Adam
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The statement and accompanying document declaring the new state of Malorossiya appears to have been the brainchild of the leadership of the Donetsk People’s Republic, particularly Donetsk leader Alexander Zakharchenko. Insofar as this is the case, the leaders of the Lugansk People’s Republic as well as those in Moscow were not given any prior notice of the declaration.
Russian Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov spoke of Russia finding out about the declaration from Dontesk based media in the same fashion as the rest of the wider world. He stated,
“Zakharchenko’s statement, made this morning on the topic of Malorossiya, is his personal initiative, Moscow learned about this from the media reports this morning. We remain committed to Minsk agreements”.
This statement was echoed by Boris Gryzlov, chairman of the United Russia Party who stated,
“This initiative doesn’t fit in the Minsk process. I perceive this only as an invitation to a discussion, this statement has no constitutive consequences…. (it is) is not a subject of realpolitik”.
He continued,
“I see this as a response to Kiev’s high-ranking politicians’ statements that are often absolutely unacceptable”.
Meanwhile, international envoy for the Lugansk People’s Republic Vladislav Deinego stated,
“The initiative to create Malorossiya that Donetsk had put forward today is untimely. We learned about it from the media and nobody discussed this project with us”.
While Russia and Lugansk appear to be caught off guard by the announcement, they have crucially not condemned it officially. Both have merely stated that until further notice they plan to stick with the status quo of attempting to prop up the MINSK II agreements which thus far have been consistently violated by Kiev.
As The Duran reported yesterday, many elements of the Malorossiya declaration incorporate crucial elements of MINSK II.
“a. MINSK II calls for a cessation of violence and so does the Malorossiya declaration.
b. MINSK II calls for local control and accountability throughout the present territory of Ukraine and so too would such a thing happen according to the Malorossiya declaration.
c. MINSK II calls for all languages spoken in the territories in question to be respected and so too does the Malorossiya declaration call for full legal status to both Russian and Malorossiyan (aka Ukrainian).
d. MINSK II calls for respect for self-determination in accordance with international law and of course so does the Malorossiya declaration.
The biggest stumbling bloc to the MINSK II agreements is that the current Kiev regime simply does not want to attempt to implement the protocols. There has been no ceasefire, no withdrawal of weapons, no full prison exchange and no movement on laws for local-autonomy, human rights, so-called inter-ethnic rights or language rights. Quite the opposite has happened, regime officials have called for total war and the killing of civilians continues to escalate.
The problem with MINSK II is not that it asks the impossible, the problem is that it asks the rational from a totally irrational regime. It is a problem of personalities and their ideology, not a problem of the content itself. Much of the content of MINSK II which stresses peace and local rule is not only preserved in the Malorossiya declaration but it is actually enhanced”.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
