“wikipedia-which-can-be-edited-by-anyone” is of course iron edidence to be humbled by.
But even if you take a little bit more time than just 1 minute to evaluate arguments or at least scroll that same page lower, you will see some interesting facts. Unsurprisingly, Ukraine was never planning to fullfill those agreements and Europe was only depicting diplomatic activity, trying to maximally arm Ukraine. None were giving a damn about people on the problem lands. Yes, they were obviously supported by Russia, but it was support, never ordering, in contrast to Ukraine planning to subjugate separatic regions.
So what again was the diplomatic role of the vaunted give-me-all-your-weapons beggar Zelensky?
Oleksii Arestovych, a former member of the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine said in 2024 that Ukraine never planned to fulfill the terms of Minsk II accords.[124]
Is immediately followed up by this section:
Angela Merkel said in 2022 that the agreement had been “an attempt to give Ukraine time”; Reuters reported that Ukraine used this time to strengthen its armed forces.[125] In an interview to Semen Pegov in 2024 former head of DPR Alexander Borodai explained that, in military terms, the Russian intervention in Ukraine should have started already in 2014 but Russia was not ready for that in economic, military and propaganda sense, which is why Russia entered the Minsk Agreements with no intention of complying, but it gave it time to prepare the full-scale invasion.
So it would seem that despite your insistance that the oroginal post is factually incorrect, and despite the fact that it would seem russia also had no intention of complying either. Russia did, in fact, break those agreements, making the original post at least partially correct. Ukraines intentions dont actually change that fact.
I think if you want to argue that the original post it propaganda, you should maybe back it up.
How are you going to discredit wikipedia as something that can be edited by anyone and say that makes it an unreliabke source and then point to another paragraph on the same page from the same source and call it evidence to back your argument. Either the source is good or it’s bad. You can’t have it both ways.
“wikipedia-which-can-be-edited-by-anyone” is of course iron edidence to be humbled by.
But even if you take a little bit more time than just 1 minute to evaluate arguments or at least scroll that same page lower, you will see some interesting facts. Unsurprisingly, Ukraine was never planning to fullfill those agreements and Europe was only depicting diplomatic activity, trying to maximally arm Ukraine. None were giving a damn about people on the problem lands. Yes, they were obviously supported by Russia, but it was support, never ordering, in contrast to Ukraine planning to subjugate separatic regions.
So what again was the diplomatic role of the vaunted give-me-all-your-weapons beggar Zelensky?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#:~:text=Oleksii Arestovych%2C a,its armed forces.
So the line you are referring to:
Is immediately followed up by this section:
So it would seem that despite your insistance that the oroginal post is factually incorrect, and despite the fact that it would seem russia also had no intention of complying either. Russia did, in fact, break those agreements, making the original post at least partially correct. Ukraines intentions dont actually change that fact.
I think if you want to argue that the original post it propaganda, you should maybe back it up.
Also, i forgot to say.
How are you going to discredit wikipedia as something that can be edited by anyone and say that makes it an unreliabke source and then point to another paragraph on the same page from the same source and call it evidence to back your argument. Either the source is good or it’s bad. You can’t have it both ways.