Tomorrow on Wednesday, the figureheads of the DPR and the LPR, Zakharchenko and Plotnitsky, are to sign the Minsk agreements on withdrawing heavy weapons under 100mm (weapons with bigger calibers the DLPR mostly already withdrew unilaterally--unlike Kiev). Under this agreement, each side is to withdraw such weapons 15 km from the frontlines, which would effectively move NAF weapons out of/behind Donetsk and Lugansk. Moreover, the city of Lugansk is to be disarmed almost immediately.
Poroshenko confirmed at the UN yet again that Minsk never meant any recognition of the DPR or the LPR--Minsk does not know and does not recognize any such entities, in fact. Poroshenko confirmed that, for Ukraine, these are terrorist, illegal formations, which Kiev considers its territories occupied by Russia.
While both Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 stipulate that the DPR and the LPR must return under the sovereign rule of Kiev (the fascist junta), the withdrawal of the weapons always serves primarily that side which wants to cheat or violate the agreement, in particular, the side which plans an offensive. In this setup, demilitarization might be perceived as preceding a political resolution of the conflict. However, the main decision stamped by Moscow to dismantle the DPR and the LPR as such already defines the principal part of the political solution and its formula. In principle, this makes for two main routes--1) either a managed more or peaceful collapse or dismantlement of the DPR and the LPR as quasi-autonomous entities or Moscow-temporarily-controlled local trustees or 2) a combination of "peaceful" erosion from within (after all Zakharchenko back in March of 2014 was still an SBU man) and military cleansing operation, which can be either swift or slow and steady.
The sudden surge of Russia's presence in Syria allowed Putin to devote most of his 23-minute speech to Syria and reduce the apparent need to talk about the Russians in Ukraine and Donbass to just about 2 minutes. Probably it was all worthy it in order to help Putin manage better the content of his UN speech.
There are also clear signs that some of the NAF fighters from Russia were clearly offered, in a way which was not easy to refuse, to relocate and fight in Syria instead. The deployment of these men appears to have started already during the summer. This is, however, also the part of the operation which is kept aside, while Moscow was more than happy to have the planes captured in pictures by the US--with a good amount of these pictures actually supplied by the Russian forces (Kremlin) themselves.
By telling the people of Donbass that they were fighting for the one unconditional obligation to return back under the yoke of the Banderite fascists, respectively for an unidentified flying and vanishing object of "administrative reforms," Moscow did an excellent and very good job in destroying the cause, motivation, and spirit of the Donbass uprising. In doing so, Moscow transformed the fascists into "respectable partners," and what remains for the masses is only to make themselves love and embrace this lie too. Of course, the West and the Kiev regime will continue calling Russia's action as criminal aggression to the very end--to the end of Russia as we hitherto knew it. This makes for a very interesting situation where the enemy, in fact, Nazis reborn, are more consistent and firm--as if they even respected themselves more in this way. This is to say that we see here yet another example of the sad spectacle when a principled fascist meets an unprincipled liberal whose whole life was built on merely faking of having any principles or ideals. If, for the fascists, politics is war, and they do mean it, for these liberals (mercenary oligarchs), politics is just a show. When these two forces meet, liberalism can be saved only by mercurial republicanism or true conservative statesmanship, which is possible only after one has grown a heart, a backbone, and a character. But that's something which is a result only of a long, long practice and training. Faking it does not bring it into existence. And the less so overnight.
By the way, Russia already had its Maidan--it happened in October of 1993. So when people talk today about the "liberal opposition" in Russia, it is much like talking about "the communist opposition" to the communist regime during the USSR. At best, the difference between the "liberal opposition" and Putin's liberal government is that the key leaders of the "liberal opposition" were just recently or relatively recently members and ministers of Putin's (and Medvedev's) governments and that, the former, want to have Putin, the liberal-in-chief, removed and replaced by someone (as the demonstrators candidly told Graham Phillips in Moscow) who does not need to be better, but simply different.
"Suppose, just suppose for a moment, that Russia overthrew the government
of Mexico, installing a Russia-friendly billionaire as the new
President (elections, of course), and
funded attacks by Nazis against a Mexican resistance movement that
opposed the coup d'etat, and then sent in the son of the Vice President
of Russia along with GazProm to set up oil deals for the Gulf of Mexico.
--- Would the government of the USA have anything to say about the
coup?" (Mark Mason)
The US government would declare the new Mexican regime "legitimate" soon
after the junta would burn to death a hundred of Mexican peaceful
protesters and then, perhaps, in Ottawa, Canada, the US government would
sign a deal which would affirm new Mexico's sovereignty and integrity
as the main principle of the resolution of the conflict. In doing so,
the US government would still maintain almost 90% of the approval rate,
and many US patriots would continue congratulating themselves on the
astounding foresight and strategic brilliance of the US government,
which, while "knowing everything," managed to defeat so stunningly
Russia in Mexico.