Replies

Minsk Accords? Was that where, after the Maidan Coup, Ukraine promised some autonomy to the eastern, ethnic Russian states and instead, they launched a war on them? Or are you thinking of something else?

Do you mean the original Minsk ones - https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL(1994)054-e - or the terms that Ukraine were effectively coerced to sign, and which Putin unilaterally declared void in February this year?

There's a whole shopping list of stuff that not only pre-dates EuroMaidan, but is a damn sight more legally AND morally enforceabable than Minsk was.

The Transfer of Crimea from Soviet Russia to Soviet Ukraine (1954). This was, in their own words, a “noble act on the part of the Russian people... to evince the boundless trust and love the Russian people feel toward the Ukrainian people”. Despite it being a fait accompli sixty years before Euromaidan, AND subsequent agreements reinforcing the legitimacy of that handover, Putin ordered its annexation in 2014. He does like doing stuff on anniversaries, does Putin.
The Belovezh Accords (1991) which formally ended the Moscow-run Communist regime, and initiated the breakup of the USSR. Their provisions started with "The USSR, as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality, is ceasing its existence" included the “setting up of lawfully constituted democratic… independent states… on the basis of mutual recognition of and respect for State sovereignty”, and their EQUAL “right to self-determination” AND their respective "territorial integrity".
- Lukashenko's Belarus, and Putin's Russia, do not accept that the breakup of the USSR happened.
- To this day Belarus has laws to prohibit discussion of the ending of the USSR.
- Putin's Duma is now debating whether or not Lithuania ever left the USSR.
- The United States promised to wait to officially recognize Ukrainian independence until after Russia, Ukraine and Belarus had all done so.
- In December, the Commonwealth of Independent States was established with that declaration formalised in Minsk. The Agreement on the Establishment of the CIS and its relevant (Alma-Ata) Protocol (1993) further reinforced the CIS charter stated that all the members were sovereign and independent nations and it formally abolished the Soviet Union.
- The formation of independent states was then formally recognized by the USA, Europe, and the United Nations.
The Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons aka the Budapest Memorandum (1994). Its provisions reinforced the prior accords, and included such undertakings as:
1. Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine to influence their politics.

Multiple treaties with Ukraine were terminated unilaterally by Russia in March 2014, one week after the annexation of Crimea by Russia. Including all three of the above.

Even Putin's objection to NATO expansion is based on a completely non-binding agreement made by James Baker, ratified by absolutely nobody either in the USA or in Soviet Russia. It was only ever binding on the USA and NATO while the USSR still existed, while the USSR didn't accept the sovereign independence of its constituent nation states, and Germany was partitioned.

Gorbachev said unequivocally that America fulfilled every aspect of that agreement. That agreement couldn't bind the next US President, or the presidents of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia OR ANY OTHER EX-SOVIET STATE, after they became fully independent. Not one single world leader ever ratified it, and even if they had it never stipulated what to do in the event of the USSR disbanding itself.

Again, Putin only makes a big deal of it because the non-NATO expansion thing was set up while the USSR existed, and guess what! Lukashenko's Belarus, and Putin's Russia, do not accept that the breakup of the USSR happened. They are both utterly wedded to the idea that every international agreement that even mentions an independent Ukraine is null and void because they regard the breakup of the Soviet Union as illegitimate.

The attempt to blame Schwab, or Ukraine, or talk of NATO expansion, for the last eight years of turmoil in Ukraine is misplaced.
Long before any of that, an intellectual lobby inside Russia - represented well by Putin, Dugin and Zhirinovsky but also by numerous current Duma politicians - were resolved to undo the breakup of the USSR.

They don't want communism back; they just want an ethnonationalist Rashist empire with Russia in charge and Ukraine, Poland, Moldova, Georgia, Khazakstan, Chechnya, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania etc. under its yoke.

Arguing that Putin has any moral high ground here is a bit like saying the Deep State might be doing some bad stuff, but is motivated by good intentions.

Putin and Schwab/Soros are two sides of the same coin.