The MINSK II CEASEFIRE : The USELESS AGREEMENT Which EVERYBODY Wanted
I have to say that I am both amused and appalled at the completely over-the-top reaction of most commentators to what we might as well call the Mink-2 Agreement (M2A). Apparently, analysis has been abandoned altogether and has now been replaced with hyperbole and vociferous but empty statement.
Reading some of the comments made here one could be forgiven for thinking that somehow the war in the Ukraine was over and that the AngloZionist Empire, aided by Putin, Surkov and an anonymous but sinister army of Russian oligarchs, has just inflicted a terrible and final blow to the Novorussian dream.
What is going on here? Has everybody just gone crazy?
In part, this is due that one could read anything, everything and its opposite into this agreement (more about that later) and also to the fact that the western media simply had to present any agreement as a triumph of western willpower, diplomacy and sanctions.
This is all utter nonsense, of course, but that is what you get for exposing yourself to the corporate media. So let’s set aside all the loud clamoring and use our brains to actually *think*.
First, I would remind everybody that the junta has broken every single agreement it committed to. Every single one. And there is absolutely no reasons at all to believe that this time around this will change.
Second, Poroshenko can promise all he wants, but the real power in the “independent Ukraine” is held by Uncle Sam and by the “Maidanites” he controls.
Third, why do you think that Merkel and Hollande suddenly felt a powerful urge to “scratch their diplomatic itch” and decided to intervene? Could that sudden urge to negotiate have a little something to do with a place called Debaltsevo? If yes, what does the M2A say about Debaltsevo? Exactly. *Nothing*.
Fourth, the agreement not even signed by Poroshenko, but by Kuchma on behalf of the Ukraine.
Fifth, check out this section:
9. Restoration of full control over the state border of Ukraine by the government throughout the conflict zone, which should begin on the first day after the local elections and be completed after a comprehensive political settlement (local elections in some areas of Donetsk and Lugansk regions on the basis of the Law of Ukraine and constitutional reform) at the end of 2015, subject to paragraph 11 — in consultation and agreement with the representatives of individual areas of Donetsk and Lugansk regions in the framework of the Three-Party Contact Group.
Do you see what I see? Nevermind that the border is supposed to get back under Kiev’s control only after “something” happens, but check out the “something” itself: constitutional reform in consultation and agreement with Novorussian leaders!!!!
Does anybody seriously believe that the Rada will participate in anything even remotely looking like this? Liashko? Farion? Tsiagnibok and Iarosh all working together with the “subhuman colorads” from the Donbass to change the Ukrainian Constitution? Of course not!
So so far, let’s sum this up. M2A was:
1) signed by a person with no authority
2) on behalf of a junta with no powers
3) it does not say a word about the main reason for the meeting in Minsk
4) it contains clearly impossible sections
How is that for a brilliant text?
In truth, there is a short section of the document which does contain one realistic elements: a ceasefire followed by a withdrawal of heavy weapons. That’s it. The rest is nonsense. See for yourself
#4: local elections organized by the junta and Novorussians together. Nonsense
#5: pardons and amnesties. Blanket amnesty for all the war crimes (including MH-17 and Odessa “barbecue”). Disgusting.
#6: exchange of “all for all”. Except that most folks in the junta hands are long dead.
#7: humanitarian assistance. Empty statement, the assistance is already coming in.
#8: payment of pensions: the junta does not have the money anyway. Will not happen.
#9: Constitutional reform. Will not happen
#10: Withdrawal of all foreign forces. Nonsense: those who are there (NATO countries) will stay, those who are not there (9000 Russian soldiers) cannot “leave” since they are not there to begin with.
#11: Constitutional reform including the creation of “The creation of people’s militia”. LOL – apparently, that will be the new name for the Novorussian armed forces.
#12: Elections if all of the above happens first. Since it ain’t, they won’t.
#13: Creation of “working groups”. Right. Keep dreaming.
The fact is that what is the most interesting about M2A is not what it says, but what it does NOT say:
1) not a word about Debaltsevo
2) not a word about the junta actually sitting down to negotiate with the Novorussian authorities
3) not a word about the future status of the Ukraine
4) not a word about the Ukrainian economy (which is still in free fall)
5) not a word about any peacekeepers (which are indispensible to make any ceasefire stick)
6) not even a word about the fact that the Novorussians are not “terrorist” but people seeking national independence. Poroshenko has still not spoken to them directly.
It is possible that these issues were, in fact, discussed, but that this will not be revealed to the general public. There might be secret clauses to M2A. However, it is at least as likely that these issues were discussed and that no agreement whatsoever was found, hence they were set aside.
But if nothing really important was decided, why did everybody participate to this exercise? Simple: everybody got something from it (assuming any parts M2A are actually implemented):
1) The Novorussians:
a) a stop of the terror attacks by the junta on Novorussian cities.
b) the recognition of the line of contact
c) the assurance that Voentorg remains open (control of border)
d) time to mobilize and train their planned 100’000 extra men
e) the recognition by all parties (including the Europeans) that they deserve a special status
2) Poroshenko:
a) the apparent and symbolic support for world leaders
b) a stop of the Novorussian advance
c) a vague hope that junta forces will be allowed to leave the Debaltsevo cauldron
d) money from the IMF (not nearly enough, but better than none).
3) Merkel and Hollande:
a) the illusion of relevance of a EU foreign policy
b) the (probably misguided) hope to stop the crazy Americans
c) the hope to an easing of the economic war with Russia (Mistrals?)
4) Putin:
a) the right to control the border until the constitutional reforms are made, in other words ad aeternam.
b) the recognition that without him no solution can be found
c) the hope for some easing of sanctions
Everybody got what they wanted and left with a smile on their face. Good for them, but none of that does anything to really settle the conflict or even begin to seek a solution.
The reality is that nothing at all happened in Minsk, at least nothing of any importance. The Novorussians won the latest battle (yet again) so they came in a position of strength and they got the junta to promise to stop the crazy shelling, and since Debaltsevo was not even mentioned, it looks to me that the junta forces there will be allowed to quietly withdraw as long as they leave their weapons behind.
So the Debaltsevo cauldron will be controlled by Novorussia. Putin got political recognition and the hope of at least no more sanctions (remember after Minsk 1 the EU immediately imposed more sanctions on Russia).
The Europeans got a little something too, mainly some good PR, and the big loser is most definitely Poroshenko who will now have the highly unenviable task of “selling” M2A to a totally crazy Rada (which, by the way, is currently considering an law proposed by Poroshenko’s party to make the denial of the Russian aggression against the Ukraine a criminal offense).
Conclusion:
Just like in a chess game, time is a critical factor. M2A gave everybody a little time-out, but the conflict will resume and the only thing which will stop this conflict will be a double collapse of the Ukrainian economy and armed forces which I believe will most probably happen this summer.
Until then, the conflict will be more or less frozen, though I will believe in a junta withdrawal of heavy weapons systems only if/when I see it. Also – remember that one can very well fight with tanks, mortars and infantry.
Nazi Baderastan and Novorussia are two civilizationally different project which cannot and will never coexist under one roof. Yes, for tactical reasons there might be the need to pretend that this is possible, but the reality is that it will not.
The only way to keep Novorussia inside the Ukraine is to denazify the latter and until that is done, Novorussia will never really return to the Ukraine. That is a hard fact which nobody in the West is willing to accept.
In Kiev, they fully understand that, but their “solution” is to empty Novorussia form Novorussians and to give this much needed Lebensraum to the “Ukr” Master Race of western Ukraine. And that is something which Russia will never allow. Which leaves only two possible outcomes: the EU gives up and the Ukraine is denazified, or the US starts a full-scale war against Russia in a desperate attempt to prevent that outcome.
Two more things I want to mention here:
In purely military terms the withdrawal of heavy systems is entirely to the Novorussian advantage. Remember that Kiev used these systems to try to terrorize the Novorussian population while the Novorussians used their artillery to try to suppress the junta’s artillery.
The Novorussians could never use their artillery to attack because they were liberating their own land and did not want to murder their own civilians. So, in other words, if both sides really withdraw their heavy guns the junta will lose a crucial capability while the Novorussians will lose an almost useless one.
Short message to the “Putin sold out” folks: guys, I have been ignoring your mantric repetition of unsubstantiated slogans about Putin “selling out” and “backstabbing” and all the rest, but I will tell you that not a single one of you has ever been capable of making a coherent, fact based and logically supported analysis proving your point.
I think that mantras are great for yoga, but on this blog, they don’t make you look any smarter. I let you post them here “because why not?” but please don’t mistake that with a sign of respect for the nonsense you have spewing.
The main reason why I don’t debunk your nonsense is that time will do a much better job then I could, and that it will hurt you more when you are proven wrong not by my reasoning, but by undisputed facts on the ground (just like those who screamed that Putin betrayed Assad and Syria by making them, quote, “give up their only deterrence against Israeli nuclear weapons”).
Anyway, if you must, keep on with the mantra but please be aware that they only make you look very sophomoric. And considering that there are still a few blogs out there taking the same position (though less and less), you might want to consider posting there.
There each slogan, especially when expressed with a virile and categorical lack of nuances, will get you a standing ovation. Why suffer here when there are those “heavens of consensus” out there? Just think about it
Okay, that’s it for now. I am going to be on the road all day tomorrow, so please take this also as an “open thread” and “see you” all on Saturday, God willing.
Cheers,
The Saker
Minsk II Ceasefire May RESULT in Eventual Resumption of Hostilities, Military Supplies
In fact, it may be the quiet before a very considerable storm.
The immediate outcome envisaged by the agreement is a full ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weaponry to agreed lines, and mutual amnesty and prisoner exchanges. The agreed lines of withdrawal are favourable to the Ukrainian regime.
While the regime is to withdraw heavy arms relative to their current front line, the DPR/LPR forces are to withdraw relative to the front line as of Minsk I in September 2014, effectively exposing land gained south of Donetsk since September.
The Ukrainian regime could certainly do with some respite. Having lost the second battle for Donetsk Airport in January, and facing encirclement at the major railway hub of Debaltseve, the military campaign has not been going well for the alliance of Ukrainian forces and fascist militias (Azov Battalion, Ukrainian Volunteer Force etc).
Financially, the costs of the war are biting hard, and it is highly revealing that on the same day that the new ceasefire deal was announced, the IMF announced that it had agreed a package of loans to the Ukraine with a total value of $40 billion.
The US Congress has already approved the shipment of ‘lethal defensive’ weapons to the Ukrainian nationalist/fascist forces. While mainly German diplomacy sought to negotiate a deal, the White House used this approval to provide some background sabre-rattling. In light of this it is quite likely that the collapse of Minsk II would function as the pretext for direct US military supplies to the Ukraine.
So in addition to halting the DPR/LPR offensive, and obtaining funding from the IMF, the Ukrainian regime now knows that US military supplies are probably just a broken cease-fire away.
The likelihood that the peace will hold is not ultimately based on the routine short-term stipulations typical of ceasefires – cessation of active hostilities, prisoner exchanges etc. It is based on the more challenging task of negotiating solutions to the underlying political/economic causes of the conflict.
On that score, there is little cause for hope. The key political provisos of Minsk II are that, by the end of this year, there will be some kind of constitutional reform and decentralisation, local elections will be held in Donetsk and Luhansk, and finally Ukraine will resume control of the entire Ukrainian/Russian border.
Alongside these processes, the OSCE is supposed to be monitoring the withdrawal of all foreign armed groups and the disarmament of all ‘illegal’ armed groups. It sounds good in principle, but the devil is in the detail.
Immediately following the Minsk II agreement, Poroshenko gave a press conference in which he stated:
“Despite Russia’s insistence, we did not agree on any status of autonomy. We will do this through constitutional reforms, decentralization that will involve the whole country. We did not agree on ‘federalization’”
This hardly sounds like the kind of recognition that will satisfy the DPR/LPR forces and their supporters. Poroshenko seems to be saying that the decentralisation on offer will be limited (“We did not agree on ‘federalization’“), will require the political assent of the whole of Ukraine, and will apply equally throughout the whole of Ukraine (“We will do this through constitutional reforms, decentralization that will involve the whole country“).
This completely fails to engage with the deep cultural and political divisions that were exposed by the Maidan coup and that almost a year of civil war has only further exacerbated and entrenched. In Ukraine proper, nationalist sentiment is at a fever pitch.
In the Donbass, recent elections showed a high degree of support for the separatist cause. Any idea that the relationship between Ukraine and the Donbass can be restored based on a general Ukrainian constitutional settlement is utterly disingenuous.
Only the citizens of the Donbass Oblasts should decide their future – it is not for the whole of Ukraine to decide on their behalf. Poroshenko’s solution is akin to the recent referendum on Scottish Independence being held not just in Scotland, but also in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Given the duplicitous nature of Poroshenko’s proposed ‘constitutional reform’, it is highly unlikely that the DPR/LPR forces will disarm. Further, the definition of ‘illegal’ armed groups is a moot point when one side in the conflict controls the ‘law’.
For example, are the LPR/DPR supposed to agree to the disbanding of, say, the Vostok Battalion, while the ‘legal’ Neo-nazi battalions (Azov etc) that report to the Ukrainian Security Ministry are left intact? The Azov battalion are fully ‘legal’!
The proposed political measures of Minsk II are wholly inadequate given the political goals of the DPR/LPR, and the short term cease-fire arrangements interrupt what has been a relatively succesful phase of the conflict from the LPR/DPR perspective. It follows that the primary motivation behind the DPR/LPR leadership’s acceptance of terms must have been pressure from the Putin regime.
The Russian regime’s preference has always been for an independent, united and co-operative Ukraine. From the Russian perspective, a Ukraine with the Donbass in is less likely to fully succumb to the strident anti-Russian nationalism of western Ukraine than one with the Donbass out. It is more likely to be open to Russian capital, goods and services, and it is less likely to act as a bridgehead for NATO and US/EU geopolitical and economic interests.
Russia is not willing to stand by and watch the Donbass, an area with whom it has deep historical, economic and cultural ties, crushed by Ukrainian nationalism. Within Russia, there is overwhelming support across all classes for the Donbass rebellion.
But neither is it in Russia’s interests to fragment the Ukraine, assume financial responsibility for a post-war Donbass, and find itself confronted with a thorn in the side in the form of a permanently antagonistic NATO-friendly Ukraine.
The basis for a long-term political settlement has to be a referendum, held in the Donbass Oblasts only, in which a choice is offered of the pre-civil war status quo; a federal constitution with significant political, cultural and economic autonomy; and full independence.
Unfortunately, it is more likely that the limited political proposals of Minsk II will result in an eventual resumption of hostilities and the possible open engagement of US military supplies.
Mr. LIONEL REYNOLDS, Editor of CounterBlast, is one of the frequent contributors for The 4th Media.
https://counterblastnews.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/minsk-ii-ceasefire-deal-leaves-key-issues-un-resolved/
Ceasefire May Spare Poroshenko From Knives Out in Kiev
Many questions remain, such as the status of autonomy in the eastern Donbas region and will the Kiev forces honour this truce unlike previous ones? However, a tentative ceasefire has been agreed to commence on February 15 at midnight. French President Francois Hollande said of the result: «It is a relief for Europe».
But perhaps the biggest relief will be felt by Poroshenko. His attendance at Minsk was notable for appearing to have an added gear of zeal to clinch a deal. That zeal may be not so much out of humanitarian concerns for his countrymen, as out of personal reasons for his own political survival.
Poroshenko’s belated keenness for some good political news is understandable – given numerous reports that the knives are out among disgruntled paramilitary leaders that shore up the Kiev regime. They feel that the oligarch-turned-president and his army General Staff have been waging a disastrous campaign in the east.
Another constituency of seething discontent that needs to be placated is the wider Ukrainian population who are disgusted by the seemingly endless war and cronyism among the new Kiev rulers.
Anger among ordinary Ukrainian citizens is mounting – many of whom were initially supportive of the Maidan protests at the end of 2013 – but who are now battling against skyrocketing inflation, deteriorating social conditions and what they see as a futile, bloody war that is whirring like a meat-grinder.
Energy shortages, utility bills going through the roof, and increasing hardship are pitted against an increasingly heavy-handed regime whose figurehead, Poroshenko, took office last June.
Poroshenko, it is recalled, promised back then that the conflict in the eastern region would be over within a matter of weeks. Eight months on, the violence has escalated, along with the body count of Kiev’s dead and maimed soldiers, many of whom are being forced into the ranks to cover for withering casualties. The latest mobilisation – the fourth such round – has extended service age to men of 60 years old.
While many Ukrainians in the capital Kiev are facing food shortages from soaring prices, one product seems more than abundant in the shops – the Roshen brand of chocolates that made Poroshenko a billionaire in his former business life.
That little observational quirk has reportedly angered many Ukrainians in the capital and in the western region, who are presumed to be loyal to the Kiev regime.
Poroshenko, like several other oligarch figures, seems to be doing very well out of the «new Ukraine» while the majority of citizens are experiencing privation, or conscription into ramshackle armed forces that are being slaughtered in the east by the more highly motivated ethnic-Russian separatist militias.
Another oligarch figure who seems to be doing very well is Igor Kolomoisky. The owner of Privat Bank became governor of Dnipropetrovsk thanks to the patronage of the Kiev regime, which seized power last February with the covert help of the American CIA.
Kolomoisky is the sponsor of the Dnipr Battalion, one of many volunteer brigades that augment the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF). These battalions are paramilitary outfits that don Nazi regalia and are accused of gross human rights violations against the ethnic Russian population in the eastern regions. Ironically, Kolomoisky is of Jewish heritage and holds dual Israeli citizenship.
One of the wealthiest individuals in Ukraine, along with Poroshenko, Kolomoisky is reckoned to have accumulated even more wealth over the past year’s turmoil by using his newfound paramilitary power to illegally expropriate businesses from rivals. In one tawdry episode, the Dnipr governor reportedly made a financial killing by selling $3.5 million-worth of fake body armour to the Kiev ministry of defence. The supposedly bullet-proof vests turned out to be useless.
Unknown numbers of young volunteers and conscripts have doubtless lost their lives during firefights wearing the dud body armour sold by Kolomoisky.
To many Ukrainians the likes of Poroshenko and Kolomoisky are no different from the old regime of the ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, who was plagued with allegations of corruption and cronyism.
That was a big factor behind the popular protests that centred on Kiev’s Maidan Square in November 2013. Of course, those demonstrations were expediently hijacked by the US-backed neo-Nazi Svoboda and Right Sector paramilitaries, which then went on to launch a violent coup against Yanukovych on February 22, 2014.
For too many ordinary Ukrainians nothing much has changed. New regime, same old oligarchs.
The way ordinary people see it, corrupt oligarchs are still in power and making a killing on the back of their misery. Indeed, the social situation of the «new Ukraine» has become a whole lot worse. The ultra-nationalist regime has plunged the state into spiralling debt and is squandering resources on a seemingly pointless war against ethnic Russians, whom the Russophobic regime labels as «sub-humans» and «terrorists».
Moreover, Poroshenko, Kolomoisky and other oligarch businessmen are not new faces. They made their money under previous regimes. Poroshenko served as foreign and trade ministers under both the Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych administrations.
The former came out of the US-inspired so-called Orange Revolution in 2004, but was soon widely reviled as a byword for sleaze and cronyism. Poroshenko and other oligarchs are thus seen as having their snouts back in the trough – albeit under the guise of a «pro-European, pro-NATO» so-called new direction for the country.
The current Kiev parliament is desperately trying to staunch a financial crisis, which may see the state default on unpaid international loans this year. This is in spite of the latest IMF promised bailout announced this week of $40 billion.
The parliament, dominated by rightwing ideologues under Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk who owes his position to CIA and US State Department leverage, is reportedly moving to legislate a Cyprus-style assets seizure on ordinary citizens, as well as impose swingeing tax hikes.
These drastic measures are in large part prompted by the dire fiscal shortfalls that have arisen from the military offensive in the eastern Donbas region. Some estimates put the military cost to Kiev of $8 million a day from its war in the east. The country is already up to $100 billion in foreign debt.
But this war «adventurism» is stirring an increasing revolt among the hard-pressed populace – and in the territories that are under the nominal control of the Western-backed Kiev junta.
Not only are people paying for the regime’s trigger-happy jingoism through their pockets; they are paying with their very lives. The latest onslaught in the eastern region has taken hundreds of (some say over 2,000) lives among Kiev forces in the past month alone.
The surge in violence can be attributed to the Kiev regime’s refusal to implement the ceasefire that was first brokered last September in Minsk. Although, Washington and its European allies misattribute the blame for this violence to «Russian-backed aggression».
Thousands of young men of service age have fled to neighbouring countries claiming that they are seeking work in seasonal agriculture in Russia, Moldova and elsewhere. Many others have resorted to bribing doctors to write fake disability assessments in order to avoid military recruitment. Several towns and villages in the west and southwest have mounted protests and forcibly ejected would-be recruitment officers, declaring that they refuse to be part of the army and its war in the east.
Even within the ranks of serving personnel there are growing reports of mechanised units experiencing sudden breakdowns of vehicles and equipment – usually around the time of these units being about to be sent to the front lines.
The word is that disillusioned soldiers are quietly sabotaging their own equipment, rather than being thrown into battle zones to be used as cannon fodder. Their reluctance to serve is also underscored by recent commands from Kiev to officers at the front to shoot deserters on-sight.
The seething rancour is not just among regular troops of the UAF. The neo-Nazi paramilitary battalions and the Right Sector are also increasingly loathing of what they see as the «parasite oligarchs» and the incompetent General Staff of the UAF. Kiev has sacked three defence ministers over the past year.
The military brass are loyal to Poroshenko but are seen as «useless» by the volunteer and Right Sector squads. The latter are loyal to figures likes Donbas Battalion leader Semen Semenchenko and Right Sector commander Dmytro Yarosh. Yarosh was instrumental in executing the US-backed coup that brought the Yatsenyuk-Poroshenko regime to power.
The paramilitaries are believed to be close to Oleksander Turchynov, who is head of Ukraine National Security. Turchynov was formerly the interim-president before Poroshenko took office after a dubious election held last May, noted for low voter turn-out.
Right Sector leader Yarosh is on record for having a low opinion of oligarchs, whom he brands as «Jewish-Moskal Mafia» – a derogatory anti-Russian term. Yarosh has said: «We don’t take oligarchs’ money in politics, but in a war we do not object to their cash».
Well, the war is not going well at all, as the body count among Kiev forces testifies. That has led the likes of Semenchenko and Yarosh to some treacherous conclusions about their erstwhile money-bag men. Fleeting social media comments by these two figures suggest that the knives are out among the neo-Nazi shock-troops for Poroshenko and his rich oligarchic ilk.
According to insightful reports on the Fort Russ website, a practical reason for why Kiev’s beleaguered forces are incurring such heavy losses recently around the Debaltsevo enclave in Donetsk is because the General Staff have withdrawn their best units to defend the Poroshenko presidency in Kiev.
The units that are being routed by the Donbas separatists are often under-trained, under-equipped demoralised callow recruits who have been dragooned to the front line. The tactical withdrawal by the Kiev General Staff to protect the office of the president is not out of fear of advancing «Russian-backed militia». It is out of fear that the Right Sector and its neo-Nazi associates are making ready for a putsch to get rid of Poroshenko.
The self-proclaimed heirs to Nazi hero Stepan Bandera no doubt feel it is their right to rule by dint of ideological and racial purity, as well as from having provided the muscle in the first place to pull off the US-engineered coup in Kiev last year.
That perspective provides a very different explanation for the rapid military gains made by the separatists in recent weeks. The Western media, Washington and Brussels would have us believe that those gains are due to covert Russian forces invading Donbas to support the separatists. More likely it is because the Western-backed regime under Poroshenko is crumbling from within.
No wonder then that Poroshenko went to Minsk this week with a keen focus on finding a peace deal over eastern Ukraine and to generate some good news for a change. His political survival and fat assets depend on it.
Finian CUNNINGHAM | SCF
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/02/12/ceasefire-may-spare-poroshenko-from-knives-out-in-kiev.html