This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Minsk agreements article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Minsk II page were merged into Minsk agreements on 20 August 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Not sure Radio Free Europe or the BBC should be used here as they're clearly biased towards Russia with one actually being a USA funded propaganda operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:483:4500:2940:C519:2F8A:C274:3F3F ( talk) 03:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
You need to read WP:DAB. We don't disambiguate from things that don't have the same name. We don't have an article entitled "1991 Minsk agreement". RGloucester — ☎ 12:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Minsk Agreement (2014) → 2014 Minsk agreement – User Glockhester moved this page without consensus and edit redirect to avoid the reverted moving. Not a proper noun. No "Minsk Agreement" in reliable sources. Only "Minsk agreement". Also there was 1991 Minsk agreement in Belarus per [2]. NickSt ( talk) 12:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Looking more at the protocol, its development and signing, seems like it was only agreed to by Ukraine. Is does not appear to be any more than a statement of Poroshenko's peace plan + an agreement for a ceasefire? Donbass and Luhansk were not involved in writing it, and they never agreed to Poroshenko's peace plan and were consitantly against it. OSCE does not refer to the whole protocol as an "agreement", rather only the ceasefire. http://www.osce.org/cio/123245 Does anyone have any evidence that Donbass and Luhansk agree/agreed to the protocol in enterity? Note that the OSCE did not assure both sides of their support, only Poroshenko. Why? Because, it seems like, it was purely something for Poroshenko to fulfill. This needs to be fixed. Much emphasis has been laid on the protocol as if it was an agreement nutted out by the opposing sides. Certaily not, Donbass and Luhansk were not involved. Looks like this is a distortion commonly reflected in the media (can someone check non-western media, I have only had a breif look) and is not helping bring dialogue and ultimately peace. The two sides never realy met in Minsk. They only agreed to a cease fire - on that basis they put their signature to the protocol (at the time when Poroshenko stated he would abide by the protocol) and later an all for all prisoner swap. PS. I have added some official details to the article. Tobeortobe ( talk) 01:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
"...Ukraine, the Russian Federation and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and representatives of individual regions of Donetsk and Lugansk regions reached an understanding on the following measures to secure agreement on a bilateral cease the use of weapons." In the text of the protacol there was no "agreement" it was not even phrased as an agreement. Your secondary sources likely also claimed that there were weapons of mass desctruction in Iraq... Let's discount any seconday source that does not correlate to the primary source unless they provide hard evidence. Donetsk and Lugansk have never agreed to Poroshenko's peace plan. The protocol is Poroshenko's peace plan, so they never agreed to the protocol. If there is a claim that Donetsk and Lugansk agreed to Proshenko's peace plan then where is the prof supporting this, where is the official statment from Donetsk and Lugansk, a statement from a wester media source is hardly proof.
Response to Third Opinion Request: |
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Minsk agreements and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. |
Opinion: Under Wikipedia policy secondary, third-party sources are always strongly preferred over primary sources. BURDEN, part of the Verifiability policy says, "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (Emphasis added.) While primary sources can sometimes be used, secondary sources are to be used if available. Moreover, the use of primary sources also has the disadvantage of not allowing even the slightest degree of analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation. PRIMARY, which is part of the No original research policy, says "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." (Emphasis in original.) The subject of what is or is not a reliable secondary source in Wikipedia is a fairly complicated subject, but the best starting point can be found at SOURCES. Due to the difficulty of properly understanding legal materials such as statutes, court decisions, and treaties, the mere apparent conflict between a legal primary source and a secondary source does not necessarily mean that the secondary source is incorrect. If there are reliable secondary sources which bear on this issue, they are to be preferred over primary ones. |
What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.— TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
PS: Tobeortobe, please sign your posts. Not doing so makes it very difficult for anyone trying to follow the conversation to figure out who said what. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
https://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/look-at-these-wonderful-ceasefire-lines-and-tell-me-how-each-side-can-withdraw-15-km-at-all-points/ 85.220.121.185 ( talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Minsk Protocol. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The Minsk II “package of measures” is merely an addendum to the Minsk agreement, appended after the original was found to be ineffective. Neither Minsk nor Minsk II stands alone. As long as the two articles are separate, a reader can’t understand the totality nor the current state of the subject by reading just one or the other. They should be merged and edited to create a comprehensive article. — Michael Z. 2018-07-31 19:05 z
Regarding "To ensure the permanent monitoring of the Ukrainian-Russian border and verification by the OSCE with the creation of security zones in the border regions of Ukraine and the Russian Federation." It appears to me the zone is on the western side of the Donbas region entirely within Ukraine and no where near the Russian Federation. To me this sentence reads as if the security zone is along the Ukrainian-Russian Border. Pastel Abyss ( talk) 05:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Article needs an update, Russia had proceeded to recognize the Donbas republics as independent states and not a part of Ukraine, effectively withdrawing from the Minsk agreement. Midgetman433 ( talk) 19:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/world/europe/donetsk-luhansk-donbas-ukraine.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-ukraine-donetsk-luhansk-putin-b2019840.html
The two sources I can access say “Minsk agreement, a peace deal that will likely be abandoned as a result of the Russian decision” and recognizing independence “would damage the Minsk peace process.” Let’s not say “is withdrawing” until sources do. It’s possible they will insist they are not withdrawing (going to read the news now). — Michael Z. 20:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Minsk Agreement no longer exists: Putin
https://theweek.com/ukraine/1010467/putin-says-the-minsk-agreements-which-aimed-at-peace-in-eastern-ukraine-no-longer
Midgetman433 (
talk) 19:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm astounded by @ RGloucester:'s explanation of his/her removal of my work. How can the indication of dates and sources be "an attempt to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE"? I'm truly flabbergasted. How does the identification of references by invisible strings "create a WP:FALSEBALANCE"? How does the addition of new paragraphs where they are warranted create a WP:FALSEBALANCE"? Has the @RGloucester account been hacked? Or am I being punked? Armduino ( talk) 17:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
“ | Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources; alternatively, they may be tagged with the
|
” |
“ | Beyond the economic inequities brought about by rational choice, RAND must also grapple with the dilemma of its original sin:
subordinating morality to the advancement of U.S. government policy. This is the millstone borne by all the major participants in the RAND story. |
” |
add this:
In June 2022 on Espreso TV Poroshenko said the Minsk agreements “meant nothing” and claimed credit for giving Kiev enough time to militarize. He cited Sun Tzu’s stratagem, who, according to Poroshenko, emphasized the art of avoiding war.<ref>[https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/ukraine/news/article/ukraine-q-a-17-jun-2022 France Diplomacy Ukraine - Q&A (17 Jun. 2022)]. June 17, 2022. </ref><ref>[https://ruskline.ru/news_rl/2022/06/18/poroshenko_kosvenno_priznal_namerenie_nachat_agressiyu_protiv_rossii Poroshenko indirectly admitted the intention to start aggression against Russia]</ref><ref>[https://news.rambler.ru/world/48843550-poroshenko-minskie-soglasheniya-dali-kievu-vosem-let-na-sozdanie-vsu/ Poroshenko: Minsk agreements gave Kyiv eight years to create the Armed Forces of Ukraine]</ref>
Happydaze1 ( talk) 00:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Why is there no reference to the Minsk Agreement from 1991 to end the USSR? 2603:6080:D140:B00:80B9:1D4D:4B71:B529 ( talk) 19:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Please add a comma after the word "said" in the sentence with the following phrase: Zakharchenko said "These are historical times." H7opolo ( talk) 18:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Russia sent Spec Ops to Donbass, from Crimea, to organise, fund and arm the traitorous rebels, not noted here in any detail, Russia armed forces also fostered unrest and forced a response by Ukr both here 2014 Russian cross-border shelling of Ukraine and here January 2015 Mariupol rocket attack then used the responses to Cry "Oh Poor Russian speaking loyalists, being bullied" Czar Putin and his minions still bleating the same bull shit. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:84ED:7F56:FFD5:9F9C ( talk) 03:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
This artice 79.139.152.104 ( talk) 18:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Two places where I think the insertion of later developments interrupts the flow of thought or introduces ambiguity:
3rd paragraph of Section 2.4, Efficacy: "The parliament of Ukraine approved a law on "special status" for Donbas on 17 March, as specified by Minsk II.[60] Later, in 2019, Ukraine's parliament voted to extend regulations giving limited self-rule to separatist-controlled eastern regions, a prerequisite for a deal to settle the five-year conflict there.[61] The law was immediately criticised by Ukrainian politicians, ..."
Is "the law" of the last sentence the 2015 or 2019 actions of parliament? I think the "the law" should be clarified, or the bold text removed or moved to later in the section.
1st paragraph of Section 3, Evaluation and abandonment: "Following the fall of Debaltseve in February 2015, about one-third of the Donbas region remained in separatist control.[87] A few days before the 2022 Russian invasion, French president Emmanuel Macron and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken opined that the Minsk agreements were "the way forward" to end the conflict in Donbas. Blinken added that it was an incomplete step as there were other outstanding issues.[88] The aim of the Russian intervention in Donbas was to establish pro-Russian governments that, upon reincorporation into Ukraine, would facilitate Russian interference in Ukrainian politics.[89] The agreements were thus highly favourable to the Russian side, as their implementation would accomplish these goals.[90]"
This section is chronological but the paragraph starts with details from 2015 then spends the next three sentences on details from 2022 that aren't really necessary to understanding the first sentence. The bold text should be moved to its proper place in the chronological order. Clay Bahl ( talk) 03:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the Evaluation and abandonment section, following the sentence:
Angela Merkel said in 2022 that the agreement had been "an attempt to give Ukraine time" and that Ukraine used it to strengthen its armed forces.
I would like to add after this: Some commentators viewed this statement as an attempt to allay criticism that her actions at the time were tantamount to "appeasement". [1] [2]
PaKYr ( talk) 02:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template.
Mako001
(C)
(T) 🇺🇦 13:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2607:FEA8:9600:B400:B92D:6390:3050:B343 ( talk) 05:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
fought between armed Russian separatist groups and Armed Forces of Ukraine, with Russian regular forces playing a central part.[1] The first, known as the Minsk Protocol, was drafted in 2014 by the Trilateral Contact Group
Instead of above, read: Ukrain imposed war in 2014 on minority Russian speaking population in the Donbas region.
It’s said that the claims of genocide by Putin are considered baseless, however it does not actually look into the matter, such as looking into the complete banning of the Russian language in media, schools, etc. Or the petal mines (which are illegal under the Geneva Convention) in Donetsk by Ukraine in parks, roads, etc.
There needs to be at least some mention of the reasons Putin gives, and sources for that. 2601:282:1901:74C0:9507:5DC3:C200:A47D ( talk) 01:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Category:Belarus in the Russo-Ukrainian War to this article. Maedc ( talk) 15:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the sentence "and that Ukraine, not Russia, was to blame for their collapse" in the last paragraph of the introduction" to "and that Ukraine has failed to implement them." This more accurately describes Russia's position, which is that they Minsk agreements have already failed prior to the invasion. El819 ( talk) 22:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I think it is worth adding one more sentence at the end ot the article (after the sentence about Merkel's words):
Vladislav Surkov, Putin's aide for Ukraine policy from 2013 to 2020, has said in 2023 that he worked on the Minsk agreements based on the idea that they should not be fulfilled.
Ahatanhel ( talk) 22:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the last sentence of the second paragraph of the lead, please change "Donbass" to "Donbas", for consistency with the rest of the article. 95.44.50.222 ( talk) 10:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Angela Merkel said in 2022 that the agreement had been "an attempt to give Ukraine time" and that Ukraine used it to strengthen its armed forces.
I suggest adding the following: In a subsequent interview, François Hollande concurred. [1]. Both pointed out the significant difficulties that Ukraine had in 2014/15 to fend off Russian, DPR and LPR forces. END Tolmount ( talk) 00:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
References
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/09/20/world/united-nations-general-assembly?referringSource=widget&widgetType=top-stories&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare Victor Grigas ( talk) 20:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
The Merkel sentence that "Angela Merkel said in 2022 that the agreement had been "an attempt to give Ukraine time" and that Ukraine used it to strengthen its armed forces." is incorrect.
In a 2022 interview with Die Zeit, Merkel was asked whether, in hindsight, she regrets any of her actions. Merkel replied: "I believed that the attempt by Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO, which was discussed in 2008, was wrong. They did not have the necessary preconditions, nor were the consequences of such a decision fully considered - both in terms of Russia's actions against Georgia and Ukraine and in terms of NATO and the rules of support. And the 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time." Merkel said it about preparing to join NATO, not about arming.
This should be removed or changed.
Original text:
ZEIT: Man kann aber doch plausibel finden, wie man in früheren Umständen gehandelt hat, und es angesichts der Ergebnisse trotzdem heute für falsch halten.
Merkel: Das setzt aber voraus, auch zu sagen, was genau die Alternativen damals waren. Die 2008 diskutierte Einleitung eines Nato-Beitritts der Ukraine und Georgiens hielt ich für falsch. Weder brachten die Länder die nötigen Voraussetzungen dafür mit, noch war zu Ende gedacht, welche Folgen ein solcher Beschluss gehabt hätte, sowohl mit Blick auf Russlands Handeln gegen Georgien und die Ukraine als auch auf die Nato und ihre Beistandsregeln. Und das Minsker Abkommen 2014 war der Versuch, der Ukraine Zeit zu geben. Chuubii ( talk) 17:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Merkel sentence that "Angela Merkel said in 2022 that the agreement had been "an attempt to give Ukraine time" and that Ukraine used it to strengthen its armed forces." is incorrect.
In a 2022 interview with Die Zeit, Merkel was asked whether, in hindsight, she regrets any of her actions. Merkel replied: "I believed that the attempt by Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO, which was discussed in 2008, was wrong. They did not have the necessary preconditions, nor were the consequences of such a decision fully considered - both in terms of Russia's actions against Georgia and Ukraine and in terms of NATO and the rules of support. And the 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time." Merkel said it about preparing to join NATO, not about arming.
This should be removed or changed.
Original text:
ZEIT: Man kann aber doch plausibel finden, wie man in früheren Umständen gehandelt hat, und es angesichts der Ergebnisse trotzdem heute für falsch halten.
Merkel: Das setzt aber voraus, auch zu sagen, was genau die Alternativen damals waren. Die 2008 diskutierte Einleitung eines Nato-Beitritts der Ukraine und Georgiens hielt ich für falsch. Weder brachten die Länder die nötigen Voraussetzungen dafür mit, noch war zu Ende gedacht, welche Folgen ein solcher Beschluss gehabt hätte, sowohl mit Blick auf Russlands Handeln gegen Georgien und die Ukraine als auch auf die Nato und ihre Beistandsregeln. Und das Minsker Abkommen 2014 war der Versuch, der Ukraine Zeit zu geben. Chuubii (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Chuubii ( talk) 13:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
the 2014 agreement had been "an attempt to give Ukraine time" - which it had used to become more able to defend itself. Are you sure there isn't something elsewhere in the interview which caused them to write it? Alaexis ¿question? 20:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Greetings @ Alaexis, I think it's incorrect to remove sourced material [4] for the "NPOV" reason, as NPOV encourages editors to provide all the significant points of view, not to delete those. Thanks! ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 20:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
For such a contentious and complicated situation, I find the history section remarkably small. Why did the conflict start? What were the disagreements or aims of both sides? This then leads up to the actual content of the Minsk accords which should address then these issues. 2001:1C02:2806:9400:84FE:3977:4541:DF3F ( talk) 22:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The History section is poorly written, and seems to have strong bias towards Russia. It italicises the "devastating" part of the sentence, when this emphasis is definitely not needed. My guess would be that it was written by someone strongly in favour of Russia. 185.13.50.184 ( talk) 06:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Minsk agreements article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Minsk II page were merged into Minsk agreements on 20 August 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Not sure Radio Free Europe or the BBC should be used here as they're clearly biased towards Russia with one actually being a USA funded propaganda operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:483:4500:2940:C519:2F8A:C274:3F3F ( talk) 03:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
You need to read WP:DAB. We don't disambiguate from things that don't have the same name. We don't have an article entitled "1991 Minsk agreement". RGloucester — ☎ 12:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Minsk Agreement (2014) → 2014 Minsk agreement – User Glockhester moved this page without consensus and edit redirect to avoid the reverted moving. Not a proper noun. No "Minsk Agreement" in reliable sources. Only "Minsk agreement". Also there was 1991 Minsk agreement in Belarus per [2]. NickSt ( talk) 12:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Looking more at the protocol, its development and signing, seems like it was only agreed to by Ukraine. Is does not appear to be any more than a statement of Poroshenko's peace plan + an agreement for a ceasefire? Donbass and Luhansk were not involved in writing it, and they never agreed to Poroshenko's peace plan and were consitantly against it. OSCE does not refer to the whole protocol as an "agreement", rather only the ceasefire. http://www.osce.org/cio/123245 Does anyone have any evidence that Donbass and Luhansk agree/agreed to the protocol in enterity? Note that the OSCE did not assure both sides of their support, only Poroshenko. Why? Because, it seems like, it was purely something for Poroshenko to fulfill. This needs to be fixed. Much emphasis has been laid on the protocol as if it was an agreement nutted out by the opposing sides. Certaily not, Donbass and Luhansk were not involved. Looks like this is a distortion commonly reflected in the media (can someone check non-western media, I have only had a breif look) and is not helping bring dialogue and ultimately peace. The two sides never realy met in Minsk. They only agreed to a cease fire - on that basis they put their signature to the protocol (at the time when Poroshenko stated he would abide by the protocol) and later an all for all prisoner swap. PS. I have added some official details to the article. Tobeortobe ( talk) 01:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
"...Ukraine, the Russian Federation and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and representatives of individual regions of Donetsk and Lugansk regions reached an understanding on the following measures to secure agreement on a bilateral cease the use of weapons." In the text of the protacol there was no "agreement" it was not even phrased as an agreement. Your secondary sources likely also claimed that there were weapons of mass desctruction in Iraq... Let's discount any seconday source that does not correlate to the primary source unless they provide hard evidence. Donetsk and Lugansk have never agreed to Poroshenko's peace plan. The protocol is Poroshenko's peace plan, so they never agreed to the protocol. If there is a claim that Donetsk and Lugansk agreed to Proshenko's peace plan then where is the prof supporting this, where is the official statment from Donetsk and Lugansk, a statement from a wester media source is hardly proof.
Response to Third Opinion Request: |
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Minsk agreements and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. |
Opinion: Under Wikipedia policy secondary, third-party sources are always strongly preferred over primary sources. BURDEN, part of the Verifiability policy says, "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (Emphasis added.) While primary sources can sometimes be used, secondary sources are to be used if available. Moreover, the use of primary sources also has the disadvantage of not allowing even the slightest degree of analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation. PRIMARY, which is part of the No original research policy, says "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." (Emphasis in original.) The subject of what is or is not a reliable secondary source in Wikipedia is a fairly complicated subject, but the best starting point can be found at SOURCES. Due to the difficulty of properly understanding legal materials such as statutes, court decisions, and treaties, the mere apparent conflict between a legal primary source and a secondary source does not necessarily mean that the secondary source is incorrect. If there are reliable secondary sources which bear on this issue, they are to be preferred over primary ones. |
What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.— TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC) |
PS: Tobeortobe, please sign your posts. Not doing so makes it very difficult for anyone trying to follow the conversation to figure out who said what. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
https://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/look-at-these-wonderful-ceasefire-lines-and-tell-me-how-each-side-can-withdraw-15-km-at-all-points/ 85.220.121.185 ( talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Minsk Protocol. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The Minsk II “package of measures” is merely an addendum to the Minsk agreement, appended after the original was found to be ineffective. Neither Minsk nor Minsk II stands alone. As long as the two articles are separate, a reader can’t understand the totality nor the current state of the subject by reading just one or the other. They should be merged and edited to create a comprehensive article. — Michael Z. 2018-07-31 19:05 z
Regarding "To ensure the permanent monitoring of the Ukrainian-Russian border and verification by the OSCE with the creation of security zones in the border regions of Ukraine and the Russian Federation." It appears to me the zone is on the western side of the Donbas region entirely within Ukraine and no where near the Russian Federation. To me this sentence reads as if the security zone is along the Ukrainian-Russian Border. Pastel Abyss ( talk) 05:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Article needs an update, Russia had proceeded to recognize the Donbas republics as independent states and not a part of Ukraine, effectively withdrawing from the Minsk agreement. Midgetman433 ( talk) 19:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/world/europe/donetsk-luhansk-donbas-ukraine.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-ukraine-donetsk-luhansk-putin-b2019840.html
The two sources I can access say “Minsk agreement, a peace deal that will likely be abandoned as a result of the Russian decision” and recognizing independence “would damage the Minsk peace process.” Let’s not say “is withdrawing” until sources do. It’s possible they will insist they are not withdrawing (going to read the news now). — Michael Z. 20:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Minsk Agreement no longer exists: Putin
https://theweek.com/ukraine/1010467/putin-says-the-minsk-agreements-which-aimed-at-peace-in-eastern-ukraine-no-longer
Midgetman433 (
talk) 19:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm astounded by @ RGloucester:'s explanation of his/her removal of my work. How can the indication of dates and sources be "an attempt to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE"? I'm truly flabbergasted. How does the identification of references by invisible strings "create a WP:FALSEBALANCE"? How does the addition of new paragraphs where they are warranted create a WP:FALSEBALANCE"? Has the @RGloucester account been hacked? Or am I being punked? Armduino ( talk) 17:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
“ | Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources; alternatively, they may be tagged with the
|
” |
“ | Beyond the economic inequities brought about by rational choice, RAND must also grapple with the dilemma of its original sin:
subordinating morality to the advancement of U.S. government policy. This is the millstone borne by all the major participants in the RAND story. |
” |
add this:
In June 2022 on Espreso TV Poroshenko said the Minsk agreements “meant nothing” and claimed credit for giving Kiev enough time to militarize. He cited Sun Tzu’s stratagem, who, according to Poroshenko, emphasized the art of avoiding war.<ref>[https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/ukraine/news/article/ukraine-q-a-17-jun-2022 France Diplomacy Ukraine - Q&A (17 Jun. 2022)]. June 17, 2022. </ref><ref>[https://ruskline.ru/news_rl/2022/06/18/poroshenko_kosvenno_priznal_namerenie_nachat_agressiyu_protiv_rossii Poroshenko indirectly admitted the intention to start aggression against Russia]</ref><ref>[https://news.rambler.ru/world/48843550-poroshenko-minskie-soglasheniya-dali-kievu-vosem-let-na-sozdanie-vsu/ Poroshenko: Minsk agreements gave Kyiv eight years to create the Armed Forces of Ukraine]</ref>
Happydaze1 ( talk) 00:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Why is there no reference to the Minsk Agreement from 1991 to end the USSR? 2603:6080:D140:B00:80B9:1D4D:4B71:B529 ( talk) 19:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Please add a comma after the word "said" in the sentence with the following phrase: Zakharchenko said "These are historical times." H7opolo ( talk) 18:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Russia sent Spec Ops to Donbass, from Crimea, to organise, fund and arm the traitorous rebels, not noted here in any detail, Russia armed forces also fostered unrest and forced a response by Ukr both here 2014 Russian cross-border shelling of Ukraine and here January 2015 Mariupol rocket attack then used the responses to Cry "Oh Poor Russian speaking loyalists, being bullied" Czar Putin and his minions still bleating the same bull shit. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:84ED:7F56:FFD5:9F9C ( talk) 03:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
This artice 79.139.152.104 ( talk) 18:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Two places where I think the insertion of later developments interrupts the flow of thought or introduces ambiguity:
3rd paragraph of Section 2.4, Efficacy: "The parliament of Ukraine approved a law on "special status" for Donbas on 17 March, as specified by Minsk II.[60] Later, in 2019, Ukraine's parliament voted to extend regulations giving limited self-rule to separatist-controlled eastern regions, a prerequisite for a deal to settle the five-year conflict there.[61] The law was immediately criticised by Ukrainian politicians, ..."
Is "the law" of the last sentence the 2015 or 2019 actions of parliament? I think the "the law" should be clarified, or the bold text removed or moved to later in the section.
1st paragraph of Section 3, Evaluation and abandonment: "Following the fall of Debaltseve in February 2015, about one-third of the Donbas region remained in separatist control.[87] A few days before the 2022 Russian invasion, French president Emmanuel Macron and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken opined that the Minsk agreements were "the way forward" to end the conflict in Donbas. Blinken added that it was an incomplete step as there were other outstanding issues.[88] The aim of the Russian intervention in Donbas was to establish pro-Russian governments that, upon reincorporation into Ukraine, would facilitate Russian interference in Ukrainian politics.[89] The agreements were thus highly favourable to the Russian side, as their implementation would accomplish these goals.[90]"
This section is chronological but the paragraph starts with details from 2015 then spends the next three sentences on details from 2022 that aren't really necessary to understanding the first sentence. The bold text should be moved to its proper place in the chronological order. Clay Bahl ( talk) 03:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the Evaluation and abandonment section, following the sentence:
Angela Merkel said in 2022 that the agreement had been "an attempt to give Ukraine time" and that Ukraine used it to strengthen its armed forces.
I would like to add after this: Some commentators viewed this statement as an attempt to allay criticism that her actions at the time were tantamount to "appeasement". [1] [2]
PaKYr ( talk) 02:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template.
Mako001
(C)
(T) 🇺🇦 13:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2607:FEA8:9600:B400:B92D:6390:3050:B343 ( talk) 05:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
fought between armed Russian separatist groups and Armed Forces of Ukraine, with Russian regular forces playing a central part.[1] The first, known as the Minsk Protocol, was drafted in 2014 by the Trilateral Contact Group
Instead of above, read: Ukrain imposed war in 2014 on minority Russian speaking population in the Donbas region.
It’s said that the claims of genocide by Putin are considered baseless, however it does not actually look into the matter, such as looking into the complete banning of the Russian language in media, schools, etc. Or the petal mines (which are illegal under the Geneva Convention) in Donetsk by Ukraine in parks, roads, etc.
There needs to be at least some mention of the reasons Putin gives, and sources for that. 2601:282:1901:74C0:9507:5DC3:C200:A47D ( talk) 01:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Category:Belarus in the Russo-Ukrainian War to this article. Maedc ( talk) 15:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the sentence "and that Ukraine, not Russia, was to blame for their collapse" in the last paragraph of the introduction" to "and that Ukraine has failed to implement them." This more accurately describes Russia's position, which is that they Minsk agreements have already failed prior to the invasion. El819 ( talk) 22:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I think it is worth adding one more sentence at the end ot the article (after the sentence about Merkel's words):
Vladislav Surkov, Putin's aide for Ukraine policy from 2013 to 2020, has said in 2023 that he worked on the Minsk agreements based on the idea that they should not be fulfilled.
Ahatanhel ( talk) 22:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the last sentence of the second paragraph of the lead, please change "Donbass" to "Donbas", for consistency with the rest of the article. 95.44.50.222 ( talk) 10:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Angela Merkel said in 2022 that the agreement had been "an attempt to give Ukraine time" and that Ukraine used it to strengthen its armed forces.
I suggest adding the following: In a subsequent interview, François Hollande concurred. [1]. Both pointed out the significant difficulties that Ukraine had in 2014/15 to fend off Russian, DPR and LPR forces. END Tolmount ( talk) 00:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
References
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/09/20/world/united-nations-general-assembly?referringSource=widget&widgetType=top-stories&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare Victor Grigas ( talk) 20:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
The Merkel sentence that "Angela Merkel said in 2022 that the agreement had been "an attempt to give Ukraine time" and that Ukraine used it to strengthen its armed forces." is incorrect.
In a 2022 interview with Die Zeit, Merkel was asked whether, in hindsight, she regrets any of her actions. Merkel replied: "I believed that the attempt by Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO, which was discussed in 2008, was wrong. They did not have the necessary preconditions, nor were the consequences of such a decision fully considered - both in terms of Russia's actions against Georgia and Ukraine and in terms of NATO and the rules of support. And the 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time." Merkel said it about preparing to join NATO, not about arming.
This should be removed or changed.
Original text:
ZEIT: Man kann aber doch plausibel finden, wie man in früheren Umständen gehandelt hat, und es angesichts der Ergebnisse trotzdem heute für falsch halten.
Merkel: Das setzt aber voraus, auch zu sagen, was genau die Alternativen damals waren. Die 2008 diskutierte Einleitung eines Nato-Beitritts der Ukraine und Georgiens hielt ich für falsch. Weder brachten die Länder die nötigen Voraussetzungen dafür mit, noch war zu Ende gedacht, welche Folgen ein solcher Beschluss gehabt hätte, sowohl mit Blick auf Russlands Handeln gegen Georgien und die Ukraine als auch auf die Nato und ihre Beistandsregeln. Und das Minsker Abkommen 2014 war der Versuch, der Ukraine Zeit zu geben. Chuubii ( talk) 17:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Merkel sentence that "Angela Merkel said in 2022 that the agreement had been "an attempt to give Ukraine time" and that Ukraine used it to strengthen its armed forces." is incorrect.
In a 2022 interview with Die Zeit, Merkel was asked whether, in hindsight, she regrets any of her actions. Merkel replied: "I believed that the attempt by Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO, which was discussed in 2008, was wrong. They did not have the necessary preconditions, nor were the consequences of such a decision fully considered - both in terms of Russia's actions against Georgia and Ukraine and in terms of NATO and the rules of support. And the 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time." Merkel said it about preparing to join NATO, not about arming.
This should be removed or changed.
Original text:
ZEIT: Man kann aber doch plausibel finden, wie man in früheren Umständen gehandelt hat, und es angesichts der Ergebnisse trotzdem heute für falsch halten.
Merkel: Das setzt aber voraus, auch zu sagen, was genau die Alternativen damals waren. Die 2008 diskutierte Einleitung eines Nato-Beitritts der Ukraine und Georgiens hielt ich für falsch. Weder brachten die Länder die nötigen Voraussetzungen dafür mit, noch war zu Ende gedacht, welche Folgen ein solcher Beschluss gehabt hätte, sowohl mit Blick auf Russlands Handeln gegen Georgien und die Ukraine als auch auf die Nato und ihre Beistandsregeln. Und das Minsker Abkommen 2014 war der Versuch, der Ukraine Zeit zu geben. Chuubii (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Chuubii ( talk) 13:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
the 2014 agreement had been "an attempt to give Ukraine time" - which it had used to become more able to defend itself. Are you sure there isn't something elsewhere in the interview which caused them to write it? Alaexis ¿question? 20:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Greetings @ Alaexis, I think it's incorrect to remove sourced material [4] for the "NPOV" reason, as NPOV encourages editors to provide all the significant points of view, not to delete those. Thanks! ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 20:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
For such a contentious and complicated situation, I find the history section remarkably small. Why did the conflict start? What were the disagreements or aims of both sides? This then leads up to the actual content of the Minsk accords which should address then these issues. 2001:1C02:2806:9400:84FE:3977:4541:DF3F ( talk) 22:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The History section is poorly written, and seems to have strong bias towards Russia. It italicises the "devastating" part of the sentence, when this emphasis is definitely not needed. My guess would be that it was written by someone strongly in favour of Russia. 185.13.50.184 ( talk) 06:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)