• M0oP0o@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No but the agreement being broken that was created though Belarus does.

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sorry I do want to talk about the other broken treaties but I think you replied to the wrong comment.

        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think the implied argument is that if Putin is untrustworthy and if you’re implying that means that he can’t be trusted to comply with agreements made with Ukraine, then we need to look at historic agreements between Russia and Ukraine. Two recent agreements between them include Minsk I and II. Ukraine, not Russia, violated both.

            • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Both sides might have violated the first Minsk agreement. As to who violated it first? My understanding was that Ukraine did. Eventually it broke down. As for the second, it depends whether you consider an omission as bad as an action. Ukraine violated Minsk II by ignoring it, which led to the SMO: https://macmillan.yale.edu/news/frustrated-refusals-give-russia-security-guarantees-implement-minsk-2-putin-recognizes-pseudo. Interestingly, France and Germany were part of these talks and officials have stated that they only ever intended to delay a war to better arm Ukraine; i.e. the NATO/Ukrainian side never intended to honour the agreement from the beginning.

              • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                What did Ukraine do to violate the agreement? From all I can read there is not much short of re arming with nukes that Ukraine could even do to break the agreement (Minsk I). And what do you mean ignoring the second one?

                • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The Minsk II thing is in the link:

                  More than anything else, it was the refusal of Ukraine to implement the provisions of Minsk 2 – especially the provision that would give the predominantly Russian-speaking regions a special constitutional status – that caused Russia to threaten military action against Ukraine. Time after time in recent weeks, Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov made it clear in meetings and press conferences that the key to resolving the situation in and around Ukraine was the full implementation of Minsk 2, and many hoped the Normandy format meeting of representatives of the leaders of the four countries in Berlin on Feb. 10, two weeks after they had met in Paris for eight hours, would produce enough progress toward the full implementation of Minsk 2 to ward off the threat of a Russian invasion.

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh I am sure he is just fine with it, but it does not really give any confidence to anyone entering into any agreement with russia with a 3rd nation brokering (say a ceasefire).