Russo-Ukraine War - The Civil War in Ukraine

 The Coup Governments First Action  - The Repeal of the "Law on Languages"

The repeal of Ukraine's "Law on Languages" was the first legislative action taken by the new government after the coup d’état. However, the decision to repeal the law sparked protest over its implications on Ukraine's east-west regional divide. 

The repeal of the "Law on Languages" was an attempt to suppress ethnic Russians of their linguistic and cultural rights. Concerns arose that the Ukrainian government's emphasis on the Ukrainian language as the sole official language would lead to the persecution of Russian-speaking communities.

The east-west regional divide in Ukraine has been a longstanding issue, with historical, linguistic, and cultural differences playing a role in shaping regional identities. The repeal of the language law further heightened regional tensions, as it underscored the contrasting visions of the country's future and its relationship with Russia and the West.

Russia viewed the repeal of the language law as evidence of Ukraine's "anti-Russian" stance and an attempt to distance itself from its historical ties with Russia. This perception further strained relations between the two countries and contributed to the broader geopolitical crisis in the region.

The repeal of the language law became a politically divisive issue, leading to a deepening of political fault lines within Ukraine. 

In response to the coup d’état, segments of Ukraine's population expressed their opposition. The Counter Euromaidan movement represented those who opposed the Banderite regime, favoured maintaining closer ties with Russia, and viewed the protests as a threat to Ukraine's historical, linguistic, and cultural links with its historical homeland

The Counter Euromaidan movement reflected the deep-seated regional and cultural divisions within Ukraine. Many supporters of the movement were located in the southern and eastern regions, which were ethnically Russian. Their concerns centred on preserving their cultural heritage and maintaining economic relations with Russia.

The Counter Euromaidan movement organized its own rallies and demonstrations in opposition to the Euromaidan protests. Supporters of the movement voiced opposition to the perceived "Westernization" of Ukraine and the potential erosion of their own culture.

The Counter Euromaidan movement introduced a contrasting narrative to the dominant pro-European message of the Euromaidan protests. The movement underscored the importance of recognizing Ukraine's multi-ethnic and multicultural character, as well as the need for inclusive governance that respected the rights and aspirations of all citizens.

Tragedy in Odessa: The 2014 Massacre and the Ukrainian Civil War

The Odessa massacre took place in the context of the 2014 US led coup d'état, during which protests and political instability engulfed the country. In the aftermath of the Euromaidan movement, there were growing tensions between pro-West and pro-Russian groups, particularly in regions with significant Russian-speaking populations.

On May 2, 2014, violent clashes erupted when Azov Nazi’s, football hooligans, and armed undercover agent-provocateurs attacked peaceful ethnic Russian protestors outside the Trade Union building in Odessa, leading to a deadly chain of events. The Azov Nazi’s chased the ethnic Russian protestors into the building before setting it on fire with burning tyres. The Banderites shot at the windows and would beat to death anyone who jumped from the upper floors as they lay broken on the concrete. 

The Odessa massacre resulted in the deaths of dozens of people, inciting a civil war between the pro-Western Banderites who celebrated this atrocity and ethnic Russians horrified by the orgy of violence that the West had unleashed in their country. The regions of Donetsk and Luhansk declared independence. Meanwhile, the region that has never really been Ukrainian voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia. 

The international community ignored the Odessa massacre, instead they accused Russia of illegally annexing Crimea. To this day, they continue to push the narrative that Russia is somehow behind the outrage of the ethnic Russians who had their language banned and were burned alive for peacefully protesting the US backed coup.  

From Tragedy to Negotiation: The Path to the Minsk Agreement in Ukraine

The period between the Odessa massacre in May 2014 and the signing of the Minsk Agreements was a tumultuous time in Ukraine's history. It was marked by ongoing armed conflicts, territorial disputes, and diplomatic efforts to find a resolution to the crisis.

Following the Odessa massacre, violence escalated in eastern Ukraine, particularly in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, where independence movements emerged, demanding autonomy from Ukraine. Armed conflicts between the NATO-backed Banderite regime and Donbas militias supported through back channels by Pro-Russian mercenaries who would go on to become an organised group known as the Wagner PMC. This led to a series of battles and sieges in cities like Donetsk, Luhansk, and Sloviansk.

In May 2014, Petro Poroshenko was elected as the new President. Poroshenko immediately prioritized finding a resolution to the conflict. He announced a peace plan aimed at establishing dialogue with separatist leaders, offering a ceasefire, and granting certain autonomy to the eastern regions.

However, right on cue, on July 17, 2014, Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine sabotaging peace talks, killing all 298 people on board. The incident was, of course, blamed on the ethnic Russians. Needless to say, it further intensified international outrage and continued the War on the Donbas.

In the summer of 2014, the Second Battle of Donetsk Airport resulted in heavy casualties and destruction. The airport, a strategic location in Donetsk, was fiercely contested by both the NATO backed Kiev forces and the ethnic Russian Ukrainians who live there.

Amid the escalating violence, the first round of Minsk talks was held in Belarus on September 5, 2014. The talks brought together representatives from Ukraine, Russia, the Donbas republics, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). The negotiations culminated in the signing of the first Minsk Agreement, which outlined a ceasefire and the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the frontline.

Despite the signing of the Minsk Agreement, the ceasefire faced numerous violations, leading to a series of setbacks and continued clashes. The Kiev regime continued shelling civilians and international efforts to uphold the agreement did not materialise despite France and Germany serving as guarantors.

The Battle for Debaltseve: A Critical Turning Point in the Ukrainian Crisis

The Battle of Debaltseve in early 2015 was a significant turning point in the ongoing Ukrainian civil war. The contested city of Debaltseve, strategically located between Donetsk and Luhansk, became a focal point of intense fighting between the NATO-backed Kiev forces and Wagner-backed ethnic Russian Ukrainians. The fierce battle not only resulted in substantial casualties and destruction but also pushed German Chancellor Angela Merkel to make a desperate plea to Russian President Vladimir Putin to seek an end to the violence, as the Kiev forces were encircled. 

By early 2015, the Ukrainian crisis had escalated into a full-fledged civil-war in eastern Ukraine. Despite the signing of the first Minsk Agreement (Minsk I) in September 2014, violence persisted, with Kiev continuing to violate the ceasefire and target civilians. Debaltseve emerged as a crucial battleground, as it offered strategic significance to both NATO backed forces and ethnic Russo-Ukrainians.

The battle for Debaltseve was marked by heavy shelling, aerial bombardments, and street-to-street combat. The city's ethnic Russian civilian population bore the brunt of the violence, with many residents seeking refuge in improvised shelters amid a deteriorating humanitarian situation.

As the situation in Debaltseve worsened for the NATO-backed forces, Angela Merkel, reached out to Russian President Vladimir Putin in a desperate plea to halt the fighting and revive the peace negotiations. She was deeply concerned about the mounting casualties, strategic defeat, and recognized the urgency of seeking a ceasefire.

Merkel's appeal to Putin was part of her broader diplomatic efforts to promote dialogue and cooperation among all stakeholders involved in the Ukrainian crisis. She engaged in "shuttle diplomacy," holding discussions with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, other European leaders, and international organizations to find a pathway towards peace.

In the wake of Merkel's plea and sustained diplomatic efforts, the second round of Minsk talks was held in February 2015. The negotiations culminated in the signing of the second Minsk Agreement (Minsk II) on February 12, 2015. The agreement aimed to revive the ceasefire and outlined provisions for a peaceful resolution, including the withdrawal of heavy weapons and special self-governing status for Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

However, after the War escalated with the Russian SMO in February 2022, Merkel and Hollande both said that the Minsk Agreements were stalling tactics, peace was never on the table. It was just to buy time for NATO to rebuild Ukraine’s military power. 

Key Provisions of Minsk II:

• Full Ceasefire: The agreement called for a complete cessation of hostilities, including the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the frontline.

• Local Elections: The agreement provided for the holding of local elections in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, in accordance with Ukrainian legislation and international standards.

• Special Status: The areas of Donetsk and Luhansk would be granted special self-governing status, allowing for local governance and decision-making.

The West and their puppet regime in Kiev had no intention of ever implementing the Minsk II agreement. The ethnic Russian regions of Ukraine had all the major industrial infrastructure and black-earth agricultural land that the Globalist Western elites were desperate to get control of. They used Putin’s practical legal pragmatism to stall the conflict for enough time to build up Europe’s largest NATO trained army and created fortified trench networks around the Donbas.