Ceasefire in Ukraine

Link to non-Wikidata copy of 2014 Minsk Protocol, just in case of editing issues.

This copy is kept in the Peace Agreements Database housed at Edinburgh University:

https://www.peaceagreements.org/viewmasterdocument/1363
PROTOCOL
on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group
with respect to the joint steps aimed at
the implementation of the Peace Plan
of the President of Ukraine, P. Poroshenko,
and the initiatives of the President of Russia, V. Putin

Oh, you've now edited your post at Today 11:16.

You originally said:
"I think read my post first!
Have you read the Minsk accords?"

My post was in reply to that.

Have you?

Again, since you say "I am asking - I haven't checked".

I have literally linked the first Minsk protocol (2014) above.

Perhaps you should be less antagonistic, and reply to my questions, since you are saying that you are correct and Baud is wrong.

I haven't checked

Perhaps you should. Since you are asking. And since you are "not asserting truth here, or taking sides"

I think read my post first and reply!

But thank you for highlighting that Jacques Baud is an unreliable source.

Signatory as party to the negotiations, not with obligations, is that right? Russia, Germany and France signed? The agreements were to achieve agreement between LDPR and Ukraine for a solution within Ukraine - is that right? I am asking - I haven't checked

And the rest of what Baud said, was he incorrect there?

Article from 2021 about Russia's vranyo pretending it wasn't a signatory to the Minsk agreements, even though everyone knows they are and can see their signature.

Don’t Let Russia Fool You About the Minsk Agreements
https://cepa.org/article/dont-let-russia-fool-you-about-the-minsk-agreements/

Text of Minsk I, with signatories, here:

en.wikisource.org/wiki/Memorandum_on_fulfilment_of_the_provisions_of_the_Protocol_on_the_results_of_consultations_of_the_Trilateral_Contact_Group

The signatory for Russia in both agreements was the Russian Ambassador to Ukraine and representative of Russia at the Minsk talks, Mikhail Zurabov.

No, but according to Jacques Baud Russia wasn't party to the Minsk agreements, Russia wasn't observed in any real sense in Donbass between 2014 and 2022 by the OSCE and there were numerous breaches of ceasefire recorded - but not by Russia. Is Jacques Baude incorrect?

Got it in one: Jacques Baud is incorrect.

Russia is a signatory to the Minsk agreements.

No, but according to Jacques Baud Russia wasn't party to the Minsk agreements, Russia wasn't observed in any real sense in Donbass between 2014 and 2022 by the OSCE and there were numerous breaches of ceasefire recorded - but not by Russia. Is Jacques Baude incorrect?

Breaches of the 2019 meeting have been cited as breaches of ceasefire too - but if you watch the press conference you will see that almost nothing was agreed - no provisions of MInsk I and II had been fully implented by that point, Ukraine had said that it wasn't able to, Russia at the press conference was asking Ukraine to change its constitution to allow it to implement Minsk II and Ukraine appeared to disagree, acccording to wiki Zelensky was under pressure internally to not implement the agreements, and according to wiki no agreements were reached after that meeting about how the ceasefire could occur nor how prisoners could/should be released by all sides

Merkel said recently (late 2022?) that the west had not taken action towards compliance by Ukraine by diplomatic means in relation to Minsk I or II because that time was being used for the west to arm Ukraine (billions in military aid went into Ukraine between Minsk I and 2022) - was Merkel incorrect?

According to Baude there were numerous shelling attacks by Ukraine in the lead up to 2022, which Biden was aware of, which led to huge numbers leaving Donbass as refugees in the lead up to 2022 and this in part led to February 2022.

I am not asserting truth here, or taking sides, but there seem to be many sides of the story.

Or Minsk 2….

Not sure Minsk could be considered historical 🤨

Can you list any of the ceasefires broken by Russia? There haven't been any ceasefire agreements on the table until now, but do they mean historic battles?

That's exactly how I see it. IIRC, part of the reason for Putin's invasion of Ukraine, according to Putin, was that he didn't want NATO troops in Ukraine. It would take a lot to make me believe that he would tolerate NATO "Peacekeepers" as part of the peace process. Which is one of the reasons I found Starmer's idea of UK boots on the ground laughable. One of the reasons... there are others.

I recommended China on another forum and got the predictable "Gasp!" from the forumites. I think it could work, though. It would, I think, behoove China to play the role of honest broker for a number of reasons, and China is powerful enough that neither Russia nor Ukraine would be likely to take them lightly.

@TheNoonBell agree with your posts on the millions and ending that

There’s nothing neutral about China.

Oh look Lavrov is already out casting doubt on whether Moscow will accept the terms of the ceasefire, shocker. He’s also reiterating the fact that “Moscow won’t accept NATO peacekeepers on Ukrainian territory” - fairly certain that’s not for them to dictate. I wonder which country he would accept peacekeepers from…. Belarus? North Korea? China?

That’s all very well and good but what about the 20% of Ukraine’s territory currently under occupation, where the population are to be condemned to living with torture, rape, mass disappearances and general tyranny? Trump doesn’t care about those people, or any Ukrainian people for that matter. He only cares about the optics of a deal, no matter how shitty it is.

Europe haven’t been pushing for a ceasefire because that’s only to Putin’s advantage, the better option would have been to give Ukraine the weapons it needed to be able to protect itself and retake its territory. History will not be kind to us for letting Putin frame this as a ‘win’.