I think the implied argument is that if Putin is untrustworthy and if you're implying that means that he can't be trusted to comply with agreements made with Ukraine, then we need to look at historic agreements between Russia and Ukraine. Two recent agreements between them include Minsk I and II. Ukraine, not Russia, violated both.
Both sides might have violated the first Minsk agreement. As to who violated it first? My understanding was that Ukraine did. Eventually it broke down. As for the second, it depends whether you consider an omission as bad as an action. Ukraine violated Minsk II by ignoring it, which led to the SMO: https://macmillan.yale.edu/news/frustrated-refusals-give-russia-security-guarantees-implement-minsk-2-putin-recognizes-pseudo. Interestingly, France and Germany were part of these talks and officials have stated that they only ever intended to delay a war to better arm Ukraine; i.e. the NATO/Ukrainian side never intended to honour the agreement from the beginning.
What did Ukraine do to violate the agreement? From all I can read there is not much short of re arming with nukes that Ukraine could even do to break the agreement (Minsk I). And what do you mean ignoring the second one?
More than anything else, it was the refusal of Ukraine to implement the provisions of Minsk 2 – especially the provision that would give the predominantly Russian-speaking regions a special constitutional status – that caused Russia to threaten military action against Ukraine. Time after time in recent weeks, Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov made it clear in meetings and press conferences that the key to resolving the situation in and around Ukraine was the full implementation of Minsk 2, and many hoped the Normandy format meeting of representatives of the leaders of the four countries in Berlin on Feb. 10, two weeks after they had met in Paris for eight hours, would produce enough progress toward the full implementation of Minsk 2 to ward off the threat of a Russian invasion.
Yeah that is the russian statement but reading the agreement leaves me thinking that is not 100% on the level. They seem to think they where not an involved party in the agreement and did not have abide by it. Here is a translation of the agreement, if you have a better version let me know.
… the refusal of Ukraine to implement the provisions of Minsk 2 ….
What Russia did in response would be in Russia's statement. But here the writer is reporting that Ukraine refused to implement Minsk II.
If your link is only a translation of the agreement, it won't say anything about who violated it, so I'm unsure what good it does to comb through it. I don't see how the clauses are relevant without a factual chronology from after it's signing, such as the one in my link. I'll note that I'm happy to be presented with contrary evidence but also note that the source I provided is from Yale university—hardly a pro-Russian outlet.
Here's a Reuters link for anyone who doesn't want to open the PDF (I can't confirm they're both the same or if this one's as faithful translation): https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-are-minsk-agreements-ukraine-conflict-2021-12-06/
Oh I am sure he is just fine with it, but it does not really give any confidence to anyone entering into any agreement with russia with a 3rd nation brokering (say a ceasefire).
No but the agreement being broken that was created though Belarus does.
Minsk I and II
Sorry I do want to talk about the other broken treaties but I think you replied to the wrong comment.
I think the implied argument is that if Putin is untrustworthy and if you're implying that means that he can't be trusted to comply with agreements made with Ukraine, then we need to look at historic agreements between Russia and Ukraine. Two recent agreements between them include Minsk I and II. Ukraine, not Russia, violated both.
Oh I was not under that impression, both in my memory russia violated.
Both sides might have violated the first Minsk agreement. As to who violated it first? My understanding was that Ukraine did. Eventually it broke down. As for the second, it depends whether you consider an omission as bad as an action. Ukraine violated Minsk II by ignoring it, which led to the SMO: https://macmillan.yale.edu/news/frustrated-refusals-give-russia-security-guarantees-implement-minsk-2-putin-recognizes-pseudo. Interestingly, France and Germany were part of these talks and officials have stated that they only ever intended to delay a war to better arm Ukraine; i.e. the NATO/Ukrainian side never intended to honour the agreement from the beginning.
What did Ukraine do to violate the agreement? From all I can read there is not much short of re arming with nukes that Ukraine could even do to break the agreement (Minsk I). And what do you mean ignoring the second one?
The Minsk II thing is in the link:
Yeah that is the russian statement but reading the agreement leaves me thinking that is not 100% on the level. They seem to think they where not an involved party in the agreement and did not have abide by it. Here is a translation of the agreement, if you have a better version let me know.
https://horlogedelinconscient.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Minsk-2-Full-text-UNIAN.pdf
The source says, to repeat:
What Russia did in response would be in Russia's statement. But here the writer is reporting that Ukraine refused to implement Minsk II.
If your link is only a translation of the agreement, it won't say anything about who violated it, so I'm unsure what good it does to comb through it. I don't see how the clauses are relevant without a factual chronology from after it's signing, such as the one in my link. I'll note that I'm happy to be presented with contrary evidence but also note that the source I provided is from Yale university—hardly a pro-Russian outlet.
Here's a Reuters link for anyone who doesn't want to open the PDF (I can't confirm they're both the same or if this one's as faithful translation): https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-are-minsk-agreements-ukraine-conflict-2021-12-06/
I feel like Lukashenko will probably understand
Oh I am sure he is just fine with it, but it does not really give any confidence to anyone entering into any agreement with russia with a 3rd nation brokering (say a ceasefire).