Not a single signatory of the Minsk-2 package of measures remained at the posts

With the murder of Alexander Zakharchenko in the people's republics of Donbass, not a single signatory of the Set of measures for the implementation of the Minsk agreements was left (talking about the agreement, which is often referred to as “Minsk-2”). Recall that earlier (in November 2017 of the year), Igor Plotnitsky left the post of head of the LC. But it was Alexander Zakharchenko and Igor Plotnitsky who signed the Minsk-2 from the LDNR side. And not only LDNR.

Not a single signatory of the Minsk-2 package of measures remained at the posts

Moreover, Igor Plotnitsky was authorized by the Luhansk People's Republic to execute a set of measures. Now the situation is as follows: in the LNR a new chapter, in the DPR (after the murder of Alexander Zakharchenko) - the acting head.

There is no OSCE ambassador to Ukraine, Heidi Tagliavini, the Russian ambassador to Kiev, Mikhail Zurabov, and the special representative of the president of Ukraine in the Contact Group, Leonid Kuchma. The complex of measures are signed by these people.

Thus, by the beginning of September, 2018 had the following situation: there is a package of measures prescribed in the Minsk-2 format, but there is not a single signatory to his previous position. In relation to one of the signatories, a terrorist act was committed at all. At the same time, the complex of measures itself does not say anything about who should act as the "successors" of the signatories, who with each of the parties guaranteed the fulfillment of the agreements.

All this indicates that the issue of compliance with the Minsk agreements, in its essence, is largely rhetorical.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

21 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    3 September 2018 09: 37
    Minsk-2 died before there were no signatories. And judging by those agreements of the parties, there will be no third Minsk.
    1. +2
      3 September 2018 09: 54
      All this indicates that the issue of compliance with the Minsk agreements, in its essence, is largely rhetorical.
      - a strange conclusion.
      He, i.e. the issue of compliance with the Minsk agreements is rhetorical not from the fact that there are no signatories at their posts, but due to Kiev's ignoring of its obligations.
      1. +1
        3 September 2018 09: 59
        Quote: maxim947
        due to Kiev ignoring its obligations.

        Dig deeper - not Kiev is there, but its leaders are in charge ...
  2. +24
    3 September 2018 09: 39
    there is a set of measures prescribed in the Minsk-2 format, but not a single signatory in his former position

    Truce, truce ...
    Everyday funeral for a brother!
    Terrorism has moved from Syria
    And he lives quietly on Khreshchatyk.

    Sprouted bureaucracy seeds
    And they ascended by the treaties of peace.
    So we work poorly, brothers,
    Once the commander was killed again!

    And such powerlessness, their mother!
    But no one will condemn tears.
    Dad will be in the history of Dad!
    Poroshenko will be a punisher!

    poems from the web
    1. +4
      3 September 2018 10: 04
      poems from the web

      "Zakharchenko" Irina Matsigura
    2. +1
      3 September 2018 16: 49
      Quote: Alena Frolovna
      Dad will be in the history of Dad! Poroshenko will be a punisher!

      Yes, yes. Another zrada in Kukuev - in the west they recognize Zakharchenko as a hero (without quotes):
  3. 0
    3 September 2018 09: 40
    There are still guarantors left.
    1. 0
      3 September 2018 10: 41
      A strange argument, 4 European countries act as a guarantor, and the signatories Russia Ukraine and the OSCE and two other private individuals without declaring their status, so the signatories remained.
      1. +1
        3 September 2018 12: 40
        Is that how my flag affects you? Otherwise, how can I explain the cons to my post. The fact that I wrote this is a fact, your Google is not for a ban, go and read.
  4. +1
    3 September 2018 09: 46
    Well, that’s how you need to act — to recognize the Minsk agreement as invalid, as the Kiev dictatorship, and act from a position of strength ...
  5. +6
    3 September 2018 09: 48
    So what? ... Ukraine did not go anywhere, they signed on its behalf, Russia, too, did not disappear anywhere, the OSCE did not cease its activities ... the LDNR exists ... The question is that Ukraine did not fulfill and does not fulfill its obligations, according to these agreements ... And despite this European "fellowship", keep quiet ..
  6. -2
    3 September 2018 09: 57
    All these signatories are ordinary idiots without any power and no real powers. Russia achieved all the goals it was striving for, the beautiful princess Ukraine decided to leave her husband and go to the rich foreigner in a blunt black hat and got hit with a blunt object, which however left a rotting bleeding scar on everything face. Donbass is a wonderful scar, although the Western sir also has some fun with her by inertia, but the horror story will still have to return to her old beloved husband.
  7. +1
    3 September 2018 09: 58
    the issue of compliance with the Minsk agreements, in essence, is more rhetorical.
    I fully agree with the author's conclusion. They will continue to talk a lot about this agreement (treaty), we will not carry out anything about which Kiev made it clear with its actions long ago. And human logic and common sense will no longer be able to master the "Minsk-3,4 ..." Today, more than ever, the question of Russia's recognition of the republics arises again.
    1. -1
      3 September 2018 10: 13
      Tell us what economic and geopolitical sense it is in recognizing these pieces of land that were killed in terms of infrastructure and economics? Why throw weights off Ukraine? I don’t think Putin is ready to abandon all of Ukraine.
      1. -1
        3 September 2018 10: 22
        Russia does not need all of Ukraine.
        1. 0
          3 September 2018 10: 37
          This territory has the most important geopolitical significance for Russia. The amount of personal time and resources of the country that the GDP spent on confronting the West, on this topic, says the opposite. You need to be crazy to think that the GDP spent hundreds of hours of its personal life and tens of billions dollars for the sake of these two patches of land, the West understands all this and also spares no resources, I recall the sectoral sanctions were imposed for the Donbass.
      2. +1
        3 September 2018 10: 34
        Moreover, the interest is not geopolitical or economic, but in the prevention of genocide. This is where the words "I want" and "I can" differ
        1. -5
          3 September 2018 11: 11
          Yes, let them kill at least a thousand Russians and 100 Zakharchenko in the Donbas, for GDP as one of the most talented politicians in history, these killings will be no different from the killings of 1000 Zulus in Africa, a pawn as it is not a pawn and will remain. It has the necessary degree of composure, the ability to act carefully and at a low pace or to act assertively and aggressively at a high pace, in this game all the moves have been made and apart from concerns you will hear nothing more. Russia is an outsider state, with very poor prospects for the future, I give it to him but for the ability to play well with such crappy cards.
          1. 0
            3 September 2018 17: 41
            your prospect of husking seeds. The prospect of Russia is good because people like you are blind and treacherously shaky. And Zakhar was strong and people believed him. And Donbass is cooler than you can imagine. There are 4 kimberlite pipes explored not far from here, but they don’t care .. Because we are already provided. Because we only want peace and some food and a booze.
  8. +3
    3 September 2018 10: 10
    At the same time, the complex of measures itself does not say anything about who should act as "successors" of the signatories.

    And how long have officials signed a document on their behalf?
  9. 0
    3 September 2018 13: 53
    He was rhetorical immediately after signing.
    For it did not meet the goals of Ukraine and its patrons.
    And all our reminders of Minsk, no more than
    a way to show how Ukraine is unable to fulfill its obligations.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"