You really shouldn't accuse people of ignorance or lying, it makes you look... less than stellar when it turns out it's you who are wrong. Dealing specifically with your issues Direct from your WP article, emphasis mine:

"Ukrainian officials refused to let the trucks through a government-controlled border crossing in the Kharkiv region, so the convoy headed for rebel-controlled territory instead."

So the original route was taken off the table by the Ukrainians, not the Russians. Also,

"The ICRC asked for security guarantees, which Ukraine gave — but only for areas under government control."

ie the Ukrainians said it could not cross at its border crossing as planned, and then said they couldn't guarantee ICRC safety if they crossed at an alternative. Thus the 'problems' the Ukrainians had were all caused by things they themselves did- can't cross at our crossing point, but if you cross elsewhere we may shoot you. Combine that with the previous stuff such as the ICRC saying the rebels had given guarantees of safe passage and that the Ukrainians did have enough time to inspect and it's actually pretty clear that the Ukrainians were stalling and had every intention of doing so as long as possible. In the end the Russians had two options, allow indefinite stalling or cross.

Or in other words your chosen article doesn't prove your accusations, it actually disproves them.

You just need to c\p stuff without cutting unneded parts, say
"Yet the convoy was shrouded in controversy from the start. When Russia first sent the trucks toward Ukraine they did it without specific ICRC authorization, prompting Ukraine and its allies to worry that the shipment was designed as cover for a military invasion.

Ukrainian officials refused to let the trucks through a government-controlled border crossing in the Kharkiv region, so the convoy headed for rebel-controlled territory instead."
is pretty not the same as
" "Ukrainian officials refused to let the trucks through a government-controlled border crossing in the Kharkiv region, so the convoy headed for rebel-controlled territory instead."

So the original route was taken off the table by the Ukrainians, not the Russians. Also,

"The ICRC asked for security guarantees, which Ukraine gave — but only for areas under government control.""
in your version.
So, as we can see, when original route was chosen, IIRC hadnt gave any own supervision about convoy, and instead of arriving at planned place and dealing with them (ofc they was refused to cross as IIRC convoy, what IIRC was refusing to recognize as one), they preferred to do round trip, get IIRC recognision in process, but obviously losing any safety guarantee provided for original route (ofc Ukr side cannot provide ones for warzone). And then, after IIRC personnel had some laugh checking empty trucks, and refused to go under fire accompanying them... another mystery. No round trip back to original checkpoint, where they should had been let go according to initial agreement (as they had meet all prerequisites needed by that time), but direct violation and breakthrough unauthorized instead. So "a mountain gives birth to a mouse", but it somehow not mountain to blame still, right?

Got you wrong then, sorry, forget.

Nah, it's pretty simple and there in black and white. The Ukrainians could easily have said "come through at Kharkov and when ICRC supervision and inspections have been arranged proceed from there" if they actually wanted to expedite matters. The Russians managed to arrange ICRC supervision within that time frame, no reason the Ukrainians could not. If they'd done that they would have had effective control and the ability to check thoroughly at their leisure, at worst the Russians would ignore them and we'd have what happened anyway but with the Russians obviously at fault. But they specifically said- as per your article- that it couldn't cross there, then refused security guarantees if it crossed elsewhere, guarantees the rebels- also in a war zone- did give, and thus Ukraine themselves removed the ability to send independent observers.

If Ukraine had said "come through at Kharkov, ICRC supervision and inspections can proceed there" then they'd have no cause for complaint and the Russians no excuse and- no ability- to do any 'smuggling' using those trucks. But the Ukrainians did not say that and- direct from that WP article- said they couldn't come through at Kharkov.

The timeline of events is pretty simple and makes things pretty obvious. Convoy heads towards Kharkov, Ukraine refuses entry so it heads for (Russian town of) Donetsk, ICRC arrives and will accompany if safety guarantees met, rebels give safety guarantee, Ukraine army doesn't, after a week Ukrainians start inspections that the ICRC say should be finished the next day, they aren't (allegedly only 1/7 were, that's some go slow given the ICRC expected 7/7 to be done in the same time frame), Russians get impatient with what would be a further week delay if inspections continued at that rate and proceed anyway.

Whether the Russians were smuggling in weapons is another matter, but the Ukrainians had ample opportunity to prevent it or make it far less likely either by allowing the crossing at Kharkov or guaranteeing the neutral observers' safety. They did neither.

Sorry, i didnt got what you lack a data from a whole week ago. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/12/russian-aid-convoy-ukraine-red-cross ; http://www.dw.de/ukraines-avakov-insists-russian-convoy-wont-be-allowed-in/a-17849138 or http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/12/russian-aid-ukraine/13939439/ or even http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/controversial-russian-humanitarian-aid-convoy-stops-on-its-way-to-ukraine-360505.html or http://www.ibtimes.com/ukraine-will-allow-russian-aid-convoy-across-border-after-moscow-concedes-demands-1656584 actually make it looks pretty close to "come through at Kharkov and when ICRC supervision and inspections have been arranged proceed from there", but lookd like the proposed "supervision and inspections" way was unable to be performed. And no, according to same data it looks incorrect what "The Russians managed to arrange ICRC supervision within that time frame", and until it was settled, "it couldn't cross there", thats correct. Why unauthorized and unchecked cargo should be "could" this way? So later, according to other agreement to settle it, it was supposed to be checked at Izvarino, instead of been reloaded to other trucks, but it was failed to go through whole routine there too.

According to Russian sources "If Ukraine had said "come through at Kharkov, ICRC supervision and inspections can proceed there" part was perfectly meet http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/744688 , but the later links (above) claims what ICRC was unaware about whole stuff or smth like this. And it looks logical, what if somebody bring ICRC aid, what should be delivered via ICRC, but ICRC doesnt recognize it, and still not on spot - its hardly to blame ones, who refuse to see it as ICRC business. Why ICRC failed to settle it on spot is some puzzle for me.

"after a week Ukrainians start inspections that the ICRC say should be finished the next day, they aren't " - not surprize, custom work take quite a time even in regular conditions, and ones there hardly could be qualified as such. So we see what ICRC wasnt so hurry in recognizing a moving convoy, and rushing to meet it on Kharkiv, but then decided to set own timestamps to follow later? Another puzzle from them.

" ICRC arrives and will accompany if safety guarantees met, rebels give safety guarantee, Ukraine army doesn't" - again, rebels guarantee means nothing above "we're saying what we wouldnt shoot you", while army's one include "you wouldnt get shot". While first one is possible to be claimed and fulfilled, the other claim done for warzone is purely absurd, you have to be mad to propose it. As zone is under rebel control anyway, and they gave the permission, next puzzle is why ICRC people decided not to accompany trucks.

By now the most weirdly acting side is ICRC honestly, "Whether the Russians were smuggling in weapons is another matter".

well, i have to agree with DarzaR, you are either misinformed or lying. There were 3 problems with Russian convoy:

1. It was half-empty and most of the trucks were filled with bags of salt or water. There are numerous reports of that in twitter, e.g. https://twitter.com/Dbnmjr/status/500372089237671936 but you can find tons of others.
2. Ukraine had problems agreeing to the "aid" (although i'm sure salt would save many-many-many lives there of course) because Russia side haven't provided any legal info on what was in. It was half-resolved later but still Russia decided to basically illegally cross the border (official reason was because food will get spoiled, which is absolutely reasonable, especially for salt)
3. All of russian trucks left in 24 hours, taking equipment from UA military factories- https://twitter.com/soborna_com/status/503161187547508736

1. Convoy moved for a while, drivers carried supplies for themselves. At least 2 drivers per machine - 500 men which need to eat and drink every day (quesstimation - 1,5t/day - 2litres of water +1kg of food). Bags had not only salt, but flour in them too. To make bread.
3. I don't exclude possibility that this isn't another lie, but I highly doubt. Precise equipment like this can't be demontaged in hours, and transporting it in non-specialized machine would ruin it anyway.
2. Ukraine has problems with humanitarian aid because they are losing this war and hunger was their last bet.

which of course would work just fine without electricity and water (you know that Luhansk doesn't have either right now, right?). I wouldn't even comment rest of this point because you obviously have no clue how it's supposed to work.

to be fair it sounds quite idiotic to me too. Still, far too many reports of that from locals so the only reasonable assumption is that people supporting terrorists are also a thieves.

No offence but that's officially the most stupid thing i've heard which proves you're have 0 clue what you're talking about :) http://www.slovoidilo.ua/uploads/news/ato/map_ato_23-08-2014_12_w3000.jpg. There is no doubt UA army would win, question is only when. Also, by your logic Donbass is the economical heart of Ukraine so even theoretically artificial famine doesn't make sense. Let alone that it wouldn't go unnoticed by rest of the world so that's just stupid.

Also, one more link about russian soldiers involvement at war:
http://ibigdan.livejournal.com/15483045.html

Just to be clear, those comments are mostly for the rest of readers of the thread - i know you're deliberately lying so i don't take your point seriously :)

1. They wasnt half-emply. Some was about 1/10 load, and some are of no data available. Approximating it to "half-loaded" is... approximation.
2. Looks like what ICRC isnt good in communication or sorta. They reported about incoming agreement about aid delivery in 11 august http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/news-release/2014/08-11-ukraine-east-civilians-plight-concern.htm . Then convoy, pretending to be from ICRC arrived in 2 days. Looks like ICRC had read about it in news and produced another statement in 15 august, when column left Kharkov vicinity already http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/news-release/2014/08-15-ukraine-large-scale-delivery.htm . So either ICRC is utterly incompetent and misguided Russian side somehow, so they ungroundedly got what they got supervision already, or they simply lied about ICRC by that time. Anyway again, its ICRC what looks most weird on this part.
3. No idea if such rumors are justified for gentleman to actually discuss on game forums. Personally i would prefer to abstain to post similar non-verified data, but it up to you sure. By now it goes into lines of Phosphorus bombing, conspiracy theories from UkrMD, plane stuffed with corpses etc. But just my imho surely, maybe im missing some new data on it.

You are right. One simply doesn't take into account that Ukraine (Kiev) is Europe's sex tourism capital.
Second, Ukraine has best soils in entire Eurasia, which can be used to grow poppy. Poppy can be used to produce heroine. Using it's geographical position Ukraine can kick Afghanistan out from the european drug market entirely!

Mhhh, according to western media the rebels just paraded their prisoners in public to humiliate them, an violation of the Geneva convention.

Btw, Bread is made from water, flour and salt, without salt you produce something completely different from bread (not unhealthier, just different) so if reports are true then the trucks should have contained salt, flour and some water. Or better yet purification equipment. You can produce a lot of bread from relatively little flour and salt, but you need a LOT of water, those trucks should provide food supply for at least a month! (even if not packed full) there are not THAT many people in the relevant regions. And water should be easily available from wells.

Bread alone is a HORRIBLE food, no vitamins, barely any minerals. It can at best be additional diet, never sole diet. Proper aid contains other food -> Meat, Vegetables or Fruits. But at least it's something to eat. Though to make bread you also need a lot of energy, in form of burnable material.

No argument here, personally i would doubt that even if i would actually see that - it just doesn't make sense. Kind of like arguments from Gremlion so it felt totally in place :)
nice one, not too far from funny, you should definitely master the skill ;)

Smart man always doubt. I see that war goes for months. You president said at the start of August that win is "a matter of days". Strategical map haven't changed since then. Ukraine started third mobilization, calls 18 years old to army - basically, out of reserves. Militants formed battalion of people, which deserted official Ukrainian army. Militants started counterattack in the direction of the sea of Azov. Looks like slow overtake for me.
As for economical heart - and what can they eat? Coal? Kiev doesn't support people in Donbass and screams against Russian help.

i don't really like him and never voted for him, one of the reasons are those stupid statements - you cannot win a war in days when it takes place in cities where people still live. Better than previous one who was dumb as bag of bricks,but still it could have been and should have been better candidate.

that's another lie. Third wave finally will call out people with war experience so they will replace those 18 y.o. kids who are fighting now. Why it wasn't done in the first place remains as a mystery (or huge stupidity).

care to share any info from any link at all ? Doesn't seem like something real, there is zero info regarding there besides the month old news about 40 soldiers that deserted and 30 of them came back. unless those 10 that left will grow superpowers it wouldn't be enough for counterattack.

You claimed that Kiev had basically started genocide against Donbass. I just pointed out how idiotic that claim is. Also, again, do you have any facts of lack of support ?

These captives don't look like 18 y.o. for me.
http://www.ostro.org/general/society/news/453046/

I haven't said that these people would counterattack.
http://ria.ru/world/20140824/1021241246.html#ixzz3BJN04q2V
http://ria.ru/world/20140824/1021252188.html#ixzz3BKAYsTJG
http://www.ostro.org/general/society/news/453034/
More believable than these claims of 500 killed militants
http://mvs.gov.ua/mvs/control/main/uk/publish/article/1133967
Erm, I see that common sense isn't your strong point - Kiev blocked and bombs Donbass, while knowing that "somewhere there are enemies" - how exactly they deliver fresh water and food into it? By Grads?

"Thanks to Lifenews we know there is enough water to clean the streets and enough food to throw at POWs. Where is the humanitarian crisis?" just cant resist, sorry.