought that Ukraine were wanting to be seen as doing the right thing re ceasefire talks?

I think it’s all a game and that Trump’s updates on his conversations with Putin are like statements in a reality show. They’ve already decided behind the scenes what the plan is, and the ‘updates’ are so much spin.

The agreements themselves cannot be implemented now, but I think it is worth being clear about what has happened, and clear about differing points of view - because ceasefire and peace now is only going to happen if there is full understanding and if there is goodwill to try to find agreement about what happens going forward. I also think that international awareness of the long situation in eastern Ukraine is needed because a ceasefire needs to be accepted by all stakeholders, and that includes the nationalists within Ukraine, and there would need to be some serious international diplomatic commitment to achieving peaceful relations at ground level.

The situation is inordinately complicated in other ways too - economic, geopolitical, and there are many stakeholders and factors, there would be a number of stakeholders/interested groups at any negotiating table. In relation to civilians there is deep hatred amongst certain groups, and there are guerilla groups who say that whatever is agreed they will continue fighting and that they are privately funded - how would this be dealt with going forward? I agree with you about neutrality both in terms of peacekeepers and also in relation to helping sustainable economic growth. I think you make good points about China and India. What do Ukrainian nationalists want from the future, and could there be reciprocal agreements about use of languages and employment? How does the EU agreement (signed in 2014 initially) fit with what is being proposed for the future? Who are the other stakeholders in Ukraine behind the scenes, funders etc? Should there be an armistice re black market weapons? Both Russia and Ukraine want protection of their countries and protection for their peoples (similar problems exist in other ex Soviet countries) so how can international diplomacy ensure that solutions are found to avoid unrest in the future? For Ukraine, do they want help to achieve economic and social stability - how best should the whole international community support this? How do we achieve transparency about intentions?

@PerkingFaintly I haven't had a proper look but I attach the security council report on the Minsk accords which you will see is quite a bit more detailed than the word doc you linked:

https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/sres2202.pdf

In relation to all of this, bear in mind that the situation in 2014-2016 was completely different to the situation from around 2018 onwards, as Ukraine by this time was receiving billions in military aid from the west and there were (according to wiki) private armies funded by Ukrainian oligarchs.

I don't have time to read the agreements now but I will later and post again (I think that there is more to read than the protocol you linked) but in the meantime below is what Baud wrote about the agreements, and NB I set out other points in my post including what Merkel said and what Baud said about Russia not being in Ukraine before 2022, and I asked you if you agreed with those other points, and I wrote at the end of my post that there were a lot of differiing views out there and I assume you agree with this?

This is what Baud said about Minsk agreements:

"It is essential to recall here that the Minsk 1 (September 2014) and Minsk 2 (February 2015) Agreements did not provide for the separation or independence of the Republics, but for their autonomy within Ukraine. Those who have read the Agreements (they are very, very, very few) will note that it is written in black and white that the status of the republics was to be negotiated between Kiev and the representatives of the republics, for an internal solution within Ukraine.

This is why, since 2014, Russia has systematically demanded their implementation while refusing to be a party to the negotiations, as it was an internal matter for Ukraine. On the other hand, the West—led by France—has systematically attempted to replace the Minsk Agreements with the "Normandy format," which pitted Russians and Ukrainians against each other. However, let us recall that there were never any Russian troops in Donbass before February 23-24, 2022. Moreover, OSCE observers have never observed the slightest trace of Russian units operating in Donbass. Thus, the map of American intelligence services published by the Washington Post on December 3, 2021, does not show Russian troops in Donbass."