It should also be recalled that the signing of this document should be directly linked to the first, but not the last, defeat of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Ilovaisk boiler. Let's just say, Ilovaisk became a kind of impetus to the beginning of the negotiation process. But the process "did not take off," so I had to still push near Donetsk and in Debaltseve. But you can't do anything about it.
And now two years have passed. All this time, requirements for Russia regularly appear in foreign media at all levels. Run the Minsk agreements! Must comply with the Minsk Agreement! Why are the Minsk agreements not being implemented by Russia?
Not only the media, but also statesmen of rather high ranks constantly cry out about this. From US officials to Poroshenko and Merkel. And what are we, that is, Russia?
We stubbornly deny that we are a party to this process. The conflict should be settled by the authorities of Ukraine and the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. The logic in this, of course, is, but for some reason the reproaches do not become less.
I had the strong impression that the accusers either did not read the original documents at all, or they had long forgotten what was written in them. And the first is more likely. I've read and read more than once. So this opinion is quite justified. But as they say, where we are, and where disassembly in the Bronx ...
But let's dare to figure it out.
The first document, signed in Minsk on September 5 2014, has a rather long title:
“The protocol on the results of the consultations of the Tripartite Contact Group on joint steps aimed at implementing the Peace Plan of the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko and initiatives of the President of Russia Vladimir Putin”.
Long and incomprehensible. "Peace Plan" Poroshenko, 146% guilty for the death of the civilian population of Donbass - sorry, macabre! But the international protocol and not so eaten if desired.
Although if you understand that Poroshenko developed his “peace plan” under the influence of the same Ilovaisk and constant pressure from Putin, it is all the less clear. All right, understand.
This was followed by another document, also signed in Minsk, but already 12 February 2015.
"A set of measures for the implementation of the Minsk agreements" is meant.
It turns out that this document refers to certain agreements concluded earlier. Where, by whom, when? Perhaps this refers to the Protocol of 5 of September and the Memorandum of 19 of September of 2014, but there is not a word in the text of the “Set of measures ...”. Moreover, in both documents the dates of their signing are not even indicated. Check who is interested.
We witnessed these complex and lengthy negotiations that preceded the signing of these documents in Minsk. However, even the nervousness and complexity of understanding the process is not an excuse for legal absurdities. But here it is obvious, if not special sabotage, then, at a minimum, the incompetence of the constituent documents.
You can not go through the content. From the introduction of the Protocol, it follows that
“The tripartite contact group composed of representatives of Ukraine, the Russian Federation and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe reached agreement on the need to take the next steps.”
And then there are the very 12 points around which everything is spinning.
Each item begins with the words “provide”, “implement”, “accept”, “continue”. But in none (correct, again, who read, if it is not so) does not say who should do all this.
And really, who?
Meanwhile, the parties to the conflict are not named at all.
How to understand the 1 clause, where it says: “Ensure immediate bilateral termination weapons"? Who exactly should stop shooting?
But if you once again read the name of the document, which refers to the "peaceful" plan of Poroshenko and Putin's initiative, then it is quite possible to assume that Ukraine and Russia are at war. And then, in fact, they should stop the fire.
And do not care for everyone at the time that Russia did not open it ... Brad? Yes, nonsense. But this is only flowers.
Paragraph 10 of the Protocol: "Remove illegal armed groups, military equipment, as well as militants and mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine."
Normal point? Full Read and understand. But, reading already the second time, you begin to understand that it is also unclear who is illegal here.
If from the point of view of international law, then only the Armed Forces of Ukraine are legitimate, and there were no Russian troops there. "Ihtamnet", not "ihtamnet", not found. Point.
Then it can be considered illegal as independent punitive battalions, as well as detachments of self-defense of the DPR and the LPR. And where, one wonders, should they be withdrawn from the territory of Ukraine - to Russia or to one of the western OSCE countries? The Poles will be happy to host the "Azov" or "Tornado" ...
Ok, with illegal formations understandable. Go ahead. Look carefully, the enumeration of the necessary measures is simply a comma. Thus, it turns out that all military equipment should be withdrawn from the territory of Ukraine. Whose? APU also output? Again where, to Poland or Russia? Logically, in Romania, they are the first in Europe for military scrap metal ...
And so you can get to any of the 12 items.
However, a few days later, 19 of September 2014, another document was signed in Minsk - “Memorandum on the implementation of the Protocol provisions ...”, where they finally outlined the line of delimitation of the conflict zone in Ukraine and specified the weapons withdrawal parameters. Does anyone remember that memorandum? Moreover, he did not affect the text of the Agreements in any way.
In general, of course, I will not sign for professional lawyers, but personally I have had a persistent opinion for more than a year that no one was going to carry out this nonsense. Because such absurdities in the text, because such persons and signed.
By the way, a few words about the signatories. All Minsk documents were signed by the same persons. This is Ambassador Heidi Tagliavini - the OSCE representative, the second President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma, the Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Ukraine Mikhail Zurabov, as well as Alexander Zakharchenko and Igor Plotnitsky.
And there is not without strangeness.
If the first three were called participants of the Trilateral Contact Group, then the status of Zakharchenko and Plotnitsky is not specified at all. Here is just Alexander Zakharchenko and Igor Plotnitsky. Love, complain and at the same time think about what they are here for. And in general, it is not clear, did they undertake any obligations, or did they simply sign that they were familiar with the documents?
Dear readers, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in all Minsk documents the Russian Federation, except for participation in the Tripartite Contact Group and the title of the Protocol, is mentioned only as a borderline state with Ukraine. And Russian President Putin is the initiator of this whole Minsk sabbath.
But it is precisely the name of the Protocol, together with the vague content of this document, that allows Russia's enemies to say that our country is a party to the conflict and does not fulfill the conditions of the Minsk agreements. Who reads, he knows that the entire text of that Protocol fit on one standard sheet of paper. And this is the case when brevity is by no means the sister of talent, but a sign of his absence.
"Drain" of Russian diplomacy? Perhaps so. But what could be expected from the newly-minted "diplomat" who missed the coup d'état in Ukraine, and before that brought to the pen the Russian Pension Fund? This is me about Zurabov.
Two years have passed, however. For two years we have been poked in the face with this Minsk Protocol and the Minsk Agreements, they are imposing sanctions and everything else.
In general, was there a boy?
Is it possible to call a document what we poke? Just a piece of paper, on which there are signatures of people. And not the first persons of the states, not even the second ones. Not even the fifties.
And, accordingly, not a single living soul and President of Ukraine Poroshenko were going to implement these Agreements. The two years that have passed since the moment of signing are clear proof of this.
Say, was the same Minsk-2. Yes, it was. Just right after Debalcevo. So what? Something has changed?
Summary: as people who understand what they are talking about, today we should start to forget about Minks-1 and Minsk-2. And for us and those who lead us.
Is it worth waiting for Minsk-3? I see no meaning. Moreover, he would prefer something else. For example, Popasnaya or Uglegorsk with the subsequent change of flags in Kiev.
Though there will be something to blame and what to poke.