sycasey said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

In all seriousness, though: none of this is "proven." The Russians say they didn't violate the agreement. Ukraine and much of the West says they did. All you have is an opinion here.

Personally, I think the fact that they invaded and started a war is pretty strong evidence that they didn't respect any peace treaty. But again: you do you.

---

.
The heads of state of France, Germany and Ukraine are all on record stating that they never intended to respect the Minsk Agreements. That is a whole lot more than "an opinion".

---

Rebuttal:

https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/merkel-admitted-that-the-minsk-agreements-were-a-ruse-to-rearm-ukrainian-armed-forces/

https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/french-president-hollande-never-intended-to-abide-by-the-minsk-agreements/

https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/france-germany-failed-to-encourage-ukraines-implementation-of-the-minsk-agreements/

Merkel's statement is not saying that these nations never intended to abide by the Minsk agreement, she's saying that they never thought Russia would abide by it so they considered it a frozen conflict, and that the end result was that it bought Ukraine time. They were probably correct in that assumption.

---

These nations never intended to abide by the Minsk agreement. Got it.

---

They didn't think it would work because Russia was going to keep doing stuff anyway, but they made efforts to abide by it.

---

So they broke the Minsk Agreements because they thought that Russia was going to break the Minsk Agreements, even though the heads of state of Ukraine, Germany and France all admitted that they were never going to abide by the MA in the first place - OK.

---

What did they do to break the Minsk agreements?

EDIT: And to be clear about this, I don't mean what they SAID about Minsk. I mean, what did they DO to break the agreement? Actions, not words.

---

April 30, 2015
How the Senate Armed Services Committee Is Undermining Minsk II
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-senate-armed-services-committee-undermining-minsk-ii/

Quote:

---

According to FT, German diplomats expressed frustration that Kiev is "dragging its feet" in implementing the agreement. For his part, French President Franl;ois Holland has warned Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that "the only line of conduct is the full implementation of the Minsk accord."

Yet it seems these calls for a peaceful solution to the crisis are not only falling on deaf ears, but are also purposefully being undermined, in Washington.

To wit: the same day the aforementioned troika met in Belgrade, the 28th, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on "United States Security Policy in Europe," though perhaps, given the tenor of the hearing, it should have been held under the rubric "The Russians are Coming!"

Armed Services Committee Chairman, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), got right to the point, running down a list of Russia's sinsreal and imagined. He derided the Obama administration's "so-called reset" policy and warned of Mr. Putin's "neo-imperial objectives." McCain accused Russia of violating the Minsk II cease-fire agreement and hectored NATO allies to follow the example of Poland and Estonia and increase its defense expenditures. Unbelievably, McCain closed his remarks by telling the gallery, which included a visiting delegation of Ukrainian parliamentarians, that "none of us wants to return to the Cold War."

Depressingly, there seemed to be little daylight between McCain and the committee's ranking member, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI). Both he and McCain have called on President Obama to "provide defense lethal assistance" to Ukraine. Only Senators Angus King (I-ME) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) expressed any skepticism towards the idea of sending lethal aid to Ukraine. The situation that pertains in the Washington of 2015, is in stark contrast to the previous Cold War. Today, it would seem, Democrats and Republicans are engaged in a contest of who can 'out-hawk' the other on Russia.

---

---

Okay, so once again here I see more people talking about arming Ukraine further, but this is pretty light on specific actions.

Also, we might need to define terms. What are the Minsk terms (in your view) and how do you consider them to have been violated here?

---

MINSK 2 WAS A SCAM Western leaders were not interested in reaching an agreement with Russia - Merkel Confirms Ukraine Peace Deal Was a Ploy pic.twitter.com/y6k73lKaWX

— Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil (@ivan_8848) December 31, 2024

Police in Poltava, Ukraine, made the mistake of trying to mobilize a pitbull owner 😬
pic.twitter.com/tNUVV159CP

— Gabe (@GabeZZOZZ) December 5, 2025

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

In all seriousness, though: none of this is "proven." The Russians say they didn't violate the agreement. Ukraine and much of the West says they did. All you have is an opinion here.

Personally, I think the fact that they invaded and started a war is pretty strong evidence that they didn't respect any peace treaty. But again: you do you.

---

.
The heads of state of France, Germany and Ukraine are all on record stating that they never intended to respect the Minsk Agreements. That is a whole lot more than "an opinion".

---

Rebuttal:

https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/merkel-admitted-that-the-minsk-agreements-were-a-ruse-to-rearm-ukrainian-armed-forces/

https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/french-president-hollande-never-intended-to-abide-by-the-minsk-agreements/

https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/france-germany-failed-to-encourage-ukraines-implementation-of-the-minsk-agreements/

Merkel's statement is not saying that these nations never intended to abide by the Minsk agreement, she's saying that they never thought Russia would abide by it so they considered it a frozen conflict, and that the end result was that it bought Ukraine time. They were probably correct in that assumption.

---

These nations never intended to abide by the Minsk agreement. Got it.

---

They didn't think it would work because Russia was going to keep doing stuff anyway, but they made efforts to abide by it.

---

So they broke the Minsk Agreements because they thought that Russia was going to break the Minsk Agreements, even though the heads of state of Ukraine, Germany and France all admitted that they were never going to abide by the MA in the first place - OK.

---

What did they do to break the Minsk agreements?

EDIT: And to be clear about this, I don't mean what they SAID about Minsk. I mean, what did they DO to break the agreement? Actions, not words.

---

April 30, 2015
How the Senate Armed Services Committee Is Undermining Minsk II
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-senate-armed-services-committee-undermining-minsk-ii/

Quote:

---

According to FT, German diplomats expressed frustration that Kiev is "dragging its feet" in implementing the agreement. For his part, French President Franl;ois Holland has warned Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that "the only line of conduct is the full implementation of the Minsk accord."

Yet it seems these calls for a peaceful solution to the crisis are not only falling on deaf ears, but are also purposefully being undermined, in Washington.

To wit: the same day the aforementioned troika met in Belgrade, the 28th, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on "United States Security Policy in Europe," though perhaps, given the tenor of the hearing, it should have been held under the rubric "The Russians are Coming!"

Armed Services Committee Chairman, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), got right to the point, running down a list of Russia's sinsreal and imagined. He derided the Obama administration's "so-called reset" policy and warned of Mr. Putin's "neo-imperial objectives." McCain accused Russia of violating the Minsk II cease-fire agreement and hectored NATO allies to follow the example of Poland and Estonia and increase its defense expenditures. Unbelievably, McCain closed his remarks by telling the gallery, which included a visiting delegation of Ukrainian parliamentarians, that "none of us wants to return to the Cold War."

Depressingly, there seemed to be little daylight between McCain and the committee's ranking member, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI). Both he and McCain have called on President Obama to "provide defense lethal assistance" to Ukraine. Only Senators Angus King (I-ME) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) expressed any skepticism towards the idea of sending lethal aid to Ukraine. The situation that pertains in the Washington of 2015, is in stark contrast to the previous Cold War. Today, it would seem, Democrats and Republicans are engaged in a contest of who can 'out-hawk' the other on Russia.

---

---

Okay, so once again here I see more people talking about arming Ukraine further, but this is pretty light on specific actions.

Also, we might need to define terms. What are the Minsk terms (in your view) and how do you consider them to have been violated here?

---

MINSK 2 WAS A SCAM Western leaders were not interested in reaching an agreement with Russia - Merkel Confirms Ukraine Peace Deal Was a Ploy pic.twitter.com/y6k73lKaWX

— Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil (@ivan_8848) December 31, 2024

---

Just the same claim about what Merkel said, repeated. Is there anything else?

NATO was funding and arming Kiev's army, which kept bombing the Donbas, with for instance random strikes on downtown Donetsk, and failed to provide the Donbas provinces their autonomy, which was a key point in the Minsk II.

Cal88 said:

---

NATO was funding and arming Kiev's army, which kept bombing the Donbas, with for instance random strikes on downtown Donetsk, and failed to provide the Donbas provinces their autonomy, which was a key point in the Minsk II.

---

This was supposed to happen after full ceasefire and disarmament in the provinces, yes? Did that ever happen?

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

NATO was funding and arming Kiev's army, which kept bombing the Donbas, with for instance random strikes on downtown Donetsk, and failed to provide the Donbas provinces their autonomy, which was a key point in the Minsk II.

---

This was supposed to happen after full ceasefire and disarmament in the provinces, yes? Did that ever happen?

---

The Kiev army never stopped bombing cities like Donetsk, killing over 10,000 civilians, the largest in the Donbas, never withdrew its armed forces from the Donbas, and instead of moving toward giving these provinces autonomy, they doubled down and throttled Russophone and independent media. They never intended to give autonomy to the Donbas, the Kiev government has been ruled by ideologically intransigent nationalists who want to force the Donbas to abandon their cultural and linguistic heritage.


When Merkel, Hollande and Poroshenko all state that the Minsk agreements were drafted to give Ukraine more time to rearm and reconquer the Donbas, it is more than enough proof about their not ever intending to abide by the MA. Same when a US delegation goes to Kiev in 2016 and declares 2017 to be the "year of offense"...

Breaking the Minsk 2 agreement - and even film it...
you can't make this shit up.
Putin was right - you can't trust the West.
Now the NATO Proxy Ukraine will be taken apart - and West can't do shit against it.
US regime got what it wanted - a weakened Europe - cut off from cheap… pic.twitter.com/ATBiaFzUE0

— -- GEROMAN -- time will tell - 👀 -- (@GeromanAT) February 15, 2024

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

NATO was funding and arming Kiev's army, which kept bombing the Donbas, with for instance random strikes on downtown Donetsk, and failed to provide the Donbas provinces their autonomy, which was a key point in the Minsk II.

---

This was supposed to happen after full ceasefire and disarmament in the provinces, yes? Did that ever happen?

---

The Kiev army never stopped bombing cities like Donetsk, killing over 10,000 civilians, the largest in the Donbas, never withdrew its armed forces from the Donbas, and instead of moving toward giving these provinces autonomy, they doubled down and throttled Russophone and independent media. They never intended to give autonomy to the Donbas, the Kiev government has been ruled by ideologically intransigent nationalists who want to force the Donbas to abandon their cultural and linguistic heritage.

---

So the ceasefire never happened, right? The separatist groups also never stopped fighting, and Russia never stopped arming them, so the Ukrainian military never withdrew.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

NATO was funding and arming Kiev's army, which kept bombing the Donbas, with for instance random strikes on downtown Donetsk, and failed to provide the Donbas provinces their autonomy, which was a key point in the Minsk II.

---

This was supposed to happen after full ceasefire and disarmament in the provinces, yes? Did that ever happen?

---

The Kiev army never stopped bombing cities like Donetsk, killing over 10,000 civilians, the largest in the Donbas, never withdrew its armed forces from the Donbas, and instead of moving toward giving these provinces autonomy, they doubled down and throttled Russophone and independent media. They never intended to give autonomy to the Donbas, the Kiev government has been ruled by ideologically intransigent nationalists who want to force the Donbas to abandon their cultural and linguistic heritage.

---

So the ceasefire never happened, right? The separatist groups also never stopped fighting, and Russia never stopped arming them, so the Ukrainian military never withdrew.

---

Kiev was occupying the Donbas, the rebels were locals. For a cease fire to happen, the army, which was sent in under the "ATO" to suppress local rebellions, had to stop bombing and withdraw. The Donbas rebels were not going to chase them west, they were to form local police structures under the Minsk provisions stipulating autonomy for the Donbas. Also keep in mind that most of the Donbas rebels were local Ukrainian army troops that refused to turn their guns on their people.

We're going to start seeing next year the forced conscription Ukrainian army patrols use firearms on the population, which is fighting back.

A new frontline! People's uprising against Zelenskyy!

Unarmed Ukrainians in Odesa clashed with military police who were trying to send them to the front.

By rejecting Trump's peace plan, Ukraine is bringing civil war closer. pic.twitter.com/Hx1sgqjP0o

— Diana Panchenko 🇺🇦 (@Panchenko_X) December 6, 2025

They go on about all the costs in men and material for Russia, but insist the only problems for Ukraine are "Zelensky’s governing methods and the alleged corruption of some of his associates."

Other than that, all is great on their side. It's Russia that's paying the price.

— Scott Horton (@scotthortonshow) December 7, 2025

Then continues with the psychopathic nonsense:

Trump's proposal, "offered a so-called peace that might, in fact, be much worse for both Ukraine and the West than the continuation of war. Bloody, grinding wars are costly in human and material terms, but if the alternative to such…

— Scott Horton (@scotthortonshow) December 7, 2025

Ukraine's best friends at Foreign Affairs will forever be remembered for doing as much as Vladimir Putin to see their country destroyed. Them and alot of others too.

— Scott Horton (@scotthortonshow) December 7, 2025

Speaking of Strategic Defeat:

The Day After: The Peace No One Is Prepared For https://t.co/IYlsGeJbH8

— Scott Horton (@scotthortonshow) December 7, 2025

This kind of gives an idea of the loss ratio in this war.

🇺🇦🇷🇺 Ukraine and Russia conducted an exchange of the bodies of deceased soldiers.

- 1000 Ukranian bodies
- 30 Russian bodies

Ukraine is somehow winning, with this ratio … Zelensky claims. pic.twitter.com/DVGuh2yzyS

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) November 20, 2025

🇺🇦🇷🇺 Another exchange of bodies of soldiers between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.

- Russian transferred 1,000 bodies
- Ukraine transferred 19 bodies

Ratio 52 Ukrainians for 1 Russian … hence Ukraine is not making it too public. pic.twitter.com/RiaHh2uwO0

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) July 17, 2025

In the least surprising revelation ever, the NYT -- which has vocally and vehemently championed Zelensky and US financing of the war in Ukraine -- documents how Zelensky and his top aides facilitated the stealing of billions in "aid":😲🇺🇦https://t.co/9ND3R0qrPU

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 7, 2025

Those types of articles signal that the war might end next year, with a change in management in Kiev. People knew that this level of corruption was taking place there for years, but only now is it hitting the MSM.

The Telegraph: Russia rapidly gaining territory in Ukraine ahead of Downing Street summit

Putin's army seizing land at one of its fastest rates since initial invasion almost four year ago, research suggests

"The Kremlin's army seized 200 square miles of territory in November, up from 100 square miles the previous month, according to DeepState, a trusted Ukraine-based battlefield map."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/12/07/russia-rapidly-gaining-territory-ukraine-peace-talks-stall/

Cal88 said:

---

Those types of articles signal that the war might end next year, with a change in management in Kiev. People knew that this level of corruption was taking place there for years, but only now is it hitting the MSM.

---

Will the Russian victory end the corruption or just redirect the fruits of corruption?

If the Russian conquerors engage in corruption will that justify an invasion by another country?

bearister said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Those types of articles signal that the war might end next year, with a change in management in Kiev. People knew that this level of corruption was taking place there for years, but only now is it hitting the MSM.

---

Will the Russian victory end the corruption or just redirect the fruits of corruption?

If the Russian conquerors engage in corruption will that justify an invasion by another country?

---

It means the Russians will have to be corrupt with their own money, since the U.S won't be sending any more money to Ukraine once it's a Russian state again.



As for the second part of your response

Too busy doing lines?

I stumbled into Scott Ritter, he claims the options for Z are narrowing, he'll be replaced, and a Russian-friendly leader will be put in place.

Trump on the peace deal proposal:

“I have to say that I'm a little bit disappointed that President Zelensky hasn't yet read the proposal.

pic.twitter.com/cXhvrCa85G

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) December 8, 2025

“MOSCOW, Dec 7 (Reuters) - The Kremlin on Sunday welcomed Donald Trump's new national security strategy and said it largely accorded with Russia's own perceptions, the first time that Moscow has so fulsomely praised its former Cold War foe.” https://t.co/kDrAiHazhZ

— Heath Mayo (@HeathMayo) December 8, 2025

Z hasn't even read it. Is his wife in Monaco, or Paris?

movielover said:

---

Z hasn't even read it. Is his wife in Monaco, or Paris?

---

Dunno, but I guess we're going to see how it goes when the US does what Putin wants on the geopolitical stage. Interesting times!

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

Z hasn't even read it. Is his wife in Monaco, or Paris?

---

Dunno, but I guess we're going to see how it goes when the US does what Putin wants on the geopolitical stage. Interesting times!

---

Too bad NATO FA and FO. Another Biden catastrophe.

Politics at home will be tough.

Majority in the US believe forcing Ukraine to cede territory to Russia is unacceptable, new poll found https://t.co/6YE2Bk3rfU pic.twitter.com/kYq3p7cjNs

— New York Post (@nypost) December 6, 2025

Majority in the US believe forcing Ukraine to cede territory to Russia is unacceptable, new poll found https://t.co/6YE2Bk3rfU pic.twitter.com/kYq3p7cjNs

— New York Post (@nypost) December 6, 2025

sycasey said:

---

Politics at home will be tough.

---

It's pretty easy actually, stopping the war will be very popular at home.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Politics at home will be tough.

---

It's pretty easy actually, stopping the war will be very popular at home.

---

IMO this polling indicates that it will depend on how it's viewed. If it looks like Trump just capitulated to Putin, it won't be popular.

Funny, I've never been polled for any question ever...

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Politics at home will be tough.

---

It's pretty easy actually, stopping the war will be very popular at home.

---

IMO this polling indicates that it will depend on how it's viewed. If it looks like Trump just capitulated to Putin, it won't be popular.

---

The reality is that this war has cost Ukraine 1.75 million men and counting, and the US taxpayer well over $100 billion and counting. You can't keep obscuring these facts with the cult of personality of Putin.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Funny, I've never been polled for any question ever...

---

I guess that means the poll is fake then.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Politics at home will be tough.

---

It's pretty easy actually, stopping the war will be very popular at home.

---

IMO this polling indicates that it will depend on how it's viewed. If it looks like Trump just capitulated to Putin, it won't be popular.

---

The reality is that this war has cost Ukraine 1.75 million men and counting, and the US taxpayer well over $100 billion and counting. You can't keep obscuring these facts with the cult of personality of Putin.

---

I'm just relaying polling on the issue. Maybe you all need to do more to convince the American people.

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Funny, I've never been polled for any question ever...

---

I guess that means the poll is fake then.

---

No but i'm nearly 50 now...that many years and just statistically you would think at least once. To me it puts a question in my head that the people that get polled are absolutely chosen.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Funny, I've never been polled for any question ever...

---

I guess that means the poll is fake then.

---

No but i'm nearly 50 now...that many years and just statistically you would think at least once. To me it puts a question in my head that the people that get polled are absolutely chosen.

---

Which means you're basically saying the poll is fake (or rigged).

Hurry, pick up the phone, it's Rasmussen calling!

Did you know that in 2014 Ukraine needed a loan?
Two offers were on the table:

🔴 The IMF dangled $15 billion,but with strings attached:

-Scrap the ban on private land ownership

-Slash pensions and fuel subsidies,classic austerity.

🔴 Russia also offered $15 billion,no… pic.twitter.com/OVPZFQXCkK

— Richard (@ricwe123) December 8, 2025

Quote:

---

So what happened? Washington backed a coup, ousted him, and installed a new puppet regime. The new government bent the knee to the IMF, signed off on austerity program and opened the door to privatization. Now, massive chunks of Ukrainian land,about a third,are in the hands of foreign giants like BlackRock.

---

Aunburdened said:

---

Did you know that in 2014 Ukraine needed a loan?
Two offers were on the table:

🔴 The IMF dangled $15 billion,but with strings attached:

-Scrap the ban on private land ownership

-Slash pensions and fuel subsidies,classic austerity.

🔴 Russia also offered $15 billion,no… pic.twitter.com/OVPZFQXCkK

— Richard (@ricwe123) December 8, 2025

Quote:

---

So what happened? Washington backed a coup, ousted him, and installed a new puppet regime. The new government bent the knee to the IMF, signed off on austerity program and opened the door to privatization. Now, massive chunks of Ukrainian land,about a third,are in the hands of foreign giants like BlackRock.

---

---

The tweet has some inaccuracies:

- IMF's 2013 loan talks involved harsh austerity like gas price hikes, but not scrapping land ownership bans (that came in 2021 reforms).

- About a third of Ukrainian land isn't owned by foreign giants like BlackRock; ~28% is controlled by…

— Grok (@grok) December 9, 2025

sycasey said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

Did you know that in 2014 Ukraine needed a loan?
Two offers were on the table:

🔴 The IMF dangled $15 billion,but with strings attached:

-Scrap the ban on private land ownership

-Slash pensions and fuel subsidies,classic austerity.

🔴 Russia also offered $15 billion,no… pic.twitter.com/OVPZFQXCkK

— Richard (@ricwe123) December 8, 2025

Quote:

---

So what happened? Washington backed a coup, ousted him, and installed a new puppet regime. The new government bent the knee to the IMF, signed off on austerity program and opened the door to privatization. Now, massive chunks of Ukrainian land,about a third,are in the hands of foreign giants like BlackRock.

---

---

The tweet has some inaccuracies:

- IMF's 2013 loan talks involved harsh austerity like gas price hikes, but not scrapping land ownership bans (that came in 2021 reforms).

- About a third of Ukrainian land isn't owned by foreign giants like BlackRock; ~28% is controlled by…

— Grok (@grok) December 9, 2025

---

Grok?

sycasey said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

Did you know that in 2014 Ukraine needed a loan?
Two offers were on the table:

🔴 The IMF dangled $15 billion,but with strings attached:

-Scrap the ban on private land ownership

-Slash pensions and fuel subsidies,classic austerity.

🔴 Russia also offered $15 billion,no… pic.twitter.com/OVPZFQXCkK

— Richard (@ricwe123) December 8, 2025

Quote:

---

So what happened? Washington backed a coup, ousted him, and installed a new puppet regime. The new government bent the knee to the IMF, signed off on austerity program and opened the door to privatization. Now, massive chunks of Ukrainian land,about a third,are in the hands of foreign giants like BlackRock.

---

---

The tweet has some inaccuracies:

- IMF's 2013 loan talks involved harsh austerity like gas price hikes, but not scrapping land ownership bans (that came in 2021 reforms).

- About a third of Ukrainian land isn't owned by foreign giants like BlackRock; ~28% is controlled by…

— Grok (@grok) December 9, 2025

---

Read it and weep, you war apologist turd.
https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/default/files/files-archive/takeover-ukraine-agricultural-land.pdf

Quote:

---

Lifting the moratorium on the sale of agricultural land
and the creation of a land market had been a key demand
of Western financial institutions since 2014.127 As detailed
below, the EBRD, the IMF, and the World Bank all pushed
for this reform to expand access to Ukraine's farmland for
agribusinesses and private investors.

The strategy of EBRD, Ukraine's largest lender and inves-
tor, is centered around creating a "conducive environment
for market efficiency," notably through the land reform. 128
It has spent close to US$2 billion to support the country's
leading agribusinesses while pressuring the government to
implement land reform to increase private investment. 129

The EBRD's 2011-2014 Ukraine Country Strategy aimed
to "[unlock its] agricultural and industrial potential" by ad-
dressing a number of challenges, including the agricultural
sector's low productivity, uncertainty tied to land owner-
ship and user rights, limited access to finance, and the
moratorium on the sale of agricultural land. 130 According
to the EBRD, all of these stood in the way of investments. 131

In 2011, the EBRD also launched the Private Sector in
Food Security Initiative, 132 which pushed for deregulation
of the agricultural sector, working with "the industry and
the government to develop a concrete work plan to remove
obstacles to sector-wide agribusiness investments." 133 Its
2018-2023 Country Strategy stated that "land reform is key
for private business" and that the Bank would continue to
push for it. 134

---

Quote:

---

With an estimated 64 percent of the population against the
creation of a land market,145 the IMF launched a public infor-
mation campaign in 2017 in an attempt to gain support for
the reform.146 In 2019 and 2020, large protests and rallies
erupted against changes to laws governing the sale of farm-
land.147 Much of this opposition stems from the fact that
many Ukrainians believe the land reform law will exacerbate
corruption in the agricultural sphere, as well as reinforce its
control by powerful interests.148 For many citizens, the most
serious concern with the law is the potential for oligarchs
and foreign interests to obtain ownership of land, by exploiting
the country's impotent judicial and regulatory systems.149

---