Putin using the 'ceasefire' to prepare for his offensive against Mariupol

We have to ask ourselves the following questions viz.

(1) "Is this current lull in the attacks of Putin's proxies and his Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine a sign that the Minsk2 'ceasfire' is beginning to hold, and that the heavy weaponry of the rebel forces is, in fact, being pulled back?

Or is it, as Maria Tsvetkova (left) reports,

(2) "Kiev says the rebels are using the truce to regroup and pulling out heavy weaponry to prepare for more attacks on other areas of eastern Ukraine outside their area of control, including the government-held port city of Mariupol.


"There are signs the enemy is preparing for further offensives," military spokesman Andriy Lysenko (right) said on Sunday. "Everywhere where the militants show that they are withdrawing heavy weaponry, it is either simply to relocate (the armaments) where they are planning attacks or remove them only to put them back in place the next night," he told a briefing." (Reuters : Mon Mar 2, 2015) (my emphasis)

Without a doubt, Putin's supporters in the EU (and around the globe) will answer "yes" to question (1), and simply "ignore" question (2). 

Let us remind ourselves that the 'fragrant' Mogherini (left), in a paper she presented to the EU foreign ministers in mid January 2015, noted,

" .... a common, long-term aim of free trade from "Lisbon to Vladivostok" and said the EU might study expanding trade with Russia and its Eurasian Economic Union of ex-Soviet states. It was Ukraine's preference of free trade with the EU rather than with the EEU that sparked the confrontation." (Jan Strupczewski and Alastair Macdonald : Reuters : Wed Jan 14, 2015) (my emphasis)

However, one diplomat, from an eastern European country,

" ...  which counsels against the EU showing weakness toward Moscow, said the paper appeared to reflect an eagerness on the part of countries such as France and Mogherini's native Italy to set aside the dispute over Ukraine in order to revive profitable business with Russia." (ibid Jan Strupczewski and Alastair Macdonald) (my emphasis) 
 
In light of the international outcry over the assasination of Boris Nemtsov (right), and the near-death situation of the hunger-striking Ukrainian, Nadiya Savchenko, incarcerated in a Moscow jail; what do those Putin supporters in the EU now have to say about increasing pressure on Putin to stop his war with Ukraine? 

Added to which Kiyoshi Takenaka, reporting from Japan, states that, 

"No normalization of ties between Ukraine and Russia is likely unless the region of Crimea, now under Russian control, is returned to Kiev's sovereignty, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin said on Tuesday.

Klimkin (left), on the second day of his two-day trip to Japan, also said the border between Ukraine and Russia needed to be completely closed to achieve any settlement to the armed conflict between Kiev and pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine." (Reuters : Tue Mar 3, 2015) (my emphasis)

Furthermore, in light of Andriy Lysenko, Ukrainian military spokesman, reporting on Sunday that,

"There are signs the enemy is preparing for further offensives,"

the US military’s top-ranking officer, General Martin Dempsey (right), has called for Washington to arm Ukraine.

“I think we should absolutely consider lethal aid and it ought to be in the context of Nato allies because [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s ultimate objective is to fracture Nato,” Dempsey told the Senate armed services committee." (Agence France-Presse in Washington :Tuesday 3 March 2015)

And now President Obama is,

"..... weighing a possible move to provide weapons to Kiev but some Nato members – including France and Germany – are opposed to arming Ukraine over fears it could further escalate the conflict in eastern Ukraine." (ibid Agence France-Presse in Washington) (my emphasis)

 Alexander Motyl (right) rather neatly sums up the 'false' assumptions of Merkel, Hollande, and those other EU states opposed to supplying Ukraine with arms.

" .... the argument against arms deliveries to Ukraine assumes that Putin will escalate regardless of the costs involved. [Putin's] .. . relentless, single-minded pursuit of ....... [trying to destroy Ukraine for the primary reason of protecting himself and his 'siloviki' from being correctly identified as the criminals that they are, under the propaganda umbrella of 'Novorossiya'] ......, regardless of the costs and benefits involved, is what we generally characterize as fanaticism or, possibly, as a psychological disorder.

In any case, such behavior is anything but rational in the realist sense of the term.Merkel and Hollande, together with the  Mogherini's and Putin supporters in the EU, 

" ... want to have it both ways - arguing for and against rationality in general and in the Russian context in particular." (Washington Post : March 3, 2015) (my emphasis)

In other words, they view Putin's as:

(1) 'rational', by invoking Russia’s close historical, cultural, and religious ties to Ukraine" but
(2) 'irrational', because they fear that arming Ukraine will make him escalate his war with Ukraine, regardless of the costs and benefits involved.

What they do not see is Putin as the criminal that he is, sitting at the apex of a pyramid of corruption and criminality that he has built up from his earlier days in the 1990's in St. Petersburg, as Karen Dawisha in her book, "Putin's Kleptocracy", has fully exposed.

For a more detailed presentation of "Putin's Kleptocracy by Karen Dawisha go to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGXAY0BxEV4 

(to be continued)