Ukraine war mega thread

[taxexile]

Ukraine tensions: Nato sends 'ships and fighter jets' to Eastern Europe
The move comes as Joe Biden considers sending 5,000 troops to Eastern Europe in major policy pivot over Ukraine

if russia and china are sensible they will co-ordinate and invade ukraine and taiwan simultaneously.

sadly this is their golden opportunity as all the west are interested in is climate change, slavery reparations and gender diversity.

furthermore, the potus does not know what fucking day of the week it is.

[misskit]

EU ready to impose "never-seen-before" sanctions if Russia attacks Ukraine, Denmark says

BRUSSELS, Jan 24 (Reuters) - The European Union is ready to impose "never-seen-before" economic sanctions if Russia attacks Ukraine, Denmark's foreign minister said on Monday ahead of a meeting of the bloc's foreign ministers.


Tensions in Ukraine have been increasing for months after the Kremlin massed some 100,000 troops near Ukraine's border, a dramatic buildup the West says is preparation for war to prevent Ukraine from joining the NATO security alliance.


"There's no doubt we are ready to react with comprehensive, never-seen-before sanctions if Russia were to invade Ukraine again," Jeppe Kofod told reporters, declining to say what sectors would be targeted.


"Russia should know, (President Vladimir) Putin should know that the price of using provocations and military forces to change borders in Europe will be very, very high... We are ready to undertake the most severe sanctions, also more severe than in 2014," he said.


The EU, along with the United States, imposed economic sanctions on Russia in July 2014, targeting its energy, banking and defence sectors, after Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula.


U.S. Senate Democrats have unveiled a bill to potentially punish Russian officials, military leaders and banking institutions.


But German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has urged Europe and the United States to think carefully when considering sanctions, highlighting challenges in agreeing on a joint approach.


Austrian Foreign Minister Alexander Schallenberg said that everything was on the table.


But he also pointed to Austria's dependency on Russia for 40% of its gas, adding, when asked about potential sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, that sanctioning something that is not yet operative is not a credible threat.


"We are here to do everything we can so that war does not break out," Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn said.


For now, the EU does not plan to withdraw diplomats' families from Ukraine, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said after Washington announced such a move. read more


"We are not going to do the same thing because we don't know any specific reasons. But (U.S.) Secretary (of State Antony) Blinken will inform us," Borrell told reporters as he arrived for a meeting with his EU counterparts that Blinken is expected to join online at around 1400 GMT.


The British Embassy in Ukraine said on Monday some of its staff and dependants were being withdrawn from Kyiv.


The Kremlin has repeatedly denied planning to invade, but the Russian military already took a chunk of Ukrainian territory when it seized Crimea and backed separatist forces who took control of large parts of eastern Ukraine eight years ago.


The top U.S. and Russian diplomats made no major breakthrough at talks on Ukraine on Friday but agreed to keep talking to try to resolve the crisis.


"Negotiations are going on", Borrell said, adding he saw no reason to leave Ukraine "unless Secretary Blinken gives us an information that justifies a move".

EU ready to impose "never-seen-before" sanctions if Russia attacks Ukraine, Denmark says | Taiwan News | 2022-01-24 19:00:00

[sabang]

But if they don't, Nordstream 2 will go through. A cynic might think certain right wing elements are encouraging the militarisation of Ukraine, so as to be able to goad a conflict or 'incident', blame it on Russia, and bully Germany into reneging on the Nordtsream 2 pipeline deal. How cynical.

[misskit]

Ireland says Russian war games off its coast 'not welcome'

BRUSSELS (AP) — Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney said Monday that Russia plans to holds war games off his country’s coast, in a move that is not welcome given heightened tensions and uncertainty over whether Moscow plans to invade Ukraine.

Coveney told reporters that the exercises are due to take place 240 kilometers (150 miles) off Ireland’s southwest coast, in international waters but also within the country’s exclusive economic zone.


“We don’t have a power to prevent this happening but certainly I’ve made it clear to the Russian ambassador in Ireland that it’s not welcome,” Coveney said, as he arrived for talks focused on Russia and Ukraine with his EU counterparts in Brussels.


“This isn’t a time to increase military activity and tension in the context of what’s happening with and in Ukraine,” he said.


He acknowledged that Russia can hold war games in international waters, “but the fact that they are choosing to do it on the western borders, if you like, of the EU, off the Irish coast, is something that in our view is simply not welcome and not wanted right now, particularly in the coming weeks.”


THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.


BRUSSELS (AP) — European Union foreign ministers are aiming to put on a fresh display of resolve and unity in support of Ukraine on Monday, amid deep uncertainty about whether President Vladimir Putin intends to attack Russia’s neighbor or send his troops across the border.


“All members of the European Union are united. We are showing unprecedented unity about the situation in Ukraine, with the strong coordination with the U.S.,” EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell told reporters in Brussels.


Asked whether the EU would follow a U.S. move and order the families of European embassy personnel in Ukraine to leave, Borrell said: “We are not going to do the same thing.” He said he is keen to hear from Secretary of State Antony Blinken about that decision.


During Monday's meeting, which Blinken will attend virtually, the ministers will restate Europe’s condemnation of the Russian military build-up near Ukraine, involving an estimated 100,000 troops, tanks, artillery and heavy equipment, diplomats and officials said ahead of the meeting.


They’ll renew calls for dialogue, notably through the European-backed “Normandy format,” which helped to ease hostilities in 2015, a year after Putin ordered the annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula. Fighting in eastern Ukraine has killed around 14,000 people and still simmers today.


Should Putin move on Ukraine again, the ministers will warn, Russia would face “massive consequences and severe costs.” Those costs would be of a financial and political nature. The EU insists that it stands ready to slap hefty sanctions on Russia within days of any attack.


“We don’t know what the Russians are going to do, but what we are talking about is basically the most important security development in Europe since the end of the Cold War,” a senior EU official said. “The response of the European Union will be at the level of the challenge.”


The official and diplomats briefed reporters on condition of anonymity so that they could speak more freely about the meeting preparations.


Over the weekend, some of the member countries closest to Russia — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — confirmed that they plan to send U.S.-made anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Ukraine, a move endorsed by the United States.


But questions have been raised about just how unified the EU is. Diverse political, business and energy interests have long divided the 27-country bloc in its approach to Moscow. Around 40% of the EU’s natural gas imports come from Russia, much of it via pipelines across Ukraine.


Gas prices have skyrocketed, and the head of the International Energy Agency has said that Russian energy giant Gazprom was already reducing its exports to the EU in late 2021 despite high prices. Putin says Gazprom is respecting its contract obligations, not putting the squeeze on Europe.


The EU’s two major powers appear most cautious. Germany’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia, which is complete but yet to pump gas, has become a bargaining chip. French President Emmanuel Macron has renewed previously rejected calls for an EU summit with Putin.


Late last year, France and Germany initially expressed doubts about U.S. intelligence assessments that Moscow might be preparing to invade.


Late on Saturday, the head of the German navy, Vice Admiral Kay-Achim Schoenbach, resigned after coming under fire for saying that Ukraine would not regain the Crimean Peninsula, and for suggesting that Putin deserves “respect.”


Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban plans to meet with Putin next week to discuss a Russian-backed project to expand a Hungarian nuclear power plant.


Still, diplomats and officials said hard-hitting sanctions are being drawn up with the EU’s executive branch, the European Commission. But they were reluctant to say what the measures might be or what action by Russia might trigger them.


The aim, they said, is to try to match the doubts Putin has sowed about his intentions for Ukraine with uncertainty about what any retaliatory European action might look like, or when it would come.


One diplomat refused to discuss the matter at all. Another suggested that a layered response might be in preparation, with different levels of retaliation depending on whether a cyberattack, rocket strike, or all-out invasion was launched.


A third was confident there would be no arguments over the trigger point, saying: “We’ll know it when we see it.”


For now, though, the Europeans must wait and see whether Putin is satisfied with progress in talks with the United States, coordinate with Blinken on a response should things go wrong, and bank on the economic deterrent posed by the EU being Russia’s biggest trading partner.


Ireland says Russian war games off its coast 'not welcome'

[bsnub]

A cynic might think certain right wing elements are encouraging the militarisation of Ukraine

You are a complete moron if you think that a few anti-tank weapons and some ammunition is "militarization" of Ukraine. Stop spewing Russian bullshit propaganda.

Russia, and bully Germany into reneging on the Nordtsream 2 pipeline deal.

Russia’s Top Five Persistent Disinformation Narratives

Theme #1: “Russia is an Innocent Victim”

[HermantheGerman]

Its from the Wikipedia website. What you just posted was from a census in 2001 which was not conducted properly and largely useless. 2001 was the last time Ukraine even had a census.

Ukraine’s census attempt crashes and burns yet again | Eurasianet

Hanging on the bottle again

And your fantasy map from Young Pioneers Website 2003? Did you colored it



Languages of Ukraine — Young Pioneer Tours

[bsnub]

And your fantasy map from Young Pioneers Website 2003? Did you colored it

Damn, you just crushed him! Nice find! What a total shitbag!

[HermantheGerman]

Has anyone ever thought of these poor Russian slobs serving in the military? It's January now and they've been there for over a year. Temperatures are around -10C. Just wonder what they are thinking about Putin and his Oligarchs? Then again, they are used of being used and abused

[OhOh]

Joe Biden considers

Possibly so, will he remember his conclusion though.
Got to keep the threats coming.

Considering, deciding, and delivering a viable solution. One out of three steps to resolving any problem.

Step 1, announced, where are steps 2 and 3?



Keep the low polling numbers, mid term election prospects, inflation, lack of goods in the shops, rising gas and electric prices, Afghanistan splattered kids .... off the front page

Ireland says Russian war games off its coast 'not welcome'

Coveney told reporters that the exercises are due to take place 240 kilometers (150 miles) off Ireland’s southwest coast, in international waters but also within the country’s exclusive economic zone.

No news of the exercise participants "testing" the resolve of Ireland's navy response to invading its territorial waters.

they've been there for over a year

The same soldiers? Rotation from military games and back to base, SOP.

Some might consider the norther boarders somewhat even less desirable.

[OhOh]

"#BREAKING Ukraine says US move to withdraw diplomats' families 'premature'

#BREAKING UK says withdrawing some staff and relatives from Ukraine embassy





#BREAKING The EU is not following the US in withdrawing its diplomats' families from Ukraine, top European diplomat Josep Borrell says, adding there is no need to "dramatise" the situation while talks with Russia continue"

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/14855...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

[OhOh]

NATO to boost military presence in eastern Europe amid Russia-Ukraine tensions


By Lauren Chadwick & Joshua Berlinger • Updated: 24/01/2022 - 16:39

"Western powers pledged to provide Ukraine with more money and send additional ships and fighter jets to Eastern Europe amid tensions with Russia.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) said that it would deploy more ships and fighter jets to some of its easternmost members, while the European Commission said it would provide Ukraine with a new financial assistance package worth €1.2 billion.

"We are firm in our resolve," EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said. "As ever, the EU stands by Ukraine in these difficult circumstances."

The United States and its allies have increasingly warned in recent weeks that Russia could invade Ukraine after the Kremlin 100,000 troops at the two countries' shared border. Russia began building up more troops there in November after a similar move in March 2021.

Amid the fears of a possible invasion, the United Kingdom's foreign office said in a statement on Saturday that they had information indicating Russia was "looking to install a pro-Russian leader in Kyiv as it considers whether to invade and occupy Ukraine."


The foreign office said that Ukrainian MP Yevheniy Murayev was a possible candidate. The Russian foreign ministry dismissed the UK statement as "nonsense."

Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. Around the same time, two regions in eastern Ukraine broke away from government control. A subsequent conflict between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian forces has killed more than 13,000 people.

The United States, NATO and EU have called for Russia to de-escalate tensions by drawing down its troops on the Ukrainian border. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, in Geneva on Friday, a day after warning of "massive consequences" in the event of any Russian military incursion into Ukraine.

In December, Russia sent a list of demands to the US and its allies, including that NATO did not expand to Ukraine or any other former Soviet countries.

Moscow also insisted that the alliance withdraw forces from some eastern European member states that joined after 1997, including Bulgaria and Romania.
Those demands were dismissed by the US and NATO as nonstarters. Instead, NATO appears to be doubling down on deterrence.

In its statement Monday, NATO said Denmark plans to send a frigate to the Baltic Sea and four F-16 fighter jets to Lithuania, while the Netherlands is sending two F-35 fighter aircraft to Bulgaria in April.

"NATO will continue to take all necessary measures to protect and defend all Allies, including by reinforcing the eastern part of the Alliance," said the alliance's secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg. "We will always respond to any deterioration of our security environment, including through strengthening our collective defence.”

Embassy drawdown discussions

Amid the increased fears that Russia could invade Ukraine, the United States ordered family members of government employees at the country's embassy in Kyiv to leave and the United Kingdom withdrew some embassy staff.

The State Department also authorised the departure of some embassy employees who wish to leave Ukraine.

"We are continuing to pursue the path of diplomacy, but if Russia chooses further escalation, then the security conditions, particularly along Ukraine’s borders in Russia-occupied Crimea, in Russia-controlled eastern Ukraine...can deteriorate with little notice," a senior State Department official told reporters, according to a transcript of the call.

"I just want to be clear that these are prudent precautions that in no way undermine our support for or commitment to Ukraine," the official added later.

The UK foreign office said some embassy staff and their families would be "withdrawn from Kyiv in response to the growing threat from Russia".

"The British embassy remains open and will continue to carry out essential work," a foreign office spokesman said.
Ukraine's foreign affairs ministry called the US decision "premature and a manifestation of excessive caution."

"There have been no radical changes in the security situation recently: the threat of new waves of Russian aggression has remained constant since 2014, and the accumulation of Russian troops near the state border began in April last year," spokesman Oleg Nikolenko said in a statement while urging people to remain calm.

The EU's high representative for foreign affairs Josep Borrell said the EU was not planning on a similar move but were eager to hear the US reasons behind the announcement.
"I don’t think we have to dramatise, as far as the negotiations are going... I don’t think that we have to (leave) Ukraine," he told reporters ahead of a videoconference with Blinken.

Diplomatic talks are expected to continue in the coming days.
Lavrov said on Friday that the US would deliver a written response to the Kremlin's demands this week. Blinken emphasised that the response would include the US government's "many" concerns.
Blinken said he expects the two sides "to meet again after Russia has had an opportunity to look at this paper and then we'll see where we go from there."

NATO to boost military presence in eastern Europe amid Russia-Ukraine tensions | Euronews

[Backspin]

Looks like Ukraine is declaring war. Which would be a violation of the Minsk accords which are UN binding.

Here's the presidents quote

"BREAKING: Amid evacuation of NATO diplomats from Ukraine, Zelensky says “We learned to contain external threats. It is time we begin offensive actions aimed at securing our national interests. Our citizens are united in wanting their territory returned”


https://twitter.com/MuradGazdiev/status/1485595003963547649/video/1

[Troy]

^ stop acting like some silly, hysterical teenage girl and stick to what's happening...

...and no the minsk accords are not binding under UN or international law.

[HermantheGerman]

My map is from the same Wikipedia page yours is from

...but you posted this first

Its from the Wikipedia website. What you just posted was from a census in 2001 which was not conducted properly and largely useless. 2001 was the last time Ukraine even had a census.

The only thing that has failed and was useless where your rehabs ?

[Backspin]

^ stop acting like some silly, hysterical teenage girl and stick to what's happening...

...and no the minsk accords are not binding under UN or international law.

[Joe 90]

Brits and Yanks evacuating their embassies isn't helpful and will escalate matters.

Boris just said Russia doesn't need another Chechenia.

[sabang]

The dissension by the German admiral and the French president to the U.S. position highlights the war hysteria being stirred up daily over Ukraine as a mostly Anglo-American endeavor.

[bsnub]

mostly Anglo-American endeavor.

Did the Anglo's move over 100,000 troops to the edge of the Ukrainian frontier in the middle of winter? Are they continuing to add more troops and equipment to said frontier?

Did you live in a box during the Cold War? I happened to be in Germany for a good part of it. I remember those Russian bastards doing this shit all the time. Even if it is a bluff, it must be countered.

a mostly Anglo-American endeavor.

Only a complete idiot would swallow something like that. It is a sad time we live in that someone can be that misled by propaganda.

[sabang]

The Insanity of the West Accelerates

Paul Craig Roberts


The New York Times reports that Biden is going to forestall Russian aggression against Ukraine by deploying between 1,000 and 5,000 US troops on Russia’s border and is prepared to increase the number of troops tenfold to 10,000 to 50,000 soldiers. A Russian army would eat this small number for a snack in 5 minutes. Clearly the purpose of the deployment is not military. The purpose is to heighten the “Russian threat” in the minds of the people in advance of a false flag event that will be blamed on the Kremlin.

If Biden wants to deter Russia all he needs to do is to give Russia the security guarantee she says she needs. Why does Biden want Russia to be insecure?

To stabilize the situation, Russia hammered out the Minsk Agreement but neither Ukraine nor the Western signatories kept the agreement.

Russia does not want the broke and troublesome Ukraine. Russia just wants Ukraine not to become a place for US missile bases.

It is a simple demand easy to accept in the interest of peace.

But peace is unprofitable and is the last thing the US military/security complex wants. Therefore Washington is responding to the Russian/US/NATO security talks by deploying troops on Russia’s borders. The stupid British are stirring the pot of “Russian aggression” by withdrawing the embassy staff from Kiev. UK begins evacuation of diplomats from Ukraine — RT Russia & Former Soviet Union

We have been hearing from US/NATO about the “growing Russian threat” for a long time. What happens to credibility that is already damaged if there is no Russian invasion? It seems that Washington and its NATO puppets are so far out on the limb that they simply must provoke a Russian invasion.

The Russians are waiting in vain for Washington’s written response to their proposal for mutual security. Washington has answered with more accusations, more provocations.

Is the Kremlin having difficulty understanding: (1) that Trump was removed from office because he said he wanted to normalize relations with Russia, (2) that Russia is the necessary enemy for the power and profit of the US military/security complex, and (3) Russia is regarded as the obstacle to US hegemony? How can it be that in the face of all evidence to the contrary the Kremlin has the delusion that Washington is interested in Russians feeling secure.

While the Kremlin wastes time, weapons pour into Ukraine and the Western media prepare their people for “Russian aggression.” Russian protests of intentions attributed to her are pointless. The Western media knows the required narrative and is not interested in any facts.

The question really is whether Russia can accept that she has an enemy.

The Insanity of the West Accelerates - PaulCraigRoberts.org


The author was a US Assistant Secretary of State.

[bsnub]

Paul Craig Roberts

I am not surprised at the company you keep...

Views on World War II and the Holocaust

In 2019, Roberts wrote in support of the views of Holocaust denier David Irving, asserting that "Irving, without any doubt the best historian of the European part of World War II, learned at his great expense that challenging myths does not go unpunished... I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the Zionists".^[45] Roberts added that "No German plans, or orders from Hitler, or from Himmler or anyone else have ever been found for an organized holocaust by gas and cremation of Jews... The "death camps" were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany's essential artificial rubber factory. Germany was desperate for a work force."

[sabang]

It is a good, commonsense article- something the US foreign policy establishment totally lacks. Nato is becoming Europe's albatross.

[HermantheGerman]

The question really is whether Russia can accept that she has an enemy.

The question really is why Russia never had any friends but only enemies?

Why are Russians not respected but only feared?

Why can they not even get along with their Slavic brothers Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and of course Ukraine.

Better yet, why do Russians hate themselves so much?

If young Russians had the opportunity they would have already left their beloved homeland a long time ago. Putin would be standing in the cold with his old Babushkas and Dedushkas.

Putin can only beat the War drums! Or what else can he offer his poor brainwashed people?

[harrybarracuda]

It is a good, commonsense article- something the US foreign policy establishment totally lacks. Nato is becoming Europe's albatross.

It's fucking nonsense.

Putin is a warmonger and should pull his troops back, but it's a good distraction while he ransacks the Russian coffers.

[HermantheGerman]

To stabilize the situation, Russia hammered out the Minsk Agreement but neither Ukraine nor the Western signatories kept the agreement.

It is a good, commonsense article

Only if it would read like this:

To de-stabilize the situation, Russia hammered out the Minsk Agreement but 3 days later bombed it to nervana.

Shortly after the signing of the agreement, fighters loyal to Russia stormed Debaltseve and captured the place three days after the officially announced ceasefire, which already broke the agreement

[OhOh]

The Minsk accords are nonbinding, as Troy has stated.

Some have differing views to Troy and yourself:

The organisation:

European Journal of International Law.

"EJIL already has a homepage www.ejil.org, the autonomous website of the European Journal of International Law. Our website was a pioneer long before publishers such as our current publisher, OUP, moved into digital journal publishing, and it is distinct from all other mainline journals of which we are aware. Not only is a sizeable portion of current content made free to the reader, but all content becomes free one year after publication – the scholarly world’s Napster! I say all this to indicate that we are not parvenus to the notion of digital internet publishing."

About – EJIL: Talk!


One example of the organisations opinion:

Legal Bindingness of Security Council Resolutions Generally, and Resolution 2334 on the Israeli Settlements in Particular

Written by Dan Joyner

January 9, 2017

"As I have read commentary on the recently adopted resolution by the U.N. Security Council (Resolution 2334) addressing Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, I’ve noticed a number of commentators who appear to assume that, since this resolution was not explicitly adopted in exercise of the Council’s Chapter VII powers, therefore all of its operative provisions are per se legally non-binding. Orde Kittrie, writing over at Lawfare, seems to make this assumption clear when he writes:

“Resolution 2334 was not adopted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter and is not legally binding. The resolution does not create additional legal requirements on Israel, nor does the resolution require (or even explicitly encourage) U.N. member states to impose sanctions on Israel in response to Israeli settlement activity.”

I thought this would be a good opportunity to write briefly to clarify that the legal obligation for U.N. Charter states parties to comply with the decisions of the Security Council, contained in Article 24 and 25 of the Charter, is not contingent upon the Council’s acting in exercise of its Chapter VII powers. Any decision of the Security Council is legally binding upon all U.N. member states, whether or not the text of the resolution explicitly references Chapter VII.

Rather, the key question for determining whether a particular provision of a Security Council resolution is legally binding on member states (i.e. whether the provision is a “decision” of the Security Council), including the specific addressee of the resolution, is whether the Council has chosen to use words within the provision indicating its intent to create a legally binding obligation.

The International Court of Justice made these points clear in its 1971 Namibia advisory opinion, in Paragraphs 108-114. There, the Court was considering the juridical implications of provisions of Security Council Resolution 276, which had similarly been adopted with no textual indication that the Council was acting in exercise of its Chapter VII powers. The Court held that:

“It has been contended that Article 25 of the Charter applies only to enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter. It is not possible to find in the Charter any support for this view. . . It has also be contended that the relevant Security Council resolutions are couched in exhortatory rather than mandatory language and that, therefore, they do not purport to impose any legal duty on any State nor to affect any right of any State. The language of a resolution of the Security Council should be carefully analysed before a conclusion can be made as to its binding effect. In view of the nature of the powers under Article 25, the question whether they have been in fact exercised is to be determined in each case, having regard to the terms of the resolution to be interpreted, the discussions leading to it, the Charter provisions invoked and, in general, all circumstances that might assist in determining the legal consequences of the resolution of the Security Council. (Para 113-114)”

Applying this test for determining bindingness, the Court determined that the provisions in operative paragraphs 2 and 5 of Resolution 276 were legally binding on all U.N. member states. This included the determination by the Council in operative paragraph 2 that the presence of South African forces on the territory of Namibia was unlawful, and the Council’s call in operative paragraph 5 for all states to refrain from any dealings with South Africa that were inconsistent with this determination.

The question of which words will indicate the Council’s intent to create binding obligation is one that has been discussed in scholarly literature, though honestly not as much as the topic deserves. I recently engaged in an analysis of this subject in Chapter 6 (Pgs. 195-198) of my book on Iran’s nuclear program.

It is interesting to note in this context that in the Namibia advisory opinion, the Court found to be legally binding a provision (operative paragraph 5) which began with the words “Calls upon all States . . . ” Most scholarly commentary over the succeeding decades (including mine) has, however, categorized “calls upon” language as legally non-binding.

So there would appear to be some room for disagreement over which words fall into which category.

Continues at:

https://www.ejiltalk.org/legal-bindi...in-particular/

One presumes you and Troy have some legal knowledge to support your opinion, or a statement from an organisation confirming the legal reasoning in the Minsk Agreement, being or not, "Legally Binding".