Putin has publicly relegated the Minsk 'ceasefire' agreement to the dustbin of history

Yesterday the prime minister of Hungary, Victor Orban, met with Putin in Budapest, ostensibly to,

".... negotiate a new agreement for Russian gas supplies." (BBC News Europe : 17 February 2015)

Victor Orban is considered to be,

" ... among Mr Putin's closest allies in Europe." (ibid BBC) (my emphasis)
 
No doubt with the Hungarian uprising in 1956 in mind,

"Some 2,000 people have marched through the Hungarian capital, Budapest, ahead of talks between Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Russian President Vladimir Putin" (ibid BBC)

 
After their meeting, Putin gave a press conference about the continuing fighting in eastern Ukraine. There is something rather ominous about the 'smirk' on his face at the start of his press conference.

Putin legitimises the breaking of the ceasefire by his proxies and Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine, and actually suggests that the Ukrainian forces defending their country should lay down their arms and simply surrender to the forces that he controls. 

Yet it has been but a few days ago since the Minsk agreements about a 'full' ceasefire in eastern Ukraine, a ceasefire that Putin himself endorsed at a press conference.

And now, to add insult to injury, Vitaly Churkin, Russian ambassador to the UN, drafted a resolution concerning the situation in Ukraine that was unanimously approved by the Council.
 
"The UN Security Council on Tuesday (17 Feb. 2015) unanimously adopted a resolution endorsing measures for the implementation of the new truce on Ukraine crisis.
In the Russian-drafted resolution, the Council reaffirmed "its full respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine," and expressed "its grave concern at the tragic events and violence in eastern regions of Ukraine." (China Europe : Feb. 17 (Xinhua)) (my emphasis)

Ambassador Samantha Power

"US Ambassador Samantha Power welcomed the agreement but said that Russia had to prove its commitment to peace. ...

"Russia signs agreements then does everything within its power to undermine them. Russia champions the sovereignty of nations and then acts as if a neighbour's borders do not exist." (ibid BBC) (my emphasis)


It is blatantly obvious that Putin is not concerned at all about breaking agreements. 

Putin is being driven not only by the fact that his 'ardent' supporters in the EU (including the 'fragrant' Mogherini, practically all the right-wing and extreme right-wing MEP's, the Czech president, Victor Orban, Matteo Renzi and, more recently, Alexis Tsipras, the new Greek prime minister) will ensure that the EU will not be able to talk with one voice about how to help Ukraine, nor will the EU and the US see 'eye to eye' about what further actions against Russia should be put in place so that the costs to Russia of Putin's adventurism in eastern Ukraine is ratcheted up.

Putin is not simply 'cocking a snook' at the US and the EU, he is trying to elevate himself even above the UN itself, which he also treats with utter contempt.

That 'smirk' on his face at the start of his press conference in Hungary yesterday is very telling indeed. But what is even more disconcerting is that Putin is writing the 'hymn sheet' from which his kleptocratic clique at the Kremlin is singing in unison. From Lavrov to Churkin; as soon as a lie emanates from the mouth of Putin, that lie becomes their mantra.

The fear of himself that Putin is creating within the Kremlin mirrors that which Stalin created. Is there a silent  Khrushchev amongst his kleptocratic clique at the Kremlin?

(to be continued)

Putin vs Obama

Today, 16 February 2015, it is reported that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in an interview to Russia’s Kommersant newspaper,

"The decision to arm Ukraine will be taken by NATO members themselves. By the way, arming a legitimate government is different from arming anti-government forces. The 28 member states have their own different weapons systems, they will decide whether or not to provide weapons to Ukraine,” he noted. (my emphasis)

Furthermore that,

“Our intelligence means provide documentary data of Russia’s military presence in eastern Ukraine. We see such information in the reports of independent sources and journalists. Moreover, NGOs provide information about Russian soldiers died in Ukraine”, he said." (nato chief_decision_to_supply_arms_to_ukraine : 16 February 2015) (my emphasis)

Ian Bond

Ian Bond, Director of foreign policy at the Centre for European Reform, has posted a very insightful analysis entitled ,"Russia's war in Ukraine: Is Minsk the end, or just the start?" (February 15, 2015)
 
 His article highlights the following critical and salient points:

1.  There is no doubt who gained most from the deal reached in Minsk on February 12th to end the conflict in Ukraine: Russian President Vladimir Putin.
2.  To monitor the ceasefire and withdrawal of weapons, the OSCE [in Ukraine] will have (at least initially) its current team of 250 unarmed monitors and one drone to cover an area of more than 20,000 square kilometres. By comparison, the UN peacekeeping force on the Israel-Lebanon border, UNIFIL, has 10,000 multinational troops to cover an area of under 1,000 square kilometres ...
3. Putin wants to deprive Ukraine of the benefits of the DCFTA (Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area). Russian proposals to exclude whole categories of EU goods from tariff reductions, in order to keep Russian goods competitive on the Ukrainian market ....
4. Despite Russia’s serious economic woes, President Vladimir Putin has once again exploited Western divisions and disguised his own vulnerability.
5. As a last resort, the EU could block Russia from SWIFT, the international financial transfer system, thereby inflicting considerable damage on Russia’s economy. But short of that drastic step, there are many senior Russians, including Putin himself, with financial interests in the West which have yet to be targeted.
6. Merkel was right to say at the Munich Security Conference on February 7th that a policy of forcibly altering borders in Europe should have no place in the 21st century, and that Russia’s actions in Ukraine had violated international law. It is a pity that the Minsk agreement rewards such behaviour. (my emphasis throughout)

As the old saying goes, "Putin is laughing all the way to the bank"

This 'ceasefire' can already be relegated to the dustbin of history since it now transpires that but ONE hour ago, (current time: 11.15 BST 16 Feb., 2015),

"Russia is trying to push through the UN Security Council a resolution that in essence replace the Minsk agreements, Press AV journalist Andrei Vasilyev has told Ukrainian television’s channel Hromadske.tv." (UNIAN Information Agency : 16.02.2015)

Vitaly Churkin : Russian UN Representative

"According to Vasilyev, Russia is trying to place all responsibility for the peace process only on Ukraine.
The Russian version of the resolution also says that Ukraine should be the first side to withdraw its troops 50 kilometers back from the front line after the ceasefire.
In addition, Moscow also wants to absolve itself of promises made in Minsk and demands the right to send its so-called humanitarian convoys into Ukraine, Vasilyev said." (ibid UNIAN)


Whilst this resolution can easily be blocked by the US or Great Britain, nonetheless it gives Putin's proxies and his Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine the basis of an argument for bombing Debaltseve, in flagrant violation of the current 'ceasefire'.

This is evidenced by the fact that,

"Despite the current cease-fire, Debaltseve still remains in contention as rebels insist the town should automatically revert to their control as it has been encircled by their fighters." (Petr Josek (51 minutes age) : Associated Press : 16.02.2015)

In retrospect, therefore, it can be seen that Putin was simply "going through the motions" by attending the recent Minsk meeting between himself, Hollande, Merkel, and Poroshenko. 

He piously presented the agreed upon resolutions at a press conference immediately afterwards, only to trample all over them once he had reached the comfort, security, and safety, of the Kremlin.

Putin knows that he has de-fanged the EU, given that Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande have been placed in the driving seat of trying to negotiate a 'diplomatic' solution to this war between Ukraine and Russia, whilst his admirer, the 'fragrant' Mogherini, is quietly pushing for the EU sanctions against Russia to be removed.

          Angela Merkel              Francois Hollande            Federica Mogherini

With a very few exceptions, even the remarks of  NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg that,

"The decision to arm Ukraine will be taken by NATO members themselves. By the way, arming a legitimate government is different from arming anti-government forces. ”

will fall on many deaf ears in the EU.

As the hours tick by, and the 'ceasefire' continues to crumble, yet again is the burden of supplying Ukraine with defensive arms falling exclusively on the shoulders of President Obama. But will he, in light of the rapidly deteriorating 'ceasefire' in eastern Ukraine,  implement  Sec. 6 of the Ukraine Freedom Support Act this week?

"The President is authorized to provide defense articles, defense services, and training to the Government of Ukraine for the purpose of countering offensive weapons and reestablishing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including anti-tank and anti-armor weapons, crew weapons and ammunition, counter-artillery radars to identify and target artillery batteries, fire control, range finder, and optical and guidance and control equipment, tactical troop- operated surveillance drones, and secure command and communications equipment, pursuant to the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), and other relevant provisions of law." (https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2828/text)

(to be continued)

Putin's bluff should be called!

In yesterday's blog entry I stated that,

"Putin's mind-set, however, is now what everything hinges upon."

As Alec Luhn reports,

"Speaking after the Minsk agreements, Putin suggested it [Debaltseve] was fully surrounded and Ukrainian forces should agree to abandon it, but Kiev has insisted that it is not cut off and will remain government territory." (The Guardian : Sunday 15 February 2015) (my emphasis)

What this illustrates, more than anything else, is that Putin is determined to over-run both Debaltseve AND Mariupol to have that land-bridge that will connect Russia with annexed Ukrainian Crimea. This will enable the direct annexation by Russia of the areas in eastern Ukraine occupied by his proxies and Russsian soldiers, as was done in Crimea.

This strategy of Putin is being totally governed by his imperialist dream of recreating "Novorossiya".

Putin, who is milking the exploits of the Russian people during WWII to stir up Russian nationalist sentiments to a crescendo is, in fact, in the role that Hitler was in relation to the then Stalingrad.

Ukraine forces heading for Debaltseve 14/2/2015

Debaltseve has become the equivalent of Stalingrad for the Ukrainian people. Putin's proxies and his Russian soldiers now surrounding Debaltseve are no more nor no less than the Nazis who surrounded Stalingrad during WWII.

Siege of Stalingrad 1942-1943

Putin may not wish to acknowledge this salient fact but, no matter how you slice or dice it this is, in fact, a situation comparable to the siege of Stalingrad that the Ukrainian soldiers in Debaltseve now find themselves in.

And just as Krushchev sent many poorly armed Russian soldiers to defend Stalingrad, irrespective of the cost in Russian lives, so too is Putin unconcerned about the cost in Ukrainian and Russian lives in the current battle for Debaltseve, as long as he can over-run it with his proxy forces and his Russian soldiers as a prelude to its annexation into Russia.

But what he is concerned about is the fact that


"The US, ..... has warned it could begin supplying arms to Ukraine if the peace initiative failed, claimed on Saturday it had evidence that the Russian military had deployed weaponry around Debeltseve - contrary to Moscow denials that it is playing any direct role in the conflict." (BBC News Europe : 15 February 2015) (my emphasis)

 Also, as Peter Leonard and Balint Szlanko report,

"Speaking to his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov by telephone Saturday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry expressed concern about what he called efforts by Russia and the separatists to cut off Debaltseve in advance of the cease-fire." (Associated Press : 15-02-2015) (my emphasis)

Besides the Russian military deploying weaponry around Debaltseve, should we also be paying rather careful attention to the pronouncements of Putin's 'talking head' on TV, Dmitry Kiselyov?

Marc Bennetts reports that,

“During the era of political romanticism, the Soviet Union pledged never to use nuclear weapons first,” Kiselyov told the audience of Vesti Nedeli, his current affairs show, one of the country’s most widely watched programmes. “But Russia’s current military doctrine does not.” He paused briefly for effect. “No more illusions.” (The Telegraph : 15 Feb 2015) (my emphasis)

 

 (Video of Kiselyov, in which he says that America can be turned into radioactive dust by Russia's nuclear arsenal. 16 March, 2014)

Even more ominous,

"Russia’s Zvezda TV channel, owned by the defence ministry, has also been preparing its audience for the worst. “Russia and the US are on the verge of nuclear war,”(ibid Marc Bennetts) (my emphasis)

Even pro-Kremlin movements are threatening the 'nuclear option' in Russia's arsenal.

"[Maria Katasonova] a member of the Moscow-based, pro-Kremlin National Liberation Movement (NOD) vows global nuclear devastation in the event of the defeat of Russia’s interests in Ukraine.

“Russians will not sit by and watch as their country’s sovereignty is threatened by the US,” Katasonova told The Sunday Telegraph last week (Feb 2015). “If our country is in genuine danger, we really will use nuclear weapons.” (ibid Marc Bennetts) (my emphasis)

However, Peter Pomerantsev, a UK journalist who worked in Russian TV in the 2000s says that, 

Peter Pomerantsev

“I wouldn’t take these statements about nuclear war literally,” said Pomerantsev, whose book, Nothing is True and Everything is Possible, dissects the Kremlin’s media manipulation tactics. Talk of impending nuclear conflict is “one of Putin’s mind-benders”, part of what he called an attempt to convince the West that the former KGB officer is this “crazy, unpredictable” leader whom it would be advisable not to push too far." (ibid Marc Bennetts) (my emphasis)

It is not so much that we here in the west should not take seriously these 'nuclear war' statements emanating from Russia. However, whilst we may, indeed, see these statements by the mouthpieces of Putin as a thuggish ploy by him to try to scare us into buckling to his demands, nonetheless it is the effect that they are having on the minds of the Russian people that should be of concern to us. 

Steven Pifer suggests that,

"As the Ukraine crisis has played out, Putin has engaged in nuclear chest-thumping.  Why is not clear.  Who does not understand that Russia has lots of nuclear weapons?  Part of the reason may be that the nuclear arsenal is Moscow’s sole claim to superpower status." (Brookings : February 2, 2015) (my emphasis)

 A more important reason may be that this is but yet another 'weapon' in his propaganda 'arsenal' to ensure that the Russian people become even more susceptible to accepting his imperial "Novorossiya" beliefs. It is therefore no co-incidence that Katasonova seems to have indelibly linked "nuclear war" with Ukraine in her mind.
 
Deploying Iskander missile systems, that can carry nuclear warheads, in annexed Ukrainian Crimea, serves to reinforce the link between 'nuclear war' and Ukraine in the minds of the Russian people, as well as puffing up the idea of Russia as a 'superpower' in the mind of Putin himself. 

It also scares many EU countries into not calling his bluff about the 'consequences' of arming Ukraine. 

This timidity of many of Putin's 'closet' supporters in the EU accounts for their 'deafening' silence over the Russian arms and soldiers that have, for months, been pouring over the Russian border into eastern Ukraine. No amount of  the 'economic disaster flummery' they are so fond of spouting with regard to sanctions against Russia can disguise their timidity towards Putin.

The next few days will reveal exactly whose side they are really on.

(to be continued)