Diplomatic Documents

Protocol of the Trilateral Contact Group—Minsk, September 5, 2014

Pag 1Page 2

(1) Protocol of the Trilateral Contact Group – Minsk, September 5, 2014 (Original) – (2) Link to OSCE Document Repository


on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group
with respect to the joint steps aimed at
the implementation of the Peace Plan
of the President of Ukraine, P. Poroshenko,
and the initiatives of the President of Russia, V. Putin

Upon consideration and discussion of the proposals put forward by the participants of the consultations in Minsk on September 1, 2014, the Trilateral Contact Group, consisting of the representatives of Ukraine, the Russian Federation and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe [OSCE], reached an understanding with respect to the need to implement the following steps:

  1. Ensure the immediate bilateral cessation of the use of weapons.
  1. Ensure monitoring and verification by the OSCE of the regime of non-use of weapons.
  1. Implement decentralization of power, including by means of enacting the Law of Ukraine “With respect to the temporary status of local self-government in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions” (Law on Special Status).
  1. Ensure permanent monitoring on the Ukrainian-Russian state border and verification by the OSCE, together with the creation of a security area in the border regions of Ukraine and the Russian Federation.
  1. Immediately release all hostages and unlawfully detained persons.
  1. Enact a law prohibiting the prosecution and punishment of persons in connection with the events that took place in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions of Ukraine.
  1. Conduct an inclusive national dialogue.
  1. Adopt measures aimed at improving the humanitarian situation in Donbass.
  1. Ensure the holding of early local elections in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “With respect to the temporary status of local self-government in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions” (Law on Special Status).
  1. Remove unlawful military formations, military hardware, as well as militants and mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine.
  1. Adopt a program for the economic revival of Donbass and the recovery of economic activity in the region.
  1. Provide personal security guarantees for the participants of the consultations.

Participants of the Trilateral Contact Group:

Ambassador Heidi Talyavini (signed)

Second President of Ukraine, L.D. Kuchma (signed)

Ambassador of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, M.Y. Zurabov (signed)

A.V. Zakharchenko (signed)

I.V. Plotnitskiy (signed)


78 thoughts on “Protocol of the Trilateral Contact Group—Minsk, September 5, 2014

  1. Meaningless paper. This is nothing that can work. Ceasefire is broken in several areas. First of many truces to come.

    Thanks for the translation.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Bull Durham | September 7, 2014, 01:08
  2. This is not the Ceasefire signed by #Novorossiya…


    Posted by Adam Baum (@Adam1Baum) | September 7, 2014, 01:13
  3. Wait,what, that sounds like they are dispanding the militas and making Donbass a part of Ukraine.

    Remove unlawful military formations, military hardware, as well as militants and mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine.

    Adopt a program for the economic revival of Donbass and the recovery of economic activity in the region.

    Implement decentralization of power, including by means of enacting the Law of Ukraine “With respect to the temporary status of local self-government in certain areas of the Donetsk and the Lugansk regions” (Law on Special Status).

    Ensure permanent monitoring on the Ukrainian-Russian state border and verification by the OSCE, together with the creation of a security area in the border regions of Ukraine and the Russian Federation.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Fri | September 7, 2014, 01:15
    • It is very difficult to get thru to you all that the specifics of this document are not important. It is not an enforceable piece of paper: no court and no authority are going to enforce it. Do you remember the original diplomatic initiatives by Russia where Kiev agreed to perform certain specifics and then two hours later said they had decided to consider the agreement ‘mere recommendations’? No one any longer even remembers what it said any more. This ceasefire is like that. I’m sorry; I know I’ve failed to convince you. The fact is that we do not know from this Protocol ANYTHING about Moscow’s intentions. We will all just have to wait and see. Try not to conclude anything; it’s only a ceasefire.


      Posted by Penelope Powell | September 17, 2014, 06:22
      • Dear Penelope,

        There are two key problems with your statements here: (a) they are patronizing without evidencing a basis for any superiority that you may feel; and (b) they demonstrate your basic lack of understanding of international law. Apart from such trade agreements as the GATT, the WTO accords, or the NAFTA, very few international treaties are justiciable. What this means is that international agreements, be it the Minsk Protocol or the UN Charter, are generally not subject to adjudication. There is simply no judicial system to which states, international actors, and other entities that interact with international law are subject and in which breaches of international treaties are actionable. Here I omit a discussion of the International Court of Justice, because it is more a court in name than in effect.

        For that reason, your expression of frustration and argument that “it is not an enforceable piece of paper: no court and no authority are going to enforce it” is simply a red herring. It is not because the Minsk Protocol is somehow not binding or enforceable that no court would ever enforce it. It is because no court or authority exists that is generally capable of enforcing international treaties. In fact, the Minsk Protocol is eminently binding. However, as with other international agreements, enforcement of the Minsk Protocol is not a matter for a court system. It is a matter for the international community, and enforcement is done through brute force, sanctions, international condemnation, pressure, or other such mechanisms.

        As for your other points, Moscow has made it clear that it expects Novorossiya to abide by the Minsk Protocol – at a very high level, speaking through Lavrov. Kiev has already ratified a so-called amnesty law, which excludes virtually ever militiaman from its purview. Ukraine has already passed a so-called “Temporary Special Status Law” with respect to the Donbass territories under the NAF’s control (while DPR has spoken out against this law, LPR’s leader, Plotnitskiy, has already indicated his acceptance). Both these laws are exactly in line with the Minsk Protocol. While you are on here claiming to all and sundry that the Minsk protocol is “just a ceasefire” and nothing would come of it, both Moscow and Kiev, with the tacit acceptance of certain traitors in the DPR/LPR governments are actively implementing all the provisions of the Minsk Protocol, point by point, exactly as they are written. In this also your argument is entirely flawed.

        Why should we not conclude anything about the ceasefire or Moscow’s intentions? Are we to believe in Moscow’s genius and cunning plan simply because we must have faith in the Russian leadership? Somehow we must accept, according to you, that because we do not agree with what Russia is doing, that it must be doing something unknowable and right? I see the logic in Moscow’s intentions; I can see what Moscow’s intentions are – and I am enraged by them. To have blind faith in some infantile acceptance that powers larger than ourselves must have our best interests at heart, as you suggest, is, well, rather infantile.

        Penelope, you failed to convince not because of lack of hope on my part. You failed to convince because you lack the knowledge to convince (in this area only, I do not suggest you are not highly intelligent – in fact, it is obvious that you are) and because you misunderstand the basic tenets of the issues you are arguing about.

        This will be decided not by a court of law, but, as in all international law, through state practice. If the Novorossiyan entities, Ukraine, and Russia abide by the Minsk Protocol, then it would be fulfilled. And, so far, they appear to be right on schedule in implementing each and every point of the Minsk Protocol. Whether or not the people of Novorossiya and the Novorossiya Militia will permit them to carry out this betrayal remains to be seen.


        Posted by Gleb Bazov | September 17, 2014, 07:21
  4. All doom and gloom but there are some important things for the future:

    Signing of document, LNR and DNR are now parties
    Law on special status, LNR and DNR are given temporary power to govern

    Ofcourse unlawful militias and weapons have to be removed, at some point, and Ukrainian border should be monitored at some point, wherever it may be. The document is just a start and now LNR & DNR are parties to the discussions regarding the future and that is a big step forward.

    It sounds bad but there are elements in the right direction and actualy isn’t as catastrofic as some see it


    Posted by Mod Finn | September 7, 2014, 01:34
    • FROM THE EDITOR (AND LAWYER) You are not correct:

      (1) DPR and LPR are not stated to be parties to this agreement. Therefor, no recognition is conferred on them by means of this document. Quite the contrary.

      (2) We do not know what the Law on Special Status provides with respect to the continuation of governance by the LPR/DPR bodies. Moreover, note the requirement for early elections. So, again, you are not correct.

      (3) This documents is a wholesale disaster. The only solution is for it to be reneged on.

      Liked by 1 person

      Posted by Gleb Bazov | September 7, 2014, 01:40
      • 1. Recognition of DPR & LPR by Ukraine at this point would be an impossible hope, has even Ossetia or Transnistria or Abkhazia gotten such recognition by respective governments? Their representatives are signatories and thats a big step and a big concession by Ukraine. Even Russia hasn’t, that I know of, given such recognition and next weeks rumoured Gazprom-deal would be first one establishing them as a legal entity.

        2. The land they have is left under their duristiction for the moment, again recognising them as a party without legal recognition. Law on special status as such is unknown as is if it will cover only currently held ground or whole of Donbass. The question is, what would be better, autonomy under Kiev for whole of Donbass or independence for unly those areas now held. Could NAF ever conquer the area this might be applied to?

        The road to recognition, autonomy or independence will be very long with very short steps. Every time they sign something, negotiate and make businessdeals it will be s short step closer. I don’t think this is the right time to start bashing those who are supportive cause they are the only friends they got and eventhou this was a babystep it still is a step in the right direction. And winter is coming…


        Posted by Mod Finn | September 7, 2014, 02:13
      • FROM THE EDITOR: I am sorry, I don’t have time to respond in a fulsome manner. However, I invite you to consider carefully all the issues, as it is pliantly clear to me that the situation is not as you have portrayed it.

        Just as a hint. The principle of inviolability of ambassadors is a matter of jus cogens international law – think of it is the constitution of international law. The fact that Point 12 specifically accords such protections to the participants of these consultations. This is meant further to reinforce the status of Zakharchenko and Plotnitskiy as international law’s outlaws – as people who otherwise would not be protected. As ambassadors they would not need such additional provisions for their safety. The fact that the document provides such guarantees demonstrates that they are not considered to be ambassadors.

        Further, the LPR and the DPR are not even mentioned in the document – surely because it would have been unacceptable to Ukraine. The very fact that they are not mentioned detracts from any possibility of recognition. I.e. this is worse than if they had not signed the document at all. From the standpoint of international law, this document provide no recognition whatsoever to the LPR and the DPR.

        I respect your input; and I accept that opinions will differ. However, we must be realistic about this document.

        Liked by 1 person

        Posted by Gleb Bazov | September 7, 2014, 02:50
      • Hi Gleb,
        so many things are happening behind the screens in connection with most political developments in the world, also in connection with DPR and LPR I think. I agree with you that no one of these DPR LPR parties names are under this protocol, this is strange to me.
        For me is the biggest problem the oligarchs their involvement in Ukraine. They don’t care a little about humans and their lives. they use votes to get into positions they prefer to have.
        Now we will see the coming days what will happen with the cease fire and the “contract” the parties signed. I just don’t trust this but could we give it another try to get peace and independence from the oligarchs from Kiev and actually from all oligarchs where ever they are.
        It must be clear that all the Kiev troop and their mercenaries must leave the area. Point six must state that all those responsible for the MH17 must be held accountable and punished, all must be transparent and accessible to the general public, so that the world will understand that they have been fooled this far.
        Point 7 a national dialogue, is good but the independents from Kiev must be involved on a equal status.Point 11, this can be done with the funds of the oligarch from Kiev even if their assets must be nationalized. All contracts made by Kiev concerning the East in favour of foreigners must be placed on hold or be cancelled. More to add but lack of time available.

        Liked by 2 people

        Posted by worrienie (@worrienie) | September 7, 2014, 04:38
      • Agree with Mod Finn. As ambiguous this document may be, it indicates a strategic or at least a tactical success for Russia – not neccessarly one for DPR and LPR, although it seems to be a chance if they stick with their guns (literally). That their representatives are signatories and indirectly DPR and LPR became negotiation party is important and was one Russian objective and proposal. Geopolitically Russia might use the whole Ukraine as buffer state, with the frozen conflict as mean to stop NATO deployment. Not nice to be a buffer state, because both powers seem to anticipate war. Nevertheless, the Minsk protocol is a step for Ukraine to be decentralized and indicates a special legal status for Lugansk, Donetsk but surely this all is not a closed deal. @Gleb Bazow, in regards to our twitter flare: on some points I see agreement, but I differentiate between Russias and DPR and LPR interest. This conflict has a touch of the Spanish Civil war, if you get my hint. Having said that, I wish the best for the civilians in East-Ukraine. Thanks for the translation, a pretty open and brief protocol….


        Posted by afdmunich (@afdmunich) | September 7, 2014, 16:42
    • It’s really simple: the above document is a fake. If not, then Novorossia needs a new government. No problem. There are enough people within Novorossia to replace all traitors. The same in Russia.

      Liked by 1 person

      Posted by Frank Schäfer | September 7, 2014, 09:41
      • @Gleb,,

        i’m not using twitter, so here:

        From Prochorow:

        Какие ресурсы порекомендовать для получения актуальной информации о Войне? А кто его знает – “все врут” (ц) Д-р Хаус
        Тут пока своими глазами не увидишь, руками не пощупаешь – верить нельзя. Да и ситуация меняется просто молниеносно.
        Из реального (т. е. за информацию ручаюсь – ибо мат стоит в эфире с самого утра), последнего – террбат “Черкассы” отказался воевать (они в Волновахе) – в полном составе написали рапорта. Это добровольческие подразделения. Но они могут попасть под мобилизацию (3-я вчера закончилась, но начался призыв, если до 25 лет – могут уже принудительно призвать).”

        This truce is a fake. You know, what Moto & others are doing during this truce? Office work? Not only. Novorossia will win. Hopefully all of Ukraine and more.

        Strelkov soon in Strelkova?

        Liked by 1 person

        Posted by Frank Schäfer | September 10, 2014, 17:09
  5. I have read it now several times, can anyone but my interpret this differently than a total betrayal towards Novorussia? Sounds like surrender too me – on bad terms.

    Liked by 2 people

    Posted by Fri | September 7, 2014, 01:40
  6. I think Poroshenko said regarding his first “peace plan” that the decentralization of power means less than federalization only direct elections of Governors in these areas.

    Are there any legal problems with the date 01 September 2014 in the document, when the meeting in Minsk was on September 5th?

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Jana | September 7, 2014, 02:24
    • FROM THE EDITOR: I do not believe there is any issue with the date September 1, 2014 being mentioned in the document. The original consultations occurred then, and the September 5, 2014 meeting merely continued what had already been started.


      Posted by Gleb Bazov | September 7, 2014, 02:51
    • JANA: Re: Your question about the date– The Trilateral Contact Group met twice, on 9/1 and on 9/5 meeting was continued.
      I have worked in legal research. This document could not be enforced in a court of law: it is entirely ambiguous. The fact that it states some vague steps towards resolution of the cause of the conflict DOES NOT exclude others. This is a ceasefire and so states the minimum. Ceasefires do not typically determine the entire agreement between the parties. It is not an armistice. It is not a treaty. If it had specified that Donbass was to be independent there would have been no ceasefire. Please search ‘Andrew Mercouris Ceasefire Protocol’. He is a writer who elsewhere has described himself as having a specialty in internatonal law. In general terms a summary of negotiation states only those things upon which the parties can agree AT THE PRESENT TIME.


      Posted by Penelope Powell | September 17, 2014, 05:47
      • Please understand what a protocol is. Diplomatically a protocol is merely a preliminary memorandum often formulated and signed by diplomatic negotiators as a basis for a final convention or treaty . That means there has to be further negotiations to flesh out the meaning of each point and word in the protocol. Diplomatic protocols are always ambiguous for the most part. It may have one or two points of agreement like a starting time for a cesaefire etc.

        But it is important that DPR and LPR atttend ALL meetings of the tripartite group. You can often win diplomatically that which would take a long time or cost lives on the battlefield. What you have now is a frozen conflict. If DPR and LPR do not want to be stuck in a frozen conflict then they must go to all the follow-on Minsk negotiations. This is a point where it would be wise if they had an experienced International Lawyer or diplomat helping them at the negotiating table. They must try to determine the topics to be disucussed at the meeting. If possible they should lay out what they want to talk about. Don’t let your opponent always set the agenda.

        Ceasefires have nothing to do with boundaries. Demarkation of boundaries is an entitely separate negotiation and will probably be part of future negotiations. Boundaries can be decided by events which do not necessarily take place on the battlefield. If the conflict stays Frozen, then boundaries may never be fixed. You can seize land during fighting but lose it in negotiations.

        People are attaching too much important to the protocol as they apparently do not understand what a protocol is. A Ceasefire is merely a temporary agreement — it is NOT permanent. But it is a step on the road to an Armistice which is more permanent than a ceasefire and requires more detailed negotiations as it usually contains many terms. However, an Armistice is NOT a peace treaty which must be negotiated later ( in the US war with N. Korea there is an Armistaice, but the peace treaty was never negotiated.)

        Remember it is always in your interests to go to a negotiation. Refusing to go is wrong – since you can learn a great deal at negotiations.


        Posted by Dr. Judith Weller, Ph.D | September 17, 2014, 17:57
  7. It’s a complete sellout. Most of the participants to this are Freemasons Putin, Lavrov, Medvedev, Poreshenko and the DPR PM and Defense Minister.

    Answerw what happened to Strelkov and why.


    Posted by Freemasonry Watch | September 7, 2014, 02:38
    • That it is a sell out is not completely clear for me. I also like to know what happen with Strelkov. To say that the Russian leaders are Freemasons cannot be proved and is just a guess. Very many think the Russian leaders are very much opposed to Freemasonry, but I must admit that we cannot be sure or there is not any involvement from masons.


      Posted by worrienie (@worrienie) | September 7, 2014, 04:45
      • Freemasonry controlled the political parties in the ‘west’ from the time of Frederick the Great of Prussia, the last King of France and last Tsar of Russia. They always think it will save them, but it never does. Freemasonry operated secretly inside the leadership of the Bolsheviks and into the Soviet Communist Party, which brings us to the era of Bro. Putin, Bro. Poreshenko and Bro. Lukashenko. The Devil isn’t too picky.


        Posted by Freemasonry Watch | September 8, 2014, 05:00
  8. 1 – You can’t accept Kiev regime’s troops/mercenaries inside Donetsk and Lugansk.
    2 – Unnecessary, if Kiev regime’s troops/mercenaries are not in there.
    3 – No-sense. “temporary status”… ” in certain areas .” OMG.
    4 – Sure… Russia wants an European corrupted body to “Ensure permanent monitoring on the Ukrainian-Russian state border and verification by the OSCE.” Pay attention to the “PERMANENT.”
    5 – Release all those crazy fascists who killed many civilians and Russian reporters… Sure.
    6 – People do not want justice for people killed. Sure…
    7 – Oh, yes… Inclusive dialog between dangerous fascists and people of Donetsk and Lugansk.
    8 – Unnecessary, if Kiev regime’s troops/mercenaries are not in there.
    9 – Again: “temporay status” and “in certain areas.”
    10 – Of course… This point does not apply to Kiev regime. They can keep they mercenaries and militias in Donetsk and Lugansk because is Ukraine territory, isn’t it?
    11 – Revival of the region based on previous 10 nonsensical points.
    12 – The only point with common sense. Note that it is the point number 12 (last one) and not the point 1.

    What a circus.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Martín | September 7, 2014, 03:06
  9. What is worth noting, is that none of the signatories has any binding authority. Just some ambassadors, a former President, and a couple of dudes whose authority is not acknowledged. The wording is vague, and subject to willful misinterpretation. There is not much to go on here, but faith.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Greg | September 7, 2014, 04:45
  10. Every single word in this protocol can be fought over as to its meaning. What is a militia? Who are considered militias? Inclusive nation dialog – when, how, what does inclusive mean? What is an unlawful military formation? Who defines it? Elections – what are you voting on? What is the text of what the vote will be about? This is like all protocols – they have meaning only after they are interpreted and argued over, lawyers paradise. There is no fixed definition for a lot of the words in this protocol – the definitions come later after further meeting and arguments. Who is categorized as a militant, as a mercenary?

    As for the OSCE – they are no problem. They never have enough people to do anything – they just go to scattered locations. They are never around when you want them. Also who gets to be in the OSCE group? Russia is a member – will their members be there.

    The mere fact that Zakharchenko and Plotnitsky were at the meeting and are considered part of the trilateral commission means that they and the organization they represent have been recognized. It is not as if Russia and Ukraine did this protocol by themselves. They will be involved in thrashing out the meaning. Remember none of the words in this have been defined and there is lot to argue over and refuse to do if you don’t like the way the words are defined. This is only the first step in the hard bargaining to come. I am sure Russia will be there advising and interpreting.

    Some protocols take years to thrash out.


    Posted by Dr. Judith Weller | September 7, 2014, 04:49
  11. The purpose of this was just to deflect the NATO meeting and perhaps cause some infighting and confusion in the Kiev ranks. It wasn’t meant to last more than a day, and debating the fine points of law on such an intentionally ridiculous document is not a good use of time.

    Get back to your battlestations.

    The bigger picture is that Russia cannot and will not live with a hostile regime in Kiev. The problem has been and perhaps still is that many in the Russian elite wanted a united Ukraine. Yes, it seems impossible at this point, but you can understand how that would solve a lot of their problems. They just haven’t lived in a country full of Nazis, and don’t realize that a united Ukraine with 5,000,000 Nazi-friendly citizens is not going to be acceptable.

    Liked by 2 people

    Posted by Paul | September 7, 2014, 05:56
  12. The ceasefire agreement is only going to prolong the conflict. The Donetsk and Lugansk Republics should have insisted on full independence from Ukraine. Only separation from the fascist government that dominates Ukraine will bring peace to Novorossiya. Moreover, the US, UK, France, Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary have already indicated that they are going to supply weapons to Ukraine. The war is going to continue, and could likely escalate. In my opinion the US government in particular is looking to start a world war.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Apotheoun | September 7, 2014, 06:10
  13. The worst aspect is that if this document survives, there would be no Novorossia in the near future. Yet mere military victory, even with a political will, is not enough. Consider Armenia’s victory over Azerbaijan in the 90s in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Armenia is still very poor. Novorossia would not have been a prosperous state on its own. Russia would have certainly supported it, but Russia is desperate to avoid conflicts for now. Stolypin’s famous “20 years of peace” entreaty is again relevant.

    And while Novorossia may be lost, much of what it stood for can be salvaged. Those in East Ukraine would retain their relation to the Russian world — you can be sure that Putin would see to it. Novorossians, can now start a political building up anew — free of the influence of oligarchs. Party of Regions is out, and, hopefully, new elites have turned up. In short, there would be a new beginning of New Russia.

    If Putin plays it well (which, given Putin’s record, is almost certain), the situation would only steadily improve. Russia is becoming richer and stronger, and the US empire is decaying. An independent Novorossia would have dealt a great blow to Russia. Think of stationing of NATO infrastructure in West Ukraine, dramatically more spending for military infrastructure for Russia, insecure business environment, war-mania inside Russia, and so on. That Europe would have suffered the same is no consolation! It is not unreasonable to argue that, for now, a non-independent Novorossia can be better served by Russia that an independent Novorossia. (Which is significant because Novorossia as a state would have been dependent on Russia–all countries to its west would have boycotted it.)

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by niku | September 7, 2014, 07:11
    • Also, while talking of ‘independence’ and ‘non-independence’ in this context, we should remember that the words are used with a special meaning.

      Are East Ukrainians now “in the power of” West Ukrainians? Not at all. The state’s ultimate argument is force, but the West Ukrainians, even if they retain full control of the state machinery (as they have now), would desist applying force, because they have seen that this would result in an armed struggle.


      Posted by niku | September 7, 2014, 07:25
      • It isn’t about East and West Ukrainians in that sense. Kiev is controlled by the US. The war is the US against Russia over the control of Europe. Russia wants a Eurasian and multipolar future, and the US is using the Ukraine as a way to stop that.

        In other words, even if a majority of Western Ukrainians decide that peace and turning the Ukraine into a kind of Switzerland is a better approach, it won’t matter now. That isn’t what the US wants.

        Liked by 1 person

        Posted by Paul | September 7, 2014, 08:50
      • If Novorossiya is not independent it will simply be a part of Ukraine and NATO bases and US missiles will be stationed in Donetsk and Lugansk aimed at Russia. Russia will lose if Novorossiya does not separate from Ukraine. As an American I know what my government wants to do. The US wants to control the resources in Ukraine, and establish a military launching pad for its future attack on Russia.

        Liked by 1 person

        Posted by Apotheoun | September 7, 2014, 10:19
      • @Paul and @Apotheoun: I agree with your claims about what Ukraine and the US want. But I think it would be useful to keep the following point in mind.

        States and governments are not entities. They are themselves constituted of many stakeholders. Governments, in particular, are made of “special interest groups”.

        “Ukraine wants X”, but Ukraine is not monolithic. Fascists are just one “special interest group”. They, for now, control the government, but they may not do so tomorrow. The work of politicians is not to kill off their opponents(!) — even if they be fascists; their work is to skillfully (i) alter the synergy of the “special interest groups” facing them, or (ii) “change the calculus” (as the Americans call it). Little is gained by getting headlong in a fight offered to you. Instead, politicians work on subverting their non-entity-opponent.

        Far from this being a disaster, I think, this is another of Putin’s masterstroke. Indeed, the extent to which this seems a betrayal, is probably the extent to which this the right time for compromise. As Machiavelli says in The Prince, the time for making compromises is when you are ahead. Now, the Novorossian politicians would have a strong position in negotiations because everyone feels that the Novorossians were winning (and hence the feeling of “betrayal”).

        If the Novorossians can have the freedom that they want through negotiations, why should they wage a war? They had been waging a war because they were attacked; if the attackers get a beating and they retreat, why should the Novorossians keep fighting? “No compromise” is, often, a bad idea! Only the Americans can afford it!


        Posted by niku | September 7, 2014, 12:03
      • Niku,

        Novorossiya hardly exists. As it stands, it is somewhat alive, but on life support from the Kremlin and the local leadership now seems to be Akhmetov-friendly, which is nothing to be happy about. But the interest groups that change, like an oligarch’s leanings, are not what matters so much. The US wants and needs regime change in Russia for starters, with the actual need to break Russia up into warring/competing states. So the bigger issue is the civil war inside Moscow. Novorossiya and the Ukraine are simply part of the bigger picture. There won’t and can’t be peace as things stand. If Putin were removed and replaced with somewhat similar to Yeltsin, then, yes, peace could be achieved. Though the Russian population would collapse over time, and probably the Ukraine as well.

        This is an artificial war in a sense, so it doesn’t matter if Poroshenko were to be replaced by, say, Timoshenko. What is more relevant is that the US may have to go to the goal of a failed state. So just blow everything up, and try to get everyone to hate everyone. Somalia or Iraq might be good models. An endless war.

        Liked by 1 person

        Posted by Paul | September 7, 2014, 13:57
      • So as not to test our hosts’ patience, I have posted my reply to you on my blog (mentioned below). You (and everyone else) is welcome to continue the discussion there.

        Summary: It is clear that the US wants regime change in Russia. Russia does not has to convince the US of the error of its ways: it just has to deter the US.


        Liked by 1 person

        Posted by niku | September 7, 2014, 15:51
  14. If the Porky Junta and the Washington/NATO cabal abide by this “cease fire”, then I will have to reconsider my non-belief in miracles.

    Even if it was a legally binding document in so-called “International Law”, since when did the Empire act lawfully since 1776?

    OK the concept of International Law, as-such, did not emerge until the 20th Century after WWs 1 & 2, but various treaties got signed with native Americans, for instance, and all got broken by the Washington Empire … and that Empire has been at continuous war around the world, increasingly, for nearly 250 years, with the longest break being five years during the Great Depression.

    It will be a miracle if the Empire ceases the habit of global conquest, which effectively perpetuates the London Empire’s, centuries old, determination to destroy Russia – recall the Crimean War of the 1800s.

    Some things never change, so expect the worst from Minsk.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by gerryhiles | September 7, 2014, 07:35
  15. special status could be an autonomy. DNR/LNR won’t settle on nothing else. donbass is lost for ukraine forever
    there’s no ceasefire.
    no one believes in this plan and no one is disarming. on the contrary. NAF is preparing. people need a brake ffs!
    there’s no betrayal. so stop stirring shit and badmouth people will ya. your analysis is bs.


    Posted by nonazi | September 7, 2014, 08:02
  16. Firstly this protocol only says “reached an understanding with respect to the need to implement the following steps” so this commits the partys to nothing yet.
    Secondly in not naming Mr Zakharchenko and Mr Plotnitskiy as representatives of DPR, LPR or Novorossia they have signed as private individuals and the DPR, LPR and Novorossia have not been committed to anything. Nowhere in the signing of this document is it stated that they represent the DPR,LPR or Novorossia.
    Next Protocols to become legally binding need to be ratified by the respective parliaments – Technically if this Protocol was ratified it only commits the Ukrainian Army and Mr Zakharchenko and Mr Plotnitskiy – so long as these two men do not fire weapons they have not broken the agreement.

    Also if the Ukrainian Parliament did ratify the status of temporary self government of areas of Donbass – the Armies of the LPR, DPR and Novorossia would become legal, the private armies and mercinaries of the oligarchs would become illegal and the Ukrainian Army would only be permitted to enter on invitation.

    My take on this document is: firstly get the much needed humanitarian aid into the area, second to give the civillians a break from the constant fear of shelling and third to test the waters for a permanent solution. I do not believe that Mr Zakharchenko and Mr Plotnitskiy have in any way betrayed their people in fact quite the opposite, politically they have shown the world that they want a peaceful resolution to this conflict, if the Ukrainian parliament do not ratify the Protocol then they are shown to the world as the party not wanting peace.


    Posted by Melanie | September 7, 2014, 09:47
  17. Just my take:

    1. You can bind yourself to a contract that doesnt mention you as a party by signing it, I differ in that respect to Gleb. If you represent a different person, it is a question of competence. The signees must have competence from their respective entities. Did the DNR and LNR leaders have this competence from their parliaments/councils for their actions (signing a document the entities werent even mentioned in)?

    2. The Russian Ambassador signed the document. While Russia previously had tried – in legal terms – not to be a party to this conflict, you cant really hold this legal position any longer, if the Russian Ambassador indeed had the competence to sign a legally binding contract for Russia. The clause:
    “Remove unlawful military formations, military hardware, as well as militants and mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine.”
    is directed at Russia then.

    3. I honestly cannot understand the legal advisors to Putin, letting the Russian Ambassador sign this document. They must be fired for incompetence. Russia has pushed itself in a corner somehow. Or did Russia have no other choice? Were the sactions really hurting that they signed the document no matter the content? It is getting strange.

    4. But this is all legal talk and if the fightings resume, it will just be void anyway. But, unfortunately, it somehow sets precedence for future talks. It will be difficult to move back from here.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by jodocusquak | September 7, 2014, 10:59
  18. I suppose that the Novorossian delegation was told to agree on something by the deadline, or else NATO would intervene directly in the conflict and the Kremlin wanted to avoid this at all costs.

    When you negotiate under a hard deadline with no ability to walk off a bad deal, this is the kind of terms you get. I see no other reason for the Novorossian delegation to agree to a document like this.

    If this supposition is correct, this document was never meant to be complied with.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by The other paul | September 7, 2014, 14:36
  19. Hello Im hoping the editor takes notice of what Im about to post:
    As a Canadian watching all these events from afar and trying to see the Bigger Picture I must tell you that I am VERY worried and nervous about this Ceasefire agreement and all of its contents.I think its a sham , a “cover” or diversion and a way for the other side to re-group & buy time to position themselves in such a way to be in a stronger position to squash any further “negotiations” or recognitions for Novorossia and temper it.

    When I see posts such as I did just prior to the announcement of the “Ceasefire agreement” for a planned genocide of the Donbass ,with which to “blame on Russia”.
    …..I dont hesitate for a minute to believe that these monsters will go to such lengths, nor will they stop their planning even now.

    Matter of fact I dont doubt for a second that at this very moment there is some covert operations going on in Kiev (under the CIA) for enacting some upcoming atrocity that will “kickstart “ this whole process all over again , so Russia will enter into the fray.

    I also found something disturbing that may well implicate my own Prime Minister in this entire plot which started in February- which indicates to me the tenaciousness involved to achieve their objective.In other words…the Powers involved have absolutely NO PLANS of letting go, and keeping

    Novorossia “contained” is neccesary…..and I highly doubt Kiev has any plans of giving it recognition as is desired.
    THEY ARE NOT GOING TO STOP NOW. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO LET GO.TOO MANY HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AT STAKE ,too many parties involved getting a piece of the pie and the piece de resistance : NATO achieving what IT wants in Ukraine.

    Im just passing on the information.
    You can dissect this anyway you wish and I wish I could see any “posotives’ or “good” in any part of this Ceasefire agreement….but, knowing parts of the bigger picture I cant.I only see a Temporary ploy & as someone else posted:
    “Get back to the Battle stations “-because these bastards will find a way to “disrupt” the peace anyways.
    Sometimes…you have to cut off the head of The snake.PERIOD.

    This is unconfirmed and perhaps the representatives of the DNR and LNR are aware of it, but I found this only hours before the “proposed Ceasefire Plan” came forth and I would not put it past them to STILL enact this.

    “News Flash about a planned US initiated attack told by Alexander Ivanovich:
    Thank you very much. I would like to ask journalists, politicians and the people a favor. Please defend Ukraine. I’m asking you to defend it like a territory in which it is still possible to live.
    Yesterday around 3 am Moscow time, we received confirmation from Kiev that a sinister provocation was in preparation. The United States of America are trying to use chemical weapons in Donbass with the help of fascists [Kiev forces]. They will try to use these weapons in the following manner: They will first strike Donetsk and Luhansk, then within a 40-50 minutes interval they will strike the ammonia reservoirs. Then, if the consequences are really dire, within 20 hours they will strike again, but this time with real military chemical weapons, you understand? This diversion is designed to have barbaric consequences and here is what is being done to make it happen.
    Yesterday Mr. Biden, Vice-President of the United States led a cover-up operation on this information. It was officially determined what will be said, namely that Russia has fired missiles and heavy artillery on the Donbass territory.
    Why would they do this? What are these lies for?
    That is what is planned.
    When the Americans together with the junta strike elements that are dangerous for the environment, they will also say that it was done by Russia, that the Russians overlooked this important material and accidentally destroyed it, that is how the Russians are portrayed.

    Why am I saying all this? At first glance, the citizens will think: what can a lesser mortal like us do?
    Well if we do everything we can now to make this information widely known, then we will pull the rug from under the [Kiev Junta] Barbarians … They won’t be able to make these provocations throughout the world.
    That’s why I’m calling on journalists, regardless of the position you hold, whether it is for or against the junta and even on Poroshenko’s Channel 5, just let us defend Ukrainians.
    End the war once and for all, people must live there! And if we allow such a catastrophe to occur,
    Ukraine will not support two catastrophes, one which happened in Chernobyl and another one in Donbass.
    The country will then be paralyzed for hundreds of years. Therefore, in order to save the people, the children, the elderly, let’s unite, stand back-to-back to not let this happen.

    Then I made another discovery which helps me to better explain & understand my own Countries Prime Ministers rabid response and full involvement in this “Nazi plot” and total cover-up and agression towards Russia.
    Its called “FOLLOW THE MONEY”…and “ITS ALL ABOUT THE OIL and the Natural Gas”… and a good old fashioned Land grab.

    Feel free to peruse the following document
    .I think it speaks volumes.The company involved is from Calgary Alberta where my Prime Minister is from and no doubt he has his hand in this pot as with all “Energy deals”….and he is not keen on losing this one.

    Kulczyk Oil Ventures Reserves Evaluation Report 2012 (CALGARY ALBERTA CANADA)

    At the request of Kulczyk Oil Ventures ( Kulczyk “Oil” or Company ) RPS Engergy Consultants Ltd (LONDON, ENGLAND) (RPS ENERGY) has prepared an evaluation of the natural gas and natural gas liquids reserves and the net present values of those reserves for the Vergunskoye,Olgovskoye,Makeevskoye,and Krutogorovskoye license interest in Ukraine as of Dec 31 2012.

    The Licences are situated in the Lugansk Region in the North Eastern Part of Ukraine in the Dnieper -Donest Basin.The area accounts for 90% of the Oil and gas production of Ukraine and is well served by transport infrastructure.


    Hopefully this information can be of some benefit to your representatives of Donestk & Lugansk
    .Ill be praying as I have been for something good to come of this…but my gut is telling me this is a set up and all the parties whom DID agree to this “plan” need to be notified NOT TO let their guard down even for a moment.

    Liked by 2 people

    Posted by JEANNIE | September 7, 2014, 14:48
  20. My thanks for the translation and for the other material at this website. I’d like to make the following eight points, which I’d expect are already known to you but which taken together amount to one broader point.

    (1) Ukraine’s military forces have remained united and intact — didn’t split into pro-rebel and anti-rebel sides — and the number of individual solider defectors to the rebel side has been “small”. (2) Kiev’s military recruitment population base is ten times bigger than that of the rebels. The number of armed soldiers on Kiev’s side today is roughly five times bigger, or more than five times bigger, than the number of armed rebels appears to be notwithstanding that the number of armed men on the rebel side is a matter of uncertainty and dispute. (3) The Russian government has not supplied the rebels militarily, and will not. Russia has been crystal clear about that. The Russian government lied, basically, about Russian Green Men in Crimea (and nearly everybody in Russia knows this), but it’s not lying about Donetsk/Lugansk (and nearly everybody in Russia knows this too). (4) The rebels have practically no arms and armaments except what they’ve been able to capture from the Ukraine army, whereas the great majority of Ukraine’s arms and armaments have not been captured. (5) The fighting has been occurring on the rebels’ home territory, and a renewal of fighting would be in the same territory for the most part, and would damage and ruin that territory economically. Meanwhile the rest of the country has been at peace, paying taxes and producing goods, including war goods. This would for the most part continue to be true in the event of renewal of fighting. (6) Kiev’s Western supporters have decided to give Kiev a somewhat impactful cash infusion: I read US$17 billion has been committed for delivery over years 2014 and 2015 combined, an amount which is equal to about US$1000 per household in Ukraine, in a country whose GDP per capita per year is about US$4000. (7) The majority of the local people in Donetsk/Lugansk do not support the armed rebellion — the truth of this point is demonstratable and provable, but I’m not going to take the time to do it here today. (8) Because of the above seven factors, the Ukraine side is far better positioned to win a long war of attrition against the rebellion. The Ukraine side has the option of switching to such a lower-intensity mode of fighting if its recent failures in intense close combat were adjudged unfixable. This mode could include destroying and re-destroying water, electricity, and natural gas supplies in the rebel territory, and using intermittent long range artillery to keep rebel-controlled areas unsafe for normal economic life, and keeping this up endlessly, for years. You may call this “terrorism” or call it “fighting against terrorism”, but either way this is an option in Kiev’s hands.

    The military strengths of the two sides are such that, in my opinion, the rebels would be wise to accept the decentralization of power that’s on offer today, and use it as a civil platform for potential further separation in the longer term. After decentralization shall have been implemented as promised, the eastern provinces will have locally collected tax revenues, locally elected leaders, and stronger political institutions locally. From that, there is a good platform from which to further decentralize or completely separate in the longer term, if the community values in the east were to move further in that direction.


    Posted by seanwal111111 | September 7, 2014, 16:55
  21. I JUST FOUND THIS and have to add it.

    I KNEW IT …………

    Heres a transcript from a recent interview:

    In Avakov’s Eyes Killing People, a Small Price for Nazification of Ukraine and Suppressing the Revolt of Oligarchs’ “Slaves”

    Just before midnight on September 5, thus only some five hours after the introduction of the strange and politically problematic ceasefire agreed upon in Minsk on the same day, Arsen Avakov gave a TV interview.
    He came to the interview from the session of the inner security circle of the junta itself.
    Evidently, a key topic of the briefing of the security strongmen of the junta was planning, strategy and a course action with respect to the “ceasefire.”
    The ceasefire was also, consequently, the topic which opened the interview.

    In this case, Avakov’s fatigue, arrogance, and insider’s knowledge all combined to reveal not only the character of this Nazi oligarch, but also much of the character of the current oligarchic regime in Kiev, which came to power through “the February revolution,” as Avakov dubbed the Maidan putsch in this interview.

    The interview is thus very revealing and also very instruction
    . How do you know when you talk to a Nazi?
    Avakov shows how. He is in charge of the ministry of interior, hence also the police.
    In addition, he is also in charge of the so-called National Guard, which is formed as storm troopers or junta’s special forces.
    These battalions are formed of people who sign up for strictly political and ideological reasons. That’s why the Azov battalion with explicit Nazi symbolism is one of them.

    The so-called ceasefire

    On the subject of the ceasefire, Avakov had to say right off the following:

    “The agreed ceasefire is nothing but a clever cunning on our part in order to achieve what we want, which is to win.”

    To this effect, the ceasefire is but a small tactical measure; the strategic goal is to overthrow “Putin, the tyrant” and to change the system of Russia itself.

    This real greater objective and the current war in Ukraine were “planned for years and even for decades.”
    If so, then the personality of Putin is used both as a cover and symbolic shortcut for this decades-old plan.

    However, “the current balance [in Donbass with the rebels on the attack] is absurd.”
    The junta’s and its handlers’ expectation was that the uprising in Donbass would have been defeated by now.
    That’s what Avakov himself stated some three weeks ago in a similar interview.

    However, what happened in the meantime, according to Avakov, dramatically changed the situation. Avakov claims that Russia introduced its own heavily armed troops into the conflict. The situation thus radically changed in the course of August when “Russia inserted 6-7 battalions with 4-7,000 troops.” Without this Russian aid, “we would have won by now,” Avakov argues.


    According to Avakov, any recognition of the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics as autonomous, administrative, or political entities is completely out of question.

    For Avakov and the junta, the republics are “terrorist” organizations, “bandits.”

    “I don’t think,” he said, “that any agreements made [by Kiev] will [ever] recognize the Donetsk or Lugansk Republic.

    ” In his view, there is, therefore, “nothing for [the junta] to talk about with these DNR and LNR bandits.”Or as he also put it:, the junta sees the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics as nothing but “bandits who serve global interests of the empire of evil,” which is for him Russia.

    Avakov also sees the talk about federalization merely as empty chatter or a necessary ruse:
    All the talk about “federalization,” Avakov claims, was made up by Merkel.

    Federalization is out of question, and talk about it has no substance, in fact.

    De facto confession to the Odessa massacre or How does a Nazi oligarch differ from a normal oligarch?
    According to Avakov, himself an oligarch in his own right, comrade oligarch Akhmetov could have and should have suppressed the revolt of his Donetsk slaves in the beginning, but he didn’t see the danger and what should have been done clearly enough.
    Indeed, Avakov called the people in Donbass who rose up against the Banderite junta “slaves”–“slaves of their oligarchs.

    In Avakov’s Nazi oligarchic eyes, the working people and miners of Donbass are “vatniks”–called so after the winter jackets worn by and popular with Red Army soldiers.
    Ukrainian Banderites and Nazi nationalists are now using the expression as a blanket derogatory term for the Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians. For these Ukrainian Nazis, “vatniks” is a colloquial way for calling the Russians and the granddaughters and grandsons of the victors in the Great Patriotic War against Nazism “subhumans.”
    And, faithfully to Nazism, for Avakov, “vatnik” and “subhuman” means a slave (rab)

    The Donbass people–these “vatniks” who dared to stand up to new Banderism and the oligarchic junta–are from Avakov’s point of view, “poor, not very rich, low paid, uneducated, without perspective or understanding, they cannot change or adapt and are clueless about the benefits of true European civilization.”
    According to Avakov, they are slaves who, moreover, “liked to be slaves–to their Donbass oligarchs such as Yanukovich, Akhmetov and others … for years they have thus been exploited as slaves by the oligarchic regime.”
    But then “something happened” with these oligarchic slaves and some of them “decided to play Robin Hoods and to rebel.



    Liked by 2 people

    Posted by JEANNIE | September 7, 2014, 17:15
  22. There are several things to remember about this conflict. You needed the cease fire to repair infrastructure, fix people’s home, get ready for winter – even NATO recognizes that Kiev was beaten and could never win the war. For Kiev to win it needed western military assistance but that was never going to happen since Ukraine is not a NATO country. The US is busy trying to destroy ISIL (and we no longer have the military doctrine that mandates we can fight two major wars on two different fronts) so the only front we are going to be in militarily is Iraq and Syria. As to supplying arms to Kiev – most of NATO doesn’t have army or spare equipment (does anyone thing that Slovakia has spare arms around) – and the US will not supply lethal weapons (it has already stated that it won’t) – and Poroshenko and Yats have been begging them, but with not luck. To a large extent NATO is a rhetorical association. The only countries that have any military clout are the US, UK, France, Italy and probably Turkey. The rest are paper tigers.

    The road to independence is a long one that is more diplomatic than military. And you need a Russian buy in first of all. Nothing will happen diplomatically without Russia. And Kiev will try to win diplomatically what it lost militarily. Look at Kosovo – it still is not recognized internationally. It can’t get into the UN or get a seat on any committees. It is blocked. But first you need to stand up and show that you can support your citizens’ basic needs, can get an economy up and running so that you aren’t a basket-case like Kiev is right now. You need to get your industry up and running and get some trade going – most likely with Russia to start with.

    You have to demonstrate that you are a viable county – with recognized borders, a viable economy, and a viable political system in which transfers of power take place without brawls in the streets. In other words you don’t want to look or act like a banana republic. All of this take time and it is the hard part. The Military is the easy part – the rest is a whole lot harder and that is what must be worked on now.

    From many of the posts I sense frustration with the Protocol, but you are forgetting that there are future meetings which will serve to define and spell out in great detail all the points in the protocol. Until these words start to be defined specifically there is nothing to get worked up about. The important thing will be who goes to these future meetings, who represents you and who will help you – and you need someone with diplomatic experience in these types of negotiations to help. This person will probably be the Representative from Russia.

    In the short term the most important part of the protocol deals in vague terms with some election. The words, content, date etc will be spelled out soon. That election is the thing that should get the most attention. As words will really matter here you should make sure that whatever date is set that you have the time and “foot soldiers” you need to mobilize a winning “get out the vote” campaign. Kiev will certainly be rounding up people to vote against you. And remember this election will be monitored probably by the OSCE.

    I wish you all the best of luck, you are embarking upon a long and difficult road. You did the right thing to escape from the Kiev’s clutches – as I suspect Kiev is headed towards real disaster and eventual financial collapse if not default.


    Posted by Dr. Judith Weller, Ph.D | September 7, 2014, 19:44
  23. I think both President Putin and Novarossia leaders know that the war has just started! Sept-Oct are going to be crucial months: EU and Obama have already prepared more sanctions “in case”: in case of what? they know they will break the ceasefire saying that the separatists did it. That nothingness of Hollande is waiting until October to deliver the Mistral: some false flags, something big will happen soon. I hope and pray that Novorossia will be ready to face it.


    Posted by liana | September 8, 2014, 20:47
    • The EU has announced it is going to go ahead with sanctions. I know this is something the US has pushed as many countries did not want to go ahead – this is the US actions.

      I think if talks do not start soon on the status of Donetsk and Lugansk the issue should be pushed. In all efforts to flesh out procols and tell people what all the words mean, there is tendancy to put off anything difficult to the end – in some cases that means NEVER – but the negotiations just stay frozen.

      To prevent that representativies of Donets and Luhansk must push for an early resolution of that issue. Remember Kiev had parliamentary elections coming on Oct 26, and I am sure they will try to push everything about status off until after the 26h

      An important question is will parliamentary electons be held in the Donetsk and Luhanss Oblasts? Kiev will push for it. Are you prepared to puch back and say NO. ?


      Posted by Dr. Judith Weller, Ph.D | September 8, 2014, 21:10


  1. Pingback: Protocol of the Trilateral Contact Group – Minsk, September 5, 2014 | asidewrite - September 7, 2014

  2. Pingback: Protocol of the Trilateral Contact Group – Minsk, September 5, 2014 | SLAVYANGRAD.org | keesened's Blog - September 7, 2014

  3. Pingback: Protocol of the Trilateral Contact Group – Minsk, September 5, 2014 | civilizationchanges - September 7, 2014

  4. Pingback: Ukraine separatist leaders 'ready' to order ceasefire - September 7, 2014

  5. Pingback: Protocol of the Trilateral Contact Group – Minsk, September 5, 2014 | SLAVYANGRAD.org | gerryhiles - September 7, 2014

  6. Pingback: Protokoll der Trilateralen Kontaktgruppe – Minsk, 5. September 2014 | SLAVYANGRAD.de - September 7, 2014

  7. Pingback: Text of ceasefire agreement in Ukraine, Sept 5, 2014 | A Socialist in Canada - September 7, 2014

  8. Pingback: MILNEWS.ca Ukrainian Update – 072215UTC Sept 14 | MILNEWS.ca Blog - September 7, 2014

  9. Pingback: Scotland and Ukraine | peacefare.net - September 8, 2014

  10. Pingback: Full Protocol from the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine - Ukraine War.info | Ukraine War.info - September 8, 2014

  11. Pingback: Protocol of the Trilateral Contact Group – Minsk, September 5, 2014 | Beyond Highbrow - Robert Lindsay - September 9, 2014

  12. Pingback: RUSSIA & UKRAINE: JRL 2014-#197 table of contents with links :: Monday 8 September 2014 | Johnson's Russia List - September 9, 2014

  13. Pingback: RUSSIA & UKRAINE: JRL 2014-#198 table of contents with links :: Tuesday 9 September 2014 | Johnson's Russia List - September 9, 2014

  14. Pingback: Vladimir Suchan: the Minsk Sabotage & the Mozgovoi Manifesto | SLAVYANGRAD.org - September 10, 2014

  15. Pingback: The Arithmetics of Diplomatic Theatre | SLAVYANGRAD.org - September 19, 2014



  18. Pingback: The Galician Backhand (II) | Oriental Review - November 5, 2014

  19. Pingback: The Galician Backhand (II) – orientalreview 05.11.2014 | Steven25's Blog - November 5, 2014

  20. Pingback: Arms to sadists: US Congress urges Pres. Obama to provide Ukraine with more torture techniques | Oriental Review - March 26, 2015

  21. Pingback: Arms to the sadists: US Congress urges Pres. Obama to provide Ukraine with more torture techniques | The Vineyard of the Saker - March 27, 2015

  22. Pingback: US Congress urges President Obama to Provide Ukraine with More Weapons, Encourages Torture | PushBack.US - March 27, 2015

  23. Pingback: Arms to the Sadists | News for the Revolution - March 29, 2015

  24. Pingback: Russian NPO Details Grisly Ukrainian Torture Techniques | Timber Exec - April 6, 2015

  25. Pingback: Reformatting Ukraine is on the agenda | Oriental Review - June 3, 2015

  26. Pingback: Reformatting Ukraine is on the agenda |  SHOAH - June 5, 2015

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Latest map of hostilities (25/01)

Our Partners:


Archived Briefings

A Record of Our Times

September 2014
« Aug   Oct »
Follow SLAVYANGRAD.org on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 31,881 other followers

Latest Briefings

Blog Stats

  • 1,579,797 hits
%d bloggers like this: