Jesus Christ. Ok let me try to explain this like a sixth grader. Maybe you’ll understand that way.
Minks was a very simple peace agreement. Russia negotiated in good faith with Ukraine, Germany, France, and Belarus to stop the civil war going on between Eastern and Western Ukraine.
The agreement said the Ukrainian government would stop shelling eastern Ukraine, and give the Donbass region an autonomous government, similar to Taiwan.
Minsk 1 said that BOTH SIDES would cease hostilities. Neither side ceased hostilities. Once of the flaws of Minsk 1 was that it didn't set out control of all contested areas. Russia also failed to withdraw their "little green men." Just as a point of order Minsk offered nothing like Taiwan-esque status. Nor should it have... Taiwan is a de facto independent country that the PRC is determined to retake. Giving the DNR/LNR a similar status would be exactly what you decry, because Ukraine would always be threatening to retake them by force.
They all signed off on it and Ukraine continued shelling the Donbass and importing weapons from the west. in other words, Ukraine/France/Germany never wanted peace, and simply signed the agreement in order to buy time to build up Ukrainian forces and put more weapons on Russias borders.
Any criticism of LNR/DNR/Russia for failing to implement? For continuing combat operations? Any suspicion that they signed to build up their forces? LOL nope, because you're a Russian shill.
Also you're incredibly blind to the politics of such agreements. Countries sign agreements they don't intend to fulfill all the time. Since you're so upset by this, could you give your thoughts on the Budapest Memorandum?
And again, NOTHING IN MINSK PRECLUDED WEAPONS TO UKRAINE. Only a massively disingenuous person would keep bringing this up as some kind of violation.
Does it make sense now? So no, Minks was not ‘flawed’ from the start. Countries wouldn’t sign a ‘flawed’ agreement. And if no one was interested in making ‘concessions’, why did the countries involved agree to it? Stop making excuses for Ukraine/Germany/France not implementing it. They never intended to. They all signed away on it to dupe Russia.
The concessions that needed to be made would have been over the remaining contested territory, not immediately restarting the fighting over minor perceived violations, the removal by Russia of their forces, etc.
And anyways, how is Russia getting duped in this scenario? It's not like they withdrew their soldiers or gave up anything at all.
How does Ukraine not implementing Minsk benefit Ukraine? Your entire theory is that they signed it with no intention of implementing it to somehow gain an advantage. What was it? How would it have worked? If implementing would have given Ukraine an advantage, shouldn't you be
happy that they failed to do so?
Had these countries stuck to their word, this invasion likely would not have happened.
Had Russia stuck to its word the invasion certainly wouldn't have happened, because they explicitly promised not to. Hell, they promised to not start a civil war in 2014 and steal Crimea too.
And how about we all stop acting like this war started in February. It started years before that. BTW, where is the outrage for our troops invading Syria? We’re currently, illegally occupying a third of Syria, and all I hear is crickets.
I guess when we invade other countries for far worse reasons it’s OK.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Could you please point to a single person acting like this war started in February? We're all very aware that Russia invaded and stole Crimea in 2014 along with instigating and supplying a civil war with men and weapons in LNR/DNR.
If you'd like to start a thread about Syria please feel free. I think you'll find most people aren't big supporters of that either. Unless this is just whataboutism, then continue to do nothing else.