Brussels
(AFP) - The EU warned Russia Thursday it was ready to take further
measures in addition to the sanctions it has already imposed if a new
Ukraine peace pact is breached, the bloc's president Donald Tusk
said.
"The
debate focused on how to support the implementation of the agreement
-- if it does not happen we will not hesitate to take the necessary
steps," the European Council chief told a press conference after
a European Union summit.
The
summit focused on the truce deal signed earlier Thursday in the
Belarus capital Minsk after marathon talks between the presidents of
Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France aimed at ending a 10-month
conflict between Kiev and pro-Russian separatists.
Tusk
said the EU would go ahead anyway with new sanctions against 19
Russian and Ukrainian individuals and nine entities next week,
despite having agreed on Monday to suspend implementation for a week
to boost the chances of success of the Minsk talks.
"Our
trust in the goodwill of President Putin is limited, this is why we
have to maintain our decision on sanctions," he said.
Brussels
first imposed targeted sanctions on individuals after Russia's
annexation of Crimea in March 2014 but adopted tougher economic
measures after the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17
over Ukraine in July.
But
Tusk said the leaders had not discussed any further sanctions against
Russia.
He
said Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko had given EU leaders a
"sobering assessment" of the deal and the "terrible
situation in his country as a result of Russian aggression."
Poroshenko
earlier warned that it would be hard to make a success of the deal
between Kiev and pro-Russian separatists.
"It
was very difficult negotiation and we expect not easy implementation
process," Poroshenko said in Brussels.
Trotz
der Vereinbarung von Minsk treten am Montag weitere Sanktionen gegen
Russland in Kraft. Die EU deutete an, dass noch mehr folgen könnten.
Im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus üben die Mitgliedsstaaten den
Schulterschluss
Despite
the agreement of Minsk occur on Monday for sanctions against Russia
in force. The EU suggested that more could follow. In the
fight against terrorism,
And le Monde
Prudence
of Western leaders
about the chances of peace in
Ukraine
Prudence
des dirigeants occidentaux sur les chances de paix en Ukraine.
It
was with relief tinged with caution as the leaders of the European
Union welcomed, Thursday 12 February, the compromise in the night in
Minsk to try to put an end to the conflict in the east of Ukraine .
At the initiative of the negotiations with German Chancellor Angela
Merkel, French President Francois Hollande , warned his peers at the
European Council in Brussels that nothing was gained.
"We
are in a time that is crucial, agreement has been reached, it is more
than a glimmer of hope and, at the same time, a time when everything
can still decide one way or another and next few hours will be
decisive. »
M
me Merkel, who negotiated all night in the Belarusian capital
alongside the leaders of the French state, Russian and Ukrainian,
proved equally tempered: "It's a glimmer of hope, not less, not
more. " For the latter, the key is "that words are followed
by actions" .
The
President of the European Council, Donald Tusk Polish, has,
meanwhile, wanted pragmatic. "Hope is good, but hope is not
enough, the real test is the cease -the fire on the ground " ,
he assured, recalling that the first truce, concluded on September 5,
had been breached. The agreement signed Thursday includes the
cessation of fighting, 15 February.
For
his part, British Prime Minister David Cameron praised the efforts of
French and German diplomats, while expressing doubts about the real
chances for peace. "Vladimir Putin must know that if he does not
change his behavior, sanctions we have implemented will not change "
, argued the curator. Many Western leaders have also used the threat
of new procedures in the event of non-compliance with this new
agreement. However, if it was observed, the EU was prepared to relax
the measures taken against Moscow.
Paris
has speculated the resumption of the suspended delivery of Mistral
warships. "The conditions are still not met. They will be, I
hope someday " , told Francois Hollande after the European
summit.
"THE
ROAD IS LONG"
The
other side of the Atlantic, the reaction is similar. The United
States therefore also welcomed the signing of the cease-fire, but
still measured on the chances of achieving . "The road is long
before all parties are able to make peace and restore full
sovereignty Ukraine " , has warned the head of the diplomacy
American, John Kerry. "What will count now are the actions to be
undertaken. »
"It
is not simply to make peace with one hand and pass the other hand
more surface to air missiles" , criticized, for its part, The US
ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power on MSNBC. Finally,
the White House has called for the "withdrawal of heavy weapons
from the zone of conflict" and asked "the Russia to end its
support for separatists and withdraw its troops and military
equipment in the eastern Ukraine " .
As
the European Union, Washington, which imposed sanctions against
Moscow, said that these could be lifted if lasting peace in the
region. "The United States is prepared to consider to go back on
sanctions against Russia when the cease-fire in Minsk in September
2014 and this agreement will be fully implemented " , reiterated
Mr. Kerry. Otherwise, "if the transfers of weapons and equipment
continue (...) it will be a violation of the spirit and letter of the
agreement and it will force us, with our partners, to impose a higher
price " , warned a US official
This
is one commentator who I have been waiting for - so I will post this
seperately
"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."
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 as 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
PS:
this was sent to me by a friend today: (cheer up guys, we will
win!!)
Here
is a selection of commentary on the Minsk ceasfire from the usual
crowd:
Based
on this we can see the following:
The
Russians, Hollande and, persumably Merkel are very happy with a
hard-won deal
Poroshenko
is visably unhappy with the deal and has immediately contradicted
the main parts of the agreement - “no federalisation or autonomy”
for Novorussia
The
leaders of DPR/LPR (Zakharenko and Plotnitsky) were not signaturies
to this deal
The
Anglo-American side are clearly unhappy and immediately expressing
scepticism (reflected well by the rapidly pro-war Guardian),
although Obama is saying he would roll back sanctions if the deal is
effective
It
is a deal based on Realpolitik and the very real interests of the
Russians not to be the ones to take the world to the edge of a
nuclear holocaust.
The
usual crowd is saying immediately that this is a betrayal,
‘appeasement’
The
reality is that no-one on the ground has a real reason to observe
the ceasefire – not the Novorussia militias who are winning this
war hands down, or Poroshenko whon only ever wanted to win yet
another breathing space to regroup his forces, this time with
American arms.
The
next war, when it comes, will be a big one and involve direct
conflict between Russia and the West.
This,
at least is what I have gleaned on a quick glance.
---Seemorerocks One picture is worth a thousand words
During
the entire Minsk negotiations Ukrainian General staff disinformed
Poroshenko about the situation in Debaltsevo, and the most important
trump card in the hands of the President of Ukraine turned out to be
a bluff. UAF was not able to crack open the cauldron, and it has
turned into the most sticking point of negotiations, which may turn
everything agreed upon in Minsk upside down.
Poroshenko's
perception of reality was ultimately shattered by his propaganda trip
to Kramatorsk in the company of the chief of the General staff
Muzhenko and a French philosopher-Russophobe Bernard-Henri Levy. The
President of Ukraine is a man not too brave, very emotional and
gullible. What was originally conceived as "pumping" of
Western public opinion with all the classic moves of PR campaigns,
turned into a psychological trap for himself.
The
Minister of Defense and head of General staff, spurred by Turchynov,
had promised the President to carry out the operation, which will
deblock Debaltsevo, and at the same time "will pay back for
Kramatorsk." When Poroshenko was already flying to Minsk, he was
convinced that it is enough to buy some time and the attack on
Logvinovo will end in complete victory, and he will get a new
starting position for negotiations. Throughout the entire night
Poroshenko checked for updates from his General staff, but victory
did not come. It hasn't come by morning, and a light bulb went off:
something is not right, the cauldron does exist! Although he has
already for 10 hours told respected people that it did not.
One
can only guess about the motives of the security block of Ukraine for
disorienting and misinforming their Commander In Chief. The dominant
conspiracy theory: Turchynov, actually managing the security block,
thus was buying time, following the general American line. More down
to earth and realistic version: it was a traditional (of all times
and all peoples) aspiration of parquet generals to please and ward
off accusations, glossing over reality. Considering the general panic
mood, combined with an unbridled propaganda, it is much more likely
than a transatlantic conspiracy about Debaltsevo cauldron. The
Ukrainian command also doesn't quite understand what is happening.
There is no connection with some units for more than a week, and if
there is, it boils down mainly to cries for help and heated exchanges
about "who is to blame". The chain of misinformation may
well start from the very bottom, gradually accumulating "meat".
And to treat any information in a favorable light is a very common
mistake of bad scouts and analysts. The past six months revealed much
about the strategists of the Ukrainian General staff.
All
night from Wednesday to Thursday UAF tried to exert pressure upon the
entire front line. A formation of two thousand from Svetlodarsk,
which was assembled by UAF for almost a week, went head on to the
strongholds and minefields of NAF at Logvinovo, but the militia has
also strengthened this position in recent days. NAF even managed to
transfer significant reserves to Uglegorsk. As a result an attack on
Logvinovo from two sides (there was also an attack from Debaltsevo,
but very unconvincing) was stopped only by the morning. By this
moment Poroshenko got his own localized apocalypse.
UAF
also tried to attack directly from Lugansk through the infamous
village of Schastye, simultaneously firing on the city from MLRS,
which has not happened for six months. UAF command, as it turned out
later, believed that LPR units were too busy near Debaltsevo and
Bakhmut highway, that supposedly weakened defense of the direct road
to Lugansk (this is, again, another demonstration of the low level of
Ukrainian intelligence and strategic analysis). Battalion "Azov"
again imitated the offensive on the coastal route through the neutral
zone with the same results, as a few days ago. These people are
generally more prone to simulate turbulent activity than to
thoughtful action.
Where
UAF is not capable of real activity, the pressure was carried out
using MRLS and heavy weapons. For example, Peski, Opytnoye, Donetsk
itself, Gorlovka, Yenakievo, Makeevka, Dokuchayevsk, and Dzerzhinsk
were heavily shelled.
Vladimir
Putin, appearing to the press after the talks, openly called on the
Ukrainian side to allow troops in Debaltsevo to surrender, or to
arrange an organized exit. Poroshenko wanted to turn the situation
around Debaltsevo into his almost only trump card, and in the end it
became a monstrous failure. In fact, regardless of what and in what
language is written in the agreement of the contact group, Debaltsevo
cauldron may turn into a huge mass grave in the next two days,
because none of the demoralized generals (as Poroshenko himself) will
give an order to surrender. And to organize a controlled exit of the
Ukrainian troops from the encirclement in such a short time is
impossible. Soldiers are not concentrated in any one place, but
scattered in groups by checkpoints, many without communications,
without commanders and without ammo. Even if they can scavenge some
food at homesteads, no one will bring them ammo or medical supplies.
In the steppes there is dirt and slush, to detour the positions of
the militia on the road to Logvinovo through fields is impossible,
even if there was fuel. Militia doesn't even need to use heavy
weaponry, it is enough to gradually cut off one checkpoint from the
another.
After
the defeat of Ukrainian attack on Logvinovo a real danger emerged to
get a second cauldron in Svetlodarsk, which would trap this other
"deblocking unit", that was built up over a week. Another
thing is that it is problematic to create a new operational
encirclement of a large formation in two days, and any offensive
action by NAF will now be associated with hysterical information
uproar in Ukraine, although UAF themselves have failed at Uglegorsk,
Logvinovo, and now of Svetlodarsk. Only officers and soldiers can
explain to the Ukrainian public that "a cauldron - is no good",
but if they start talking, it will seem more like a riot, and in a
hysterical atmosphere no one will listen.
It
is interesting, that a new offensive on Logvinovo was started by UAF
immediately after the announcement of the results of Minsk talks,
sometime around noon. Commander Semen Semenchenko - one of the most
active "Twitter warriors" - said that the Ukrainians had
already taken Logvinovo and are "carrying out a sweep". In
reality, the situation remained exactly what it was, a new attack on
"cauldron lid" is purely political in nature.
Thus,
a small village Logvinovo on the highway Debaltsevo - Artemovsk
turned for Poroshenko into a "new airport", only now these
attacks also have a purely military, practical value.
Poroshenko
will be now learning about the difficult reality with apparent
difficulty and reluctance. For him this reality, among other things,
is dotted with various "red lines" which he can't cross
even verbally. The military situation had become a taboo, although it
remains a key part of the agenda. Even the questions of the political
status can be brushed off, creating "joint commissions"
including representatives from DPR and LPR, but the front line
requires immediate decisions. Sometimes everything depends not on big
ideas and global plays, but simply on the human qualities of a
particular politician or officer. But a commander in chief of the
Ukrainian army, alas, got this position as a figure of compromise and
was controllable from the start. He, as a person, may want to achieve
something. To preserve peace in Europe, for example. But it is beyond
the range of circumstances and human power.
Debaltsevo
cauldron has evolved from a military operation of a local value into
the main factor of political settlement. What will happen there in
the next few days (or rather, what steps will Kiev take to change the
situation) will determine the further balance of power. To
demonstrate DPR and LPR in the face of Europeans as "wild
barbarians", and Russia as the aggressor will not work anymore.
You were given options - it's your choice. Even Zakharchenko and
Plotnitsky were brought to you for negotiations, and in the end we
got a vague paper signed by Kuchma, whose position at the moment is -
a retiree. "Ratified verbally" certain agreements - it's
such a fresh and new phenomenon in international diplomacy that all
textbooks should be rewritten.
To
seriously discuss the details of pulling the heavy artillery to some
distance from the front line (lines?) is pointless. As well as to
discuss clause-by-clause an agreement, from which there will not even
be a memory left in a short time. Yes, the Ukrainian troops will be
pulled from the actual line, but Ukraine's control over the border
with Russia can only be restored after a constitutional reform,
guaranteeing new status for Donetsk and Lugansk. That is, "money
- in the morning, chairs - in the evening".
A
much more important question, is how long can the state of "no
peace, no war" hold. To predict it now is extremely difficult,
it all depends on many factors, including purely private, invisible
to the naked eye. Most of these factors are now in Kiev. What will
happen to public opinion, if the losses exceed all reasonable limits?
When and on what conditions will Debaltsevo surrender? How hard will
the Parliament groups fight against the bills on the new status of
Donbass, and how will Poroshenko cope with it? There is a myriad of
these key elements. Especially that in reality there is no monitoring
mechanism for the removal of heavy weapons from either side. OSCE can
not monitor the ceasefire: tanks and 80 mm mortars will remain at the
contact line, which do not fall under the category of "heavy
artillery", and in an urban setting - they are terrible, deadly
weapons. A mine doesn't break the asphalt, but bounces from it.
Shrapnel flies in all directions parallel to the ground, and people
lose their legs.
All
this looks like a new calm before a big war.
Minsk
Talks Didn’t Lead to a Magical Peace
The
Normandy four have agreed to a ceasefire in Donbas, but real
challenges remain if Ukraine is to ever experience a lasting
peace.
The
ceasefire is planned to take place beginning on 15
February, and according to initial reports, the withdrawal
of heavy artillery from the front lines is to be
completed within two weeks. Not only that, but if all goes
according to plan, foreign mercenaries, “illegal armed
groups”, and military equipment are to leave Ukraine, and the
OSCE is envisaged as playing some kind of stabilizing
force. Ukraine is also supposed to enact some kind of special
status for Donetsk and Luhansk that will guarantee their rights
and autonomy.
All
of this sounds fine and dandy in theory, but serious
problems aren't being addressed in fact. In the countdown to the
ceasefire, both sides are expected to wage an all-out war
to consolidate their gains, and most observers are forgetting
that there is still a sizeable (and violent) portion of Ukrainian
society that is absolutely opposed to halting the fighting
in Donbas.
While
global eyes were directed on Minsk, the US announced that it
would begin training Ukraine’s National Guard in March,
showing that it’s digging itself even deeper into the
country’s civil war and fortifying its influence in the
country.
The
Countdown
In
the coming days, both Kiev and the southeastern Ukrainian republics
will likely fight an all-out conflict to consolidate their
respective gains to either use as bargaining chips
in future negotiations or to hold on to for long-term
gain.
No
matter if heavy artillery is removed as expected or not, there
are still thousands of troops on the ground more motivated
than ever to ‘beat the clock’ and lay claim to as much
territory as possible before the ceasefire commences.
A
major unresolved issue is what becomes of Kiev’s troops
encircled in Debaltseve, since if they remain there
after the ceasefire and don’t surrender or are eliminated
beforehand, it could create a bridgehead for the capital
to claim more eastern territory, and possibly disrupt a sizeable
segment of the self-proclaimed republics’ gains acquired
since their counter-offensive last month.
Poroshenko’s
Political Plight
Ukraine’s
leader placed himself into a dark political corner by agreeing
to the ceasefire, since there are many militant elements
in his country’s society that are opposed to any
cessation of violence in Donbas or special autonomy for the
region. It’s not just regular civilians (who most actively
protested for a more ‘successful’ campaign back in the
fall), but also the irregular pro-Kiev militias that Poroshenko
has to fear. Just two weeks ago, many members of the Aidar
battalion attempted to storm the Ministry of Defense
headquarters to protest their official disbandment by Kiev.
These fighters are known for their brutality and have been
accused of war crimes by Amnesty International, thus
evidencing their propensity for extremely violent ‘solutions’
to their ‘problems’.
The
Aidar Battalion isn’t alone, as likeminded extreme nationalist
groups such as oligarch Igor Kolomoyskiy’s Azov Battalion and
Dmytro Yarosh’s Right Sector are also opposed to peace
in Donbas. If these three groups teamed up and applied
pressure on Poroshenko for being a ‘sell-out’ and ‘soft
on terrorism’ (which is what they accused him of being
during last September’s Minsk talks), then they could
potentially rile up enough of the population to create
serious destabilization in Kiev and possibly enact another color
revolution, if not a direct militant coup.
This
scenario is certainly foreseeable since the agreement supposedly
stipulates the disarmament of “illegal armed groups”, which could
be interpreted as being against the three aforementioned
nationalist groups just as much as against the militias
of Donetsk and Luhansk. In the first case, they’ll likely team
up and fight against Kiev if they can’t be formally
integrated into its armed forces, whereas for the latter,
they’ll vie to have an official status within their
respective territories, which would obviously upset the nationalist
groups and individuals in the rest of Ukraine. Either way,
the nationalist groups are likely to remain a factor
of political and military instability in Ukraine long
after 15 February, and they present the greatest threat
to Poroshenko’s power and any peace in Donbas.
Where’s
Washington?
While
the entire Minsk hubbub was dominating the news circuits, an
important tidbit of information was lost on most of the
global public. Ben Hodges, the commander of US Army Europe,
announced that the American military will be training 600 members
of Ukraine’s National Guard beginning in March. Semon
Semenchenko, the commander of the pro-Kiev Donbas volunteer
battalion, described the future exercises as being like
“the traditional training systems of the US Navy Seals
and Delta Force”, which are among the world’s most elite
special forces units. This underreported news could likely be even
more significant than the ‘ceasefire’ achieved at Minsk,
since it has widely reverberating implications for any
potential peace in Ukraine.
The
US is now training the vanguard force for any future operations
in Donbas, and these 600 individuals can then pass along their
US-acquired skills and knowledge to other members of Kiev’s
military.
This
means that Blackwater’s
training is
no longer necessary (nor allowed by the proposed agreement), and
that the mercenary trainers are simply being swapped out for
actual US Army personnel.
Other
than increasing the efficiency of Kiev’s forces, the US
may also seek to train them in operating unfamiliar Western
weaponry in preparation for its eventual delivery
to Ukraine. No matter if there’s an active war in Donbas
or not, that won’t prevent the US or its allies from selling
weapons to Ukraine if they want to. The US can either do this
directly via shipments through the Black Sea or indirectly
through its Polish and Romanian proies.
So
in the greater mix of things, although Washington wasn’t
present at the current Minsk talks, its growing military
influence in Ukraine was definitely the elephant in the
room that nobody wanted to address.
Already
there is debate about who has "won" and who has "lost"
in the Minsk talks.
The short answer is that as the German
foreign minister Steinmeier correctly said there is no breakthrough
but the Russians and the NAF have made progress.
One point
needs to be explained or reiterated (since I have explained it
already and many times).
The agreement does not make
provision for federalisation or autonomy for the Donbass but still
only refers to the grant of a law according the Donbass temporary
special status within the Ukraine.
There could not be an
agreement for federalisation out of the Minsk negotiations because
they are primarily a summit meeting of five powers - Russia,
Belarus, Ukraine, German and France. The Russians have always
insisted that this is an internal conflict and civil war within the
Ukraine and between Ukrainians and it is for the Ukrainians and them
alone to resolve their internal differences between them through
negotiations.
Given that this is Russia's stance,
Russia and the other powers cannot impose a federalisation scheme on
the Ukrainians and they have not - at least overtly - sought to do
so. What the stated objective of the Minsk talks is - at least from
the Russian point of view - is to set up conditions and a process
for the constitutional negotiations that the Russians have been
pushing for (and which were supposedly agreed on 21st February 2014
and on 17th April 2014 and 5th September 2014) to take place.
The
Russians have been insisting on these negotiations since the
February coup. The Russians are not publicly pre-ordaining the
outcome of those negotiations because were they to do so they would
not be negotiations at all. Whatever a negotiation is, it is by
definition not something whose outcome is preordained.
If
the Russians sought to preordain the outcome of the negotiations by
insisting on federalisation as the outcome they would be imposing
their views on the parties and would be admitting that they are a
party to the conflict, which is what they have consistently said
they are not. They would in effect be doing what the US has tried to
do in the Syrian conflict, which is insist on an outcome to
negotiations (Assad's resignation) before negotiations even take
place. The Russians have always opposed this sort of behaviour and
they are being consistent in not openly adopting it now.
Depending
on what the parties agree between them, the negotiations could in
theory result in decentralisation, federalisation, a confederation
or even outright independence for the Donbass (the Russians floated
that idea as a serious possibility in the summer). The latter is not
by the way contrary to the reaffirmation of respect or even support
for the Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity that we saw
in the statement today. If the internal parties to the conflict were
to decide on a formal partition as the solution to the Ukraine's
conflict, then international actors like Russia could recognise it
without calling into question their previous declared support for
the Ukraine's territorial integrity, as they previously did when
Czechoslovakia split up.
In reality everybody knows that the
Russians' preferred option is federalisation and the Europeans are
now edging towards that solution. Whether it is a viable solution is
another matter.
Once this key point is understood everything
else starts to fall into place.
Last spring and summer the
Russians sought a ceasefire so the constitutional negotiations could
begin. The Europeans are now also demanding a ceasefire (they were
less keen on the idea last spring and summer). There is now
therefore an agreement for a ceasefire.
Back in August
the Russians demanded the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the
Donbass. There is now an agreement for the withdrawal of heavy
weapons from the Donbass.
If that happens it will be a
major weakening of the Junta's position in the Donbass because it is
the Junta whose military has the big preponderance in heavy weapons.
If the opposing sides are left with light infantry forces, the
advantage on the ground will pass decisively to the NAF.
The
political machinery that was supposed to have been agreed in Minsk
on 5th September 2014 to create the conditions for the
constitutional elections is being revived. Thus there is to be a law
of special status for the Donbass pending the constitutional
negotiations to clarify its current legal status and provide legal
mechanisms for its internal administration by the NAF (Ukraine
passed one previously and then reneged on it), more elections
etc.
There is a new provision, which is the first
indications of some sort of timeline for this process with the
constitutional negotiations supposed to have been concluded by the
end of the year.
There are also some ideas for a beefed up
monitoring process via the OSCE.
Will any of this
happen? Highly doubtful I would say. Consider what happened after
the Minsk process of 5th September 2014. The Junta did not withdraw
its heavy weapons. It did not retreat to the agreed boundary line.
It imposed an economic blockade on the Donbass (it is now obliged to
lift it). It rescinded the law on the Donbass's special status. It
reinforced its army and in January it attempted to renew its
offensive.
Is there any more prospect of this process
succeeding than did the one that was agreed in Minsk in
September?
The big difference between this process and
the previous process is that the Europeans are now formally
involved. Its success or failure ultimately depends on whether the
Europeans are going to insist on the Junta fulfilling its
obligations. They spectacularly failed to do so before and I have to
say I think it is very unlikely they will do so now. If the
Europeans fail to insist on the Junta fulfilling its obligations
then the process will unravel as the previous Minsk process did and
with the balance of advantage continuing to shift every day on the
ground towards the NAF we will see a further renewal of the fighting
and a further NAF advance in the spring.
In the meantime
control of the border, disarmament of "illegal armed groups"
etc are now overtly linked to the successful conclusion of the
constitutional negotiations, which is supposed to happen before the
end of the year. Of course if the constitutional negotiations
succeed, then when all these things happen we will have a different
Ukraine from the one we have now. At that point the control of
border posts etc will be in the hands of differently constituted
authorities from those that exist today.
Will those
negotiations actually happen? Will they succeed if they do? I doubt
it. The Junta will resist them tooth and nail if only because those
negotiations put in jeopardy the whole Maidan project and by their
mere fact call into question the Junta's legitimacy.
It
depends in the end on what the Europeans do. This has been true of
the conflict from the start.
That it depends on what
the Europeans do is in itself a good reason to doubt this process
will succeed. The probability is more conflict down the road but in
the meantime Poroshenko's admission that there is "no good news
for the Ukraine" from this process tells us who is winning.
Comments
from Jon Hellivig
Deja
Vu
Via
Facebook
The
first feeling one gets of this new Minsk agreement is a feeling of
deja vue. From the details that are emerging from today’s Minsk
agreemet, it does not seem to be significantly different from the
September Minsk agreement. The only real difference is the show of
strong interest from the side of European Union in the persons of the
leaders of the two of its most powerful countries, Germany and
France. The Russian position represented by Putin has all the time
been strongly in favor of agreement and compromise, some people think
that even excessively so.
Now
the question is whether the German-French push is genuine and what
does the ultimate leader of the West, USA, think? We don’t know
what Hollande and Merkel has agreed with Obama, and if the latter is
in reality interested in that. European Union surely needs the peace
for both economic and political reasons. The already morbid economies
of EU countries are spiraling down because of the sanctions and the
anti-war opposition iselle growing among the populations and some of
the leaders. The Greek Government is strongly speaking in favor of
Russia, Hungary has voiced an understanding for Russia, same with
Slovakia and the Czech Republic together with other countries. And
the two key opposition politicians of France, Le Pen and Sarkozy also
lambasted the Western position towards Russia.
On
the other hand, we must remember that the US engineered sanctions
against Russia were never in reality connected with the Ukrainian
crisis, which only served as a pretext to get at Russia. I would not
think that the USA has now changed its position. They want to
continue squeezing on Russia, but might be forced in view of the
European activities to effect a tactical retreat from the hardline
position.
We
also have the very messy political, economic and humanitarian
situation in the Ukraine. There are signs that warring fractions
could actually take to arms against each other. It is very difficult
to build consensus there to push accepting this solution. Ukraine
might not even have a possibility to actually implement some of the
key provisions of this new Minsk agreement. Notwithstanding the
announced IMF package, the economy is practically bankrupt so the
government will not have a possibility to actually take on the social
commitments to the Donbass people that are a part of the agreement.
And then there is the problem of what to do with all the men that in
a national frenzy were enlisted for all the mercenary and punitive
troops committing wanton repression in Donbass with impunity. The
Ukrainian government has a real problem of how to push that paste
back in the tube, the more as they will not be returning as victors
met with a ticker-tape parade on the Kreshatik but as disgruntled and
disillusioned men defeated on the front and unwanted at home.
Finally,
we need to understand that there is one fundamental problem – which
wraps up all the other issues discussed previously - that dampens any
hope for a lasting peace. That is the ideological nature of the
present Ukrainian regime and its elite at large, it is
ultra-nationalist and even guilty of actions and making statements
that can without exaggeration be viewed as fascist. In the known
history such a government has not in any country been conducive of
peace, prosperity and respect of minority rights.
The
Minsk Peace Deal: Farce Or Sellout? — Paul Craig Roberts
Judging
by the report on RT, I
conclude that the Ukraine peace deal worked out in Minsk by Putin,
Merkel, Hollande, and Poroshenko has little chance of success.
As
Washington is not a partner to the Minsk peace deal, how can there be
peace when Washington has made policy decisions to escalate the
conflict and to use the conflict as a proxy war between the US and
Russia?
The
Minsk agreement makes no reference to the announcement by Lt. Gen.
Ben Hodges, commander of US Army Europe, that Washington is sending a
battalion of US troops to Ukraine to train Ukrainian forces how to
fight against Russian and rebel forces. The training is scheduled to
begin in March, about two weeks from now. Gen. Hodges says that it is
very important to recognize that the Donetsk and Luhansk forces “are
not separatists, these are proxies for President Putin.”
How
is there a peace deal when Washington has plans underway to send arms
and training
to the US puppet government in Kiev?
Looking
at the deal itself, it is set up to fail. The only parties to the
deal who had to sign it are the leaders of the Donetsk and Lugansk
break-away republics. The other signers to the Minsk deal are an OSCE
representative which is the European group that is supposed to
monitor the withdrawal of heavy weapons by both sides, a former
Ukrainian president Viktor Kuchma, and the Russian ambassador in
Kiev. Neither the German chancellor nor the French, Ukrainian, and
Russian presidents who brokered the deal had to sign it.
In
other words, the governments of Germany, France, Ukraine, and Russia
do not appear to be empowered or required to enforce the agreement.
According to RT, “the declaration was not meant to be signed by the
leaders, German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said.”
http://rt.com/news/231571-putin-minsk-ukraine-deal/
The
terms of the agreement depend on actions of the Ukrainian parliament
and prime minister, neither of which are under Poroshenko’s
control, and Poroshenko himself is a figurehead under Washington’s
control. Moreover, the Ukrainian military does not control the Nazi
militias. As Washington and the right-wing elements in Ukraine want
conflict with Russia, peace cannot be forthcoming.
The
agreement is nothing but a list of expectations that have no chance
of occurring.
One
expectation is that Ukraine and the republics will negotiate terms
for future local elections in the provinces that will bring them back
under Ukraine’s legal control. The day after the local elections,
but prior to the constitutional reform that provides the regions with
autonomy, Kiev takes control of the borders with Ukraine and between
the provinces. I read this as the total sell-out of the Donetsk and
Lugansk republics. Apparently, that is the way the leaders of the
republics see it as well, as Putin had to twist their arms in order
to get their signatures to the agreement.
Another
expectation is that Ukraine will adopt legislation on self-governance
that would be acceptable to the republics and declare a general
amnesty for the republics’ leaders and military forces.
Negotiations
between Kiev and the autonomous areas are to take place that restore
Kiev’s taxation of the autonomous areas and the provision of social
payments and banking services to the autonomous areas.
After
a comprehensive constitutional reform in Ukraine guaranteeing
acceptable (and undefined) autonomy to the republics, Kiev will take
control over the provinces’ borders with Russia.
By
the end of 2015 Kiev will implement comprehensive constitutional
reform that decentralizes the Ukrainian political system and provides
privileges of autonomy to the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.
Both
Putin and Poroshenko are both reported as stating that the main thing
achieved is a ceasefire starting on February 15.
The
ceasefire is of no benefit to the Donetsk and Lugansk republics as
they are prevailing in the conflict. Moreover, the deal requires the
republics’ forces to give up territory and to pull back to the
borders of last September and to eject fighters from France and other
countries who have come to the aid of the break-away republics. In
other words, the agreement erases all of Kiev’s losses from the
conflict that Kiev initiated.
All
of the risks of the agreement are imposed on the break-away republics
and on Putin. The provinces are required to give up all their gains
while Washington trains and arms Ukrainian forces to attack the
provinces. The republics have to give up their security and trust
Kiev long before Kiev votes, assuming it ever does, autonomy for the
republics.
Moreover,
if the one-sided terms of the Minsk agreement result in failure,
Putin and the republics will be blamed.
Why
would Putin make such a deal and force it on the republics? If the
deal becomes a Russian sell-out of the republics, it will hurt
Putin’s nationalist support within Russia and make it easier for
Washington to weaken Putin and perhaps achieve regime change. It
looks more like a surrender than a fair deal.
Perhaps
Putin’s strategy is to give away every advantage in the expectation
that the deal will fail, and the Russian government can say “we
gave away the store and the deal still failed.”
Washington’s
coup in Kiev and the attack on the Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the
east and south is part of Washington’s strategy to reassert its
uni-power position. Russia’s independent foreign policy and
Russia’s growing economic and political relationships with Europe
became problems for Washington. Washington is using Ukraine to attack
and to demonize Russia and its leader and to break-up Russia’s
economic and political relations with Europe. That is what the
sanctions are about. A peace deal in Ukraine on any terms other than
Washington’s is unacceptable to Washington. The only acceptable
deal is a deal that is a defeat for Russia.
It
is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Russian government made
a strategic mistake when it did not accept the requests of the
break-away provinces to be united with Russia. The people in the
Donetsk and Lugansk provinces favored unification with the same
massive majorities that the people in Crimea showed. If the provinces
had been united with Russia, it would have been the end of the
conflict. Neither Ukraine nor Washington is going to attack Russian
territory.
By
failing to end the conflict by unification, Putin set himself up as
the punching bag for Western propaganda. The consequence is that over
the many months during which the conflict has been needlessly drawn
out, Putin has had his image and reputation in the West destroyed. He
is the “new Hitler.” He is “scheming to restore the Soviet
Empire.” “Russia ranks with ebola and the Islamist State as the
three greatest threats.” “RT is a terrorist organization like
Boco Haram and the Islamist State.” And so on and on. This CNN
interview with Obama conducted by Washington’s presstitute Fareed
Zakaria shows the image of Putin based entirely on lies that rules in
the West.
Putin could be no more demonized even if the Russian military had invaded Ukraine,
conquered it, and reincorporated Ukraine in Russia of which Ukraine was part for centuries prior to the Soviet collapse and Ukraine’s separation from Russia at Washington’s insistence.
The Russian government might want to carefully consider whether Moscow is helping Washington to achieve another victory in Ukraine
This
analysis is from Stratfor
The
Terms Of The Ukraine Cease-Fire: Presenting "East Ukraine"
Following
marathon talks in Minsk that lasted more than 17 hours, the leaders
of Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine reached an agreement that
appears to align with the Kremlin's demands. The document calls for a
cease-fire to begin Feb. 15, the withdrawal of weapons and the
enactment of constitutional reforms in Ukraine. Though
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has denied that the agreement
includes provisions for the creation of autonomous regions or the
federalization of Ukraine, the document on the whole does fulfill
several of the Kremlin's long-standing demands with regards to the
status of Donbas.
The
new cease-fire agreement is based largely on the original one that
went into effect Sept. 5. It focuses on the withdrawal of heavy
artillery systems, which have been prominent throughout the conflict,
within 14 days of the cease-fire's implementation. The
new cease-fire requires these artillery systems to be withdrawn far
beyond their maximum effective ranges, a move that will create a
buffer to prevent escalation and heavy artillery fire on the
demarcation line.
Missing from the agreement, however, is a decision on the fate of the
still heavily contested Ukrainian positions in Debaltseve. Because
both sides will have to withdraw their artillery systems, the result
will be a very deep area without artillery cover in the center of the
demarcation line.
The
agreement's most important impact on the military balance is its
requirement to withdraw foreign forces and mercenaries from Ukraine.
Separatists have depended heavily on the combat power of the Russian
military and Russian volunteer forces. Without these, the separatists
would have been incapable of repelling the Ukrainian offensive, and
in the future would be rendered much weaker than their Ukrainian
counterparts.
The
signing of the new Minsk agreement, as well as Russian President
Vladimir Putin's direct participation in the negotiations, points to
the Kremlin's willingness to at least partially de-escalate the
conflict at this time. The agreement includes some vague measures and
conditions that all sides may ultimately chose not to implement.
Several key points of contention remain unaddressed, and there are
still many opportunities for the agreement to break down if they are
not resolved. Therefore,
political will, rather than the actual terms of the agreement, will
determine whether a significant de-escalation is to take place
This is the Guardian speaking for its beloved pro-European facist Junta and expressing the views of the war party inside the Anglo-American empire
Ukraine
ceasefire: European leaders sceptical peace plan will work
Worries
privately voiced about potential escalation of fighting before truce
is supposed to take hold in eastern Ukraine on Sunday
European
leaders on Thursday praised Germany and
France for brokering a ceasefire and peace plan for Ukraine, but
privately voiced scepticism that the pact struck after a marathon
all-night summit in Belarus would work. They worried that an upsurge
in fighting before the truce is supposed to take hold in eastern
Ukraine on Sunday could quickly turn into a bloodbath.
“The
next 48 hours will be crucial,” said one EU diplomat at a summit in
Brussels dominated by the Ukraine breakthrough.
Pro-Russia
separatist forces have up to 8,000 Ukrainian troops surrounded at the
strategic railway hub of Debaltseve in eastern Ukraine and are
demanding their surrender.
Vladimir
Putin, the president of Russia, emphasised the issue in his first
remarks following the summit in Minsk with Angela Merkel, the German
chancellor, the French president, François Hollande, and Ukraine’s
president, Petro
Poroshenko,
who western officials and diplomats believe came off worst in the
negotiations.
The
pro-Russia separatist forces around the town, Putin said, “have
surrounded a significant grouping, from 6,000 to 8,000 men. They, of
course, assume that this grouping lays down its arms and ceases
resistance”.
The
conflict in east Ukraine has claimed at least 5,400 lives. Nine
people were reportedly killed and 35 wounded in east Ukraine on
Thursday morning.
The
marathon summit in Minsk resulted in a pact providing for a ceasefire
between Ukrainian government troops and Russian-backed separatists
from Sunday, a withdrawal of heavy weaponry from the battle zone
which is to be demilitarised, amnesties on both sides and exchanges
of prisoners and hostages.
The
agreement is clearly fragile, previous attempts at a truce have
utterly failed, and expectations are high of an upsurge in fighting
ahead of the Saturday deadline.
But
Merkel spoke of a ray of hope that the agreement might take the edge
off what has quickly become the worst security crisis in Europesince
the end of the cold war with the potential to assume much more
dangerous dimensions.
But
western mistrust of Putin has soared over the past year, with the
result that there was no euphoria over the pact. Putin sounded
satisfied. “It’s not the best night of my life,” he said, but
it is, in my view, a good morning because we managed to agree on the
main things.”
Washington
was guardedly positive about the outcome in Minsk. “The agreement
represents a potentially significant step toward a peaceful
resolution of the conflict and the restoration of Ukraine’s
sovereignty,” said a White House statement.
If
the early peacemaking measures take effect, they are to be followed
by more ambitious political moves aimed at an overall political
settlement by the end of the year when Ukraine is supposed to have a
new constitution, the rebel-held areas are to be granted
decentralised “special status” and cross-border links with
Russia, local elections are to be held in the breakaway areas while
Kiev is also slated to take control of the border with Russia.
The
US said success of the agreement would hinge on whether the Kiev
government was able to restore control of its border with Russia.
Under
the plan, that is not to take place fully for almost a year and the
agreement gives the Donbass rebels a veto over the key issue, stating
that the government in Kiev may only secure its own border with
Russia with the agreement of the separatists. This was a demand that
the rebel leaders tabled earlier in the week in the preparations for
the summit.
Donald
Tusk, the former Polish prime minister who chairs EU summits, is
known to be sceptical that the peace plan will work. The Polish
government was also critical. Britain appeared less than impressed.
Privately, diplomats also said that the International Monetary Fund,
which on Thursday announced $17.5bn in assistance for Ukraine, had
used the financial package to press Poroshenko into accepting the
peace terms.
The
World Bank said on Thursday it would provide Ukraine with up to $2
billion in support in 2015, with assistance focused on aiding the
poor, supporting reforms and fighting corruption. The World Bank said
the financing would be part of a package from the international
community. “It is vital that Ukraine undertakes comprehensive
reforms quickly,” the World Bank president, Jim Yong Kim, said in a
statement.
In
European concessions to Putin, the Russian leader was told he would
be party to negotiations over the detail and impact of Ukraine’s
free trade pact with the EU, a number of conditions were attached to
the special rights to be granted to the pro-Russia territories,
central government funding of social and welfare benefits was to be
restored to the pro-Russia areas and Germany and France promised
to facilitate the financial transfers and repair the broken banking
system.
People
pass a wall covered with portraits of Ukrainian soldiers who have
died in the conflict in eastern Ukraine, in downtown
Kiev. Photograph: Roman Pilipey/EPA
Merkel
and Hollande went to Minsk to see Putin and Poroshenko for what was
seen as a fateful summit following days of the most intensive
diplomacy on Ukraine since the crisis erupted a year ago. Failure, it
was feared, would have resulted in a major escalation of the
conflict, with Poroshenko warning he could impose martial law on the
entire country.
“It
was worth it,” said Merkel, capping one of the most frantic weeks
of her 10-year chancellorship and before dashing to Brussels for an
EU summit. But she cautioned against over-optimism and was guarded
about whether the 13-point
peace pact would
be observed and implemented. “We have a glimmer of hope ... but no
illusions.”
The
negotiations appeared extremely tense and highly combustible amid
simmering hostility between Putin on the one hand and Merkel and
Poroshenko on the other. At various points during the night, the
talks looked close to collapse, with Poroshenko leaving the
negotiating table and and talking of being confronted with
“unacceptable conditions”.
“We
have a very long night behind us, but we have managed to come to an
agreement, to a ceasefire and a comprehensive political settlement
for the Ukraine crisis,” said Hollande.
A
sticking point was whether the separatist leaders, also in Minsk but
not taking part directly in the summit, would sign off on the deal
agreed by the four heads of state. Putin sought to force Poroshenko
to negotiate directly with the separatist leaders.
In
the end the two main rebel leaders, from Donetsk and Luhansk, signed
the plan which also included an annex on the detail of the autonomy
foreseen for their fiefdoms.
The
ceasefire is to come into force at midnight on Saturday, following
which heavy weapons on both sides are to be withdrawn by up to 140km
from the frontlines depending on the range and calibre of the
weapons. The withdrawals are to take a fortnight. The ceasefire and
weapons pullback is to be monitored by the Organisation for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
The
more ambitious political aspects of the pact stipulate that Kiev is
to draft a new constitution by the end of the year, with a “key
element’ entailing decentralisation and special status for the
breakaway regions. An eight-point annex to the accord lists elements
of the special status, including local control of police, court, and
judicial systems and a regime of cross-border cooperation between the
eastern regions and Russia.
Moscow
fiercely resisted Ukrainian and European demands for Kiev control
over the eastern border with Russia, arguing that this would lead to
the encirclement and eventual suppression of the secessionist
rebellion. The agreement says that Ukraine will start to exercise
control of the border once new local elections are held in the east,
but will only finalise its border control once the new constitution
and the special status regime are in force and “in consultation and
in agreement with” the separatists.
This
is a make-or-break moment for Ukraine
There
are certain to be sharp disputes on these arrangements in the months
ahead. Poroshenko promptly declared that Ukraine will “always be a
unitary state” and will never be “federalised.”
A
separate document signed by the three presidents and the chancellor
committed Putin to respecting Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial
integrity, although clearly last year’s Russian annexation of
Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula will be ignored here.
The
French and the Germans agreed to trilateral talks between Russia,
Ukraine, and the EU on energy issues and Russian gas supplies, on the
EU-Ukraine free trade agreement concluded last year, and to joint
monitoring of and negotiations over the peace pact.
“There’s
a real chance to turn things for the better,” said Merkel. “We
pledged to monitor the implementation. I assume that this will also
be necessary.”
Posts
