Lavrov excoriates Kiev’s scheming remarks that Minsk accords not legally binding

Warning! Contains verbal diarrhea from Lavrov.

BELGRADE, June 18. /TASS/. The Minsk agreements must be fully implemented, and statements by Ukrainian officials to the contrary stem from their unscrupulous intentions or the lack of knowledge of the actual situation, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters on Thursday.

“The statements, which we hear from Ukrainian officials, that these decisions are not binding, all that stems from duplicity or ignorance of the issue, I can acknowledge that. There [in Ukraine], many are engrossed in the Ukrainian settlement in order to bolster their image on the back of this domestic political strife,” Russia’s top diplomat explained.

He stressed that Russia’s only ‘red line’ regarding the settlement process in eastern Ukraine is “the need to strictly and fully implement the Minsk agreements in their corresponding order.” UN Security Council resolutions are binding on all states.

Russia’s top diplomat added that Western countries should make efforts to encourage Kiev to abide by the UN Security Council’s decisions. According to Lavrov, Russia has repeatedly sent appropriate signals to international organizations and the capitals of European countries “regarding the need to persuade Kiev’s representatives to stop neglecting their duties and shying away from meeting the requirements of the Security Council.”

“We also hear statements, including from the top Ukrainian officials, that the Minsk agreements are important only in order to keep anti-Russian sanctions in place. I believe that our Western counterparts who work with Ukraine and verbally confirm that there is no alternative to the Minsk agreements should be ashamed for their charges,” Lavrov concluded.

(c) TASS

5 comments

  • Lavrov getting his panties in a twist. Found a very interesting article that throws a spanner in Lavrov’s works. Paragraph 3 of the offending UN resolution states.

    3. Calls on all parties to fully implement the “Package of measures”, including a comprehensive ceasefire as provided for therein.

    Russia screwed up with this resolution. If they wanted it to be legally binding. The 3rd paragraph should have read.

    “Demands all parties to fully implement the “Package of measures”, including a comprehensive ceasefire as provided for therein;

    Here is part of an article that refers to a UN resolution on Israel.

    “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.

    Moving from general principles to the particular case of Security Council Resolution 2334, by far most of the resolution’s operative paragraphs do utilize words and phrases such as “calls upon,” “reaffirms,” “underlines,” and “stresses,” which are generally (with the above caveat from the Namibia case) understood not to indicate an intention on the part of the Council to create binding legal obligation for U.N. member states or for the specific addressee of the resolution. There is one exception, however. Operative paragraph 2 states that the Council:

    “Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard.”

    The word “demand” in this provision sticks out. “Demand” is a word that has been used by the Council to command an addressee to abide by its obligations existing independently in international law. An example of its use in this context is found in operative paragraph 17 of Resolution 687 (1991), in which the Council:

    “demands that Iraq adhere scrupulously to all of its obligations concerning servicing and repayment of its foreign debt”

    Liked by 4 people

  • Laughrov’s red line is; “the need to strictly and fully implement the Minsk agreements in their corresponding order.”
    Then I would suggest the first two agreements in the corresponding order:
    1. To ensure an immediate bilateral ceasefire.
    2. To ensure the monitoring and verification of the ceasefire by the OSCE .
    Neither of which has been touched by the ruSSo-invaders and the silent OSCE knows it. The OSCE could speak up and tell the world what the real situation is but they don’t.
    In the follow-up memorandum to Minsk it requires that both parties;
    “To set up an OSCE mission to monitor implementation of Minsk Protocol.”

    Liked by 4 people

  • Lavrov the idiot is due for a heart attack is he not .

    Liked by 1 person

  • onlyfactsplease

    “The Minsk agreements must be fully implemented…”
    The Budapest Memorandum must be fully implemented. Broken by mafia land.
    The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership must be fully implemented. Broken by mafia land.
    The Partition Treaty must be fully implemented. Broken by mafia land.

    Good grief, horse, the Minsk agreement is dead, broken by mafia land

    Liked by 2 people

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.