Ceasefire in Ukraine

[TheNoonBell]

Some promising news, Ukraine has agreed to a 30 day ceasefire. Now it's up to Russia to show willing and agree as well.

In other news the Ukrainian Kursk pocket (in Russia) has pretty much collapsed over the last 3 days and it appears a deal between the two sides has been done to allow the remaining Ukrainians to withdraw peacefully.

Hopefully this senseless slaughter will be over soon.

China does operate in its own interests and has happily supplied both sides during the war. Those drones you see both sides using (or the components for them) all come via China.

On the other hand, China is a major power and I doubt either side would want to attack them if they were policing the line of contact.

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.

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?

Not sure Minsk could be considered historical 🤨

Or Minsk 2….

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.

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.

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

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

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/

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?

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

I think read my post first and reply!

I haven't checked

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

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

Have you?

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

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

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.

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

Neither Russia or Ukraine honoured the Minsk Agreements. They are null and void.

Now we need to look to the future.

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."

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 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.

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?

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…

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