Connect with us

RussiaFeed

News

Politics

Ukraine passes Donbass ‘reintegration’ law, effectively terminating Minsk peace accord

With the best chance for peace effectively torn asunder, Kiev’s action heralds dark days ahead

Published

on

7 Views

Long have the Minsk Agreements been dead in the spirit of the law, but now they are practically dead in letter as well

On 20 February Poroshenko signed off Law No. 7163 “On the peculiarities of state policy to ensure the state sovereignty of Ukraine over temporarily occupied territories in Donetsk and Lugansk regions” that had been a subject of concern even on the part of Ukrainian political analysts and human rights watchers.

Ukrainian military forces have already violated the ceasefire on a daily basis, and therefore it seems that they never had any intention to actually implement it. Poroshenko’s new law on “Donbass reintegration”, and how it violates the internationally accepted Minsk Agreements has been the topic of much discussion.

The law has also been criticized by the Russian foreign ministry as Sputnik reports:

“On February 24, 2018, a scandalous law on the so-called “reintegration of Donbass” came into force. Thus, in Kiev, they finally confirmed their commitment to a military solution of the conflict in the South-East of Ukraine. By signing the law, Petro Poroshenko actually crossed out the Minsk agreements,” its statement reads.

For those interested in the basic story, see the above links, as well as this video:

One thing not analyzed in depth, however, is WHY the new law violates Minsk II Agreement. It’s no surprise that the Kiev regime, which has always hated Minsk, would violate these accords, with their Neo-Nazi marches and rabid ultra-nationalism, but how specifically does the new law violate them?

Nazi march in Ukraine

Everyone, especially in the west loves to talk as if they are an expert on the matter, however, few people have actually read the accords. I myself am not claiming to be the world’s greatest expert, but with common sense and an internet connection, you’d be surprised what you can learn.

The core issue is the language used in the laws, as a Russian expert broke down the situation.

According to the Minsk II Agreement signed on 11 February 2015  the parties to the Ukrainian conflict as mentioned are solely Kiev and the regions of Lugansk and Donetsk. This is not our opinion, or Russia’s opinion, or Ukraine’s opinion, but the official agreements which all parties signed.

There is no mention of Russia as an aggressor, or defender, or even at all – Russia is not mentioned once in the official “Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements” as found on the UN website. See for yourself, the word “Russia” does not even appear, and the word Russian only appears in the signature of the Russian ambassador, as well as the footnotes.

As a result, according to the Minsk Agreements, the conflict in East Ukraine is a civil war, a conflict within the territory of a single state.

Ukraine’s “revolution of dignity”, as it is now referred to in that country

In the context of the Minsk Agreements, there is no acknowledgment of Russians fighting Ukrainians, in Ukraine, and for all intents and purposes, Russia has nothing to do with anything.

Anyone with basic knowledge of Russian and Ukrainian history understands that Ukraine and Russia have been from the inception, and for centuries one people.

Anyone who understands Realpolitik knows there is more to it than that, but the point that must be stressed again for the third time is that:

According to Minsk II Agreement, Russia is not mentioned as a party to any conflict, and the parties of the conflict, which are expected to peacefully negotiate with each other are the Ukrainian government and the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.

So with that in mind:

The law, initiated by President Poroshenko, refers to the specified eastern regions of the Ukraine as “temporarily occupied territories” and defines Russia’s actions as “aggression against Ukraine.” Reports Tass news.

This law displays both a contradiction and a dangerous precedent. Let us put aside the right to Donbass people to live safely and defend themselves from extermination – which is completely worthy of our concern – and look at the legalistic language.

This is what the new laws justify

The regions are considered “temporarily occupied territories.” But in this case, occupied by whom? Their own citizens? No, generally speaking, when we speak of occupied territories, we are referring to territories occupied by another state.

But the Minsk agreement never mentions another state being involved, remember, according to Minsk, this is an internal Ukrainian issue, a civil war, not an invasion. But the new law considers Russia an “aggressor state”, recognizing her actions as “aggression against Ukraine”.

That is in principle, the issue with the new law. It completely reinterprets the conflict, from what was an agreed to be a civil war, to external aggression against Ukraine, and goes on to provide the legal framework for Kiev to reintegrate the Donbass territories with military force.

What is the point of the Minsk Agreements then, which begin by stressing a cease-fire, and withdrawal of heavy weapons, and dialog between Kiev and Donbass? According to the new law, Russia is the aggressor, Donbass is Ukraine, and Ukraine has the right to capture Donbass by military force.

The last time Kiev tried to reclaim Donbass. This still happens, but sadly, it’s not “newsworthy” enough for the MSM to cover it

The people of Donbass may consider themselves to be Russians, or even Ukrainians, or a combination, but it is clear that the majority of them consider themselves to be part of Russian civilization, along with Ukraine.

A vivid example thereof, is the life of Mikhail Tolstykh, a legendary commander of the Donetsk Republic’s army born in Ilovaysk, Ukraine, who had Georgian roots yet when asked about his ethnicity answered: “Well, I am Russian and that’s all”.

That does NOT make them Russian citizens, however, nor is Russia required by international law, or its own internal law to take any action.

Their actions are their own, and they must be recognized as a free, independent, and mature party, at a negotiation table with Kiev. They cannot be dismissed as mere “agents of Russia”, or worse, a non-party, whose position is irrelevant. Russia may or may not be present, but only as a mediator, not as a party to the conflict.

Kiev must talk to Donbass!

How much longer must this happen?

The new law considers Donbass merely an object to be won in battle, and the voices of Donbass people irrelevant.

This contradicts not only Minsk, but basic reality, designed at fooling foreigners unaware of it, and allowing Kiev to do as it pleases.

Regardless what your position is on the Ukraine conflict, no one is entitled to their own facts – facts are objective reality.

And the reality is the Donetsk People’s Republic and Lugansk People’s Republic are independent entities. Just as there are Ukrainians who don’t like that, there can also exist people who feel Donbass should belong to Russia, but in fact, the Russian Federation has not accepted Donbass either partially or entirely into Russia, nor even recognized the breakaway republics officially.

There were voices in Russia advocating for taking more action, like Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the leader of Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. The reality is, if Russia wanted Donbass or all of Ukraine at any cost, there would have been a tricolor flying over Kiev in less than a month back in 2014. Eventually, even some who hate Russia may wake up from their sleep and be happier. In any case, Russia has no desire to invade Ukraine.

On the Right, Ukraine after “democracy”

The parties to the conflict are the government of the Ukraine appointed as the result of Maidan coup, and the people of Donbass who have not recognized this government as legitimate, and Minsk II Agreement has made it clear that a dialogue should have been launched between them i.e. on modalities of local elections in accordance with Ukrainian legislation and the Law of Ukraine “On interim local self-government order in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions”.

But the new law approved by the majority of the Ukrainian parliament deputies does not even mention the Minsk Agreements, tearing them asunder in letter, as Kiev’s actions already did so in spirit long ago. Furthermore, it gives the President special authorization to use military force within the territory of Ukraine in violation of the existing Ukrainian Constitution.

What does this mean in practice? Imagine in Transcarpathia or in Kiev, a riot against the government commences, so “Maidan 2.0”. Poroshenko (or whoever will be appointed as his replacement in 2019), may then announce that, according to “intelligence”, the protestors are led by Moscow, and this is an “act of armed aggression”.

There could even be a false flag, if the president feels like he is about to be overthrown and needs to consolidate popularity around a national tragedy. Then the Ukrainian president will be legally entitled to use the army against the citizens without the approval of the parliament. [A Russian article which further discusses this].

At the same time, while expressly defining Russia as an “aggressor” the law does not mention either a state of war with Russia, or termination of diplomatic relations – since this would  be highly disadvantageous for Kiev which intends to continue buying Russian gas and would hardly like over 2 million Ukrainian citizens permanently working in Russia back home expressing their discontent over failures to implement the required reforms in the Ukraine. [More information]

One can only hope this is mere sabre rattling by Poroshenko, to boost his steadily declining rating, and this does not herald the start of more bloodshed.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Constantinople: Ukrainian Church leader is now uncanonical

October 12 letter proclaims Metropolitan Onuphry as uncanonical and tries to strong-arm him into acquiescing through bribery and force.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The pressure in Ukraine kept ratcheting up over the last few days, with a big revelation today that Patriarch Bartholomew now considers Metropolitan Onuphy “uncanonical.” This news was published on 6 December by a hierarch of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (running under the Moscow Patriarchate).

This assessment marks a complete 180-degree turn by the leader of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople, and it further embitters the split that has developed to quite a major row between this church’s leadership and the Moscow Patriarchate.

OrthoChristian reported this today (we have added emphasis):

A letter of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople to His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine was published yesterday by a hierarch of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, in which the Patriarch informed the Metropolitan that his title and position is, in fact, uncanonical.

This assertion represents a negation of the position held by Pat. Bartholomew himself until April of this year, when the latest stage in the Ukrainian crisis began…

The same letter was independently published by the Greek news agency Romfea today as well.

It is dated October 12, meaning it was written just one day after Constantinople made its historic decision to rehabilitate the Ukrainian schismatics and rescind the 1686 document whereby the Kiev Metropolitanate was transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church, thereby, in Constantinople’s view, taking full control of Ukraine.

In the letter, Pat. Bartholomew informs Met. Onuphry that after the council, currently scheduled for December 15, he will no longer be able to carry his current title of “Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine.”

The Patriarch immediately opens his letter with Constantinople’s newly-developed historical claim about the jurisdictional alignment of Kiev: “You know from history and from indisputable archival documents that the holy Metropolitanate of Kiev has always belonged to the jurisdiction of the Mother Church of Constantinople…”

Constantinople has done an about-face on its position regarding Ukraine in recent months, given that it had previously always recognized the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate as the sole canonical primate in Ukraine.

…The bulk of the Patriarch’s letter is a rehash of Constantinople’s historical and canonical arguments, which have already been laid out and discussed elsewhere. (See also here and here). Pat. Bartholomew also writes that Constantinople stepped into the Ukrainian ecclesiastical sphere as the Russian Church had not managed to overcome the schisms that have persisted for 30 years.

It should be noted that the schisms began and have persisted precisely as anti-Russian movements and thus the relevant groups refused to accept union with the Russian Church.

Continuing, Pat. Bartholomew informs Met. Onuphry that his position and title are uncanonical:

Addressing you as ‘Your Eminence the Metropolitan of Kiev’ as a form of economia [indulgence/condescension—OC] and mercy, we inform you that after the elections for the primate of the Ukrainian Church by a body that will consist of clergy and laity, you will not be able ecclesiologically and canonically to bear the title of Metropolitan of Kiev, which, in any case, you now bear in violation of the described conditions of the official documents of 1686.

He also entreats Met. Onuphry to “promptly and in a spirit of harmony and unity” participate, with the other hierarchs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, in the founding council of the new Ukrainian church that Constantinople is planning to create, and in the election of its primate.

The Constantinople head also writes that he “allows” Met. Onuphry to be a candidate for the position of primate.

He further implores Met. Onuphry and the UOC hierarchy to communicate with Philaret Denisenko, the former Metropolitan of Kiev, and Makary Maletich, the heads of the schismatic “Kiev Patriarchate” and the schismatic “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church” respectively—both of which have been subsumed into Constantinople—but whose canonical condemnations remain in force for the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

The hierarchs of the Serbian and Polish Churches have also officially rejected the rehabilitation of the Ukrainian schismatics.

Pat. Bartholomew concludes expressing his confidence that Met. Onuphry will decide to heal the schism through the creation of a new church in Ukraine.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Metropolitan Onuphry’s leadership is recognized as the sole canonical Orthodox jurisdiction in Ukraine by just about every other canonical Orthodox Jurisdiction besides Constantinople. Even NATO member Albania, whose expressed reaction was “both sides are wrong for recent actions” still does not accept the canonicity of the “restored hierarchs.”

In fact, about the only people in this dispute that seem to be in support of the “restored” hierarchs, Filaret and Makary, are President Poroshenko, Patriarch Bartholomew, Filaret and Makary… and NATO.

While this letter was released to the public eye yesterday, the nearly two months that Metropolitan Onuphry has had to comply with it have not been helped in any way by the actions of both the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Ukrainian government.

Priests of the Canonical Church in Ukraine awaiting interrogation by the State authorities

For example, in parallel reports released on December 6th, the government is reportedly accusing canonical priests in Ukraine of treason because they are carrying and distributing a brochure entitled (in English): The Ukrainian Orthodox Church: Relations with the State. The Attitude Towards the Conflict in Donbass and to the Church Schism. Questions and Answers.

In a manner that would do any American liberal proud, these priests are being accused of inciting religious hatred, though really all they are doing is offering an explanation for the situation in Ukraine as it exists.

A further piece also released yesterday notes that the Ukrainian government rehabilitated an old Soviet-style technique of performing “inspections of church artifacts” at the Pochaev Lavra. This move appears to be both intended to intimidate the monastics who are living there now, who are members of the canonical Church, as well as preparation for an expected forcible takeover by the new “united Church” that is under creation. The brotherhood characterized the inspections in this way:

The brotherhood of the Pochaev Lavra previously characterized the state’s actions as communist methods of putting pressure on the monastery and aimed at destroying monasticism.

Commenting on the situation with the Pochaev Lavra, His Eminence Archbishop Clement of Nizhyn and Prilusk, the head of the Ukrainian Church’s Information-Education Department, noted:

This is a formal raiding, because no reserve ever built the Pochaev Lavra, and no Ministry of Culture ever invested a single penny to restoring the Lavra, and the state has done nothing to preserve the Lavra in its modern form. The state destroyed the Lavra, turned it into a psychiatric hospital, a hospital for infectious diseases, and so on—the state has done nothing more. And now it just declares that it all belongs to the state. No one asked the Church, the people that built it. When did the Lavra and the land become state property? They belonged to the Church from time immemorial.

With the massive pressure both geopolitically and ecclesiastically building in Ukraine almost by the day, it is anyone’s guess what will happen next.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Ukrainian leadership is a party of war, and it will continue as long as they’re in power – Putin

“We care about Ukraine because Ukraine is our neighbor,” Putin said.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT…


Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has branded the Ukrainian leadership a “party of war” which would continue fueling conflicts while they stay in power, giving the recent Kerch Strait incident as an example.

“When I look at this latest incident in the Black Sea, all what’s happening in Donbass – everything indicates that the current Ukrainian leadership is not interested in resolving this situation at all, especially in a peaceful way,” Putin told reporters during a media conference in the aftermath of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

This is a party of war and as long as they stay in power, all such tragedies, all this war will go on.

The Kiev authorities are craving war primarily for two reasons – to rip profits from it, and to blame all their own domestic failures on it and actions of some sort of “aggressors.”

“As they say, for one it’s war, for other – it’s mother. That’s reason number one why the Ukrainian government is not interested in a peaceful resolution of the conflict,” Putin stated.

Second, you can always use war to justify your failures in economy, social policy. You can always blame things on an aggressor.

This approach to statecraft by the Ukrainian authorities deeply concerns Russia’s President. “We care about Ukraine because Ukraine is our neighbor,” Putin said.

Tensions between Russia and Ukraine have been soaring after the incident in the Kerch Strait. Last weekend three Ukrainian Navy ships tried to break through the strait without seeking the proper permission from Russia. Following a tense stand-off and altercation with Russia’s border guard, the vessels were seized and their crews detained over their violation of the country’s border.

While Kiev branded the incident an act of “aggression” on Moscow’s part, Russia believes the whole Kerch affair to be a deliberate “provocation” which allowed Kiev to declare a so-called “partial” martial law ahead of Ukraine’s presidential election.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

When Putin Met Bin Sally

Another G20 handshake for the history books.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


In the annals of handshake photo-ops, we just may have a new winner (much to the delight of oil bulls who are looking at oil treading $50 and contemplating jumping out of the window).

Nothing but sheer joy, delight and friendship…

…but something is missing…

Meanwhile, earlier…

Zoomed in…

And again.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending