I broadly blame the Ukrainians for the convoy crossing as it did, and for stalling, certainly. Had I been in their position I would have simply said "yes, cross at Kharkov once the ICRC and inspections have been done". Why? If you're genuinely concerned about weapon smuggling in those trucks then the most important thing is to inspect them, you don't want to give Russia an excuse to cross them uninspected. Constantly changing your position and taking a week from your inspectors arriving to checking 1/7 of the cargo is pretty unreasonable, setting aside any other considerations.

Hmm. Looks like we're have some problems here still. "Had I been in their position I would have simply said "yes, cross at Kharkov once the ICRC and inspections have been done". We're not talking about your possible actions on their positions here. We're talking about their actions i thought. But why not to try to write same stuff for 3-rd time indeed, with your own words now as guideline. If you would say, "Yes, i dont trust you from the start, but as i heard what ICRC had agreed to start negotiation process, what would result in a deal what will suit both sides - we're agree. Oh, you sayd you have settled all the stuff with them already, and they told what they will do routine what will meet our terms aswell, ok, nice, but ill just call theyr office to ensure if it actually happend. Oh, there a trucks beeping already at gates, but hey, i called them and they sayd what they actually have no idea what you talked about, and they didnt gave a supervision for a mission yet, and no, they have no idea what is in trucks yet, as they are only planning to start to preparing some general papers on a subject, right after coffee break. But hey, as im not Ukrainian official, im you, so surely ill happily ignore a weird lie from your side, what you pretending as ICRC aid, while it's not, so no problem, let just wait for ICRC to make your claim looking reasonable and forget the story entirely!" Well, there was Ukrainian officials instead of you, and way they had reacted on it looked way more reasonable than this. If one is intentionally lie, and it so easily verified, and one wasnt trusted from start, there is even less reason to trust later. So when proposed ICRC negotiation had actually performed (2 days after convoy pretending to be of ICRC initially arrived) the entry path was changed. All 3 sides looks to agree with it and comply initially. So i still wonder, why you pretend to call unnecessarily early arrival of convoy as intentional delay? If you have a plane ticket for a 20-th, but arrive at airport at 16-th, and refused a boarding on a plane in result, you will say what airport crew intentionally delay your trip, for no reason preventing you from free pass due to such small and unimportant problem? And in this certain case you can even add a fact of not matched name and surname on your ID and actual ticket for the future. About "intentional slowness" you're implying. For example Russian custom, what is situated in a safe calm places are not ashamed to check a regular cargo for some months sometimes. As we know, conditions there was far from ideal. Its possible what Ukrainian custom officers also less trained and competent than Russian ones, so it could add to it. All sides agreed on terms of checking the cargo as i got, so the idea of "oh, @#$#@#%, we're just go, slowpokes, outta way!" looks pretty suspicious. Indeed, if Russian side was actually cared to have a maximally fast and effective delivery, they had to send a convoy to a goodly equipped border pass (Kharkov one), instead of heavily shelled (Izvarino), and only after getting official confirmed recognition from ICRC, what would ensure to have own representatives at aforementioned pass at time of convoy arrival (or even better slighlty earlier), with Ukrainian side also confirmed what they're ready and await too, with deployed own custom officers there. Why on Earth Russia decided to instead perform that mockery what happend in reality is surely is unknown for me, despite i can have some own uneducated guesses about it. Why you're decided to blame Ukraine for that stuff surely is unknown for me too, though i can have some own uneducated guesses about it again. I wouldnt write it for 4-th time, as i have to lower the style of explanation with any iteration, hoping to make it easier to get in vain, when it would be need to be explained on a kid's level, im surely would pass, sorry.

On war crimes you've misread. I gave that solely as the reason the Ukrainians could not just say no and keep saying no, as that would open them up to war crimes accusations* because you aren't allowed to starve civilians in a siege situation any more- see accusations against Assad in Syria as an example. That is why they ultimately had to give a qualified theoretical yes to the Russian convoy crossing even if they practically wanted it delayed as much as possible. A hungry/ thirsty population is a military advantage to Ukraine as it means that resources have to be expended getting food, rebels have to go with less and a pressured population may become restive and want to surrender just to get food/ electricity/ water- but formally they aren't allowed to think that way. Practically, everyone- US with Fallujah, Israel with Gaza, Syria in several places, ISIS in several places- does think that way.

"In some cases, it might be difficult to prove the specific intent to use starvation as a method of warfare, i.e., as “a weapon to annihilate or weaken the population”. However, if the outcome of impeding humanitarian assistance is obvious according to the ordinary course of events, the intention can be inferred. Military necessity cannot serve as a justification, as even during sieges or blockades relief operations must be allowed.".
And this certain case would most probably fall into "difficult to prove". Actually after the Rebels gratuitously produced data about local habits of throwing eggs and tomatoes for fun, one have to be an extremely brave lawyer to even try to rise an issue about possible starvation there. But as obvious to one who followed timeline, Ukrainian officials was saying no, and kept saying no to "Putin's convoy aid", not to "ICRC convoy aid". You cannot simply move some cargo, pretending to help (even left aside false claims of ICRC recognision) because you heard what somebody is in trouble, and demand to "let it go ASAP, better right now and unchecked, as "good sirs, we're in hurry"". If you'll let anyone to act like this - it would be a perfect exploit for a smugglers, or even attackers. One of main roles of ICRC was to prevent such exploits by mediation, so both sides can have more trust about it. One surely can send a help without bothering ICRC, and other side could happily let it go and take the aid if it see a source of aid as reliable and honest one. But receiving side also can refuse to take it, and ask it to be returned to sender if they somewhy feel that way. And it was the case at moment of Kharkov post arrival (putting false claims about ICRC back here).

Personally, I think war crimes are bunk as a concept. No one with any power ever gets charged, and the whole thing is political sop to make people feel better about bad things happening. So such considerations hold little weight for me personally.

*In a technical sense they've already committed them by using indiscriminate weapons in built up areas, at least. So have the rebels as well though, by parading prisoners etc.

"I dont care about it so much, so im the one who talk about it", ok. Up to you.

that's how it was supposed to happen and that was UA side position.

You know, it's hard to have an argument with you when you don't even have a slightest clue of what you are talking about. There is no possible excuse to breach the border with other country - imagine trucks from Mexico crossing USA border or China providing aid to Siberia with unmarked uninspected trucks - they will be destroyed on first sight, and rightfully so.
yeah :( Parliament had to be re-elected because a lot of people in there were supporting separatism but there is no guarantee that new parliament would be a lot better as election laws are remaining the same still and they are objectively bad.

""No 'humanitarian convoy' from [Russian President Vladimir] Putin will be admitted through the Kharkiv region's territory. A provocation by the cynical aggressor on our territory is unacceptable," Avakov wrote, adding that it is the official position." Source. I already provided that link, such a shame you didn't read it- since it's your Interior Minister saying the exact opposite of what you claim. I only know what your Interior Minister said, better than you do. There's someone here who lacks a clue, but it ain't me.

Yep, you didn't attack the convoy because you would have had your arse handed to you in retaliation, but you could have had it with independent observers if you'd given guarantees of that, but you didn't. And you could have had it cross at Kharkov, if Avakov hadn't shot his mouth off. Both facts, whether you- or Darza or anyone else- can deal with them or not they'll remain facts.

There is good and evil on each side of the conflict. But some things are beyond even that.
I wish for every so-called "journalist" and "reporter" from both sides, who deliberately lied, substituted and falsified facts, and simply made up fantasy and horror stories, to die slow and painful deaths. It's them, media whores, who sow death in the first place, by making real zombies out of people. Not the walking dead. Quite the contrary, alive and kicking, secreting poison and cursing relatives and friends, ready to obliterate another side to satisfy their false pride. Nukes are child play. There is far more effective weapon out there. The one that poisons and leaves scars far too deep to make it go away. A bullet can kill one man, a word can kill millions.

you know what convoy is, right ? Vehicles with aid are one thing, military convoy is totally another. Avakov would be stupid to allow any sort of convoy there.

Again. Aid != aid with military convoy. No one had issues with red cross aid at any point. And care to check your facts before stating them - although i don't doubt that you think from NZ you have better view on situation than DarzaR from Russia.

You missed the point here i think. Actually it doesnt matter on actual containment of cargo here, but of allegiance of it. In theory ICRC could decide what trucks full of Zarine cans is a perfect humanitarian aid and approve delivering of it to a customer, with full awareness on a subject. But in such case it had to done via diplomatic way, as the providing of such data would cause turmoil enough to hit both ICRC and sender very badly. But not in way "hello, we just destryoed ICRC convoy, because it actually moved Zarine, and ICRC confirmed its awareness about cargo too". This way youll also "destroy unarmed ICRC convoy anyway". And here all is much-much simpler, agreement was about ICRC convoy pass, there was no ICRC convoy at time, and was some strange "Putin's convoy", what falsely pretending to be one instead, what obviously was denied any pass without any need in additional conversation about.

About factology - geographical location doesnt matter here at all by now. The only data used by all contributors are from open sources only, its "google data". The way one is operate that data is another question. My location in Russia could be of importance only if i had also used some insider data during conversation as some basis of my position. Say i could heard a truck drivers, or accompanying personnel conversation in cafe, or loaded a cargo with my own hands, so saw it etc. There is much greater probability what im happen to have such insider data, than some other guy on other side of globe, right. But such data could be classified as falsifiable only, and for outsider it would be nearly impossible to actually use it, if provided, anyway. Such data wasnt used, so no, there is no point to accent on geography here at all, we all could write from Quito, Pyongyang (assuming we're still able to show what we're somehow have an access to open data sources) or even Mars of Jupiter, its of no importance.

PS. Ah yes, months-long evolution from a "statistics\law_study-leaning distant place wiseguy" to "Yep, you didn't attack the convoy because you would have had your arse handed to you in retaliation" was priceless.

I think even worse is that Federalization should have happened before this next election, since you would have to vote for regional representation anyway once federalization passes. And national representation would by definition have to resign and get re-elected at that point anyway. But with no federalization these votes will still end up with a majority being pro West and a minority being pro Russia. It will imo solve nothing.

Hence odd timing, Federalization should have happened even with rebels around. Ukraine isn't a nation you can run with a central gov. Too large, too many people, too many (regional) interests and cultural differences... it saddens me that this is nearly a (political) surrender by the government. They had the power to push for changes, but they opted to hard-line it against Russia and the rebels and squander the euphoria from the Maidan events. The rebels need to be offered amnesty as well in exchange for their agreement with the Federalization plan. Germany could mediate, since we have the most experience how to do Federalization (Or how not to do it, when you look at our schools)

This whole Ukraine West Russian conflict is simply stupid, I don't mean that as in wars are stupid (they are) but the entire conflict is so utterly avoidable. Ukraine deserves to exist in the world without fear of invasion from Russia or rebels sponsored and funded by Russia. And for Crimea Ukraine should search reparation. If Russia doesn't pay Crimea should never be recognized and all western banking from that location should be banned. But why sanctions.... I don't even understand what the point of the western Sanctions is. What is the goal here?

Sigh

Ow, you are so naive. How old are you?

Haha ;P

[_] You know what an Ad hominem attack is and why it excludes you from any serious debate. ;)

It is not a personal attack.
Your post is too naive.
There are three big players on the table, which is called Ukraine.
EU doesn't care about Ukraine - they need from this area free transfer of gas. Which Ukraine regularly fails to provide.
Russia doesn't care about Ukraine - we needed free transfer of gas and soviet plants.
USA needs "strong and independent Ukraine" which, in fact, would exist as puppet state due to credit needle. They get interesting gain from current situation - putting Ukraine in debt, which they use to buy american weapon - double gain from nothing.
Ukrainian people don't care about free Ukraine - East Europe countries are so corrupt, that there is no difference. We now see tons of refugees everywhere which ask for citizenship.
Ukraine is a fail state, it is the worst country on post-soviet area, with Belorussia being the best. Ukraine had everything to thrive - best soil, guaranteed contracts with Russian army, discounts on fuel. And all my life (I was born in 1986) I hear about Ukraine only "they protest against their president". When I was in school - against Kuchma, in University - Yushenko, At work - Yanukovich...
Now they banned every Russian channel in the country. Does it look like democracy? It is birth of North Korea for me.

Smells like bias to me. Belorussia is loyal to Rusia and besides that it doesn't have much going for it. I think there are other eastern european countries that do better than Belorussia.

Belorussia has only potassium for fertilizers as their resource. And it managed to maintain stable production of heavy machinery. Lukashenko is the best manager on post-soviet area.
Technically, there are some more countries, which served as display windows for USSR and they had and still have better level of life, but I talk about development.

Those vehicles in that convoy he was referring to- ie the only one there has been- could be verified as carrying aid, at Kharkov, then escorted by ICRC monitors, exactly as I suggested. And indeed, you said that was what Ukraine offered. But actually Avakov said no without qualification, the quote is clear. You claimed Ukraine said yes, I proved they didn't. Based on the quality of your 'facts' I have a better grasp than at least one Ukrainian does.

Given the amount of propaganda coming from both Russia and Ukraine about the issue someone from a 3rd country is probably more likely to be accurate than someone from either. Can't claim I've got a stake or bias in backing either the rebels or Kiev.

Simple statistic. [url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_PPP_per_capita_CIS.svg]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_PPP_per_capita_CIS.svg[/url]
Belorussia had worse start and showed comparable to Russia growth. Ukraine - stalemate for twenty years.
Poroshenko is the sponsor of Yanukovich and one of oligarchs, which stalled country to zero growth. So, can you tell me with straight face that you got better government after third revolution?
And western media tired to excuse about Ukrainian photoshop skills.
http://time.com/74405/exclusive-pro-russian-separatists-eastern-ukraine/
Ok, there is lie in news. But animation for kids? Films? Heck, half of Ukraine would prefer to see them on Russian language. It's like Canada banning every channel on English language and leave only French ones because of Fox news.