“There is one card to play here and that is to acknowledge Minsk II. Only one.”
Minsk II was flawed and unworkable, as the three main requirements that were specified were not put in any order (i.e., which would come first, then second, then third). That was a HUGE deal, as one would affect the other, and no one could come to an agreement, so each side claimed the sequence that benefitted itself the best. Minsk II was a rushed attempt to “do something.”
You want Minsk II as Russia wanted it; but not how Ukraine wanted it.
So, let’s look at the controlling LAW that was in play.
Russia and the separatists demanded referenda on autonomy. Ukraine agreed to that, pursuant to and subject to the existing law (i.e., the Ukrainian constitution).
Ukrainian law allowed for autonomy under a UNITED Ukraine. That means, ALL of Ukraine.
That means, by the very language of the Ukrainian Constitution, refereda by ALL Ukrainian citizens, not just a select few.
The Ukrainian Constitution of 1996 specifically set out the law re: autonomy: “According to article 73 of the 1996 Constitution of Ukraine, and article 3 of the 2012 law on referendums, territorial changes can only be approved via a referendum if all citizens of Ukraine are allowed to vote, including those that do not reside in the area.”
So, have the referenda on autonomy, but pursuant to the Ukrainian constitution. But, no; the so-called separatist republics and their sponsor, Russia, rebelled at that; they insisted the referenda could only be put to the people of the affected areas, and not include Ukrainians at large, in contravention of the Ukrainian constitution! Thus, how the separatists and Russia interpreted “referenda for autonomy” was unconstitutional — and thus, illegal — on its face.
The pro-Russia posters here on FR ALWAYS ignore that very pertinent fact.
You’ll have to take that up with Russia because they are prepared to fight and they’ve been saying that clearly for a long time. The way I see it they don’t give a damn what loudmouthed duplicitous Americans have to say about *yet another* disastrous foreign policy adventure thousands of miles from their shores that effect their security concerns.
You can describe things as “pro-russia” or “pro-this” or “pro-that”. I can describe what you are saying is just not knowing right from wrong.