"Green corridors" are set up, but not permitted by one side.
The requirements for nearly any negotiation have been pretty much one sided. Even things like prisoner swaps "must" be on conditions that are really favorable to the rebels. Remember the ceasefire--the first precondition was the complete removal of all Ukrainian troops and "groups" from the entirety of the Donets'k and Luhans'k repubics. Which meant the entirety of the oblasts or "states". The problem was, at no point did the DPR or LPR control more than about half of each oblast. So for a ceasefire, first you have to allow them to double their sizes? And this they called "without preconditions."
The Russian portrayal of the Ukrainian unilateral ceasefire was also lopsided. So the "ceasefire" was conditioned on no attacks: If attacked, the Ukrainians reserved the right to respond. That might mean shooting the attacker, it might mean destroying the artillery position and capturing it. The rebel press would be of claims of attacks against the Ukrainians, but of even more "ceasefire violations" when the Ukr forces responded. The Russian press would report mostly on just the "violations". What, exactly, they were a violation of was a mystery to many that read Poroshenko's statements, but crystal clear to Lavrov's portrayal. Lavrov, as in many other ways, says what he wants others to have said.
All of this parallels Ukrainian reports on attempts to open "humanitarian" corridors or work on restoring some infrastructure's been reported in the Ukrainian media. If it hadn't been the case that you could read the Ukrainian statements and then compare it with the rebel's responses *as reported by the rebels' own media sources", they might not be believable.
As for "real aid," I guess if there's a need for aid in someplace like Ecuador and the US can provide it we can only conclude that in the near future the US will be in charge in Ecuador?
= new reply since forum marked as read