The Russian SMO would never have happened if the Ukraine had honored the Minsk agreement instead of using it a stall while they built up their military to NATO standards.
The Minsk agreement did not take into account that Ukraine wanted to be in NATO, nor did it consider the Ukrainian government crackdown on Russian speakers. I am not sure the agreement could have worked in the long term, even if it was honored.
The Minsk agreement specifically required the Ukraine to not become part of NATO.
The other important part was that the Ukraine agreed to stop attacking the Dombas, something they still haven't ceased doing.
Former German chancellor Angela Merkel and former French president François Hollande were present in the 19-hour negotiation and they both knew that the Ukraine had no intention to honor the agreement because the Ukraine was using it as a stall.
I have in many of my articles pointed out and documented that the CIA-edited and written Wikipedia blacklists (blocks from linking to) sites that aren’t CIA-approved). However, all websites have some falsehoods, and when I link, I link NOT to a SITE, but to a specific article, and often to a specific passage in an article; and, whenever I do any such thing, I first have verified that its sources (the sources in what I link to) are themselves linked-to in it, and are indeed confirmatory of the given allegation. So, for examples, I often have linked to pages at Wikipedia, the New York Times, Washington Post, and other dishonest sites, and I do this because those are the sites that are generally the least distrusted by the audience that I most am seeking, which is my fellow-Americans, because, for example, if I were instead preferring to link to pages at Russian or Chinese media, then my fellow-Americans would be far less-inclined to think that the media that I am linking to are even worthy of their consideration.
Specifically in regards to the two Minsk agreements, which are the topic here: The Wikipedia article does link to both of the Minsk Agreements, in Russian, both of which are shown in its pdf with its hand-signed signatures.
Do I need to remind you that Yanukovich was elected in 2010 in an election that the OSCE (no friend for Russia) described as "reasonably free and fair", only to be removed by a US sponsored coup?
Do I need to remind you that Zelenskii ran for office in 2019 on a platform of leace and reconciliation with Russia, over the vociferous objection of the United States (the US Ambassador openly campaigned for Poroshenko).
That was 1,131 miles from DC in Cuba. But Ukraine is only 300 miles from The Kremlin, and missiles are much faster today than in 1962: it would be only 5 minutes away from The Kremlin. So, Ukraine in NATO would be MUCH WORSE than the U.S.S.R.'s placing its missiles in Cuba would have been. No U.S.-and-allied media report this reality.
American missiles are no faster today but Russia and China have hypersonic munitions that travel at Mach 10. Scott Ritter and others have been reporting this reality since its beginning in 2014.
Thanks for that second link. It was a revelation for me. I had no idea that hypersonic technology had advanced so much in the last 5 years and if the MSM is to be believed only the Russians possess such advanced missile technology. So thanks very much for educating me on this matter.
I'm surprised about this answer. What would be the reason for the West to remove the sanctions? They openly hate Russia and if Russia somehow wins the war (which would be defined as Ukraine not winning its territory back) which politician would openly support this, without looking like a fool? It's likely the sanctions are here to stay. I mean look at Cuba...
Stephen, if I could, I would ask this question to Putin, Lavrov ! Does this mean that there is an original meaning in this message?! My understanding of the demand for the official lifting of sanctions, in words - "before negotiations" .
You reminded me of the grandiose beginning of Ilf and Petrov's book (I quote from memory): in the city of X there were so many barbershops and funeral services companies that you could have thought that the inhabitants of the city were born for haircut and shaving only and, immediately after that, to die. In reality, in the city of X people were born, shaved and died quite rarely...
You're right, sanctions are a component of war. They affects both sides and force them to find alternatives. So far, Russia seems to have managed better than Europe...
I'm afraid you underestimate the role of economic racketeering in modern warfare. The main emphasis in the nascent conflict was placed precisely on the economic strangulation of Russia and the change of power in the Kremlin as a result . The "classic way" of coercion ... It is unclear, however, which "smart" stargazers convinced the West of the effectiveness of this thoughtless action?! Therefore, the official lifting of sanctions against Russia has many consequences (in a good way) for the rest of the world. I was glad to meet a connoisseur of Soviet humor!
I always appreciate good humor. Broadening the range, I have a huge appreciation for great Russian literature and, obviously, good literature from anywhere. My regret is that I have only read a small part of the good books that have been written. I am like an ant in front of a mountain...
Given President Putin's legal proclivities, and given that much of the Global South is sympathetic to Russia's situation in the Ukraine, isn't it likely that Russia will demand that any resolution of the situation in the Ukraine get implemented through a UN declaration? England or the US could try to veto any such UN declaration -- but that might be a mistake.
The Ukraine is a corrupt basket-case. It will need extensive support after the war is concluded -- support which Europe and the US are unlikely to be able to afford, but China could. Further, any UN Peacekeeping Force to ensure that both NATO and Russia stay out of Rump Ukraine will have to be a third party; might one suggest ... China?
Russia has been very clear about wanting Crimea and the Donbas to be recognized internationally as a permanent part of Russia. The UN would seem to be the appropriate body to recognize that an international boundary has changed in the aftermath of the proxy war. And the recent BRICS conference was surprisingly supportive of the UN -- albeit still calling for significant changes to reduce control by Europe and the US.
One thing to watch for -- when the now-discussed negotiations between Russia and whoever then rules rump Ukraine take place, where will it be? Obviously not semi-belligerent Switzerland, and probably not a NATO member like Turkey. Is it likely that semi-neutral China would be the choice? And who then would be the obvious non-NATO, non-Russia candidate for a UN Mandate to provide security guarantees to rump Ukraine?
The Russian SMO would never have happened if the Ukraine had honored the Minsk agreement instead of using it a stall while they built up their military to NATO standards.
The Minsk agreement did not take into account that Ukraine wanted to be in NATO, nor did it consider the Ukrainian government crackdown on Russian speakers. I am not sure the agreement could have worked in the long term, even if it was honored.
The Minsk agreement specifically required the Ukraine to not become part of NATO.
The other important part was that the Ukraine agreed to stop attacking the Dombas, something they still haven't ceased doing.
Former German chancellor Angela Merkel and former French president François Hollande were present in the 19-hour negotiation and they both knew that the Ukraine had no intention to honor the agreement because the Ukraine was using it as a stall.
Your statement "The Minsk agreement specifically required the Ukraine to not become part of NATO" is false: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements
Bryen is correct.
Wikepedia isn't a reputable source for sourcing toilet paper, but citing them tells me why you say things you could never prove outside of psychosis. horlogedelinconscient.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Minsk-2-Full-text-UNIAN.pdf
I have in many of my articles pointed out and documented that the CIA-edited and written Wikipedia blacklists (blocks from linking to) sites that aren’t CIA-approved). However, all websites have some falsehoods, and when I link, I link NOT to a SITE, but to a specific article, and often to a specific passage in an article; and, whenever I do any such thing, I first have verified that its sources (the sources in what I link to) are themselves linked-to in it, and are indeed confirmatory of the given allegation. So, for examples, I often have linked to pages at Wikipedia, the New York Times, Washington Post, and other dishonest sites, and I do this because those are the sites that are generally the least distrusted by the audience that I most am seeking, which is my fellow-Americans, because, for example, if I were instead preferring to link to pages at Russian or Chinese media, then my fellow-Americans would be far less-inclined to think that the media that I am linking to are even worthy of their consideration.
Specifically in regards to the two Minsk agreements, which are the topic here: The Wikipedia article does link to both of the Minsk Agreements, in Russian, both of which are shown in its pdf with its hand-signed signatures.
"Ukraine" wanted no such thing. The post-coup government did, and the one time it was put to a serious electoral test in 2019, it was clobbered.
sources?
Do I need to remind you that Yanukovich was elected in 2010 in an election that the OSCE (no friend for Russia) described as "reasonably free and fair", only to be removed by a US sponsored coup?
Do I need to remind you that Zelenskii ran for office in 2019 on a platform of leace and reconciliation with Russia, over the vociferous objection of the United States (the US Ambassador openly campaigned for Poroshenko).
No, because I already knew all of that before I saw you online for the first time.
Great perspective, Stephen - but again, if Trump wants a deal, what does he offer Putin, to stop him winning?
a bigger deal of course
Which will be reversed in 4 years again... Why would Russia approve that, considering the fickle nature of US politics? How to enforce it?
Austria. Ukraine could be similar to Austria. Not part of NATO, part of the EU.
Conceptually aligned with NATO but no bases.
A deal should have been made before the war/ invasion.
Ah... little Austria.. currently suing Gazprom for interruption of supplies through Germany after the Nordstream, er, mystery.
And concerned that the other supply route, through Ukraine, may be threatened if Kiev and Moscow don't extend their transit contract.
Surreal.
The Russians don't want US/NATO missiles five minutes from Moscow in the Ukraine any more than Kennedy wanted Soviet missiles 5 miles from DC in Cuba.
That was 1,131 miles from DC in Cuba. But Ukraine is only 300 miles from The Kremlin, and missiles are much faster today than in 1962: it would be only 5 minutes away from The Kremlin. So, Ukraine in NATO would be MUCH WORSE than the U.S.S.R.'s placing its missiles in Cuba would have been. No U.S.-and-allied media report this reality.
American missiles are no faster today but Russia and China have hypersonic munitions that travel at Mach 10. Scott Ritter and others have been reporting this reality since its beginning in 2014.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman travels at Mach 23 (17,500 mph; 28,200 km/h. Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7zxs9FUhEc and you will recognize that you are wrong.
Thanks for that second link. It was a revelation for me. I had no idea that hypersonic technology had advanced so much in the last 5 years and if the MSM is to be believed only the Russians possess such advanced missile technology. So thanks very much for educating me on this matter.
And you corroborated the apparently fictional Wikipedia page how?
The Pentagon has been admitting for months that they have yet to deploy anything hypersonic.
The U.S. Government acknowledges that it is way behind Russia on certain types of hypersonics, but not on those types.
Thank you for the post, Stephen!
The US will not be allowed to walk away precisely because Europe cannot sustain the war on Russia.
Who is going to stop Trump from doing that?
Pentagon, CIA, various neocon frenemies, european catamites, same as it ever was
Trump remains weak, stupid and easily manipulated.
Sensible analysis.
Very helpful and informative analysis. Thank you!
Thank you Stephen, for sharing this excellent interview.
One must hope Putin won't become a spoiler once the war is over. He has all the reasons to give Europe and the US a nice payback.
In the "demands of Russia", you forgot (?) to mention the complete lifting of illegal sanctions imposed by the United States and Western countries. I can't say that you don 't intentionally highlight it ...the main requirement : many analysts with the American image of "information processing" also "overlook" the cancellation. After all, this "insignificant detail" (from the point of view of the Americans) must be fulfilled...Before the negotiations! ("Money in the morning , chairs in the evening .In the evening - money , in the morning - chairs"© Ilf and Petrov, "Twelve chairs") If there are requirements for "demilitarization" and all aspects related to it, Russia can...to fulfill it yourself, regardless of someone 's "desires and capabilities" , the lifting of sanctions before negotiations is a deliberate inclination of the West and the United States ...to their surrender to Russia . It probably looks like humiliation, or is it humiliation?! Regarding Poland, Hungary and other countries with territorial "desires". Russia (by right of the winner), by giving up these disputed and rebellious lands, will "kill a herd of hares": a) cast doubt on the thesis of the "imperial essence", territorial claims, and Russia's aspirations to attack Europe; b) leave the wayward region, from which problems constantly emanated, to the "care" of the same Poland back in the days of the USSR ; c) will separate Ukraine from the influence of Western (Eastern Polish?) regions ; d)... it will split the EU , this pathetic parody of ...The USSR, independent states , with their own economies and policies . What will happen to NATO? Nothing comes to mind ...
why would sanctions make any sense if the war is over? I did not mention it for that reason.
I'm surprised about this answer. What would be the reason for the West to remove the sanctions? They openly hate Russia and if Russia somehow wins the war (which would be defined as Ukraine not winning its territory back) which politician would openly support this, without looking like a fool? It's likely the sanctions are here to stay. I mean look at Cuba...
Because they can. The West seeks to harm Russia by any means, and will act spitefully on any excuse.
Stephen, if I could, I would ask this question to Putin, Lavrov ! Does this mean that there is an original meaning in this message?! My understanding of the demand for the official lifting of sanctions, in words - "before negotiations" .
You reminded me of the grandiose beginning of Ilf and Petrov's book (I quote from memory): in the city of X there were so many barbershops and funeral services companies that you could have thought that the inhabitants of the city were born for haircut and shaving only and, immediately after that, to die. In reality, in the city of X people were born, shaved and died quite rarely...
You're right, sanctions are a component of war. They affects both sides and force them to find alternatives. So far, Russia seems to have managed better than Europe...
I'm afraid you underestimate the role of economic racketeering in modern warfare. The main emphasis in the nascent conflict was placed precisely on the economic strangulation of Russia and the change of power in the Kremlin as a result . The "classic way" of coercion ... It is unclear, however, which "smart" stargazers convinced the West of the effectiveness of this thoughtless action?! Therefore, the official lifting of sanctions against Russia has many consequences (in a good way) for the rest of the world. I was glad to meet a connoisseur of Soviet humor!
I always appreciate good humor. Broadening the range, I have a huge appreciation for great Russian literature and, obviously, good literature from anywhere. My regret is that I have only read a small part of the good books that have been written. I am like an ant in front of a mountain...
Given President Putin's legal proclivities, and given that much of the Global South is sympathetic to Russia's situation in the Ukraine, isn't it likely that Russia will demand that any resolution of the situation in the Ukraine get implemented through a UN declaration? England or the US could try to veto any such UN declaration -- but that might be a mistake.
The Ukraine is a corrupt basket-case. It will need extensive support after the war is concluded -- support which Europe and the US are unlikely to be able to afford, but China could. Further, any UN Peacekeeping Force to ensure that both NATO and Russia stay out of Rump Ukraine will have to be a third party; might one suggest ... China?
I had not thought of the UN option. Perhaps that explains Gutiérrez's appearance at the recent BRICS summit.
Russia has been very clear about wanting Crimea and the Donbas to be recognized internationally as a permanent part of Russia. The UN would seem to be the appropriate body to recognize that an international boundary has changed in the aftermath of the proxy war. And the recent BRICS conference was surprisingly supportive of the UN -- albeit still calling for significant changes to reduce control by Europe and the US.
One thing to watch for -- when the now-discussed negotiations between Russia and whoever then rules rump Ukraine take place, where will it be? Obviously not semi-belligerent Switzerland, and probably not a NATO member like Turkey. Is it likely that semi-neutral China would be the choice? And who then would be the obvious non-NATO, non-Russia candidate for a UN Mandate to provide security guarantees to rump Ukraine?
This is one of the rare times I agree so much with Bryen's analysis
I don't see anything new here.