Now that the 'surprise' over Putin allegedly,
" ... [calling] Syrian President Bashar Assad on Monday to inform him that a troop withdrawal would take place the next day ..." (Pamela Engel : Business Insider : Mar. 14, 2016)
has died down, a more sober reflection of Putin's troop withdrawal from Syria reveals that far from him wishing to 'support' the Syrian peace initiative in Geneva, Putin's Minsk2 strategy over Ukraine is being used as a template by Bashar Al Assad in Geneva.
As reported by Tom Perry,
"[Syrian] Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem (right) confirmed his
government's participation [in the Geneva Peace Talks] but said the talks would fail if the
opposition had "delusions that they will take power in Geneva that they
failed to take in battle"." (Reuters :
Similarly with Minsk2,
"German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier blamed both sides [Russia and Ukraine] for a lack of progress he said threatens to blow up into a military escalation.
“Sometimes I have the impression that Moscow and Kiev are oblivious to how serious the situation is,” Steinmeier told reporters in Paris. “The truth is that the positions of the parties to the conflict are far apart.” (Gregory Viscusi & Daryna Krasnolutska: Bloomberg Business : March 3, 2016) (my emphasis)
Let us recall that the West was similarly "surprised" when Putin invaded, and then annexed Ukrainian Crimea. Let us also recall that the invasion and takeover of Crimea was planned by Putin as early as 2003, long before the Maidan revolution took place.
So why, now, is Putin allegedly pulling his troops out of Syria?
Is it, as suggested by Andrew Osborn, that,
"The real mission, some say, was to give Russia a say in world affairs.
In the space of six months it has gone from being a pariah state in the West because of its annexation of Crimea and support for pro-Kremlin rebels in eastern Ukraine to being the go-to partner over Syria. Once spurned by Western leaders, it is now a regular interlocutor for both Washington and EU leaders."? (Japan Times (Reuters) : Mar 16, 2016) (my emphasis)
Osborn further reveals that in Syria,
"Putin has in any case hedged his bets.
If he feels his newfound global influence or Assad is threatened he can use the two military bases left behind to rapidly expand the Kremlin’s military footprint." (ibid Osborn) (my emphasis)
In Putin's rebel held territory of eastern Ukraine the same Putin strategy is being employed.
Putin cannot allow the current border between Ukraine and Russia, that is now under his FULL control, to revert back to Ukrainain control since it would directly threaten his ability to continue to destabilise Ukraine and, more importantly, will diminish his current 'strong-man' posture that he has so assiduously cultivated both within Russia and on the international stage.
" ... [calling] Syrian President Bashar Assad on Monday to inform him that a troop withdrawal would take place the next day ..." (Pamela Engel : Business Insider : Mar. 14, 2016)
has died down, a more sober reflection of Putin's troop withdrawal from Syria reveals that far from him wishing to 'support' the Syrian peace initiative in Geneva, Putin's Minsk2 strategy over Ukraine is being used as a template by Bashar Al Assad in Geneva.
As reported by Tom Perry,
"[Syrian] Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem (right) confirmed his
government's participation [in the Geneva Peace Talks] but said the talks would fail if the
opposition had "delusions that they will take power in Geneva that they
failed to take in battle"." (Reuters : Similarly with Minsk2,
"German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier blamed both sides [Russia and Ukraine] for a lack of progress he said threatens to blow up into a military escalation.
“Sometimes I have the impression that Moscow and Kiev are oblivious to how serious the situation is,” Steinmeier told reporters in Paris. “The truth is that the positions of the parties to the conflict are far apart.” (Gregory Viscusi & Daryna Krasnolutska: Bloomberg Business : March 3, 2016) (my emphasis)
Let us recall that the West was similarly "surprised" when Putin invaded, and then annexed Ukrainian Crimea. Let us also recall that the invasion and takeover of Crimea was planned by Putin as early as 2003, long before the Maidan revolution took place.
So why, now, is Putin allegedly pulling his troops out of Syria?
Is it, as suggested by Andrew Osborn, that,
"The real mission, some say, was to give Russia a say in world affairs.In the space of six months it has gone from being a pariah state in the West because of its annexation of Crimea and support for pro-Kremlin rebels in eastern Ukraine to being the go-to partner over Syria. Once spurned by Western leaders, it is now a regular interlocutor for both Washington and EU leaders."? (Japan Times (Reuters) : Mar 16, 2016) (my emphasis)
Osborn further reveals that in Syria,
"Putin has in any case hedged his bets.
If he feels his newfound global influence or Assad is threatened he can use the two military bases left behind to rapidly expand the Kremlin’s military footprint." (ibid Osborn) (my emphasis)
In Putin's rebel held territory of eastern Ukraine the same Putin strategy is being employed.
Putin cannot allow the current border between Ukraine and Russia, that is now under his FULL control, to revert back to Ukrainain control since it would directly threaten his ability to continue to destabilise Ukraine and, more importantly, will diminish his current 'strong-man' posture that he has so assiduously cultivated both within Russia and on the international stage.
Russia’s move to scale back military support for President Bashar al-Assad is about to test that resolve." (Bloomberg Business : March 15, 2016) (my emphasis)
Already, the 'fragrant' Federica Mogherini (left with Lavrov), the EU’s foreign policy chief, is expected soon to pay Putin a visit.
" ... [e]arlier in the day, another EU source told reporters that the bloc's foreign ministers had discussed during EU Foreign Affairs Council [14 March 2016] the preparations for a possible visit of Mogherini to the Russian capital, but the final decision was pending." (Sputnik : 14.03.2016)
Now recall that in January of last year, the 'fragrant' Federica Mogherini, in a discussion paper (pdf),
" .... suggested EU states could re-engage with Russia on global diplomacy, trade and other issues in return for gradual steps to defuse the crisis over Ukraine." (EurActiv : 15-01-2015) (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 EurActiv) (my emphasis)
Kadri Liik expressed concern about her paper, writing that,
"The most worrying problem with the paper is that it betrays a profound lack of understanding of the driving factors of Russia’s foreign policy and their relative importance." (ECFR : 20th January, 2015)
And at the recent meeting of EU Ministers of Foreign Affairs on 14 March 2016, the 'fragrant' Mogherini expressed delight that the meeting was,
" ... not focussing on sanctions [against Russia], for once ...."
Is it any wonder that Robin Emmott and Gabriela Baczynska report that,
"Tellingly, after a long discussion, sanctions were not discussed by foreign ministers, partly because the debate was chaired by Mogherini to avoid exacerbating the divisions."
To even suggest that she may pay Putin a visit, "...when the EU is demanding that Russia release Ukrainian pilot Nadezhda
Savchenko, who is on a hunger strike, on humanitarian grounds (ibid Robin Emmott and Gabriela Baczynska) rather indicates on which side her sympathies lay.
Yet just last Sunday, U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry said that,
"Today Russia faces a choice between the continuation of economically damaging sanctions and fully meeting its obligations under Minsk,". (ibid Robin Emmott and Gabriela Baczynska)
Why, therfore, was the 'fragrant' Mogherini so pleased that sanctions against Putin and his cronies were not discussed at the recent EU Ministers of Foreign Affair meeting?
(to be continued)
Already, the 'fragrant' Federica Mogherini (left with Lavrov), the EU’s foreign policy chief, is expected soon to pay Putin a visit." ... [e]arlier in the day, another EU source told reporters that the bloc's foreign ministers had discussed during EU Foreign Affairs Council [14 March 2016] the preparations for a possible visit of Mogherini to the Russian capital, but the final decision was pending." (Sputnik : 14.03.2016)
Now recall that in January of last year, the 'fragrant' Federica Mogherini, in a discussion paper (pdf),
" .... suggested EU states could re-engage with Russia on global diplomacy, trade and other issues in return for gradual steps to defuse the crisis over Ukraine." (EurActiv : 15-01-2015) (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 EurActiv) (my emphasis)
Kadri Liik expressed concern about her paper, writing that,
"The most worrying problem with the paper is that it betrays a profound lack of understanding of the driving factors of Russia’s foreign policy and their relative importance." (ECFR : 20th January, 2015)
And at the recent meeting of EU Ministers of Foreign Affairs on 14 March 2016, the 'fragrant' Mogherini expressed delight that the meeting was,
" ... not focussing on sanctions [against Russia], for once ...."
Is it any wonder that Robin Emmott and Gabriela Baczynska report that,
"Tellingly, after a long discussion, sanctions were not discussed by foreign ministers, partly because the debate was chaired by Mogherini to avoid exacerbating the divisions."
"While EU
governments last week extended asset freezes and travel bans on Russians
and Russian companies, there is less consensus on whether to prolong
more far-reaching sanctions on Russia's banking, defense and energy
sectors from July.
"We cannot take for granted any decision at this stage," Italian
Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni told reporters after a meeting with his
EU peers in Brussels, where Russia's EU policy was discussed for the
first time in more than a year." (Reuters :March 14, 2016) (my emphasis)
Hungary, Italy, and Greece are in the forefront of stressing Russia as a trade-partner. This triumvirate have always been soft on Putin, as is the 'fragrant' Mogherini herself.
Yet just last Sunday, U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry said that, "Today Russia faces a choice between the continuation of economically damaging sanctions and fully meeting its obligations under Minsk,". (ibid Robin Emmott and Gabriela Baczynska)
Why, therfore, was the 'fragrant' Mogherini so pleased that sanctions against Putin and his cronies were not discussed at the recent EU Ministers of Foreign Affair meeting?
No comments:
Post a Comment