About the end of the Minsk agreements | Colonel Cassad

https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3222233.html

Briefly on the subject of abstract discussion related to what they say is happening now under the Donetsk put an end to the Minsk agreements.

In words, how they acted, and will act. None of the points of the Minsk agreements were not executed before the current escalation, which is nothing new in this question is not made. None of the points of the Minsk agreements were not executed by the parties, and will not run. No item of the Minsk agreements, the implementation of which would prevent the ongoing escalation. In this issue there is no change – one stability necrotic.

In practice, the Minsk agreements have long been the end, as it is quite obvious that they will fail, no matter how much was gathered diplomats for talks in Minsk. The US cannot force Russia to fulfill the Minsk agreements in their desired interpretation (Crimea and Donbass), and Moscow, in turn, will be able to force Kiev to fulfill the Minsk in the form in which it wants Moscow (some of the promoters is expressed in empty mantras about “we need the whole Ukraine”, which are outside the socio-economic and military-political reality).

Periodic military escalation demonstrate that the goal of complete freezing of the conflict, the Minsk agreements do not. The war they of course did not stop, but rather extended it in other forms.

Hydroplanula propaganda claims that the Minsk agreement can allow more time in order to wait for the regime in the Ukraine, he collapses, but as the past has shown 3 years of the war, these mantras compare defeatist expectations that Russia will leave the Donbass. Ukrainian propaganda continues in turn to feed the population with tales about the fact that the West through sanctions will force Russia to capitulate and she’d give the regime Poroshenko Donbass and Crimea.

After 3 years of war, Russia still has a proverbial fork in decisions of war and capitulation, from which it by means of the Minsk agreements of 3 years tried to evade, but which its opponents repeatedly show, warming up the front in the Donbas. The political and military maneuvering, allows you to buy time, but does not solve the issue on the merits. Poroshenko’s problem is fundamentally different – he had no special choice, only further anti-Russian policy and the escalation of hostilities allows him to stay in power.Therefore, constant military provocations by the Kiev regime are due to the character, especially since his owners, until recently, looked favorably on this development, where the main costs fell on Russia, the EU and Ukraine.

In the current situation, a diplomatic solution to the conflict lies beyond the Minsk agreements and the Normandy format. Only when the main antagonists in Moscow and Washington will begin to negotiate with each other through a new format, then there will be a real chance for a lasting diplomatic settlement. In the absence of such a direct dialogue, it is ridiculous to expect success from negotiations, where not part owners Poroshenko and the main customers of the coup led to the civil war. Merkel and Hollande do not solve these issues.While not a format in which a possible agreement the U.S. and Russia over Ukraine, the Minsk agreements will invariably act as non-alternative not be executed because the parties mean by them different things. Minsk-3, 4 and 5, without the participation of the United States as a stillborn project, as the previous 2, which reeks of political carrion.The hopes associated with the trump imply that the ongoing tectonic shift in American foreign and domestic policy, create conditions for the normalization of relations between the US and Russia that could end the war in Ukraine and to serve as a prologue to the formation of a new world order. This scenario would be the best for Russia as it allows you to slip out of a situation where the choice is between bad and very bad solution to the Ukrainian problem.In the case of such a “Big deal” indeed, the war may end, but the key to this decision is not in Kiev and not in Moscow, and in Washington, and while there is no guarantee that the United States will demonstrate in this issue of good will. Moscow at the moment, patiently waiting for the clarification of the US position, so it certainly is not something to force on the Ukrainian direction, so as not to close the door to optional, but it is possible the variant with the normalization of relations. This window of opportunity will be open not too long.

But of course it is worth considering that real normalization will not occur and the war in a slightly different configuration will continue and the problem associated with Ukraine and war in Donbas will remain.

In the absence of real diplomatic progress in the areas of settlement, no scenarios other than the military remain.They can be reduced to low-intensity or high-intensity combat operations (depending on the degree of freezing of the conflict and the combat readiness of the troops), but the main thing about this is that this situation will continue to last for years (see the history of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, where 20 years after the beginning of the war, Armenia and Azerbaijan easily find ways to unleash a new war over the territory of the Republic, part of which is converted into a permanent front line), surviving and Putin, and Poroshenko, and Trump.

Changes in this inertial scenario is possible if:

– a diplomatic situation for no military solution to the conflict (it should be understood that voluntarily neither Russia nor the United States from its position on Ukraine will not refuse, and the fate of Ukraine is the question of bargaining about its device).

– one side wins a military victory (APU using the US and NATO sought the elimination of the republics of the BCH with the help of Russia defeats APU in the Donbas and causes a further disintegration of Ukraine).

– the regime in Kiev collapses under the weight of accumulated socio-economic and political contradictions (which is likely to lead to further disintegration of Ukraine).

The Minsk agreement, before the emergence of a new format will be already familiar with all the background, which will be less and less practical content. And to the historical dustbin they will be sent only when there is something to replace them. So from a formal point of view, the Minsk agreement is very much alive. From a practical point of view, they have become obsolete in 2015. And not coincidentally, in the second half of 2016 year (in contrast to 2015), the diplomats didn’t even waste time arguing the need to extend the Minsk agreements, Poroshenko brandished deadlines.Stakeholders did not consider it necessary to comply with this formality in relation to the simulacrum is obvious that the question is real, and not declarative of the end of the war, is irrelevant. Another escalation does not put an end to the history of these agreements, but only illustrates for underlying emptiness.

Advertisements

Stauffenberg was Right!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s