Ukraine crisis: Law grants rebels self-rule and amnesty
Rebel-controlled regions of eastern Ukraine have been granted self-rule and fighters have been given an amnesty, under a new law adopted by parliament.
The measures are in line with the 5 September ceasefire agreement signed by President Petro Poroshenko.
The European and Ukrainian parliaments have also voted to ratify a major EU-Ukraine association agreement.
Ukraine and the West accuse Russia of backing the rebels with soldiers and heavy weapons. Russia denies doing so.
At least 3,000 people have been killed in the conflict and more than 310,000 internally displaced in Ukraine, the UN says.
The amnesty affects rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk regions, but does not cover the shooting down of the MH17 plane.
Western leaders believe rebels shot down the Malaysia Airlines jet with a Russian missile in July.
Rebels accused of other "grave" crimes will not be covered by the new amnesty either.
Historic day
The rebels have controlled most of Donetsk and Luhansk regions since April. The uprising began soon after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimea peninsula.
The EU-Ukraine agreement ratified on Tuesday lies at the root of Ukraine's crisis.
It was Viktor Yanukovych's refusal to sign it in November last year that triggered mass protests and his fall from power.
The votes took place simultaneously, with a live video link-up between the two parliaments.
Both President Poroshenko and the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, called it a historic day.
But negotiations with Russia last week led to the free-trade part of the agreement being postponed until 2016.
There are fears in Ukraine that Russia will still try to scupper the deal.
Call to free prisoners
The amnesty means pro-Russian separatists taken prisoner in the fighting should now be released.
There have been some prisoner releases already during the ceasefire.
Rebels holding government buildings in the east are now supposed to leave them, hand over captured Ukrainian soldiers and other prisoners and surrender their weapons.
However, many of the rebels are demanding full independence, and speak of creating a new state called "Novorossiya", something Russian President Vladimir Putin has also mentioned in speeches.
Meanwhile, there has been heavy shelling around the government-held airport of Donetsk, despite the fragile ceasefire.
The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the proposed president Peter Poroshenko law on the special status of the territory of Donetsk and Lugansk regions, as well as the self-proclaimed supporters of amnesty "People's Republic of Donbass".
According to the law "On the prevention of harassment and punishment of persons - participants of the events in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions," are exempt from criminal liability members of the armed forces, which in the period from 22 February 2014 to the date of entry into force of this Act committed a criminal offense.
Also, this regulation applies to persons involved in the activities of the self-proclaimed authorities in Donetsk and Lugansk regions or oppose conducting a military operation.
They shall be exempt from criminal liability, provided that within one month from the date of entry into force of the law released or held hostage, voluntarily surrendered to state bodies or do not keep firearms, ammunition, military equipment, explosives, do not occupy the premises of state agencies and local governments.
Under the Act are not subject to those involved in the fall of 17 July 2014 in the Donetsk region of the aircraft on Malaysia Airlines flight MN17, as well as those who prepyatstovoval the investigation of the crash.
The law will not apply to suspects of serious crimes.
On Tuesday, the Ukrainian parliament also adopted a Press law on the special status of the Donbass.
Rebates Lugansk and Donetsk?
According to the report, posted on the website of the Verkhovna Rada, the state guarantees "the prevention of criminal prosecution, criminal, administrative prosecution and punishment of persons - participants of the events in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions."
In addition, the state guarantees the right to use Russian or any other language "in public and private life, learning and support for Russian and any other languages, their free development and equality."
The new law introduced a special procedure for the appointment of heads of the prosecution and the courts.
The law also requires the signing of an agreement on economic, social and cultural development of individual regions and provides for annual budgetary state support socio-economic development of certain areas as "different from the general economic regime of the economic and investment activities aimed at the rehabilitation of industry, transport and social infrastructure, housing, reorientation of industrial potential, creating new jobs, attracting investments and loans for reconstruction and development facilities located in certain regions of Donetsk and Lugansk regions. "
Within these areas of the decision of city, town or village councils are groups of people's militia.
"People's Militia Groups are formed on a voluntary basis of the number of Ukrainian citizens who permanently reside in the respective localities of individual regions of Donetsk and Lugansk regions," - said the current law.
I just used the direct Google Translation of the article, for ease of access.
Big news from Ukraine!
It's not entirely clear to me which areas are under autonomy now (is Mariupol? Bezimenne? Novoazovsk? Also, what precisely is included in "self-rule?" Still, it seems immediate concerns have been given adequate redress, for the meanwhile. Will the Ukrainian Army obey the Verkhovna Rada's dictates? Will the rebels accept the offer? Will Russia endorse the process? Questions!
I think that's a big step in the right direction on Ukraine's part. The Donbass genie is out of the bottle anyway, so it is good Ukraine recognises that.
The endgame here for Putin is a federalized Ukraine, in which the eastern parts of the country can veto any sort of EU or NATO membership aspirations of the rest of the country.
He would also accept any sort of other type of sovereign buffer zone between Russia and NATO, but I'm not quite sure what else might be possible under the circumstances.
I agree that the ceasefire smells a bit fishy. I think this conflict is going to last for many weeks, if not months to come. Winter is coming though, but I don't think that will really hurt either side. Ukraine is fighting on home soil, and the Russians have got to be fairly competent at fighting in cold conditions. It's going to be interesting.
The endgame here for Putin is a federalized Ukraine, in which the eastern parts of the country can veto any sort of EU or NATO membership aspirations of the rest of the country.
He would also accept any sort of other type of sovereign buffer zone between Russia and NATO, but I'm not quite sure what else might be possible under the circumstances.
I agree that the ceasefire smells a bit fishy. I think this conflict is going to last for many weeks, if not months to come. Winter is coming though, but I don't think that will really hurt either side. Ukraine is fighting on home soil, and the Russians have got to be fairly competent at fighting in cold conditions. It's going to be interesting.
If the Ukrainians would be fighting on home soil, by the same logic the "Russians" would be too.
In any case, I'm not really sure what to think of it. As Daw said this is so generic and vague that we can't even know what would happen if this deal was actually followed.
On the other hand, I don't think that any sane person would conduct such a deal, they must have negotiated something in secret that would be "embarassing" if made official, to one or both parties. My guess would be that Novorossiya will become something akin to Abkhazia or the other Caucasian republics, and given the crazy attitude of the people in Ukraine today, I don't blame Poroshenko for hiding it.
The endgame here for Putin is a federalized Ukraine, in which the eastern parts of the country can veto any sort of EU or NATO membership aspirations of the rest of the country.
That's Putin's goal (and one I can perfectly understand as well), though the Russian Ukrainians are more interested in protection of their cultural institutions.
Anyway, why would Ukraine need EU or NATO membership? Switzerland does fine without any of these. For some Ukrainians, it undoubtedly presesnts a break with its Soviet past, but ultimately, neither of those mean anything. Especially NATO membership is more of a way for the West to threaten Russia, abusing the Post-Soviet enthusiasism and naiviety of the Ukrainians for its own ends.
So the proposal basically boils down to: Gives us your guns and we'll stop attacking, pretty promise Well, at least the media is gonna have a field day with this one. I can already see the headlines: Rebels say NO to peace, we told you total annihilation is the only option
That's Putin's goal (and one I can perfectly understand as well), though the Russian Ukrainians are more interested in protection of their cultural institutions.
Anyway, why would Ukraine need EU or NATO membership? Switzerland does fine without any of these. For some Ukrainians, it undoubtedly presesnts a break with its Soviet past, but ultimately, neither of those mean anything. Especially NATO membership is more of a way for the West to threaten Russia, abusing the Post-Soviet enthusiasism and naiviety of the Ukrainians for its own ends.
Why would Ukraine need NATO? Isn't it obvious? Look at what's happening in eastern Ukraine right now, if they were NATO members they would have less to worry about. They want to join NATO to protect their borders and their national sovereignty. There isn't any other military alliance in the region that they could consider
As for the EU, most Ukrainians seem to want to be put on a path to westernization. It's not about Russia, it's about joining rejoining the rest of Europe. They want the benefits of being a part of the EU so that their children can have a better future. Getting bullied around by Russia also can't be that nice. They want to get away from all that as much as they can. Who can blame them?
Why would Ukraine need NATO? Isn't it obvious? Look at what's happening in eastern Ukraine right now, if they were NATO members they would have less to worry about. They want to join NATO to protect their borders and their national sovereignty. There isn't any other military alliance in the region that they could consider
What does that have to do with internal rebellion against a government which no longer supports their needs/interests?
As for the EU, most Ukrainians seem to want to be put on a path to westernization. It's not about Russia, it's about joining rejoining the rest of Europe. They want the benefits of being a part of the EU so that their children can have a better future. Getting bullied around by Russia also can't be that nice. They want to get away from all that as much as they can. Who can blame them?
Ukraine will never be allowed into the EU if it can't satisfactorily deal with its internal issues.
However, the "better with the EU" trope is a myth; there's a reason Yanukovych rejected the Association Deal last year: it wasn't as good for Ukraine as the Russian Customs Union. Ukraine joining the EU would just open the country and its resources up to exploitation by Western European finance capital; that's why one of the very first actions the new government took in the Spring was to consult with the IMF about a very large loan - which even they found unpalatable enough to put on hold. Joining the EU would be very bad for Ukrainians.
However, the "better with the EU" trope is a myth; there's a reason Yanukovych rejected the Association Deal last year: it wasn't as good for Ukraine as the Russian Customs Union. Ukraine joining the EU would just open the country and its resources up to exploitation by Western European finance capital; that's why one of the very first actions the new government took in the Spring was to consult with the IMF about a very large loan - which even they found unpalatable enough to put on hold. Joining the EU would be very bad for Ukrainians.
Why do you think this? It seems to me that Ukraine with significant industrial and agricultural capacity and low wages would have a lot to gain from easy access to European markets, both for produce and labour.
I have not heard the "exploitation by Western European finance capital" argument. In Croatia last year the main complaint I heard was something along the lines of "We used to make the best milk, now we are out competed by Romania" (milk may be replaced with another agricultural product, and Romania with another country). This is certainly a justifiable complaint, but not very like exploitation by capital, and possibly is better for people who want cheap milk.
Because a neighbouring country is supporting this rebellion illegally with intelligence, troops, and armaments. This would be a lot harder to do for Russia if Ukraine was a NATO member.
However, the "better with the EU" trope is a myth; there's a reason Yanukovych rejected the Association Deal last year: it wasn't as good for Ukraine as the Russian Customs Union. Ukraine joining the EU would just open the country and its resources up to exploitation by Western European finance capital; that's why one of the very first actions the new government took in the Spring was to consult with the IMF about a very large loan - which even they found unpalatable enough to put on hold. Joining the EU would be very bad for Ukrainians.
It would be bad in the short term and I think most Ukrainians know that. I get the sense that a lot of them are willing to put up with it, in order to at some point in the future reap the rewards of EU integration. It would be a long term play.
However, the "better with the EU" trope is a myth; there's a reason Yanukovych rejected the Association Deal last year: it wasn't as good for Ukraine as the Russian Customs Union. Ukraine joining the EU would just open the country and its resources up to exploitation by Western European finance capital; that's why one of the very first actions the new government took in the Spring was to consult with the IMF about a very large loan - which even they found unpalatable enough to put on hold. Joining the EU would be very bad for Ukrainians.
The endgame here for Putin is a federalized Ukraine, in which the eastern parts of the country can veto any sort of EU or NATO membership aspirations of the rest of the country.
I think it's more about keeping Ukraine in a permanent state of semi-war, so it is paralyzed and unable to move further West, and ultimately either bankrupt itself by the cost of keeping an active army and/or is pushed further toward disintegration by other "spontaneous" revolts by "oppressed" people.
Yes? Basically everything is catered to the needs of the founding members, and unfortunately it boils down to pure exploitation. We discussed Croatia in the thread about Ukraine. The day they joined EU a TV crew from one of their local TV stations interviewed random people on the streets to hear their opinion about it, one girl summed it up nicely (if I remember the quote correctly): It's like going to a candy store where everything has already been looted.
Yes? Basically everything is catered to the needs of the founding members, and unfortunately it boils down to pure exploitation. We discussed Croatia in the thread about Ukraine. The day they joined EU a TV crew from one of their local TV stations interviewed random people on the streets to hear their opinion about it, one girl summed it up nicely (if I remember the quote correctly): It's like going to a candy store where everything has already been looted.
Well what the girls says and reality are not necessarily the same thing. Note that Spain and Portugal only joined the European Community in 1986, and so are certainly not founders, and yet few people would argue that the EU was not good for them. Croatia only joined in 2013, so I don't see how you could say it was bad (or good).
Well what the girls says and reality are not necessarily the same thing. Note that Spain and Portugal only joined the European Community in 1986, and so are certainly not founders, and yet few people would argue that the EU was not good for them. Croatia only joined in 2013, so I don't see how you could say it was bad (or good).
Well what the girls says and reality are not necessarily the same thing. Note that Spain and Portugal only joined the European Community in 1986, and so are certainly not founders, and yet few people would argue that the EU was not good for them. Croatia only joined in 2013, so I don't see how you could say it was bad (or good).
I'm not saying that absolutely everything is bad, but unfortunately a lot of prerequisites for joining the EU force small companies, farmers and other business owners into bankruptcy. And regarding Croatia, the country has continued its downward spiral even more after joining, with the chances of recovery being slim to none. Beside closing all the companies that are of any competition to the EU ones, Croatia resorted to selling its coastal land and island to keep the country running at all. Most of my relatives live there, and believe me times are tougher than ever.
EDIT: Stumbled upon a nice text about the EU and Croatia by a Croat:
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Well, at least the media is gonna have a field day with this one. I can already see the headlines: Rebels say NO to peace, we told you total annihilation is the only option 
