Ukraine civil war update - 09/04/2014

"Winning" Ukraine

Mark Sleboda

Via Facebook

No, Putin is NOT "winning" in the Ukraine, the US has already done that a long time ago. No matter what happens now the US's primary geopolitical goal of crippling Russia's Eurasian Union and preventing the re-regionalization of the post-Soviet space, via excising Ukraine, are met, whether that means an anti-Russian Banderite Ukraine firmly in the West's geopolitical orbit (Plan A), or a wartorn, split, and economically devastated Ukraine (Plan B), its all good for them. The US certainly doesn't care about the Ukraine for its own sake, nor its people. They have also successfully driven a huge and potentially long-lasting wedge between Russian-European relations. Win-win for team USA.

Putin lost the Ukraine and worse the minds and historical memory of the Ukrainian nation to the US's memetic war and Maidan Putsch in Kiev. An evolution of Color Revolution 3.0, or "unconventional warfare" per the US military manuals of the same name, exploiting existing social, ethnic, religious, and political tensions to turn a people against their own government and into a weapon of US foreign policy interests. The West has successfully turned much of the Ukrainian people against Russia perhaps for the long term. Russia is fighting a covert tactical war (now being called "hybrid warfare", but Russia is just a later adaptor to US playbook). The West is fighting a post-Modern memetic one ("Unconventional warfare" a mixture of aggressive soft and covert power). #WinningHeartsandMinds

Now Putin is doing damage control. He's winning the aftermath, a rearguard action, tactically (rather skillfully) and salvaging what he can in the areas of the Ukraine still most "Russian" and resistant to US influence. Even if the West-backed regime in Kiev collapses from economic inevitabilities, Nazi-oligarch-neoliberal in-fighting, the domestic unrest as the cost of defeat in the battlefield, or likely a combination of all three, it will still be a very pyrrhic "Victory" for Putin. Strategically, geopolitically, and possibly in the long term, it is a huge defeat for Russia. The Kremlin took its eye off the ball, naïvely trusted (and underestimated) the West as a "partner", and lost sight of the big picture, a true clash of civilizations. Lets hope this bitter loss causes some lessons to finally be learned in the Kremlin.

"Longer term, the situation looks worse for Putin. Russia may have already lost the Ukrainian people; as recently as 2011 84% of the population held a favorable view of Russia with only 11% holding a negative one. As of a few months ago, 60% of Ukrainians viewed Russia badly with only 35% having a positive view. Considering that Ukraine is the birthplace of Russian civilization, Putin looks to have lost the PR war [read: memetic war]."

September 4th 23:53 UTC/ZULU Ukraine SITREP: Maybe, just maybe?

Vineyard of the Saker,

4 September, 2014

Many major developments to report today.  First, though I was trying very hard to contain my excitement over the past days, the level of success the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) against the Junta Repression Forces (JRF) appears to be absolutely amazing and, should Mariupol fall, which appears to be likely, I would speak of a strategic victory, something which I am normally extremely reluctant to do, especially when speaking to a force which only recently was a volunteer militia force.  How could that possibly have happened?
Military situation:

I think that there is a second expression which now can be used without exaggeration: all the signs are that the JRF have reached their breaking point: this is the moment when a military force suddenly and completely collapses, like a damn which blows out under the pressure of water.  The JRF is not retreating on one, two or even three directions, it is retreating everywhere (except north of Lugansk).  Entire battalions are leaving the front under orders of their battalion commanders and without the approval of the Junta leaders.  At least one such battalion commander is already being judged for desertion.  The entire Ukie leadership seems to be in a panic mode, especially Iatseniuk and Kolomoiski, while the Nazis are mad as hell at the Poroshenko administration.  There are constant rumors of an anti-Poroshenko coup by outraged Nazi nationalists.  And then, there are the absolutely staggering Ukrainian losses.  There is one such list which I reader sent me who, according to my reader, was published on Zero Hedge, but I could not find it there.  I did find it here though:

Ukrainian forces casualties and losses 2 May - 21 August
Casualties
Total: 32.702
Dead and wounded: 20.274
Prisoner, deserters and missing: 12.418
Destroyed or captured materiel:
I. Aviation
Attack
- 16 Su-25 (one captured 7 July)
Bomber
- 7 Su-24
Fighter
- 2 MiG-29
Recon
- 1 AN-30
- 6 drones
Transport
- 2 AN-26
- 2 IL 76
I.a Helicopters
- 20 attack and transport Mi-24, Mi-17 y Mi-8
II. Ground forces materiel
Tanks Total: 347 ( 68 captured )
- 319 T-64 ( 65 captured )
- 2 T-64 Bulat
- 7 T-72 ( 3 captured )
- 19 T-84-U Oplot
Armored vehicles Total: 602 ( 119 captured )
- 163 BMP Infantry Fighting Vehicle, tracked ( 69 capturados )
- 125 BMD IFV Paratroopers, tracked ( 9 captured )
- 312 BTR Armored Personnel Carrier, wheeled ( 39 captured )
- 2 BRDM Scout Vehicle, wheeled ( 2 captured )
Artillery Total: 180 ( 122 captured pieces )
- 4 SO-203 2S7 "Pion" 203mm
- 5 SAU 2S3 "Acacia" 152mm (1 captured )
- 30 SAU 122 2S1 Gvozdika 122mm ( 25 captured )
- 2 Mortars 2S4 Tyulpan 240mm(2 captured
- 6 Mortars SAU Nona 120mm (6 captured )
- 21 Antiaircraft guns ZU 23-2 ( 18 captured )
- 24 Rocket launcher Grad 122mm ( 24 captured )
- 11 Rocket launcher Uragan 220mm (4 captured )
- 45 howitzer D-30 122mm ( 10 captured )
- 32 mortars82mm ( 32 captured )
Trucks and cars Total: 153 (124 captured )
- 5 Hummer
- Jeep
- 25-66 GaZ
- Staff car
- Mobile crane
- 1 ZIL 131
- 2 KrAZ
- 58 Ural trucks
- 69 Kamaz trucks
- 4 UAZ 469
Last edited by von Junzt; 23 Aug 14 at 07:42. 

Now I am not endorsing this list since I don't even know who made it up or on what basis.  But I will say that it is consistent with this list and it is also consistent with this one (thanks to GM for the link!!).   Finally, this list is also consistent with all the footage shown on the various video hosting sites such as YouTube.  I will even add that this list is clearly incomplete since it was made before the biggest Ukie losses occurred.  But let's not look at the exact numbers, let's look at the suggested magnitude.  This tells us that:

• 40'000+ Ukrainian soldiers have died.
• 600+ armored vehicles have been lost.
• 200+ artillery pieces have been lost (probably many more in reality).
• Most of the Ukie aviation in flying condition has been lost.

If, as it appears likely, the real number of dead JRF soldiers is anywhere near the 30'000+40'000+ figure, then this is something absolutely unique in modern warfare.  There might be an exception to this I have missed, but as far I can know in every single conflict since WWII (and including WWII), civilians have died in far greater numbers than combatants.  This is also absolutely true of NAF soldiers who have died in far smaller numbers than Novorussian civilians.  So unless these figures are completely off the mark, and I see no reason to believe this, the Junta forces were absolutely massacred in an horrible butchery which cannot completely be explained by the superb fighting skills of the Novorussians: clearly the Junta has used these forces as cannon fodder with not even a modicum of care, nevermind support, for them.  Yes, the Novorussians had God, morale, common sense, the Truth, the GRU, history, decency, international law, covert support from Russia and whatever else on their side but that does not explain the mind-boggling casualty figures of the Ukie side.

To me a life is a life, and a Ukie life is no less precious than a Russki life.  Yes, I am delighted and relieved that the JRF were defeated and that the horrors which the Novorussians had to live through will possibly end soon.  But I feel heartbroken and immensely said for the thousands of innocent Ukrainians who were used by their Junta and sent to die in the process of a criminal operation whose goal was the ethnically cleanse the entire Donbass of its population.  And I am proud and happy by the way Russia and the Novorussians have treated the Ukie deserters and POWs.  Even the worst ones, the artillery crews, which were shown videos of whom they murdered and of what they destroyed, they were confronted with their victims and sometimes they were ordered to work to rebuilt, as much as can be, the buildings which they had destroyed (some broke down in complete hysterics, by the way).  But they were no shot, tortured, mistreated in any way.  They received medical attention, they were washed, clothed, fed and eventually sent back home.  I consider that treatment another huge moral victory for the Russian Orthodox side whose effects it will take many years to fully access.

The bottom line is this: Poroshenko promised a victory in a matter of weeks and his forces suffered one of the most total defeats in the history of warfare.  Can the Ukies rearm?  Yes, to some degree.  Do they still have huge weapons stores?  Yes, but all the (comparatively) better gear has been used by now.  Can they still conduct a 4th, 5th and 6th mobilization?  Possibly.  Though the public mood is ominous at this time.  Can the AngloZionists send them instructors, equipment and money?  Yes.  Will that turn the tide?  Probably not.  Unless the Ukies have held back and secretly trained a large number of soldiers over the past 3-4 months (like the Novorussians have done in Russia) and unless these soldiers are now ready to be sent in, fully equipped and ready to go, I don't see the JRF bouncing back for a very long time.  But the most likely thing is that this ridiculous "Banderastan" experiment has seriously begun sinking now and that many rats are leaving the ship.  Last, but not least, for the very first time some mentally sane voices are being heard on Ukie TV.

For example, I have seen very interesting footage of a Ukie general (possibly retired) who, speaking in Russian, told a press conference that enough people had died and that it was wrong that people born in the same country, having the same culture and the same language (yes, he really said that!) were killing each other.  He concluded "we are not only tired of shooting, we are tired of killing".  That kind of talk was never heard only weeks ago on Ukie TV.  Sure, that creep Savik Shuster is still inviting Nazis on his 3 hour long weekly program, but I bet you that he has already made his suitcases and has an exist strategy ready (a move to Israel is what I suspect he will do).NATO summit: the mouse that roared
It's too early to call this one since it's not over yet, but so far hot air and a general impression of irrelevance seems to be the only result from this summit.  First, the US and the UK have announced more sanctions which makes me wonder about the other countries.  Now they say the that US and EU will impose sanctions, but we know that the Czechs and Slovaks have promised to veto any such move.  But even if they do, this will be more of the kind of symbolic nonsense like banning Russian banks (who are leaving anyway) or Russian officials (who now see that as a mark of great honor).  The goofiest idea came from, what else, the British who want to cut Russia off the SWIFT network.  Which makes the Russians wonder how the EU wants to pay for its gas.  Oh, and then there is this 10'000 men rapid reaction force whose creation is supposed to terrify the Kremlin.  Let me tell you, as a military analyst, that rapid reaction forces are - by definition - not something you can use in a conventional war against a continental power like Russia with large number of men, artillery and armor.  That is absolutely laughable.  But even better is this: while the US and EU are discussing the creation of this force, Putin has already given the order to DOUBLE the size of the Russian Airborne Forces which, by the way, are superior (in training, equipment and capabilities) to any comparable western force, bar none.

art: Josetxo Ezcurra

Please understand me right: I am not dismissing NATO at all.  As a militarized political organization its capability for malevolence is immense, but this is primary a problem for the EU countries which, at best, are something between a US protectorate or colony, and who have to put up with the ugly consequences of being subservient to this fully US-controlled supra-national enforcement instrument.  For Russia the problem is the castrating effect NATO has on EU politicians as shown by the grotesquely stupid move by Francois Hollande to cancel (probably only *delay*) the delivery of the Mistrals to Russia.  That kind of nonsense is the real by-product of NATO membership, but that hardly makes NATO a credible military threat.

Speaking of Hollande and his decision to delay the delivery of the Mistrals, the BBC gave some figures of the costs involved for France:

A French diplomat earlier said the contract was suspended until November, and the delay "could cost us 1bn euros".  The deal is worth 1.2bn euros - and Russia is reported to have paid most of it, so breach of contract would mean France having to reimburse that money.  In addition, France would be liable for an extra 251m-euro penalty payment, French news website LCI reports. 

Of course, the real costs of this debacle is a huge loss of credibility for France and its international image.  It's is all very well to proudly say "la France! la France!" but when you act as a poodle you get treated like one.  In the polite world of international diplomacy nobody will say much, but everybody will know that everybody knows.  And, of course, none of that hurts Russia one bit.  At the most, the full complex of western "sanctions" against Russia are a short-term mild annoyance and a fantastic opportunity to finally tackle some much delayed and most urgently needed reforms.  Frankly, I think that these sanctions are a blessing and, apparently, so do most Russians (according to recent opinion polls).The EU - finally getting a little fed up?

There is no doubt that the EU's abject subservience to AngloZionists has really hurt European economic and political interests.  Not only that, but from an EU point of view, the situation in Banderastan is getting worse and worse and even worse.  There are some signs that both the Poroshenko regime and the EU are finally becoming aware that unless they do something really, really, soon things might get much worse.  And, exactly as Oleg Tsarev had predicted it, as soon as the NAF scored its first major victories the EU and Poroshenko suddenly became interested in negotiations.  And, right on time,Putin offered his peace plan.

Putin's 7 point peace plan

As peace plans come, this one is pretty much a no-brainer and contains only rather obvious points.  Hardly earth shattering, but still a very good basis, especially when combined with a clear message to the Ukies that Russia is not a part to this conflict and that everything must be negotiated in direct talks with Novorussia.  As for the Novorussians, they have already basically agreed to a slightly amended version of the plan.  Interestingly, so apparently has Poroshenko.  In contrast, Iatseniuk is enraged and apparently wants to built a wall along the Russian border (he really seems off his meds recently).  Finally, it appears that Merkel and the OSCE are fully backing the plan, while Fabius is very reluctantly "not opposed".

Of course, we all know that the Ukies and the EU have broken every single agreement they ever committed to since this war started, but this time there is no doubt left whatsoever about the outcome should no negotiated agreement be reached.  And since the Ukies and the EU need this peace plan much more than Russia, they might want to stick to their word this time.  Maybe.

An important thing about this plan is that it contains only immediate to short-term elements.  There is nothing at all in it about any final status for Novorussia or, for that matter, of the rest of the Ukraine.  And this exact how this should be.  Why? Because what is important in this plan is not what it says, but what it implies: "you have lost and we can restart this one anytime we want".  Yes, I know, neither the Novorussians nor the Russians have said any such thing, but remember that making threats is not the Russian way.  Russians do not promise, they do not threaten - they just act.  And if Obama, Cameron or Hollande are too stupid to understand this, Poroshenko (being, as any other Ukie "oligarch", a Mafia boss) knows that very well.  I promise you that there is a deep level of mutual understanding between Putin and Poroshenko which no western leader will ever imagine.

The smile which says it all

For all the bullshit about nationalism and politics, they are both Russian strongmen, clan bosses, and even if Poroshenko is a tiny little insect in comparison to Putin, they still have that "clan boss" culture in common and that means that Putin has absolutely no need to make any threats to Poroshenko simply because Poroshenko already knows.  For example, I heard on Ukie TV that Putin had allegedly told an OSCE official that "if he wanted he could take Kiev in two weeks".  Whether this is true or not (I doubt it - it can be done is less time) is not the point.  The point is that this is exactly the kind of "explanations" which Putin does not need to convey to Poroshenko, but that he might need to "clarify reality" to some western diplomat of the "intellectual caliber" of, say, Hollande or Rasmussen.

So are the Europeans waking up?  Is the Russian strategy to push a wedge between the EU and the US working?  I think that this is too early to tell, but I am becoming cautiously optimistic.  The way Merkel immediately endorsed the "Putin plan" might be a sign that at least Germany is starting to seriously feel the heat.

Tomorrow in Minsk?
Tomorrow will be huge.  Not only is the NATO summit concluding, but the Ukies are meeting with the Novorussians under the watchful eyes of Russia and Belarus.  Apparently topics will range from energy to the peace plan (the EU probably will want guarantees for its gas in exchange for supporting the plan).  The biggest threat now is that the AngloZionists and their Nazi allies in the Ukraine will be very very angry if a deal is made.  Frankly, Poroshenko is taking a big personal risk, but since his situation is already very precarious, he might have figured that an 11th hour "rebranding" of himself as a "peacemaker" might not be the worst possible outcome, especially if the Germans try hard to protect him.  As for the US, it might turn to its time-honored tradition and simply dump Poroshenko.  My biggest concern are the bona fide Nazis a la Iarosh, Timoshenko, Iatseniuk or Tiagnibok who will be absolutely outraged at any deal made with Putin.  Likewise, the oligarchs like Akhmetov and Kolomoiski (who hate each other) will also be furious, as will Hunter Biden.

art: Josetxo Ezcurra

The sad fact is that there is a entire clique of Ukrainian Nazis and oligarchs who much rather continue the war against Russia (because this is, of course, what this is really all about!) to the last Ukrainian soldier if need be rather than accepting a deal, especially a very bitter one like the one presented to Kiev right now.  Because, let's be honest here, this will be packaged in all sorts of noble and lofty words, but we are talking about a capitulation and not some kind of meaningful compromise, at least form the Ukie point of view.

What the Ukraine really needs right now is a real process of denazification.  There is another "Ukraine" out there, at least potentially if not historically, which could be very different from the Banderastan the AngloZionists have created.  Yes, Ukrainian nationalism is the product of centuries of west European machinations and conspiracies, but this does not mean that it has to forever remain hostage of the hateful forces which have created it.  For one thing, this conflict has constantly obfuscated the fact that most Ukrainians and most Russians want an independent Ukraine to exist.  This will be hard to prove at this point, but I believe that the only region of the ex-Ukraine which really wanted to join Russia was Crimea.  The Donbass would have settled for much less.  I am absolutely convinced that the stupid Nazis really did it to themselves, that blinded by their rabid hatred of everything Russia or Orthodox they simply could not help act the way they did, because it was "in their nature".  Now it is too late to turn things around, you cannot magically undo that horrible and crazy civil war.  But it might be possible to use the reflexion about the causes and results of this outcome to push for a real denazification of the Ukraine.  After all, no matter how brainwashed they currently are, most Ukrainians will come to realize that it took the crazy Ukie nationalists only 6 months to completely destroy their country and that all that this sick ideology of hatred and ignorance brought them is poverty, violence, humiliation and death.  But I am looking way to far ahead.

Let's see what tomorrow brings (or not) and then where this might lead us.  What is certain is that even if tomorrow brings a vapid and meaningless NATO summit and a peace deal in Minsk, this will be way way way too early to celebrate.  At best, it will be one first step in the right direction, but only one step on a long and still very dangerous road.

Stay tuned, I will try to keep you informed the best I can.

Kind regards,

The Saker

Ceasefire? What ceasefire? 

Ukrainian troops continue artillery strikes on Donetsk

Thundering explosions and shooting were heard in central part of the city overnight

ITAR-TASS,

4 September, 2014

DONETSK, September 04./ITAR-TASS/. Ukrainian troops continued shelling several residential districts in Donetsk, particularly aiming at ifrastructure facilities in its western part, on Thursday morning.

A road to the west of the Donetsk region was blocked. Fighting was continuing for the Donetsk airport. The city had no water and no cell telephone communication. It was impossible to begin repair because of continuing shelling, locals said.

Artillery strikes on the city began late on Wednesday. Thundering explosions and shooting were heard in central part of the city overnight.

Later, the militia pressed Ukrainian troops out of the city, but the Kiev-loyal forces continued strikes on residential areas and infrastructure objects north of Donetsk, the inform bureau of the army of the South-East said on Thursday.

The cities of Gorlovka, Makeyevka and Yenakiyevo were also under fire.

Ukrainian troops lost 16 armoured and 28 other vehicles and up to 130 people in dead and wounded overnight, the bureau said.

ITAR-TASS had no confirmation of the information from other independent sources.

Six NATO officers blocked in militia-controlled Mariupol

Pravda,

1 September, 2014

Six NATO officers were blocked in the city of Mariupol, surrounded by militia forces of the People's Republic of Donetsk, the press service of the republic said.

"The exact place of their location is unknown due to strict secrecy. But the fact remains that they can not leave from Mariupol. All units and special divisions of the junta have left the city, leaving separated groups of "Dnepr" and "Azov" battalions.

"A NATO information group arrived in Kiev from Estonia in March 2014 (16 officers of NATO cyber center). The group launched active anti-Russian activities. In July, 6 officers of the NATO cyber center set up a point for conducting information warfare against Russia. The main point is located in Kiev, in the building of the Council of National Security and Defense. It is NATO officers, who determine the news agenda for the punitive troops of the Kiev junta," political analyst Igor Panarin told Pravda.Ru.

Donetsk Negotiator:Full Withdrawal of Kiev Troops Needed for Ceasefire in East Ukraine

RIA Novosti,

4 September, 2014

DONETSK, September 4 (RIA Novosti) –A full withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic is needed for a viable ceasefire in eastern Ukraine, a member of the republic’s negotiation team said Thursday.

“It should be understood that “the withdrawal of artillery from cities” implies the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the territory of the Donetsk Region. The firing distance of the Uragan [multiple-launch rocket system] is 35 kilometers, and there is no place in Donetsk without settlements in the 35-km radius… So, withdrawing them away from our cities means withdrawing them from the DPR territory completely. That suits us,” said Leonid Baranov, the republic’s acting state security minister and a negotiator at Friday’s talks in Minsk.

Earlier on Thursday, the leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics said they were ready to order a ceasefire on Friday afternoon if a peace plan was signed during negotiations in Minsk on September 5. They also said they would submit their proposals on the ceasefire regime to the Contact Group in Minsk.

The same day, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said he would be able to order a ceasefire on Friday starting from 2 p.m. local time (11:00 GMT).

On Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin presented a seven-point plan for the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis, urging Kiev to withdraw its troops from southeastern Ukraine and militia to cease military advances.

Previously, the Contact Group on Ukrainian reconciliation, comprising Russia, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Ukrainian government and eastern Ukraine’s independence supporters met in Minsk on September 1.

Kiev & self-defense forces ready for Friday ceasefire if Minsk talks successful

RT,

4 September, 2014

The Ukrainian president and the heads of the self-proclaimed People's Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk have said they are ready to order a ceasefire if peace talks in Minsk, Belarus on Friday are successful.

"At 14:00 local time (11:00GMT Friday), provided the [Minsk] meeting takes place, I will call on the General Staff to set up a bilateral ceasefire and we hope that the implementation of the peace plan will begin tomorrow," Petro Poroshenko said on the sidelines of a NATO summit in Wales on Thursday.

On Wednesday, Poroshenko expressed “great hope” that the peace process in Ukraine will commence in Minsk on September 5, when representatives of Kiev, Moscow and OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) are scheduled to meet

RT        ✔ @RT_com

Follow

#Ukraine war death toll: 837 soldiers, 3000+ wounded - Security Council http://on.rt.com/avnrbk 

1:20 AM - 5 Sep 2014

The self-proclaimed People's Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk are “ready to order a ceasefire tomorrow on September 5, 2014 at 15:00 local time (12:00GMT) if agreement is reached and the Ukrainian representatives sign up to the plan for a political settlement of the conflict,” the leaders of the two republics said in a joint statement. 



The People's Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk “will also present their proposals on the ceasefire, which would describe in detail the guarantees of implementation of the truce by the sides involved in the conflict, to the contact group in Minsk on Friday,” the statement added.

The announcements pave the way for implementing the 7-step peace plan, which was proposed to the conflicting sides by Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.

READ MORE: Putin lays out 7-step plan to stop hostilities in E. Ukraine

The Russian president’s proposals envisage: a the halt to the militia’s advances in the Donetsk and Lugansk Regions; withdrawal of Kiev troops to a distance that makes shelling impossible; objective international control over the ceasefire; a ban on the use of combat aircrafts against civilians; unconditional prisoner exchange; organization of humanitarian corridors, and provision of direct access for repair crews to destroyed infrastructure.

The heads of the self-proclaimed People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk said that they are ready to implement the ceasefire at 11:00GMT on Friday, on condition that Kiev subscribes to the plan for a political settlement to the conflict.

Ukraine has been engulfed in violent internal conflict since April, when Kiev’s military began its crackdown on the southeastern regions of the country.

According to United Nations’ estimates released on Tuesday, over 2,249 people have been killed so far and more than 6,033 wounded in the fighting in eastern Ukraine.

The number of internally displaced Ukrainians has reached 190,000, with another 207,000 finding refuge in Russia, the UN said.

The NATO Summit: Concerns over NATO's possible expansion into E. Europe

NATO's leaders are in Wales for their latest summit. While the members discuss what they label 'the Russian threat' over what's happening in Ukraine, crowds have been marching outside the summit venue to protest against the alliance's policies. Harry Fear reports for RT.

What Does Russia Want?

Original article: RussEurope—Que veut la Russie?
Translated & Edited by @GBabeuf
Photo Credit: RussEurope & A. Chalguine

An important round-table discussion was held yesterday evening (Monday, September 1st), in Paris, under the auspices of the Franco-Russian Dialogue Association, to attempt to assess the political solutions to the Ukrainian crisis, and to exit from the spiral of escalation. This round-table discussion brought together leading Russian politicians and representatives of diverse French political forces, of the business community (Total, GDF-Suez), and of the cultural and scientific communities.

The Participants

Without it being possible to list them all (and we apologise in advance to those who have been forgotten), those present included:

• Sergei Naryshkin, Chairman of the State Duma,
• Aleksey Pushkov, Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Foreign-Affairs,
• Leonid Slutsky, Chairman of the State Duma Committee on the CIS, Eurasion integration and Relations with Compatriots,
• Aleksandr Orlov, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to France.

The French side included, among others:

• Thierry Mariani, UMP Deputy of the National Assembly of France, representing French Expatriates, co-President of Franco-Russian Dialogue,
• J.-P. Chevènement, Senator, Honorary President of the MRC (Mouvement Républicain et Citoyen), Special Envoy on Russia of the President of the French Republic,
• Yves Pozzo di Borgo, UDI Senator for Paris, member of the Senate Foreign-Affairs Committee, member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE,
• Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam, Senator representing French Expatriates (UMP),
• Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, Deputy for Yerres, President of “Arise the Republic”,
• Jacques Myard, UMP Deputy (Maisons-Lafitte),
• J.-C. Mignon, UMP Deputy, Ex-President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).

From the business community were:

• Christophe de Margerie, Chief Executive of Total S.A.,
• J.-F. Cirelli, Director of European branch of GDF-Suez,
• Serge Dassault, Chairman of Dassault Group.

The Discussion

The exchange, which lasted two hours, enabled, on the one hand, a gauging of the mutual commitment to Franco-Russian friendship, and also the common concern at the turn of events in Ukraine, and its consequences for European politics and economy. The situation of the civilian population is dramatic. It should be pointed out here that, for the American journal, Foreign Policy, the bombardment of the civilian population, to which Kiev’s forces have made systematic recourse, could be classified as “war crimes.”ⁱThe business leaders present stressed the profoundly destructive and political unjustifiable character of the mutual sanctions (both European and Russian) imposed heretofore. The exchange lasted for more than two hours, and the Russian officials answered questions from the French participants. One of the main themes was, of course, the Russian position regarding this crisis.

The Position of Russia

On this first point, Mr Sergey Naryshkin was very clear, and he stated that the conflict in south-eastern Ukraine was an internal conflict between the government in Kiev and the insurgents. There could therefore only be a Ukrainian solution to the crisis. However, the internal crisis in Ukraine is now threatening to obstruct the development of relations between France and Russia. But these relations are important not only for the two countries, but also for the future of Europe. There is a problem with countries who seek to “demonise” Russia for their own specific interests. The mass media in France, and in certain European countries, have shown bias against Russia. Note, however, that, particularly in the British press, one begins to see more measured perspectives.ⁱⁱ

He also added that there is a huge problem of refugees in Russia (over 150,000) and that it is rather uncommon that civilians flee to their “aggressor.” These refugees are fleeing the government troops’ bombardment of civilian targets—bombardments in which Grad and Uragan rocket launchers have been used as well as self-propelled howitzers. Tens of thousands of housing units have been destroyed. We should also oppose the anti-Russian hysteria of some.

Concerning the temporary exclusion of Russia from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), he recalled that the European parliamentary tradition is a democratic tradition. Exclusion is alien to this tradition. Jean-Claude Mignon, ex-President of PACE, expressed the same view, saying that he had voted against this exclusion.

The discussion then moved towards Russia’s reactions since March. The referenda in Crimea and the South-East were described by Sergey Naryshkin as reactions to the aggressive behaviour of the Kiev leaders. But one should note here the difference in treatment by Russia of these two referenda. Russia recognised Crimea’s, but did not recognise those held in the Ukraine’s East. Sergey Naryshkin reaffirmed that a dialogue is necessary if we want to achieve a de-escalation. There is a need to reach a consensus between the different parties to the crisis.

The Sanctions Question

The question of sanctions was raised, in particular, by Christophe de Margerie as well as by the director of GDF-Suez. De Margerie said that the importance of economic relations was central to dialogue between our two countries. French businesses are very concerned regarding economic exchanges which have developed greatly over these last twenty years, between the two countries, but also at the level of Europe, into whose economy Russia’s is partly integrated. Thus, one should avoid an escalation of sanctions. The role of the press is important here. It was also noted that this role is, in general, noxious in France. Today, some companies tend to anticipate new sanctions. This is not healthy. One should not engage in one-upmanship.

Sergey Naryshkin responded to these interventions, saying that, effectively, the question of sanctions complicates the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis. Russia does not want to engage in this game, but she is obliged to respond, which she did with the embargo on foodstuffs. She did this with much deliberation. The question of economic relations between the EU and Russia is at stake.

Dynamics of the Crisis

This third part of the discussion generated a lot of attention. Mr. Pushkov said that the situation in Ukraine was in fact very complex. The concept of federalisation was possible, and it was this which Russia supported. But now there had been a change because of the violence and of Kiev’s action against the civilian population. Kiev has consistently refused negotiations. In fact, what was accepted in Québec and Belgium was rejected. The priority is to ask the insurgents what they think. Russia supports the idea of direct talks between Kiev and the insurgents. She supports the principle of a “special status” for the people of the South-East, whatever that may be. She also supports the idea the idea of federalisation if this idea is accepted by the insurgents. But he wished to recall that the insurgents are not puppets [of Russia].

Jean-Pierre Chevènement then intervened, and he noted that we were presently in a spiral linked to the European Union’s own decision making process, a point regarding which Nicolas Dupont-Aignan had already intervened. The position of the European Union is held hostage by certain countries, especially Poland, who are doing nothing for the resolution of this crisis. Jean-Pierre Chevènement also described what was now happening as a “cycle of stuipidity”, in which some, particularly in the EU and NATO, bear a heavy and historical responsibility. Clearly, France should unshackle itself from the EU and NATO in order to restore the ability to make heard what the ex-minister described as “the voice of reason.” The dramatic sequence of events of 1914 should be remembered here, even if the situation is not as dramatic as it was then. This is one of the lessons of History. Jean-Pierre Chevènement confirmed that the Russian and French governments maintained a close and constant dialogue to prevent a degeneration of the crisis, and that Presidents Hollande and Putin spoke regularly over the phone. This is an important point, and, in a sense, reassuring. But this will not be enough. A strong French and German diplomatic initiative is required on the subject.

Possible Solutions

It is possible to make several observations here regarding the dynamics of the crisis. The Ukrainian crisis is in fact a product of the destruction of the framework of international law that we have experienced since the middle of the 1990s and which manifested itself around the subjects of Kosovo (1998-99), of Iraq (2003)—the magnitude of whose consequences are today being measured—and, more recently, of Libya. Today we are tasting the bitter fruits of this destruction of the rules of international law; a destruction for which the United States and NATO bear the responsibility. It is not possible to find a framework for resolving this crisis without rules that are acknowledged by all. International law is still based on two rules, which are profoundly contradictory: respect for the sovereignty of states AND the right of peoples to determine for themselves. Mediation between these two principles has been dramatically and permanently weakened by the actions of NATO states and the United States since the end of the 1990s. It is these mediations that we must rebuild. It has thus gone from a crisis internal to Ukraine to an international crisis, and this largely due to the degree of violence employed by the government in Kiev. On this exact point, there is a new contradiction between the position adopted regarding Libya, where the protection of the population justified a foreign intervention, and the Ukraine. This should be borne in mind.

This begs the question of an eventual ceasefire, and of its guarantees. A ceasefire is needed in the shortest time-frame. The continuation of combat can only make even more insurmountable the wall of hatred in the Ukraine, and make more difficult the political solution to the crisis that must nevertheless surely be found. It is clear that what was possible at the beginning of June is no longer possible. The longer hostilities last, the more difficult will it be to arrive at a political solution. Hence, France and Germany should exert strong pressure on the Kiev government in order to constrain it to accept a cessation of hostilities, dependent on Russia putting pressure on the insurgents so that this cessation is accepted. From this perspective, joint action with Russia is required, whether or not this pleases some. This ceasefire should be verified and supervised. This will thus require troops to be interposed between Kiev’s army and the insurgents’ forces. We have to start thinking about this question, knowing that Russian troops will be unacceptable to Kiev, as would be those from NATO states and the EU with the insurgents.

This political solution will be difficult to find. Mr. Naryshkin alluded to the “asymmetric federalism” that exists in Canada for Québec.ⁱⁱⁱ It is a potential solution, but alas not likely. Another solution would be that of an “autonomous region” or of an “autonomous Republic”, in the framework of the Ukrainian state, on the model of Kurdistan in present-day Iraq. Beyond these solutions, the only possible outcome would be that of independence unrecognised by the international community, as is the case with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The solutions of an “asymmetric federalism” or “autonomous Republic” must be guaranteed by both the states of the EU and by Russia. We will, once again, have to work with the Russian government. However, we are measuring what was lost when Kiev officials refused to organise elections for a constituent assembly in order to rewrite their country’s constitution and put in place a federal system.

Once this political solution is found, the economic viability of Ukraine, and of the autonomous regions of the country’s East, must be ensured. This requires a close look at the dynamic of regional development, once the tasks of reconstructing infrastructure and buildings destroyed during bombardment by Kiev’s Army are completed. These tasks also involve funding, and agreement must be reached on who will be the donor countries. To leave the burden solely to Russia would be, from a political standpoint, a tragic mistake, since this would mean we abdicate the opportunity of influencing the insurgents’ leaders. Again, it will require agreement between the different involved parties, including Russia and the EU.

i Slavang, O., “The Dead and the Living in Lugansk”, Foreign Policy, August 29, 2014,http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/29/the_dead_and_the_living_in_luhansk_ukraine_russia_war

ii As in The Guardian newspaper article, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/29/ukraine-putin-sanctions-west-biggest-mistake

iii Banting, K. & Simeon, R., eds. And No One Cheered: Federalism, Democracy and the Constitution Act, Toronto: Methuen, 1983; Brown, D. M., & Smith, M. G., eds., Canadian Federalism: Global Economic Challenges, Kingston & Halifax: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations & Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1991