Russia's ongoing violations in Ukraine

Just doing a little surfing and came across the OSCE report from Feb. 11th and found it very interesting.

One year ago today, Russia signed the Minsk Package of Measures, pledging an end to hostilities in eastern Ukraine within 72 hours-- at midnight on February 15. Instead, Russian-led separatist forces escalated their aggression, and a week later, combined Russian-led separatist forces captured Debaltseve, a city Russia recognized as in Kyiv’s control under the Minsk agreements. Over the ensuing 12 months, little has changed. Several new ceasefires and weapons pullbacks have been negotiated, only to be ignored by Russia and the separatists it backs.

In this Permanent Council, Russia continues its rhetorical game of arguing that Kyiv is escalating the conflict and delaying implementation of its Minsk commitments. Russia regularly calls on fellow participating States to urge Kyiv to reverse course, as if Russia itself has not instigated the conflict and repeated escalations and has no influence over the situation. The facts indicate otherwise.

If Russia is serious about making 2016 the year the Minsk agreements are fulfilled, Russia must direct the separatists it supports and supplies to immediately honor the ceasefire, withdraw heavy weapons visibly and verifiably, return these weapons to their designated storage sites, and end restrictions on the movements and activities of the SMM.

Russia continues to violate its international obligations and commitments under the Helsinki Final Act, including respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, as long as its aggression against Ukraine – including its occupation of Crimea – continues.

osce.usmission.gov...

So the question now is what does Russia think they are going to gain with Ukraine?

Seems they got into something that really didn't pan out all the way for them and now they seem to keep wanting to make the problem in Ukraine last longer than it really should be. If they weren't they would have done what they were supposed to do according to the Minsk agreement that they had a hand in coming up with.

And yes both sides need to do their part...but letting heavy weapons back that violate the agreement is not the way to go, something Russia could stop if they wanted to.

Apart from more sanctions and positioning NATO units in places like Poland and the Baltic states what else can we do?

What do you expect?
The aggression is mutual.....the wars contrived....the deaths are meaningless.......
Little people are dying in swarms all over so the rich oligarchs ....(putin included)
can get richer and more deeply entrenched....
I know that these provocations stimulate the disgust of most ordinary persons....
This is their purpose.....to dehumanize us.....to separate us.....then play us off one against the other.....
I get the impression that the entire situation is being fueled by Vodka befuddled idiots....
Who are too stupid to tell they are being screwed by both sides...,

I think it's a tit-for-tat at the moment with Russia. When we do something in Syria they don't like, they do something in the Baltic region (Ukraine at the moment) we don't like.

a reply to: Vector99

Could be that the plan in Ukraine is a stalemate victory . Why get into a war you cant win .and do you really want to win it . Crimea was the prize after-all and they go that without firing a clip of ammo . The west had a plan and one could think that the Crimea was part of that plan . The west lost Crimea but are now stuck with the Ukraine . Putin knows he doesnt have to take it and so he might just use it as a bargaining chip for something else .....I am sure he and his group has looked at all the options and possible moves and are set to see this through to their advantage ... whos move is it anyway ?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

The same mindset can be applied with Russia now having to deal with Crimea. All they wanted from the start was their port, now they get an entire starving nation to contend with, and from what I read, they aren't.

a reply to: Vector99

I haven't read much about the Crimea as of late . Their power was cut off by Kiev or some other group .The water was cut of by Kiev or some other faction . Russia was building a bridge there but I don't know how far along they are with that project . Russia set up some electrical generation but it wasn't going to be enough until they get some new cables using the bridge they were building . Kind of would take time and I am sure some are having to deal with inconveniences to be sure .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

When it comes to Kiev cutting the supplies, well Russia took Crimea. Why Russia didn't have the foresight to think about Crimeans as people over their port...well it's because they didn't care about Crimea itself, they only wanted to keep their port. Now that they annexed Crimea, it is not Kiev's responsibility to provide them with utilities and humanitarian needs.

Remember the people of Crimea apparently voted to become Russian, and so they did. Any issues Crimea faces now is strictly a Russian problem. Crimea wiped their hands of Kiev, and rightfully so Kiev will not help Crimea.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
Just doing a little surfing and came across the OSCE report from Feb. 11th and found it very interesting.

One year ago today, Russia signed the Minsk Package of Measures, pledging an end to hostilities in eastern Ukraine within 72 hours-- at midnight on February 15. Instead, Russian-led separatist forces escalated their aggression, and a week later, combined Russian-led separatist forces captured Debaltseve, a city Russia recognized as in Kyiv’s control under the Minsk agreements. .

OSCE reports always need to be read with a grain of salt and a serious remembrance of the fact that they are not an unbiased organisation. This report is meant to be a sort of response to Sergei Lavrov's recent speeches and press meetings which have gone unreported in the West (except for alternative media sources). Lavrov has been clear that until the government in Kyiv changes the Ukrainian constitution in line with the Minsk Accords that nothing on the ground will change. He is correct. Until those provisions are altered the predominantly Russian breakaway republics in eastern Ukraine have no reason to stop their military actions.

Ukraine's only possible future is as a federation of West Ukraine and East Ukraine... and as a non-aligned nation. As long as NATO and Soros keep pushing the government in Kyiv to do their bidding, I do not see the rebel forces in the east of Ukraine suddenly deciding to observe the Minsk Agreements. Both sides have to do so, and the government in Kyiv must take the first step with regard to the Ukrainian constitution.

a reply to: Vector99

Yes I understand that Crimea voted to join Russia and that Russia decided to accept their request .I am sure that like the Donbass ,the Crimea had to weigh in on what the ramification their choice might make . They seem to be getting a unexpected bridge out of it . That cant be all bad .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

In the mean time they are going without food. The Tatar's in Crimea outright boycotted the referendum. Russia had plans for annexation well before it happened. It was pre-planned, any hardships the Crimeans face now is strictly a Russian issue.

Eastern Ukraine is in such a mess and Crimea is in not in much better shape. So many people have left because everything is falling apart and Russia sure does not have the money to fix things. You have to wonder if the Russians would not be happier just turning the entire mess back over to Ukraine. That of course would to big of a loss of face so it would not happen.

You have to wonder what happens in say 10 years. While Ukraine's economy is no better off than Russia's they have backers in the West and China. Of course they have to get rid of the corruption which is just as bad as Russia in many cases. They at least have know if they can get through some reforms they will have plenty of trade and investment from the West. And with China putting money into Ukraine's stalled defense industry they have a big opportunity as well. Of Ukraine can pass some basic reforms they will end up seeing good times ahead while Eastern Ukraine and Crimea will be left behind. It is the same thing that has been happening all along with former Soviet Republics. If you stayed with Russia you look and see those that went with the West and they have seen massive improvements in quality of life and you are still stuck in the same place. Does it surprise anybody that all the former Soviet Republic and trying to escape to the West or China?

You have to wonder if Russia has any sort of long term plan beyond the threat of force to keep what is left of what it sees as its sphere of influence.

a reply to: MrSpad

Eastern Ukraine is a mess for a reason, because Russia wants it that way. There is still active Russian military in East Ukraine.

The country will split within a year, making an east/west Ukraine. The citizens will notice little, but government-wise it will be a huge step for Putin.

a reply to: MrSpad

Eastern Ukraine has been a nightmare since Stalin.

I suspect that the next interval will see a formal federation of Ukraine and "Donbass" which would be effectively a western Ukrainian state that is predominately ethnically Ukrainian (as well as Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic in religion) and an eastern predominantly ethnic Russian (and Russian Orthodox) state. The model to be used will be the model employed in the Bosnian Federation.

How long it will take to get to such a point will depend upon who is the next US American President and the outcome of the hostilities in Syria and Iraq.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Apart from more sanctions and positioning NATO units in places like Poland and the Baltic states what else can we do?

NATO, including the US has been in Poland and the Baltic since 2010, (pre Ukraine uprising) that was exposed by Wikileaks almost right away. That scenario was blacked out by the US for instance...for as long as that lasted.
In many ways that's more worrying, Ukraine probably had subversives involved in the 'uprising' there, not much surprise where the agitation there came from then.
Pity is people died then, are still dying, and all that is still only mad military sabre rattling, same as Syria really.

BBC news today,
Interviewer, "Does the US know that Putin is killing civilians in Syrian air strikes?"
Mad Max British military expert, "Of course they know"
Evidence? None asked for or given... do you get it, it doesn't matter about civilians, all that matters is the military types worry about the Russians bombing anti Assad groups since their conflict is er, legit..kind of sort of maybe, while there is no word either of what those groups are doing on the ground apart from shooting at one another, or what havoc they are causing to those who would rather be anywhere, than where they are, Sad.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Apart from more sanctions and positioning NATO units in places like Poland and the Baltic states what else can we do?

Take a play from Russias Syrian playbook and deploy aircraft to ukraine and support the ukraine military with air support against the terrorists in the east?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: crazyewok
Apart from more sanctions and positioning NATO units in places like Poland and the Baltic states what else can we do?

Take a play from Russias Syrian playbook and deploy aircraft to ukraine and support the ukraine military with air support against the terrorists in the east?

And that pretty much garentees turning everything into a hotwar.

No #ing way

Not over backwars nations a likes Ukraine and to hell with Syria.

No one except you wants to be dragged into a long a bloody war with a country that could #ing nuke us if things went badly for them. Not unless it was absolutely necessary.


Station troops and support in Poland, Finland and the Baltic so Russia cant actually do anything to a nation that matters.

a reply to: smurfy

NATO, including the US has been in Poland and the Baltic since 2010, (pre Ukraine uprising) that was exposed by Wikileaks almost right away.

Poland has been with NATO since 1999 so wikileaks is telling us nothing new there.

The Baltics since the early 2000's so what do you think was exposed by wikileaks?

And the fact NATO has a plan to defend their member states really isn't something that wouldn't be done...do you think Russia doesn't have a plan to defend it's self and it's allies from NATO...of course they do.

What is the problem there?

a reply to: crazyewok

No one except you wants to be dragged into a long a bloody war with a country that could #ing nuke us if things went badly for them. Not unless it was absolutely necessary.

Nobody wants that, but it seems that may be the only way to get the point across to Russia...as it seems diplomacy isn't working when it comes to Ukraine.

Russia wouldn't use nukes IMO as they know the end result will not be very good for them or anyone for that matter...it's easier to scare the masses with use of nukes than to really use them.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

. What I am saying is cut our losses with Ukraine. We lost there.

And Syria....well again Obama and the entire west screwed that one up.

But fortify Poland, send support to Finland and open ties to Belarus. Draw a d real actual line in the sand with them.

Russia wont touch a country with actually NATO units in it. Not even Putin is Crazy enough to think he could win a battle in a offensive campaign against NATO.

In the end you win some and lose some. We lost Ukraine and Syria and quite frankly the mess in Syria is half our fault in the forts place. But we can pretty much make sure Putin cant win anything more.