See the full interview on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/posts/russias-party-on-87936354The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF) is the second ...
The KPRF was the only party that never stopped supporting and materially aid the people and the militias of Donbass over the years. Reminder that Putin wanted to return Donbass to Ukraine to make amends with Europe, and is now only being forced to take the matter into his own hands because he was denied from joining the fascist club of Europe.
the invasion was a terrible idea that has greatly harmed Russia and Russian interests
speaking a bit soon, aren’t we? Also we’ll never get to see what the alternative was.
VASTLY worsened Russia’s strategic position vis a vis the west.
USSR asked to join NATO in 1954. They were told “no.” Then NATO let west germany in and appointed a bunch of “former” nazis to key positions. Russia tried to join NATO in 2002. Were told “no.” Russia supported America in its reactionary “war on terror.” and that still didn’t tighten Russia’s relationship with “the west.” turns out the only thing that can make Russia have a better relationship with the west is balkanizing themselves, breaking up into dozens of tiny republics, and privatizing everything, because the west’s vision for Yugoslavia is the same vision it has for Russia. Turns out there is nothing Russia can do to have a better relationship with the west. Because the west isn’t mutually interested in a better relationship. The west is interested in balkanizing and privatizing former soviet nations. To punish them for having the audacity for being socialist once upon a time. To make sure it never happens again. To turn them into neocolonies. Ukraine has tried to have a better relationship with the west. What did it get them? It got them to sacrifice themselves by the thousands in a western proxy war in exchange for not even a NATO membership. Ukraine is getting balkanized and privatized on NATO’s behalf.
Oh, and the sanctions? They aren’t working. Russia is still selling gas to Europe, just through third parties. The entire situation is a reactionary shitshow, and the chief responsibility lies with the imperial core for deliberately instigating the conflict for years and years and years. Russia’s options were to allow itself to get slowly encircled, or to ruin its “reputation” with a bunch of reactionary capitalist nations. It chose the latter.
Russia is reactionary and capitalist too? No shit! How did that happen? The west was gleeful when the Russian federation came into existence.
there was no good moves for russia, even fewer for ukraine. i don’t think of it in terms of good moves. I think of it in terms of russia and ukraine as they currently exist both being byproducts of imperialism.
Also I don’t think we can really know if it chose the better of two bad moves because we cannot see what the alternative would have been, we can only speculate. I thought that was clear in the last post.
8 years of waiting for Ukraine to start implementing Minsk agreement just to see NATO arming them instead.
The fact is that both Merkel and Hollande (guarantors of Minsk II) have publicly admitted that Minsk was merely to buy time for Ukraine to militarize itself, and was not a serious attempt to pursue peace between both countries. Ukraine was going to invade Donbass and Crimea sooner or later, Russia only realized this after stupidly waiting for 8 years.
Like it or not, United Russia is a capitalist party that wanted to increase business ties with Europe and make money. Do you seriously think that Putin invaded Ukraine not knowing they would get sanctioned by the entire Western world and losing hundreds of billions of their oligarchs’ money? The Minsk agreement was their compromise - to return Donbass to Ukraine in an attempt to make amends with Europe. The communists are the ones who continued their support and aid to the Donbass militias all these years.
Do you seriously think that Putin invaded Ukraine not knowing they would get sanctioned by the entire Western world and losing hundreds of billions of their oligarchs’ money?
I’ve heard people say that United Russia is made up of two main components - the Oligarchs and the Siloviki (the security and intelligence complex). Occasionally they struggle for power internally but since Putin is strongly of the silovik background, the oligarchs have been subordinated to the siloviki for a long time.
I don’t understand the complexities of Russian politics enough to have a firm view, but it’s possible that the Oligarchs losing a bunch of money (and therefore power) actually benefitted the Siloviki faction inside United Russia. That goes hand in hand with the idea that by sanctioning the Oligarchs, the West actually threw away their best chance at overthrowing Putin internally via some sort of Oligarch-backed coup.
Edit: preemptive apologies to Russian speakers for probably butchering the grammatical forms.
The fact is that both Merkel and Hollande (guarantors of Minsk II) have publicly admitted that Minsk was merely to buy time for Ukraine to militarize itself, and was not a serious attempt to pursue peace between both countries.
Nitpick but I see this claim a lot but I don’t buy it. Mostly because I don’t believe Germany would plan so heavily around Russian gas if it knew the war was inevitable. I’m inclined to think they’re impling it to look like they knew what they were doing and cover their own asses for negotiating a failed agreement, while appealing to an audience that is (for the most part) uncritically supportive of Ukraine. I also think its a pretty big stretch to characterize their words as “publically admitting it was not a serious agreement.” What Merkel said was,
Then, in order to prevent even worse things, everyone signed this agreement. Was it possible to stop the war then? This question is no longer relevant. I believe that the Minsk agreements gave Ukraine more time to develop between 2014 and 2021.
What she’s saying is that regardless of whether or not it was possible to achieve peace through the negotiations, they were still beneficial to Ukraine in buying time. That’s not the same thing as saying they were done in bad faith.
I think the Russian charactization of this quote is trying to paint a picture of Western governments as highly co-ordinated, when the reality is more complex. Germany isn’t holding Ukraine’s leash, the US had to blow uo Nord Stream because the Germans weren’t willing to co-operate, etc. There’s bumbling, competing interests at play.
Mostly because I don’t believe Germany would plan so heavily around Russian gas if it knew the war was inevitable.
Yes I understand what you’re saying, but it needs to be reminded that the post-2009 German economic recovery was highly dependent on cheap Russian gas import. There is simply no alternative, Germany struck gold with Russia selling them cheap gas with euro as the currency of transaction. It was cheap energy that allowed Germany to preserve its high labor wages. That, or expensive energy with depressed wages (like many Asian countries do). No other way around that.
What I think actually happened though (and there are many circumstantial evidence to suggest this), was that Germany was absolutely convinced that the combined sanctions of the world’s largest economies (US + EU) would absolutely demolish Russia’s economy within months, if not weeks, which they often deride as one that is smaller than Italy’s GDP. In their chauvinistic mind, there is no way that a weak economy like Russia’s could ever survive such powerful sanction forces of theirs. With the collapse of the Russian economy, they’d be able to actually carve up Russia’s resources for themselves. In other words, they got greedy.
The EU responses after the war started support this hypothesis. Instead of advocating for ceasefire, the EU continued to pile up more and more sanctions against Russia, somehow hoping that just one more sanction would actually bring Russia to its knee. And they kept waiting and waiting and didn’t see what they expected to happen.
It also wasn’t helped by the fact that Western propaganda churned out in support of Ukraine had distorted their frame of reference, often painting a picture of Russia on the brink of collapse, and it would not surprise anyone that their politicians and bureaucrats actually bought into that. Then, you also have someone like George Soros making headlines saying “Russia would not be able to stop exporting their gas because otherwise their wells will freeze, so Europe just need to hold out a little longer and wait for the Russians to come begging again.” Many European industrialists didn’t even see the perils of their own sanctions until it was too late.
I’ve had this conversation before but I find it extremely implausible that the West planned all of this out in advance and the lynchpin of the entire plot was being able to destroy Russia with sanctions alone. Again, Germany wasn’t even willing to fully participate, and they had to resort to some pretty desperate measures after the pipeline was destroyed. Nothing was done to ensure India’s cooperation, and they were saber-rattling with China, neither of which makes sense if they were planning on all this.
I also haven’t heard any real explanation for what caused this miscalculation, other than pure stupidity and buying into their own propaganda. I think this is the same flawed analysis behind the initial point that I disputed. When a politician says something you can’t just take it at face value, even when it fits into your narrative and makes them look bad, you still have to consider why they’re saying it, what they’re trying to accomplish, and who they’re trying to appeal to. When they started doing sanctions, obviously they would say they thought they would work, but this indicates nothing about their actual beliefs. They were just trying to drum up support for the sanctions, there’s no reason why they’d say, “Well, who knows if these will work or not” if they’re trying to get people to support them. Very rarely do politicians say something just because they think it’s true.
The narrative that fits actual events better without requiring abject stupidity and actions contrary to the actors’ own interests, is that Germany did not expect a full scale war and did not plan for losing Nord Stream 2. The outbreak of war came as a surprise to a lot of people, including the majority of this site, and Merkel did not have a crystal ball. The ceasefire was broken due to domestic pressure from the far-right, plus international pressure from the US, which did not assume sanctions would work, but rather saw extended bloodshed as a possibility and did not care, due to the profits it would mean for the military-industrial complex and not caring at all about the lives of Ukrainians. There are internal fractures within NATO and within NATO states, due to competing class interests, it’s not one big conspiracy working together.
Why do you think it would need to be a conspiracy? The Europeans simply didn’t see Russia as a potent threat and felt entitled to not giving Russia the respect it deserves. This attitude was all too common during the lead up to Ukraine signing the EU Association Agreement which then led to the Maidan coup. The crass European behavior can be seen as them not taking Russia seriously.
For Europe, Russia is simply a gas station with an economy smaller than Italy. If Italy is barely surviving in the EU, you don’t even have to think about what would happen to Russia when both US and EU combine their economic forces whose GDP is many fold higher than Russia’s.
In other words, they perceive Russia as a nuisance that can be easily crushed when worst comes to worst i.e. a war broke out. No need to anticipate for what will happen in a war when you already see yourself as an economic powerhouse against a tiny struggling economy and has the power to turn it into a pariah state in a matter of weeks, which would then end the war.
Why do you think it would need to be a conspiracy?
Because you’re assuming coordination between different groups, even when it doesn’t make sense and goes against their interests. This is like the third time I’ve brought this up - Germany relied heavily on Russian gas, then didn’t shut it off, which led the US to blow up the pipeline. How do any of those events make sense in your narrative? Is all of that part of an elaborate ruse to trick people into thinking that my narrative is correct and yours is wrong? It’s nonsense.
The Europeans simply didn’t see Russia as a potent threat and felt entitled to not giving Russia the respect it deserves.
And this is where I think your narrative is coming from. It’s all about Russia surpassing everyone’s expectations and proving how strong and powerful it is, and it’s like, every event has to be somehow contorted to fit that narrative, when there’s much more coherent ways to fit them together.
Tbh, it just seems like this is what you want to believe, in which case I can’t stop you. You’re not looking at countries’ actions and you’re also not looking at class interests, it’s just “everybody hated Russia and thought they were weak when they were actually big and strong.” It’s a very biased and oversimplified narrative that I find hard to take seriously, I’m just as skeptical of that as I would be about one that’s brazenly pro-Ukraine tbh.
How do any of those events make sense in your narrative?
I think you have fundamentally misunderstood what I am trying to say. Europe did not turn off Russian gas because they expected Russia to fold within a few months. They were confident that their sanctions were going to work.
The European chauvinists are very used to being the master and going into Global South countries to dictate their economic policy is very common. They expect the Global South countries to come begging for their investments, not the other way round. Without European investments, they would have a hard time growing their economy. This is a very common assumption even in mainstream media - that’s how you get classification like G7, developed markets vs emerging markets etc. I don’t understand why you can’t see this point.
Similarly, here, they expected Putin to come begging European customers to buy their gas again, because without the gas sale the Russian economy would collapse. What’s so hard to understand?
Everything that I have said is literally reported in mainstream media.
It’s all about Russia surpassing everyone’s expectations and proving how strong and powerful it is, and it’s like, every event has to be somehow contorted to fit that narrative, when there’s much more coherent ways to fit them together.
Where did I ever say that? Russia being able to resist sanctions is a fact, but that does not mean their economy is stronger than Europe’s. It simply means that the global supply chain is far more complex than the European policymakers drafting the sanctions had anticipated. Is it so difficult to understand the difference?
Russia was following Minsk 2 much, much closer than Ukraine was, who had tens of thousands of cease fire violations. Its not a “both sides didn’t follow it” situation. It’s a “one side was acting in bad faith to buy time to militarize and always fully intended to attack eventually vs. the other side just didn’t want to have to deal with the whole situation and wanted it to chill out”
No they didnt. The obama regime was already thretening european companies that planned to invest in iran after the deal was suposedly in effect and before trump won.
This always seems like a poorly based position to me. All Russia wants would’ve been guaranteed by successful implementation of the agreement. What part of the Minsk agreements did Russia not adhere to?
There is no evidence that Russia ever seriously meant to give up its influence over the D/LPRs.
Minsk what? Ok no evidenc-Minsk 2 what?
Ya’ll could have a Minsk 3 and then 4 years of ukraine bombing people they supposedly want to reintegrate into their country and still find it hard to fault the ukranian state
In the 12-point protocol included the adoption of the “On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts” that was passed in Ukraine’s parliament in September 2014. It would grant increased autonomy to the local governments in Donbass. And as you will note, this was a bill from the Ukrainian parliament - meaning that Donbass will be returned to Ukraine but with the conditions of having more local autonomy.
To elaborate further, the protests against the Maidan coup government stemmed from the fact that the very first act of the new regime was repealing the Kolesnycheno-Kivalov Language Law that was approved in 2012, which granted the regional language status to Russian and other languages. The Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine obviously saw it as an infringement on their language rights, and started to protest, which eventually devolved into a separatist movement and then a full-fledged civil war (most significantly fueled by the the Odessa Trade Union House massacre by the fascists).
So, an important resolution to the conflict in Ukraine would be for the Donbass regions with Russian-speaking majority population to have autonomy when it comes to protecting their cultural identities, such that someone in Kyiv cannot simply impose a nationwide ban on certain languages without regards for the local population in the regions.
The KPRF was the only party that never stopped supporting and materially aid the people and the militias of Donbass over the years. Reminder that Putin wanted to return Donbass to Ukraine to make amends with Europe, and is now only being forced to take the matter into his own hands because he was denied from joining the fascist club of Europe.
deleted by creator
speaking a bit soon, aren’t we? Also we’ll never get to see what the alternative was.
USSR asked to join NATO in 1954. They were told “no.” Then NATO let west germany in and appointed a bunch of “former” nazis to key positions. Russia tried to join NATO in 2002. Were told “no.” Russia supported America in its reactionary “war on terror.” and that still didn’t tighten Russia’s relationship with “the west.” turns out the only thing that can make Russia have a better relationship with the west is balkanizing themselves, breaking up into dozens of tiny republics, and privatizing everything, because the west’s vision for Yugoslavia is the same vision it has for Russia. Turns out there is nothing Russia can do to have a better relationship with the west. Because the west isn’t mutually interested in a better relationship. The west is interested in balkanizing and privatizing former soviet nations. To punish them for having the audacity for being socialist once upon a time. To make sure it never happens again. To turn them into neocolonies. Ukraine has tried to have a better relationship with the west. What did it get them? It got them to sacrifice themselves by the thousands in a western proxy war in exchange for not even a NATO membership. Ukraine is getting balkanized and privatized on NATO’s behalf.
Oh, and the sanctions? They aren’t working. Russia is still selling gas to Europe, just through third parties. The entire situation is a reactionary shitshow, and the chief responsibility lies with the imperial core for deliberately instigating the conflict for years and years and years. Russia’s options were to allow itself to get slowly encircled, or to ruin its “reputation” with a bunch of reactionary capitalist nations. It chose the latter.
Russia is reactionary and capitalist too? No shit! How did that happen? The west was gleeful when the Russian federation came into existence.
deleted by creator
there was no good moves for russia, even fewer for ukraine. i don’t think of it in terms of good moves. I think of it in terms of russia and ukraine as they currently exist both being byproducts of imperialism.
Also I don’t think we can really know if it chose the better of two bad moves because we cannot see what the alternative would have been, we can only speculate. I thought that was clear in the last post.
8 years of waiting for Ukraine to start implementing Minsk agreement just to see NATO arming them instead.
The fact is that both Merkel and Hollande (guarantors of Minsk II) have publicly admitted that Minsk was merely to buy time for Ukraine to militarize itself, and was not a serious attempt to pursue peace between both countries. Ukraine was going to invade Donbass and Crimea sooner or later, Russia only realized this after stupidly waiting for 8 years.
Like it or not, United Russia is a capitalist party that wanted to increase business ties with Europe and make money. Do you seriously think that Putin invaded Ukraine not knowing they would get sanctioned by the entire Western world and losing hundreds of billions of their oligarchs’ money? The Minsk agreement was their compromise - to return Donbass to Ukraine in an attempt to make amends with Europe. The communists are the ones who continued their support and aid to the Donbass militias all these years.
I’ve heard people say that United Russia is made up of two main components - the Oligarchs and the Siloviki (the security and intelligence complex). Occasionally they struggle for power internally but since Putin is strongly of the silovik background, the oligarchs have been subordinated to the siloviki for a long time.
I don’t understand the complexities of Russian politics enough to have a firm view, but it’s possible that the Oligarchs losing a bunch of money (and therefore power) actually benefitted the Siloviki faction inside United Russia. That goes hand in hand with the idea that by sanctioning the Oligarchs, the West actually threw away their best chance at overthrowing Putin internally via some sort of Oligarch-backed coup.
Edit: preemptive apologies to Russian speakers for probably butchering the grammatical forms.
Nitpick but I see this claim a lot but I don’t buy it. Mostly because I don’t believe Germany would plan so heavily around Russian gas if it knew the war was inevitable. I’m inclined to think they’re impling it to look like they knew what they were doing and cover their own asses for negotiating a failed agreement, while appealing to an audience that is (for the most part) uncritically supportive of Ukraine. I also think its a pretty big stretch to characterize their words as “publically admitting it was not a serious agreement.” What Merkel said was,
What she’s saying is that regardless of whether or not it was possible to achieve peace through the negotiations, they were still beneficial to Ukraine in buying time. That’s not the same thing as saying they were done in bad faith.
I think the Russian charactization of this quote is trying to paint a picture of Western governments as highly co-ordinated, when the reality is more complex. Germany isn’t holding Ukraine’s leash, the US had to blow uo Nord Stream because the Germans weren’t willing to co-operate, etc. There’s bumbling, competing interests at play.
Yes I understand what you’re saying, but it needs to be reminded that the post-2009 German economic recovery was highly dependent on cheap Russian gas import. There is simply no alternative, Germany struck gold with Russia selling them cheap gas with euro as the currency of transaction. It was cheap energy that allowed Germany to preserve its high labor wages. That, or expensive energy with depressed wages (like many Asian countries do). No other way around that.
What I think actually happened though (and there are many circumstantial evidence to suggest this), was that Germany was absolutely convinced that the combined sanctions of the world’s largest economies (US + EU) would absolutely demolish Russia’s economy within months, if not weeks, which they often deride as one that is smaller than Italy’s GDP. In their chauvinistic mind, there is no way that a weak economy like Russia’s could ever survive such powerful sanction forces of theirs. With the collapse of the Russian economy, they’d be able to actually carve up Russia’s resources for themselves. In other words, they got greedy.
The EU responses after the war started support this hypothesis. Instead of advocating for ceasefire, the EU continued to pile up more and more sanctions against Russia, somehow hoping that just one more sanction would actually bring Russia to its knee. And they kept waiting and waiting and didn’t see what they expected to happen.
It also wasn’t helped by the fact that Western propaganda churned out in support of Ukraine had distorted their frame of reference, often painting a picture of Russia on the brink of collapse, and it would not surprise anyone that their politicians and bureaucrats actually bought into that. Then, you also have someone like George Soros making headlines saying “Russia would not be able to stop exporting their gas because otherwise their wells will freeze, so Europe just need to hold out a little longer and wait for the Russians to come begging again.” Many European industrialists didn’t even see the perils of their own sanctions until it was too late.
I’ve had this conversation before but I find it extremely implausible that the West planned all of this out in advance and the lynchpin of the entire plot was being able to destroy Russia with sanctions alone. Again, Germany wasn’t even willing to fully participate, and they had to resort to some pretty desperate measures after the pipeline was destroyed. Nothing was done to ensure India’s cooperation, and they were saber-rattling with China, neither of which makes sense if they were planning on all this.
I also haven’t heard any real explanation for what caused this miscalculation, other than pure stupidity and buying into their own propaganda. I think this is the same flawed analysis behind the initial point that I disputed. When a politician says something you can’t just take it at face value, even when it fits into your narrative and makes them look bad, you still have to consider why they’re saying it, what they’re trying to accomplish, and who they’re trying to appeal to. When they started doing sanctions, obviously they would say they thought they would work, but this indicates nothing about their actual beliefs. They were just trying to drum up support for the sanctions, there’s no reason why they’d say, “Well, who knows if these will work or not” if they’re trying to get people to support them. Very rarely do politicians say something just because they think it’s true.
The narrative that fits actual events better without requiring abject stupidity and actions contrary to the actors’ own interests, is that Germany did not expect a full scale war and did not plan for losing Nord Stream 2. The outbreak of war came as a surprise to a lot of people, including the majority of this site, and Merkel did not have a crystal ball. The ceasefire was broken due to domestic pressure from the far-right, plus international pressure from the US, which did not assume sanctions would work, but rather saw extended bloodshed as a possibility and did not care, due to the profits it would mean for the military-industrial complex and not caring at all about the lives of Ukrainians. There are internal fractures within NATO and within NATO states, due to competing class interests, it’s not one big conspiracy working together.
Why do you think it would need to be a conspiracy? The Europeans simply didn’t see Russia as a potent threat and felt entitled to not giving Russia the respect it deserves. This attitude was all too common during the lead up to Ukraine signing the EU Association Agreement which then led to the Maidan coup. The crass European behavior can be seen as them not taking Russia seriously.
For Europe, Russia is simply a gas station with an economy smaller than Italy. If Italy is barely surviving in the EU, you don’t even have to think about what would happen to Russia when both US and EU combine their economic forces whose GDP is many fold higher than Russia’s.
In other words, they perceive Russia as a nuisance that can be easily crushed when worst comes to worst i.e. a war broke out. No need to anticipate for what will happen in a war when you already see yourself as an economic powerhouse against a tiny struggling economy and has the power to turn it into a pariah state in a matter of weeks, which would then end the war.
Because you’re assuming coordination between different groups, even when it doesn’t make sense and goes against their interests. This is like the third time I’ve brought this up - Germany relied heavily on Russian gas, then didn’t shut it off, which led the US to blow up the pipeline. How do any of those events make sense in your narrative? Is all of that part of an elaborate ruse to trick people into thinking that my narrative is correct and yours is wrong? It’s nonsense.
And this is where I think your narrative is coming from. It’s all about Russia surpassing everyone’s expectations and proving how strong and powerful it is, and it’s like, every event has to be somehow contorted to fit that narrative, when there’s much more coherent ways to fit them together.
Tbh, it just seems like this is what you want to believe, in which case I can’t stop you. You’re not looking at countries’ actions and you’re also not looking at class interests, it’s just “everybody hated Russia and thought they were weak when they were actually big and strong.” It’s a very biased and oversimplified narrative that I find hard to take seriously, I’m just as skeptical of that as I would be about one that’s brazenly pro-Ukraine tbh.
I think you have fundamentally misunderstood what I am trying to say. Europe did not turn off Russian gas because they expected Russia to fold within a few months. They were confident that their sanctions were going to work.
Here’s what George Soros said in May 2022: George Soros says Russia’s gas storage is almost full — and Europe should hold its nerve
The European chauvinists are very used to being the master and going into Global South countries to dictate their economic policy is very common. They expect the Global South countries to come begging for their investments, not the other way round. Without European investments, they would have a hard time growing their economy. This is a very common assumption even in mainstream media - that’s how you get classification like G7, developed markets vs emerging markets etc. I don’t understand why you can’t see this point.
Similarly, here, they expected Putin to come begging European customers to buy their gas again, because without the gas sale the Russian economy would collapse. What’s so hard to understand?
Everything that I have said is literally reported in mainstream media.
Where did I ever say that? Russia being able to resist sanctions is a fact, but that does not mean their economy is stronger than Europe’s. It simply means that the global supply chain is far more complex than the European policymakers drafting the sanctions had anticipated. Is it so difficult to understand the difference?
deleted by creator
Both sides pro-imperialist nonsense akin to “Both sides never seriously intended to follow the Iran deal” to defend ripping it up
deleted by creator
Russia was following Minsk 2 much, much closer than Ukraine was, who had tens of thousands of cease fire violations. Its not a “both sides didn’t follow it” situation. It’s a “one side was acting in bad faith to buy time to militarize and always fully intended to attack eventually vs. the other side just didn’t want to have to deal with the whole situation and wanted it to chill out”
deleted by creator
@ThomasMuentzner@hexbear.net
I saw you posting the data on ceasefire violations running up to the invasion, can you post this here?
No they didnt. The obama regime was already thretening european companies that planned to invest in iran after the deal was suposedly in effect and before trump won.
This always seems like a poorly based position to me. All Russia wants would’ve been guaranteed by successful implementation of the agreement. What part of the Minsk agreements did Russia not adhere to?
Minsk what? Ok no evidenc-Minsk 2 what?
Ya’ll could have a Minsk 3 and then 4 years of ukraine bombing people they supposedly want to reintegrate into their country and still find it hard to fault the ukranian state
Do you have a source for Putin saying he wanted to return donbass to Ukraine? I can’t find it on Google.
That’s what the Minsk agreements were all about.
In the 12-point protocol included the adoption of the “On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts” that was passed in Ukraine’s parliament in September 2014. It would grant increased autonomy to the local governments in Donbass. And as you will note, this was a bill from the Ukrainian parliament - meaning that Donbass will be returned to Ukraine but with the conditions of having more local autonomy.
To elaborate further, the protests against the Maidan coup government stemmed from the fact that the very first act of the new regime was repealing the Kolesnycheno-Kivalov Language Law that was approved in 2012, which granted the regional language status to Russian and other languages. The Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine obviously saw it as an infringement on their language rights, and started to protest, which eventually devolved into a separatist movement and then a full-fledged civil war (most significantly fueled by the the Odessa Trade Union House massacre by the fascists).
So, an important resolution to the conflict in Ukraine would be for the Donbass regions with Russian-speaking majority population to have autonomy when it comes to protecting their cultural identities, such that someone in Kyiv cannot simply impose a nationwide ban on certain languages without regards for the local population in the regions.
Ukraine refused to implement Minsk.