• HOME
  • REVISTA GEOPOLITICA
    • BOARD
      • DIPLOMATS
      • NATIONAL BOARD
      • INTERNATIONAL
    • 2022
      • nr. 92-93/2022
      • MAREA NEAGRĂ ÎN VORTEXUL GEOPOLITIC (I)
      • MAREA NEAGRĂ ÎN VORTEXUL GEOPOLITIC (II)
    • 2021
      • nr. 91/2021
      • nr. 89-90/2021
      • nr. 87-88/2021
      • nr. 86/2021
    • 2020
      • nr. 85/2020
      • nr. 84/2020
      • nr. 83/2020
      • nr. 82/2020
    • 2019
      • nr. 81/2019
      • nr. 80/2019
      • nr. 78-79/2019
      • nr. 77/2019
    • 2018
      • nr. 76/2018
      • nr. 75/2018
      • nr. 74/2018
      • nr. 73/2018
    • 2017
      • nr. 72/2017
      • nr. 71/2017
      • nr. 70/2017
      • nr. 68-69/2017
    • 2016
      • nr. 67/2016
      • nr. 66/2016
      • nr. 64-65/2016
      • nr. 63/2016
    • 2015
      • nr. 62/2015
      • nr. 61/2015
      • nr. 60/2015
      • nr.59/2015 EN
      • nr.59/2015 RO
    • 2014
      • nr. 58/2014
      • nr. 57/2014
      • nr. 56/2014
      • nr. 54-55/2014
    • 2013
      • nr. 53/2013
      • nr. 52/2013
      • nr. 51/2013
      • nr. 49-50/2013
    • 2012
      • nr. 48/2012
      • nr. 47/2012
      • nr. 46/2012
      • nr. 44-45/2012
    • 2011
      • nr. 43/2011
      • nr. 41-42/2011
      • NR. 40/2011
      • nr. 39/2011
    • 2010
      • nr. 38/2010
      • nr. 36-37/2010
      • nr. 35/2010
      • nr. 33-34/2010
    • 2009
      • nr. 32/2009
      • nr. 31/2009
      • nr. 30/2009
      • nr. 29/2009
    • 2008
      • nr. 26/2008
      • nr. 25/2008
      • nr. 28/2008
      • nr. 27/2008
    • 2007
      • nr. 24/2007
      • nr. 23/2007
      • nr. 22/2007
      • nr. 21/2007
    • 2006
      • nr. 20/2006
      • nr. 19/2006
      • nr. 18/2006
      • nr. 16-17/2006
    • 2005
      • nr. 14-15/2005
      • nr. 13/2005
      • nr. 12/2005
      • nr. 11/2005
    • 2004
      • nr. 09-10/2004
      • nr. 07-08/2004
      • nr. 06/2004
      • nr. 04-05/2004
    • 2003
      • nr. 02-03/2003
      • nr. 01/2003
  • EDITORIAL
  • APARIȚII EDITORIALE
  • G-FOCUS

GeoPolitica

Portal de analize geopolitice, strategice si economice

  • ASOCIATIA “ION CONEA”
    • SCOP
    • DONATIONS. SPONSORSHIPS. ADVERTISING
  • Carti TOP FORM
  • G-FOCUS
  • Comanda GEOPOLITICA!
  • ABONAMENTE
  • G-FOCUS
  • CONTACT
  • GDPR
  • 09/08/2022
You are here: Home / TOPICS / GEOPOLITICS / Russia must not get another “Minsk agreement” in Ukraine

Russia must not get another “Minsk agreement” in Ukraine

by https://www.geopolitic.ro/author/

Hans Petter Midttun
Hans Petter Midttun is educated at the Royal Norwegian Naval Academy, the Norwegian National Defence Command and Staff College and the Norwegian Defense College, as well as education from the Federal Defence Forces of Germany. He has broad international experience from both operations and postings abroad (NATO, Germany, Spain, Belgium, and Ukraine). The service includes seven years in command of frigates and six NATO deployments. Midttun put into operation, tested and verified the operational capabilities of one of the newest frigates in the Norwegian Navy. He served at the Norwegian Joint Headquarters and Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) before being posted to Ukraine as the Norwegian Defence Attache (2014-2018). Based on previous experiences, Midttun is presently publishing articles and analytic works on the security situation in and around Ukraine as a private person.
Eight years ago, Ukraine was forced to sign up for a Minsk “peace agreement” that ushered in Russia’s current war. This fallacy should not repeat.

Shortly after the war started on 20 February 2014, Russia established the two proxy “self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. Despite calls to be incorporated into the Russian Federation, Putin kept his proxies at arm’s length for eight years. In contrast to recent statements, and right up to the point when he “recognized their independence” on 21 February 2022, he insisted that the territories were an integrated part of Ukraine.

This allowed him to conduct a low-intensity war in Ukraine for more than eight years while upholding a “hope for a peaceful resolution” which helped ensure that the West did not provide Ukraine with the defense support it desperately needed to rebuild its Armed Forces.

The strategy also helped undermine Ukraine through the parallel and synchronized use of both military and non-military means (hybrid war). It had a direct impact on people’s costs of living, trust in government, the functioning of institutions, international investments, and international perception of Ukraine and willingness to support the country. It tried to exploit the protest potential of the Ukrainian population.

Read more…

Related

Filed Under: GEOPOLITICS

About

ARTICOL INTEGRAL
Pe geopolitic.ro sunt publicate abstracte ale articolelor publicate în Revista GEOPOLITICA, care poate fi comandată pe www.geopoliticamagazine.com, în format tipărit sau electronic.

PARTNERS

AUTHORS

PHOTOSGALLERY

INTERNATIONAL BOARD

NOUTATI EDITORIALE

Colectia GeoPolitica

Colectia GeoStrategie

Colectia GeoIntelligence

Colectia GeoIstorie

KEYWORD

Asia Centrală (26) Azerbaijan (27) Black Sea (44) carte (37) China (71) conflict (36) cooperare (29) criza (30) energie (28) energy (27) EU (46) Europa (35) European Union (41) geopolitica (157) geopolitics (54) globalizare (55) identitate (26) integrare (28) internationala (32) Irak (47) Iran (62) Islam (41) lansare (44) marea neagra (94) NATO (96) Orientul Mijlociu (29) putere (26) religie (26) Romania (184) Rusia (123) Russia (79) securitate (85) security (48) strategy (26) SUA (77) terorism (56) terrorism (34) Turcia (67) Turkey (38) Ucraina (58) UE (99) Ukraine (51) Uniunea Europeană (55) USA (30) şcoală (33)

Social Media

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • Google+
GeoPolitica Copyright © 2015 - Log in