Impossible for Ukrainian authorities to end their civil war.

[another_liberal]

Why is it so difficult for the opposing sides of Ukraine's bitter and devastating civil war to finally implement conditions of the long ago agree to Minsk II peace accords? According to a number of experts on the Ukrainian situation, the hold-up is almost totally due to the limited options available to those who currently hold power in Kiev.

Ukrainian President Poroshenko sticks a Ukrainian decal on a Humvee given by the United States as military aid to Ukraine, March, 2015 (AFP)


Ending Ukraine's Civil War: Why Kiev Can't Risk Fulfilling Its Promises


The leaders of the Normandy Quartet (Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France) recently agreed to extend the implementation of the Minsk accords, drafted to restore peace in eastern Ukraine, into 2016. What does the extension mean, what are its prospects, and why do authorities in Kiev seem to have such a hard time fulfilling their obligations? On December 30, the leaders of the so-called Normandy Quartet on Ukrainian Reconciliation spoke by phone, agreeing to extend the Minsk agreements on the settlement of the conflict in Donbass, which expired on December 31, for another year.

(snip)

Among Minsk II's main stumbling blocks are the points on the search for a political settlement, specifically the prospects for local elections in the self-declared Donetsk and Lugansk republics. Negotiations "on modalities of conducting local elections," conducted within the framework of the political sub-group of the Contact Group, have resulted in deadlock, with elections previously set for October and since carried over to February looking more and more unlikely to take place.

(snip)

Speaking to the newspaper, Rostislav Ischenko, a Ukrainian political expert and president of the Center for Systems Analysis and Forecasting, recalled that "talk on the inevitable resumption of hostilities in the Donbass has been heard since the Minsk II agreement was first reached." The reality, the analyst suggests, "is not so much that Minsk II is at an impasse, but that the Minsk agreements were from the beginning simply not feasible for Ukrainian authorities. The fact is that if they were implemented, the current Ukrainian government would lose control of the country, and would have to leave office. Furthermore," Ischenko recalls, "Ukraine is home to [ultranationalist 'territorial defense'] battalions, which in the case of the implementation of the Minsk Agreements will be guaranteed to find themselves in prison or in the grave. It's clear that they too are doing everything they can to ensure that the agreements are not met – and this is a force consisting of tens of thousands of armed men."

Asked why the agreement was signed, if Kiev had no intention of fulfilling it, the expert explained that Ukrainian leaders "had expected that they would be allowed not to fulfill Minsk II, while Russia would be pressured to do so. But it soon became clear that everything had turned out in a completely different way, and from that moment Ukrainian authorities have been looking for ways to disrupt the agreements."

(snip)


Read more at: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160101/1032576602/ukraine-civil-war-minsk-agreements-analysis.html

[GGJohn]

1. Hmmm, Sputnik News,

why am I not surprised?

[another_liberal]

65. Because you know . . .

I have such really great taste in news sources?

[DetlefK]

2. WTF?

The breakaway Donbass republics, for their part, have also voiced their dissatisfaction with Poroshenko's proposed amendments, given that they were proposed without their participation.

Hello? They have broken away from Ukraine. They are trying to secede via military action instead of a nation-wide referendum, as the ukrainian constitution commands. They are claiming to be separate countries from Ukraine.
And yet they complain how the ukrainian government dares to do politics without their input?


Asked why the agreement was signed, if Kiev had no intention of fulfilling it, the expert explained that Ukrainian leaders "had expected that they would be allowed not to fulfill Minsk II, while Russia would be pressured to do so. But it soon became clear that everything had turned out in a completely different way, and from that moment Ukrainian authorities have been looking for ways to disrupt the agreements."

I see your supposed intentional violation of the agreements by the ukrainian government and raise the stake by mentioning Russia violating the ukrainian border with uninspected convoys, with "russian soldiers on vacation in Ukraine" and with a policy that intentionally obscures whether the russian army is active in Ukraine or not.


Ukraine also has rougher politicians, and more dysfunctional ones

Whereas Russia has politicians who propose an eugenic program where every woman in Russia should be artificially inseminated with the semen of Vladimir Putin.
http://www.bustle.com/articles/48175-lets-inseminate-all-russian-women-with-putins-sperm-says-wacky-lawmaker




The whole article is a pre-emptive propaganda-piece to blame a dysfunctional Ukraine if the daily warfare in Ukraine again rises above a level where it can be ignored and termed "peace".

[Ilsa]

14. That article about artificial insemination

brings back memories of The Boys from Brazil or whatever with the Hitler clones. Yikes!

[Snobblevitch]

3. Should the U.S. allow California and Hawaii

to each have their own referendums on whether they wish to secede from the union of the United States of America?

[daleo]

6. Canada allowed Quebec two referenda

Great Britain let Scotland vote on it. It's not unprecedented. I don't say it's something you want to go through, though. They are difficult and divisive.

[Snobblevitch]

13. The UK is made up of several countries,

not states. I admit I am unfamiliarl with Quebec's referendums, do you have a link?

[CJCRANE]

46. Scotland is not a member of the UN therefore it is not a separate country.

[Snobblevitch]

60. You brought up Scotland.

I was unaware they are not a member of the U.N. That surprises me.

[CJCRANE]

63. The UK is made of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland...Each one is a "country"

according to its own citizens but none of them are recognized by the UN.

That was my point.

[Snobblevitch]

67. You are correct, but I don't know why you are making this point to me.

Crimea is not recognized as a separate country either.

[CJCRANE]

69. Crimea was part of Russia until Krushchev gave it to Ukraine in 1954.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Ukrainian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic_.281954-1991.29

[Snobblevitch]

74. They were both a part of the USSR, not Russia.

[daleo]

73. Here are some wiki links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1980

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995

The 1995 referendum was a squeaker. Canada later passed a "clarity law", which basically said the threshold for separation must be higher than a 50%+1 vote, though I don't think an actual numeric threshold has been named. It's a tough road to go down.

[another_liberal]

8. How does that apply here?

California is like Hawaii how?

[FLPanhandle]

4. The Ukraine can't end it as long as Russia and Putin want a hunk of their country

If not all of it.

[mythology]

5. This is the correct answer

If Putin would withdraw his forces and support for the separatists, much of Ukraine's problems would be resolved.

[LooseWilly]

70. Another correct answer would be...

If the US and NATO would withdraw their forces and support for the Neo-Fascists who took power in Ukraine by force of arms, then the "problems" of Ukraine would likewise be resolved... in the sense that there would be peace under a different set of crooked gangsters (Russian aligned ones) than if your "solution" were to take place (in which case there would be peace under a set of Western aligned crooked gangsters).

Ukraine is now just a battlefield for West/East Imperialist ambitions... the "improvement" under the "resolution" that you're referring to would be reflected primarily in a Western Media satisfaction that Ukraine is being "brought into the fold".

The general populace is screwed either way.

[steve2470]

58. yep you nailed it nt

[edhopper]

7. What did Putin

tell you the answer is?

[another_liberal]

9. Not a damn thing . . .

What were you told by your masters?

[edhopper]

10. I'm a progressive liberal american

Last edited Sat Jan 2, 2016, 12:49 PM - Edit history (2)

I don't constantly post party line articles from foreign Government sources.

[another_liberal]

17. Neither do I . . .

I post what I find interesting and important wherever it is available. Western sources, and the Western line on international affairs, are very well covered on these boards already. I am only trying to provide a little balance as well as insights not otherwise widely available due to the prevailing MSM bias.

[edhopper]

21. RT and SputnikNews

are Russian Government sources.

Those are the only sources i have seen you post. QED.

[another_liberal]

24. Once again . . .

How is that any of your business.

If you don't like what I post, don't read it then.

[NutmegYankee]

33. Interesting, you couldn't refute his point.

Which is that you seem to only post Russian Government news sources. Any American liberal can find alternate sources that do not rely on a homophobic and increasingly dictatorial state.

[edhopper]

38. Probably hard to find those other sources

that only praise Putin and exclusively take his side.

[Octafish]

39. Interesting you got to pile on, too.

Tell me: Where did US Corporate Owned News report this side of the story?

Don't worry. I won't call you homophobic or tyrannical. That would be undemocratic.

[NutmegYankee]

43. Just pointing out the obvious.

And again, there are plenty of non-MSM news sources for liberals, like alternet, and yet, we never see the official Russian Propaganda line in them. Gee, one wonders why...

[Octafish]

47. New York Times swore up-and-down Saddam had WMDs.

They lied. As did the rest of the USA's Corporate Owned News.

They also lie by omission, such as ignoring the obvious:

Cornering Russia, Risking World War III

[GGJohn]

48. And every major intelligence agency in the world said Saddam had WMD's,

so it stands to reason that just about every news org. would report that.

[Octafish]

61. No, not even every intelligence agency in the United States said that.

In fact, only those that sucked at the teat of the BFEE did.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline

[GGJohn]

62. Yeah they did, Russian Intelligence, Israeli intellignece, French intelligence,

British intelligence, German intelligence all believed that Saddam had, or was in the process of acquiring WMD's.

Even during Desert Storm, we were issued NBC suits in case Saddam decided to use his WMD's on us.

[another_liberal]

42. I use sources I like . . .

And I do not agree Russian news sources are any more government-controlled than the majority of those native to our own country.

If you resent the sources I use, perhaps you should just stop reading what I post here?

[GGJohn]

45. "I use sources I like . . ."

Of course you do.

And I do not agree Russian news sources are any more government-controlled than the majority of those native to our own country.

Of course you don't.

[edhopper]

36. If you don't like what I write about your posts

don't read it.

If you don't want criticism, don't post here. There is probably a safe space forum for you to do so.

[another_liberal]

66. Constantly just telling me you don't like my source because it's "Russian" . . .

Hardly passes for critical comment.

[edhopper]

68. Don't be coy

It's propaganda from Putin and the Kremlin.
Not merely "Russian".

[MattSh]

76. No, you post them from...

mainstream media sources. The US government heartedly approves of that.

[LeftyMom]

11. Whatever you get paid to post this nonsense is too much.

Not only is this constant posting of obvious propaganda unconvincing, it's insulting.

[edhopper]

12. The sad part

is he claims he is doing it for free.

[another_liberal]

16. Are you accusing me of being a paid foreign agent?

Last edited Sat Jan 2, 2016, 12:18 PM - Edit history (1)

A straight answer, please.

[edhopper]

20. no I don't

I think it is sad that you are doing the same work as a paid agent would, but you are doing it for free.

[another_liberal]

22. And that is your business how?

Please explain?

[GGJohn]

30. You do realize that this is an open discussion board don't you?

You post nonsense propaganda, we call you on it, that's the way it works.

[edhopper]

40. you wish to censor

my replies?

Please explain why I am not permitted to comment on your motives?

Or compare you to a paid operative when you act just like one?

[GGJohn]

25. So tell us why you use only "news" sources that are wholly run by the Russian Govt.?

You believe they're, like Fox, fair and balanced?

[another_liberal]

32. I don't care for the lock-step anti-Russian and pro-war stance . . .

That is maintained by the vast majority of Western sources reporting on our international imperialism. I am also not afraid of the trolls who stalk and slander me for suggesting other interpretations are worthy of consideration.

[GGJohn]

34. So you like to push the Russian govts propaganda here on DU?

Makes one wonder what your true agenda is.

[edhopper]

41. Russia is pro-war

I know you have paid attention to what has happened in Ukraine and Syria.

[another_liberal]

15. Are you accusing me of being a paid agent of a foreign government?

How about a direct answer for once?

[polly7]

18. You know what's insulting???

Closing your eyes and ears and fucking accusing anyone who doesn't do the same of being a paid troll.

Most of us are adults here ......... we're intelligent enough to read, judge, compare, verify and come to our own conclusions on what to believe. We've also seen the history and are completely capable of putting 2 and 2 together - in every place in the world the same crap has been instigated and helped to be carried out - always at the expense of those who will - and do - suffer the most.

Maybe you need to go down to your local library and spend some time removing anything that doesn't agree with your personal views - it would probably be more effective than flinging shit on a message board.

[another_liberal]

19. If I may interject . . .

Well said, polly7!

[polly7]

27. Thank you:). That pissed me off.

[GGJohn]

23. Says the one who does the same thing as the OP.

[polly7]

26. Says the one who actually ever says .................. nothing. nt.

[GGJohn]

28. Oh, I say a lot, you just don't like what I have to say,

especially when it comes to Venezuela and that thug Maduro.

[polly7]

29. Nah ............ nothing you've ever said about - anything - has ever resonated or even struck me

as being worth listening to. Sorry.

[GGJohn]

31. Back atcha.

[polly7]

37. You betcha. nt.

[ronnie624]

35. *

[edhopper]

44. That is funny

since the OP rejects all Western News sources and ONLY uses Russian Government propaganda.

[polly7]

49. Why is it funny??

You have no idea what the OP rejects. If he/she is like me, they read multiple sources and have come to their own conclusions.

What's 'funny' is the desperation to block anything but what the corporate owned MSM feeds the sheep to make any country but the U.S. the culprit of pretty much any atrocity it starts anywhere and everywhere in the world.

Not really even a good try ....... you might want to think of something a little more persuasive.

[edhopper]

50. Oh, the irony

rejecting all western MSM while wholly embracing Russian government propaganda.

Then accusing a poster of closing their eyes.

It is to laugh.

[polly7]

51. Oh ......... the truth.

It burns.

[edhopper]

52. Ah RT and SputnikNews

bastions of truth.

[polly7]

53. No, the truth of your attempts to shut up any voice that doesn't bleat your MSM propaganda.

Another weak try.

[edhopper]

54. Did I say the OP could not post?

Or am I criticizing his choice of "news" sources.
The only one I see doing that is the OP, who tells me what kind of replies I am allowed.

[polly7]

55. Awwwwwwies. nt.

[steve2470]

56. So is Vice News part of the GRAND WESTERN MEDIA CONSPIRACY also ?

What went on in Ukraine in 2015 ( after Russia sneaky-invaded the country in early 2014 and annexed Crimea ) was not a Cold War or frozen conflict, where the shooting and killing lie either in the past or in a potential future. Nor was it a hot, high-intensity fight in which two countries spent their blood, toil, tears, and sweat on an existential battle to the death. It wasn't even an American-style quagmire like Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

bolding mine

https://news.vice.com/article/why-russia-spent-2015-half-assing-it-in-ukraine1

I want a yes or no answer. I deliberately went looking for NON-mainstream media sources.

I'm never going to accept Sputnik News, RT, Interfax, or TASS as legitimate sources. Just as you should never accept the Voice of America as a totally non-biased source. I think you're wasting your time on DU using Sputnik News, but feel free to keep wasting your time.

[Jesus Malverde]

72. lulz of the day - You walked into that one.

Vice was once a humble magazine about doing heroin and having sex (on heroin). Now, Vice is a global multimedia company, partly owned by Fox, valued at $1.4 billion. Vice is so successful that it no longer needs to exist.

On Friday, news broke that 21st Century Fox, which was recently spun off from News Corp, is sinking $70 million into Vice for a 5% stake in the company. That means the notional value of Vice as a whole is $1.4 billion. That means that Vice is worth about six times as much as the Washington Post, and just a wee bit less than the New York Times. If there was any doubt left, the counterculture has now become the establishment. There is now only one degree of separation between Rupert Murdoch and "The Meth-Fueled, Weeklong Orgies Ravaging London's Gay-Sex Party Scene."

http://gawker.com/the-revolution-will-not-be-vice-1165948487

[steve2470]

75. ok point taken and learned

I still don't think Vice is lying about this. Too many other outlets are reporting it. The Putin apologists here are completely ridiculous. Besides, Putin himself admitted it.

Enjoy your lulz.

[Nevernose]

57. France asked for the delay in the separatist areas

Because the European observers needed an extra three months to ensure a fair election. The Ukrainian government already won their election -- which was held on time -- and is therefore in no danger of losing power. Ukraine fully recognizes that the DPR will vote to have a more locally-controlled autonomous zone; it's what was agreed to TWICE in Minsk. This article is fantasy.

[steve2470]

59. so is this article part of the GRAND WESTERN MEDIA CONSPIRACY also ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9315_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine

Is Wikipedia controlled by the Pentagon or NSA or CIA ? I want a yes or no answer.

[edhopper]

64. It seems anything

not authorized by the Kremlin must be, according to the OP and some fellow travelers here.

[betterdemsonly]

71. "Fellow Travelers" I think you are an agents of the John Birch Society

and not a democrat at all. The original poster maybe an agent, but I am guessing his critics are too. They are agents of mostly republican, neocon, or far right agencies. Some appear to be open Ukrainian nationalists, people who have more in common with Franco or Pinochet than any rank and file democrat.

Your group have accused me of being a Russian agent for posting stuff from consortium news. Even though it is a Western source that got its start defending the Clinton from impeachment for the Lewinsky affair. I have never seen you post anything but cold war propaganda. Other issues are non-important with you.

[edhopper]

77. My group?

I don't have a "group" except for DU.

I don't remember ever responding to you.