Talk:Minsk II

Pardon and amnesty for people involved in Donbass events?

I was wondering if this ceasefire agreement means that technically each and every purported instance of war crime committed (either by pro-Ukraine or pro-Russia forces) are null and void when the agreement comes into force? If I understand correctly, since this agreement forms a part of international law, agreed on by multiple nations, some of them involved in the conflict, it basically renders the legal punishment of, among others, the MH17 shootdown impossible. The same with all human right violations involving POWs and civilians. Am I wrong in interpreting this? Is there any commentary on this in reliable sources? Does it concern someone? --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, none of this is binding in any way. It is not part of "international law", just an informal agreement. It is the same as the first Minsk Protocol (which also contained an amnesty). Notice that none of the leaders of the states in question signed the document (other than the DPR/LPR, who were not titled as such). It is simply a statement of principles, not a treaty. Regardless, that is referring only to domestic matters, and as it says, only for events in "particular districts" of Donetsk and Luhansk. It simply means, for example, that Zakharchenko won't be tried for treason, and the like. Whether that will be held to is another story, of course. RGloucester — ☎ 22:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Big question.

If the Protocol acknowledge the Minsk I frontier between UKR and Rebels, why are they still fighting for Debaltselve?? What its the purpose does this meeting indicate anything especial regarding current gains by either side?200.48.214.19 (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The ceasefire does not start until tomorrow. RGloucester — ☎ 17:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The ceasefire have not taking since its assumed implemetation, fighting continued until 18 February. And Ukranian forces again where ordered to retreat. This means mention at least.200.48.214.19 (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Response From Right Sector and Poroshenko

I have been trying to add the following information to the Response section but it has been reverted a few times. Can someone please help find RS? Here is Yarosh's FB post: https://www.facebook.com/dyastrub/posts/782660468477506 Here is the Video of Poroshenko's remarks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAVFhPu5fio I feel this information correctly belongs in this section but am too new to wiki editing to get it in there correctly. Instead of helping to add to this information others seem to just revert. I am no Russian shill. This is objective information if I've ever seen it and needs to be noted:

On February 13 Ukraine’s Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh posted on Facebook that his movement rejects the Minsk peace deal and that their paramilitary units in eastern Ukraine will continue “active fighting” according to their “own plans.”

Petro Poroshenko claimed in a video posted to Youtube that Ukraine will use this pause in hostilities to rearm the same way they did after Minsk I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpszafir (talk • contribs) 03:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It's against wikipedias policy to use Facebook or Youtube as sources, so that is why it was deleted. They are primary sources instead of secondary and are not considered Reliable Sources (WP:RS). Hollth (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

LPR and DPR announce that Minsk II is no longer in effect due to new law

RGloucester reverted my edit but I do not understand why. I have used only reliable sources. Nowhere does Wikipedia say that an event cannot be reported if it has not yet appeared in the English-language press, which is what RGloucester seemed to say in his edit summary.

The sources I used are state-sponsored and mainstream Russian newspapers, which I used to source statements made by the DPR and LPR governments. In other words, I did not use them to cite anything controversial (from the other side of the conflict).

The controversy surrounds a new law passed by the Rada, so this is a bit complicated, and requires expansion to explain what was in the new law. My contribution was only meant to be a short stub that would grow into a larger section.

Here is the deleted paragraph:

On March 17, the Ukrainian Rada passed a new law concerning Donbass. Representatives of LPR and DPR denounced what they called "one-sided" modification of the Minsk II agreement[1] and stated their opinion that because of the new law, Minsk II was "no longer in effect".[2] DPR President Aleksandr Zakharchenko stated that any changes to the Minsk II agreement that have not been mutually agreed upon with are "legally void", stated that "nothing that had been agreed upon in Minsk has been carried out". He added that the DPR "must occupy all of the cities in which the [2014] referendum took place, and then politically cooperate (with Ukraine) as equal partners."[3]

Esn (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It isn't verifiable. If such a thing truly were happening, it would appear in anglophone press. Per WP:REDFLAG, multiple high-quality sources are required for exceptional claims. Until this claim is cross-referenced, it should not appear in the article. Even you said that you had no idea what particular law was modified. I don't know either, because I've read nothing about such a modification. Until we know, it should not appear. Please follow WP:V. RGloucester — ☎ 19:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Your assertions that Anglophone press is a prerequisite for anything to be verifiable are extremist and (I think) are not found within any Wikipedia policies. Nevertheless, we can sidestep this rather serious argument for now because Anglophone press does in fact exist: [4]. I am therefore adding the paragraph back in. Esn (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an RS. It is that simple. RGloucester — ☎ 20:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your changes, they are an improvement. Esn (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Should it not be mentioned in the article that representatives of LPR and DPR are still part of the Minsk II Trilateral Contact Group and they thus have shown that the Minsk II agreement has not been rendered void (in there eyes). Or do they just bring forward Minsk II related proposals for no reason?
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The DPR and LPR organisations are not part of the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine, which only contains Ukraine, Russia, and the OSCE. RGloucester — ☎ 22:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Crimea allegedly covered in a side deal

The Moscow Times on 5/25/2015 published speculation under the heading Crimea Deal? that at Minsk II there was a side agreement covering Crimea.

Here is an excerpt.

Andrei Kolesnikov, ... said that it was possible that ... U.S. neutrality or silence with regard to Russia's annexation of Crimea was offered in exchange for Russian support for the reintegration of Ukraine's rebellious regions.

Piontkovsky agreed. "Putin has offered the Americans a draw: They close their eyes to the Crimea issue, while Russia freezes the conflict in Ukraine's east. This is a lucrative option for the West, but Ukraine cannot like it," Piontkovsky said.

This seems quite significant. Should it be in the article? --2601:647:4801:CD07:145A:F0FE:3B29:7C50 (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minsk II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151007023633/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraine-rebels-to-delay-elections/2015/10/06/cf4de0e2-6c26-11e5-91eb-27ad15c2b723_story.html to https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraine-rebels-to-delay-elections/2015/10/06/cf4de0e2-6c26-11e5-91eb-27ad15c2b723_story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)