In a recent article for this site, Noah Carl argued that Russia’s war against Ukraine could have been prevented by the implementation of the Minsk II agreement. He says that Minsk II was designed to forestall possible U.S. arms supplies to Ukraine, suggesting a danger of U.S. escalation, and goes on to question why the U.S. didn’t pressure Kyiv to implement the agreement. He further questions Ukraine’s motivations in signing the agreement and its apparent unwillingness to implement it. Russia comes in for no criticism.
Firstly, the core premise of the article is false: Minsk II could not have prevented a war which had begun the previous year, with Russian troops, weapons systems and GRU and FSB officers on the ground, and with Moscow in overall control. However, let’s assume that by “preventing the war”, Noah means the full-scale invasion of 2022. The key problem with this is that despite the Russian ambassador to Ukraine signing the Minsk II agreement, Russia has consistently denied – right from the outset – that it had any responsibility to implement the agreement, has denied being a participant in the conflict and has even denied being a party to the agreement at all. The omission of these facts is quite inexplicable, condoning as it does Moscow’s absurd pretence to having been a mere bystander and rendering somewhat specious any related argument that Minsk II could have worked.
Before discussing the other aspects of Minsk II, we should also note another crucial omission. Noah quotes the New York Times reporting that the Franco-German Minsk II initiative emerged “in response to reports that lethal assistance was now on the table in Washington”, which is true as far as it goes, but obscures the reasons for the U.S. position. The initiative, aimed at bringing about a cease-fire in the Donbas, was conceived because Russia (both directly and through its proxies) had repeatedly violated the previous Minsk agreement by holding elections in the Donbas, continuing to make advances (e.g. capturing Donetsk International Airport) and generally showing no intention of stopping. It was in response to these Russian actions that the U.S. Congress moved closer to providing arms to Ukraine; or in other words, the need for a cease-fire was because of the continuing Russian invasion, not because the dastardly U.S. was stirring things up. To think otherwise is as absurd as to suggest the reason Pakistan needed disaster relief this year was because the U.S. offered to send aid.
Noah goes on to argue that Minsk II could have worked if only Ukraine had implemented it, which could have happened if only the U.S. had pressured it to do so. Unfortunately, it’s not at all clear that Ukraine has breached the agreement, and Noah offers no discussion of how or why it failed to implement it, nor any discussion of whether and how the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk regional governments (DNR/LNR) or Russia did or did not implement it.
In order to delve into these issues, it’s important to recognise that the Minsk II document, which was hastily drafted by French and German officials keen to be peacemakers, was – in key areas – not a fixed agreement or contract in the strict legal sense. There was far too much that was subject to subsequent unclear and non-deterministic procedures, such as discussion and agreement between the DNR/LNR and Kyiv, which allowed fundamentally irreconcilable interpretations to emerge. Crucially, the order in which parts of the agreement are meant to be implemented is largely unstated. Noah is arguing lack of performance, but to perform a contract it first has to be coherent and capable of relatively clear interpretation, and a contract to purchase an item at a price to be agreed later – and where delivery of the item is left vague – is not a contract.
Take the local elections in the Donbas. Minsk II stated that these should be held according to OSCE standards and monitored by the OSCE, but that “questions related to local elections will be discussed and agreed upon”. Elections were due throughout Ukraine in October 2015, but what happened next? The DNR/LNR unilaterally decided to hold elections at a time of their choosing without the agreement of Kyiv, which eventually happened over three years late in November 2018, and not in accordance with OSCE standards and not under OSCE monitoring – and hence not recognised by the EU or the U.S., and in breach of Minsk II. These sham election were almost universally condemned, with the U.S. calling them a “charade”. But, of course, Moscow blamed Kyiv for not implementing Minsk II.
Is it true that the blame for this lies with Kyiv, and presumably “the refusal of the United States to put pressure on them”? Minsk II states that discussions over elections were to be held after the withdrawal of heavy weapons by both sides and the passage of a Ukrainian law giving special status to the Donbas regions – both of which Kyiv performed (the latter very controversially in Ukraine, and under pressure from the West), although the terms of the special status law were immediately condemned as a breach by the LNR/DNR and Russia because it would only come into force once OSCE-approved, free-and-fair elections were held. This was not a technical breach of the agreement, but rather a very reasonable step to shore up the democratic legitimacy of the DNR/LNR political leaders who would, after all, receive recognition from Kyiv as a result. Russia breached it.
That’s one example. Another is that Russia and the DNR/LNR never implemented article 10 of the agreement, which required the withdrawal of all foreign armed formations, equipment and mercenaries, and the disarmament of all illegal groups. Indeed, it’s very hard to imagine Russia ever intended to do so, and all the evidence suggests Minsk II was really just a means to extract concessions from Ukraine while cementing its gains and allowing it to regroup. As Duncan Allan put it:
Yet despite Russia’s efforts, Minsk-2 was not just the product of intense pressure on Ukraine. It also marked the ignominious collapse of the Novorossiya project. Confounding predictions in Moscow in the spring of 2014, few Ukrainians threw in their lot with Russia. On the contrary, Ukrainians fought back en masse, probably killing several hundred Russian troops and irregulars and nearly overrunning the DNR/LNR until they were stopped by Russia’s army at Ilovaisk and, to a lesser extent, at Debaltseve. As they fought, they created a toxic problem for Russia, whose leaders still insist that it is not at war with its neighbour and that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people”. Russia could have had little doubt by early 2015 that even if it inflicted mass casualties on Ukraine, it would incur further heavy losses itself. This was a price that its leaders were unwilling to pay for sensitive domestic reasons – indicated by the harassment of Russian journalists and activists investigating this subject, and by the classification of data attesting to Russian casualties in peacetime ‘special operations’. Ukraine could not destroy Russia’s proxies, yet Russia was unwilling to sustain further high-intensity war with Ukraine; Ukraine was unable to prevail, but its readiness to fight to defend its sovereignty gave Russia pause.
However, on the other side it does appear that Kyiv never had any serious intention of implementing article 11 of the agreement, which called for a change to the Constitution of Ukraine to give special status to the Donbas, effectively legitimising the invasion – something which would never have achieved public acceptance in Ukraine. Nevertheless, once again this was made even more impossible by Russia and its proxies, who in May 2015 made additional demands well beyond what was in Minsk II, effectively calling for all-but-full independence, including the ability to make treaties with foreign states (i.e. Russia), hold their own elections/referenda, raise their own taxes, control the border with Russia and charter their own internal executive organisations. Through this, Russia’s proxies could legally have invited Russian troops to occupy the Donbas and then held one of their very special votes on independence. It would have made the Donbas a de facto and almost de jure part of Russia.
Additionally, the demands also included a neutrality clause for Ukraine as a whole, thus handcuffing Kyiv in terms of foreign policy and arguably arms purchases, leaving the rest of the country ripe for future conquest – Putin’s ultimate goal.
Russia was obviously insincere from the very beginning, continuing to attack Debaltseve and capturing it after the agreement was concluded (just as they had captured Donetsk Airport after Minsk I), and then continuing to violate the agreement for its own ends – for instance, by failing to withdraw its armed forces. It’s therefore hardly reasonable to suggest that Ukraine should have made changes to its Constitution in order to implement Minsk II, if that is the suggestion. Of course, Kyiv might well have counted on Russia violating the agreement in all the ways described, the fact of which means that – if we’re trying to hold Ukraine to the highest technical standards of propriety – Ukraine was not bound to honour its side of the bargain. Indeed, it’s very difficult to criticise Ukraine if its original intention was to use the agreement in order to play for time, re-arm and prepare itself for what was coming. Ukraine is a sovereign state in a fight for survival, and if it was forced – largely under duress – to conclude an agreement with the illegitimate DNR/LNR entities, I can only regard it as blameless and laugh at Russia’s disingenuous complaints at having been diplomatically outplayed. Clearly, Ukraine now has a very capable and well-armed military.
I’ll end by quoting Duncan Allan again:
Minsk-2 can […] be read in quite different ways. Ukraine’s version puts the re-establishment of control in the east before a political settlement. Russia would evacuate its troops and return the border to Ukraine. Elections would be held according to OSCE/ODIHR standards. Donbas would be reintegrated in line with the national decentralization programme (with some extra powers) and subordinated afresh to the authorities in Kyiv. As a result, Ukraine would be restored as a sovereign state. Russia’s version of Minsk-2 reverses key elements of this sequencing. A finalised political settlement would come before Ukraine retakes control of Donbas: elections would be held in the DNR and LNR; and Kyiv would agree a comprehensive devolution of power to these regimes. This would entrench Russian-controlled statelets, breaking the back of the Ukrainian state, preventing the central authorities from running the country as an integrated unit and torpedoing its westward integration. Only then would Ukraine regain control over the border, although whether Russia would allow that is moot. In short, Minsk-2 supports mutually exclusive views of sovereignty: either Ukraine is sovereign (Ukraine’s interpretation), or it is not (Russia’s interpretation) – this is the “Minsk conundrum”.
Which version of this should the U.S. have pressured Ukraine to accept?
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Amused to see that Paul Staines is apparently in favour of freedom of speech, given the comments system used on Order-Order that’s so pathological that it censors such vile unacceptable hate language as “dirty”, “damn”, and the name “Paul Staines”.
I was blocked there long ago.
Off topic but does anyone have the graphic or stats about how only 833 under 50s have “died solely of covid”? It was posted BTL recently but I can’t find it.
Hope this is helpful – https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/only-6183-people-died-solely-of-covid?r=2mnu5&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Desperately needed in Sturgeon’s Dark Fiefdom!
No doubt Blair is smugly content with the the results of his “devolution” designed by Globalists to wreck the UK – it seems to have worked a treat !
Looking forward to the event tonight!
Best wishes to all those involved. Anything / body seeking to protect freedom of speech deserves and needs support.
“Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.”
Yay! Free Speech!
Breaking one of my rules but…
Hey EF,
Fuck Off.
Careful, I can smell that ban coming for you!
Thanks, but he is an utter waste of space.
Your free speech is not violated by the site having rules
Yes. This comment led me to write the following response to another of your posts.
Reply to Hugh
No, she was a censor who believed everyone except her had no brain at all.
Your ‘both ways’ doesn’t exist, she was a totalitarian.
Reply to Moist Von Lipwig
From the person who said that this site having rules doesn’t curtail freedom of speech?
I hadn’t heard that she was in favour of banning opinions. Merely upholding parts of the Obscene Publications act that she considered important. Why shouldn’t people object to swearing on tv before the watershed (for example)?
I still say campaigning for standards of basic decency is not necessarily the same as being anti-free speech. She was campaigning about analogue t.v. and radio broadcasts which are easily accessible to the general population, rather than something, for example, available via mail order. For me, that makes all the difference. Absolutely there should be different standards for a private members club than for things done in public, i.e. a tv broadcast which may be watched by half the country.
She was campaigning for censorship.
She gave so much publicity to what she campaigned against, Alice Cooper sent her flowers for the career boost he received from her.
https://edernet.org/2022/03/15/mary-whitehouses-pursuit-to-stop-alice-coopers-song-schools-out-from-airing-on-british-media/
“During the twentieth century, a moral activist and former teacher named Mary Whitehouse waged a battle against the BBC. According to Whitehouse and her group, the National Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association, the network continued to show content that damaged the public.
She expressed her displeasure with Doctor Who for teaching youngsters how to make bombs. She voiced her displeasure with comedy characters that used the phrase “bloody.” She expressed her dissatisfaction with BBC coverage of the liberation of concentration camps (“It was destined to shock and offend,” she stated, describing the coverage as “extremely off-putting”).
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/oct/26/ban-this-filth-ben-thompson-review
“Should the BBC’s function be to improve public morals? Or should freedom of expression, even if that involves broadcasting a once-great rock’n’roll guitarist’s wretched foray into the innuendo-laden novelty single genre, always be paramount? And was the “My Ding-a-ling” imbroglio really the right forum for these issues, as old as Plato and still vexed, to be debated?
The then-director general, Charles Curran, thought not. “‘My Ding-a-ling’,” Curran had written to Whitehouse on 21 November 1972, “begins with such a clear account of the contraption in question including bells, that although the possibility of a double entendre was recognised, we decided that it could be broadcast … We did not think it would disturb or emotionally agitate its listeners and we believe that the innuendo is, at worst, on the level of seaside postcards or music hall humour.” That phrase, “contraption in question including bells”, is surely worth the licence fee alone.”
“The exchange was typical of the collection of letters that Ben Thompson has so astutely assembled and comments on so drolly in this book. Here, the bottomless capacity for affront of morally upright, often evangelically Christian, middle England clashes repeatedly with the patrician disdain of those men (and they were overwhelmingly men) who ran the culture industries, be they telly, theatre, cinema, magazines or pornography. Thompson ingeniously suggests that Whitehouse shared much with her punk contemporaries – both were socially excluded, both rebelled against establishment values they detested. Mary as a punk rocker? Not quite. But both she and Johnny Rotten knew how to needle grandees and relished the experience.
But here’s the twist. At the end of his Ding-a-ling letter to Whitehouse, Curran wonders “whether the record would have remained in a high position in the charts for such a long time without the publicity attendant upon the publication of your comments.” Intriguing point. Perhaps Whitehouse, far from cleaning up society, was instrumental in bringing about the nightmarish scenario she prophesied.
Certainly her complaints could have unintended consequences. On 21 August 1972, Whitehouse wrote to the BBC’s head of light entertainment, Bill Cotton, complaining about Top of the Pops giving “gratuitous publicity” to Alice Cooper’s “School’s Out”. “Because of this millions of young people are now imbibing a philosophy of violence and anarchy … It is our view that if there is increasing violence in the schools during the coming term, the BBC will not be able to evade their share of the blame.” Cooper sent Whitehouse flowers in gratitude for the publicity her campaigning brought him.”
“Mary Whitehouse didn’t only fight against the BBC. During the 1980s, unsurprisingly, she was affronted by and complained about Channel 4’s output. “I am glad to see the home secretary’s unexceptional reply to your unnecessary letter,” wrote Jeremy Isaacs, C4’s chief executive, in 1984, responding to some dyspeptic jeremiad. She also took on the pornography industry: “Thank you for your letter concerning our bookstall at Crewe Station,” wrote John M Menzies on 28 May 1984, after Whitehouse complained about finding a pile of Knave magazines at a level where “almost any child could see and pick it up”. “Our policy … is not to sell these magazines to children.”
She tried to stiffen the established church in what she thought should be its homophobic resolve: “Will you state publicly and quite specifically,” she wrote to the Bishop of Southwark on 22 June 1979, “whether you are endorsing the practices of mutual masturbation common among some homosexuals, and whether you expect the church to do the same and whether you see such practices as the will of God.” “Yes, I jolly well am and jolly well do,” replied the bishop. I’m kidding. If only he had.
She demanded politicians revise obscenity laws. That prompted a reply from David Mellor, home office minister in 1983, arguing that her proposal that depictions of explicit acts of human urination or excretion be banned would outlaw “a picture of a baby urinating in a nappy advertisement; or a photograph of the mannequin in Brussels which serves as a fountain”. Similarly, Mellor argued, the NVALA’s proposal to ban depictions of mutilation, flagellation or torture would ban King Lear, certain religious paintings, and the films of Tom Brown’s Schooldays and Nicholas Nickleby.
She campaigned against blasphemy and homosexuality, especially when, as in James Kirkup‘s poem “The Love that Dares to Speak its Name”, they came together. Whitehouse privately prosecuted Gay News’s editor, Denis Lemon, in 1977 for publishing Kirkup’s necrophilic account of sexual assault on Christ’s crucified body. After Lemon’s conviction for blasphemous libel, she received a letter from the clerk of the Scottish Free Presbyterian Church Synod, informing her of its unanimous motion thanking Whitehouse “for your unflinching stand against Sodomites in a recent court case”.
For Whitehouse, taking offence and imputing mucky motives to those who didn’t share her worldview weren’t so much tactics as irrepressible ways of being. In 1990, she was sued for libel by Dennis Potter’s mother. During an interview with Dr Anthony Clare on his Radio 4 series In the Psychiatrist’s Chair, Whitehouse had claimed that Margaret Potter had “committed adultery with a strange man and that the shock of witnessing this had caused her son to be afflicted” with the skin disease psoriasis. Whitehouse thereby confused a storyline from Potter’s The Singing Detective with the playwright’s life. No doubt her misdiagnosis and jejune psychosexual analysis was prompted by her loathing for Potter’s TV drama, which she believed had “made voyeurs of us all”. Similarly, perhaps, TV made Whitehouse a voyeur, though sometimes not a discerning one.”
Yes. I heard about the “Alice” Cooper business (vile toerag, even if he was on Top Gear), and some of the other stuff. She’s entitled to her opinions though at the end of the day. And if people don’t defend their culture, it will not survive – a point not lost on the Russians.
Besides, are some of the liberal woke fascists today very different.? And as for you satanists…
Remember that in the 1960’s the BBC was engaged in a biased campaign of subterfuge which helped result in changes which have since led to the deaths of millions of children. The BBC, who push minority views when it suits them, and other times refuse to give voice to minority views they consider beyond the pale, all the while posing as an impartial public service broadcaster. Of course there was going to be pushback.
Alice Cooper is a Christian.
This one elementary fact blows your flatulent balderdash completely out of the water.
Mary Whitehouse is the kindred spirit of today’s woke Maoists.
As for Satanists, I’m not one so your accusation is entirely the work of your imagination.
Mary Whitehouse didn’t defend ‘her culture’, she demanded witless, mindless, brainless conformity, something Russia has had centuries of, with the result being centuries of absolute monarchy, three quarter of a century of Communism, a religion that worships the omnipotent state, followed by the socialist dictatorship of a former Communist secret police officer who hasn’t essentially changed since the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics collapsed.
Russian culture has long worshipped death, the evidence speaks for itself.
Your anti-culture is the hatred of man’s mind.
Alice Cooper is in no way vile, he’s essentially an actor, comparable to Vincent Price, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, his shows are theatre, fantasy.
By contrast, Mary Whitehouse, in her quest to obliterate the individual human mind, was the villain from ‘Inherit the Wind’ in drag.
Her spiritual father was William Jennings Bryan and her effect was to give publicity to what she most hated, thereby ensuring it became far more popular than it would have been without her truly cretinous intervention, such was her mindlessness that she couldn’t comprehend that people didn’t take to have Nanny tell them she knows best.
We’ve just had two years of Mary Whitehouse in full control in Scotland.